Afghanistan

Image via Wikipedia

There isn't, as a general rule, a problem with President Obama taking time to decide the best course of action in Afghanistan. The problem is he left the country, our allies, and most importantly Afghanistan with the distinct impression that he already decided on one -a full blown counter-insurgency lead by General McChrystal with 17,000 extra combat troops complimented with 4,000 troops to train and equip the Afghan military as part of the Combined Security Transition Command—Afghanistan, and the impression he had the resolve to commit more troops if needed. 

For those who have read the CNAS report "Triage" (.pdf) (Highly recommended), a good sense of the course of action that the US and NATO allies would be taking was already understood. In extreme essence: solidify (stabilize and strengthen what you have through more training), take (remove insurgents), hold (build up, stabilize, and strengthen), and build out (repeat steps 2 & 3).

Now while Sen. Lieberman is right to point out that we’ve only now “begun the first serious national debate about Afghanistan: whether we should be there and what we should be doing there. In that regard, it’s entirely appropriate that the president is deliberating.” it also side steps the fact that Candidate and President Obama already showed no desire to have a discussion over the importance of continuing on in Afghanistan and what he's allowing now, curiously in a public fashion, is which is the best course of action in staying in Afghanistan.
Secretary of Defense Gates may have already shown his hand in how he feels about Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops. As covered here, Mr. Gates has already told Congress in his Senate Armed Services Committee Q&A that he'd "be highly skeptical of any additional troops above the 21,000."

"Afghan people must believe this is there war and we are there to help them…if they think we are there for our own purposes, then we will go the same way as every other foreign army that has been in Afghan, period," said Gates at one point.

This is why Vice President Biden's argument to maintain or even lesson the U.S footprint in Afghanistan is counterproductive to the necessary goal of keeping public opinion on the U.S./NATO side as opposed to supporting the Taliban. Not only that, but one of the key arguments being made by Vice President Biden among others, Sen. Carl Levin for one, that a stronger and more able Afghan Army as well as national Police Force is what is needed and would prefer that over more U.S. troops. Is it not understood that with more troops the quicker both institutions can be trained?

One thing that has to stop is our training of the Afghan Army to be a lesser version of our military but instead a better version of itself. As explained in this Bruce Rolston post (h/t to this Judah Grunstien post):

Because the Afghan army holds no ground by itself, because our troops are interspersed with theirs, we always need to know where they are. Which means we always need to be with them. Which means their forces have to operate to the same levels of force protection as ours, to protect those mentors or partnered troops. Which means all those kinds of tactics that good irregular troops can do, and which in other contexts Afghans can excel at, is not on the table.

No one honest enough about Afghanistan would even try to deny that no amount of NATO or U.S. troops can make up for the rampant corruption in the Afghan government or the massive fraud in the most recent election. Nor would any student of history deny that "...combat operations conducted in a political vacuum are worthless. Tactical successes mean nothing unless the Karzai government is sustainable, which is very doubtful."

As for the Afghans, they back winners. Taliban leaders and Afghan warlords watch CNN. They know how frail western commitment has become, how sour public opinion is. To have any chance of success, Nato troops need to fight and accept losses for years. It is unlikely that the patience of their own nations will match that of their enemies on the battlefield. Only a dramatic improvement in the quality of Kabul governance might change this equation.

Hence why having such a public debate, with unacceptably excessive anonymous leaks out of the White House, while refreshing from an American leadership sense is counterproductive to our stated goal in Afghanistan. This write up of two seperate interviews with Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy illustrates why:

Strategy meetings and conversations on the war were a facade, Bundy said. "The principal players do not engage in anything you can really call an exchange of views. . . . That was prevented by him, and the process he used was really for show and not for choice." ..... "I am absolutely positive that most leaders wish to avoid confrontation among their senior people, particularly in front of them," McNamara said. "And that's a serious weakness. I think every leader should force his senior people to confront major issues in front of him." ..... Throughout their interviews, McNamara and Bundy grappled with the extent to which senior officials should go public with their views about an ongoing war. "There are limitations on what the secretary can say publicly," McNamara said, adding that if a top official comes forward with bad news, "you don't just tell your own people, you tell the enemy. . . . You don't want the enemy being told . . . that the senior officials believe the U.S. is losing." ..... When asked if the public had a right to know, McNamara replied: "It isn't that I doubt the public had a right to know, as much as it is that I have serious doubts of how frank the senior officers, military and diplomatic, can be in a government in war. Because it exposes to the enemy views that can strengthen them."

