Truman Democrats to the Rescue

I have been caught up in the excitement of the new Talking Points Memo Cafe, and have therefore have been spending my limited blog-time "commenting." One of the many interesting discussions I found there involved the newly-formed Truman Democrats. whose mission is to develop a credible Democratic national security alternative to the GOP.


Michael Signer, a Principal of the Project, outlined six principles of Truman Democrats in a recent post on Democracy Arsenal.

At least six values grounded our discussion, and showed how Truman Democrats improve on both the left and the right. Our first three values share some similarity to principles currently claimed by neoconservatives:

1) American exceptionalism: Like the neoconservatives, we believe that America is the greatest country the world has known. We are historically, morally, and intellectually unique. Unlike the necons, however, we believe we must constantly earn our exceptionalism through our moral conduct. Our uniqueness stems from our values, and so we bear a unique responsibility for living up to those values in shaping and influencing the world.

2) The use of force: Like the neocons, we're comfortable with the use of force for morally good ends. Unlike the neocons, as a general matter, we believe force shouldn't be the default choice for achieving our ends. We're neither reflexive doves nor pacifists; rather, we're pragmatists on the use of force.

3) American hegemony: Like the neocons, we want America to retain its supremacy as the military, political , and economic leader of the world in order that we can maintain our own security, help strengthen the world's safety and stability, and accomplish morally right goals. We are and should be a unipolar power. Unlike the neocons, however, we believe we must constantly earn and affirm the right to exercise that power.

But Truman Democrats also add three new principles of their own:

1) The world community. The traditionally conservative (rather than neocon, but still threaded through the current Administration's foreign policy) viewpoint borrows heavily from libertarian principles. As a matter of right and obligation, conservatives often believe people are and should be fundamentally selfish and individualistic, and that collective action is wrong. Truman Democrats believe, on the other hand, that the world is a community. America can lead that community -- but, to paraphrase John Donne, we are not an island, and any death diminishes us, because we are involved in mankind. To switch to a more prosaic metaphor, America is like a quarterback for the world. Although he's the most critical member of the team, the quarterback can't win alone; he needs the confidence and loyalty of his teammates, which he earns through leadership.

2) Liberal-mindedness: Neoconservatives believe that the discovery of ideas is basically finished. That's why they constantly return to the ancient theorists and ancient values in search of some lost nobility and greatness. Truman Democrats believe instead that knowledge is constantly expanding, and that to conclude that we have finished knowing, or that ideas are presumptively wrong because of where they come from, is both arrogant and dangerous. We believe in a resilient, flexible national mind, avoiding the calcification of ideology. We believe in learning from events and fitting our thinking to facts, not the other way around. This is why democracy (which encourages the growth of knowledge) is our political system of choice.

3) Helping the least well-off: Conservatives and realpolitikers have generally believed that wealth and power should be the key determinants to foreign policy decisions regarding other countries. Following philosophers like John Rawls, Truman Democrats believe we should instead help the least well-off before we help the most well-off. So building up the economies in many developing nations, or addressing the AIDS crisis, is not only a matter of stability -- it's a matter of moral right. Moreover, helping the least well-off also helps us. Being the only wealthy house in a poor neighborhood makes us the target. Helping the whole neighborhood become richer makes us a leader.

The following is my commentary on Signer's points, which I posted atTPM Cafe :

While I share the aims of the Truman Democrats, I think that the 6 points listed are inartfully drafted.

Truman Democrats share the following values with the neocons:

1) The central goal of American foreign policy should be the promotion of liberal (individual rights, rule of law) and democratic values. These should not be subordinated to the competing values of stability or material interests.

