Brent Bozell III
Thursday, December 18, 2008
In October 2006, the national media projected Rep. Mark Foley's online sex chats with House pages into a disaster that would swallow the Grand Old Party whole. CBS, for example, proclaimed it the "congressional equivalent of Katrina." In 2008, when federal investigators found Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich trying to put Barack Obama's Senate seat on the auction block, these same "news" gatherers found a storm, to be sure, but a storm they suggested would in short order be "pushed out to sea."
With the governor caught on tape unloading obscenity after obscenity about how he expected to reap a financial bonanza for handing out his gubernatorial perks, this story was so undeniably big, even the Obamaphile press couldn't ignore it. So instead these reporters tried to downplay its impact on the President-elect and the Democrats.
First, as with other Democratic scandals (Spitzer, Jefferson, McGreevey, etc.), anchors and editors again purposely dropped the "D" out of the equation, laboring not to tell viewers or readers that the offenders were Democrats. In a Republican scandal, the offending politician is usually described as a Republican in the very first sentence, and deservedly so. In a Democrat scandal, the party identification of the perpetrator can arrive in paragraph eight. Or not at all.
Then, reporters declared that a Blagojevich resignation or impeachment could arrive any day, and suggested the story could soon be finished. (When Republicans are in the crosshairs, reporters announce "this story isn't going away any time soon.") Reporters insisted the Blagojevich story might end soon with the governor's removal, even before Team Obama fully explained its contacts with the governor's office on the Senate-seat matter. They wanted Blagojevich removed from the Democratic elite before he infected the party's anti-corruption claims like an Ebola virus.
Third, they labored mightily to separate Team Obama from the Blagojevich camp. Take CBS, and reporter Chip Reid, who cited local CBS reporter Mike Flannery as an expert, and never mind if local bloggers call him "Chicago's version of Chris Matthews." Flannery insisted one could only call Obama and Blagojevich the "most distant allies," and Reid insisted Flannery told him "Obama has often gone out of his way to avoid any close association with the ethically challenged governor. But that's not stopping the Republican National Committee from trying to tie the two men together." Reid read a line from RNC chairman Mike Duncan, then insisted, "Despite the occasional photo together, though, linking them could be a tough sell."
Reid's report cracking open this supposed chasm didn't include uncomfortable facts that Obama's supporters would rather not see circulated. Obama not only supported Blagojevich for governor in 2002, when he was still a state senator, he took credit for advising him to victory. He went on television saying electing his friend "Hot Rod" was a priority. He endorsed him for re-election in 2006 -- at the beginning of 2005.
Reid also dragged in a right-leaning Chicago Tribune columnist to make a case for Obama's distance: "John Kass says Mr. Obama has worked hard to position himself above the machine culture of Chicago politics." He quoted Kass saying: "I don't think he gets tainted by what happened today." But here's what Kass proclaimed in a column a few days later: "The national media outlets were desperate to portray him as someone about to transcend our politics. But in Chicago he was just a smooth guy on the way up, looking the other way." ?The Blagojevich Senate-for-sale scandal demonstrates how feverishly the media continue to portray Obama not as a Chicago machine manipulator, but as the black inheritor of the Abraham Lincoln legacy. Obama's been energetically linked to Lincoln far more than to any Chicago politician who's currently living and serving in office. Obama chose for himself a political career in the grubby precincts of the south side of Chicago, not some log cabin outside Springfield, but reporters seem more interested in building a grand and historic legend of a "new kind of politics," not a real-life politician's colossal ambitions to be president before he turned 50.
Anyone in politics knows it would be extremely normal, acceptable and even necessary for the governor and the [resident-elect (or their aides) to have a chat about who would fill this Senate seat. But the media have invested so much TV time and barrels of ink in putting the most idealistic sheen they can on Obama's New Politics that to find him anywhere within miles of corruption is too much for them to bear.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
What Has Al Gore Wrought?
Bruce Bialosky
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Al Gore has managed to convince most Americans that global warming is a serious problem. He has gone on an elongated mission culminating in his masterpiece of propaganda entitled an “An Inconvenient Truth.” There is one major theme that he attempts to purport through all of this: no credible sources disagree with his position.
Ask Dr. Richard Lindzen of Harvard University who testified in front of Gore's senate committee back in the 1980's. Even then, Gore attempted to browbeat Dr. Lindzen into supporting his hypothesis about global warming. He has a perverse need whereby no one asserts a contradictory position. Gore has built on that for almost twenty years, even though there is a large body of credible individuals who assert that facts do not support Gore's theories. This is probably why he has never agreed to debate anyone on the matter.
Now his tactics have seeped into the liberals' playbook as they have taken over the levers of government. Instead of just asserting their position and attempting to win support of the majority of Congress and their constituents, they are following the Gore Plan and stating no credible opposition exists to their policy positions.
Listen to Tom Daschle on health care reform. He is President-elect Obama's choice to run Health and Human Services (HHS) and apparently his point man for effecting change to our health care system. Mr. Daschle stated that things have changed since the 1990's. Now there is no opposition to universal health care, states our incoming Secretary of HHS. It may be couched in other terms like “reform,” but clearly Daschle wants a government-run health care system. He is in the process of deriding the current system without defining clearly what will replace it because on its own it cannot be sold. You will see other liberals embrace his mantra that there is no credible opposition. He has adopted this tactic for two reasons. The first is because of the weakness of his position and the second is to dupe others into believing in his plan and blindly supporting it.
But there is monumental opposition to a government plan. The Democrats have tried to bring the matter to a crisis level by refusing any reasonable reforms such as portability, cross-state insurance sales and stratified insurance policies. State legislatures driven by Democrats desire for government- controlled health care have mandated policies that include every medical option conceivable. Governor Charlie Crist of Florida worked with his legislature to create policies that give residents options for affordable plans. In most states, the Democrats would rather have people uninsured than have some insurance they can afford that protects them for hospitalization and catastrophic circumstances.
Mr. Daschle needs to know that the only businesses that want a government- run program are those that want to dump their health care costs on the government –- such as the auto industry. The rest of us realize that the challenges created by the current system are minuscule when compared to a government-run, unionized health care system.
Next you can be prepared for the argument that everyone believes there should be a $500+ billion stimulus package. Again there is no credible opposition. In fact, as stated by Paul Krugman, the economist and New York Times columnist, the problem is that the stimulus package is too small. He states that the problem with FDR's policies were they did not go far enough.
But those facts belie that nonsense. For seven years of the Roosevelt Administration, very little change was affected by their government run-projects. Yes, bridges, libraries and schools were built, but unemployment was still a staggering 18% until a madman in Europe changed the world and created a wartime economy.