From this Abu Muqawama post, this quote of Amb. Richard Holbrooke in this George Packer profile of him reemphasizes the point:

[Y]ou want open airing of views and opinions and suggestions upward, but once the policy's decided you want rigorous, disciplined implementation of it. And very often in the government the exact opposite happens. People sit in a room, they don't air their real differences, a false and sloppy consensus papers over those underlying differences, and they go back to their offices and continue to work at cross purposes, even actively undermining each other.

Two key issues in Gen. McChrystal's report, both of which would need to be addressed whether President Obama accepts the recommendation or goes with something more along the lines of Vice President Biden, are apparently already under reconstruction. Vice Admiral Robert Harward, a former Navy Seal, will be revamping U.S. detention polices while Lt. Gen. William Caldwell will now oversee the training mission in Afghanistan. Both have been long standing issues hampering our movement forward.

With respect to U.S. detention policy, currently moderate and extremist detainees are allowed to mingle freely. U.S. officials are just now finishing the construction of a new detention facility at the sprawling Bagram Air Base, near Kabul, which will have separate holding areas for moderate and extremist detainees. Adm. Harward and his deputy, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, will work to implement practices first honed in Iraq that try to rehabilitate detainees by teaching them moderate Islam, literacy and vocational skills.

Consistent in criticisms and frustrations with the past eight and a half years has been the lack of cohesion between U.S. and NATO training of Afghan forces. That too is now addressed:

In his classified assessment, Gen. McChrystal called for more than doubling the size of the Afghan army and national police force, which he described as key components of any effort to beat back the Taliban and gradually stabilize Afghanistan.

At the same time, Gen. McChrystal was harshly critical of Western efforts to train Afghan security forces, which he said had been slowed by a lack of coordination between parallel U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization training programs.

Gen. Caldwell will be sent to Kabul as a "dual-hatted" commander charged with overseeing both the U.S. training command and a newly established entity called the NATO Training Mission -- Afghanistan.

Gen. Caldwell, a West Point classmate of Gen. McChrystal, runs the Command and General Staff College, a finishing school for elite officers, and a network of Army training programs across the U.S. Last fall, he wrote a new Army field manual that focused heavily on how to train foreign militaries and security forces.

Read more...

If I hear one more time...

Image via Wikipedia

...that President Obama is taking on too much I'm going to go nuts. Why in the world does the executive branch have so many branch's in it if not to handle more than one thing at a time? Why in the world does the legislative branch have committee's and sub-committee's if not to handle more than one thing at a time?

Let's take health care reform. Somehow not doing anything makes sense because of the current economy and the economy is all that President Obama should be focused on. We hear this from countless analysts, pundits, news anchors, etc. Now yes, neither party's leadership is talking about doing nothing even if a lot of Republican's, elected officials (not the leaders or more senior members) and media pundits alike, have made the case it can't be done now.

Both parties have agreed on anywhere from 75-90% of how best to lower costs -ways that have been talked about for decades. Health care reform isn't starting from ground zero, countless health reform bills have been written over the years and we've already seen potential reform bills given to the CBO. Now it may not happen as quickly as President Obama has asked for but the fact is, based on how far the reform debate and various bills have come, this isn't out of the realm of possibility nor somehow counter productive to the growth of the economy.

Now time will tell which version of health care reform will pass and how good or bad it'll be for the country but when health care represents 1/6 of the U.S. economy, focusing on health care is focusing on the economy.

Drew Altman, Ph.D., President and CEO of Kaiser Family Foundation added a key perspective on his blog:

But the number itself could use some perspective. Expressed as a ten-year cost, one trillion dollars is a big, perhaps scary number. But we are also talking about reforming one sixth of our economy, and over the next ten years it would represent about half of one percent of projected GDP, under three percent of projected health spending, and about two and one-half percent of total federal spending. That is still a lot, and some may legitimately value other national priorities more highly, including deficit reduction, but in return we would reform health care, cover the bulk of the uninsured (projected by CBO to reach 54 million by 2019 and by others to go higher), and give Americans peace of mind about their health insurance.

Read more...

Global Warming Controversy?

Image via Wikipedia

Some punditry, as usual, are up in arms that an economist and physicist (notice not an environmentalist) in the EPA had his challenge of global warming (a misleading phrase in and of itself) suppressed. Currently temperatures are tracking downward but when you look at the historic temperatures it has climbed ever since 1880 with periods of time experiencing down years while always moving on an upward trajectory.

