Real Peoples Politics

Firstly, the man has done a good job of keeping us safe. After eight long years of President Clinton, a man who refused to move an inch to defend the nation, despite being repeatedly attacked by a burgeoning group of violent terrorists, we finally had a leader who was gutsy enough not to blink, when faced with an intensely serious challenged. We were attacked and unfairly so. He recognized that you can’t just wheel and deal with everyone, that some people really only hoped to see the end of our country, and nothing more.

As he prepares to leave his home of nearly 8 years, President Bush has some final thoughts while he is still the Commander-in-Chief. In a recent interview with his sister, Dorothy Bush Koch, President Bush spoke about what he will remember most fondly about his 8 years in power, and what he hopes to be best remembered for. For the interview, which was collected for a historical archive project, Bush spoke on some favored topics, including his involvement with fighting AIDS and HIV, and how he has supported funding and increased medicine to be sent to Africa.

Bush stated, poignantly, that “I’d like to be a president [who was known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace… that focused on individuals rather than process; that rallied people to serve their neighbor.” Bush also hoped to be remembered as a leader who did not “sell his soul” to succeed in Washington, a town known as a place where all too often, good people get caught up in small things, and forget why they came in the first place.  He also spoke approvingly of the famed No Child Left Behind initiative.

Though not widely endeared today, Bush leaves office in a similar manner to another now-much-loved former president, President Harry Truman. Truman left office with low approval ratings and little fanfare, though in his later years, would come to earn the wide respect and approval that his actions merited.  Some of his personal insights were recorded in the hilarious and poignant book Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry Truman, by Merle Miller.

Barack Obama’s affection for Abraham Lincoln has risen as a popular talking point of the 2008 election. To continue in that vein…

Barack Obama will not be switching horses midstream. It was the very same Mr. Abraham Lincoln who coined the phrase while running for reelection in 1864, when speaking on why the people should reelect him, during a time of war. Taking up a friendly metaphor, he basically let his constituents know how he felt about a revolutionary change, in the midst of a bloody war that no one knew would end.

Reporters came out this week that Obama will tap Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain on as Secretary of Defense. Most reports peg that continued presence as expected to last perhaps a year, as an elongated transition period, as Obama becomes President while the country is still involved in two wars. This announcement by sources near the President-Elect should not come as a shocker, as pundits have been suggesting the validity of such a move for some time.

It’s an interesting word, bailout. Nowadays, it is a widely used term, bandied around by any and every political commentator, economic adviser and writer who wants to talk about the biggest topic of conversation in these United States: what kind of a bailout will we need? And if one is necessary for economic survival, exactly how much needs to be spent to hit that magic number at which we are guaranteed an economic turnaround?

The truth is, no one knows.

Everyday, we are treated to new estimates of exactly when the bottom of the economic wave will be reached, at which time we will all be expected to throw up our arms, shout “Hallelujah!” and start investing heavily in the market… those who can afford to, anyway. Every time we see an upturn, the stock market going up a few hundred points, many are treated to a false sense of security, which is almost immediately dashed over the course of the next trading day.

So what happens next?

We hope for the best. Incredibly, Citigroup is the latest bank to ask for a bailout. I find fault with that exact terminology; it seems that a request for a bailout inheritantly contains the assumption that the asking organization deserves it. As a major monetary installation, perhaps Citigroup very well does deserve a fiscal injection. But what about the other banks our government has promised to lend out? I’m glad that we’re saving them, and the government is doing the right thing, but shouldn’t we put a little more thought into the action behind it?

None of the current CEOs of any of the bailed-out banks has offered to resign, or take any significant yearly pay cut. Amazingly, these millionaires are asking for billions in assistance, but still refuse to help themselves. As any addict is instructed, you must first help yourself, to get on the road to recovery. And how will they change things, once their organizations are granted a second chance at financial life?

Some more serious questions need to be pondered, and put to those who are accountable. Ignoring those on each extreme, who either yelp that the banks must absolutely all be saved with no questions asked, and those who clamor for “survival of the fittest” and the collapse of whatever banks cannot sustain - everyone need to think realistically. The markets  tumbled even farther when the first bailout plan was rejected. Perhaps they will continue an upward climb, once important institutions are not only propped back up, but propped up with longterm, attainable goals, under new and competent leadership and accountable oversight, also by competent people.

A bailing out it is, but a free-for-all of thoughtless “gimmes,” it should not be. Let’s save the columns of our financial infrastructure, but reinforce them with better ideas and better leaders.