The reason the liberals’ new-honed tactic has been drafted for the stimulus package is because they are interested in stuffing into the bill their entire pet projects in the name of economic revival. Someone arguing for different policies -- that would encourage private investment and thus permanent job creation – could undermine their attempt to backdoor their policies during an economic crisis. They all need to go back and listen to their cult hero, John F. Kennedy, who stated in late 1962 that tax cuts were the solution to a prolonged recession.
You may have been disconcerted by Al Gore's flatulence regarding our environment, but little did you know he was refining new tactics that would be used for every big policy the liberals want to foist upon America. Now you know Al Gore is more dangerous than you ever dreamed.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Al Gore has managed to convince most Americans that global warming is a serious problem. He has gone on an elongated mission culminating in his masterpiece of propaganda entitled an “An Inconvenient Truth.” There is one major theme that he attempts to purport through all of this: no credible sources disagree with his position.
Ask Dr. Richard Lindzen of Harvard University who testified in front of Gore's senate committee back in the 1980's. Even then, Gore attempted to browbeat Dr. Lindzen into supporting his hypothesis about global warming. He has a perverse need whereby no one asserts a contradictory position. Gore has built on that for almost twenty years, even though there is a large body of credible individuals who assert that facts do not support Gore's theories. This is probably why he has never agreed to debate anyone on the matter.
Now his tactics have seeped into the liberals' playbook as they have taken over the levers of government. Instead of just asserting their position and attempting to win support of the majority of Congress and their constituents, they are following the Gore Plan and stating no credible opposition exists to their policy positions.
Listen to Tom Daschle on health care reform. He is President-elect Obama's choice to run Health and Human Services (HHS) and apparently his point man for effecting change to our health care system. Mr. Daschle stated that things have changed since the 1990's. Now there is no opposition to universal health care, states our incoming Secretary of HHS. It may be couched in other terms like “reform,” but clearly Daschle wants a government-run health care system. He is in the process of deriding the current system without defining clearly what will replace it because on its own it cannot be sold. You will see other liberals embrace his mantra that there is no credible opposition. He has adopted this tactic for two reasons. The first is because of the weakness of his position and the second is to dupe others into believing in his plan and blindly supporting it.
But there is monumental opposition to a government plan. The Democrats have tried to bring the matter to a crisis level by refusing any reasonable reforms such as portability, cross-state insurance sales and stratified insurance policies. State legislatures driven by Democrats desire for government- controlled health care have mandated policies that include every medical option conceivable. Governor Charlie Crist of Florida worked with his legislature to create policies that give residents options for affordable plans. In most states, the Democrats would rather have people uninsured than have some insurance they can afford that protects them for hospitalization and catastrophic circumstances.
Mr. Daschle needs to know that the only businesses that want a government- run program are those that want to dump their health care costs on the government –- such as the auto industry. The rest of us realize that the challenges created by the current system are minuscule when compared to a government-run, unionized health care system.
Next you can be prepared for the argument that everyone believes there should be a $500+ billion stimulus package. Again there is no credible opposition. In fact, as stated by Paul Krugman, the economist and New York Times columnist, the problem is that the stimulus package is too small. He states that the problem with FDR's policies were they did not go far enough.
But those facts belie that nonsense. For seven years of the Roosevelt Administration, very little change was affected by their government run-projects. Yes, bridges, libraries and schools were built, but unemployment was still a staggering 18% until a madman in Europe changed the world and created a wartime economy.
The reason the liberals’ new-honed tactic has been drafted for the stimulus package is because they are interested in stuffing into the bill their entire pet projects in the name of economic revival. Someone arguing for different policies -- that would encourage private investment and thus permanent job creation – could undermine their attempt to backdoor their policies during an economic crisis. They all need to go back and listen to their cult hero, John F. Kennedy, who stated in late 1962 that tax cuts were the solution to a prolonged recession.
You may have been disconcerted by Al Gore's flatulence regarding our environment, but little did you know he was refining new tactics that would be used for every big policy the liberals want to foist upon America. Now you know Al Gore is more dangerous than you ever dreamed.
Myths Of The Assembly Line
Bill Murchison
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A famous news photo from the late '30s shows toughs employed by the Ford Motor Co. beating up Richard Frankensteen, a United Auto Workers official, during the so-called Battle of the Overpass at Ford's Rouge River plant in Dearborn.
UAW chief Walter Reuther, walking with Frankensteen, got the same treatment. "Seven times they raised me off the concrete and slammed me down on it," he later wrote. " I was punched and kicked and dragged by my feet to the stairways, thrown the first flight of steps and kicked down the second flight."
The UAW, whose sit-down strikes had already overwhelmed General Motors' and Chrysler's resistance to unionization, wanted Henry Ford on the dotted line. Three years later they got him. The plight of the car companies wasn't born at the precise moment Walter Reuther fell down the steps, but you could see the mythology shaping up.
Or perhaps not. As the '40s ended, the mythology changed from urban struggle to suburban dream. Organized labor, while hardly forgetting the dirty, bitter going of the '30s, bathed in the transcendent radiance of hope and opportunity. Everything, going forward, was going to be spiffy. Got that -- spiffy! In 1948, Reuther wrung from the automakers an "escalator clause" pegging wage increases to the cost of living. In 1955, he won agreement that unemployed auto workers would be paid 65 percent of weekly wages for the first four weeks of unemployment and 60 percent for the next 22 weeks. Subsequently the figure climbed to 95 percent.
Comprehensive health care, tuition-refunds, life insurance, profit sharing, pre-paid legal service, bereavement pay -- off the UAW assembly line it rolled, contract after contract. Who paid? The auto-buying public paid. The automakers' contention that they pay workers $73 an hour takes into account the cost of pensions and health insurance for retirees. Still, no one disputes that Detroit's unionized active workers cost a good $10 an hour more than the nonunionized work forces that build Toyotas, Hondas and BMW's in the largely nonunionized South.
The heart of the auto "bailout" calamity is that the old model driven jointly by the UAW and the companies for years, pedal to the metal, finally collapsed: spark plugs exhausted, drive shaft broken, radiator rusted out. You can't -- apparently -- have domineering unions of the sort Walter Reuther managed during his tenure as UAW chieftain (which ended with his death in 1970). You have to have entities, both managerial and factory-level, deeply responsive to the realities of the marketplace. These realties are ? That no one today has to buy your car.
Getting to that place is the problem. The postwar, post-sit-down strike mythology of shared prosperity for union and companies still holds the UAW in thrall, and so also the media. The question is phrased: Do we "save Detroit" or don't we? The reality is that it's too late. The cheerful conspiracy between Detroit and the unions -- lay on the benefits and pass the cost to the auto-buying public -- begs for replacement by the more logical strategy of put-it-on-the-market-and-see-who-buys-it.
The bailout allows no latitude for reinvention. It's all about "saving Detroit" for a few more months rather than subjecting union and companies alike to the rigors of the competitive marketplace. You can hate all you want to -- maybe you should -- the thought of Detroit-related companies laying off workers or shutting down entirely, because down that way lies social and economic dislocation. A still more hateful prospect is general acceptance of the lie that all the industry needs is a new government-sponsored transmission overhaul.
