Democracy overseas, Security at home: Bush43 legacies?

Posted on February 16, 2011 by Mike Shortall

Several interesting developments over the past few weeks deserve closer inspection from the perspective of George W. Bush’s presidency. I have often been accused of being a “Bush defender/apologist”, which I proudly was most notably on national security. I always felt the Bush presidency was suddenly and unavoidably shaped on 9/11. Any President, after having that happen on his watch, would be hawkishly driven on matters of National Security … At least they should be. Yet the battering Bush43 took in his efforts to protect the country from further attacks was withering. So it’s interesting – to say the least – to assimilate the following events.

1. Barack O’Bush?

McClatchy Newspapers revealed this weekend that the Justice Department asserted that the FBI can obtain international phone records WITHOUT any legal process or court oversight.

Sorry … Left out one small detail of that opening paragraph.

It was “The Obama administration’s Justice Department …”.

Just didn’t want you to confuse it with the Bush administration’s Justice Department! Frankly, it’s very hard to tell the difference between the two in this area.

Do you remember the promise to shut Guantanamo down? How about the rage and hysteria after 9/11 over those provisions in the Terrorist Surveillance Program and The Patriot Act that were going to eliminate all vestiges of Liberty? Remember the angst over wiretapping? Internet and e-mail tracking and monitoring? All supposedly reporting directly to Darth Cheney?

Do you remember those promises of openness and transparency made by President Obama as he transitioned to The White House?

The prison at Guantanamo Bay remains open to this day, after President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill that effectively prevents the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries. President Obama leads one to believe that he was forced to accept those provisions in order to get the authorization bill through Congress. But he did so with barely a whimper – in December – when his lame duck congressional majority was still intact.

Now we learn that the Obama Justice Department has asserted the legal opinion that the FBI can obtain international phone records on a voluntary basis from providers without legal process or a qualifying emergency. That in itself is extremely insightful. Has President Obama been convinced that the terrorist threat is so active, so dangerous, and so near that these measures are indeed necessary to protect the country? In other words, has President Obama discovered that President George W. Bush was right in his domestic approach to the War on Terror?!?

And that isn’t even the most interesting part!

How did McClatchy Newspapers find out? By chance – perhaps inadvertently – through a response the Justice Department provided the news organization on an open-records request. There was no administration press release, no announcement, no openness, no transparency.

Gosh, you might think The Evil Empire was still residing in The West Wing!

2. The march of democracy?

Add another Middle East authoritarian regime to the scrap heap of history, as the regime of Hosni Mubarak was forced to the ground by the clamoring of everyday Egyptians. There are a number of causes for the demise of Mubarak. The Egyptian economy was a mess. Unemployment was high. Too many people – especially young people – were left idle for too long.

They clamor for regime change. But chances are they will not willingly fall in behind another strongman, and certainly not accept a military government in the longterm. The native populations are also restless in Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, even Iran. Can Iranians – again the young and the restless – bring down that government or even that theocracy?!?

Remember the criticism of President George W. Bush over his penchant for exporting democracy? (Note specific references in the article to Egypt.) Do you remember those claims that exporting democracy would not work in many areas of the world, especially the Middle East?

The theme – beginning to grow in places – is an analysis of what effect Bush Doctrine experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people in those countries currently in the midst of upheaval. Certainly we are hearing Democracy mentioned more often in places where it has been nothing more than a definition in the dictionary.

Even President Obama said, ”The Egyptian people have made it clear that nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day, the moral force of nonviolence … that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.”

Of course there is no guarantee that these shaky countries will turn to or allow democratic solutions. There is no guarantee that if they do, we won’t end up with regimes that are worse for their citizenry or that are threatening to U.S. interests. But the thought that democracy is the first possible solution emerging from the smoky haze in such places as Tahrir Square has to put a smile on the face of the most blatant Bush defender.

Perhaps a Bush43 legacy is just beginning to bud!

Montgomery County (PA) Republican Committee endorsement night

Posted on February 10, 2011 by Mike Shortall

Last night I attended the MCRC endorsement meeting for candidates running for county offices and for new and retained judges. I serve as a Committee Member in Horsham Township (Area 11). This was my first foray into the party endorsement process for endorsing nominees to run in a general election. I was very interested in participating in the process and witnessing how a local party organization went about selecting endorsed candidates.

