BENGHAZI: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

In an effort to create a Watergate-level scandal, Fox Noise and its flunkies in the U.S. Congress (talking about you, Senators McCain and Graham), are making an already murky event much more opaque. Here’s a framework for analyzing and interpreting what has transpired. The framework doesn’t provide answers but merely tries to separate the important questions and issues from the unimportant, and to highlight the complicating facets of the matter.

First, it is helpful to think of events in Benghazi as taking place in three phases: the pre-event phase, the attacks themselves, and the public explanation aftermath. Second, not just the U.S. State Department was involved. The attack was against both a State Department consulate and a significant operational center for U.S. intelligence operations. And third, the attack occurred at a moment when demonstrations were erupting in various locations in the Islamic world over an inflammatory anti-Islamic video produced by an individual in the United States.

The interplay of these factors makes for a very messy picture that is ripe for simplistic political exploitation by those so inclined (talking about you, Fox Noise).

First, consider the three phases, or timelines. In the pre-event phase, the broad issue was the security of U.S. embassies, consulates, bases, and personnel around the world. Was the security of the consulate and operational base in Benghazi neglected? Reports are that additional security was requested in the months before the attacks. But were these unusual requests, or are they common? The fact that requests were made and rejected is not in and of itself sufficient to establish negligence. Security levels are dependent in part on the perceived threat and in part on adequate resources. Tradeoffs are necessary, and within limits defensible whatever the outcome. The decision to not increase security in Benghazi is one that must be judged from a broad perspective and with a number of considerations in mind.

The actual event phase lasted only a few short hours. Questions have been asked about when the Secretaries of State and Defense were informed, when the leaderships of the intelligent organizations were informed, when the President was informed, as if early knowledge by any of these individuals had the potential for making a difference in what transpired. Given the relatively short elapsed time of the events and the remoteness of the location relative to major collections of U.S. forces, early, even immediate, notification of the highest levels of government, if it did not occur, would likely have made little difference. Complicating the situation was the lack of clarity about what was actually happening. The more pertinent issues concern the responses at lower levels of the government agencies involved. Establishing the timelines of these responses is necessary to get a clear picture of what happened, but focusing on when the President was told is little more than political gamesmanship.

Phase three of the events was the shifting public explanations that stretched over several weeks. Opponents of the Obama Administration see in the shifting explanations a conspiracy or conspiracies amounting to something on the level of a Watergate scandal. But the much more likely explanation is confusion arising from the involvement of multiple, and secretive, agencies of the U.S. Government: State, Defense, intelligence agencies, and maybe more. It would be wonderful if government were a well-functioning machine, but it’s not and that’s just the way of things. And it’s not just government. Very few large organizations, if any, operate smoothly.

Compounding the confusion was the fact that demonstrations were occurring in many locations in the Islamic world over a video produced in the United States. Distinguishing a violent demonstration from an organized terrorist attack is easy only if you’re a commentator in a comfortable safe studio and you have the time and energy to quibble over the difference between “extremist” and “terrorist.”

So did the confusing responses leave the U.S. Government looking good, or even competent? No. But were they the result of conspiring public officials trying to accomplish something that even Fox Noise can’t quite pinpoint? If your answer is yes, you have qualified for citizenship in United States of Paranoid America.

UPPER BODY STRENGTH

One of the great things about the Internets is that any yahoo can broadcast his or her opinions to the World. The World might not be listening, but that's the World's problem. Anyway, Cranky reacted negatively to a recent op-ed in Rupert's paper, The Wall Street Journal. Cranky sent the WSJ a letter to the editor, which apparently fell on deaf ears. But the World should have the benefit of Cranky's thoughts, so here is his unpublished letter. (UPDATE: The WSJ did in fact publish an edited and abbreviated version of the letter on November 20.)

