TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | December, 2009

Calling Lou Dobbs

By on 09 December 2009

Don’t look now, but Mr. Dobbs has got himself a platform if or when he decides to run for office, maybe the Senate from New Jersey, let’s say. After all, with Justice Sotomayor’s first opinion, she’s blown Dobbs’ whole patter out the window. I was reminded of Dobbs just last night when I found myself sitting in front of the fireplace in my office late, flipping channels, landing on a repeat of George Lopez’s special for HBO. It was taped right after the vote on Sotomayor, with Lopez making a point to call out Dobbs, after mentioning that all the Republicans who voted against her wouldn’t get the Latino vote. When he mentioned Dobbs the audience erupted. It’s a reminder of just how important Justice Sotomayor is to the Latino community, as well as women, let me add.

Via the New York Times, Adam Liptak finds one section of Judge Sotomayor’s first opinion that is noteworthy regarding language:

In an otherwise dry opinion, Justice Sotomayor did introduce one new and politically charged term into the Supreme Court lexicon.

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term “undocumented immigrant,” according to a legal database. The term “illegal immigrant” has appeared in a dozen decisions.

ImmigrationProf Blog had this to say: the choice of terminology — aliens. illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, people — matters in the discourse over immigration. Consequently, by employing a more neutral term, Justice Sotomayor has added significantly to the Supreme Court’s dialogue on immigration, which is likely to be with us for the foreseeable future.

Justice Thomas used the opportunity to take a swipe at Justice Sotomayor for using what I would call her instincts.

The decision was unanimous, but Justice Clarence Thomas declined to join the part of Justice Sotomayor’s opinion discussing why the cost of allowing immediate appeals outweighs the possibility that candid communications between lawyers and their clients might be chilled.

In a concurrence, Justice Thomas took a swipe at his new colleague, saying she had “with a sweep of the court’s pen” substituted “value judgments” and “what the court thinks is a good idea” for the text of a federal law.

Intuitive thinking, when used with federal law interpretation, is obviously something that makes Thomas and other conservatives uncomfortable, but it’s a quality of importance when thinking about the ramifications of being a judge at the ultimate precipice of weighing laws and lives. It’s the difference between breathing opinions of the 21st century and the dry regurgitation of moribund mediocrity that allows for no consideration of the modern times in which we live.

Comments are open.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Sarah Palin’s Op-Ed

By on 09 December 2009

updated

I commend Interior Secretary Salazar’s decision today to conditionally approve drilling at three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska; it’s a decision that’s been a long time coming. The area north of the Arctic Circle contains some of the world’s richest oil and gas reserves. U.S. Geological Survey researchers estimate that it contains 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil. … – Sarah Palin

People are upset at the Washington Post. With over 1,500 comments and counting, I’d say they’re ecstatic about the noise that follows Mrs. Palin everywhere she goes. Is there any other Republican that could match it? Never mind that Sarah Palin’s demand that Obama boycott Copenhagen is ridiculous. There are enough skeptics after “climategate” to give her quite a platform. Besides, the business of news is real and Palin is good for it.

Cannibal polar bears (h/t Joe Subday, but warning: pictures are graphic) doesn’t concern Mrs. Palin.

Marc Ambinder points to this post, one of many surfacing about what we face as we all confront the East Anglia science and email disaster.

I am not a climate science specialist and I can’t claim to represent the wider science community. However, I am a geologist with a Ph.D. and 30 years of research experience. As I became personally involved in research on CO2 capture and storage over the past four years, I have taken an increasing interest in the underlying observations that have led the great majority of scientists to conclude that action is necessary to reduce and mitigate CO2 emissions.

Palin today:

We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.

What about the cost in human quality of life, especially that of children?

A research study published in 2002 estimated that 30 percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation $2 billion per year. And studies also suggest that air pollution may contribute to the development of asthma in previously healthy people.

Of course, even this truth isn’t the issue for Mrs. Palin, who is arguing something else entirely, something well beyond science, in fact, that science doesn’t matter. We’ve been here many times in human history, where scientists come up against a large group of people who have other interests at heart.

Science versus business at a time of economic instability is losing right now; at a time where U.S. economic power is seen as dwindling. With our “military industrial complex” our primary export. Old economy versus a potential new economy where green jobs are created is still a dream, with oil and gas companies, “new coal”, an oxymoron if ever there was one, fighting hard, and nuclear seen as a possible new solution, even if the old challenges remain.

All of this a national security imperative for this country, as China rises, along with India, which is fine, but not unless we’re rising too, which economically we are not. Or more to the point, creatively we are not. This is about innovation, with the conference I attended last week offering more proof that the U.S. is lagging far behind on an “innovation economy,” something Sarah Palin does not represent with her “drill, baby, drill,” with Palin’s quote at the very top of this post revealing that the Obama administration is still relying on old answers, too, which plays into Palin’s hands.

Palin’s message is reaching a segment of America that likes what she’s saying, because it’s comforting. Relying on the 20th century notion that the United States is not in a competitive challenge with other countries of the world, so there’s no need for the U.S. to gear up, including ramping up U.S. innovation to meet what other countries are doing. “We’re number one” still, the message on which the right thrives. With anyone who says we need to innovate and create green jobs, one solution, as part of a new economy beyond our 20th century comfort companies, seen as someone who “hates America” or is criticizing the U.S. by implying we’re not a great nation anymore.

It’s because of our greatness that we’ve proven time and again we can rise to any challenge, but unfortunately our politicians, regardless of party, are missing the moment we’re in. Pres. Obama not doing close to enough on the innovation side so far, something that put one of his economic advisers, Austin Goolsbee, on the defensive last week.

“Clean energy has become a jihad on both sides… Let’s make it a jobs bill.” – Jeffrey Immelt

Democrats get it, but there has thus far been little effort in the Democratic majority to get it done, to edit what futurist Eric Best has said. With this entire year a lost opportunity for Congress and Pres. Obama, who should have given Palin & company nowhere to go by launching a 21st century Project Green immediately, rising to our economic and employment crisis immediately, mimicking what J.F.K. did when he had the vision to take science and this country to the moon.

Sarah Palin is distorting science and using Copenhagen and “climategate” to her advantage, just like she did on her health care “death panels” gambit.

A politician doesn’t have to know how to solve challenges to win an argument and take center stage. They simply need to have the talent to sell a message that enough Americans are hungry to buy.

Comments are open.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Obama’s Pumas

By on 08 December 2009

Can you imagine this conversation? The President of the United States calling up a United States Representative complaining that he was “demeaning” him?

