It's a little startling how many people talk up the notion of American energy independence - usually dressed up in why are we buying oil from people that hate us rhetoric - without it seems ever stopping to consider what the strategic consequences of America no longer being tied to Mideast oil would be - these people are making statements that are ostensibly strategic in nature and yet they completely ignore the the strategic fallout of such a turn. Seems pretty odd to me - maybe not too surprising though, level of discourse in Washington and elsewhere being what it is.

In short - if we're no longer addicted to Mideast oil, what happens to our military commitment to the region? What's our motivation, how do we rationalize the expenditure, the loss of blood and treasure, defending other peoples energy supplies? Even if we vow a business as usual strategic commitment to the region in order to preserve the world economy, in reality how will such a thing play politically, even psychologically? And what about Israel? If energy independence causes us to detach from the region and it's troubled cultures both civic and social, what happens to Israel? And what about China? If we pull back they will most certainly step in - hell, they're doing it now - how would the big picture strategic map change with such a dramatic upending of things?

Not once have I heard anyone bring up these issues when flippantly spouting off about American energy independence. I'd like to think these people understand the implications of what they're talking about but bury it because the real treat is the freedom from people that hate us silliness. Still, who knows - there are a lot foolish people out there.

Lord, still I hear it, over and over again, from republicans who can't stand Romney but are stuck begrudgingly having to admit that no one else in the race is electable [and, O cruel irony, for the very reasons they can't stand him] and who, in order to avoid actually having to express support in any way for Romney or actually having to call out Gingrich for the monumental head case that he is, resort to the cowardly equivocation and nonsensical rationalization of "it doesn't matter who wins cause anyone would be better than Obama". Putting aside the obvious logical inconsistency of the statement ie the realization that occasions the sentiment is that only Romney has a chance of beating Obama therefore it of course very much matters who wins the nomination - but ignoring that and taking the statement at face value you're still left with an assessment utterly detached from common sense and cold reality - should you beat Obama, whether you have a super majority or not, the only way you're gonna be able to enact and maintain the long term changes that are required to right the country is if you have a president who doesn't alienate moderates or infuriate the not so moderate by seeming too driven by blind ideology, too willing to subvert common sense and practicality in the name of demagoguery and doctrine - only Romney fits that description - I'm not saying he can pull it off - I would have preferred Daniels or Christie or Ryan I think - but it seems very clear to me that out of Obama, Gingrich and Santorum Romney's the only one likely to be on the presidential ballot of 2012 with the potential to pull it off.

"... the thing about an Israeli attack on Iran as opposed to a US one is that Israel's window of opportunity is more constrained than America's because of the difference in sufficient firepower required to do the job... what that means is if Israel does not trust Obama to pull the trigger if such becomes necessary or does not trust him to be honest with them about his intentions and therefore suspect he may try and trick them into allowing their small window of opportunity to close, then Israel may feel it has no choice but to act... and let's face it, Obama's actions since becoming president have done little to inspire confidence that his view of Israel's security is in keeping with or even remotely sympathetic to the perceptions of Netanyahu and his confederates... and since from what I read the Israeli window of opportunity stands now at about nine months and the full proposed sanctions on Iran do not kick in for another five months and cannot be trusted with any conviction to do the job regardless... well, do the math and tremble..."

Concerning my post of a few days ago about how China's closed system sustains itself like all closed systems with a reliance if not dependency on illusion and misinformation and therefore one should be circumspect about stated Chinese numbers on their economy, this article is interesting.

Bret Stephen on WSJ editorial page pretty much sums up my feeling on the primary - his best line: a vote for Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a republican in the White House.

Much discussed article in NY TImes about why Apple products cannot be built in the US and how that kind of manufacturing is lost to the US for good is rebutted by Clyde Prestowitz over at Foreign Policy. My feeling is Clyde's take is closer to the truth - especially when he says Corning's decision to build the iPhone glass in China rather than America has less to do with supply chains as Corning claims and much more to do with China demanding that this is the way it's gonna be if you want access to the Chinese market.

I remember reading the article and thinking when an Apple executive was quoted as saying that the company was under no obligation to help with America's unemployment problem that that just didn't sound right - but I couldn't really put words to the feeling of exactly why that was - Clyde makes the argument for me.

Take on SC? That my contention of the primary proces being a silly if not pathetic parade of mindless populism, transparent rationalizations of blatant idiocy and the mad feckless rush of the masses towards the ideological equivalent of a baby's soother was both correct and wrong - correct because the what, twenty? thirty? percent swing in voter sympathies in the course of a mere few days seems to have almost entirely been predicated on the shallowest of understandings, the most superficial of perceptions concerning the issues and the candidates' respective suitabilities thereof - wrong because Romney looked flat footed and unprepared if not indeed confused when challenged by Gingrich on Bain Capital and his taxes - his inability or unwillingness to mount an impassioned defence of his success in the private sector while at same time casting Newt as an inconstant, hypocritical and politically toxic excrescence of Washington baffles - it's not enough to claim surprise that a supposed fellow conservative would be foolish enough to launch an attack that seemed taken right out of the Michael Moore Little Red Book of Left Wing Demagoguery - everyone knows Obama will be coming hard with this class warfare populist crap and Romney's complete failure to defend the ramparts made him look unfit for the looming battle - therefore in need of more primary boot camp.

