The mainstream media's acknowledgment of recent successes in Iraq has the Republican spin machine going full-blast.
In the past month, successes like the turning of Sunni tribes in al Anbar province against al Qaeda and the elimination of most of the terrorists from Baquba have only been hailed in GOP-oriented media, such as talk radio, Fox News and the right side of the blogosphere.
This past weekend, the good news stories have been picked up even in anti-war newspapers like the New York Times and by pundits on the Sunday TV programs.
The talk show hosts went wild Monday over the NY Times' publication of an op-ed piece by Michael O'Hanlon and Michael Pollock of The Brookings Institution, a defense think-tank that is slightly left on the political spectrum. O'Hanlon was called a major critic of the Iraq war, and his view that the operation is now winnable was a major turnaround. But O'Hanlon, while critical, was no anti-war lefty Daily Kos type by any stretch of the imagination, and his past criticisms have been well-taken.
Comments by Washington Post writer David Ignatius on TV that a quick withdrawal was a bad idea were also cited by talk radio hosts. Ignatius, however, has been a supporter of Gen. David Petreus, the leader of the surge strategy, from the get-go. He's well-connected and has traveled to Baghdad in the past to speak with top Iraqi and U.S. officials. For Ignatius to say that a withdrawal now, with the surge only recently at full strength, is a bad idea is not exactly a stretch.
Some of the celebration by GOP supporters is warranted. There has been some success with the surge outside Baghdad, though not much within the Iraqi capital. For an anti-war paper like the NY Times to acknowledge such, especially from a somewhat left-of-center organization like Brookings, is a definite change.
Whether enough of the mainstream media follows, and leads to a major change in the waning public support for the war is questionable, but bears watching. If you start seeing a bunch of "Success in Iraq" stories over the next couple weeks, then the GOP might have something. No question that the Democrats own defeat, and if Iraq appears successful next year it will have major electoral implications. That could help the GOP.
It could also help Hillary Clinton. The primaries come before the general election, of course, and she's the only candidate near the top of the polls who has ever expressed some support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, reserved as it was. But Barack Obama and John Edwards, her closest opponents, have been solidly against the war. Hillary has been running away from the war recently, but she has plenty of time to ease away from that tack and look like the wise senior statesperson. That could wrap up the nomination and set her up pretty well for the presidency.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Presidential Candidates - What They Should Be Saying
The spring and summer so far of the too-early presidential campaign has been the silly season, with the candidates doing their best to raise money, appear pretty and try to be liked by party faithful.
But now there's some evidence that the candidates have recognized that it's time to get serious. That it's time to move away from soft generalities and toward hard specifics.
So, as a public service, here are some things the candidates should be saying in order to make sense to us voters who will be picking them in the primaries of the upcoming winter.
1. While there's a lot of lip-service about leaving Iraq, the actual goal is to disengage from combat and turn the heavy duty work over to the Iraqis themselves. The trouble with leaving is that not only is genocide likely to follow, but we still have Syria and Iran to contend with and overall Middle Eastern terrorism issues. Opposition to the war morphed from complaints about President Bush's WMD rationale into a full fledged demand to leave, which was originally only wanted by a small portion of anti-war activists. Others who've glommed on to the withdrawal theme have done so without thinking about the surrounding issues. So pull away if you must, but there's no reason to pull out. Just the opposite, actually.
2. Avoid major complaints about the economy. Face it, we're doing pretty well. Feel free to decry gas prices and the high cost of housing. Anything else will make a candidate look foolish.
3. The Democrats are making a headlong rush toward national health care. The issue is a winner within the party, no question. Among the population at-large, support is greater than it was when Hillarycare was roundly defeated 15 years ago, but to suggest that government-run health care has majority support would be simply wrong. Congress is treading carefully, and that's why.
4. Don't avoid the immigration debate. There is a middle road. Secure the border and support a method for some of the millions to remain in the United States, but without a citizenship inducement. The rule of law is clearly supported by voters in both parties, as is tolerance for individuals who might be impacted.
5. No one has seriously taken up reform for Social Security and Medicare, the twin financial disasters that loom in the future. Get it onto the front burner and make yourself the candidate who will solve real problems.
