Obama goes to Egypt

My first impressions of Obama’s speech in Egypt were all very positive, but first, Obama’s unique opportunity. The most compelling aspect about Obama is not his ideas, not even his incredible oratory style, but who he is- a black man with the middle name Hussein. Obama’s election reaffirmed the undeniable strength of America, its pluralistic nature and social mobility. America is by no means perfect, but in no European country could a black man with an Arabic middle name have any political career, much less win the presidency. It is these characteristics, and the stark contrast in personality from Bush, that give Obama a shot at solving longstanding Arab conflicts.
Obama has cautiously extended his hand to the Arab world, a broadly accepted policy. Republicans feared that Obama’s apologetic tendencies would surface again, in the worst place they could, the heart of the Middle East. Shockingly, Obama did not throw Bush under the bus, at least not completely. Obama skillfully danced around the Iran issue, never condemning their nuclear ambitions only reiterating a need for a nuclear free world. A world that is as likely as the Washington Nationals winning a World Series, it just won’t happen. Although not addressing Iran’s brass pursuit of nuclear weapons he took a well deserved shot at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying “Holocaust denial as “baseless, ignorant, and hateful”.
So Obama, always the idealist, loses points on the Iran issue. When he slipped up with ambiguous Iran talk, he picked up points when talking about Israel. He and Senator Clinton came down hard on both parties perpetuating the conflict, Arab militants in Gaza, like Hamas, and Israel settlements encouraged by the state. On the topic of Hamas Obama was tough saying, “it is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus”; insisted that “the Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.” (Note: all those quotes were extracted from Obama’s speech by Rich Lowry in his most recent article, got to give the man his credit).
Now to put two and two together: Obama, because of the color of his skin and his genuine connection/familiarity with Islam has the Arab world’s attention, something no white President, not Bill Clinton nor George Bush has had. Let’s face it, the messenger matters. Both Clinton and Bush towards the end of their terms invested significant time, effort, and money trying to solve the Israel-Palestine debate. The situation in Gaza is worse than ever. Obama might say the same things as Clinton and Bush did, but saying it to a receptive crowd makes all the difference. To further this point, George W Bush constantly said that we are not at war with Islam the religion, for whatever reason this was insincere. When Obama say’s the same thing, it’s turning the page, a new vision. I’m not interested in why this is; only that people are now listening. Republicans should be willing to bite the bullet about Bush’s legacy for now, especially in the name of national security and the Middle East.

A letter from my boss to the Arizona Republican Party Chairman

Dear Chairman Pullen,

I write today to express grave concern regarding plans to politically target lawmakers who are standing strong in defense of Arizona taxpayers. As you know, it has recently been announced that the firm High Ground Inc., a group that advises Governor Jan Brewer, will launch a $225,000 media campaign against legislators who oppose Gov. Brewer’s calls for a multi-billion dollar tax increase in the middle of a recession.

The Governor has made clear that this campaign, which targets fiscally conservative legislators from your own party, has her full-throated support. Several months ago Americans for Tax Reform asked your staff if rumors of a campaign to target Republican legislators were true and if such an effort would be supported by the Arizona State Republican Party. That inquiry, disturbingly, was met with silence by you and your staff.

It is no secret that you have close ties to those behind the aforementioned campaign. This is troubling given your duties as chairman of the state Republican Party and RNC treasurer.

One of the few things economists of all political stripes can agree on is that the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes. Additionally, opposition to higher taxes is a long-held and central tenet of the Republican Party. In fact, your counterparts at the Maine and Washington State Republican Parties have gone so far as to incorporate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge into their party platforms.

According to the Center for Fiscal Accountability, Arizona taxpayers already spend 194 days – more than half the year – working just to pay for the cost of government. Yet Gov. Brewer doesn’t think this is enough.

As we approach an important election year, it is shocking that Gov. Brewer is supporting a campaign that will attack members of her own party because they are standing up for Arizona taxpayers. It would be unconscionable for the state Republican Party to not condemn this effort.

I therefore ask you, as chairman of the state Republican Party, to unequivocally and publicly announce your opposition to and repudiation of this campaign to be waged by Gov. Brewer and High Ground.

Feel free to call on me or ATR’s state affairs manager, Patrick Gleason (pgleason@atr.org) with any questions or concerns.