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

Sitting in the Judiciary Committee’s conference room two days after Obama delivered his speech on Afghanistan, the 23-term lawmaker said he wasn’t in the mood to “chat.”

Many of us are not in a mood to “chat” and it’s putting some of Obama’s other supporters off their politics.

Though I have to say I’m relieved that this person isn’t a liberal anymore, because she’s just too upset at all the criticism Obama is taking and doesn’t want any part of it. She’s a “a Taoist.” Andrew Sullivan jumping in to publish quite a few I’m angry at the left rants on his blog recently, which Glenn Greenwald also chronicled. This has been building for quite some time. Today “the Taoist” blew:

Maybe the initial illuminating moment came when I learned that Tom Hayden, the anti-Vietnam war activist, had removed the Obama bumper sticker from his car. All I know is that I can hardly stand reading the Huffington Post these days. The stuff coming out of “progressive” mouths is all too often on a par with Glenn Beck’s abusive rants–both sides (right and left wingers) playing thousand-pound national football with the President as the ball–meaning, kick kick kick, until you bust his dick. This truly makes me sick. (It’s meant to be the rhyme from hell.) I think the straw that broke this camel’s back was an horrendously ugly and smearing essay Christian Parenti wrote last week, which was published on the Huffington Post after Obama’s Afghanistan speech.

The same thing has been going on around here for weeks and weeks, with angels81 the latest. Never mind that I’ve been a lone voice on Obama’s side on Afghanistan until his recent speech, which was so confusing Obama had to have Secretaries Gates and Clinton go on the Sunday shows to tell everyone what he meant, because after saying July 2011 we’d begin drawing down it turns out he didn’t mean it the way it was interpreted. Never mind that Obama’s new “strategy” made no sense. I’ve also been out front on the Middle East and Israeli settlement policy, supporting Obama from the start, including going all the way back to his first cabinet kerfuffle. A few “In the News” commenters and diarists have bolted, including Obama die hards who just can’t take the substantive problems many of us are having with Obama’s leadership skills, especially on health care. With everyone preferring the calm of comment kumbaya in debates even if it’s hardly appropriate right now, given the dire straights Democrats are in after 11 months of Democratic majority leadership that has not exactly been anything to trumpet. Even if those with a beef are basically saying we shouldn’t be pushing so hard, because Obama is after all one of us.

Obama or bust. I know it well, because Hillary had the same type of fans during 2008. I still hear from them, because I support Obama when it’s deserved. For them it was Hillary or bust, too. Many of these same people are against anything Obama does, while thinking Sarah Palin is their next hope. It’s all the same thing. People who attach themselves to a politician, get invested in him or her, and take it personally when warranted criticism is landing on target, wanting everyone to support, shut up and smile. It’s the worst part of politics.

The cult of personality will not get us better health care.

The cult of personality will not get us a better Afghan policy.

It will not help us settle the Middle East logjam, which everyone fears is frozen, yet again.

And the cult of personality will not help Democrats, liberals and those refusing that label, keep wingnuts and their ilk out of power come 2010 and beyond.

We’re sending Obama and the Democrats a message and they should listen to us.

So, with the White House agenda more about getting a “win” wherever they can than what that “win” will mean for the rest of us, especially going forward, there is no way I’m going to shrug and say “go Obama.”

Comments are open.

Read full story · Comments { 55 }

Viagra Politics

By on 08 December 2009

updated

It’s yet another Tuesday of another week passing by as Congress continues to sport multiple health care compromise possibilities, with no one sure where this will end.

The power seesaw between Snowe and Lieberman continues, with it being reported that Ms. Snowe won’t support a Medicare buy-in. Lieberman might, if public option is scrapped.

Health Care Wire reports the health care 10 are back in their meeting, with rumors swirling there may be something concrete yet today.

UPDATE II: Senator Nelson and his cohorts lose out on trying to insert Stupak-esque language in the Senate bill, 54-45, which is our win, ladies.

UPDATE: Medicare expansion is evidently out, which I’m also hearing from many others.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

‘Climategate’ Just in Time for Copenhagen

By on 08 December 2009

Time magazine does a real service by dissecting “climategate.” Below is just one excerpt, with much more in the article. Reality you won’t hear it from right-wing radio or our denier friends on the right.

Just in time for Copenhagen, giving Al Gore a perfect opportunity to chime in at Huffington Post.

szep_climatechange

It’s true that the e-mails reveal CRU climate scientists were dismissive of skeptics, often in harsh terms, but that’s not unusual for scientists. Science is a rough arena, as anyone who has ever survived a doctoral examination knows, and scientists aren’t shy about attacking ideas they believe are wrong — especially in private communication. Still, Jones et al. could have been more open and accepting of their critics, and if it turns out that e-mails were deleted in response to the Freedom of Information request for data, heads should roll. (Jones maintains that no e-mails or documents were deleted.)

Ultimately, though, we need to place Climategate/Swifthack in its proper context: amidst a decades-long effort by the fossil-fuel industry and other climate skeptics to undercut global-warming research — often by means that are far more nefarious than anything that appears in the CRU e-mails. George W. Bush’s Administration attempted to censor NASA climatologist James Hansen, while the fossil-fuel industry group the Global Climate Coalition ignored its own scientists as it spread doubt about man-made global warming. That list of wrongdoing goes on. One of the main skeptic groups promoting the e-mail controversy, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, was recently revealed to have links to the energy company Exxon-Mobil, which has long funded climate-change deniers. “This is being used to confuse the public,” says blogger James Hoggan, whose new book Climate Cover-Up details Exxon-Mobil’s campaign. “This is not a legitimate scientific issue.”

As many of you know, my sister lost her fabulous husband this past summer, Steve Simon, who was a chief honcho at Exxon-Mobil. I told them both several years ago that I was decidedly in the Al Gore camp, having the privilege to speak with the Vice President in conference calls on more than one occasion, but also a strong believer in global warming. As good a man as Steve was, and there are few better men, we simply had to agree to disagree on this one. With his passing, only my one niece’s husband is now deeply involved with Exxon-Mobil, someone whom I have no contact with, except at special family functions. So I believe my conflict of interest on Exxon-Mobil is over, giving me freedom to point out climate experts taking this company to task when it’s earned.

