Presidential Debate #1 Drinking Game

Tonight is the first of three presidential debates, and while everyone agrees the main event is really Uncle Joe versus Paul Ryan Hayek, your editors felt a drinking game was necessary. So without further ado, here are the drinking game rules for Presidential Debate #1.

- When Romney starts his opening statement take a shot of milk.

- When Obama starts his opening statement take two shots of Evan Williams whiskey, to compensate for Romney's sobriety and Obama is a "man of the people".

- Every time a candidate says the word "Jobs" put a nickel in your pocket. You're going to need the savings after your laid off.

- Every time stimulus is mentioned take a swig of beer and tweak your nipple

- Every time Romney has a zinger take a shot of Jaegermiester and roll your eyes

- Every time Obama or Romney says "Obamacare" lick the bar. Don't worry, you're most likely covered by insurance now.

- If you're a woman, take your free birth control pill with a cosmo chase

- Every time Salt Lake City Olympics are mentioned, enjoy a cup of hot cocoa with extra government subsidized sugar to really sweeten its success. 

- Every time Obama says Osama finish your beer.
- Every time Romney says Osama, but means Obama smash your glass over the head of the person to your right

- Every time Obama or Romney talks about their "plan" for anything, spin in place three times. When you stop and are dizzy the explanation of the plan will make perfect sense.

- Every time Romney speaks to his kinship with the one of seven states he claims to be from chug a beer from that state.

- Every time you hear the words "business" or "equity" order a glass of scotch and light a dollar bill on fire.

- Every time Romney mentions "apologizing for America," drink a Budweiser and thank God you can still have all American beer. Wait, maybe not.

- If Obama mentions Romney's taxes, returns, or rate, finish your drink and flee the bar without paying your tab.

- When the Republicans in the audience violate the rules by cheering or booing, have an old fashion and lament what could have been had this President recognized the futility of working with the GOP at the outset. 

- Anytime Obama mentions the 47% tell the barkeep to put your drinks on the government tab

- Anytime "you didn't build that" comes up yell, "Take your government hands off my Medicare!" at the top of your lungs. Take a shot of schnapps for medicinal purposes.

Finally, when the debate is over and the candidates shake hands, order a bottle of Tsing Tao because we're all going to belong to the Chinese regardless of the election.

Obamacare: Losing the Battles of Communication & Facts

There's a brief post up at Economist's Democracy in America blog commenting on a speaking appearance by Valerie Jarrett, Senior Adviser to the President. When asked what the administration's biggest mistake has been so far, Ms. Jarrett reportedly said it was a failure to communicate the benefits of the administration's policies. "If people voted their self-interest, they would vote for [President Obama]."

The author of the post calls this sort of response "arrogant," and in full said:

I think, goes to the heart of one of the Obama administration's weaknesses, one that certainly cost him the 2010 mid-terms and might cost him the presidency itself in two month's time. It is the idea that if only people were in full command of the facts, they would immediately see that the president was wise and right. It is arrogant, and, when you think about it, fundamentally anti-democratic. And it leads you to push policies that voters don't actually like.

 I have to disagree with the author that this sort of response is arrogant. I think ACA (Obamacare) is a great example of this. When people are polled on the individual elements of the legislation they support many of the pieces, but the administration has lost the battle of communicating the law in totality. Now part of losing that battle is the willful cognitive dissonance of the conservative attack on the legislation, perhaps tippified by this absurdly false and misleading advertisement from the 60 Plus Association, which perpetuates Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's shameful and repeated attack that the Obamacare cuts $716 billion from Medicare (when it's actually future savings, not diverted funds) when Ryan himself would have included the same cuts in his Medicare plan.

The broader point being, healthcare reform as enacted by Obamacare is incredibly complex. The individual parts, healthcare for dependents up to age 26, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, insurance plans required to cover birth control, poll incredibly well. The parts that don't poll well, like wringing $716 billion in savings over ten years from Medicare, which helps perpetuate the Medicare program aren't as easy to understand immediately. The point being, it's easier to point at these things, call them flaws, and harp on them at the cost of not telling the whole story.

That's where the administration is suffering. On certain elements they have been drowned out by misleading half-truths on policies that aren't simple to understand. This is all by way of saying that facts aren't what they used to be and if you lose the communication battle it can obscure the positive effects that the facts would seem to indicate, because everybody is getting skewed facts. I don't think it's "arrogant" on the part of Ms. Jarrett to says that's a mistake. I think it reflect the reality of a conservative movement that has systematically created a world of parallel facts designed to discredit ideas not aligned with their ideology.

