Suchergebnisse

The short-lived popularity boost of the Osama bin Laden operation having all but faded, President Obama for the first time appears vulnerable and could be defeated in the 2012 election. Indeed, many are starting to wonder if he will be a one-term president like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. As congressional leaders continue to meet with Vice President Joe Biden to negotiate a reduction of the federal budget and to avoid a potential default on government debt, the economic recovery seems to be stalling: reports released last week show unemployment rose again to 9.1 % and job growth slowed down, and manufacturing and retail sales are also down from last quarter.The only good news for the President is that the Republican field of candidates, while still fluid, is very weak so far, and the Republican Party leadership divided and ineffective. Hefty potential candidates such as Jeb Bush (undoubtedly the strongest intellect in the GOP today) and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have eschewed confronting the formidable President-candidate in 2012 and seem to be lying in wait for 2016, when they expect the field to be wide open.The first serious national presidential debate for the Republican candidacy took place on Monday, June 13. Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and the author of a health plan there which critics contend is very similar to Obama's, emerged as the solid front-runner and Michelle Bachman, an Evangelical Congresswoman from Minnesota and a Tea Party favorite, as the one who can challenge him. She is a former tax lawyer and a mother of five, who also apparently has found time to raise 23 foster kids. She is often compared to Sarah Palin, but most agree that she has more substance, understands how the government and can articulate ideas. She portrays herself as the anti-establishment figure, although she has been in Congress for a while and is at present the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Similarly to Palin, she considers the federal government an "elitist conspiracy" against middle-America and has invoked the War Powers Resolution to force Obama to request Congress authorization to continue operations in Libya. Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, also an Evangelical with Tea Party following, was expected to be a serious challenger, but missed an opportunity to confront Romney on his health care plan for Massachusetts, which he had severely criticized the day before on national TV, stating it was very similar to Obama's, and going as far as calling Romney a "co-conspirator in Obama care." This lack of courage to confront the front-runner personally has made him a distant third in the primary race. Romney, on the other hand, was very well-prepared, confident in his own image of the businessman/CEO who can fix the jobs problem. The rest of the Republican candidates were a motley crew, starting with Herman Cain, an African-American businessman, owner of a pizza chain and talk show host, followed by Ron Paul, a radical libertarian that in spite of his quirky ways is quite endearing in his candid contempt for government, and Newt Gingrich, whose entire campaign staff had just resigned due to his lack of discipline and inability to run a serious campaign. All candidates focused more on bashing Obama than each other, since it is early in the race and there will be time enough for that this coming fall. Rick Santorum, another fiscal and social conservative (but in this case Catholic) and former Senator for Pennsylvania, completes the second-tier line-up of Republican candidates.But the Republican field has not firmed up yet, and there could be some surprise Republican candidates entering the race, as the President appears more vulnerable. In fact, only yesterday John Huntsman, a new intriguing figure who has been Obama's ambassador to China, joined the fray announcing his candidacy from Liberty Island, next to the Statue of Liberty, in the same spot where Ronald Reagan announced his in 1980. Huntsman, former governor of Utah, is a billionaire, a moderate and a Mormon, just like Romney. Both will skip Iowa, the first test for candidates, and one dominated by Evangelical "value" voters. Both are well-spoken, good looking family men with no rough edges. Unlike Romney, he has very little name recognition at the national level, and spent years as a missionary in China, where he learnt to speak Mandarin fluently. What he brings to the race is his expertise in that country, the main holder of American's debt, and therefore, the one that worries Americans the most. He has framed this primary contest as one between "renewal and decline". He speaks in a very quiet, civil tone and he introduced himself to the public through a stream of unusual videos, one for example that shows the candidate himself, in motocross attire from heads to toe, riding his motorbike across the Utah desert, as dreamy country music plays in the background. The White House is said to be concerned about his candidacy, not only because of moderation, his capacity and his presidential demeanor but also because he has been an insider of this administration and may use information thus acquired against the President. He could become a formidable opponent, a Republican mirror image of the President.Another prospective candidate, who, if he decides to run, could throw all calculations into disarray, is Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas. He is an attractive candidate for the party establishment and has two very strong qualities: first, he is a social conservative who could supersede Bachman and Pawlenty in drawing the Tea Party vote; second, he has been a successful governor who can boast