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?