Alan Greenspan, recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve and life-long Republican, recently lambasted President Bush and the former Republican Congress this past weekend. In his new memoir, Greenspan accuses Bush and company of betraying “principle for power”. He writes, “The Republicans in Congress lost their way. They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”
Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.
Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.
One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.
It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.
According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.
It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.
Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.
Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Political Season off to a (not so) Great Start
If the last the Congress wasn’t ethics and scandal ridden enough for you, don’t worry, because this summer and fall are shaping up to be stellar shows in their own rights. Of course in typical Washington DC fashion, partisanship is expected, but in the case of ethics (or the lack thereof), it appears both Party’s can agree. On the right we have the Senator Vitter and Senator Craig scandals- the former caught in a prostitution ring and the latter who, of course, just has a “wide stance” relieving himself. On the left there’s Senator Hillary Clinton- the leading Democratic candidate for her Party’s nomination- accepting campaign donations from 15 year-fugitive, Norman Hsu.
Vitter, a Republican senator from Louisiana, recently admitted to “serious sins” in his past after it was revealed his name was present on the phone records of the DC Madame- a woman charged with running an escort service (read: high class prostitution ring). His quick admission of guilt seems to have spared him the gallows, because the Senate Republican leadership did not call for his resignation.
The same can not be said of Senator Craig of Idaho, who recently plead guilty to disorderly conduct after he allegedly sought sex from an undercover police officer in a public airport bathroom. Senate Republican leadership quickly jumped on the matter after news broke, calling for Craig’s resignation.
If it sounds funny, that’s because it is. Both Senators plead guilty to equally serious moral and ethical lapses, yet Senate Republican leadership only called for the resignation of one of them. The reason? Some speculate that the calls for resignation were based, sadly, on sexuality. That being Vitter, caught in a “straight” scandal, was “pardoned” by Senate Republican leadership while Craig, caught in a “gay” scandal, was almost forced to resign. I find it difficult to believe Senate Republicans would base their calls for resignation upon this alone, however.
Instead, I find it far more likely that Republicans called for Craig’s resignation because he would be replaced by a Republican (Iowa has a Republican Governor- the appointing authority) and failed to call for Vitter’s because- can you believe it? - he would be replaced by a Democrat!
Unfortunately the Senate Republican leadership has decided to put politics over ethics. From the get-go they should have allowed the judicial system to sort these matters out, but since they decided to call for one resignation, it is only to right to call for two. Craig and Vitter were both caught in equally morally reprehensible acts. There is nothing more immoral about Craig’s “gay” antics than Vitter’s “straight” ones, and interestingly enough, Craig is defending his innocence a hell of a lot more than Vitter.
Senate Republican leadership calls in to question their motives when the scandals are so similar, and make this entire episode reek of hypocrisy.
Of course, Hillary Clinton is caught in a scandal of her own. The difference between her scandal and the Senate Republican leadership: the latter is guilty of hypocrisy; Hillary is just doing business as usual.
Hillary may believe that giving the $23,000 she accepted from Hsu to charity will somehow wipe her sins clear, but the fact is that Hsu has been a fugitive from the law for the past 15 years!
Perhaps best of all, Clinton’s scandal prompted CT Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd to release a statement saying he would, “…refuse to accept or possess campaign contributions raised, solicited, or delivered by fugitives from justice.” Genius! Maybe that will matter, Senator, if anyone every actually donates to your campaign!
Vitter, a Republican senator from Louisiana, recently admitted to “serious sins” in his past after it was revealed his name was present on the phone records of the DC Madame- a woman charged with running an escort service (read: high class prostitution ring). His quick admission of guilt seems to have spared him the gallows, because the Senate Republican leadership did not call for his resignation.
The same can not be said of Senator Craig of Idaho, who recently plead guilty to disorderly conduct after he allegedly sought sex from an undercover police officer in a public airport bathroom. Senate Republican leadership quickly jumped on the matter after news broke, calling for Craig’s resignation.
If it sounds funny, that’s because it is. Both Senators plead guilty to equally serious moral and ethical lapses, yet Senate Republican leadership only called for the resignation of one of them. The reason? Some speculate that the calls for resignation were based, sadly, on sexuality. That being Vitter, caught in a “straight” scandal, was “pardoned” by Senate Republican leadership while Craig, caught in a “gay” scandal, was almost forced to resign. I find it difficult to believe Senate Republicans would base their calls for resignation upon this alone, however.
Instead, I find it far more likely that Republicans called for Craig’s resignation because he would be replaced by a Republican (Iowa has a Republican Governor- the appointing authority) and failed to call for Vitter’s because- can you believe it? - he would be replaced by a Democrat!
Unfortunately the Senate Republican leadership has decided to put politics over ethics. From the get-go they should have allowed the judicial system to sort these matters out, but since they decided to call for one resignation, it is only to right to call for two. Craig and Vitter were both caught in equally morally reprehensible acts. There is nothing more immoral about Craig’s “gay” antics than Vitter’s “straight” ones, and interestingly enough, Craig is defending his innocence a hell of a lot more than Vitter.
Senate Republican leadership calls in to question their motives when the scandals are so similar, and make this entire episode reek of hypocrisy.
Of course, Hillary Clinton is caught in a scandal of her own. The difference between her scandal and the Senate Republican leadership: the latter is guilty of hypocrisy; Hillary is just doing business as usual.
Hillary may believe that giving the $23,000 she accepted from Hsu to charity will somehow wipe her sins clear, but the fact is that Hsu has been a fugitive from the law for the past 15 years!
Perhaps best of all, Clinton’s scandal prompted CT Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd to release a statement saying he would, “…refuse to accept or possess campaign contributions raised, solicited, or delivered by fugitives from justice.” Genius! Maybe that will matter, Senator, if anyone every actually donates to your campaign!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
American Service Learning Academy is Bad Idea
Last month, bills were introduced into both houses of Congress that would create an American Public Service Academy. According to USpublicserviceacademy.org, the purpose of such an institution would be to produce graduates committed to a life of public service and would be modeled after the US military academies, such as West Point.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the main proponent of the bill in the Senate had this to say:
"We are facing ... the impending retirement of so many of the senior ranks of our government. The people who do everything from help predict the weather, to run our nuclear power plants, to figure out how the Social Security system will keep functioning ... we're concerned that we're not going to have the workforce that we need in the next 10 years to keep this complicated government functioning."
Applicants for the Academy would have to acquire the recommendation of their congressperson and would be required to serve the government for five years after graduation. According to the same website, the Academy would cost at least $205,000,000 a year to run and operate for about 5,000 students.
While the idea of a national academy dedicated to public service is honorable and seems sensible at first hearing it, such an institution is both unnecessary and unwise.
According to the same website, which is the main proponent behind this idea, “The cost of pursuing public service careers (as opposed to just one or two years) after graduation can be prohibitive because college tuition has increased dramatically in the past decade – according to the Project on Student Debt, the average college graduate owes about $20,000, an increase of more than 50% in the past decade. With so much debt, students often must give up their dreams of public service careers in favor of more lucrative fields.”
While there is no doubt that more students are taking on more college debt, it would be foolish to create an entirely new university to alleviate this problem, mainly because it would have no real impact. While there were no statistics as to how much it would cost per student per year for taxpayers to support this new initiative, it is probably safe to assume it costs at least $20,000 a year/student. That would mean that a four year education would cost at least $80,000, or $60,000 more than an average college graduates debt.
If there is truly a public-servant deficit, it would make much more sense financially for the government to simply pay off the debt of college graduates in return for service. Better yet, the government could take the $205,000,000 it would cost to run the academy per year and subsidize more student loans, thusly lessening the debt burden on students and, according to the logic of USpublicserviceacademy.org, making more college graduates more likely to make a career of public service.
It seems a bit amusing that Senator Clinton is worried about running a “complicated government” in the future, but her answer to this is not to make government less complicated, but more so. Instead of lessening the size and scope of government, which would in turn make it less complicated, Clinton feels it necessary to create an entirely new university with graduates specifically trained in how to deal with this complexity. Senator Clinton’s answer to a bureaucratic mess: more bureaucracy.
While an American Public Service Academy would be financially unwise, it would also be rather un-American. If there is one thing we can gleam from our Founding Fathers, it is that public service is an honor and a privilege, and should not be a career. Let us consider a prime example: George Washington.
The former president was a farmer turned military leader who would deny the kingship of our new country and later limit himself to two terms as president. Instead of carrying on as president indefinitely, Washington decided to retire back to his Virginian farm. He put his time in, and then left. This would hold true until President Franklin Roosevelt, who would win four terms in the White House and had committed most of his life to public service as Governor of New York and in other elected positions.
The American public is not served well by elected officials who know nothing but government. Such people, like Senator Clinton, inevitably come up with the same answer for society’s and government’s problems: more government. Unfortunately, government is more often the cause of problems than the solution. If Social Security is too complicated for Senator Clinton and others to understand, we do not need to create a college to study it, but rather reduce its complexity.
