THE IRAQ WAR DECEPTION AND ITS AFTERMATH

The acclaimed Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC’s documentary entitled, “HUBRIS – Selling the Iraq War”, is based on a book by highly regarded investigative journalists, David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Both journalists have been responsible for several well researched stories that have had proved spot on and have thus had profound effects on modern American history. Corn, for example, broke the Romney story where the latter wrote off 47% of the electorate and with that wrote off any chance he might have had of becoming President while Isikoff broke the Monica Lewinski story that nearly broke the Clinton Presidency. So what they have to say is not to be taken with a pinch of salt.

There are two aspects worth noting with regard to Maddow’s documentary; firstly it capsulated the naked deception, that the GOP establishment, perpetrated on the American people and secondly, Jay H. Ell believes, that this deception is the final nail in the coffin of the Republican establishment. Whatever respectability or credibility they had left has been drained by this episode.

THE DECEPTION.

The documentary shows that every piece of evidence used by the Bush establishment to justify their preemptive war on Iraq turned out to be bogus and that the decision to attack Iraq had been a priority long before even 9/11. What is more the 9/11 tragedy was also cynically manipulated to bolster the arguments for the war.

The rationale for the Iraq war is dispassionately and systematically broken down by objective evidence provided to Maddow by Corn and Michael. The Bush regime had no concrete evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or that he was cooperating with Al Quaeda. Worse was that the evidence they offered was either bogus or so unsubstantiated that it was criminally negligent to use it to embark the United States in a war that resulted in 4,500 American deaths, 30,000 Americans disabled, 100,000 Iraqi deaths, 3 trillion dollars in cost, millions overpaid to Dick Cheney’s Halliburton company in non compete contracts and the ensuing chaos it has left Iraq in to this day  - not to mention that it has thrown the Iraq government into the arms of the Iran regime.

The evidence obtained that Saddam was building a nuclear program, had mobile chemical weapon production units, had other weapons of destruction and was cooperating with Al Quaeda was considered by members of the CIA and governmental agencies to be unreliable and suspect. For example Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were at odds. Osama also regarded the secular, Scotch drinking womanizer Sadam as an infidel and is said to have been grateful that the Americans, by their actions, saved him the trouble of “taking him out”. Yet the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolpowitz axis soldiered on and bullied, shamed and embarrassed Congress, in the post 9/11 milieu, to give them a blank check to wage war.

Powell went to the UNO organization and fed them the party line, even though he had expressed the gravest reservations to his Undersecretary of Defense.

WHY?

Why did everybody cave into this obvious garbage and why did the Bush establishment do this?

The time period was the post 9/11 era. Americans were angry, humiliated and fearful. What was more comforting than linking the unashamed admitted 9/11 perpetrators, Al Quaeda, with Saddam Hussein. The latter was part of the trilogy of evil and Hussein was evil incarnate. So the facts that he was harboring weapons of mass destruction and trying to assemble nuclear weapons was a recipe made in heaven to rally the country. The Democrats were wary, with an election in the offing, to appear “unpatriotic”, - Dick Gephardt, Democratic leader of the House was preparing for a presidential run and Tom Daschle, Democratic leader of the Senate caved in on the smear that the Democrats were soft on terror. Even Hillary Clinton folded and gave Bush the go ahead.

The media cruised along accepting explanations without question. Lead by the liberal New York Times, the overwhelming majority of the fourth estate gave their go- ahead. They too were wooed in the context of the patriotism and the understandable paranoia that the 9/11 attack had engendered.

The Bush establishment had other objectives. Iraq was still an unresolved issue after Bush 41’s “Dessert Storm”. There was Saddam, with all that oil. alive and well and flourishing and leading Iraq after his Kuwait adventure. Wolpowitz, the chief establishment apologist had told Congress this was not going to cost the US much. All that Iraqi oil would pay for it. So in the absence of any other rational explanation this was nothing but naked imperialism and a desire to control all that oil. Not to mention that there was a settling of old scores on a despot who had threatened daddy Bush with assassination.

THE AFTERMATH – THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEA PARTY AND THE DEATH OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.