The 21st century hasn't been kind to old industries, including my own, the newspaper business, as readers of news and information flee to the Internet. What do we want, we old hack journalists -- a bailout? Likelier a little space for reinvention that -- woe and alack! -- robs us of mores and memories but renews the survivors to fight another day.
We may or may not get such a space. One bets, anyway, we get it before Detroit does.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A famous news photo from the late '30s shows toughs employed by the Ford Motor Co. beating up Richard Frankensteen, a United Auto Workers official, during the so-called Battle of the Overpass at Ford's Rouge River plant in Dearborn.
UAW chief Walter Reuther, walking with Frankensteen, got the same treatment. "Seven times they raised me off the concrete and slammed me down on it," he later wrote. " I was punched and kicked and dragged by my feet to the stairways, thrown the first flight of steps and kicked down the second flight."
The UAW, whose sit-down strikes had already overwhelmed General Motors' and Chrysler's resistance to unionization, wanted Henry Ford on the dotted line. Three years later they got him. The plight of the car companies wasn't born at the precise moment Walter Reuther fell down the steps, but you could see the mythology shaping up.
Or perhaps not. As the '40s ended, the mythology changed from urban struggle to suburban dream. Organized labor, while hardly forgetting the dirty, bitter going of the '30s, bathed in the transcendent radiance of hope and opportunity. Everything, going forward, was going to be spiffy. Got that -- spiffy! In 1948, Reuther wrung from the automakers an "escalator clause" pegging wage increases to the cost of living. In 1955, he won agreement that unemployed auto workers would be paid 65 percent of weekly wages for the first four weeks of unemployment and 60 percent for the next 22 weeks. Subsequently the figure climbed to 95 percent.
Comprehensive health care, tuition-refunds, life insurance, profit sharing, pre-paid legal service, bereavement pay -- off the UAW assembly line it rolled, contract after contract. Who paid? The auto-buying public paid. The automakers' contention that they pay workers $73 an hour takes into account the cost of pensions and health insurance for retirees. Still, no one disputes that Detroit's unionized active workers cost a good $10 an hour more than the nonunionized work forces that build Toyotas, Hondas and BMW's in the largely nonunionized South.
The heart of the auto "bailout" calamity is that the old model driven jointly by the UAW and the companies for years, pedal to the metal, finally collapsed: spark plugs exhausted, drive shaft broken, radiator rusted out. You can't -- apparently -- have domineering unions of the sort Walter Reuther managed during his tenure as UAW chieftain (which ended with his death in 1970). You have to have entities, both managerial and factory-level, deeply responsive to the realities of the marketplace. These realties are ? That no one today has to buy your car.
Getting to that place is the problem. The postwar, post-sit-down strike mythology of shared prosperity for union and companies still holds the UAW in thrall, and so also the media. The question is phrased: Do we "save Detroit" or don't we? The reality is that it's too late. The cheerful conspiracy between Detroit and the unions -- lay on the benefits and pass the cost to the auto-buying public -- begs for replacement by the more logical strategy of put-it-on-the-market-and-see-who-buys-it.
The bailout allows no latitude for reinvention. It's all about "saving Detroit" for a few more months rather than subjecting union and companies alike to the rigors of the competitive marketplace. You can hate all you want to -- maybe you should -- the thought of Detroit-related companies laying off workers or shutting down entirely, because down that way lies social and economic dislocation. A still more hateful prospect is general acceptance of the lie that all the industry needs is a new government-sponsored transmission overhaul.
The 21st century hasn't been kind to old industries, including my own, the newspaper business, as readers of news and information flee to the Internet. What do we want, we old hack journalists -- a bailout? Likelier a little space for reinvention that -- woe and alack! -- robs us of mores and memories but renews the survivors to fight another day.
We may or may not get such a space. One bets, anyway, we get it before Detroit does.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Afghanistan Today
Michael Yon reports back.
National Review Online
Monday, December 15, 2008
Michael Yon, courageous independent reporter and author of Moment of Truth in Iraq, has just returned to the United States from Afghanistan. National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez checked in with him about the president’s trip there this weekend and his own findings (more of which he will be writing about on his website, www.michaelyon-online.com).
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: You just got back from Afghanistan with Defense Secretary Gates and I know you have a lot of writing to do. But to give us a preview: What were you most struck by there?
MICHAEL YON: Yes, there is much writing to do, but there is always time for NRO. What struck me about the trip was the straight talk from Secretary Gates — in a bit of a contrast with the administration's typical cautiousness in discussing the situation there. On this trip, I found his assessments on Iraq entirely consistent with my observations — and I have been saying and writing for months that the Iraq war is over. Neither Secretary Gates nor Generals Petraeus or Odierno have put it so flatly, of course — and one can understand that they have good reasons for speaking conservatively. But the war is over nevertheless. At Manama, in Bahrain, I spoke for a couple hours with Fred Kagan, whose observations on Iraq I greatly respect. I don't want to put words into Mr. Kagan’s mouth, but I suspect he would likely agree that the war in Iraq is over.
Iraq is now an ally of the United States. (Proof positive: Prime Minister Maliki tried to block that second shoe that was thrown at President Bush at their joint press conference over the weekend.) In Manama, Secretary Gates was advocating for lender countries to dismiss Saddam-era debt. The days are gone when Iraq and the United States shoot missiles at each other. The days of cooperation have already begun. I am very optimistic about our current relationship with Iraq.
On Afghanistan, I found Secretary Gates to be just as forthcoming and honest, as I am working hard to firm up my understanding of that war. But at this point, I am less optimistic about our prospects there. I’ll likely spend most of 2009 in that region, and will be watching closely.
Secretary Gates talked with me privately, and over the course of that conversation, my confidence grew that we have the right leadership team in place — leaders who will make the wise and often difficult decisions that are based on facts on the ground, rather than political realities back at home. I am confident in Secretary Gates and his top generals.
LOPEZ: In his press conference there, George Bush made reference to the potential for a flourishing democracy in Afghanistan. Is that remotely possible?
YON: Well . . . I’ve found President Bush’s recent comments on Iraq to be accurate. But I remain uneasy about Afghanistan, and my visit did not make me feel any better about the place, though it’s clear that our soldiers think they are making progress. I think this issue is one of framing: I see Afghanistan as a century-long effort, because Pakistan and the region as a whole need to be brought forward. On the military side, we’ve got the right general in charge — General Petraeus. I heard him speak last week in Manama and had a chance to ask a couple of questions, and he demonstrated a nuanced understanding of our problems there. His team is working on solutions. In the short term, I think the fighting will greatly increase during 2009, at a minimum. One thing is certain: NATO is proving largely worthless.