If there is an actual shortage of government workers, we should lessen the size of government, not increase the amount of employees at a cost to the American tax payers. The answer to government problems should not be more government, but less.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the main proponent of the bill in the Senate had this to say:
"We are facing ... the impending retirement of so many of the senior ranks of our government. The people who do everything from help predict the weather, to run our nuclear power plants, to figure out how the Social Security system will keep functioning ... we're concerned that we're not going to have the workforce that we need in the next 10 years to keep this complicated government functioning."
Applicants for the Academy would have to acquire the recommendation of their congressperson and would be required to serve the government for five years after graduation. According to the same website, the Academy would cost at least $205,000,000 a year to run and operate for about 5,000 students.
While the idea of a national academy dedicated to public service is honorable and seems sensible at first hearing it, such an institution is both unnecessary and unwise.
According to the same website, which is the main proponent behind this idea, “The cost of pursuing public service careers (as opposed to just one or two years) after graduation can be prohibitive because college tuition has increased dramatically in the past decade – according to the Project on Student Debt, the average college graduate owes about $20,000, an increase of more than 50% in the past decade. With so much debt, students often must give up their dreams of public service careers in favor of more lucrative fields.”
While there is no doubt that more students are taking on more college debt, it would be foolish to create an entirely new university to alleviate this problem, mainly because it would have no real impact. While there were no statistics as to how much it would cost per student per year for taxpayers to support this new initiative, it is probably safe to assume it costs at least $20,000 a year/student. That would mean that a four year education would cost at least $80,000, or $60,000 more than an average college graduates debt.
If there is truly a public-servant deficit, it would make much more sense financially for the government to simply pay off the debt of college graduates in return for service. Better yet, the government could take the $205,000,000 it would cost to run the academy per year and subsidize more student loans, thusly lessening the debt burden on students and, according to the logic of USpublicserviceacademy.org, making more college graduates more likely to make a career of public service.
It seems a bit amusing that Senator Clinton is worried about running a “complicated government” in the future, but her answer to this is not to make government less complicated, but more so. Instead of lessening the size and scope of government, which would in turn make it less complicated, Clinton feels it necessary to create an entirely new university with graduates specifically trained in how to deal with this complexity. Senator Clinton’s answer to a bureaucratic mess: more bureaucracy.
While an American Public Service Academy would be financially unwise, it would also be rather un-American. If there is one thing we can gleam from our Founding Fathers, it is that public service is an honor and a privilege, and should not be a career. Let us consider a prime example: George Washington.
The former president was a farmer turned military leader who would deny the kingship of our new country and later limit himself to two terms as president. Instead of carrying on as president indefinitely, Washington decided to retire back to his Virginian farm. He put his time in, and then left. This would hold true until President Franklin Roosevelt, who would win four terms in the White House and had committed most of his life to public service as Governor of New York and in other elected positions.
The American public is not served well by elected officials who know nothing but government. Such people, like Senator Clinton, inevitably come up with the same answer for society’s and government’s problems: more government. Unfortunately, government is more often the cause of problems than the solution. If Social Security is too complicated for Senator Clinton and others to understand, we do not need to create a college to study it, but rather reduce its complexity.
If there is an actual shortage of government workers, we should lessen the size of government, not increase the amount of employees at a cost to the American tax payers. The answer to government problems should not be more government, but less.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The State of Modern American Elections
Americans should consider themselves blessed to live in a country that has elections. Perhaps there are more nations in existence today that have elections than at any other time in history, but there are still many nations where people do not have this right, and those who advocate for it are either imprisoned or killed. It is with this perspective then that we must approach the following problem: the sad, unfortunate and wrong state of modern American elections.
I like to think that I am generally more aware of American politics than the average voter. I read the news everyday and even do some extra research on the Presidential candidates. It troubles me then when I am unable to speak to any meaningful differences that I can gather between the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations. That is to say, I am generally incapable of explaining to a person what the political and philosophical differences are between say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are on the one hand, and Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the other.
If my life depended on it, I would not be able to tell you how the Democrats differ amongst each other and the Republicans differ amongst each other on issues like healthcare or how to prosecute the War on Terrorism.
I will assume that a good portion of my ignorance is my own fault. After all, because I am conscious of my ignorance it is my responsibility to enlighten myself. I do think it noteworthy to mention, however, that I can list in descending order who on both sides of the aisle have raised the most money. I can tell you that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are leading their expected fields in fundraising and that the 2008 election is expected to be the first billion-dollar race in the United States’ history.
