By all the parameters, that usually portend the political future, the Republicans should achieve their four year primary objective and remove President Obama from office. The economy is in the doldrums and Obama's approval rate is around about 30%. Even, Jimmy Carter, who was routed by Reagan, had higher ratings at this stage of the game. On top of this the Democratic base are luke warm about Obama.......
There just appears to be two problems: who or what is the Republican Party? - and once that is sorted out, is there any candidate out there that they could all get behind.
The answer as to who the Republican are is simple - The Tea Party have highjacked the Republican Party and in fact, as things stand, are the Republican Party. JAY. H. ELL has written about this ad nauseam. So far the Tea Party's biggest weapon has been winning Republican Party nominations. This they did this with great success in 2010 and in the anti incumbent climate many of their nominees got elected, giving the Republicans the House of Representatives and, as predicted, a massive headache. Since then the Tea Party, really the extreme Republican base, have evolved from the tail that was wagging the dog, to the dog itself. If this statement needs any further proof just take one look at the Republican candidates for the Republican nomination for Presidency.
REPUBLICAN AGENDA
Before moving onto the candidates let us look at the agenda the Republican Presidential Candidate, is going to have to run on. Essentially this election is going to be all about job creation with the crushing deficit as a backdrop. The Republican candidates' solution thus far is very simple - get rid of taxing the rich and the latter will be able to create jobs. In fact in the debates on this issue they call them the "job creators" as opposed to the rich. This position flies in the teeth of public opinion - who overwhelmingly believe in reinstating the old tax code where the rich pay more. The "job creators" have had 10 years to create jobs and have not done so.
Without going in to too much detail as to the Republican's policies on a decreased spending agenda just examine their policy on Medicare.(The governmental medical coverage plan for senior citizens). The current Republican policy is to ditch Medicare. (Ironically, one of their successful arguments in the 2010 election was Obama wanted to reduce Medicare expenditure by $500,000,000!) On this subject they are even further behind the public opinion curve.
So let us go onto foreign policy. Obama is officially ahead of the game here. Obama got Osama. He is leaving Iraq and beginning to leave Afghanistan. He told NATO and the Europeans that Libya was their responsibility not primarily America's and Libya fell. The Republicans are all over the place in their criticism on Foreign Relations, so much so that they won't be them raising the issue in 2012.
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
For practical purposes they are the Tea Party.
Current leader of the pack is Governor Perry of Texas. Besides the above solutions his contribution is that Ben Benanke, Head of the Federal Reserve, (and incidentally a Republican), should be tried for treason. He also wants to get rid of Social Security.
Michelle Bachmann, besides supporting the Republican fiscal agenda, adds to her resume that she will bring to the price of gasoline down to 2 dollars a gallon.
Ron Paul, who has been around forever and besides believing in virtually no taxes or Federal Government opines that we should get rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The agency that manages inter alia the Irene and Katrina disasters
Besides some other Tea Party lesser lights there is Mitt Romney. In his mind, the last white hope for sanity. A former Governor of Massachusetts who introduced Obamacare there, hopes by being all things to all people, he will get the nomination. What Mitt wants to say but can't is the following:
"Republican Primary voters none of your Tea Party candidates has a ghost of winning against Obama so trust me I will carry out your agenda if only you nominate me. In the meantime I have to look somewhat sane so that in the Presidential race I can appear the voice of moderation against that socialist Obama."
He is using the same tactic he used against McCain in the last Republican Presidential run off and there he didn't even come second.
THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT.
It is fair to say that there is no real establishment candidate. John Huntsman recently announced and he has no name recognition as yet. The fact that he is a Mormon like Romney cannot help. There is not a George Bush, (incidentally disavowed by the Tea Party candidates as a big spending liberal). Jed Bush is not remotely interested and is the first of the establishment to support Huntsman. Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey issues a denial a day that he is not running.
The Republican establishment keep hanging around waiting for Godot and he/she is not appearing. It looks like the inbreeding of the establishment has finally produced sterility.
Not that they aren't to blame for this mess. In effect they created the Tea Party. Karl Rove mobilized them for the unpopular Bush by announcing all types of social agendas such as abortions, traditional marriage etc that Bush never got around to carrying out. Now the Tea Party candidates brush him aside.
ON THE HORIZON.
There is thus not much to look forward to. Sarah Palin is deciding whether to make a grand entrance. Each day she waits will be harder for her to get back the oxygen she helped create for the current tea party runners. Still at the end of the day she has some quasi respectability in so far that, lest we forget, she has already been a Vice Presidential candidate. It is hard to imagine that she will let this opportunity run by.
Then there is the incumbent President himself. He is due to announce a major jobs policy on Labor Day in early September. It is difficult to hold one's breath and imagine a Franklin Roosevelt like product and it is more likely to be the same old same old. He however will continue to be assisted by the fiscal Republicans who are now saying we need spending cuts to pay for the disaster aid!
It is really very difficult to imagine how the Republicans can run on their current legislative behavior. Although the Public are unimpressed with Obama's lack luster performance they are more dismissive of Congress that has a 12% approval rating. Now Congress are the Republicans mainly and also they are perceived to the greater stumbling blocks to bipartisanship. The latter being a big priority amongst the electorate at present. Obama keeps reminding the Republicans to go back to their constituencies and tell them what they want to do.
THE ELECTORATE
They have been a few pointers as to the way the electorate feel. The NY 26th Electoral Bye Election that JAY H. ELL wrote about earlier is one. Here was a Republican loss in a traditional Republican seat.
Also in Wisconsin the Republican Governor is under siege and the Republicans lost two seats in recall elections thereby narrowing their majority down to one in the State Assembly.
There is never an equal pox on both houses and it seems that Obama for the moment feels he has more to gain by just let the Republicans noisily do their thing. On the Presidential front his biggest dream has come true. He will other run against Sarah Palin or a Sarah Palin clone. It is difficult enough for the Republican establishment to get behind one of them let alone the so-called independents. So he really has to be the favorite at the moment. In a two horse race only one can win.
As for the Republican Party, there is no reason to believe that the dominant Tea Party won't control the nominating process again and it remains to be seen whether they will ever regain their status as the loyal opposition or the responsible government.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
NY 26TH SPECIAL ELECTION AND PALIN'S TEA PARTY
FOREPLAY
A nondescript special election in the NY 26th District has turned the political world on it's head. When discussing an isolated election such as this all pundits preface their opinions by, "All politics are local and one cannot read to much into....". They then proceed to read "too much", always with the qualifier that, "This election assumes a special significance however, because......". This election is no exception and allows wide eyed pundits to extrapolate up the ying yang.
To recap, the special election was precipitated by a married incumbent, (male), appearing bare chested on some or other dating site. Now is not the time to reflect as to what that man was thinking or what continent he thought he was on. One thing is for sure his name is not being bandied about as a potential savior Republican candidate for the Presidency. It is time, however, to reflect on the opportunity this special election result has given down to earth bloggers, like me, not prone to hyperbole, to discuss the impact it might have on the world and more specifically on the political landscape of the US, which in fact is the world.
The NY 26th District has been a safe seat for the Republicans for decades. It is rural. It is conservative. The last Republican incumbent won 70% of the electoral vote. So it is not one of those results you normally wait up till 4. 00 am to see who has retained or lost the House of Representatives. In a Westminster Parliamentary System seats such as these are usually "unopposed" by the opposition. Valuable resources are not wasted on lost causes. However, as we all know, politics in the US is the number one non contact sport. America as I have opined previously is in "status electionus". TV Channels provide 24 hour coverage. There are nearly as many political blogger sites as porn sites on the internet. So it stands to reason that, at this particular point in time, this election took on a "special significance".
THE ISSUES AND RESULT
The central issue in this election was a referendum on the Republican Solution to the crippling deficit problem, as articulated by Paul Ryan and supported by 235 Republican Congressmen. Simplistically, the Republicans believe that the problem can be resolved, predominantly, by cutting Government spending and simplistically, the Democrats, predominantly believe that increased taxation of the rich is the answer. It is not unfair to state that this "national" issue dominated this special election. Specifically, the Democrats focused on Medicare - the "entitlement" program that funds senior health care that is eating up increasing amounts of taxpayer money. Republican Paul Ryan and his 234 colleagues in Congress had voted to eliminate that program as it is currently funded. The differing economic philosophies of the two parties were brought sharply into focus with this reality. Medicare has been generally highly valued by the seniors and potential seniors. There was no way that they would risk changing the status quo for vouchers that contribute to their healthcare cost, the Republican solution, that might leave them with large sums to pay.