I'm not sure how we fix it, but it is frightening that beyond trying to get an electorate engaged, we will now constantly debate who's facts to believe.

The Problem with Pronouns or You Didn't Build What?

As the "you didn't build that" debate continues, Romney and his supporters are staging a number of rallies titled "We Did Build This."  Admittedly, I am not the resident grammarian on this blog, but as a continuation of my post yesterday regarding my complete confusion that it's not okay to say the government built the internet when it did, I want to talk about pronouns.

Namely the pronouns "that" and "this."  So we'll start with the President.  The quote that's been bandied about is as follows: "If you got a business, you didn't build that."  Pitchforks and socialist recriminations have ensued, but what's plain to see if you read the fuller quote is that the quote above is taken out of context.  Here's the full quote:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

In other words, the President wasn't saying that the "that" is "a business," but rather that the "that" are "roads and bridges." Quite an inopportune moment for a great orator to have pronoun confusion, but I think we can all agree that business owner A didn't build road B or bridge C. That's the work of a government based on priorities vetted by a community or its elected representatives.  But that's not how the quote is being received by people or how the Romney campaign is talking about it.


No, the Romney campaign is twisting it around to imply that the "that" meant "a business" and we're hearing that message back from Romney backers.  Take this quote from Melissa Ball, a business owner at a "We Did Build This" rally in Richmond, VA, “President Obama is wrong. Americans do build their own business and we need a president who believes that as well.” Oh pronouns! Why do you spite us so? Clearly the name of the rally is meant to imply, incorrectly that the "that" Obama spoke of was "a business" because the rally's "this" is clearly intended to mean "business."


And so now we're down the rabbit hole and the light is fading.  President Obama never said people don't build their own businesses, just that they don't build the roads or bridges that grease the gears of our economic machine. It's disappointing to see Romney's campaign embrace the wrong contextual appearance of the president's comments, but it is campaign season and recriminations abound on both sides.  So I guess I'll just have to me mad a pronouns that betray the American people. I hate them...Wait, maybe I said that wrong.

UPDATED: Damn you Jon Stewart! The Daily Show talks pronouns and context. This is what I get for going to bed early!

The Obamacare Direct Mail Campaign

The Affordable Care Act, often labeled (derisively) as Obamacare, has never been an incredibly popular piece of legislation at least not when pollsters ask about the overall legislation. Individual elements do poll quite favorably. ACA has become the domestic achievement for this White House for good or for ill and I think a recent letter I received could help to change the perception of the ACA and make the title "Obamacare" a positive descriptor.

About two weeks back I had a curious voice mail from my health insurance company about an issue I should really call them back about.  I didn't because typically when my health insurance company needs to talk to me about something, it's not a good something.  Not this time.  A few days later I received a letter in the mail. There were two sheets and on the second sheet in large, plain type it read: "A rebate will be paid to your employer due to new requirements outlined in the Federal Healthcare Reform regulation." A rebate you say?  On the other page was more of fine print:

The Affordable Care Act requires [my employer's provider] to rebate part of the premiums it received if it does not spend at least 80 percent of the premiums [my employer's provider] receives on healthcare services...No more than 20 percent of premiums may be spent on administrative costs...This is referred to as the "Medical Loss Ratio" standard or the 80/20 rule. The 80/20 rule in the Affordable Care Act is intended to ensure that consumers get value for their health care dollars.

So let me get this straight, my employer will receive a check from our insurance provider because our insurance provider didn't meet the 80/20 rule, and the letter goes on to describe how my employer can distribute the rebate, provided it's a non-Federal governmental plan.

1. "Reducing premiums for the upcoming year; or"
2. "Providing a cash rebate to employees or subscribers that were covered by the health insurance on which the rebate is based."

My employer's insurance provider is a large one, covering over 3 million people. While the 80/20 rule is determined state to state--basically my provider didn't meet the standard in DC, but might have in Virginia--there are potentially a couple million people just from my provider that are primed to see a tangible benefit from the 80/20 rule and they all got a letter telling them they would get a tangible benefit.  You can't buy this kind of positive publicity for legislation.

