The Thomas Political Report

Bush Foreign Policy Under Seige

2007-02-15T14:56:00.000-05:00

For six years, the Bush administration has remained committed to playing hardball with the communist government of North Korea, one of the nations in the President’s axis of evil. However, after announcing the main points of the accord reached Tuesday between the United States and North Korea regarding the latter’s nuclear program, conservatives inside and outside of the administration have been quick to label the deal a huge mistake.

“It is rewarding bad behavior of the North Koreans by promising fuel oil,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “It’s a bad signal to North Korea and it’s a bad signal to Iran. It will say to countries like Iran and other would-be proliferators, if you just have enough patience, if you just have enough persistence, you’ll wear the United States down. They’ll give up on point after point after point.”

To say that the criticism leveled by Bolton and other conservatives regarding the deal with North Korea is a troubling sign for President Bush would be an understatement, but it is further evidence that there is growing angst within the GOP towards the President’s overall foreign policy efforts. The White House is certain to suffer a public rebuke Friday when the House of Representatives passes a resolution opposing the military surge in Iraq, and there will be close to thirty Republicans voting in favor of the resolution. The growing rift with Iran is also making many in the GOP uneasy as observers see an administration starting to make a case for war, similar to the one made prior to the invasion of Iraq.

“There are weapons (IED’S) in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the (Iranian) Quds force,” Bush said at his press conference yesterday. “And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.”

Yet, on Tuesday, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, was not as confident that the upper levels of Iranian leadership were behind the influx of weapons. “That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace said.

Since his State of the Union address in 2002 when he first used the term “axis of evil,” Bush has remained aggressive in his rhetoric towards Iran, Iraq and North Korea and their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support of global terrorism. Now, unfortunately, Bush finds himself bogged down militarily in Iraq, giving North Korea the same deal he criticized the Clinton administration of proffering in 1994, and publicly flailing in his attempt to find the right course of action against Iran.

After defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush’s foreign policy and military decisions have been bungled. Adding insult to injury, the Taliban is preparing for a huge spring offensive and many military observers are predicting that the troop levels currently in Afghanistan may be insufficient in preventing the Taliban from regaining the military upper hand in many areas thought to be secure. The idea of opening up a third theatre of military operations in Iran, even if only the United States were to bomb strategic targets, would be folly.

“Presidents have to weigh different options all the time,” Bush said yesterday. “Look, I fully understand there are some who are -- don't agree with every decision I make. I hope the American people understand I make those decisions because I believe it's going to yield the peace that we all want.”

It becomes more evident every day that this President’s decision to invade Iraq will not yield peace. It’s now up to Congress to make sure that decision isn’t compounded while also making certain that Iran doesn’t become another Bush blunder. It’s time to get “Little King George” out of the sandbox that is the Middle East.

Message to Congress: Stand Up and Be Counted

2007-02-09T13:24:00.000-05:00

March 20th, 2007, will mark the four year anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. In those four years, Americans have come to realize three things. First, the United States still possesses the most fearsome fighting force on the planet. Former dictator Saddam Hussein and his army, if you can call it that, knew as much, and made the smart decision not to test our military. Second, Americans learned that no matter how strong our military might be, there are limits to what it can do when it is opposed by a determined insurgency which grows more sophisticated every day. It would take more than five hundred thousand troops to properly quell the violence in Iraq, and that still might not be enough to get the job done.

Finally, Americans determined in the last two weeks that the men and women who they elected to serve them in the United States Senate lacked “guts.” There are other words that could be used which might be fancier, and others yet that would be politically incorrect, but guts cuts right to the heart of the matter. Words like courage and fortitude must be saved for the brave men and women that serve in Iraq and around the world, not for men and women who lack the intestinal fortitude to debate and vote on a simple non-binding resolution regarding one of the most important issues of our time: war in the Middle East.

If Americans had little faith and trust in government and their elected officials before this bipartisan debacle, and poll after poll shows that to be the case, the impotence that the Senate displayed this week will cause the public to become even more distrustful of its so-called leaders. Voters sent a clear message to politicians in the mid-term elections, and the message was vivid and to the point: we may not completely agree on the way forward in Iraq, but we expect you, the Congress and the President, to work together to figure out what must be done. Isn’t a critical step in that process being able to debate the matter on the floor of the Senate?

Instead, Senators on both sides of the aisle spent the last week debating and voting on procedure. When Democrats and Republicans couldn’t, or wouldn’t, agree on how the debate should be debated, they voted not to debate at all. Now, a group of Republican Senators have sent a letter to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell stating that they want to ensure that the Senate brings the issue of Iraq to the floor. Led by John Warner and Chuck Hagel, they wrote: “We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate.”

While soldiers die every day, as the situation continues to worsen, the Senate proceeds to do exactly what voters have said they despise the most: play politics. For the White House, this must be viewed as a victory, since President Bush has said that any resolution which opposes his Iraq surge would embolden the enemy and harm the morale of our troops. Unfortunately for Bush, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace don’t necessarily agree with him. Testifying this week in front of the House Armed Services Committee, Pace said, “From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they understand how our legislature works and that they understand that there's going to be this kind of debate. They're going to be looking to see whether or not they are supported in the realm of mission given and resources provided. As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported.”

Very soon, the discussion will turn from resolutions to funding. The President has requested a $100 billion supplemental to cover the cost of the war for the rest of this year, and some Democrats have come to the conclusion that the only way to stop this war will be to deny those funds. “Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him,” said Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, referring to Bush. “If Congress doesn‘t stop this war, it‘s not because it doesn‘t have the power. It‘s because it doesn‘t have the will.”

Former Iowa governor and current Democratic presidential contender Tom Vilsack has also staked out a position that goes further than any of his rivals. “Those in Congress who voted for the war, those in Congress who have voted to continue the war, and those in Congress who have funded the war, can surely vote to end the war,” Vilsack said at the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting. “Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo. Not a cap — an end. Not eventually — immediately.”

Feingold decided against running for president and Vilsack is a long shot, and it’s also a long shot that Congress will cut off funding for the war. But if Americans continue to see politics get in the way of pragmatism, Senate procedure get in the way of Senate debate, the idea of cutting off funds is sure to gain some traction. President Bush needs to see clear progress in Iraq in the coming months in order stave off a growing anti-war chorus. If not, Congress may finally do what the Constitution says it must: check and balance. On that, there should be no debate.

Bad Things Happen When Your Mute Button Is Broken

2007-02-05T13:39:00.000-05:00

Republican pollster Frank Luntz has released a new book called, “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.” Unfortunately, no one in presidential contender Joe Biden’s camp got the book in front of their man in time because Biden has already damaged, if not derailed, his bid for the White House. Luntz’s book is selling well since it debuted at the beginning of the year, now sitting in the top 100 on Amazon, although one could take issue with the title. Frankly, in politics today, it definitively is a matter of what one says, because everyone is listening, or filming, as George Allen found out, and Joe Biden once again forgot to turn on his verbal filter.

Back in July of 2006, Biden made the first of what could be called racial gaffes while pressing the flesh in New Hampshire. The C-Span series, “Road to the White House,” was filming as Biden was speaking with a man in the audience about his support in the Indian-American community. “I've had a great relationship,” Biden said. “In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.”

We can only wish you were joking, Joe. If someone's ten and eleven year old sons were watching an episode of “The Simpsons” or “Family Guy” on television, you might have heard a similar comment delivered as one of many off-color jokes from a cartoon character, but to have something so ridiculously stereotypical come out of the mouth of a man who has been in the senate since 1973 is, if not shocking, disappointing. A Biden spokeswoman tried to clean it up. “The point Senator Biden was making is that there has been a vibrant Indian-American community in Delaware for decades,” said Margaret Aitken. “It has primarily been made up of engineers, scientists and physicians, but more recently, middle-class families are moving into Delaware and purchasing family-run small businesses.”

Maybe Biden’s spokeswoman needs to be the one running for president. What was most interesting was the look on Biden’s face as he spoke those unfortunate sentences. He was looking directly, intently, at the man, and Biden seemed as if he really believed what he was saying. He was smiling broadly and you could almost sense that Biden felt he was giving someone a kernel of information that he, and only he, just happened upon. Could he really be that out of touch?

While Biden was able to recover from his mistake at that moment, it’s unlikely he’s going to be as successful this time around as it pertains to comments he recently made about his colleague, Barack Obama. On the day he announced his candidacy for president, Biden said of Obama, “I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man.” In a matter of ten seconds, Biden insulted Obama, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and African-Americans at large.

Again, could he really be this dense? Biden just hit the superfecta. Did he mean to say that Chisholm, Jackson, Sharpton and Braun were not “articulate, bright and clean,” like Obama? Are Jackson and Sharpton not as “nice-looking” as Obama? What does Biden mean by “mainstream?” One definition of mainstream is, “belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.” Were Chisholm, Jackson, Sharpton and Braun that far out of the mainstream? Were they planning the overthrow of the government and forget to tell us?

For his part, Obama was slow to react to the backhanded compliment. At first, he told the press that Biden’s comments didn’t upset him. A day later, after surely hearing from those in the African-American community that his tepid response was unacceptable, Obama released a statement saying that Biden’s words were “historically inaccurate.” It’s another example of the difficulty facing Obama as he tries to build political support among African-American voters while remaining attractive to White voters.

Biden is going to have difficulty building support anywhere in his Party now. He’ll still likely remain in the race, but it was clear from the beginning that his candidacy was a long shot, and it’s been made even longer now. Many of Biden’s friends and colleagues have come to his defense and said, in no uncertain terms, that Biden is not a racist, but all Biden needs to do is remember what happened to former Virginia Senator George Allen when his verbal slip helped to get him kicked out of his senate seat. After a while, the stench just starts to get harder to ignore.

There is an old Chinese proverb that says, “If you wish to know the mind of a man, listen to his words.” Twice now, the words of Joe Biden have betrayed him. At what point do people not begin to believe that those words are not actually what he truly believes?

Religion Is The Least Of Mitt Romney's Worries

2007-02-01T12:03:00.000-05:00

The presidential candidacies of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have brought the issues of gender, race and religion front and center during the early stages of the race for the White House. Most major polling organizations have, and will continue to, poll voters on three specific questions: Is America ready to elect a woman president? Is America ready to elect a black president? Is America ready to elect a Mormon president?

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll delivered daunting news for Clinton and Obama. 60% of American voters believe that Democrats are likely to nominate a white male for president in 2008, and that includes 81% of black voters. Overall, 80% say that the next president is likely to be a white male. In Romney’s case, there have also been polls that are sure to cause concern, such as one recently that showed 37% of the respondents would not vote for a Mormon; only a Muslim had a higher percentage.

While convincing voters that his faith will not affect his ability to govern effectively and independently, which is exactly what John F. Kennedy had to do when questions were raised regarding his Catholicism in 1960, Romney will have to deal with additional charges that will cause comparisons to another Democrat from Massachusetts: John F. Kerry. If Kerry previously held the record of a presidential candidate accused of having the most flip-flops on his record, he may have met his match in Romney, which will doom any chance Romney has of winning the Republican nomination for president.

It’s not simply that Romney will be accused of being a flip-flopper. More importantly, he has changed his positions on issues that are not exactly up for debate within the Republican Party, specifically abortion, gay rights and gun control. Rudy Giuliani will have his own difficulty garnering the Republican nomination being that he’s pro choice, pro gay rights and pro gun control, but at least he can say that he’s always held those positions. Romney has tried to have it both ways, and his previous stances on those critical issues are coming back to haunt him.

“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country,” Romney said in a 1994 debate when he ran against Senator Ted Kennedy. “I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

In 2002, when he was running for governor against Democrat Shannon O’Brien, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey by writing, “I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's.”

In 1994 and 2002 Romney received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay and lesbian political action committee. In the middle of his campaign against Kennedy, Romney wrote the LCR a thank you letter. “I am pleased to have had the opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting,” Romney penned. “I learned a great deal from those discussions and the many thoughtful questions you posed. As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.”

Finally, when it comes to gun control, Romney, when asked what he thought of the Brady Bill, which required waiting periods for handgun purchases, replied, “I don't think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.” Romney also previously supported the federal assault weapons ban.

Today, at the beginning of a long race for the presidency, Romney has changed his tune. On abortion: “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view.” Responding to a court ruling handed down in 2004, on gay marriage: “Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I'm sure you know. The court forgot that marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father.” On guns: “I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.”

All of the prospective presidential candidates have begun the process of pandering to their respective liberal and conservative bases, but none of them will have to do as much stroking as Romney. Conservatives, evangelicals and the NRA could have eventually overlooked questions about Romney’s faith, much like most of the country did Kennedy’s in 1960, but his conflicting stances on the big three issues of abortion, gay rights and gun control are unforgivable. Interestingly, Romney may be sharing the doghouse with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani when all is said and done since those two also have serious skeptics in the GOP regarding the big three issues. Which is why although the names Brownback and Huckabee aren’t making many Republicans jump for joy just yet, it’s a long, long way to November, 2008. Twenty one months is more than enough time for the dark horses to get saddled up.

Congressional Black Caucus Should Lead By Example

2007-01-29T12:55:00.000-05:00

In 1971, two years after Representatives Shirley Chisholm, Louis Stokes and William Clay recognized the need for formally organizing the increasing number of black lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Black Caucus was officially begun. In addition to those three representatives, Charles Rangel, John Conyers and Ron Dellums were part of the original twelve founding members of the CBC.

Today, there are over forty black members of the CBC in the 110th Congress, and as was reported recently, the CBC will remain exclusively black, at least for the foreseeable future. Freshman Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, who is white and who represents a majority black district, will not become the CBC’s first white member. According to Cohen’s spokeswoman, Marilyn Dillihay, “Representative Cohen never asked to join and was never denied access to the Black Caucus.” Whether that is true or not, it hasn’t stopped many observers, including Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo, from making the issue front page news.

"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race," Tancredo said this past week. "If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses.”

While some will rightly say that Tancredo’s overly public stance is aimed at increasing exposure for a long shot presidential candidate who has made a name for himself through his opposition to illegal immigration, he raises a legitimate question. Should the Black Caucus deny membership to a member of Congress who wants to join, based on race?

There is nothing in the CBC’s bylaws that officially excludes membership based on race, however some members in the CBC today, and in years past, have admitted to an unwritten rule that only black lawmakers are encouraged to join. Before Steve Cohen, the last white House member that openly attempted to join the CBC was Pete Clark of California in 1975, who also was denied membership. Further, three black Republican members of Congress, Senator Edward Brooke, and Representatives Gary Franks and J.C. Watts, did not join the CBC because of its Democratic Party-leaning ideology.

In the previous 109th Congress, the CBC stated its formal Agenda as follows:

“Since the formation of the Congressional Black Caucus, the core mission of the CBC has been to close (and, ultimately, to eliminate) disparities that exist between African Americans and White Americans in every aspect of life. These continuing and troubling disparities make it more difficult, and often make it impossible, for African Americans to reach their full potential. In pursuing the core mission of the CBC, the CBC has been true to its motto that “the CBC has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.”

The CBC concludes its Agenda statement with this:

“The mission and objective of the CBC and our Agenda for the 109th Congress continues to be improving the condition of African American people. However, the CBC has never sought to limit the benefits of its endeavors to African Americans. Indeed, the members of the CBC firmly believe that the priorities outlined in this Agenda will benefit all Americans and will make our country better for all people. We invite all Americans to join us in the quest to remove disparities and barriers that increase the burden or make it impossible for individuals to achieve their full potential. African Americans will be better for it and America will be better for it, too.”

