Obligatory Gaddafi (Khadafi? Qadafi?) Comments

I guess I may as well talk a bit about the demise of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi. The footage (h/t HotAir) of his body being drug through the streets of Misrata are graphic, but hey, I've seen plenty of Friday the 13th-type movies, so that didn't bother me. What kind of pinged in my head about this whole this is that, one minute he's alive (and not so well), being grabbed at by a bunch of NTC fighters, then the next minute he's on the ground with what seemed to be a gunshot wound to the head. The "cameraman" taking the footage is bouncing all over the place and there's a deafening cacophony of guns firing, screaming and "Allahu akbars" all over the place, so it's hard to really see what's going on.

The reason I'm a bit troubled by this is: should a democracy start like this? Granted Gaddafi was an evil guy, but can we honestly say that our expectation of a liberal rule of law standard will be at the forefront of Libya's effort at liberty? Hosni Mubarak is on trial after, while not as violent of a revolution as Libya's, a similar uprising. Both men were dictators who oversaw secret police and public oppression, so why the different end to their reigns? Hell, Saddam Hussein was captured (granted by U.S. forces) and put on trial and executed. Was it just the fervor of the moment? Was it because of the makeup of the various competing tribes in Libya that would have made a capture and public trial impossible (or inconvenient)?

The world (except for Louis Farrakhan) is glad Gaddafi's dead, but we should all keep a close eye on the processes that come out of the start of this new chapter in Libya's national story.

Dreaded Concern and the 2012 Negative Campaign

I was a Perry guy before he got into the race. I thought he had the best record and resume to go up against Obama. I still do think that. However, I'm a bit concerned about this performance thus far. Not in the debates, those are largely run by liberal media organizations that look for any opportunity to define the Republican field. I had a vision that the Perry campaign would be rolled out with such force and immediacy, that other candidates would fade into the background and it would be down to one or two others. Perry held things that way for a few weeks, but then "weak" debate performances had people freaked out. I hate debates and don't think they provide much information. What can you get from 60 second answers and 30 second responses (particularly when asked by ideological opponents)?

So, I'm still for Perry as my main candidate, but I've looked at Cain as well. Yes, he could win the nomination and would be better than Obama (who wouldn't?). However, I'm not really ready to go all-in for him at this point. Now, the one candidate who I've admired for years is: Newt Gingrich. Yes, he has baggage that would be relentlessly pushed by Obama 2012, but think about it: which Republican candidate wouldn't be pilloried next year? Can anyone possibly admit that if Romney is the candidate, Obama and the Democrats will be nicer to him than to Gingrich? People are scared to death of supporting Gingrich because of his personal issues because they're afraid of them being used in the campaign. What do you think will be done to Perry, Cain or Romney if/when they are the nominee? There are probably REAMS of research material on Romney's every business and political decision sitting in the Obama campaign headquarters. They will be brutal. Same goes for Perry and Cain. Obama is probably more scared of Romney than the others, so they will have every last bit of opposition research available.

This campaign will probably be one of the most brutal, negative and underhanded we've seen in a while. Granted we have a history of negative and sinister campaign tactics used in presidential races (Washington was "senile", Jefferson had illegitimate children, Lincoln was half-black, etc.), so I don't mean to overstate the almost-certain negativity next year, but why should that force us to support or not support a particular candidate? I was guilty of thinking the same thing about Gingrich, but looking at a complete package of experience, knowledge, technical competence and ability (along with the requisite conservative ideals), the best candidates have to be Perry and Gingrich. Hell, a Perry/Gingrich ticket would give us the best of both worlds. If people think Perry is a loose cannon cowboy type, let's marry him with a brainy intellectual. Unlike the current occupants of the White House, at least a Perry/Gingrich team would know how many states there are!