Michael O'Hanlon's op-ed, "A Challenge for Female Marines" (Nov. 13), accepts without question what Cranky considers the fallacy of excessive upper body strength as a necessity for individuals in Marine or Army infantry positions. Mr. O'Hanlon cites two components of Marine Corps testing in the Corps' Infantry Officer Course: endurance and upper body strength. He gives each equal importance.

But writing as an individual who served in Vietnam for two and a half years (1966-69), was an Infantry platoon leader in an Airborne unit (the 173rd Airborne Brigade), and retired from the Army Reserve with the rank of Colonel after 31 years of service, Cranky firmly believes that endurance is far more important than upper body strength for successful service in the Infantry, particularly when the tests of upper body strength are contrived and subjective.

Mr. O'Hanlon mentions three strength standards demanded of Marine Corps infantry officers. The first is being able to lift oneself−while wearing body armor and carrying a pack−up and over walls. He calls this essential in modern combat.

But what are the details of this standard? How high are the walls: 4 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet? What is the combat load? Is there any research as to what and how often walls of various sizes are encountered? Or is the standard just a seat-of-the-pants estimate by someone who just happens to be blessed with superior upper body strength? During his time as an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam and later as an infantry advisor to a Vietnamese infantry unit, Cranky encountered zero walls in need of climbing. But then, that was the nature of the jungle and the rice paddies.

Second, Mr. O'Hanlon describes as also essential being able to move a wounded fellow Marine across a field to safety. Does that mean being able to lift and carry a wounded comrade? Or is dragging permitted? And is any adjustment made for whether the comrade is bigger than normal and the carrier smaller? Cranky will bet the mortgage that in few, if any, infantry companies in the Marines or the Army can every single individual carry every other individual for a meaningful distance. There just have to be some outliers.

Third, Mr. O'Hanlon notes as essential being able to haul part of a dismantled mortar to an ambush site. Finally, we have a requirement that is somewhat realistic. One of Cranky's "commands" was of a 81mm mortar platoon in an infantry company. Actually, there were only about fifteen members of the platoon, and the platoon had only one, rather than the more normal two or three, mortars, but such were the conditions in '67. Anyway, the mortar base plate, the tube, the tripod, and the mortar rounds certainly made for heavy loads. But they were loads of endurance and stamina much more than of upper body strength.

Cranky has two daughters, one a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Neither has exceptional upper body strength. But both have completed a number of marathons and several 50-mile ultramarathons. One has completed a 100-mile ultramarathon. Both have accompanied Cranky on grueling multi-week backpacking trips into remote wilderness areas in various Western states. In Cranky's opinion, each has both the endurance and upper body strength necessary for the infantry, provided the upper body strength standard is not based on a figment of some weightlifter's imagination.

A SCANDAL MAZE

This thing is really getting complicated. A short time ago it was reported that the object of Paula Broadwell's ire, Jill Kelly of Tampa, Florida, who first alerted the FBI through an agent who was a "friend," has had extensive correspondence with the current Afghan Commander, Marine General John Allen. As the cliche goes, you couldn't make this up. Here's a chart of the players. Connecting the boxes should keep the nation occupied for many months.

WANTED: BIOGRAPHER(S)

Events of the last few days have convinced Cranky that he needs a biographer. As an exemplary federal government bureaucrat for many years, Cranky enjoyed a career that could serve as a model for aspiring young federal bureaucrats. Cranky's accomplishments are many and well-known, but a detailed biography is really the best avenue for telling the complete story, for enabling the public to fully appreciate Cranky's bureaucratic greatness.

The first requirement for Cranky's biographer is that she be a she. It is well known that in most instances the deepest communications occur between individuals of the opposite sex. And Cranky's full story will require deep communication.

Also, to avoid the loss of understanding that can occur when works are translated from one language to another, a biographer for each major language should be involved. Thus, in addition to an English biographer, there is need at the very least for a Swedish biographer, a French biographer, an Italian biographer, and an Hispanic biographer.