When Bush went to war there was no Tea Party. One of the major reasons for the formation of the Tea Party was that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor. They were for small government and Bush had left the “tax and spend” liberals in the shade. The Tea Party’s "Contract with America" emphasized that Government had grown too big, too arrogant and too spendthrift. (Blogs: The Tea Party, The New Congress, - All You Need To Know and The Tea Party – The New GOP?).  Obama was elected and the Tea Party blossomed, as they saw no difference between him and Bush. To this day the Tea Party would have a tough time choosing between Bush and Obama on government size and spending. Bush is persona non grata. No Republican in any race would ask him for his endorsement and with the demise of Bush, Jay H. Ell believes, we have had the demise of the Republican Party as we know it.

Now Bush was THE ESTABLISHMENT. Besides being daddy Bush’s son with all the patronage that came with that, it was the establishment that pressured him to stand. There was a procession to Crawford Texas prevailing on “dubbayu” to bear the party standard. Even Kissinger was brought out of cold storage to prevail on him.

Now in the Iraq fiasco the cream of the establishment were involved. There was Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice all right in the thick of it. When it was obvious that their credibility was suspect they threw the last Republican establishment hope under the bus in the form of Colin Powell. No one else other than the respected Powell could have sold UNO that bill of goods. Powell was fed the garbage and in spite of his reservations, like the good soldier he was, impressed the world of the urgency of intervention. In so doing Powell was rendered impotent as the obvious future standard bearer of the Establishment.

None of the Bush establishment has been much in evidence to defend the war. When they have, they appear to have changed the narrative as to the reasons for the war. There is not much offered on weapons of mass destruction but rather bluster on the democracy they have brought to the Middle East.

So who is the Republican establishment today? What new blood can lead the Party as it was known in the twentieth century? There are Boehner and McConnell and Jed Bush who is defending “dubbaya”. In fact there is no- one. Christie is the only non tea party candidate around but he can hardly be called establishment. The Republican National Chairman can bleat about the message but in fact it was the arrogance, the hubris that killed the Establishment. What can be more arrogant than to mislead a country into a war to fulfill your own agenda?

So these revelations have to repulse the most sober minded Republicans. The establishment is literally an “old boys club” with a few doddering souls left with some respectability like James Baker 111. Of course one could always bring back Bob Dole….

SO WHO CAN OPPOSE HILLARY IN 2016?

Hillary was one of the first victims of the Iraq fiasco. Obama slammed it down her throat that she had voted for the war and he had opposed it. But much has happened since and remember she was duped and did not do the duping. The Republicans are already running against her, and cannot stop blaming her for the death of the four Americans in the Benghazi Embassy. (Blog: Stopping Clinton in 2016 Starts in Benghazi). All of that is pretty rich in the light that none of them have come out to criticize the deception and or negligenc resulting in tens of thousands of Americans wounded or killed in Iraq.

So assuming that Karl Rove and company can do what they did in the last Republican Primary and produce an establishment candidate, whom will it be? (Romney The Grand Old Party’s Last Hoorah). Jay H Ell would like to venture a guess as to who they must be working on  - Condi Rice. 

Rice is highly intelligent, likeable and articulate. She has written an autobiography cataloging her struggle to reach the top. -great stuff and yet another example of the elusive American dream. She is also a she and an African American, two of the constituencies that the Republicans are way behind on. Rove and company will first have to persuade her to run, get her elected in the Primary over Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Mark Rubrio and the like and then the hardest part of all, get her elected to the Presidency.  

Under normal circumstances Condi would be the best candidate to run against Clinton. However, these are not normal circumstances and Jay H. Ell believes her central role in the Iraq fiasco would be front and center in any run she might make. Even in the Republican Primaries she would get flak from the Tea Party types.
The Iraq deception will go down as the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Establishment.

  

OBAMA RECRUITS NETANYAHU TO HIS "TEAM OF RIVALS"

Guess what - Barack and Bibi are kissing buddies. This time the dynamic has changed Obama is calling the shots. True to Obama style Netanyahu has been invited to join Obama’s “Team of Rivals”.  (For the uninitiated Obama has followed Lincoln’s example of bringing into his inner circle former rivals). So forgiven is Bibi for his attempt to undermine Barack in his own backyard by trying to recruit Congress in his battle against the US President. (Blog: Obama, Reagan, Clinton, Netanyahu and the Week That Was, January 2013).

NETANYAHU’s AND OBAMA’s STANDING IN ISRAEL

It serves no purpose for a weakened Netanyahu to grandstand in the US when he is now battling to maintain control of his fragile coalition. Obama had defended Israel’s attack on Hamas at UNO. Also every Israeli was aware that America had footed the bills for the highly successful Dome that intercepted Hamas missiles. (Blog: Iran Behind Israeli Conflict In Israel? November, 2012). Obama’s approval rating in Israel is higher than Bibi’s so, ironically, any help Netanyahu can get from Obama to bolster his image is deeply appreciated.  Also the popular Israeli President Simon Peres and Obama have always been on the same page.

 A strengthened Obama, for his part, happily welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm his support for Israel. AIPAC, the American pro Israeli Lobby group has never had any doubt as to where Obama’s loyalties lay. But Netanyahu appealing to the American right wing over the head of mainstream Jewish opinion had created a talking point for the right wing, that Obama was soft on Israel. This Netanyahu had done in order to get Obama in line with a preemptive attack on Iran. An attack that Obama politically believed was premature and unwise at that point in time.

SO OBAMA GOES TO ISRAEL

So with as a background Obama set of to Israel as his first foreign policy initiative in his second term. This gesture dripped with all the symbolism that results from the uncommon occurrence of a sitting American President visiting Israel signifies. In Israel he made it quite clear: - that Israel’s number one ally was America, that America had Israel’s back, that America shared Israel’s fears on the Syrian uprising getting out of control and giving Hezbollah chemical weapons – that was a red line in the sand, that there was no daylight between Israeli and American policy on Iran’s nuclear aspirations – another red line in the sand and that Israel could start negotiating American arms for Israel prior to the agreement that runs out in 2017.

Obama on landing in Israel was met by anybody who was everybody in Israel. On the tarmac Obama was flanked by Netanyahu and Peres whom were part of a massive crowd. His microphone was on when he asided to a chuckling Netanyahu, “It is good to get away from Congress”.

Obama did not venture into the Middle East by himself. There was a whole entourage including his Secretary of State and his entourage. Every move that Obama made would be followed up in spades by John Kerry. There is also little doubt that that Kerry would inherit all the goodwill that Hillary Clinton bequeathed to him in her tireless background efforts in this region.

OBAMA GOES TO THE WEST BANK AND RETURNS WITH A MESSAGE OF SANITY

Obama also visited two other Middle East entities– the Kingdom of Jordan and the West Bank headed by PLO Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has gained status by negotiating Nation and Observer recognition at UNO. (Blog; Netanyahu Has Lost It, December 2012).

Obama, after returning from Ramallah reaffirmed his belief that that there should be a two State solution. In a keynote speech he asked the Israelis to empathize with the Palestinians who he, Obama, believed had been treated unfairly. He maintained that they too were entitled to a State. He once again verbalized his opposition to new Israeli settlements. He spoke to the youth and asked them to put themselves in shoes of Palestinians and told them, what he has said in the USA – change must come from the grass roots. This was Obama at his heroic historic best and the tumultuous reception he received for these views reflected the opinions of the majority of Israelis on the subject as was manifested in the most recent Israeli election.

Abbas is on record as saying that the Palestinians should have accepted the UNO Security Council resolution for partition in 1947. Instead they, joined by the whole Arab world, unsuccessfully attacked the rag tag Israeli army who did not have a friend in the world. This they did not in spite of Ben Gurion’s pleas to accept the two state solution and so here we are now.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

It serves little purpose to go over all the other wars and betrayals that both sides claim and rather look at the status quo:

• The average Palestinian still lives in poverty, squalor and fear.
• Israel persists in allowing settlements to infringe what is generally accepted would be Palestinian territory.
• Palestine is divided into two – The Hamas controlled Gaza and the PLO controlled West Bank.
• Eighteen of the 22 members of the Arab League do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.
• There is the presence of two designated terrorist organizations in the area, Hezbollah and Hamas. Both the latter are under Iranian influence.
• Iran’s unashamed threat to wipe Israel of the face of the earth coupled with its potential nuclear ambitions stands out there for all to see. ((Blog: Iran Behind Israeli Conflict, November 2012)
• A changed Israel where Netanyahu’s grip on power must be tenuous.
• Netanyahu and Obama have a changed relationship. If nothing else they both need each other.
• Netanyahu has a far more dovish cabinet not to mention electorate and if history is anything to go by most peace accords in this area have come from Right Wing Prime Ministers.
• All this is taking place in a climate where anti Semitism is increasing at an alarming pace throughout the world.

