The vote was 244-188, with Republicans unanimous in opposition despite Obama's frequent pleas for bipartisan support.
- AP lede 1/28/2009 on the House vote on the Obama Stimulus package.
The Republicans continue to shoot themselves in the political foot, and demonstrate the political skills that have left them with statistical majority in only five states in the Union. The House Republicans knew that they were going to lose this vote. They knew that under House rules they could only wave at the bill as it sailed through on its way to the Senate, where they would have to rely on Republican Senators to change the package.
So, the only thing the House Republicans could do was to play to the public. So what did they do? Wise Republican leadership would have looked around for 10-15 Representatives who are about to retire or who come from safe seats and make them vote for the stimulus bill. That way the House Republicans could say to the public “I understand your struggle, we have concerns but we are willing to work with the President.” The House Republicans would buy points with the new administration which they could use later. Having some throw-away votes on the other side would also give the Republicans some credibility when they criticized the stimulus package.
But they ignored all of these possibilities and voted against the bill – unanimously. As a result the headlines have been negative and people think they voted “No” just because the bill came from a Democrat, and not because they were operating from some guiding principle. The public looks at the Republicans complaining about the amount of spending in this bill and remembers a friend, a reformed smoker who is constantly nagging everyone else to quit.
This type of short sighted behavior is why according to Gallup Poll’s State of the States report released 1/28/2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx) the Republicans have a statistically significant advantage in party registration in only five states – Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska and Wyoming. Together these states have 20 Electoral votes out of the 271 needed to win the Presidency.
Democrats also now have the greatest advantage in party identification (36% Dem v. 28% Rep.) since 1983. (Gallup Poll report released on 1/23/2009 http://www.gallup.com/poll/113947/Democrats-2008-Advantage-Party-Largest.aspx). What is hard for the Republicans in these numbers is that in 2004 the Democrats and Republicans were tied at 34% each for party identification. But by 2008 the Democrats have gained 3% points in Party ID and the Republicans have lost 5%. This shows people are not necessarily flocking to the Democrats as much as they are fleeing the Republicans.
As the Republican Party gets smaller the extreme wing will exert tighter control, driving more conservative Democrats and Independents away. The National Republican party will look increasingly like the California Republican Party, who have a nominally RINO Governor and the Secretary of State as their only two statewide office holders, and a small minority in the Assembly. The California Republicans are marginalized, hyper partisan, and unpopular. They continue to shrink in size, as voters’ view them as being intellectually bankrupt and ill equipped to solve the state’s problems.
The more the Republicans unite in opposition, without offering alternatives, the more they will be viewed as being opposition for opposition’s sake, and the easier it will be for the Democrats to paint them as roadblocks. By not casting a single vote for the stimulus package the Republicans missed a good opportunity to begin to broaden their reach and restore their credibility. Unfortunately for them they missed their chance, and will continue to wander in the desert.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Enemies - Foreign and Domestic
“There’s a lot of discomfort about the idea of bringing the detainees into the United States. That’s why I’ve suggested Alcatraz”
- Rep C.W. Bill Young (R), Fla 10th District - Ranking Republican on the House Defense Appropriations Committee
President Obama has taken a step towards erasing a blot from the American conscience and has issued orders to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. One hopes that American History will look back at Gitmo with the same shame that it now views the Japanese internment program from WWII. Obama has also ordered the CIA to close all their clandestine prison sites and conform to the Amy Field Manual’s rules of interrogation, which are based on the Geneva conventions for the proper treatment of prisoners of war.
Obama’s executive orders are clear. (To read them you can go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/). No detainee will be released without having their case reviewed by a commission that includes the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, the head of the NIA, and the Secretary of Defense. None of the prisoners who remain in custody after this review will be transferred to a local jurisdiction in the United States. Each detainee will remain in Federal custody, not state and not local
The Republicans are doing all they can to scare us about the detainees Obama is sure to let on the street. According to such leading Republican thinkers like Rush Limbaugh there will soon be an Arab terrorist living near you thanks to President B. Hussein Obama. The logic here is that if you are in Gitmo you must be a terrorist. All 250 remaining detainees are prepared to declare jihad the moment US transport planes unload them in Vegas, with a $12 meal voucher and a new suit.
This fear is why we are now discussing with a straight face the possibility of relocating detainees to Alcatraz (Note to Rep. Young, Alcatraz is part of the United States as is the rest of San Francisco). The Republicans have adopted this tactic of misdirection so as to not have to discuss how useless the torture of prisoners has been and how little we received in return for this mortgage of American honor. They would have to admit we would never be able use any evidence from these “enhanced techniques” in a trial. The evidence would be so tainted it would have to be thrown out. Many of these prisoners have been held without bail, legal counsel, a view of the evidence, or a chance to defend themselves. Because of the irresponsibility of the Bush policies, these prisoners could be held for the rest of their lives without knowing why they were picked up or what the charges against them were.
CNN reports that since 2002, the Bush administration sanctioned the release and repatriation of 520 detainees. Just how dangerous are these released detainees? If past is prologue - not very. In March of 2008 the Pentagon reported 37 detainees had returned to or were suspected of having returned to the battlefield. The Pentagon is now saying that number is 61, with 18 having been confirmed to have returned to terrorist activities. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gitmo.detainees/). The others are suspected of having terrorist contact but there is no proof of their activities.
Now aside from the fact that the Pentagon numbers seem to be moving around, confirmed recidivism for released Gitmo detainees is 0.0346%. Cold comfort to their victims, but another way to look at this is 97% of detainees released from Gitmo since 2002 have returned to their lives. According to the Pentagon they have not taken up arms against the US or her allies. Even if one assumes that all 61 detainees have taken up terrorist activities this still means 88% of released detainees, according to the Pentagon, are not posing a terrorist threat.
What is extraordinary about these Executive orders from Obama is not what they do, but that they had to be done. The America that Bush inherited from Clinton did not have torture as an openly stated policy. Yet since 9/11/2001 we as a nation have accepted torture as an instrument of national policy. We accepted this in spite of all the blood that was spilled in the 20th Century to defeat Governments that tortured and abridged rights.
In May of 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against the provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.” The Bush administration proved the truth of these words. It is up to the Obama administration to show the world we can restore these liberties while standing up to “danger, real or pretended from abroad.”