LOPEZ: What’s your best assessment of “Bush’s legacy” vis-à-vis Afghanistan?
YON: That Afghanistan is more akin to Jurassic Park than a modern country is not the fault of President Bush. I sounded the alarm from Afghanistan in 2006 that we were starting to lose the war, but at the time, Iraq was going so poorly that we did not seem to have the assets or attention span for the growing problems in Afghanistan. I would have blamed President Bush if we failed in Iraq, but we are succeeding. Afghanistan will be up to our new president — which is fitting enough, since Obama has expressed his opinion that that war is the one we should be fighting. Obama will have the troops at his disposal, and he’s already made a wise decision by asking Secretary Gates to stay on. So we’ll see. But Afghanistan will be Obama’s baby.
LOPEZ: What ought to be Barack Obama’s first priority there?
YON: Firstly, listen very closely to his military advisers, including Generals McKiernan and Petraeus. They don’t put lipstick on the pig, as it were. I see General McKiernan as a realistic commander and a truth-teller. Secretary Gates will tell you that we need more trainers to train the Afghan army and police, and our commanders on the ground will say the same. We need more money for infrastructure and development. We need roads, roads, roads. And more roads. We need to more vigorously address the poppy economy and find alternative livelihoods for the Afghan people. We need to work to not alienate the Afghan people because if we lose the wide approval that we still have, we likely will lose the war.
LOPEZ: Can you give us any insight into what Secretary Gates is thinking as he moves from serving President Bush to President Obama?
YON: Secretary Gates gets widespread approval from our military, and this is helpful in whatever he does. But I can say that he is definitely concerned about Iran. He is concerned about solidifying our progress in Iraq, and making a turnaround in Afghanistan. Piracy is a relatively farcical threat. Secretary Gates is concerned about getting more ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] and UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] assets in the field — and we need those badly. He did not seem concerned that budget cuts would undermine the fabric of the military, but leaders will have to make some tough decisions on big new weapon systems while we ramp up our efforts in Afghanistan while our economy continues to struggle.
It’s clear that Secretary Gates is working hard to make a smooth transition, so that there is no period when we let down our guard during the interregnum; and it’s also clear that if someone decides to test President Obama, Secretary Gates is prepared to make them wish they had not.
National Review Online
Monday, December 15, 2008
Michael Yon, courageous independent reporter and author of Moment of Truth in Iraq, has just returned to the United States from Afghanistan. National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez checked in with him about the president’s trip there this weekend and his own findings (more of which he will be writing about on his website, www.michaelyon-online.com).
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: You just got back from Afghanistan with Defense Secretary Gates and I know you have a lot of writing to do. But to give us a preview: What were you most struck by there?
MICHAEL YON: Yes, there is much writing to do, but there is always time for NRO. What struck me about the trip was the straight talk from Secretary Gates — in a bit of a contrast with the administration's typical cautiousness in discussing the situation there. On this trip, I found his assessments on Iraq entirely consistent with my observations — and I have been saying and writing for months that the Iraq war is over. Neither Secretary Gates nor Generals Petraeus or Odierno have put it so flatly, of course — and one can understand that they have good reasons for speaking conservatively. But the war is over nevertheless. At Manama, in Bahrain, I spoke for a couple hours with Fred Kagan, whose observations on Iraq I greatly respect. I don't want to put words into Mr. Kagan’s mouth, but I suspect he would likely agree that the war in Iraq is over.
Iraq is now an ally of the United States. (Proof positive: Prime Minister Maliki tried to block that second shoe that was thrown at President Bush at their joint press conference over the weekend.) In Manama, Secretary Gates was advocating for lender countries to dismiss Saddam-era debt. The days are gone when Iraq and the United States shoot missiles at each other. The days of cooperation have already begun. I am very optimistic about our current relationship with Iraq.
On Afghanistan, I found Secretary Gates to be just as forthcoming and honest, as I am working hard to firm up my understanding of that war. But at this point, I am less optimistic about our prospects there. I’ll likely spend most of 2009 in that region, and will be watching closely.
Secretary Gates talked with me privately, and over the course of that conversation, my confidence grew that we have the right leadership team in place — leaders who will make the wise and often difficult decisions that are based on facts on the ground, rather than political realities back at home. I am confident in Secretary Gates and his top generals.
LOPEZ: In his press conference there, George Bush made reference to the potential for a flourishing democracy in Afghanistan. Is that remotely possible?
YON: Well . . . I’ve found President Bush’s recent comments on Iraq to be accurate. But I remain uneasy about Afghanistan, and my visit did not make me feel any better about the place, though it’s clear that our soldiers think they are making progress. I think this issue is one of framing: I see Afghanistan as a century-long effort, because Pakistan and the region as a whole need to be brought forward. On the military side, we’ve got the right general in charge — General Petraeus. I heard him speak last week in Manama and had a chance to ask a couple of questions, and he demonstrated a nuanced understanding of our problems there. His team is working on solutions. In the short term, I think the fighting will greatly increase during 2009, at a minimum. One thing is certain: NATO is proving largely worthless.
LOPEZ: What’s your best assessment of “Bush’s legacy” vis-à-vis Afghanistan?
YON: That Afghanistan is more akin to Jurassic Park than a modern country is not the fault of President Bush. I sounded the alarm from Afghanistan in 2006 that we were starting to lose the war, but at the time, Iraq was going so poorly that we did not seem to have the assets or attention span for the growing problems in Afghanistan. I would have blamed President Bush if we failed in Iraq, but we are succeeding. Afghanistan will be up to our new president — which is fitting enough, since Obama has expressed his opinion that that war is the one we should be fighting. Obama will have the troops at his disposal, and he’s already made a wise decision by asking Secretary Gates to stay on. So we’ll see. But Afghanistan will be Obama’s baby.
LOPEZ: What ought to be Barack Obama’s first priority there?
YON: Firstly, listen very closely to his military advisers, including Generals McKiernan and Petraeus. They don’t put lipstick on the pig, as it were. I see General McKiernan as a realistic commander and a truth-teller. Secretary Gates will tell you that we need more trainers to train the Afghan army and police, and our commanders on the ground will say the same. We need more money for infrastructure and development. We need roads, roads, roads. And more roads. We need to more vigorously address the poppy economy and find alternative livelihoods for the Afghan people. We need to work to not alienate the Afghan people because if we lose the wide approval that we still have, we likely will lose the war.
LOPEZ: Can you give us any insight into what Secretary Gates is thinking as he moves from serving President Bush to President Obama?
YON: Secretary Gates gets widespread approval from our military, and this is helpful in whatever he does. But I can say that he is definitely concerned about Iran. He is concerned about solidifying our progress in Iraq, and making a turnaround in Afghanistan. Piracy is a relatively farcical threat. Secretary Gates is concerned about getting more ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] and UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] assets in the field — and we need those badly. He did not seem concerned that budget cuts would undermine the fabric of the military, but leaders will have to make some tough decisions on big new weapon systems while we ramp up our efforts in Afghanistan while our economy continues to struggle.
