West Coast Bulletin

The Curse of the Mid-Terms...

2010-11-11T13:45:00.000-08:00

'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark' - Marcellus to Horatio, Hamlet - Act I

To borrow a Shakespearian political analogy, all is not well within the political hierarchy of the Democratic Party. As feared by many of us within the progressive movement, and in keeping with the decades old trend in off presidential year elections, the party that doesn't currently hold the White House has been swept back to power in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two years after President Obama was handed the biggest crock of economic you know what on a plate by W, and despite trojan work by the White House and the Democratic majority to haul the American economy back from the edge of the proverbial cliff, the speed of recovery, or lack thereof, has proved crucial in deciding who will control at least half of the Congress for the next two years.

As I write, the Republicans stand to gain somwhere in the region of 65 house seats in the 435 member assembly, taking their number to approximately 243 in advance of the official swearing in ceremony for the 112th Congress in the first week of January 2011. To give these results some historical context, neither party has experienced such a significant swing against it since the elections of 1946; surpassing even the 54 seat swing in membership from the Democrats to the Republicans in 1994 - Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America' you might recall.

Perhaps this is an obvious statement but these results are not good news for President Obama and don't augur well for him in terms of advancing his agenda of change during the remaining two years of his term as President. After two years of obstructionist politics and being the party of 'No', we will now finally see if the Repiblicans have either the ability or the guts to co-govern. The so-called Tea Party patriots, a couple of whom were elected during this election cycle (more anon) and whose mantra is to oppose everything that the federal government represents, will now have to decide whether they will stand by their so-called principals or actually display some bipartisanship in government. It was easy for them to stand on the sidelines and oppose everything that the Democrats have done to fix the horrific mess that was created by eight years of disastrous Republican rule when you know that voter resentment is on your side and you don't have any practical and workable solutions of your own to present. If you think that the political gridlock in Washington D.C. during the past two years was bad, brace yourself for Congress to potentially come to a standstill once John Boehner becomes the Majority Leader in January.

Riding on the coattails of President Obama's landslide victory in 2008, Democrats increased their majorities to record numbers in both the House and Senate that year. On the first day of Obama's presidency, Democrats had a 77 seat majority in the House and an 18 seat majority in the Senate (if you include the 2 Independent senators who traditionally have caucused with the Democrats). Notwithstanding these majorities, the Democrats passed 240 legislative bills in the House which ultimately died on the floor of the Senate because of almost absolute Republican opposition and because the Democrats didn't have a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the 100 seat Senate. How is that for bipartisanship for you? Now, the same Republican leadership who didn't lift a finger to aid the Democrats to try and right the ship of state in a time of unprecedented economic and social upheavel in the country, are now the same folks who are saying that because the voters have given them back the majority, they (the GOP) will do the right thing by the American people. I remain unconvinced.

As you might expect, many Republican leaders have pointed to the popularity (or perceived popularity) of the Tea Party, for many of the gains they made in this year's mid-terms. When you analyze the numbers, the candidates and the winners and losers, the reality is actually somewhat different. I completely agree that the anger at government that was fermented and crystalized by the Tea Party movement helped greatly to energize the Republican base in a year when no matter what Democrats did, they were in for a hiding. The actual number of true Tea Party candidates however, (who ultimately ran as Republicans) that were elected this year, can be counted on two hands. Notable examples include Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, both of whom will be going to the Senate. On the other hand, in some cases Tea Party candidates who actually defeated establishment GOP candidates in their respective Republican primaries earlier this year ended up weakening the chances the Republicans might have had in that state to win back a seat from the Democrats. Examples include Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada.

If there is any good news to come out of these elections it is that the Democrats still retain control of the United States Senate (albeit with a smaller majority) and President Obama's popularity remains pretty consistent, in the mid to high 50%'s. The conventional wisdom among the political cognoscenti is that President Obama remains reasonably popular going into the second half of his (hopefully) first term. The message that was delivered, loud and clear, at the polls this November is that both parties in Congress must stop the bickering, end the gridlock within Washington and get on with doing the business of the American people. We shall see.

Oh, and by the way. Twenty eight years after he last served as Governor, Jerry Brown easily defeated former eBay CEO Meg Whitman to once again become Governor of California at the ripe old age of 72. Current San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was elected to be Lieutenant Governor - with an eye no doubt to succeeding Brown in due course. Proposition 19 - the initiative to legalize marijuana in California, lost by a vote of 54% - 46%, going down by a half million votes, out of a total of 7.4M cast.

P.S. The San Francisco Giants won their first baseball World Series this month since the club relocated to California from New York in 1957. The city is alive - Go Giants!!

Religiosity

2010-10-01T13:54:00.000-07:00

'I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice" - President John F. Kennedy, speaking on the issue of religion at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12th 1960.

It is perhaps fitting that as I write I am on an airplane, headed to the airport named after America's 35th president, and to a city that is once again embroiled in religious controversy. The problem is that it is a phony controversy. The latest brouhaha surrounds a plan to build a Muslim community center in the heart of New York City, a few blocks from that hallowed acreage known as Ground Zero, the site of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks and location of the soon to be unveiled memorial to the victims of that awful tragedy.

The right wing media noise machine, the religious nut jobs and surprise, surprise the leadership of the Republican Party are up in arms over plans to build the Muslim community center, a development that is perfectly legal and has received the backing of the mayor of New York and the President of the United States. The religious zealots who are trying everything in their power to stop this proposal from going ahead are using the argument that it is somehow un-American to allow free people to gather in a spirit of community and practice their faith without fear of reprisal. Their logic of course is because the 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of Islam by less than two dozen extremists, the entire Muslim race should not only be discrimminated against, but if these people had their way, persecuted as well.

It is pretty nauseating to listen to the Republicans in particular as they deliver their regular diatribe of hate mongering and racial insensitivity. This is the party of Lincoln, a man whose presidency, and the history of the United States, was defined by his promise to deliver emancipation for black Americans. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a civil war that was fought so that every citizen could be free from racial discrimination and be guaranteed equal rights under the law.

Once again, religion is being used as a weapon of hatred and racism. It's sickening to watch this same old movie play out one more time. Will we, as mortal human beings, ever learn from the lessons of history? As it relates to this issue, it doesn't appear so.

Juan Trippe* Too Many For Aer Lingus

2010-07-26T20:31:00.000-07:00

'You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer" - Frank Zappa (1940-1993), composer, guitarist, record producer, film director and founder of 'The Mothers of Invention'

The inter-war years of 1918-1939 have long been referred to as the 'golden age' in aviation history. Ten years after Louis Bleriot flew the English Channel from Calais to Dover in 1909, Captain John Alcock and Lieutenant Arthur Brown landed safely in Clifden, becoming the first pilots to successfully fly across the Atlantic. Steady improvements in manufacturing know how, technology and instrumentation contributed in no small part to these early successes, so much so that in 1927 Charles Lindbergh became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic, marking the end of an extraordinary first quarter century of aviation pioneering. These momentous milestones in the early history of the airplane brought to an end once and for all the glorious era of the airship. The last of the great zeppelins was disassembled in 1940; a timeline hastened no doubt by the tragic Hindenburg airship disaster of 1937.

At around the same time that Howard Hughes was setting, and resetting multiple air speed records and Adolf Hitler was building the German Luftwaffe into the awesome aerial force that would inflict blitzkrieg on Western Europe, Aer Lingus Teoranta was officially registered as an arline. The date was May 22nd 1936. The airline's first commercial flight five days later, from Dublin to Bristol, was somewhat overshadowed however by the news of the maiden voyage of the luxury liner, 'The Queen Mary', an event that stole the newspaper as well as the newsreel headlines. That being said, at a time when the economic war between the Free State and Britain was having a devastating effect on the young republic, the establishment of a national airline that saw the start of fresh trading, tourism and cultural ties with our neighbor across the Irish Sea was a positive step forward. The air battle for the skies over Britain and the war in Europe stymied the growth of the young airline as regional British airports became inaccessible for commercial flights. At the same time German armies were overrunning the continent before finally giving way to the incessant Allied bombing campaign that pulverized Europe's air infrastructure.

While American aid in the form of the Marshall Plan was helping to rebuild Europe after the war, Aer Lingus began to expand its service to a wider network of British airports as well as planting its first aeronautical routes in some of Europe's oldest capitals. For the first time the Irish diaspora, many of whom had emigrated in the 1930's and immediately after the war and who were located in England in particular, had the ability to fly home at Christmas time or return for the funeral of a loved one. The airline however had its eye on the potential market that existed within the estimated 40 million (at that time) ethnic Irish who lived on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, in the United States. Aer Lingus planned to launch a transatlantic route as early as 1947 but a confluence of economic and political circumstances delayed the plan for another decade. It would be 1958 before the first transatlantic Aer Lingus flights to New York's 'Idlewild' airport (later renamed in memory of the assassinated president) would take off from Shannon. Service to America would remain unbroken for 52 years until news came down from the company's management in June that the airline would discontinue service from Shannon to New York and Boston for a 'trial period' from January 5th to March 27th 2011. But more about that later...

James Joyce once referred to the Atlantic Ocean as the 'bowl of bitter tears'. By the time Aer Lingus finally launched its transatlantic service in 1958 the Irish diaspora in America had swelled still further. Chronic emigration during the 1950's brought on by a decade of economic stagnation only made the story of the Irish in America that much more heartbreaking. For the vast majority who left their homeland they knew it was possibly was the last time they would see their family and friends again. News from home came in the form of a hand written letter or a card on a birthday, St. Patrick's Day and at Christmas. The Irish worked hard and saved their money, often sending cash home to help bring a beloved brother, sister, nephew or niece to the great cauldron of opportunity that was America. The launch of the transatlantic route gave the Irish in America the possibility for the first time to travel home on holidays. The reality however was that for the vast majority of the diaspora it was literally only a once in a lifetime opportunity and that was due to one thing, cost. In 1958, an economy class ticket from New York to Shannon was the equivalent of $1883 in today's money - many times the annual salary of a 'JFK carpenter'. Still, the door had been opened and over the course of the next two generations, millions of Irish in America saw the land of their birth again or the home of their forefathers for the first time.

My first trip to the U.S. was sometime around 1998. By that time Aer Lingus had expanded its North American network to the point here cities like Newark, Chicago and Los Angeles had been added. In later years, and after much lobbying from the Irish in the Bay Area, twice weekly direct flights commenced from San Francisco. That route would sadly last less than two years. In the late 1990's and again in the early 2000's I must have flown from Shannon to London Heathrow with Aer Lingus about 200 times. There was a time when I could sketch the layout of Heathrow terminals 1 and 2 on the back of an envelope. Then unbelievably, inexplicably, Aer Lingus abandoned the Heathrow slots they had had for decades. Only after a massive public outcry, intensive lobbying by politicians across the country and a renegotiation of terms with the unions and staff was the route reinstated in March 2009.

For years I have often times gone out of my way, both in terms of flight schedules and financial cost, to give my business to Aer Lingus when traveling back to Ireland. I always felt I was a little closer to home every time I boarded the green airplane with the shamrock on it, whether I was in New York, Boston, Chicago, L.A. or San Francisco. I completely understand that Aer Lingus is a business and as such has to operate profitably to sustain itself through the current tough economic climate and to be ready to expand again in the future when things turn around. On the other hand I am only one of many who believe that Aer Lingus has been hugely inefficient for many years and that the airline is top heavy with staff. I would also agree that a very strong argument can be made that this state of affairs exists largely because Aer Lingus was essentially a government run organization for generations, bringing with it all the classic symptoms of bureaucracy, inefficiency and a culture of entitlement. Organizations need to be lean and nimble to survive in a turbulent 21st global economy. Suspending services from Shannon to Boston and JFK for 3 months (including St. Patrick's Day) in 2011 is not the way to do it.

*Juan Trippe (1899-1981) was an American airline entrepreneur and the founder of Pan American Airways. An airline visionary, he was almost as equally famous for his long running battle for control of the skies with his arch nemesis, Howard Hughes.

Counselor - A Life at the edge of history

2010-05-30T15:18:00.000-07:00

On May 17th last I was privileged to be part of a small group of approximately 150 people to attend a fascinating, and sometimes moving, "fireside chat" type conversation between Ted Sorensen, the former legal counsel, policy adviser and chief speech writer for Senator (1952-1960) and latterly President Kennedy (1961-1963), and Pulitzer Prize winning historian Professor David Kennedy of Stanford University, California. The event was hosted by the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.

At 82 years old Sorensen is almost blind, one of the after effects of a severe stroke he suffered in 2001. That being said he is a wonderfully articulate and vocally impressive man. His delivery style is that of a man who has been writing all his life and he possesses an extraordinary command of historical facts and personal memories. One of the questions posed by Professor Kennedy was to describe the relationship he (Sorensen) had with President Kennedy as it related to speech writing. Sorensen described this relationship as "collaborative" where he would create a first draft for JFK's review, Kennedy would edit and make small changes or request deletions, Sorensen would re-draft and they would continue in this vein until the final text was agreed.

Remember, he is the man who drafted every major speech given by JFK from 1952 to 1963 including the famous "Ask not what your country can do for you..." inaugural address, the American University speech of June 10th 1963, Kennedy's civil rights 'moral issue' speech to the nation the very next day and his brilliant address to Dail Eireann (the Irish parliament) on June 28th 1963, among many, many others.

It was fascinating to hear this man's firsthand accounts of his experiences in the White House, at the side of the President, while tumultuous events like the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crisis, the civil rights demonstrations and the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded around them.

At the book signing afterwards, I shook his hand. He told me that the speech he wrote that JFK delivered to Dail Eireann on June 28th 1963 was one of his favorites. He then proceeded to sign my book and for good measure recited, verbatim, off the top of his head, a verse from "The Foggy Dew".

The political implosion of the GOP

2010-05-30T13:45:00.000-07:00

"The hardest job for a politician today is to have the courage to be a moderate. It's easy to take an extreme position" - Hubert H. Humphrey (1911-1978), U.S. Senator from Minnesota 1949-1965 and 1971-1978 and 38th Vice President 1965-1969.

The recent senatorial primary results from three key states have given us a taste of what is to come this fall. A couple of weeks after an unprecedented outcome in Utah, where a sitting, two term Republican senator was defeated in his party's state primary for the upcoming November election, nervous candidates in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Arkansas watched closely to see if they were next to incur the wrath of a deeply frustrated electorate. The results from those races show that Democrats need to be concerned for the future of a hefty number of elected members come November; however the really big story here is that the Republican Party is eating itself alive - more anon.

The history of politics in the United States shows that in off year elections (i.e. when there is no presidential election) the party that currently holds the White House suffers some, and often significant losses in the congressional and senatorial races that are commonly referred to as the 'mid-term' elections. Congressmen (a generic term that refers to male and female representatives) are up for election every two years, are elected to the House of Representatives and are 438 in number. The United States Senate on the other hand contains 100 members who are elected to six year terms. Depending on timing, there may be anything from twenty to forty senatorial seats up for grabs in off year elections.

There is one thing we know for sure. There is huge anti-incumbent sentiment among the electorate right now. It is highly likely that this will reflect itself in Democrats losing some congressional and senatorial seats in November. As I mentioned earlier, this is par for the course in American politics. However, we are beginning to see a trend emerge from the primaries that have taken place thus far and it is not one that augurs well for Republicans. Here is a quick summary.

First, there is the Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist. Charlie is a moderate, which means that he holds some views that appeal to Democratic voters. He sided with President Obama in 2009 by voicing his support in favor of the president $875B stimulus package, which brought down on him the ire of the Republican establishment and the Tea Party nut jobs. With his governorship due to end this year, Crist is running for the Senate. Until a month ago he was running as a Republican. That was until the GOP establishment came out in support of Crist's opponent, the far more conservative Tea Party candidate, Marco Rubio, resulting in Crist breaking with the Republican Party and changing his affiliation to Independent. And yes, he is still running for the Senate.

A number of weeks ago, incumbent GOP senator Bob Bennett of Utah, a man with a record of voting conservative 86% of the time, was unceremoniously dumped from the November state ballot by losing his party's primary election. The reason? He wasn't conservative enough. In Kentucky, an eye surgeon named Rand Paul, the unelected son of longtime Republican congressman, former Liberterian Party candidate for President and darling of the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul, defeated the establishment Republican candidate in that state's GOP senatorial primary this month.

You see the pattern emerging here? Existing, well established and respected GOP incumbents, many of whom lean to the far right politically, are being tossed out on their backsides because they are deemed to be not conservative enough by the Tea Party mob who are vying to take control of the Republican Party. There is a bitter, ideological war going on within the GOP that has the potential to tear it apart.

Anti-incumbent feeling isn't confined to Republicans. Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania (yes, the same Arlen Spector of the Warren Commission who authored the infamous 'magic bullet theory' to explain how one bullet inflicted seven separate wounds on President Kennedy and Governor Connolly in Dallas 47 years ago) has lost his state's Democratic primary election for a possible 6th term. Why is this important and why was he defeated? There are two plausible reasons; a) even though Spector was a senator for 30 years he was the victim of the anti-incumbent tsunami that we can see building across the country, or b) which in my opinion is the more likely, Spector, for 29 of his 30 years in the senate was a Republican! He switched parties in 2009 to become a Democrat, openly acknowledging that if he remained a Republican this year he would likely have a very difficult primary challenge. Guess what, he changed parties and still lost. Here was a guy who voted for the Iraq War, voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans and in the end I think Pennsylvania Democrats just couldn't get the image of Arlen Spector the Republican out of their minds. He lost to a retired three star admiral and two term congressman named Joe Sestak.

Finally, let me say this about the so called Tea Party tidal wave. At a post election rally, Rand Paul said that he wants to be part of a revolution to "take the country back". Really? Back where exactly? Back to 30 years of Reagan/Bush economics and a doctrine of complete deregulation of the banks and the financial markets? Back to an era of tax cuts for only the top 1% of earners? Back to a policy of pre-emptive war and unilateralism? How far back does he, and the so called Tea Party movement, want to take us - 1776? Give me a break.....

Take the Money and Run (The Steve Miller Band, 1976)

2010-05-12T19:57:00.000-07:00

"Money, and not morality, is the principal of commercial nations" - Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd President of the United States (}1801 -1809)

So here we go again. Get ready for round two. A month after the historic passage of the most groundbreaking and morally responsible legislation in half a century, health care reform, President Obama is once again circling the wagons to take on another special interest behemoth. This time it is the banks and financial institutions, the cognoscenti that play with the nation's money by day and drink martinis after five, the aristocracy of corporate America, the fat cats of Wall Street and their enablers and supporters on K Street (home of corporate lobbyists in Washington D.C.)

Buoyed by their achievement in passing significant health care reform, a bill that will provide medical insurance to an additional 32 million Americans, the Democratic majority in Congress is posied to pass the toughest financial regulatory reform since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's. Back then FDR didn't a lawyer or a banker to design and implement the changes needed to eliminate the corrupt practices that had brought on the stock market crash of 1929. Instead, he tapped Joseph P. Kennedy (yes, that Joe Kennedy) to be the first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In the words of one Washington columnist...'the best way to catch the pirates, Roosevelt figured, was to hire another pirate', and he got Captain Kidd himself when he chose Kennedy. Unfortunately President Obama doesn't have a Kennedyesque candidate over at the SEC to take the lead in beating the Wall Street chairmen into submission. In addition to his own significant fortitude and determination however, Obama has an experienced and wily Vice President, a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and perhaps most importantly, the majority of the American people on his side as he steps into the ring with another special interest heavyweight.

Perhaps not surprisingly, standing alongside the banks in complete opposition to any kind of reform on the financial sector, is the Republican Party. It seems inconceivable to me that after taking the side of the insurance companies over the concerns of the American people in the recent health care debate (not one member of the Republican Party, in either the House or the Senate, voted in favor of the health care legislation), the GOP thinks it is good politics to get into bed with the very institutions that have angered and outraged the American people perhaps more than any other.

The Republican Party has succumbed to the will of it's most hard right, conservative members (as well as the anti government fervor being generated by the so called Tea Party movement) and is taking an absolutely huge gamble leading up to November's mid term elections. It is that the American people will be more angry at the current administration for not turning around the economy as quickly as they think they should have (and vote Democrats out of office) than understanding that the economic mess that Obama inherited was the worse since the Great Depression. The gamble also assumes that the American people won't give any credit to Democrats for passing significant health care legislation (and probably financial regulatory reform, thereby handcuffing to some degree the very institutions that caused the financial meltdown) as well as steadying the economic ship of state. It's an argument I don't buy and I believe it is a gamble that they will ultimately lose.

Here is the history. Thanks in large part to the New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt, America's banks, and by default the U.S. economy, prospered in the thirty five years after World War II. Then along comes Ronald Reagan, propagandist in chief for the concept of small government and less federal regulation of private enterprise (including financial markets and banking practices). For all his qualities or leadership and communication skills, one should also remember that Reagan has been publicly speaking out against so called "socialized medicine" since 1961. A direct result of Reagan economics (i.e. deregulation) was the famous "Savings and Loans" crisis of 1980's and 1990's, during which 747 separate financials institutions in the United States failed. The cost of that crisis, twenty years ago, was approximately $160B, the vast majority of which was paid for by way of a financial bailout during the presidency of none other than George H.W. Bush.

So, here we are in 2010 and Republican's are not only up in arms because the Obama adminsitration had to bail out the nations's banks in the same way W's father had to two decades ago, but perhaps more appallingly, they are now standing side by side with the very banks that precipitated the current financial crisis, a crisis caused by the predatory and corrupt practices that came into existence as a direct result of the Reagan policy of deregulation in the 1980's.

The hypocrisy of these people is stomach churning. Remember, the mess that was created here in the United States is one that has been replicated in dozens of countries across the world, where predatory, unethical and often illegal banking practices have wreaked havoc on economies and people's lives. There is one common theme however, in every case the tax payer has to pick up the tab.

We may not have a 21st century Joseph P. Kennedy to whip these leeches into submission but my money is on President Obama to take the fight to Wall Street and pass the most significant financial regulatory reform since the New Deal.

Israel and the Queen of the Pantsuits

2010-04-04T14:19:00.000-07:00

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the state of Israel on trial" - Ariel Sharon - (b.1928), the 11th prime minister of Israel (2001-2006) and often referred to as "The Butcher of Beirut"

On a number of occasions over the past seven plus years of this column I have addressed and issue that has been with us now for a couple of generations and that is the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. More specifically I have discussed the plight of the Palestinians and their struggle for not only international recognition as a people but also the birth of their own nation. I don't think that is unreasonable to say that Irish people, to a large degree, feel a natural affinity to the cause of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, having ourselves fought for hundreds of years to establish our own independence. In the modern era one cannot talk about the Arab-Israeli situation without also discussing the role of America as Israel's benefactor in the Middle East and the power of the pro Israel lobby in the United States.

Since the country came into existence in 1948, the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has revolved around its relationship with Israel. For sixty years American support for Israel has been unwavering, whether that support be measured in financial, diplomatic or material terms. It is hard to comprehend why the most powerful nation in the world would choose to sometimes jeopardize its own security (by inflaming the Arab world) and put serious strain on long time international relationships by obstinately sticking by Israel through thick and thin, human rights violation after human rights violation. Since World War II, successive U.S. presidents (with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, who was a notorious anti-Semite), have pandered to the will of the pro Israel lobby. Time and again the international community has witnessed the brutality of Israel's continued aggression towards its regional neighbours, with little or no reprimand from Washington. Personally speaking, it is a state of affairs that has frustrated me greatly for a long time.