Now, Al Gore and some politicians do like to go too far in their grandstanding but at what point do the biggest big business, "drill baby, drill" supporters acknowledge that even Shell, BP, and Chevron have global warming sections on their sites and are doing everything they can to help fix it?

It'd be nice though if those that argue it isn't man made (which it isn't entirely man made) and/or that even if it is, it's too late, would accept that almost every country in the world, two different political administrations, and almost all international science agencies as well as all international energy companies are talking about trying to fix global warming -or at least slow down its pace. They could also Google and read countless science reports (you'll have to sift through the article links to get to the actual reports) that explain it and present all the facts.

Read more...

Washington Post Editors Get it Wrong on Iraq -Again

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

First of all, thank you to all of our troops serving in Iraq (as well as elsewhere abroad) especially those whom I know personally. Congratulations on reaching a milestone that hopefully leads down a path that all can be proud of -Iraqi's and American's alike.

This editorial in the Washington Post on Iraq incredulously claims that President Obama is "neglecting" Iraq. Mentioning meddling by Iran, al-Qaeda coming in through the border on Syria, and the various issues with the Kurd's, they make this bewildering claim:

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. al-Maliki tend to play down these concerns -- but then, both have political motives to do so. Mr. Obama wants to stick to the withdrawal timetable that he outlined several months ago and that was an early foundation of his presidential campaign. Mr. al-Maliki wants to appear, ahead of upcoming parliamentary elections, as a strong leader and champion of Iraqi nationalism. Both are consequently inclined to minimize the continuing problems of terrorism and political discord and to take risks in pressing forward with the U.S. drawdown.

Now yes, both are sticking to the SOFA agreement made between Mr. al-Maliki and former President Bush but they're doing so because it has reached the point where Iraqi's and only Iraqi's can determine their destiny from here on -not because of some wish that things weren't as bad as they are. No one is downplaying anything. If U.S. troops were to stay simply because violence is taking place or it'll get worse as U.S. troops pull out, America would never leave. U.S. troops make up 130,000, Iraqi troops and security forces are 700,000+. At some point the 700,000+ need to be as capable as 130,000. Obviously Iraq not having an air force and only just now taking delivery of its first patrol ship means that it won't literally be as capable as the U.S. Military but in terms of on the street security, it can only get where it needs to be through experience. Most troops on the ground and many Commanders do feel it is a little premature but acknowledge that all of the problems that are to arise would no matter when U.S. troops started drawing down. The feeling that it is a little premature is due to confidence in the training of Iraqi forces, not in what will happen during the drawdown or a belief that the Iraqi people won’t work things out themselves one way or the other.

The editors do make the exhausted claim that the U.S. must help Iraq settle the Kirkuk issue, which U.S. administration's have tried to do since political reconciliation started in Iraq. Kirkuk though is a severe challenge on the constitutional front. Although the U.S. must help where it can in resolving the issue, the U.N. is running frontman on the issue with its Assistance Mission for Iraq having initiated rounds of talks to save the north from a potential cross-border war, the struggle over the future status of the northern city of Kirkuk has entered its decisive phase. Failure could lead to the ultimate disintegration of Iraq but as noted in an Economist article, by a Western diplomat: "The trouble is, doing nothing in Kirkuk is almost as bad as doing something," The inter-Iraqi feud over Kirkuk is exacerbated by external actors with the Turkish government seeing itself as a protector of Iraq's Turkoman population.

Although for now they remain committed to a non-violent solution, Iraq's political factions have maneuvered into a no-win stalemate on Kirkuk from which they seem unable to extricate themselves. Consequently, they ought to be provided with an alternative means to save face by a neutral third party. Toward that end, UNAMI's proposal proves the most viable option put forward in years. ... Over the coming weeks, while carefully maintaining the appearance of an honest broker, Washington should try to back UNAMI's suggestions with balanced incentives and carefully applied pressure.

The Iraq Army and U.S. troops have been fighting (and will "indefinitely") to eliminate militants in Kirkuk since the start of June of this year. U.S. troops can only continue to provide security while American engagement has taken political reconciliation only as far as a non-Iraqi, non-Sunni/Shiite, non-Kurd government can. This article has an interesting quote:

Yet even Kurdish politicians, who welcomed the Americans as liberators more than any other Iraqi group, mostly agree it is time for them to leave urban areas.
"Those divides between communities would be there even if the Americans stayed," said Mahmoud Othman, senior lawmaker from the main Kurdish alliance in parliament.
"It's between Iraqis. If they can't get together and solve their problems, what can the Americans do?"

