Monthly Archives: May 2010

Posted on by

is jane harman next?

Voters across the country are holding out-of-touch politicians accountable for their years of egocentric decisions and callous indifference to constituents. Southern California Democrat Jane Harman exemplifies the politician that voters are tired of. Harman’s career in Congress may very well end in California’s primary election on June 8th.

What is clear to district voters is that Harman’s silly and childish public fight with Speaker Nancy Pelosi has neutered her ability to be effective in introducing or passing legislation. Its clear Harman won’t work with Republicans and can’t work with her own party’s leadership. She has single-handedly alienated most everyone she needs to be an effective voice for the people in her coastline Los Angeles district. Harman’s self-proclaimed expertise on national security issues has also become a thorny issue for the conservatives who think she isn’t tough enough and the liberals who think she is too tough. Harman is proof that if you are everything to everyone then you’re a soul-less politician without a base. Harman’s television commercials comically mention no issues but instead show pictures of the district with upbeat music playing while her name is splashed on the screen – a constant reminder to voters that we don’t know who she is or what she stands for after 8 terms in Congress. But voters have tired of being ignored by the multi-millionaire Congresswoman who failed to hold any legitimate town hall meetings on Obama’s healthcare plan even though voters in the district were calling for them. Harman, the richest Democrat in Congress, just ignored the requests and petitions from voters and kept a low profile during the debate. Harman likes to pay attention to the voters closer to her elections.

But California’s unique election process offers voters the chance to classify themselves as “Declined to state” instead of choosing between Republican or Democrat. Harman’s district, which runs from San Pedro to Venice, has one of the highest concentrations of voters classified as “declined to state” in all of California. The independent and unaffiliated voters of the district will decide who represents Los Angeles’ coastal communities in Washington, DC for the next Congress. And the timing couldn’t be more perfect for Harman to lose her seat in the primary election of June 8th. Email chains and community buzz have Democrats and Republicans joining together to dump Harman in the primary by voting for Marcy Winograd. For Democrats, Winograd is a grassroots liberal more connected to the traditional base and willing to listen to the activists of the party. For Republicans, Winograd presents an obvious and stark contrast to their conservative principles of lower taxes and personal responsibility.

Winograd’s tough grassroots campaign has forced Harman to ignore the healthcare debate and call for higher taxes and defense spending cuts despite the fact that her district is home to some of the Nation’s most respected defense contractors. Winograd has effectively outed Harman’s liberal policies at a time when voters are concerned with the traditional tax and spend tactics of this Congress.

Waiting for Winograd or Harman after June 8th, is Mattie Fein. Fein is the best hope for Republicans to take back the district and a rising star in Republican politics. Fein is smart, humble, funny and wildly experienced. She is a mother who speaks comfortably about job creation in the casual beach community of Venice as well as national security policy in the halls of Congress.

Fein will blunt Harman’s self-proclaimed expertise on intelligence and national security issues by challenging Harman’s quixotic ideas of dealing with terrorists. And Fein’s approachability and personality are more in tune with the beach culture of the district than Harman’s limousine liberal attitude.

Without even trying Harman has actually succeeded in uniting the parties together – they are now united to defeat her.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

oprah is tougher

Last week, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice called a press conference. She used her political capital and soapbox to bring together UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin to combat what she calls “a global problem.” She called on world leaders to follow her lead in bringing an end to this global scourge. As the powerful group gathered in front of the international media assembled to witness the announcement, Rice proclaimed, “It’s a killer. The suffering it causes is direct and immediate—lives lost for no reason, futures shattered in an instant. But its toll is truly global. It’s a problem, as the Secretary-General just said, that needs global attention and action—and that’s why we all stand here today.”

In her first press conference with the Secretary-General and the Russian Ambassador by her side, Rice wasn’t speaking about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Sudan’s genocide or North Korea’s downing of a South Korean ship. Rice wasn’t speaking of the global fight against terrorism either. Rice called the powerful group together to stop the world from texting while driving.