U.S. timidity towards Israeli belligerence may well be at an end however, at least for the duration of Barack Obama's presidency. In March, on the day Vice President Joe Biden arrived in the country, the Israeli interior ministry announced a housing expansion in a Jewish community in North Jerusalem, a very touchy subject with Washington, not to mention the Palestinians, who regard Jerusalem as their historical and spiritual capital. Biden, while in the country, condemned the action. A couple of days later, after discussing with President Obama specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton read Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu the riot act during a well publicized 45 minute telephone conversation, calling the earlier action on housing an "insulting" to America and its efforts to broker an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Clinton says that she expects Israel to take real and concrete steps towards advancing the peace process.

Finally. Its about time the United States stopped pampering Israel. Kudos to Hillary Clinton for calling them out over another blatant act of intimidation and belligerence. Maybe the U.S. is waking up to what the rest of the world has known for decades, but I doubt it.

Tea baggers (aka racists) of the world unite

2010-03-07T10:44:00.000-08:00

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd" - Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher, mathematician and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature (1950)

In late 2009 the word "teabagger" officially entered the lexicon when it was short listed by the Oxford American Dictionary for their "Word of the Year" competition. The rise of the so called Tea Party movement in the last couple of years has created a fascinating, and yes, frightening, new dynamic in the American body politic, one which may well cause serious difficulties for both Republican and Democratic candidate's in November's mid term elections. While the movement publicizes that its charter is to protest government tax and spending policies and reduce what its members see as the rise of federal influence in their daily lives, the truth is that the Tea Party has evolved into a right wing, ultra conservative, overtly racist organization. More of that anon.

The genesis of the current Tea Party movement was born out of the Liberterian Party, a political party formed in 1971 and headquartered in Washington D.C. Its political platform advocates strong civil liberties, less government regulation and involvement in the daily lives of citizens, fiscal responsibility and a non interventionist foreign policy. Current Republican congressman Ron Paul ran as a Liberterian Party candidate for President in 1988, and while he remains in the GOP tent, he is seen by many as one of the more moderate, saner voices in the Republican Party.

The problem for Republicans is that the Tea Party movement has unashamedly morphed into an organization of racists. Their common enemy is President Obama. They are apoplectic that their comfortable white supremacist existence has been turned upside down by the election of an intelligent, charismatic black man. Some of their racism is subtle, more of it is blatant and in your face. The subtle racism is reflected in a strong anti immigration stance and their opposition to health care reform and affirmative action. Their public displays of racism have been at their rallies where the most vicious signs, banners and pictures of President Obama have been visible to the entire world. What's worse is that many prominent Republican politicians, including the Minority Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Minority Whip, have made speeches at these rallies, openly identifying themselves with these right wing nut jobs. They continue to call Obama a socialist. This of course is just a euphemism for you know what. But guess what?

The Tea Party movement is causing a big problem for the Republican Party. Republican National Committe chairman Michael Steele is openly courting the Tea Party leadership in an effort to merge the parties because he knows that they have the potential to take seats away from the GOP in this year's congressional elections. The Tea Party has moved so far to the right on the political spectrum that even semi conservative Republicans like John McCain are no longer considered conservative enough and are in the fight of their lives to hold their seats this November. To cite one example, in Arizona, former Republican congressman and current darling of the Tea Party movement, J.D. Hayworth, has announced that he will run against McCain in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate this summer, handing McCain arguably his toughest re-election battle yet.

A week after half term governor and blogger Sarah Palin made a speech at the inaugural Tea Party convention in Nashville, the founder of www.teaparty.org lashed out publicly at Palin's suggestion that the Tea Party movement be absorbed into the GOP - "She represents a growing insider's attack to the heart of the Tea Party. Very much like a wolf in sheep's clothing entering in at the gate as an ally, but for all intents and purposes there to seize and capture, not only one or two stray sheep, but the whole flock". Wow! Perhaps these people are now seeing Palin for exactly what she is; an intellectual midget, a slick opportunist and a fraud with no vision and even less humility.

According to the Teas Party manifesto, here are their "non-negotiable" core beliefs:

Illegal aliens are illegal
Pro-domestic employment is indespensible
Stronger military is essential
Special interests eliminated
Gun ownership is sacred
Goverment must be downsized
National budget must be balanced
Deficit spending will end
Bail out and stimulus plans are illegal
Reduce personal income taxes a must
Reduce business income taxes is mandatory
Political offices available to average citizens
Intrusive government stopped
English only is required
Traditional family values are encouraged
Common sense constitutional conservative self-governance is our mode of operation

.....and yes, we are a Christian nation.

Christian nation? This is just another way of saying that they believe in white power. It's not very subtle. A journalist recently commented that the Tea Party is "just a rebranding of the John Birch Society, its KKK Light". I couldn't agree more. Stay tuned. These people are dangerous, they incite hatred and they are crazy. They mean to do damage and it isn't going to be pretty.

GUBU, Massachusetts and the end of an era

2010-02-20T12:12:00.000-08:00

"All politics is local" - Thomas P. 'Tip' O'Neill (1912-1994), Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts (1953-1987) and former Speaker of the House of Representatives (1977-1987)

As I write I am very, very frustrated. The final results are just in from the special election being held today (January 19th) to fill the United States Senate seat left vacant after the death of Edward M. Kennedy last August. In a result nobody would have predicted in the immediate aftermath of Teddy's death, or even as recently as New Year's Day, a relatively unknown Republican state senator named Scott Brown has defeated the Massachusetts Attorney General, Democrat Martha Coakley for the open seat. To put this in some kind of historical context, the last Republican to be elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts was Edward W. Brooke in 1972, and he was a black man, in the fact the first black man to be elected to the Senate, nationwide, since Reconstruction in the 1860's. In fact, technically, he was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate for Massachusetts since 1966, because he holds the same record, 1966 and 1972, if you catch my meaning.

It is hard to find words words to adequately describe the enormity of this result and the potential political impact it may have. Mirroring a similarly far fetched political snafu from Ireland in the early 1980's, I am reminded of those timeless words, "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre, unprecedented", uttered by then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey (and later eased into the lexicon by journalist Conor Cruise O'Brien as "GUBU", as CJ tried to explain how it could happen that a double murderer was apprehended in the house of the former Attorney General, Patrick Connolly. These examples are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of criminality but in terms of shock factor and utter bizarreness, to my mind, not so much.

We will get to the reasons how and why Coakley managed to lose this seemingly unloseable seat a little later, but the most obvious immediate impact of this result is that Brown now becomes the 41st Republican in the United States Senate, which means Democracts no longer have a (required) 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the 100 seat chamber. Legitimate questions are being asked about what this means for the future of the health care reform bill, a piece of legislation that the Democrats, not to mention the President, have invested so much political capital in during the first year of Obama's first term.

All I know is that Ted Kennedy must be rolling over in his grave, and his brother Jack, and his other brother Bobby. Modern day Kennedy politicans Patrick J. Kennedy (Ted's son) and Joseph P. Kennedy II (Bobby's son), veterans of political campaigns themselves, must be wondering what went wrong, so quickly, that a seat that was quite probably the safest Democratic seat in the country could have been lost so badly. Counting their various careers, these men include 3 congressmen, 3 senators, a president and an attorney general. They understood that in an election cycle you campaign constantly, shake every possible hand, work all hours, pound the pavements and never, ever take votes for granted. These are the reasons Martha Coakley lost an election she never should have lost.

The cards were not only stacked in her favor, she started out the race last fall with the political equivalent of three kings, whereas her opponent had a lowly, insignificant pair of seven's. Coakley was running to replace the legendary Ted Kennedy in the Senate - the nostalgia associated with this fact alone should have given her a shoo-in. Secondly, she was a reasonably popular Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, in terms of both voter turnout and the make-up of the state and congressional delegations. Thirdly, she has already won statewide office when she became the Attorney General of Massachusetts in January 2007, so she was a known quantity. Yet she blew it. Two weeks before Christmas Coakley led Brown by 20 points in the polls. Then she decided to literally go on vacation to the Caribbean for a week, apparently of the mind that he election to the Senate was merely a formality. It will probably be the costliest political blunder of her career. Even if you are far ahead in the polls, you don't go on vacation, even if for nothing else but appearances sake.

While Martha was lounging, Scott Brown was campaigning like a maniac across the state, capitalizing on the public's anger and frustration with official Washington, to remarkably draw even in the polls a week before the election. The problem for Coakley was that the momentum was now in Brown's favor and before she realized it, it was too late. Even a last minute day of campaigning by the President on January 17th couldn't save her. Coakley eventually lost by 5 percentage points, 52% to 47%. In the aftermath of the result, one long time cable news commentator surmised that notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Massachusetts were angry about a whole series of issues, if Martha Coakley had ran even a mediocre campaign and stayed focused on her message and record, she would have handliy beaten Brown. I agree.

For the first time since 1946 a Kennedy will not represent the state of Massachusetts in the United States Congress. The Democrats (and that includes the President) badly need to sharpen up their act, and quickly. The midterm elections loom on the horizon in November and the President has a broad body of legislation he wants to move through Congress this year. It remains to be seen what the impact of the loss of this safe Senate seat will have on Obama's agenda in 2010.

"Y2K, 'W' and the Great Depression - Part Deux"

2009-12-26T03:39:00.000-08:00

"Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right" - Oprah Winfrey, American media mogul, actress and producer - born 1954.

February 12th 2000 was the official date when I first arrived in San Francisco in what would turn out to be the first of two full relocations from Ireland to the United States in the decade that would follow. I was lucky enough to have been able to spend much of my middle to late '20's travelling the world with my career, but the move to the United States at the dawning of the new century was the first time I was actually planning on living in a new country, absorbing and adapting to a new culture, and attempting to accomplish what hundreds of thousands of my fellow Irish men and women had done in the centuries past. Much of the boom in the technology and software sector in the late 1990's, the industry in which I worked at the time, revolved around the confusion surrounding Y2K. Would information systems, computer programs, and the technhnological infrastructure supporting corporations and businesses of every size, shape and industry vertical, and perhaps even governments, continue functioning after 01/01/2000. Y2K turned out to be a red herring and by February of 2000 it was largely forgotten.

My first project in the United States involved a travel schedule that went something like this: Sunday - fly San Francisco to Memphis, take a connecting flight from Memphis to Nashville and then either hire a car or book a driver and travel across the border from Tennessee to Kentucky to a place called Bowling Green. Friday afternoon around lunch time I would retrace my steps back across 3,000 miles of open country to San Francisco. This was the schedule for nine months. Bowling Green has been, (and is likely only ever to be), famous for two things: a) it is the home of the Corvette car museum and b) at one time it has the largest number of restaurants per head of population in America. You can understand now when I tell you that the folks I was working with on the project looked at me kind of funny for the first couple of weeks whenever I opened my mouth. The natives of Bowling Green were somehow able to get five syllables into word that was only supposed to have three. To them, this fast talking Irishman was quite literally from another time and place.

One memorable trip in one of those car rides from Nashville, Tennessee to Bowling Green, Kentucky stands out. It was March or April of 2000 and the presidential primaries were being waged across the country. John McCain had just defeated George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary by 17 points and Bush was on the ropes. (This was just before Karl Rove stepped in and began circulating flyers in South Carolina (in advance of their primary) saying that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate child, that he was in favor of homosexuality and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of John McCain, but I had respect for him back in 2000, and any Republican that was running against Bush, any Bush, had my support. The conversation in the car between the can driver and I got around to Bill Clinton. Clinton was at the time trying to rehabilitate his name in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky scandal of 1998, while simultaneously seeing out his second term as President. Once I mentioned Clinton's name to the driver in the middle of Kentucky redneck country, he became incensed, telling me that he would gladly shoot that son of a bitch Clinton with his shotgun if he had an opportunity. I tried to draw him out on what his issues were with Clinton and perhaps not surprisingly they ranged from abortion to gun control to so-called "morals" in the White House. This experience was my first introduction to someone who classified themselves as an evangelical Christian, the kind of voter that George W. Bush courted extensively in the 2000 election with Al Gore. The rest, as we know, is history.

As we close out this year of 2009 it is also worth considering that we are also turning the last page on the first decade of the 21st century. There is no doubt that in the decade of the '00's, one man has dominated the political and economic landscape of the world. George W. Bush, as we now know, was the archangel Gabriel in disguise. A man that ran on a plank of "compassionate conservatism" in 2000 turned out to be the worst American president in the history of that office, somehow achieving a level of incompetence worse than that of his predecessors Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and his own daddy, George H.W. Bush. 'W' was an unqualified to be President as his "Skull and Bones", Nazi apologist, Savings and Loans defrauder, CIA hit man, and friend of the Bin Laden family, father was. The man 'W' stole the election from in 2000, Al Gore, went on to completely rehabilitate his career and racked up a Grammy, an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize in quick succession. Today, Gore is the pre-eminent worldwide authority on global warming and climate change, while 'W' has been ostracized to the back waters of Texas and obscurity.

Time magazine recently issued a special publication entitled "The '00's: Goodbye (At Last) to the Decade from Hell". Who could blame them for such a title after a decade that included such catastrophic and world changing events as 9/11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Hurricane Katrina, Guantamano Bay, torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the dismantling of the United States constitution and the plunder of the US economy by a combination of investment banks, mortgage houses, finance companies and the insurance industry. The legacy of the Bush/Cheney years will, unfortunately, be with us for a generation or more.

On a positive note, the outstanding event for me in 2009 was the inauguration of President Barack Obama. The election of America's first black president marked a seminal moment in the history of democracy in the United States. Here is a brave and visionary leader who is committed to making ground breaking legislative changes for the betterment of Americans. There is no doubt that Obama's task is huge and he may well have underestimated the extent to which corporate America owns a large slice of the United States congress, however, I believe strongly that this president will preside over significant reform (and improvement) in areas such as climate change, regulatory control of the marketplace, foreign policy, immigration and civil rights and universal health care. Let us wish President Obama well as he undertakes these awesome endeavors.

"Conservatism, New York’s 23rd and the lessons for the Republican Party in 2010"

2009-11-01T19:02:00.001-08:00

"Over the past two decades American electoral politics has been transformed by the rise of a newly energized conservative movement. The result has been not only a radical shift in the program and politics of the Republican Party, but a decisive change in the nature of public discourse. Demagoguery is increasingly supplanting responsible dialogue, self-righteousness is replacing conscientiousness, and the victim is democracy" - John W. Dean III, former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon 1970-1973

In 2006, George W. Bush was mid way through his second term as President and already looking like a lame duck chief executive. In November of that year, Bush, as the undisputed leader of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, suffered his first major defeat in his six years in office. The American people, disgusted by a combination of political corruption, unprecedented secrecy in government, the dismantling of the United States Constitution and not to mention the war in Iraq, swept the Democrats back into the majority in the United States congress. Two years later the Republicans were decimated at the polls, Democrats significantly increased their majority, and America elected its first black president. Along the way, the tone of the political discourse in the United States would drop to a new low. Republican candidates, bitter after losing the congressional majority they had held for 12 long years and staring likely defeat in the face in the 2008 presoidential election, decided to join forces with a combination of rabid right wing talk radio fanatics, cable TV show hosts, conservative authors and editorial writers, retired (and sometimes discredited) military commanders and lobbyists, political hacks and racists of every shape and size to attempt to once again hijack the national mood for change in America through fear, intimidation, orchestrated confrontation and outright lies.

When John Dean wrote his book "Conservatives without Conscience" in 2006 he accurately captured the radical shift that had taken place in the Republican Party over the period of the previosu 25 years and repercussions of what this meant, and still means today, to the American body politic. There was a time when the conservative movement and the Republican Party was essentially one and the same thing. The universally acknowledged founders of the modern conservative movement, people like William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, were lifelong, and passionate Republicans. Buckley founded "The National Review", the bastion of conservative writing and thinking now for over forty years; Goldwater was a long time senator from Arizona and former Republican candidate for President (he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson in 1964). While both men's brand of conservatism was defined by their belief in small government, strong military defense, states' rights, fiscal responsibility and the deregulation of the economic marketplace, they were also viewed as men with a conscience, open to rational debate and whose motives and actions were not driven merely by pure ideology or prejudice. The Republican Party, and therefore the conservative movement, has become hijacked to a new ideology in the last 25 years. It began with Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the 1980's and was laid bare in all its viciousness and hypocrisy during the co presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush ran on a plank of "compassionate conservatism" against Al Gore in 2000, but clearly his definition conservatism was radically different from that of Buckley, Goldwater or even Richard Nixon.

Since the election of Barack Obama, the Republican Party has been engaged in a civil war. The more ideologically driven half of the party (those that believe for example that John McCain wasn't conservative enough to be its nominee in 2008) is represented by a motley crew of racists and morally and ideologically bankrupt individuals that includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter to name but a few. The influence that these individuals have within the broader Republican movement is steadily increasing, so much so that the existing party leadership and infrastructure may become irreparably damaged as it looks ahead to the midterm elections of 2010. The recent events surrounding a congressional election this month in upstate New York provides a fascinating window into the political infighting that is currently going on within the Republican Party. In a part of the country where the Democrats have long been politically dominant, New York's 23rd district has been one of the few safe Republican seats going back over a hundred years. Earlier this summer the Republican Party in New York (and backed by the Republican National Committee and party leaders in the House and Senate) endorsed Ms. Deded Scozzafava as its nominee for the open congressional seat this November. In a district where Republicans have held the seat since 1871, the result seemed a formality. The problem for some national Republican figures however was that Ms. Scozzafava was not conservative enough in her leanings.

Enter Doug Hoffman. Hoffman is a carpet bagger (meaning he is running for a seat in a district that he has never lived in) who entered the race in September, proudly boasting his supposed conservative credentials and running as a "conservative" and not as a "republican". His star rose quickly when he was endorsed by none other than Sarah Palin. What half term governor and now part time blogger Palin knows about the issues of New York's 23rd district is not clear to me, however she delivered an enormous snub to the Republican establishment in New York by rejecting the party's chosen nominee and instead endorsing an unknown candidate, Hoffman, on the grounds that she, Ms. Scozzafava, the party nominee, wasn't conservative enough. In the weeks following the endorsement, a clutch of prominent Republicans from the four corners of the country have followed suit and endorsed Hoffman. The pressure on Scozzafava was such that on October 31st, 3 days before the election, she withdrew her candidacy. This issue this debacle has created for the Republican Party is that the constituents that had planned to vote for Ms. Scozzafava (viewed as a moderate Republican) may well now vote for the Democratic candidate, rather than the conservative Hoffman. Such an eventuality could swing the seat to the Democrats for the first time in multiple generations, an outcome made even more potentially likely when Scozzfava turned around and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, on November 1st! By the time you read this, the results will be in and we will know for sure. Be sure to do a Google on it.

This brand of red meat political conservatism that was played out in New York's 23rd district is a microcosm of the broader dilemma the Republican Party faces as it seeks to improve its image with the national electorate coming into a new election year. A recent country wide poll showed that only 20% of voters identify themselves as traditional Republicans. If the party is to increase this percentage and make gains in the 2010 midterm elections it knows it must broaden it's appeal to moderate Republicans (Republicans that abandoned the party in 2008), independents and even border line and conservative Democrats (like those Democrats who voted for Reagan in the 1980's). Should the party of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan continue to give way to the influence of Cheney, Palin and Limbaugh, and should President Obama's legislative changes begin to improve the lives of everyday Americans in 2010, it is not inconceivable that the GOP will shrink to be an almost exclusively white, Southern and ideologically bankrupt party.

The "Af-Pak" Decision

2009-10-17T13:11:00.000-07:00

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?” – Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Around 330 BC, in his attempt to reach “the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea”, the Greek king, Alexander the Great, drove his armies across the vast plains of Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia and conquered the lands that today roughly correspond to Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Genghis Khan would experience fifteen hundred years later, Alexander’s armies found the rugged terrain and brutal climatic conditions of the Af-Pak region to be extremely inhospitable and morale shattering; so much so that as the great warrior drove his men relentlessly forward towards the borders of India, he was eventually forced to turn back by the near mutiny of his soldiers. Over the centuries, waves of conquerors have descended on these ancient lands, positioning the region at the crossroads of the historic trade routes between the great cities of Rome and Athens in the West and India and China in the east.

Eight years after the invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, President Obama is at a crossroads in determining the way forward for U.S. foreign policy in what is no longer being referred to as the war in Afghanistan, but rather the broader Af-Pak strategy. After vanquishing the Taliban back in October 2001, the general consensus is that the United States took its eye completely off the ball by focusing its international war on terror almost exclusively in Iraq. While the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq, Osama bin Laden found refuge in the arms of his Taliban kin, the same mujahideen he fought alongside in the 1980’s against the Soviets, and who now control the mountain landscape that borders the countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the ineffective rule of Bush puppet, President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban in Afghanistan have reinvented themselves and are now back to pre 9/11 strength. Karzai’s inability, or unwillingness, to tame the resurgence of the Taliban and to stamp out the widespread corruption that exists within his administration has led to a perceptible cooling in relations with the United States. Accusations of extensive fraud in Afghanistan’s recent elections have contributed to President Obama’s insistence on revaluating the entire United States mission in that country.

The sovereign nation of Pakistan was formed in 1947 after the northwestern part of what was then British India was carved off from the rest of India to become an autonomous state in its own right, the home to millions of Indian Muslims. Many military and political strategists believe that Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, is where the United States should be placing most of its military, economic and diplomatic efforts in any new regional strategy to be announced by the President. Even though Pakistan was a U.S. ally during the CIA funded war of the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980’s, relations soured quickly thereafter when Pakistan refused to abandon its nuclear program, an issue that has now come front and central for the Obama administration. Former Pakistani president during the post 9/11 era of George Bush’s war on terror, Pervez Musharraf proved to be an ineffective and prickly ally, who like his counterpart Karzai in Afghanistan, was unable or unwilling to tame the rise of the Taliban within his own country. The fear now for the Obama administration, in addition to the resurgence of the Taliban, who are natural allies of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, is that Pakistan’s nuclear capability could fall into the hands of an insurgent force like the Taliban, the potential impact of which could be catastrophic.

Right now, the usual motley crew of foreign policy hawks are talking up America’s need to recommit itself to bringing stability to the region, taking the war on terror to its enemies and spreading so called democracy. This is the same mantra we heard in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan (in the 1980’s and in 2001) and Iraq, a mention just a few. The military, industrial, intelligence and political nexus that controls the Pentagon, CIA, Department of Defense, Wall Street and the Republican Party have controlled the foreign policy of the United States for half a century.

It is unreasonable to expect President Obama to be able to reverse this trend less than one year in to his first term. The President can however demonstrate leadership, vision, respect and responsibility by carefully re-evaluating U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and begin recalibrating its mission there. The President was recently awarded the Nobel Peace prize not just for what he has already achieved; both symbolically and through his actions, but also for the change towards peace he can engineer in the matter of U.S. foreign policy and the application of America’s military might. Let us wish him well as he takes on this awesome task.

