Office of the Independent Blogger

Politics are are the art of surviving, and mastering that art is essential in politics. Regardless of your power, eventually you decline. Lyndon Johnson was annihilated as a leader despite winning by the largest margin in American history. Franklin Roosevelt was crippled by his failed and corrupt plan to pack the Supreme Court with sleazy justices. Ronald Reagan, too, fell flat on his face. Bush, Clinton and Bush — the same thing applies. In today’s White House, as the President tries to save his Republican Party from being decimated in the mid-term elections, and the job is being given to Karl Rove. While I buy the idea that Rove has been made a political advisor because that, particularly, is where he’s needed, I firmly believe that Josh Bolten has clipped him and sent him to where he belongs: the political part of the West Wing.

For Rove, this year’s elections are personal: with a loss of either House, the President’s policies are dead and I don’t believe Karl Rove can survive. Add to that possible legal action by Patrick Fitzgerald and the prospect of Rove testifying in a Court of Law and you’ve got yourself a dead man walking. Republicans don’t seem to understand that there are no wars in Belgium unless the Germans start them, bubba. And the War in Washington wouldn’t be if not for the GOP.

In Iraq, where survival is particularly key and in a literal sense, their Prime Minister is stepping down, and it’s about time. Perhaps if he leaves a new leader can take over, someone better able to lead the country. I won’t discount the Prime Minister’s courage in taking the position but I loathe his inability to govern.

Now we move to politics, where Hillary Clinton seeks survival on the road to the White House in 2008. Specifically, this article is about Evan Bayh’s chasing of Hillary Clinton, and the first thing that came to mind was this:

At this stage of the 2008 race, Bayh’s biggest hurdle is that most Democrats with a proven ability to round up $50,000 or more in contributions are already in the camps of other candidates, mostly Hillary Rodham Clinton’s. Another segment of the Democratic donor world remains faithful to 2004 presidential standard-bearer John Kerry or to one of his competitors for the 2004 nomination. Through his donor and e-mail lists, Sen. Kerry can communicate with 3 million Democrats in an instant.

The boldened part is true but false at once and is an example of lying with statistics. John Kerry can communicate with children and fake email addresses in an instant with his email list. I’m not sure how many of his email addresses are false, but I know that I don’t particularly care for messages from Senator Kerry, and so I gave his website fake email accounts oh-so-long ago. And now that he’s just a candidate with an L next to his name in races, his emails don’t mean much to me. I would imagine that at least a fourth of his emails are false, and that half of those that remain don’t particularly care of his message or root him for President. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but email mailing lists can be quite deceptive.

As to the rest of the article, I’d urge reading it to get a better understanding of primary politics and the battle for nominations. I’d say that Governor Tom Vilsack, Senator Evan Bayh and Al Gore are the most dangerous candidates to the Republicans and strongest in the Primaries, should they run, with Mark Warner bringing up the rear.

Rounding out this post is an op-ed about Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania’s favorite son, asking if he can win and then analyzing the issue. In my view, they’re giving Santorum needless false hope. My two favorite points:

1. Incumbency–He is the incumbent, and incumbents win in Pennsylvania–not sometimes or mostly, but virtually all of the time. Only one incumbent U.S. senator, governor or, for that matter, any other state constitutional officer has lost a re-election bid in modern times, and he lost to Rick Santorum.

3. Resources–He has never lost an election before. Moreover, he has access to virtually unlimited resources, both money and surrogates to run his campaign. Santorum’s story has so far been mainly mediated through a wary, if not critical press. Advertising can change that and it will.

As to incumbency, the point is true but inaccurate at the same time. Rick Santorum may have been the only one in modern times, but, in times past, incumbents in Pennsylvania have been loveable figures like John Heinz. Rick Santorum doesn’t have that sort of popularity, as can clearly be seen. Regarding his third point, that’s quite silly. Bob Casey hasn’t lost a general election before, either, and he’s got access to just as much money as Rick Santorum. At the moment he’s not as loaded, but given Pennsylvania’s love of legacy, the regard for Bob Casey Sr. and the strength of Bob Casey in PA in the past (he won his last election garnering more votes than were ever garnered in a state race in PA), Rick Santorum is just about done.

It’s hunting season this election cycle, and the old guard is being mowed down by the winds of change. I fully expect Rick Santorum to be one of those left behind by destiny.