Mushriq 'Abbas filed a report for al-Hatay on Kurdistan (via IraqSlogger but no link to the report, info taken from this article) reporting that in Kurdistan, the two mainstream Kurdish parties, KDP and PUK, are most likely not going to hold onto the 90% of seats they won in the 2005 elections. The Kurdish leader is being challenged by an ex-friend and comrade in Nusherwan Mustapha, who seceded from the party and is now waging a campaign under the slogans of "reform" and "change" (Obama and McCain's campaigns ruined those terms for this blogger).

It isn't only up to the U.S. to help Iraq reconcile its internal differences and reintegrate with rest of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia for one, as well as other Sunni dominated Middle East countries need to come off the fences.

At a recent forum on U.S.-Saudi relations in Washington, D.C., current and former Saudi officials decried the previous U.S. administration's Middle East policies. Yet in shunning the Shiite-dominated government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a regime they deem inimical to their interests, the Saudis -- along with other Sunni Arab regimes -- appear to have internalized the core foreign policy impulse of the Bush administration.

This myopic approach has had the perverse effect of amplifying Iran's already outsized influence in Iraq and throughout the region. It has also fueled Iraqi suspicions about the intentions of its Sunni Arab neighbors, hindering the reintegration of Iraq into the Arab world.
...it (U.S.) has increased pressure on Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to begin normalizing relations with Iraq. On his recent trip to the region, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reiterated his appeal to Riyadh and Cairo to appoint ambassadors to Baghdad.
Iraq's recent posting of an ambassador to Riyadh, its first since 1991, offers an opportunity for reciprocal steps by the Saudis and a way to move beyond the Saudi-Iraqi tensions on display at the latest Arab summit in Doha. But so far, Washington's appeals have met with little success, jeopardizing its broader diplomatic efforts to establish regional stability. (Emphasis' added)

The Obama Administration is already re-establishing diplomatic ties with Syria with the most immediate goal most likely an agreement to crack down better along the Syria/Iraq border even after Iraq and America already asked Syria to prevent al-Qa'ida and Baathist insurgent groups from launching a wave of attacks.
Regarding future U.S./Iraq relations from this point on:

Delaying withdrawals because of recent bombings would have given insurgents veto power over U.S. actions. More perilously, it would have conceded a key strategic goal of the ongoing insurgency by undercutting the legitimacy of the Iraqi government as sovereign over Iraqi territory. It would also have undermined U.S. credibility in the region at a time when the Obama administration is seeking buy-in and support for its ambitious regional agenda from partners in the Arab world.
Unfortunately, the improved security and accompanying degree of normalcy that has returned to many areas of the country has allowed complacency and overconfidence to set in among Iraqi political actors, frustrating significant political progress. ... U.S. influence over the nature and pace of the Iraqi political process has considerably diminished and will wane even more as forces draw down. But it is not insignificant.
In light of current political realities in Iraq, the U.S. role going forward must necessarily be less obtrusive, predicated on diplomatic means, and focused on bolstering United Nations-led efforts at brokering political compromise. ...
...The upcoming January 2010 national parliamentary elections, which will continue to polarize politics and ratchet up rhetorical differences, will only complicate the task. A series of political breakthroughs in the midst of what will be a hard-fought contest for political supremacy is hard to imagine. In fact, the current political dynamics are likely to skew political rivalries and complicate future negotiations.

Or as Judah Grunstien put it in his blog:

The questions regarding Iraq's future remain both political and unanswered. If political identity congeals around some functioning incarnation of a state, democratic or otherwise, there will be stability. If, on the other hand, political identity congeals around the incoherent violence that continues even now, then the sporadic attacks will take shape as a coherent movement, signaling a return to ethno-sectarian war.
(A different post)The resemblance to what we're likely to leave behind in Iraq is obvious, and reflects the fact that when you militarize the political alchemy of nation-building (i.e., COIN), you end up with a nation heavily weighted towards the security -- as opposed to the civil -- sector.

Don't know what else the U.S. can do besides continue to provide security to allow advancement and maneuverability through such political issues. Plus, if the U.S. keeps rushing back in with troops, all you're doing is maintaining a status quo by keeping the Iraq nation "heavily weighted towards the security" that has to be allowed to end someday.

Read more...