- Rep C.W. Bill Young (R), Fla 10th District - Ranking Republican on the House Defense Appropriations Committee
President Obama has taken a step towards erasing a blot from the American conscience and has issued orders to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. One hopes that American History will look back at Gitmo with the same shame that it now views the Japanese internment program from WWII. Obama has also ordered the CIA to close all their clandestine prison sites and conform to the Amy Field Manual’s rules of interrogation, which are based on the Geneva conventions for the proper treatment of prisoners of war.
Obama’s executive orders are clear. (To read them you can go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/). No detainee will be released without having their case reviewed by a commission that includes the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, the head of the NIA, and the Secretary of Defense. None of the prisoners who remain in custody after this review will be transferred to a local jurisdiction in the United States. Each detainee will remain in Federal custody, not state and not local
The Republicans are doing all they can to scare us about the detainees Obama is sure to let on the street. According to such leading Republican thinkers like Rush Limbaugh there will soon be an Arab terrorist living near you thanks to President B. Hussein Obama. The logic here is that if you are in Gitmo you must be a terrorist. All 250 remaining detainees are prepared to declare jihad the moment US transport planes unload them in Vegas, with a $12 meal voucher and a new suit.
This fear is why we are now discussing with a straight face the possibility of relocating detainees to Alcatraz (Note to Rep. Young, Alcatraz is part of the United States as is the rest of San Francisco). The Republicans have adopted this tactic of misdirection so as to not have to discuss how useless the torture of prisoners has been and how little we received in return for this mortgage of American honor. They would have to admit we would never be able use any evidence from these “enhanced techniques” in a trial. The evidence would be so tainted it would have to be thrown out. Many of these prisoners have been held without bail, legal counsel, a view of the evidence, or a chance to defend themselves. Because of the irresponsibility of the Bush policies, these prisoners could be held for the rest of their lives without knowing why they were picked up or what the charges against them were.
CNN reports that since 2002, the Bush administration sanctioned the release and repatriation of 520 detainees. Just how dangerous are these released detainees? If past is prologue - not very. In March of 2008 the Pentagon reported 37 detainees had returned to or were suspected of having returned to the battlefield. The Pentagon is now saying that number is 61, with 18 having been confirmed to have returned to terrorist activities. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gitmo.detainees/). The others are suspected of having terrorist contact but there is no proof of their activities.
Now aside from the fact that the Pentagon numbers seem to be moving around, confirmed recidivism for released Gitmo detainees is 0.0346%. Cold comfort to their victims, but another way to look at this is 97% of detainees released from Gitmo since 2002 have returned to their lives. According to the Pentagon they have not taken up arms against the US or her allies. Even if one assumes that all 61 detainees have taken up terrorist activities this still means 88% of released detainees, according to the Pentagon, are not posing a terrorist threat.
What is extraordinary about these Executive orders from Obama is not what they do, but that they had to be done. The America that Bush inherited from Clinton did not have torture as an openly stated policy. Yet since 9/11/2001 we as a nation have accepted torture as an instrument of national policy. We accepted this in spite of all the blood that was spilled in the 20th Century to defeat Governments that tortured and abridged rights.
In May of 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against the provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.” The Bush administration proved the truth of these words. It is up to the Obama administration to show the world we can restore these liberties while standing up to “danger, real or pretended from abroad.”
Sunday, January 25, 2009
I Won
“I won”
- President Obama to the Republican Congressional delegation at a White House meeting on the economy.
Over the last five days there has been no doubt who is in charge. President Obama has issued five executive orders (three regarding Gitmo) and five Presidential memoranda, one of which reinforced the Freedom of information act and the other which lifted the controversial “Mexico City” gag rule. All this while becoming the winning answer for a bar bet (name a President who has been administered the oath of office twice in his first term) and pushing a massive stimulus package.
Obama has hit the ground running.
The country is just not use to a President who is this prepared and this engaged. We have gotten as lazy in our expectations as Bush was in his administration. Even those limited expectations dwindled since 2006, when it became evident that Bush was disengaging from his Presidency and any change the voters hoped for was going to wither in a closely divided Senate. In 2007 voters gave up and picked up the chant of a loyal Cub’s fan “Wait ‘till next year.”
The Republicans also don’t know how to act when faced with an activist President who knows his own mind. They now have to learn to think for themselves. They can no longer expect Dick Cheney to show up in their caucus every week with a sheaf of instructions from the White House. Their days of paint-by-number legislation are over. They are now struggling to decide what to draw.
What is complicating the Republican’s decision is they have not been this powerless since 1994 and they don’t realize that yet. That is why they can sit in a White House conference room with the President and feel they can make demands. From Rep. Boehner complaining about the inclusion of contraception price supports in the stimulus package to Sen. Cronyn’s hold on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s nomination, every action they take seems to underscore how hapless they are.
The press is also looking a little lost. Over the past 10 years, the White House has been a constant source of stories about scandal, incompetence and lack of vision. Now they are faced with a President and staff that are organized, hard working, experienced and who know exactly what they want. The press doesn’t know how to react.
Witness how they covered John Roberts’ return to the White House to administer the oath of office for a second time. Clearly this was a move by Obama to salve Justice Roberts’ pride. It was also a nice move by Roberts to give the President a chance to correctly recite oath he has worked so hard for the past two years to take. Instead of reminding the nation that under the 20th Amendment Obama became President at Noon on January 20th, regardless of whether or not the oath was administered, their focus was on how they all were not invited to this second swearing in. They saw this as a major betrayal of the President’s high ideal of transparency. Not since the Clinton White House Press corps was told it could no longer hang out in the hallway by the Press Secretary’s office has the White House press corps been so upset about so little.
Among the Congressional Democrats, Speaker Pelosi is the only one who understands Obama won and they are in charge. Sen. Harry Reid still acts as if the Democrats are working in an evenly divided Senate. Unlike the House where majority power is absolute, the Senate rules are designed to protect the minority and slow wishes of the majority. But Reid does not seem to believe that he has the power to stand up to the Republicans and push through the President’s agenda. Think of what LBJ would have done with the majority that Reid now has to work with. Every time I see Sen. Reid in front of a camera I want to send him my copy of “The Master of the Senate” with all the hot parts highlighted.