Jonah Goldberg, a Conservative columnist, has labeled Al Gore a “scaremonger” and fought the majority of global warming scientists with his latest article. Money quote:

Of course, Gore is not alone. A host of new environmental scare books are out or on the way. Last month, Time magazine’s cover warned, “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.” Those renowned climatologists who make up Vanity Fair’s editorial board have unveiled a “green issue” that informs us that “green is the new black” and that global warming is a “threat graver than terrorism.” It says so right there on the cover, above Julia Roberts’ hip. And she’s dressed like a forest nymph, so it’s got to be true.

Gore is not alone — that’s right. But aside from Julia Roberts and Vanity Fair, he has the Pentagon on his side. Surely the Pentagon can’t be classified as a Far Left set of Crazies. Although… they have been on the offensive against Donald Rumsfeld, so how credible can they be?!

I’m not Nancy Reagan, and so I don’t particularly care for astrology, and I’m not Ronald Reagan, so I don’t care for voodoo. But Timothy Ash has a piece entitled, “The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton’s bombing of Iran in 2009″ and it’s a darling little article about what will happen in a few years. Problems with it, of course, lie everywhere. But, truth be told and from a military perspective, if this is the worst that the Guardian can project, the alternative of inaction and a nuclear Iran isn’t so bad.

Aside from Al Gore and the gore of war, the White House itself is in a bloody state after Karl Rove was demoted and the Press Secretary thrown under the bus. Howard Fineman confirms that Rove’s wings “have been clipped. Good for Bolten. Good for the White House. Good for America.

Ed Koch, the former Mayor of New York who has made waves in the last few years supporting the Bush Presidency, is out arguing that “Democrats Can Win, But Not By Bashing Bush.” Because hugging the President worked so well? Ed Koch is Zell Miller without the pistol or accent, and should be accorded as such: with a seat at the Republican Convention, not in a political decision-making position in the Democratic Party.

Of the famous pair composed of Woodward and Bernstein, Carl Bernstein is the most overlooked because he doesn’t like to whore for every Administration in Washington. Bob Woodward loves the limelight like Richard Nixon loved wiretaps, and he hates offending people like Nancy Reagan hated Barbara Bush. Whereas Woodward writes puff pieces, Bernstein sticks to himself for the most part, but when he comes out to write, he doesn’t do it with the fear of God (or, worse in Woodward’s eyes, the fear of losing invitations to Colin Powell’s tea parties). We need Senate Hearings on Bush, now. It’s fascinating and dead on — not just because it’s making the right call, but because it puts things in historical perspective and adds the type of insight that only comes when you’re writing out of genuine conviction.

Instead of being an insufferable crony at best, and suck up at worst.

Josh Bolten, the new Chief of Staff at the White House, prefers his shakeups shaken, not stirred, and as such, the Press Secretary of George W. Bush has resigned, and Karl Rove has given up his position as Deputy Chief of Staff.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove gave up some of his responsibilities and White House press secretary Scott McClellan announced his resignation Wednesday, continuing a shake-up in President Bush’s administration that has already yielded a new chief of staff. Rove is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections.

Just over a year ago, Rove was promoted to deputy chief of staff in charge of most White House policy coordination. That new portfolio came on top of his title as senior adviser and role of chief policy aide to Bush. But now, the job of deputy chief of staff for policy is being given to Joel Kaplan, the deputy budget director.

First: I’ve never shared the fury shared by so many (Helen Thomas!) toward Scotty. He’s just the messenger, and a poor one at that. In the Bush White House, like all White Houses, the Press Secretary is out of the loop and likely the most stressed individual, both because he has to deal with dozens of reporters at a time and nobody tells him anything. Is it good that he’s gone? It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, ultimately — at least not in regard to policy. Perhaps they’ll find someone more likeable with the media, but that doesn’t mean anything in the end.

Next, and more importantly, the news that Rove has been dethroned as the Deputy Chief of Staff means that Karl Rove’s hold on policy making is diminishing. That is good news for all Americans, as policy makers shouldn’t be political operatives, either. Mark Hannah didn’t make Teddy Roosevelt’s policy and Dick Morris didn’t make Bill Clinton’s. The fact that Rove’s being pushed away from this sphere of influence is positive in every way. Hopefully it’s followed by Donald Rumsfeld’s exile from the Pentagon, although it’s hard to tell whether that’s in the cards.