Does this information matter? Absolutely not. If any voter in this country is at all truly considering who the next President or candidates should be based upon how much money they have raised, they should be promptly deported. The philosophy and proposed policies of the candidates are what matters, and not how much money they have raised, how many times they have been to Iowa or even how many wives they have had (or could have).
But why do so many Americans (or at least just me) seem to know more about these negligible aspects of candidates rather than what really matters? Not surprisingly, the mass media is the primary culprit.
Let me preface the following by saying that it is unfortunate a free society necessitates a free press for its continued survival. While a free press has the ability to hold government accountable and shed light on government scandal, it is also subject to the free market.
Newspapers and news channels are privately owned businesses, and in the game to make money for their owners. By being so, most media looses any intelligence and most of its virtue.
The Media focuses on what will hold its viewers’ attention and inevitably yield the highest economic profit. Unfortunately, it makes more sense from the perspective of media companies to harp on how much money Hillary Clinton has raised rather than her proposed health care plan.
But if the Media is only doing what makes the most economic sense, it must be following the demands of the public, and therefore our second culprit is the American public. In our modern age of instant communication and instant answers, it almost seems as if Americans want instant candidates. Very few people are willing to take the time (or maybe, don’t have the time) to really learn about the candidates’ ideas.
People want the news delivered in a quick and hard hitting twenty minute segment. Inevitably, the Media delivers this, and so candidates find themselves forced to create catch phrases in order to get air time. Instead of telling us their philosophy on human existence, a candidate is either pro-life or pro-choice. Instead of explaining their own interpretation of the judicial branch, candidates label judges they disagree with as activist. Instead of debating the nature of a just war, candidates are labeled as either hawks or doves. These terms mean nothing.
Unfortunately, Americans’ short attention span and disinterest in what really matters in politics has lead to the dumbing-down of American elections. No longer does the candidate with the best philosophy win, but the candidate who can raise fifty million dollars in two months, has the best one-liners and best appeals to the ignorance of the masses.
Modern American elections are in a sad, sad state.
I like to think that I am generally more aware of American politics than the average voter. I read the news everyday and even do some extra research on the Presidential candidates. It troubles me then when I am unable to speak to any meaningful differences that I can gather between the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations. That is to say, I am generally incapable of explaining to a person what the political and philosophical differences are between say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are on the one hand, and Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the other.
If my life depended on it, I would not be able to tell you how the Democrats differ amongst each other and the Republicans differ amongst each other on issues like healthcare or how to prosecute the War on Terrorism.
I will assume that a good portion of my ignorance is my own fault. After all, because I am conscious of my ignorance it is my responsibility to enlighten myself. I do think it noteworthy to mention, however, that I can list in descending order who on both sides of the aisle have raised the most money. I can tell you that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are leading their expected fields in fundraising and that the 2008 election is expected to be the first billion-dollar race in the United States’ history.
Does this information matter? Absolutely not. If any voter in this country is at all truly considering who the next President or candidates should be based upon how much money they have raised, they should be promptly deported. The philosophy and proposed policies of the candidates are what matters, and not how much money they have raised, how many times they have been to Iowa or even how many wives they have had (or could have).
But why do so many Americans (or at least just me) seem to know more about these negligible aspects of candidates rather than what really matters? Not surprisingly, the mass media is the primary culprit.
Let me preface the following by saying that it is unfortunate a free society necessitates a free press for its continued survival. While a free press has the ability to hold government accountable and shed light on government scandal, it is also subject to the free market.
Newspapers and news channels are privately owned businesses, and in the game to make money for their owners. By being so, most media looses any intelligence and most of its virtue.
The Media focuses on what will hold its viewers’ attention and inevitably yield the highest economic profit. Unfortunately, it makes more sense from the perspective of media companies to harp on how much money Hillary Clinton has raised rather than her proposed health care plan.
But if the Media is only doing what makes the most economic sense, it must be following the demands of the public, and therefore our second culprit is the American public. In our modern age of instant communication and instant answers, it almost seems as if Americans want instant candidates. Very few people are willing to take the time (or maybe, don’t have the time) to really learn about the candidates’ ideas.
People want the news delivered in a quick and hard hitting twenty minute segment. Inevitably, the Media delivers this, and so candidates find themselves forced to create catch phrases in order to get air time. Instead of telling us their philosophy on human existence, a candidate is either pro-life or pro-choice. Instead of explaining their own interpretation of the judicial branch, candidates label judges they disagree with as activist. Instead of debating the nature of a just war, candidates are labeled as either hawks or doves. These terms mean nothing.
