Republican Candidates save Face

As it should be borne in mind that there are cynical elements out there who would only associate with you so long as you satisfy their selfish interests, and then ditch you once they deem you to have outlived your usefulness to them. Just like some major Republican candidates who recently turned down the invitation to debate before Hispanic  and Black for no discernible rationale other than what can only be explained as an effort on their part to impress and pander to the basest and racist instincts of their bigotted constituencies. After refusing to talk to African American as well as Hispanic audiences, these pitiful, self-maginalized candidates seem to have concluded it is now in their best interest  to appear before “minority audiences”. So, on Dec.10 they appeared at the Spanish language debade despite their usual anti-immigrant hysteria which had precluded them from appearing in a previous Hispanic debate. My guess is that they are going to try appear before a black audience as well, to save face, and I urge organizers not accomodate such a schedule otherwise you will be complicit to their racially driven shenanigans. For heaven’s sake when are we going to learn to stand up for something?

Talking Tough, but not Delivering.

The Republican blocking of the bill that would have paid for the Iraqi war while requiring the beginning of troop withdrawal poses both promises and perils for Congressional Democrats who have seen their political fortunes plumeting  following their capitulation and surrender on their first war-funding bill since taking control of Congress.

Democrats have promised to revisit the funding issue in January, but factors beyond their control, as well as of their own making have limited their options and undermined their political calculation which had been the driving force behind their capitulation, costing them a political momentum that has to-date continued on a downward spiral. The oncoming funding battle—if it ever came to pass— between them and the White House will take place in the context of what has successfully been peddled by the protagonists of war as a success in Iraq: violence on a downward trend . Violence that had engulfed Iraq on a protracted basis since the the invasion. How the Dems will fare in this battle of wits will define their legislative agenda, as well as determine their  prospects in view of the forthcoming 2008 elections. While they have sounded uncompromising lately, conceivably to pull wool over the eyes of the anti-war voters who propelled Democrats to power in the first place, what passes as a rhetorical toughness on their part could well be a prelude for another surrender.

Democrats May Force a Republican Filibuster On Iraq Withdrawal.

The Democrats reportedly may force Republicans into filibustering a bill requiring troop withdrawal. And if it survived the filibuster, and/or was later vetoed by the president, Democrats would not resubmit it. The strategy Cogressional Democrats are trying to pursue this time around is one they should have adopted in May in the first place, instead of passing the bill for the funding of war without timeline attached. Then the political momentum was favorable to them, and inexplicably they squandered it by shamelessly capitulating to President Bush and passed a bill without timeline as he had demanded. While it is never too late for a man to mend, the situation on the ground in Iraq as of now favors the protagonists of war because violence appears to have somewhat subsided, and could conceivably translate into a plus for the protagonists when it comes to American domestic politics if voilence’s low ebb were sustained much longer.

The chances, then, of whether the the Dems can regain lost strategic initiative are at best contingent upon the turn of events on the ground in Iraq as well as the sustainability of the negativity of the public view of the Iraqi situation. Their failure to act sooner than they have points to a number of flaws on their part, not least their lack of principles and sense of direction. Had this not been the case they would never have capitulated for fear of political consenques should it have come to that. Hence the lesson here for Democrats is that fixation on polls and unprincipled vacillation do not pay. Doing what you belief is right no matter the consequences guarantees public trust.

Democrats May Force a Filibuster On Iraq Withdrawal

 

The Democrats reportedly may force Republicans into filibustering a bill requiring troop withdrawal. And if it survived the filibuster, and/or was later vetoed by the president, Democrats would not resubmit it. The strategy Cogressional Democrats are trying to pursue this time around is one they should have adopted in May in the first place, instead of passing the bill for the funding of war without timeline attached. Then the political momentum was favorable to them, and inexplicably they squandered it by shamelessly capitulating to President Bush and passed a bill without timeline as he had demanded. While it is never too late for a man to mend, the situation on the ground in Iraq as of now favors the protagonists of war because violence appears to have somewhat subsided, and could conceivably translate into a plus for the protagonists when it comes to American domestic politics if voilence’s low ebb were sustained much longer.

The chances, then, of whether the the Dems can regain lost strategic initiative are at best contingent upon the turn of events on the ground in Iraq as well as the sustainability of the negativity of the public view of the Iraqi situation. Their failure to act sooner than they have points to a number of flaws on their part, not least their lack of principles and sense of direction. Had this not been the case they would never have capitulated for fear of political consenques should it have come to that. Hence the lesson here for Democrats is that fixation on polls and unprincipled vacillation do not pay. Doing what you belief is right no matter the consequences guarantees public trust.

