Right in San Francisco

The New Republican Congress

Despite Tom DeLay's admonition against overconfidence, I will go with the polls showing a "generic" Republican preference of about 5%, and offer some conjecture about a Republican 2011 House of Representatives. (See the electoral map.)

We've been here before and screwed it up. Lesser lights were the worst offenders: Congressman Duke Cunningham - guilty of taking millions in bribes; lobbyist Jack Abramoff - guilty of defrauding Indian tribe clients and official corruption along with a dozen other White House and congressional aides; Rep Mark Foley - guilty of soliciting a young male page.  While not convicted of crimes, a considerable stink hung over leaders Newt Gingrich (reprimanded in 1997 and fined by the House for ethics violations), Tom Delay (charged in 2005 with violating state campaign finance laws and money laundering), and Dennis Hastert (shady real estate deals.)  Those looking for reasons why Democrats outnumber Republicans 4 to 3 while voters self-identify as conservative over liberal 2:1 should start with the Republican House's decade of corruption. 

This time it is high unemployment and generation-punishing budget deficits that are giving Republicans a chance, and they will be the focus of the 112th Congress.

-- John Boehner, was a junior reformer in the 90's, helped write the Contract with America in 1994, and became minority leader in 2006, following Tom DeLay's resignation. Under his leadership (and with Nancy Pelosi seeking no Republican input), he has been able to hold his caucus to a virtual 100% voting record. He promises to be a solid majority leader.

-- Paul Ryan of Road Map fame will presumably be the Chair of the House Budget Committee.  Wisdom and courage will be required.

--  Ryan is also on the Bowles/Simpson Deficit Reduction Commission which will report in December on recommendations to close the $1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit, giving the administration and the Congress a beginning point for negotiations. Democrat Bowles has indicated that he favors 3/4 spending cuts and 1/4 tax increases, rolling back the recent expansion of government spending from 21 to 24 % of GDP.  Options such as a Value Added Tax will probably not get the 14 of 18 votes necessary for recommendation, but they will receive attention none-the-less.

--  Fortunately, the new Congress should be encouraged by several recent examples of new leaders receiving early credit for slashing spending - Governor Chris Cristie in New Jersey; Governor Bob McDonnell in Virginia; Prime Minister David Cameron in the United Kingdom. Look for the House's "power of the purse" to run into the Community Organizer in Chief's desire to spread the wealth. Obama is smart enough to know - even after the resignations of Budget Director Peter Orszag and chief economic adviser Christine Romer - that wealth has to be created before it can be redistributed.

-- In the short run, voters favor job creation over deficit reduction, suggesting a series of Republican proposals to help the creators of jobs - extension of the Bush tax cuts; a shift of focus on health care from extension of coverage to cost reduction (repeal is not possible with Obama's veto); movement toward real energy independence; a challenge to regulatory expansion; and most importantly, a plan to return to budget sanity.   

--  One concern of the White House will be Darrell Issa, the Republicans' biggest investigator of the administration's alleged abuses, as chair of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - with subpoena power. Move over Henry Waxman.

-- Finally, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Blue Dog Democrats - or what is left of them - once they are out from under the thumb of Ms Pelosi. With a liberal Democratic president and a Tea Party-energized Republican House, they will remain in "no man's land".

This all assumes that the Republicans' campaign message remains on track, not getting distracted by popular, but less important, issues such as immigration, Muslim mosques, and the corruption of Charlie Rangel. I believe that the Republican leaders get it.

-----  

This week's video is a largely unreported welcome of returning soldiers by President George W. Bush at Dallas/Fort Worth. Whatever his other shortcomings, this is his element.

-----

And, a plug for my nuclear terrorism novel, The Target, available in paperback and Kindle at Amazon and by request at most book stores.