Now, I'm not here to debate the wisdom of this rule.  I'm simply suggesting a piece of legislation that has elements a majority of people clearly favor just picked up what will likely prove to be a net positive in an election year.  Obviously Romney has been reluctant to come out too strong against Obamacare because, well Obama aped Romneycare, but potentially there are independents who weren't too excited about Obamacare that have now seen as many as three direct benefits from legislation that doesn't even take full effect until 2014. They've seen insurance companies can't deny them coverage, they've seen their children receive continued coverage until age 26, and they've seen a letter about a rebate.

Now perhaps I'm overestimating the impact and I haven't seen other pundits talk about this much, but this seems like a piece of good news for Obamacare and by transitory properties, a good piece of news for the president.


UPDATE: I've been informed by a friend at Doctors for America that I got one of the policy points wrong. Insurance companies can still deny coverage to people over 18 due to pre-existing conditions. This protection isn't set up to take place for a bit longer. Right now only those 18 and under cannot be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. If someone over 18 is denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and can't get coverage for 6 months, they are eligible for a high-risk buying pool through the federal government. Full details available at www.healthcare.gov.

Forgetting DOMA

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama endorsed marriage equality. While his endorsement has been much touted, it strikes this observer as something of a half-measure. The President staked out a "personal" position and does not believe the federal government should get involved but, rather, the regulation of marriage should continue to be--as it has always been--a matter of state regulation. He highlighted both of these as well as his administration's refusal to enforce one of the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act. But juxtaposing DOMA and the President's belated acceptance of the need for same-sex marriage is revealing.

DOMA contains two important provisions. One--the one the President does not enforce--defines marriage for federal purposes as that between a man and a woman. The other, more important provision, exempts states from extending "full faith and credit" to same-sex marriages that are valid in the states in which they are entered. It is this provision--and the failure of the Obama administration to move for its repeal--that undermines the importance of President Obama's personal belief that homosexuals should enjoy equal rights. You see, the U.S. Constitution contains the Full Faith & Credit Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 1), which requires each state to give "full faith & credit" to the public acts of each other state. FFC means that should I sue you in Virginia and win a money judgment, that judgment must be enforced against you by Mississippi. Similarly, should I validly marry in Rhode Island, New York must recognize that marriage. The Constitution also empowers the Congress to regulate the implementation of FFC. Enter DOMA. 

The genius of the second provision of DOMA is that it turns FFC on its head. Whereas, prior to DOMA, should same-sex marriage have become legal in Massachusetts, then every other state would have to recognize as valid all same-sex marriages entered into in Massachusetts. The impact of this is, basically, that with a few provisos, a handful of states could have effectively forced upon the whole of the United States recognition of same-sex marriage. What DOMA does is nullify the power of FFC, leaving us with a state-by-state fight for equal civil rights for homosexuals. In effect, DOMA's architects have perverted both FFC and the notion of states' rights. It is stunning, really. More importantly, the federal government has no role in enforcing this provision of DOMA. Thus, the President's "refusal to enforce DOMA" does nothing at all to change the state of marriage disability for same-sex couples.

So, this observer gives the President credit for coming out in favor of same-sex marriage. Doing so from his podium lends it incredible weight and import. But, until the administration pressures its allies in Congress to repeal DOMA's FFC provision, the endorsement can be little more than a half-measure.

"Signature Strikes" and DPH

Human Rights First's Daphne Eviatar has an op-ed in Politico making the point I made last week about "signature strikes" and direct participation in hostilities but more forcefully. She is damning of the Obama administration:

In fact, though Brennan left out many important details, he did say more than other administration officials have in the past. And at least some of what he said suggests that Washington has adopted an interpretation of its right to use drones to target suspected terrorists that is dead wrong on the law.

Go read it for yourself.

The Road We Traveled

Finally watched the Road We Travelled -- you should, too:

Message Discipline

In honor of the White House's new found message discipline--and new found recognition of political realities--DCExile has installed a counter (over on the right, below the Twitter stream) that records the number of days of White House message discipline.

The President's Address - Alternative Version

President Obama will address the nation tonight, probably on the debt ceiling negotiations, and so I thought it would be a fun exercise to right up an alternate version of that speech.  It's meant to be light-hearted, so take it as the tongue-in-cheek missive it's intended to be.