There’s no question that the CBC has been, and remains, an important part of the legislative process that makes sure issues relevant to the needs of blacks are addressed, but one must ask if denying membership, written or unwritten, based on race, lives up to its goals? Why would the inclusion of a white member, whose constituents are predominately black, derail the CBC’s stated objectives? Ironically, Representative Cohen replaced the popular Harold Ford Jr. who lost to Bob Corker in the Tennessee senate race, and Cohen did so by defeating Jake Ford, Harold’s younger brother. Cohen received the critical endorsements of the mayors of Memphis and Shelby County, both of whom are black, along the way.

Responding to the decision of the CBC, Cohen said, “It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in." Fortunately, Americans of all races and colors who have fought for civil rights and equality since that struggle began decades ago didn’t walk away from opposition as quickly as Cohen has. If his intent to better serve the people of his district by joining the CBC was genuine, and there’s no evidence to prove that it was otherwise, it is incumbent upon the CBC to let him, and any other lawmaker who wants to join, into its caucus.

The CBC talks about reducing disparities of all types between blacks and whites, but recent health studies have shown that disparities are actually growing in relation to breast and prostate cancer. Serious work needs to be done, here and in many other areas, where disparities exist. Just how ridiculous does it look that in 2007, our elected officials are still fighting the silly battle of who can or can’t join this club or that club because of the color of their skin when more important struggles remain.

When she was running for president in 1972, Shirley Chisholm was asked what she expected to gain from her candidacy; what was it that she wanted for herself and her supporters. “My God, what do we want?” she replied. “What does any human being want? Take away an accident of pigmentation of a thin layer of our outer skin and there is no difference between me and anyone else. All we want is for that trivial difference to make no difference.”

Thirty five years later, we recognize we still have some distance to go.

Jim Webb: Is A Star Born?

2007-01-25T16:50:00.000-05:00

In the 2006 mid-term elections, six key victories by Democratic senatorial candidates helped change the face of Congress, including Whitehouse in Rhode Island, Casey in Pennsylvania, Brown in Ohio, McCaskill in Missouri and Tester in Montana. None, however, was as critical to the Democrat’s success as was Jim Webb’s unlikely victory over George Allen in Virginia. Webb’s triumph not only furthered the growing evidence that the changing demographics of northern Virginia will make the Old Dominion state a battleground in the 2008 presidential election, but it also destroyed any aspirations Allen had of becoming the Republican presidential nominee.

Less than three months following Webb’s win, he was chosen by his Party’s leadership to deliver the Democratic response to President Bush’s State of the Union address; not an insignificant honor for a freshman senator. Webb is not your typical freshman senator, however, and the tone and text of his response proved that he is not only going to be a serious, relevant politician, but also a powerful force within the Democratic Party for years to come.

Webb possesses an impressive background: United States Naval Academy graduate; highly decorated Marine Corps infantry officer in Vietnam; Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. It was that background, and of course, Allen’s “macaca” moment, that turned the Virginia campaign into the close contest almost no one expected. Webb won by a margin of less than 8000 votes out of the almost 2.3 million votes cast.

In many ways, Webb was the logical choice to deliver the Democratic response, specifically because of the icy exchange he and President Bush shared at a White House reception for new members of Congress. It may be a while before the president asks “How’s your boy?” to anyone who has flesh and blood serving in Iraq. That moment was a defining one for Webb and the Democrats in that a man who has served his country in the military, whose son is serving, and who rode into his senate seat on the national wave of frustration with the Iraq war stood toe-to-toe with the Commander-In-Chief. Democrats were already feeling froggy after the election. This Bush versus Webb fight was enough to make them want to leap.

Webb kept the pressure on Tuesday night in his speech. “With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years,” Webb said. “Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.”

Unlike many of his respected senior colleagues in the Senate, including most of the ones running for president, Webb doesn’t carry the baggage of having voted to give Bush authorization to mismanage the war. And unlike Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama who, like Webb, was also not in the Senate at that time, Webb has the inherent toughness, the gravitas to call Bush on the carpet. What other Democrat can pull that off?

“The president took us into this war recklessly,” Webb stated. “He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed.”

“The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq¹s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.”

Strong, certain words like those coming from a military man are critical if the Democrats are to seize and hold the higher ground on the issue of Iraq. Non-binding resolutions may be a good, safe start, but at some point, if Lt. Gen. David Petraeus isn’t able to pull off the miracle of miracles and bring some stability to Baghdad in the next six months, the calls will grow louder for lawmakers to take more urgent steps, like cutting off funding for the war. The majority of Americans are not in support of that action at the moment, and Webb has been vocal in his opposition to it as well, having lived through it when Congress cut funding during the Vietnam War. The country, however, grows more and more uneasy with the status quo.

Whatever actions Democrats take in the future regarding Iraq, you can be sure Senator Jim Webb will be front and center. If a young Democratic senator with only two years of experience can decide to run for the presidency, a freshman Democratic senator that possesses a resume like Jim Webb’s will be pressed to take on a leadership role in his Party. Four years from now, don’t be surprised to see Webb’s name mentioned as a potential presidential candidate if the Democrats don’t take back the White House in 2008. He’s mature, intelligent, and rugged. While those first two adjectives say much about any man, it’s been some time since a Democrat could lay claim to the last.

Bush State of the Union Address Gets "A" for Style, "C" for Substance

2007-01-24T16:37:00.000-05:00

While there were some expectations that President Bush’s State of the Union address in front of a Democratic-controlled Congress was going to be an uncomfortable affair, the president actually turned in one of his better performances. Not since Richard Nixon’s State of the Union speech in 1974 has a president addressed the nation with such low standings in public opinion as well as within his own Party. Unlike Nixon, Bush turned in a workman-like performance that while short on substance, it was long on style.

From the beginning, Bush set the stage and showed that this was going to be a kindler, gentler State of the Union address. Everyone watching knew the historical significance of the evening in that it was the first address presided over by a female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Bush wasted no time honoring that fact. “Tonight, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of my own as the first president to begin the State of the Union message with these words: "Madame Speaker," Bush said. “In his day, the late Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum. But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as speaker of the House of Representatives. Congratulations, Madame Speaker. Congratulations.” Very classy moment.

He proceeded to recognize the politicians who were not in attendance due to illness. “Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight, and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood,” said Bush.

In most of Bush’s previous speeches, he likes to extend a hand of friendship to the opposition and then give them a little backhand slap before he finishes his train of thought. Last night was no different, but it was clear that this wasn’t the same combative president we’ve seen in years past. “Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate — and I congratulate the Democratic majority,” said the President. “Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions — and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation’s prosperity; to spend the people’s money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.” That got a standing ovation from both sides of the aisle.

But just a few moments later, he was able to get the Democrats to do the old “stand up and clap, then sit down really quick” tango. “Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress,” he said. “First, we must balance the federal budget (everybody up). We can do so without raising taxes.” Some of the Democrats surely hurt themselves from sitting down as violently fast as they did.

Most of the address contained proposals that both Democrats and Republicans would generally find agreeable, but whether or not any of those proposals go anywhere is debatable. Bush wants to revamp the earmark process, address the issue of entitlements, reauthorize “No Child Left Behind,” offer a standard tax deduction for health insurance, and diversify America’s energy supply, to name a few. The one area where he and Democrats may find some common ground, to the dismay of many in the GOP, is immigration. “Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America, with laws that are fair and borders that are secure,” Bush said. “Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.”

While immigration reform may be the one domestic proposal Bush finds some success in the next twelve months, this State of the Union, however, was still about one thing: Iraq. Though the President was not afraid to attack the issue head on and stick to his guns, you could see and feel the change in attitude among the lawmakers present. Amazingly, Bush still continues to attempt to link 9/11 to the battle in Iraq. “Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists,” Bush said at one point. Yes, that is true, and it’s also a slick way to keep that completely discredited 9/11 link alive in the minds of some Americans as they continue to see the daily carnage out of Iraq, at the hands of those “Shia and Sunni extremists.” Once and for all, Bush should put an end to that charade.

Bush is much better served when he plays to the pride of an America that, while war-weary, does not want to leave a greater mess in Iraq than already exists. “This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in,” said the President. “Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.” This was Bush’s strongest moment of the night.

The most emotional moment came at the end of the speech when Bush, as has become the custom in State of the Union addresses, recognized four ordinary citizens for their extraordinary efforts. The most heartwarming had to be the story of New Yorker Wesley Autrey who jumped onto subway tracks and saved a man who had fallen into the path of an oncoming train. Bush did a great job weaving Autrey’s heroism into the bravery of our troops in Iraq. “He insists he’s not a hero,” Bush said. “He (Autrey) says: “We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We got to show each other some love.” There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.”

It was a smart way to end an address that had begun to collapse under the weight of Iraq. Today, we see that lawmakers remain unmoved by the President’s speech with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voting 12-9 in favor of the non-binding resolution opposed to sending more American troops to Iraq. It was clear from the Democratic response given by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Vietnam veteran who was Navy secretary during Republican President Reagan’s administration, that Democrats, and a growing list of Republicans, would yield no ground. After speaking glowingly of respected economic and military deeds by Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, Webb ended by saying “These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.”

Those definitely sound like fighting words from a man who won’t be to dinner at the White House in the near future. Bush’s speech broke no new ground nor did it add to his woes, which may have been the most he could ask for. While it may not be the equivalent of the inmates running the asylum, Congress now stands ready to flex its muscle, and Democrats will have plenty of help from many disgruntled Republicans along the way. For President Bush, his only hope for making the last two years of his presidency bearable is if his new best friend, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, can significantly alter events on the ground in Iraq. By summer’s end, we will know the answer.

Political Report: Week of January 22nd, 2007

2007-01-22T14:27:00.000-05:00

*Hillary can win, but it won’t be easy.
*State of the Union address will prove to be a chilly affair for Bush.
*More Republican lawmakers set to begin to break with Bush over Iraq.
*Gingrich wants to be “drafted” into presidential race.
*Deadly weekend in Iraq further affects “surge” public opinion.

1. On Saturday, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to run for and win the presidency. “I’m in, and I’m in to win,” said Clinton. “I’m not just starting a campaign, though. I’m beginning a conversation with you, with America. Let’s talk. Let’s chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don’t you think?” Clinton joins the other frontrunners for the Democrats, Barack Obama and John Edwards, on the campaign trail. Most national polls have her well ahead of all Democratic challengers and now she can start to concentrate her efforts in Iowa, New Hampshire and the rest of the critical primary and caucus states. She is the favorite and the race is hers to lose, but don’t count out any of the dark horses just yet. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are not only going to attack each other but they will have to defend themselves from the rest of the Democratic field as those dark horse candidates struggle to get some ink.

2. Many are holding their breath to see what type of reception President Bush is going to receive from Congress as he makes his State of the Union address. It’s unlikely that Democrats won’t stand as Bush enters the chamber but expect to see very limited applause coming from the Democratic side of the aisle during Bush’s speech. There is likely to be strong support shown Bush from lawmakers who still back his war policy but this may be one of the iciest State of the Union addresses since Richard Nixon’s in January, 1974.

3. It’s beginning to look like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel may have some additional high-profile company in his opposition to President Bush’s troop escalation. There are reports that Virginia senator John Warner, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will be introducing a resolution that criticizes the President’s decision to send more troops to Iraq. Also, word is that Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina is beginning to express deep concerns over Bush’s handling of the war. These defections would further support evidence of extremely serious erosion for Bush in his Republican base. You may be looking at a situation where very soon, Senator Warner will make that trip up to the White House to tell, not ask, the President to significantly change course in his Iraq policy or prepare to deal with the most severe opposition that both houses of Congress can muster.

4. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace that he would run for President only as a “last resort.” He says he wants to be an important influence in the race to make sure that issues he feels are critical are addressed, like health care, energy, education, national security and immigration. “If, in that process, it becomes necessary to run, then I’ll run,” Gingrich said. Gingrich, like Al Gore for the Democrats, is waiting to see if there is a groundswell from the Republican base to have a staunch conservative enter the race and “save” the GOP. But, with Sam Brownback in the race and Mike Huckabee likely to enter, Gingrich may just be stroking his own ego.

5. This weekend in Iraq, the U.S. military reported that 27 American combat troops had been killed, 12 of them when a Black Hawk helicopter was shot down. Today, more than 100 Iraqi civilians were killed in increased violence in and around Baghdad. Public opinion, which has already soured significantly on the situation on the ground in Iraq, will no doubt take another negative hit as the troop surge becomes reality. Bush’s State of the Union address will further strengthen the growing national opposition to putting more American troops in harm’s way.

Is A Military Draft Inevitable?

2007-01-18T14:54:00.000-05:00

Late last year, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker warned that his fighting force was on the verge of breaking down unless thousands more active duty members were added. He also detailed the necessity for the increased use of reserve soldiers. "Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand is placing a strain on the Army's all-volunteer force," Schoomaker told The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves in a Capitol Hill hearing. "At this pace we will break the active component."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also recognized the need for an increased military and plans to grow overall troop levels over the next decade in both the Army and Marines, with the Army approaching 600,000 active duty soldiers. But will that even be enough to address the ongoing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the increased threat from Iran and North Korea? In 2000, there were 510,000 active duty soldiers in the Army which was 12% less than the number of soldiers in 1995. Gate’s request will bring the force back to 1995 levels, but if President Bush’s unfortunate decision to invade Iraq has opened the floodgates and set the stage for more military conflicts, it will still be far too few troops.

In March, 2005, Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris penned an article in The Washington Monthly titled “The Case for the Draft.” In it, they wrote:

“In short, America's all-volunteer military simply cannot deploy and sustain enough troops to succeed in places like Iraq while still deterring threats elsewhere in the world. Simply adding more soldiers to the active duty force, as some in Washington are now suggesting, may sound like a good solution. But it's not, for sound operational and pragmatic reasons. America doesn't need a bigger standing army; it needs a deep bench of trained soldiers held in reserve who can be mobilized to handle the unpredictable but inevitable wars and humanitarian interventions of the future. And while there are several ways the all-volunteer force can create some extra surge capacity, all of them are limited. The only effective solution to the manpower crunch is the one America has turned to again and again in its history: the draft. Not the mass combat mobilizations of World War II, nor the inequitable conscription of Vietnam--for just as threats change and war-fighting advances, so too must the draft. A modernized draft would demand that the privileged participate. It would give all who serve a choice over how they serve. And it would provide the military, on a "just in time" basis, large numbers of deployable ground troops, particularly the peacekeepers we'll need to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower, or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both.”

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld firmly believed that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could be won with limited ground forces, a small boot print so to speak. What we have seen, and what was clearly communicated by former Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, is that at a minimum, several hundred thousand soldiers were necessary to efficiently invade Iraq, and more importantly, control Iraq after that invasion. That did not happen, and it’s unlikely that the additional 21,000 troop surge proposed by the President will change the situation on the ground much at all.

The United States needs more active duty combat troops. Reservists are an integral part of the military, obviously, but combat troops, ground troops, battle-ready troops are going to be the difference between success and failure in military theatres in the present and the future. Desert combat, door-to-door combat of the sort we may see in Sadr City, require massive force. The boondoggle in Iraq has buoyed extremists worldwide, specifically in Africa where the necessity of U.S. involvement grows every day. Re-enlistment rates for reservists will continue to fall and most reservists perform support operations for combat soldiers as it is.

Where will the U.S. get quality combat troops? The Army has added more recruiters, raised enlistment cash bonuses, spent millions on advertising and marketing and yet it still barely reaches it recruitment goals. More importantly, the Army has lowered the strict recruiting standards that were a critical part in making an all-volunteer Army a success in the first place. In 2006, over 2000 soldiers were recruited under new lower aptitude standards.