I was curious to see how open the process was; how objective the process would be; and to what extent back-room power politics might be involved. I came away pleased in the way The Party went about this process, attempting to ensure a ticket that would win in November that would promote a management philosophy for Montgomery County reflective of Republican principles. Endorsements do not preclude an unsuccessful party nominee from running as an independent, so the Party attempts to preserve unity behind the ticket by working to ensure a fair and impartial process.

Of course the big fight was for the head of the ticket, consisting of two Party candidates for the three seats on the county’s Board of Commissioners. (Each party nominates two candidates. But only the three top vote-getters are seated, ensuring one minority representative. Please see another post on this blog for some well-publicized history on the soap opera-like relationship of the outgoing Board.) The Montgomery County Democrats have nominated – unopposed – the up-and-coming State Representative Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards, a Whitemarsh supervisor. Given Shapiro’s pull with Democrats, this should prove to be a hotly contested race this year. The county GOP has lost its long-held advantage in voter registration.

The candidates for the two commissioner endorsements were current Commissioner Bruce L. Castor, Jr., Lower Merion Commissioner Jenny Brown, and State Representative Kate Harper. Candidates Marie N. Cavanaugh and Jill Govberg withdrew their nominations after poor showings in a poll of county GOP leaders.

The crowd was huge, as was witnessed by the almost impossible task of finding parking if you got there after 6:30 for the beginning of festivities at 8:00 PM at Westover Country Club in West Norriton. Of roughly 850 committee people eligible to vote on endorsements, over 500 were present. With 234 proxy votes (Each committee member can vote for one other signed-over committee member proxy.) the number of potential ballots exceeded 700. A truly impressive number!

There are rules by which any candidate must receive a majority of ballots cast to obtain a party nomination. If additional ballots are necessary, there are also rules by which candidates must receive a minimum percentage of ballots cast to move on to subsequent rounds. There were at least two rounds of balloting last night. But only Register of Wills required the second ballot. Voting was done by anonymous ballot, using the same voting machines we see at our local polling places every Election Day.

After the usual political pep talk, provided by recently renewed County GOP Chair, Bob Kerns, only the remaining candidates for Commissioner were permitted roughly 2 minutes to make their final case. This was – quite frankly – wholly unnecessary, since committee members have been bombarded with mailings and phone calls seeking support. And given the crucial nature of the endorsements being sought for Commissioner, it was unlikely that a significant number of voting members did not have their candidate homework finished or their minds made up before entering the venue.

On the first ballot, Bruce Castor and Jenny Brown won the party endorsements for Commissioner, with Brown leading the way as top vote-getter. The race between Castor and Kate Harper was close, but not close enough to force a second round of balloting for endorsement.

There were a number of unopposed nominations for county row offices, including District Attorney (Risa Ventri Fermin), Coroner (Dr. Gordon Clement), Prothonotary (Bill Donnelly), Recorder of Deeds (Nancy Becker), Controller (Stewart J. Greenleaf Jr.), and Clerk of Courts (Moon Ahn). In addition to the candidates for Commissioner, the positions of Sheriff (Winner – Eileen Behr), Register of Wills (Patricia Mosesso) and Treasurer (H. Charles Wilson III) were contested endorsements. Several sitting judges, Thomas Branca and Arthur Tilson, were nominated for 10-year retentions. And two candidates for open judgeships (Maureen Coggins and Daniel Clifford) were endorsed, with several candidates withdrawing their nominations at the meeting. Three candidates vying for the two judicial endorsements. (Maureen Coggins really wowed me when she addressed Area 11 committee members in January!)

As for my own preferences, I was pleased with how closely my votes reflected the will of the collective committee. I backed winners for all but Register of Wills (I voted for Valerie Harris.) and one of the judge positions (Backing Mr Sheierson – whose name I indubitably just butchered – in lieu of Dan Clifford). I even had the winner in the mild upset victory of Chuck Wilson for Treasurer over party leadership-backed Martin Dyas. I was much more impressed with Mr. Wilson’s background than that of Mr. Dyas when both addressed the Area 11 committee members during a January candidates meet ‘n greet.