My fellow Americans.  I've taken to the bully pulpit tonight to show you who actually wears the big boy pants.  Speaker Boehner has been bullied by the economically illiterate tea party-ers in his midst, and I feel sorry for him.  We played a round of golf together.  We're buddies.  And while I don't believe he got that eagle on the 7th playing gentlemen's rules, I do believe he wanted to do the big thing with this whole debt ceiling/deficit reduction kerfuffle.

I tried to help my boy out.  I took the percentages of cuts to revenues outlined by his office several months ago and offered him a deal built on those percentages.  He couldn't take the deal though.  Eric was all "NO TAXES EVER!!!!!" and the look of resignation on Boehner's face told me nothing was going to get done.

Then Mitch had his cockamamie scheme, where I could ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, ignore the suggested spending cuts that Congress suggested and extend our credit line.  I don't fully understand it.  Where is Orzag to explain this to me?  I miss that guy.  He was such a player, but I digress.

Then the Gang of Six became the Gang of Five, and then they became the Gang of Six again.  I have asked the DC metro police to look into the gang activity going on on Capitol Hill.  They had a plan, it was a pretty good one, and people liked it until people realized it raised more revenue then my plan and then Cantor was prepared to start his own gang and he called Grover, and well, that idea fizzled.

So my fellow Americans, here we are.  The Washington Post has a doomsday debt clock on their main page.  The sky may well be falling.  Why is it falling?  Because Republicans want me to be a one term president.  Mitch told everybody that and if you look at the uniformity with which they have said "NO" to every idea I've mentioned, including the ideas I ripped off from past Republicans, what would certainly seem to be the only goal the Republican party has.

Here I was trying to make history.  I was going to expand healthcare to millions of Americans and Boehner and I could have had our Reagan/O'Neal moment.  But it wasn't to be.  So now John's got a bad idea floating around and Harry has a less bad idea in the other chamber.  I don't really like either idea, but I supposed I'll end up signing a version of the one of the two.  After all, as the guy who is the grown-up in this conversation, I can't let the economic slip into chaos.  But, I want you all to know that this is the Republicans fault.  That passed on history.  A smart young blogger I'd never heard of pushed John to take one for the team, but apparently his Twitter message was lost in the shuffle.

So I stand before you tonight, the adult dealing with the children in Congress.  And to echo some recent polling, only 18% of me approves of Congress too.  We're going to get a deal done, and it's going to suck, and we'll come back to this issue again in 6 to 12 months.  When we do, this will all happen again.  Just remember, it's the other guys' fault.

Falling On His Sword for Country & Legacy

As I mentioned in today’s Short List, Speaker Boehner has been neutered by Eric Cantor and his tea party cohorts, who want the government to live within its means so long as “its means” doesn’t have anything to do with the increasing revenue.  Even if that increased revenue comes through a simplified tax code and is accompanied with $3 in cuts for every $1 in revenue.  I think this presents Speaker Boehner with an opportunity, albeit one with severe short-term professional consequences.

As Ezra Klein reminded us this morning, on the whole the American people like compromise, even if a majority of Republicans do not.  From everything that’s been written, it would seem like Boehner knew he had a sweet deal with the Obama administration and was inching toward taking it until he was out-flanked by Cantor and the far-right of the Republican party.  I think Boehner ought to work with Obama to make this deal work and abandon Cantor and the tea party.  I think Boehner needs to appeal to the cadre of remaining Republican moderates in the House and work with Obama and the Dems to avert what would be an unmitigated economic disaster.

Sounds kind of crazy, I know.  But stay with me here.  I believe there is a segment of the Republican party that’s filled with people who want a government to govern, and I think that part of the party knows how good a deal they have.  They’re best personified by this column(NYT) from NYT Columnist David Brooks.  And I think this is the part of the Republican party that Speaker Boehner represents.  The trouble is this is now the minority wing of the Republican party.  Time and time again, Obama chased the Republicans rightward (a whole other problem for progressives), forcing Republicans to abandon several smart ideas they’ve had in the past decade.  They had to abandon them because Obama, the Other, embraced things like individual mandates and cap-and-trade.  But I believe there is a sizeable number of Republicans remaining who aren’t Grover Norquist zealots and genuinely believe it’s the job of people in Congress to compromise in the pursuit of governance.  I’m just hoping those same David Brooks’ Republicans are spoiling for a showdown with the tea party.