Over the next few weeks, the argument over whether to increase troop strength in Iraq or begin the process of bringing our soldiers home will rage. Either way, a significant number of troops will remain in Iraq for decades to come and now that President Bush has let the genie out of the bottle, potential conflicts with Iran and Syria, as well as the ongoing struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, have made it necessary for a continued U.S. presence in the region.

President Bush has consistently said that he has no plans to re-institute the draft, and with two years left in his final term, he will most likely leave office not having to do so. However, for the next occupant of the Oval Office, a military draft of some form will have to be a serious option. If the invasion of Iraq has truly expanded the global war on terror, the United States is going to need significantly more qualified, highly-trained combat troops. We don’t have enough now. If we’re to continue to be the world’s policeman, we may, unfortunately, have to get them against their wishes.

Political Report: Week of January 15th, 2007

2007-01-16T12:32:00.000-05:00

Outlook
* Obama set to throw his hat in the ring.
* Republicans will have to go on record about Bush troop surge.
* Edwards swipes at frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
* Bush willing to spend remaining political capital on troop surge.
* Libby perjury trial unlikely to contain many surprises.

Detail
1. Democratic Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday morning that he was filing a presidential exploratory committee, the first step towards committing to an all out run for the White House. In a video posted on his official website, Obama said "I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago. I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics. So I've spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need." He said he’ll announce his final decision on February 10th.

2. While it’s far from attempting to de-fund the war in Iraq, Democrats are preparing to introduce non-binding resolutions in both the House and Senate that will force Republican lawmakers to go on the record regarding President Bush’s decision to authorize a surge in troops. Republicans have used these types of resolutions in the past with great success, most notably the Iraq War Resolution in the Senate in 2002 which many Democratic Senators are still feeling the negative effects from. This new resolution should occur next week, just in time for the State of the Union address.

3. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards traveled to Hillary Clinton’s home turf in New York City to address 1200 Riverside Church parishioners on Martin Luther King Day. In what was clearly a subtle slap at Clinton, Edwards said "Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq,” after which the audience gave him a 60 second standing ovation. "We need to show we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to start leaving," Edwards also said. The Edwards-Clinton battle is revving into high gear.

4. President Bush is clearly digging in his heels on what is setting up to be continued opposition to his decision to send more troops to Iraq. In an interview on “60 Minutes,” Bush said “I fully understand they could try to stop me but I’ve made my decision, and we’re going forward.” Although his base of support is low among lawmakers in his own Party and the public at large, unless Congress votes to de-fund the war, the surge, which is already underway, will continue. Bush will have another chance to sell his plan and gain support at the upcoming State of the Union speech.

5. Jury selection begins this week in the perjury and obstruction trial against former White House aide Lewis “Scooter" Libby. Libby is accused of lying to federal investigators regarding the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to be a witness for the defense, the first time that a sitting vice president would have testified in a criminal case. Don’t expect the prosecution to attempt to stray far from the specific charges against Libby and try to tie Cheney or any other high-profile administration figures directly to Libby’s actions.

What The President Said, What The President Meant

2007-01-11T12:44:00.000-05:00

Watching an address by the President of the United States to the nation means one must have the ability to read between the lines. Last night’s speech by President Bush regarding his new strategy for the Iraq war was rife with hidden meaning…what the President said and what he really meant. Let’s take a look:

What the President said: “The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.”

What the President meant: “I know you, the American people, are losing your patience for this war but this plan really can work this time, and don’t forget, even though there may not have been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is the central front of the war on terror. We’ve been putting this one over on you for years so please don’t stop believing us now”

What the President said: “When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.”

What the President meant: “I really thought those elections would make those Iraqis more like us Americans and we could start moving our troops out. That didn’t happen and I’m not sure why.”

What the President said: “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.”

What the President meant: “I heard what the voters said in the mid-term elections but I’m still the President and I’m going to give this thing one more try. Oh, and those mistakes that were made: I’m not saying I made them but, as Harry Truman said, the buck stops here”

What the President said: “Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.”

What the President meant: “Our troops are now going to kick butt like never before…the kid gloves are off. And I could care less what the Iraqi government thinks about it.”

What the President said: “Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

What the President meant: “Muqtada al Sadr is in big, big, big trouble.”

What the President said: “I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.”

What the President meant: “Prime Minister Maliki better understand that I’m out of office in two years and I’m not going to let my legacy be tarnished because the American people thought I failed in Iraq. I’ve got a $500 million dollar library to build.”

What the President said: “This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering.”

What the President meant: “Iraq is going to get much bloodier before it gets better, if it gets better.”

What the President said: “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

What the President meant: “Don’t be surprised if I decide to bomb Iran and Syria. I know I can’t send in ground troops but I can sure bomb the living daylights out of them. That might get people’s minds off Iraq too.

What the President said: “We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors — and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government.”

What the President meant: “Those Middle East countries better start working a little harder to stop their citizens from financially supporting the bad guys in Iraq or else their countries might start to implode as well.”

What the President said: “Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.”

What the President meant: “100 American troops dying every month will look like a tiny number compared with what’s coming in the next year. It’s going to get ugly.”

What the President said: “Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.”

What the President meant: “I wish I had never given that speech on that battleship with that stupid “Mission Accomplished” banner hanging behind me.”

What the President said: “Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States — and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al-Qaida. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.”

What the President meant: “Thanks you folks in Congress but I’m still the President and I’m going to do this my way.”

What the President said: “Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror.”

What the President meant: “I sure like Joe Lieberman. I wish he was a Republican. Hopefully he can help me sell my new plan to some skeptical Democrats.”

What the President said: “Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.”

What the President meant: “Stick with me folks; stick with me, just a little while longer. We can do this. We can win. And if we don’t while I’m in office, it will be the next guy’s problem.”

Now you know the real deal.

Political Report: Week of January 8th, 2007

2007-01-09T13:40:00.000-05:00

Outlook

*Bush speech will define the final two years of his presidency.
*Pelosi and Democrats look to outmaneuver Bush on troop surge.
*Romney fundraiser shows he’s a candidate to be reckoned with.
*GOP civil war regarding Iraq looks imminent.
*McCain-Lieberman ticket not out of the realm of possibility.

Detail

1. President Bush will be delivering the most important speech of his presidency Wednesday night as he addresses the nation about the way forward in Iraq. His administration discounted the recommendations put forth by the Iraq Study Group and they have taken two weeks to develop the last plan that the American people are going to realistically consider from this president regarding the conflict. That there are already grumblings from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers has to be a sign of trouble for the president.

2. While new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won’t recommend cutting off funding for the troops already in Iraq, it’s clear that the tact Democrats might be attempting to take will be to find a way to limit funding for any additional troops should Bush recommend a surge. This angle might find a significant amount of support from public opinion which could be disastrous for the president. Democrats would be seen as supporting the troops already there and protecting any additional men and women from being put into harm’s way.

3. Mitt Romney raised $6.5 million dollars at a Boston fundraiser on Monday, dwarfing the recent fundraising totals by potential presidential rivals John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The original goal for the event was $1 million. Although the Boston fundraiser may not be indicative of Romney’s popularity outside his home state, it does prove that he can raise funds, which at this stage in the presidential sweepstakes is more important than popularity or name recognition. McCain and Giuliani will have to take notice.

4. The fissure lines are clear to see in the Republican Party and it’s likely that should President Bush recommend a troop surge in Iraq, many prominent GOP lawmakers will openly distance themselves from Bush on his Iraq war policy as well as his overall approach to the war on terror. Senator Chuck Hagel has been and remains a fierce critic of Bush and his administration. GOP lawmakers also realize that while the 2006 mid-term elections hinged on Iraq, 2008 looks to also be a referendum on the events on the ground there. Republicans, especially those in the Senate, could see an even worse outcome two years from now if the situation in Iraq remains grave.

5. While John Kerry wasn’t able to convince John McCain to join him on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2004, McCain may have more success convincing Joe Lieberman to join him on the 2008 Republican ticket. The two have been in a love-fest for the last three years and now that Lieberman is an “Independent Democrat” who still harbors resentment towards many in his Party for abandoning him during his recent re-election campaign, there’s nothing to prevent him from giving it serious consideration. Win or lose, Lieberman would continue to increase his popularity among Republicans in his state and it would be four more years until he had to defend his seat again. Whether or not it helps or hurts McCain is another question. The Netroots who tried to defeat Lieberman in Connecticut would pull out all the stops to defeat a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

For Bush, Troop Surge Is Last, Best and Worst Hope

2007-01-05T11:38:00.000-05:00

President Bush and his brain trust still have the weekend to put the finishing touches on his new Iraq war initiative but it’s evident that an increase in ground troops of at least twenty thousand and possibly forty thousand will be the main piece to the puzzle. Unlike in the past, this current Bush White House is showing deep divisions over whether this is the right policy but the President has made the decision to go forward with the troop surge as soon as his new diplomatic and military teams are in place.

Today, Bush will announce that Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus will replace Gen. George W. Casey Jr. as commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. Also, Navy Adm. William J. Fallon will be nominated to replace Gen. John P. Abizaid as the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East. For his diplomatic team, Bush is set to appoint Ryan C. Crocker the new ambassador to Baghdad. Zalmay Khalilzad, who is the current ambassador to Iraq, will be nominated to become the top U.S. envoy at the United Nations, replacing John R. Bolton.

The decision by Bush to send more troops to Iraq, which he will present to the American people on Wednesday, will be severely criticized by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel calls the plan to increase troops “Alice in Wonderland. I’m absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.” Joe Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign relations Committee, is even more critical of the decision. "I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

There are no good options left for this President. Although the American voters showed their displeasure and unease with the situation on the ground in Iraq at the voting booth in November, he is not, nor will he ever, be willing to admit that his administration’s handling of the war has been catastrophic. Twenty thousand more troops deployed in 2006 will not be sufficient to change the situation, especially after his military leaders plainly told him he needed more troops on the ground from the beginning. Think back to what Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, 2003: “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.”

At the time, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, threw Shinseki under the bus, calling his estimate “far off the mark.” Four months later Shinseki was gone, but his prediction has more than stood the test of time. Twenty thousand or forty thousand, whatever the final number is, will still be far below what is necessary to control Iraq. After four years, the insurgency has perfected its killing machine and it would take a minimum of one hundred and fifty thousand more American and Coalition troops to have any chance of stopping that machine from churning. Winston Churchill said, “Never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.”

Bush is unmoved. “One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished,” Bush said Thursday. This is the same rhetoric that has been coming from his administration for the last three years but what other choice does he have? Any other decision would be an acknowledgement he, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives were wrong, so the only choice left is to fight on.

Philosopher Simone Weil said, “The great error of nearly all studies of war... has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics.” President Bush and his White House failed in their Iraq policy from the start; failed to anticipate the sectarian violence that plagues Baghdad today. Yet, they were clearly told what would be necessary to secure the peace in 2003. Now, more American troops are going to be sent into harm’s way by a President who vows to remain relevant during his last two years in office. To say it’s “too little, too late” would just be piling on.

Peace Activists Could Become Pelosi's Worst Nightmare

2007-01-04T19:38:00.000-05:00

While the first 100 hours look to be quite successful for Nancy Pelosi and her House of Representatives Democratic majority, the first 100 days may prove to be much more difficult. Earlier this week, Left wing activists, including Cindy Sheehan, gave incoming House leaders a little taste of what’s sure to become an ongoing battle within the Democratic Party.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and other House Democrats had gathered in the Cannon Caucus room to discuss changes to House rules, including new travel restrictions, gift bans, legislative procedures and earmarks; all issues that Democrats had campaigned and won on in the fall elections. As Emanuel was speaking, Sheehan and the group she was with began shouting, “De-escalate, investigate, bring our troops home now!”

Emanuel attempted to continue his discussion over the shouting but when it was clear that Sheehan’s group was not going to back down, he and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and incoming Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) decided to finish the discussion elsewhere and left.

“They are not including the peace movement’s voice,” Sheehan later told reporters. It is a statement that is definitively a shot across the bow for Democrats in the House as well as the Senate. As President Bush is set to speak to America and push for a troop surge in Iraq, Sheehan and the peace movement are gearing up to demand payment on the IOU’s they feel Congressional Democrats wrote to them during the elections.

“I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and look forward to working with you on behalf of the American people,” Pelosi said after accepting the Speaker’s gavel. “In this House, we may belong to different parties, but we serve one country.”

While working with House Republicans is going to be a challenge for Pelosi, the tougher fight will come with the Left wing Democrats who are sure to call on Congress to de-fund the Iraq war if Bush calls for an escalation. That won’t happen, but peace activists want blood and Congressional investigations may not be enough to satisfy their hunger.

So where does that leave Pelosi? She obviously realizes that the war is still Bush’s war and she doesn’t want to leave any of her fingerprints at the scene. But if the situation on the ground in Iraq gets any graver, and most independent observers think it will, it won’t only be the Left wing of the Democratic Party that will be pressing for meaningful action out of the House leaders. Voters spoke in November and the status quo will not suffice.

“Today I thank my colleagues. By electing me as speaker you have brought us closer to the ideal of equality that is America’s heritage and America’s hope,” Pelosi said. “This is an historic moment — for the Congress, and for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights.”

Yeah, but the question most Americans want answered is, "What are you going to do about Iraq?"

Political Report: Week of January 3rd, 2007

2007-01-04T12:22:00.000-05:00

Outlook

* Gerald Ford funeral magnifies the internal disconnect in the Republican Party.
* Bush decision to implement Iraq troop surge could mark the figurative end of his presidency.
* Democrats first 100 hours may not be enough to satisfy the extreme Left wing of their Party.
* Giuliani’s potential campaign takes a huge hit…from itself.
* Saddam’s execution will hurt anti-terrorism efforts for a significant amount of time.

Detail

1. Gerald Ford’s death left many in the Republican Party yearning for his centrist approach to politics. The battle rages on between the social, religious Conservatives, the Ronald Reagan wing, and the fiscal, traditional Conservatives, the Barry Goldwater and Gerald Ford wing. Ford was never a fan of Reagan and like Goldwater, he was suspicious of the direction of the Republican Party after Reagan’s election in 1980. For the GOP to see any success in the future, they will need to move to the political center.

2. A troop surge in Iraq will put President Bush out on a weak limb by himself. If the violence in Iraq continues after more American troops are introduced, which most military analysts say will be the case, Bush will see any support he has remaining disappear in a matter of months. With Donald Rumsfeld gone, military success in Iraq has become Bush’s and VP Dick Cheney’s last stand.

3. While boosting the minimum wage and supporting stem cell research will most likely be legislative victories for the incoming House Democrats, the extreme Left wing will be pressing for significant action on Iraq, specifically with the Bush administration planning for a troop surge soon. Many of those extremists, and some moderates, will soon begin calling for Democrats to de-fund the war. Since that won’t happen, Speaker Pelosi will have no choice but to ramp up investigations into the Bush administration’s war policy in the hopes of appeasing her Party’s Left wing.

4. Rudy Giuliani’s misplaced dossier shows just how vulnerable his own advisors think a presidential campaign would be for him. While his political positions will be enough fodder for his opponents, it’s the personal and business issues that may be the most damaging. Multiple marriages and divorces will not play well in the heartland and his relationship with the disgraced Bernard Kerik will be investigated thoroughly. Rudy may want to bow out gracefully before it gets really ugly.

5. The bungled Saddam Hussein execution and the video afterward will have a profound negative effect on the Iraq war specifically and anti-terrorism efforts generally. Sunni tensions have been inflamed throughout the region and it is likely that high profile Shiite leaders will be targeted for kidnapping and execution, and surely those will make their way onto the internet. The dueling execution videos have begun.