The upshot of all this was that Democrat, Kathy Hocul, garnered 48% of the vote and the Republican, Jane Corwin, obtained 42% and the Tea Party candidate 9%. Whichever way one looks at it, and believe you me it is being looked at in several ways, this represents a well over 20% swing to the Democratic Party. If this swing was replicated in 2012 then the Democrats would easily retake the House of Representatives and hold onto the Senate. Also the voter turnout was as high as an ordinary election. In addition, the amount of money spent in this election, much by "interest" groups far exceeded expectations and at the very least saw to it that every viewpoint was presented and or attacked. Also the issues central to the debate were not local but national.
MY VIEWS
The results were not entirely unexpected. Polls had pointed to them and the Republican pollsters had warned that there was a general disenchantment to the Ryan plan throughout the country. So what does this mean in political terms?
The Democrats were quick to focus on this as a key issue to fight the 2012 elections. Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, immediately brought the Ryan plan to the Senate floor to get the Republican Senators on record on this issue. Five of the Republicans thought that discretion was the better part of valor and voted against the plan and the rest have to live with it together with their 235 Republican colleagues. So first and foremost it portends to a rejection of the Republican financial solution resulting in a return to a Democratic Congress
Besides the fact that the Republican plan is sure loser to me there is a more significant development in this election. Namely the fact that the Tea Party got nearly 10% of the vote. So had they not been there, on the face of it, the Republican could have scraped home.The Tea Party candidate was mediocre and a former Democrat to boot who got virtually no support from the Tea Party establishment. (Sarah didn't even bother to not endorse him). He was smeared of the face of the earth by the well funded Republican machine. This brought his numbers down from 20% to 10% as he hung in there. This was in New York so the social issues that the Tea Party embrace are not so resonant as they are in the "Bible Belt. Extrapolated into the grand scheme of things the Tea Party element becomes more and crucial to the Republican party's future. (See blog - The Tea Party - The New GOP). As things stand it will be increasingly hard to win a Republican Primary without their support.
The Tea Party supporters are purists . Their representatives that get elected are monitored by the Tea Party establishment to see that the toe the party line. (See earlier blogs especially The Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin - All You Ever Needed To Know).
Again and again the Tea Party have shown they don't give a hoot about what the Republican Party and what it's doyens have to say. They are not susceptible to the argument that their position is likely to help the common enemy - the Democrats. To date they have been strongest in the Republican Primaries electing nominees that have no chance rather than compromise to the Republican establishment. Their de facto leader is Sarah Palin who is on the road again. Whether or not she chooses to run for the Republican nomination and or chooses to be King Maker in the next election, she has never been more powerful and well funded.
SHORT TERM IMPACT
This election changes the whole dynamic of a potential bipartisan solution to address the economic woes of the country. The urgency the Democrats may have seen earlier on has now vanished. Hang in till 2012 - 2013 and they can have their own solution. In some ways this is pretty destructive because they also buying into scenario that an organized 20% of the American electorate can control one side of the debate. They need to continue the bipartisan discussions. President Clinton has reminded them of the urgency. This notwithstanding their apparent politcal advantage in just running agianst the Ryan plan that the Republicans are suicidally hanging onto.
The Republicans for their part need to tell the Tea Party where to get off. If they don't, they face the reality of them hijacking the party of Lincoln. The Tea Party want nothing more that not to have to become an official third party. The latter have had no success in the US. The plan is to take over the GOP. The fascinating observation is that they are making no bones about it and the GOP establishment, need to take them on. They have nothing to loose because if they carry on, as they are doing now, pretending that this is all really part of a spectrum they are going to loose out anyway
A nondescript special election in the NY 26th District has turned the political world on it's head. When discussing an isolated election such as this all pundits preface their opinions by, "All politics are local and one cannot read to much into....". They then proceed to read "too much", always with the qualifier that, "This election assumes a special significance however, because......". This election is no exception and allows wide eyed pundits to extrapolate up the ying yang.
To recap, the special election was precipitated by a married incumbent, (male), appearing bare chested on some or other dating site. Now is not the time to reflect as to what that man was thinking or what continent he thought he was on. One thing is for sure his name is not being bandied about as a potential savior Republican candidate for the Presidency. It is time, however, to reflect on the opportunity this special election result has given down to earth bloggers, like me, not prone to hyperbole, to discuss the impact it might have on the world and more specifically on the political landscape of the US, which in fact is the world.
The NY 26th District has been a safe seat for the Republicans for decades. It is rural. It is conservative. The last Republican incumbent won 70% of the electoral vote. So it is not one of those results you normally wait up till 4. 00 am to see who has retained or lost the House of Representatives. In a Westminster Parliamentary System seats such as these are usually "unopposed" by the opposition. Valuable resources are not wasted on lost causes. However, as we all know, politics in the US is the number one non contact sport. America as I have opined previously is in "status electionus". TV Channels provide 24 hour coverage. There are nearly as many political blogger sites as porn sites on the internet. So it stands to reason that, at this particular point in time, this election took on a "special significance".
THE ISSUES AND RESULT
The central issue in this election was a referendum on the Republican Solution to the crippling deficit problem, as articulated by Paul Ryan and supported by 235 Republican Congressmen. Simplistically, the Republicans believe that the problem can be resolved, predominantly, by cutting Government spending and simplistically, the Democrats, predominantly believe that increased taxation of the rich is the answer. It is not unfair to state that this "national" issue dominated this special election. Specifically, the Democrats focused on Medicare - the "entitlement" program that funds senior health care that is eating up increasing amounts of taxpayer money. Republican Paul Ryan and his 234 colleagues in Congress had voted to eliminate that program as it is currently funded. The differing economic philosophies of the two parties were brought sharply into focus with this reality. Medicare has been generally highly valued by the seniors and potential seniors. There was no way that they would risk changing the status quo for vouchers that contribute to their healthcare cost, the Republican solution, that might leave them with large sums to pay.
The upshot of all this was that Democrat, Kathy Hocul, garnered 48% of the vote and the Republican, Jane Corwin, obtained 42% and the Tea Party candidate 9%. Whichever way one looks at it, and believe you me it is being looked at in several ways, this represents a well over 20% swing to the Democratic Party. If this swing was replicated in 2012 then the Democrats would easily retake the House of Representatives and hold onto the Senate. Also the voter turnout was as high as an ordinary election. In addition, the amount of money spent in this election, much by "interest" groups far exceeded expectations and at the very least saw to it that every viewpoint was presented and or attacked. Also the issues central to the debate were not local but national.
MY VIEWS
The results were not entirely unexpected. Polls had pointed to them and the Republican pollsters had warned that there was a general disenchantment to the Ryan plan throughout the country. So what does this mean in political terms?
The Democrats were quick to focus on this as a key issue to fight the 2012 elections. Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, immediately brought the Ryan plan to the Senate floor to get the Republican Senators on record on this issue. Five of the Republicans thought that discretion was the better part of valor and voted against the plan and the rest have to live with it together with their 235 Republican colleagues. So first and foremost it portends to a rejection of the Republican financial solution resulting in a return to a Democratic Congress
Besides the fact that the Republican plan is sure loser to me there is a more significant development in this election. Namely the fact that the Tea Party got nearly 10% of the vote. So had they not been there, on the face of it, the Republican could have scraped home.The Tea Party candidate was mediocre and a former Democrat to boot who got virtually no support from the Tea Party establishment. (Sarah didn't even bother to not endorse him). He was smeared of the face of the earth by the well funded Republican machine. This brought his numbers down from 20% to 10% as he hung in there. This was in New York so the social issues that the Tea Party embrace are not so resonant as they are in the "Bible Belt. Extrapolated into the grand scheme of things the Tea Party element becomes more and crucial to the Republican party's future. (See blog - The Tea Party - The New GOP). As things stand it will be increasingly hard to win a Republican Primary without their support.
The Tea Party supporters are purists . Their representatives that get elected are monitored by the Tea Party establishment to see that the toe the party line. (See earlier blogs especially The Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin - All You Ever Needed To Know).
Again and again the Tea Party have shown they don't give a hoot about what the Republican Party and what it's doyens have to say. They are not susceptible to the argument that their position is likely to help the common enemy - the Democrats. To date they have been strongest in the Republican Primaries electing nominees that have no chance rather than compromise to the Republican establishment. Their de facto leader is Sarah Palin who is on the road again. Whether or not she chooses to run for the Republican nomination and or chooses to be King Maker in the next election, she has never been more powerful and well funded.
SHORT TERM IMPACT
This election changes the whole dynamic of a potential bipartisan solution to address the economic woes of the country. The urgency the Democrats may have seen earlier on has now vanished. Hang in till 2012 - 2013 and they can have their own solution. In some ways this is pretty destructive because they also buying into scenario that an organized 20% of the American electorate can control one side of the debate. They need to continue the bipartisan discussions. President Clinton has reminded them of the urgency. This notwithstanding their apparent politcal advantage in just running agianst the Ryan plan that the Republicans are suicidally hanging onto.
The Republicans for their part need to tell the Tea Party where to get off. If they don't, they face the reality of them hijacking the party of Lincoln. The Tea Party want nothing more that not to have to become an official third party. The latter have had no success in the US. The plan is to take over the GOP. The fascinating observation is that they are making no bones about it and the GOP establishment, need to take them on. They have nothing to loose because if they carry on, as they are doing now, pretending that this is all really part of a spectrum they are going to loose out anyway
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
OSAMA OBAMA - REALLY AN AMERICAN?
To an objective observer, the never ending debate swirling around President Obama's persona and credibility has to be incomprehensible. The invective against him and the belief, for example, that he is a closet non American born Muslim, if not agent, whirls around the internet and in e-mails in a non stop staggering fashion. The public manifestation of this debate, until recently, manifested in the "birther" movement. This group, (20 - 25% of most surveys), believed that Obama was born in Kenya. The proof that they were right was that Obama's long birth certificate had not been produced. Donald Trump launched his Presidential bid as an aggressive "birther. (See Blogs, The Tea Party - The New GOP and Donald Trumps Palin). From no where Trump became a leading candidate in the Republican race on the basis of his forcefully arguing that Obama had not proved that he was an American and therefore Constitutionally entitled to be President.
BIRTHERS' THINKING?
If one analyzes the "birther' conspiracy theory it would appear that way the "birthers" have to be thinking is as follows:
On or about, August 4, 1961, the day of Obama's birth, Obama's daddy, having married and impregnated a white American lady, and Obama's granny, got together and decided that they would hatch a plot that would get a non American Muslim president of America. Instead of allowing the American lady to have her baby where she was they would schlep her to Kenya to have the baby. The purpose was then to get the most powerful nation in the world to get a non American born Muslim to sell out to the Muslim fundamentalists about 47 years later. At that time there were not too many openly militant Muslim Fundamentalists but it was well known that Obama's daddy, by Obama's own admission - he wrote a book about it - was an exceptionally bright chap. (To this day it is uncertain as to why Barack had to be non American born but these Africans are pretty devious). Now the American mommy lady, obviously, was pretty influential and bought into this whole conspiracy so she got the Hawaii Authorities to say she delivered the baby in Hawaii and even got them to put a fake announcement in the newspaper. From then on it gets a bit murky but who cares, Obama, who has a bad memory of his birth, couldn't prove otherwise.
THE BIRTHERS' PROOF
The birthers, rather stupidly I think, maintained that the key proof of their argument was the failure of Obama to produce his long birth certificate. (I would have hung in with the granny and resurrected her and brought her onto every TV channel, but we all make mistakes). Obama then produced his long birth certificate and of course Trump declared victory, maintaining that all his investigators, who could prove that Obama was hiding the truth, had forced Obama to show that he, Obama, in fact, was telling the truth. This of course resulted in confusion among the birthers. Trump rallied and said he would now move on to the question of how the subsequent editor of The Harvard Law Journal could have had the qualifications to go to an Ivy League College in the first place.
So the attack was on Obama not really being American and or that he is a fraud.
DEATHERS TAKE OVER FROM BIRTHERS
But the birthers were not to be thwarted because of the following event:
Obama, seemingly out of the blue, acted, courageously, boldly and decisively - not on taxes or on jobs or the socialization of America - but on national security. After a successful effort to locate Osama Bin Laden, he ordered the elite Navy Seals to raid America's enemy number one's lair. They killed Osama, photographed him, collected DNA, buried him according, as we might expect, according to Muslim law. In the process of this daring raid a mass of intelligence was obtained. Objectively, this was a massive coupe - 9/11 had finally been avenged. Osama's wives said he was dead, El Qaeda threatened to avenge Osama's death and the Seals said they killed him. But the problem was that Obama decided not to release the photos of the dead Osama so as not to turn him into a martyr. ( If he had we all know it would have been a photo shop job anyway). So with no photographs who could believe this President?
So the birthers became the deathers.
A facebook page "Osama Bin Laden Not Dead" has been created. Fox news analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano wanted to see a photograph. Alex Jones, a Texas based radio host, boasted 24 million hits on his You Tube Channel, claimed that Bin Laden's death was a hoax. Kevin Lane, a well known blogger, denied that Obama was dead and maintained that this was a distraction from Obama's birth certificate bollux and on and on and on.
The Republican contenders in the first Presidential debate maintained that Obama "got lucky" in this instance and that generally he had screwed up American foreign policy. They wanted, as so many others did, to see photographs to "prove" it was Osama. Many gave the credit to President Bush. Some said that the best they could say for Obama was that he had carried on President Bush's policies. No-one was prepared to give him unconditional credit for a collection of gutsy decisions that had got rid of public enemy number one.
WHY?
At the end of the day why has this President's been so hammered? His credibility to be the American President was always being attacked, by this group, in one way or another rather than his policies. ( In fairness this is not the line of the Republican establishment but their control over the party is in doubt - see Blog - The tea Party the New GOP.) This has to be code for you are not accepted as being American. Apparently it sticks in the crawl to acknowledge him as the personification of America, as American Presidents are, and the Commander in Chief to boot. It is almost as if he is considered an alien that somehow by a strange set of circumstances put him, a non Anglo - Saxon, in the White House. The fact that he represents the American melting pot and everything America purports to represent, appears not to resonate with a sizable but very influential minority of the electorate.
OBAMA'S PEDIGREE
His early upbringing was non American - in fact Asian. He like many others today is of mixed parentage but was in effect brought up by the white half. His white mother was way ahead of her time and obviously gave his white conventional grandparents, who were the major influence in his upbringing, grey hairs. He hankered for Africa and "The Dreams of His Father". He is regarded as African American but is more racially blind than most. His is a classical story of the American dream - from log cabin to President. He also, like so many other presidents attended an Ivy League College. His cabinet is representative of all groups. He is a strong advocate of feminism, already having appointed half the number of the women that have ever served on the Supreme Court. He has pushed for Latinos and has their support. So in it's face what could be more American?
Well the plain truth is that he just is different. And the difference is more than color. He has experience of many many cultures. As all these "Birthers" and "Deathers" have maintained, in Code, he just isn't American and should not be President. For example, even if he was born in Hawaii, is Hawaii really America? And it doesn't take a Freud to work out why they believe this.
DEFINING MOMENT
However this may all pan out, the Osama raid will turn out to be the defining moment In Obama's Presidency. Maybe he "got lucky". Maybe El Quada were already passe in Muslim countries as all the revolutions were not for Osama but rather for freedom. The bottom line is that he destroyed the American nemesis and the myth of Osama's invincibility and allowed Americans to hold their heads up high. So whatever the Birthers or Deathers may say - not too bad an achievement for someone they do not regard as American!
BIRTHERS' THINKING?