George Ryan, the corrupt former Governor of Illinois, was found guilty in his trial. People who think they’re God get put in their place, and in this case it was Patrick Fitzgerald who did the smiting. Nobody has the right to defraud the public, and if you want to make millions of dollars, don’t go into the public sector. That’s why there’s a private sector. Except that Ryan doesn’t get it. I’m sure he’ll understand “Jail Time” well, though — and if those two words don’t pique his understanding, then there are plenty of inmates who can. Ultimately, the fall of Governor Ryan illustrates what Tom DeLay’s illustrates — that being that no man is above the law.

And, while we’re speaking about Governor Ryan, his moratorium on the Death Penalty in Illinois was a phony political move, and it’s a joke that he was ever considered to be a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. In my view, barring great attempts such as Woodrow Wilson’s push for the League of Nations, the Peace Prize belongs to citizens who push for peace within the hellholes of the Earth, such as Shirin Ebadi or Aung San Suu Kyi. It certainly doesn’t belong to a pushy, rotund criminal whose gift to humanity is a bit of last-minute pandering, no matter how right that one move was.

Off the subject and in closing, Joe Liberman puts reporters to sleep. My, how the mighty have fallen, no?

There is a war brewing between the Pentagon and the military, and Rumsfeld is caught in the middle of it. As Bush recently came out backing Rumsfeld fully, Rumsfeld’s other apologists argue that Rumsfeld’s being fired would be a travesty and a tragedy. If he leaves, that gives Americans a victory and less confidence in the War Effort, he argues. That, of course, ignores that him leaving changes the war effort from its present flawed state and allows new people who have a clue what they’re doing to take over.

And, in addition, the public already has lost faith in the war effort and the Administration’s handling. If the Right wants to make a political judgement so be it, but it would likely increase the public’s confidence if the President had new people in instead of the old ones who caused the problems. You don’t cut your own stomach open to fix your kidneys, after all. You go to a Doctor to do it for you.

In the battle for the future of the American Republic, the war drums begin to beat as the year 2006 advances, and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post joins the call for Al Gore to enter the ring. As an ardent Al Gore supporter, I can say that I endorse the article — and its summons — wholeheartedly. Excerpted are the pieces relevant to Al Gore’s latest film:

Boring Al Gore has made a movie. It is on the most boring of all subjects — global warming. It is more than 80 minutes long and the first two or three go by slow enough so that you can notice that Gore has gained weight and that his speech still seems oddly out of sync. But a moment later, I promise, you will be captivated, and then riveted, and then scared out of your wits. Our Earth is going to hell in a hand basket.

You will see the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps melting. You will see Greenland oozing into the sea. You will see the atmosphere polluted with greenhouse gases that block heat from escaping. You will see photos from space of what the ice caps looked like once and what they look like now and, in animation, you will see how high the oceans might rise. Shanghai and Calcutta swamped. Much of Florida, too. The water takes a hunk of New York. The fuss about what to do with Ground Zero will turn naught. It will be under water.

“An Inconvenient Truth'’ is a cinematic version of the lecture that Gore has given for years warning of the dangers of global warming. Davis Guggenheim, the director, opened it up a bit. For instance, he added some shots of Gore mulling the fate of the Earth as he is driven here or there in some city, sometimes talking about personal matters such as the death of his beloved older sister from lung cancer and the close call his son had after being hit by a car. These are all traumas that Gore had mentioned in his presidential campaign and which seemed cloying at the time. Here they seem appropriate.

Before continuing, let me apologize for my absence. I fell ill on Sunday night at the White Sox game and fell iller at yesterday’s, too. I would’ve been sicker had the White Sox lost, but I’m in okay shape and so I have the time and energy to write again. I do hope everyone had a good weekend — and spent it in drier locales than I did!

The drumbeat on global warming is rising, in part because of Al Gore’s work and in part because people like the Queen of England are pushing for more action. As a global issue, global warming is the most important on Earth, by far. The greatest tragedy of the last ten years is that the Republican Party flat-out refuses to take any meaningful, serious action to combat Global Warming. And why? Because they’re moral cowards, as Al Gore has charged.

[Said Gore:] “I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, he’s a coward when confronted with a force that he’s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying ‘yes, yes, yes, yes, yes’ to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whole—that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I don’t see any other explanation for it, because it’s not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that they’re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation.”