WHAT HAS THIS TRIP ESTABLISHED AND ACHIEVED?

Obama has waded into the Middle – East quagmire boots and all. You cannot get this involved and walk away from the expectations that you have created. Obama’s actions are in line with his modus vivendi. Obama makes his moves from a political position of strength and when public sentiment is ready for change. The reception he received from an audience that was said to have been potentially hostile to his views illustrated in, no uncertain terms, that Israelis are receptive to peace.

Also there is no way he could duck the regional powder keg situation forever. The intransigent Iran is on a one-way path to nuclear confrontation. He and Netanyahu have to be ad idem on their approach. The changing political situation has allowed Obama to be the senior partner. If Netanyahu can run in American politics Obama can run in Israeli politics as he has shown. The Syrian situation is going from bad to worse and who knows how the cookie is going to crumble there.

So Obama has two agendas one is to take control of the potential chaos that is brewing up in the Middle East and not march to Bibi’s drummer. The second is to tackle an elusive Middle East solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Ironically, the latter is a far tougher nut than to sort out a road map to the Iranian and Syrian variables. If Obama is able to achieve this then not only will it justify his premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize it will do Israel an incredible favor. It will take away one of the biggest sticks it is being beaten with. Bibi could also end up with a Peace prize!

But a two State solution has a long long way to go. The Palestinians are not even united. However, Obama has to give it a full go. He is committed and will have to provide resources as well as some of his own valuable time.  He is also totally committed to Israel for a host of reasons: It is his most reliable ally in the Middle East as a beacon of stability in a sea of chaos; politically it would be untenable in the US not to be totally committed; (this visit has given the Democrats a leg up in the 2014 election and taken away any credible criticism the right wing might have that Obama is throwing Israel under the bus), and as, anyone who is close to him knows, he is personally committed to the State of Israel and all it stands for. Obama, in Israel, compared, as Martin Luther King had done before him, the exodus of the Jews from slavery with the emancipation of the Negroes from slavery in the United States.

Obama's last port of call will be to Amman where he will shore up his initiatives with the expected support from King Abdullah from Jordan. Obviously Syria and Iran will also be on the agenda.

FOX AND FRIENDS – THE SAME OLD SAME OLD

It is worthwhile to note that Fox news concurrently with The Obama Israeli visit was still running features with the theme of, “With friends like Obama Israel does not need enemies”. This in the teeth of the standing ovation Obama received when he reaffirmed his commitment to Israel and asked the Israelis to empathize with the Palestinians. That very night Obama received, from President Peres, the highest honor the Israeli government can give any citizen - the Presidential Medal of Distinction. He is the first American President to receive this award. President Peres then said President Obama had done more for Israeli security then any other individual in history.

Jay H. Ell is personally sick and tired of the smears Obama has had to endure on the internet, from right wing talk show and TV hosts and other fanatics, in and out of the political limelight, that Obama is an imposter about to sell out America and Israel to the radical Muslim extremists. It would be too much to hope for that his historic trip to Israel would change their behavior.

Also with his usual largesse he did not rub Netanyahu’s “nose in it” and he welcomed him into his “Team of Rivals”. Netanyahu having in addition to trying to outmaneuver Obama in the USA had openly backed Romney against him in the last Presidential election.

WELL HELLO POPE FRANCIS

No one should underestimate the significance of the election of the Argentinean Cardinal Bergoglio as Pope. In the closed world of the Catholic Church, every gesture can have massive symbolism and meaning. (Blog: Catholicism in Crisis – Can the Vatican Change? February 2013). While one can only rely on the rumors, gossip and speculation as to the intrigue that lead to his election, the fact that a Cardinal not from Italy or Europe was elected Pope is in and of itself extraordinary. This particularly so in the light of the fact that the majority of Cardinals are from Europe and more than half of all the Cardinals had been appointed by the outgoing Pope Benedict XV1. In addition his appointments worsened the disparity between the number of European Cardinals and the rest. On retiring the outgoing Pontiff had called for, "A smaller more cohesive Church".