Iran: The Syria Lens w/Saudi Arabia (and Lebanon)

Image via Wikipedia

Nothing can excuse or defend the actions being taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran's current regime and it's clear that those who are demanding a "stronger stance" against the current violence are really demanding US troops be put on the ground in Iran and to force regime change -something no country in the entire world, currently, has the political desire or the troops to do considering NATO is over extended as is the US military. Not to mention that none of the opposition leaders have asked for outside assistance.

That being said, the timing of President Obama reinstating a U.S. Ambassador to Syria shows that he's already hedging his bet that this uprising won’t succeed, or at the very least that if it does, it'll be a long term situation. It is also part of his sustained push to improve relations, mend fences, with the Arab world but the timing is important to notice here. Although President Obama and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton sent two high level diplomats to Syria in March to try and change Syrian/American relations through "preliminary conversations", those conversations didn't just happen to come to fruition in the midst of the ongoing violence.

With former Sen. George Mitchell and current Special Envoy for the Obama administration's efforts for Middle East peace with Israel having visited Syria (seen as a key player in this administration in any future peace involving Israel) and Lebanon it appears that President Obama may have already determined that to hamper Iran's growing influence in the region, as well as the world, the U.S. must cut off its outside terrorist networks in Hezbollah and Hamas, starting with Hezbollah by taking advantage of Hezbollah's unexpected losses in the Lebanese elections to a U.S. backed majority which some have said were a broader regional affair. The Obama administration seems to be hoping that's the reality despite some observers making a strong case that the Lebanon elections were the most corrupt ever with the hundreds of millions of dollars that was spent in the elections by Saudi Arabia alone (both links via this article on WPR, sub. req.). With one adviser to the Saudi government saying “We’re supporting candidates running against Hezbollah, and we’re going to make Iran feel the pressure” it explains why the Saudi Arabian media is now taking an anti-Iranian government slant with Lebanon media following suit; meanwhile Syrian media is supporting the outcome in Iran as is. This assessment of Saudi Arabian feelings is very apt:

I think a Gulf Arab conclusion is that the problems, the threats they face from Iran, aren’t about the Shah, they’re not about Ayatollah Khomenei, and they’re not about Mohammad Khatami or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They’re about the traditional imperial ambition emanating from Tehran.

The view of many in the Gulf is that the United States may play a more prominent role in the Gulf or a less prominent role in the Gulf, but whatever happens, the Iranians will still be there.

They could also be worried about the numerous sleeper cells in Saudi Arabia that haven't been dealt with. In the same sleeper cell article, this jumped out:

Arab countries will have no independent role in the anticipated confrontation between the West and Iran. Arab countries will only contribute what the West designates for them. The West needs a united and stable Arab front; therefore, the United States will work hard to solve all the issues impeding a united Middle Eastern front against Iran. Jadallah claims the attempt to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict is evident in Israel’s conciliatory gestures toward Syria. An Israeli-Syrian peace deal would end the strategic Syrian-Iranian alliance, although Hezbollah would remain the biggest threat to Israel if war breaks out with Iran.

The cells, as well as the situation in Iran, explain Saudi Arabia contemplating buying more aircraft and satellite-guided bombs from the U.S. and Britain. The satellite-guided bombs could also be a signal that if it comes down to it, it won't be Israel taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

It seems in the Obama administrations' goals to connect (sub. to WPR req.) all of the Middle East problems by including the Near East and South Asia together in order to establish Middle East peace rather than focus on just Israel-Palestine or just Afghanistan-Pakistan, they're viewing flipping Syria into an ally and strengthening Saudi Arabia's influence in the region (plus other measures like putting pressure on India-Pakistan to thaw relations) as central to that -on top of taking advantage of the Lebanon election results. If this strategic view works it would go a long way to marginalizing Hezbollah -as long as reestablishing ties with Venezuela leads to help with cracking down on Hezbollah cells in South America.

Hopefully the ambassadors won’t merely be friends but instead real diplomats with legitimate political credentials. It is smart to consider the isolation inflation of Syria's importance but I'm not sure what other cards are available at the moment with this article (via Syria Comment) noting:

The United States is moving quickly to normalize relations with Syria, and there’s talk of working with the Saudis to draw elements of the radical Palestinian group Hamas away from its Iranian patrons, toward a coalition government that would be prepared to negotiate with Israel.
…It has, of course, long been a dream of some Israelis and allies of Israel that they could “flip” Syria away from its sturdy, 30-year alliance with Iran. “Peeling them away” is a less crude and possibly more nuanced version of the same idea.

Maybe all along the Obama administration viewed weakening Iran from the outside while talking directly with it as a winning strategy and they aren't going to allow the current situation to change that course.