If one analyzes the "birther' conspiracy theory it would appear that way the "birthers" have to be thinking is as follows:
On or about, August 4, 1961, the day of Obama's birth, Obama's daddy, having married and impregnated a white American lady, and Obama's granny, got together and decided that they would hatch a plot that would get a non American Muslim president of America. Instead of allowing the American lady to have her baby where she was they would schlep her to Kenya to have the baby. The purpose was then to get the most powerful nation in the world to get a non American born Muslim to sell out to the Muslim fundamentalists about 47 years later. At that time there were not too many openly militant Muslim Fundamentalists but it was well known that Obama's daddy, by Obama's own admission - he wrote a book about it - was an exceptionally bright chap. (To this day it is uncertain as to why Barack had to be non American born but these Africans are pretty devious). Now the American mommy lady, obviously, was pretty influential and bought into this whole conspiracy so she got the Hawaii Authorities to say she delivered the baby in Hawaii and even got them to put a fake announcement in the newspaper. From then on it gets a bit murky but who cares, Obama, who has a bad memory of his birth, couldn't prove otherwise.
THE BIRTHERS' PROOF
The birthers, rather stupidly I think, maintained that the key proof of their argument was the failure of Obama to produce his long birth certificate. (I would have hung in with the granny and resurrected her and brought her onto every TV channel, but we all make mistakes). Obama then produced his long birth certificate and of course Trump declared victory, maintaining that all his investigators, who could prove that Obama was hiding the truth, had forced Obama to show that he, Obama, in fact, was telling the truth. This of course resulted in confusion among the birthers. Trump rallied and said he would now move on to the question of how the subsequent editor of The Harvard Law Journal could have had the qualifications to go to an Ivy League College in the first place.
So the attack was on Obama not really being American and or that he is a fraud.
DEATHERS TAKE OVER FROM BIRTHERS
But the birthers were not to be thwarted because of the following event:
Obama, seemingly out of the blue, acted, courageously, boldly and decisively - not on taxes or on jobs or the socialization of America - but on national security. After a successful effort to locate Osama Bin Laden, he ordered the elite Navy Seals to raid America's enemy number one's lair. They killed Osama, photographed him, collected DNA, buried him according, as we might expect, according to Muslim law. In the process of this daring raid a mass of intelligence was obtained. Objectively, this was a massive coupe - 9/11 had finally been avenged. Osama's wives said he was dead, El Qaeda threatened to avenge Osama's death and the Seals said they killed him. But the problem was that Obama decided not to release the photos of the dead Osama so as not to turn him into a martyr. ( If he had we all know it would have been a photo shop job anyway). So with no photographs who could believe this President?
So the birthers became the deathers.
A facebook page "Osama Bin Laden Not Dead" has been created. Fox news analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano wanted to see a photograph. Alex Jones, a Texas based radio host, boasted 24 million hits on his You Tube Channel, claimed that Bin Laden's death was a hoax. Kevin Lane, a well known blogger, denied that Obama was dead and maintained that this was a distraction from Obama's birth certificate bollux and on and on and on.
The Republican contenders in the first Presidential debate maintained that Obama "got lucky" in this instance and that generally he had screwed up American foreign policy. They wanted, as so many others did, to see photographs to "prove" it was Osama. Many gave the credit to President Bush. Some said that the best they could say for Obama was that he had carried on President Bush's policies. No-one was prepared to give him unconditional credit for a collection of gutsy decisions that had got rid of public enemy number one.
WHY?
At the end of the day why has this President's been so hammered? His credibility to be the American President was always being attacked, by this group, in one way or another rather than his policies. ( In fairness this is not the line of the Republican establishment but their control over the party is in doubt - see Blog - The tea Party the New GOP.) This has to be code for you are not accepted as being American. Apparently it sticks in the crawl to acknowledge him as the personification of America, as American Presidents are, and the Commander in Chief to boot. It is almost as if he is considered an alien that somehow by a strange set of circumstances put him, a non Anglo - Saxon, in the White House. The fact that he represents the American melting pot and everything America purports to represent, appears not to resonate with a sizable but very influential minority of the electorate.
OBAMA'S PEDIGREE
His early upbringing was non American - in fact Asian. He like many others today is of mixed parentage but was in effect brought up by the white half. His white mother was way ahead of her time and obviously gave his white conventional grandparents, who were the major influence in his upbringing, grey hairs. He hankered for Africa and "The Dreams of His Father". He is regarded as African American but is more racially blind than most. His is a classical story of the American dream - from log cabin to President. He also, like so many other presidents attended an Ivy League College. His cabinet is representative of all groups. He is a strong advocate of feminism, already having appointed half the number of the women that have ever served on the Supreme Court. He has pushed for Latinos and has their support. So in it's face what could be more American?
Well the plain truth is that he just is different. And the difference is more than color. He has experience of many many cultures. As all these "Birthers" and "Deathers" have maintained, in Code, he just isn't American and should not be President. For example, even if he was born in Hawaii, is Hawaii really America? And it doesn't take a Freud to work out why they believe this.
DEFINING MOMENT
However this may all pan out, the Osama raid will turn out to be the defining moment In Obama's Presidency. Maybe he "got lucky". Maybe El Quada were already passe in Muslim countries as all the revolutions were not for Osama but rather for freedom. The bottom line is that he destroyed the American nemesis and the myth of Osama's invincibility and allowed Americans to hold their heads up high. So whatever the Birthers or Deathers may say - not too bad an achievement for someone they do not regard as American!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
THE TEA PARTY - THE NEW GOP?
The current state of political denial cannot continue. The GOP does not resemble the GOP of 2008 or even 2010. The party has moved profoundly to the right and the Tea Party are remodeling it to their own vision. This is more than a shift of emphasis, it is a shift of philosophy. Enough has been blogged here about the genesis of this phenomenon. (See blogs -The Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin, The GOP the Presidency and Palin and Donald Trumps Palin). The Tea Party for the largest part have made good their promise to hold their newly elected members feet to the fire. They are not a rag bag motley disparate bunch they are a vast organized operation that at the very least, control, many of the GP Primaries and therefore the GOP candidates and therefore the GOP. The GOP Speaker, Boehner, has been threatened, either toe the line or you will face a Primary Challenge.
REVOLUTIONARIES
In many ways the Tea Party are revolutionaries. There is open talk of not passing a higher debt ceiling let alone their acceptance of shutting down the Government - regardless of the consequences. The hint of not raising the debt ceiling is already sending shivers throughout the financial world. Interest rates would rocket and America would be on it's way to defaulting on it's foreign debt. The Tea Party may only represent 10% of the total electorate, and therefore 20% of those that bother to vote, but that is all that it takes. David Gergen, the respected and balanced GOP political commentator and advisor to 4 Presidents, just shook his head in disbelief and disgust when the Tea Party obsession on ending funding Planned Parenthood, was considered important enough to shut down the government.
WEATHERVANE DONALD.
"The do whatever it takes", Donald Trump's possible Presidential challenge is indicative of the way the wind is blowing. In his past Presidential flirtations he was in favor of a 14.5% Tax on Estates over $10,000,000 to boost Social Security and Medicare and Universal Health Care. Now he is first and foremost, a birther pandering to the 20%. A position so counter productive to the American electorate in general, that the Republican establishment have officially nixed it and even the Republican Governor of Arizona has vetoed a bill that would not allow Obama on the ballot unless he produced his "long" birth certificate. This was a brave move from an otherwise right wing Republican Governor, hopefully serving notice that the Tea Party does not control the agenda.
The GOP Presidential hopeful list also tells it all. Other than Haley Barbour, a rank outsider, there is no establishment candidate. The front runners are all non establishment members. Gone are the insiders that have been the postwar establishment Republican nominees - Dole, Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dewey.... even the maverick McCain is no longer a maverick. Instead there is a whole bunch of Tea Party supporters among the frontrunners for the GOP nomination - Trump being the most recent.
THE NEW POLITIK
The recent bipartisan vote to extend the Federal Budget has to be a harbinger of many bipartisan deals that are needed to rescue the American economy. Boehner could not have delivered the deal he made with Obama and Reid without the support from the Democrats. Too many of his caucus just would not go along with the more than impressive concessions he extracted from Obama. My guess is that in the next few months it is all going to become more and more tense.