about his job creation record in Texas (40% of all new jobs during the recovery were created in Texas). He is still testing the waters, and similarly to Huntsman, may perhaps use 2012 as a platform that can propel him into the 2016 election. Although he has not announced his candidacy, observers point to his convening of a "National Day of Prayer" for early August as a sign that he may run. He would be a formidable contester, since he can speak both the language of the Tea Party as well as the national language of this 2012 election, which is the economy and jobs.In comparing the Republican Party today with the one of ten years ago, one cannot help but notice the big shift that has occurred, and in doing so, perhaps be less dismissive of Ron Paul's philosophical influence on the party rank and file. The truth is the libertarian streak has made important inroads inside the party, and voters are now serious about not only fiscal conservatism and smaller government, but also a retrenchment of America's role in the world. This was apparent during last week's debate and the public conversations that followed in the airwaves throughout the week. Most of the candidates blasted Obama for intervening in Libya and called for an early withdrawal from Afghanistan. Michelle Bachman invoked the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 during Watergate, which obligates the President to seek the approval of Congress 60 days after the beginning of hostilities. The Republican Party has traditionally been the home of National Security "hawks", and the last strong isolationist mood in the party dates to the 1920s. While an isolationist wing emerged again right before Gen. Eisenhower became president, after that it was represented by a very small group, led in the last twenty years or so by Pat Buchanan. Today, a war-weary and budget- conscious American public is in favor of withdrawal from Afghanistan by a wide majority (73% of all Americans, 59% among Republicans), in spite of the fact that most had understood that to be a "war of necessity" as opposed to Iraq, a war of choice. If we count American military presence in Iraq, Libya, Yemen and the tribal areas of Pakistan, today the US is involved in five different conflicts, and spending billions of dollars a month on them, most of which are considered wars of choice. Today, President Obama is in fact a victim of his own success: bin Laden is dead, so Americans want out of Afghanistan. This is echoed loudly enough by his opponents. The President is thus under pressure to bring the troops home not only by libertarians but also by extreme Right candidates (Bachman) and even by mainstream candidates like Huntsman and Romney.After the debate, Republican Senators John Mc Cain and Lindsay Graham and Defense Secretary Gates took to the airwaves to admonish the candidates on this issue, accusing them of choosing politics over policy in matters of national security. Mc Cain went so far as to say that Reagan would not recognize his own party: "This is not the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, who was always willing to stand up for freedom all over the world". He insisted that Khadafy was crumbling and that US logistical support, intelligence and refueling capabilities had to be continued to finish him off. He went even further and picked the opportunity to criticize Obama for not using America's own airpower, and instead "leading from behind". This was a theme that Bachman had also used in her speech, somewhat incoherently, since she vilified Obama for allowing the French to lead the operation in Libya while at the same time invoking the War Powers Resolution and demanding US withdrawal, since there were no apparent US interests involved there. Mc Cain in his own interview with Christiane Amanpour, later refuted Bachman's claim by stating that Khadafi had consistently supported terrorism, was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and was about to massacre his own people at Benghazi when NATO intervened and stopped him. "Our interests are our values" and "Sometimes leadership entails sacrifice," he added.To Romney's equivocal reference to the "Afghanis (sic) war of Independence" (an expression that per se brings serious doubts to his basic knowledge of geopolitics) Senator Lindsay Graham also in his own interview, later retorted: "This is not a war of Afghan independence, from my point of view" (of course, it isn't, it's a civil war!). He continued: "This is the center of gravity against the war on terror, radical Islam. It is in our national security interest to make sure that the Taliban never come back". He warned them not to try to position themselves to "the Left" of President Obama on this issue" and he hinted that that decision would lose them the nomination.Among the wide array of opinions, only Tim Pawlenty heeded the party line that the advice of military commanders and the situation on the ground would be the main determinant of troop withdrawals under his watch. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized the "declinists" who put the short term expediency politics ahead of long-term national security interests. He added that examining the bottom line only is short-sighted, since intervention is not about sheer cost, it is about the cost of failure of early withdrawals, such as Afghanistan in 1989. Earlier, on his last trip as defense secretary, Gates had bluntly told NATO members meeting in Brussels that the military weakness of most members and their lack of will to share risks and costs of NATO operations were putting severe strains on the organization and particularly on the United States. Indeed, less than a third of NATO members are taking part in the Libyan operation, although NATO is a consensus- based organization and therefore, all members voted to approve it.According Secretary Gates, the need to cut spending and radically reduce the budget has become an obsession and sparked a new current of isolationism that now insidiously divides the traditionally hawkish Republican Party. This, he told a Newsweek interviewer, is one of the main reasons that have led to his resignation, after serving two administrations and becoming the epitome of bipartisanship. His unwillingness to plan for more withdrawals and find other ways to reduce the bloated defense budget has been criticized both from the Left and the Right. He complains about how both "Congress budget hawks and defense hawks" constantly interfere with his work. He ends by saying he refuses to be part of a nation that is forced to scale back its military power so much that it can no longer lead. His frustration is apparent; his resignation paved the way for Obama's announcement of troop withdrawal, a few days later.This last week, the presidential politics of war became clearer. Feeling the pressure of Republicans attacking him from his "left flank", President Obama told a war-weary nation that he plans to start withdrawing troops by December this year, ending the surge by the summer of 2012 and bringing home most of the rest by 2014. Although there is a widespread sense that Obama has gotten so involved in the daily details of the war that would prefer to stay on and see his counterinsurgency policy through, he has quickly readjusted to the realities at home and accelerated the withdrawal timeline that his generals had recommended. With his earlier decisions of aggressively pursuing the war on terror, signing off on drone killing missions, and having bin Laden killed inside Pakistan, he successfully beat the image of a Dovish President, weak in National Security. This past Wednesday, with the words, "It is time to do nation-building at home", he acknowledged the public's concerns about the waste of American power, blood and treasure abroad while the country is still suffering from the recession, and quickly moved back to center.This is the spirit of the times. It requires a new type of leadership, one that is strong enough to face down enemies, yet flexible enough to accommodate to the new and constantly shifting realities, to accept a revised status of the nation and to lead it into new era in its history. Time will show whether such leader is among the Republicans new line-up or whether he is already in the White House.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

Against the background of a new Labor Day weekend job report that found zero job net growth for the month of August, Republican candidates held another debate, this time under the auspices of MSNBC, not Fox. It took place in the Reagan library, in Simi Valley, California, with the 1980s Air Force One plane used by Reagan looming behind them as a powerful yet incongruent décor. Texas Governor Rick Perry, who entered the race three weeks ago and has already managed to reshape it, made it a contest between himself and Mitt Romney. Jon Huntsman is now a distant third in the polls, and the rest have been consigned to the back bench. Perry has consolidated support across a large swath of the Republican base, including Tea Partiers and the Evangelical right and already has amassed a war chest of campaign funds from contributors from Texas and across the country. Interestingly enough, Karl Rove, the self appointed kingmaker of the GOP and former GW Bush closest advisor, has come out against Perry, calling some of his views "toxic".As the first fundamental tests of the Republican primary approach, the campaign clearly entered a new stage last Wednesday during a debate that was mainly a duel between two protagonists, while the rest, acting as a Greek chorus reinforcing or challenging their responses, were given very little time by hosts Brian Williams (NBC) and John Harris (Politico). The primary field as first constituted was lackluster and therefore demanded new candidates. Perry seems to have satisfied that demand for the time being. Nevertheless, after the debate there was still some discontent among establishment Republicans, so the race is still fluid and new candidates may jump in before the first deadline in October.Governor Perry, as the front-runner in the latest polls, was not surprisingly the target of most of the others throughout the night. He has executive experience, a commanding demeanor, and a record to run on. Although not completely articulate, and lacking Romney's polished eloquence, he is tough and quick in his retorts, and his rhetoric resounded with the audience, drawing the strongest applause every time. His claim that he has created more jobs in Texas than Obama has managed to create nationally may be a winner with voters, but Texas' record on almost every other issue is unflattering and thus, main ammunition for his opponents. He was reminded, for example, that of all fifty states, Texas is last on education, to which he responded that Texas' problems stem from its long border with Mexico. That probably did not go well with the Hispanic voters watching on Univisión and Telemundo, but Perry doesn't seem to care, since he is riding the wave of anti-Latino feelings around the country. Confronted with the claim that Texas has the largest number of people without health insurance than all other 49 states , he did not give a direct answer but chose instead to mumble something about how "all Texans want is to get the federal government out of their lives". Both Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum questioned Perry's social conservatism given his policy as governor, for example, to inoculate adolescent