Recently in politics Category

Don't you hate it when you've had weeks to prepare for something, say a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, and you think you're prepared to answer any question or respond to any snarky remark thrown at you, but when you sit down in front of the microphone, you realize you've forgotten your lucky rabbit's foot, I mean, memory? I know I do, and so does Alberto Gonzales...

(Inspired by Wonkette)

Last month, I finished reading Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, the latest book by the prolific former president.

Instead of providing the reader with a dry historical retelling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Carter blends history with personal experiences and eyewitness accounts - from his first visit to Israel in 1973 through his last visit to the region for the Palestinian elections last year.

Throughout his account, he highlights the successes and setbacks of diplomatic efforts over the past thirty years. He then outlines a way for the peace process to move forward, which he sums up in one paragraph at the end of the book:

The bottom line is this: Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of its own citizens - and honor its own previous commitments - by accepting its legal borders. All Arab neighbors must pledge to honor Israel's right live in peace under these conditions. The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories.

Since finishing the book, I've read a number of reviews and opinion pieces blasting Carter, claiming his book is unbalanced and lacks historical context. Some have gone as far as to accuse him of being an anti-Semite.

While I felt Carter was extremely critical of Israel, more so than he was of Palestine, I don't think it was because of some underlying hatred of the Jews. Nor do I think his criticism of the United States stemmed from a hatred of Americans. I think all of his criticism stems from a frustration with a long peace process that has seemingly gone nowhere.

It's a book written by a man who has played a role in that peace process, in one capacity or another, for thirty years. I don't know how anyone involved in such a longstanding and heated conflict could write an objective account of it. And I think what people expected was an objective account.

They expected him to be the peacemaker like he's always been and diligently navigate the diplomatic waters like he always has. When his book didn't meet their expectations, they bashed him.

Despite the charges of his critics, I believe Carter wrote this book with a genuine desire for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine with both nations coexisting in peace. Overall, it isn't a perfect book, but due to the subject and the author, it's a book worth reading.

You can read the transcript or watch the video of the President's press conference here. The President actually uses the phrase in other words eleven times.

On Friday, I went to Santa Clara University to see Leon Panetta, a former Chief of Staff (under Bill Clinton) and a member of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), speak. The event was part of the university's Ethics at Noon lecture series and was held at the de Saisset Museum on campus. There were perhaps two-hundred people in attendance - a generally gray-haired crowd with a sprinkle of university students.

Over the course of an hour, Panetta touched on a number of topics - his background in ethics and government, a brief history of our democracy, the role of ethics in policy making, the ISG, highlights of the ISG Report, and the future of Iraq.

Some of the points he made that still stand out in my mind include:

• When our government sets policies, it should always be guided by two important principles: promoting the common good and improving the lives of our children.
• In the absence of leadership, we are governed by crisis.
• If we won't use diplomacy with our enemies, then what good is diplomacy?
• If we don't keep the diplomatic channel open, then the only alternative is force.
• Talking with the enemy isn't appeasement and it isn't a sign of weakness.
• Diplomacy is less about making the other side see things our way and more about making the other side see why it's in their self-interest to see things our way.
• The ISG made recommendations it thought would best support the stated goal of U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq: a country capable of governing, sustaining, and defending itself.
• The billions of dollars of aid going to Iraq needs to be better managed so there is greater accountability to ensure it reaches the intended people and efforts.
• The ISG felt it was essential our commitment in Iraq not be open-ended and our plans not be affected by the Iraqi government's failure to fulfill its commitments.
• Panetta believed it would be up to the next president to end this war.
• He also believed war with Iran was avoidable as long as we were willing to sit down and talk with the Iranians.

Panetta didn't say anything new or mind-blowing, but I didn't expect him to deliver any shocking revelations, which may beg the question, "Then why bother to hear him speak?"

I suppose I wanted to gain a greater understanding of the report and the situation in Iraq from somebody who was part of the effort and studied the subject. I also wanted to reaffirm my belief that the report was written by intelligent and reasonable people with a solid grasp of reality. Finally, Panetta is a Santa Clara graduate (like me, just 36 years earlier) and a well-respected political figure from the area (unlike me), so I was also motivated by sense of connection and admiration.