As the EPA made it official yesterday. Greenhouse gases are dangerous.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people” and that the pollutants – mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels – should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

“These long-overdue findings cement 2009′s place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference. …

As for the fight to solve the climate crisis, since it’s Christmastime, with Hanukkah arriving Friday, I hope you’ll consider giving someone Al Gore’s new book, Our Choice. As a disclaimer, there is currently a BlogAd for Gore’s book on this site. There was, however, absolutely no quid pro quo involved between Gore’s people for the ad and myself for writing this post. I also haven’t read the book, but I have read Mr. Gore’s other books, all of which are fantastic, especially for young people and the best gift you could give this holiday season. Because the climate change challenge will eventually be their charge to keep.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ugly Truth in Iraq

By on 08 December 2009

Bombs exploded across Baghdad, taking at least 112 lives, with as many as 425 wounded. Carnage is the word as we get a look at what’s to come as we withdraw, with the latest bloodshed a real hit on the Iraq security forces, not to mention the government.

Authorities said at least 112 people were killed and 425 were wounded. At least five bombings were reported, with the explosives detonating minutes apart, starting about 10:15 a.m.

The violence marred a week during which the government had hoped two positive developments — the passing of an election law on Sunday and the upcoming auction of oil field contracts to foreign companies — would dominate headlines. Iraq’s three-member presidential council voted Tuesday to schedule parliamentary elections March 6, a seven-week delay from the original date, after months of wrangling over how the balloting will work. …

Obviously, the coming elections is one ignition point, but there are many others, including the dissatisfaction people feel with their government, but also the reality of what happens when the fall of a dictatorship is followed by self-rule in a country that hasn’t known it for a very long time.

This is just one reason why so many foreign policy realists are reluctant to put our troops and our treasure on the line in foreign lands, especially when we don’t have a clear and present danger component present.

Getting in is easy, getting out without full scale bloodshed is impossible.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Harry Reid Plays the Slave Card

By on 07 December 2009

Things are past tense at this point. A lot going on, with Politico, Huffington Post and Ezra Klein all reporting that a buy-in to Medicare is being batted around. That would mean that people under 65 would be able to buy-in to that program. No one hold your breath on this one, but the develop itself is rather stunning. Though it also reveals just how badly the Democrats have handled this that at the very end, after all the negotiations, in order to get something passed, more possibilities that were ignored or dismissed from the get go are being floated.

And where to start on this one? Via Fox News:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’” He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right. “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond’s famous 1957 filibuster — the late senator switched parties several years later.

Reid’s office stood by the remarks, with spokesman Jim Manley saying Republicans have “done nothing but obstruct health care” in the Senate. “Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare,” Manley said.

I have no idea what Reid thought he’d accomplish with this one. Whatever it was, I’d say it’s time to mix Reid a cocktail, unfortunately, the people who could use one don’t drink.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Plouffe v. Palin, The Book Battle

By on 07 December 2009

David Plouffe announces “Beat Palin’s Book for a Day”, targeting tomorrow.

If you haven’t picked up Plouffe’s book, he talks about the campaign, but also the “strategy and tactics” that led to Obama’s “improbable” win.

Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue tour is setting bookstores to panic, due to the huge crowds she’s attracting, something Plouffe doesn’t have to worry about, thus he turns to a campaign to inspire a little love to come his way. More power to him.

As Palin’s tour de force fall continued over the weekend at the Gridiron dinner. Great material, even if she won’t get any credit. After all, she is Sarah Palin.

Good evening. It’s great to be in Washington. I am loving the weather [it was snowing]. I braved the elements and went out for a jog! Or, as Newsweek calls it, a cover-shoot. I feel so at home here in DC. I can see the Russian Embassy from my hotel room!

It’s a privilege to be here tonight at the Washington DC Barnes & Noble. Tonight, I’ll be reading excerpts from my new book. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? “Going Rogue.”

Yukon wasn’t sure if I’d go with that title and somebody suggested I follow the East Coast self-help trend and go with, “How To Look Like A Million Bucks…For Only 150 Grand.” …

There has been a lot of fuss over fact checking Sarah’s book, setting off Andrew Sullivan on another tear about Trig. But is anyone fact checking Plouffe’s book? Now, I know it’s uncomfortable, because you can’t do this without dredging up the 2008 primaries, but let’s just say that you won’t find the “strategy and tactics” Plouffe used against Hillary Clinton within the pages of his new book. As a reminder, from an old post by my friend Peter Daou, though I could just as easily quote from one of my own:

MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.

FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive “full assault” on Hillary’s character.

While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary’s character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as “disingenuous,” “divisive,” “untruthful,” “dishonest,” “polarizing,” “calculating,” “saying whatever it takes to win,” “attempting to deceive the American people,” “one of the most secretive in America,” “deliberately misleading,” “literally willing to do anything to win,” and “playing politics with war.”

This “full assault” on Hillary’s integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary’s victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama’s top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a “monster;” and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is “deeply flawed” and has “character issues.” That’s neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can’t unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?

Water under the bridge finally and for sure, but someone needs to tell me why Palin gets proofed, while Plouffe gets a pass to rewrite primary history.

As for Mr. Plouffe’s book battle, I’d be rooting for him if he hadn’t resorted to Palin-esque editing of his own, at least as far as I can tell, as I did a speed read of it looking for the strategy that took Hillary down, not finding it anywhere. It would have been a lot more interesting if he’d just said it as it happened instead of offering a version that anyone fighting in the trenches on Hillary’s side would be hard pressed to recognize.

All’s fair in political warfare, so why omit the Machiavellian brilliance on Obama’s side, which was orchestrated by David Plouffe, among others?

Fantasy is the stuff of which political legends are concocted built, no matter what side is doing the writing.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Scenes from Iran

By on 07 December 2009

The pictures and scene out of Iran today continue to inspire, as Iranians fight for justice by commemorating an historic day, when the Shah of Iran killed three students amidst the beginning Islamist revolution that changed Iran and our relationship with that country since.

This plays out in a backdrop that David Ignatius wrote about yesterday, which depicted war games on the Iran – Israel issue.

How will the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program evolve during the next year? If a simulation game played at Harvard last week is any guide, the situation won’t look pretty: Iran will be closer to having the bomb, and America will fail to obtain tough U.N. sanctions; diplomatic relations with Russia, China and Europe will be strained; and Israel will be threatening unilateral military action. [...]

… [...] Gold said the game clarified for him a worrying difference of opinion between U.S. and Israeli leaders: “The U.S. is moving away from preventing a nuclear Iran to containing a nuclear Iran — with deterrence based on the Cold War experience. That became clear in the simulation. Israel, in contrast, still believes a nuclear Iran must be prevented.”

This is the dividing line in a nutshell. Anyone who has followed the region and the issue has come to the same conclusion, which has become the fault line in Middle East policy, as well as the difference between Democratic and Republican strategies over Iran. With most Democrats having a realistic viewpoint, while Republicans continue to stand on the 20th century line that Netanyahu continues to push. There are few issues more inflammatory on the fault line of U.S. foreign policy than the issue of Israel.