The Left is also learning that Obama won. They felt anyone would be better than Bush and that anyone would of course be a liberal. So it has been interesting watching the Left trying to decide how to disagree with Obama. Their reaction to the stimulus package as being too many tax cuts and not enough infrastructure spending highlights their quandary. Their arguments against Obama’s tax cuts feels knee jerk. Yet the stimulus package tax cuts are focused on the lower and middle income levels making this a genuine “trickle up” economic vehicle.
This last week has been like watching actors at the rehearsal of a play where everyone is trying to be “off-book” for the first time. They will say a few lines, freeze, mangle their words, look at their script or trip over the stage furniture. The only one who knows what should be going on is the Director, who confidently maneuvers everyone in their place and helps them learn their parts. I hope these actors learn their lines soon and Director Obama has a successful opening.
- President Obama to the Republican Congressional delegation at a White House meeting on the economy.
Over the last five days there has been no doubt who is in charge. President Obama has issued five executive orders (three regarding Gitmo) and five Presidential memoranda, one of which reinforced the Freedom of information act and the other which lifted the controversial “Mexico City” gag rule. All this while becoming the winning answer for a bar bet (name a President who has been administered the oath of office twice in his first term) and pushing a massive stimulus package.
Obama has hit the ground running.
The country is just not use to a President who is this prepared and this engaged. We have gotten as lazy in our expectations as Bush was in his administration. Even those limited expectations dwindled since 2006, when it became evident that Bush was disengaging from his Presidency and any change the voters hoped for was going to wither in a closely divided Senate. In 2007 voters gave up and picked up the chant of a loyal Cub’s fan “Wait ‘till next year.”
The Republicans also don’t know how to act when faced with an activist President who knows his own mind. They now have to learn to think for themselves. They can no longer expect Dick Cheney to show up in their caucus every week with a sheaf of instructions from the White House. Their days of paint-by-number legislation are over. They are now struggling to decide what to draw.
What is complicating the Republican’s decision is they have not been this powerless since 1994 and they don’t realize that yet. That is why they can sit in a White House conference room with the President and feel they can make demands. From Rep. Boehner complaining about the inclusion of contraception price supports in the stimulus package to Sen. Cronyn’s hold on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s nomination, every action they take seems to underscore how hapless they are.
The press is also looking a little lost. Over the past 10 years, the White House has been a constant source of stories about scandal, incompetence and lack of vision. Now they are faced with a President and staff that are organized, hard working, experienced and who know exactly what they want. The press doesn’t know how to react.
Witness how they covered John Roberts’ return to the White House to administer the oath of office for a second time. Clearly this was a move by Obama to salve Justice Roberts’ pride. It was also a nice move by Roberts to give the President a chance to correctly recite oath he has worked so hard for the past two years to take. Instead of reminding the nation that under the 20th Amendment Obama became President at Noon on January 20th, regardless of whether or not the oath was administered, their focus was on how they all were not invited to this second swearing in. They saw this as a major betrayal of the President’s high ideal of transparency. Not since the Clinton White House Press corps was told it could no longer hang out in the hallway by the Press Secretary’s office has the White House press corps been so upset about so little.
Among the Congressional Democrats, Speaker Pelosi is the only one who understands Obama won and they are in charge. Sen. Harry Reid still acts as if the Democrats are working in an evenly divided Senate. Unlike the House where majority power is absolute, the Senate rules are designed to protect the minority and slow wishes of the majority. But Reid does not seem to believe that he has the power to stand up to the Republicans and push through the President’s agenda. Think of what LBJ would have done with the majority that Reid now has to work with. Every time I see Sen. Reid in front of a camera I want to send him my copy of “The Master of the Senate” with all the hot parts highlighted.
The Left is also learning that Obama won. They felt anyone would be better than Bush and that anyone would of course be a liberal. So it has been interesting watching the Left trying to decide how to disagree with Obama. Their reaction to the stimulus package as being too many tax cuts and not enough infrastructure spending highlights their quandary. Their arguments against Obama’s tax cuts feels knee jerk. Yet the stimulus package tax cuts are focused on the lower and middle income levels making this a genuine “trickle up” economic vehicle.
This last week has been like watching actors at the rehearsal of a play where everyone is trying to be “off-book” for the first time. They will say a few lines, freeze, mangle their words, look at their script or trip over the stage furniture. The only one who knows what should be going on is the Director, who confidently maneuvers everyone in their place and helps them learn their parts. I hope these actors learn their lines soon and Director Obama has a successful opening.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Hinge of History
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
- President Barack Obama
At noon Tuesday, according to the 20th Amendment, before he took the oath of office, and just as the exposition section of John William’s arrangement of “Simple Gifts” was wrapping up Barack Obama became President.
When he stood before nearly two million people on the mall, standing on steps of built by slaves he took an oath of office written by slave holders into a Constitution that guaranteed the rights of some while guaranteeing others would be treated no better than a chair before the law.
Two million people stood on the site of a former slave market and waved their flags as the son of a marriage that would have been illegal in many states at the time of his birth showed how far we have come as a nation simply by standing there and looking back.
- President Barack Obama
At noon Tuesday, according to the 20th Amendment, before he took the oath of office, and just as the exposition section of John William’s arrangement of “Simple Gifts” was wrapping up Barack Obama became President.
When he stood before nearly two million people on the mall, standing on steps of built by slaves he took an oath of office written by slave holders into a Constitution that guaranteed the rights of some while guaranteeing others would be treated no better than a chair before the law.
Two million people stood on the site of a former slave market and waved their flags as the son of a marriage that would have been illegal in many states at the time of his birth showed how far we have come as a nation simply by standing there and looking back.
Monday, January 19, 2009
An era begins....
“I Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…”
- The opening words of the Presidential Oath of Office in less the 14 hours.
It is 1 am EST in the morning Obama will take office, and Anderson Cooper is out on the Washington Mall talking to people who are camped out, in the cold, and are excited about Barack Obama and the change in administration. It is cold, and the middle of the night, but everyone is happy, wound up and excited.
I have never seen or read about any transition like this. Obama has an 83% approval rating and Bush has a 22% approval. That difference is part of what is driving this energy. But there is more. It is not simply that Bush was a catastrophe. It is not simply that Obama is popular. I think it is because Obama has speaks to the better nature of ourselves and in so doing he gives us hope.
