Between Iraq and a Revolution: "There's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something is happening in the world ..."
"It's 3 A.M. and your children are safe and asleep, but there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something is happening in the world. ..." And that someplace is Tehran, Iran. These words, borrowed from then candidate and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign, are a likely scenario that will be played out within the White House sometime in the coming days. The question is not if the call comes, we know it will; but when that call comes, how will President Barack Obama respond?
In the wake of last week's disputed Iranian presidential election, supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi have taken to the streets by the hundreds of thousands. In doing so, they have both captivated the world and placed themselves on the edge of a dangerous precipice where violence and complete chaos are only a stones throw away. With eight people already reported dead, scores of others severely beaten or arrested, and the Iranian government taking dramatic steps to censor any form of free media from leaving its borders, it appears the only alternatives are revolution or a horrific state sponsored crackdown on the protestors.
This picture, from the European Pressphoto Agency, is what could become common place in Tehran in the coming days: a protester beaten and bloodied after a "peaceful" demonstration in the Iranian capital. This is the real 3 a.m. moment foretold in that now famous ad; a powder keg in the tinder box that is the Middle East. "We are fighting with our lives and the world is just watching," said a Tehran University student to CNN in an interview yesterday, requesting his name not be used. "They see how the government is trying to silence us, how they are beating us -- but they don't come to our help. It's OK. We will succeed, even if we have to fight alone."
While many conservative politicos and pundits have been quick to criticize the president for his globe trotting abroad - including Obama's trip to the Middle East only days ago - while the domestic front (see GM Bankruptcy, struggling economy, health care reform, a Supreme Court nomination, etc.) heats up, it is that globe trotting that may pay large dividends in uniting the key international players against the dictatorial abuses and human rights violations stemming from a stolen election by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Recognizing the importance of acting bilaterally, rather than going it alone, and building America's reputation abroad, President Obama has built up enough goodwill and political capital globally to call on other world leaders to take a tough stand on Iran.
While the White House has tread cautiously on the issue so as not to be accused of "meddling" in Iranian affairs, and avoid making the United States a strawman for Ahmadinejad, any escalation of the violence on peaceable demonstrators seeking only the fundamental right to vote, should be met with a swift call from Obama to other world leaders calling for joint action. The carrot and the stick approach championed by the Bush Administration in 2006 shows the current regime is about as trustworthy as North Korea at keeping its word. If Iran is allowed to continue to brutalize its citizens for protesting a sham election while the rest of the world stands by we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
If that time comes, and violence does escalate and Iran refuses to hold new elections, we should throw away the carrot and proceed with the stick. That stick does not have to be a U.N. peacekeeping mission or a coalition of the willing. Rather, such joint action could go as far as a resolution among U.N. member nations to refuse recognizing the current government of Iran or imposing tough trade sanctions from U.N. member nations and Iran's leading trading partners including Japan, China, Italy, South Korea, Turkey, the Netherlands, France, and South Africa. Such restrictions would be lifted when Iran held new elections monitored by U.N. election officials.
While waiting for that phone call, President Obama would be well served to dust off a copy of his Inaugural Address and give it a read, particularly the following passage:
"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more. ...
And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
Posted by: Josh Swanson on 6/18/2009 at 1:15 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
Vice President Cause For Concern: But It's Not Biden
The pundits and politicos were right. During last year's presidential campaign, the selection of then Sen. Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate prompted concerns over Biden's verbosity and propensity for the dreaded gaffe. Fast forward four months into the Obama administration, and those campaign prognosticators appear to be right. Well, sort of. One of the biggest newsmakers is indeed the vice president. But it's not Biden.
Instead, while Vice President Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, helps prepare the White House to navigate the waters of an upcoming Supreme Court nomination, it's Dick Cheney whose mouth is getting him, and the GOP's future prospects, into more trouble than a 28-gauge shotgun. For at least the third time in as many months, Cheney was on the Sunday morning airwaves attacking President Obama.
This time, on CBS's Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer, Cheney reiterated his belief that the Obama administration is making the United States more vulnerable to terrorists attacks. Unlike former vice presidents who've remained largely silent on matters of policy upon departing the White House, Cheney has become the public face of Republican opposition to Obama's security policies, telling Schieffer:
"The reason I've been speaking, ... is because I think the issues that are at stake here are so important. And, in effect, what we've seen happen with respect to the Obama administration as they came to power is they have moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow- on terrorist attack like 9/11. Dealing with prisoner interrogation, for example, or the terrorist surveillance program."
I'm not questioning Cheney's motives for making these statements. He is entitled to his opinion, and the former vice president clearly believes in what he is saying. What is questionable is that in a time where his long beloved party is "lost in the wilderness," as longtime GOP strategist Ed Rollins opined on CNN this evening, what in the name of Harry Whittington is Cheney doing by making himself the de facto face of a Republican Party struggling for an identity?
But Cheney wasn't done. Nope, he was just getting warmed up. Only a few weeks removed from Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic side of the aisle, and with other moderate Republicans constantly looking over their shoulder for the knife, Cheney put the blade to Colin Powell. Powell, the well-respected former Secretary of State, was given the ax by Rush Limbaugh last week when the cigar chomping conservative proclaimed on his show that Powell no longer belonged in the Republican Party. Yesterday, a smiling Cheney completed the one-two shank, telling Schieffer that it was his impression that Powell already left the party. "I didn't know he was still a Republican," said Cheney.
After the Specter debacle, if someone like Colin Powell isn't safe from the scorn of top party brass, clearly the purge is on and its open season on GOP moderates.
You don't win elections by looking towards the past, particularly when that past was repudiated overwhelmingly by voters in 2006 and 2008. Nor do you win elections by only throwing red meat to the base and garnering 20% of the vote. Cheney is a career politician and Washington insider that, love him or despise him, has experienced great success. However, when he left office, Cheney was an albatross around the neck of Republicans with a 13 percent approval rating. For the former vice president to interject himself into the political landscape and debate at a time when Republicans are reeling is certainly not the prescription for remedying the GOP's maladies.
Posted by: Josh Swanson on 5/11/2009 at 12:41 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
After Winter Of Discontent, GOP Looks To Rally Around Supreme Court Vacancy While Obama Looks To Make History
Conservative and liberal activists alike - especially the conservative activists - kicked into high gear today with the announcement that Supreme Court Justice David Souter would be retiring from the Court upon its summer recess. As if President Barack Obama didn't have enough to do, the letter from Justice Souter that fell on his desk this morning gave him yet another task: filling a vacancy on the highest court of the land. It begs the image of an old Herblock cartoon showing Harry Truman sitting in the Oval Office at his desk with the problems of the world staring back at him.
With the Democrats controlling the Senate, and with Sen. Arlen Specter's defection from the GOP this week giving the Dems a filibuster-proof majority, Republicans are well aware they have virtually zero shot at stopping whomever Obama nominates to take the place of Souter. However, that doesn't mean the GOP won't raise holy hell when Obama stands in the Rose Garden sometime this summer announcing his first, of what could be as many as three or four, Supreme Court nominees. As Justice John Paul Stevens approaches 90, and with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg at 76 and battling pancreatic cancer, Obama is likely to become the first President since Ronald Reagan to appoint at least three judges to the Court.
The issue of judges has long been a rallying cry for the conservative base since the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade upheld a woman's right to choose in 1973. Count how many times you've already heard in the last 24 hours - and will continue to hear in the next two months - the term "activist judges" and your head will spin. Be prepared for endless hours of B-roll footage on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox showing picketers from both pro-choice and pro-life groups in front of buildings ranging from the Supreme Court to the Red River Women's Clinic. Not to mention the campaign-esque ads that you'll be watching all summer telling you to "Call Senator Dorgan and Conrad and tell them to vote no on (insert name of Obama's Supreme Court nominee.")
After suffering through a winter of discontent, Souter's retirement gives the GOP a chance to gain some much needed traction and stir up support among its members, who haven't had much to cheer about since Obama took office 100 days ago this week. You need look no further than the lead on Politico.com.