And then there's the Orient with its many languages and huge number of potential readers. Each language will require its own biographer.

The project is daunting but the rewards will be great. Now let's get started with selecting those biographers.

OVER

Well, it's over. Apparently−and hopefully−there won't be disputes, recounts, hanging chads, and whatall. Mr. Mitt gave a gracious concession speech. And Barack gave an inspiring victory speech in which he noted the problems ahead, pledged efforts at bipartisanship, and praised the fact that the American system encourages both the airing of disagreements and their peaceful solution.

Now the tough work begins. The "fiscal cliff," budget deficits, entitlement spending outrunning revenues, the list is long. Barack sounded intent on making significant overtures to the Republican opposition. Will there be reciprocation? The common ground is there, but have we become so blinded by partisanship that we won't be able to find it?

In terms of comedic relief, the highlight of the evening had to be the dispute between the Fox Noise anchors and Karl Rove over whether the call on Ohio as a Barack victory came too early. Cranky knows that this comment is not in the spirit of bipartisanship, but Karl, you really have no business overseeing the multimillion dollar disbursements for Crossroads America. Meaning no disrespect Karl, but your talents are rather more limited. Have you thought about a Home Depot franchise?

APOLOGIES

First, apologies to Mrs. Mitt, Ann Romney. She called the other evening and Cranky said some pretty nasty, childish things to her. There may have even been some obscenities uttered, and some derogatory statements about her dancing horse Rafalca's performance in the Olympics. It was entirely unnecessary for Cranky to suggest that Rafalca rather than Seamus, the family dog, should have been strapped to the roof of the family car for the infamous cross-country trip. But Mrs. Mitt seemed to take Cranky's indiscretions in stride as she did not pause in her entreaties for Cranky to vote for Mr. Mitt.

Apologies also to Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia. It was inappropriate for Cranky to suggest during their phone conversation that the Governor take the vaginal probe he and Attorney General Cuccinelli want to insert in Virginia women and put it up their own orifices to "where the sun don't shine."

And apologies to Mike Huckabee for comparing him during his phone call to Virginia's collection of "whack-job television politico-evangelicals who are more concerned about the collection plate than about saving souls or successful government."

Also to Barbara Bush. Cranky should not have suggested when she called this evening that the names of both her husband and sons were likely to surface in the ongoing prostitution scandal in Kennebunk Maine.

And finally to Mr. Mitt himself. When he specifically asked for Cranky's spouse by her first name, Cranky should have paused before jumping to the conclusion that hanky-panky was afoot. After all, for Cranky's spouse, greasy hair has always been a turnoff.

PAUL RYAN WINS NYC MARATHON

Barely breaking a sweat, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan coasted to victory in the New York City Marathon. Even the vaunted Kenyans were nowhere to be seen as Mr. Ryan posted an unofficial time of under three hours. Mr. Ryan did receive a congratulatory tweet from a "B.O., on behalf of my fellow Kenyans."

For his winning strategy, Mr. Ryan credited a Michigan dentist, Kip Litton. Dr. Litton was featured in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker magazine for his unusual marathon talents of finishing a marathon despite not being observed on many portions of the course. Dr. Litton has also performed exceptionally well in marathons in which he was apparently the only participant.

When asked about his future running plans, Mr. Ryan said it depended in part on the outcome of Tuesday's election. If he and Mr. Mitt are successful, Mr. Ryan indicated that balancing the federal budget would likely require most of his efforts. He promised, however, to bring the same intensity and attention to detail to that task as he has brought to marathoning.

AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT: AN AMERICAN GESTAPO?

An organization calling itself Americans for Limited Government is sending a "Vote History Audit" to individuals in various localities across the nation. The audit contains the names of the recipient and a few neighbors, the addresses of both, and whether or not the recipient and the neighbors voted in the elections of 2004 and 2008. The audit does not say how the listed individuals voted, just that they voted. The one page audit contains the following ominous paragraph:

"As a further service, we will be updating our records after the expected high turnout for the Tuesday, November 6, 2012 election. We will then send an updated vote history audit to you and your neighbors with the results."