This evening, before the oath, the one President is finished, but the new President has not started. The future is spread before Obama like a long bolt of cloth waiting to be cut. Obama stands ready with scissors in hand, and we wait to see what he will cut out of history. And we wait to see how we can help him sew it together.
As he takes his first cut we wish him well.
- The opening words of the Presidential Oath of Office in less the 14 hours.
It is 1 am EST in the morning Obama will take office, and Anderson Cooper is out on the Washington Mall talking to people who are camped out, in the cold, and are excited about Barack Obama and the change in administration. It is cold, and the middle of the night, but everyone is happy, wound up and excited.
I have never seen or read about any transition like this. Obama has an 83% approval rating and Bush has a 22% approval. That difference is part of what is driving this energy. But there is more. It is not simply that Bush was a catastrophe. It is not simply that Obama is popular. I think it is because Obama has speaks to the better nature of ourselves and in so doing he gives us hope.
This evening, before the oath, the one President is finished, but the new President has not started. The future is spread before Obama like a long bolt of cloth waiting to be cut. Obama stands ready with scissors in hand, and we wait to see what he will cut out of history. And we wait to see how we can help him sew it together.
As he takes his first cut we wish him well.
Republicans, Building Strong Bodies Twelve Ways
Careful brand management, supported by a cleverly crafted advertising campaign, can be highly successful in convincing consumers to pay remarkably high prices for products which are inherently extremely cheap to make.
- Wikipedia - “Concepts” Section in their article on Market Branding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand)
The Republicans are struggling to find a road to the future. Obama’s decisive win, the Democrats increase of their majorities in both the House and the Senate, and the very real possibility of further increases in 2010 have gotten the Republican’s full attention. As they tank up the Chevy for their long drive through the wilderness, they are unfolding a map marked “branding” on the hood of the car and hoping to find the road back. But to find the right road back, the Republicans need to understand two things, first the theory of brands, and second the function of a political party.
People react to a brand at two levels. One level is their experience using it. The second is their psychological perception of a brand, regardless of whether or not they have used it.
A person’s direct experience does more than anything else to determine how they feel about a brand. Whether or not a passenger thinks an airline flies the friendly skies is determined entirely by how he or she is treated by the gate agent and flight attendant. If the treatment is rude, no amount of advertising will change the passenger’s opinion.
The Republicans have to change how the American people experience the Party. Whether it is the fiscal collapse and the failure of the bank bailouts to slow foreclosures, the war in Iraq, the explosion of the size of government and the squandering of the surplus, Americans do not like what they experienced when they tried the Republican brand.
The psychological perception of a brand is not determined only by direct experience with a brand. People have a perception of a brand without experiencing it at all. Drivers who have never driven a Lexus have the psychological perception that it is a luxury car. Similarly, people who have not been directly effected by the Republican Party, those people who still have jobs, homes, have not been drowned in a Hurricane or sent a family member to Iraq, view Republicans hard hearted and interested only in themselves and a narrow group of corporate executives.
While Bush has been the face of the Republican party, the other faces the Republicans have shown haven’t been good for them either. Whether it is Rove smearing a war hero like Max Cleland, Duke Cunningham writing his bribe rates on the back of his business card, or the Republican controlled House and Senate squandering the surplus, peoples’ perception of the Republican brand is negative.
People are also very sophisticated when it comes to branding. They know when they are being told something is different from their experience of it. No amount of advertising could make people think “New Coke” is the real thing. The more the Republicans market themselves to Americans differently than how they are perceived, the less people will trust them.
Republicans then, have to understand that a Political party is a group of people who share a philosophy and a set of values. A political party is all about interests and is not something that can be sold like cereal. A party is strong only when it is aligned with the values of a wide and diverse group of people. To survive, the Republicans have to figure out what the values of Americans are. I don’t mean examining “value voter” issues like how hard line to be about guns, God, and gays, but to truly understanding what Americans’ hopes and fears are, and the direction history moving. Once they have figured out these things, Republicans will have to translate that understanding into actions consistent with a philosophical framework.
So what should they do? They should operate like the “shadow government” in Great Britain. First they should step off the stage and lower their profile and let the Democrats make proposals on a wide range of issues. Then the Republicans should designate a spokesperson for each major proposal and layout substantive counterproposals that achieve the same goals while staying true to a philosophical frame work.
Rather than talking about fiscal responsibility, they should respond to the stimulus package with one that will achieve similar results and demonstrate a new care with the nation’s money. They must recognize universal health care is coming regardless of what they do. Republicans need to propose health care reforms that will truly put health care within everyone’s reach, but at a lower cost and with greater efficiency than what the Obama administration proposes.
Only when they follow this road will peoples’ image and experience of the Republicans improve, drawing likeminded voters back into the party. If they don’t take this road they will continue to drive aimlessly in the desert with their dwindling constituency in the back seat whining “Are we there yet?”
- Wikipedia - “Concepts” Section in their article on Market Branding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand)
The Republicans are struggling to find a road to the future. Obama’s decisive win, the Democrats increase of their majorities in both the House and the Senate, and the very real possibility of further increases in 2010 have gotten the Republican’s full attention. As they tank up the Chevy for their long drive through the wilderness, they are unfolding a map marked “branding” on the hood of the car and hoping to find the road back. But to find the right road back, the Republicans need to understand two things, first the theory of brands, and second the function of a political party.
People react to a brand at two levels. One level is their experience using it. The second is their psychological perception of a brand, regardless of whether or not they have used it.
A person’s direct experience does more than anything else to determine how they feel about a brand. Whether or not a passenger thinks an airline flies the friendly skies is determined entirely by how he or she is treated by the gate agent and flight attendant. If the treatment is rude, no amount of advertising will change the passenger’s opinion.
The Republicans have to change how the American people experience the Party. Whether it is the fiscal collapse and the failure of the bank bailouts to slow foreclosures, the war in Iraq, the explosion of the size of government and the squandering of the surplus, Americans do not like what they experienced when they tried the Republican brand.
The psychological perception of a brand is not determined only by direct experience with a brand. People have a perception of a brand without experiencing it at all. Drivers who have never driven a Lexus have the psychological perception that it is a luxury car. Similarly, people who have not been directly effected by the Republican Party, those people who still have jobs, homes, have not been drowned in a Hurricane or sent a family member to Iraq, view Republicans hard hearted and interested only in themselves and a narrow group of corporate executives.