The Year of DeMint

   Special Ad: Nuclear terrorism thriller, The Target by Bill Bowen, now available (see below)

-----

    I have this vision of Senator Jim DeMint, chairman of the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC, sitting on the veranda on a plantation house somewhere outside of Charleston, surrounded by campaign aides and his hunting dog, mint julep in hand. This has been a good year indeed for the 58 year-old junior senator from South Carolina who forms the most senior link between elected Republicans and the Tea Party. 

    The top of the "good news" list has to be Alvin Greene winning the Democratic primary to run against him in November - virtually unknown; unemployed; no campaign organization; indicted for sex crimes. The first law of politics is "get elected". Check!

    The last year has been unusually prominent for South Carolina politicians - Joe Wilson got a House rebuke for his "You Lie" outburst at Obama's September 2009 healthcare speech to Congress - but quickly raised over $1,000,000 while becoming a prime 2010 target for national liberal groups; moderate SC Republican Senator Lindsay Graham lost some ground after his friend John McCain's presidential defeat, increasing DeMint's standing in the state hierarchy; conservative Indian Nikki Haley is the presumptive next governor. The home state is secure and of some national significance. Check!

    Of most importance to those outside of the Palmetto State, his candidates are doing well nationally. His endorsements, (often in opposition to the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee) are winning primaries against establishment Republicans - Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania; Marco Rubio in Florida; Rand Paul in Kentucky; Sharon Angle in Nevada; Mike Lee in Utah; Ken Buck in Colorado. Whether or not the Republicans gain the necessary 10 seats to take back the Senate (with 5 to 8 being likely), DeMint will have a set of Tea Party conservative colleagues who will owe him some loyalty. If the Democrats hold on by a seat or two because the insurgents don't have broad enough appeal, well ... he has famously declared that he'd rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who believed in limited government and free markets than 60 who had no principles ... and there is always 2012 when Republicans will almost certainly take over the Senate with 23 Democratic and 10 Republican seats up for grabs. 

-----  

This week's You Tube is a cute Jon Stewart skit about the race card.

-----

    My first novel, The Target, is available at Amazon (paperback and Kindle) and by request at most book stores. Some novels have a purpose. Mine, in which a group of average Americans become nuclear terrorists, is to demonstrate that it is in everybody's interest - Muslim as well as Western - to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For readers who like intelligent thrillers, plotter Mike Curran, moderate Arab Aisha al-Rashid, and blogger "Barbara from Berkeley" offer both suspense and memorable lessons. 

bill bowen - 8/23/10

Republican Ideas

    Three events this week tie together nicely - Paul Krugman's blather about Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future, Ryan's polite and forceful response, and another Obama fundraising speech about the Republicans' (if elected) returning to the failed policies of George Bush - who got us into this mess, in case you hadn't heard. 

    First, Krugman. For the past two years he has used his position as lead op-ed writer for the New York Times to champion the position that deficits don't matter, a quantum increase in stimulus spending is what is needed, and Obama needs more courage to move to the Left in his economic and social policies. For the liberals on the left, the Nobel-winning Krugman is "the man." One doesn't know the communication paths, but he certainly is an early recipient (or sender?) of the Pelosi/Reid/Obama talking points. So, when Krugman calls Ryan a charletan, flim flam artist, and a fraud who "adds nothing to the discussion of fiscal responsibility", there is an unusual urgency in his purpose. 

    Krugman's problem is that Paul Ryan and his "Roadmap" offer a comprehensive set of proposals to get out of our fiscal quagmaire. To a conservative it is marvelous to have a clear thinking spokesman with a plan; to a liberal, it is anathema.

    As an aside, it is worth noting that the prior week's Washington Post wrote a prominent, generally positive article on the Roadmap, which focused on Ryan's proposal to cut Social Security and allow partial private accounts - neglecting to say that older citizens would not be included (they want to keep what they have) and younger citizens would be the focus (they generally accept the need to address the shortfall.) Obviously, an innocent omission for the "fair and balanced" newspaper.