Laura Rozen has an extended section on the recent Harvard wargames from Gary Sick, someone who knows Iran.

4. Just as we largely ignored the ineffective pressure tactics originating from the US, our own words and vulnerabilities were equally ignored by most of the other players. Why did no one go back to the Iranian offer of a negotiating agenda presented in 2003? Or the more recent catalogue of issues introduced as part of the Geneva/Vienna meetings? The reason seems to be the all-consuming obsession with the nuclear issue and the apparent belief that Iran’s words, in whatever form, are irrelevant. The nuclear issue is indeed important, but AfPak, Iraq, Hezbollah, Persian Gulf stability, etc. are also not to be dismissed out of hand. And Iran over the years has offered some interesting suggestions that have never been explored. Why not use the meetings with Iran to create some working groups to explore the possibility of progress on issues other than the nuclear one? By broadening our scope, we might actually improve the environment for constructive work on the nuclear issue.

Meanwhile today, from the New York Times:

Videos posted to Youtube, Twitter, and opposition Web sites showed students gathering in large crowds in Tehran and the northeastern city of Mashad. Police had gathered around universities and in public squares to head off the protests, and by early afternoon there were widespread reports of tear gas, beatings and arrests.

The government-run IRNA news agency and Press TV confirmed there were clashes.

The protests came on National Student Day, an official holiday in which the government commemorates the 1953 killings of three students by the shah of Iran, who was overthrown 30 years ago by Islamist revolutionaries. Antigovernment activists had signaled they would take advantage of the day to protest despite repeated warnings by the authorities.

More from ABC’s Jim Sciutto via Twitter:

Sec. forces using all the familiar tactics from June: police on motorbikes, blocking cellphones, arrests…

SMS and cellphones down in many parts of Iran, crackdown on today’s student protests…

Tehran10: Reportt 30 buses have brought Sec. Forces to Tehran from other provinces…

Let’s see if the Obama administration says anything publicly or releases a statement commemorating National Student Day in Iran, whether from the White House or State. The politics is loaded, but what the protesters are doing in Iran deserves U.S. acknowledgment, if not wholehearted support.

The political perils of the Iran nuclear situation for Obama remain dense and choking, especially given the infrastructure of the right in this country. Practical reality never mattering much to that crew. It all revolves around one question: Will people be able to set aside old thinking for what is our reality today, or will they blame Obama for the inevitable of Iran becoming a nuclear nation? While negative political ads play in Republicans consultants’ heads.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Bill Clinton for Coakley, Stunning Ad from Fiorina

By on 07 December 2009

The video featuring Carly Fiorina stunned me. I interviewed Ms. Fiorina last year, someone who, regardless of her politics, is a fearless female who has ascended the business world, had plenty of troubles doing it and staying there, but just keeps on going. Having known many people struck by cancer out of nowhere, I have an inkling of what she’s been through. She’s beat a lot of things in her life and I truly hope this is another one of them.

Next, William Jefferson Clinton made my morning coming out for Martha Coakley, who’s down to the wire, with the special election tomorrow. Here’s the robocall from WJC. From Cilizza:

Bill Clinton is wading into the race on behalf of Democratic frontrunner Martha Coakley. In a robocall being piped into the homes of 500,000 Democratic primary voters, Clinton says that Coakley “will go to Washington to fight every day to create good jobs with good benefits and to get health reform with a strong public option.” Clinton’s support is consistent with his recent pattern of rewarding political loyalty — Coakley was an early endorser of then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential bid. Bill Clinton is the most high profile endorser to make his preference known in the special and his support of Coakley may well be aimed at stifling any last minute momentum for Rep. Mike Capuano who was endorsed by former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis and Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey over the past week. Public polling shows Coakley with a comfortable lead, however, and private surveys confirm that tomorrow’s race is hers to lose. Clinton’s involvement is only the latest sign of the active interest he continues to maintain in electoral politics.

I’ve interviewed Coakley, doing a recent piece at Huffington Post, which stirred up some noise, on the importance of electing someone as strong as she is on women’s civil rights. Let me add that Coakley is the second woman Speaker Pelosi has stood against for the House, first Donna Edwards, as Pelosi came out to back Rep. Mike Capuano, one of her troops in the House. Other establishment Dems also backed Capuano. As an aside, Coakley was an early supporter of Hillary. WJC stepping up is another instance of where the Clintons and their team remember those who have stood behind them, something I know and have experienced first hand.

If we’ve learned anything from the health care debate it’s that we need more women who understand our rights and needs in the Senate. Coakley is simply a much better candidate for the times.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What’s On Your Mind?

By on 06 December 2009

updated

Christmastime_2009 001

The scene at our house yesterday was falling snow.

Today, while driving home from my favorite bakery, the pair of Bald Eagles I’ve seen flying nearby finally landed where I could spy them surveying their territory. As regulars know, my affinity for birds made this moment an early Christmas gift, a special moment when when serendipity meets a beautiful Sunday morn.

But the point of writing this morning is to ask the question posed in the title.

Specifically, I’d like to hear from all of you, no matter you political party; what are your thoughts right now on politics, what’s bothering you the most, and in your opinion, where do things right now? Contact me via email or…

Taylor Marsh LLC
P.O. Box 8303
Alexandria, Virginia
22306-0303

If you can spare a Christmas card, I love receiving them! Seriously, it would be a special treat for me after all of these years on the web, starting back in 1996, writing on the web long before the platform of blogging was born. Christmas cards are just so beautiful, sometimes hilarious, but always a gift unto themselves.

It’s Christmas tree day at our house, my favorite day of any year.

UPDATE: Thanks for sharing what’s on your mind. Here’s one email on the subject (some minor editing, with content verbatim):

I read your blog and I enjoy the insights you bring. I am an RN in Little Rock AR. I am Irish and became a US citizen (along with my English husband who is also and RN ) in 1992 in order to vote for Bill Clinton, this was what first sparked my interest in politics as it was then a very local issue here with all the Clinton buzz.

I think the biggest issues facing USA are the same old ones that we faced in the past… huge conglomerates co opt smaller ones and become powerful, then they change the rules so that they can make more money and pay less taxes and the middle and working classes are left carrying the burden …. its happened with the Banks, the Insurance Companies, Wall Street, Wal Mart, the Tele companies, the Media, result, a few lone voices crying in the wilderness, ie the blogs, who have no power to change anything , and our little votes mean very little against the sea of lobbyists! What to do? I like the idea of full court press on Open Left…. [...]

The powers of course like it when we fight over cultural issues, Sarah Palin, Rush, Hannity, immigration that keeps us busy and worked up while they rob us blind. thanks for all you do ….

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama, Jobs, and the ‘Innovation Economy’

By on 05 December 2009

“The New Frontier is not a set of promises. It is a set of challenges.” – John F. Kennedy

Obama and his team are making a real push to convince people they get what’s happening, but more importantly, that they understand people’s pain. It’s a moment when Pres. Obama could use a little William Jefferson Clinton running through his veins. Empathy the pulse of Bubba’s heart beat. Let’s just hope Obama’s message reaches people, though right now many have already tuned out. Just too much time has passed before the Administration began moving. Cosmetics won’t change that in the short term.

Business issues aren’t my beat, but when I was offered the opportunity to attend the Innovation Economy Conference, I jumped at the chance. (I tweeted the conference as well.) Because if ever there was a time we need some out of the box thinking on our economy this is it. Hosted by The Aspen Institute, Intel, Democracy (a journal of ideas), and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, I went expecting to stay for a couple of hours, but ended up staying all day. I by no means caught every speech or break-out session, but what I did witness proved one thing to me. If the U.S. doesn’t get moving we’re going to be in even more serious trouble.

It would have done Obama some good to watch some of it. At one point, catching one panel after it started, Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to Obama, was put on the defensive about the Administration lack urgency and purpose regarding innovation. Unfortunately, it happens to be something Obama just hasn’t stressed.

The real issue being jobs, a word that hasn’t been used much until recently.

It’s what the conference was all about, according to the website:

…conversation on what American policymakers, business, NGOs, and private citizens can do to maintain the innovation that can drive economic recovery and ensure long-term sustainable growth.

Translation: What it will take to be competitive economically in the 21st century, considering the U.S. is already lagging behind.

Sen. Mark Warner was in the next to last panel about leadership, the innovation economy and finding the political will to get something done on the issue. After listening to everyone on the panel, he said he agreed with them all, liked the ideas, but none of what was said had an “political saliency.” Because most Americans don’t think this highfalutin stuff has anything whatsoever to do with them. Warner was particularly animated on this issue. “It blows my mind,” he began, that major corporations don’t seem to get the most pressing issue of our time: energy. “Business is getting it fundamentally wrong,” Warner continued. Warner’s plain spoken bluntness was not only refreshing, but zeroed in on another real impediment to our competitiveness. To quote Warner, we need “radical rethinking of high school and college. Does high school need to be 4 years, does college?”

Of course, when Warner made a snide comment about complaints that the health care bill was too long were ridiculous, Sen. Amy Klobuchar was quick to point out that “in small font it’s shorter than Sarah Palin’s book.” Klobuchar also honest enough to admit that Senate seniority can be silly when keeping senators at the back of the line on discussions that are their focus. She evidently sent a “What the hell do you know about cell phones?” note to Warner during one Senate session, because his newbie status kept him out of a conversation in which he’s made his fortune.

Shirley Ann Jackson, the first African American woman to earn a doctorate from MIT, according to published biographies on her, didn’t take kindly to Sen. Warner’s education criticisms. She also is president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and there can be no doubt of her intelligence. But what seemed like arrogance to me had me tuning her out. Jackson was all for the discussion, she said, but let’s “not have it in an accusatory way.”

To which Steve Case, co-founder of America Online, retorted, “Take that.” Touché. Case at one point quoted Edison.

“Vision without execution is hallucination.” — Thomas A. Edison

All I can envision when I read that quote is the current health care debate and the Democrats’ ineptitude on execution. But I won’t digress into that minefield here.

John Kao has written a fascinating book that takes this discussion further, at least as far as I’ve gotten into it since getting it yesterday, Innovation Nation. From Chapter Two, “Silent Sputnik” (pg. 39):

And American companies have been moving their R&D offshore at a rapid clip. Once upon a time, U.S. inventions universally carried “Made in America.” That is less and less the case. More than 40 percent of our high-tech companies invest in substantial R&D operations overseas, and at least a third of them are intent upon increasing their foreign stakes in R&D capability. While there are obvious benefits to offshoring R&D, including lower cost and more lenient regulatory environments, the net result is a global diffusion of American innovation capability, with long-term implications for our competitiveness.

Segue to Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, who it’s fitting had the quote of the day yesterday. When talking about where America once was in the innovation food chain, Atkinson frankly stated that the “business community (used to be) more committed to the U.S.”

Nothing is truer, which made Sen. Klobuchar’s we need to “get people with skin in the game” ring out.

Nobody represented that more than Jeffrey Immelt. When Walter Isacson tried to get something out of Immelt on the Comcast and NBC Universal merger, though he waited 20 minutes into the morning panel before trying it, all Immelt would say was, “complacency equals arrogance.” That he’s always “looking for the next big thing… We’re going to have to think of things to be good at.” Then out of the mouth of a big business whiz it came:

“Clean energy has become a jihad on both sides… Let’s make it a jobs bill.” – Jeffrey Immelt

So much time has passed without Pres. Obama and his administration jumping on the opportunity to ignite something comparable to what J.F.K. did when he decided we were going to the moon. The jobs potential is extraordinary through green jobs, but yet nothing big has been sparked.

It brings us back to Edison and execution.

“There is a profound difference between getting it and getting it done.” – Eric Best, futurist (from Innovation Nation, by John Kao)

Obama gets it but…

As an aside, when listening to Immelt I had to chuckle. Bill O’Reilly would have been frustrated hearing Mr. Immelt, as he proved the Fox blowhard is well out of his league, regardless of what you think about the merger.

Again, I go back to the political. An innovation economy may be able to save our nation, but not with the current crop of political leaders, regardless of party, who don’t seem to be able to take any good idea and move it forward. Small thinkers, vested interests, no political will to move forward together, with the upper crust stifling so many Americans who just never get a chance.

Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel, pointed out the trouble they’ve had getting visas for bright people, who end up going back to their homes in China and India, because of restrictions here. Also pointing out that companies go overseas much of the time because of the talent.

It makes you wonder about our educational system, but also the way kids see their lives and what’s worth studying.

Betting on derivatives or whatever Wall Street scheme that makes men wealthy isn’t the foundation of an innovative economy, which is based on creating ideas that inspire the innovation to produce goods better or more unique than anyone else.

“The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.” – Thomas Paine (from John Kao’s Innovation Nation)

A lot to think about, much to do. Manifesting intent is all.

Read full story · Comments are closed

With Sect. Clinton, Why Envoys?

