Democrats and Rocky Mountain Pragmatism

One of the themes that I find myself returning to in my blogging is the need for the Democratic Party to govern as moderates. There is a great article in Time this week about the rise of pragmatic Democrats in the Rocky Mountain West.

The article is a profile of some of my favorite Democrat politicians from the West including Governor Brian Schweitzer and Senator Jim Tester from Montana, and Senator Ken Salazar and Congressman John Salazar of Colorado.

The article has a telling quote from the conservative editor of the Grand Junction, Colorado Daily Sentinel:

"The problem is, we've gone from the extreme Democrat tree huggers in the 1990s to a hard-right Republican Party that knows no boundaries. The party with the problem now is the G.O.P. That's why we endorsed John Salazar for Congress. He's not a Nancy Pelosi Democrat. He thinks we've got enough gun laws, he's against the death tax, he's a libertarian on social issues, and he knows that the deer and elk around here just don't like to hang out around natural-gas rigs."

Toward the end of the article is a great profile of Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and a possible presidential run in his future. Listen to this run down:

Schweitzer has a master's in soil science from Montana State University and spent seven years building irrigation projects in Saudi Arabia. He speaks fluent Arabic and has a sophisticated grasp of Middle Eastern politics and the history of oil.

Schweitzer was just elected to his first term as Governor in 2004, so it's too soon for him to make a run for the White House (ahem, I'm looking at you Senator Obama). Schweitzer seems about as far away from the likes of Senators Clinton and Biden as you can get.

In the crowded Democrat Presidential field, I think the candidate that most embodies these pragmatic values, and the one I am currently most comfortable supporting in the general election, is former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Here's hoping there's room for his message to get out in a race that will focus heavily on Barak and Clinton.

Allard Announces He Won't Seek Re-Election

MSNBC is reporting that Colorado Republican Wayne Allard will not run for re-election to the US Senate in 2008. Sen. Allard has stated that he will honor his self-imposed term limits pledge and retire at the end of his second term in the Senate.

Colorado has been a Republican-leaning state (George W. Bush carried the state in both 2000 and 2004), but the Democrats have made gains in recent elections.

Democrats see the race as a chance to pick up another vote in Congress after wresting two House seats and a Senate seat from Republicans the past two years. Republicans hope to stanch a long series of losses, including both houses of the state Legislature and the governor's office.

Democratic Rep. Mark Udall, a popular five-term congressman and son of former Rep. Morris Udall of Arizona, has said he was going to run for the seat whether Allard did or not. Another Democrat who has been mentioned as a potential candidate is Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.

This may be a story that has little significance outside of Colorado, however, it may be the beginning of a trend. After the Republicans captured the House and Senate in 1994, the Democrats found themselves in the minority after a long stretch of being the majority party. Many Democratic Senators did not like life in the minority and several did not seek re-election in 1996. This led to a greater number of open seats which were easier for the Republicans to pick off, thereby further increasing their Senate majority.

2008 will be a tough year for Senate Repulicans seeking re-election simply beacuse there are nearly twice as many Republican seats to defend than Democratic seats. This means that, absent a political earthquake, the Republicans have almost no chance to regain their Senate majority in the 2008 elections.

It will be interesting to see if the Allard retirement announcement will foreshadow a wave of Republican retirement announcements in the coming weeks.

You're Either With Us or Against Us

In a bold move, the Pentagon has opened up a new front in the War on Terror. The New York Times reports that Charles Stimson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, has rasied the alarm against the defense attorneys and their firms representing the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

The statement received broad condemnation from a variety of academics and legal organizations.

Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”

The article states that Senator Pat Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has written a letter to President Bush asking the President to repudiate Stimson's comments.

As of this writing, Sen. Leahy is still waiting.

Harry Reid Has A Bad Day

The New York Times is reporting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been dealt a defeat in his effort to block the more rigid ethics reforms passed by the House of Representatives.

Last week the House Democrats passed an unexpectedly broad change to their chamber’s rules that would disclose the size, purpose and sponsor of any earmark.

But on Thursday, when Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, introduced the same thing in the Senate, Democratic leaders moved quickly to squash it, calling the House bill ill thought out.

Despite Sen. Reid's opposition to DeMint's amendment (to adopt the House proposal), 10 Democrats sided with 41 Republicans to defeat Reid's effort to kill the amendment. The 10 Democrats that supported the Republicans included Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb.

The Washington Times has more details on the story.

"Democratic leaders are stalling in an attempt to strong-arm more Democrats into voting to table the amendment," said Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. "This is not a promising beginning to the new Congress when the first effort to improve accountability and transparency is being shot down by the Democratic leadership."

There is still time for Sen. Reid to change his mind and support the amended bill, but for now he is delaying a final vote on the Ethics Bill. Welcome to life in the majority, Senator, it's not as easy as it looks.

Boxer Forgets Her Target Audience

Someone needs to remind Senator Barbara Boxer that despite Democratic success in the midterm elections, the Congress is almost evenly divided. That means politicians need to take extra care not to alienate moderate voters.

The New York Times reports on the reaction to Sen. Boxer's grilling of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice at yesterday's hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But instead of the story being reported as the Senate coming out in strong opposition to President Bush's Iraq Policy, the story focused on what exactly Boxer meant when she pointed out that because Rice had no children, she would not have to make any sacrifices to support the President's plan.

Some Democratic Senate staffers complained privately that Ms. Boxer’s exchange with Ms. Rice allowed the Bush administration to turn the tables on Iraq critics and sidestep the larger issue of the almost uniform opposition to the president’s new plan to send an additional 21,500 U.S. soldiers to Iraq.

The Democrats have shown themselves to be politically tone-deaf in the past, most recently with their over-the-top performance in the Confirmation Hearings of Judge Samuel Alito, in which the most reported-on moment was Mrs. Alito breaking down into tears from the accumulated assualt on her husband's character. The Democrats came across as bullies and Republicans such as South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham scored points for "coming to the rescue" of Mrs. Alito.

The public has little stomach for political bullying, and the moderates didn't elect a Democrat Congress to beat down the Republicans through personal attacks. I don't know what Boxer had in her mind when she made her foolish statements about Rice, but she would be wise to confine future criticisms of the Iraq Policy to the Iraq Policy.

Stepping Back From the Abyss

Honest dissent and the voices of opposition have played a critical role in our nation's history. I appreciate the variety of voices in the blogosphere that have been writing and commenting on the situation in Iraq.

I have been giving much thought to my support for the McCain/Lieberman plan, particularly the reasons for supporting the plan. One of the chief reasons I find the plan attractive is based in psychology: it feels wrong to just give in and be consumed by hopelessness and failure. In other words, doing something is preferable to doing nothing.

Unless, of course, one is sinking in a pit of quicksand. In the case of the quicksand, it is best to remain calm and fight the urge to thrash about uncontrollably. Perhaps some kind of fighting withdrawl, but withdrawl nonetheless, is the best course of action at this time. I just don't know. And because I don't know, I don't feel comfortable supporting a surge in troops at this time. It just seems too big a gamble given that the plan would be directed by George Bush.

I'm reminded of a scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in which Sean Connery has the great line with regard to the bumbling Marcus Brody, "You didn't drag poor Marcus along, did you? He's not up to the task."

Right now, President Bush is Marcus Brody, and he is most definitely not up to the task.

As an aside, read George Will's column on the surge. The arithmetic he lays out is staggering and should give anyone pause.

There is, however, this sobering arithmetic: Based on experience in the Balkans, an assumption among experts is that to maintain order in a context of sectarian strife requires one competent soldier or police officer for every 50 people. For the Baghdad metropolitan area (population: 6.5 million), that means 130,000 security personnel.

There are 120,000 now, but 66,000 of them are Iraqi police, many — perhaps most — of whom are worse than incompetent. Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority.

They are part of the problem. Therefore even a substantial surge of, say, 30,000 U.S. forces would leave Baghdad that many short, and could be a recipe for protracting failure.

Given the nature of the enemy, I have no doubt that we will have the opportunity and solemn duty of squaring off against the radical Islamists in the near future, when a new President has hold of the reins. Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight we can avoid the mistakes of this Administration. For now it is time to lick our wounds and go home.

Enough Politics: Now For Some Music

Howdy all, thanks for bearing with all the McCain/Lieberman Iraq posts. I think I got that out of my system, but The Sane One did start it all, ha ha!