Unfortunately, Americans’ short attention span and disinterest in what really matters in politics has lead to the dumbing-down of American elections. No longer does the candidate with the best philosophy win, but the candidate who can raise fifty million dollars in two months, has the best one-liners and best appeals to the ignorance of the masses.
Modern American elections are in a sad, sad state.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Pelosi is Not President
There is a saying that goes, “Politics stops at the water’s edge.” Such a short and concise statement is actually quite powerful and wise. It recognizes that there will be disagreement on policy and other issues at home, but that for the sake of the country, these disagreements should not carry overseas.
One legislator, Arthur Vandenberg, understood this idea when he annunciated the above phrase. Prior to the speech in which he initially expressed this idea, Vandenberg had considered himself an isolationist. Times had changed, however, and in late 1945 the Cold War was already starting. Vandenberg found himself at odds with then President Truman, who was pushing for the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he could easily have created a shadow foreign policy- undermining President Truman’s policies while at the same time pushing his own. Vandenberg did not of course, because he realized that as a member of the legislative branch of the Federal government, it was neither his responsibility nor that of any of his colleagues to dictate foreign policy. Foreign policy was undoubtedly the realm of the President.
Unfortunately, today’s legislators do not understand this. One in particular does not seem to be aware of the model that Senator Vandenberg created; she would rather create a shadow presidency at the expense of America than fulfill her proper role as Speaker of the House. Of course, Nancy Pelosi hasn’t understood her proper role since she became Speaker. It was clear to anyone watching her since last November that Pelosi felt (and clearly still feels) a large degree of empowerment. This was beyond evident when she requested her own Air Force Three to shuttle her back and forth between Washington DC and San Francisco. The President and Vice-president travel on Air Force planes, Ms. Pelosi, not congresswomen who represent a few hundred-thousand liberals in California.
As much as she may hate it, Speaker Pelosi must realize that the President of the United States, regardless of who it is, is the Commander in Chief, and thusly the head of foreign relations and diplomacy. It follows then that when the President sets a policy that the United States will not have relations with the leaders of radical, terrorist-supporting countries like Syria, that our other elected representatives fall in line and not have relations with the heads of these countries. Of course, Pelosi did just the opposite, and last week took a trip to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad- a man the US has been trying to isolate for several years now.
By meeting with Assad, Pelosi successfully undermined years-worth of American policy. In the one half-hour period that Pelosi met with Assad, the Syrian President (do not be fooled by the title, it is an inherited position) went from international outcast to legitimate ruling authority. This of course is the same man who organized the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister (an actual legitimate ruling authority) last summer, allows countless terrorists and fighters to stream over his border in to Iraq and is the second largest financier of terrorism behind Iran. It is not difficult to wonder why the US hasn’t had relations with him in so many years.
Despite the fact that Pelosi never should have been in Syria in the first place, she did a terrible job as a diplomat while there. In a press conference after meeting with Assad, Pelosi proclaimed that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. Of course, the Prime Minister of Israel said no such thing when he met with Pelosi earlier, and was forced to issue a press release saying nothing had in fact changed in Israel’s foreign policy.
This isn’t the end of it however. In the same press conference, Pelosi mischaracterized Syria’s position, and insisted that they too were ready for peace talks, seemingly heralding a new era in Israeli-Syrian relations. And just like the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Syria was forced to issue a statement essentially saying that Syria was still committed to the elimination of the State of Israel and the killing of Jews. It really sounds like Israel and Syria are ready for peace talks, doesn’t it?
Now that the congresswoman from San Francisco is back where she should be, I hope she will absorb the many criticisms that have been thrown her way. Speaker Pelosi needs to realize that she is in fact Speaker Pelosi, and not President Pelosi. Undoubtedly though, it will not be too far in the future to see her sleeping with our other wonderful friend, President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
If Pelosi is so concerned about America’s foreign relations, perhaps she should throw her name in the ring for 2008. I’m sure Hillary Clinton would welcome her.
One legislator, Arthur Vandenberg, understood this idea when he annunciated the above phrase. Prior to the speech in which he initially expressed this idea, Vandenberg had considered himself an isolationist. Times had changed, however, and in late 1945 the Cold War was already starting. Vandenberg found himself at odds with then President Truman, who was pushing for the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he could easily have created a shadow foreign policy- undermining President Truman’s policies while at the same time pushing his own. Vandenberg did not of course, because he realized that as a member of the legislative branch of the Federal government, it was neither his responsibility nor that of any of his colleagues to dictate foreign policy. Foreign policy was undoubtedly the realm of the President.