girls against HPV, which they portrayed as a government intrusion into the family realm and a license to practice pre-marital sex. And Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, was a constant goad on the Governor's side, reminding the public that Perry used to be a Democrat and wholeheartedly supported Al Gore on his presidential bid in 1988. Perry defended himself well as he dismissed all the charges against him with one-liners and a disdainful smile. A shrewd politician and experience campaigner, he took the initiative at every turn and was able to steer the conversation to his own record of job creation as governor of Texas, contrasting it mockingly with Romney's as governor of Massachusetts. But Romney appeared unfazed as he joked that Perry could not take credit for everything that has gone well in the State of Texas, including its wealth of oil and gas, its zero state income tax and the (related) fact that main corporations made their headquarters there long before Perry was governor. Massachusetts is a much smaller state and has none of those advantages, he added. There were several quick exchanges like this: both candidates were well prepared to respond with facts and statistics, and the perception was that they both did well, with Perry defending himself aggressively at times and Romney maintaining his smooth and relaxed demeanor, even as he waited for the opportunity to deliver a blow to his new challenger.Host Brian Williams soon gave him that opportunity by asking Perry a question about Social Security, the government pension fund that experts say, will become insolvent in the year 2036 if it is not reformed. Perry's answer, which confirmed similar statements in his recently published book, made all the headlines the next day. He called it a "Ponzi scheme' (implying a criminal enterprise) and added that it was a "monstrous lie" to tell young people under thirty that they would get their Social Security when their time comes for them to retire: they won't. This statement has been reported by the Romney campaign as Perry's Waterloo: no candidate will win an election by making this kind of claim against the "third rail" of politics, a cherished and untouchable public trust; to do so is pure political suicide. Similar claims had prompted Karl Rove's comment about Perry's toxicity and spurred doubts about his electability. Ironically, it is the rhetoric and not the substance that separates the two candidates on this issue: as presidents, both would likely propose some privatization of Social Security, perhaps in the form of personal retirement accounts that can be managed by the workers themselves and would allow them to invest in the stock market. Another of Brian William's questions brought an unexpected burst of applause by the all- Republican audience even before Perry had had a chance to answer it. Williams asked how he could sleep at night knowing his state had applied the death penalty to 234 convicts, the highest rate in the nation, and some of whom were perhaps innocent. Perry said the crimes they had perpetrated deserved it, and that yes, he slept fine at night knowing that the appeals process was thorough and fair. Of course, people are entitled to their views on the death penalty, and quotes from the Bible have been used to justify it. But it is sad and even incongruous to see a purportedly well educated middle class audience of a purportedly Christian nation cheer the notion. Patti Davis, President Reagan's daughter, later said to an interviewer it was almost" blasphemous" to celebrate the death penalty at the Reagan library, given the fact that her father had approached the issue with a heavy heart and burden to his conscience, albeit accepting it as a necessary evil. Mitt Romney appeared poised, fluent on the economy and self confident. It may help him knowing that he has 250 billion dollars in his own personal account, and that he has outpaced all other candidates so far in fundraising. He seems to be the choice of the business elite and of urban and suburban Republicans (60% of his donors come from big cities and their surroundings). On the other hand, Perry's supporters say that through his ten years as governor of Texas, Perry has laid the groundwork to raise all the money he might need for a national election. He has a donor network that can "bundle" millions. Texas places no limits on how much donors can give to political campaigns, even as federal law limits donations to the derisory amount of $2,500 per person. Still, some critics say Perry would need to capture a broader donor base to compete in a national election. Michelle Bachman's adventure into the Republican primary may be coming to an end as her star fades and Tea Partiers and Evangelicals transfer their support to Rick Perry. Her campaign is in disarray over fundraising and strategy. Ed Rollins, a veteran GOP operative who managed Reagan's 1984 campaign, resigned as her advisor after Bachman could not be persuaded to focus on campaigning in Iowa only (where the first primary caucus will take place and where she won a straw poll a few weeks ago), instead of trying to run a national campaign. She hasn't been able to raise enough money outside Iowa and that limits her campaign's choices. Perry has taken her thunder. It doesn't help that the Congress woman keeps repeating her Manichean views on every single issue, insisting for example again during this debate, that it was wrong for the US to intervene in Libya because there was no national interest involved in the region, a position that nobody in the GOP establishment shares, especially now that Qaddafi is all but defeated.On Thursday, after two changes in schedule were forced on the White House (one due to the GOP debate