It’s clear that Secretary Gates is working hard to make a smooth transition, so that there is no period when we let down our guard during the interregnum; and it’s also clear that if someone decides to test President Obama, Secretary Gates is prepared to make them wish they had not.
The Impending Collapse of Our Enemies
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Depression -- let’s call it what it is -- leaves us, well, depressed. But there is very good news from around the world. Our enemies are collapsing under the strain of dropping oil and gas prices. What we had all hoped conservation and off-shore drilling would achieve, the global economic collapse is accomplishing: the defeat of OPEC, Iran, Chavez, Putin and the weakening of the financial underpinnings of Islamist terrorism. In each of these nations, the hold of the dictator is weakening as, one after the other, they face the consequences of dropping oil prices.
In Iran, the sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the aggressive efforts of the U.S. government, and the actions of states like California, Florida, and Missouri to ban pension investments in companies that do business with Iran are having a big effect. Unable to expand its oil production for a lack of foreign investment, Iran faces the need to slash its budget drastically as energy revenues, the source of 85% of its income, crash. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is announcing harsh austerity measures. Having based his budget on $50-$60 oil, he now must recast it for at a $40 per barrel level. He boasts of cash reserves of $23 billion, but that sum won’t last long unless he makes major cuts. (Do the math: a shortfall of $25/barrel per day x 4 million barrels a day x 365 days = $36.5 billion, more than he’s got on hand).
The question for Ahmadinejad and for the Ayatollah who stands behind him is: Can their regime survive economic collapse? Unable to buy social peace by handouts and subsidies, will the top blow off an country that hates the regime, is predominantly very young, and is only 40% Farci?
Chavez, in Venezuela is not in any better shape. Because of corruption and incompetence, Venezuelan oil production has dropped from over 3 million barrels per day when Chavez took over to about 1.7 million today. As long as oil prices were quadrupling, it didn’t matter, but when they crashed, a harsh wind of reality blew in the door. Chavez was losing popularity before the oil price dropped. He lost a constitutional referendum to give himself lifetime tenure and he just lost his municipal elections in the largest cities and states in the nation. After knocking out most of the major opposition candidates on phony charges of corruption, he managed to hang on to the governorships of the small, rural provinces, but he lost the cities – even the poor areas of the cities vote d against him.
Now, beset already by food shortages and galloping inflation, Venezuela has to make do with less subsidization and drastic cuts. Feeling cold times ahead, Chavez is desperately pressing ahead with a new attempt to abolish term limits in a vote set for the end of February, but, if he falls short – which we think he will – he could be out in a matter of months.
Chavez’ client-states -- Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia –- have to face life without subsidies. Evo Morales, the head of Bolivia who got elected pledging to allow cocoa cultivation again, already faces a virtual civil war as the energy-rich half of his country wants autonomy and, possibly, independence. Argentina, whose corrupt regime has held onto power by massive borrowing from Chavez, must now seek sustenance from the global markets, only recently burned by its default on its foreign debt. Fat chance.
Putin’s Russia, which so recently threw its weight around by invading Georgia, faces perhaps the biggest hit of all to its economy. Producing 10 million barrels per day, Russia will be hit the hardest by the collapse of prices. (Again, do the math: Assume Russia budgeted at $60 oil prices and the price drops to $40. $20/barrel x 10 million barrels per day x 365 = a $73 billion annual shortfall). With a GDP of only about $1.4 trillion, Russia faces the loss of about 5% of its economy. And Russian oil production has dropped by one million barrels per day for each of the past two years. With prices at rock bottom and nationalization an ever-present threat, who is going to invest in increasing Russian production?
And what of OPEC and the economic base of the Islamist terrorists? Countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait will be OK because they have small populations among whom to divide their oil earnings. Saudi Arabia will make it because of its massive production and relatively small population. But every other OPEC nation has a large population where the ruler, usually a dictator, buys social peace with oil money. The pressure to stay in power will be so intense that these leaders will force production as high as they can to offset the shortfall. The result is that there will be constant deflationary pressure on oil prices, a vicious cycle that will impoverish all the right people.
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Depression -- let’s call it what it is -- leaves us, well, depressed. But there is very good news from around the world. Our enemies are collapsing under the strain of dropping oil and gas prices. What we had all hoped conservation and off-shore drilling would achieve, the global economic collapse is accomplishing: the defeat of OPEC, Iran, Chavez, Putin and the weakening of the financial underpinnings of Islamist terrorism. In each of these nations, the hold of the dictator is weakening as, one after the other, they face the consequences of dropping oil prices.
In Iran, the sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the aggressive efforts of the U.S. government, and the actions of states like California, Florida, and Missouri to ban pension investments in companies that do business with Iran are having a big effect. Unable to expand its oil production for a lack of foreign investment, Iran faces the need to slash its budget drastically as energy revenues, the source of 85% of its income, crash. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is announcing harsh austerity measures. Having based his budget on $50-$60 oil, he now must recast it for at a $40 per barrel level. He boasts of cash reserves of $23 billion, but that sum won’t last long unless he makes major cuts. (Do the math: a shortfall of $25/barrel per day x 4 million barrels a day x 365 days = $36.5 billion, more than he’s got on hand).
The question for Ahmadinejad and for the Ayatollah who stands behind him is: Can their regime survive economic collapse? Unable to buy social peace by handouts and subsidies, will the top blow off an country that hates the regime, is predominantly very young, and is only 40% Farci?
Chavez, in Venezuela is not in any better shape. Because of corruption and incompetence, Venezuelan oil production has dropped from over 3 million barrels per day when Chavez took over to about 1.7 million today. As long as oil prices were quadrupling, it didn’t matter, but when they crashed, a harsh wind of reality blew in the door. Chavez was losing popularity before the oil price dropped. He lost a constitutional referendum to give himself lifetime tenure and he just lost his municipal elections in the largest cities and states in the nation. After knocking out most of the major opposition candidates on phony charges of corruption, he managed to hang on to the governorships of the small, rural provinces, but he lost the cities – even the poor areas of the cities vote d against him.
Now, beset already by food shortages and galloping inflation, Venezuela has to make do with less subsidization and drastic cuts. Feeling cold times ahead, Chavez is desperately pressing ahead with a new attempt to abolish term limits in a vote set for the end of February, but, if he falls short – which we think he will – he could be out in a matter of months.
Chavez’ client-states -- Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia –- have to face life without subsidies. Evo Morales, the head of Bolivia who got elected pledging to allow cocoa cultivation again, already faces a virtual civil war as the energy-rich half of his country wants autonomy and, possibly, independence. Argentina, whose corrupt regime has held onto power by massive borrowing from Chavez, must now seek sustenance from the global markets, only recently burned by its default on its foreign debt. Fat chance.