It could be argued that the Democrats have the same problems. Nancy Pelosi angrily voted against the Boehner, Reid and Obama deal. However she was not involved in the process. She was left out of the negotiations. It could also be argued that that was tactical. Reid represented the Democrats and the issue between Nancy and Obama is really one of degree not philosophy. The issue between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment is far deeper. The former appear quite prepared to pull down the whole pack of cards, while the GOP establishment would read that as the economic destruction of America.
So the question facing the Republican establishment is, how far do they go in meeting the Tea Party? At the end of the day they have to take them on for the battle for the heart and sole of the Republican party. If they don't the Tea Party will be the Republican Party. If they take them on the co operation needed from the Democrats, to "save" the country would be unprecedented in current times.
REVOLUTIONARIES
In many ways the Tea Party are revolutionaries. There is open talk of not passing a higher debt ceiling let alone their acceptance of shutting down the Government - regardless of the consequences. The hint of not raising the debt ceiling is already sending shivers throughout the financial world. Interest rates would rocket and America would be on it's way to defaulting on it's foreign debt. The Tea Party may only represent 10% of the total electorate, and therefore 20% of those that bother to vote, but that is all that it takes. David Gergen, the respected and balanced GOP political commentator and advisor to 4 Presidents, just shook his head in disbelief and disgust when the Tea Party obsession on ending funding Planned Parenthood, was considered important enough to shut down the government.
WEATHERVANE DONALD.
"The do whatever it takes", Donald Trump's possible Presidential challenge is indicative of the way the wind is blowing. In his past Presidential flirtations he was in favor of a 14.5% Tax on Estates over $10,000,000 to boost Social Security and Medicare and Universal Health Care. Now he is first and foremost, a birther pandering to the 20%. A position so counter productive to the American electorate in general, that the Republican establishment have officially nixed it and even the Republican Governor of Arizona has vetoed a bill that would not allow Obama on the ballot unless he produced his "long" birth certificate. This was a brave move from an otherwise right wing Republican Governor, hopefully serving notice that the Tea Party does not control the agenda.
The GOP Presidential hopeful list also tells it all. Other than Haley Barbour, a rank outsider, there is no establishment candidate. The front runners are all non establishment members. Gone are the insiders that have been the postwar establishment Republican nominees - Dole, Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dewey.... even the maverick McCain is no longer a maverick. Instead there is a whole bunch of Tea Party supporters among the frontrunners for the GOP nomination - Trump being the most recent.
THE NEW POLITIK
The recent bipartisan vote to extend the Federal Budget has to be a harbinger of many bipartisan deals that are needed to rescue the American economy. Boehner could not have delivered the deal he made with Obama and Reid without the support from the Democrats. Too many of his caucus just would not go along with the more than impressive concessions he extracted from Obama. My guess is that in the next few months it is all going to become more and more tense.
It could be argued that the Democrats have the same problems. Nancy Pelosi angrily voted against the Boehner, Reid and Obama deal. However she was not involved in the process. She was left out of the negotiations. It could also be argued that that was tactical. Reid represented the Democrats and the issue between Nancy and Obama is really one of degree not philosophy. The issue between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment is far deeper. The former appear quite prepared to pull down the whole pack of cards, while the GOP establishment would read that as the economic destruction of America.
So the question facing the Republican establishment is, how far do they go in meeting the Tea Party? At the end of the day they have to take them on for the battle for the heart and sole of the Republican party. If they don't the Tea Party will be the Republican Party. If they take them on the co operation needed from the Democrats, to "save" the country would be unprecedented in current times.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
DONALD TRUMPS PALIN?
For those who think Donald Trump is not for real as a Presidential candidate - think again. For those who think that his inane questioning of Obama's birthplace, after the issue has been declared dead and buried, put paid to any credence that he was running for the Presidency - really, really, think again. In the current topsy turvy world of politics, where nothing seems to make much sense, he has many of the necessary credentials. To prove the latter point his persistent ranting as a "birther", suddenly shot him up in the polls as a Republican candidate. This even after the top Fox Republican TV host, Bill O'Reilly had told him to get serious. The official Republican party line has been that this line of attack is counterproductive but then the line that Trump toes is his own.
CREDENTIALS
Well what are his credentials? He has massive public exposure. His show, the Apprentice, has high, high ratings that went even higher following his announcement that he was a "birther". He is on finance shows, talk shows and political shows. He was a regular on Larry King's show. In fact other than his colossal ego he was considered pretty middle of the road. He has unashamedly touted his financial success. He told an interviewer that one of the reasons he would be a good president was because he was so rich!
He has an opinion on everything. When the Libyan war broke out his boastful contribution to the debate was that he had gyped Gadhaffi by hopelessly overcharging him rent when the latter visited the USA. He shows a rare mixture of charm, bravado, ruthlessness and empathy that seems to resonate with the viewers. His trade mark is barking out, "Your are fired". This he does with sadistic glee as he eliminates the contenders one by one on his show, "The Apprentice". He is thus a member of the elite, an icon - a status that can be gained in no time by wealth and entertainment skills in this environment.
His private life is not all that marvelous but then he has no pretensions to having led a monastic life. He runs the Miss Universe competition, among other things, and has been involved in controversies relating to the lives and behavior of the beauties. Gingrich has claims to respectability so he cannot glibly skip the issue. Newt Gingrich is just too compromised to survive the primaries let alone a Presidential race.
THE COMPETITION
So he has even more name recognition than Sarah. Suddenly the conservative base are taking note of him because he is a birther, a cause that even Sarah and the other Sarah wannabees, such as Michele Bachmann and Huckabee, have abandoned. His birther move is thus unashamedly calculated to get him recognition among the voter base that is needed in the Republican Primaries. When push comes to shove he will know exactly how to get out of his rave, once nominated.
His financial qualifications are a big, big plus in a situation where everyone acknowledges that America is in deep deep financial trouble - "We need a financial manager to get us out of this mess". The other financial candidate, Romney, is responsible for Obamacare in Massachusetts and as a Mormon is not going to get the bible belt votes.
His independence is another plus. He can hardly be called a Washington insider. You are dealing with a disillusioned electorate where last time the independent voters opted for Obama in the hope that he would be "different". That is not the current perception of Obama and as politicians go Trump is certainly "different".
Then there are a collection of barely known Republican Governors who have no money and no name recognition that, barring a miracle, really cannot really be serious contenders. So we are beginning to be left with Donald. I think I better stop because I am beginning to convince myself that Donald is about to move into the White House toting one of those mattresses that he so convincingly advertises......
However, hopefully, he may just let this one go by because there may have been 43 Presidents but there has only been one Donald Trump.
CREDENTIALS
Well what are his credentials? He has massive public exposure. His show, the Apprentice, has high, high ratings that went even higher following his announcement that he was a "birther". He is on finance shows, talk shows and political shows. He was a regular on Larry King's show. In fact other than his colossal ego he was considered pretty middle of the road. He has unashamedly touted his financial success. He told an interviewer that one of the reasons he would be a good president was because he was so rich!
He has an opinion on everything. When the Libyan war broke out his boastful contribution to the debate was that he had gyped Gadhaffi by hopelessly overcharging him rent when the latter visited the USA. He shows a rare mixture of charm, bravado, ruthlessness and empathy that seems to resonate with the viewers. His trade mark is barking out, "Your are fired". This he does with sadistic glee as he eliminates the contenders one by one on his show, "The Apprentice". He is thus a member of the elite, an icon - a status that can be gained in no time by wealth and entertainment skills in this environment.
His private life is not all that marvelous but then he has no pretensions to having led a monastic life. He runs the Miss Universe competition, among other things, and has been involved in controversies relating to the lives and behavior of the beauties. Gingrich has claims to respectability so he cannot glibly skip the issue. Newt Gingrich is just too compromised to survive the primaries let alone a Presidential race.
THE COMPETITION
So he has even more name recognition than Sarah. Suddenly the conservative base are taking note of him because he is a birther, a cause that even Sarah and the other Sarah wannabees, such as Michele Bachmann and Huckabee, have abandoned. His birther move is thus unashamedly calculated to get him recognition among the voter base that is needed in the Republican Primaries. When push comes to shove he will know exactly how to get out of his rave, once nominated.
His financial qualifications are a big, big plus in a situation where everyone acknowledges that America is in deep deep financial trouble - "We need a financial manager to get us out of this mess". The other financial candidate, Romney, is responsible for Obamacare in Massachusetts and as a Mormon is not going to get the bible belt votes.
His independence is another plus. He can hardly be called a Washington insider. You are dealing with a disillusioned electorate where last time the independent voters opted for Obama in the hope that he would be "different". That is not the current perception of Obama and as politicians go Trump is certainly "different".
Then there are a collection of barely known Republican Governors who have no money and no name recognition that, barring a miracle, really cannot really be serious contenders. So we are beginning to be left with Donald. I think I better stop because I am beginning to convince myself that Donald is about to move into the White House toting one of those mattresses that he so convincingly advertises......
However, hopefully, he may just let this one go by because there may have been 43 Presidents but there has only been one Donald Trump.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
OBAMA - LIBYA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Just a day before the "coalition" met in London together with Libyan opposition members, President Obama addressed the American nation, (and of course the world), to "explain" his rationale and foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the New World Order. It is obvious that in this New World Order, ( See blogs - Egypt and the New Future and the Middle East Domino Effect), this unstable situation can repeat itself again and again. The most important fact to remember is that neither the USA nor anyone else has started these revolts against the established order - these are all home grown.
Up till Obama's address, there had been only two, apparently contradictory, messages from his administration - "Gahdafi must go" and support of maintaining a no - fly zone that would not involve putting any American military boots on Libyan soil. This uncertain state of affairs led to a Pew survey result, prior to his speech, finding that only 47% agreed with the President's no fly decision and 36% disagreed. This is a very rare outcome for an American intervention when the whole country traditionally rallies around the President. Other than the above two policy decisions, Obama had been strangely quiet on the Libyan issue. In the last month, he had held a major policy address on the gas situation and spent a week in Brazil in the heat of decision - making time.
BROAD SPREAD CRITICISM.
This lead all and sundry having a field day attacking him from every possible direction. In fact this has proved beneficial to Obama as the opposition was all over the show and demonstrated about as much coherence as his own policies ostensibly did.
The Republicans were in the biggest quandary as they traditionally support American dominance and intervention. (Those that went to Iraq, boots and all, could hardly shun this exercise). However, Ron Paul, presumably speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, joined other Republicans and a few Democrats, who wanted nothing to do with Libya in any shape or form. John Boehner wrote that Congress "just wanted to be informed" and made a very big play about it. McCain believed we should go "all the way". John Sessons made it quite clear that the USA did not need to accept direction from the United Nations or anyone else and also focussed on the bypassing of Congress. Dick Luger, inter alia, wanted to know the cost of it all. John Bolton said that we should go in and assassinate Gadhafi. Newt Gingrich echoed what many Republicans did - advise the opposite of what Obama was doing - On March 3rd he said that Obama should support a no - fly zone and on March 22 he criticized him for doing so.
The Democrats were also at sixes and sevens. Mostly they remained silent. Jay Rockefeller expressed his reservations prominently. Dennis Kucinich believed Obama should be impeached for not getting Congress's permission for going to war.
The pundits as well, as politicians from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decision for the no - fly zone commitment, and the "extras" that came with it. They questioned the consequences if it failed to remove Gadhafi or if the Rebels turned out to be worse than Gadhafi? Or even worse, supported El Quaeda. How did we know that we wouldn't have to go in to salvage our honor and or the cause we claimed to support? Also looming large was the question as to the precedent this decision sets - do we intervene in all situations where humanitarian aid is the issue? And if we did what about the Ivory Coast or Rwanda for example? Not to mention all that was about to happen or is happening in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest.
OBAMA'S RESPONSES.
On Intervention
Obama made an unassailable case for his interventional decision. All the ducks were in a row. Gadhafi had threatened a house by house extermination of all in Bengazi. Further more, the Arab league, UN and NATO were all idem on the no fly zone.
"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."
On Consistency and Principle
However, this did not answer the criticisms of the precedent he was creating and the double standard that was patently obvious of when and when not the US should intervene. Obama's response was unashamedly frank.
"It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. …."
So there it is. It is political realism. (Come back Kissinger all is forgiven). "Our interests" is a code word, for example for oil or whether allies are involved - no way are we likely to make Bahrain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia "no fly zones" as simply as we did the odious Gadhafi regime.
It is also very difficult to argue against the dictum that every situation is different and not withstanding our desire to save the world we can only really act on behalf of "what is right" when our interests so dictate. We have officially compromised on the moral imperative. The USA de facto foreign policy has become de jure. For practical purposes that nixes any need to defend any future decision solely on the basis of morality. This may well upset some of Obama's base but c'est la vie.
On what happens if things go wrong.
No guarantee was given by Obama that Gadhafi would be gone as a result of these actions. The only guarantee was that no American soldiers would be involved. Implicit in Obama's statement is "so what if things go wrong"! We can only do what we can do. (That incidentally includes bombing the bejesus out of Gadhafi's ground forces). And of course there is a precedent for such a policy. The Cosovo intervention had exactly the same rationale. Not only did this policy stop the genocide it did so in spite of the fact that Milosovic remained in power for another two years. Also included "in only doing what we can do" is arming the rebels. Although the precedent for that is not so persuasive!
So you cannot frighten Obama with the failure to produce an outcome that he did not promise. All he promised was to keep American boots off the ground and to look at every situation "measuring our interests against the need for action."So while Obama's opponents think that there is ample room to keep their options open before going ballistic about what he did or didn't do right in Libya, the criticism may not fly because Obama needn't take the bait. He has little policy capital invested in the outcome.
In fact the whole hulabaloo has died down to such an extent that Obama could move onto a major policy speech on energy just two days later.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
All this is taking place in a New World Order. The Arab world is topsy turvy. (See earlier blogs). The citizenry have had enough. The rebellions are far spread and spontaneous and it is obvious that Obama is going to manage each situation on it's merits. Tunisia did it all on their own. With Egypt, Obama hung around till it was obvious that his "ally" Mubarak was history. The Egyptian scene required a very, very delicate balance because Obama had made a widely acclaimed speech there on freedom. All the other Middle East dominos are about to fall and Obama's campaign rhetoric and altruism will have to give way to "our interests".
The other component of the New Order is consensus. The world is getting flatter and although Obama has stated he will act unilaterally in American interests, it is obvious that he is consensus builder. He is only too happy not to be the principal and only arbiter of international order. He is foregoing the arena where America is still number one by far - military power. This has far reaching consequences - at the very least he is officially serving notice that America is not going to be the policeman of the world. This is also something that the American right will not feel comfortable about but it sets the stage for defense expenditure reductions in an economy that is in deep trouble.
There is no doubt that challenges lie ahead as the variables are many. One fact is for certain that Obama or no Obama the Arab citizenry are taking matters into their own hands. The motivation is not theocracy but basic human and civil rights, which the West have espoused. All the West can do is react to these uprisings. The waters are muddied in so far that Russia and China, at least, have other "interests" in the outcome. All this in a world where there is financial stress and unemployment everywhere..... .
To be continued.
Just a day before the "coalition" met in London together with Libyan opposition members, President Obama addressed the American nation, (and of course the world), to "explain" his rationale and foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the New World Order. It is obvious that in this New World Order, ( See blogs - Egypt and the New Future and the Middle East Domino Effect), this unstable situation can repeat itself again and again. The most important fact to remember is that neither the USA nor anyone else has started these revolts against the established order - these are all home grown.
Up till Obama's address, there had been only two, apparently contradictory, messages from his administration - "Gahdafi must go" and support of maintaining a no - fly zone that would not involve putting any American military boots on Libyan soil. This uncertain state of affairs led to a Pew survey result, prior to his speech, finding that only 47% agreed with the President's no fly decision and 36% disagreed. This is a very rare outcome for an American intervention when the whole country traditionally rallies around the President. Other than the above two policy decisions, Obama had been strangely quiet on the Libyan issue. In the last month, he had held a major policy address on the gas situation and spent a week in Brazil in the heat of decision - making time.