on Wednesday, the other due to the opening of the NFL season shown at prime time on Thursday night), President Obama delivered his much awaited jobs creation speech. He unveiled a $ 447 billion plan, a mixture of tax cuts and new spending programs. It includes extending cuts in payroll taxes to individuals and employers, new infrastructure spending, a new mortgage refinancing program, retraining for the unemployed and tax credits to businesses that employ those who have been out of a job for over six moths. He also talked about a private-public infrastructure bank and emphasized that all this new spending would be coupled with more cuts in the deficit later. This was an attempt at a new marketing of the President's measures to stimulate the economy: he was more specific, more conciliatory and avoided using the word "stimulus" that has gotten so much bad press since most people think the initial package did not help the economy one bit.The President spoke with new confidence and conviction; he sounded re-energized and optimistic, and evoked in the public memories of "Obama the candidate". The next morning he was on the road to sell his plan to voters first in Virginia, speaking to 9,000 people gathered at the University of Richmond. Virginia, Ohio and North Carolina are the three states the President strategically chose to visit. Obama won all three in the 2008 election but they each voted Republicans to their legislatures in last year's mid-term elections. The Republican response in Congress was cautiously positive. Indeed, even as Obama's numbers in the polls continue to drop (44% approval rate of his person, with 59% disapproving of his handling of the economy, is the latest), approval of Congress is at an all time low of 13%. A change is tone has registered as Republicans realize that their do-nothing strategy has gone too far and it is time to stop playing the political game and address economic recovery in earnest. It is indeed refreshing, after the acerbic debt ceiling fights, to hear House majority leader Eric Cantor say it's time to build consensus and work together. Their brinkmanship has infuriated their constituents and put at risk all the gains made in last year's mid-term elections.It remains to be seen whether the electorate's disgust with excessive conflict and confrontation within the DC belt also extends to the presidential primary. Will voters choose the bold and aggressive governor from Texas who better reflects their anger with his provocative language (he wants to cut the "head off the snake" (meaning the federal government's interference with states policies), or the cooler, more cerebral, more conciliatory (indeed, in some ways, more Obama-like) candidate from Massachusetts that wants moderation and speaks to the middle class? In this head-to-head contest between Perry and Romney, one can assume people will ultimately choose the one they see can solve their problems, end the paralysis and get the country moving again. But the country's social fabric is torn by unemployment, anger and frustration with government and hopelessness about the future. As the more aggressive candidate, Perry may well be the one that embodies the spirit of the times.In his first national appearance, the Texan did not make any major mistakes. He has dislodged Romney from top in national polls, but not in New Hampshire, where Romney still leads by a wide margin. From now on, the calendar will drive the candidates' strategies. If Perry wins Iowa and Romney New Hampshire, it will definitely become a two person race going forward into South Carolina, where Baptists most likely will choose a Texan Evangelist over a New Englander Mormon. That might interrupt Romney's momentum. Then comes Florida, where there is a big number of Tea Partiers and an even larger number of retirees. The vote of these two groups will be decisive. Perry could lose the retirees on his Social Security attacks, which were mainly addressed to young voters who don't vote in primaries. But there is plenty of time to adjust his views and rectify his blunders so as to become more electable.Cocky, dark and handsome, a cross between Johnny Cash and John Wayne, Perry has a formidable presence that makes a good impression on voters. Blunt and direct in his speech, with a distinct Southern accent, his peculiar kind of charisma compensates for his lack of polish. He is tough and rugged, doesn't back down, and appeared solid in his philosophy of "detax, deregulate and delitigate". He is clearly the candidate that can win the Mid-West and the Deep South. The question is whether he will withstand the deeper scrutiny of a presidential race he entered late, and whether he can refine his arguments and still be reassuring. Romney still appears as the more electable candidate in a national election and the one that can more easily confront Obama. But he has two main weak points: his religion (he is a Mormon, a religion that has a bad name among other Christian denominations) and the Massachusetts health care law he signed when he was governor, that his rivals claim is a replica of what they disdainfully call "Obamacare", which all candidates, including Romney, have avowed to repeal as soon as they get to the White House. Will the race become a two-man contest from this point on? Americans should not hold their breath; there is still talk about new candidates entering the race: Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani seem to be waiting on the sidelines, ready to jump into the race at any time if prompted to do so by the polls or by the GOP establishment. The current survivors may still be challenged by others with more staying power and reality show experience.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia