Obama's Afghan Turnaround?

Former General Stanley McChrystal put President Obama into a near impossible position and President Obama may have turned that into a deciding turning point in the Afghan war.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan and nominated Gen. David Petraeus to replace him while affirming support for a counterinsurgency strategy encountering problems.

The dramatic shift came a day after McChrystal's disparaging comments about America's civilian leadership surfaced, and reignited the national debate on the war in Afghanistan -- now in its eighth year with a June death toll of coalition forces that is close to becoming the highest of the war.

Obama accepted McChrystal's resignation "with considerable regret" and named Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, to take over pending Senate confirmation.

Folks like Joe Liberman and John McCain are fond of saying...

General Petreaus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency

That's because that is true both figuratively and literally. With the successful campaign in Iraq, Petraeus showed the world how to run a counterinsurgency manual. Meanwhile, his actual counterinsurgency manual was published in 2006, shortly before he went to Iraq. Petraeus is taking over with the Afghan theater in disarray but then again, nothing liked more dire than Iraq circa the beginning of 2007. Petraeus has an opportunity to make a case in every history book as America's greatest military person.

Afghanistan has three x factors: the rules of engagement, the timeline for withdrawal, and most importantly, Karzai. Immediately, we'll see if Petraeus will make the rules of engagement. The confirmation hearing should also be a pre qual to his battle over a timeline. Karzai remains the biggest concern. In Iraq, however, no one thought that Nuri Al Maliki could be a great leader right up until he was. Will Karzai go the way of Maliki or the South Vietnamese?

The Legislative Lessons of Health Care Reform

Joe Lieberman got his way and not only was the public option removed but so to was the lowered eligibility for Medicare. What's not reported quite as much was the multi hundred million dollars that Lieberman negotiated for the University of Connecticut along with his fellow Senator from Connecticut Chris Dodd.

Mary Landrieu was able to negotiate $300 million in federal aid from the health care bill. Here's how Landrieu described her vote.

It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” she told reporters after a floor speech announcing her support of a vote to begin debate on health care reform.

Meanwhile, Bill Nelson of Florida was able to win this concession.

a provision he said will let about 800,000 Florida seniors enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans keep their extra benefits

Why, just a week earlier, Bill Nelson was on Greta telling the public that this bill was essentially a non starter.

We all know about the concessions that Ben Nelson won.

What do all of these people have in common? They all held out their yes votes until the end. Mind you, they aren't the only ones to get concessions for their home states, but nearly each and every Senator that got one made it known at one time that their vote wasn't decided.

What did my Senator, Dick Durbin, get? Nothing, that's what. Then again, Durbin's vote was never in doubt. We call this horse trading but that word doesn't nearly describe the ugliness of the process.

So, the lesson is hold out. Then, you can get stuff. In the House, the only hold out left is Bart Stupak. He's holding out for stronger anti abortion language. Then again, so was Ben Nelson. Suddenly, he got an exemption for his home state and the anti abortion language wasn't as important.

The deal makers are those who's votes are in doubt. They make the rules, and in this Congress, that also means they get free stuff for their states. That appears to be the lesson.

Health Care Reform and the 24 Hour News Cycle

Ben Nelson of Nebraska was bribed for his vote. So to was Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Bernie Sanders also received special treatment for his state. Senator Lieberman received a grant for the University of Connecticut. In fact, no less than 13 Senators have asked for carve outs for their states to exempt them from parts of the health care bill.

There's many reasons why health care reform is so unpopular. At the top of the list is the fact that the bill is a monstrosity. That said, the ugly so called sausage making process of legislating this bill from one committee to another to the full vote to the backrooms has played out like a soap opera right in front of us on the 24 hour news cycle.