While texting and driving may be an important issue in the United States or other western countries, the overwhelming majority of the world’s population doesn’t own a cell phone, let alone a car. Recent statistics show that roughly 8% of the world’s population owns a car, compared to 89% of U.S. households. Texting while driving, an important public safety issue, is best left to the jurisdiction of local and state officials, not our UN Ambassador. America’s representative to the UN has plenty of other issues she should be working on. For Rice to assemble such an important group of leaders to confront such a non-controversial issue shows an incredible weakness as a serious diplomat. Within just a few weeks, Rice chose to speak up on texting while driving but failed to speak out on Iran’s election to the Women’s Commission.

As Ambassador, Rice hasn’t been willing to wade into America’s complicated foreign policy challenges and has avoided controversial issues. Citizen Rice, however, talked tough about America’s foreign policy challenges and spoke often about Sudan’s genocide.

In 2004, citizen Rice lambasted President Bush for not doing more to lead our allies at the UN on the Iranian nuclear issue. She said, “This approach demands more of the United States than abdication to European diplomacy. It requires U.S. leadership, in partnership with the Europeans, of a complex and urgent negotiation with Iran. Apparently, President Bush finds this prospect too difficult or too uncomfortable.” (Her full article, “We Need a Real Iran Policy,” can be read here: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/1230iran_rice.aspx). But in the nearly 16 months Rice has been representing the American people at the United Nations, she has not produced a single resolution aimed at stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The Bush Administration produced five resolutions on Iran’s illegal pursuit, three with increasing sanctions.

And in 2007 while working at the Brookings Institute, Rice accepted an invitation from then-Senator Joe Biden to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the issue of Darfur. Then citizen Rice said, “The U.S. should press for a Chapter 7 U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum. Accept the unconditional deployment of the U.N. force or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states collectively or individually.” But UN Ambassador Rice hasn’t passed, circulated or even written that resolution. And in a 2006 interview with National Public Radio, citizen Rice said, “Well, I think the first thing that the international community ought to do is to strike Sudanese air assets, their aircraft, their helicopters, their airfields, that have been used relentlessly to attack innocent civilians in Darfur.” As Ambassador, Rice has never asked the Security Council to approve those airstrikes.

Either Susan Rice is a weak negotiator or she is a tough talker from the sidelines. If America’s Ambassador to the UN is to be relegated to stopping drivers from texting while behind the wheel, then maybe President Obama should ask Oprah to be our representative at the UN – at least she is asking people to sign a contract.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

Charles certainly does Blow

Charles Blow graduated from Grambling State University but now works for the New York Times as “Visual Op/Ed Columnist”. I am not sure what a visual op/ed columnist does but today’s column by Blow is neither visual nor worthy of the New York Times. Blow’s writing is choppy and vapid. His filing today is a 474 word piece of partisan whining for his favorite political party titled “Liberals in Limbo”. While conservatives won’t be shocked that Blow is on staff and writing for the Grey Lady, intellectuals everyway should demand she do better than Blow. One has to wonder, what does Charles Blow offer the New York Times reader?

In a laughable and self-described attempt to be “intellectual”, Blow’s piece today quotes 4 public opinion polls showing how the American electorate is getting more conservative. Blow calls it an “unconscionable conservative tilt in the electorate” and goes on to blow more partisan wind with his knee-jerk homage to Arizona’s new law, Elena Kagan, the oil spill in Louisiana and pro-lifers. Blow adds no analysis or irony to any of his liberal themes, leaving Times readers feeling fleeced. Blow offers no examination of the polls, the changing dynamics of the American electorate or historical context of Congress changing hands. Blow’s writings are simple shout-outs to his facebook friends that already know his opinion on everything. For those of us who don’t know Blow we aren’t compelled to read the Saturday column that he finally got in the New York Times after so many years of trying. Most of us want a Saturday column that’s just well-written and makes us think.

After reading Blow, you are left to wonder why the New York Times gives a weekly column to someone so partisan and void of new thought.