Read more...

The C.I.A.

Fundamentally, it just isn't good policy to have counter intelligence discussion on a national level or, and probably most importantly, internationally. It doesn't make any sense for your average Jane or Joe to have a say in what the CIA does to keep this country safe. That isn't said to condone water boarding or other methods of interrogation that was used post-9/11 but rather, what does the everyday American know about the intelligence community?


We elect our government officials to determine what policies are best to keep this country safe. National security simply isn't health care or education or energy. It isn't something that directly affects the quality of everyday life. Yes, when something as unbelievably tragic as 9/11 or any other terrorist plot is pulled off it effects all of those who lose a family member and/or are injured and it certainly effects everyone's feeling of safety. That said, it is solely the failure of the intelligence community (or success of the terrorist, however one wishes to look at it) that brings what they do into the everyday life.

Health care, (lack of) an energy policy, and a sub-par education system not only effects but determines the future of a country. They are things people should have a say in because they personally feel it when oil prices are high or when health insurance is lost or the school you're sending your kid(s) to isn't good. Public debate of these things creates awareness and puts pressure on politicians as well as the private sector to fix the problems.

It is comical to watch talking pundits on TV or in the print or internet media, people who have never worked in the intelligence community at any level, argue that either A) The Bush administration's policies made us safer or B) They made us less safe. That isn't anything any of them would know. Now occasionally the public is fortunate enough to have people who have worked in the intelligence community give their opinions but even then, there is much disagreement.

The truth is that no one will ever know, not even those who did the interrogations, whether we would've eventually gotten the information we got without resorting to such tactics. The policy argument -separate from the legal arguments being made- is simply an argument around theory. Once history has been written it cannot be re-written. Facts never change (even if the spin does).


"In all things, one must consider the end." ~John Adams

Read more...

Republican Messaging

Anytime a political party decides to take to the ground and talk with regular everyday American's, that's a good thing. Shifting values or core beliefs, in terms of a political party's stance for political expediency is never a good thing. The party doesn't need to moderate (except its tone) so much as just finally talk substantively about what plans they have for the United States. If they shift on gay marriage for instance, they're just the Democrat party and this country already has one of those -it also ignores the large part of this country that doesn't support gay-marriage; those people deserve a political party that represents their beliefs. That isn't to say the Republican leadership shouldn't be more accepting of those Republican's that do support gay marriage, like the Representative in either Oklahoma or Kentucky (name escapes me) who's campaign slogan was "God, Guns, and Gay's".

Those in the middle and/or on the fence of the Republican Party (as in lean right but turned off by some things) aren't going to go to a party that talks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. That isn't to say they aren't substantive in their opinions or beliefs but they just aren't elected officials that come up with plans or write legislation -that is to say they don't add substance to the policy debate. (Neither does Olbermann or Maddow.) They do their job in terms of asking the tough questions of the Obama administration and expressing a substantial amount of American's views that don't support the Democrat agenda but they spend 80% of their time attacking and maybe 20% presenting actual conservative policy.

As we've covered on this blog, there has been a Republican budget offered and they did put forward a different stimulus package. Instead of hammering away, although they did talk about both here and there, they didn't keep the debate on the difference in policy. It isn't enough anymore to simply say "instead of all of this growth of government, we need to be shrinking government". Today voters want more substance, they want to know: Okay, what is Policy R going to do for me that Policy D isn't?

Health Care
It is pretty obvious that the United States understands the Republican Party is against any form of socialized medicine but when have they put forth a policy that expands health coverage and lowers costs? More specifically, when has their version of health care reform been the topic of discussion when a Republican is doing a TV interview or writing an Op-Ed? Representative Eric Cantor dodged around a very direct question regarding how would the Republican Party fix health care in America by Mike Barnacle on Morning Joe the other day. Rather than tip-toe, have a policy idea ready and be very clear in how the Republican Party would fix health care.

Energy
Much to the dismay of the base of the Democrat party, the majority of American's support the Republican policy stance of "all of the above". Where is the actual legislation debate? Where is the legislation coming from? Why when a Republican energy bill that includes "all of the above" introduced, why isn't that a talking point every Republican when they go on TV being asked to put forth?

Education
This is a little harder because President Obama is fairly center on education. He supports teaching standards and charter schools, two absolute bedrocks of Republican education policy. Any political junkie knows where both parties stand on any issue but does the everyday American actually know the difference between Republican and Democrat education policy? If we go by rhetoric/talking points that make the news cycle, even on FOX News, all you hear is private schools, charter schools which almost no one knows what they actually are other than a form of privatized schools, and teacher standards. That isn't enough.