In the immediate wake of 9-11, the Bush administration chanelled its efforts—justifiably so—into dismantling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in pursuit of al-Qaeda. Since then, having abandoned  further action against this terror organisation inside Afghanistan itself, as well as in the Afghan- Pakistani- tribal areas, and diverted its attention to the invasion of Iraq, this administration has all but devoted itself to the pursuit of a policy that elevates the primacy of military force and its exclusive utility to the detriment of the prospects of reconciliation and security political and diplomatic efforts might otherwise have conferred on Iraq. Hence with its overwhelming and unmatched destructive power at its disposal, and in a protracted state siege it is generally perceived to have wrought on some segments of the Iragi populace this administration

The Perils of Hillary’s Candidacy.

With each passing day it is increasingly clear that if she won the primaries Hillary Clinton would not be able to stand up against Repuplican attacks. She would simply buckle under pressure if they did’nt accord her  special treatment as a woman, which  raises the question of her endurance  if she won the presidency: would she withstand the pressure of this male-dominated office? The answer to this perhaps is no,  except if  her male counterparts cut her some slack as a woman.  Which amounts to a simple reality of her operating on the basis of lowered expectations if her wishes of being treated as a woman were to be granted.  Which takes us to the general election which is bound to go down in history as one of one bitterest, the nastiest, and the most negative we have  seen in a long time, make no mistake about it. 

The Republicans who are already showing signs of nervousness about the likelihood of Hillary beating them hands-down,  devoid of popularly acceptable ideas ,  and in desperation, are certain to resort to dirty tricks as they customarily always do to ensure whatever it takes that Hillary never wins.  Moreover, other than her high negatives as compounded by her polarizing personality she is going to be unfairly held to account for her husband’s indiscretions while he was in office. They will be recycled  by these “masters of negativism” and dished out to the public, with the hope that they can endure the voters’ skeptism.  Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades thus remain Hillary’s achilles’ heels potentially more devastating than most would acknowledge.

Republicans are going to engage in this “mother of all negativisms” because they have nothing better to offer to the American people. Their ideas are in shambles and increasingly obsolete, and their party in disaray. They will pursue this risky strategy because they view it as the easiest way through which they can avert a nightmare most Republicans are resigned to accept as more likely than ever: the Hillary presidency.

In view of the foregoing, then, it is important to ask: is that kind of negative campaining going to work for Repulicans? It is hard to tell. But there can be no doubt that the voters—while claiming otherwise—are more apt to be more gullible to issues of salacious nature than to ones of esoteric dimension.  And,  as much as public backlash against Republicans remains a likely operative dynamic  accruing from their negative campaigning , it would be foolhardy for the Hillary campaign not to initiate a swift response caliberated to neutralize the attacks.  So that how they deal with these attacks will determine the course of the campaign as well as the eventuality of its strategic endurance.

The Defection of Harold Mitchell

America is a premier republic, albeit not a perfect one, where everybody is at liberty to endorse a candidate of his/her own choosing,  and a man who votes one way and then turns around and vote the other way would not even be an issue here were it not for the dastardly and clearly opportunistic way it was done by a man who should have known better that a man of integrity  and principle will not switch sides at his convenience, based on an a flawed assumption that this primary is virtually over, and that Hillary will be the candidate at the head of the Democratic ticket. For Congressman  Harold Mitchell to abandon Barach Obama at the very moment he seems to have reached a cul-de-sac, with his poll numbers on a protracted standstill, is treacherous at best, and says a lot about Harold’s lack of integrity and principles. Jumping ship anticipative of perceptably imminent defeat of Obama is an act of inglorious defection bordering on desperation and betrayal. 