For days, Neil Cavuto had small screen within a screen on his show that showed the locked door. Inside that door, a small group of Representatives and the Senators met to hammer out health care reform. It was the constant visual representation of just how non transparent the process was. As Cavuto interviewed the likes of Jon Cornyn and other Republican leaders he never missed an opportunity to ask them rhetorically if they could enter the room. Cavuto would often ask

what if you had a pizza for them

to the Republican. Cavuto spent a lot of time discussing the non transparency of the process.

The twenty four hour news cycle was tailor made for health care reform. Personally, I lost interest months ago. There are plenty, however, that can't get enough of the debate. So, to them, they can't get enough of cable news and the 24 hour news cycle. The 24 hour news cycle has not analyzed, but hyper analyzed, each and every twist and turn in this debate.

I'm not sure that every legislative process is this ugly but they are all somewhat ugly. After all, horse trading isn't new. Votes have been bought before. What's new is that each and every trade is brought into our living rooms 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Each and every ugly moment is magnified for the public at large.

Cable news has spent the last few days hyperanalyzing the vote that was bribed to Senator Ben Nelson. No wonder, he's seen his popularity fall so quickly. He's not the first to trade their vote for something for their state. He's the first to face the full fury of the 24 hour news cycle when doing it.

The exhaustion I feel, and the repulsion most people feel, toward the health care bill comes from the 24 hour news cycle's hyperanalysis of it. Almost nothing could hold up under that much scrutiny. With a bill as awful as this one, it's no wonder it's lost nearly all popularity in the face of the 24 hour news cycle.

Harry Reid's Winging It

The day after Harry Reid boldly proclaimed that he was ready to produce a health care bill with a form of a public option, some serious cold water was poured on the idea.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid’s has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

Now, the question I would have is did Harry Reid take some sort of a whip count before announcing he was ready to produce a bill. It's no secret that Joe Liberman had problems with the bill. It's no secret that several moderates had problems with the public option. Are we really to believe that Harry Reid produced a bill without knowing if the votes were there to pass it?

This is the keystone cops version of legislating. Harry Reid appears to have put out a bill which he put together in secret with few others and he had no idea if he had or has the votes to pass it. Now, we know he doesn't have the votes to pass it. In the piece, it says that "several moderates wanted to wait for details" before deciding whether to support the bill. That means that Reid put this out without giving them the details.

It's hard to put into words how looney that is. Harry Reid produced a bill that is extremely controversial. He did with little input from the rank and file in his own party. He did it without knowing if he had the votes to pass it when he did. The health care debate is in total chaos.

The Most Important Underreported Story of Last Week

This story received some coverage but not enough to put into perspective just how important it is.

One of the Senate's most powerful Democrats said Sunday that President Obama should take an "incremental" approach to fixing health care and argued that the country should postpone adding nearly 50 million new patients to the government system until after the recession is over.

"We morally, every one of us, would like to cover every American with health insurance," Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, told CNN's John King on the "State of the Union" program.

"But that's where you spend most of the $1 trillion plus, a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this healthcare plan will cost," he said.

Republicans have grown so fond of Lieberman that they forgot that for the most part he is a liberal. He has no problem with a massive health care reform bill. He clearly, however, has a problem with this one. Furthermore, he has a problem with a massive overhaul at this time.

So, what does this mean? It means there's no way he would vote for anything similar to the house bill at this time. He certainly wouldn't vote for it if the Democrats tried to ram it through with 50 votes.

As such, the first Democratic domino has fallen. Now, instead of 60 votes they have 59. Both Ted Kennedy and Roberty Byrd are unlikely to be available to vote. Byrd, even if he were available, has stated he's not in favor of ramming it through with 51 votes. So, now we are down to 57 votes. Blanche Lincoln, facing a tough re election, is very unlikely to vote for this bill and certainly not with 51 votes. Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, is also far too moderate to vote for anything near the House plan.