While Bush has been the face of the Republican party, the other faces the Republicans have shown haven’t been good for them either. Whether it is Rove smearing a war hero like Max Cleland, Duke Cunningham writing his bribe rates on the back of his business card, or the Republican controlled House and Senate squandering the surplus, peoples’ perception of the Republican brand is negative.
People are also very sophisticated when it comes to branding. They know when they are being told something is different from their experience of it. No amount of advertising could make people think “New Coke” is the real thing. The more the Republicans market themselves to Americans differently than how they are perceived, the less people will trust them.
Republicans then, have to understand that a Political party is a group of people who share a philosophy and a set of values. A political party is all about interests and is not something that can be sold like cereal. A party is strong only when it is aligned with the values of a wide and diverse group of people. To survive, the Republicans have to figure out what the values of Americans are. I don’t mean examining “value voter” issues like how hard line to be about guns, God, and gays, but to truly understanding what Americans’ hopes and fears are, and the direction history moving. Once they have figured out these things, Republicans will have to translate that understanding into actions consistent with a philosophical framework.
So what should they do? They should operate like the “shadow government” in Great Britain. First they should step off the stage and lower their profile and let the Democrats make proposals on a wide range of issues. Then the Republicans should designate a spokesperson for each major proposal and layout substantive counterproposals that achieve the same goals while staying true to a philosophical frame work.
Rather than talking about fiscal responsibility, they should respond to the stimulus package with one that will achieve similar results and demonstrate a new care with the nation’s money. They must recognize universal health care is coming regardless of what they do. Republicans need to propose health care reforms that will truly put health care within everyone’s reach, but at a lower cost and with greater efficiency than what the Obama administration proposes.
Only when they follow this road will peoples’ image and experience of the Republicans improve, drawing likeminded voters back into the party. If they don’t take this road they will continue to drive aimlessly in the desert with their dwindling constituency in the back seat whining “Are we there yet?”
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Everyone has an Opinion
“The worst part of the Recession is behind us” – Forbes Magazine.
“No Way we will see a recovery in 2009” – Market Watch
- Two headlines next to each other on RealClearMarkets.com.
Looking at the economy today reminds me of the old joke about accounting. “Q: What’s 1+1? A: Whatever you want it to be.” Everyone has their own perspective on where the economy is and what it is going to do or not do. Everyone has a theory but no one has answer. A stimulus package will (or not – depending on your point of view) get the economy rolling again. A lot of writers such a Paul Krugman advocate heavily for the idea. However, there is a Scarlett O’Hara feel about their answers when asked about the resulting amount of massive public debt that will be loaded on the country. “We will worry about that tomorrow” the stimulus advocates say, and then they return to working out the number of zeros to write in the check.
A lot of ink has been spilled on both sides of the political aisle discussing the stimulus approach and its effect. The conservatives have started taking shots at the public works projects from the New Deal (Brit Hume’s comment “Everyone now agrees that the New Deal was a failure” is typical). The liberals blame Hoover’s determination to balance the budget for deepening the crisis. They are convinced that Hoover didn’t spend enough, soon enough, to ward off the collapse. Both sides conveniently ignore the Smoot-Hawley act which raised protectionist tariffs choking the flow of trade and capital throughout the world. Arguably this was an even greater cause of the Depression than any action by Hoover.
People can’t’ even agree on how bad or good things actually are. The two headlines that appeared next to each other on RealClearMarkets.com are typical. The writers for Forbes cite a sack full of statistics and comparisons’ demonstrating the economy is stronger than it was in November and is clearly on the upswing. (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2009/01/12/recession-stimulus-unemployment-oped-cx_bw_0113wesburystein.html) Things are looking up the writers tell us – the CPI went down 1.5% which meant spending power went up 1.5%! New claims for unemployment dropped from November to December. Theirs is an interesting argument that if we do nothing we will be ok – the worst is past us.
The author from Marketwatch disagrees. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Dont-conned-thinking-there-a/story.aspx?guid=%7BDD152E8A%2D13D9%2D4CBE%2DB444%2D7BE9F3148685%7D)
The market will continue to go down the author asserts, companies will continue to restructure, and there is no end in sight for tight credit. There may be no turn around until late 2010 or 2011. Put your money in the US dollar and Grade A Muni bonds. This is just the dark before the storm.
Before we can address the economic problems we have to understand where we are. This understanding has to develop untainted by a partisan or ideological perspective. Republicans do themselves and the country a disservice if they vote only for tax cuts and don’t back targeted spending increases and targeted tax increases. Democrats will have to understand some tax cuts are needed, and maybe not all the stimulus proposed is a wise use of money. Both sides will have to make their decisions based on what is right for the economy and not to meet an ideological requirement.
Only when everyone involved is honest on how we got in this mess, and is honest that it will take pain and sacrifice get us out of it, will we begin to move forward. Fixing these economic issues will also take compromise, trust and working together. Coming up with a stimulus package is the easy part, creating that trust will be the hard part.
But it must be done, not tomorrow but today.
“No Way we will see a recovery in 2009” – Market Watch
- Two headlines next to each other on RealClearMarkets.com.
Looking at the economy today reminds me of the old joke about accounting. “Q: What’s 1+1? A: Whatever you want it to be.” Everyone has their own perspective on where the economy is and what it is going to do or not do. Everyone has a theory but no one has answer. A stimulus package will (or not – depending on your point of view) get the economy rolling again. A lot of writers such a Paul Krugman advocate heavily for the idea. However, there is a Scarlett O’Hara feel about their answers when asked about the resulting amount of massive public debt that will be loaded on the country. “We will worry about that tomorrow” the stimulus advocates say, and then they return to working out the number of zeros to write in the check.
A lot of ink has been spilled on both sides of the political aisle discussing the stimulus approach and its effect. The conservatives have started taking shots at the public works projects from the New Deal (Brit Hume’s comment “Everyone now agrees that the New Deal was a failure” is typical). The liberals blame Hoover’s determination to balance the budget for deepening the crisis. They are convinced that Hoover didn’t spend enough, soon enough, to ward off the collapse. Both sides conveniently ignore the Smoot-Hawley act which raised protectionist tariffs choking the flow of trade and capital throughout the world. Arguably this was an even greater cause of the Depression than any action by Hoover.