In the end, I was quite impressed, not only with the superb group of candidates the committee endorsed but also with the openness of the process. At no time was there any attempts to pressure the committee members into rubber-stamping any pre-selected slate of favorites. (A suggestion from my local committee chairman, sure. But I went off the reservation for several positions. And voted for the candidates I had decided on prior to last night.)

Certainly there must have been some horse-trading in the pre-meeting nuptials between Castor and Brown; but given the critical importance of this year’s election, one can accept the candidates’ efforts to develop the pairing most likely to succeed in November.

Belated Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan!

Posted on February 8, 2011 by Mike Shortall

To commemorate Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday this past Sunday, it seems appropriate to devote a blog entry to his significance for me, given the effect his two-term presidency had on my political views.

An American Hero

For much of my post-college years I proved to be much more liberal in my political and social views than many of my life-long friends. I can recall – with general fondness – the abuse I used to take at the hand of life-long friends during discussions that tended to spring up when young working-class guys get together over beers or maybe a card game. Looking back at it now, it seems odd that so many of them held such conservative views, when all of us grew up in a blue-collar, urban environment that would normally be viewed as traditionally more liberal than conservative.

But I learned to live with it.

Then Jimmy Carter was elected President. When Carter made his “crises of confidence” speech, which later morphed in the country’s “malaise”, I had enough of his weak – bordering on whiny – presidential leadership. There had been an intolerable lack of presidential leadership in this country, as was clearly the case with Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam), Richard Nixon (Watergate) and Gerald Ford (being Gerald Ford). Carter seemed like the latest in an undistinguished line of presidents.

Ronald Reagan was not what I was looking for in 1980. I can remember watching Reagan in a televised debate, and quickly turning it off because my impression of him was one of a guy clearly in over his head. I must have missed a helluva comeback performance, because Reagan went on to beat the stuffing out of Carter in November. I’ve always wondered what chances Reagan would have had if there had been a stronger incumbent than Carter in The Oval Office.

In the end, I think I actually sat out the 1980 presidential election.

But what I learned in those early Reagan years was that he was the consummate manager. He knew how to pull in the most qualified people to execute his strategies, then he got out-of-the-way and let them do their jobs. Mr. Reagan eventually proved to demonstrate values, policies and initiatives that I came to appreciate.

His administration’s efforts to build a 600 ship navy placed unmanageable pressure on the Soviet military and economy. It was just one more factor adding cracks to the facade of the soon-to-fail Soviet bloc. Reagan’s foreign policy initiatives included added emphasis on reducing the nuclear arsenals of both the USA and USSR in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty that laid the framework for the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) treaty. In fact, Reagan became such a popular icon in the Soviet Union that Mikhail Gorbachev asked Reagan to give a speech on free-market philosophy at Moscow State University.

But what struck me most was the way Reagan restored a sense of strength and leadership in The Oval Office. Reagan’s performance, whether one agrees with his pragmatic approach to governance and belief in American exceptionalism (the shining city on the hill), turned the attitude of country around from the aimlessness of the Carter years.

By the end of Reagan’s first term I was a convert, not only to the Reagan philosophy but to more conservative views on social and economic matters. I voted for Reagan in his re-election campaign against Walter Mondale. And by the end of his presidency in 1988, I viewed Ronald Reagan as an American hero.

The above is one of my favorite pictures of Reagan. I had it taped on my desk at work for years; and on more than one occasion it was suggested that the picture was disrespectful. When confronted with this observation, I would explain that the picture was a favorite because it portrayed a side of Reagan no other President in recent memory would allow to peek through. (When asked why he allowed himself this lapse in presidential decorum, the President simply said he had always wanted to do that to the press.)

Ronald Reagan was unafraid to appear human, even self-deprecating. I loved the picture because it showed President Reagan as a human being who cared more for that “shining city on the hill” than he did for the pretense of invulnerability.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

We miss you!