By on 04 December 2009

P081809LJ-0042.JPG

Skeptical of the multitiered diplomatic strategy of the Obama administration from the start, color me unsurprised at what hasn’t manifested. Sect. Clinton sending envoys out to pave the way seemed ill advised and lacking the sense of urgency where the Middle East and Central Asia are concerned. But that was the Obama strategy, so we all had to just watch this play out. It has and it simply didn’t work. Laura Rozen writes on this very subject today.

The problem may not be any lack of resolve, talent or hard work on the part of either man but the envoy system itself, which Obama embraced early in his administration before it had been particularly well thought out, according to some experts.

I’d say it stronger, that there can be no doubt that Mitchell and Holbrooke have talent, resolve and the purpose of hard work, but that the diplomatic inheritance left to Obama from Bush-Cheney required herculean heft from the start, which can only be orchestrated through a secretary of state that has the diplomatic chops to cut through the layers of ill will left over from eight years of John Boltonism.

Why Pres. Obama, along with Sect. Clinton, couldn’t figure this out from the jump is puzzling. It can’t be they were distancing themselves from potential failure as that’s the foundation on which they began, so it’s more likely they bet that small steps would lead to larger gains or that they had the time to bet on the incremental notion of diplomacy. It seems obvious that Pres. Obama misread the mood of our allies, with both he and Clinton underestimating that it would take all of their might to make gains. Though I’d add another element, which Aaron David Miller lays out for Rozen:

Aaron David Miller, a veteran former State Department Middle East peace negotiator, described the envoy system as “fundamentally flawed because it departs from the one system that has proven in the past to have worked.

”Whether it was Nixon-Kissinger or Bush 41 and James Baker — the strong foreign policy president … empowers the strong secretary of state,” said Miller, now with the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.

Dare I say it? Sect. Clinton has used her power at State too humbly. Ever the team player, as she proved during her Senate time, Clinton didn’t swagger on to the world stage, she shuttled, but only after the envoys had been there and done that. There have been a blizzard of reports about Clinton’s power, but the one aspect that hasn’t been covered nearly enough is that the teamwork system currently in place underutilized Sect. Clinton’s star power, which is equal at State to Pres. Obama’s presidential world pizzazz that was at it’s peak months ago. We actually might have benefited from a little more Clinton bravura.

Also within Rozen’s piece is the ever present diplomatic elephant in the room: Richard Holbrooke, with Rozen reporting the latest development in this never ending soap opera:

…sources close to the White House reportedly blamed Holbrooke for a piece by Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus Les Gelb that decried the “amateur hour” at the White House and called on Obama to shake up his foreign policy team. Gelb says Holbrooke, who did not respond to a request for comment, was not a source for the story and seemed to find the charge baffling.

No one can be sure about any of this, obviously, but it does reveal that there are, as usual, knives out for Holbrooke that force him to go on the defensive. I can point to my own personal conversation with Mr. Holbrooke in late October as proof. This will remain a relevant thread even as he becomes engaged in the latest Afghanistan strategy implementation, in which he’ll likely play a key part.

The only thing I can say about Mitchell and the Middle East is that the man is a tireless patriot of unending magnanimity that isn’t going to be rewarded on this one. As things stand with the Israeli press, who, after taking Obama’s Cairo speech personally, have done a fine job in pummeling Pres. Obama into single digit territory, so that even an envoy as gifted as Mitchell won’t do. For that matter, even though Sect. Clinton’s power among Israelis is strong, she’s not the one facing doubt. It’s likely only Pres. Obama can make the Israelis move to meet the Palestinians, but in order to do that he’d have to put himself on the line and make a voyage inside Israel that includes offering a strategy that engages Syria much more seriously coming at a time when the Palestinians are in disarray. It remains to be seen what Obama is willing to risk to get peace done and whether Netanyahu’s latest charade move will seduce anyone into believing he’s serious this time. He isn’t. MJ Rosenberg analyzes.

I love this Netanyahu statement published on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. … Here is the money quote: “This [freeze] order is one-time only and it limits the duration of the suspension. There are nine months and three weeks left. Once the suspension has expired, we will continue to build. I want to make it clear.” In other words, I had to promise a freeze to President Obama but, don’t worry, I’m not serious.” …

Meanwhile, Obama has become the latest in a line of presidents to delay moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. The more things change, the more the status quo lives on.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Tiger, Tiger, Tiger

By on 04 December 2009

szep_tigerwoods

What was he thinking?

er… Or more to the point, what was he thinking with?

No brainer.

No kidding.

But I’m more interested in the politics of sex and power and what could have possibly possessed a young billionaire with the world at his feet to rely on the loyalty of a Los Angeles cocktail waitress (LACW), and others of the same ilk, to protect his personal and professional domain. – Huffington Post

Maybe the writer above fell asleep during the John Edwards love child saga, missed Gov. Sanford’s Argentinian cha-cha-cha, or wasn’t paying attention during the Clinton-Lewinsky imbroglio. I didn’t and have done the research behind the politics of sex from all angles, so what possessed Tiger is easy to say. It’s human nature to seek out what you aren’t supposed to have or want. After all, it’s even one of the Ten Commandment no-nos, not to covet. With certain men, the more power amassed, the harder it is to satisfy appetites; ordinary thrills not enough, especially if there is a paramour out there that offers a little risk along with the titillating rewards of secret sex, the ultimate aphrodisiac for men who have everything.

Let’s not forget Henry VIII, the most notorious story in the politics of sex genre, where power and sex collide.

It’s tough taming the ego, especially when you’re a hot shot male superstar athlete who finds himself often on the road, where temptations abound.

So, now we all find out Tiger’s simply another flawed mortal man.

As for Woods’ wife, Elin Nordegren?

A law enforcement official tells TMZ Tiger Woods’ wife, Elin Nordegren, used a wedge to blast out the two windows on his SUV. – TMZ

I’ve always been partial to wedges, too, though I’ve never felt the lethal rage to wield them on an SUV. (The pictures of the destruction quite impressive.)

Tiger’s wife isn’t buying into the cultism that surrounds him, or the forgiveness without a price nonsense. No doubt you’ve likely heard all the stories about the torn up old pre-nuptial, enter a big buck new prenup, with rumors of a seven-figure account also set up just for her, not to mention the daily marital counseling sessions reportedly going on inside Tiger’s home.