Although I guess that's not necessarily true - the Romney battle plan may have been to run against Obama rather than his primary foes and thereby stay clean and above the silliness - possibly they calculated that was the best case scenario for a win and they'd ride such a plan out for as long as it was working but if and when it started to look to be falling short they'd go to approach number two - which I assume we're going to see rolled out now - and if that's the case it allows one to keep faith in Romney as being not only savvy and competent and prepared, but also up for a fight - of course if Gingrich wins Florida the savviness of such a strategy will be open to harsh criticism.

Unfortunately of course it could also just as well be something else manifesting itself here - ie that the republican base and environs are so awash in fear and loathing of Obama and the liberal agenda he represents that they have very little patience for rational arguments - they want blood - and they'll clamor to whomever promises it to them, doesn't matter how trite, manipulative or compromised by delusion the promise is - Bachman promised blood and they ran to her, then Cain, then Gingrich - but since the presence of Obama is key to this emotional need for an ideological cleansing, electability becomes a deciding factor - Romney only becomes tolerable for these people when the credibility of the not-Romneys' electability gets stretched so thin as to be unsustainable - but give them the slightest pretext to believe in the promise again and they will run to it like starving dogs. Bain and Gingrich's histrionic debate performances supplied the pretext. And so the question becomes: did Romney try and stay above the fray and run against Obama etc etc because that was a smart strategy? or because he underestimated and possibly even entirely missed the level of irrationality at play here and is now unwilling or maybe even incapable of fighting the fight now being forced upon him?

Guess we'll find out over the next few weeks - either Romney effectively defends his private sector success and in doing so exposes Newt as the dangerous charlatan that he is, or... well... Mitch Daniels is giving the GOP response to Obama's SOTU speech tomorrow - still remains for my money the best man for the job.

Ha! With a Gingrich win in SC we now have a long primary battle to look forward to - and Tobin over at Commentary raises the issue that I've been talking about all along - ie, that those who compare a tough primary battle with the Obama/Clinton face off and conclude that it will serve to make Romney a better candidate are failing to take notice of several serious differences that could do more harm than good to Romney. In short, the happiest people tonight are those watching the returns in the White House. This is a great night for them.

I don't think anyone has yet pointed out that if Gingrich wins South Carolina, and at the moment that looks likely, the main reason for this will be lefty CNN debate moderator John King, who set up ol' Newt with the perfect question to start the last debate - and what if as a liberal King knew exactly what he was doing? ie. King was thinking: Newt is only a factor in this primary because of his bashing of the liberal media in the debates - as a liberal I want Gingrich to be the nominee because there's no way in hell he beats Obama - so I'll feed him a question that allows him to win the debate and therefore SC goes his way. What if that's what happened here? Cause it's not a stretch at all to imagine that's exactly what has happened here.

But even if that wasn't the plan by CNN and King - the result is the same - that's not disturbing? Seems pretty disturbing to me.

The upside of all this would be, if I were Romney, I'd be extremely pissed off - and if he can't get pissed off and start going to town on Gingrich, well then it's not likely he had what it takes to knock off Obama anyway - so hell, as pathetic and dispiriting and absurd as the primary seems to be, maybe after all the process is working the way it should. I dunno - part of me really just wants to turn the TV off and the whole sad spectacle with it.

Is there anything to the idea that some are trying to float that Romney will actually be ok with Gingrich winning SC? The idea being that such would put an end to Santorum and Santorum is the only real threat out there - that only a wacko state like SC would go for a wacko like Gingrich and so with Santorum out of the way the next four or five primaries easily fall to Romney and then it's game over? I dunno. I still think that if you're battling Newt [and Paul] till the end two negatives come of that - the republican brand increasingly looks unhinged, diminished, which doesn't help the eventual nominee - and two, with Gingrich attacking you from the left that in a sense legitimizes Obama's arguments to come which to me makes it very difficult to paint Obama as immoderate - which presents not only a tricky problem for Romney but also for republicans in congress who will be stuck trying to counter Obama's populism viz taxes on the rich and vulture capitalism etc etc while one of their own is making the same argument. Krauthammer was right: it's really impossible to overstate the abject stupidity of Gingrich's left wing attacks on Romney.

And let's not forget that Romney's failure to adequately defend himself on Bain and his taxes, a defence that should have been easy to make, has left him looking weak and a wee bit incompetent, not good optics for a person whose main appeal to right wing voters is his supposed ability to beat Obama - now I know it's absurd that a deeply flawed person like Gingrich can attack a conservative in terms admired by ultra uber lefty Michael Moore, terms taken essentially right out of the Obama reelection playbook, and be rewarded for it by republicans - but that's the point, this primary is absurd, has been from the start - and therefore an abomination like Newt now making a serious run for it would not surprise me at all.

Peter Wehner over at Commentary makes point that a deeply flawed Newt profiting from insanity currently at play in republican primary does not reflect well on conservatism in America.