We are now down to 55 votes. As I've pointed out, there is a coalition of 15 moderate Democrats.Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman are all part of this coalition. Kennedy and Byrd are not. That is at least 17 potential no votes on ramming it through. With Lieberman proclaiming that he's against the bill, that kills it through normal channels. Lieberman's pronouncement that this bill is no good is also the beginning of the dominos. What we should see over the next week or so is several more members of the group I mentioned coming out against the bill. The nails are officially being put into the coffin of the bill and over the next two weeks we're going to see Senators come out to signal its official death.

Barack Obama Vs. the Far Left

Are you a Conservative that thinks that Barack Obama will govern far to the left? Never fear, for some, Barack Obama is already governing not nearly far enough to the left. Here are just some of the ideas that the average person on the far left would like to see for Obama's cabinet.
Dennis Kucinich for Secretary of State, Arlene Holt Baker (currently head of the AFL-CIO) for Secretary of Labor, Russ Feingold for Attorney General, Joseph Stiglitz (author of the far left's new gospel the Three Trillion Dollar War: the True Costs of the Iraq War) for Secretary of Treasury.

Here is how self professed Leftist,college professor, and political pundit Dr. Mark Lamont Hill analyzed the choice of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff.

Based on recent history, Rahm Israel Emmanuel is by far one of the most conservative politicians on his side of the aisle. As a member of the New Democrat Coalition, Emmanuel and his comrades have been major allies to the Right-wing’s efforts to undermine fair trade, disempower unions, and disregard environmental considerations. For example, policies like the Clinton Crime Bill and NAFTA, which was heavily critiqued by Obama, are directly attributed to Emmanuel’s influence. For a president who got elected by distancing himself from Bush, Obama’s selection of a powermongering Lieberman Democrat wreaks of contradiction.

While most Democrats are attempting to responsibly reduce military spending, Emmanuel has repeatedly voted in favor of, and resisted attempts to limit, George W. Bush’s reckless and dangerous military expenditures. Also, Emmanuel was a hardcore supporter of the Iraq war, arguing that he would have supported the invasion regardless of whether or not weapons of mass destruction really existed. Today, Emmanuel continues to instigate military action against Iran by overstating its nuclear capacity.

Perhaps most disturbing about Emmanuel is his stance on Israel. As a fervent Zionist, he is further to the Right than President Bush on all issues related to Israel. From Israel’s assassination policy to well-documented human rights abuses, Emmanuel has failed to offer the slightest critique of America’s most coveted ally. Of course, it is not difficult to find the filial source of Emmanuel’s stances. His father, Benjamin Emmanuel, was a well-known gun-runner for Irgun, a pre-Israel terrorist organization that launched a series of vicious attacks against Palestinians and British civilians. In 1991, Emmanuel himself volunteered for the Israel Defense Forces during the Gulf War.

There is a strain of elite Conservative thought that blames social conservatives for the loss in this past election. If ever there was a base of voters that can be a problem though it is the far left.

The far left has a revolutionary agenda. It includes such social issues as gay marriage, abortion on demand, euthanasia, the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine, gun control and full drug legalization. On foreign policy matters, they can't get out of Iraq soon enough. They want to avoid war with Iran at all costs, and they generally have an anti American view of geopolitics. On economic matters they use words like social justice to mask their quasi Socialistic agenda.

They also wield a lot of power. Their power base is drawn from such groups as Moveon.org, Daily Kos, and the network of George Soros. The far left lead by Moveon and Daily Kos supported Barack Obama early over Hillary Clinton in the primaries. They have had eight years of pent up frustration and anger, and now they feel as though their guy was elected.

Not only do they feel entitled, but they are not so subtley demanding payback. Here is how the President of Move On, which raised $88 million for Obama, described the group's "hopes" for his administration.

President Obama will face daunting challenges from the day he takes office. We look forward, however, to being part of the enormous wave of civic and political engagement that his Presidency has inspired and that will enable him to achieve the things that have been on the top of his agenda and ours. We look forward to the change all of us worked so hard to create

To me, this was a not subtle hint that they expect payback from Senator Obama for their troubles in helping to elect him.

The far left is already restless from the cabinet choices. They view the Clinton administration as far too moderate. They expect the Obama administration to be far more liberal. Just ask both Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman what the far left does to Democrats that they feel have crossed them. In fact, picking Hillary Clinton may be seen as an act of sacrilege.

The problem for President Obama is that appeasing the far left will alienate everyone else. Not appeasing them will cause ire from the very base that lead him into office. In order to be successful as President, I am of the opinion that he will have to take on the far left. I don't know if he has the will to take them on, and I'm not sure that he disagrees with them much. What wil happen when our troops are still in country in Iraq by the end of 2011? What will happen the first time we take an aggressive posture toward Iran? What will happen when card check and the Fairness Doctrine are not delivered? It may spell a mutiny in his base, and two plus months before taking office, we are already seeing signs that we may see Barack Obama versus the far left.

Demonizing Joe Lieberman

Jonathon Chait has a piece scorching every Conservative's favorite non Republican, Joe Lieberman, in today's The New Republic. Lieberman's main sacrilege is that he not only dared to go against the grain of his party on foreign policy, but worse than that, he wasn't shy about it.

Watching Joe Lieberman go around the bend over the last couple years is one of the strangest things I've ever seen in politics. Lieberman was always a foreign policy hawk and a capital gains tax cutter, and he generally took enormous pleasure in staying in the right's good graces. But it is also these very qualities--his ideological moderation, his aversion to conflict, his timorous demeanor--that have made his recent apoplexy so weird.

It isn't so much that he is a foreign policy hawk. That even Chait admits has been Lieberman's M.O. his whole entire political career. What really bothers Chait is that Lieberman isn't shy about voicing his disagreement. It seems that Chait believes that Lieberman has always been so accommodating to his opponents...disagreeing without being disagreeable if you will. Now, Lieberman is taking his foreign policy opponents head on.

Lieberman says that Democrats, who were once "unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders," now "minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamic extremism." Lieberman prefers them to use morally confident language like this:

Chait follows by quoting this passage...

The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman, and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

This is a passage from a speech by Barack Obama, and in the view of Chait, this speech should be enough for Lieberman to view the Democrats as plenty hawkish enough.

Obviously, Chait doesn't actually understand Lieberman's position at all. Lieberman is not so much concerned with just how much tough sounding language a candidate or politician puts into a speech. What Lieberman is concerned with is the body of action a politician or party will create in fighting the GWOT. Lieberman believes that victory in Iraq is vital. He believes that meeting with despots and tyrants is useless unless we have leverage. Furthermore, he believes that the aggressive GWOT policies of the Bush administration have worked for the most part. As an extension, he sees the Democrat's entire GWOT platform as weak and dangerous, no matter how much tough language a candidate puts into a speech.

Furthermore, Lieberman believes that in the age of terror, the right GWOT policy is more important than any other issue. As such, he supports John McCain because while they may disagree more than they agree they do agree on the one issue that matters to him right now.

This really burns up Chait. He just can't stand a former Democrat that had an overwhelmingly liberal record sticking it back in the eyes of Democrats. Chait would likely applaud folks like Scott McClellan and Chuck Hagel as courageous, but Lieberman must be a cook. This is standard issue propaganda techniques. Demonize those that disagree with you in order to marginalize them. Lieberman must be losing it because his behavior has suddenly turned aggressive even though he is always mild mannered. That's the narrative of someone like Chait. Democrats need not worry about Lieberman's aggressive criticism because he is losing it. Of course, Chait mistakes passion and principle for confrontation. It is the same kind of passion and principle that he would likely applaud in Hagel and McClellan.

Finally, Chait has the chutzpah to finish his piece like this...

There's hardly any sense in which Lieberman is an independent figure. He's become a cog in the Republican message machine. He may be independent from liberal bloggers, but the conservative equivalent--partisan shouters like Sean Hannity--are his treasured pals. Lieberman even continues to embrace lunatic preacher John Hagee--whose many daft ideas include his belief that the Holocaust fulfilled God's will--even after John McCain repudiated him.