Which brings me back to Speaker Boehner and his opportunity.  Given Boehner’s sensibility, he is not long for his own party lest he abandon his remaining moderation.  If he can rally his fellow remaining moderates to get this deal done he will almost certainly lose the speakership, he will likely face a primary challenge, and he may well lose his seat, but it’s a play for his legacy.  He could force the showdown between David Brooks Republicans and tea party Republicans.  By falling on his own sword he may save the Republican party from permanent minority status.  And history tends to smile fondly on politicians who put the national interest (and indisputably it’s in the national interest to increase the debt-ceiling and cut the deficit) ahead of fleeting personal aggrandizement.

Perhaps I’m overly optimistic.  Perhaps I’m reading Speaker Boehner wrong.  But if he is going to be robbed of his influence, why should he hold ceremoniously to a title and let his fellow Republicans run the economy off a cliff?  Andrea Mitchell was on The Chris Matthew Show this week reiterating how much these negotiations and the compromise that will be reached is about leadership.  I couldn’t agree more and I think this is an opportunity for Speaker Boehner to demonstrate his leadership and his shot to write his name into the history books of great Speakers of the House.  If a deal doesn’t get done and the credit of the United States gets downgraded, well that path carries a legacy as well.

There is no Obama Doctrine, and that's Okay

On Monday night, President Obama gave a speech meant to explain U.S. actions in Libya.  It has been widely perceived as a declaration of the Obama Doctrine, but I think his speech was less about a doctrine and more about a rationale for action in a specific situation.  But that’s okay.  President Obama doesn’t need a doctrine, indeed doctrines can be counter-productive.  However, there are people who like the structure a stated doctrine provide.  They like a fixed lens, with which to view a president’s actions.

First, I want to come back to the concept of a doctrine in international affairs.  Perhaps the most often lamented doctrine of late was the Bush Doctrine.  A doctrine largely defined by American unilaterialism and preventative war.  The costs of this doctrine were made plain in Iraq, still that same drumbeat often associated with the neo-conservative movement reared it’s ugly head regarding Libya, which drew this stern rebuke to Max Boot that I penned a few weeks ago.  There are other doctrines out there though.  

The prevailing foreign policy posture of the United States for about 45 years could be summed up as the Truman Doctrine.  Basically, the Truman Doctrine said the U.S. would combat communism anywhere it appeared.  This doctrine begot the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and dozens of other incursions into foreign lands that, on the whole, have had disastrous consequences for the United States.  The hang over from the Truman Doctrine continues to impede American credibility around the world long after the Cold War.  I point out both the Bush Doctrine and the Truman Doctrine because they are the clearest examples we have of a president acting based on a specific, unified doctrine.  Results from that sort of approach to international engagement are nothing short of calamitous.

President Obama, on Monday, laid out the humanitarian case for intervening in Libya.  Much has been made of Susan Power’s voice in the administration.  Ms. Power’s was in the Clinton administration during the run up to the war in Bosnia and during the genocide in Rwanda.  While history has been kind to Clinton for the final outcomes in Bosnia, inaction in the face of the Rwandan genocide is a mark on the record of his administration and indeed a point of personal shame for many involved, including Ms. Powers.  To be sure, her voice and the voice of many Democratic hands during the Clinton administration, obviously inclusive of Secretary Clinton herself, were loud in the president’s ear and you could feel the memory of bumbling Clinton press conferences during the Rwanda genocide in the background as Obama laid out the goal of preventing a massacre.  It’s good to learn from history, but I think many pundits forget why Clinton didn’t intervene in Rwanda.  People forget that not 8 months before the genocide began, American troops were dragged dead through the streets of Mogadishu following the failed attempt at intervention in Somalia.  People weren’t kind to the Clinton administration following the Black Hawk Down incident, and I wonder how the U.S. might have intervened in Rwanda without putting boots on the ground.  In Rwanda, a no-fly zone wouldn’t have cut it.  And that brings me back full circle.