Unfortunately, today’s legislators do not understand this. One in particular does not seem to be aware of the model that Senator Vandenberg created; she would rather create a shadow presidency at the expense of America than fulfill her proper role as Speaker of the House. Of course, Nancy Pelosi hasn’t understood her proper role since she became Speaker. It was clear to anyone watching her since last November that Pelosi felt (and clearly still feels) a large degree of empowerment. This was beyond evident when she requested her own Air Force Three to shuttle her back and forth between Washington DC and San Francisco. The President and Vice-president travel on Air Force planes, Ms. Pelosi, not congresswomen who represent a few hundred-thousand liberals in California.
As much as she may hate it, Speaker Pelosi must realize that the President of the United States, regardless of who it is, is the Commander in Chief, and thusly the head of foreign relations and diplomacy. It follows then that when the President sets a policy that the United States will not have relations with the leaders of radical, terrorist-supporting countries like Syria, that our other elected representatives fall in line and not have relations with the heads of these countries. Of course, Pelosi did just the opposite, and last week took a trip to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad- a man the US has been trying to isolate for several years now.
By meeting with Assad, Pelosi successfully undermined years-worth of American policy. In the one half-hour period that Pelosi met with Assad, the Syrian President (do not be fooled by the title, it is an inherited position) went from international outcast to legitimate ruling authority. This of course is the same man who organized the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister (an actual legitimate ruling authority) last summer, allows countless terrorists and fighters to stream over his border in to Iraq and is the second largest financier of terrorism behind Iran. It is not difficult to wonder why the US hasn’t had relations with him in so many years.
Despite the fact that Pelosi never should have been in Syria in the first place, she did a terrible job as a diplomat while there. In a press conference after meeting with Assad, Pelosi proclaimed that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. Of course, the Prime Minister of Israel said no such thing when he met with Pelosi earlier, and was forced to issue a press release saying nothing had in fact changed in Israel’s foreign policy.
This isn’t the end of it however. In the same press conference, Pelosi mischaracterized Syria’s position, and insisted that they too were ready for peace talks, seemingly heralding a new era in Israeli-Syrian relations. And just like the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Syria was forced to issue a statement essentially saying that Syria was still committed to the elimination of the State of Israel and the killing of Jews. It really sounds like Israel and Syria are ready for peace talks, doesn’t it?
Now that the congresswoman from San Francisco is back where she should be, I hope she will absorb the many criticisms that have been thrown her way. Speaker Pelosi needs to realize that she is in fact Speaker Pelosi, and not President Pelosi. Undoubtedly though, it will not be too far in the future to see her sleeping with our other wonderful friend, President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
If Pelosi is so concerned about America’s foreign relations, perhaps she should throw her name in the ring for 2008. I’m sure Hillary Clinton would welcome her.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Resolution Opposing Troop Increase is a Bad Move
This past week, the US House of Representatives voted 246-182 to pass a non-binding resolution which states Congress’ opposition to President Bush’s proposed deployment of 21,500 more troops in Iraq. The resolution is short and to the point: “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” The Senate failed to pass the same resolution in their chamber as the result of a Republican filibuster.
While the resolution is non-binding, it is none the less significant. As stated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is a precursor to other resolutions and bills which will seek to alter the President’s handling of the war. But it is significant for another reason as well: the Democrat controlled House has succeeded in undermining America’s mission in Iraq and made it clear to our enemies all over the world that we are not committed as a nation to solving this problem. Instead, Democrats would have the US cut and run- cutting our loses in the near term but eventually leaving an unstable Iraq which will not only become a home for terrorists but a play ground for Iran.
The folly of this resolution can be understood once the importance of succeeding in Iraq is understood. There are a minimum of two reasons why the US must stay in Iraq and win: 1. If you think the blood shed in Iraq is bad now, wait until the US leaves and the Iraqi government collapses as a result. The current Iraqi government is not strong enough or stable enough to govern effectively or at all in the case of American withdrawal. Many times more innocent Iraqi lives will be lost as the result of withdrawal than are dying now. 2. A strong and stable Iraq is a necessary counter-weight to Iran. With President Ahmadinejad seeking nuclear weapons, fostering closer ties with other US rivals like Hugo Chavez and asserting greater influence in the Middle East since the fall of Saddam, it is in the interest of the world to have a strong Iraq next door to him.