Lieberman explains that he calls himself an "independent Democrat" because the Democratic Party's foreign policy ideals "exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has rejected them." This is a wildly egocentric interpretation. Democrats started questioning the war because the war was going badly, while Lieberman remained--to borrow a phrase--in a spider hole of denial. Most supported him in his 2006 primary fight but then endorsed the party nominee when he lost, because that's what political parties do.

Keep in mind that in the last three years, Lieberman has caucused with the Democrats. He has supported John McCain for President. He has gotten together with John Warner on a fairly liberal climate control bill. He joined the gang of fourteen, and he voted against both Sam Alito and John Roberts.

I suppose that in the mind of Chait that isn't independent and I am sure that he finds Barack Obama to be independent. Like I said, pure chutzpah.

Obama/McCain...Rhetoric Vs. Reality

Barack Obama is now famous for his rhetoric of rising above partisanship and reaching across and ending partisan politics. While Obama has certainly been able to say these things with a charisma that is not usually found, he is not the first politician to say it. Here is some of the high minded rhetoric that Barack Obama says...

We're tired of being divided. We are tired of running into ideological walls and partisan roadblocks. We're tired of appeals to our worst instincts and our greatest fears. So I say this to you guys, that America is desperate for leadership. I absolutely feel it everywhere I go. They are longing for direction and they want to believe again.

and...

And it is because of these failures that we not only have a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of great opportunity. We have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority -- to finally tackle problems that George Bush made far worse but that had festered long before George Bush ever took office -- problems that we've talked about year after year after year after year.

And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do in this election. That's why not answering questions because we are afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do. That's why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do. If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats, we can't live in fear of losing it.

So, clearly, Obama has built his campaign as a politician that transcends politics as usual. He makes himself out to be an agent of change. He makes himself out to be the individual to finally shake things up in Washington so that it is a government that takes care of people rather than takes from them. While this is noble and lofty rhetoric, one has to ask if Obama has any accomplishments that go with this.

Sean Hannity is fond of challenging Obama supporters to name one thing he has actually accomplished. One time, he asked a Democratic group of voters in a focus group led by Frank Luntz what Obama has accomplished. None of them could actually name anything. In fact, In fact, when asked on television, Obama supporter Kirk Watson repeatedly couldn't name one accomplishment. In fact, Obama's lack of leadership on any substantive issues is the focus of this New York Times article.

Even those with knowledge of Obama's accomplishment point vaguely to "work" on bills regarding ethics reform and even more nebulous work on health care reform in the Illinois Senate. The reality is that Obama's actual accomplishments are very bare, but more importantly, he has never shown the kind of courage necessary to really bridge partisan divides. His rhetoric maybe lofty, but it is backed up with absolutely nothing that tells anyone that he will be able to deliver.

While Obama talks about transcending politics, reaching across the aisle, and being able to transcend partisanship, there is one candidate in this race with a history of actually accomplishing these lofty goals: John McCain.

In fact, on issue after issue, John McCain has become the scourge of die hard Republicans and Conservatives for doing what Obama says he will do. On the issue of campaign finance reform, John McCain reached deep across the ideological aisle to Russ Feingold. Campaign finance reform was a long and arduous struggle from concept to completion. It was first introduced in 1995 and it didn't become law until 2002. It went through many stages and evolutions. During that time, McCain had to reach out to many Democrats in order to make his vision a law. In fact, in its final version, it was voted on by more Democrats then members of his own party.

Barack Obama has also worked on the issue of campaign finance reform and transparency. He has proposed a series of vague and hard to define measures in his campaign. He has had no bills turn into law. He has lead no investigations. His time in the Senate has been spent in a supporting role on this issue besides the consistent lofty rhetoric he has.