2) America has been and will continue to be the indispensible nation for the furthering of liberal and democratic values. America (for the most part has not) and should not seek to use its power solely in a narrow national self-interest like past great powers. [What Signer calls "Exceptionalism"]

3) America should use its political, economic and military supremacy to promote liberal and democratic values [What Signer calls "Use of Force"]

4) Because America is uniquely committed to the promotion of liberal and democratic values, it is essential for it to maintain its
military, political and economic supremacy. [What the Signer calls "Hegemony"]

Truman Democrats are distinguishable from neocons in the following ways:

1) Committment to the expansion of a liberal international order outside of the economic sphere. America needs to work with its liberal, democratic allies to create functional institutions to combat global security and environmental problems. [What Signer calls "global community.]

2) The values of social justice and "soft" power. America must show moral leadership by assiting the world's most vulnerable. Such leadership is just as powerful as military, political or economic leadership. [This is what Signer calls "helping those least well-off"]

3) Pragmatism and Professionalism. American foreign policy must use pragmatic means in achieving idealistic ends. There are realistic limits to the capacity of America to change the world overnight, and the correct ideological position cannot substitute for technical and professional expertise and fully thought out plans. [corresponds to Signers "liberal-mindedness."]

It should be very clear that the Bush Administration, both its neocon and Jacksonian camps, do not support the last three values. Truman Democrats therefore would present an idealist, muscular foreign policy that is anything but neocon-lite, but instead truly promotes America's national interests by adhereing to America's core values.

Note: I found it interesting that when I came across the articulation of Truman Democrat values on their site, that it was closer to what I had articulated.


The Truman Democrats list the following 8 core values:

1. Promoting democracy and freedom protects American national security.
   
   
2. Protecting American national security requires us to promote consistently our deepest values of freedom and liberty – with actions as well as words.
   
   
3. Robust military and intelligence capabilities protect American national security.
   
   
4. Strong alliances protect American national security.
   
   
5. Legitimate international behavior protects American national security.
   
6. Free trade protects American national security.
   
   
7. Promoting development abroad protects American national security.
   
   
8. Comprehensive policy coordination protects American national security.
   
   

It should be even more clear from this articulation that Truman Democrats are not neo-con lite but rather offer a clear Wilsonian alternative to the radical unilateralist idealism of the neocons, the Jeffersonian neo-isolationism of the pacifist grass-roots left, and the competing visions of Hamiltonian realism and utopianist globralism of the foreign policy establishment.

Climate Change Policy Brought to you by Big Oil

It has pretty much been a given that the Bush administration's policy on climate change (or more accurately, lack thereof) would be driven by Big Oil. We now have evidence that it is in fact literally written by Big Oil. The New York Times reveals that Phil Cooney, a shill for the American Petroleum Institute significantly edited the scientific reports on climate research in order to de-link the accepted conclusion linking human emissions of greenhouse gases to global climate change.

As a result of our government's inaction the insane Great Global Chemistry Experiment goes forward. You'd think anyone except somebody making an obscene amount of money out of the status quo would be a bit uncomfortable living in the testtube. Then again, those people are precisely the ones making our nation's policy on this issue. At the rate the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress is selling out the country, they might as well rename Pennsylvania Avenue "K Street" - after all its not like there's any difference between what's happening inside the offices lining either street.

Governors for Jesus, against Jews

The front cover of today's Times has an article on yesterday's signing of anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation by Texas governor Rick Perry at an evangelical school in Fort Worth, Texas. While the entire scene - the need to "celebrate with Christian friends" over the signing of legislation whose secular purpose seems dubious to begin - was distubring, of particular note is Perry's decision to have "Rabbi" David Stone, minister of the Beth Yeshua Messianic Jewish Congregation of Fort Worth offer the closing benediction among protestations by the Perry camp that the event was "open to people of all faiths."