"A small cadre of GOP researchers has already begun scouring the records of Souter’s potential replacements — hoping to find a trove of inflammatory legal writings or off-the-wall positions to hang around the necks of vulnerable Democrats in the 2010 midterms, Republican aides tell POLITICO."
However, with Souter, Stevens, and Ginsberg forming three-fourths of what is typically viewed as the liberal wing of the Court, it is doubtful Obama will be able to reshape the Court in the same way President Richard Nixon did with his four appointments. Here's how the Court breaks down. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas form the conservative wing of the Court and typically vote in unison on the high profile constitutional cases. Along with Justice Stephen Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Ginsberg form the liberal wing of the Court and typically vote in unison on the high profile constitutional cases.
And then there is the powerbroker, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote and the Oz who pulls the curtains. As my first year Constitutional Law professor is fond of saying, "As goes Kennedy so goes the Supreme Court." So, unless Kennedy or one of the conservative quartet unexpectedly steps down, the Court will remain at its current balance for the next four years. That doesn't mean Obama isn't excited. Just the opposite.
As a former Constitutional Law professor at The University of Chicago Law School, Obama will surely be heavily involved in vetting and selecting the next Justice. In fact, the usually stoic Obama tipped his hand a bit in revealing his exuberance when he interrupted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' daily press briefing to announce Souter's retirement and proclaim he would nominate someone "who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book."
It's every law students dream - well, at least those of us who get excited about sitting around a camp fire with a few cold beers arguing about the penumbras of the Bill of Rights as enunciated by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut - to nominate someone to the Court. Who will that nominee be? The smart money is on Second Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Sonia Sotomayor. As a Hispanic woman, she'd become the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the Court. Not only would it be historic and groundbreaking, it would give Obama major political points with those two voting groups. Given his past as a former Constitutional Law professor and now his role as President, you can bet neither the politics or the history are lost on Obama.
Posted by: Josh Swanson on 5/01/2009 at 11:45 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink
Switch Shouldn't Surprise: Far Right Hands Moderate Specter To Democrats On Silver Plate
Democrats across America, with perhaps the exception of Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-7), are penning thank you letters to far-right conservatives this afternoon. Specifically, Democrats are thanking individuals like Pat Toomey and his political organization, Club For Growth, for laying the straw that broke the camels back and pushed Sen. Arlen Specter out of the Republican and into the Democratic Party. The result is a shockwave throughout the political world as Specter's switch - presuming Al Franken is seated in Minnesota - gives Democrats a filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate. Assuming the Democrats can stay united, the switch clears the way for President Barack Obama to implement his far sweeping reform oriented "Change" agenda on big ticket items like health care, energy, education, and financial regulation.
Toomey, the former Republican congressman and president of the conservative political action committee Club for Growth, all but handed Specter to the Democrats on a silver plate. Toomey and Specter were gearing up for a knock-down-dragout primary that would've left Specter KO'd on the canvas, and Sestak as the next Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter said as much during his press conference explaining the switch where he conceded that recent polling results pushed him over the edge and into the Democrats lap. Last Friday, a Rasmussen poll of Pennsylvania showed Specter trailing Toomey 51 percent to 30 percent in next year's Republican Senate Primary. "I have to make a calculation on whether it’s possible or realistic to fight for the moderate wing of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. I don’t think its realistic, its bleak," said Specter.
In perhaps the most telling moment of the press conference, Specter summarized the schism brewing within the GOP between moderates like himself and Sen. John McCain and extreme conservative groups who seek to push the party further to the right. When asked whether he felt pushed out by the Republicans, he not only blamed them for his defection, but for recent electoral losses:
“Republicans didn’t rally to Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland, was beaten by the Club for Growth on the far right and lost the general election. Republicans didn’t rally to the banner of Joe Schwartz in Michigan and he was beaten by a conservative and the Club for Growth and they lost the general election. Republicans didn’t rally to Heather Wilson in New Mexico last year and she was beaten in a primary and lost in the general election.
The club for growth challenged Linc [Lincoln] Chaffee, remember Linc Chaffee? They made him spend all his money in the primary and he lost the general and had Linc Chafee been elected in 2006, the Republicans would have controlled the Senate in 2007 and 2008. And I would have been chairman of a committee (referring to the Judiciary Committee) and President Bush nominated 13 circuit judges, they were all left on the table for President Obama. And President Bush nominated 21 district court judges and they were all left on the table for President Obama.