BROAD SPREAD CRITICISM.
This lead all and sundry having a field day attacking him from every possible direction. In fact this has proved beneficial to Obama as the opposition was all over the show and demonstrated about as much coherence as his own policies ostensibly did.
The Republicans were in the biggest quandary as they traditionally support American dominance and intervention. (Those that went to Iraq, boots and all, could hardly shun this exercise). However, Ron Paul, presumably speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, joined other Republicans and a few Democrats, who wanted nothing to do with Libya in any shape or form. John Boehner wrote that Congress "just wanted to be informed" and made a very big play about it. McCain believed we should go "all the way". John Sessons made it quite clear that the USA did not need to accept direction from the United Nations or anyone else and also focussed on the bypassing of Congress. Dick Luger, inter alia, wanted to know the cost of it all. John Bolton said that we should go in and assassinate Gadhafi. Newt Gingrich echoed what many Republicans did - advise the opposite of what Obama was doing - On March 3rd he said that Obama should support a no - fly zone and on March 22 he criticized him for doing so.
The Democrats were also at sixes and sevens. Mostly they remained silent. Jay Rockefeller expressed his reservations prominently. Dennis Kucinich believed Obama should be impeached for not getting Congress's permission for going to war.
The pundits as well, as politicians from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decision for the no - fly zone commitment, and the "extras" that came with it. They questioned the consequences if it failed to remove Gadhafi or if the Rebels turned out to be worse than Gadhafi? Or even worse, supported El Quaeda. How did we know that we wouldn't have to go in to salvage our honor and or the cause we claimed to support? Also looming large was the question as to the precedent this decision sets - do we intervene in all situations where humanitarian aid is the issue? And if we did what about the Ivory Coast or Rwanda for example? Not to mention all that was about to happen or is happening in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest.
OBAMA'S RESPONSES.
On Intervention
Obama made an unassailable case for his interventional decision. All the ducks were in a row. Gadhafi had threatened a house by house extermination of all in Bengazi. Further more, the Arab league, UN and NATO were all idem on the no fly zone.
"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."
On Consistency and Principle
However, this did not answer the criticisms of the precedent he was creating and the double standard that was patently obvious of when and when not the US should intervene. Obama's response was unashamedly frank.
"It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. …."
So there it is. It is political realism. (Come back Kissinger all is forgiven). "Our interests" is a code word, for example for oil or whether allies are involved - no way are we likely to make Bahrain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia "no fly zones" as simply as we did the odious Gadhafi regime.
It is also very difficult to argue against the dictum that every situation is different and not withstanding our desire to save the world we can only really act on behalf of "what is right" when our interests so dictate. We have officially compromised on the moral imperative. The USA de facto foreign policy has become de jure. For practical purposes that nixes any need to defend any future decision solely on the basis of morality. This may well upset some of Obama's base but c'est la vie.
On what happens if things go wrong.
No guarantee was given by Obama that Gadhafi would be gone as a result of these actions. The only guarantee was that no American soldiers would be involved. Implicit in Obama's statement is "so what if things go wrong"! We can only do what we can do. (That incidentally includes bombing the bejesus out of Gadhafi's ground forces). And of course there is a precedent for such a policy. The Cosovo intervention had exactly the same rationale. Not only did this policy stop the genocide it did so in spite of the fact that Milosovic remained in power for another two years. Also included "in only doing what we can do" is arming the rebels. Although the precedent for that is not so persuasive!
So you cannot frighten Obama with the failure to produce an outcome that he did not promise. All he promised was to keep American boots off the ground and to look at every situation "measuring our interests against the need for action."So while Obama's opponents think that there is ample room to keep their options open before going ballistic about what he did or didn't do right in Libya, the criticism may not fly because Obama needn't take the bait. He has little policy capital invested in the outcome.
In fact the whole hulabaloo has died down to such an extent that Obama could move onto a major policy speech on energy just two days later.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
All this is taking place in a New World Order. The Arab world is topsy turvy. (See earlier blogs). The citizenry have had enough. The rebellions are far spread and spontaneous and it is obvious that Obama is going to manage each situation on it's merits. Tunisia did it all on their own. With Egypt, Obama hung around till it was obvious that his "ally" Mubarak was history. The Egyptian scene required a very, very delicate balance because Obama had made a widely acclaimed speech there on freedom. All the other Middle East dominos are about to fall and Obama's campaign rhetoric and altruism will have to give way to "our interests".
The other component of the New Order is consensus. The world is getting flatter and although Obama has stated he will act unilaterally in American interests, it is obvious that he is consensus builder. He is only too happy not to be the principal and only arbiter of international order. He is foregoing the arena where America is still number one by far - military power. This has far reaching consequences - at the very least he is officially serving notice that America is not going to be the policeman of the world. This is also something that the American right will not feel comfortable about but it sets the stage for defense expenditure reductions in an economy that is in deep trouble.
There is no doubt that challenges lie ahead as the variables are many. One fact is for certain that Obama or no Obama the Arab citizenry are taking matters into their own hands. The motivation is not theocracy but basic human and civil rights, which the West have espoused. All the West can do is react to these uprisings. The waters are muddied in so far that Russia and China, at least, have other "interests" in the outcome. All this in a world where there is financial stress and unemployment everywhere..... .
To be continued.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
THE MIDDLE EAST DOMINO EFFECT
INTRODUCTION
It is barely a month since the last blog - "Egypt And The New Future" - and the Arab world has changed even more dramatically. First and foremost is the ongoing Libyan revolution which is currently center stage in the world psyche. But while the Libyan chaos is occupying all the attention the rest of the Middle East is in various states of turmoil. In short order there has been a change of government in Tunisia; Oman started paying off it's out of work citizens and the Sultan hired an additional 50,000; Saleh of Yemen clung to power firing 5 Governors and blamed Israel and America for the unrest; Even al - Malaki of Iraq gave his ministers a 100 days to deliver results or be fired; Algeria lifted it's 19 year - old State of Emergency and restrictions on free speech and assembly; Assad of Syria planned reforms that included local elections, a new media law and more power to private organizations; The Sudanese President, Omar al - Bashir, decided not to run for another term; and there also have been protests of varying degrees in Bahrain, Mauritania, Djibouti, Kuwait and Morocco. Even Israel and Palestine have made responses.
In addition the Iranian protests have continued despite the record of repressive responses meted out by the government. There have been executions, arrests and brutality yet protests continue. One cannot imagine the present regime lasting another election. One would guess that Ahmadinejad will be more soundly defeated than he was last time. What is going to be the response of the young and the women, who are the impetus of this wave of change? How will the massive army and security structure respond? Time will tell. Meantime back to the current focus of attention - Libya.
LIBYA
If one would have had to have predicted which one of the dictators would hang onto the bitter end it would have been Gadhafi. (If one would have been asked to predict three months ago that this question was even relevant the question would have invoked incredulity). Gadhafi is at best a delusional megalomaniac. It appears that a prolonged civil war is on the horizon.
That is not the dilemna that is occupying the Western and World leaders. Central to policy making at the moment is whether a continuing Gadhafi regime could be tolerated. What, also, would the political impact worldwide, if those good faith revolutionaries, who have once again spurred on from the sidelines with Western rhetoric,were to be mowed down by Gadhafi's firepower and mercenaries? This while the rest of the world stood by.
The ramifications of any decision are immense. The USA and NATO powers must have very little stomach for yet another military adventure. Even if they did how will this play back home with the current economic situation? Also the indigenous revolutionaries they might rescue may well tell the "imperialists" to go home. What makes this situation more urgent than Dafur, let us say, is oil. After all the West got rid of that tyrant Sadam really just for oil. Oil makes some type of decision imperative.
At the same time even the execution of a no fly zone over Libya is an expensive complicated exercise that will involve bombing of anti - aircraft batteries and radar at the very least. Ideally any coalition solution should include the Muslim world - the new and the old. The new - Egypt and Tunisia - are already delivering in the form of humanitarian aid. The old are insecure enough as it is but to regain any credibility in this new shakedown they should be there boots and all with humanitarian aid and be part of any coalition that will do anything vaguely military.