Messaging
In the end, what it comes down to is that Republican's are spending too much time attacking rather than comparing and contrasting. Everyone at this point knows the core beliefs of the Republican Party, maybe it'd help to have everyone know what their plans/policies are and have it explained to them why they're better. In the end, the voters will decide.


"In all things, one must consider the end." ~John Adams

Read more...

National Parties

A lot of times when pundits and writers, everyone really, talk about either the Democrat or Republican party they talk as if they're a national body only. The truth is that both parties are made up of elected representatives of a given district or half a state (Senators). When either party attacks an elected official in its own party for not towing the party line, they're far more often attacking that official for voting in a way that best represents the voters that put her/him there.

Part of the problem is also this rule of politics that says you must run to the base in a primary but the middle in a general. This is how parties are able to run an elected official out of office when they grow unhappy with his/her vote or multiple votes on various things.

Take Sen. Lieberman whom the Democrats tried taking out in a primary run off because the base of the party would obviously choose someone less (or not at all) supportive of the war in Iraq. Now if Sen. Lieberman hadn't chosen to technically leave the party so he could run as an Independent, the voters of his state would've had to choose between someone more liberal and in line with the base of the Democratic party or someone more conservative, a Republican candidate. Clearly the voters of his state wanted him. They wouldn't have re-elected him otherwise. If the Democrats had succeeded, the voters would've been less pleased with one of their Senators but one of the two parties would've been happier because they would've been able to better close ranks.

Let us look at the debate over the Republican's under attack for voting for the Recovery Act. They were elected to represent there voters. They voted in a way that they felt best represented said voters. The Republican leadership in Washington is already moving to run them off in a primary, as seen with Sen. Specter. (For the record, why anyone has any respect left for him is beyond this writer.) The reason Sen. Specter was losing horribly in a Republican primary challenge is simple: He isn't a base Republican. The proof that he will have voted in the interests of his voters will be if he wins re-election as a Democrat. Now, if the Democrats challenge him in a primary, unless he is able to raise his own money and do what Lieberman did, Sen. Specter's career is over. He doesn't fit either side’s base. (In truth, behind closed doors, if the Democrats didn't know they'd look like immense hypocrites, they'd love to challenge him in a primary.)

If Sen. Snowe wasn't someone that voted with the Republican party at least 2/3+ of the time, it'd make sense for Republican's to want her out (why would anyone be with a party if they're only voting the party line 50% of the time anyway?) but Republican's (and Democrats) should solely be concerned with this: Is our party member representing her/his voters? Maybe from time to time on a big issue, Sen. Snowe or Sen. Specter wasn't voting party line, but look at Sen. McCain who outraged the Republican base on immigration reform (and looks to be willing to do it again). Sometimes party members do what they feel is right and/or what they feel represents the will of their voters.

We could also look at the base of the Democratic parties' attacks on the Blue Dog Democrats or fiscal conservative Democrats lead by Sen. Bayh of Indiana. The base doesn't care what the price tag is (or at least isn't talking like they do). They simply attack because they somehow believe that spending less on the same agenda President Obama has put forward is somehow blocking President Obama's agenda. They attack those Democrats that have legitimate concerns over the much talked about Cap-and-Trade program this administration wants to implement. These elected officials have voters and they have unions and business representatives to answer to. They'd like to keep their job. They can't afford to tow the party line if it costs them there seat in Washington -just as important it could just as well cost the Democratic Party the seat there by lessoning the overall power Democrats have in Washington.

Health care is another prime example. Base Democrats either want Sweden or Canada style health care or at the very least, some form of Government run health insurance. The problem is that about 95% of Republican's are against any Government health care that isn't already in existence (and even some that is). Well, let’s break it down this way: The general election was essentially 52/48. So right away you have between 40-45% against any form of government run health care. We'll say anywhere from 25-30% want a single payer socialized health system. The other 25-30% just wants health care fixed with about half or more of that 25-30% not wanting it fixed through more taxes -which is how a new government health insurance plan would be funded. When you look at it that way and you figure that some Democrat officials come from states that Sen. McCain won and/or fairly conservative parts of the country, it is bad politics to expect them to go against their voters’ wishes simply because the national party platform says so or because the base wants it.