The Democratic take over of the Congress on Nov. 7 will be critical to the future of the Democratic Party as an effective political force sufficiently relevant to the lives of the working families as well as the the underprivileged of our society. As they prepare to govern, the Dems should take to heart the fact that this electoral victory is hardly a product of their tactical and strategic clarity as it an outcome of  factors outside the their control. Factors driven by the dynamics dictated by overreaching and corrupt practices as well as the arbitrary behavior of the Republican Party combined with unchecked and increasingly dictactorial presidency. For the past 12 years out of consistent control of congress, the Democrats have often been viewed by their feckless, impassive, if not downright spineless as an opposition party.  As they are on the way to power, they are confronted with the prospects of an effective and uncompromizing opposition whose mastery of oppositional politics led to the ouster of Democrats in the 1994 Congressinal elections

Strategic Confrontation as the only Option

Senator Russ Feingold is right, constant pressure has to be brought to bear on supporters of the war . But that will not be anywhere near enough, if only because the more momentum it has lost, the Democratic-led Congress seems to have put less and less pressure on the very individual who matters most, the president.  As a matter of fact President Bush has outflanked the Democrats on Iraq war to the extent that recently some Democrats were even considering suing for a compromise with the Republicans so that a bill could be crafted that the president would sign. Moreover, voting again and again for a bill so that pro-war Republicans should have to account for their votes before the  voters in their districts is tactically smart even though it does not go far enough if viewed from a broader strategic perspective of its over-reliance on Republican support.  An in-your-face strategic confrontation with Mr. Bush remains the only obvious option, yet untried by Democrats. It assumes that to sherpard a bill from legislation into law is a joint venture of congressional and presidential function governed by the principle of separation of powers. Hence the Congress is not required at all costs to submit to the president a bill of his own liking, or sue for a compromise just to conveniently preclude a presidential veto. Thus, in the current situation in which the struggle for advantage between the president and the Cogressional Democrats obtains, Democrats blew their chances in May of enhancing their political leverage, by capitulating, and  cowardly conceding to Bush everything he wanted: a bill without strings attached. This time around then the question becomes: Are Democrats ready to sell their souls again and surrender their principles? Or are their going to do the right and fight for their principles( assuming they might still have some left). With this in mind then clearly the Democrats have some work to do, that is, if one is to assume they are not going to roll over again. They should start galvanizing the aready anti-war public support in the event of another presidential veto. The president will have to account for his veto. The Repulicans should be made to account for their filibuster as well.

Troubling Implications of the Hillary Vote

For Hillary Clinton to have demanded that President Bush seek Congressional authorization before taking any military action against Iran is downright hypocritical in light of her recent vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill that essentially empowers Bush to attack Iran, contrary to what Hillary herself had asked of President.

While the United States bombing of Iran would be foolhardy for countless reasons, not least from the standpoint of strategic prudence, its imminence seems beyond question, viewed from the plausibility of its orchestration and justification, as subordinated to a political calculation dominated by irrationality and absence of strategic clarity. And, while the surge-suppressed violence in Iraq has essentially receded to a considerable degree, the prospect of a renewed deterioration as well as the resumption carnage and its intensification should be a matter of concern.  Moreover,  the situation seems certain to get worse before it gets better, considering the absence of any effort inside Iraq to bring about political reconciliation rather than the piece-meal—albeit positive—short-term tactical accomodation between the U.S. military and the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province, which is currently being peddled by the administration to convey a false sense optimism that, indeed, a political settlement in Iraq is at hand. Even though this accomodation seems unamenable as a model for transplantation elsewhere in Irag due dissimilarity of social conditions that brought about intra-Sunni conflict and the attendant fall-out in the first place

Given the volatility of the Iraqi situation as compounded by the absence of inter-ethnic reconciliation, the social regression with escalating violence has never been as imminent, even in the face of the much-touted surge. In view of the inevitability of deterioration and concomittant violence underpinning the deepening quagmire, fundamental questions of consequential significance have not been adequadely addressed so as to understand the dynamics of the political situation that will ultimately determine the course of events in Iraq, instead the Administration has scapegoated of others and assigned blame without concrete evidence to substantiate its assertion against those whom it accused of stoking violence in Irag and killing American servicemen. Hence the vote by Hillary Clinton and her Democratic counterparts for a Republican bill declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guards terrorists has far reaching implications viewed within the context of its indisputable potential to authorize the unfettered  Bush Administration’s  aggression against Iran. The wisdom of such an aggression is questionable at best, since any attack on Iran would undoubtedly yield undesirable consequences, as it has a good chance of  leading to the inflamation of the situation that might stimulate a further deterioration, plunging American troops into a protracted quagmire that has the potential to generate into regional instability.

In view of the foregoing, then, it is difficult to find why the likes of Hillary voted for the bill if not for sheer opportunism on her part. Driven by political expediency, Hillary seems convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the primary election is hers to lose, if only she could go beyond primary electoral politicking and straddle to the political center of American politics. And it does not matter how she gets there because for her the end justifies the means.