The local Messianic Jewish congregation is part of an initiative is often known by its best-funded and most visible organization, "Jews for Jesus," one of the leading pioneers in the succesful exploitation of the Comic Sans Font to produce whimsical-looking pamphlets. Whatever the differences between the varying forms of Messianic Judaism, they have two things in common: One, a desire to succeed where crudades, inquisitions and dis-enfranchisement failed and convert the stubborn Jews; and two, a lack of faith in the ability of a straight-forward presentation of the merits of Christianity in getting the job done. Thus "Messianic Jewish" congregations retain the ritual trappings of Judaism (down to a Hebraicized Bet Yeshua/House of Jesus) but in fact espouse the Christian doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ.


While many of my co-religionists are deeply troubled by any evangelizing of Jews (believing understandably that given the general way its been done in the past 2000 years, we deserve a milenium or so break from prostelyzation), part of being in America is for everyone to be exposed to the marketplace of competing religious ideas. Further, I understand the central role witnessing plays in the religious lives of evangelicals - they believe they have a divine obligation to spread what they believe to be the "Good News." Such witnessing provides no threat to any truly secure Jewish identity - there is no reason to slam the door on a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon who doesn't get the hint that mezuzah on the doorpost is a signal to pitch their spiritual wares next door.


Jews for Jesus and its ilk is another story. Support for Jews for Jesus is fundamentally inconsistent with respect for Judaism and evangelicals should be ashamed of their support for it. To have the chief executive of one of the most important states in our union endorse such degredation of the Jewish faith is unacceptable. Governer Perry needs to get the message loud and clear that he has deeply offended the American Jewish community and he accordingly not deserving of any support, even from the minority of Texas Jews who do vote Republican. Further, the GOP needs to get the message that there is a limit to what even hawkish, Israel-centered Jews will put up with when it comes to pandering to the religious right. And that Governor Perry, by endorsing a movement created for the sole purpose of readicating the Jewish faith, has just crossed that line.

Bulldozing Out of Gaza

Its been a bad month for Peace in the Middle East. Following months of positive developments, there have recently been a number of setbacks - the strong showing by Hamas in local elections, an increasing level of violence spilling out of Gaza and the depression confirmation that despite Abbas' rhetoric in English, he has done little to curb virulent anti-Semetic incitement from being broadcast on Palestinian television. All of which would seem to be fuel to fire of the hawkish opposition to Sharon's Gaza plan. Yet on Sharon presses, impervious to the desperate settler protests, whose civil disobedience campaign has led average Israelis to respond with a combination of annoyance and indifference.


The Peace Processors are equally miffed at Sharon these days, for his similar head-down approach to link Ma'aleh Adumim, the large Jewish suburb east of Jerusalem, to the capital. The final status of Jerusalem is to be determined, they point out according to mutual agreement of both sides under the Road Map to the Preliminary Initial Prefectory Peace Process Towards an Eventual Agreement. (The final status under such agreement is of course, according to the Processors, is joint sovreignity over an open and peaceful city. There is even talk of recruiting the Jedi Knights to "keep the peace" given they are no longer wanted in the Galactic Republic).


It seems to me that if Sharon is upsetting both the settlers and the Processors than he must be doing something right. In fact, Sharon's plan for a strategic withdrawl, in which Gaza settlements are abandoned, while Israeli control over Jerusalem is strengthed is in the finest tradition of Israel's founders. Ben-Gurion and his Mapainiks took an approach to building a Jewish state that was pragmatic, unsentimental and farsighted - ever act was taken with the ultimate goal in mind, and with the proper priorities. As Benni Morris aptly noted in a TNR article, Sharon, despite his many years of Likud affiliation, is truly the "Last Mapainik"


In contrast, the opponents to the Gaza withdrawal are the ideological descendants of Begin and the Herut. Like Begin they valorize the ideal vision of the Jewish state, and disdain compromises with reality as weak. Thus, even for those who do not attach to Gaza religious significance as part of the land of Israel, nothing short of total victory in which the Arabs have laid down their arms and recognized Israel as legitimate in grounds from which to withdraw.


As the withdrawal gets closer, mobilization against Sharon's plan is starting to mirror the mobilization against Olso. Once again, Israel's supporters are being asked to speak out against not only Israel's enemies, but its government. I for one will not be joining in this process.