Anyway, this video is from one of my favorite bands, Belle and Sebastian. Enjoy.

Video Link: McCain/Lieberman Plan

For anyone so interested, you can watch Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman outline the rationale for their plan by going to the C-SPAN video page and clicking on the "Sen. McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lieberman (I-CT) on Iraq Troop Surge" link. The remarks are brief, with Sens. McCain and Lieberman each speaking for about 10 minutes.

The thrust of the plan is that given the situation on the ground, increased military forces are needed to allow the formation of a political solution in Iraq. The following quote is from Sen. McCain and begins around the 4:21 mark.

I believe that the war is still winnable, but to prevail we’ll need to do everything right and the Iraqis will have to do their part. And are we concerned about doing everything right and the Iraqis having to do their part? Of course we are.

There is agreement among most observers that the problems plaguing Iraq require a political solution. We all agree with that. But it's also a lesson of history that unless you have security – security is the necessary precondition for political progress and economic development.

I'd be interested in hearing from those that support a political solution but oppose a troop increase. Under what scenario do you see a political solution taking shape?

McCain and Political Posturing

It should be obvious to anyone that read my previous post on the McCain/Lieberman plan for Iraq that I whole-heartedly reject the suggestion that political scheming is behind McCain's calls for increased trooop strength.

But as I browse the various blog postings on this topic, I see that many bloggers believe that McCain's plan is politically motivated. To those individuals, I reccommend this article from Newsweek examining the differing approaches to Iraq as embodied by Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel. This article is something of a psychological character study of the two men, and provides some solid answers about why McCain is proposing this course of action.

But one passage, in particular, should clear up the question about whether or not McCain supports sending young men and women into harm's way to further his presidential ambitions.

McCain can sound a little matter-of-fact about sending young people off to combat, but he marches to a different drummer than most Americans. His 18-year-old son Jimmy, a newly enlisted Marine, may soon be deployed to Iraq, the fourth-generation McCain to go to war.

Without being overly dramatic, McCain has some credibility when he talks about the sacrifices that will be required if his plan is adopted by the Administration. I find it impossible to believe that he is playing politics with the lives of the young men and women in the military.

A Time for Leadership: The McCain/Lieberman Plan for Iraq

Foreword: I began to formulate this blog post after seeing Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman on C-SPAN this afternoon. I figured that I would casually craft this entry tomorrow night or sometime next week, but this post on Swamp Wisdom by The Sane One got me going on a more expedited schedule.

Let us begin with the facts. MSNBC reports that Sen. John McCain, the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has announced his support for a significant and sustained increase in US forces in Iraq.

McCain called for a minimum of six additional Army brigades -- roughly 25,000 soldiers -- to be sent to Iraq, especially translators, Special Forces and civil affairs officers.

He said the previous strategy of trying to train Iraqi troops and turn over security patrol duties to them hasn’t worked and that American troops were needed to impose and maintain order and to prevent ethnic cleansing.

I support McCain's approach and believe it is the best of a series of unpleasant options for resolving the mess in Iraq for the following reasons:

First, the McCain proposal is the best choice because it encompasses a realistic assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq. To be blunt, the US is losing the war effort in Iraq, as even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has admitted. The current Bush Administration policy, for so long called "Stay the Course," leaves American troops in harm's way with no exit strategy in place. This failed policy calls for US troops to remain in Iraq until the Iraqi Army and police force can maintain the peace. But there is no peace to maintain.

The McCain proposal takes as its starting point the assertion that the Administration policy is a failure. This is obvious, but it is an assertion that the Bush Administration has been reluctant to make.

In addition, the McCain approach takes as its starting point a realistic assessment of the enemy we face in Iraq. Where the Bush Administration's policy failed because they were not willing to face up to the reality of the situation on the ground, the proposal by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to begin a troop withdrawal within four to six months fails to confront the nature of the enemy.

“If we fail in Iraq, there’s somehow the belief, that I don’t quite comprehend, that we just come home and then it’s over” – in the same way U.S. troops came home from Vietnam in the mid-1970s.

The difference, McCain argued, was that “the Vietnamese didn’t want to follow us” to attack the United States itself.

While it is true that, at the start of the US Invasion, Iraq was not a part of the war against the radical Islamist terrorists, Iraq is a part of that war now. To pretend otherwise is to be as naive as the Bush Administration in it's assessment of the war effort.

Next, in response to the dismal assessment in Iraq, the McCain proposal actually mentions the dreaded "S-Word." McCain has the honesty to talk about the sacrifices that his plan requires.

He warned that his recommendation “will mean more casualties and extra hardships for our brave fighting men and women” and that “the violence may get worse before it gets better. We have to be prepared for this.”

President Bush was either unable or unwilling to bring himself to discuss the sacrifices that would be necessary to achieve victory in Iraq. The main reason that the call for sacrifice was never an element of President Bush's rhetoric, I believe, is that Bush never had a clear goal for which the sacrifice was needed and was justified.

That brings me to the next reason I support the McCain proposal: the McCain proposal has clearly stated objectives that an increase in troop strength can accomplish. McCain understands that the ultimate solution to the problems in Iraq will be a political solution, not a military solution. However, before a political solution can be crafted, there must be a dramatic decrease in the violence in Iraq. The militias must be brought under control and ultimately disarmed, the sectarian killings must end, and the Shiites and the Sunnis must broker a political settlement.

McCain argues that the only way to get to a point of reduced violence that will enable political negotiations is with an increased and sustained US presence in Iraq.

[McCain] said the previous strategy of trying to train Iraqi troops and turn over security patrol duties to them hasn’t worked and that American troops were needed to impose and maintain order and to prevent ethnic cleansing.

It seems clear that the sectarian violence and subsequent reprisal killings must end before the political solution can advance. And as we witnessed this past fall, when the Administration attempted to secure Baghdad, a committment of too few troops only escalates the American casualties. That is why a significant and sustained troop increase is needed.

Finally, I support the McCain proposal because it is not the politically popular or expedient thing to do. This plan of action is not going to create a groundswell of support for McCain as a Republican Presidential candidate because it is a direct repudiation of the Bush Administration's failed policies in Iraq. The right wing is already distrustful of McCain (follow this link to read some comments from Free Republic) and by repudiating the Bush policy he will not be helping himself in the Republican primaries, nor will a call for more troops help in the general election.

So in summary, I support the McCain proposal because it is realistic about the situation on the ground, it is realistic about the enemy we face, it recognizes the tremendous sacrifices needed to win this war, and because it is a plan with no obvious immediate political gain for McCain (unless we win of course).

With that being said, let me turn my attention to one of the specific issues from your posting that I take issue with. You ask, "Where are we supposed to get this sustained new number of troops?" and state that "the Pentagon is missing recruiting targets."

Regarding the Army troop levels, my sources (here and here) state that the Army is meeting and even exceeding the vast majority of its recruitment goals by making the free market adjustments we would expect from an all volunteer army. And those soldiers recruited under newer, lower standards only account for 3.25% of the total recruits, a minimal amount at best.

So, with all due respect, I do not see how your assertion that the McCain proposal can not possibly be followed is accurate. Will it be easy? Of course not, and that is why it is essential that McCain be honest with the American people about the tremendous sacrifices involved. And to be honest, one of the sacrifices might have to be higher taxes for everybody to dramatically increase soldier pay and benefits.

To me, the McCain approach is the best way forward because the alternatives do not advance us toward the goal of a political solution to the Iraq situation.

One last final thought about your suggestion that McCain's "cozying up to the Religious Right" (your words, not mine) has made you lose respect for him. I hope that you will hold Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barak Obama to the same standard.

The following quote submitted for your approval:

The presumed Democratic presidential frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton, has been working to appeal to the religious right too. Recently, Clinton has been voicing support for Bush's faith-based initiatives and softening her language on abortion, which she recently called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women". (From The Independent)

The NEW Party of Fiscal Responsibility

As a young conservative Republican back in 1995, I watched with glee as House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole led efforts to restore fiscal restraint to Washington. One of the top goals of the Republican Congress was serious deficit reduction.

Well now it's 12 years later and, while I'm not so young and not so conservative anymore, I still have wet dreams about deficit reduction and welcome the renewed attention the issue is getting from Congress.