People can’t’ even agree on how bad or good things actually are. The two headlines that appeared next to each other on RealClearMarkets.com are typical. The writers for Forbes cite a sack full of statistics and comparisons’ demonstrating the economy is stronger than it was in November and is clearly on the upswing. (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2009/01/12/recession-stimulus-unemployment-oped-cx_bw_0113wesburystein.html) Things are looking up the writers tell us – the CPI went down 1.5% which meant spending power went up 1.5%! New claims for unemployment dropped from November to December. Theirs is an interesting argument that if we do nothing we will be ok – the worst is past us.
The author from Marketwatch disagrees. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Dont-conned-thinking-there-a/story.aspx?guid=%7BDD152E8A%2D13D9%2D4CBE%2DB444%2D7BE9F3148685%7D)
The market will continue to go down the author asserts, companies will continue to restructure, and there is no end in sight for tight credit. There may be no turn around until late 2010 or 2011. Put your money in the US dollar and Grade A Muni bonds. This is just the dark before the storm.
Before we can address the economic problems we have to understand where we are. This understanding has to develop untainted by a partisan or ideological perspective. Republicans do themselves and the country a disservice if they vote only for tax cuts and don’t back targeted spending increases and targeted tax increases. Democrats will have to understand some tax cuts are needed, and maybe not all the stimulus proposed is a wise use of money. Both sides will have to make their decisions based on what is right for the economy and not to meet an ideological requirement.
Only when everyone involved is honest on how we got in this mess, and is honest that it will take pain and sacrifice get us out of it, will we begin to move forward. Fixing these economic issues will also take compromise, trust and working together. Coming up with a stimulus package is the easy part, creating that trust will be the hard part.
But it must be done, not tomorrow but today.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Bush's Better World
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks including recent surveillance of the federal building in New York.
- August 6, 2001 National Security Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” Declassified in April 10, 2004. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm
As the new administration approaches, the old one is busily patting itself on the back for all that is has done for America. Flacks and hacks are all over the print media, TV, talk radio and the blogosphere talking up the accomplishments of the latest Bush administration. Their focus, now that the economy has lost the equivalent of all the jobs in Missouri, has turned to Bush’s accomplishments in the national security and foreign policy arenas. Typical has been this article in the New York Post (although it could have appeared in any red state publication) “Bush’s better world; his overlooked success on Foreign Policy and Security.” (Peter Brooks, New York Post 01/11/2009 http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bushs_better_world_149578.htm?page=0)
According to Brooks, Bush has kept us safe since 9/11. “It not just by chance that there has not been another terrorist attack here at home since 9/11.” You can almost hear the fax machine from the White House press office humming in the background spitting out this talking point.
Brooks tells us Bush has stopped repeated, credible attempts to harm the US. Evidence of this is the lack of attack. This statement is pure “post hoc” logic – after this, therefore because of this. This lack of attack might have less to do with the terrorist’s fear of Michael Chertoff and the TSA, and more to do with the decision by the terrorists to strike elsewhere, such as Madrid, London, and Baghdad.
Brooks highlights a long list of plots against the US, foiled by the never ending vigilance of the Bush administration. Unfortunately for his argument each of these plots has been discredited as either idle thinking or physically impossible. A good example is the plot to blow up Kennedy Airport by igniting a fuel line. The plotters were going to ignite a fuel line some distance from the airport and it was going to burn like a fuse, ignite a gas tank and blow up the entire airport.
First off - Kennedy Airport – big place. Second with all that Jet A fuel flowing, one would think that there would be at least one safety shutoff valve in the place to protect us all from a clumsy smoker. Finally the “plotters” were going to light the fuse some distance from the airport, which fact, alone makes this impossible to do.
Yet each of the plots, no matter how implausible, has been given the same threat level of a 9/11. By giving each of these plots the potential of another 9/11 the administration risks crying wolf. We, and possibly the government will tune out any real warning in the same way we ignore the endless droning of the airport loudspeaker telling us the threat level is orange and you can’t park at the curb.
The administration has trotted so many of these unlikely foiled plots out, that one has to wonder if there even has been a credible plot since 9/11. What the Bush apologist don’t discuss is how the administration reacted before 9/11 when faced with an actual credible plot.
In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Secretary of State Rice discussed a long list of evidence that something specific was in play. On August 6, when shown the memo “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US” the President did what we have since learned is his habit when faced with a crisis – he returned to his vacation.
After 9/11, the administration did two things it does well, avoid accountability and blame Bill Clinton. Despite the repeated statements of Bush’s flacks that the US treated terrorism as a low level law enforcement issue, Secretary Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the Bush administration had, in fact, continued President Clinton’s covert policy of actions against Al Qaeda. Many of those actions, which pre-dated 9/11 in their inception and execution – such as disruption of the terrorist financial networks - are now touted as steps taken by Bush since 9/11.
The fact of the matter is, Bush and his administration, had credible evidence that a major attack was going to take place and they did nothing. 9/11 happened on their watch and it was their task to protect us.
They failed.
Bush has never taken responsibility for that failure, and he never will. He would have left us a better world had he exercised the same vigilance before 9/11 that he claims to have exercised since.
We all wish that he had.
- August 6, 2001 National Security Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” Declassified in April 10, 2004. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm
As the new administration approaches, the old one is busily patting itself on the back for all that is has done for America. Flacks and hacks are all over the print media, TV, talk radio and the blogosphere talking up the accomplishments of the latest Bush administration. Their focus, now that the economy has lost the equivalent of all the jobs in Missouri, has turned to Bush’s accomplishments in the national security and foreign policy arenas. Typical has been this article in the New York Post (although it could have appeared in any red state publication) “Bush’s better world; his overlooked success on Foreign Policy and Security.” (Peter Brooks, New York Post 01/11/2009 http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bushs_better_world_149578.htm?page=0)
According to Brooks, Bush has kept us safe since 9/11. “It not just by chance that there has not been another terrorist attack here at home since 9/11.” You can almost hear the fax machine from the White House press office humming in the background spitting out this talking point.
Brooks tells us Bush has stopped repeated, credible attempts to harm the US. Evidence of this is the lack of attack. This statement is pure “post hoc” logic – after this, therefore because of this. This lack of attack might have less to do with the terrorist’s fear of Michael Chertoff and the TSA, and more to do with the decision by the terrorists to strike elsewhere, such as Madrid, London, and Baghdad.