President Obama, in laying out the case for intervention in Libya, cited several reasons.  First, there is an opposition that asked for help, second, there were declarations from Qaddafi that he would massacre dissenters once the rebellion was squashed, third, intervention had the public support of the Arab League, fourth, intervention had the authority of a UN resolution, and fifth, there was a viable alliance to intervene (we didn’t bribe our way to a Coalition of the Willing).  Based on all those things, we decided to intervene in a limited way.  People want to call Obama’s willingness to intervene a doctrine.  To me, it sounds like a reasoned decision based on the facts at hand.  Could the U.S. intervene elsewhere?  Maybe.  Should we have intervened in Bahrain or should we be intervening in Syria?  I have my doubts, but of course I had and have doubts about intervening in Libya.  However, when you are the bad neighbor that doesn’t cut his lawn, the neighborhood committee can turn against.  Such is the case in Libya.  When you swear to burn down the kitchen because the stove didn’t work right, somebody is going to step in and take away your matches. We could make an impact on the situation with the low-intensity no fly zone, and so we did.

There is no doctrine here.  Like so many of President Obama’s policy choices, you don’t find a doctrine or a dogma.  You see a policy that reflects the contours of the moment and the situation.  You see a policy that works now for this instance, but may not be the best in six months time or a year’s time.  And that’s boring policy-making.  You can’t put someone in a category when they look at each decision and situation independently with an appreciation for time and history.  That’s not sound-bite governing.  I remain skeptical of our intervention in Libya and I’m not sure what the end game for our involvement is and I’m fearful for what might happen to the Libyan people in the future no matter if Qaddafi or the rebels "win," however, I’m encouraged the president laid out a case for intervention here that was compelling (if not entirely convincing) and by acknowledging no two situations are the same.

Presidential Power and the Libyan Intervention

Yesterday, a debate emerged over whether the President has the authority to order U.S. armed forces into action over Libya without Congressional ascent. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle attacked the President for exceeding his Constitutional authority in launching attacks against Libya without prior Congressional authorization. While it is nice to see members of Congress cross party lines to defend Congress’s institutional prerogatives—something woefully absent when Republicans dominated Congress during the Bush Administration—the criticism here leveled is nonsense. Jack Goldsmith explains why here.

With Friends Like These

Something happened last week, which was not widely reported (though we mentioned it in Thursday’s Short List).  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had a testy exchange with President Obama, cautioning Obama not to humiliate Mubarak.  This part actually has been reported widely, but there was a second part people have not devoted much time to.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pledged to provide $1.5 billion in aid to the Mubarak government if the Obama administration decided to drop its aid.  This pledge may no longer be valid, but it’s worth coming back to because of what it means to the U.S. concept of allies in the Middle East.

It also ties in to a column David Ignatius wrote in Thursday’s Washington Post.  Mr. Ignatius considers the blind spot the CIA has developed because of their reliance on “liaisons.”  Liaisons are members of the intelligence apparatus in foreign countries.  In Egypt, it’s the General Intelligence Service. It goes by a similar name in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  While in Pakistan, their intelligence service is called Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.  Basically, Ignatius considers how the CIA has been relying on these liaison relationships to provide intelligence on terror threats.  These relationships have had their ups and downs, but has provided the U.S. with vital intelligence (and often legal cover) in dealing with various threats.  But, the reliance on these relationships has left the CIA blind to the unrest and discontent within the countries of our allies.  Part of the terms of the relationships, often times, makes it nearly impossible for the CIA to recruit its own sources or assets in the country.  The agency is beholden to these relationships.  It is a problem that has plagued our efforts in Pakistan for years.

These two pieces together should necessitate a reconsideration of the terms of these alliances.  That’s a big ask, but we need to learn from history.  In Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars, there is a lot of consideration of the interplay between the CIA, ISI, and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Department (GID), and the more you read the more you get the sense that the ISI and the GID are trying to keep the U.S. on the leash.  The CIA was tossed some red meat, and ISI and GID were tossed some cash, but the larger objectives weren’t the same.  In addition to this lack of alignment in objectives, the Saudi regime routed money to jihadists training in Pakistan and Afghanistan long after the Soviet Union’s withdraw.  It has been widely reported that the money coming from Saudi Arabia was used to found madrases in the hinterlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We need to reconsider the terms of these alliances for several reasons.  First, what we want and what the intelligence services of our allies want are not in alignment.  Second, the reliance on the foreign intelligence services has made us blind to what’s going on inside these countries, while at the same time perpetuating distrust and anger in the people of these countries against the United States.  Third, even if we are able to disrupt some terror cells, these allies, specifically Saudi Arabia, is more then happy to publicly break with us, while still enjoying the shade of our security umbrella.