Limited Government?! Under what possible rationale does an organization purporting to be for limited government take upon itself the task of publicly revealing to his or her neighbors how often a private citizen goes to the polls? The ALG may not be a government body, but this invasion of a citizen's privacy is Big Brother in the extreme. If the federal government made a practice of publicizing a citizen's attendance record at the polls, you can be sure that the likes of the individuals providing testimonials on the ALG website, getliberty.org, would be screaming bloody hell. Those testimonials are by Ed Crane, Founder/President of the Cato Institute, and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

An AGL spokesperson was quoted as saying that the purpose of the mailing was only to increase participation in the electoral process. But doing so by publicly shaming citizens smacks of authoritarianism in its most virulent manifestations: Nazism and Communism.

The AGL is a right-leaning group, but this strange desire by political groups to publicly out the voting attendance record of private citizens is not confined to the right. The left-leaning MoveOn.org reportedly has a similar, although somewhat less revealing, campaign underway. In the MoveOn effort, the recipient's voting participation is scored against a neighborhood average but the records of individual neighbors aren't revealed.

Admittedly, an individual's participation in voting−not how he or she votes but how often−is currently a public record. But just because it is legal to publicize something does not mean it is a good idea. The Executive Director of MoveOn.org was quoted in USA Today as calling the practice "creepy." To say the least, that is a gross understatement.

MR. MITT AND WEIRD MONEY

In The Wall Street Journal of November 2 was an article on Mr. Mitt's financial holdings and how difficult disclosure or divestment of them would be if he were elected. The article contained selected assets valued at $1 million or more, divided into two groups: Bain-related and not Bain-related.

The Bain-related group contained two private-equity funds, a public-equities fund, an employee IRA co-investment fund, and a distressed-debt fund. The not Bain-related group contained two hedge funds, a private-equity fund, and a Tagg Romney private-equity fund. (Alert to Josh, Matt, Ben, and Craig Romney: Brother Tagg might be number one on the runway as far as disposition of Dad's estate is concerned.)

Just this selected portion of Mr. Mitt's holdings would provide all the material needed for a full semester investment portfolio class in an MBA program. How many folks in the ninety-nine percent can even attempt a definition of a private-equity fund, a hedge fund, or a public-equities fund? The only term that might be somewhat familiar to ordinary Americans is IRA fund, but even here the addition of "co-investment" likely adds confusion.

The content of the WSJ's listing of selected Mr. Mitt assets highlights two points. First, despite his forced folksiness, Mr. Mitt ain't like most of us. He is one rich dude. Second, despite his claims of being a successful businessman, Mr. Mitt is really both more and less than that. He is successful at money, but he is not a businessman who made and sold a tangible product or provided a service recognizable by most of his fellow citizens. He is someone who tore businesses apart, repackaged them, and sold the results to others.

And he did this in a time of seismic change in the world of finance, a time when the computer put money-creating power into hands of many beyond the traditional banking structure, a time when such exotic things as derivatives, credit default swaps, hedging, and electronic trading appeared and laid the foundations for the financial collapse that occurred in 2007-2009. In short, Mr. Mitt came on the scene in a time of weird money.

Mr. Mitt was a very special type of successful businessman at the dawn of the Information Age. But he doesn't appear to understand the world in which he achieved success. He speaks and appears to think in the platitudes of the fading Industrial Age. He professes to be forward looking, but in realty he is blindly rushing into the uncertain future with the intellectual tools of the fast-fading past.

A MINORITY TWICE OVER

Polling data indicate that a sizeable majority of white men are supporters of Mr. Mitt, and that a sizeable majority of old people−geezers−are similarly inclined. That makes Cranky a minority twice over. Cranky is a white guy geezer who is pro-Obama.