The claim being made by the rationalist opponents to the Sharon Plan (I'll put to the side the arguments of those who consider the ruins of ancient Phillista holy), is that a retreat anywhere is the first step to a retreat everywhere. Hamas and the other existential enemies of Israel will only be further encouraged to press to further concessions. Today, Gush Katif, tommorrow Gush Etzion, the day after that Jerusalem.


This position however a fundamental flaw - the withdrawal from Gaza is not a concession. It is not a concession because the Gaza is not an asset, but an albatross. (Whether Gaza ever becomes an asset to the Palestinians is up to them - but a first step would probably be to keep Hamas off the local school board). It is further not a concession because it is not being made in response to any Palestinian action - it is not a concession to terror OR to cracking down on terror.


The second fundamental flaw is that time is on Israel's side. With respect to demographics it most certainly not. I have never quite understood why the same hawks that are so attuned to the threat of conceding a Palestinian "Right of Return" are so oblivious to this problem. In fact, it is only on the extreme of hawkish spectrum that the problem is even addressed. The current favorite on the hard right, replacing the euphemistic and morally repugnant "voluntary transfer" is Benni Elon's "virtual transfer" in which the Palestinians remain in the West Bank, under Israeli sovreignity with Jordanian citizenship. Clearly, dealing with reality is not exactly at the top of the Herutist agenda.


In contrast, Sharon plows forward, with the stones from both left and right clanging off his bulldozer. Ben Gurion would be proud.

ISRAEL AND THE HOLOCAUST, 60 YEARS LATER

I confess that I’ve always instinctively recoiled from linkage of the Holocaust and Israel. As a moderately affiliated American Jew growing up in the period between the Six Day War and the “continuity crisis”/religious revival of the 1990s, I was educated with the Holocaust and Israel as the twin pillars of Jewish identity. I saw them as competing poles, joyful and mournful, and threw my lot in the with the hope and forward-looking vitality of Zionism.

As I grew older, I found my skepticism warranted. Many of the most common narratives that link the Holocaust and Israel are deeply flawed. For example, the often stated, but rarely examined proposition that the Holocaust made the birth of Israel possible. In this view, the world, shocked and shamed by the Holocaust, showed mercy on the Jews by voting in the United Nations to create a Jewish state. This narrative is deeply flawed in two ways. First, is the assumption that world pity and a UN vote were sufficient to establish Israel. It is consistent with a view of Jews on the sidelines of history, rather than the active agents of their own fate. In doing so, proponents of the "world gift" thesis ignore the heroic efforts and remarkable achievements of the Zionists in building a community and modern infrastructure in mere decades. The now-cliche litany of the heroic deeds of the halutzim (pioneers): reviving long-fallow land in the Galilee, raising Tel Aviv from sand dunes into an metropolis and causing the Negev to "bloom" were very real achievements long before they appeared on Federation pamphlets. Similarly, the price the yishuv (pre-independence Palestinian Jewish community) was willing to pay in precious lives to make the Jewish State a reality can not be overlooked.

Furthermore, the "post-Holocaust world-pity" creation myth writes Sephardi and Mizrachi Jews, who came to Israel fleeing Arab and Muslim persecution, entirely out of the story. Israel is reduced to being a European story. The world (in other words, Europe) sinned against the Jews in the Holocaust and atoned through the creation of Israel. To the extent that the narrative of Israel and the Holocaust is one of European atonement is it woefully insufficient. The votes of various European governments, and grudging passage to survivors is far from atonement for Europe’s sins. Europe can not simply pretend to have granted a Jewish state as an act of mercy, and move past the destruction of a third of the Jewish people. Yet the ongoing refusal of Europeans to truly confront the reality of the Holocaust makes the idea of Israel as European atonement too attractive to pass on.

It is the same desire in Europe to avoid a full moral reckoning with the Holocaust that leads to an even more pernicious linkage between the Holocaust and Israel, that of labeling Israeli actions against Palestinians as “Nazi.” This claim, viewed rationally, is patently absurd. The actions of Israel that are cited in the standard indictment against it range from those taken in scrupulous self-defense (such as targeted assassinations of militant leaders and the construction of the border fence) to the ugly, but necessary by-products of counter-terrorism (such as armed checkpoints and curfews) to the discriminatory and morally debatable (e.g. land confiscations). None of these actions, however, approach the mildest form of genocide, let alone the standard against which all genocides are measured.

It is simply not possible to lob "Nazi" allegations against Israel while taking what happened at Auschwitz seriously. (Ponder for a moment that in comparison, the tragedy of the Spanish Expulsion is a reprieve, that the reality of Auschwitz for Jews is to look backward, and to wish longingly that 1942 was 1492 once more. That is the full scope of evil and loss). Were Israel to indulge the wildest fantasy of the most fanatical settler and drive every Palestinian over the Jordan River it would be but a puddle of moral depracity to the ocean of Auschwitz, Yet here we are 60 years after the liberation of the camps, and the most frequently cited example of those horrors is the Jewish state's flawed, but fundamentally moral and restrained self-defense.

The reason for this is the mutation of anti-Semitism to a more politically and socially correct form of anti-Zionism. When it comes to Europe, Jews can never win. In the era of European nationalism, the nation-less Jews were made a pariah, blamed for all the sins of cosmopolitan internationalism. Now, in a new era of European post-nationalism, the Jews, it is the Jewish nation that is made a pariah, scapegoat for all the sins of nationalism.

There is of course, more at play than simply the residual stirring of Europe's oldest curse. By far the most virulent source of anti-Semetism in Europe today comes from its Muslim immigrant communities. In a particularly perverse irony, Europe exported the virus of modern anti-Semetism to the Islamic world (a form of Jew-hatred quite distinct from traditional attitudes towards Jews in Islamic society)
in the fascistic strains of pan-Arabism and Islamism, only to re-import it in the form of immigrants holding those views. If anything, immigration to Europe has exacerbated the problem, as European Muslims alienated from European society have increasingly been supceptible to Islamism's scapegoating of "Jews and Zionists" as the source of all problems.

The virulent anti-Semetism cloaked as anti-Zionism of the European far left and Islamists has been increasingly abetted by "reasonable" liberals. The liberals take on faith that there must be something to the passionate accusations lobbed as Israel. Thus, they will admit that perhaps Israel has a right to exist, but will denounce it as the main obstacle to peace and progress in the Middle East. They will deplore suicide bombings but "understand" the "desperation" that is its cause.

Thus the death of Rachel Corrie becomes a critically acclaimed play in the West End, and the British academy bans only Israeli academics from its conferences. (And this is in all places, relatively philo-Semetic Britain). Yet, as actual genoice occurs in Darfur, Europe in silent. As human rights campaigners in Iran and China are silenced there is no response from Europe except for calls for increased trade with the current regimes.

Never forget. And yet Europe is constantly forgetting the Holocaust. Unfortunately for Israel, Europe's moral amnesia is not just a mere inconvenience. Europe is Israel's most important neighbor - its number one trading partner, its cultural neighborhood (where it competes in everything from basketball to pop music). Permitting the current anti-Zionist wave to rise will result in serious consequences.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that Europe not be permitted to forget. That it is only appropriate that the demonization of the Jewish state, the efforts to marginalize citizens of the Jewish state, and the appeasement of the enemies of the Jewish state be rightly compared to Europe's past record of demonizing Jews, marginalizing Jews, appeasing the Nazis and ultimately aiding and abetting the Nazi genocide. Sixty years after the destruction of a third of the Jewish people happened on European soil, Europe owes the Jews this much - to take the existential threat to Israel seriously, and to never again stand idly by while Jews perish.