Reading List: “Game Change” – Heilemann & Halperin

Posted on January 27, 2011 by Mike Shortall

(I’m sure many blogs are delving deeply into the recent SOTU Address and the analysis thereof. But the SOTU has become such partisan political demonstration, I have a hard time even reading the media analyses, let alone actually watching the speeches themselves. So today I’ll stick to a less aggravating topic, political history.)

Game Change was written by two political journalists, John Heilemann (New York) and Mark Halperin (Time). Both are regular contributors on Joe Scarborough’s morning MSNBC offering, Morning Joe.

Game Change takes a look at the 2008 U.S. Presidential race, including the critical Democratic primary run-up that saw the rise of Barack Obama to national prominence.

By far the most interesting aspect of the book is the meteoric rise of Obama, and the unseating of Hillary Clinton as heir to the throne. John Kerry’s decision to invite a little known State Senator from Illinois to give a keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention resulted in recognition on a national level of Obama as a charismatic leader with the potential to unite and excite the various factions with in the Democratic Party.

But the depth and breadth of his appeal with little experience at the national level and absolutely no executive background puzzled many.

In one scene (p. 65) – to which many of us who watched this drama from the Republican side can relate – a white woman in an Iowa focus group leading up to the caucuses there states, “There’s something about that guy; that’s the guy I want. I can’t even put it in words.” The occurrence nicely summarizes the phenomena that launched his successful quest for The Oval Office. Who is this guy? How did he get here? What’s the appeal?

For me, it’s a fascinating story.

The play between the Obama and Clinton camps is the best part of the story. Hillary actually coaches the newly elected Senator Obama during his very short stint in The Senate (141 days). Yet the animosity for the Clintons within the Democratic Party, which lies just beneath the facade of support demonstrated by party leaders becomes all too easy for Obama to tap. Just goes to show that if you’re considered the playground bully – as the Clintons were, it doesn’t take much to instigate a palace revolt!

Obama slowly starts to pull in party support and endorsements, including the defection of Bill Richardson, former New Mexico governor who served as Secretary of Energy and Ambassador to the U.N. in Bill Clinton’s administration. And the theme of the book quickly becomes the befuddlement of the Clintons as political rugs are pulled out from beneath them time and again.

Of course my first reaction to all this, as it peaked during the caucus and primary season in the summer of ’08, was not particularly flattering. I kept recalling the campaign and election of James Earl (Jimmy) Carter. I would shudder when I recalled all the excitement and media frenzy surrounding the peanut farmer with the big toothy smile. Ever since, I can’t look at Planter’s Peanuts commercials featuring Mr. Peanut without getting nauseous. Afterall, Carter has to go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. I can still see the cardigan sweater-clad Carter sitting leisurely by a fireplace as he chided America about its defeatist attitude, which would later be described by Carter staffers as a national “malaise”. Just a complete lack of leadership …

On the other hand, John Edwards and his late wife, Elizabeth, do not fare well in Game Change. From John’s $400-1200 haircuts, his Rielle Hunter affair, and the knock-down drag-out fights it produces between them to Elizabeth’s unfortunate bout with cancer, her high maintenance needs and general surliness towards everyone, it’s an ugly picture. How exactly Edwards thought he could pull off an affair with the attention-whore Hunter and still think he could be a good president is simply mind-boggling. It’s the height of self-absorbed elitism.

Once Obama seals the Democratic nomination, the story turns to John McCain and Sarah Palin. They come out looking better than the Edwards’, but not by much. McCain comes off as an aloof candidate, prone to angry outbursts sprinkled with expletives; more concerned about dinner plans with his much younger wife, Cindi, than he is about campaign issues. This includes a White House strategy session McCain instigates to offer his plans to right the economy during the banking crises. McCain arrives at the meeting completely unprepared. Obama end up doing a much better job of presenting his views and call to action. As a result, even Bush43 wonders what the heck McCain’s point was in betting his political life by proposing the crises meeting.

Sarah Palin shows her ability to wow a crowd, but becomes more of a drag on a sinking McCain candidacy. Her obliviousness to even the most rudimentary political and foreign policy issues is alarming for anyone who was concerned about her readiness for the international spotlight. I’m not a fan of hers, so some might conclude I’m letting the media influence me. But there’s an awful lot of baggage there. In the end though, it was the McCain campaign that did her in by shoving her into the national spotlight when she wasn’t ready for the national stage.