Brooks highlights a long list of plots against the US, foiled by the never ending vigilance of the Bush administration. Unfortunately for his argument each of these plots has been discredited as either idle thinking or physically impossible. A good example is the plot to blow up Kennedy Airport by igniting a fuel line. The plotters were going to ignite a fuel line some distance from the airport and it was going to burn like a fuse, ignite a gas tank and blow up the entire airport.
First off - Kennedy Airport – big place. Second with all that Jet A fuel flowing, one would think that there would be at least one safety shutoff valve in the place to protect us all from a clumsy smoker. Finally the “plotters” were going to light the fuse some distance from the airport, which fact, alone makes this impossible to do.
Yet each of the plots, no matter how implausible, has been given the same threat level of a 9/11. By giving each of these plots the potential of another 9/11 the administration risks crying wolf. We, and possibly the government will tune out any real warning in the same way we ignore the endless droning of the airport loudspeaker telling us the threat level is orange and you can’t park at the curb.
The administration has trotted so many of these unlikely foiled plots out, that one has to wonder if there even has been a credible plot since 9/11. What the Bush apologist don’t discuss is how the administration reacted before 9/11 when faced with an actual credible plot.
In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Secretary of State Rice discussed a long list of evidence that something specific was in play. On August 6, when shown the memo “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US” the President did what we have since learned is his habit when faced with a crisis – he returned to his vacation.
After 9/11, the administration did two things it does well, avoid accountability and blame Bill Clinton. Despite the repeated statements of Bush’s flacks that the US treated terrorism as a low level law enforcement issue, Secretary Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the Bush administration had, in fact, continued President Clinton’s covert policy of actions against Al Qaeda. Many of those actions, which pre-dated 9/11 in their inception and execution – such as disruption of the terrorist financial networks - are now touted as steps taken by Bush since 9/11.
The fact of the matter is, Bush and his administration, had credible evidence that a major attack was going to take place and they did nothing. 9/11 happened on their watch and it was their task to protect us.
They failed.
Bush has never taken responsibility for that failure, and he never will. He would have left us a better world had he exercised the same vigilance before 9/11 that he claims to have exercised since.
We all wish that he had.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Budget on Little Cat Feet
The governor's latest plan, like its predecessor, faces little chance of passage since GOP lawmakers have held firm against tax increases.
- Los Angeles Times 01/01/2009
On New Year’s eve, the proposed California state budget arrived on little cat feet, quietly creeping into Sacramento so as to not be noticed. California’s third budget confrontation in less than a year, between the Governor, the Democrats and the Republicans is underway. At the present rate of spending, California will be out of cash in February. Lenders have already stopped making loans to the state, so projects across the state are now on hold. Things are so bad that the state Comptroller went to the hospital with chest pains. Believe me, when it comes to the budget he is not alone.
The source of California’s budget issues are complex. In a recent New York Time column comparing all state Governors to Herbert Hoover, Economist Paul Krugman held Scwarzenegger up for particular scorn. To listen to Krugman, one would think the Governor was on a blind ideological journey to balance the budget, no matter what. But in fact this is not the case. California, like the each of the other States, has unique political constraints that determine their budget processes and ties their Governors’ hands.
One constraint is the California constitution requires a balanced budget. The budget must balance when it is proposed, in theory we work on a “pay as you go” state. How do you pay when you have to go? To balance any budget you have only two options – cut spending or raise taxes. The Democrats in the legislature are willing to cut some spending. But despite what the hard core right will tell you, one can only cut spending so far. Yes, there is some wasteful spending in California as there is in any government. But to say you can balance the budget and end our chronic economic crisis purely by cutting “wasteful spending” is as realistic as McCain’s response to the economic crisis by proposing to cut ear mark spending.
This of course brings you to the next option on the table and that is raise taxes – or as we like to say “enhance revenue.” The only way the legislature can raise taxes (oops-enhance revenue) is by a 2/3 majority. Thus the minority holds the cards. The Republicans in the Legislature are die-hard, pure, Howard Jarvis anti-tax believers. They have consistently stood in the way of every compromise budget proposed over the past several years. They refuse to vote for one single tax. They believe that any tax on the economy is too great a burden for the state to bear.
They turn a blind eye to the even heavier burden the state will bear if it runs out of money in February with no relief in sight. They are blind the fact the extra borrowing costs of lower bond rating far outweigh the cost of any tax hike. Still they stand in the door blocking the entrance of any budget with a tax hike. Like the Captain of the Titanic they speed blindly ahead in the dark and ice asking “what icebergs?”
In a recent budget negotiation meeting with the Governor, Swartzenegger asked the Republican leader present what it would take for the Republicans to vote for a budget. The Republican responded “I don’t know.” The Governor followed up “When will you know.” The Republican leader responded “I don’t know.”
The another reason our budget problems are so severe is the initiative process. In California, with the right amount of signatures you can get anything on the ballot. Whether you are a hard right evangelical who wants to ban gay marriage or if you are left winger who wants to lock in spending for mental health, the ballot initiative is for you.
California voters have responded to the legislature’s inaction by passing a number of ballot initiatives that lock spending levels for various items. So for example California is mandated to commit a specific percentage of its budget to education. Another legal commitment is that gas taxes pay for roads and nothing else. The money can’t be moved around. That leaves no flexibility to move funds from one account that is running over to another account running short. Thus the Governor and Legislature are both hamstrung by these budget initiatives. The budget is pre built and there is no changing it.
These items are some of the main reasons California have trouble with its budget. As long as this structure is in place, regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans control the Governor’s office, it will be next to impossible to avoid our annual game of chicken with the budget.
California is typical in that budget woes are structural and are out of control of the people who profess to lead us. There is a unique dynamic to each state. It is over simplistic to write off all 50 Governors as mini Herbert Hoovers. They are each constrained by the unique physics of their state budget process and political dynamic. No matter how hard they try they are simply not strong enough to turn an economic tide that is worldwide.
To assume otherwise is wrong.
- Los Angeles Times 01/01/2009
On New Year’s eve, the proposed California state budget arrived on little cat feet, quietly creeping into Sacramento so as to not be noticed. California’s third budget confrontation in less than a year, between the Governor, the Democrats and the Republicans is underway. At the present rate of spending, California will be out of cash in February. Lenders have already stopped making loans to the state, so projects across the state are now on hold. Things are so bad that the state Comptroller went to the hospital with chest pains. Believe me, when it comes to the budget he is not alone.