6. Global warming is like national health care in that it's a bigger issue among Democrats than with independents and Republicans. However, people with both parties believe it deserves serious treatment, not immature ravings.
The candidate who captures the public's fancy, and none have as yet, will be the one who rises above the grimy political fray and positions himself as the one who can solve the various problems we face. We're looking for someone who takes the issues seriously, not who places a damp finger in the air. Someone with the stature to get people from all sides together to get things done. If such a person is out there, he hasn't shown himself yet. But the points above are a good place for such a candidate to start.
But now there's some evidence that the candidates have recognized that it's time to get serious. That it's time to move away from soft generalities and toward hard specifics.
So, as a public service, here are some things the candidates should be saying in order to make sense to us voters who will be picking them in the primaries of the upcoming winter.
1. While there's a lot of lip-service about leaving Iraq, the actual goal is to disengage from combat and turn the heavy duty work over to the Iraqis themselves. The trouble with leaving is that not only is genocide likely to follow, but we still have Syria and Iran to contend with and overall Middle Eastern terrorism issues. Opposition to the war morphed from complaints about President Bush's WMD rationale into a full fledged demand to leave, which was originally only wanted by a small portion of anti-war activists. Others who've glommed on to the withdrawal theme have done so without thinking about the surrounding issues. So pull away if you must, but there's no reason to pull out. Just the opposite, actually.
2. Avoid major complaints about the economy. Face it, we're doing pretty well. Feel free to decry gas prices and the high cost of housing. Anything else will make a candidate look foolish.
3. The Democrats are making a headlong rush toward national health care. The issue is a winner within the party, no question. Among the population at-large, support is greater than it was when Hillarycare was roundly defeated 15 years ago, but to suggest that government-run health care has majority support would be simply wrong. Congress is treading carefully, and that's why.
4. Don't avoid the immigration debate. There is a middle road. Secure the border and support a method for some of the millions to remain in the United States, but without a citizenship inducement. The rule of law is clearly supported by voters in both parties, as is tolerance for individuals who might be impacted.
5. No one has seriously taken up reform for Social Security and Medicare, the twin financial disasters that loom in the future. Get it onto the front burner and make yourself the candidate who will solve real problems.
6. Global warming is like national health care in that it's a bigger issue among Democrats than with independents and Republicans. However, people with both parties believe it deserves serious treatment, not immature ravings.
The candidate who captures the public's fancy, and none have as yet, will be the one who rises above the grimy political fray and positions himself as the one who can solve the various problems we face. We're looking for someone who takes the issues seriously, not who places a damp finger in the air. Someone with the stature to get people from all sides together to get things done. If such a person is out there, he hasn't shown himself yet. But the points above are a good place for such a candidate to start.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Iraq Plan
Now that the latest political fraud in Congress about the war in Iraq has been quashed, maybe the intelligent among us can figure out what to do next. Bearing in mind, of course, that there remains much unfinished business in Afghanistan, the threat of a nuclear Iran, and changing conditions in Pakistan.
Despite the objections of anti-war groups and politicians, there is no reason to consider leaving Iraq -- or redeploying our troops, depending on how you want to characterize it -- until the September scheduled briefing by military officials on progress achieved by the surge. However, since one thing the armed services do is plan for various eventualities, there's no reason why they can't plan for change now, if one is needed. And they should do so.
With less than two months to work with, here are the military and Iraqi political scenarios we're likely to hear in September, based on recent events.
Military: We're defeating the insurgents where we meet them on the battlefield, with the help of our former Sunni opponents in some places. The problem has been that they tend to escape too often before our forces arrive at a given location, so we're too often only beating the leftovers. So while we're beating them in Baquba, they're bombing people in Kirkuk. Things are also progressing well in rural areas, not so smoothly in Baghdad itself. Overall, there is some progress, but not a lot.
Iraqi Political: A major reason for the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to become effective and pass agreements on fundamental issues, including how to split up oil revenues. The good news this week is that Shiites who've boycotted parliament have apparently agreed to return. The bad news is that's about the only good news. Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to be a weak leader who is unable to assert control over radical Shiites. Overall, progress is minuscule.