Where did Cranky go wrong? Back in the '60s, he didn't march in the streets, trash his college, or do drugs (he did do a fair amount of alcohol, however). He even ended up in uniform in Southeast Asia, trying to halt them Commie hoards. Moreover, he maintained a connection to that uniform for over thirty years. So shouldn't Cranky be in the ranks of Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters?

Well, here's the problem with Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters. They enthusiastically adhere to the late William F. Buckley's definition of a conservative as one who stands "athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Mr. Mitt reeks of the 1950s when white guys were both in the majority and top dogs, and when today's geezers were experiencing blissful or at least tolerable childhoods. In short, Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters seem to lack a sense of time marching on.

The future ain't gonna be easy, folks. The Information Age and its tool, the computer, are posing challenges we are only beginning to perceive. Both Mr. Mitt and Barack want to create jobs. But the computer is eliminating jobs, and its job-elimination propensities will likely accelerate. After two centuries of industrialization, the uneasy relationship among job creating technologies, increasing productivity, meaningful work, and unemployment might be tipping toward the latter.

Looking back is not where the future will be found. Barack may not be perfect, but at least he gives an impression of someone who knows the future will require adjustments in many areas. Mr. Mitt doesn't give that impression. Mr. Mitt exudes the past, and the past is no longer within reach.

EARLY VOTING: REALLY SUCH A GOOD IDEA?

Early voting has become a big part of the election of 2012. More and more states are jumping on the bandwagon, either allowing early voting without restrictions or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. The later path, being followed in Virgina for one, is creating a number of fibbers as voters claim they have to vote early because they will be away from their homes on election day, when in reality they won't. What if the election in Virginia is close and one side or the other starts going after likely fibbers to have their ballots disqualified and their persons fined, jailed, or whatever?

Can't happen, you say? Then you haven't been paying much attention to recent American electoral history.

But early voting of any sort−whether without restrictions or with just the loosening of absentee ballot restrictions−poses another problem that might cause significant problems. What if after voting early for a candidate you learn of some really nefarious thing about him or her, so nefarious that you want to take back your vote. The right, of course, would give you its version of such a vote changer: the discovery that Barack's Hawaii birth certificate was a fake.

On the other hand, Mr. Mitt might have some things in his past that could be vote changers. Evidence has already surfaced that in his youth Mr. Mitt was something of a bully, on one occasion even forcibly shaving the head of an individual who was not part of the in-crowd at a highfalutin prep school. But there are other possibilities. Maybe Mr. Mitt was born in Mexico, the birthplace of his father, and the Michigan birth certificate is fake.

Or maybe during his time as a missionary in France he experienced a bit more French "culture" than he is letting on. Or maybe a lot more French "culture," if you catch my drift. Maybe, just maybe, mind you, he drank wine and coffee, smoked disgusting French cigarettes, and had a fling with Catherine Deneuve. Just speculating.

Anyway, this early voting thing has the potential for significant problems, maybe not in this election, but the future goes on for a long time. Someday many decades from now, early voting might install a candidate in office who was shown before the end of the voting period to be a liar, scoundrel, or worse. That future generation would look back to this time and ask, "How could those clowns come up with such a ludicrous idea as early voting?"

SANDY AND CAMPAIGN ADS

The electricity on the street was out only 24 hours! And the even better news is that the local cable provider is not yet reconnected, so no Fox Noise! Electricity, warmth, and no Fox Noise. It don't get much better. Unfortunately, other folks nearby won't have electricity for awhile. But they don't have Fox Noise either!

Inhabitants of the so-called battleground states have had to endure an avalanche of campaign ads. Oh, for the good old days when it was just commercials for cars, soap, nasal spray, headache remedies, erectile dysfunction treatments, and the like. But at least many of the commercial ads come with disclaimers and warnings. Not so the campaign ads.

Some warnings that might be appropriate for campaign ads:

) Do not take with alcohol, caffeine, amphetamines, uppers, downers, or any other forms of stimulants or relaxers.