The Soul of the Senate...

2009-09-12T10:46:00.000-07:00

“For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the works goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die” – Senator Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009 – concession speech in the campaign for the Democratic nomination for president in 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter.

On Saturday, November 23rd 1963, at the request of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara made four separate trips to Arlington Cemetery to survey the burial grounds for a suitable resting place for the dead president. After finding what he believed to be the most beautiful location in the cemetery, McNamara called Mrs. Kennedy and asked her to come to Arlington to make a final decision. At the foot of a hill, atop which stands Arlington House, a memorial to Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and overlooking the Potomac River, Mrs. Kennedy would light the eternal flame for the first time at the gravesite of her dead husband, a flame that has burned ever since. Forty six years later, Edward Moore Kennedy, the last remaining son of Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, would travel the same road, passing the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial along the way, before being laid to rest within a hundred feet of his assassinated brothers.

Joe and Rose Kennedy raised their children around the biblical concept of “to whom much is given, much will be required”. Despite the fact that one brother served as president and another as attorney general, Senator Ted Kennedy lived this principal in a way that neither of his brothers ever did, or indeed ever had the opportunity to. Kennedy’s half century of dedication to public service was driven by three key themes; his genuine empathy and consideration for the underprivileged, minorities and the elderly, what he felt was his duty to carry forward the fallen standard and social and economic policies of his slain brothers, and yes, in the aftermath of personal irresponsibility and tragedy at Chappaquiddick, his long road towards redemption by becoming a lightning rod for every just social cause, authoring some 2,500 legislative bills in the United States Senate, covering everything from health care and immigration, civil rights and education reform to promoting gender equity, protecting voting rights and being a lifelong advocate for the working man and woman.

Ted Kennedy was a natural politician in a way that his more famous brothers never were. His brother Jack, the president, was renowned for being cold and detached, a man who cloaked his emotions and even though he spent 14 years in the congress before becoming president, was never at home in the Senate and was not a legislator in the way his contemporary Lyndon Johnson was, not even close. Robert Kennedy, while notoriously shy and often brutally stubborn and harsh in his years as attorney general, was a man of perpetual motion and action, who found the slow process and grind of legislating a terrible chore after he entered the U.S. Senate in January 1965. Teddy was a different story altogether. Politically speaking he was more of a Fitzgerald than a Kennedy.

His maternal grandfather, John F. “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald (after whom the future president would be named), was the rambunctious, back-slapping, wheeling and dealing former U.S. congressman and later two time mayor of Boston. The tradition of grass roots, ward politics that was symptomatic of the rise of first and second generation Irish immigrants within the Democratic Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was woven into the DNA of Ted Kennedy. Teddy not only loved the U.S. Senate, he loved legislating. He understood, more than anyone, that bipartisanship was a lot more than just a word. Although he was the voice of American liberalism for over forty years and the political nemesis of two generations of conservative Republicans, Kennedy was never afraid to reach across the aisle, wooing Republicans to his cause time after time, convincing them of the morality of the cause at hand, compromising when he needed to, promising his support for future opposition bills, always delivering the votes required to get the legislation passed.

Kennedy loved his Irish heritage and was a lifelong friend of Ireland. As early as 1971 he publicly compared Britain’s military presence in Ireland to that of the U.S. presence in Vietnam. In the 1970’s he helped persuade then President Jimmy Carter to provide U.S. financial support to Northern Ireland in the event of a peace settlement. In 1994, he was the leader among a number of prominent Irish American politicians who convinced President Clinton to grant a US entry visa to Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. When the IRA subsequently abandoned its ceasefire a couple of years later, Kennedy publicly snubbed Adams, calling on him to once and for all cut his ties to the IRA, and declined to meet him during several consecutive St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Washington. Behind the scenes however, over the period of twenty five years, he worked with several Irish Taoisigh and British prime ministers to broker a peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

As is often the case, with the passing of time comes wisdom and a perspective that only a history of life experience can bring. As he was being laid to rest at Arlington cemetery, the presiding priest read a letter that Kennedy wrote earlier this year to Pope Benedict XVI. Reflecting on a life of public service and still haunted by the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, Kennedy, like us all, hoped his life’s good work would help redeem himself in the eyes of his Creator…” I have been blessed to be a part of a wonderful family, and both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained, nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path”. Indeed, he did try.

For the exception of two years, a Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate since 1953. In excess of 140 million Americans, born since January 1963, have never known the Senate without Ted Kennedy in it. It remains to be seen if the torch will be passed to a new generation of Kennedy men or women to pick up where Teddy has left off. As an Irishman living in America, I am proud of the accomplishments of Ted Kennedy. We are all imperfect human beings and we all need GOD’s forgiveness. Let us hope that President Obama, a gutsy and transformative leader, can learn from the career of Ted Kennedy and guide the upcoming Health Care Reform bill through congress and its passage into legislation.

R.I.P., Teddy, the liberal lion and soul of the Senate. To whom much is given, much will be required.

The Most Trusted Man in America

2009-07-19T16:42:00.000-07:00

“People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.” – A.J. Liebling, American Journalist and writer for “The New Yorker”: 1904 - 1963

Walter Cronkite (b. 1916), the gold standard for journalistic integrity for half a century, died this month in New York City aged 92. The inspiration for a generation of broadcast journalists that includes Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Brian Williams and Tim Russert, Cronkite was the epitome of professionalism and steadiness during a career that represented an “incredible window into 20th century America”.

After dropping out of college, Cronkite joined the then United Press (later UPI) in 1937 and went on to become one of America’s most respected journalists during WWII, covering key campaigns in Africa and Europe, and later the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals. After a stint in the USSR as UPI’s Moscow chief, Cronkite was recruited to join the fledgling television division of CBS News by another giant of the industry, Edward R. Murrow, himself a pioneer of broadcast journalism. At CBS, Cronkite spearheaded the network’s newly initiated television coverage of the 1952 Democratic and Republican party conventions. In fact, the term “anchor”, now part of the lexicon, was coined specifically to describe Cronkite’s role in covering political rallies and election analysis.

Cronkite’s iconic status in America and his influence on the ebb and flow of political discourse and his ability to capture the mood of the nation was cemented during his nineteen year tenure as the host of the CBS Evening News, a role he assumed in April 1962. As anchor, Cronkite covered a wide variety of historic stories that included breaking the news to the American people of the death of President Kennedy, the Apollo moon landing, the Watergate hearings and the Iran hostage crises of 1980. At the height of his influence, in 1968, Cronkite went to Vietnam to assess the war for himself. His reportage was devastating for the administration of Lyndon Johnson and brought the reality of the stalemate of the Vietnam War into every living room in the country. Cronkite’s editorial report of February 1968, in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, laid bare the reality…”To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of evidence, the optimists that have been wrong in the past. To suggest that we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. It is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could”.

At the White House, responding privately to Cronkite’s reporting to close advisors, President Johnson said “…if I’ve lost Cronkite, I have lost Middle America”. A month later Johnson announced he would not seek re-election and began a secret back channel dialogue with the Vietnamese to negotiate a peace settlement (an initiative that was compromised by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger immediately before the 1968 election).

After retiring in 1981, Cronkite went on to become a much sought after special correspondent for a number of news organizations, covering a variety of international political and cultural events as well as becoming an instantly recognizable narrator of documentaries and period pieces. Asked once what his biggest regret was, Cronkite mused…”What do I regret? Well, I regret that in our attempt to establish some standards, we didn’t make them stick. We couldn’t find a way to pass them on to another generation”. This may be the most damning indictment of the current crop of broadcast journalists, many of whom (although not all, Seymour Hersh and Keith Olbermann being among the few exceptions) are willing pawns in propagandizing the agenda of government, the Pentagon and the other vested interests that drink from the gravy trough in Washington.

Lewis Lapham, long time editor of Harper’s Magazine once wrote, “Long ago in the days before journalists became celebrities, their enterprise was reviled and poorly paid, and it was understood by working newspapermen that the presence of more than two people at their funeral could be taken as a sign that they has disgraced the profession”. Well Cronkite didn’t disgrace his profession. The difference between Cronkite and many of today’s celebrity journalists is that he dared to go places, journalistically speaking, that most of these 21st century “journalists” won’t even consider.

Health Care Reform, Socialized Medicine, Bankruptcy & Michael Moore

2009-06-17T23:02:00.000-07:00

“President Bush announced that he believes in democracy and that democracy can exist in Iraq. ‘They can have a strong economy, they can have a good health care plan, and they can have free and fair voting’. Iraq? We can’t even get this in Florida.” – Jay Leno, American TV Host and Comedian (b. 1950)

Four years ago, at age 72, my Dad had a triple heart bypass operation. After having had one heart attack back in 2001 from which he made a full and speedy recovery, his doctor advised him that another was likely and that he may not be so lucky the second time around. Sixty one years of smoking had taken their toll. The problem was we didn’t realize how much of a toll until Dad was admitted to hospital for the procedure. Back in the day when the VHI had a 100% monopoly on the Irish private healthcare market (as opposed to the 80%+ monopoly they have today) my Dad was lucky enough to have good coverage, so he was able to have his procedure carried out at the Mater Private hospital in Dublin. The doctors told us that the procedure itself would be pretty straightforward and factoring in a few days post-procedural recuperation in the Mater, he could expect to be home within 7-10 days. However, as I already mentioned, 61 years of smoking had taken their toll, so much so that after the operation, my Dad’s lung capacity was so low that his lungs could not support his heart without the application of oxygen from a machine. This continued to be the case for another four weeks and while we waited for Dad’s heart to grow stronger, he was simultaneously being eased off of the artificial oxygen.

After 6 weeks Dad came home and made a full recovery. Then the bills start to arrive; actually correction, let me refer to them as statements. All told, the entire cost (to include consultants fees, lab fees, surgery and stay at the Mater Hospital) came to somewhere in the region of €50,000 - €60,000 ($70,000 - $84,000 for my greenback loving American friends), and maybe even more. The reason I say statement as opposed to invoice – Dad’s portion to be paid? Zero. Everything was paid. At the time I believe his annual VHI premium was approximately €700. So, did having private healthcare insurance, even with a provider that had a 100% monopoly on the market, at a premium that was eminently affordable, pay dividends for our family? Absolutely.

The provision of universal health care for all Americans has been an issue that has been a central plank of the Democratic Party agenda in the United States for half a century. Ever since the introduction of Medicare (a social program that provides hospital insurance, medical insurance and a prescription drug plan for citizens aged over 65 and certain categories of disabled citizens) by the administration of Lyndon Johnson in 1965, successive Democratic presidents have tried, unsuccessfully, to pass legislation that would provide universal medical, dental and mental health care for all its citizens. It’s a widely known fact that the United States is the only country within the coalition of nations that would be categorized as “wealthy and industrialized” that has not implemented a universal health care plan. Former first lady Hillary Clinton and long time senator Ted Kennedy are just two of the most high profile public representatives that have dedicated much of their political lives to the advancement of the argument of universal health care for all Americans and its passage into law. Historically, even when the Democrats have held majorities in the House of Representatives and/or the Senate, the long arm of the drug, pharmaceutical and insurance companies and other stakeholders in the debate has been able to embed itself into the body politic of the country and wield tremendous influence and power among the nations’ politicians, both Republicans and Democrats alike.

That being said, Republicans have never wanted universal health care, period. It has never been a priority for them on any level and they have fought tooth and nail to impede debate on the matter and to consistently vote down proposals to advance the implementation of even the most basic universal health care plan. Their opposition is, at least to my mind, almost entirely along ideological grounds. You consistently hear the words “socialized medicine” being used by prominent Republican politicians, big business tycoons and far right commentators, as if the word “socialized” is designed to drive fear into the minds of Americans that the concept of universal health care is some kind of communist based, big government, liberal, left-wing conspiracy. In fact, most famously, back in 1961 then private citizen, B movie actor and prominent Republican supporter Ronald Reagan recorded an 11 minute LP record, sponsored by none other than the American Medical Association, setting out his opposition to “socialized medicine”.

The hard facts are that today there are almost 50 million Americans that have no form of private medical insurance at all. A large percentage of those that are insured are paying extraordinarily high premiums for what I would consider to be average cover. For example, my wife and I recently enrolled in my company sponsored health plan that provides medical, dental and optical cover. Luckily, my employer is a Dutch company, so from a cultural perspective they understand the benefits (not only a human level but also in terms of them being a good corporate citizen) of providing a high quality health care plan to its employees. When my wife and I were private contractors our joint annual medical premiums totaled almost $7,000. The huge cost of health care coverage in this country has sadly forced hundreds of thousands of people to declare involuntary bankruptcy. Michael Moore did a masterful job of highlighting the issues that Americans face every day in relation to health care costs in his movie “Sicko”.

The two most basic elements of the argument being made by those folks in favor of universal health care are that a) health care is a basic human right or entitlement and that b)ensuring the good health of all citizens ultimately benefits a country economically. The opposition proponents argue that health care is not a right and that as such it is not the responsibility of government provide health care to its citizens. Maybe it’s me but why does it always seem that the anti-health care people are the more well-off and affluent members of our society?

President Obama has vowed to pass landmark legislation in his first term that would finally bring America into the mainstream in providing a universal health care plan for all its citizens. It seems more and more likely that he will actually send up legislation this year to the Congress for passage into law. Let us wish him luck in this brave and momentous endeavor.

CIA... the secret government within a government

2009-05-17T13:59:00.000-07:00

“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo” – Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), 33rd President of the United States 1945-1953

Controversial journalist and author Christopher Hitchens once wrote that in the “Nixon era, the United States was in essence a ‘rogue state’. It had a ruthless, paranoid and unstable leader who did not hesitate to break the laws of his own country”. I would contend that for close on a century, and certainly since 1947 when the power brokers within the financial, industrial, military and intelligence communities came together and were given official bureaucratic recognition in the form of the Central Intelligence Agency, that a secret government has existed in the United States, one that has corrupted and usurped the country’s political and democratic institutions, been responsible for the waging of covert wars in dozens of countries and deeply complicit in the murder of thousands of Americans; a list that includes dozens of political, cultural and social leaders and to its eternal shame, at least one president.

The concept of the existence of a secret government is not a new phenomenon. Writing in 1922, and referring to the challenges he faced as then New York City mayor, John F. Hylan provided this revealing insight, “The real menace to our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses, generally referred to as ‘international bankers’. This coterie of powerful international bankers virtually runs the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen and seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection”. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that over the next three generations, one Rockefeller would become governor of New York and Vice President of the United States and many notable members of these banking and oil companies, including W. Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush (father to George H.W. Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush) would go on to become governors, senators and presidents.

I am the first to admit that I am a conspiracy theorist at heart. However, by the same token I am not naïve enough to believe that random, so called unrelated coincidences just happen. Born out of the old wartime intelligence organization that was known as the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA was created by an act of Congress in 1947 at a time when anti communist sentiment was beginning to reach fever pitch. Woven deep in to the DNA of the CIA were prominent members of America’s banking, oil and industrial corporations. For the next forty years the agency would use fear of the red menace, and the fulfillment of its own warped ideology, to justify the most despicable acts of treason and violence. Sadly, CIA had willing and enthusiastic support in every branch of federal, state and local government, law enforcement and the media. Perhaps most famously, future President George H.W. Bush was a secret, high level CIA operative for over 20 years before being named head of the agency by Gerald Ford in 1976. Bush has repeatedly denied being a CIA agent despite a huge volume of evidence to the contrary, evidence that includes his presence in Dallas on November 22nd 1963 and a documented telephone call that he made to the FBI on the day of Kennedy’s assassination from Tyler, Texas (less than an hour’s drive from Dallas).

In a 1977 article that he wrote for Rolling Stone magazine, Watergate investigative journalist Carl Bernstein wrote that there was “…more than 400 journalists, who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services -- from simple intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America's leading news organizations”.

We now know that some of the executives that Bernstein was referring to were William Paley, chief executive of CBS, Henry Luce, founder of Time Inc and Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, among others. It is perhaps not surprising that the national media would row in behind the government in endorsing the lone assassin theory in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination (and indeed has continued to do so to this day); in fact the person that purchased the famous Zapruder film footage of Kennedy’s murder, two days after the assassination, was none other than Henry Luce of Time magazine, who then proceeded to hide it from public view for 6 years until District Attorney Jim Garrison subpoenaed it as part of his investigation.

The reason for the background is this. The CIA is once again back in the news, again, for all the wrong reasons, and again a large segment of the media is complicit in the narrative being served up to the American people. In the wake of the ongoing investigation into advanced interrogation techniques and torture carried out by the CIA during the Bush administration, focus is being placed on what information was made known to members of Congress about the specifics of these interrogation techniques and whether the CIA withheld vital information from leading politicians. In the past couple of weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has gone public, saying she was lied to by the CIA about whether or not water-boarding and other forms of torture were being used in the name of Bush’s war on terror. The CIA of course has denied it lied. Many leading politicians and newspaper editors have since come to the defense of the CIA, saying that whatever about lying to overseas governments and law enforcement organizations (as if this was somehow acceptable), the CIA would never lie to a member of Congress.

Really? Firstly, do these political leaders really expect Americans to believe that the CIA is so holier than thou that it would never lie to the United States Congress, when it has done nothing but lie for over 60 years? Secondly, why would politicians and the public be even surprised that they would be lied to by the CIA? Every dog on the street knows that CIA has indulged in every form of skullduggery known to man; from illegal wiretapping to opening the mail of regular Americans, from political espionage and covert paramilitary operations to coup d’états and assassinations, from carrying out torture to creating real life Manchurian candidates. The history of the CIA has left a black mark on the fabric of American society and this country has been the worst for its existence.

The Cuban Revolution - A Half Century On...

2009-04-20T22:06:00.000-07:00

“I am Fidel Castro and we have come to liberate Cuba” – Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (b. 1926), revolutionary and leader of Cuba 1959-2008

A full half century after a wild eyed and bearded 32 year old Cuban revolutionary swept to power to the chants of ‘Viva Fidel’, and a generation later than it probably should have happened, the United States this month took the first step in improving its long standing sour relations with Latin America. In allowing unlimited travel and money transfers between Cuban Americans and their families back in the homeland, the Obama administration has extended an olive branch to the Castro brothers and in the process signaled its short term goal of agreeing a rapprochement of sorts with the Cuban regime. Over time, the broader geo-political benefits to America may well include less volatility in the hemisphere and increased trade between the United States and her Latin American neighbors. You can be sure that as President Obama embarks on a new policy of détente with Fidel and Raul Castro, he has one eye firmly in the direction of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

As a European living in the United States it has long baffled me as to why, for the period of at least the last 30 years, and definitely the last 20 years (since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in 1989) the government of the United States, under presidents of both parties, would adopt such a rigid and clearly outdated policy of isolation with Cuba. The Cold War as we know it essentially ended when Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev turned his back on his own revolution (1917) and launched the policies of glasnost and perestroika in the mid 1980’s, paving the way for the fall of the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the breakup of the old USSR as we knew it.

Indeed it is today acknowledged by many historians, commentators and politicians of the time that the Soviet threat was consistently overstated, in a period spanning the terms of 8 presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, by over-zealous and right wing hawks within the military, industrial, intelligence and financial nexus that has controlled the defense budget, and ostensibly the foreign policy agenda of the United States, since the latter presidency of FDR.

The genesis of Cuba’s isolation is well documented of course. In the halcyon, care free days before the revolution, Cuba was an island sanctuary 90 miles off the coast of Florida. During the era of Cuban president Fulgencio Batista, which coincided with that of American president Dwight Eisenhower, Cuba famously became a haven for American organized crime leaders and a cash cow for some of America’s largest corporations. Even though President Eisenhower officially recognized the new Cuban government shortly after Castro rolled into the streets of Havana on New Year’s Day 1959, it quickly became clear that the Cuban revolution would involve draconian domestic reforms and the nationalization of US owned industries on the island. Relations between the governments deteriorated rapidly, resulting in the American withdrawal of diplomatic recognition of Cuba on January 3rd 1961, 17 days before President Kennedy was sworn into office.

In the meantime (in fact as early as April of 1960), President Eisenhower had given the CIA the green light to commence covert activities against the Cuban regime, with the intention of ousting Castro, by fair means or foul. When the democratically elected president of Iran had threatened to nationalize the Iranian oil industry in 1953, the CIA (with help from British intelligence) successfully ousted President Mosaddeq in a coup d’état. The plan was to do the same with Castro.

Castro was no angel, that’s for sure, but there is no doubt that the severing of diplomatic relations and the covert efforts to oust him from power only served to push Castro closer to the Soviet Union for support, both in terms of trade and ideology. The Bay of Pigs disaster in April 1961 convinced Castro that the United States was intent on a military invasion of Cuba, which had the result of only driving Cuba further into the arms of its Communist benefactor half a world away. The subsequent military buildup on the island led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The rest, as they say, is history. Economic, trade and diplomatic sanctions against Cuba were locked down for more than a generation thereafter. Ironically, Castro has gone on to outlive the terms of ten American presidents before handing over power to his brother Raul in February 2008.

The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba remains in place to this day. The question is why? Surely not because either Castro brother can be categorized as Communist; and even if they are, what threat does Cuba pose to the United States of America? The changes recently announced by President Obama are the first step in what I believe is a deliberate strategy to fully normalize relations with Cuba for the first time in fifty years.

Washington Behind Closed Doors

2009-03-22T09:19:00.000-07:00

“Washington is a city of southern efficiency and northern charm” – John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963), 35th President of the United States 1961-1963

This month I fulfilled a long standing ambition of visiting Washington D.C. Being a history buff (or nerd, depending on how you look at it) and news junkie, a visit to the political, historical and cultural capital of the United States was something I was looking forward to for a very long time. The added attractions of visiting D.C. over the St. Patrick’s Day weekend, coupled with having a smart new President in the White House, made it an irresistible proposition.

Jean and I arrived in to Washington's Dulles airport (I still haven't figured out if it was named after former CIA Chief Allen Dulles or his brother, former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles) on Thursday evening, March 12th. Dulles is an ugly airport and about a 30 minute drive from downtown Washington. The other major Washington airport is Reagan National, which is much, much closer to town and the one into which, our cab driver reliably informed us, the politicians fly. He also told us that flying into Reagan typically costs a few hundred dollars more than flying into Dulles. Good to know if you ever plan on visiting Washington.On the trip from the airport to our hotel, our cab driver, an Indian man who previously lived in New Jersey, pointed out the landmarks and famous buildings that could be seen in the darkness...the Kennedy Center, the Watergate Hotel and finally the White House. Friday morning, March 13th, it was on to the sightseeing.

Across the street from our hotel is St. John's Church, often referred to as the "Church of the Presidents". By taking advantage of a recession time special offer and a complimentary upgrade through a friend of my wife's, Jean and I got a great deal at the famous Hay Adams Hotel on Lafayette Square, literally across the street from the White House. In fact, we were so close to Mr. Obama's house that if I was even a very average golfer a reasonable shot with a five iron would land my golf ball outside his front door. What makes staying at the Hay Adams even more exciting for us is that the President and his family stayed here for a couple of nights before officially moving into the White House. As you walk out the front door of the Hay Adams you are surrounded by history. If you look over your right shoulder, the magical and awe inspiring sight of the White House is fully visible in all its glory.