Powell Speaks Out; Unfortunately, It's Too Little, Too Late

2006-12-18T12:31:00.000-05:00

Yesterday on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Colin Powell continued his barrage of criticizing the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, going so far as to tell Bob Schieffer, "So if it's grave and deteriorating and we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost, and this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."

Powell joins a growing list of former Bush administration war architects, including neo-conservatives Ken Adelman and Richard Perle, who all of a sudden find fault with one or more aspects of how the current Bush team is conducting the Iraq war. "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work," Powell said. "It is the D.C. police force that guards Washington, D.C., not the troops that are stationed at Fort Myer, and in Baghdad, you need a police force to do that, and in the other cities, you need a police force to do that, and not the American troops."

Powell has been relatively quiet since leaving his position as Secretary of State in January, 2005, but in recent months he has been much more willing to comment on the direction the war is heading. While it has been documented that Powell opposed military action in Iraq, a stance that put him at odds with most in the Bush administration, his address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, increased the drumbeat to remove Saddam Hussein by force. It is a moment he himself admits is a “blot” on what was an outstanding career. "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now,” Powell has said.

Now, Powell is no longer shy about speaking to what the United States must do in Iraq to turn things around. "I think that what we should do is to work with the Iraqi government, press them on the political peace, do everything we can to provide equipment, advisers, and whatever the Iraqi armed forces need to become more competent, and to train their leaders so that those leaders realize their responsibility to the government."

While that all makes perfect sense, it’s still difficult to hear it coming from a man who is as culpable as anyone in the Bush administration as it pertains to our situation in Iraq. You can resign, or effectively be fired like Donald Rumsfeld, but your fingerprints will forever be at the scene of the crime. As much as Americans might hate what the war in Iraq has become, they won’t forget the players that got them there. Powell is one of them and while what he says now might be accurate, it also seems disingenuous.

Obama Should Be Cautious Discussing Safety Fear

2006-12-16T13:11:00.000-05:00

I was only six months old when John F. Kennedy was killed. Therefore, his murder and the assassinations of RFK, MLK, Malcom X and Medgar Evers don’t register with me and millions of others my age or younger as they do for those who lived through that era. So when I heard that Barack Obama and his wife fear the potential for violence, whether he runs for president or not, it makes me wonders if fear of another assassination will become a cause of great concern for supporters contemplating an Obama candidacy.

“Being shot, obviously, that is the least-attractive option,’’ Obama said. “I think it is something that will have to be addressed if I ran. You are not assigned Secret Service protection until you are effectively the nominee.”

Now, in addition to the question of whether America is ready for a Black President, we now have to question, along with Obama and his family, if America is ready to cope with the possibility of a Black presidential contender being assassinated. It is a reality of just not our time but of all time. It is one of the realities that Colin Powell’s wife spoke to years ago when she issued her concerns about her husband’s potential presidential candidacy.

Every presidential candidate must address personal and family safety issues on the campaign trail and afterwards but a potential Obama candidacy obviously raises the stakes. For the candidate himself to speak to the issue, specifically before he’s made a decision to run officially, may be a political mistake. America has seen far too many young, bright flames extinguished prematurely. She may not want to face the thought of that ugliness happening again.

Missing Hiker's Dumb Decisions Put Others At Risk

2006-12-16T11:58:00.000-05:00

American’s don’t hope for harm to come to others but many are growing tired of stories about individual’s idiotic decisions which put other lives at risk. The missing hikers on Mount Hood are a perfect example of people venturing into danger for no reason, especially when they knew difficult conditions were coming.

The storm that hit Oregon was not a surprise. It caused damage that hadn’t been seen in that state for some time and at least six people were killed while millions more are still without power. For these three individuals to purposefully place themselves in harm’s way and then force others to do the same to rescue them is unacceptable. Out of that storm that hit the Pacific Northwest, one woman died drowning in her basement. A man was killed in his sleep when a tree fell on his house. At least two other people died in traffic accidents. What’s sickening is that most people will never know those victim’s names but for the next three months we’ll be inundated with news stories about these foolish hikers, we’ll be hearing from their grieving wives and should they survive, every talk show will have the “Hero Hikers” front and center, ad nauseam.

It’s not news and it shouldn’t be treated as such. You want to be stupid and climb a mountain in a storm, good luck. I just wish the media would do us all a favor and keep it off our television screens.

Bayh Won't Run, Which Helps...Vilsack?

2006-12-16T11:40:00.000-05:00

Senator Evan Bayh has decided to drop out of the 2008 presidential race and while the first conclusion most Democrats will draw is there will be less competition now for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack is the candidate who stands to gain some momentum from Bayh’s withdrawal.

Vilsack, Bayh and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner were the potential Democratic contenders who would have run as Centrists. Vilsack, like Bill Clinton was before him, chairs the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. When Warner decided not to run a few weeks ago, Bayh’s camp saw a huge opportunity to gain some of the support that would have gone Warner’s way. Now, with Bayh probably not getting the bounce he expected or more importantly not being able to see where he was going to raise the money necessary to compete with Hillary and Obama, Vilsack becomes the last man standing of these three.

The question now is whether Vilsack will be able to raise enough money to remain a viable contender. He is already a declared candidate and he looks to be committed to staying in the race through the end. Monday night he will be making a stop on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart which can’t help but raise his profile with the millions of voters who don’t have any idea who he is.

There’s another potential contender lurking in the background who has to be taking notice of Bayh’s withdrawal: Al Gore. Can Al Gore really stand by and see this race come down to a battle between Clinton and Obama? Will he be able to resist the calls to jump in? We may not know that answer until late, 2007.

Random Thoughts

2006-12-15T12:27:00.000-05:00

* Tony Blankley writes an interesting article comparing Bush to Abraham Lincoln in 1861, with Lincoln having to stand alone, many times against the advice of his military advisors at the beginning of the Civil War. Unfortunately for Bush, he's not newly elected, as Lincoln was in 1861. For him, there's no longer any room for error.

* Lawrence Kudlow points to some of the problems that will face Barack Obama as voters take a closer look at him:

"The senator is liberal to the core. He voted against Supreme Court Justices Sam Alito and John Roberts. (Even liberal Sens. Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy voted for Roberts.) He said no to Patriot Act wiretap extensions, despite their proven effectiveness in halting terrorist attacks over the past five years. He collaborated in blocking John Bolton's appointment to the United Nations. He earned a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions twice as a state senator. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and stood against the Federal Marriage Amendment, despite acknowledging his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman."

* Joe Klein looks at the Democratic frontrunner...and it's John Edwards, so the early poll says. Not a great place to be all the time. Just ask Dick Gephardt.

* Pat Buchanan writes about the coming "war" within the GOP and the real meaning behind the Iraq Study Group report:

"This ISG report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. It is about giving Bush and Congress a "decent interval" before Iraq goes down and a Saigon ending ensues."

* Eleanor Clift pens an article on why Jeb Bush was the favored son and how that went wrong. Jeb may not have a shot at the White House which is probably why Daddy George was crying recently.

Kucinich Will Be a Thorn in the Side to Democratic Contenders

2006-12-15T11:47:00.000-05:00

The last thing any Democratic presidential contender wants to do is to have defend their initial support for the current war in Iraq, especially if the criticism is coming from another Democrat. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden and any other Democrat who voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war, Dennis Kucinich is now in the race.

“It is not credible to say you’re opposed to the war and keep funding it,” Kucinich said on Tuesday while announcing his bid for the presidency. “If the Democrats — going into the November election — had told the people, ‘Look, we’re going to vote to continue to fund the war,’ I doubt very seriously we would have gained control of the House and the Senate.”

Kucinich has called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, and while that may not be realistic, it will put pressure on many of the Democratic contenders to not only defend their initial support for the war but also offer realistic proposals for the way forward. Most Democrats and Republicans have run fast and far away from the Iraq Study Group proposals and now we know that any new ideas coming from the Bush administration won’t be out until after the year is over.

There’s still some time before the Democratic presidential candidate forums begin but Kucinich has the potential to make those affairs difficult for the top contenders when he pressures them on the issue of Iraq. "I am not going to stand by and watch thousands more of our brave, young men and women killed in Iraq," said Kucinich. "We Democrats were put back in power to bring some sanity back to our nation. We were expected to do what we said we were going to do -- get out of Iraq."

Good luck to the guy or gal having to stand next to Kucinich on stage.

Don't Be Fooled by Early Polls

2006-12-14T16:52:00.000-05:00

There's a great deal of new presidential polling data coming out every day and most of it places Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani at the top. In Iowa, where it seems John Edwards has been since John Kerry conceded in 2004, a recent poll had Edwards leading Clinton 36 percent to 16 percent.

It is far too early for polling to be considered more than a battle for name recognition. In December, 2002, an Iowa poll had Dick Gephardt with 26 percent and Howard Dean at 1 percent. Iowans had no idea who Dean was but by the time the caucuses rolled around, Gephardt was on his way home in the losing column, again.

The frontrunners have nowhere to go but down. The likes of Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack on the Democratic side and Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee on the Republican side, who are all pretty much polling in single digits, have yet to be heard from. They will be eventually and the polls you see today will look eerily like those in 2002 after the results come in: very much off the mark.

Young Politics 3rd Edition Online Now

2006-11-15T11:27:00.000-05:00

Take a few minutes and check out the 3rd edition of Young Politics, hosted at eFIPO.com. You'll find many thought-provoking articles including Jeremie Beaudry on "When Voting Goes Bad," Sagar Satapathy presents "Verdict on Saddam," and Bill Losapio writes about "Misplaced Leftist Giddiness and a Big Good Riddance to the GOP." The Thomas Political Report's recent article on John Kerry is also included. Let the writers know what you think, even if you disagree. We'll let you know when the 4th edition is online. Thanks.

Baker Panel Should Recommend a Federalized Iraq

2006-11-13T14:29:00.000-05:00

After a weekend of seemingly constant violence in Iraq, President Bush couldn’t have been anything but relieved to meet Monday with the bipartisan group that might be the last best chance to save his presidential legacy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton, is spending the day meeting with Bush and his national security team, including Dick Cheney, Stephen Hadley, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, John Negroponte, Michael Hayden and Gen. George Casey.

The group is expected to release its findings and recommendations before the end of the year. One of those recommendations should include implementing the Biden-Gelb proposal of federalizing Iraq into three regions: Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish. Each of these regions, or states, would share the country’s oil wealth and would be responsible for administering their own regions. More importantly, from a security perspective, Iraqi and Coalition forces would be better positioned to help stem the sectarian slaughter.

It is clear, and the study group will confirm, that “victory” in Iraq, specifically the type of victory that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have been trumpeting for the last four years, is impossible. Also, the notion that Iraq will be able to function as a democracy, western-style or otherwise, and will have a military that will be able to address security issues without the assistance of Coalition forces in twelve to eighteen months is a fantasy.

The White House has consistently said that any plan to split Iraq is a “non-starter” but there are rumors that the Biden-Gelb plan may have some strong support within the study group and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for President Bush to dismiss the plan if the bipartisan panel recommends it. The Iraqi parliament currently has in place a general outline of how the regions would look based on the Biden-Gelb proposal.

As presented by Senator Biden to the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, the Biden-Gelb plan has five specific points:

1. One Iraq with three regions.
2. A viable Sunni region with shared oil revenues.
3. More aid, but tied to the protection of minority and women’s rights.
4. Maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity and engage its neighbors.
5. A responsible U.S. drawdown and a residual force.

Point four is certain to be a recommendation of the study group. For months now, President Bush has been adamant in his reluctance to engage Iran and Syria. James Baker and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have both openly questioned the administration’s policy of isolating of these two countries, a policy forcefully endorsed by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Three autonomous regions would also allow Coalition forces to concentrate on two specific objectives: first, allow Coalition forces to be deployed to enforce the borders of the regions and second, allow Coalition forces to be deployed to enforce the borders between Turkey and northern Iraq, Iran and eastern Iraq and Syria and western Iraq. Reducing the flow of foreign fighters and their ever-increasing military arsenal streaming over Iraq’s borders would greatly help in protecting our troops.

The results of the mid-term elections have clearly shown the reluctance on the majority of Americans--Republican, Democrat and Independent--to escalate the war in Iraq. Any proposal, such as the one being floated by Senator John McCain to increase troop levels in order quell the violence, will never get off the ground. That does not mean that an increase in troop levels may not be one of the recommendations of the study group. A recommendation of such may be the last gasp of the neo-conservatives inside and outside of the Bush administration.

James Baker has said that he wants a consensus from the ten-person commission on whatever recommendations they present to President Bush. The Biden-Gelb plan contains the elements that allow the United States and its allies to implement a realistic plan that, although it doesn’t achieve the lofty expectations championed by President Bush, it offers the hope of at least reducing the death toll which shows no sign of slowing down. That, at a minimum, would be a victory on which we could build.

Rumsfeld Is Defiant to the End

2006-11-09T20:03:00.000-05:00

One only needs to carefully read between the lines of Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation statement in the Oval Office yesterday to realize that he still fails to accept the obvious: the war in Iraq has become a debacle. If the ultimate blame for the decision to invade Iraq lies with President Bush, the failure of the war these last three and a half years lies squarely at the feet of the stubborn former Secretary of Defense.

“Mr. President, thank you for your kind words and the wholly unexpected opportunity you provided me to serve in the Department of Defense again these past years -- six years,” said Rumsfeld. “It's been quite a time. It recalls to mind the statement by Winston Churchill, something to the effect that: I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.”

“The great respect that I have for your leadership, Mr. President, in this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century, is not well-known, it was not well understood, it is complex for people to comprehend. And I know with certainty that over time the contributions you've made will be recorded by history.”

It’s clear that Rumsfeld was calling all of those people, including over thirty million who voted for change just a day earlier, ignorant of facts only he knows regarding the Iraq war. It is all too “complex” for us normal folk to understand. What is not clear is whether Rumsfeld was also being critical of Bush’s decision to remove him and replace him with a man who brings the long needed foreign policy perspective of George H.W. Bush’s administration.

It is this dangerous hubris of the neo-conservatives that put American troops in the position that they are today and most likely will be for the next five to ten years. However, the age of the neo-cons is coming to an end and it was hastened by the votes of an uneasy populace. History reminds us that many were critical of Bush the father for not marching on to Baghdad in 1991. We don’t have to wait for history to remind us that the son should have listened to the father well before November 8th, 2006.

A Long Night and Morning for Republicans

2006-11-08T14:24:00.000-05:00

It may not have been a tsunami, but it was a big enough wave to wash Democrat’s into power in the House and possibly in the Senate. While our predictions of Democratic House gains were off by at least ten seats, possibly more, the Senate might still end up where we predicted depending on the outcomes in Virginia and Montana.

It was a difficult night for the Republican Party, especially for George Bush. Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill used to say that “all politics is local.” Well, this election, based on exit polls, was nationalized on issues like the war in Iraq and corruption in Congress. When the early votes started to roll in, Republican House losses in Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania foreshadowed a tough night for the Party of Lincoln. The only question that seemed to remain was how large the Democratic House margin would ultimately be and whether or not the Democrats could steal the Senate as well.

Initially, the Senate looked to be safe for the Republicans. Tennessee was in the books for Bob Corker and George Allen and Jim Talent looked strong in Virginia and Missouri respectively. But, as we’ve seen often before, the late votes that normally trickle in come from the larger cities and it was no different last night. Claire McCaskill won by a comfortable margin in Missouri and Jim Webb has enough of a lead in Virginia that if Allen contests, he’ll be labeled a sore loser.