) See your doctor if your erection lasts more than four hours.

) See your doctor if you have an erection.

) Do not be worried about nausea and vomiting. They are normal reactions.

) See your doctor if you don't experience nausea and vomiting.

) Do not watch if you are attempting to cure a nicotine, alcohol, or other drug addiction. This ad will make the effort exponentially more difficult.

) Do not watch if you are attending anger management classes.

) Do not watch in the presence of breakable items, such as glass and small pets.

The Campaigns should also adhere to warnings. One warning is to be careful what your ad is collocated with. For example, the juxtaposition of a link to Mr. Mitt's official site with a video of Hurricane Sandy destroying a house in North Carolina might not be ideal.

MR. MITT AND HURRICANES

Getting the daily blog in before the electricity goes. Recall that the Republican convention was disrupted by a hurricane or tropical storm or something. Now another major storm is arriving as the election approaches. What is the common denominator? Mr. Mitt. The guy brings bad weather. Think about it as you cast your vote, if you haven't already done so.

Opps, that last gust was a doozy. Guess Mr. Mitt got really irritated with the preceding paragraph.

Just caught a Fox Noise commentary by Brit Hume. It's hard to avoid the impression he's hoping a major disaster is in the offing that could be blamed on Barack. Hey Brit, can't you see that it's your boy Mr. Mitt who's responsible for the bad weather?

A PAUL RYAN MARATHON

Did the October 28 Marine Corps Marathon in just over three hours. Well actually, it was well over six hours, but Mr. Paul has shown that preciseness with numbers, whether they be marathon times or calculations regarding federal budgets and deficits, isn't that important.

In fact, next year I'm thinking of taking the approach described in an article in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker. The article detailed the marathon activities of a Michigan dentist who claimed good times in a lot of marathons but apparently had employed a sophisticated strategy of avoiding many of the miles between the start and the finish. The MCM course is a series of zigzags that would provide numerous shortcut opportunities. But I won't be a glutton. Claiming a time of just over four hours seems sufficient.

Incidentally, the Michigan dentist might be ideal for a position in a Romney-Ryan Administration. Fudging the numbers is the only way their promises have a chance of working out.

MR. MITT AND BIPARTISANSHIP

Increasingly, the President is getting zinged for failing on the bipartisanship front. He didn't do enough to bring Republicans to the table, to work out mutually acceptable solutions to the nation's problems. Peggy Noonan, she of the Ronnie Reagan fan club, in October 27's Wall Street Journal makes much of Barack's supposed failure to reach out. In his new book, The Price of Politics, Bob Woodard dwells on Barack's perceived bipartisan inadequacies. Mr. Mitt has been amping-up his own alleged bipartisan abilities. He knows how to sit down with the opposition party and work stuff out.

Well, for the most part the President indeed has been unable to bridge the partisan gaps. But whose fault was it? Maybe a little blame goes to the President and his fellow Democrats. But the party that took the hard line, the no compromise positions over the last four years, was the Republican party. Grover Norquist said no new taxes, nothing that even could be perceived as a tax increase, and the Republican Party jumped.

Nothing is more instructive regarding the current Republican attitude toward compromise than the responses to the question asked during one of the Republican primary debates: would you walk away from a hypothetical deal calling for 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. The eight debaters, including Mr. Mitt, all raised their hands that they would walk away. And this is the attitude Barack is found guilty of not accommodating?!

It would certainly be ironic, or maybe just a perversion of justice, if Mr. Mitt were to win the election on his recently discovered bipartisanship strategy when in fact the major lack of bipartisanship over the last four years has been due to his own party.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND FOX NOISE

Here's a what if. What if Mr. Mitt gets a slim majority of the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College? Given the current national and state poll numbers, this possibility is not that farfetched. As most know, Barack would then be the President because the Constitution, that hallowed document, works that way. Something the Founding Fathers cooked up to put a little distance between the rabble and the elite.