Since we’re talking about cowardice, the turkey of a man that is Mikhail Gorbachev is out of his cage again, writing about the Chenobyl nuclear accident as “the cause” of the Soviet Union’s collapse, “even more than my launch of perestroika” was. Of course, the fact that Socialism fully practiced only works “in theory” might have had something to do with it. As would the fact that the Soviets bankrupted themselves in a foolish effort to “keep up” with the West. And then there’s karma — the idea that what goes around comes around, and crushing peaceful movements with tanks will lead to some bad karma.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that karma caused the fall of the USSR. I’m just saying that if we want to claim that voodoo did it we might as well attribute it to Karma instead. At least then we wouldn’t be rewriting the failures of Communism and the sickness of the Soviet Union.

The military is revolting against the Pentagon’s leadership, and it’s getting quite serious and heated. The first thing of note is that the military has always disagreed with the Defense Secretary and given him hell. The Joint Chiefs typically see the Defense Secretary as a political hack to be dealt with and respect while he’s in office but deride whenever they get the chance. When you’ve been a military man all your life, you don’t appreciate having someone like Donald Rumsfeld telling you what to do. And you particularly don’t like it when he messes up the War Effort.

First, it is clear that the retired generals — six so far, with more likely to come — surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing “with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership.” He went on to “challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can’t — or don’t have the opportunity to — speak.”

Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)

This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals’ revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as “two or three retired generals out of thousands.” But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations — perhaps soon — from generals who heed Newbold’s stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm’s way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era.

In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. I do not reach this conclusion simply because of past mistakes, simply because “someone must be held accountable.” Many people besides Rumsfeld were deeply involved in the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of them remain in power, and some are in uniform.

The major reason the nation needs a new defense secretary is far more urgent. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Rumsfeld’s famous “long screwdriver,” with which he sometimes micromanages policy, now thwarts the top-to-bottom reexamination of strategy that is absolutely essential in both war zones. Lyndon Johnson understood this in 1968 when he eased another micromanaging secretary of defense, McNamara, out of the Pentagon and replaced him with Clark M. Clifford. Within weeks, Clifford had revisited every aspect of policy and begun the long, painful process of unwinding the commitment. Today, those decisions are still the subject of intense dispute, and there are many differences between the two situations. But one thing was clear then and is clear today: Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change.

The drums are beating for a hanging on the Potomac, and it’s the right call. In the Washington Times, there’s alarm over whether or not these generals are preparing a coup or conspiracy of sorts. It’s an interesting thing to discuss — I, being a fan of Harry Truman, particularly find the intrigue surrounding an Executive v. Military Confrontation intriguing — but what Blankley writes about in the Times is far fetched and seems to be a shameless effort to discredit the generals.

Perhaps they can get Bob Novak to leak something about someone’s wife on the Joint Chiefs soon? That’ll ease the calls for Rumsfeld to resign! I can only imagine the heated conversations that are going on in the Halls of Washington. While immigration engulfs Washington, a silent storm has begun in the middle of the night and it’s going to leave Donald Rumsfeld a soggy, broken man whether he resigns or not. But if he doesn’t, it’ll be Iraq left cold, wet and shattered — something particularly alarming considering that Iraq is a desert. Bush should think of that the next time Donald Rumsfeld gives him his resignation.

Policy Review has a piece up entitled Progressives for Growth, and in reading it I take myself to believe that Economics should be a hybrid between Conservative values and Liberal values. There’s nothing wrong with growing the Economy and doing all you can to do so. As President Clinton proved, it’s good Economics even though it’s traditionally seen as a Conservative way of doing business. On the other hand, we have to protect the poorest amongst us as President Bush attempted to do with his Medicare bill.

The article is an excellent one, and it’ll have to do for the day as I’ll be gone until tomorrow evening. See you then.

A brief note: Field and Stream magazine is out making the argument that Bush is bad for hunters and fishers. My reaction? Of course! It’s always bad PR when the Vice President does something for recreation and shoots someone in the face while doing it. That’s why they keep him out of Disneyworld, after all.

Now to the meat of this coconut. Is the Middle East peace process dead?