That left it up to Montana, which until this morning was closer than Virginia but which has just been called for Jon Tester. The Democrats will have control of both Houses of Congress. The historical trend of the House and Senate switching Parties in tandem stays intact, and the last two years of the Bush presidency look to be very different from the first six. Some highlights from last night:

-Joe Lieberman’s triumph has to be sweet for him, especially with his claiming 50% of the popular vote in Connecticut.

-Although he ran a competent race in Maryland, Michael Steele was not able to overcome the huge Democratic advantage in Maryland to defeat Ben Cardin. Both he and Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich lost by large margins.

-Many Republican strategists will be questioning whether George Bush’s last minute visit to Missouri helped or hurt Jim Talent. Although he campaigned in largely friendly areas, Bush’s unpopularity may have been a boost to McCaskill in the final days.

-The Abramoff scandal may have been the final nail in the coffin to Conrad Burns in Montana which may have been the final nail in the coffin to the Republicans in the Senate.

-Rick Santorum went down swinging till the bitter end, yet he gave a very classy concession speech after offering congratulations to winner Bob Casey Jr.

-George Allen is most likely finished as a senator from Virginia and he is definitely finished as a potential presidential candidate in 2008. Jim Webb, while not running a flawless campaign himself, has a chance to be a very significant member of Senate due to his strong military background.

-Republicans lost some high profile members in the House, including Hayworth in Arizona, Pombo in California, Simmons and Johnson in Connecticut, Shaw in Florida, Chocola, Hosttetler and Sodrel in Indiana, Ryun in Kansas, Northup in Kentucky, Gutknecht in Minnesota, Bass in New Hampshire, Sweeney in New York, Taylor in North Carolina and Hart, Weldon, Fitzpatrick and Sherwood in Pennsylvania.

-Democrats will now hold twenty eight Governor seats including the extremely important seat in Ohio.

-Same sex marriage bans passed everywhere they were on the ballot except in Arizona.

-The Missouri amendment to allow stem cell research was approved.

The American voters spoke, and it’s impossible for George Bush and the Republican Party not to have heard.

Predictions, Predictions, Predictions

2006-11-06T16:33:00.000-05:00

Polls open less than twenty four hours from now so it’s time to make some predictions. There has been a great deal of buzz this weekend and this morning regarding some polling data indicating that specific races, especially races for the Senate, have begun to tighten, mostly in the favor of Republicans. Two polls, the Gallup and the Mason-Dixon poll, are polar opposites when it looks at the races in Rhode Island, Missouri, Virginia and Montana. What is a political pundit to believe?

Only one poll matters…the one tomorrow. It was inevitable that the races would tighten. While there has been no October or November surprise for the Republicans, there has been enough good news to help solidify their base in the last week to ten days. John Kerry’s blunder, positive stock market growth, lower unemployment and the Saddam Hussein verdict were all headlines that put some wind in Republican sails, and President Bush out on the campaign trail, even though he has stayed in red states, has also been a positive factor nationally.

One historical trend keeps coming to mind as the election nears: since 1914, control of the House of Representatives has only switched when the Senate has switched also. Most polling continues to show Democratic candidates still running very strongly in House races around the country. There are at least twelve races that currently look increasingly likely to switch from Republican to Democrat which leaves only a net gain of three more seats for the Dems to win in order for them to take control of the House. Only six Democrat held seats fall in the toss up and leans Democratic columns while forty eight Republican held seats fall into the leans Dem, toss up and leans Republican columns. It’s hard to see Democrats not picking up those three remaining seats.

So where does that leave us in regards to the Senate races if, historically, they would have to switch from Republican to Democrat as well? While the challenge is much harder for the Democrats in the Senate, it is not impossible. Many states still have very tight races, including Montana, Rhode Island, Missouri and Virginia. Amazingly, Maryland is not a lock for the Democrats yet and Republicans may be feeling a little bit too comfortable about Tennessee. All of these races could go either way.

There was no question that both the Democrat and Republican bases would be motivated on November 7th. Karl Rove has created a formidable Get Out The Vote machine, and while the Democrats are still playing catch-up to Rove, they are not as far behind as many might think, and the disillusionment with the war in Iraq has become the best GOTV issue the Democrats have had in years. So, if the national base turnout from both the Democrats and Republicans is equal, to at most, a one percent advantage to the Republicans, and a ninety two year trend in House/Senate changes has to be considered, what will be the deciding factor in these elections?

Independent/Unaffiliated voters will decide the mid-term elections this year. While both the Democrat and Republican bases will have a strong turnout, Independent voters, who usually don’t turnout heavily in mid-term elections, will be a force at the polls this year. If this is true, the Republicans will be in for a long night because all of the polls show a decided advantage for Democrats as it pertains to Independent voters. Polls show that those voters will be voting AGAINST George Bush in large numbers which mean they will be voting FOR the Democratic challenger in most races. Just a few percentage points spread in the Independent vote will be more than enough to decide the outcome in close House and Senate races, and unless Karl Rove is a supreme genius who has created the greatest political machine of all time, those races should break Democratic.

Regarding the historical trend, trends, like records, are made to be broken. Remember that officially you will have two Independents in the Senate, Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Bernie Sanders in Vermont. Those two are expected to align and vote with the Democrats. That leaves the possibility that the Senate becomes a 49/49 Democrat/Republican split which favors the Democrats. Just a little wrinkle for the trend.

So, let’s look at our predictions:

House of Representatives

Democrats need to pick up 15 seats for control of the House. We predict they will pick up 18 seats, far from the tsunami that has been predicted but we're sure after twelve years in the wilderness, the Democrats will be very pleased.

Senate

Let’s first look at the races that have been on the radar but now seem to be firmly in Democrat, Independent or Republican possession:

Arizona: Republican Kyl should hold off a late charge by Democrat Pederson. Democrats thought this race had a chance to go their way but it may be a case of too little too late.

Connecticut: Independent Lieberman looks to be safe here. Republicans were smart to throw their candidate, Schlesinger, under the bus. Without him drawing votes away from Lieberman, Democrat Lamont was never able to close the distance. For Republicans, it’s a win. They’d rather have Lieberman in there who is an Iraq war hawk as opposed to Lamont who would be another thorn in Bush’s side.

Michigan: Democrat Stabenow beats Republican Bouchard pretty handily.

Minnesota: Democrat Klobuchar also puts a pretty good whipping on Republican Kennedy.

New Jersey: Democrat Menendez holds off Republican Kean. Kean had a chance here but fumbled at the end. It’s one thing to attack your opponent when it comes to corruption. It’s another thing to portray in commercials the Italian Mafia making calls on Menendez’s behalf. New Jersey Italians did not like that, and they will show their displeasure at the voting booth.

Ohio: Democrat Brown will defeat Republican DeWine. Ohio is just plain ugly for Republicans in 2006.

Pennsylvania: Democrat Casey will clobber Republican Santorum. Casey ran a great campaign…he shut up and let Santorum do all the talking. Santorum may go down as one of the most divisive political figures in all of history.

Washington: Democrat Cantwell will hold off Republican McGavick. Not the year for a red candidate in this blue state.

Now let’s look at the races that will decide the Senate balance of power:

Maryland: There is a good chance that Incumbent Governor Bob Ehrlich will hold onto his seat by beating Democratic challenger Martin O’Malley. Ehrlich, after being behind all year, has peaked at the right time. The question is whether his coattails will be enough to lift his Lieutenant Governor, Republican Michael Steele, to victory over Democrat Ben Cardin. Steele has closed the gap but it’s getting late. In any other year, Steele, who has shown his great personality, might beat Cardin handily, who has shown himself to be as stiff as they can get. We think even though Ehrlich will win, Steele will come up short by the slimmest of margins. Prediction: Cardin.

Missouri: Bush’s visit over the weekend definitely energized Republican Talent’s campaign, but will it be enough? Democrat McCaskill has run a very competent race. She knows she will do well in the cities and she’s concentrated on getting out the vote in suburban and rural areas which Democrats sometimes fail to do. This, along with the gift that Rush Limbaugh gave her campaign by criticizing Michael J. Fox, also gives her a boost with the stem cell issue. The stem cell amendment looks like it will pass and we think it will carry McCaskill as well. Prediction: McCaskill.

Montana: Republican Burns has been gaining ground here and the recent visit by President Bush has helped to keep the momentum going. This state is as red as it gets and we see more of a chance for the Republican base to come home in this state in the last few days then anywhere else. We think this will happen which will make it difficult for Democrat Tester to hold on. Prediction: Burns.

Rhode Island: This is a state where those Independent voters we talked about may make all the difference. Some polls show Republican Chaffee bouncing back to take the lead while others show Democrat Whitehouse with the advantage. The Independents will most likely tip this race to Whitehouse although it will probably be a nail biter. Prediction: Whitehouse.

Tennessee: We think this race is closer than some of the polls seem to show. Democrat Ford has run a good race, but we believe he made a misstep by confronting Republican Corker at his press conference. Also, the much criticized ad that stirred up the subject of race in this contest seems to have worked in Corker’s favor. There probably isn’t enough time for Ford to catch up. Prediction: Corker.

Virginia: This race, no matter the outcome, has produced one fact: along with John Kerry, Republican George Allen has destroyed any chance he had of becoming President. Frankly, for both Democrats and Republicans, this is good thing. Kerry has shown himself to be “The Great Non-Communicator” and Allen has displayed that he is not a very intelligent person. It’s better that both get put on the sidelines sooner than later. As far as this race is concerned, Democrat Webb may not be the best candidate himself but Allen has done significantly more to shoot himself in the foot than any candidate in recent memory. Momentum has been moving in Webb’s favor, but this is still Virginia. Allen needs to get votes from downstate in huge numbers to offset Webb’s advantage in the DC suburbs of Northern Virginia. Webb also needs to steal some disgruntled Allen votes elsewhere in the state. We think he will. Prediction: Webb.

That would leave us with Republicans holding 50 seats, Democrats 48 and 2 Independents. With the two Independents expected to vote with the Democrats, Dick Cheney looks to be a busy guy for the next couple of years. Republicans still maintain the majority, literally and figuratively.

Republicans will have to look at this outcome as a victory. The House could easily switch back in 2008 and they prevent the Democrats from claiming a mandate. Democrats have to take what they can get. It’s been quite a long time since they had something to hang their hats on and this will give them some momentum as they look towards selecting a candidate for president. Either way, no tsunami. But at least, also, no more political ads.

Kerry's Finished: That's No Joke

2006-11-02T11:28:00.000-05:00

In the new CNN poll just released yesterday, registered Democrats were asked which potential candidate they would most likely support for President in 2008. Hillary Clinton led the list receiving 28% of the vote followed by Barack Obama with 17%, Al Gore and John Edwards with 13% and John Kerry with 12%. This poll was taken before Kerry’s recent attempt at humor, and although it is still early to think about 2008 in some aspects, it’s not too early to realize that John Kerry will never become President of the United States.

The most striking element of the three day saga of the joke gone wrong is that it serves as a reinforcement of exactly why the majority of voters rejected Kerry in 2004. First, he mangles, what he says, was an attempt at humor at the expense of President Bush. His aides sprinted into damage control mode by releasing the full text of his comments to show what he “really” meant to say. Sure sounds a lot like “I voted for the 87 million dollars before I voted against it.”

Second, after White House press secretary Tony Snow raised the volume on Kerry’s comments by calling for an apology, along with Kerry’s friend and soon to be Presidential candidate John McCain, Kerry decided to fight back. “I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy,” Kerry said. “I’m sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won’t take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes. It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who’ve never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did.” Sure sounds a lot like what he should have said when the Republicans tried to “Swift-Boat” him.

Finally, he eventually was forced to apologize; forced not by his own admission that what he said was not only stupid but unnecessary in the last week before a mid-term election where his Party has a real chance to damage the opposition. No, he was forced by the people in his own Party, led by Hillary Clinton, who realized that the last thing Democrats needed was the focus of the electorate taken off George Bush and put on John Kerry. "As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones that my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about and never intended to refer to any troop. I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended," Kerry said. Sure sounds a lot like a flip-flop.

Worse than what he said is the fact that Kerry doesn’t possess the political acumen, the political “chops,” to get himself out of a sticky situation. It took less than a day for the Republicans to put him on the ropes over something as simple as a misinterpreted line on the campaign trail, and not even his campaign. How easy would it have been for Kerry to just have said: “Sure, I’m sorry if what I said offended anyone in uniform. I offer my apology. But why haven’t President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld apologized to the American people for sending this country to war over WMD that wasn’t there? Why haven’t they apologized to the 150,000 troops that were sent out there to the desert without a plan going in and with no plan to get out? Why hasn’t President Bush apologized for spending this country into the greatest fiscal crisis in our great history? I don’t mind apologizing, but it seems that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld don’t apologize or answer to anyone but themselves. Well, Tuesday, you, the American people have a chance to change all that by voting for the Democrat in your local election. That will make it much easier for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to say they’re sorry.”

A great politician knows how to flip the switch, turn a negative into a positive. Most people can dance, but not like Fred Astaire or Michael Jackson. Most people can carry a tune, but they can’t sing like Sinatra or Ella Fitzgerald. Most politicians, at least the ones that are successful, have to at some point in their career deal with a moment that must take some talent, some political acumen, to extricate themselves from. Twice now, the Swift Boat controversy and now the joke-that-wasn’t controversy, John Kerry had to sing and dance his way out, and he couldn’t. It was sad to watch.

The CNN poll already is an early signal that Democratic voters have given up on Kerry and this latest controversy is just the proverbial nail in the coffin. His Presidential prospects are gone, so now he must decide if he wants to continue to serve his country as a Senator and build a legacy of which he can be proud. The senior Senator from Massachusetts accomplished that feat after his Presidential aspirations dried up. Now the question is whether the junior Senator will follow his lead.

Politics Of Fear On The Ballot In November

2006-09-07T11:40:00.000-04:00

As election season moves into high gear, it's obvious that President Bush and the Republican Party are going to fully concentrate on the one issue that they still feel resonates with voters in their favor: National Security.

Today in Georgia, Bush delivered another in a series of speeches aimed at highlighting the successes in the fight against terrorism but he also wants to make clear to the American public that there is still much more work to be done.

"Over the past five years, we have waged an unprecedented campaign against terrorism at home and abroad and that campaign has succeeded in protecting the homeland," Bush said. "We've learned the lessons of September the 11th."

Fortunately for the Republicans, more Americans believe they will do a better job of keeping the country safe from terror on our homeland but the gap is no longer as large as it used to be. Unfortunately for the Republicans, more Americans believe the Democratics will do a better job in just about everything else, including managing the economy, immigration and the war in Iraq.

Many pundits have said that ultimately this election will be a referendum on the war in Iraq, but if Bush and the Republicans continue to campaign on the terror theme it will be more of a referendum on how the American people want to view not only the world around them but the world inside of them. Since 9/11, Americans have been living in constant fear of another terrorist attack and Republicans have done an excellent job of keeping that fear alive. The election results in 2002 and 2004 were proof of their success.

But with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan getting more difficult every day, people are beginning to wonder if the overall direction of the fight against terror is off track. The politics of fear have been very successful for President Bush, but the question now is whether there is any more water left in that well. Without question, people want to be safe, but they also want to "feel" safe, and if after 5 years Americans don't feel any safer, they may be looking for a change in direction.

There has always been a sense of "can do" in the American spirit and it remains to this day. But there is concern in some Republican circles that the doom and gloom of the past 5 years may have worn on many voters. November will tell us not just where we want to go as a country but also what kind of people we are deep down. If being fearful is okay with most, then the status quo will triumph and the Republicans will hold the House and Senate. If people want a new direction, the House will go Democrat and the Senate may be 50-50. If Americans are truly tired of the politics of fear, a Republican White House and a Democratic Congress may be just the medicine for a fearful nation.