Based on the current political climate in Washington, D.C., a mixed-bag report like the scenario described above would be the worst thing that could happen, because there would be no clear signs of success. Republicans would argue to continue the surge because of steady military progress, while Democrats would contend that such progress isn't meaningful if the Iraqi government doesn't pull its weight. So we'd end up in the same old political brawl here at home without a lack of consensus.
If we end up with a pacified countryside and chaos in Baghdad, then we have to re-evaluate our reason for being in Iraq, and set aside nation-building in favor of pure self-interest on our part. Keeping a major military presence in the region is a major national security interest of the United States because of Iran's pot-stirring and our desire to keep Syria out of Lebanon.
The best way to maintain those interests will be to build three major military bases in Iraq, two along the lengthy border with Iran and one against Syria. And by "along the border," I mean by a foot or two. Build an airstrip at each one. Place thousands of troops at each one, and be ready to do what might become necessary in the future. A token force can be left in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
In a sense, it will say "to heck with you" to the Iraqis, but it will keep us from continually kicking a dead horse, if that's what their government turns out to be. And we'll still be around to handle any serious terrorist incursions. But it will also get us out from the sectarian violence and away from the roadside bombs. And, most importantly, it will maintain, or even increase, the pressure on the rogue governments of Iran and Syria, which is among the reasons why we're there in the first place.
Despite the objections of anti-war groups and politicians, there is no reason to consider leaving Iraq -- or redeploying our troops, depending on how you want to characterize it -- until the September scheduled briefing by military officials on progress achieved by the surge. However, since one thing the armed services do is plan for various eventualities, there's no reason why they can't plan for change now, if one is needed. And they should do so.
With less than two months to work with, here are the military and Iraqi political scenarios we're likely to hear in September, based on recent events.
Military: We're defeating the insurgents where we meet them on the battlefield, with the help of our former Sunni opponents in some places. The problem has been that they tend to escape too often before our forces arrive at a given location, so we're too often only beating the leftovers. So while we're beating them in Baquba, they're bombing people in Kirkuk. Things are also progressing well in rural areas, not so smoothly in Baghdad itself. Overall, there is some progress, but not a lot.
Iraqi Political: A major reason for the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to become effective and pass agreements on fundamental issues, including how to split up oil revenues. The good news this week is that Shiites who've boycotted parliament have apparently agreed to return. The bad news is that's about the only good news. Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to be a weak leader who is unable to assert control over radical Shiites. Overall, progress is minuscule.
Based on the current political climate in Washington, D.C., a mixed-bag report like the scenario described above would be the worst thing that could happen, because there would be no clear signs of success. Republicans would argue to continue the surge because of steady military progress, while Democrats would contend that such progress isn't meaningful if the Iraqi government doesn't pull its weight. So we'd end up in the same old political brawl here at home without a lack of consensus.
If we end up with a pacified countryside and chaos in Baghdad, then we have to re-evaluate our reason for being in Iraq, and set aside nation-building in favor of pure self-interest on our part. Keeping a major military presence in the region is a major national security interest of the United States because of Iran's pot-stirring and our desire to keep Syria out of Lebanon.
The best way to maintain those interests will be to build three major military bases in Iraq, two along the lengthy border with Iran and one against Syria. And by "along the border," I mean by a foot or two. Build an airstrip at each one. Place thousands of troops at each one, and be ready to do what might become necessary in the future. A token force can be left in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
In a sense, it will say "to heck with you" to the Iraqis, but it will keep us from continually kicking a dead horse, if that's what their government turns out to be. And we'll still be around to handle any serious terrorist incursions. But it will also get us out from the sectarian violence and away from the roadside bombs. And, most importantly, it will maintain, or even increase, the pressure on the rogue governments of Iran and Syria, which is among the reasons why we're there in the first place.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Time is Now in Pakistan, Notes on More
Developments in Pakistan the past few days could prove to be a blessing in disguise if the United States, NATO, Afghanistan and -- most of all -- the Pakistani government take advantage of the opportunity.