We could also get away from believing that the Democrat party is simply Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow. If the Democrat party was those three, Rep. Pelosi would've been the presidential nominee. Just as much as we could get away from believing the Republican Party is Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter. If the Republican Party was those three, how did Sen. McCain win the Republican primary? They ripped him to shreds, swearing he wasn't a real Republican. The truth is both parties make sure they have pundits in the media that represent the base, rarely do see pundits that represent the middle of either party.


"In all things, one must consider the end." ~John Adams

Read more...

Sen. Specter

First of all, his reasons for switching are disingenuous. Second, he originally started his political career as a Democrat. Third and most important, the sole job of a Senator is to represent his voters, not one particular party. If the voters want a Republican, moderate or otherwise, they'll elect a Republican. If they want a Democrat, moderate or otherwise, they'll elect a Democrat. The simple point is that as long as the Senator is representing his/her voters, then he/she is the right person for the job.

Take some of the attacks that Republican's are just being obstructionists. No. They're representing their voters by voting on things in a way that keeps them getting elected. It keeps them elected to vote against Democrat policies because there voters are against Democrat policies.

Take Sen. Lieberman and Sen. McCain as perfect examples. The Washington elite of their respective parties have ripped them up and down but there voters have continued to re-elect them, even after Sen. Lieberman was forced out by his party in a primary run off. If you listen to the punditry on TV and in print media, internet media as well, you'd swear they weren't a real Democrat/Republican but they've obviously voted in a way that represents there voters which is all that either party should be concerned with.

Joe Scarborough made the point this morning that if Republican's want to make a comeback, they have to find Republican's that fit what the voters of the given district want represented. It should be added that they can't continue to be obsessively concerned with whether or not someone who wants to be part of the Republican (or Democrat) party fits every single pillar of the Washington elite’s platform and votes with the party line every single time. Both parties should be solely focused on having candidates that represent the voters, not simply candidates that will vote party line on everything.

To that extent, it says everything about the Republican leadership that they were going to challenge Sen. Specter in a primary and wanted him gone. It shows they're less concerned with having a Republican that accurately represents his voters and instead wants a Republican that will simply toe the party line.


"In all things, one must consider the end." ~John Adams

Read more...

Big Tent?

We keep hearing that the Republican Party was once a big tent party and currently is not. The flip side to this point being made is that the Democrat party is. Really? There is logic in this point of view? Let us test this theory but first, let us do so without taking race, gender, and/or sexual orientation as qualifications for either party.

1) The general election was split essentially 52%/48%.
2) The base of the Democratic Party wanted/wants Sen. Lieberman completely removed from even its congressional caucus meetings simply for his stance on the Iraq war and for backing Sen. McCain.
3) The base of the Republican Party wanted Sen. Specter (among a few others -especially those saying the Reagan era is done) gone simply because he voted for the Recovery Act and he's too 'moderate'. (Have to remember Mr. Limbaugh's claim that there can be no moderate Republican's...)

Democrat
Exactly how many pro-life Democrats are there? Pro-NRA Democrats anyone? Supportive of the death penalty? Anti-Union Democrats anywhere? How about free trade Democrats? Against affirmative action? Anti-tax Democrats? Hmmm, seeing a trend here...

Republican
Anti-free trade Republicans? Pro-choice Republicans? Anti-NRA Republicans? Pro-Union Republicans? Okay with tax increases if they make sense Republicans? For affirmative action? Hmm, same trend...
Now obviously on one or two things, both parties have an extreme minority that don't follow the party line on every issue but those that don't aren't allowed in a position of power within the party and/or get ridiculed by those with the loudest voices in the media.

Maybe we can find things the two parties agree on?
Both enjoy spending. Both agree entitlement reform is desperately needed and beyond due. Oh wait, they don't agree on how best to reform entitlements so that's a wash. How about renewable energy? If an energy bill hits the floor without drilling and/or nuclear power Republican's block it and vice versa if an energy bill includes that. Kind of crazy that if Republican's really are for renewable energy (considering their mantra "all the above") they can't at least be content that even an energy bill without oil/nuclear finally creates some form of nation energy policy and that does help all United States citizens. Equally crazy is not allowing more oil but more specifically nuclear power if the Democrats are getting everything they want in renewable energy.

This could really go on for days but what is clear, one would hope, is that even when the two parties agree, they actually don't -hence why we've accomplished nothing significant in countless years now on the most important issues other than foreign policy of course. The other thing that should be clear, neither party has a big tent unless one defines a big tent party solely by diversity of people. The parties just have their platforms and someone either fits under it or they don't.


"In all things, one must consider the end." ~John Adams

Read more...