Democrats Need To Follow Warner's Lead

2006-08-31T12:28:00.000-04:00

While Senator John Kerry continues to live in the past by once again complaining about the 2004 presidential election results in Ohio, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is urging the Democratic party to rethink its electoral strategy for 2008.

In an interview with the Associated Press this week, Warner said "I got pretty frustrated after 2004. We are making a mistake if we put up candidates that are only competitive in 16 states and then we roll the dice and hope we win Ohio or Florida."

That is exactly what the last two presidential candidates did: Al Gore losing Florida and Kerry losing Ohio. What made the Gore defeat even more difficult for Democrats to stomach was the fact that he also lost Tennessee and Arkansas, his home state and Bill Clinton's home state. If you can't carry your home state, you've got a big problem.

Mark Warner recognizes that problem, which may be the biggest reason Democratic voters should take a very serious look at him as the 2008 race for the White House begins. Virginia is a state that hasn't voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1964. Not only did Warner win in Virginia and leave office with a high approval rating, he worked tirelessly to get his lieutenant governor, another Democrat, elected. He succeeded.

"We do our party and the country a disservice if we're not competitive in the South and the balance of the Midwest," Warner said. "I'm disappointed in campaigns that write off the South and leave behind wide swaths of our country."

Unfortunately, that type of campaign may happen again for the Democrats if the next nominee turns out to be Kerry, Gore or any of the other potential Democratic candidates. Do Democrats really think Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson or Barack Obama can change their fortunes in the South? Even though John Edwards hails from South Carolina, can he as a one-term Senator from North Carolina carry either one of those states in an election? And although Joe Biden likes to brag that his state of Delaware was a former "Slave State," will that really do him any good in Mississippi or Georgia?

"We've got to have candidates who can campaign not only in Ames (Iowa), but at NASCAR races, candidates who can campaign in the barrio and changing communities," Warner said. "We've got to have a message that's more focused on solutions than simply focused on criticism."

A potential Warner candidacy puts a significant number of Southern states in the mix for the Democrats which haven't been there for a while. In addition to Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia become states where Mark Warner is not only known but where conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans will give a serious listen to. Other than possibly Edwards, no one else on the radar for the Democrats can do that.

Warner knows that the last two Democratic presidents were Southern governors. "History has been pretty kind to Southern governors over the last 50 years," Warner said. Unless something changes dramatically for the rest of the Democratic presidential contenders that increases their popularity below the Mason-Dixon line, it may be best for history to repeat itself for the Democrats to have a real shot in 2008. Otherwise, that map of the United States may have a familiar pattern of red and blue once again.

Nagin Apologizes But Still Won't Admit His Failures

2006-08-28T12:03:00.000-04:00

Appearing on "Meet The Press" on Sunday, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin apologized for referring to the World Trade Center site in New York as a "hole in the ground." Nagin said "I wish I would have basically said that it was an undeveloped site, which it is."

This is just another in a long line of verbal miscues from Nagin since Katrina, with his referring to New Orleans becoming a "chocolate city" again during his re-election campaign coming quickly to mind. Rep. Peter King of New York said of Nagin "It's really disgraceful and shameful. Ground zero is sacred ground. To refer to it as a hole in the ground, to me, is shocking and inexcusable. Especially considering Mayor Nagin's own record. I mean, when Katrina was there, he was the one who had 500 school buses under water, he's the one who wasn't able to evacuate his city, he's the one who lost his composure on national television several times."

This month on HBO, Spike Lee's movie "When The Levees Broke" debuted and brought the tragedy of Katrina back into full light. As we reach the one year anniversary, if you can call it that, it still seems that many people, including Nagin himself, don't want to admit that if blame must be placed somewhere for the tragedy which was and still is Katrina, it starts with Ray Nagin.

Speaking to the National Association of Black Journalists, Nagin said "The tragedy of Katrina was awful. It exposed the soft underbelly of America as it relates to dealing with race and class, and I, to this day, believe that if that would have happened in Orange County, California, if that would have happened in South Beach, Miami, it would have been a different response."

While that may be true, it was Nagin and the city of New Orleans that were the first responders in Katrina, and they failed miserably. With no disrespect to Rudy Guliani, had Nagin and his administration responded with some semblance of competence, he would have had the opportunity to be considered on par with the former New York mayor who suddenly became "America's Mayor." 9/11 was a terrible day, but what really did Guliani do? What really could he have done? He reacted to an event that was unforeseen, and it was more that the brave men and women of New York's Police and Fire Department reacted, not Guliani.

Nagin had the opportunity to plan for the disaster that struck his city and to act on that plan and he did neither effectively. While the State of Louisiana and the federal government, specifically FEMA, should share much of the blame for the failed Katrina response, Mayor Nagin's failure to properly protect the citizens of his city was the first, and worst, failure of them all.

While "race" and "class" and how our nation deals with each will always be fertile ground for discussion, Nagin's inept management of the Katrina catastrophe is where the discussion should begin. An African-American mayor in a "chocolate city" should have done a better job for his citizens, all of them. That he did not is his failure. Admit that first and then we can talk about everybody and everything else.

McCain Starting To Back Away From Bush On Iraq

2006-08-24T11:41:00.000-04:00

Although John McCain will never have to explain his way out of the Iraq conundrum like his fellow Senator John Kerry has had to do, this week he began to distance himself from the Bush administration's pre-war and post-war declarations on how the war would unfold.

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said on NBC's Meet The Press. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

McCain, obviously, will be declaring his candidacy soon for the Presidency, and like every candidate, he will have to explain to the American public what he will do to get our men and women out of Iraq, with victory and dignity. Like Kerry and Hillary Clinton, McCain supported the decision to go into Iraq, but unlike those two, he has not stated that his vote on war authorization would have been different if he knew then what he knows now about WMD in that country. However, it is unlikely that he and his advisors don't see the increasingly pessimistic polling data that show US citizens beginning to reach a level of weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan and the threat of terror, and that means it's time to start getting into the right political stance. Translation: don't blame the war or the warriors, blame the architects.

"I think it's been well documented now that we didn't have enough (troop strength) there from the beginning, that we allowed the looting, that we did not have control, particularly, of areas, such as in the Sunni Triangle, which led to us paying a very heavy price," said McCain. "We make mistakes in every war, and serious mistakes were made here. The question is, are we going to be able to bring the situation under control now? I still believe we can."

McCain is in a strong position here. He can't be accused of flip-flopping, like Kerry has been, because he's not changing his initial position on the war, but like a majority segment of the public, he still feels some level of success is not only possible but necessary. Otherwise, what will the sacrifice of close to 3000 American troops have meant? "I want to emphasize that we cannot lose this. It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region, and I still believe that we, we must prevail," said McCain.

The main question that remains is exactly what does prevailing look like? When will we be able to say that our military objectives have been met? Do we really believe that whenever we start to pull out, Iraq, and the region, will be more stable then it was prior to our arrival? Do we really think that the Iraqi military will be sufficiently trained so that, as President Bush loves to say, our troops will be able to stand down as their troops stand up?

"I think they're standing up much better than they were in the past," said McCain. "The question is, is can they do the job completely, and the answer is no. When American troops are with them, they perform far better than by themselves. There are Iraqi battalions which are excellent, there are some that are poor."

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle that want a specific timetable for withdrawal and there are politicians that want us to stay the course. Even the President showed signs of being discouraged at the progress of the war at his press conference this week. "Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated," said Bush. "Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times and they're difficult times and they're straining the psyche of our country."

It's that kind of frustration from the Commander in Chief that worries the American public and starts politicians running for the hills looking for cover. Election day will give politicians a better idea what type of cover they need, but right now, John McCain sees the current administration as a liability and he's not going to be shy about pointing fingers.

Maybe Buchanan Wasn't So Crazy After All

2006-08-22T12:22:00.000-04:00

In 1992, after unsuccessfully challenging George Bush for the Republican Party's Presidential nomination, Pat Buchanan delivered what has since been called the "culture war speech" at the Republican National Convention in Houston, Texas. Buchanan took home some 3 million votes in state primary elections that year, but it was the 38 percent of the vote that he won in the New Hampshire primary that shook up the race and forced Bush to run a much more conservative campaign.

What many remember from that speech is the fierce attack he directed towards Bill Clinton's brand of liberal politics. "The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right," said Buchanan. "But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."

Karl Rove must have a copy of the speech taped to his office wall, because much of it has been his playbook in the last three elections. What was controversial in 1992 when Buchanan spoke about it is now what fills the dividing line that has been drawn between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican in this country for some time: abortion, gay rights, religion, the Supreme Court.

But it is what Buchanan said later in his speech that seems to be particularly prescient more than 16 years later. "My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans," said Buchanan. "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

This week, Buchanan is releasing his latest book, “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.” In it, he writes about the causes and ramifications of illegal immigration in the United States, as well as the Islamization of Europe into "Eurabia." It is getting harder by the day to refute any claim that the biggest issues facing our country, in addition to the threat of terrorism, are the problems associated with illegal immigration/border security and the growing menace of radical Muslim religious fundamentalism.

Religion and culture. Sixteen years ago, many people, Republican, Democrat and Independent, watched Pat Buchanan's speech that night and thought that he was not only wrong but a little off the mental beaten path. Now, the question of "what kind of country do we want to be" has been replaced by "what kind of country, and more importantly, what kind of world are we becoming." It doesn't seem so crazy in the daylight of 2006 anymore, does it?

Hagel's Plea For GOP's Return To Roots Will Resonate In 2008

2006-08-21T18:24:00.000-04:00

For all intents and purposes, Wednesday, November 8th, will be the first real day in the race for the White House in 2008. The day after election day 2006 will give us a clear reading, aside from unreliable polls, about the true mood of the country...where it is and more importantly, where it wants to go.

Yesterday, appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., continued his yet undeclared race for the White House by calling on the Republican party to return to their core principles. Hagel asked: "Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined, fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government? I think we've lost our way. And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable. Now, the people of each state and of this country will make their own decisions."

Hagel certainly isn't the first Republican or conservative commentator to express frustration with the direction his party is headed, and he has not been shy to be a leading critic of President Bush and his policies, one such policy being the NSA's warrantless wiretap program. When asked if he thought the President had overstepped Constitutional boundaries with the program, Hagel replied "I do. And I think that we need to find a new law. Of the law that we are operating with now was crafted in 1978. Technology has taken all of these issues far beyond that law, so we need a new law. And it needs a law — we need a law that is relevant to today's threats."

Hagel clearly recognizes that in order for the Republican party to continue to hold on to the White House and majorities in Congress, it must return to being the party of Ronald Reagan once again. The party of Richard Nixon was corrupted by the pursuit of limitless power, while the party of the first George Bush lost its grip on the soul of a country. It was the Reagan Revolution that cemented the resurgence of the modern conservative movement that had its first presidential candidate in 1964, with Barry Goldwater losing to Lyndon Johnson.

The core principles that Hagel discussed have slowly been under attack by the Bush administration and the Neo-Conservatives that have been so influential in establishing foreign policy. Hagel sees what that ineffective foreign policy has done to the country and to both political parties, specifically on the subject of terrorism. "Both parties are at significant peril in the election this year if they continue to define down to the lowest political common denominator this issue of terrorism," he said. "We have on the one side the Democrats running around saying well, the Republicans are warmongers, they want to take your rights away from you, you can't trust them. The Republicans...are saying about the Democrats they're cut and run, you can't trust them."

"If you continue to define it down to the lowest political common denominator for both parties, then what you're going to find is the American people not taking it seriously," said Hagel. "This is a real issue. This is consuming our country, this one issue. For the last five years, we have been consumed with terrorism. We've been consumed with the concern of our security. We're engaged in two wars overseas right now, and so it's too serious to be left to headline seekers of politicians or political parties."

Reagan was successful at convincing his party and more than enough moderate to conservative Democrats that his vision, a modern conservative vision, was where the country should be headed. America may well be looking for another Republican candidate that can not only halt the Neo-Conservative movement that has consumed the Bush presidency, but also reach across the political spectrum and find common ground on issues, specifically the war in Iraq, that continue to tear the country apart.

"When it comes to war, Americans dying in a war, national security, it should never be held captive to a political agenda," said Hagel. "I think that's wrong. I've said it's wrong. I don't base my analysis and judgment and votes on war, national security, on a party position. I don't think that's the right thing to do. I don't think Americans really want us to do that. Democrats die in war just like Republicans, and we debase war and the responsibility we have when we try to make it captive to a political position or a political party. I won't do that."

That may be the kind of statement and position that Americans are looking for, and if Hagel can present it with the passion necessary to stir voters in both parties, he may make himself a truly viable candidate for 2008.

Andrew Young's Words Tell A Story, But Not The Full One

2006-08-19T12:25:00.000-04:00

First it was Mel Gibson's drunken rant after being pulled over for DUI. Then it was Senator George Allen's sober remarks referring to a man of Indian descent as a "macaca." Now, civil rights leader, former Atlanta mayor, former UN Ambassador and newly former Wal-Mart spokesman Andrew Young finds himself in hot water after an interview with a Los Angeles newspaper.

During a question-answer session with the weekly Sentinel, Young was asked about whether he was concerned Wal-Mart causes smaller mom-and-pop stores to close. "Well, I think they should; they ran the mom and pop stores out of my neighborhood," Young said. "But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs; very few black people own these stores."

Young had been hired by Wal-Mart to be chairman of its lobby group, Working Families for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart established Working Families to help counter accusations that the company was anti-union, anti- small business and to help strengthen its reputation in the Black and Latino communities.

Young came under much criticism from the civil rights community when he decided to take the position, with many saying that he had "sold out" to the corporate giant. Now, as Wal-Mart deals with its first quarterly profit decline in 10 years, it must also deal with a public relations nightmare created by a man it hoped would help polish its image.

What hasn't been discussed, however, is how much of what Young said is supported by some in the Black community. These are not beliefs that are somehow new. One can even find it given the movie treatment in the 1989 Spike Lee film "Do The Right Thing" when three older Black men discuss whether or not to spend their money at the corner grocery which is owned by a Korean family.

There has always been a measurable level of mistrust and resentment exhibited by some in the Black community towards small business owners of other races. During the turbulent 1960's, many of the neighborhood businesses that were burned in the riots in Watts, Detroit and other large urban cities were owned by Whites, many of them Jewish. After millions of dollars of damage, inner-city incomes and property values were depressed for years to come.

Business owners fled for the now upwardly mobile and much safer suburbs. Some stayed longer in the inner city, with a few still in the same neighborhoods to this day, but there was a vacuum created when most of them left. That vacuum offered opportunities for Black entrepreneurs to start businesses of their own, like small corner groceries. I know...my Uncle George was one such entrepreneur.

For over 20 years, he owned at least one and at times multiple corner grocery stores. With pride he, and other Black grocery store owners, served the communities where they lived. Initially, he thrived. Growing through the late 60's and early 70's. Struggling, as every business, small and large, did in the middle and late 70's. Rebounding in the 80's. Soon, new competition began to emerge. Not the corporate giants just yet, but the new Asian grocers, the new influx, the next rung on the ladder.

My Uncle's struggles didn't start because the Asian grocers did anything to his business specifically. It was just because they started doing it better. For over 20 years he didn't so much run the business...it ran him. Where many early Black entrepreneurs struggled was in the business of running a business, and that, more than what Jewish, Korean or Middle Eastern mom and pop business owners are doing in predominately Black neighborhoods is why we are where we are today.

My Uncle, and others like him, didn't know all he needed to know about banking, accounting, finance, distribution, hiring, firing. He did the best he could, and he did damn well, but in the world of business, of supply and demand, of dog eat dog, if someone comes along and does it better, the milkbone underwear will start to fit quite snug.

Many Black owned businesses that began when my Uncle started survived, thrived, grew and continue to grow to this day. Many more young Black entrepreneurs every day decide that they want to be their own boss and begin the long and arduous task of building a business. There are more Black owned businesses in the United States then ever before. Some succeed and some don't, but most, with business education and business knowledge that was not as accessible to Black men and women in the 1960's, have a much better chance from the start.

The giant that is Wal-Mart will see profitable days again. Korean and Middle Eastern business owners will exist in Black communities, and Black business owners will continue to grow in number. There may never be as many Black corner grocers, mom and pops, as there once was, and that's okay. But should another Uncle George come along and decide that a corner grocery is his dream, I'm sure those in his community will find a way to support his business.

The Wal-Mart's and Home Depot's of the world can, and should, survive as should the mom and pop stores. It's up to individual consumers to spend their money in such a way that it happens, and hopefully it can be done in a color-blind world. That's what Andrew Young should have said. That he did not says much about where we as Americans still are when it comes to race.

Iran And North Korea Continue To Spar With U.S.

2006-08-18T16:57:00.000-04:00

Friday at Camp David, President Bush expressed concern that the world would face a grave threat if North Korea tested a nuclear bomb for the first time. ABC News reported on Thursday that U.S. intelligence had observed activity at a potential North Korean nuclear test site and an unidentified senior State Department official said a test was a "real possibility."

"If North Korea were to conduct a test, it's just a constant reminder for people in the neighborhood, in particular, that North Korea poses a threat," Bush said. "We expect our friends and those sitting around the table with us to act in such a manner as to help rid the world of the threat."

Elsewhere, in Lebanon, Hezbollah began handing out money to residents whose homes and businesses had been destroyed in the 34-day war with Israel. It is not known how much money has been distributed yet but the move is sure to increase support for the Iranian-backed group in the war-torn country.

Both situations show a continuing desire on the part of Iran and North Korea to rattle their sabers at the U.S. for different reasons. Iran wanting to show Israel, the U.S. and the international community their strength in Lebanon, the Middle East at large and the Shi'ite community everywhere. North Korea wanting to force the U.S. and the world into agreeing to concessions that will help their crumbling economy and infrastructure.

While both countries certainly don't want to force the United State's hand militarily, clearly they see the Bush administration fighting the worldwide perception that the U.S. is stretched thin in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Lebanon as it works to maintain a still potentially volatile cease fire. It's also clear that U.S. citizens are beginning to show signs of becoming war-weary and are increasingly pessimistic about success in Iraq.

With mid-term elections looming that every day look more gloomy for the GOP, President Bush can ill afford to respond to the constant jabs being thrown at his administration in any way that would seem to the American public to be a military escalation. Diplomacy, which may be a dirty word to some in the West Wing, will have to be the mantra. However, should the elections in November surprise the pollsters and show continuing support for Bush and GOP policies, the call from the Neo-Conservatives to get off the ropes and start swinging will grow louder than ever before.

Losing Female Voters A Troubling Sign For GOP

2006-08-18T11:28:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reports today that "security moms", who were an integral part of GOP victories in 2002 and 2004, are becoming increasingly concerned about the war in Iraq, the economy and the direction President Bush and the GOP are taking the country.

While there is great concern among this important bloc of voters about the threat of terrorism, the usual electoral advantage that has materialized because of the terror threat does not seem to be coming to fruition this time around for the GOP. The study, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center, shows that by a 50 percent to 38 percent margin, married women with children are more inclined to support Democrats than Republicans in upcoming Congressional elections.

Women still believe that national security is the issue of the day, however many are now starting to see the Iraq war as a distraction and a source for more problems rather than a solution. Additional Pew Research shows that about twice as many moderate and liberal Republicans as conservative Republicans favor bringing U.S. troops home as soon as possible (35% vs. 18%).

Not everyone believes that security moms are really the voting bloc they're cracked up to be. Karen M. Kaufmann of the University of Maryland writes in the July 2006 issue of the American Political Science Association that the myth of security moms was seized upon by the media, but it isn't true at all. Her data show that in 2000, 50 percent of mothers with children at home voted for Bush as opposed to 49 percent that voted for Bush in 2004.

As with polls, the only one that ultimately matters is the one on election day. Pre-election polls and exit polls in 2004 showed a much closer Presidential election that the final tally did not support. There is still a great deal of time for the GOP to motivate it's base and get them out on election day. The Democratic base is already mobilized. The question remains if moderate Republicans and Independents will give the Democrats the push they need to deliver the tsunami that so many polls seem to be pointing to.

McKinney Unqualified But Distrust Of Electronic Voting Valid

2006-08-17T11:48:00.000-04:00

Many people in Georgia, the House of Representatives and the Democratic party are breathing a sigh of relief now that Rep. Cynthia McKinney was defeated in her re-election bid last week. After her much publicized run-in with a Capitol Hill police officer earlier in the year, on top of her previous accusation that the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, it was inevitable that the voters of her district decided that the embarrassment of her antics was too much to take anymore.

Her odd personality was on full display in her concession speech where one was left wondering what she did with the money her mother gave her for singing lessons. In addition, once again there was an incident with people in her "security" detail scuffling with the media.

But McKinney is actually on target when she speaks about the problems associated with electronic voting in the United States. "You won't know who won as long as we have those electronic voting machines, with the problems that have been manifested by them," she said in her concession speech. McKinney has been highly critical of Georgia officials for not requiring that paper records be kept of all votes.

Although the issue of a close contested race was not a factor for McKinney, it is without question that it will be a factor soon somewhere in the country, and the accuracy of electronic voting will be called into question. In Ohio on Tuesday, a company hired by Cuyahoga County, the largest county in the state, released a report detailing significant problems with the May primary where electronic voting machines were used for the first time.

Improperly formatted machines, disappearing memory cards, machine vote totals not adding up correctly were just some of the issues associated with electronic voting in Ohio. "The election system in its entirety exhibits shortcomings with extremely serious consequences, especially in the event of a close election," wrote Steven Hertzberg, director of the study by the San Francisco-based Election Science Institute.

In 2004, the Election Protection Coalition, an umbrella group of volunteer poll monitors that set up a telephone hotline, reported some 1,100 problems with electronic voting. With more locales now using electronic voting, those numbers are sure to rise in 2006. Unless election officials can assure voters that electronic voting systems are secure from hackers, have reliable hardware and software and can verify votes with a paper trail, distrust in electronic voting will rise and people will long for the days of paper ballots again.

McKinney may not be the best poster child to lead the charge for accuracy in electronic voting, but unless it is done soon, and accuracy can be verified, the possibility of electoral fraud grows by the day. With election 2006 around the corner and 2008 looming, the United States can ill afford to let the public's distrust grow. Otherwise, it may be us who needs to have a foreign government come in and monitor our elections.

Much Ado About "Macaca"

2006-08-16T17:09:00.000-04:00

When it comes to politicians, people often wonder what, if anything, goes through their heads before they open their mouths. May I introduce Senator George Allen.

Yesterday, Allen apologized for remarks that offended a man of Indian descent who was tracking the Senator's re-election campaign for Democratic challenger Jim Webb. S.R. Sidarth is a 20-year old, born in Fairfax VA, and it doesn't look like Allen's apology is going to be enough to quell his anger.

"If he wants to make an apology to me, he can talk to me personally rather than doing this through the press," Sidarth said.

As Allen was addressing a GOP rally near the Kentucky border on Friday, he said, referring to Sidarth, "This fellow over here with the yellow shirt - macaca or whatever his name is - he's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. Let's give a welcome to macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

For a man who has been accused of racial insensitivity in the past (keeping a noose in his law office, a picture of confederate troops in his governor's office, a confederate flag in his living room, and wearing a confederate flag pin in his high school yearbook photo) you would think Allen would be smart enough to have the "verbal filter" always on high.

Many people probably have never even heard of the word "macaca" before, and even more may not know it's use as a racial slur, usually directed at African immigrants in some European countries. That makes it even more disturbing that Allen would use the word. Did he just make it up on the spot? Was it really a play on the word "mohawk" which now he and some of his staffers say was the nickname that they supposedly gave to Sidarth? C'mon, please.

It's doubtful that this gaffe will really hurt Allen's bid to get re-elected. Webb would need a miracle to beat Allen in November, and this a miracle does not make. But if the election is closer than expected, Allen's use of the word "macaca" in a country that grows more diverse by the day may certainly hamper his bid for President in 2008.

Bush Campaigns With Swann In Pennsylvania

2006-08-16T11:34:00.000-04:00

While some Republican candidates may be on the fence about whether or not they want President Bush to come stump for them, Pennsylvania Gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann has no choice but to get all the help he can in his race against Democratic Governor Ed Rendell.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll taken in early August shows Rendell with a 54 percent to 34 percent lead, with 10 percent undecided. Rendell has not only strengthened his support within his own party, but 1 in 4 Republicans say they would vote for him while only 1 in 10 Democrats say they would vote for Swann.

Swann must call on Bush for not only campaign support but also help in fundraising. Swann lags far behind Rendell in cash on hand and if he doesn't start to show some life soon in this race, support from the RNC will not materialize.

Bush will be touring a Harley-Davidson plant in York PA, sitting in on an economic roundtable later in the afternoon and then headlining a fundraiser for Swann in the evening. Pennsylvania is critical for the Republicans...if not in the Governor's race then definitely in the Casey/Santorum Senatorial battle and in a number of Congressional races that are suddenly much closer than anticipated.

Whether Bush will hurt or help is still up in the air, but Swann has no other choice but to try to jumpstart his lagging campaign.

What 34 Days In Lebanon Taught Israel

2006-08-15T11:32:00.000-04:00

While many will say that the 34 days of fighting in Lebanon was a victory for Hezbollah, Israel has learned an important lesson that will ultimately help to increase her safety in the years to come.

As written previously, Israel had the right to resort to military action in southern Lebanon after two IDF soldiers were kidnapped. Unfortunately, those two soldiers, and the one kidnapped in Gaza, are still unaccounted for. Most likely, a prisoner exchange at a later date will turn up all three safely.

Israel realized that it could no longer afford to allow Hezbollah to function with impunity on it's northern border. Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert also realized, and rightly so, that to unleash the full fury of the Israeli army on southern Lebanon would be totally counterproductive. Regardless of what the hawks in the Israeli parliament wanted, the Israeli army fought this war the only way they could...with restraint.

That restraint definitely put more of their soldiers at risk, evident by the number of military casualties suffered by Israel, but it also greatly reduced the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, no matter what the international community might think.

The most important outcome for Israel will be the establishment of an international peacekeeping force on the Israel-Lebanon border. That buffer is important obviously militarily, but more importantly, the pressure that it now places on Lebanon and more directly Hezbollah to cease their terrorist actions has increased exponentially. Hezbollah would no longer just be attacking Israel but the international community at large.

Israel gets more skin in the game, more commitment from the international community to help protect their border. That, unfortunately, may be the only way to prevent another outburst of the same violence we saw for the last 34 days. Israel also realizes that they can no longer go it alone, or only with the assistance of the United States. With the United Nations playing a major role in the cease fire, it is now incumbent upon more moderate Muslim nations to work towards greater stability in the region.

Gore’s Decision Worth the Weight

2006-08-14T18:42:00.000-04:00

Former Vice president Al Gore has been out on the campaign trail recently, however, this time he’s not out stumping for votes but looking for minds to change as it pertains to global warming. His new book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is Gore’s methodical narrative on the threat of climate change and its current and future impact on our planet.

The movie has received positive reviews from critics and performed well at the box office since being released and the book sits on the New York Times bestsellers list. Gore has seen his movie’s world premiere in Cannes and he’s plugged it on The Tonight Show couch next to Jay Leno. Al Gore has become a star, but no matter where he goes, the same question is always asked of him: “Will you be a candidate for President of the United States in 2008?”

“I haven’t made a Sherman statement, but that’s not an effort to hold the door open. It’s more the internal shifting of gears,” Gore has said, referring to Civil War-era general William Sherman. “I can’t imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again. I’ve found other ways to serve. I’m enjoying them.”

It’s natural, and politically smart, for Gore to remain coy, yet consistent, regarding his intentions about a potential candidacy at this stage of the game. He doesn’t have to show his cards, not just yet. Frankly, one could look at Gore and see a man who is probably more comfortable with himself than at any time in his life. He’s relaxed, he has a cause to pursue that he truly believes in and the pressures of politics seem worlds away. His waistline alone is proof that filet mignon, lobster, caviar and champagne are much more pleasing to the body and soul than rubber chicken. Still, many sense it’s just a matter of time before Gore throws his hat in the ring, possibly the only person that can stop the Hillary Train.

In 1962, two years after losing by the slimmest of margins to John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon lost the California Governor’s race to Pat Brown. In his concession speech, Nixon told the gathered media that this was going to be his last press conference, and he spoke words that if, maybe not coy, had a Sherman-like quality to them: “You don’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.”

Well, it was just a matter of time before we did have Dick Nixon to kick around some more because the pull of the national stage of politics was just too much. After moving to New York and making a great deal of money as a senior partner in a law firm bearing his name, Nixon spent 1966 traveling the country campaigning for Republican candidates running in Congressional elections. He rebuilt his base of support within the Republican Party. He became the candidate that could reclaim the White House for Republicans. He had “Weight.” He had “Gravitas.”

It begs the question; does Gore in 2008 now possess the gravitas that Nixon claimed eight years after his first failed attempt at the White House? Will Gore, like Nixon, have the moment when those in his Party turn their eyes toward him and say, “Hey, you know what: he lost his last time out, but right now, he looks like our best shot. He can get it back for us. He’s our guy. He’s the one for right now.” There are obviously a number of soon-to-be Democratic challengers that are going to have something to say about that, but among those challenger’s greatest question marks will be whether they themselves possess the gravitas to carry them to the finish line.

Gore is going to need much more than a campaign against global warming for Democratic voters to forget about the election of 2000 and give him another shot, and he just might have it in the war in Iraq. Since the buildup leading up to the war through today, Gore has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s planning, or lack thereof, and execution of the war. He did, however, support George H.W. Bush and the Persian Gulf War. Many Democratic voters would say he was right in both cases. This would put him at odds with John Kerry who initially supported the current war in Iraq, before changing his mind. Kerry also voted against the Resolution in 1991 regarding the Persian Gulf War. That “yes” vote for the Resolution in 2002 will also be problematic for a number of Democratic Senators who have their eyes on a run for the White House. Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer voted “yes” on Resolution 114 in 2002. Senator Russ Feingold voted “no”.

Those Senators that voted in the affirmative need only remind themselves of the difficulty John Kerry had during his entire campaign against George Bush trying to explain that vote. He was never able to coherently. Who’s to say that Hillary and the rest of the gang could do any better? And Kerry’s statement “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” regarding the supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may forever keep him to just visitor status on his trips to the White House. The rest of the potential Democratic candidates, who don’t have to fret about those votes, including Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark and Barack Obama, will have other issues to face, including, but not limited to, do they really think they have the stuff to win a national election?
Which brings us back to Al Gore.

“I honestly believe that the highest and best use of my skills and experience is to try to change the minds of people in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world about this planetary emergency that we simply have to confront. I have no plans to be a candidate for president again. I don’t expect to ever be a candidate for president again. I haven’t made a so-called Sherman statement, because it just seems unnecessary, kind of odd to do that,” said Gore. Odd…maybe. But until the words "If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve" come directly out of Gore’s mouth, he just might find himself getting kicked to the Democratic nomination for President.

Lieberman's Attacks On Lamont Will Backfire Badly

2006-08-14T11:28:00.000-04:00

Although the first post primary polls out of Connecticut show Joe Lieberman with a slim lead over Ned Lamont, if Lieberman continues to attack the Lamont victory by saying it emboldens the terrorists, that lead will vanish soon.

"My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive," Lamont said Sunday.

The voters of Connecticut will take this as a slap in their face to their intelligence. Obviously, Lieberman's camp feels that if they couldn't win the primary by being the "Joe" that everybody loved they are going to take a page out of the Republican playbook and attack Lamont on the one issue that they still feel resonates with the voters...Terror.

Unfortunately for Lieberman, the voters this time around are going to do a better job of separating issues. No longer will it be easy for the Republicans to morph the war on terror with the war in Iraq, and more and more, voters are beginning to see that the war in Iraq is doing more damage than good in the struggle to kill the terrorists who really mean harm to the American homeland.

Don't be surprised to see polls in the next few weeks beginning to tighten and then start to show a Lamont lead. His job now is to stay on message, which it sounds like he's going to do.

“I’m not changing my message one iota now,” Lamont said. “It is a message that resonates. It’s not just Democrats who think that we need real change in Washington, D.C.”

Term "Islamic Fascist" Completely Off The Mark

2006-08-12T11:18:00.000-04:00

One thing learned in private school was how frustrating it was for teachers to deal with students that used words and/or terms the wrong way. The President may need to go back to school.

The hot term du jour is now "Islamic Fascists." No matter that the definition for "fascist" does not accurately define who the 'Islamic Terrorists" are, it sounds better because it compares them, ideologically, with German Nazis.

President Bush, Rick Santorum and many more Republicans will be using this term now to describe the war on terror all the way up to the mid-term elections. It must have ranked very high in the focus groups, regardless of how inaccurate it truly is.

Top Political News Of The Day

2006-08-11T14:54:00.000-04:00

Bush Poll Ratings Drop

'08 Hopefuls Go To The Fair

Lieberman An Independent

Kentucky Governor Won't Go To Trial

Israel To US: "Give Us More Rockets Now"

2006-08-11T11:32:00.000-04:00

The New York Times is reporting that Israel has asked the US to speed up delivery of short-range anti-personnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hizbollah missile sites in Lebanon.

The Reagan administration lifted a ban on sale of these munitions to Israel in the late 80's. The ban had been put in place initially after Israel had used the munitions before during it's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and had killed a number of civilians.

It's likely that this news will up the ante as it pertains to Iran, Syria and maybe even North Korea as Hezbollah will undoubtedly want to obtain more deadly weapons to use as well. Even more pressure is on Secretary Rice and the United Nations now to find a way for a cease fire to be acceptable to both sides.

Bush And Republicans Sinking Further

2006-08-11T10:57:00.000-04:00

Two new polls are out today and both spell more trouble for Republican candidates this November. The AP-Ipsos Poll shows President Bush's approval rating dropping to 33 percent which matches the lowest rating that they have ever had for him. Also, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll shows a pessimistic public where two thirds believe that their children's future won't be better than their own.

Everything seems to be falling apart at the wrong time time for Republicans. If Bush has any coattails left, unless something dramatic happens before election day, he is going to be a significant drag in close Congressional races. The worst news for Bush and the Republicans seems to be that "Women" as a group...Democrat, Independent, and most startling of all, Republican women...seem to be turning away from them. NASCAR men aren't going to be enough to hold the fort if NASCAR women don't stand with them.

Bush's ratings also seem to have taken a hit in the South which has always been a region he could count on. Iraq, gas prices, the Middle East, Iran, North Korea, Terror...they all seem to be hurting instead of helping Bush and the Republicans this time around. Whether or not the Democrats can take advantage politically remains to be seen.

It Could Be 1994 All Over Again

2006-08-10T17:06:00.000-04:00

A new Fox News Poll spells bad news for incumbents. Similar to 1994, the electorate is brimming with the "throw the bums out" fever, and as Joe Lieberman found out, it's not just the Republican bums.

There is definitely a growing opportunity for Democrats to seize at least one branch of Congress, with the best bet looking like the House of Representatives. Republicans are going to use the election in Connecticut to make the Democrats look weak on defense, but will they really be able to make Ned Lamont the face of the party on a national level?

Today's terror threat, and the threats that came before, have always been an opportunity for President Bush and Republicans in general to look strong on defense, but more and more, Americans are wondering if our investment in troops and money in Iraq is a liability in the effort to truly defeat this type of terrorism.

A November to Forget For Democrats?

2006-08-10T14:18:00.000-04:00

A large number of political pundits, as well as Democratic strategists, pointed to the California special election to fill the House of Representatives seat once held by Randy “Duke” Cunningham as a possible barometer of voter sentiment as November’s mid-term elections approach.

In that election for California’s 50th Congressional District, Republican Brian Bilbray defeated Democrat Francine Busby, 49 percent to 45 percent. Busby, a local school board member, also lost to Cunningham in 2004.

Those Democratic strategists saw an opportunity to steal a House seat in a solidly Republican district. It was an opportunity based on growing uneasiness of the American public about the corruption scandals that have rocked the Republican Party and the falling approval numbers of George W. Bush. That the Democratic candidate did not win is less a reflection of the American public’s mood and more a symptom of the Democrat’s inability to temper their optimism.

It seems to be a foregone conclusion that the Republicans are going to lose seats in the House and maybe the Senate in the fall, with the only question being how many. However, if California’s 50th is any indication, and there is much debate about that, the Democrats have some significant work to do before they start handing out chairmanships.

Sure, it was a long shot for a Democrat to win in a district that has a 44%-30% registration edge over Democrats. But with 22% of independents also registered in the district, Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, saw this election as a significant opportunity to help Democrats reach their goal of retaking one or both Legislative branches. More than $10 million dollars was spent locally in the California 50th, and the DCCC was not shy about putting even more skin in the game. “We spent already about a half of a million dollars down there. So I'm committed to be competitive and try to win wherever we can win” said Emanuel.

The final numbers may prove that all that money may have been better spent elsewhere. In the last two presidential elections, Al Gore and John Kerry received 44% and 45% respectively in California’s 50th, which is exactly where Busby’s percentage fell. "Never have so many spent so much to accomplish so little," said Carl Luna, political science instructor at San Diego Mesa College.

More important than the money, however, may have been the campaign messages on which both candidates focused. Busby decided to concentrate on the self-inflicted malaise that has struck the Bush administration and the trials (soon to be maybe) and tribulations of the GOP-led Congress. She also referred numerous times to her opponent as “the lobbyist Bilbray”, an attempt to stir the voter’s emotions regarding the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Bilbray decided to concentrate on immigration reform, in such a way that it put him at odds with not only the White House stance on immigration but also directly with John McCain, who went so far as to cancel a campaign appearance with Bilbray. Bilbray has proposed a fence “from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico” and has strongly supported restrictions that will keep illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security and other benefits. Even with differing approaches on how to deal with illegal immigration, the President and the First Lady recorded campaign phone messages for Bilbray in the final days, sensing that victory was possible.

The goal of the political strategists and campaign managers now is to determine if either one of these messages resonated more with the voters, and that will be difficult to do in a Congressional district where other than the fact that the office holder won’t be a convicted felon, the status quo seems to be the big winner. "What is going on in California, in the 50th District, might be replicated in the rest of the country," said Stuart Rothenberg of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report in Washington, D.C.

In 1994, six weeks before the mid-term elections, the Republican Party released their Contract With America. They laid out in great detail the actions that they would take if they became the majority Party in the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. Although many may argue the effect the Contract had on the election, it definitely put the Clinton White House and the Democratic controlled Congress on the defensive. Ultimately, the Republicans won the House, parts of the Contract were enacted and the Democrats have been looking uphill ever since.

This fall, in lieu of a Democratic Contract With America, what will be the coordinated message that Democratic candidates will take out on the campaign trail, or maybe the better question is, will there be one? What are the issues that will resonate not only with Democratic voters but with Independents and moderate Republicans as well? In order for Democrats to defeat Republicans in those very few contested districts, like the California 50th, they’re going to need more than the campaign message that gave Francine Busby the same percentages as Gore and Kerry.

If the Democrats campaign this fall on Bush’s falling fortunes and a scandal-plagued Congress, retaking the House or Senate will remain a fantasy. Democrats must remember that they will get their share of scandal coverage as Rep. William Jefferson’s money continues to thaw since being freed from his freezer, and in five months, President Bush’s popularity is almost sure to nudge up even slightly. With the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the completion of Iraq’s government, the willingness of the Iranians to at least consider sitting down at the negotiation table, a surprise Presidential visit to Baghdad and a guy named Karl Rove that just got off the hook, that nudge just got a slight nudge.

Absent a Contract With America or something similar coming from the Democrats, the status quo may reign supreme. If this campaign is going to be contested on the issues we saw on display in the California 50th, the Republicans will trump the Democrats, because Republican candidates will run to the right of Bush on immigration, which is a winner, and they are also just beginning to dust off that old chestnut that seems to always come out around election time: opposition to gay marriage.

The Democrats won’t win bashing Bush and a scandal-plagued Congress. It’s time for Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to put forth some serious proposals that will grab the attention of the American public, and not six weeks before the election. Otherwise, the $10 million dollars spent in the California 50th is going to look like chump change if the shake-up that so many seem to predict is coming doesn’t materialize. Then, after the Democrats have wiped the egg from their faces, they get to look forward to 2008 and the possible presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton. They may need to save a few extra napkins, just in case.

Terror Threats Still Affect Public Sentiment, But How?

2006-08-10T13:56:00.000-04:00

Every time a new threat is exposed that threatens air travel, it's inevitable that the public feels the pangs of 9/11 all over again.

“We were really getting quite close to the execution phase,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Although the terrorists were based in London, the flights were going from London to the US meaning that significant American lives would have been at risk.

Citizens will no doubt deal with the inconveniences that they are going to experience at airports for the foreseeable future, but after the initial shock, many more are going to begin to wonder if the "War On Terror" is being fought in the best fashion and whether we are more safe or less safe.

Come November, they will let both political parties know who they are going to trust more to lead us through the next few years of terror threats like the one today.

White House Opposition to Israeli Military Escalation Ironic

2006-08-09T16:49:00.000-04:00

Israel's Security Cabinet today approved plans to send IDF troops deeper into Lebanon which will clearly expand the ground war. At the same time, Hezbollah rejected the U.N. peace plan which had been falling apart almost from the moment it was first proposed.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said that “We are working hard now to bridge differences between the United States position and some of the positions of our allies. We want an end to violence and we do not want escalations.”

This statement sounds very much like those spoken by many individuals leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet, this same White House decided not to pay heed. Makes one wonder: why should Israel pay heed?

They shouldn't. Less than two weeks ago, President Bush was very definitive in comparing Israel's actions in Lebanon to the U.S. action in Iraq...both a fight against the forces of global terror. If so, Israel should press further, and harder. Unlike our military incursion into Iraq, Israel was actually attacked, and they've responded as they should. President Bush seems to be practicing "do as I say, not as I do" diplomacy.

Lieberman Must Show Some Class

2006-08-09T15:30:00.000-04:00

As hard as it may be for Joe Lieberman to accept the results from last night's primary election in Connecticut, the voters have spoken. Already, leaders in the Democratic party are urging him not to run as an Independent candidate, but I doubt if Lieberman will heed their calls.

Just like we all used to say as kids, Lieberman lost fair and square and he needs to show some class and step aside for the good of his party. Otherwise, his Independent candidacy becomes nothing more than a vanity play. During his campaign, he received support from all the established Democratic leaders, including the top dog, Bill Clinton, and he still lost. He will no doubt lose even bigger in November if he challenges them this time around.

Coulter Goddess of Virulent Conservatism

2006-08-09T13:07:00.000-04:00

There are obviously a fair number of people that enjoy reading books by Ann Coulter. Previous offerings from the author have been very successful and her current book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” is at the top of The New York Times bestsellers list.

In the book, Coulter skewers liberals, once again. This time, as the title suggests, she writes that liberals reject God and have a disdain for all people of faith, but it’s what she penned about four New Jersey widows whose husbands were killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11 that has drawn the ire of liberals as well as some conservatives.

Coulter writes, “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefarazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

Coulter objects to the “Witches of East Brunswick,” as she calls them, because they, like many others, called for an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks. She also points to their support of Democrat John Kerry’s presidential candidacy in 2004 as problematic.

“If people are going to use a personal tragedy in their lives to inject themselves into a national debate, I‘m sorry. You can‘t just say, we‘re off limits. We‘re going to invoke the fact that our husbands died and you can‘t criticize us,” she said.

To say that Americans have lost the ability to be civil towards one another as it pertains to political discourse would be an understatement, but it didn’t begin with Ann Coulter or Fox News or any other entity that views liberals and all else on the left as the Anti-Christ. They may be perfecting the genre, but they didn’t invent it. Frankly, fierce partisanship and strong opinions should be welcomed within political debate. Fierce partisanship from Democrats in Congress might well have persuaded more of them to bravely vote against Resolutions on the war in Iraq.

What Coulter has written specifically regarding the 9/11 widows and often what she has said on various topics amounts to very bad taste. However, the essence of what she wrote about the widows can certainly be viewed as a legitimate observation, and a cleverer author would have written it much better. But that doesn’t sell books, and Ann Coulter’s job is to sell books.

Voltaire said “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Free speech should always be defended, even when it is in bad taste, because more often than not, it is uplifting and beneficial to the common good. What’s interesting is that while most intelligent people would defend free speech, even Coulter’s, she would not. “Liberals are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment,” Coulter said during an Oct. 21, 2005, speech at the University of Florida.

A question that should be asked is this: are Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity the best mouthpieces that the conservative movement has to offer us today? And are they truly conservatives? William F. Buckley, a man for whom the word conservative fits like a glove, once said of the current president, “Bush is conservative, but he is not a conservative.”

The same could be said of Coulter. If Buckley, George Nash, George Will, Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley can be viewed as traditional fiscal, cultural and/or religious conservatives, Coulter and her gang should be given a new branch on the conservative tree, if they belong there at all: Virulent Conservatives.

Virulent Conservatives are more than fiercely partisan. They are hateful and bitter towards those that disagree with them and with the current administration, using words like un-patriotic and un-American to describe people that dare to utilize maybe the greatest gift the Founding Fathers gave us: dissent. Harry Truman said “once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

It was sixteen years after Barry Goldwater’s landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson in 1964’s presidential election before Ronald Reagan’s election cemented the resurgence of the modern conservative movement. In between, Richard Nixon was the first actor in Buckley’s “conservative, but not a conservative” movie, thirty-two years before George W. Bush got the leading role. Although one could argue that it was the Johnson campaign that brilliantly painted Goldwater as a dangerous extremist, Goldwater himself provided much fuel for the fire that would eventually engulf his political career.

Reagan learned well in 1964 that dangerous rhetoric and unnecessary vitriol need not be the main tenet of the conservative movement. Whether you agreed with him or not, the persuasive and stylish way in which he put forth his conservative beliefs is something that is sorely lacking from within the virulent wing of the present-day conservative movement. Coulter and her gang certainly may keep serving up the bloody red meat that their minions continue to lap up, but, eventually, liberals and conservatives will ultimately yearn for more honest, decent and thought-provoking debate. Unfortunately for Coulter, Virulent Conservatives, and the next Republican presidential nominee, that yearning might reach its peak in 2008.