Interestingly, while Democrats bemoan the American lives that have been lost in Iraq (and rightfully so), they seem to ignore the 50,000+ Iraqi lives that have been lost as the result of sectarian violence and terrorism. The US has a responsibility to do everything in its power to quell this violence, mainly because we created the stage on which it is played out. If this means sending in 21,500 more troops, then we must do it. Likewise, as Democrats have already begun to criticize President Bush’s supposed saber-rattling against Iran, they fail to realize that for the last several decades, a strong Iraq has been keeping Iran in its place. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen Iran more aggressively seek nuclear weapons and form closer ties with other American detractors. A strong Iraq could more successfully pressure Iran to stop these actions than the US or any other nation.
While the Democrats have done their damage, they have an opportunity to slightly redeem themselves this week when they will vote on the President’s requested $93 billion for military and war spending. Unfortunately such redemption seems unlikely. Leading Democrats have already said that they will seek to tie Bush’s hands on this appropriation and with Harry Reid’s statement that this week’s non-binding resolution was only a first step in changing policy, it seems the Democrats will dig America in to a deeper hole than it is actually in.
While the resolution is non-binding, it is none the less significant. As stated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is a precursor to other resolutions and bills which will seek to alter the President’s handling of the war. But it is significant for another reason as well: the Democrat controlled House has succeeded in undermining America’s mission in Iraq and made it clear to our enemies all over the world that we are not committed as a nation to solving this problem. Instead, Democrats would have the US cut and run- cutting our loses in the near term but eventually leaving an unstable Iraq which will not only become a home for terrorists but a play ground for Iran.
The folly of this resolution can be understood once the importance of succeeding in Iraq is understood. There are a minimum of two reasons why the US must stay in Iraq and win: 1. If you think the blood shed in Iraq is bad now, wait until the US leaves and the Iraqi government collapses as a result. The current Iraqi government is not strong enough or stable enough to govern effectively or at all in the case of American withdrawal. Many times more innocent Iraqi lives will be lost as the result of withdrawal than are dying now. 2. A strong and stable Iraq is a necessary counter-weight to Iran. With President Ahmadinejad seeking nuclear weapons, fostering closer ties with other US rivals like Hugo Chavez and asserting greater influence in the Middle East since the fall of Saddam, it is in the interest of the world to have a strong Iraq next door to him.
Interestingly, while Democrats bemoan the American lives that have been lost in Iraq (and rightfully so), they seem to ignore the 50,000+ Iraqi lives that have been lost as the result of sectarian violence and terrorism. The US has a responsibility to do everything in its power to quell this violence, mainly because we created the stage on which it is played out. If this means sending in 21,500 more troops, then we must do it. Likewise, as Democrats have already begun to criticize President Bush’s supposed saber-rattling against Iran, they fail to realize that for the last several decades, a strong Iraq has been keeping Iran in its place. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen Iran more aggressively seek nuclear weapons and form closer ties with other American detractors. A strong Iraq could more successfully pressure Iran to stop these actions than the US or any other nation.
While the Democrats have done their damage, they have an opportunity to slightly redeem themselves this week when they will vote on the President’s requested $93 billion for military and war spending. Unfortunately such redemption seems unlikely. Leading Democrats have already said that they will seek to tie Bush’s hands on this appropriation and with Harry Reid’s statement that this week’s non-binding resolution was only a first step in changing policy, it seems the Democrats will dig America in to a deeper hole than it is actually in.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
US Needs to be Tougher on Hugo Chavez
When Adolf Hitler rose to power, he asserted that the dire circumstances that Germany had fallen in to were problems enough for him to assume dictatorial powers. He promised to fix these problems, while at the same time allying himself with other foreign despots and rattling his saber. Everyone knows what happened after this. Unfortunately what some people do not realize is that the US very well might have a miniature if not equally scary tyrant saber rattling very close to our own border. Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, has embarked on a thoroughly anti-American and anti-capitalist crusade since his rise to power in 1999. His hateful rhetoric and radical policies have given rise to a very real problem for America and one that must be dealt with before it gets out of hand.
On January 31, the Venezuelan National Assembly gave Hugo Chavez the right to rule by decree for 18 months. Put simply, the Venezuelan National Assembly essentially gave up the few democratic powers they had maintained up to this point and has made Chavez dictator of their country. Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a problem if we were talking about Fiji or some other small and discreet country, but Venezuela is a completely different situation. Although we normally associate oil with the Middle East, Venezuela is possibly sitting on the single largest oil reserve in the world by many estimates. Likewise, the US receives about 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, making it one of our largest oil trading partners.