All signs show reconciliation in progress, though none of this mitigates the pictures of Tiger’s car, and that this one will be hard to forget. Hell hath no fury… Love is a battlefield. Insert cliche’, separation pending.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ben Nelson and Russ Feingold Vote Against Women

By on 03 December 2009

While I was out today, which included doing a fun segment on MSNBC, there was a jobs summit, but also some news on a health care win for women.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to know what’s worse on this one. Sen. Nelson threatening to filibuster health care if Stupak-esque language isn’t included. Or Sen. Russ Feingold voting against women’s preventative health care, voting against Sen. Mikulski’s amendment, which guarantees women will have full access to tests and procedures that could save their lives, which Nelson voted against as well.

“The insurance companies take being a woman as a pre-existing condition,” Ms. Mikulski said. “We face so many issues and hurdles. We can’t get health care. We can’t get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions called a C-section.”

She added, “My amendment offers key preventive services, including an annual women’s health screening that would go to a comprehensive assessment, including the dangers to women in heart disease and in diabetes.”

[...]“There’s much discussion about whether or not you should get a particular service at a particular age,” Ms. Mikulski said during the floor debate. “We don’t mandate that you get a service. We leave that up to a decision made with the woman and her doctor.”

When I asked Feingold’s office why he’d voted no, I was emailed his statement:

“I am disappointed that the Senate health care debate has gotten off on the wrong foot. The first amendment voted on would add almost a billion dollars to our budget deficits over the next 10 years. We should make sure health plans cover women’s preventive care and screenings, but we should also find a way to pay for it, rather than adding that cost to the already mountainous public debt. At a time of record deficits, Americans expect fiscal responsibility from their representatives in Congress.”

After all the support women have offered to the Democratic Party. Nelson is someone beyond hope, but Russ Feingold disgraced himself today, putting economic rhetoric to make a point before the lives of women. Congress bailed out Wall Street without a thought, but when it comes to charging women’s preventative health care we should say no until the money is found.

The reply I sent back to Sen. Feingold’s office was terse, to the point and deserved: Right. I keep forgetting how important it is these days for Dems to vote against women’s interests.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Amb. Rice Sounds Eerily Bushesque

By on 03 December 2009

“Actively countering a clear and present danger,” says Rice, that’s what we’re doing in Afghanistan, regardless of the reality that there are less than 100 al Qaeda in that country, with the Taliban embedded in the consciousness of that country. With Rice claiming there is symbiosis between the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, a remarkable assertion that sounds like a melding of the Pakistan reality for practical purposes, but something that conflates reality of two quite different situations, even if they’re tied together geographically. The escalation of troops now also having the purpose of dismantling al Qaeda in Pakistan, an absurd suggestion, even as the CIA covert “war” rages under the radar.

In what can only be described as a defensive and formidable performance with Rachel Maddow, Amb. Susan Rice makes some of the most Bushesque statements that have been uttered from a Democrat in recent memory. Coming off Pres. Obama’s speech that was also eerily Bush-like, invoking 9/11 and other terms to conjure frightful memories, including that plots have been foiled, while breezily invoking fear, the case being made for escalation in Afghanistan is remarkably un-Democratic and most assuredly anti-liberal.

None of this surprises people who have followed Obama closely during the primaries, but renders many promises pulverized on the altar of presidential imperatives.

The humanitarian mission in Afghanistan having disappeared, replaced by hard target dates of withdrawal, which contradict Rice’s claim of “clear and present danger.” The New York Times is reporting both Afghanistan and Pakistan are “rattled” by Obama’s draw down plan. They aren’t alone, as it’s putting Obama’s prior policy on its head.

Whether it’s Rice’s rhetoric or Pres. Obama’s on defending the new strategy, none of it gels with the withdrawal plans. That is unless you take into account the 2012 election cycle.

No doubt the American people understand and recognize Amb. Rice’s words, which could have been said by a Bush official, but that doesn’t make them inspirational or anything for which liberals should identify. That Amb. Rice is adept at making her case is a credit to the Administration, but that it sounds like what came before the Obama administration, policies that the voters one year ago rejected should give everyone who voted for Barack Obama pause.

Disturbing rhetoric from an Administration that promised “change,” but is delivering anything but.

Segue to Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c
30,000
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		Political HumorHealth Care Crisis


TM NOTE: I’ll be out most of the day today. This afternoon in the 3-4:00 pm hour, I’m scheduled to be on MSNBC, though we’ve been trying to coordinate schedules for months, so let’s hope we can make it happen today. Stay tuned and don’t forget to post In the News any developing stories.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What are we doing?

By on 02 December 2009

ScreenHunter_03 Dec. 02 11.22

Seriously, I don’t think anyone knows.

A glimmer of reality surfaces, via Thomas Friedman:

To now make Afghanistan part of the “war on terrorism” — i.e., another nation-building project — is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role. – Thomas Friedman

Pres. Obama’s speech sounds and reads worse today than it did last night to me. “Our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” but all that will be taken care of by the addition of 30,000 troops, which will magically fix everything and also enable us to begin withdrawing by summer 2011.

Pigs in flight.

Sect. Clinton’s quote, according to Knoller, reveals the smokescreen that everyone senses. Arianna said it plainly on “Morning Joe.” Nobody believes it. They shouldn’t.

Politicians didn’t want to admit that our mission in Afghanistan was nation building, having a lot to do with securing for the Afghans what we destroyed, beginning back in the Reagan era. But now that’s too expensive, which is understandable. However, the rhetorical camouflage coming from all political quarters, using al Qaeda and the Taliban as the real reason for our involvement, makes everyone sound like idiots. Again, in Afghanistan, which is the focus here, experts say there are less than 100 al Qaeda, with the Taliban an indigenous reality, which certainly cannot be “defeated” by 2011, if ever.

Stabilizing Afghanistan will take a decade, but it still won’t secure Pakistan. So again, what are we doing?

Sen. Durbin isn’t quite sure either:

“The president believes that gives the Afghans enough time, and the Pakistanis enough time to take control of the situation… The president took some time to reach his decision, I’m going to need some time to reach mine,” Durbin said.

Obama inherited this mess, of that there is no doubt. He’s about to make it worse by escalating troops into a sausage grinder of death, without the clear purpose of nation building so that we have something to show for the blood and treasure at the end, coupled with a nation whose women will finally be able to rise closer to a place where they can help stabilize the country, which is in the middle of a strategic area of the world that very much impacts our national security and that of our allies.

One more time, with feeling. What are we doing?

Well, we’re not doing nation building in Afghanistan anymore. So, there’s absolutely no reason to be there at all.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Undercuts His Case

By on 01 December 2009

“I am convinced our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” – Pres. Obama

The most important line in the speech, because both of these countries have people who are plotting against us and our international allies. Unfortunately, what grew up around those words broke it down.