As you can see there’s a lot of meaty political nastiness and intrigue in Game Change. Even as an avid reader, I NEVER read books on politics. Political history, biographies? Absolutely! (Pick up some of Edmund Morris’ works on Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan!) But never political tomes.

But I was fascinated by the 2008 campaigns … the changing fortunes of the Clintons, the meteoric rise of Obama, the RNC settling for an indifferent and low-energy McCain, Palin, the Edwardses … It was a political soap opera. If you feel – like I do – that the 2008 election cycle was so atypical for what we have grown used to over the past 20 years or so, you should definitely pick this book up!

4 stars out of 5

(Hope you enjoyed this. It’s been DECADES since I did a book report!)

Was slavery the only issue in U.S. Civil War?

Posted on January 23, 2011 by Mike Shortall

The following was written as a letter to the editors at The Philadelphia Inquirer in response to several letters (See fifth letter down.) in the past week or so protesting commemorations of The Civil War as “glorifications” of slavery (i.e. commemorations in the southern U.S.).

I really do not understand all the sudden angst over observances related to the American Civil War. I do not understand the insistence on framing the war totally within the context of slavery.  Anyone, who has taken the time to study the development of the American experiment through the 18th and 19th centuries and the origins of the hostilities that broke out in 1861, recognizes that slavery was not the only issue that defined the war.

The American republic had many more issues before it than the horrors of slavery. The questions of states rights, the strength of a centralized federal government, the interests of agrarian vs. industrialized economies, even the success of a Lincoln-led administration were all factors of immense national interest at stake. As such, both the North and the South had legitimate vital interests in the conflict that went beyond the insidious practice of slavery.

Slavery as the only issue related to the war does not explain Lincoln’s own admission that he would have resolved the conflict – if he could – without freeing a single slave. It also does not account for the fact that hundreds of thousands of poor, non-slave owning Southerners fought willingly against the overwhelming advantages of the North. The fact is that hundreds of thousands died in that war with no stake on the issue of slavery.  Many of them unemployed immigrants fighting for the North just for money to survive in a new world.

There is no reason to restrict “glorification” of a preeminent event in American history solely to the issue of slavery. To do so dismisses so much more that can be learned about how the United States stayed a united nation and the experiment continued on its epic journey.

Mike —-

All the angst seems motivated by the fact that the wrong people – Southerners – might want to commemorate an event that was also crucial to the history and development of that region. Not to mention the fact that hundreds of thousands died there also, many of them dirt-poor farmers who did not own and could not afford slaves.

This is so much more about Liberal guilt over American history than it is any attempt to put that event into its proper historical context.

Bye, bye Keith!

Posted on January 22, 2011 by Mike Shortall

In a shocker, Keith Olbermann and MSNBC (Network of The Left) have decided to part ways.

Here’s your hat and coat, Keith. Have to leave so soon?!? Don’t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out!

I could be a bit less cynical and ugly, if I didn’t think Olbermann was such a pompous, condescending, over-rated no-talent. Even when he was on ESPN, he tended to speak down to his audiences when in “sports commentary mode”.

Maybe, just maybe, MSNBC decided to own up to their contributions on raising the vitriol level on The Left.

Wait a minute … What am I saying?!? How could I even suggest that maybe The Left has had any role in the poisonous atmosphere of American politics?!? Anyone who has not been trapped in a cave since the Tucson tragedy KNOWS that the problems with the tone in American politics can be blamed SOLELY on the right!! It’s all the fault of The Right, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc., etc.

That is if one ignores the number of times Bush43 was portrayed as a Nazi, if not Hitler himself, or as a baby-eating monster. What about the movie produced during the Bush43 administration that revolved around the his assassination and opened to such Liberal acclaim? Maybe they’ve all forgotten the tripe that’s been published regularly on websites like The Daily Kos?? (Note the use of targeting imagery to suggest Gabby Giffords needed to go. Why?? Well, because she opposed Nancy Pelosi.)

Yes, the tone of political discourse has gotten way, way out of hand. And yes, it needs to be toned down and become much more tolerant. But please, don’t insult us with the premise that the poisonous atmosphere has come from only one side of the political spectrum.

Montgomery County (PA) Republican politics

Posted on January 20, 2011 by Mike Shortall

(Well, after trying to impress upon myself the need to build blog content in a regular, timely manner, I have already missed my schedule. But frankly, I did not particularly like the appearance of what I had working, so maybe it’s best.)

Instead I’ll talk about one of my favorite topics … politics. In this case, a look at our township Republican Committee meeting last night that allowed candidates for GOP endorsement to Montgomery County (PA) offices to address those local committee members who will decide the party’s November ticket.

If you’re from Montgomery County, you may or may not know the following:

MontCo is the wealthiest county in Pennsylvania
MontCo had been – in decades past – solidly Republican. Essentially, if you could make it onto the county Republican ticket, you were a shoe-in. Not so any longer. Now Democrats outnumber Republicans in the County, and this years election looks to be a tough contest.
Tom Corbett, who won the Pennsylvania Governorship last November, took almost every county in PA. But he did not carry MontCo!

Now, if you’re not from MontCo, you may be interested to learn that one of the outgoing County Commissioners is James Matthews, brother of MSNBC Hardball host – Chris Matthews. I used to like Chris until he started sounding so shrill, and especially after his on-air I-got-a-thrill-up-my-leg bit when candidate Barack Obama made a speech during the 2008 Democratic primary. Of course he wasn’t the only media type to suffer ThrillUptheLeg-itis that campaign season, but I digress.

Long, long story short … His brother, Jim was elected to the Board of Commissioners in 2000, ran an unsuccessful campaign for Lt. Governor with former Pittsburgh Steeler, Lynn Swann. He was re-elected to the Board in 2007, running with a reluctant ally in Bruce Castor. But although BOTH Castor (#1 in balloting) and Matthews (#3) won seats on the Board (3 total), Matthews decided to strike a deal with the minority member of the Board, Democrat Joe Hoeffel! This effectively froze Bruce Castor out of the County management process; and essentially handed the keys over to Hoeffel and the Democrats. There is no greater betrayal – in my opinion – than an elected official pointedly, deliberately frustrating the intentions of the voters who put them in office!

Fortunately, Matthews has been forced to see the writing on the wall. And since he had no chance to capture a county GOP nod, he is not seeking re-election … not that he had much of a choice.

Anyways … to last night’s meeting …

The County will elect the following offices in November: Commissioners (3 … Dems and Reps run two-to-a-slate. Three top vote getter are in. So you end up with two majority Commissioners and one minority Commissioner.), District Attorney*, Recorder of Deeds*, Prothonotary*, Coroner*, Controller*, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Treasurer, and Judges (2 this year). The * offices have only one candidate running unopposed for the GOP nod.

Of those who appeared last night, I was most impressed with Bruce Castor, who really has his pulse on the County and seems itching to work on the Board with a willing and loyal fellow Republican so they can actually get things done RIGHT. I also liked both Jill Govberg and Kate Harper. But I’m told Kate does not play well with others in the Party. Jill bothered me with lack of detail in a question I asked her on “misguided policies” she would change and her obfuscating answer on supporting the ticket if she does not get the nod. Jenny Brown could not make the event for good local (Lower Merion) political reasons. Disappointing … but I plan to call her as she was highly touted by several people.

As for the other contested nominations, I really enjoyed the appearances and off-the-cuff remarks of Valerie Harris and Denise Marshall for Register of Wills. Eileen Behr – for Sheriff – is an interesting success story as the Chief of Police in Whitemarsh Township. Chuck Wilson struck me as more qualified for Treasurer. And I was truly impressed with Maureen Coggins for one of the Judge nominations, although all four candidates there seemed extremely qualified.

Even with all the people who spoke last night, it was not all that painful. Last year, when the Horsham Republican Committee hosted candidates for the Pennsylvania 13th Congressional District opposing Allyson Schwartz, we only had 4-5 speakers. But by the time night was FINALLY over, I felt like I ahd been waterboarded. I knew then we had absolutely no chance beating Schwartz. Last night was very, very different!

The MontCo GOP caucus is February 9. Being my first time as part of this process, I’m interested in seeing how this plays out.