It’s impractical to break these alliances.  It’s not in keeping with the nuance of diplomacy to simply withdraw, but perhaps it’s time for the U.S. to take stock.  What is it we want to accomplish in the Middle East?  Are our current allies aligned with what we want to accomplish?  The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are being called part of an Arab Spring.  If that is true, if these revolutions give momentum to the disaffected within the borders of our Middle Eastern allies, the U.S. will be challenged with the same dance we have had to dance regarding Egypt.  It’s time to consider our dancing partners and if we are taking complimentary steps.

Just the Facts, Speaker Boehner

Speaker John Boehner was on Meet the Press yesterday.  Interviewer David Gregory brought up the persistent notion within Republican circles that President Obama was not born in the United States and that President Obama is a Muslim.  Mr. Gregory points to a clip on Fox News where half or more members of a Republican study group believe that President Obama is a Muslim.  Mr. Gregory challenged Speaker Boehner to decide if he has a responsibility to tell the American people the facts.  Speaker Boehner said it’s not for him to tell people what to think, he then said the state of Hawaii has said President Obama was born in that state.  He also said he will take the President at his word when he says he’s a Christian.

I was flabbergasted by this response.  His answer was not an assertion of the facts, it was a statement of faith.  But the discussion wasn’t a matter of faith, it was a matter of fact.  President Obama was born in Hawaii.  President Obama is a practicing Christian.  These are facts and it’s disappointing that the Speaker of the House, the man who will need to work with the White House to address the policy needs of this country, can’t simply say that.  People will say I’m nitpicking, and maybe I am, but when you watch the video you can see Speaker Boehner trying to rhetorically discredit the position he says he believes in.  It was a pathetic display.  Then again, maybe I should be unsurprised.  Paul Krugman has been spending some time in his columns recently to address the Republican party’s rejection of facts and analysis time and time and time again to score some cheap political points.  Maybe I should be thankful Speaker Boehner even said Obama was a Christian, but his half-hearted defense in the face of blatant falsehoods was pathetic and cowardly.  We should be able to expect more.

You can watch the full exchange to make up your own mind here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SOTU - Initial Response

So before the post-mortem, some thoughts on the three, yes three speeches tonight.  If I get a moment, there might be a fuller analysis tomorrow.  At that point, though, the whole thing will be sullied by the pundit class.


President Obama's State of the Union
Liked it.  I thought he did a great job of reminding people of the role of government in our nation, it's ability to provide investment in roads, but also science and technology.  I thought he struck the right tone that says, "Listen we gotta make some changes and a lot of those changes are going to come from Republicans."  It wasn't transformative and I constantly feel like the rhetorical expectations of Obama are always sky-high.  He can never live up to the expectations, but I remember a time that if Bush spoke in complete sentences, he was a conquering hero.  I would have liked more specifics, but I understand why he wasn't.  Most importantly he has staked out the ground of responsible middle, which could help him get some things done over the next two years, but I wonder, if you make enemies on both sides what does that due to your re-election bid?


Representative Paul Ryan's Republican Response
Vastly better then the responses in recent years and I think Rep. Ryan did a good job staking out the Republican position.  It's a position I greatly disagree with, but it was concise, seemed legitimate, and was focused on spending which is an easy sell.  I thought he provided a great counter-point to the President, though I found wrapping themselves in the patronage of the founding fathers to be unseemly.


Representative Michele Bachmann's Tea Party Response
First, this isn't an actual party.  It's a second Republican response and I question CNN's decision to air it.  That said, I watched it.  There were charts, horribly misleading charts that ignored a fiscal crisis.  Also, who was she speaking to?  Reminds me of a Mitch Hedburg joke where everyone is looking slightly to the left.  On the whole, atrocious.  Scattered, trite, disingenuous, and backward-looking.  Quite honestly, it made Rep. Ryan and Republicans look like adults, while the Tea Party remains people stuck in a middle school civics class.


Again, the pundit class will breakdown every syllable before I wake tomorrow, but there are some initial thoughts.

Legislative Blockades & Governing

So here we are, exactly one month since the Democrats got walloped in the election. Republicans have won the House and gained ground in the Senate, but of course that's not until next month which means obstructionism continues to abound.