After being placed between a rock and a hard place, Senator Joe Lieberman will have no easy way of it, in the coming months. Whether or not his Senate colleagues (read: backstabbers) choose to allow him to keep his well-earned committee chairmanships tomorrow, he still has a tough road ahead. Ignoring the fact that he has done a competent and thoughtful job of managing the Homeland Security committee, Senator Lieberman’s colleagues are out for vengeance… upon one of their own… who happened to back the losing candidate… wait, I’m lost; exactly what vengeance do they feel is needed, what “wrong” needs righting? Didn’t they win?

You may not be alone if you’re confused, too. In a word, it’s all dirty, selfish vengeance, baby. In word trickling out of various Senate camps, it is being said that officials on the Senate Steering Committee may be looking not to kick out Senator Lieberman, but to keep the status quo. Sources have been quoted as noting that the 50-person Democratic representation in the Senate is mainly pledging to keep Senator Lieberman as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, but still wants blood. According to these unnamed reports, Lieberman will be stripped of something, just not the same something of before. In a clearly punitive measure against an Independent, for being independent, the Democrats, and leader Harry Reid, will be sending the absolute wrong message to the public; rather than encourage thoughtful governing and freedom of ideas, if such an action is allowed to go forward, from now on, any senator who decides that what is best for their political party is not necessarily best for the country, may be faced with the same job insecurity. Joe Lieberman supported a friend, not a party, when he stumped for John McCain in 2008; will such a vote (and a SECRET vote at that!) dictate that in all future elections, party members must support their party candidate, even if they feel it will have a detrimental outcome for the nation? What kind of a message does that send? Will Joe Lieberman be the last senator to choose country over party for the foreseeable future? One can only hope this is not the true end to bipartisanship, especially as with the election of Barack Obama, we have been promised an end to business as usual in Washington, to partisan bickering and to unwarranted political infighting. Call me crazy, but this unjust, unwarranted and frankly superfluously dumb decision to have a vote on Joe Lieberman’s future… is the antithesis of “change.”

If Senator Lieberman is still faced with a humiliating vote to strip him of any leadership position, he has a tough decision to make. He could really stick it to his ex-party, by choosing instead to lend his gravitas and bipartisan thoughtfulness to the Republican Party, which, according to historical precedent, will be back in power in the not-too-distant future. OR Senator Lieberman can choose to remain on with the Democratic caucus, holding his nose and trying to ignore the fact that the very same party tried to end his political career. If he chooses this option, Senator Lieberman will probably do so, knowing that he is probably one of the last remaining Democrats in the Senate, (call them the “Blue Dogs” if you will) who could competently and thoughtfully oversee this very important committee, without being beholden to the same far-left groups that helped elect Barack Obama, the very same groups salivating and already clamoring for some change they can see.

It is a truly notable day when a great American leader is being challenged solely for thinking of his country’s best interests, instead of his own. In a series, we will discuss freedom of speech, the proper way in which modern leaders are responsibly and thoughtfully exercising that right, and examples in which leaders may not be acting thoughtfully and carefully. Most importantly, though, I will strive to get to the bottom of the real stories, not just what the media has been telling us. Our first story belongs to the ages, much like Senators Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. Senator Lieberman’s story started long ago, but today, the wise senator is at a crossroads, as his old Senate “friends” attempt to vote him out of his well-deserved Senate chairmanships, solely for his backing of Senator John McCain for President, rather than Barack Obama. In an ironic twist, Senator Lieberman is a registered Independent now, as his party refused to back him in his 2006 bid for re-election — the very same party that now seeks to censor him for acting the Independent in his support.

In our first installment, the topic centers on the recent results of the 2008 Presidential Election, and Senator Joseph Lieberman. During the primaries, Senator Lieberman supported and campaigned for his longtime Senate ally and friend, Senator John McCain. Lieberman, who is now an Independent, and formerly a Democrat in name, still caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Senator Lieberman raised what he felt were sincere concerns over the election of Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill. Apparently, his candor and personal concerns upset some of his colleagues, as before the election itself, Senator Reid noted that it was possible, come November 4, that certain actions could be taken against Lieberman, who currently chairs a number of important and powerful Senate committees.

True to his word, almost immediately after Senator/President-Elect Obama’s victory, Reid met with Senator Lieberman to discuss Lieberman’s future within the Senate. What is unknown at this point is exactly on what grounds Senator Reid could punish Senator Lieberman, and exactly what sort of a precedent that could set for the future. And of course, we prize leaders with extraordinary governing skills and the ability to fully understand the long-term consequences of their actions.