The twist, of course, is that the push to eliminate the deficit over the next 5 years is coming from the Democrats under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats are laying the foundation for fiscal restraint by pushing for pay-as-you-go requirements, meaning that any spending increase or tax cut must be offset by some other revenue increase.

House Democrats voted yesterday to block future tax cuts or benefit increases from being financed with dollars that swell the national deficit.

The drive to restore the "pay-as-you-go" rule has long been a priority for moderate-to-conservative Democrats, whose House ranks swelled on Election Day. Adopted by a 280-152 vote, the measure also requires that bills containing pet projects and narrowly targeted tax breaks - "earmarks" to Washington insiders - include the names of the lawmakers who requested them.

The key element of this fiscal responsibility, I believe, is the rise in power of the moderate Democrats (at the expense of the moderate Republicans in the last election). The moderates have given the Democrats their Congressional majorities, and if the Democrats want to stay in the majority, they would be wise to continue to lead with pragmatic, non-ideological policies.

Spitzer and Marriage

For those New Yorkers who were disappointed that Governor Eliot Spitzer failed to explicitly mention his intention to push for marriage equality in New York State, fear not. The New York Sun reports that the Spitzer Administration is still firmly committed to marriage equality.

By Day 365, Governor Spitzer will propose legislation legalizing gay marriage in New York, a top aide to the governor said yesterday.

"The governor made a commitment to advancing it this year, and he will do so," Mr. Spitzer's communications director, Darren Dopp, told The New York Sun.

As of this writing, any marriage bill would face certain defeat in the Legislature, but that's before the wildly popular new governor puts his reputation and his political muscles behind passing marriage equality legislation.

The Media and Christianity

USA Today is reporting that Televangelist Pat Robertson has come out with some predictions for this New Year. Of special note is Robertson's claim that God told him that there will be a massive terrorist attack on the United States in late 2007.

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Before you start crapping your pants and planning your move to Canada, it should be noted that Robertson's past predictions haven't always been spot on.

"I have a relatively good track record," [Robertson] said. "Sometimes I miss."

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

Wait, stop the presses! How can he sometimes miss? In his own words, God told him what was going to happen. Why doesn't a statement like this get more attention from the mainstream media? Pat Robertson says he personally recieved communications from God that turned out to be wrong.

Since Christianity is a religion based on revelation, shouldn't this cause the honest evangelical Christian to re-evaluate their faith? The Holy Bible is the revealed word of God, but if Pat Robertson can get false revelation from God, doesn't it follow that the Bible could be false revelation as well?

When scientists are caught fabricating evidence and rigging clinical studies, that gets massive amounts of media coverage (just think back to the South Korean scientist that turned out to have fabricated his cloning research). Why does the media not hold religious leaders to the same standards about the claims they make?

Pat Robertson made predictions based on divine revelations. The predictions turned out to be innaccurate. So either Pat Robertson made the whole thing up or God is a big fat liar. Either outcome should shake the foundations of evangelical Christianity. Instead, we get nothing more than a fluff piece about good old Pat and his yearly predictions.

Won't You Please Go Away?

The Washington Business Journal reports that anti-war activists, led by Cindy Sheehan, protested a press conference being held by Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahn Emanuel. Rep. Emanuel (D-IL), the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, was holding the press conference to discuss the Democratic proposals on lobbying reform.

Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting.

Sheehan says she has nothing against lobbying reform, but she and her fellow anti-war activists want Democrats to know they will keep pressuring Congress to end the war in Iraq.

A few comments on this should suffice. First, one only need to mention the names of Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham to demonstrate how important the issue of lobbying reform is. The Republican-run House of Representatives showed how desperately meaningful reform is needed. For Sheehan to attempt to attract attention away from serious reform proposals is shameful.

Secondly, Sheehan's tactics of pressuring the Congress to end the war are misplaced. The Legislative Branch of the Federal government has almost no role in the crafting and implimentation of foreign policy. Since no credible individual is advocating that the Congress cut the funding for the War in Iraq, there's not much that can be done by the Democratic Congress.

Finally, Sheehan demonstrates that she is cut from the same cloth as the Administration cheerleaders who shout down anyone who would question the President and his handling of the war. By preventing Rahm Emanuel from conducting his press conference, Sheehan and her crowd embrace the bullying and anti-free speech tactics of their political opponents.