On Wednesday Senate Republicans vowed, in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to block any and all legislation until there is resolution on the continuation of the Bush era tax cuts. From The New York Times article, here are some of the things that won't get done until the tax cut issue is resolved:

- The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

- The continuation of jobless benefits for millions of still unemployed Americans, with benefits set to expire (wait for it) on Christmas day

- The ratification of the New START Treaty

- Passage of the DREAM Act, giving illegal immigrants brought here as children the opportunity to become U.S. citizens

- Passage of the previously passed (but parliamentary fumbled) food safety bill

Very seriously, 2 out of 5 of those might reflexively raise the ire of Republicans. They could even be considered part of a "liberal wishlist" but 3 out of 5 seem largely mundane. But of course, in the Republican economic policy, tax cuts are supreme. It would appear literally nothing else matters. Sen. Mitch McConnell seems to suggest the legislative work the Democrats are trying to accomplish runs counter to the outcome of the election. I think he misreads the situation.

You see, the Republicans don't actually take power until next month, but I think in the minds of many Americans the transfer of power happens on election night. Republicans are in a strengthened position and I believe those that voted for them, by and large, expected that they would govern, not obstruct. I think the failure to pass some of these things will fall at the feet of Republicans. I'm a poor prognosticator so take that prediction for what it's worth, but after the holidays, if millions of people no longer receive unemployment benefits, if all Americans see the tax cuts sunset, they will also see a Republican Speaker of the House and a strengthened Senate Minority Leader. Sure, President Obama will get some blame, but he doesn't cast a vote.

I think people will see this as the Republican party, extorting Democrats and throwing a tantrum like a child that wants two scoops of ice cream, but only got one. I wonder what Republicans will do in January. Is the Republican party capable, with its current membership, of governing at all?

Negotiating with Iran

Our good friend, Reza Marashi, got published somewhere people actually read. His article with Trita Parsi on 5 tips to make the next round of US-Iran negotiations better then the last recently published in Foreign Policy magazine is an interesting and quick read.

While I defer to Reza on just about everything Iran, I have some thoughts to share (that's what the blog is for after all):

1. Tip #3 is the biggest tip of all in my opinion. There was a study put out by the RAND Corporation last year titled Mullahs, Guards, and Banyards. If you want to have the first clue about Iran power dynamics, it's a must read. It also really reinforces Tip #3. There are so many stakeholders in Iran. You could draw a Venn diagram, but in the end it would look like a bad acid trip with all the overlapping circles. I think it's important for the U.S. to remember that there are people in position of power in Iran interested in working with us and while we can't cater to them exclusively, it's an opportunity.

2. Could we get a corresponding article about what Iran can do to make the negotiations productive? That's like saying "Thank you for the apples, but how about some damn oranges!" but I had this nagging feeling reading the tips that the U.S. had to do X, Y, and Z and Iran did not. Thirty years of enmity will cause that kind of reaction.

3. Let's accept we were wrong to support the Shah the way we did. Let's maybe even apologize. Guys, as a nation we messed up in Iran. We messed up in a lot of nations during the Cold War, but the reaction in Iran was perhaps the most stark and the relationship sense likely the worst. It is not a sign of weakness to apologize. It's a sign of humanity and a dignified gesture (since we can't undo what happened) befitting a superpower. Our arrogance and own ignorance/denial of history make us look childish.

One final thought: It's all connected. The Islamic revolution of 1979, the overthrow (and subsequent hanging) of Bhutto by Zia al-Haq, the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and America's impotence in the entire region is all connected. We spent many decades messing about in the affairs of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and I don't think we could be considered a net positive. Negotiating with Iran, earnestly, patiently, and in anything resembling good faith could be the first step in trying to reverse the reviled perception of the U.S. in the region.

The Governator in his Closing Scenes

I've often considered the political existence of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but haven't dedicated the time to come to any conclusions. The Economist does that for me, and I think it's a nice little "history at present" roundup.

Time will tell what, if any, impact the Governator actually had. I can't help feeling that in many policies, Gov. Schwarzenegger advanced sensible, well-reasoned policies but failed to get the buy-in from the roustabouts on either end of the spectrum. Pity that. His story also makes me consider President Obama, promises of post-partisanship, and the inability to govern from the center.

The Economist piece closes on a back-handedly encouraging note, "Seven years ago Californians were furious enough to elect him but not to follow through. Now more of them realise what a mess their state is in."

Will we be saying the same thing about the United States in 2016? Will the Brits learn to use a "z" instead of that bastard "s"? Time will tell, but odds are greater on the former.