Whether or not stripping Senator Lieberman of his official committee chairmanships in the Senate is seen as petty malfeasance or justified, responsible or reprehensible, remains to be determined. At this time, it is still unknown what changes, if any, will take place in the Senate, that concern Senator Lieberman. If Senator Reid does take seemingly punitive action against Senator Lieberman with little more rationale than a telephone-like-game of he-said-this-and-he-said-that, then it certainly may stand to help Republicans more than Democrats, ironically, by appearing as the winning party with little concern for the underdog. However, what is forgotten is that America is the country that always roots for better, nice and more decent . . . not to mention, the much-maligned but ever loved, underdog.

In the newest twist in the epic tale of Joe Lieberman, it is now quietly being reported that a handful of Democratic senators are turning against the mounting Reid tide, and sticking up for fellow senator, Joe Lieberman. According to Politico, the four senators in question are Bill Nelson, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, and most surprisingly, Chris Dodd. Dodd, as you might recall, left Lieberman high and dry during his last campaign, instead electing to support the Democratic nominee, a New York millionaire who lost to Lieberman, as Connecticut’s first elected “Independent” candidate.

Dodd, a fellow Connecticut senator, must have something significant at play, if he is willing to switch allegiances once again. Perhaps he seeks the asylum of Lieberman, long known as the conscience of the Senate. When the housing market began to fail and the dust settled, fingers soon began pointing at Dodd for his sweetheart deals with failed lending giants. Perhaps Dodd is just looking for an old face, to tell him everything is a-ok. Either way, this development means there is still hope that some form of conscience lives on in the Senate — either that, or Lieberman’s got some excellent dirt on Dodd. At this point, the Republican Party may be looking quite good to the Independent senator who owes nothing to old friends, and has the wind of the world in his sail.

How sad that all it takes to turn on one’s friends is a simple and cold political calculation. No one knows this better than Senator Joe Lieberman.

From mother to politician, or more accurately, both! Sarah Palin, affectionately known to millions as Governor Sarah Palin, or just Sarah, is most assuredly going places. In one fell swoop, the woman from Alaska ended the debate over whether or not it is possible for a woman to have a successful home life and successful work life. A beautiful mother of five and savvy politician who doesn’t take no from anybody, after only two years in office, she was tapped to represent the White House. Playing not John McCain’s better half, but certainly his better campaigner, in the last months of the 2008 election, Palin has excited a base that typically falls in and out of love withs its candidates; except this time, her fans are still very much enamored.

The VP nominee for the GOP was the reason McCain raced ahead in the polls by September, when he had the advantage over now President-Elect Barack Obama. McCain, a natural fighter and self-described maverick, was, sadly, the architect of his own presidential demise; Palin gave him a graceful lead, which he quickly squandered away with a brash bet that he could go to Washington, as only the delightfully inimitable John McCain, and fix the “broken” Washington. Upon coming back, and the nation being no closer to a successful end to the financial dilemma, public opinion immediately swung back in favor of Obama, the Democrat of this cycle.

The most shocking end to this surprising and spirited election cycle were the vicious slanders and innuendo spread around anonymously by McCain staffers. Within days, Palin shot back and called these detractors “cowards” and “jerks” for stating unsubstantiated gossip, but being too scared to say it in the open, or as the old saying goes, “say it to my face.” Ironically, though the media pundits will say otherwise, this will backfire, and instead help Palin. A strong, independent and very able woman, Palin can now play the gender card if needed, reminiscing about her time being attacked by rumors, simply because she is a woman (whether or not that is the entire story), and may ask women to support her in solidarity. Sarah Palin is going places; not even two weeks since the end of her run for the Vice Presidency, and she is still attracting more media attention and airtime than the new President-elect. Palin has already excited the same media interest, for her ephemeral comments when asked about 2012. Basically, she has left the door open, with a wink and an invisible thumbs up.

Palin has infinite potential, as both a youthful and fun candidate, with charisma to spare. If America can elect a president simply for his charm and cool-headedness, who’s to say that another president won’t be elected again for personality instead of policy? Ironically enough, Palin has already used the treatment of Hillary Clinton, to great effect in her own campaign. How delicious would it be for the GOP if Palin, not Clinton, were to win the nomination in 2012? The selection of Palin for president in 2012 would not only excite the base, but serve to end the nagging and long-spread, though inaccurate, idea that the Republican Party is the party of the rich white man. By nominating an intelligent, articulate and fun-loving career woman/dedicated mother, the GOP risks nothing but fabulous success. Now that’s putting an attractive face on the GOP, just in time for the party’s soul-searching expedition.