HOW STRONG ARE A CEDAR'S ROOTS?

Something potentially momentous is happening right now in Lebanon. Peaceful demonstrations in response to the assassination of Rafik Hariri have toppled the Syrian-backed puppet regime and are threatening to kick the last Baathist tyranny out of their nation. So far the anti-Syrian movement has unite the various factions - Christian, Sunni, Shiite and Druze. There appears to be a real hope that Lebanon can finally rise from the ashes, and end its 30 year nightmare of civil war and foreign domination. If so, the potential possible repurcussions of a thriving, pluralistic, democratic and free Lebanon for the Arab world are enormous. The collapse of Lebanon into sectarian strife and chaos in the 1970s deprived the Arab World of its haven for progressives, artists, free-thinkers. The consensus had been that while Lebanon could physically rebuild what was torn down in the war (and of that succesful rebuilding, Hariri was the symbol), it could never reclaim its other losses. The present outpouring of non-violent popular action, however, suggests that the roots of Lebanon's civil society may go much deeper than suspected.


Lebanon is by no means out of the woods. The desire of the majority of Lebanese to put their past behind them is not shared by all, especially Hezbollah, who represent the interests of their pay-masters in Tehran far more than Lebanon's Shiites. Hezbollah seeks total war against Israel, despite its exit from Lebanese terrirtory (in fact, there is little doubt that its fingerprints were found on the recent massacre in Tel Aviv - otherwise Israel would have not directed its fury at Syria and given Abbas a temporary pass). However, in a free Lebanon Hezbollah will no longer be able to have it both ways - maintaining its domestic ambitions and its foreign terrorist agenda. The Lebanese people have had enough of war. They have had enough of tyranny. May the cedar bloom again, soon.

PATRIOTS 24, EAGLES 21

3 Points. 3 Lousy Points the difference between the ending of 44 seasons of failure from sweet victory.
It was a gut-wrenching loss in so many ways. Unlike in years past, the Patriots did not come with their A game. The Eagles, therefore, did not need to have brought an A game of their own, merely to have played good solid football with minimal errors. Instead the Birds played a wildly inconsistent game, marked by stretches of brilliance and marred by costly mistakes.

The defense started the game tremendously, shutting down the Pats running attack and knocking Brady out of sync. But the Patriots, as always, adjusted, and were able to move the ball from the middle of the 2nd quarter on. Blitzes were picked up, Deion Branch ran wild, and the D folded three times in the red zone. Still, with the game on the line, the defense rose to the occassion, preventing the game-ending TD, and forcing two critical stops during the thwarted comeback.

The offense rose to even greater heights and sank to even greater lows. After a rocky opening series, the Eagles spent most of the 1st half on the Patriots side of the field. Terrell Owens made all of the nose-bleed pundits who took potshots at him for his valiant rehab look petty and foolish. He was not the dominant force that he is at 100%, but he was at least 81%, and despite his limitations a major factor in the short and medium passing game. The much maligned Todd Pinkston made the 2nd most spectacular catch of the night (unfortunately the top honor must go to Branch's leaping catch over Sheldon Brown) and succesfully stretched the field, while the emerging Greg Lewis made a major impact in his limited time on the field. And Brian Westbrook, despite being stymied as a rusher and returner, proved as dangerous a receiver as always during the game tying 3rd quarter drive.

But in the end the Eagles went as far as McNabb could take them. I cannot recall another QB having as roller-coaster a Super Bowl as McNabb. He made some spectular throws, the scrambling bomb to Pinkston, the two red-zone bullets fired threaded through a needle to LJ Smith and Westbrook, and the perfectly tossed deep post to Lewis. But for stretches of the game he reverted to the old McNabb, as scattershot as he's been in a year and a half - missing low, high and wide, bringing the Eagles West Coast attack to a screeching halt despite the fact that Reid and company had found the soft spots in the Patriots defense. Even worse were the questionable decison-making, ranging from the lame duck toss in the end-zone early in the game to the torpid "five-minute drill" offense late in the game (although to be fair, there are reports that McNabb was playing through exhaustion or dehydration to the point of "puking" during the last two drives).