Onward,

Grover G. Norquist

CC: RNC Chairman Michael Steele, all RNC Committeemen & Women, Arizona Press


Citation:ATR.org

The lesser of two evils: turning a blind eye

Obama has really put the Republicans in a bad place. There are many questions about Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, mainly fair questions, about past rulings and how her “empathicness” will be play out when she is confirmed. The brilliance of Obama’s pick is this: he gets the left judge he wants while alienating Republicans should they decide to dispute his pick. There are real political points to be won by the Republicans, Sotomayor’s past affirmative action ruling (see here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-05-31-firefighters_N.htm) which will be overturned this summer, supplemented with a host of quotes like this, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Republicans could make some valid points (it even feels weird typing that). There are issues with this ruling and her apparent identity politics (identity judgments perhaps?).
Unfortunately for Republicans, they will need to bite their tongue and cheer her across the finish line. Democrats hold 59 seats in the Senate. There is nothing Republicans can do to stop her inevitable confirmation. That fact, coupled with the equally important realization that condemning Sotomayor just looks bad, should be enough to deter Republican criticism. Republican hands are tied, not because their points are illegitimate- but because they cannot afford to alienate Hispanics. Picture this: during Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, a white Southern Republican yelling, maybe valid points, but yelling about Sotomayors problematic nomination. Is there anything worse in this world? Inevitably this horrific scene would be condensed into an illogical 20 second clip that would run endlessly on cable news. This 20 second clip is now the undeniable evidence that Republicans are truly close minded and that minorities are not welcome in the party. Thus is the brilliance of Obama. He gets his Justice with no fight at all from Republicans (the lesser of two evils in my opinion) or can open his arms and embrace alienated Hispanics. Obama didn’t get to be President at age 47 without knowing how to play the game. Considering how large the Hispanic vote is, and how fast it is growing, it would be counterproductive to question Sotomayor. I wrote in my first post that it would be wise for Obama to avoid unnecessary political battles, explicitly in reference to his Judicial Nomination. Alas, he has not done this. Instead he is waving a piece of meat in front of hungry Republicans, daring them to tear into Sotomayor.

Who will lead?

Since the Democratic reemergence tn the national scene in the past two elections there has been an eerie consensus that the Republican Party is dead. Although Republicans are presently down in the dumps, they will surly bounce back as they have in 1964, 1974, and 1992. The only question is who will lead the eventual renaissance? Who will be the Republican Obama? It’s probably impossible to answer that question today but a look at current GOP leaders may provide some insight.

Dick Cheney-The defensive Republican
Cheney is back…much to the dismay of Republicans who hold their breath when the man speaks. After leaving office with his head in his hands, Cheney has come back to defend the Bush administration, more specifically, its national security agenda. This is hardly surprising as Cheney, a man with enormous pride, thinks he hasn’t gotten a fair shake and that history will eventually vindicate him. Someone has to stand up for the Bush administration, Bush said that he would grant Obama a grace period before jumping back into the fray, but Republican’s worry that Cheney’s message is lost because of his vilified persona. Republicans would be much happier, should say, Condoleezza Rice make the case for Bush instead. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Dick.

Rush Limbaugh- The loud Republican
Rush Limbaugh, one of the most controversial figures in the U.S., has been anointed as the new face of the party by left-leaning pundits and Democrats alike. His in your face, often provocative, style is one that inspires both love and hate. Somehow he always manages to stir the Republican pot. His initial challenge of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Party, created internal strife. More recently, Dick Cheney, on a Sunday Talk Show, said that he “would rather have Rush Limbaugh than Colon Powell in the Republican Party,” a quote that further perpetuated the idea that Republicans are only talking to themselves, that they are expelling all moderate voices from the party. Although Limbaugh proves to be very divisive, he does fire up the base of the party. This is good. The problem Republicans face is that by playing to the base, something all national parties must do, they have alienated moderates. Limbaugh’s voice has become too loud and has drowned out dissenting opinions, this is his fault.

Michael Steele- The hip Republican
The new chairman of the party has made a lot of noise recently. The Black, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, election was viewed by many as a transparent attempt to reach out to minorities in America. Although this played a role in his election, certainly no more than Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, Steele brings much more to the table than just the color of his skin. He is an articulate new face for the party, something we desperately need. Besides, he’s from Maryland; I have to show him love. Although he has had some awkward moments, with forced lingo like, “straight up,” he has a bright future if he can come across as genuine.