When the Pakistani army raided a militant-held mosque in the usually quiet capital of Islamabad, last week, it signaled a willingness on the part of the government to crack down on radical mullahs and the schools in which they indoctrinate young children, the madrassas. Taliban supporters in the lawless northern sections of Pakistan, who sympathized with the radicals in the mosque, announced that they were ending an agreement with the government that had limited a military presence in their areas. Suicide bombings and many deaths followed over the weekend.
That deal between the government and the militants had brought some relative peace to the region, but at the cost of an unfettered Taliban that rebuilt its strength in order to attack Afghanistan, and the building of new terrorist training camps. Essentially, it was a deal with the devil.
The U.S., which has been less than pleased with the Pakistanis recently, has to convince the government to return security forces to their mountainous frontier in force and clear these people out once and for all. If it comes down to it, we need to threaten to take on the task ourselves.
Our need for Pakistan is debatable at this point. Just after 9/11, we needed the Pakistanis for the simple reason that we had to fly through their airspace to reach the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. A sometimes cooperative Pakistan in the years since has proven helpful. The obstinate Pakistan in the last year or so, up until last week, was of no use. Our need for the nation's airspace is no longer.
Doubting that the Pakistani government, with a tenuous grip on power, will want to be tossed overboard, I'd say the time is now to play hardball with them.
---
There's been a lot of reflecting among political pundits regarding the collapse of the presidential campaign of Arizona Sen. John McCain. The talk has been all strategic. And it's missed the point, for the most part. The problem with McCain hasn't been his ideology, his early spending, or his under-rating of Rudy Giuliani. It's simply his record as a U.S. Senator. He pushed through a campaign finance bill that turned out to be a disaster. He compounded that by supporting an immigration bill that was going to lead to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants, plus untold numbers of their relatives. For GOP voters, he was wrong. For the general population, he was wrong on Iraq. Case closed.
---
That politics rules the Iraq war was in evidence as Senate leaders were forcing an all-night session to force the GOP to defend the operation. Maybe the commitment of more than a hundred thousand armed services members should be debated in a less haphazard manner. Who knows what an 80-year-old eight-term member of the chamber might say at 4 a.m.? Republicans are no better, with the shameful defections of Pete Domenici of New Mexico and several others. Maybe continuing the fight is a bad idea. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has said that all along. But why abandon the surge now when it's just started? Yeah, the bill was on the way from the House. Politics.
When the Pakistani army raided a militant-held mosque in the usually quiet capital of Islamabad, last week, it signaled a willingness on the part of the government to crack down on radical mullahs and the schools in which they indoctrinate young children, the madrassas. Taliban supporters in the lawless northern sections of Pakistan, who sympathized with the radicals in the mosque, announced that they were ending an agreement with the government that had limited a military presence in their areas. Suicide bombings and many deaths followed over the weekend.
That deal between the government and the militants had brought some relative peace to the region, but at the cost of an unfettered Taliban that rebuilt its strength in order to attack Afghanistan, and the building of new terrorist training camps. Essentially, it was a deal with the devil.
The U.S., which has been less than pleased with the Pakistanis recently, has to convince the government to return security forces to their mountainous frontier in force and clear these people out once and for all. If it comes down to it, we need to threaten to take on the task ourselves.
Our need for Pakistan is debatable at this point. Just after 9/11, we needed the Pakistanis for the simple reason that we had to fly through their airspace to reach the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. A sometimes cooperative Pakistan in the years since has proven helpful. The obstinate Pakistan in the last year or so, up until last week, was of no use. Our need for the nation's airspace is no longer.
Doubting that the Pakistani government, with a tenuous grip on power, will want to be tossed overboard, I'd say the time is now to play hardball with them.
---
There's been a lot of reflecting among political pundits regarding the collapse of the presidential campaign of Arizona Sen. John McCain. The talk has been all strategic. And it's missed the point, for the most part. The problem with McCain hasn't been his ideology, his early spending, or his under-rating of Rudy Giuliani. It's simply his record as a U.S. Senator. He pushed through a campaign finance bill that turned out to be a disaster. He compounded that by supporting an immigration bill that was going to lead to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants, plus untold numbers of their relatives. For GOP voters, he was wrong. For the general population, he was wrong on Iraq. Case closed.
