George W. Bush, who wants to talk about oil prices, is spending the day with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who wants to talk about pulverizing Iran.
Four months ago, when our President asked his Mideast friend for help, the price of crude was $91 a barrel. Yesterday it closed at $127. But the White House National Security Adviser says, "There are limits to how much that production can be ramped up without enormous investments of dollars and enormous investments of time."
Translation: The Saudis won't do much to help their lame-duck friend lower American gas prices between now and November unless they are spooked by the prospect of a President Obama. In 2004, they boosted Bush's reelection chances with a production surge.
On the Iranian front, the White House announced that Saudi Arabia will join the 70-nation Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the 85-nation Proliferation Security Initiative, and the U.S. will " work with" the Saudis to help protect their energy resources and develop "civilian nuclear power" to be used in medicine, industry and power generation.
Translation: The Saudis get vague promises of help with nuclear weapons if Iran pushes on with efforts to get them.
As always, the dice are loaded against us in the Mideast crapshoot, no matter what we do. When the Democrats take power next year, they will have to figure out a new way to play the game.
Showing posts with label 2008 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 elections. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2008
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
President Gore, Lame Duck
Reading “Going After Gore” in the current Vanity Fair, another reminder of the disaster that befell the nation in November, 2000 and the media's share of the blame, prompts a re-posting of this what-if from last December:
As Al Gore faces his final years in the White House, history will view his two terms as disappointing.
After a razor-thin victory over George Bush in 2000, the new President was ultra-cautious.
Republicans labeled him “Al Bore” for failing to pursue a muscular foreign policy and for endless consultations with UN members, NATO allies, even potential adversaries such as North Korea and Iran.
Then he overreacted to such criticism, using an intelligence report in August, 2001, as pretext for striking defenseless camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, arousing protests throughout the Middle East over the death of a populist leader, Osama bin Laden, and his followers.
Even more controversial was Gore’s expulsion of fifteen visitors from our ally, Saudi Arabia, for what Rush Limbaugh sarcastically termed “the heinous crime of taking flying lessons.”
The furor drove oil prices to $30 a barrel, with public protest bringing the President’s approval ratings down to 50 percent.
After that, Gore reverted to consensus by pushing for UN inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. This diplomatic waffling, critics claim, diminished the U.S.’s standing in the world.
On the domestic front, the President refused to stimulate the economy with tax cuts, despite an ongoing budget surplus, and pushed for crippling limits on industrial emissions to reduce the so-called greenhouse effect.
Despite such gaffes, Gore narrowly won reelection in 2004 by reverting to Bill Clinton’s ploy of “It’s the economy, stupid.” His opponent, Steve Forbes, never managed to stir voters with his proposal of a flat income tax.
As 2008 approaches, the blandness of the Gore years may end. Vice-President Joe Lieberman, with a lock on the Democratic nomination, favors an aggressive American stance in the world. He will likely face George W. Bush, who claims Gore's election sent the country into a downward spiral.
A major issue will be terrorism which, relatively quiescent in eight years of diplomatic bumbling, may come to the fore again when a new President has America acting like a superpower again.
The question in 2008 will be: How do we let the rest of the world know we can no longer be pushed around?
As Al Gore faces his final years in the White House, history will view his two terms as disappointing.
After a razor-thin victory over George Bush in 2000, the new President was ultra-cautious.
Republicans labeled him “Al Bore” for failing to pursue a muscular foreign policy and for endless consultations with UN members, NATO allies, even potential adversaries such as North Korea and Iran.
Then he overreacted to such criticism, using an intelligence report in August, 2001, as pretext for striking defenseless camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, arousing protests throughout the Middle East over the death of a populist leader, Osama bin Laden, and his followers.
Even more controversial was Gore’s expulsion of fifteen visitors from our ally, Saudi Arabia, for what Rush Limbaugh sarcastically termed “the heinous crime of taking flying lessons.”
The furor drove oil prices to $30 a barrel, with public protest bringing the President’s approval ratings down to 50 percent.
After that, Gore reverted to consensus by pushing for UN inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. This diplomatic waffling, critics claim, diminished the U.S.’s standing in the world.
On the domestic front, the President refused to stimulate the economy with tax cuts, despite an ongoing budget surplus, and pushed for crippling limits on industrial emissions to reduce the so-called greenhouse effect.
Despite such gaffes, Gore narrowly won reelection in 2004 by reverting to Bill Clinton’s ploy of “It’s the economy, stupid.” His opponent, Steve Forbes, never managed to stir voters with his proposal of a flat income tax.