I think today’s over-Blow is supposed to be an encouragement to his fellow partisans that although America is tilting right for this year’s elections, they should just sit tight and wait it out because we all know that liberals are more intellectual and conservatives don’t go to schools like Harvard so they couldn’t possibly be smart – so be proud that you are part of the intellectual crowd and not that simple crowd. He’s more elitist than the New York Times, actually. Which is probably why we’re offered the chance to read him on Saturdays. I’m no longer wasting 5 minutes on the weekend.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

susan rice refuses to call out libya as they are elected to the human rights council

Coming on the heels of not speaking out on Iran’s election last week to the Commission on the Status of Women and three other UN Committees, Susan Rice, the sometimes American Ambassador to the UN, today didn’t even mention Libya’s name when asked about the African country’s election to the UN’s Human Rights Council.

It was a softball question to Rice from a veteran UN reporter: “Some human rights groups have complained about Libya joining the Council, do you share those concerns?”

Rice said that sticking with diplomatic tradition, she wouldn’t reveal how America votes. And then she went on to compliment the Human Rights Council’s work. It was a stunning blow to human rights activists around the world.

The Obama Administration last year joined the Human Rights Council after the Bush Administration took America off the UN committee for its lack of action on serious issues and its inability to name violators of human rights. The Bush team felt strongly that the Council was spending too much time beating up on the U.S. and Israel and too little time looking at serious human rights violators. And while the Bush Administration withheld the Human Rights Council’s funding in protest, the Obama Administration restored it. In re-joining the UN’s Council, Obama and Rice said that it would be better to work from within rather than criticize from the outside. But now that Rice is inside the Council, she doesn’t have the guts to say the name of the newly elected country that has a history of rights violations and terrorism. Today Rice repeated her claim, “…it is preferable to work from within to shape and reform a body with the importance and potential of the Human Rights Council, rather than to stay on the sidelines and reject it.”

So let’s look at Rice’s attempts to “shape” the Council for this year’s vote.

In typical UN fashion, four African countries were running for four regional seats on the world body’s most prominent human rights committee. Although Rice has known for weeks that Libya would win a seat on the Human Rights Council because there was no competition for the African seats, she chose not to highlight the issue before the vote or attempt to find another African candidate to challenge the election status quo. In a letter sent to Rice by more than 30 human rights organizations before the vote, the clean slate attempt by the Africans was highlighted as a violation of the original reform commitment. The letter said, “This contravenes the 2006 promise that the reformed Council would bring competitive elections, and sets a poor example.” Rice ignored the human rights groups’ appeal and didn’t try to make a competitive race for Libya.

Making no attempt to find another candidate country is not working to “shape” the Council as Rice claims the U.S. is doing by joining it. Shaping the Council means that you help elect countries that have a strong human rights record and you work to keep countries that violate human rights off the Council. Rice didn’t speak up to highlight the problem, didn’t try to find another candidate and couldn’t utter Libya’s name today.

But Rice did compliment the Human Rights Council for its work. Although the Council hasn’t been able to seriously confront widespread rights violations in Sudan, North Korea, Burma or Cuba, Rice thinks the Council deserves praise for its important efforts. Contributions like the Council’s condemnation of Israel for war crimes in Gaza, or the recent statement by 6 UN human rights experts that the new Arizona law on illegal immigration could violate international standards.

Even Former Secretary General Kofi Annan recommended reforming the Human Rights Council by limiting membership and questioning the regional voting system that creates geographic quotas in his March 2005 report titled, `In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All’. To be fair, you can’t blame the UN when the members fail to act. But we can expect the American representative to show up and speak with moral clarity.

What is clear is that Susan Rice hasn’t found her voice at the UN even though she has been in the job for over a year. It’s hard to take her seriously when in one week’s time she doesn’t speak out on Iran’s election to a UN Committee to promote women’s rights nor Libya’s ascension to sit and judge human rights violators. One has to ask, how is staying silent “working from within”? And how is doing nothing to stop a human rights violator from getting elected to a human rights committee “shaping the Council”? If working from within means that Rice loses her voice, then America needs a stronger voice at the UN.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

grenell in politico.com on supreme court nominee kagan

http://www.politico.com/grenell%20on%20kagan

This isn’t about Kagan’s sexuality, it’s about her potential honesty. This isn’t about one picture of a woman playing softball, it’s about her truthfulness.

But Kagan could end all of this by speaking up.