---
That politics rules the Iraq war was in evidence as Senate leaders were forcing an all-night session to force the GOP to defend the operation. Maybe the commitment of more than a hundred thousand armed services members should be debated in a less haphazard manner. Who knows what an 80-year-old eight-term member of the chamber might say at 4 a.m.? Republicans are no better, with the shameful defections of Pete Domenici of New Mexico and several others. Maybe continuing the fight is a bad idea. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has said that all along. But why abandon the surge now when it's just started? Yeah, the bill was on the way from the House. Politics.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Reading the Op-Eds
Two op-ed stories in my local newspaper today caught my attention. Not just because I was interested in the subject matter, but because the presentations provided a lesson for the observant reader.
The authors of both articles were generally right in their primary thrust. But there were serious errors in the thinking of both that point up a major problem in our understanding of the issues.
In one, Jim Boren of the Fresno Bee wrote that the immigration question will not be solved by the politicians because they have a vested interest in keeping the issue alive. There's a lot to agree with there.
However, he goes on to say that the legislation that was twice offered was killed by special interests, instead of by the public, which did not trust the government to control the border, and did not want illegal immigrants granted citizenship. The political elite and too many of the media just can't get these facts through their heads. It wasn't special interests. It was a bad bill.
The second article, by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, says that the Bush administration and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are living in a fantasy world in hoping that deprivations caused by isolating the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip will lead to a revolt by the Palestinians in favor of the "moderate" Fatah. It's more likely, he writes, that the uneducated Palestinians would turn to even more radical leadership. He's right.
However, he then makes a big mistake that displays the incredible blinders worn by those inside the Beltway. The solution, Diehl writes, is for "Israel and Hamas to start to come together, however provisionally."
Huh? Let's see. Hamas has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Israel really doesn't want Hamas legitimized in any way, shape or form. So just how are the two sides to come together? Well, the writer suggest a "full-fledged cease fire." You either have a cease fire or you don't. There's no level of degree. Hamas and Israel have had a number of cease fires, and none have held.
Diehl also suggests that Hamas might want to release the Israeli soldier it kidnapped a year ago. Hamas has had plenty of chances to release the poor guy in the past 12 months, and plenty of reason. Hasn't happened yet. And it won't.
Many, many, op-ed articles are like that. A sharp analysis of a problem is undone by the wrong solution. Or the writer's exposition of an issue is 75 percent right, but the 25 percent that's incorrect ruins the entire effort. What's scary is that when the writer falls short, it's usually on something -- like an inability to concede that We the People were right or a desire to talk with an enemy no matter how intractable -- that gives comfort to elite ideology.
(Washington Post requires registration, so I just passed along the basic newspaper link ... jim)
The authors of both articles were generally right in their primary thrust. But there were serious errors in the thinking of both that point up a major problem in our understanding of the issues.
In one, Jim Boren of the Fresno Bee wrote that the immigration question will not be solved by the politicians because they have a vested interest in keeping the issue alive. There's a lot to agree with there.
However, he goes on to say that the legislation that was twice offered was killed by special interests, instead of by the public, which did not trust the government to control the border, and did not want illegal immigrants granted citizenship. The political elite and too many of the media just can't get these facts through their heads. It wasn't special interests. It was a bad bill.
The second article, by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, says that the Bush administration and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are living in a fantasy world in hoping that deprivations caused by isolating the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip will lead to a revolt by the Palestinians in favor of the "moderate" Fatah. It's more likely, he writes, that the uneducated Palestinians would turn to even more radical leadership. He's right.
However, he then makes a big mistake that displays the incredible blinders worn by those inside the Beltway. The solution, Diehl writes, is for "Israel and Hamas to start to come together, however provisionally."
Huh? Let's see. Hamas has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Israel really doesn't want Hamas legitimized in any way, shape or form. So just how are the two sides to come together? Well, the writer suggest a "full-fledged cease fire." You either have a cease fire or you don't. There's no level of degree. Hamas and Israel have had a number of cease fires, and none have held.
Diehl also suggests that Hamas might want to release the Israeli soldier it kidnapped a year ago. Hamas has had plenty of chances to release the poor guy in the past 12 months, and plenty of reason. Hasn't happened yet. And it won't.
Many, many, op-ed articles are like that. A sharp analysis of a problem is undone by the wrong solution. Or the writer's exposition of an issue is 75 percent right, but the 25 percent that's incorrect ruins the entire effort. What's scary is that when the writer falls short, it's usually on something -- like an inability to concede that We the People were right or a desire to talk with an enemy no matter how intractable -- that gives comfort to elite ideology.
(Washington Post requires registration, so I just passed along the basic newspaper link ... jim)
Monday, July 9, 2007
Immigration Racism
One of the most disturbing facets of the immigration reform debate was the racism charge that was so casually cast about by supporters of the failed bill, from Ted Kennedy to John McCain and even hinted at by President Bush.
The people who tried to ram this horrible bill through Congress are so insulated, so out of touch with reality, that they truly believe their opponents recoil at the sight of Latinos. But the truth is far different.
What prompts this blog entry is the starting lineup of Major League Baseball's American League All-Star team. David Ortiz is at first base, with Placido Palanco at second. You probably see where I'm going here. While Derek Jeter is the shortstop, the third baseman is Alex Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez is in left, Vladimir Guerrero is in right and Ivan Rodriguez is catching. If not for Jeter and center fielder Ichiro Suzuki, you'd have an all-Hispanic lineup.
The key here is that all these players were voted as starters by the fans. The American public. And baseball has quite a cross-section of followers over the socio-political-economic spectrum. In the middle of a heated debate over whether to let 12 million illegal immigrants become citizens, the people of the United States voted six Latino ballplayers to the All-Star Game for the AL. And while two are not Hispanic, one is Japanese and the other mixed-race. No white starters. The National League added two more Latino starters, and fans of the senior circuit nearly selected Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano over the far more deserving Chris Young, the Padres hurler, in the Internet balloting for the final roster spot.
You can just feel the racial hatred simmering in this country.
Seriously, you can't get a real feel for what's happening on this subject -- or many others, for that matter -- by isolating yourself in Washington, D.C., or midtown Manhattan. In Southern California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, we've been living with Latinos for our entire lives. We know what it's like. You hear all kinds of things about them, such as whether they assimilate. Like just about every other ethnic group that's come here, some of them do and some don't. In a courthouse where I often work, Latinos are heavily represented among the criminals, the bailiffs, the cops, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys and the judges. It's across the board.
Some Latinos become baseball players, and can be very talented ones. As fans, no matter our race or their's, we appreciate their skills and enjoy watching them. Race is a non-issue. It was during the immigration debate, too. Unfortunately, our unethical and ineffectual leaders played the race card because they just couldn't bring themselves to admit that they were trying to swindle the public with their bill.
The people who tried to ram this horrible bill through Congress are so insulated, so out of touch with reality, that they truly believe their opponents recoil at the sight of Latinos. But the truth is far different.
What prompts this blog entry is the starting lineup of Major League Baseball's American League All-Star team. David Ortiz is at first base, with Placido Palanco at second. You probably see where I'm going here. While Derek Jeter is the shortstop, the third baseman is Alex Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez is in left, Vladimir Guerrero is in right and Ivan Rodriguez is catching. If not for Jeter and center fielder Ichiro Suzuki, you'd have an all-Hispanic lineup.
The key here is that all these players were voted as starters by the fans. The American public. And baseball has quite a cross-section of followers over the socio-political-economic spectrum. In the middle of a heated debate over whether to let 12 million illegal immigrants become citizens, the people of the United States voted six Latino ballplayers to the All-Star Game for the AL. And while two are not Hispanic, one is Japanese and the other mixed-race. No white starters. The National League added two more Latino starters, and fans of the senior circuit nearly selected Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano over the far more deserving Chris Young, the Padres hurler, in the Internet balloting for the final roster spot.
You can just feel the racial hatred simmering in this country.
Seriously, you can't get a real feel for what's happening on this subject -- or many others, for that matter -- by isolating yourself in Washington, D.C., or midtown Manhattan. In Southern California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, we've been living with Latinos for our entire lives. We know what it's like. You hear all kinds of things about them, such as whether they assimilate. Like just about every other ethnic group that's come here, some of them do and some don't. In a courthouse where I often work, Latinos are heavily represented among the criminals, the bailiffs, the cops, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys and the judges. It's across the board.
Some Latinos become baseball players, and can be very talented ones. As fans, no matter our race or their's, we appreciate their skills and enjoy watching them. Race is a non-issue. It was during the immigration debate, too. Unfortunately, our unethical and ineffectual leaders played the race card because they just couldn't bring themselves to admit that they were trying to swindle the public with their bill.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Blog Philosophy
It is my observation that the most fundamental problem with politics and government in Washington, D.C., is that our national debate too often takes places on the extreme fringes of our political fabric. This gives our national leaders a warped viewpoint of how We The People feel about different issues.
Exhibit A is the recent effort to reform our laws on immigration. It seemed like no one in the White House or Capital Hill had any clue how we felt. This was a bill that no one liked. You had the left thinking their fellow Democrats were willing to accept millions of illegal immigrants becoming citizens for the simple reason that they'd be able to win more elections. The right seems to think everyone with brown skin should be immediately ejected from the country. Neither one is true. Those inside the Beltway may as well be on another planet, their disconnect from the citizenry is so wide.
My story on how I came to this belief about debates on the extremes and the negative effect on the political culture is actually rather funny. It all stems from the Janet Jackson breast-baring incident at halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl. Remember the two weeks that followed? All the TV and radio talk shows dealt with it, so much so that the presidential campaign was temporarily upstaged.
What we heard from commentators and callers was "our popular culture had hit bottom" or "lighten up, dudes, it was only a breast." We heard next to nothing about the reaction that most of us actually had -- that the baring of a singer's breast might be acceptable on a pay-cable television show, but was inappropriate for a general audience that was there to watch a football game and the halftime entertainment.
My goal is to reintroduce the reasonable back into our political debate. As I wrote in my first post, immigration reform should have been easy. All we had to do was secure the border and not offer citizenship to the illegal immigrants already here, then most of us would have accepted any sort of disposition for the 12 million who are here, since there's no way they can all be deported. But since we don't have a well-reasoned political culture, such ideas apparently never had a chance.
Well, we have to regain the center, folks. Our politicians and their backers are too busy looking for political expediency and spouting ideology. Most of the issues we face, from terrorism to the looming entitlement solvency problems, overwhelm ideology. The posts you read will, hopefully, pull us all back from the edges and form realistic opinions on what we face as a nation.
Exhibit A is the recent effort to reform our laws on immigration. It seemed like no one in the White House or Capital Hill had any clue how we felt. This was a bill that no one liked. You had the left thinking their fellow Democrats were willing to accept millions of illegal immigrants becoming citizens for the simple reason that they'd be able to win more elections. The right seems to think everyone with brown skin should be immediately ejected from the country. Neither one is true. Those inside the Beltway may as well be on another planet, their disconnect from the citizenry is so wide.
My story on how I came to this belief about debates on the extremes and the negative effect on the political culture is actually rather funny. It all stems from the Janet Jackson breast-baring incident at halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl. Remember the two weeks that followed? All the TV and radio talk shows dealt with it, so much so that the presidential campaign was temporarily upstaged.
What we heard from commentators and callers was "our popular culture had hit bottom" or "lighten up, dudes, it was only a breast." We heard next to nothing about the reaction that most of us actually had -- that the baring of a singer's breast might be acceptable on a pay-cable television show, but was inappropriate for a general audience that was there to watch a football game and the halftime entertainment.
My goal is to reintroduce the reasonable back into our political debate. As I wrote in my first post, immigration reform should have been easy. All we had to do was secure the border and not offer citizenship to the illegal immigrants already here, then most of us would have accepted any sort of disposition for the 12 million who are here, since there's no way they can all be deported. But since we don't have a well-reasoned political culture, such ideas apparently never had a chance.
Well, we have to regain the center, folks. Our politicians and their backers are too busy looking for political expediency and spouting ideology. Most of the issues we face, from terrorism to the looming entitlement solvency problems, overwhelm ideology. The posts you read will, hopefully, pull us all back from the edges and form realistic opinions on what we face as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)