The elected president of the PA can’t be blamed for feeling bitter. Abbas was welcomed by the West with relief as a prudent successor to the dangerously unreliable Yasser Arafat. Now, his pleas to resume payments to the PA go unanswered. He did get good news during our conversation with a call from Norway. The Norwegian government agreed to consider restoring its funding, and Abbas is off to Oslo next month.

If it does reconsider, Norway would get an earful from Israel. Foreign Ministry officials reiterated to me that the Israelis will not tolerate anybody doing business with an unreformed Hamas. They predict the PA sooner or later will meet conditions, but almost nobody agrees with that. That ends the Mideast peace process for the foreseeable future.

It looks like it is to me. There are a variety of things affecting the peace process in the Middle East, and a million of them have nothing to do with the United States. Hell, some of the roadblocks on this roadmap are hundreds of years old. However, that doesn’t excuse the Bush Administration’s laziness in Palestine. In The Price of Loyalty Paul O’Neill recalls the first Cabinet meeting, in which Bush declares that America should “disengage” from the “Israel issue” and just let them deal with it. The lazy attitude taken by the Bush Administration is partially responsible for the current problems. And so is their lack of vision.

You might call the Bush Administration’s ideas about the Middle East “Voodoo Realignment.” In their haste to change the Middle East, the Bush White House argues that by changing Iraq they’ll “restructure” the “fundamentals” in that troubled land. There’s some validity to that, as can be seen in Lebanon and Syria, but not enough to warrant what they argue. You can’t just say, “We made an example out of Saddam. Iraq has had elections. Palestine will be okay and hold hands with Israel!” because while those things are true about Iraq, the world doesn’t operate through voodoo.

If Republicans want to stop the political bleeding, they’d do well to search their souls for the truth about their recent failures. As it stands, they’re willing to blame a relatively unimportant Congressional figure, unimportant in regard to public opinion, and label him the “Minority Maker.” Because Tom DeLay’s crooked leadership, the inept and seemingly cold-hearted response to Hurricane Katrina, the Republican Party’s inability to cut spending, their in-fighting about immigration and the mishandling of the Iraq War — these things have nothing at all to do with it.

Jacques Chirac is a childish buffoon. While this article makes excuses for him, there’s none for his behavior. Madeline Albright wrote in her memoirs that a French diplomat told her that his country’s leadership envies America. Perhaps the French would have more to be proud of if they didn’t see fit to trash the nation that rescued them from Nazi tyranny at a time when they wouldn’t rescue themselves. Maybe if French Presidents didn’t see fit to retrieve the gall of De Gaulle every time America attempts to do something — anything — in the world.

To close, this article is one of the more maddening ones I’ve read. You thought our debt was bad, but you have no idea.

Tort reform is a genuine issue, but to write an op-ed about “rein[ing] in the monster” is a little over the top, particularly considering that Republicans already “reformed” tort practices earlier this term in legislation. Perhaps if Republicans did their job in the Congress, legislation that bans practices as this article calls for would’ve been passed. Once again, the Republicans prove that they’re a do-nothing Congress even when they do-something.

A subtitle of a Slate piece reads, “Will you like McCain when he’s not angry,” and my simple answer is, “I don’t like him at all.” That aside, it’s a fascinating article about the dynamics of a political campaign which has to court the mainstream and party line while seeking to be that “something new” which most “reformers” and self-proclaimed “mavericks” want to be. For my money, George Allen is the Republican to beat in 2008, should he run.

On the RealClearPolitics blog there’s an indignant piece about taxes, the ball and chain of American society. It becomes indignant at the tax rates and says, “And Democrats want to raise our taxes even higher” with an indignation worthy of Scalia. In the next paragraph, however, it trips itself up:

This pillage and plundering of American wallets becomes an even tougher pill to swallow when we witness the extraordinary waste of our hard-earned money towards earmarked pork like the infamous $223 million Alaskan “bridge to nowhere.”

Perhaps intellectual integrity is a ball-and-chain to trip over for these bloggers? You can’t assail Democrats for wanting to raise taxes and then not mention that Republicans are building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Next it declares that “the tax system is a huge ball & chain tied to the feet of hardworking American entrepreneurs and ordinary workers and savers. They can barely get to work or invest because of this enormous weight” and that’s hyperbole to my ears. There are millions of people who’d be considered “workers andd savers” that benefit greatly from our tax code, and plenty of entrepreneurs who benefit from tax exemptions and credits. Give me a break.