Even worse was the game by Andy Reid. The clock-management on the final drives of each half were unprecedently bad for a coach who rarely makes mistakes as a result of oversight (case in point - the successful early challenge that reversed a McNabb fumble). Rather than trust his defense with getting the ball back, Reid gambled on the on-side kick, and then doubled down with a dubious decision not to send a returned deep for the final punt.

I imagine, therefore, that plenty of idiots have been calling WIP in the past 48 hours, asking for the heads of the Eagles QB and head coach. To who I say - suck it up! If it weren't for McNabb and Reid, you wouldn't have any conference championship or Super Bowl losses to complain about. Do you forget the likes of Ty Detmer, Rodney Peete and Bobby Hoying under center, or Rich Kotite or Marion Cambpell on the headset. What about the collosal underachievement of Randall Cunnigham and Buddy Ryan, who could never get a star-studded group to one NFC championship, let alone four straight and a Super Bowl.

I know how heartbroken we all are right now. I am glad I went home for the game - if nothing more than to see Eagles green at every corner. I clearly did not have an original idea, as I was joined by a dejected mob of green on the train back to New York. But in the end, there must be perspective - and hope. The 2004 Eagles gave all of us a great run. Unlike the 1980 Birds, they did not wither away on the big stage, but instead almost pulled off a major upset of this era's greatest team. They fell 3 points short. But so long as they have Donovan McNabb in his prime and Reid at the helm, they will remian contenders. The Eagles will be back to Super Bowl, perhaps as early as next year, and next time McNabb and Reid will perform at their standard level of excellence. And at last the Philadelphians will have the parade we've waited for for so long. E-A-G-L-E-S !!!

E-A-G-L-E-S: THE NIGHT BEFORE THE BIG GAME

The last time the Eagles went to the Super Bowl, I was certain they were
going to win. After all, I had just witnessed my heroes smash the hated Cowboys in the NFC Championship. I can still remember from my perch in the 500 level of the frozen Vet, wearing the #17 of the great Harold Carmichael, the Birds defense smother Tony Dorsett and pound Danny White, and Wilbert Montgomery bursting to daylight, leaving Dallas defenders in the dust. After such domination, what was there to fear from some wild-card Raiders team that after all, we had beaten early in the year. I was absolutely certain we would win. I was also 7.

But it was not to be. The defining memories of that game are of course, are of Jaworski tossing interceptions to Raiders LB Rod Martin, and the screen pass that Kenny King somehow broke for a long TD. Every big play went against the Eagles, and Raiders prevailed 27-10. Older and wiser, it is easy to explain what happened. The Eagles had peaked emotionally with a win over Dallas, Vermeil's manic energy, rather than inspiring over-achieving as usual, instead led to a tight, skittish crew. A team that had won all year with its defense, and a low-risk, ball-control offense, made mistakes and fell behind early. And those Eagles were not built for playing come from behind football.

The Vermeil Eagles fizzled out without ever making another title run. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Reggie White-Randall Cunningham Eagles, teased but underachieved in the playoffs. A combination of Ryan's awful offensive gameplanning (1989 and 1990) and lakefront fog (1988) and injury (1991) halted the team at its peak. The Ray Rhodes Eagles of the mid-90s were solid clubs that never flirted with greatness.

The same cannot be said of the Eagles latest run. The Eagles of Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb have had sustained periods of greatness for the past four seasons, but have until now, fallen short of the Super Bowl.

So will these Eagles finally win the team's first NFL title of my liftime? Will they ultimately end the suffering of the Eagles Nation and defeat the favored, defending champion Patriots in Super Bowl XXXIX?

My head says that while they have a fighting chance, that its more likely than not the error-free Pats will prevail. My heart says absolutely - that we are more than overdue, and this game is the Eagles date with destiny.

I believe that the Eagles' underrated defense will rise up and shine in this game. That they will continue to do what they do best - prevent big plays, and keep teams out of the endzone. Corey Dillon will get his yards, and Brady might move the chains, but on the whole the Pats will be contained to a 1 or 2 TDs and a number of Vinatiri FGs. What will determine the game is the ability of the Eagles offense to aggressively challenge the Patriots defense without turning the ball over. The Patriots will most likely try to muscle the Eagles wideouts, and drop the LBs into coverage to clog the short routes and contain Westbrook. The Eagles will a superlative performance by McNabb, one in which he thwarts the Patriots cover schemes with his scrambling and takes advantage of the opportunities when the wideouts are able to release long, all without being forced into an uncharacteristic interception.

I have faith that McNabb will come through with an MVP performance, that Owens will make at least one spectacular play that will justify all the hype, that Dawkins will jar at least one ball loose from a Patriots receiver, that Kearse will disrupt Brady's timing, that Trotter will stuff Dillon on a critical third down, that Westbrook will break off at least one game-breaking run, reception or return, that Akers will make a clutch FG, that Reid, Childress and Johnson will match Belicek, Weis and Crennel, adjustment for adjustment. I believe, no I am absolutely certain they will prevail - in fact, 24 years later, I haven't changed a bit.

Eagles 23 Patriots 19.

STATE OF THE UNION: 2005..."LIVE" BLOGGED ON TAPE-DELAY

I orignally had no intention of watching this, by my attractive lawyer wife wanted to play the SOTUS drinking game, so I taped it for her and we watched it an 1 1/2 hour behind schedule, (with a necessary break for the Daily Show). I decided it was the perfect opportunity to break a blog-drought, so here goes....(Admittedly, the snark to deep thought ratio is much higher than usual)

Well, its early on and already Bush is promising to make the tax cuts permanent and cut the deficit in half by 2009 (next up, a donut that will magically reduce your gut). Ahh, that's how he's doing it, he's eliminating more than 150 government programs that don't fulfill substantial priorities...like Social Security, for example.

A shout out to education...now we're expanding NOCLB to high schools, no mention of adding any money (after all there's a major deficit you know). Good news, he's increasing the size of Pell Grants (the bad news of course this probably means, he's decreasing the number of Pell Grants awarded).

Wow, he just managed to weave in small business, women and minorites benefiting and frivolous asbestos claims into the same sentence. (Yes, I can see it now, somewhere in Ohio there's a young entrepeneur all ready to open shop and hire lots of women and minorites, except for those damn asbestos claims!!) Anyway, W. gets 5 points for managing such an impressive pander-scapegoat combo.

Next up, W. promises a "comprehensive" health program, but I'm not really paying attention since its clear he doesn't plan to spend a dime on any of it and it will the last you'll hear of it until next year's SOTU.

I'm trying not to laugh as he says "environmentally sensitive energy"...which translates as "safe, clean, nukular energy" ...now I've lost it... It's followed up by a laundry list of alternative fuels that he will continue to underfund, but provide a fig leaf for ANWR. (Of course, there's a great trade-off to be made, ANWR for a serious green energy policy, but I highly doubt any Dem is imaginitive enough to propose it...and I'll stop reliving my days as an espiring Environmental Policy wonk and move on now...).

Now he's talking about updatiing "archaic" institutions. Its gotta be Social Security...

[Sorry, the rest of this post somehow got lost in cyberspace....]

ON THE 60th ANNIVERSARY OF THE LIBERATION OF AUSCHWITZ

I was supposed to have participated in this pro-Israel blogburst commemorating the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. However, the life of a NY lawyer is not always conducive to blogging - in face its rarely conducive to blogging. I will post the Pinetification I had planned to write for the occassion as soon as it is finished.