Thoughts on Specter, the News Conference, and the First 100 Days

• It seemed like an awfully big coincidence that Specter changed parties right before President Obama’s 100th day. The move certainly gives Obama a lot of momentum into Wednesday’s press conference and should also eat up a few questions from the press corps. This eerily reminds me of Colin Powell’s decision to endorse Obama a few weeks before election day. Like Specter, there were many rumors that Powell was going to betray his fellow Republicans. He disregarded those comments but later supported Obama at a more critical time. I guess both questions can only be answered when such folks as Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod pen their memoirs.
• So now that the Democrats ostensibly have their filibuster proof majority, will the Republicans sniff out Sen. Roland Burris as a potential ally on certain issues? Key Democrats including Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin are jettisoning Burris for Illinois state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the 2010 primaries. If Burris figures that his seat is gone, he might be a tough vote on key Democratic legislation. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. It is more likely  though that the Democrats will give Burris favors sub rosa. One thing is for sure though: Burris shall be watched.
• With Specter, swine flu, and Air Force One’s mistake dominating the news cycle, will the press corps once again fail to ask any foreign policy questions(if you don’t count torture as one)? Foreign policy is intrinsically the most opaque part of government, and it looks like Obama will once again eschew divulging any important facts about his administration’s position on key international issues.
• In light of Tim Geithner’s schedule just being disclosed, it seems that the most important aspect of being the Secretary of any cabinet is one’s ability to adroitly handle the media. Most of his days as Treasury Secretary consist of meeting with members of the press, prepping for interviews, and talking with lawmakers. He rarely spends much time actually contemplating the issues—that task appears to be in the hands of his subordinates. Therefore, the key behind cabinet choices should be their communication skills, not their analytical skills(one can of course have both…).
• And finally, watch for any potential 2012 Republican candidates to start making the media rounds this week. With the 100 days number marketed so effectively, an above average amount of people will be paying attention to the news this week. For those considering making a splash in presidential politics, look for them to do shows starting tomorrow through the Sunday shows trying to corner the voice of opposition. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s decision to dominate the media on Tuesday was probably not accidental.

Why Healthcare?

Figuring out the real reason behind a political decision is a very tricky thing. Politicians support legislation for myriad factors, including votes, ideology,  and life story. President Obama’s insistence on making healthcare a priority can certainly be fit into all three categories. Many analysts believe that if the Democrats successfully pull off healthcare, they will be the dominant party for a long time. Government run healthcare is  also congruent with his liberal ideology. But his gamble might emanate from his mother’s fight with ovarian cancer.

Obama usually speaks with dispassionate coolness. Yes, his voice is engaging, but it’s  much more professorial than emotional. Yet, when he brings up the constant fights his mother had with insurance companies about being covered for her cancer, he speaks with a rare moral outrage. Not the kind of faux outrage that he expressed over the AIG bonus money, but a genuine outrage bothered by the crude capitalism that is associated with healthcare. In the fall of 2007, he said that “My mother died of cancer at 53…In those last painful months she was more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.” The most cynical might claim that he was simply using an emotional story for political gain, but it seems probable that he has steadfastly carried this moral belief with him since he became personally entangled with the travails of healthcare. During the primaries, it came out that he explicitly supported universal healthcare during his state senate days. He probably moderated his position to navigate the national winds and not the other way around.

Biographers of President Johnson say that his commitment to the Great Society directly came from tangible experiences with poverty. President Clinton supposedly spent enough time on racial issues to be dubbed the first black president because of his first hand account of segregation in the South. And it just might be that Obama fights more vigorously for healthcare than energy, education, and the rest of the liberal agenda because of his mother’s story. It might sound fallacious to political scholars-and it might be-but emotions should never be underestimated in trying to understand someone’s true intent. Relentless ambition comes not from intellectual derivation, but from a heart that seeks  purpose.