Reeling from my horrible fantasy experience, I needed a good dose of reality. A report on Iraq seemed like a good place to find some. After unsuccessfully attempting to read the report online, I bought a bound copy of The Iraq Study Group Report by the Iraq Study Group, James A. Baker III, and Lee H. Hamilton.

The report provides an assessment of the current situation in Iraq (as of December 2006). It takes a look at the key players within the country (Shia, Sunni, and Kurds) and in the region (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others). After outlining the alternative courses of action considered, the group offers its approach to the problem in the form of 79 recommendations covering what needs to be done by those inside and outside of Iraq.

Inside Iraq, the group focuses on issues like performance milestones, national reconciliation, security, the Iraqi police, and oil. Outside of Iraq, the group emphasizes the need for strong diplomatic efforts and strong international support.

I was struck by the report's clarity, frankness, and common sense approach to an extremely complicated situation. I was also struck by how the bipartisan group didn't allow the report to get mired in what mistakes were made, but focused instead on the realities the world faces as a result of those mistakes and the positive steps that can be taken to address those realities.

Most of all, I was struck by the number of recommendations encouraging the administration to be more engaged and communicate directly with others - with Moqtada al-Sadr, with the insurgents, with the militias, with Iran, with Syria, with the international community, with our allies, and with our own military leaders. It's clear the group believes America should be shifting from a military role to a diplomatic and supporting role in Iraq.

Finally, the report has a number of quotable passages, but the most memorable one comes from the section concerning the U.S. intelligence agencies and their inadequate data collection and analysis of threats to our armed forces…

Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.

It's a pearl of wisdom for policy makers or anybody who sets goals to keep in mind. It also gets to one of the fundamental reasons for the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Progress is difficult to achieve when one is more intent on aligning reality with one's beliefs instead of acknowledging the reality and adjusting one's beliefs accordingly.

For anyone interested in current affairs or a good nonfiction read, I would recommend this book.

On a related note, earlier today, I went to Santa Clara University to listen to Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, talk about Iraq and the report. I'll write more about that event tomorrow.

I was hoping to avoid making an announcement so soon, but recent statements by people like Barack, Hillary, Bill (Richardson, not O'Reilly), and Sam (Brownback, not I Am) have forced my hand. They have also shown me that it's never too early to declare one's intentions.

As none of you may know, I have been thinking hard about my plans to run for president. I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position three minutes ago, but here I am and as Senator Brownback might say: I have decided, after considerable consideration, to consider a bid for the nomination for presidency.

That is why I wanted to tell you first that I will be creating a Preliminary David for President in 2016 Proto-Exploratory Committee that will determine the feasibility of forming a reassessment committee in four years to evaluate the practicality of forming a presidential exploratory committee in January of 2015.

For the next several years, I will be exploring, assessing, and reassessing how exploratory committees (and possibly a presidential campaign) might play a role in bringing our country together. Then, on December 5th, 2015, in front of the entrance to Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln (if and when it returns to Disneyland), in my home state of California, I will share my plans with everyone.

To fund this extraordinary effort, I won't be asking for traditional contributions. Instead, I plan to follow - some might say copy - the (RED) business model. I intend to release a merchandise line, (vid), that will be specifically targeted to meet the existing needs of consumers.

Soon, you will be able to buy (things)^vid like bottled water, digital camera memory, and gift cards with the slogan "Vote for Da(vid)" on them. There will also be a line of Post-it note yellow apparel with uplifting words on them like Vi(vid), A(vid), Undi(vid)ed, Di(vid)ends (monogrammed on suits, ties, and socks for business professionals), and Veni (vid)i Vici. The last one isn't a very presidential sentiment, but it's my favorite of the bunch and it's sure to be a winner. In fact, when you buy (things)^vid, we can all be (winners)^vid.

In the meantime, I want to thank you for your time, your suggestions, and most of all, your patience. Eight years may seem like a long time, but it's right around the corner. In today's world, announcing one's candidacy 22 months before a general election may not be too early; it may actually be too late. It takes a person of true vision to make such an announcement 118 months in advance.

I look forward to continuing our conversation in the decade to come.

The Caucus, a political blog produced by The New York Times, just posted the latest list of best selling political books. I mention it because it seems to be one of the few lists I've come across recently that includes titles of books I've actually read, which is something special indeed considering I somehow avoided reading the ten best books of 2006 and ninety-nine of the hundred notable books of last year.

Of the fifteen political books listed, I've read two - State of Denial by Bob Woodward (No. 15) and Palestine Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter (No. 3), which I just finished this morning.

I haven't gotten to The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama (No. 1) yet, but I will. It's next in the stack of unread books I own. I even removed its dust jacket in preparation for some heavy handling.

By the way, did you know there is a Wikipedia entry about dust jackets? It links to a site with a short article about their history.

Anyway, other books on the list that I hope to read this year include Culture Warrior by Bill O’Reilly, The World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman (No. 5), Imperial Life In The Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran (No. 8), and Fiasco by Thomas E. Ricks (No. 10).

om•e•let also om•e•lette (om'lit) n. 1. A dish consisting of beaten eggs fried over high heat until set, often served folded in half over a savory filling such as cheese or mushrooms. 2. Political support or currency. 3. Iraq.

In the last two days, I've read two non-culinary articles in the San Francisco Chronicle that mention omelets.

The first article ran yesterday and discussed Arnold's State of the State address. The reporter spoke with Terry Connelly, a dean of business at a local university. Here's the relevant excerpt...

The governor, he said, is "offering a grand bargain against the political encampments of the past" by effectively thumbing his nose at the political axiom -- one adhered to by the Bush administration -- that an elected official should "never, never anger your base."

Schwarzenegger "has been there and done that. He'll say, 'I played to the base with poorly drafted stuff, and that ain't the way you make an omelet,' " Connelly said. "You make an omelet by breaking some eggs -- and you have to move past the comfort zone politically."

I'm not sure, but I believe the omelet, in this case, is meant to represent political support or currency. I'm assuming "poorly drafted stuff" would be like using rotten eggs or an inferior egg substitute. As for the eggs themselves, I haven't a clue as to what they symbolize, but apparently they need to be broken outside of the comfort zone, which could be just the pan or maybe the entire kitchen, depending on one's omelet abilities.

The second article, a piece about Bush's "new" plan for American involvement in Iraq, ran this morning. Here's the pertinent sentence...

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, said, "It's too late to unscramble the omelet'' of four years of mistakes in Iraq.

Doing anything to an omelet after four years, whether it be unscrambling, eating, or touching it, would sound a bit on the late side. Then again, in a related article I found on the web, a Michigan State University professor was quoted as saying, "The United States has unscrambled the omelet, and it's very difficult now to put it back together once again."

So, it might not be too late to unscramble the Iraq Mistake Omelet after all. Reassembling it could be an issue though. Mistake, I'm guessing, must be a type of mushroom, like shiitake. If it is, this omelet must be packed with mushrooms.

And stretching the poor metaphor even further, Bush seems to believe the only way to fix the troublesome omelet is with a surge of cheese (or a cheese escalation, as the Democrats would say).

Just for fun, I did a little digging around for any other mention of Iraq and omelets. The most amusing find was this Tom Toles political cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post last year...

All this talk of omelets leaves me feeling hungry. It also leaves me wondering when and where the next political omelet will appear. Maybe I should keep an eye out for it.

Last night, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, gave his State of the State address. If you missed it, you can watch the video or read the transcript.

In the address, the governor outlined an ambitious, "post-partisan" agenda. In other words, he presented an agenda with something for everyone to dislike.

By the way, I've been searching the web for the term "post-partisanship" and found the definition in the inaugural speech the governor gave last Friday...

Post-partisanship is not simply Republicans and Democrats each bringing their proposals to the table and working out differences. Post-partisanship is Republicans and Democrats actively giving birth to new ideas together. I believe it would promote a new centrism and a new trust in our political system.

Apparently, between Friday and Tuesday, Republicans and Democrats got busy and gave birth to all sorts of centrist ideas. Like a proud father, Arnold showed us snapshots of the cuddly proposals that resulted from all of that post-partisan love. They included:

• establishing a Low Carbon Fueld Standard to reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions
• implementing his Global Warming Solutions Act
• investing an additional $43.3 billion in correction facilities, education, disaster preparedness, and transportation
• reforming the health care system to provide coverage for all Californians
• changing the way the geographic boundaries of legislative districts are drawn

Of course, as we all know, cute proposals delivered during speeches often grow up to be ugly pieces of legislation or slacker bills that don't apply themselves and fail to reach their full potential.

For all of his ideas and optimism and flowery language (he compared California to ancient city-states like Athens and Sparta, for goodness sake), it would be nice to see at least some portion of Schwarzenegger's vision of the state's future become reality, but he faces tough opposition, primarily from members of his own party.

He may be post-partisan, his agenda may be post-partisan, and even the public may be post-partisan, but I have a feeling his fellow politicians are far from getting past their partisanship.

Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never vote for president. One hopes it is the same half. - Gore Vidal

Today is Election Day in the United States and it couldn't come a day too soon. Over the last month, I had developed a nasty itch only voting could scratch.

You see, I first contracted the itch a month ago, when various politicians started running ads on television with alarming frequency. The ads featured people running for elected offices one rarely hears about: insurance commissioner, attorney general, state controller, state masseuse.

Of course, the ads receiving the most airtime were those for the gubernatorial race. Arnold Schwarzenegger's camp ran disturbing commercials with music playing backwards and Arnold saying that, unlike his opponent, he would lead Caleeforneea forward.

Phil Angelides's camp ran even more disturbing commercials showing Arnold repeating those three words every Democrat hates: "I'll be back." "George W. Bush." Every time I saw it, I was instantly reminded of that maddening HeadOn commercial with its thrice-repeated catchphrase, "HeadOn. Apply directly to the forehead." I've seen the ad a hundred times and still don't know what HeadOn is for because I'm usually focused on other things, like applying my forehead directly to a wall.

Besides ads for politicians, the past month has been filled with a cacophony of commercials for or against numerous propositions. The most vocal and contentious battles were over Propositions 86 and 87. (Prop. 86 has to do with a cigarette tax. Prop. 87 deals with alternative energy.) Oftentimes, three or four opposing ads, usually featuring doctors, would run in a row. "Vote no on 86," said one doctor. "Vote yes on 86," said another. "No, vote no on 86," said a third.

If you're wondering why you have to wait so long to see your doctor, it's because he or she is busy pursuing a new career as a political mouthpiece. They weren't the only ones. Firefighters, police officers and teachers also placed their professional responsibilities on the backburner to jump into the proposition fray.

I thought the itch might fade if I went for a walk and got away from the clutter on the television, but as soon as I stepped outside, a clutter of campaign signs greeted me. The chain link fence they hung on was sagging under their collective weight. "Hi! Vote for me," said one sign. "No, vote for me," said another. "Lost cat," said a third, earning a glare from the first two. Instead of fading away, the itch only grew worse.

So, you can imagine the relief I felt when today finally arrived. The itch was so bad, I sped to my polling place first thing this morning. I got there just as the election officer was opening the doors.

To my surprise, I wasn't the first one there. Dozens of people, clearly suffering from the voting itch, stood in line ahead of me. Although I felt their pain, I couldn't wait my turn to vote. I wanted to be compassionate, but I wanted to scratch the itch more. In a moment of desperation, I did the first thing that came to mind.

I pointed and shouted, "Republican!"

They're such rare animals in this neck of the wilderness that my yell caused everybody in line to turn in the hopes of spotting one. Amidst the camera phone flashes and cries of "Where?" and "I'll gets that varmint!", I managed to get by most of the crowd and secure the fourth spot in line.

Anyway, after voting my itch away, I proudly wore the "I Voted" sticker they gave me. I made sure people on the train could see it while I read Nicole Richie's book for no other reason than to see them shudder and hear them exclaim to their neighbors, "Oh. My. God. He's reading that and they still let him vote? What is this country coming to?"

If you haven't already, scratch the itch and vote!