As 2008 approaches, the blandness of the Gore years may end. Vice-President Joe Lieberman, with a lock on the Democratic nomination, favors an aggressive American stance in the world. He will likely face George W. Bush, who claims Gore's election sent the country into a downward spiral.
A major issue will be terrorism which, relatively quiescent in eight years of diplomatic bumbling, may come to the fore again when a new President has America acting like a superpower again.
The question in 2008 will be: How do we let the rest of the world know we can no longer be pushed around?
Democrats' Back-to-School Test
Like American children, Congress is returning to a familiar place this week with the challenge of a new curriculum.
The subjects will be the same but on an advanced level, and many of the familiar Washington faces are gone or on the way out the door.
Even the dynamic of Topic A, the war, has changed. Senior Republicans are ripe for change, and the President, under cover of optimistic rhetoric in Anbar yesterday, opened the door slightly to a drawndown of American forces.
How to adapt and create a new climate will be Job One for the Democratic leadership. They can keep railing against Bush’s failed policies at home and abroad or, confident they will take back the White House and extend their control of Congress next year, start to give the American people samples of how they intend to govern in 2009 and beyond.
On Iraq, continuing to press for the end of a lost war against Bush’s veto power can be converted into a more bipartisan effort to agree that the U.S. has done what it can, tamp down recriminations and concentrate on how we get out.
On the U.S. Attorney scandals and other abuses of power, both houses are duty-bound to carry on their investigations, but the emphasis can shift to safeguards for the future.
None of this will be easy to do, in the face of the rage in the Democratic base that has been built up by Bush’s high-handedness, as seen in the concessions last month on the wiretapping bill. But Senate Leader Harry Reid has made a start by reaching out to anti-war Republicans.
Politicians being as they are, this may sound unrealistic, but if the Democrats need incentive, they may want to look again at Congress’ abysmal approval ratings and revisit the history of Pyrrhic victories.
The subjects will be the same but on an advanced level, and many of the familiar Washington faces are gone or on the way out the door.
Even the dynamic of Topic A, the war, has changed. Senior Republicans are ripe for change, and the President, under cover of optimistic rhetoric in Anbar yesterday, opened the door slightly to a drawndown of American forces.
How to adapt and create a new climate will be Job One for the Democratic leadership. They can keep railing against Bush’s failed policies at home and abroad or, confident they will take back the White House and extend their control of Congress next year, start to give the American people samples of how they intend to govern in 2009 and beyond.
On Iraq, continuing to press for the end of a lost war against Bush’s veto power can be converted into a more bipartisan effort to agree that the U.S. has done what it can, tamp down recriminations and concentrate on how we get out.
On the U.S. Attorney scandals and other abuses of power, both houses are duty-bound to carry on their investigations, but the emphasis can shift to safeguards for the future.
None of this will be easy to do, in the face of the rage in the Democratic base that has been built up by Bush’s high-handedness, as seen in the concessions last month on the wiretapping bill. But Senate Leader Harry Reid has made a start by reaching out to anti-war Republicans.
Politicians being as they are, this may sound unrealistic, but if the Democrats need incentive, they may want to look again at Congress’ abysmal approval ratings and revisit the history of Pyrrhic victories.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
How to Avoid Winning the White House
“I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”
Will Rogers’ classic definition of 75 years ago is alive and well, and the locus of disunity, after its little electoral scuffle in 2000, is Florida, which the Democratic National Committee is disenfranchising for the 2008 convention for leapfrogging its primary to next January 29th.
If there is some way to avoid winning the White House next year, Democrats seem bent on finding it. After helping Karl Rove steal the past two Presidential contests, they will have to work harder this time to undo the Party’s advantage in the polls after all these years of Bush bungling.
But when it comes to incompetence, never count the Democrats out. If they can’t find an unelectable nominee, they can always screw up the process of selection.
As a survivor of history’s most suicidal political convention in 1968, I can hardly wait to see the new forms of chaos they will devise for the next one.
Will Rogers’ classic definition of 75 years ago is alive and well, and the locus of disunity, after its little electoral scuffle in 2000, is Florida, which the Democratic National Committee is disenfranchising for the 2008 convention for leapfrogging its primary to next January 29th.
If there is some way to avoid winning the White House next year, Democrats seem bent on finding it. After helping Karl Rove steal the past two Presidential contests, they will have to work harder this time to undo the Party’s advantage in the polls after all these years of Bush bungling.
But when it comes to incompetence, never count the Democrats out. If they can’t find an unelectable nominee, they can always screw up the process of selection.
As a survivor of history’s most suicidal political convention in 1968, I can hardly wait to see the new forms of chaos they will devise for the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)