In the election of 2000, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, receiving over 500,000−a half million−more votes than W. But the Constitution's Electoral College−with an assist from a divided Supreme Court−made W the 43rd President of the United States. Except for a little grumbling from a few on the left side of the political spectrum, the result was accepted. It was what the Constitution mandated. It was the way the system worked.

But if the opposite result were to occur in 2012−the Democratic guy on the left winning in the Electoral College but receiving fewer popular votes than the Republican guy on the right−would the right be so accepting? In particular, would that nest of loony invective known as Fox Noise be as uncomplaining as it was twelve years ago?

One can envision four years of constant complaining about the minority President−hey, we're only referring to his coming in second in the popular vote. Honest. Actually, the folks at Fox Noise would secretly probably be pretty happy. After all, it's much more fun to whine, complain, and be the victim than to have the responsibilities that come with winning.

MR. MITT AND NUMBERS

It's becoming clear that Mr. Mitt thinks in numbers. Consequently, matters involving subtlety, ambiguity, murkiness, nuance−in other words, most things involving flesh and blood people−aren't his forte.

The number of Navy ships is one example. Mr. Mitt has made a big deal about the number of Navy ships in 1916 or '17 versus the smaller number today. But as Barack pointed out in the third Presidential debate, and as many others have similarly noted, comparing ships then and now is comparing apples and oranges. Capabilities are vastly, exponentially different. For one thing, how many of those WWI era ships had an electronic computer on board?

But to Mr. Mitt, the number of ships is apparently a compelling statistics.

Mr. Mitt's infatuation with pegging China as a currency manipulator is another example. Currency exchange rates are just numbers. Many free marketers believe exchange rates should not be set by government but should fluctuate according to the laws of supply and demand. But in actuality, many governments attempt to control exchange rates in one fashion or another. For large industrial countries, the control is often through the Central Bank activities of buying and selling currencies and government and other securities.

China has longed tried to keep the value of its currency low−in comparison to other currencies−to promote exports. Free marketers object, contending that China's government-set rate results in the artificial promotion of exports and the artificial curtailment of imports. Mr. Mitt has several beefs with Chinese economic policies. He accuses China of theft of intellectual property−patents and copyrighted material. He's likely right to at least some degree. He accuses China of unfair trade practices. Again, he's probably right to some degree.

But Mr. Mitt is not alone in his criticisms of China: most of Barack's policies regarding the country are not that much different than those Mr. Mitt would attempt to implement. But Mr. Mitt would go farther and officially label China a currency manipulator, never mind that the moment for that might have been 2007−five years ago−and today, in part because of changed economic conditions both there and here, the action would be somewhat irrelevant except for the overall negative impact on U.S.-China relations. (See Matthew O'Brien, "Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late," The Atlantic, October 24, 2012, for a fuller discussion).

The point is that labeling China a currency manipulator would be easy, would involve at a basic level not much more than numbers, and would thus fit Mr. Mitt's apparent view of the world: I can solve any problem I can put a number on.

HEART ATTACK

Almost had a heart attack this morning. There, on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, was an editorial critical of Mr. Mitt. How dare they! It was at the bottom of the page, but still. . . .

The Journal's editorial page is normally in lockstep with Fox Noise, only the Journal uses bigger words. In this particular editorial, the Journal chastised Mr. Mitt for saying that on day 1 of his Presidency, he would label China a currency manipulator. The Journal characterized the likely result as "a showdown that would shake the global trading system" and argued that such a "heavy-handed government solution" was unwise.

Several things are of interest here. First, Mr. Mitt's view of China as an international economic villain was about the only foreign policy position of his to survive from the previous weeks and months. If China had not come up, Mr. Mitt would have been in almost total agreement with everything Barack said on foreign policy during the evening. In fact, Barack spent much of the evening pointing out the discrepancies between Mr. Mitt's current and previous views.