Regardless of the time of day or night there are always people to be seen congregating at the railings bordering the property; tourists snapping pictures (include us in that category), some lobby group or political action party protesting against something or regular Washingtonian's strolling past on their way home or to happy hour. Later in the morning, we walked around to the opposite side of the property and took some pictures of the south lawn of the White House and the place from where Marine One collects the President when he is being flown out to Andrews Air Force base to take a trip on Air Force One.

Immediately behind the south entrance to the White House, and within a few hundred yards of its railings, is the National Mall. Completely dominating the landscape is the Washington Monument. Built in honor of the country's first President, the sand colored obelisk was completed in 1884 and its stands 555 feet tall. Surrounded by a circle of 50 huge American flags, flying from flagpoles dozens of feet high, the monument is awe inspiring both in its construction and imagery. As I turned and looked over my right shoulder, images from a dozen different movies flashed across my mind. Off in the middle distance is the unmistakable and beautiful sight of the Lincoln Memorial, a beacon of democracy and symbol of all things good about America and her ideals. The famous reflecting pool that lies between the Lincoln Memorial and the World War II memorial was today a worksite where dozens of maintenance men are sweeping gravel, sand and dust across the broad expanse of the empty pool, no doubt getting it ready for the advent of spring. As you walk the length of the pool between the WWII memorial and the Lincoln Memorial you can't but think of Dr. King's famous march on Washington in August 1963 and the famous "I Have A Dream" speech that he gave from the steps of this wonderful monument. At the top of the steps you enter the body the Memorial itself and there in front of you sits President Lincoln is all his magestic glory, a face carved in humility, the father of black emancipation and savior of the Union at the time of its greatest danger.

The weather was perceptively warmer on Saturday. We spent half an hour taking some photographs at the railings at the front entrance of the White House. There was a time when traffic was allowed to pass directly in front of the White House, however, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, the Secret Service permanently closed off vehicular access in the name of presidential security. The air was crisp, the spirits were high and you got the distinct feeling that everyone was happy that we have an intelligent and cool President.

The distance between the Lincoln Memorial and the U.S. Capitol is approximately 2 miles. We walked along the grass and dust covered thoroughfare that leads you to the home of the country's political establishment, the U.S. Capitol buildings. The dome of the Capitol building completely dominates the skyline and it looks in real life just as impressive as it does on T.V. Immediately in front of the entrance to the property is a statue of former President, and leader of the Union forces during the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant. As you cross the road to the entrance to the Capitol proper is a memorial to President James Garfield, who served the second shortest presidential term in history, having been shot and killed 6 months and 15 days into his first term.

The first thing to say about the Capitol building is that it is huge. Construction originally began in 1793 and it held its first congressional session in November 1800. Building was finally completed in 1811 only for it to be gutted by fire by the British during the War of 1812. After taking a bunch of photographs we walked around the back of the property, heading towards the U.S. Supreme Court and the Thomas Jefferson buildings. It is only when you do a full 360 degree walking tour of the property do you get some idea of the scale and size of the building.We hadn't thought to pre book tickets for a tour but after a chance meeting with one of the security personnel we were lucky enough to get two tickets (free of charge) for a 1:30pm tour. After the obligatory security check we were ushered into the bowels of the U.S. Capitol building, the part set aside for tours.

The main chamber is called "Emancipation Hall" and it is here that you will find a couple of information counters and entrances to the various tours. In rooms off the main hall you will find a fully serviced restaurant, restrooms and a couple of gift shops.After an introductory 15 minute film on the history of the U.S. Capitol we were escorted by a tour guide straight into the Capitol rotunda. Our tour guide, a native of Virginia and about 60 years ago, greeted me in Irish and proceeded to welcome a number of people in our group in German, Italian, Spanish and Taiwanese. It turns out that he can greet visitors in 59 different languages. His knowledge of the Capitol was nothing short of remarkable, recalling dates, names and events off the top of his head. One interesting fact that he mentioned was that if you removed the concrete base of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and brought Lady Liberty in to the Capitol rotunda, she would fit in a fully upright position with 18 feet to spare at the top! A fascinating tour of adjoining rooms and chambers followed.

Sunday was St. Patrick’s Day so we watched the parade as it weaved along Constitution Avenue and then hit a “few” Irish pubs for a few glasses of milk. All in all it was a thoroughly enjoyable visit and one that is highly recommended. If you want any tips on where to go email me at crotty_leonard@hotmail.com

Washington Behind Closed Doors...Day 3 Review

2009-03-16T13:59:00.000-07:00

St. Paddy's Day. What more can I say! Caught the Paddy's Day parade. Had the obligatory rain, no parade is complete with a few drops. After, we did a "cultural" tour of D.C.'s Irish pubs. A bit slow off the mark today.

Washington Behind Closed Doors...Day 2 Review

2009-03-15T06:19:00.000-07:00

Wow. Yesterday was even more action packed than Friday! With my accounting hat on and in an effort to refrain from indulging in $30 breakfasts (ah, for juice, coffee, toast and some cereal) my breakfast on Saturday morning consisted of an Odwalla orange juice and Venti sized coffee from the local Starbucks, situally on the corner of 16th and K Streets. Yes, that K Street, the one, according to Wikipedia that is famous for its "think tanks, lobbyists and advocacy groups that exercise influence from its location".

The weather was perceptively warmer on Saturday. Jean and I spent half an hour taking some photographs at the railings at the front entrance of the White House. There was a time when traffic was allowed to pass directly in front of the White House, however, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, the Secret Service permanently closed off vehicular access in the name of presidential security. Yesterday the air was crisp, the spirits were high and you got the distinct feeling that everyone was happy that we have an intelligent and cool President.

The distance between the Lincoln Memorial and the U.S. Capitol is approximately 2 miles. Jean and I walked along the grass and dust covered thoroughfare that leads you to the home of the country's political establishment, the U.S. Capitol buildings. The dome of the Capitol building completely dominates the skyline and it looks in real life just as impressive as it does on T.V. Immediately in front of the entrance to the property is a statue of former President, and leader of the Union forces during the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant. As you cross the road to the entrance to the Capitol proper is a memorial to President James Garfield, who served the second shortest presidential term in history, having been shot and killed 6 months and 15 days into his first term.

The first thing to say about the Capitol building is that it is huge. Construction originally began in 1793 and it held its first congressional session in November 1800. Building was finally completed in 1811 only for it to be gutted by fire by the British during the War of 1812. After taking a bunch of photographs we walked around the back of the property, heading towards the U.S. Supreme Court and the Thomas Jefferson buildings. It is only when you do a full 360 degree walking tour of the property do you get some idea of the scale and size of the building.

Jean and I hadn't thought to pre book tickets for a tour but after a chance meeting with one of the security personnel we were lucky enough to get two tickets (free of charge) for a 1:30pm tour. After the obligatory security check we were ushered into the bowels of the U.S. Capitol building, the part set aside for tours. The main chamber is called "Emancipation Hall" and it is here that you will find a couple of information counters and entrances to the various tours. In rooms off the main hall you will find a fully serviced restaurant, restrooms and a couple of gift shops.

After an introductory 15 minute film on the history of the U.S. Capitol we were escorted by a tour guide straight into the Capitol rotunda. Our tour guide, a native of Virginia and about 60 years ago, greeted me in Irish (Gaelic) and proceeded to welcome a number of people in our group in German, Italian, Spanish and Taiwanesse. It turns out that he can greet visitors in 59 different languages. His knowledge of the Capitol was nothing short of remarkable, recalling dates, names and events off the top of his head. One interesting fact that he mentioned was that if you removed the concrete base of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and brought Lady Liberty in to the Capitol rotunda, she would fit in a fully upright position with 18 feet to spare at the top! A fascinating tour of adjoining rooms and chambers followed. Finally Jean and I spent 15 minutes at the nearby Library of Congress. All in all a thoroughly enjoyable day.

We ate and had drinks at a great wine bar on G Street called "Proof". Today we are off to see the St.Paddy's Day parade and hit a few local pubs.

More tomorrow.

Washington Behind Closed Doors...Day 1 Review

2009-03-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

As I write I am looking out my hotel bedroom window. It's Saturday morning, March 14th. Immediately across the street is St. John's Church, often referred to as the "Church of the Presidents". By taking advantage of a recession time special offer and a complimentary upgrade through a friend of my wife's, Jean and I are ensconsed at the famous Hay Adams Hotel on Lafayette Square, literally across the street from the White House. In fact, we are so close to Mr. Obama's house that if I was even a very average golfer a reasonable shot with a five iron would land my golfball outside his front door. What makes staying at the Hay Adams even more exciting for us is that the President and his family stayed here for a couple of nights before officially moving into the White House.

Jean and arrived in to Washington's Dulles airport (I still haven't figured out if it was named after former CIA Chief Allen Dulles or his brother, former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles) on Thursday evening, March 12th. Dulles is an ugly airport and about a 30 minute drive from downtown Washington. The other major Washington airport is Reagan National, which is much, much closer to town and the one into which, our cab driver reliably informed us, the politicians fly. He also told us that flying into Reagan typically costs a few hundred bucks more than flying into Dulles. Good to know.

On the trip from the airport to our hotel, our cab driver, an Indian man who previously lived in New Jersey, pointed out the landmarks and famous buildings that could be seen in the darkness...the Kennedy Center, the Watergate Hotel and finally the White House. Friday morning, March 13th, we slept in until 10:30am. Remember, our bodies were still on west coast time so the first morning we had a little readjusting to do. Then it was on to the sightseeing.

As you walk out the front door of the Hay Adams you are surrounded by history. The Church of the Presidents is directly across the street. If you look over your right shoulder, the magical and awe inspiring sight of the White House is fully visible in all its glory. Regardless of the time of day or night there are always people to be seen congregating at the railings bordering the property; tourists snapping pictures (include us in that category), some lobby group or politicial action party protesting against something or regular Washingtonian's strolling past on their way home or to happy hour. Later in the morning, Jean and I walked around to the opposite side of the property and took some pictures of the south lawn of the White House and the place from where Marine One collects the President when he is being flown out to Andrews Air Force base to take a trip on Air Force One.

Immediately behind the south entrance to the White House, and within a few hundred yards of its railings, is the National Mall. Completely dominating the landscape is the Washington Monument. Built in honor of the country's first President, the sand colored obelisk was completed in 1884 and its stands 555 feet tall. Surrounded by a circle of huge American flags, flying from plagpoles dozens of feet high, the monument is awe inspiring both in its construction and imagery. As I turned and looked over my right shoulder, images from a dozen different movies flashed across my mind. Off in the middle distance is the unmistakable and beautiful sight of the Lincoln Memorial, a beacon of democracy and symbol of all things good about America and her ideals. The famous reflecting pool that lies between the Lincoln Memorial and the World War II memorial is today a worksite where dozens of maintenance men are sweeping gravel, sand and dust across the broad expanse of the empty pool, no doubt getting it ready for the advent of spring. As you walk the length of the pool between the WWII memorial and the Lincoln Memorial you can't but think of Dr. King's famous march on Washington in August 1963 and the famous "I Have A Dream" speech that he gave from the steps of this wonderful monument. At the top of the steps you enter the body the Memorial itself and there in front of you sits President Lincoln is all his magestic glory, a face carved in humility, the father of black emancipation and savior of the Union at the time of its greatest danger.

At this point, Jean and I couldn't take anymore in, so we prepared for an evening of exploring the nightlife of Washington. After an aperitif at a cool, trendy wine bar called "Cork" (that had an impressive collection of French and Old World wines by the glass, we had a couple of glasses of Cremant), we ate at a traditional Greek restaurant called Mouraya on Connecticut Avenue. Today, we head to Capitol Hill, the National Museum of American History, the Vietnam Memorial and a couple of pubs I am sure.

More tomorrow.

"Bi-Partisanship, Fiscal Conservatism, Cocktails and the same old GOP"

2009-02-16T15:36:00.000-08:00

“What we need most right now, at this moment, is a kind of patriotic grace – a grace that takes the long view, apprehends the moment we’re in, comes up with ways of dealing with it, and eschews the politically cheap and manipulative” – Peggy Noonan (b. 1950), journalist (The Wall Street Journal), former speechwriter and special assistant to Ronald Reagan and political conservative.

My brother-in-law is in his mid-‘40s and is a very smart guy. He works as a senior process engineer and beyond knowing that his company has some ongoing contracts with the Department of Defense that involves airplanes I have no clue what he does. One of the reasons I like him is that he has taken his analytical and scientific mind and applied it to making beer, a hobby for which he has won a number of awards. Occasionally my wife and I will receive a package with the latest bottle of his tasty tonic enclosed for the requisite R&D. During the lead in to the general election last November I also learned that he intended voting for John McCain. Aghast that any of my in-laws would consider voting for McCain over Obama, we entered into a healthy dialogue about the qualities of both candidates.

I quickly understood why he intended voting Republican; my brother in law is a fiscal conservative. He is originally from Ann Arbor, Michigan, a state that has voted for the Democratic nominee for President in each of the last five general elections and he now lives in San Diego, California. Whatever liberal or semi-liberal social views my brother in law has, they were roundly beaten into second place by his fiscal conservatism. I am not making him wrong because of his opinion; however it does explain his decision to vote for John McCain. Or does it?

My boss is from Utah, which means that he is Mormon, and not only fiscally but also socially conservative. Coincidentally, much of my travel for business in the last year has been to Utah so I have been given a wonderful opportunity to understand the history and culture of Mormonism. My boss and I had many a healthy political debate in the months leading up to the election in November. He reads the Drudge Report and the National Review while I read the Huffington Post and The Nation.

While he is in no way a liberal or even a semi-liberal he is open to logical argument and is happy to debate the pros and cons of a policy plank or a political decision. He is also a fiscal conservative and as such was voting John McCain in the election. However, while acknowledging Obama’s charisma and bipartisan nature in the months before the election, I understood that there was no way I could change his mind. Mitt Romney, a fiscal conservative and a Mormon, and who ran for President in 2008, is a Republican. Ironically, his father, George Romney, was a former governor of my brother in law’s state of Michigan from 1963 to 1969.

There are many urban political myths that have sprung up over the years and morphed into somewhat of a conventional wisdom in the minds of many voters. Namely that Democrats are free spending, big government liberals and Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, or, that only the Republicans can be tasked with the job of protecting America and ensuring national security while the Democrats were weak in dealing with Communists 40 or 50 years ago and are weak on terrorism today. All you need to do is take half a second to contemplate these so-called maxims of political wisdom to realize that they are entirely baseless and false.

Let me ask these two questions: What party was in power for the past 8 years and in the process of demonstrating fiscal responsibility ensured that the national debt of the United States increased from $5T to $10T? (…and yes, that’s T for Trillion) Answer: The Republicans. What party was in power when the United States shirked its national security interests and helped win World War II, bombed (needlessly in my opinion, because the Pacific War was already won) Hiroshima and Nagasaki or displayed an outstanding combination of brilliant diplomacy and implied aggression during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Answer: The Democrats. So, if anyone tells you that Republican’s are fiscal conservatives you can quote them the facts.

Fast forward to January 2009 and the now famous $800B stimulus package. President Obama demonstrates a level of bipartisanship not seen in decades in an effort to bring Republicans into the process of reviewing and providing constructive input to the details of the proposed stimulus package. House Democrats were put out by the level of bipartisanship being displayed by the President, leading some to declare publicly, though off the record, that Obama was spending more time consulting with Republicans than Democrats. The President hosted Republican and Democratic leaders at the White House for a cocktails happy hour on not one, but two occasions. He invited senior congressional leaders to watch the Super Bowl with him. He removed a number of provisions in the stimulus package that the Republicans didn’t like and inserted increased tax cuts to make them happy.

How many votes did the President’s bipartisanship garner him for the all important vote in the House? The answer is zero. The Republicans claimed afterwards that they couldn’t support the bill because it didn’t include enough tax cuts for the wealthy and that there was nothing in the bill that would “stimulate” the economy. Then the President got mad.

Rightfully pointing out that he wasn’t going to be bullied into amending the bill to suit Republicans, the same Republicans who helped double the national debt under George W. Bush and essentially deregulated the entire financial services and banking sector that has precipitated the depression that is now engulfing the country, Obama has learned a tough lesson. The Republicans are publicly delighting in the fact that they displayed a tough response to the President’s request to leave the old political dogma to one side and step up, accept responsibility and do the people’s business.

What they continue to fail to remember is that the American people voted for change in November, to the tune of a 2-1 margin of victory in the presidential election and increased majorities for the Democrats in the House and Senate. In the aftermath of the stimulus bill finally passing both Houses of Congress (where no House Republicans and only three Senate Republicans supported the bill) Obama has said that “I am an eternal optimistic but that doesn’t mean I am a sap”. He has learned his first harsh Washington lesson.

As for the Republicans, they need to wake up and smell the coffee, and quickly. This is no longer 1958, 1988 or even 2008.

The Pro-Israeli Lobby

2009-01-19T13:09:00.000-08:00

“We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon – no alternative” – Golda Meir (1898-1978), one of the founders of the State of Israel and the fourth Prime Minister of Israel from 1969-1974

In the annals of US foreign policy no country has benefitted more from Washington’s largesse than Israel. Since the 1960’s the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East has been almost exclusively influenced by its relationship with the state of Israel. Economic assistance to the tune of $140B since the country’s formation in 1948 dwarfs that of any other nation. Today, Israel still receives an annual “gift” of approximately $3B, despite the fact that it is considered a reasonably affluent country in its own right. The United States has continually ignored Israel’s proliferation of nuclear weapons while sanctimoniously condemning other nations in the region from developing their own nuclear capability. Israel has continually cited its national security and virtual existence as its reasons for building a nuclear arsenal and waging a series of regional wars over the past forty years.

Why has Israel benefitted from such preferential treatment from the United States? One hypothesis often floated is that Israel and the United States share the same enemies; terrorist organizations and rogue states in the Middle East that are bent on the destruction of Israel and the creation of a regional Arab hegemony. While it is true that many of the Arab nations in the region view Israel as an illegitimate state, created on lands that Arabs believe belong to the Palestinian people and are therefore hostile to Israel, it is also equally true to say that Arab resentment and hostility towards the United States is largely as a result of America’s unilateral support for Israel and her policies. What is the reasoning behind this unprecedented level of US support for Israel and why does America, in my opinion, continually turn a blind eye to the blatant and disproportionate aggression meted out by Israel on the Palestinian people?

After Israel launched yet another massive land invasion and aerial assault on the Gaza Strip in December, I asked my wife if I was the only person in America that was angered at yet another example of Israel’s belligerence. Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself but why must its aggression be totally disproportionate – as I write, in excess of one thousand Palestinians have been killed in this latest round of violence. Even ultra conservative commentators here in the United States have been openly critical of Israel’s action. Former Nixon speechwriter and apologist and two time presidential candidate himself, Pat Buchanan, referred to Israel’s most recent incursion in to Gaza as a “blitzkrieg”, in the process creating a “concentration camp” where Israel are “controlling the food, electricity and fuel”.

The pro-Israeli lobby here in the United States is a powerful one. Criticism of Israel in either the House of Representatives (Dennis Kucinich excluded) or the Senate is practically non-existent. There are many prominent Jewish politicians who make sure that Israel’s interests are well served along the corridors of power in Washington and in the White House. Money of course is the fuel that drives every political campaign and pro-Israeli organizations across the country have for decades helped politicians at a local and national level. On the whole however, America’s history of ongoing, unilateral support for Israel has to be seen as having negatively impacted its standing in the Middle East and the world at large. The Arab world’s hostility to the United States is at an all time high and has made America susceptible to Arab backlash, whether it be in the form of a terrorist attack, control over the flow and price of oil or broader support for America’s regional policies.

While I don’t expect huge changes in U.S. foreign policy towards Israel with the inauguration of President Obama and the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as the country’s top diplomat, I will be interested to see if the United States will adopt a more nuanced approach towards its relationship with Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict in general.

"President Obama”

On January 20th, Barack Hussein Obama will have been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Forty years after his death and the day after the holiday that commemorates his memory, Dr. King’s dream has come to pass with the inauguration of America’s first black president. As we leave the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush in the rear view mirror, Americans are looking forward with hope, optimism and excitement at the dawning of a new era in national politics. I for one feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be an interested onlooker while the remarkable story of Barack Obama’s election to the office of President has been written. In the words of Byron, “the great art of life is sensation, to feel that we exist, even in pain”. Indeed.

Closing thoughts on 2008...

2008-12-28T13:29:00.000-08:00

Without a doubt the highlight of 2008 was the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. His message of hope, change and promise of a return to the ideal of an open and transparent government resonated with an American public that hadn't felt as dissilluioned with it's public officials since the dark days of Watergate. Despite a worsening economy, one that is likely to get worse before it gets better, Americans feel optimistic about the future and the possibilities that lie ahead with a new President in the White House. Expanded majorities in the House and Senate will make President elect Obama's job of implementing his legislative agenda a little easier once the 111th Congress kicks into gear.

Here in California, the passage of Proposition 8 ("Prop 8") in last November's election changed the state constitution and eliminated the right for same sex couples to marry. It was only in May of 2008 that the California Supreme Court had ruled to recognize the right to marry by same sex couples. Despite mass protests across the state and the country in reaction to the results of the November election, the new ruling went into immediate effect on the state's books. There is a current open legal issue that relates to the approximately 18,000 same sex marriages that were conducted between May and November and whether the passing of Prop 8 will have retroactive application to those cases. With Connecticut becoming the second state (after Massachusetts) to recognize same sex marriage in November, there is no doubt that the citizens of Calfornia will be asked to vote again on this issue in the near future.

The political miscalculation of the year had to be John McCain's decision to ask Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his Vice Preisdential running mate. McCain displayed an appalling lack of political and personal judgment in picking a woefully inexperienced and out of touch governor who became the laughing stock of every late night TV comedian. While it is true that Palin helped to energize the Republican base with her down home, "you betcha" style of campaigning, in truth these were folks who were never going to vote for Obama anyway, and, rather than inspire women who may have been dissaffected after a bruising primary fight between Clinton and Obama; Palin did the exact opposite, driving women to vote for Obama in record numbers.

Speaking of aspiring women politicians, Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK and one of Barack Obama's three person Vice Presidential advisory team, has thrown her hat into the ring in the race to be picked as Hillary Clinton's replacement as the junior senator from New York. Clinton, who is awaiting confirmation as Obama's Secretary of State, will leave vacant her New York Senate seat, the one formally held by Kennedy's uncle, Robert F Kennedy between 1965 and 1968. The appointment of Clinton's replacement lies solely with New York Governor David Patterson and he has said that he will make no decision on the matter until Clinton is formally confirmed as the country's top diplomat. Should Caroline be chosen, it would mean that two Kennedy's would again hold Senate seats at the same time. Ted Kennedy, who served alongside his brother Robert in the 1960's, is entering his 47th consecutive year as US Senator. Patterson is likely to make a decision in the next three weeks so stay tuned.