The no fly option must become more and more a reality with the continuing bombing by Gadhafi's unopposed air force. However for whatever reasons China and Russia are sure to be opposed thus adding to the diplomatic nightmare.
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
How this all impacts the Palestinian territories of the West bank and Gaza is really an enigma. Both Hamas and Fatah suppressed pro Egyptian revolutionary demonstrations. This obviously out of fear that such expressions of solidarity of revolution may make the protestors look even harder at their own ineffectual governments. The central issue among the protestors is not, for the moment, Israel but rather the Hamas and Fatah leadership. A rally is organized for March 15, 2010 to demand that the political leadership of the two groups no longer stay divided. This seems a pretty tall order. Neither of the two are likely to risk weakening their positions. Reports say that Hamas are not interested in elections for the present as polls indicate that their position is weak. Fatah are not going to risk expanding the PLO unless it can be sure that it will remain dominant and so it goes..
Also Hamas is a "terrorist" organization with not much bona fides anywhere. This even in the eyes of the new Egyptian regime who have not opened their borders to Gaza. Abbas, according to Wikileaks was in the process of selling out to Israel so his stocks cannot be to high. So this does not look too good for anyone other than Israel. While the central issue among protestors is the incompetence of their own regimes Israel must remain on the back burner and that is why it is in Israeli interests to negotiate and compromise from strength. Rather work out solutions while not under pressure, and, this Netanyahu has decided to do. On March 2, 2011 he suggested the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state with temporary borders for the moment, as part of an interim peace agreement. There is also a commitment that the eventual borders would be aligned with those that preceded the 1966/1967 war. Netanyahu has his own problems too with the right.
So there is yet another smoldering melting pot behind the scenes.
OBSERVATIONS
The major fear, that we were bracing for a holy war by a united radical Muslim world led by el Quada, has been put to rest. These revolutions are for democracy and not totalitarian theocracy. They, for the most part involve the youth and women. El Quada, have for practical purposes, been sidelined. There is nought for their comfort in this turn of events. Iran's hope of leading the Muslim world must be coming more and more of a dream. Who would like to import their totalitarianism? However the chickens are coming home to roost with regard to the West's oily support of the Arab world dictators. It is obvious, that whatever new regimes come into place they will not have the same cozy relationship that the dictatorships had with the West. The West had and still has an enabling relationship with the oil states. Gadhafi was redeemed in the name of oil and got his Lockabee bomber back to boot.
The immediate key to this is Saudi Arabia the world's greatest provider of oil. The million and a half barrels that Libya produces can easily be made up by them. They too have a repressive regime. Of all the Arab States the toppling of the current leadership would be regressive as the theocrats, there. believe the king and his son are too liberal.
So each day brings a new wrinkle and a new scenario.
To be continued.
It is barely a month since the last blog - "Egypt And The New Future" - and the Arab world has changed even more dramatically. First and foremost is the ongoing Libyan revolution which is currently center stage in the world psyche. But while the Libyan chaos is occupying all the attention the rest of the Middle East is in various states of turmoil. In short order there has been a change of government in Tunisia; Oman started paying off it's out of work citizens and the Sultan hired an additional 50,000; Saleh of Yemen clung to power firing 5 Governors and blamed Israel and America for the unrest; Even al - Malaki of Iraq gave his ministers a 100 days to deliver results or be fired; Algeria lifted it's 19 year - old State of Emergency and restrictions on free speech and assembly; Assad of Syria planned reforms that included local elections, a new media law and more power to private organizations; The Sudanese President, Omar al - Bashir, decided not to run for another term; and there also have been protests of varying degrees in Bahrain, Mauritania, Djibouti, Kuwait and Morocco. Even Israel and Palestine have made responses.
In addition the Iranian protests have continued despite the record of repressive responses meted out by the government. There have been executions, arrests and brutality yet protests continue. One cannot imagine the present regime lasting another election. One would guess that Ahmadinejad will be more soundly defeated than he was last time. What is going to be the response of the young and the women, who are the impetus of this wave of change? How will the massive army and security structure respond? Time will tell. Meantime back to the current focus of attention - Libya.
LIBYA
If one would have had to have predicted which one of the dictators would hang onto the bitter end it would have been Gadhafi. (If one would have been asked to predict three months ago that this question was even relevant the question would have invoked incredulity). Gadhafi is at best a delusional megalomaniac. It appears that a prolonged civil war is on the horizon.
That is not the dilemna that is occupying the Western and World leaders. Central to policy making at the moment is whether a continuing Gadhafi regime could be tolerated. What, also, would the political impact worldwide, if those good faith revolutionaries, who have once again spurred on from the sidelines with Western rhetoric,were to be mowed down by Gadhafi's firepower and mercenaries? This while the rest of the world stood by.
The ramifications of any decision are immense. The USA and NATO powers must have very little stomach for yet another military adventure. Even if they did how will this play back home with the current economic situation? Also the indigenous revolutionaries they might rescue may well tell the "imperialists" to go home. What makes this situation more urgent than Dafur, let us say, is oil. After all the West got rid of that tyrant Sadam really just for oil. Oil makes some type of decision imperative.
At the same time even the execution of a no fly zone over Libya is an expensive complicated exercise that will involve bombing of anti - aircraft batteries and radar at the very least. Ideally any coalition solution should include the Muslim world - the new and the old. The new - Egypt and Tunisia - are already delivering in the form of humanitarian aid. The old are insecure enough as it is but to regain any credibility in this new shakedown they should be there boots and all with humanitarian aid and be part of any coalition that will do anything vaguely military.
The no fly option must become more and more a reality with the continuing bombing by Gadhafi's unopposed air force. However for whatever reasons China and Russia are sure to be opposed thus adding to the diplomatic nightmare.
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
How this all impacts the Palestinian territories of the West bank and Gaza is really an enigma. Both Hamas and Fatah suppressed pro Egyptian revolutionary demonstrations. This obviously out of fear that such expressions of solidarity of revolution may make the protestors look even harder at their own ineffectual governments. The central issue among the protestors is not, for the moment, Israel but rather the Hamas and Fatah leadership. A rally is organized for March 15, 2010 to demand that the political leadership of the two groups no longer stay divided. This seems a pretty tall order. Neither of the two are likely to risk weakening their positions. Reports say that Hamas are not interested in elections for the present as polls indicate that their position is weak. Fatah are not going to risk expanding the PLO unless it can be sure that it will remain dominant and so it goes..
Also Hamas is a "terrorist" organization with not much bona fides anywhere. This even in the eyes of the new Egyptian regime who have not opened their borders to Gaza. Abbas, according to Wikileaks was in the process of selling out to Israel so his stocks cannot be to high. So this does not look too good for anyone other than Israel. While the central issue among protestors is the incompetence of their own regimes Israel must remain on the back burner and that is why it is in Israeli interests to negotiate and compromise from strength. Rather work out solutions while not under pressure, and, this Netanyahu has decided to do. On March 2, 2011 he suggested the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state with temporary borders for the moment, as part of an interim peace agreement. There is also a commitment that the eventual borders would be aligned with those that preceded the 1966/1967 war. Netanyahu has his own problems too with the right.
So there is yet another smoldering melting pot behind the scenes.
OBSERVATIONS
The major fear, that we were bracing for a holy war by a united radical Muslim world led by el Quada, has been put to rest. These revolutions are for democracy and not totalitarian theocracy. They, for the most part involve the youth and women. El Quada, have for practical purposes, been sidelined. There is nought for their comfort in this turn of events. Iran's hope of leading the Muslim world must be coming more and more of a dream. Who would like to import their totalitarianism? However the chickens are coming home to roost with regard to the West's oily support of the Arab world dictators. It is obvious, that whatever new regimes come into place they will not have the same cozy relationship that the dictatorships had with the West. The West had and still has an enabling relationship with the oil states. Gadhafi was redeemed in the name of oil and got his Lockabee bomber back to boot.
The immediate key to this is Saudi Arabia the world's greatest provider of oil. The million and a half barrels that Libya produces can easily be made up by them. They too have a repressive regime. Of all the Arab States the toppling of the current leadership would be regressive as the theocrats, there. believe the king and his son are too liberal.
So each day brings a new wrinkle and a new scenario.
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)