Christine Pelosi’s post is actually laughable. This has nothing to do with being a woman. Being closeted or just being good at softball has nothing to do with the struggles real women have been through or the problems that closeted gay people have made for everyday gay Americans fighting to be treated equally. It’s actually offensive to women and to gays to minimize this issue. This could in fact be about being closeted and ashamed of you who are. It is a fact that we know all too well that closeted people cause great damage to themselves and to the issues they espouse. Andrew Sullivan is brave for talking about it. While I don’t agree with everything Andrew says, he is right to raise this issue. The Nancy/Christine Pelosi history of ignoring gay issues in favor of using gay issues to stay in power is sad.

While it may be noble to say that someone’s sexuality doesn’t matter, and I agree, it is dishonorable to be closeted and crippled with shame about who you are. Kagan could easily end this speculation by saying “I am straight.” But she hasn’t. And the simple fact is that the rumors have been around for years that she is gay. This isn’t a new issue for Kagan. She is choosing to ignore these rumors for some reason…but she shouldn’t.

If Kagan was out then this wouldn’t be an issue. Or at least I would be writing to say that being out and comfortable and honest shouldn’t be an issue. If she is gay and she’s closeted then this should be a huge issue. We should expect honesty from our leaders and then judge their policies.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

she wasn’t even in the room

Now comes word that United States Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice wasn’t even at the UN, let alone in the committee room, when UN members voted Iran onto the Commission on the Status of Women committee. Not only was our Ambassador not in the room for the vote, she wasn’t even in the building. Wouldn’t you think that a female American Ambassador would understand the importance of standing up against a country that has some of the most hostile laws toward women? Shouldn’t Rice want to use the opportunity to highlight the regime’s record toward women? What’s also troubling is that we are now learning that Iran was not only elected to the Women’s committee sans Rice, but Iran was elected to 3 other UN committees that day. Iran is now an official member of the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development and the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). And our representative didn’t bother to show up or speak up.

After spending 8 years at the UN, I understand that U.S. Ambassadors have a lot of issues to cover. There is no way to expect one Ambassador to cover all of the U.S. government priority issues at the UN. And certainly there are a plethora of UN meetings that drag on with an unlimited number of speakers and no time limits. And I also understand the unique ways of the UN system and the regional voting blocks that control elections. But an American Ambassador must be able to be nimble and spontaneous. The U.S. Ambassador’s staff must be able to monitor situations simultaneously and use the Ambassador’s time to maximize attention and impact. If the votes are stacked against the U.S. and we are going to lose an election then for heaven’s sake – stand up and say something! Bring some shame on the countries that vote for the violators by drawing attention to the situation. American silence sends a very loud message and encourages the status quo.

But U.S. Mission staff confirm that Rice wasn’t at the UN and therefore wasn’t able to even drop by the committee elections meeting that was taking place. Even after all the votes were counted and Iran was elected to 4 committee assignments at the UN, Rice didn’t speak out to highlight the hypocrisy of electing a country like Iran to a committee designed to promote women’s rights because she wasn’t around.

For Rice, this silence is becoming a pattern. She is seldom in New York City and even spends less time at the UN. Rice has not conducted the hard negotiations nor done the sometimes unpopular and messy work of engaging the UN or speaking up when others are silent. Rice has been routinely unavailable to reporters, absent from daily UN meetings and all too often silent when the American people needed a strong voice to speak out on an important issue. From Iran to Zimbabwe to Sudan to Cuba, Rice consistently stays silent. It’s no wonder other countries at the UN think the Obama Administration is so easy to work with. And it also explains why we haven’t had one single Security Council resolution on Iran since Rice arrived. In a roughly two year period, the Bush Administration passed a total of 5 Iran resolutions, 3 of which contained increased sanctions and were voted unanimously (one sanctions resolution passed 14 to 1 with Indonesia voting no). The excuse that Rice is building relationships quietly or has a different type of style is lame. We don’t need to win popularity contests, we need action and votes and leadership. In Rice’s case, we just need her to start showing up for meetings and using her microphone.