44 - www.change.gov

2008-12-07T18:34:00.000-08:00

I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be – Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States 1743-1826

The American economy is in the grips of its worst recession since the great depression of the 1930’s. In November, 533,000 American’s lost their jobs, the worst monthly drop since December 1974. Home foreclosures are at an all time high and the average American has seen their retirement fund slashed, due in no small part to a 37% drop in the value of the stock market in the last 12 months. There is palpable concern for the future of over 3 million jobs that are either directly or indirectly supported by the automobile industry. After 3 decades of gross inefficiency, bad management and abject failure to stay competitive with their Japanese and German counterparts, America’s top three automakers; General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler, have finally been taken to task by politicians. Claiming that their companies will go bankrupt unless they receive an economic bailout from the federal government, the CEO’s of the Big 3 arrived on Capitol Hill looking for a combined early Christmas present totaling $38B. Yes, that’s billion with a B.

In days of old, the Congress might well have huffed and puffed and then written the check, but times are changing in Washington. Reflecting the views of the new President-elect and flexing its legislative muscles in advance of an expanded majority in the House and Senate come January, the Democrat controlled Congress this week offered the Big 3 a bridge loan of $15B, all of it tied to extensive reform and restructuring of their companies. Despite all this malaise however, Americans are excited and energized at the prospect of welcoming in a presidency that is open, accountable and focused on doing the people’s work.

The night of November 4th was a memorable one in our house. Even though Barack Obama had held a consistently steady lead of anything from 5 to 10 percentage points in the polls over John McCain in the weeks leading up the election, I was still nervous that something out of the ordinary would happen to dash our hopes. I need not have worried. In midst of a few celebratory drinks, it became very clear as the polls closed across the country that the Obama-Biden ticket had won a crushing mandate. Although the final percentages looked somewhat close at 52.9%-45.7%, the Obama-Biden ticket won the popular vote by almost 10 million (69,394,675 to 59,892,681), and more than twice the number of electoral-college votes won by McCain-Palin (365-173). At 62.9%, turnout was at its highest since 1964. Not only did Obama win every state that John Kerry won in 2004 but added Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana.

In recent weeks, Barack Obama has said on a number of occasions that there is only one president at a time in America. While factually correct, it is clear that W has already checked out and the president-elect has taken center stage, putting in place his much advertised “team of rivals” cabinet. As I write we are still 44 days away from the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States, however it already feels like we have a new commander in chief in town.

Oh, happy days!

Office of the president-elect transition website: www.change.gov

The final death of the "Southern Strategy"

2008-10-11T21:07:00.000-07:00

“I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning” – Adlai E. Stevenson, 1900 – 1965. Democratic nominee for president in 1952 and 1956.

The year 1968 witnessed the improbable political resurrection of one of America’s most controversial and divisive public figures, that of Richard M. Nixon. Having served eight years as Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president, Nixon entered the campaign of 1960 confident that he had built enough of a track record, both nationally and internationally, to enable him assume the office that he felt was rightly his, that of President. His defeat to the debonair and charismatic Senator Kennedy left Nixon depressed and deeply resentful of the national media, who he felt had treated Kennedy with kid gloves during the campaign. Two years later, Nixon lost badly to Pat Brown in the race for Governor of California. Feeling humiliated and that he again had been shafted by the press, he rounded on the media during his last press conference, announcing that he was retiring from public life and that “the media won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around” anymore. Nixon went into exile, becoming a partner in a New York law firm and a consultant to some of the biggest companies in America.

As 1968 dawned America was in upheaval. As the year would progress the combination of a hugely unpopular war, an almost equally unpopular president, student protests across the country, the assassinations of Dr. King and Senator Kennedy, the never ending strife and division caused by the debate over civil rights and a Democratic Party in turmoil created an opening for the return of Richard Nixon to the national stage. Recognizing that a majority of average Americans were tired of what they saw as the collapse of societal rules and law and order, Nixon ran on an agenda of ending the war in Vietnam and a return to the rule of law at home. Appealing to what the Republican Party termed ‘The Silent Majority’ (a term coined by a then 30 year old speech writing assistant to Nixon, and later a two time candidate for President himself, Pat Buchanan), the GOP of 1968 put into overdrive what it called its ‘Southern Strategy’, a campaign of playing on the racial prejudices and fears of middle of the road white Americans camouflaged as a return to law and order.

The strategy worked brilliantly. Traditional Democratic stronghold states, some of which had voted Democratic since the civil war, flipped from the blue to the red column on the electoral map. Across the country, white Americans, especially men, in the 30-50 age bracket turned out to vote as part of the silent majority and elected Richard Nixon. Most political commentators and historians agree that the ‘Southern Strategy’ of 1968 gave birth to the modern Republican party. Forty years later, states like Texas, North Carolina and Indiana still vote overwhelmingly Republican in national elections. In 2000 and 2004 in particular, Karl Rove expertly re-implemented the ‘Southern Strategy’ in the hope of establishing what he called a “permanent Republican majority’, only this time replacing racial fear with fears over national security and substituting communist with terrorist.

With less than three weeks to go to election day, the ‘Southern Strategy’ is analogous to a dying soldier, having received his last rites, waiting for the end to come. The irony is that the modern Republican Party, that was established forty years ago with the election of Richard Nixon, has come full circle and is now a victim of its own policies of division, racial prejudice, war mongering and top down economics and market deregulation. The Republican brand is so badly damaged that, as one Republican congressman eloquently put it earlier this summer, “if it were a dog food, it would be taken off the shelf”. The utterly discredited policies of two George Bush administrations, most symbolically characterized by the war in Iraq and the collapse of the nation’s financial institutions and stock market, coupled with the arrival on the national scene of a truly transformational candidate in Barack Obama, will in my opinion, result in a crushing defeat for the Republican party this November, at both a national and statewide level.

The appeal of the Obama brand, as well as dissatisfaction with the GOP, is being dramatically reflected in national and state polls. States that have consistently voted Republican are now very real opportunities for Barack Obama on election day. A majority of white males across the heartland of America, who traditionally have been fiscally conservative and Republican leaning in their voting patterns, are now switching their allegiance to the Democratic Party. States like Virginia, Wisconsin, Montana, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri and Colorado now show Obama with either small leads or have him neck and neck with John McCain. Earlier in October, in an unprecedented move before election day, John McCain pulled his campaign out of Michigan, essentially conceding the state to Barack Obama.

The states that are now being categorized as battleground states are those that have traditionally voted Republican for 40 years. Voters like my mother and father in law, Jim and Jennie Lombard of Ann Arbor, Michigan were exactly the type of folks who voted as part of Nixon’s silent majority in 1968. Now in their ‘70’s, Jim and Jennie, who were life-long Republicans, got sick and tired of the slash and burn policies of the GOP and became Democrats a couple of elections ago. This trend continued throughout the two Bush terms but now the Republican chickens are coming home to roost. It is not good news for the McCain campaign when they have to devote the majority of their resources to holding on to states that in any other election would be safe bets for them.

Remember after the bitter primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, many were predicting that a significant percentage of the disaffected Clinton voters would leave the Democratic Party and vote for John McCain? Remember how when John McCain announced that Sarah Palin was to be his VP running mate, those same commentators were effusive in their opinion that Palin would steal a large percentage of women votes from Obama? Well, it hasn’t transpired and it won’t happen at the ballot box. The latest poll of women voters that cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton in the primary show that by a margin of 88%-7% they will turn out for Barack Obama in November. In addition, the addition of a clearly under-qualified and tone deaf Palin has enraged millions of women across the country. College educated women, who have been successful in their careers, whether they be teachers, nurses, public servants or active in the private sector, across the board they see Sarah Palin as a insult to working women.

While all the national trends and polls clearly favor Obama at this point, there is a chance that we will experience was is termed “the Bradley effect”. This phenomenon, where voters who currently say that are willing to vote for a black candidate but at the last minute change their minds at the polls, is one that has been given much less credence during this election cycle due to the crossover appeal of Barack Obama. It is something to watch for however as the results come in on election day. Whatever happens, the ‘Southern Strategy’ that helped elect Republican presidents like Nixon and Bush 41 and the concept of the ‘permanent Republican majority’ espoused by Karl Rove that elected Bush 43, twice, is dead forever.

Stay tuned.

In the air, the heirs apparent - VP roundup...

2008-09-18T18:42:00.000-07:00

The Vice Presidency isn’t worth a pitcher of warm piss” – John Nance Garner 1868-1967, 32nd Vice President of the United States (to President Franklin D. Roosevelt)

As I write I am sitting on an Aer Lingus flight from Dublin to San Francisco. After spending a couple of weeks in Ireland and Amsterdam, it is clear that it is not only Americans that are dissecting the latest 2008 vice-presidential news. The vast majority of people I chatted with at home about the VP selections are adamant in their evaluation of both running mates, i.e. that Joe Biden was a well vetted and excellent choice, Sarah Palin a hastily chosen and poor one.

For the Democrats, after a six month-long primary battle and months of rampant speculation as to who Barack Obama would choose as his running mate, finally it’s Joe Biden. In my last dispatch I commented that the smart money for Barack Obama’s Vice-Presidential running mate was being placed on a trio of candidates; Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Governor Tom Kaine of Virginia and six time Delaware senator Biden.

While both Bayh and Kaine are rising stars in the Democratic Party, they were ultimately seen by many Washington commentators are unlikely running mates, for a number of reasons:

1. Obama owns the “Change” message. Political savvy and JFK charisma aside, the fact that Obama has a very good chance of being elected America’s first black president is change enough for many people in the United States. In adding Bayh or Kaine to the ticket, many believed that an Obama/Bayh or an Obama/Kaine combination would be “too new” or “too much change” for some Americans (especially Independents or moderate Republicans who have been swayed to possibly vote Democrat in 2008 through a combination of Obama’s genuine appeal and their disgust with the Republican brand) and would therefore dilute Obama’s chances of beating McCain.

2. While being reasonably experienced domestic politicians neither Bayh nor Kaine have any foreign policy experience. The selection of Joe Biden negates any concerns that Independents, middle of the road Republicans and even some Democrats may have had about Obama’s foreign policy credentials.

The selection of Joe Biden has re-energized the Democratic base after a long and sometimes bitter primary campaign battle between Obama and Clinton for the nomination. A senator since 1973 (when he was elected at the constitutionally permitted age of 30), Biden’s fingerprints can be found on transformative legislation on everything from drug policy, civil liberties and violent crime to crime prevention and the protection of women from domestic violence. He has met with, and negotiated with dozens of international leaders and heads of state and is widely recognized as one of America’s foremost foreign policy experts.

From a campaign perspective watch for Biden to be the “bad cop” of the Democratic ticket, the attack dog who can and will go aggressively on the offensive against John McCain, while Barack Obama can continue to be statesmanlike and remain above the fray. Biden is a strong debater and a good orator (and has in fact been known for his verbosity over the years); skills honed after six successful Senate campaigns, two presidential bids (1988 and 2008) and chairmanships of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees. He will, in my opinion, be an effective running mate on the campaign trail in the run up to November 4th and expect him to shine in the Vice Presidential debate with Sarah Palin.

Which brings us to Sarah Palin. If you are asking yourself, Sarah who? - you are probably asking yourself the same question that 98% of Americans asked themselves a number of weeks ago when John McCain made what I believe will turn out to be one of his worst errors of judgment in naming Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Prior to being elected governor of Alaska (population 670,000, one third the size of Dublin) 18 months ago, Palin’s only other executive experience was as mayor of a tiny town in rural Alaska called Wasilla (population 7,500, one quarter the size of Ennis). One can only wonder what McCain was thinking of when picking Palin as his running mate, but then again he perhaps didn’t have much say in the matter.

Every dog in the street knows that McCain’s number one choice for the VP job was Democratic turncoat and fellow war hawk, Joe Liebermann. The problem with Liebermann (from the perspective of being accepted by the Republican establishment and party faithful) is that he is in favor of a woman’s right to choose. This sealed his fate with the religious conservative base of the Republican Party. McCain, rather than stand by his principals and demonstrate some of the so-called change that he is talking about bringing to Washington, he once again sold his soul to the right wing lunatic fringe of his party. In the view of many, he turned in desperation to Palin, a woman he had only met twice previously in his life.

In choosing Palin as his running mate, McCain possibly felt that he could slow down Obama’s momentum in one of two ways:

1. By adding a woman to the ticket, something that Obama had the opportunity to do and did not, McCain hoped to wrestle the mantle of the change message away from Obama.

2. McCain hoped that by naming Palin as his VP he could sway many of the female voters that had enthusiastically supported Hillary Clinton (and who still felt bruised after losing the close primary fight for the nomination) into supporting a Republican ticket.

Despite an initial bounce in the polls after the Republican convention, the luster of the Palin pick has died almost as quickly as it generated a flurry of excitement in the week after McCain announced her as his running mate, and the polls again show Obama with a 4%-5% lead. She has granted only two interviews since her nomination, a tactic deployed to try and minimize her complete lack of experience for the job and to avoid embarrassing gaffes on topics where she cannot hold her own. The problem however is that in those two interviews, Governor Palin has contradicted herself on a whole slew of policy positions, a fact now being openly advertised in the media.

As for swaying female voters that would otherwise have voted for Hillary Clinton, the consensus here in America is that the Palin impact will be negligible. As one female political commentator put it “…aside from the fact that Clinton and Palin have the same internal plumbing, they have nothing else in common”. Clinton and Palin could not be further apart of the issues, whether they be domestic, social or foreign policy.

McCain, at 72 years old, would be the oldest candidate ever elected to the office of president should he win the election in November. He has a history of health issues and many are openly concerned that should he unexpectedly die, Sarah Palin would ascend to the presidency. The problem is that McCain knows this but he picked her all the same, again displaying poor judgment when he could have chosen a running mate from a far more qualified list that includes Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Tom Ridge.

Since John Nance Garner’s comment about the Vice Presidency being nothing more than “a pitcher of warm piss”, thirteen vice presidents have occupied the White House until the election of Dick Cheney in 2000. In the lifetime of the Bush administration, Garner’s characterization of the VP office has been literally turned on its head. The power that Cheney has infused into the office of Vice President has been frightening. The smell of war, scandal, corruption and illegality exude from his door. Americans need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize this before they cast their ballot in November for a VP candidate that has less experience than a mid level executive at a large corporation.

It's Convention Time...!

2008-08-10T12:36:00.000-07:00

“A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation” – James Freeman Clarke, American preacher and author 1810-1888

After an epic primary season that began on the chilly plains of Iowa in early January and concluded more than fifty contests later in the heart of the old Indian reservations of South Dakota; after more than twenty presidential debates and seventeen months of resume analysis and character assassination; after an unprecedented 36 million votes were cast for two juggernaut candidates and an election cycle that hasn’t captured the country’s imagination in such a way in more than a generation, freshman Senator Barack Obama will be officially nominated as his party’s nominee for President of the United States at the Democratic National Convention on August 28th next.

Neither the date of his nomination, nor the location from which he will deliver his acceptance speech is lost on historians or political junkies. On August 28th 1963, another black man, Martin Luther King, delivered his historic “I Have a Dream” speech to a quarter of a million people at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. Forty five years later, to the day, Obama will accept his party’s nomination not at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver where most of the week’s meetings and convention activity will take place, but rather at the INVESCO Field stadium (the home of the Denver Broncos football team), a venue that can house 76,000 people. For the first time in the history of the national conventions, the Democratic Party will throw open its doors to the general public and in the words of DNC Chairman Howard Dean “….we will be able to showcase Barack Obama’s positive, people-centered vision for our country in a big way”.

The decision to break with the 176 year convention tradition of closed door speeches and behind the scenes delegate brokering and bargaining that goes on in smoke filled rooms between egocentric and narcissistic politicians, delegates, surrogates, political hacks, wingmen and hangers on is a deliberate attempt by the Democratic party and the Obama campaign to include ordinary voters in every aspect of the election cycle.

Over the years, there have been some memorable conventions in the long history of the Democratic Party; in 1956 the presidential nominee and darling of the liberal intelligentsia Adlai Stevenson broke with tradition and threw the vice presidential nomination to a “free vote” on the convention floor, resulting in a narrow victory for Senator Estes Kefauver over a fresh faced Senator from Massachusetts named Jack Kennedy, and an emotionally charged 1964 convention when, in the difficult months after President Kennedy’s assassination, Democrats nominated Lyndon Johnson as their candidate.

Television ratings for both the Democratic (and Republican) nominating conventions have plummeted however over the last 40 years, partly because regular voters see these events as self aggrandizing ego trips for the nominated candidates and partly because the ugly side of Democratic politics in particular has been played out in all its gory detail on national television.

In a tumultuous year that had already seen the assassinations of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy and widespread protests across America against the Vietnam War, the 1968 Democratic convention became a battleground between rioting protesters and police. Inside, a nasty and chaotic atmosphere permeated the convention with the incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey beating anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy. Humphrey was far from a popular choice, an example of which can be witnessed from television footage of the event that shows Major Richard Daley of Chicago (where the convention was staged and who was a lifelong Kennedy supporter) openly mocking and jeering one of the speakers from the floor.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy snubbed then incumbent President and about to be re-nominated candidate Jimmy Carter, before delivering one of the best speeches of his career. Earlier, Kennedy had tried unsuccessfully to get delegates who had committed themselves to Carter, to change their mind at the convention and vote for him (Kennedy) instead. In 1982, partly in an attempt to ensure that similar shenanigans didn’t happen in the future and in an effort to afford some level of control to party elders and elected officials, the Democrats introduced a new voting block at the convention called “super-delegates”. After working in a vacuum through six consecutive elections, the super-delegates came front and centre this year in the battle between Obama and Clinton for their party’s nomination.

As I write, the vice-presidential vetting process is still underway. The consensus among political commentators is that Obama has narrowed down his VP choice to three possible candidates, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. We will know for sure by mid August. For the first time in a generation, Americans are truly energized by the prospect of what promises to be a memorable national convention.

The International Candidate

2008-07-20T08:11:00.000-07:00

“There is, in world affairs, a steady course to be followed between an assertion of strength that is truculent and a confession of helplessness that is cowardly” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States.

As I write Senator Barack Obama has arrived in Afghanistan on the first leg of a trip that will see him visit a string of international capital cities, spend time at American overseas military bases and meet with foreign leaders in six countries. Even though Obama can point to a personal biography that includes bi-racial parents and extensive international travel in his youth, he is still perceived by many to have no real understanding of foreign affairs. The argument that John McCain’s campaign is making is that their candidate’s military service in Vietnam and twenty plus years in the United States congress would make him the more qualified president. Obama’s argument is that longevity in Washington and fighting for your country doesn’t necessarily equate to sound policy making and reasoned judgment in international affairs.

Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were all Beltway veterans going back to the Nixon administration and we all know where their collective foreign policy credentials got us. McCain’s problem in the upcoming election is that he has tied himself to the Bush/Cheney Pax-Americana brand of U.S. foreign policy. The debacle that is the Iraq war and America’s standing in the world community will cause great difficulty for McCain in the upcoming presidential debates with Senator Obama.

Obama’s overseas trip is unprecedented in an election year. International leaders have already moved on from George Bush and are looking towards 2009 and a new president. By meeting with leaders in London, Berlin and Paris, Obama is sending a message to the American people that he can work with America’s allies to heal the wounds created by the “my way or the highway” brand of foreign policy that was the hallmark of the Bush administration. American voters who are unsure of whether or not to vote for Obama may have their concerns erased when they see that he can be leader of vision and sound judgment. Even though we are still four months away from the general election, Obama’s appeal internationally has taken on Kennedyesqe qualities. In a throwback to Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in Berlin in 1963, Obama has planned a similar address at the foot of the city’s Victory Column, built between 1865 and 1873 to commemorate the Prussian victory in the Danish-Prussian war.

Senator Obama is laying the international groundwork for his presidency before he has been officially nominated by his party for president. In doing so he is underlining the generational and policy differences between himself and John McCain and is asking the American people to discard the old and embrace the new. I think he has a very good chance of pulling it off.

A Foreign Policy You Can't Refuse

2008-06-23T20:53:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month, I read a fascinating article in the July edition of Harper's Magazine entited "A Foreign Policy You Can't Refuse", co-written by John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell. The piece is part of a bigger thesis they have written on the subject of American foreign policy, called "Pax Corleone". Rather than dissect the piece, I am attaching it hereunder for your reading pleasure.

Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, one of the greatest movies ever produced by American cinema, hinges on the fate of the aging Vito Corleone. Emblematic of Cold War American power, the don is struck down suddenly and violently by forces he did not expect and does not understand, much as America was on September 11, 2001. Two of his sons, Santino (Sonny) and Michael, as well as his consigliere, Tom Hagen, an adopted son himself, gather in an atmosphere of shock and panic to try to decide what to do next-and how to respond to the attempted assassination of the don by Virgil "the Turk" Sollozzo. Each of the don's three "heirs" embraces a different vision of how the family should move forward. Given the present changes in the world's power structure, the movie is a startlingly useful metaphor for the strategic problems of our times.

THE CONSIGLIERE
Tom Hagen's approach is the outgrowth of a legaldiplomatic worldview that shares a number of
philosophical similarities with the liberal institutionalism that dominates the foreign-policy outlook of today's Democratic Party. Tom believes hat the family's main objective should be to return as quickly as possible to the world as it existed before the attack. His overriding strategic aim is the one that Hillary Clinton had in mind when she wrote recently in Foreign Affairs of the need for America to "reclaim our proper place in the world."

The "proper place" Tom wants to reclaim is a mirror image of what American politicians remember from the 1990s and dream of restoring after 200S-that of the world's "benign hegemon." By sharing access to the policemen, judges, and senators whom (as Sollozzo puts it) the don carries in his pocket "like so many nickels and dimes," the family created a kind of Sicilian Bretton Woods. This willingness to let the other crime syndicates drink from the well of Corleone political influence rendered the den's accumulation of power more palatable to the other families, who were less inclined to form a coalition against it. The result was a consensual, rules-based order that offered many of the same benefits-low transaction costs of rule, less likelihood of a greatpowers war, and the chance to make money under an institutional umbrella-that America enjoyed during the Cold War.

It is this "Pax Corleone" that Sollozzo, in Tom's eyes, must not be allowed to disrupt. In dealing
with the new challenger, however, Tom believes that the brothers must be careful not to do anything that would damage the family business. The way to handle Sollozzo, he judges, is not through force but through negotiation. Like the top Democratic contenders for the presidency, Tom thinks that even a rogue power like Sollozzo can be brought to terms, if only the family will take the time to hear his proposals and accommodate his needs.

Throughout the movie, Tom's motto is "we oughta talk to 'em"-a slogan that, especially since the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, is the line promoted by the leaders of the Democratic Party, who now say that immediate, unconditional talks with America's latest "Sollozzo" (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) are the only option still open to Washington for coping with the Iranian nuclear threat. But the hope Tom offers the family is a false one. For to be successful, the consigliere's diplomacy must be conducted from a position of unparalleled strength, which the family no longer possesses. Tom has lost the luxury of always being the man at the table with the most leverage. The era of easy Corleone dominance is over. Power on the streets has already begun to shift into the hands of the Tattaglias and Barzinis, the mafia equivalent of today's BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). The situation that confronts the Corleone family is one of increasing multipolarity-a reality that is lost on Tom, who thinks he is still the emissary of the dominant superpower (a delusion that many Democrats apparently share).

SONNY
Sonny's simplistic response to the crisis is to advocate "toughness" through military action, a
one-note policy prescription for waging righteous war against the rest of the ungrateful mafia world. Although such a strategy makes emotional sense following the attempted hit on his father, it runs counter to the long-term interests of the family. The don himself acted with the knowledge that threats against his position were a fact of life; while his policy revolved around minimizing them, he knew well that in a world governed by power, they could never be entirely eliminated. As he put it to Michael: Men cannot afford to be careless.

By contrast, Sonny's neoconservative approach is built around the strategically reckless notion that risk can be eliminated from life altogether through the relentless-and if necessary, preemptiveuse of violence. One can imagine that Sonny's shoot-first-and ask- questions-later approach would meet with the firm approval of such arch-neoconservatives as Norman Podhoretz. By starting a gangland free for-all after the hit on his father, Sonny unwittingly
severs long-standing family alliances and unites much of the rest of the mafia world against
the Corleones. The resulting war is one of choice rather than strategic necessity. Sonny's rash instinct to use force to solve his structural problems merely hastens the family's decline. For as the past few years have shown, military intervention for its own sake, without a corresponding political plan, leads only to disaster.

MICHAEL
The strategy that ultimately saves the Corleone family from the Sollozzo threat and equips it for
coping with multi polarity comes from Michael, the youngest and least experienced of the den's
sons. Unlike Tom and Sonny, Michael has no formulaic fixation on a particular policy instrument.
Instead, his overriding goal is to protect the family's interests and save it from impending
ruin by any and all means necessary. Viewing the world through untinted lenses, he sees
that the age of dominance the family enjoyed under his father is ending. Michael senses that a
shift is under way toward a more diffuse power arrangement. To survive and succeed in this
new environment, he knows the family will have to adapt. In todav's foreign-policy terminology,
he is a realist. First, Michael relinquishes the one-trickpony policy approaches of his brothers in favor of a "toolbox" of tactics, whereby soft and hard power are used in flexible combinations and as circumstances dictate.

This blending of sticks and carrots ensures that Michael is ultimately a more effective diplomat than Tom and a more successful warrior than Sonny: when he enters negotiations, it is always in the wake of a fresh battlefield victory and therefore from a
position of strength; when he embarks on a new military campaign, it is always in pursuit
of a specific goal that can be consolidated afterward diplomatically. Can any of the Iran
policies currently advocated by the leading candidates of both parties be said to proceed
from these assumptions? Second, Michael understands that no matter how strong its military or how savvy its diplomats, the Corleone family will not succeed in the multipolar environment unless it learns to take better care of its allies.

Like America after the Iraq War, the mafia empire that Michael inherits after the hit on Sonny relies on a system of alliances on the brink of collapse. Having flocked to the Corleone colors when the war against Sollozzo broke out, the family's allies--like America's in the "New" Europe-have little to show for the risks they have undertaken on the family's behalf. Exhausted by war and estranged by Sonny's Rumsfeld-like bullying, they have begun to question whether it is still in their interests to backstop a declining superpower that is apparently not interested in retaining their loyalty. Michael intuitively grasps the value of family friends and the role that reciprocity plays in retaining their support for future crises.

Thus, he is seen offering encouragement and a cigarette to Enzo, the timid neighborhood baker, whose help he enlisted to protect his father at the hospital. In this, he is imitating his father, Vito, who saw alliances as the true foundation of Corleone power and was mindful of the need to tend the family's "base" of support, not only with big players like Clemenza and Tessio (Britain and France) but with small players like the baker and Bonasera the undertaker (Poland and Romania), whose loyalty he is seen cultivating in the opening scenes of the movie.

As Michael knows, even small allies could potentially prove crucial in "tipping the scales" to the family's advantage, as they will for America once multipolarity is in full swing. Relearning the lost Sicilian art of alliance management will be necessary if Washington is to regain the confidence of the growing list of allies whose blood and treasure were frittered away, with little or nothing to show in return, in the sands of Iraq.

Gay Marriage Now Legal in California

2008-06-14T14:21:00.000-07:00

Big news in California this month was the ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that gay couples can marry. The decision was met by wild celebrations in the Castro, the historic center of the gay community here in San Francisco, and across the state. Even though California is one of the most liberal states in the country, recent polls taken after the Supreme Court decision have shown that residents of the Golden State are pretty evenly divided on the ruling, the most recent CBS poll showing 46% supporting the decision and 46% disagreeing with it.

There is some talk that religious and conservative groups are planning on placing an amendment on the ballot when voters go to the polls in the general election in November, in an effort to reverse the ruling. California is only the second state in the country to legalize same sex marriages, Massachusetts having being the first to do so in 2004. California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

Reclaiming Democracy

2008-06-14T14:17:00.000-07:00

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything” – Josef Stalin 1878-1953

Eight years after the debacle of the Florida recount, America stands on the threshold of being able to reclaim its democracy in spectacular fashion. Having had the 2000 election stolen from them by a combination of Republican Party skullduggery and an unprecedented intrusion into the American body politic by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Democrats are poised to win back the White House in what could be a landslide result this November.

The withdrawal of Senator Clinton from the race for the Democratic nomination for President, in one of the best concession speeches in modern political history, positions Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee of his party, a status which will be confirmed when he is officially nominated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28th. History has a strange way of crystallizing the importance or significance of an event. In a classic case of historical political redux, Obama will be nominated as the first African American nominee for President by either party, 45 years to the day that Dr. King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

Obama’s journey on his way to the nomination is also America’s journey. As America is a melting pot of races, nationalities and people of different color and ethnicity, Obama is the embodiment of all that can be achieved when disparate peoples come together for the common good. Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii, is the child of a black Kenyan father who came to the United States in 1960 to live out his version of the American dream, and a white American woman from Kansas. Obama’s crossover appeal to large swathes of Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats is symptomatic of how average Americans have, during the lifetime of the presidency of George W Bush, come full circle and are rejecting the politics of division and partisanship that have been the corner stone of the Bush administration and, until 2006, the Republican controlled Congress.

Americans are well aware that the world is watching. John McCain is a decorated war hero and former POW, but he represents the past and all that is repugnant about traditional Beltway politics. Apart from a few occasions where he bucked his party’s position on certain policies, (e.g. the immigration issue), John McCain has simultaneously held divergent and contradictory views on a whole host of issues spanning his 30 years in Washington. He has tied himself to the failed policies of George W Bush, most notably the Iraq war and the economy, and ultimately these positions will play an important role in the decision of the voters come November.

I truly believe that Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America.

Remembering RFK

2008-05-11T16:41:00.000-07:00

As we approach the 40th anniversary of Robert Kennedy’s death on June 6th, and in the context of the troubled times that we live in, it is fitting that we celebrate the positive influence that one person can have on public discourse and national and international policy.

In his book, “1968 – The Year the Dream Died”, author Jules Witcover pinpoints 1968 “…as a cataclysmic year of turmoil and violence, presidential surprises and escalating war that set a shaken nation on a course of disappointment, racial division, and distrust in leadership that persists until today”. Having been involved in many of the early decisions during his brother’s presidency, by 1967 RFK had broken sharply from President Johnson on America’s commitment to the war in Vietnam. After a depressed and beleaguered LBJ announced in March 1968 that he would not seek his party’s nomination for President, the way was clear for Kennedy to run on a message of change, hope and unity.

The campaign lasted 82 days. Kennedy was murdered at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on June 6th 1968 shortly after giving a speech in response to his victory that night in the California primary. In 2008 we have another charismatic leader campaigning on a similar message of hope and change. Hopefully the dreams of a country 40 years ago will finally come to fruition in Barack Obama.

The Presumptive Nominee?

2008-05-11T16:38:00.000-07:00

“There are times in politics when you must be on the right side, and lose” – John Kenneth Galbraith, economist, liberal and U.S. Ambassador to India 1961- 1963

In the race for the Democratic nomination for President, the political obituaries are being written for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her blowout loss by 15 points and razor thin victory (by 14,000 votes) to Senator Obama in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries respectively on May 6th, will likely prove to be the last battleground where the former First Lady had an opportunity to, in her words, create a “game-changer” and reverse the momentum towards Obama.

In the words of Thomas Edsall of The Huffington Post, “…Hillary Clinton, who for seven weeks has crawled, kicked and bitten her way back into contention, suffered a blow on Tuesday, halting the momentum behind her bid for the nomination just when she had begun to regain credibility. In the universe of political clichés, she is on life support, her oxygen choked off, her knees buckling, unable to stanch the bleeding, down for an eight count, on the ropes, praying for the bell to ring, desperate to get her wind back”.

Having won an impressive 9.5% victory in Pennsylvania on March 22nd, and having finally found her voice on the campaign trail (in the view of many commentators), hopes were high in the Clinton camp that they could engineer a set of results in North Carolina and Indiana that would blow open the race for the nomination. And, in the weeks leading up to election-day in both states, Hillary Clinton had every reason to feel optimistic. After months of struggling to find her message, Clinton had recently been connecting with voters in a way not seen before on the campaign trail, she was energized and in her zone, running on adrenalin and drawing sharp contrasts with her Democratic opponent. Clinton knew that she had to radically change the dynamic in order the stop the steady drip-drip of super-delegates declaring for Obama. The only way to do that was to win a landslide in Indiana and come very close to causing an upset in North Carolina.

Obama, on the other hand, had just come out of the worst three weeks of his campaign. 24/7 cable news coverage of the comments made by his former pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, called into doubt Obama’s judgment in some quarters, forcing him to spend big chunks of time managing the Wright crisis, time he would much preferred to have devoted to substantive policy discussions.

Throw into the mix the call by conservative Republican talk show host Rush Limbaugh to hijack the Indiana primary by encouraging white voters who are registered as Republicans (and who more than likely will vote for McCain in November) to cast their primary vote for Clinton (Indiana is an open state allowing any registered voter, regardless of party, to vote in the Democratic primary). The logic of Limbaugh’s argument is that he believes Clinton is the preferred Democratic nominee for Republicans in November as they feel they would have a far better chance of beating Hillary than Barack. Limbaugh called his campaign “Operation Chaos”.

When the dust settled the night of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, it was clear that Obama had won a landslide victory in North Carolina. The Indiana results showed that 11% of the people who cast a ballot were actually Republicans who came over to vote in the Democratic primary. Of those, 52% voted for Clinton. When you study the numbers it shows that 1.275 million people voted in the Indiana primary. 11% of that number is approximately 140,000. Clinton won 52% of the Republican cross over vote, guaranteeing roughly 72,000 votes. When you crunch the final numbers and see that Clinton won Indiana by a little over 14,000 votes, the Limbaugh “Operation Chaos” strategy may well have played a significant part in Clinton’s narrow victory.

In the days since the May 6th primaries the steady drip-drip of super-delegates to Obama has increased in speed to the point where as I write Obama has passed Clinton for the first time in pledged super-delegate support. Baring a catastrophic scandal of some kind that would derail the Obama candidacy or an act of GOD, nearly every commentator, and more ominously for Clinton, politicians that have been previously silent, have started to refer to Obama as the presumptive nominee. Clinton is ignoring calls for her to drop out of the race and it is very likely that both candidates will keenly contest the six remaining primaries in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota between now and the end of the election cycle on June 3rd. In these states, Clinton is favored in 3 and Obama in 3, the most likely result being a fairly even split of the remaining delegates.

In the media, much is being made of the fact that Clinton may be hedging her bets for a place on the ticket with Obama as his VP running mate. While a joint Obama-Clinton ticket would be formidable there seems little appetite for the idea in the Obama camp and also among the Democratic leadership. In recent weeks Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and senior senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy have vetoed the idea, citing irreconcilable differences (among other reasons) caused by the bad blood in the primary season.

Regardless of how the remaining primaries play out, the most important thing for Democrats to do in the coming weeks is to unite quickly and strongly behind the eventual nominee. A vote for John McCain in November is akin to a third Bush term. There is no doubt that the Republican attack machine will kick into overdrive once the Democratic nominee is confirmed and the general election campaign is likely to be bitter and bloody. I am confident however that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, Americans will seize this moment in history to make history.

For the latest delegate numbers (both elected delegates and super-delegates) go to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

The Beginning of the End?

2008-05-05T19:54:00.000-07:00

As I write, we are approximately 24 hours away from knowing the outcome of the latest series of Democratic primary battles between Senators Clinton and Obama. With a total 187 elected delegates (not including super-deleagtes) up for grabs, voters in the states of Indiana and North Carolina will go to the polls tomorrow in an effort to edge their preferred candidate one step closer to their party's nomination. There are a number of potential scenarios that could play out, and each would provide a different result:

1. The most likely outcome is a 1-1 draw. The latest opinion polls from both states (and I should of course point out that opinion polls during this election cycle have been notoriously unreliable) show Clinton leading by approximately 5/6 points in Indiana and Obama up about 8 points in North Carolina. Assuming the final results somewhat mirror the polls, the race will go on until the final primaries on June 3rd. A 1-1 spilt doesn't really help Clinton but it does edge Obama one step closer to the nomination. It's all about the delegate mathematics at this point and a (roughly) event spilt in the delegates will not be enough for Clinton to force the superdelegates into second guessing their endorsement of Obama.

2. Should Obama win North Carolina and squeeze an upset in Indiana there will be intense pressure on Hillary Clinton to fold up her tent, endorse Obama and work with the nominee to heal the divisions caused by a divisive campaign. While Clinton would probably want to continue the primary fight until the end, the pressure on her to step aside will come from members of the Democratic leadership and a combination of committed and uncommitted superdelegates. In addition, and perhaps mostly importantly, a 0 for 2 defeat for Clinton would send donors running for the hills. For a campaign that is already in debt and struggling to come anywhere near Obama in terms of fundraising, a defeat for Clinton in North Carolina and Indiana might force her hand.

3. A victory for Clinton in both states, and thereby causing a big upset in North Carolina, could be a potential game changer. I say potential because at this point, according to most political commentators, Obama looks odds on to get the nomination, it being just a matter of time before it becomes a fait accompli. A Clinton 2 for 2 victory tomorrow would probably cause many uncommitted superdelegates (who may have been leaning towards Obama) to take stock and perhaps reconsider. It would also help Clinton tremendously in terms of fundraising and the never ending 24/7 cable news PR battle between both candidates.

Readers of this blog know that I am firmly in the Obama camp. While scenario 3 is the best result for Clinton, it is arguably the worst result for the Democratic Party, in terms of calling time on when the real battle can begin with Republican nominee John McCain.

Stay tuned.

America's Original Sin

2008-04-17T16:49:00.000-07:00

“Let’s pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere” – C.S. Lewis, British scholar and novelist 1898-1963

It has been referred to as America’s original sin, slavery. Almost one hundred and fifty years after the great legislative leader of black emancipation, Abraham Lincoln, enacted the first laws of Reconstruction, and forty years after the assassination of Dr. King, America once again finds itself embroiled in a ferocious debate about race. The brutal legacy of slavery and segregation is embedded in the psyche of most Americans. While white Americans don’t believe that they should be punished for the sins of their forefathers, many feel stained with the sins of their remote ancestors. In this election cycle, the issue of race in American society is front and center in a way never before seen in American politics.

The candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, (who as I write, has an 85% statistical chance, according to all of the leading commentators, think tanks and political cognoscenti, of becoming the first African American to be his party’s nominee for President), has forced Americans to confront in a very real way their deepest feelings about race and racial inequality. The good news is that in a recent study, 76% of Americans say the country is ready for a black President. However, as I travel across the United States, it is clear to me that the impact of two hundred years of injustice is still being felt in African American communities everywhere, resulting in illiteracy, poverty, crime and drug addiction.

The candidacy of Barack Obama has presented Americans of all colors and creeds an opportunity to confront head on their own feelings and beliefs in relation to racial inequality and injustice. Recent events have underlined the sensitivity of the race issue on the campaign trail. Back in February, after Obama had beaten Hillary Clinton by 25 points in the South Carolina primary, former President Bill Clinton dismissed the defeat by saying that Rev Jesse Jackson had also won South Carolina during his runs for the nomination in 1984 and 1988. The characterization by Bill Clinton was that Obama’s huge win was only made possible by the large African American population in South Carolina and that Obama wouldn’t be able to capture other states where there was an overwhelmingly large white population. Clinton’s comments angered many in the black community, not least because Obama then went on to sweep primary after primary where the white vote far exceeded the black vote. Racial stereotyping has become a hallmark of the Clinton campaign since.

The inflammatory comments made by Obama’s former pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, have also been the center of much debate and controversy. Wright, a pastor, theological scholar and champion of the poor and underprivileged in Chicago for a generation, was castigated for a few comments he made over the course of the last 30 years, where from the pulpit he condemned many within the white community for their racial bigotry and criticized successive American governments by saying that events like 9/11 were a direct result of 50 years of American imperialism and hegemony. The CIA by the way has an official term for it, “blowback”.

While Obama has repeatedly condemned the comments the issue continues to be part of the ongoing Clinton “kitchen sink strategy” of doing and saying anything to try and somehow wrestle the nomination from Obama. Likewise, recent comments by Clinton surrogate (and former Vice Presidential nominee) Geraldine Ferraro and an ongoing campaign by Rupert Murdoch owned Fox News (in my opinion more accurately referred to by one American journalist as “Fox Noise” or “Fixed News”) to continually play the race card in its supposedly (and self titled) “fair and balanced” coverage of the Obama campaign.

Obama has tapped into a movement for change, a movement that is leaving aside the slash and burn politics of the past and in the process he is bringing voters of every race, color, age and religion along with him. I recently had dinner with some business colleagues. One of our group was a 55 year African American man. Our conversation came around to politics. Like many African Americans, he told us of his admiration for Bill Clinton and the personal warmth that black people across the country have for the former president. In any other election year, Hillary Clinton would have gotten his vote, however he is going to cast his vote for Obama because he believes that Obama understands the journey that black Americans have had to travel to get where they are today. White people never will understand that journey.

As I write, the Pennsylvania primary is 5 days away. The consensus is that Hillary Clinton will win the state, but anything less than a blowout of 15-20 points won’t enable her to make any serious inroads into Obama’s delegate lead. Primaries follow in Indiana and North Carolina in early May, where Obama is leading in the polls. The fear that many Democrats have is that the long, drawn out nomination fight between Clinton and Obama will give John McCain lots of free time to gain momentum in advance of the November election. Hopefully, the Democratic nomination process can be concluded sooner rather than later.

As of April 17th, the latest delegate numbers are as follows:

Obama/Clinton:
Pledged delegates: 1416/1252
Super-delegates: 235/257
Total delegates: 1651/1509
States Won: 30/14

The Politics of Slash and Burn

2008-03-14T16:09:00.000-07:00

“Race hate isn’t human nature; race hate is the abandonment of human nature” – Orson Welles, actor, director, producer and writer 1915-1985

In a year when Democrats stand their best chance to win back the White House since those heady days of post-Watergate public disillusionment of Washington politics, one would have thought that the leading Democratic candidates for President would; while engaging in a competitive race to become their party’s nominee, have generally taken the high road in conducting their campaigns and kept the rough stuff in response to the inevitable barrage of dirty tricks that will be thrown by John McCain in the general election campaign. Think again.

Coming out of the final two primaries of Wyoming and Mississippi and six weeks before the next big statewide election in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, the war of words between the Clinton and Obama camps has escalated to a new low in terms of rhetoric, racially charged comments and downright lies. And to be honest, the vast majority of the dirty tricks are coming from the Clinton campaign. Many commentators and seasoned political veterans see the Clinton camp’s self-styled “kitchen-sink strategy” of misinformation and race baiting as a last ditch effort to wrestle the initiative from Obama.

Two days before the do or die primaries on March 4th in Texas and Ohio Clinton was asked on national TV about the scurrilous (and false) rumor that Barack Obama was a closet Muslim. Knowing full well that the rumor was categorically false, Clinton obfuscated, saying that as “far as I know” Senator Obama was not Muslim. Many in the main stream media rightly took Clinton to task for deliberately raising a doubt in the mind of some voters, especially in Ohio, and especially at a time when she desperately needed to win a state, any state, to revive her chances of winning the nomination.

Clinton herself followed up in the days after the critical March 4th primaries by raising the question about Obama’s ability to be an effective leader on day one in the White House. This has been a constant theme for the Clinton campaign since the primaries began on January 3rd; however it has been raised to a new level in recent weeks. Citing her own so-called wealth of experience to be Commander-in-Chief (CIC), Clinton made a fatal error in publicly stating that John McCain was more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. Not surprisingly, Democrats are up in arms over the comment, which essentially undermines Obama’s credentials against McCain in the general election in the event that Obama does in fact beat Clinton and wins the Democratic nomination.

To further exasperate (and confuse) matters, Clinton then proposed that while Obama is not ready to be CIC, he would make a great Vice President and that she would be delighted to have him as her VP running mate. Obama responded forcefully, asking publicly the question that many were asking privately, which is why would Clinton offer Obama the VP slot on one hand if on the other hand she didn’t think he was ready to be CIC and able to immediately assume the Presidency should anything happen to a President Clinton. In addition, Obama pointed out the obvious problem with Clinton’s proposal – why should he, the candidate that is in first place and leading in terms of the number of states won, popular vote and number of committed delegates, take second place on a national ticket. The arrogance and attitude of self-entitlement of the Clinton’s is breathtaking.

Fast forward to this week and a member of the Clinton finance committee, Geraldine Ferraro, gives an interview to a local California newspaper where she boldly states that Barack Obama is where he is today BECAUSE he is black and that if he was a regular white politician he would be a nobody. If Geraldine Ferraro was a low level campaign operative you might be forgiven for dismissing this blatant racism as a comment from someone who is not in touch with reality, however Ferraro is a career politician, a respected trailblazer for women’s issues over the course of 30 years and a former vice presidential candidate herself, being part of the Democratic ticket with Walter Mondale that was annihilated by Ronald Reagan in 1984.

The outcry to her comments was immediate and while Hillary Clinton announced that she disagreed with them she didn’t reject them or ask Ferraro to leave her campaign. Never one to go quietly, Ferraro proceeded to do a round of television interviews where, unbelievably, she claimed that the Obama campaign was using the race card against her because she was a white woman and that Obama should apologize to her! As you might expect, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and within hours Ferraro was gone from the Clinton campaign, not fired but having resigned on her own account so that she “could continue to speak the truth”. Asked about Ferraro’s comments, Barack Obama called them “ridiculous” and “wrong-headed”, pointing out in a statement that is deep in irony and sarcasm that because of the fact that he WAS a black man with a name like Barack Obama hardly gave him an advantage in a political race against the most well known woman in America (Clinton) and whose husband was a former president.

The Clinton strategy has so angered many of the Democratic leaders that Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, weighted in this week when asked by reporters about a so-called “Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton” dream ticket. Pelosi ruled it out as now “impossible”, citing Clinton’s irresponsible comments about Obama’s inability to be commander in chief. Pressed further on the matter, Pelosi said “…take it from me, there will be no dream ticket”. Many see this as a veiled endorsement of Obama’s candidacy and because it is coming from the House Speaker it is not unreasonable to assume that Pelosi is speaking for a large number of the Democratic leadership.

Many commentators see this sequence of events as a deliberate strategy by the Clinton campaign to undermine the Obama candidacy and a last ditch attempt to win back the momentum in the race for the nomination. The facts, however, show that the odds are increasingly becoming stacked against Clinton as each new state contest is completed. As of March 14th, here is the current state of play:

Obama/Clinton
Pledged Delegates 1411/1250
Super delegates* 207/237
Total Delegates 1617/1487
States Won 30/14
Popular Vote Won 13,281,132/12,577,409

The first to reach 2025 will win the nomination. What is probable is that with 10 primaries to go, neither candidate will be able to reach the magic number of 2025 without the help of the so-called “super-delegates”. Super-delegates are a group of elected and party officials that comprise senators, congressmen and women, governors and others who have a vote at the nominating convention when the Democrats will choose their candidate. Clinton has held a lead with super delegates for over a year, largely because many of them pledged their vote to her when she seemed unbeatable in the polls before the actual primaries began in early January. Her lead over Obama in terms of super-delegates is decreasing on a weekly basis. The Clinton strategy is partially built around hoping to be able to persuade many of the undecided super-delegates to vote for her at the convention.

The reality however is that if Obama comes to the convention with more pledged delegates, most states won and a lead in the popular vote it is inconceivable that the super delegates with ignore the will of the people and give the nomination to Clinton. To do so would literally rip the Democratic Party in two in much the same way it was divided in 1968, allowing Richard Nixon to narrowly win the general election. After 7 years of W, the Democratic leadership is not about to let 1968 happen all over again.

Hypocrisy: How John McCain sold his soul to become the Republican party nominee

2008-02-17T17:43:00.000-08:00

“The challenges we face will not be solved with one meeting in one night. Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones that we have been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of the future; the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided; that we cannot come together; that we cannot remake this world as it should be. Yes we can.” – Senator Barack Obama, Super Tuesday Night February 5th 2008, Chicago, Illinois

Last month I ruminated over why I thought it possible that within 30 days it would become clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees for President would be. I was partly correct. After a month of primaries and caucuses in 30 odd states John McCain has clearly emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee. At the time of writing he has amassed the support of 830 pledged delegates in his fight to become the GOP presidential candidate. He needs 1191 delegates to secure a majority and tie up the race. Almost all of the GOP primaries are winner take all states, which means that even though McCain won many of the states by relatively small margins, the Republican rules dictate that he receive all of that state’s delegates.

For example, even though Mitt Romney won 34% of the vote in California (to McCain’s 42%) and Mike Huckabee won 41% of the vote in Virginia (to McCain’s 50%), neither Romney or Huckabee was awarded any delegates. This winner take all mentality offers a very lob-sided analysis of how people voted in the Republican primaries and of course gives a disproportionate lead in the delegate count to whatever candidate can string together a series of close wins. While McCain has received some high profile endorsements since Super Tuesday, including that of his former nemesis George W Bush, there is a large minority of the Republican base that has yet to embrace McCain as their nominee.

Step forward the self proclaimed evangelical Christian conservative wing of the party. So called true blue conservatives are loath to back McCain because they believe that he isn’t really a true conservative. They point to his senatorial record, where over the course of the past 25 years he has continually bucked the party position on issue after issue, confirming in their mind his maverick status as a legislator and politician.

To conservative Republicans, McCain is a mass of contradictions. While they like his positions on the war and defense, they despise him for what they deem to be his abandonment of conservative principles on issues like the right to life, campaign finance reform (a bill he co-sponsored and which Republicans detest) and not least his position on illegal immigration. McCain, who is a Senator from the southern border state of Arizona, believes in a moderate, all inclusive policy of tackling the illegal immigration situation; a position which is in stark contrast to the majority of Republicans. While many Independent voters have been traditionally drawn to McCain, there is no doubt that his he lost the majority of them this month after he cast a diabolical vote in the U.S. Senate.

McCain is a genuine American hero, having spent 5 ½ years as a prisoner of war in the so called “Hanoi Hilton” in Vietnam in the 1960’s, where he was regularly tortured by his captors. All his life McCain has publicly stated that torture is illegal, is in contempt of the Geneva Convention, and in recent years has taken his own government to task over its use of the technique of water-boarding in attempting to elicit intelligence from detainees. My respect for McCain disappeared this month when he went on the floor of the U.S. Senate and voted against a bill that would outlaw torture. In doing so, John McCain sold his soul to the conservatives on the Republican right in a blatant, desperate attempt to win over the lunatic fringe of his own party. The man is a hypocrite, pure and simple.

When I predicted a month ago that the Democratic nominee would become clear after the February 5th primaries, I was wrong. As I write, Barack Obama has won 23 of the 34 primaries and caucuses held to date. In terms of pledged delegates Obama leads Senator Clinton 1139 to 1003. The first to reach 2025 will become the Democratic nominee. In what seems like a far more equitable system to me, Democrats award delegates in each state on a proportional basis, with each candidate being awarded a specific number of delegates based proportionally on the percentage of the vote received by that candidate. As a result, even though Obama has easily won more states than Clinton, and Clinton has won more of the bigger states than Obama, the two are practically tied in the delegate count.

After Super Tuesday, which in essence was a split decision, all the trends favor Obama moving forward. In the first 8 primaries and caucuses since Super Tuesday, Obama has won them all. By the time you read this the results will be in from two more primaries, Wisconsin and Hawaii, who go to the polls on February 19th. The results from those states will be important in gauging the momentum that is building for an Obama nomination and he may well become unstoppable. Obama as a candidate has demonstrated that he has broad appeal across all of the key demographic voting groups in America, including white men, African Americans, men and women under 30, minorities and better educated, more affluent voters. He is winning every demographic group under 50. Clinton has strong appeal to older, more traditional voters and has a bigger following within the Latino community.

The Clinton machine badly underestimated the Obama candidacy. Campaign officials expected to have the nomination locked up by February 5th (Super Tuesday) and it is clear that very little planning was done for the eventuality of a long delegate battle that may well go on until June. Hillary Clinton admitted this month that she has lent $5 million of her own money to her campaign, a staggering admission of financial mismanagement within her own organization when you consider that she raised in excess of $100 million in contributions in 2007.

The next big battle takes place on March 4th when the voters of delegate rich states like Texas and Ohio go to the polls. Should Hillary Clinton win there, the nomination is wide open again and may well go to the floor of the convention in the summer, where the party super-delegates may be called on to decide who the nominee is going to be.

The Fierce Urgency of Now

2008-02-03T14:25:00.000-08:00

This country is flocking to the Obama message of hope. As I write, Michelle Obama has taken the stage to speak to a massive crowd at the University of California in Los Angeles. This is a powerful woman, who speaks with eloquence and passion, straight from the heart in a way that I haven't seen from the spouse of a presidential candidate in many a long day. In her own words, only in America could Michelle Obama, a woman who until a few short months ago was unknown the length and breadth of the country, be introduced as the keynote speaker by a trio of inspirational household names like Caroline Kennedy, Oprah Winfrey and Stevie Wonder.

This country is flocking to the Obama message of hope. This past week, one of the greatest politicians to ever grace the United States senate, Ted Kennedy, symbolically passed the torch from the generation of that of his slain brothers to a man who in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, understands the fierce urgency of now. Kennedy, a champion of the underdog and a lightning rod for minorities, the underprivileged, the poor and the mentally and physically disabled over the course of a 45 year career, sees the energy, wisdom and leadership skills in Obama that a similar fresh faced senator brought to the presidential discussion in 1960. Displaying the energy of a man half his age, Kennedy is burning up the stump across the Midwest and California, connecting with those voters who may be well prove crucial in the upcoming primaries; Latinos. The Kennedy name is beloved within the Latino community, ever since Bobby Kennedy broke bread and showed solidarity with Cesar Chavez during the great strike by the Farm Workers Union in 1968.

The country is flocking to the Obama message of hope. Independents and moderate Republicans are attracted by the olive branch that he has extended by asking them to concentrate not on the few things that they disagree on but rather on the many things that unite them - the ability to "disagree without being disagreeable". While it is hard to guage the impact that endorsements have on a particular candidacy, the diversity of public endorsements that Obama has received in the past month is proving that here is a man that IS NOW forming a coalition of people that are coming together across the politicial, racial and gender divide to unite in a common cause.

With 48 hours to go before people begin going to the polls in 22 states across the country, it is hard to call a clear winner between Senator's Clinton and Obama. There is no doubt that there has been a tremendous surge for Obama in the past couple of weeks and the wind is at his back. It is going to be fascinating to see if this forward momentum can edge him ahead of Mrs. Clinton after all Super Tuesday votes have been counted.

Why The Next 30 Days Will Decide Who is President...

2008-01-13T14:18:00.000-08:00

“Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first” – Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

Whew! They say a week is a long time in politics. Well, in the context of the 2008 presidential election campaign, and in particular the events of the first half of January, perhaps the word “week” should be replaced with the word “day”. With still nearly eleven months to go before voters go to the polls in November, the election cycle to decide who will be America’s 44th president has already been one of the longest in history. Whatever happened to elections where politicians announced their candidacy in the actual year that the election was to take place? By the time the party conventions roll around in the summer some of the candidates will have been running for close on 2 years. That being said, for political junkies like me; the excitement, nervousness and near daily intoxication with the rough and tumble of the various campaigns is in equal part educational and inspiring. It is fascinating to watch how some candidates mature, find their groove and evolve into genuine presidential contenders, while others self destruct.

It is fair to say that by February 5th, the date when 23 different states will go to the polls in primary elections in what is being dubbed “Super-Duper Tuesday”; it should be clear who the respective party nominees for President are likely to be. The current election cycle has been made more exciting than normal because the date for many of the state primaries have been brought forward in some cases by a couple of weeks, the impact on the campaign being that there will be a primary every week in January, leading up to the big nationwide vote on February 5th. For those of you who haven’t been watching as closely as I have let me walk you through the events of the past few weeks and also try and set the scene for the upcoming crucial February 5th battle.

Firstly, let’s start with the Democrats. For many months, there has been a friendly debate going on in my house. While my wife admires Senator Obama tremendously she is leaning towards voting for Senator Clinton. I on the other hand am firmly in the Obama corner. I genuinely believe that Obama is the most gifted and inspiring politician to emerge in a generation. For the first time in my life I have contributed to a political campaign and will actively be involved in helping here locally in San Francisco. This, despite the fact even though I have full legal status here, I am not yet a citizen, and as such cannot vote. Senators' Obama and Clinton closed out 2007 with record breaking fund raising years, both scooping up in excess of $100M in campaign cash. In an era when television advertising is an important part of connecting with voters, candidates with a significant war chest will have a distinct edge over their competitors.

Two weeks into January and the battle on the Democratic side is essentially a two horse race. Senator Obama stunned the Clinton campaign by winning the first electoral test of the primary season by securing victory in the Iowa caucuses that were held on January 3rd. John Edwards, who is running on a populist message of fundamental Washington reform and equality for all Americans, narrowly beat out Hillary Clinton to claim second spot in Iowa. Obama’s victory in Iowa is hugely significant for many reasons, none more so that it showed Americans, and black Americans in particular, that an African American candidate could win a state like Iowa, which is 98% white. Many within the black community have withheld their public support for Obama until they could be convinced that he has a realistic chance of beating an establishment white candidate called Clinton.

His wide margin of victory in Iowa (9% points) and narrow defeat in New Hampshire to Senator Clinton (3%) has released a tidal wave of support and endorsements from right across the political spectrum for Obama’s candidacy.

In the last 2 weeks, Senators Biden and Dodd as well as New Mexico governor Bill Richardson have all dropped out of the race, without endorsing any particular candidate. This may be seen by some as a rejection of Clinton as in any other election year a candidate as well known and respected as Hillary Clinton would be expected to receive the endorsements of long standing and respected politicians like Messrs Biden, Dodd and Richardson. The net impact of Obama’s candidacy is such that these seasoned politicians are keeping their powder dry, no doubt looking to November and beyond, hoping to secure a senior cabinet position. Naturally enough they don’t want to back the wrong horse.

While John Edwards continues to plow ahead after a 2nd and 3rd placing in the first two primaries, the next two weeks will decide whether he has the support and the finances to continue. The next primary battles are in Nevada on January 19th and South Carolina on Jan 26th. These are fascinating contests because for the first time in this election cycle a significant percentage of the voting public will be minorities. A large portion of the Nevada voters will be members of the Culinary Union, the men and women who work in the bars, restaurants and hotels on the Las Vegas strip. Many of these folks are Latino, African American and Asian and how they vote will provide an interesting insight into how minorities across the country might vote on February 5th. Likewise in South Carolina, 50% of all Democratic voters in the upcoming primary are African American.

In any other year, with a Clinton on the ballot, Hillary Clinton would gobble up the majority of the black vote as the Clintons have a very strong following within the African American community. The problem for the Clinton campaign of course is that after Obama’s win in Iowa and close second in New Hampshire, many black Americans now genuinely feel that for the first time ever, there is a possibility of not only having an African American as a party nominee, but possibly as President. The key to success in South Carolina is how the black community votes. While John Edwards is a native son in South Carolina, and he is still a very popular candidate, the real battle is between Obama and Clinton. My instincts tell me that if African Americans come out in large numbers for Obama in South Carolina, their brothers and sisters across the country will follow suit on February 5th.

So, we come to February 5th itself. On “Super-Duper Tuesday”, 23 states will vote, including many of the big states like New York, Florida, New Jersey and my own state of California. Once we know how people voted, the nominee should become clear.

On the Republican side, this is still anyone’s nomination. Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas came from nowhere to win the Iowa caucuses, beating out former Massachusetts governor and long time leader in the Iowa polls, Mitt Romney, this despite the fact that Romney outspent Huckabee 10-1 in the state. John McCain repeated his feat of 2000 by again winning the New Hampshire primary, appealing to many Independent voters who are sick of Bush but who like the experience and credentials of ex Marine McCain. The Michigan primary will be decided on January 15th and as I write it is a toss-up between Romney and McCain for victory there. Romney’s father was governor of Michigan in the 1960’s and no doubt is depending on a combination of family loyalty and familiarity to get him over the end line. Should Romney lose in Michigan, I believe his candidacy is finished, despite all the money he has.

The South Carolina Republican primary will take place on the same date as the Democratic causus in Nevada, January 19th. Early polls show Mike Huckabee leading in South Carolina, most probably because of his appeal to his Christian fundamentalist brethren in the South; however it essentially will be a dead heat between Huckabee and the man whose character was destroyed in the Carolinas in 2000 by the Bush campaign, John McCain. That one is worth watching. The one name I haven’t mentioned of course is Rudy Giuliani.

In a bizarre and highly risky strategy, Giuliani essentially skipped the first four primaries (although he has attended debates and done some canvassing), deciding instead to focus all his energies and money on winning his first primary in Florida and using that as the springboard to secure the nomination on February 5th. The problem that faces Giuliani, is that as of today, he is locked in a statistical dead heat with John McCain for Florida. In addition, the top dozen of Giuliani’s staffers have been asked to forego their salaries for the month of January. If Giuliani loses Florida I think he is toast.

Go Obama!

Why I believe Obama is the best candidate

2008-01-02T20:19:00.000-08:00

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, it is perhaps not too surprising to regular readers of this blog to hear me say that I am keeping my fingers crossed for a Barack Obama victory in the Hawkeye State Thursday night. For political junkies like me, it is refreshing and inspiring to see an awesomely talented young man of my own generation decide, against all the odds, to take on the political establishment of this country and run for President. Who would have thought just one year ago that an African American, junior Senator from Illinois would break all previous funding raising records (of either party) by raking in over $100 million in the 2007 calendar year, chalking up almost 500,000 individual donors and 800,000 seperate donations in the process. I am proud to say that I am one of those donors who contributed to Obama's campaign, multiple times.

In my lifetime the number of truly outstanding candidates that have offered themselves up to be considered for the job of President have been few and far between. I don't think too many people would disagree that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were probably the 2 most outstanding Chief Executives of the past 40 years. Beyond that, when you consider Nixon (twice), Ford, Carter, Bush 41 and Bush 43 you are looking at mediocre at best and diabolical at worst. Still, for all their charisma Reagan and Clinton had serious character issues.

In my opinion, Barack Obama is the most well rounded, well balanced candidate that Americans have had in a generation. His candidacy has been a lightning rod for a broad cross section of Americans who have become completely dissilussioned with the same old, same old brand of Beltway politics. Not since the campaigns of Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in 1967/'68 have we witnessed an energy, an electricity and a real hunger and desire for change than is personified by Senator Obama's run for the nomination.

As caucus day looms in Iowa, I am nervous and hoping for an Obama win. I believe he can do it.

The Politics of Fear in '08

2007-12-18T21:11:00.000-08:00

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt

In the annals of great political speeches one thinks immediately of three American presidents; Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Lincoln, the champion of black emancipation who guided the Union through a bloody and divisive Civil War, delivered what is now referred to as the Gettysburg Address in a total of just 269 words. He defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people and for the people” and the American Civil War as an opportunity for a “new birth of freedom” where all men are created and treated equally. One hundred years later John Kennedy gave hope to a new generation of Americans and evoked their patriotism and sense of public service by asking them to contemplate “not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”.

As Adolf Hitler was coming to power in Germany, Franklin Roosevelt was elected President of a country that was in the midst of the worst depression in the country’s history. With a quarter of the workforce unemployed, two million people homeless and industrial production at less than 50% of what it had been just 4 years earlier in 1929 at the time of the Wall Street Crash, FDR called on Americans to rally themselves, their families and their country. Calling on them to recall their natural sense of optimism, fortitude and commitment to hard work, he suggested that they “had to nothing to fear but fear itself”.

As we move into a new election year in 2008, a different kind of fear is being evoked in the mind of Americans. The tragedy of 9/11 has left Americans suspicious, panicky, confused, angry and even revengeful. Unfortunately the administration of George W Bush has played on these emotions to heighten the paranoia of many Americans about the possibility of future terrorist attacks, enabling W to stream roll dodgy legislation through congress (the infamous Patriot Act) and implement illegal practices (wiretapping and unlawful detentions at Guantanamo) that undermine the civil rights of Americans and the protection of prisoners as handed down by the Geneva convention. Since 9/11, the Bush administration has continually played the fear factor for blatant political advantage and in the process severely undermined American civil liberties, the legal system and the essence of democracy.

Whatever else you can say about the co-presidency of George Bush and Dick Cheney, at least you know where they stand. We have come to expect hawkish and aggressive foreign policy, disregard and contempt for the co-equal branch of government as defined in the Constitution (the House and Senate) and an inability to accept accountability and responsibility for bad policy decisions (where do I even start). Republicans have long professed themselves to be better at protecting America in times of war than Democrats but that concept is laughable now in light of the presidency of George W Bush. You would have thought therefore that current Republican presidential candidates would be less inclined to advertise themselves at being better equipped to protect the country than their Democratic counterparts. Not likely. Not only are the Republican candidates hawkish on continuing the war in Iraq and still saber-rattling over possible conflict with Iran regardless of recent developments, they also have the gall to say that America would be less protected under a Democratic president and that the country would see a return to pre 9/11 complacency and inaction.

Step forward one Rudolph Giuliani. The self proclaimed “Mayor of America”, Giuliani has raised the blood pressure of Democrats across the country with his contention that Democrats are somehow unpatriotic and disinterested in taking the fight to the terrorists. This is an unbelievable statement from a man that it is now known did nothing as Mayor of New York to protect the city from a terrorist attack after the World Trade Centre was first targeted in 1993. Giuliani had 7 years from the time of his inauguration as mayor in 1994 to ready the city for the possibility of a future attack. In a mind boggling decision, Giuliani decided to locate the headquarters of the Office of Emergency Management (long identified as a target for a terrorist attack) INSIDE the World Trade Centre, even though that very same building had been targeted previously in 1993 and was as we found out on 9/11 the chief target for Al Qaeda in the United States.

In addition, Giuliani has received much criticism for the significant communication failures that hampered the response and recovery effort on 9/11 and the following days and weeks. The lack of working walkie-talkies, which had been an ongoing issue in the 1990’s in New York City, has led many of the 9/11 families, as well as members of the fire, police and emergency services to protest at Giuliani for President rallies. The groundswell of anti-Giuliani feeling has included the Fire-Fighters Union of America refusing to endorse Giuliani for President and they have posted an open letter on their website criticizing the former mayor for the “egregious acts he committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11 and our New York City union officers following that horrific day”. Not to mention the fact that Giuliani has reportedly earned over $20M in speaking fees since 2001 on so called leadership and the importance of winning the war on terror. Giuliani's recent performance on "Meet the Press" was a disaster, sniggering and side-stepping his way through a minefield of scandal curveballs tossed at him by Tim Russert.

The hypocrisy of candidates like Rudy Giuliani who continue to play the fear card for pure political advantage on the one hand, while being shown to be at best careless and at worst downright irresponsible in the aftermath of 9/11 on the other, underlines that if this guy is elected President we can look forward to another 4 years of Bush style policies and the continued erosion of the values that make this country great.

America needs to wake up to the divisiveness and moral corruption of candidates like Giuliani, and fast.

"Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery...."(Jack Paar 1918-2004)

2007-12-06T21:57:00.000-08:00

"There is nothing less to our credit than our neglect of the foreigner and his children; unless it be the arrogance most of us betray when we set out to ‘Americanize’ him” – Charles Horton Cooley 1864-1929 – American sociologist

I recently sat down to see a movie that I had eagerly anticipated watching for quite a while called “The Good Shepherd”. Directed by one of my favorite actors, Robert De Niro; who also plays a small but significant part in the film, the storyline is based around the formation in the early 1940’s of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services, the OSS. A wartime intelligence and counter intelligence agency, it was the predecessor to the infamous CI.A. Late on in the film there is a scene between the chief character played by Matt Damon, and Joe Pesci, who plays famous crime boss Joseph Palmi. A discussion ensues where both men are discussing the fact that America is a melting pot of mixed nationalities and cultures, a nation essentially of immigrants.

Pesci speaks about many of the chief immigrant nationalities in America and what it is that is important and dear to each of their cultures. For example, and to paraphrase Pesci, the Italians have family and the Church, the Irish have the homeland and the Jews have their tradition. Pesci then turns to Damon and asks him what Americans have, to which he responds that Americans have America and that “…you are all just visiting”, a reference to the dozens of immigrant cultures represented in American society.

This comment resonated with me at the time because it summed up in one sentence the way I am sure many Americans feel about the level of immigration into their country. While the issue of immigration, illegal or otherwise, has been an ongoing topic of debate in this country for decades; it periodically raises its head every 10 or 20 years or so and consumes the national debate almost to saturation point.

Over twenty years ago, Ronald Reagan granted what was essentially amnesty to the illegal immigrant population of the United States, wiping clean the slate and allowing hard working immigrants to come out of the woodwork and the shadows and become legitimate. The Morrison and Donnelly visa lotteries helped the Irish, both here in the U.S. and in Ireland, to fully participate in the American dream. I have yet to meet an Irish person here in the United States who has failed to prosper. For sure, many still miss home and because of their still as yet unresolved status can’t return home, they still thrive and have a reasonable to good standard of living. Here in San Francisco, which became a haven for Irish people in the 1990’s after the city declared itself a city of sanctuary for illegal immigrants in 1989, there is a thriving Irish sub culture where people from home come together to socialize, participate in sport and network at business events where we give each other business, all while fully participating in the American way of life.