    So, what's with Obama's comments about a Republican congressional victory meaning a return to Bush's policies with no legitimate new thoughts in the GOP? (In a January discussion with Ryan, Obama called the Roadmap a set of "entirely legitimate proposals.") With the Congress' approval at 21% and Obama's at 45%  - and both sinking rapidly - there are two campaign themes. Republicans are racists and they have no ideas other than to return to Bush's failed policies. The first is wearing out from over use. The second is pretty hollow if Ryan and others are allowed to be heard. Thus Krugman's attempted put-down and Obama's change of course. 

    There is a big strategy question about how specific to be before an election where things are going your way. In 2008 Obama was vague "Hope and Change". In 1994, the Republicans were Gingerich's specific  "Contract with America." Both worked. In 2010 there are a number of Republicans working toward a set of promises to be revealed in September - wanting to move beyond the "Party of No" criticism.  But it will be difficult to improve on Ryan's economics-focused Roadmap - and the Democratic leadership understands that.  Let it be heard throughout the land. 

----- 

    This week's You Tube is a clear statement of intent by Maxine Waters about a government takeover of the oil industry - well before the BP disaster and her House trial for corruption. If anybody is wondering what California liberals really think, here it is. 

-----

    As a result of last week's posting, the always thoughtful Dick Spotswood has asked for my recommendations on Afghanistan. Here they are:

    1. Look at Afghanistan as a question of how to protect the Pakistani nukes. e.g. do not push the Taliban into Pakistan and escalate violence there. Work with the Pakistani government. 

    2. Reverse Obama's escalation and return to Bush's policy of "benign neglect."

    3. Let the CIA and Special Forces work with friendly tribes to take out the Al Queda remnants.

    4. As an added feature because of what we have done, relocate people who have befriended us from hostile to friendly territory. 

    5. Don't worry about poppies and schools for girls. These are good things, but we cannot do everything for everybody.  

   bill bowen - 8/13/10

Afghan Nation Building

The belated discussion about our objectives in Afghanistan recalls the long-standing division between the George Washington-style "Non-interventionists" and Woodrow Wilson-style "Make the World Safe for Democracy" internationalists. It is time for Washington's realism.  

    In our quest for rapid "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have thought that military success would lead to elections and stable societies, lubricated with a few billion dollars of assistance for roads and schools. To our surprise, we are finding that the real test of democracy is not the courage of the public to vote in the face of insurgent threats, but whether leaders are willing to relinquish power - to alternative national leaders (in Iraq), or to local leaders (in Afghanistan.) To his great credit, George Washington did; to his great discredit, Al Gore did not (even though he really did lose.)  

    Most of today's major nations have taken centuries to form - Italy; Germany; the United Kingdom; China - and even at that there frequently remain separatist tendencies. We keep being shown the lesson that it is very difficult to impose nationhood, democracy, and economic development - most recently in Haiti and Kosovo. Even in the United States, nationhood is not a totally settled question; within the past few weeks:

    -  An Iroquois lacrosse team refused to travel to an international tournament on US and Canadian passports, insisting instead on their own;

    -  Senator Akaka's bill for a single Hawaiian Native governing entity burbled along in the Senate; 

     - The House passed a bill to allow a referendum on Puerto Rican statehood. (It will presumably die in the Senate.)

    These may seem like quixotic dalliances, but they do make one wonder why we think the Afghans would suddenly want a strong central government. Any "nation building" strategy which starts from that premise - including a strong central army instead of local militias - is doomed to failure.  

    Some years ago I listened to a presentation by a senior CIA officer who had helped defeat the Taliban with a few hundred Americans, a freightening mix of tribal leaders, a focused mission, and no embedded NY Times reporters. My guess is that, without calling it the Bush approach revisited, Obama will within a year see the wisdom of "less is more". 

    ----- 

This video of Congressman Pete Stark defending the right of the federal government to do anything they wanted comes courtesy of the now-famous Andrew Breitbart.

bill bowen - 8/6/10