Republican Exploitation of Afghanistan

It can and has been argued that President Obama won the Democratic primary because of his early opposition to the Iraq War. In late 2002, he gave a passionate speech denouncing the potential invasion as a “dumb war.” A combination of fear and conventional wisdom led most Democrats  to stand behind President Bush from 2002-2003. His gamble clearly paid off, while status quo thinking thwarted the ambitions of his leftist peers. A Republican who shares the same dreams and aspirations as Obama should consider a similar gambit.

A few days ago the Politico reported that the Pentagon is preparing to fight in Afghanistan for the next three to five years. This serious commitment has the potential to pay dividends for Democrats-especially a capture of Osama Bin Laden-, but it could also catastrophically backfire. Casualties and appropriations could amass to such an extent that Republican voters demand change. There is a precedent for this; Republican Richard Nixon during the 1968 election campaigned on the promise to end the Vietnam War.

Strategists would skeptically note that it is significantly more appealing for Democrats to be anti-war with their base than it is for Republicans to be with theirs. While this is true, the anti-spending sentiment of the Republican party has eruptively emerged in the form of tea parties. That anti-government feeling could certainly be extended to defense spending if Afghanistan requires at least $40 billion annually for another five years.

To make it far in politics, a politician usually has to make some type of a big gamble to make him or her unique. LBJ took on segregation from the South, Nixon was one of the first ones to become fiercely anti-communist, Reagan fully embraced the most radical wing of his party, Bush I controversially supported civil rights from the South as a congressman, etc. Playing  by the textbook is tempting, but is generally a losing strategy. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney in the 2008 primaries.

So if a long shot like MS Governor Haley Barbour, SC Governor Mark Sanford, or Arizona Senator John Kyl wants to genuinely take a stab at 2012, they should consider opposing Obama’s latest measures in Afghanistan. If everything works out well, Obama will probably be reelected or one of the Republicans favorites will prevail. If it fails, however, a dark horse could seize the anti-war lacuna in Republican politics.

Why Not Yemen?

It’s pretty clear that Obama wants to make Afghanistan his war. He’s not only pledging thousands of more troops, but also is willing to use both domestic and international capital to procure as much support as possible. In other words, he’s putting a lot on the line. The justification for the increased presence emanates from the belief that Afghanistan has become a failed state, meaning that terrorists can more easily operate in the country. To fix this, it is said that America must send more troops there to both kill terrorists and train the local police. Using this logic, the necessary question to ask is why America does not commit itself to bringing stability to Yemen.

There is a consensus in the foreign policy community that Yemen warrants the title of failed state. Al Qaeda has a strong foothold there and the government cannot carry out its basic responsibilities. And more than simply being an isolated area that harbors terrorists, it has the potential to disrupt US interests in oil rich Saudi Arabia. Could you imagine the implications of terrorists interfering in the oil production of its northern neighbor?

Asking key Obama administration officials this question might provide a valuable window into the real reasons behind going into Afghanistan. Since they won’t foolishly disagree with the premise of Yemen’s increasing difficulties, the way in which they navigate the question would be interesting. Will their answer imply that the Afghanistan move is mostly about Pakistan? Might it be about increasing pressure on its other bordering country—Iran? Is the Atlantic Monthly’s Robert Kaplan onto something when he says that bringing stability to Afghanistan would allow the transference of energy from  Central Asia to India? Is that part of the equation?

In December of last year, it was very telling when former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told David Gregory on Meet the Press that the US ultimately decided not to go into Darfur because it is part of a far away and complex Muslim country. She essentially used the same argument that Iraq War critics did. The comment proved the obvious; Iraq was not really about bringing freedom as was commonly said. Using ostensible parallels can help tear down some of the rhetoric that politicians employ.

At Obama’s last press conference, the media received a lot of flack for failing to elicit meaningful answers to big questions. Before the Q&A session though, Politico’s Mike Allen had a good piece on how reporters try to make news. Major Garret of Fox News said the best way to do this with Obama was  ”to push him in an explanatory direction. He loves to explain things, and sometimes in the explaining he makes news.” Therefore, effectively asking Obama, “Explain why Afghanistan and not Yemen when they share many of the same problems,” might actually give the public some clues into his foreign policy—-policies that are always much more opaque than domestic policy.