The source of California’s budget issues are complex. In a recent New York Time column comparing all state Governors to Herbert Hoover, Economist Paul Krugman held Scwarzenegger up for particular scorn. To listen to Krugman, one would think the Governor was on a blind ideological journey to balance the budget, no matter what. But in fact this is not the case. California, like the each of the other States, has unique political constraints that determine their budget processes and ties their Governors’ hands.
One constraint is the California constitution requires a balanced budget. The budget must balance when it is proposed, in theory we work on a “pay as you go” state. How do you pay when you have to go? To balance any budget you have only two options – cut spending or raise taxes. The Democrats in the legislature are willing to cut some spending. But despite what the hard core right will tell you, one can only cut spending so far. Yes, there is some wasteful spending in California as there is in any government. But to say you can balance the budget and end our chronic economic crisis purely by cutting “wasteful spending” is as realistic as McCain’s response to the economic crisis by proposing to cut ear mark spending.
This of course brings you to the next option on the table and that is raise taxes – or as we like to say “enhance revenue.” The only way the legislature can raise taxes (oops-enhance revenue) is by a 2/3 majority. Thus the minority holds the cards. The Republicans in the Legislature are die-hard, pure, Howard Jarvis anti-tax believers. They have consistently stood in the way of every compromise budget proposed over the past several years. They refuse to vote for one single tax. They believe that any tax on the economy is too great a burden for the state to bear.
They turn a blind eye to the even heavier burden the state will bear if it runs out of money in February with no relief in sight. They are blind the fact the extra borrowing costs of lower bond rating far outweigh the cost of any tax hike. Still they stand in the door blocking the entrance of any budget with a tax hike. Like the Captain of the Titanic they speed blindly ahead in the dark and ice asking “what icebergs?”
In a recent budget negotiation meeting with the Governor, Swartzenegger asked the Republican leader present what it would take for the Republicans to vote for a budget. The Republican responded “I don’t know.” The Governor followed up “When will you know.” The Republican leader responded “I don’t know.”
The another reason our budget problems are so severe is the initiative process. In California, with the right amount of signatures you can get anything on the ballot. Whether you are a hard right evangelical who wants to ban gay marriage or if you are left winger who wants to lock in spending for mental health, the ballot initiative is for you.
California voters have responded to the legislature’s inaction by passing a number of ballot initiatives that lock spending levels for various items. So for example California is mandated to commit a specific percentage of its budget to education. Another legal commitment is that gas taxes pay for roads and nothing else. The money can’t be moved around. That leaves no flexibility to move funds from one account that is running over to another account running short. Thus the Governor and Legislature are both hamstrung by these budget initiatives. The budget is pre built and there is no changing it.
These items are some of the main reasons California have trouble with its budget. As long as this structure is in place, regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans control the Governor’s office, it will be next to impossible to avoid our annual game of chicken with the budget.
California is typical in that budget woes are structural and are out of control of the people who profess to lead us. There is a unique dynamic to each state. It is over simplistic to write off all 50 Governors as mini Herbert Hoovers. They are each constrained by the unique physics of their state budget process and political dynamic. No matter how hard they try they are simply not strong enough to turn an economic tide that is worldwide.
To assume otherwise is wrong.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Bush's Last Crisis
“Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
- Vice President Elect Joe Biden on Obama, speaking to supporters 10/20/2008
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was doing some legacy polishing of her own this month. In a December 19 interview on CBS Radio, she discussed the diplomatic progress between Israel and the Palestinians "I’m so gratified that we are leaving a much better situation on Israeli-Palestinian issues than we found," (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/opinion/diplomatic/main4677370.shtml?source=related_story). But, despite her positive assessment, Israel moved against Hamas in Gaza and, to-date, there are over 380 dead. At this writing, Israel is massing troops on the border of the Gaza strip. Things do not look like they will settle down any time soon.
Is this the “test” Biden warned about during the campaign?
If Israel was testing Obama they would have waited until after he took office. Instead they moved now because they knew that Bush could be counted on not to interrupt his vacation and Rice for an easy to ignore bromide. They were right. Bush did not interrupt his vacation. Instead he sent a spokesperson to read admonitions to Hamas and lend support to Israel’s actions. That was it. Rice limited herself to an easy to ignore statement of concern ("The cease-fire must be restored immediately and fully respected. The United States calls on all concerned to protect innocent lives and to address the urgent humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza." Washington Post 12/29/2008)
But Israel is not sure what Obama would do. They clearly see this as the last chance they have to move freely without interference from the US. Regardless of what he would do, the Israeli’s know that Obama’s would not be the “hands-off” response they enjoyed in the Bush years. A senior staffer in the Bush White House admitted as much. "They can't predict how the next administration will handle it. And this is not the way they want to start with the new administration." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122700962.html
Rachel Weiner of the Huffington Post calls this “Obama’s First Crisis” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/29/gaza-crisis-first-test-fo_n_153906.html). Leading Democrats are demanding Obama take charge of the economy. In early December, Chris Dodd, Chair of the Senate Banking Committee said “The Obama team has to step up. In the minds of the people, this is the Obama administration. I don't think we can wait until January 20.”
This willingness to view events as Obama’s responsibility speaks to the hunger this country has for leadership. Since Katrina, Americans know they can’t count on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They know, just as foreign leaders know, Bush is spent politically. He wasted his political standing on Social Security, Hurricane Katrina, and Harriet Myers.
But there is nothing Obama can do as President-elect. Like it or not, until January 20, 2009, George Bush is the only President the country has and he must call the shots. Obama understands this. Not only is this stance smart politics, it is the right thing to do. Legally Obama has no standing to execute any policy or action, regardless of whether it is dealing with the Middle East or the economy. The best he can do is be prepared to hit the ground running. Obama has designated his appointments faster than any of his predecessors. His team has already begun work on what they will do when they take office. There will be little time wasted in the transition. This will position Obama to immediately step in the vacuum left by Bush.
The world knows this. Over the past eight years, whenever a crisis arose they counted on Bush to do little or nothing. But they think that Obama will be different. They know the time of a disengaged US President is drawing to a close. Therefore, the current crisis can be seen not as a test for Obama, but as a statement on Bush’s lack of leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)