Putin’s Russia, which so recently threw its weight around by invading Georgia, faces perhaps the biggest hit of all to its economy. Producing 10 million barrels per day, Russia will be hit the hardest by the collapse of prices. (Again, do the math: Assume Russia budgeted at $60 oil prices and the price drops to $40. $20/barrel x 10 million barrels per day x 365 = a $73 billion annual shortfall). With a GDP of only about $1.4 trillion, Russia faces the loss of about 5% of its economy. And Russian oil production has dropped by one million barrels per day for each of the past two years. With prices at rock bottom and nationalization an ever-present threat, who is going to invest in increasing Russian production?
And what of OPEC and the economic base of the Islamist terrorists? Countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait will be OK because they have small populations among whom to divide their oil earnings. Saudi Arabia will make it because of its massive production and relatively small population. But every other OPEC nation has a large population where the ruler, usually a dictator, buys social peace with oil money. The pressure to stay in power will be so intense that these leaders will force production as high as they can to offset the shortfall. The result is that there will be constant deflationary pressure on oil prices, a vicious cycle that will impoverish all the right people.
The Blago Scandal: What’s the Rush?
Are Obama allies stoking a crisis to push an embarrassing scandal offstage?
By Byron York
Monday, December 15, 2008
How serious is the political crisis in Illinois? Each day brings new word that the emergency is intensifying; the latest came Friday, when Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan asked the state supreme court to declare Gov. Rod Blagojevich incapable of governing, arguing that the scandal surrounding Blagojevich amounts to a disability that prevents him from serving as governor. At a news conference in Chicago, Madigan also suggested that Blagojevich’s legal troubles are plunging the state into financial crisis, making the governor’s removal an even more urgent priority.
There’s no doubt the problems in Illinois are serious. But a closer look at events suggests that some key state officials, all of them close allies of Barack Obama, are actively fostering a sense of crisis and, in the case of Madigan, actually taking steps to make the crisis worse — while citing the worsening crisis as the reason Blagojevich must go immediately.
In calling for the Court to remove Blagojevich, Madigan pointed to a section of the Illinois constitution which says the legislature “shall specify by whom and by what procedures the ability of the governor to serve or to resume office may be questioned and determined.” Madigan also cited a state supreme-court rule that laid out the procedure for such cases and argued that Blagojevich’s current situation amounts to a “disability” that justifies stripping him of his powers.
But the constitutional provision cited by Madigan was written to deal with a governor who suffered a physical or mental disability — not a political one. “There is a history of the word ‘disability,’” says Ann Lousin, a professor at Chicago’s John Marshall Law School who was a researcher at the Illinois constitutional convention when the provision was written nearly 40 years ago. As Lousin recalls, the lawmakers were mindful of the case of Henry Horner, the Illinois governor who in 1938 suffered a massive stroke but did not leave office. (Horner died in 1940, just before his term would have ended.) “The people who were at the constitutional convention…were people who remembered Horner, they knew the situation, and they wanted to put something in,” Lousin tells me. “It was absolutely physical and mental disabilities.”
Given that, the Illinois supreme court might well reject Madigan’s argument. But if it were to agree with Madigan that political and legal “disabilities” are grounds for removal, the Court would then have to come up with a definition for such “disabilities” — and then investigate whether Blagojevich’s circumstances fit the criteria for removal. That is a turn of events few experts want to see. “Would the court have to investigate the facts to determine whether the governor is disabled or not?” asks Ronald Allen, a law professor at Northwestern University. “Absolutely, and that is what I do not want to see happen — an investigation of some ambiguous charge to see whether a politician is able to hold office.” (Allen tells me he favors Madigan’s fallback plan, which was to ask the court, if it declined to declare Blagojevich disabled, to simply issue an order forbidding the governor from performing some executive functions.)
Beyond stretching the definition of “disability,” Madigan also claims that her task is especially urgent because Blagojevich’s problems are leading Illinois toward financial disaster. She gave her reasoning at the Friday news conference, when a reporter asked her to explain how state business “is not being accomplished because of the governor’s situation.”
“I’m going to give you one example,” Madigan answered. “Short-term borrowing — as you are aware, the state of Illinois is behind in paying its bills, in particular to Medicaid providers. I believe we have a backlog of at least a billion dollars in bills. In order to make those payments, there was short-term borrowing that was scheduled in the very near future. At this point, we — they have postponed that. And it may be very difficult to move forward on short-term borrowing.”
And just why is that? Madigan went on: “Because as part of the process, as the attorney general, I play a number of roles. One is to essentially review and say that the short-term borrowing is legal, but another portion of that requires me to sign a certificate certifying that I am not aware of any proceeding or threatened litigation challenging the authority of the governor to hold his office. And so I at this point would not necessarily be able to sign that.”
With that, Madigan argued that Blagojevich’s problems have led the state to fiscal crisis because it desperately needs to borrow money but cannot do so because it cannot get the signature of . . . Lisa Madigan. And that is because Lisa Madigan is engaged in litigation challenging the authority of the governor to hold his office.
Madigan’s position is supported by state comptroller Daniel Hynes. Last Friday, Hynes, who has called for Blagojevich to resign, warned of fiscal disaster, particularly as concerns Medicaid, if the governor stays in office. “We’re going to have more physicians leaving the Medicaid program,” Hynes said. “We’re going to see hospitals possibly closing. So this is a horrible ripple effect that goes from immediately to those who provide services that will eventually hurt people who rely on state services.”
But the Medicaid problem is nothing new. In fact, Illinois’ fiscal crisis is nothing new. “The state’s already in financial crisis, because of the governor’s policies,” a Republican politico tells me. “Ever since Blagojevich took office, they’ve played a smoke-and-mirrors game with the budget.” Indeed, Hynes himself has been warning about the state’s troubled finances for months. On November 11, for example, Hynes predicted that doctors would “refuse to see Medicaid patients because of inadequate or delayed reimbursements” and “nursing homes, day care centers, and rehabilitation facilities unable to pay staff or their own vendors and suppliers . . . may be forced to close their doors permanently.” And that was weeks before the criminal complaint against Blagojevich.
But now, Madigan and Hynes, along with state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, another Obama ally, argue that it is the governor’s continued presence in office that presents a financial threat to the state. It is often remarked that all three have ambitions for higher office in Illinois, and, in addition to their concern for the well-being of the state government, might have political motives for their statements and actions. But they have something else in common, as well: friendly ties to Barack Obama. A pro-Obama account of the Blagojevich scandal in the Washington Post last week described the president-elect’s years as a state senator in Springfield this way: “Obama started cultivating Illinois leadership of his own. He mentored a basketball buddy, Alexi Giannoulias, and supported his run for state treasurer. He befriended Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes.”