In the last couple of years, the issue of immigration has monopolized the national agenda here. In the wake of 9/11 and the need to secure America’s borders against potential terrorist attacks, many see the wave of ongoing illegal immigration as a security threat, not to mention the so called financial drain on the existing American middle class. Here in California the issue is very real, what with the consistent flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries that come into the United States through the Mexican border. It is now estimated that there is somewhere in the region of between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, 6 million of which live in California.

While illegal immigrants come from many nations, and included in that is a healthy number of Irish, it is fair to say that the immigration debate centers on the Latino and South East Asian communities. The fact that a huge percentage of Mexican and/or Asian immigrants don’t speak English and are slow to embrace the concept of learning English and fully immersing themselves in the American way of life, has not helped their cause. In addition, the continued hemorrhaging of people across the U.S. southern border has given rise to huge concern over national security.

Earlier this summer, the outlook was reasonably good for the passage of the Kennedy/Kyl Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. With the backing of President Bush, this new bill proposed creating a new classification of visa, entitled a “Z” visa, which would legitimize anyone that had entered the United States illegally prior to January 1st 2007, subject to them paying a $5,000 fine and agreeing to return to their homeland (and return) sometime in the next 8 years. The debate was furious, the detractors of the bill considering it to be blatant amnesty, its supporters calling it a mechanism to legitimize millions of workers. After weeks of debate in congress and a number of votes, the bill was defeated. The defeat was a crushing blow to the domestic agenda of President Bush and in particular to the hopes of millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.

I am one of the lucky ones. I married an American citizen this year and while my naturalization process involved a lot of paperwork, a couple of nervous interviews, and a few thousand dollars (hey, it’s still America and capitalism lives!) my green card was approved with little fuss in July this year. While I was able to celebrate, I know that there are many Irish here in San Francisco, including a number of Ennis people, who will be bitterly disappointed that the immigration bill didn’t pass congress. Political commentators predict that because the first presidential primaries are due to be held next January, and 2008 being a Presidential election year, the immigration initiative is dead at least until the new President, hopefully a Democrat; is inaugurated in January 2009. It then remains to be seen how high a priority the immigration issue will be for the 44th President.

The Audacity of Hope

2007-11-24T13:28:00.000-08:00

“The ideals at the core of the American experience, and the values that bind us together despite our differences, remain alive in the hearts and minds of most Americans” – Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois and Democratic candidate for President.

Thanksgiving is traditionally a time when millions of Americans across the country make a special effort to be close to their loved ones. Since the celebration of the first Thanksgiving Day in 1619, when 38 English settlers came together near Jamestown in the old British colony of Virginia to mark “…a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God”, this national holiday has evolved into a event in many ways as big as Christmas, where family participation involves everyone from the youngest to the most senior. It is at times like this when the thoughts of Americans also turn to those who are serving overseas in the armed forces, mostly notably today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is the fifth Thanksgiving of the Iraq war and Americans have reached their threshold. A poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post at the beginning of November showed that 75% of Americans want their next President to take the country in a new direction. Bush is well and truly a lame duck and his focus now is on trying to salvage something, anything, from this administration that will save him from going down in history as one of America’s worst presidents.

The American public’s cynicism with the politics of Washington began with Watergate, when Richard Nixon was forced to resign as President rather than be impeached by the Congress. Since Watergate, partisan politics has governed the day to day running of the country, where special interests, lobby groups, nepotism, cronyism and downright criminality have been the order of the day. Forty seven million Americans still have no private healthcare, the income gap between the rich and the poor has come full circle back to where it was in the 1920’s and the confidence that Americans have in their political institutions is at an all time low.

Americans are tired of Beltway politics. The current candidates for President, both Democratic and Republican, are an eclectic mix of Washingtonian insiders and fresh, energetic politicians that have made their reputation outside of the day to day cocoon that envelope those who spend their days on Capitol Hill. Washington has a way of insulating politicians to the point where they begin living in a parallel universe; one that is disconnected from the issues that the average Mr. and Mrs. America have to contend with on a day to day basis. The current rivalry between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama is a clear example of the power of the status quo on one hand against a desire for a real, lasting change in the way politics is operated in America.

The appeal of the Obama campaign is that here is a man, a black man, still in his mid ‘40’s and a relative newcomer to Washington who is appealing to America’s desire for a real and significant change in direction in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt did in 1932 and John Kennedy did in 1960.

This month my wife and I and some friends went to see Barack Obama speak at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium in San Francisco. On a cold Wednesday night in the middle of November, the queue outside to go in and see the Senator was 8 blocks long, an estimated 7,000 people. As we waited patiently to get in, the Obama motorcade pulled up outside the building. Energized by the crowd, Obama jumped out, grabbed a loudspeaker and began addressing the gathering in the streets. Under the protection of secret service personnel, a “perk” that all presidential candidates have been granted since the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968, Obama mingled as best he could, shook some hands and spoke for a few minutes. My wife and I were 20 feet away from the Senator and he was electrifying. Later inside, he spoke with passion and strength that moved many in the audience.

The audacity of hope that Obama is talking about in this campaign is something that every American understands. In a week where former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan came out, and in an excerpt from his upcoming book accused Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and George Bush of deliberately covering up the Valarie Plame Wilson CIA leak case, Americans are again reminded of the cynicism and criminality that has pervaded the administration of George W Bush. The leaking of Wilson’s name as a covert CIA operative to the press was done to embarrass her husband, Joseph Wilson, who was a former ambassador to Iraq and a chief critic of the Bush/Cheney reasoning for prosecuting the war in Iraq, i.e. the existence of WMD.

In less than a year Americans will go to the polls to elect a new President. For me, it is not surprising that Obama has energized the presidential campaign in the way he has, especially when you consider that in every year since 1980 a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the position of President or Vice President in the White House. Americans are tired of the same-old, same-old style of politics; I see it and hear it everywhere I go. Whether it will be enough to win Obama the Democratic presidential nomination remains to be seen. His chief challenger, Hilary Clinton, is the toughest, shrewdest competitor in town and she is still the front runner in all the national polls. Stay tuned…

Taking The Pulse of America

2007-10-31T18:51:00.000-07:00

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” – Thomas Jefferson (1762- 1826) - 3rd President of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence

The news this week that the Iowa Democratic Party has voted to bring forward the date of its caucuses to January 3rd has, for many, brought the presidential election campaign of 2008 sharply into focus. While national polls have Hillary Clinton enjoying a 30 point advantage over her nearest challenger Barack Obama, the most recent survey of potential caucus voters in Iowa show the two Democratic heavyweights in a statistical dead heat.

Some commentators are already referring to Clinton as the nominee, however as history has shown, a candidate with a big lead in the national polls going into the first big caucus challenge of Iowa should not take the nomination for granted. So before Hillary self anoints herself as the nominee she should recall what happened to Howard Dean in 2004. Going into the Hawkeye state caucuses four years ago, Dean held a commanding lead over John Kerry only for Kerry to win and go on to the nomination while Dean’s campaign imploded.

There is no doubt that there is a ground swell of support for radical change in the way government works in this country. The majority of Americans want to become engaged in the political process, however their sense of reality is being continually blurred by the ineptitude (and timidity) of most of the television and cable news networks to talk in any real, substantive way to the issues facing Americans today. On the other hand, FOX News is essentially the propaganda arm of the Bush White House and a host of fear mongering racists from Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter to Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh are using issues like immigration, terrorism, religion and the so called liberal agenda to scare the crap out of people.

Amidst the cacophony however there are some people out there that can not only speak in a constructive way to the issues facing Americans today, but to also suggest workable solutions. And you know what? The public wants to listen.

Last night I, along with 750 others, each paid between $15 and $25 to attend a lecture given by New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman in downtown San Francisco. I was fascinated that such a crowd would turn out to hear a journalist speak on a cold Tuesday evening the night before Halloween. That was before I found out that Krugman is the author of 20 books and also a Professor of Economics at Princeton University. Krugman treated us to a 90 minute lesson on the history of American politics and economics since FDR's New Deal of the 1930’s.

In summary, he contends that economic policy IS driven by politics and that race is the card that has been played by Republicans to win elections over the past 40 years. Quoting a myriad of statistics, Krugman outlined why, since the adoption of the so-called “Southern Strategy” by Richard Nixon in 1968, white Southern males have left the Democratic Party and switched their allegiance to the GOP. Republicans have never been able to run on their economic record so they have appealed instead to people’s base fears and prejudices; initially race and segregation and latterly religion, national defense and terrorism.

As a result, government policy is directly affected by ideology, which in turn directly impacts the economy. It comes as no surprise therefore to learn that in the last 7 years of the Bush presidency, where the country has been at war for over 6 of those 7 years, America has not had a balanced budget and the national debt of the United States has almost doubled, while on the other hand no progress has been made, for example, on universal health care for all Americans.

The moral of the Krugman lecture, however, is that Americans want to engage with their politicians on the issues. The many questions from the floor last night were insightful and clearly thought through. Barack Obama is coming to San Francisco in mid November so I myself will have an opportunity to hear his message for America. For the Democratic candidates going into the Iowa caucuses, rhetoric, double speak and clichés will no longer suffice for voters. We have had 7 years of that and America is morally bankrupt because of it.

Election '08 Comment: Fred Thompson and the Personality of Toilet Brushes

2007-10-20T07:18:00.000-07:00

“The achievements which society rewards are won at the cost of diminution of personality” – Carl Jung, Swiss Psychiatrist 1875-1961

With a little over three months to go before the start of the 2008 Presidential primary season, the race for the Republican nomination is beginning to take shape. Whilst the staying power of third tier candidates like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul is admirable, the combination of their lack of adequate support within the GOP grass roots, severely restricted campaign budgets and practically no national media coverage means that they will fall by the wayside even before “Super Tuesday” next March. They are consigned to join Jim Gilmore and Sam Brownback as early casualties of a long campaign cycle.

Perhaps not surprisingly we are left with the usual suspects to fight it out for the nomination, Messrs Giuliani, Romney and McCain. While each is an attractive candidate to different elements of the Republican base, none of them can command cross party support for reasons as diverse as religion, abortion, gay rights, fiscal policy and the war in Iraq.

Enter Fred Thompson; actor, senator, lawyer and former lobbyist. In a race where the vast majority of Republicans were, and are, not happy with the choice available to them in 2008, Thompson was seen by many as the ideal candidate who could garner cross party support. His conservative voting record in the Congress and support of the Iraq war, coupled with his dominant physical presence and actors’ charisma led many romantics within the GOP to believe that Thompson was the Ronald Reagan of the 21st century.

After less than 60 days as an announced candidate however, my instincts tell me that the light has already gone out for Thompson. Despite an initial shot in the arm after announcing his candidacy on September 5th, he has slipped back to the position he held in the minds of voters prior to getting in the race. His performance at the most recent Republican presidential debate in Michigan was awful, where he looked ill prepared, not fully versed on the issues, and gave way completely to Giuliani and Romney whose strong personalities and presence dominated the event.

His inability to effectively engage on the issues and argue his position was striking to most commentators, including many leaders in the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party. In what seems like an ominous development for Thompson’s chances, he was recently thrashed by James Dobson, founder of “Focus on the Family, thusly, “He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to’….and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail. And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

For me, I have never understood Thompson’s appeal. I see him as a wooden and one dimensional character with, to borrow a quote from one of my best friends, about as much personality as a toilet brush.

October 2007: The Political Rehabilitation of Al Gore

2007-10-14T14:11:00.000-07:00

“As for the battle, that ends tonight. I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shake the soul and let the glory out” – Vice President Al Gore in his concession speech in 2000 after the U.S. Supreme Court handed the election to George W. Bush

The Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, once wrote that “the best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury”. In the annals of American presidential politics this was never truer than for Albert A. Gore Jr.; for the man who used to self deprecatingly refer to himself as the former next President of the United States is today experiencing the sweetest revenge over his arch nemesis George W. Bush. During the 1992 presidential campaign against Bill Clinton, Bush’s father, sitting president George H.W. Bush, mocked Gore as the “…ozone man”, however it has been Gore’s dedication to raising awareness on the phenomenon of global warming that this month led the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to honor him for his enduring work over a period of twenty years.

At a time in his presidency when Bush’s popularity numbers are hovering at about 30%, the decision of the Nobel Committee is sweet, sweet revenge for the man who was actually elected President of the United States in 2000, before the highest court in the land snubbed its nose at 225 years of judicial precedent and decided to enter the presidential debate and hand the Presidency to the Governor of Texas. As president, Bush has proceeded to ignore the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations framework on climate change, ratified by 172 sovereign nations and a deal part brokered by then Vice President Al Gore. At a time when the European Union and other leading industrial nations are making efforts to reduce carbon emissions and their dependence on fuels that harm the earth’s atmosphere, the United States under this president has shirked its responsibility.

In the aftermath of the award, it is perhaps natural that the thoughts of many have turned to whether Gore will now enter the race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. An independent draft Gore campaign has been working for months to build support across the country for a potential candidacy but Gore himself has refused to be drawn into the debate. It is completely understandable that the man who believes that he has been already elected President once, would not have the stomach for another run at the White House. There is no doubt that Al Gore would like to be President but there are many valid reasons why he shouldn’t and probably won’t run.

Firstly, as an undeclared candidate he is running at about a 12% preference rating among potential Democratic primary voters. That places him about 35 points behind Hillary Clinton and about 15 points behind Barack Obama. Even though an announced candidacy now would give him an immediate boost in the polls, the lack of a campaign organization, as well as the fact that most serious political donors have already committed vital election cash to the existing candidates, means that Gore would almost certainly come up short in the primaries.

Secondly, it is fair to say that Gore can have a bigger impact on the global warming debate by remaining outside the election cycle that will engulf the country in the next 13 months. If he were to enter the primaries now, his attention would be diverted to dealing with the many other significant issues facing the United States today, thereby sharply reducing his ability to drive on the environmental cause at a time when the topic is foremost in the minds of humanity.

Democrats believe that Gore rightly won the election in 2000 and that the result was illegally stolen from him. After two utterly disastrous Bush presidencies one can only look back and wonder what might have been, had the will of the American people been recognized and Al Gore been inaugurated in January 2001. It is inconceivable that the United States and the world would not have been in a much better state had Gore been America’s 43rd president.

As for the presidential election of 2008, David Remnick of “The New Yorker” magazine offers this opinion. “It may be that Gore really has lost his taste for electoral politics, and that, no matter what turn the polls and events take, an Al-versus-Hillary psychodrama in 2008 is not going to happen. There is no substitute for Presidential power, but Gore is now playing a unique role in public life. He is a symbol of what might have been”.

The rehabilitation of Al Gore is complete, and not before time.

September 2007: Bye, bye Gonzo

2007-10-05T13:26:00.000-07:00

“Every clique is a refuge for incompetence. It fosters corruption and disloyalty; it begets cowardice, and consequently is a burden upon and a drawback to the progress of the country. Its instincts and actions are that of the pack” – Madame Chiang Kai-Shek”

The website of the US Department of Justice states that “…the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested”. What it doesn’t say, but should, is that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States should have the requisite prosecutorial qualifications and experience, be endowed with strong and effective leadership skills, be impartial and non biased in enforcing the law, uphold the Constitution and most importantly be competent. Unfortunately, the now former Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, failed the test in the vast majority of these qualifications. Just so you don’t think that I am picking on Gonzo, as he has become affectionately known in the U.S. media, I will be the first to admit that Gonzales is only one of many former Attorneys General who have either been handed this plum job through nepotism (Robert F Kennedy/Presidency of JFK) or been convicted of corruption and political cover up while in office (John Mitchell/Presidency of Richard Nixon); only days after his departure, Gonzales is being hailed as one of America’s worst Attorney Generals and very likely its most partisan.

Leaving the incompetence and the partisanship to one side, perhaps the greatest accusation to be leveled at Gonzales is that, while ostensibly the Attorney General of the United States, he was in fact a Bush puppet, a private lawyer pulling the levers of powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the land at the behest of President Bush. Since Gonzales was sworn in as AG in January 2005 there has been a catalogue of events that have proven this to be the case, not least the Machiavellian way that Gonzales authorized the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys (all Democrats) for supposedly poor job performance at the end of 2006. In the last 6 months it has transpired that all 8 were in fact among the best performing U.S. Attorneys in the country, spurring the Congress into a flurry of investigation and subpoena issuing not seen since the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. Throughout the entire investigative process, during which Gonzales testified under oath before various Congressional committees, he repeatedly lied about his involvement in various Bush sponsored initiatives; from illegal wiretapping, to the firing of U.S. attorneys for blatantly partisan reasons to usurption of the so called Patriot Act to undermine the civil liberties of Americans.

However, when you analyze the Gonzales biography, you encounter the same recurring themes of cronyism and corruption that have been synonymous with Bush insiders like Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. Bush is notorious for protecting his inside “family” and has consistently rewarded old colleagues and buddies from his years as Governor of Texas with plum appointments within the government. What seems lost on the President however is the fact that most of his buddies have been conspicuously under-qualified and in some cases; downright incompetent, to do the job. Enter Alberto Gonzales. It has been known for years that Bush refers to his friend Gonzales as “Fredo”, leaving many commentators unable to resist making the comparison between this modern day gangster George Bush and his weak yet loyal underling, Alberto Gonzales, and the famous Godfather relationship between Michael Corleone and his weak and easy going younger brother Fredo.

At a time when the Bush administration can’t take any more political heat, whether it is from Democrats, the media or in excess of 70% of the American population, George Bush did what Michael Corleone did; he consigned his own Fredo to the deep, dark waters of political oblivion. Depending on what political pundit you talk to you will hear phrases like “…he walked the plank for George Bush”, “…Gonzales resigned before he was fired”, “…he was thrown under the bus by President Bush”, however one thing is for sure, Gonzales was sacrificed to save George Bush further public humiliation. Bush carried out a controlled explosion on Alberto Gonzales before his own Fredo timed out, self detonated and brought the whole White House down with him.

August 2007: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove

2007-10-05T13:17:00.000-07:00

"I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.” – Adlai E. Stevenson, Democratic Governor of Illinois 1949-1953, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 1961-1965 and twice beaten by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower for President in 1952 and 1956.

In the year 405 B.C., Greek playwright Euripides died when he was mauled and killed by a pack of bloodthirsty dogs loosed upon him by one of his rivals. Enter into the lexicon the term, “every dog has his day”, the context of the term being that “even the lowliest person will at some time get revenge on his oppressor, no matter how powerful the man may be”. In the life and times of Karl Christian Rove, alternately referred to as “Bush’s brain”, “the architect” or “boy genius”, his own Greek tragedy is finally playing out in full glory in front of the American people. This month, the man who has been at the side of George W. Bush for 34 years and who has been Bush’s chief advisor since W won his first election as Texas governor in 1994, has announced that he will resign his position effective August 31st. In an expansive ceremony on the White House lawn, with the presidential helicopter sitting in the background, Bush lauded his political ally of half a lifetime. With Rove embroiled in bitter battles with the now Democratically controlled Congress over his Machiavellian involvement in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in 2003 and the firing last year of 9 Democratic U.S. District Attorney’s, it’s not surprising that Democrats are saying good riddance to W’s right hand man. Congress has issued subpoenas in Rove’s name, demanding he testify under oath to his involvement in these and other controversies, but he has been saved time and again by Bush exerting what is called executive privilege, a right he has under the Constitution to keep conversations in the White House free from disclosure. Bush is walking a delicate path, as Richard Nixon found out in 1974 when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that secret White House tapes be handed over to the Congress, which eventually resulted in Nixon’s resignation from office. We are not yet at that point and time will tell if the Democrats will intensify their hounding of Rove now that he is a regular citizen again. One thing is for sure, Rove is as shrewd a political operative as one can expect to find and be in no doubt that he hasn’t decided to ride off into the sunset unless he feels he will be adequately protected by executive privilege for the rest of his days.

Karl Rove has been involved in politics since 1968, when as an 18 year old he got involved in the Utah Republican Party. Two years later, and in perhaps the first glimpse at the kind of political dirty tricks that Rove would employ in the coming decades, he used a false identity to enter the campaign office of a Democrat running for the office of Illinois State Treasurer, stole 1000 sheets of campaign letterhead, printed fake campaign fliers promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing” and distributed them at rock concerts and other events, with the effect of disrupting the campaign of the Democrat. Even though he was granted his draft deferment to serve in Vietnam due to him being classified as a University student, records now show that Rove was only a part time student before dropping out completely in 1972. In 1973, a serious of bizarre circumstances brought Karl Rove to the attention of the then Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC); George H.W. Bush, later Bush 41. Rove became a special assistant to Bush the elder in the early 1970’s on the RNC and thus was born the Rove-Bush relationship that would ultimately catapult Bush’s son, W, to the White House.

The relationship between Rove and Bush the elder has been rocky to say the least. He was fired by Bush 41 not once, but twice, first in 1980 during H.W. Bush’s unsuccessful bid for the White House and then again in 1992 when Bush senior was running for a second term as President, this time against Bill Clinton. Interestingly, he was fired on both occasions for planting and leaking information to the press, the second time to conservative columnist Robert Novak. They say coincidences never happen twice, so no one was really surprised when in 2003 the same Robert Novak told the world that the man who told him that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and said exactly that in his newspaper column; was none other than Karl Rove. Rove masterminded the election of George W Bush as governor of Texas in 1994 and 1998. Famously, one anecdote stands out from the ’94 election. Allegedly, Rove used pollsters to call voters to ask such things as whether people “…would be more or less inclined to vote for (incumbent) Governor Ann Richards if they knew her staff were dominated by lesbians”. While only circumstantial evidence links Rove to these activities, his history as a political operative leaves one with little doubt as to his modus operandi.

The chief reason Rove is hated by Democrats is because they believe that he is responsible for stealing the election from Al Gore in 2000. For anyone that is in any doubt about Karl Rove’s influence on the outcome of the 2000 election and the subsequent manipulation of the feelings and anxieties of the American people in a post 9/11 world, pick up a copy of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” at your local video store. The first time I saw it was on the day of its release in American cinemas in June 2004 in Modesto, California, at an 11am showing. The cinema was packed to the rafters and the movie received a 5 minute standing ovation. It is a damning indictment of how Karl Rove, Jeb Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore and in the words of one American political commentator, Chris Matthews, elevated a man to be Chief Executive who by himself hadn’t the intelligence to be President.

To quote another commonly used expression, Karl Rove’s chickens are now coming home to roost. Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff in the administration of Ronald Reagan recently commented on Rove, “The problem for Karl was that the art of campaigning required different talents than the art of governing. In the art of campaigning, it fundamentally has to do with defeating your opponent. The art of governing means you have to hold your opponent closely and continue to cultivate him or her for the next vote and the next vote and the next vote”. To quote Al Fournier of the Associated Press however, “…that was never Rove's style. His combative nature no doubt influenced what may have been Bush's biggest mistake -- using Sept. 11 to divide Democrats and Republicans rather than uniting the public behind a grand cause or shared sacrifice. He was the perfect strategist for an imperfect era, when polarization and the pursuit of power often trumps common sense and decency”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. In the end, every dog DOES have his day.