The idea of having such a large oil producer so close to our borders should excite the US because of the possibility of cheaper oil, but President Hugo Chavez has embarked on a mission of using Venezuela’s oil as a weapon. He has begun the process of nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry, even at the expense of foreign oil companies, and has promised to take his product to a non-American market. He has also made a request of OPEC to cut back oil supplies so the price of oil in America would increase even beyond its current astronomical rate.
But while Chavez attempts to increase prices in America, he is also playing games with America’s poor. Chavez has begun to offer discounted and even free heating oil for the winter to poor Americans who can not afford it otherwise. While this may seem like a benevolent action on his part, we must keep in mind that as he provides oil for the poor, and subsequently makes himself look like a hero, he is also purposely holding back oil in order to increase the price. Essentially, Chavez is creating a problem, and then giving the appearance of fixing it and in doing so undermining America on its own soil. If he were truly concerned about America’s poor, he would increase production of oil, thusly decreasing its price, and therefore allowing for more poor Americans to afford it.
Chavez’s actions do not stop with his oil shenanigans however. Besides cozying up with Fidel Castro and other socialist dictators in Latin and South America, he has also started a warm relationship with an avid Holocaust denier, the President of Iran. These two dictators, who are as radical as they are anti-American, have begun to challenge the US at every step, and even actively undermine it, as is Iran’s case in Iraq.
The Bush administration backed an unsuccessful coupe in 2002 against Chavez, but more must be done. Anti-American dictators with significant economic might, regional influence and powerful anti-American allies must not be allowed to go un-fettered. The US must rally the few Latin and South American countries who oppose Chavez’s burgeoning influence in their region to assert their own influence and stand up to Chavez. Likewise, as Chavez courts America’s poor, it should not be beyond the US to court Venezuela’s poor, who make up Chavez’s political base. By offering food, farming technology and other goods that could better the lives of Venezuela’s poor, America could very well better its own image and defeat the myth that has been created amongst these poor that Chavez is their way out of poverty.
On January 31, the Venezuelan National Assembly gave Hugo Chavez the right to rule by decree for 18 months. Put simply, the Venezuelan National Assembly essentially gave up the few democratic powers they had maintained up to this point and has made Chavez dictator of their country. Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a problem if we were talking about Fiji or some other small and discreet country, but Venezuela is a completely different situation. Although we normally associate oil with the Middle East, Venezuela is possibly sitting on the single largest oil reserve in the world by many estimates. Likewise, the US receives about 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, making it one of our largest oil trading partners.
The idea of having such a large oil producer so close to our borders should excite the US because of the possibility of cheaper oil, but President Hugo Chavez has embarked on a mission of using Venezuela’s oil as a weapon. He has begun the process of nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry, even at the expense of foreign oil companies, and has promised to take his product to a non-American market. He has also made a request of OPEC to cut back oil supplies so the price of oil in America would increase even beyond its current astronomical rate.
But while Chavez attempts to increase prices in America, he is also playing games with America’s poor. Chavez has begun to offer discounted and even free heating oil for the winter to poor Americans who can not afford it otherwise. While this may seem like a benevolent action on his part, we must keep in mind that as he provides oil for the poor, and subsequently makes himself look like a hero, he is also purposely holding back oil in order to increase the price. Essentially, Chavez is creating a problem, and then giving the appearance of fixing it and in doing so undermining America on its own soil. If he were truly concerned about America’s poor, he would increase production of oil, thusly decreasing its price, and therefore allowing for more poor Americans to afford it.
Chavez’s actions do not stop with his oil shenanigans however. Besides cozying up with Fidel Castro and other socialist dictators in Latin and South America, he has also started a warm relationship with an avid Holocaust denier, the President of Iran. These two dictators, who are as radical as they are anti-American, have begun to challenge the US at every step, and even actively undermine it, as is Iran’s case in Iraq.
The Bush administration backed an unsuccessful coupe in 2002 against Chavez, but more must be done. Anti-American dictators with significant economic might, regional influence and powerful anti-American allies must not be allowed to go un-fettered. The US must rally the few Latin and South American countries who oppose Chavez’s burgeoning influence in their region to assert their own influence and stand up to Chavez. Likewise, as Chavez courts America’s poor, it should not be beyond the US to court Venezuela’s poor, who make up Chavez’s political base. By offering food, farming technology and other goods that could better the lives of Venezuela’s poor, America could very well better its own image and defeat the myth that has been created amongst these poor that Chavez is their way out of poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)