Second, the matter of Chinese currency manipulation is a matter of numbers, of statistics. Most of the other foreign policy issues touched on during the debate involve, at a fundamental level, much more amorphous stuff: ancient grievances, national pride, jihad, historic trends. Mr. Mitt does not seem comfortable with amorphous stuff. He is a man of numbers. His business career was confined to the world of finance, to numbers. Reduce a problem to numbers, and he has the solutions. But the real world is much more complex than just numbers.

Finally, the Journal's disagreement with Mr. Mitt on a matter is just a foretaste of the donnybrook that would likely ensue in the Republican ranks if Mr. Mitt were to be elected. To take back the White House, the Republican party has papered over its many internal differences. On day 1 or shortly thereafter of a Mr. Mitt's Presidency, that paper would likely be shredded. Social conservatives, tea partiers, Wall Street big money, main street little money, big business, small business would each be pushing agendas. Could a party that has made no-compromise an anthem over the last four years come up with enough internal compromises to govern?

TWO WEEKS TO GO

Two weeks to go. The debates are done, so the potential for a disastrous gaffe by one or the other candidate is much reduced. Now it's just repetitions of the same mind-numbing stump speeches. Saturday Night Live is strangely a rerun for October 27. SNL is at its best for Presidential elections, and it's going with a rerun ten days before the election?! At least its November 3 show is live, although the host, Louis C.K., is somewhat of an acquired taste.

Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert usually take off a week every month. Hopefully, they won't desert us for these final two weeks of the most important election ever, or at least the most important since the last election. If the comedy people leave us in this time of need, we'll be left mostly with Fox Noise from the loony right, MSNBC from the not-quite-as-loony-but-not-by-much left, and CNN from the visual effects swamp it has become mired in. Letterman, Leno, Fallon, O'Brien, Kimmel, and a couple of others will still be providing some comedic relief, but Stewart, Colbert, and SNL are the top of the line.

One of the notable lines from Monday night's debate was Barack's retort to Mr. Mitt's complaint that America's Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917. The President stated, "we also have fewer horses and bayonets," the larger point being that warfare, weapons' capabilities, and military technology have changed exponentially since the time of the First World War. Among other items that the military has fewer of today, the President could have listed camp followers of the sexual services genre. Pity.

THE MR. MITT, BARACK, AND BOB SHOW

Debate in a nutshell: Mr. Mitt's obvious goal was to avoid stepping on his honker. This he pretty much did, to Barack's consternation and Fox Noise's obvious relief. To attain his goal, Mr. Mitt had to pretend he hadn't held different positions in the past, but he has become pretty adept at this so it wasn't much of a challenge. He also had to agree with Barack on many matters. So the conclusion is that foreign policy under a Mr. Mitt Administration wouldn't be all that different than it has been under the Barack Administration.

Mr. Mitt does think that through a combination of toughness and reasonable persuasion he can bring the different anti-government factions in a place like Syria together. Some might argue that such naiveté is reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney years and therefore a disqualifier for the position of Commander in Chief. Supporters of Mr. Mitt are unlikely, however, to be so critical.

Perhaps the most perplexing comment by Mr. Mitt came in his closing statement. He briefly praised the Greatest Generation−that Tom Brokaw-created fantasy about the supposedly pretty near perfect generation that survived the Great Depression and won World War II, never mind about Jim Crow, post-war McCarthyism, and stuff like that. And then he said something to the effect that this election would mark a passing of the torch to a new generation. It was like the last fifty years were of little import.

Hey Mitt, did'ja hear about the '60s, baby boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, computers, a guy named Bill Clinton who became President in 1992? The Greatest Generation faded from the scene some time ago. A lot of history has occurred since the 1940s, and one gets the impression you don't quite have a handle on it.

One last thing: Bob Schieffer, you done pretty good. But then Mr. Mitt wasn't the argumentative pushy guy of debates one and two.