And now, all three are playing critical roles in the effort to push the scandal — and the governor — offstage. And there’s one more player: Standing behind Madigan at her news conference Friday was Abner Mikva, the longtime Illinois political figure (and former Clinton White House counsel) whom Madigan has hired as a special assistant attorney general for the Blagojevich matter. The same Washington Post article, along with many other press accounts, described Mikva as a “mentor” to Obama who remains a close ally today.
Rod Blagojevich is undoubtedly in a very bad way. But we don’t know how far along the investigation into his behavior is. We also don’t know whether there will be an extensive grand jury probe that results in a slate of charges against the governor. And yet several key officials are proposing novel measures to get rid of him. In this case, Blagojevich is facing a group of adversaries who have priorities that extend far beyond simply easing the political crisis in Illinois.
By Byron York
Monday, December 15, 2008
How serious is the political crisis in Illinois? Each day brings new word that the emergency is intensifying; the latest came Friday, when Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan asked the state supreme court to declare Gov. Rod Blagojevich incapable of governing, arguing that the scandal surrounding Blagojevich amounts to a disability that prevents him from serving as governor. At a news conference in Chicago, Madigan also suggested that Blagojevich’s legal troubles are plunging the state into financial crisis, making the governor’s removal an even more urgent priority.
There’s no doubt the problems in Illinois are serious. But a closer look at events suggests that some key state officials, all of them close allies of Barack Obama, are actively fostering a sense of crisis and, in the case of Madigan, actually taking steps to make the crisis worse — while citing the worsening crisis as the reason Blagojevich must go immediately.
In calling for the Court to remove Blagojevich, Madigan pointed to a section of the Illinois constitution which says the legislature “shall specify by whom and by what procedures the ability of the governor to serve or to resume office may be questioned and determined.” Madigan also cited a state supreme-court rule that laid out the procedure for such cases and argued that Blagojevich’s current situation amounts to a “disability” that justifies stripping him of his powers.
But the constitutional provision cited by Madigan was written to deal with a governor who suffered a physical or mental disability — not a political one. “There is a history of the word ‘disability,’” says Ann Lousin, a professor at Chicago’s John Marshall Law School who was a researcher at the Illinois constitutional convention when the provision was written nearly 40 years ago. As Lousin recalls, the lawmakers were mindful of the case of Henry Horner, the Illinois governor who in 1938 suffered a massive stroke but did not leave office. (Horner died in 1940, just before his term would have ended.) “The people who were at the constitutional convention…were people who remembered Horner, they knew the situation, and they wanted to put something in,” Lousin tells me. “It was absolutely physical and mental disabilities.”
Given that, the Illinois supreme court might well reject Madigan’s argument. But if it were to agree with Madigan that political and legal “disabilities” are grounds for removal, the Court would then have to come up with a definition for such “disabilities” — and then investigate whether Blagojevich’s circumstances fit the criteria for removal. That is a turn of events few experts want to see. “Would the court have to investigate the facts to determine whether the governor is disabled or not?” asks Ronald Allen, a law professor at Northwestern University. “Absolutely, and that is what I do not want to see happen — an investigation of some ambiguous charge to see whether a politician is able to hold office.” (Allen tells me he favors Madigan’s fallback plan, which was to ask the court, if it declined to declare Blagojevich disabled, to simply issue an order forbidding the governor from performing some executive functions.)
Beyond stretching the definition of “disability,” Madigan also claims that her task is especially urgent because Blagojevich’s problems are leading Illinois toward financial disaster. She gave her reasoning at the Friday news conference, when a reporter asked her to explain how state business “is not being accomplished because of the governor’s situation.”
“I’m going to give you one example,” Madigan answered. “Short-term borrowing — as you are aware, the state of Illinois is behind in paying its bills, in particular to Medicaid providers. I believe we have a backlog of at least a billion dollars in bills. In order to make those payments, there was short-term borrowing that was scheduled in the very near future. At this point, we — they have postponed that. And it may be very difficult to move forward on short-term borrowing.”
And just why is that? Madigan went on: “Because as part of the process, as the attorney general, I play a number of roles. One is to essentially review and say that the short-term borrowing is legal, but another portion of that requires me to sign a certificate certifying that I am not aware of any proceeding or threatened litigation challenging the authority of the governor to hold his office. And so I at this point would not necessarily be able to sign that.”
With that, Madigan argued that Blagojevich’s problems have led the state to fiscal crisis because it desperately needs to borrow money but cannot do so because it cannot get the signature of . . . Lisa Madigan. And that is because Lisa Madigan is engaged in litigation challenging the authority of the governor to hold his office.
Madigan’s position is supported by state comptroller Daniel Hynes. Last Friday, Hynes, who has called for Blagojevich to resign, warned of fiscal disaster, particularly as concerns Medicaid, if the governor stays in office. “We’re going to have more physicians leaving the Medicaid program,” Hynes said. “We’re going to see hospitals possibly closing. So this is a horrible ripple effect that goes from immediately to those who provide services that will eventually hurt people who rely on state services.”
But the Medicaid problem is nothing new. In fact, Illinois’ fiscal crisis is nothing new. “The state’s already in financial crisis, because of the governor’s policies,” a Republican politico tells me. “Ever since Blagojevich took office, they’ve played a smoke-and-mirrors game with the budget.” Indeed, Hynes himself has been warning about the state’s troubled finances for months. On November 11, for example, Hynes predicted that doctors would “refuse to see Medicaid patients because of inadequate or delayed reimbursements” and “nursing homes, day care centers, and rehabilitation facilities unable to pay staff or their own vendors and suppliers . . . may be forced to close their doors permanently.” And that was weeks before the criminal complaint against Blagojevich.
But now, Madigan and Hynes, along with state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, another Obama ally, argue that it is the governor’s continued presence in office that presents a financial threat to the state. It is often remarked that all three have ambitions for higher office in Illinois, and, in addition to their concern for the well-being of the state government, might have political motives for their statements and actions. But they have something else in common, as well: friendly ties to Barack Obama. A pro-Obama account of the Blagojevich scandal in the Washington Post last week described the president-elect’s years as a state senator in Springfield this way: “Obama started cultivating Illinois leadership of his own. He mentored a basketball buddy, Alexi Giannoulias, and supported his run for state treasurer. He befriended Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes.”
And now, all three are playing critical roles in the effort to push the scandal — and the governor — offstage. And there’s one more player: Standing behind Madigan at her news conference Friday was Abner Mikva, the longtime Illinois political figure (and former Clinton White House counsel) whom Madigan has hired as a special assistant attorney general for the Blagojevich matter. The same Washington Post article, along with many other press accounts, described Mikva as a “mentor” to Obama who remains a close ally today.