Disconncet between Obama rhetoric and policy

If you managed to catch Barack Obama’s speech last Thursday, about Gitmo and counter-terrorism, you would have certainly felt bad for the guy. After all, the Bush administration left Obama with a handful of national security questions. Is waterboarding torture? What should we do about the captives being held at Guantanamo (Obama actually categorized them prisoners of war on Thursday)? Unfortunately for Obama, his case against the Bush's national security policy doesn’t ring true and could comes back to bite him. Prior to his election, Obama’s campaign was very liberal in nature in regards to national security issues. In trying to appeal to the Moveon.org crowd, Obama promised to give all prisoners held at Guantanamo a fair shake in American courts. As nice as this sounds, everyone does deserve their day in court, it becomes nearly impossible for the military to conduct its job should soldiers need to scour battlefields for evidence. In the face of startling statistics: one out of every seven prisoners released from Guantanamo resumes terrorist action; Obama, ever the pragmatist, changed his mind realizing that special trials need to be held, thus, affirming this aspect of the Bush Doctrine. That is one example.
This is one of many Bush-confirmative actions Obama has enacted. The tenets of Bush national security are still in place, so what’s Obama whining about? Bush left Obama with a blueprint on how to protect the country, one that Obama has embraced with only minor tweaks. Bush wanted to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but never figured out how to do so safely. Without these important details, Bush never would have got a bill through Congress, the same problem Obama faces now.
After 9/11, America was a scared state. Everyone and their mother was terrified of another, what many though eminent, attack. This is the all important backdrop for the torture debate. In my opinion, waterboarding is torture and I was encouraged when Obama outlawed it. That being said, the Bush administration with the aid of Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, decided to look the other way when waterboarding was temporarily legalized in the aftermath of 9/11. I wholeheartedly believe that the implementation of waterboarding was a response to 9/11 and the perceived threat that ran through the country. Many accuse Bush officials of using 9/11 to implement their global plans, tacitly saying that Bush officials were masochists and finally now had an excuse to torture people. Probably not. Certainly it plays very well with the public to defer blame back to the Bush administration, vindicating Obama’s decisions whatever they may be. The logic is that nothing is really Obama’s fault, that his choices were forced upon him, so should he make the wrong ones, hey, sorry I didn’t get us into this mess. The obvious problem is that no Presidency is an isolated four years, no one gets a clean slate. Tough decisions are part of the job description. Blaming Bush-while accepting many of his policies-is a dangerous political game and could come back to haunt him.

With Obama’s daunting agenda he needs as few distractions as possible

President Obama’s first 100 days in office may be the most drastic in American history. Obama used the economic panic as a jumping off point to actualize plans to fix nearly all of America’s problems, from healthcare to education to restructuring the economy, no stone (or industry) was left unturned. Obama enacted his grandiose vision with the thinking that for America to get back on track all of its problems must be fixed, to avoid a “death by a thousand paper cuts” type scenario, fair enough. Despite the monumental undertaking, to tackle problems that have been floating around the Congressional floor for decades, see healthcare and entitlement reform, the President would be wise to limit his distractions.

Earlier this week, Obama reneged on his decision to release pictures of American soldiers ‘torturing/enhanced interrogating’ captured terrorists. Obama’s decision was the rare win win scenario that was politically expedient and correct policy. Almost immediately after the interrogation fire had begun to subside, Nancy Pelosi threw gasoline on it with her wild accusations that the Central Intelligence Agency had misled her, and the rest of Congress, during torture briefings in 2002-2008. Obama would be wise to put a shorter leash-and possible a muzzle- on her in order to focus on his agenda. Her accusations, pretty much accepted as false, have created inner governmental fighting pitting the C.I.A. against the Congress. What a headache for Obama.

In other news, Obama has been criticized for hinting at appointing an “empathetic judge,” whatever that means. Obama would be smart to find an empathetic judge that is left of center, certainly empathy can be found in other places than the far left of the Democratic Party. Conservatives are likely to put up a fight for any judge he nominates; they have little influence other than that. It is all too predictable the language Republican’s will use, throwing out the juicy phrase judicial activism- implying that Obama’s nominee seeks to redistribute wealth and implement his social agenda- will undoubtedly fire up the base. Obama will run into trouble should Republican criticisms of Obama’s nominee begin to ring true, thus creating a messy conferral process. Obama promised to secure American prosperity through his long-term programs and sweeping reforms. For anyone in their right mind to manage such severe ‘change’ they need to remain headstrong and focused. Nancy Pelosi is not his fault but will reflect poorly on Obama should she persist in her finger pointing. The Supreme Court judge is a political disaster waiting to happen. Why give angry, disenfranchised Republicans ammo if avoidable?