On the issue of climate control, McCain again reached across the aisle, this time to Joe Lieberman. McCain/Lieberman became nearly the scourge of his own party that McCain/Feingold was. Once again, at political risk, McCain reached across the aisle to work in a bi partisan manner. It is ironic that this bill never became law specifically because members of his own party blocked it. For all of Obama's talk, I welcome anyone to name one issue on which he bucks to establishment of his party, let alone introduced a bill that bucked it.

On this issue, Barack Obama has again proposed a plan but turned nothing into law. His plan is described by this source as typical liberal policy. It is vague and undefined much like his plans for transparency and campaign finance reform.

I believe McCain's biggest coup of bi partisanship came with the Gang of 14. The battle over judges became more and more contentious over the years. During 2005, it came to a head, as judge after judge was being filibustered by the Democrats. The Republicans proposed the so called nuclear option that would remove the filibuster on judges. McCain saw this issue in a unique way. If the nuclear option was employed, it would change a rule that had been around when Daniel Webster roamed the halls of Congress. He felt that such traditions were more important than partisanship. Thus, he lead a group of 14 Senators, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, in creating this so called Gang of 14. They created a nebulous term, extraordinary circumstances, however since, no judges have been filibustered and the nuclear option hasn't been employed.

My Conservative brethren hold this as one of many unforgiveable actions by McCain, however I believe that political gamesmanship is disastrous for all. (Just read more about the 2003 fiasco over redistricting in Texas to see what happens when neither side backs down in a game of political gamesmanship) Had the Republicans employed the nuclear option, the Democrats would likely have walked out and shut the government down. Who knows where the crisis would have ended? In Texas, the Democrats went to Oklahoma and Tom Delay ordered their arrest in a public fiasco in which both sides exhibitied the most ugly characteristics of politics. McCain lead a group of fourteen Senators that avoided such a Mexican showdown.

On the issue of judges, Obama has stayed largely silent. He voted against both justice Roberts and Alito. On the issue of abortion, his position is so radical that he is actually to the left of Planned Parenthood on the issue. We don't know what sorts of judges he would choose because he has never said and no one has asked. His radical social agenda indicate someone more left than Ruth Ginsberg, and it is unclear how such a choice would accomplish any of the lofty rhetoric he proclaims.

Finally, McCain's boldest piece of bi partisanship came during the most recent campaign season. During the campaign this past summer, McCain reached out to liberal icon Ted Kennedy to try and pass comprehensive immigration reform. His contentious and controversial idea made him the scourge of his own party and nearly killed his campaign. It ultimately failed, however without a doubt it was political courage of the highest order. During the primary season he reached out to an enemy of most of the voters he was seeking and tried to legislate on a contentious and controversial issue. It was an unprecedented and bold move by a Presidential candidate. (On the other hand, Barack Obama has skipped the votes on most of the most controversial issues of the day during the primary season)

On this issue, Obama has also largely stayed in the background. His only leadership role was in trying to bring driver's licenses for illegals to Illinois. His biggest claim to fame on this issue was a major speech in front of the radical separatist group, La Raza. He stayed largely in the background of this past summer's illegal immigration debate. He has absolutely no substantive accomplishments on the issue, and his position is largely in line with his party as a whole.

So, what we have is a contrast between rhetoric and reality. There is one candidate in this race preaching about bi partisanship, change, and shaking things up and another one with a history of doing so. To truly reach across the aisle, buck partisanship, and bring everyone together requires political courage. It requires courage to buck your natural constituency and reach out to folks your supporters despise. It requires the gumption to withstand the attacks of your ideological comrades. One candidate has a history of doing all of these things, and the other one, a Democrat, was was voted most liberal Senator in 2007. In other words, while he talks about trascending politics, his voting record shows he is the exact opposite. It is quite ironic that Obama preaches bi partisanship and change, because on the merits, he is all talk on both issues and McCain, his opponent, has a unique and remarkable history of accomplishment on both issues.