Rod Blagojevich is undoubtedly in a very bad way. But we don’t know how far along the investigation into his behavior is. We also don’t know whether there will be an extensive grand jury probe that results in a slate of charges against the governor. And yet several key officials are proposing novel measures to get rid of him. In this case, Blagojevich is facing a group of adversaries who have priorities that extend far beyond simply easing the political crisis in Illinois.
Ethics and Ethicists
Rich Galen
Monday, December 15, 2008
Say this three times fast: The efficacy of ethicists is an ethical ambiguity.
Ok. So maybe that's not so hard for a native English speaker. But I'll bet it's a real tongue-twister for someone who grew up speaking, say, Icelandic.
The Obama Administration may set some sort of record for having caused, at least indirectly, two ethics investigations by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Jesse "Candidate Number Five" Jackson WHO IS A DEMOCRAT appears to have been implicated in the Senate-for-Sale scandal in Illinois. According to a piece in the New York Times last week, "Federal authorities said Mr. Jackson is "Senate Candidate 5," associates of whom, the governor said in a wire-tapped conversation, were willing to raise money for Mr. Blagojevich in exchange for the seat."
Jackson - a DEMOCRAT - has denied having any involvement or having sanctioned anyone else to make any offers to Governor Blagojevich (a DEMOCRAT) to gain the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama (who is also, by the way, a DEMOCRAT).
The House Ethics Committee has a duty, it seems to me, to open an investigation into whether Jackson or anyone connected to him offered anything of value to Blagojevich in return for the Senate seat. Let's drag some people in there, put them under oath, and see what floats to the surface.
The other person connected to Mr. Obama is Rep. Rahm Emanuel (DEMOCRAT from Illinois) who admitted to having spoken to the Gov's now-departed chief of staff prior to the November 4th election about who ought to be under consideration for the seat should Obama win.
According to the Chicago Tribune, "One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps."
Emanuel won re-election as a Democratic member of the U.S. House and, presuming he takes his seat when the 111th Congress opens on January 6, 2009 he will be under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee until he resigns to take over the WH job on January 20th.
If I were advising Mr. Emanuel, I would tell him to announce - today - that he will not be taking the oath of office and his seat will be vacant thus removing himself from being under the direct jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee.
The House Judiciary Committee would have to open an investigation and issue a subpoena compelling Mr. Emanuel to testify which the Obama White House would fight under the umbrella of "Executive Privilege."
The Judiciary would have to vote to hold Emanuel in contempt of Congress and send a resolution to the House Floor where the entire House would have to vote to hold him in contempt.
This is exactly what the Democrat-controlled House did last February when it held White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for refusing to testify about the U.S. Attorney firings.
The difference is, that happened in the seventh year of the Bush Presidency; this is happening even before Obama takes office.
Reality check: The chances of House Democrats opening an ethics investigation into either Jackson's or Emanuel's involvement is exactly zero.
Ethics. Democrats. Say that three times fast.
Speaking of ethics, the Washington Post had a piece in yesterday's Metro section about how city officials in the People's Republic of Alexandria, Virginia (which the Mullings clan calls home) have "taken the unusual step of paying a professional ethicist to help them grapple with the moral issues involved" in making cuts to city services.
First of all, we are already paying city officials to make those kinds of choices and having an ethicist on the payroll to give them political cover will not get them a chapter in the next edition of "Profiles in Courage."
Second, if you are an ethicist how do you reconcile the fact that you have been hired - in a time of budget cuts - to help figure out which other city employees should lose their jobs?
Third, the ethicist is being paid $9,000 per year. Once you've gotten beyond the ethical problem posed above, you should ask for way more than $750 per month. I want to be the ethicist's agent.
And take 20 percent of the action.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Say this three times fast: The efficacy of ethicists is an ethical ambiguity.
Ok. So maybe that's not so hard for a native English speaker. But I'll bet it's a real tongue-twister for someone who grew up speaking, say, Icelandic.
The Obama Administration may set some sort of record for having caused, at least indirectly, two ethics investigations by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Jesse "Candidate Number Five" Jackson WHO IS A DEMOCRAT appears to have been implicated in the Senate-for-Sale scandal in Illinois. According to a piece in the New York Times last week, "Federal authorities said Mr. Jackson is "Senate Candidate 5," associates of whom, the governor said in a wire-tapped conversation, were willing to raise money for Mr. Blagojevich in exchange for the seat."
Jackson - a DEMOCRAT - has denied having any involvement or having sanctioned anyone else to make any offers to Governor Blagojevich (a DEMOCRAT) to gain the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama (who is also, by the way, a DEMOCRAT).
The House Ethics Committee has a duty, it seems to me, to open an investigation into whether Jackson or anyone connected to him offered anything of value to Blagojevich in return for the Senate seat. Let's drag some people in there, put them under oath, and see what floats to the surface.
The other person connected to Mr. Obama is Rep. Rahm Emanuel (DEMOCRAT from Illinois) who admitted to having spoken to the Gov's now-departed chief of staff prior to the November 4th election about who ought to be under consideration for the seat should Obama win.
According to the Chicago Tribune, "One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps."
Emanuel won re-election as a Democratic member of the U.S. House and, presuming he takes his seat when the 111th Congress opens on January 6, 2009 he will be under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee until he resigns to take over the WH job on January 20th.
If I were advising Mr. Emanuel, I would tell him to announce - today - that he will not be taking the oath of office and his seat will be vacant thus removing himself from being under the direct jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee.
The House Judiciary Committee would have to open an investigation and issue a subpoena compelling Mr. Emanuel to testify which the Obama White House would fight under the umbrella of "Executive Privilege."
The Judiciary would have to vote to hold Emanuel in contempt of Congress and send a resolution to the House Floor where the entire House would have to vote to hold him in contempt.
This is exactly what the Democrat-controlled House did last February when it held White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for refusing to testify about the U.S. Attorney firings.
The difference is, that happened in the seventh year of the Bush Presidency; this is happening even before Obama takes office.
Reality check: The chances of House Democrats opening an ethics investigation into either Jackson's or Emanuel's involvement is exactly zero.
Ethics. Democrats. Say that three times fast.
Speaking of ethics, the Washington Post had a piece in yesterday's Metro section about how city officials in the People's Republic of Alexandria, Virginia (which the Mullings clan calls home) have "taken the unusual step of paying a professional ethicist to help them grapple with the moral issues involved" in making cuts to city services.
First of all, we are already paying city officials to make those kinds of choices and having an ethicist on the payroll to give them political cover will not get them a chapter in the next edition of "Profiles in Courage."
Second, if you are an ethicist how do you reconcile the fact that you have been hired - in a time of budget cuts - to help figure out which other city employees should lose their jobs?
Third, the ethicist is being paid $9,000 per year. Once you've gotten beyond the ethical problem posed above, you should ask for way more than $750 per month. I want to be the ethicist's agent.
And take 20 percent of the action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)