It’s time for Rice to step up and represent American interests at the UN or step aside and cede the role to someone who will show up for the fight.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

jerry brown’s “investigations” are campaign stops

It must be campaign season. How else do you explain Jerry Brown’s recent fascination with investigations and allegations announced with lots of media in tow and advantageously timed to benefit traditional Democratic constituencies and issues? There is no doubt that the Brown campaign committee and political advisors are strategically planning the roll-out of official attorney general “investigations” to maximize public attention and perception. But what is most troubling about Jerry Brown’s use of the Attorney General’s office to campaign for his return to the governor’s mansion is that his cavalier press conferences, media interviews and announced investigations are only chasing Democratic political issues while ignoring real public safety concerns. Brown has turned the Attorney General’s Office into a political machine with subpoena power — and Republicans and their allies are the target.

In the month of April alone, Brown has launched investigations to embarrass Sarah Palin, aggressively promote union membership, clear ACORN of criminal activities, play catch-up on the Wall Street scandal by trumping up charges against Wall Street giant Moody’s, go after an oil company politically active in defeating California’s new green house gas emissions law, and grab headlines on issues ranging from home foreclosures to former child star Corey Haim’s death. In just one month, Brown has shown that his race for governor starts by using his legal office to help traditional Democratic allies beat back their opponents. The tactics Jerry Brown is using and the public position he is abusing leaves the public with no other choice but to ask Brown to give up his position as the top law enforcement official in California if he is to run an honest campaign for governor.

Brown has promoted his investigation of Sarah Palin’s speech at California State University Stanislaus nationwide in an attempt to raise campaign money from Democrats across the U.S. By using the Attorney General’s office to investigate the Democrat’s favorite villain, Brown has turned the AG’s office into his political fundraising operation. It just isn’t credible for Brown to suggest that Palin’s speech contract deserves the scrutiny of the top law enforcement agency in California – no matter what the details of the contract are. Brown’s hyperbolic and emotional rants on the issue just don’t pass the straight-face test.

Brown has also taken aim at a Texas based oil company that recently launched an initiative in California to stop a state greenhouse gas bill from taking effect in 2012. Valero is leading the challenge to AB 32, an anti-business bill passed in 2006 that will force California businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% with costly mandatory caps beginning in 2012. With environmentalists and union leaders aggressively supporting AB 32, Brown has gone after their opponent, Valero, who is trying to overturn the law by taking the controversial issue to the people through a statewide ballot initiative.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/03/valero-oil-firm.html

This month, Brown also launched various “investigations” of construction companies that union leaders love to hate. The California Labor Federation, a consortium of 1,200 unions, has been a loud vocal supporter of Brown’s campaign and Brown has happily returned the favor. This is no unbiased union doing the due diligence work of its union members. The union’s website uses the same verbiage as the Brown campaign and covers the same messages, including the exact same lame charges leveled against Brown’s opponent. The obvious quid-pro-quo support appears with Brown’s multiple “investigations” launched against construction companies who don’t support union rules, including two drywall contractors this month alone. The message is clear – either you help Democrats and their allies, or you face possible “investigations” from AG Brown.

http://www.calaborfed.org/index.php/site/page/california_labor_federation_endorses_jerry_brown_for_governor

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1898

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1889&&

Another recent target is Moody’s Corporation, the Wall Street rating agency. Why Moody’s? Look no further than Brown’s own press release, which reads: “Moody’s is one of the most profitable companies in the country. It had the highest profit margin of any company in the S&P 500 in the years leading up to 2008 – higher than Google or Microsoft…” In a lame — and late — attempt to seize headlines by grabbing a piece of the Wall Street scandal, Brown launches a political “investigation” of a Wall Street giant to support the latest Democratic talking points.

Brown’s cavalier language when talking about his recent “investigations” is so outrageous and laced with mis-information and unfounded charges that his characterizations are best left on the political stage. The over-the-top language should not be used by methodical and factual law enforcement officials. In an all-out final push to restore his political family’s glory and return to the Governor’s office, Brown has turned his current Attorney General’s office into an aggressive partisan shop where supporters’ favor is curried through subpoenas and innuendos. The business community is being bullied by Brown and his team through Chicago-style politics. If Jerry Brown wants to restore California to its golden days, then he should start by stepping down as attorney general and giving the citizens confidence that the highest law enforcement official in the state will not also be running for governor at the same time.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post