As someone who has supported Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, including the strategic interests we have in this complicated and highly volatile region, this speech left me cold. I’m just stunned at the lack of vision and the conflicting imperatives.

Not one word about the obvious and ongoing humanitarian efforts we are doing for the women and girls of Afghanistan.

In a speech that was wholly political, with a mixture of economics and expensive realities wedged in the middle of a speech that began with 9/11, something George W. Bush could just have easily have given, we were supposed to understand that this was a national security imperative. With parts of the speech nakedly constructed towards 2012, and large swaths of the region’s challenges left unmentioned.

“We did not ask for this fight. On September 11th, 2001, 19 men…” and so it began, with Pres. Obama reminding everyone how we came to be in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. – Pres. Obama

An enduring test of our free society. Disorderly regions. Failed states. Coupling Pakistan and Afghanistan in a hodgepodge of AfghaniPakistan, as if these two countries are mirrors of one another.

Targeting the Taliban, making sure they don’t overtake Karzai, even as he says his government isn’t going to fall, while completely ignoring the reality that the Taliban is part of Afghanistan forever now.

No mention of Pakistan militancy and Islamic fervor. From my pal Mash:

9:01:19 PM: Any Afghan policy that ignores the Pak military’s incubation of Islamists is destined for failure.

And Al Qaeda is hardly the issue in Afghanistan, but yet…

“Taliban maintains ‘common cause’ with Al Qaeda”

Perhaps in Pakistan, but in Afghanistan, this is a recipe for We’re Screwed Soup.

I got the feeling Obama heard Joe Biden on Pakistan without understanding what he was talking about.

With the economic dose in the speech taking our national security in a direction that we’ve not heard before, especially given the gravity Obama made of the situation at the top. By basically saying that nation building is too expensive given what we’re experiencing at home financially, he undercut the urgency and imperative for sending more troops, because it’s in our national security interest. Topped with political calculation that we will begin withdrawing, depending on conditions on the ground, just before Obama’s re-election campaign begins, the whole conglomeration was a stunning political word pretzel.

The vision came up short.

The imperative to fight weakened by Obama’s rhetorical calculator.

Simply trying to make the best of what Bush-Cheney dumped in his lap, while also making every effort to give his general what he needs, not in numbers, but made up in timing, while keeping an eye on his own prerogatives, as he balanced the U.S. checkbook.

If I believed we had a Congress I’d say take the reins now, before Pres. Obama sinks us all, and I so wanted to support this action. But without the honest admittance of the humanitarian effort that is a focal point, especially on the women and girls, who will suffer unbelievable violence if this is not done right, none of this is worth it.

The incoming started immediately and there will be a lot more where this came from, on both sides, deservedly so. We’re in it now.

I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world. – Sen. Russ Feingold

“I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda. If it was, I would support an increase because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda since they’re out to annihilate us. But if Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded? I disagree with the President’s two key assumptions: that we can transfer responsibility to Afghanistan after 18 months and that our NATO allies will make a significant contribution. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months so there is really no exit strategy. This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.” – Sen. Arlen Specter

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama: Deploy Troops at ‘Fastest Pace Possible’

By on 01 December 2009

afghan_poll

From the White House, a couple of excerpts. Note the parts in bold, because they tell the tale. Adding 30,000 troops to target “the insurgency,” but also to “secure key population centers,” with the goal of withdrawal, known in Obama speak as “accelerate handing over responsibility,” beginning the year before Pres. Obama runs for re-election. He’s not giving McChrystal what he wants, but he’s giving him additional troops faster than he wanted them, targeting a situation that could easily be defined as a civil war, with a withdrawal crucial before his re-election begins, because Obama’s base is against this surge escalation doubling down what he’s already ordered to be done.

“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.”

“Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.”

“Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.”

Even in three paragraphs you can tell this is a political layout, not a strategic or regional one.

The central point missing in this conversation is the importance of women in Afghanistan and what they mean to the country’s future. The reality that supporting women in all developing nations will be a 21st century imperative for any U.S. leader who hopes to demilitarize our foreign policy outreach and any sustained diplomatic efforts.

To add, here’s McChrystal’s statement on Pres. Obama’s announcement of new strategy.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Innovation Economy, Afghanistan, and that White House Crashing Couple

By on 01 December 2009

economy

I’ll be at an economic conference most of the day today. It’s sponsored by the Aspen Institute, Intel, Democracy (A Journal of Ideas), and The News Hour (with or without Jim Lehrer’s name on it). Call it a day of listening and learning. I’ll weigh in on Twitter for those interested.

Pres. Obama’s big speech is tonight. It’s going to be very important for him, with a focus on sending a message to Pres. Karzai, while setting some goals as well, even if there might not be any clear signal on Pakistan, but let’s wait to hear what he has to say. Though never fear, Dick Cheney has already weighed in, basically saying Pres. Obama is showing “weakness” as commander in chief who also isn’t up to the job.

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

[...] “Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place … and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow … — see that as a sign of weakness.”

This from a man who didn’t have the moral courage to fight for his country, getting five deferments. But also helped out a covert CIA operative, lie to Congress and the American people, and help produce a foreign policy that eviscerated America’s moral high ground on the altar of torture, while using the U.S. military for escapades that got us into the situation in Afghanistan in the first place.

There’s an open thread “In the News,” so keep chiming in. Besides, you should go over there just to see Fergie tear the house down from HBO’s Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame broadcast. What an amazing night of artists. It’s worth subscribing to HBO just for this special.

I also want to weigh in on the White House State Dinner crashers, the Salahis, as Desiree Rogers has been asked to testify at the gatecrashers hearing, as she continues to take some serious incoming over this one.

“Our lives have been destroyed,” – Mrs. Michaele Salahis

Oh, well, boo-hoo, babe. You should be in jail.

That said, having been to the White House and seen the security first hand, it’s hard to imagine how the Salahises got in. But the scuttlebutt clearly is that there was a bit of security confusion that night. However, let’s not forget that the people entering the White House were all assumed to be known and of that upper tier of elites, so nothing was anticipated. It didn’t hurt that Mrs. Salahis was a drop dead gorgeous blonde. Would a butt ugly woman have gotten such attention or treatment? Something to discuss, for sure, and a clear embarrassment for the Secret Service, with someone definitely needing to answer for this one.

Off to the Innovation Economy conference. It’s well off my usual turf and I’m looking forward to a little eggheadness enlightenment. We’ll see if they deliver.

Oh, and it’s World Aids Day, so I’d like to take one moment to recognize William Jefferson Clinton and all his Foundation does for this cause.

Read full story · Comments are closed