Now take the social conservatives in America and how they prize circuit judges. … And uh, uh, one of my opponents principle advisors said we don’t care about stage two (referring to the general election), we want to beat Senator Arlen Specter, we’ll worry about stage two later. They don’t make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party.
I don’t understand it, but that’s what they say. For the people that are Republicans to sit by and let them to continue to dominate the party after they beat Chaffee and cost us control of the senate and cost us 34 federal judges, there ought to be a rebellion, there ought to be an uprising, so thanks for asking me a question of what the Republicans are like here."
Whether, and to what extent, Specter allows Democrats to pursue their full agenda remains to be seen. However, given his fervent desire for reelection, I think he'll play ball to avoid a serious challenger in the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary in 2010. Before today, rumors swirled that Sestak, who has been building an impressive campaign war chest, was gearing up for a Senate run in 2010. For his part, Sestak left the door open to a primary challenge against Specter during an interview with MSNBC this afternoon, refusing to rule it out. Well aware of the Sestak threat, Specter made sure to note that President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Penn. Governor Ed Rendell and fellow Penn. Senator Bob Casey Jr. all pledged to campaign for Specter in his 2010 race.
Either way, as the dust settles on today, the Democrats are on the brink of a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate while the GOP is on the brink of at best an identity crisis, and at worse collapse. Not a bad present for President Obama as he celebrates his First 100 days in office tomorrow. I wonder if Specter will be cutting the cake?
Posted by: Josh Swanson on 4/28/2009 at 2:13 PM | Comments (3) | Permalink
Already?! 2010 Campaign Heating Up In Pennsylvania
Didn't we just have an election? Not even five months removed from the watershed election of our time, the campaign fires are beginning to heat up in what is likely to be one of the most closely contested and watched Senate races of the 2010 midterm election for the seat held by Pennsylvania incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter.
An embattled moderate who consistently ruffles the feathers of his party's conservative establishment, Specter released an ad this week attacking primary opponent Pat Toomey. Tommey, a former United States Representative, is currently the President of a conservative political action committee, Club For Growth. Club For Growth bills itself as an organization supporting a low-tax and limited-government agenda. In 2004, Toomey challenged Specter in a primary fight only to lose by 1.7% of the vote after a last minute endorsement by President George W. Bush tipped the scales in Specter's favor.
Calls for Specter's ouster through a primary challenge multiplied in recent months thanks in part to his support for President Barack Obama's stimulus package. Specter was one of three Republicans in the Senate whose support ensured passage of the bill. In a Quinnipiac University poll released March 25, Specter trailed Tommey 41 - 27 percent among likely Republican primary voters with 28 percent undecided. Playing off the economic decline of the last year, the ad - called "Bonuses" - hits Toomey for his work as a Wall Street trader and accuses him of wanting to gamble Social Security in the stock market.
Specter talks about the Senate's work to pass the economic stimulus bill with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, left to right, listen, Friday, Feb. 6, 2009, in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Specter is in the fight for his political life and fighting back early. The ad comes on the heels of Specter banking right and revoking his support for the Employee Free Choice Act. Two years ago Specter was a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the EFCA. His change in position shows how seriously he views Toomey's primary threat. As reported by the Washington Post political blog, The Fix:
Specter announced his opposition to the legislation during a speech on the Senate floor early this afternoon and immediately drew plaudits from conservatives. "Senator Specter has come through in the clutch," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "This is almost certain to be the single most important vote of 2009."
The vote all but seals the fate of the Employee Free Choice Act, a key piece of legislation from labor and one of the most hotly contested issues in the 111th Congress. Specter was the only Republican to support the legislation. Along with Specter's vote, the likely seating of Al Franken in Minnesota would have given Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the 60 votes he needed to pass the EFCA. Coupled with this vote, Specter's ad is the first salvo in what will be another long campaign season.
Posted by: Josh Swanson on 4/03/2009 at 9:55 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