Now Bergoglio was not even mentioned as a contender in the run up to the conclave. He was not even the most fancied South American candidate. The bookmakers had him as a 16/1 shot far behind the favorites. It was believed that the Pope favored the Canadian Cardinal Quelet and the favorite was the Milanese Cardinal Scala. Bergoglio had been runner up to Benedict XV1 in the previous conclave and if rumor has any merit they represented different factions within the narrow band of Church Policy interpretation. Now his election means that the majority of the Cardinals, not only him, are representative of whatever nuances he may bring to the interpretation of the doctrine.

All this means that two thirds of the Cardinals thought that Bergoglio was the mortal to fill Saint Peter’s shoes at this stage in the Church’s history. Also they came to that conclusion on, only, the second day of their conclave. The Argentinean was no compromise candidate elected after days and days of polling, he was the clear choice almost from the get go. Again this is significant in and of itself.

Before continuing one must bear in mind that the Catholic Church Crisis relates to two separate domains: The first relates to Church Doctrine which includes contraceptive practices, women’s involvement in the church, celibacy for the priesthood, denial of church rights to the divorces, attitudes to homosexuality and the like. The second involves the administration of the church and the financial and sexual scandals it has gotten itself involved in.  The combined impact gives the current poor image of the Church.

WHO IS CARDINAL BERGOGLIO ?

Anyone listening or viewing the announcement of the new pope would have heard that the commentators had no biographic material prepared for this eventuality. In the studios everyone was scurrying into the archives to get information on the new Jesuit Pontiff. 

Before the facts became available he would send a loud and clear message as to who and what he will be. He would be the first Pope Francis – the humblest of the humble. One needed no special knowledge to know what that meant. Saint Francis of Assisi was known for his peaceful nature and sympathy for the needy. Bergoglio asked the colossal crowd assembled in Vatican City to pray for him while making it clear that he had come from far away to be have the honor to be the Bishop of Rome. He also blessed those in the throng that were not of the Catholic faith. The next day he told reporters he wanted “A poor Church and for the poor”.

This all was synchronous with the biographical details that were being fed to the announcers. He lived in a small apartment, cooked for himself and used public transport. He was in and among the poor as a matter of habit and identified with the underprivileged. Pope Francis followed his election by not standing on a lectern so as to be on the same footing as his Cardinal Brothers, traveled with them by bus and not the Pope limo and paid his Hotel Bill on his own.

However, his doctrinaire social opinions were conservative. He had publicly challenged the right of gay couples to adopt and at no stage has shown any inclination to buck the current church line.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JEWISH COMMUNITY

Cardinal Bergoglio has had a long and warm relationship with the Jewish Community on every level.  On a representative level he has had dialogue with the World Jewish and the Latin American Jewish Congresses and the Argentinean Communities. Claude Epelman, the Executive Director of the Latin American Jewish Congress said they knew his values and his strengths. The former Head of the World Jewish Congress reflected that he had worked with the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires on a welfare project for poor Jews and Catholics. Bergoglio had attended a Rosh Hashanah Service where he said; “We are people on a journey where we place ourselves in God’s presence”. Bergoglio also attended a Kristallnacht memorial service as well as being in the forefront of the protest of the bombing of a Jewish Community Centre in Argentine.

At a time when the world is experiencing a new wave of anti – Semitism his election has to be a source of comfort to the world wide Jewish Community.

ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARGENTINIAN MILITARY JUNTA

Pope Francis had been accused in a book of failing to protect two fellow Jesuit Priest during the “Dirty War” between 1976 and 1983. There were allegations that he did not do enough on their behalf when they were illegally detained and that he had even been complicit in their detention. There were also allegations that he new about baby stealing under the Military Junta. Although these allegations were vigorously denied by the Vatican, they are still out there in Argentine. So much so that The Centre of Legal and Social Studies in Argentine opposed his election as Pope.

The fact is that none of this has ever been proven and Bergoglio has formally denied the charges while acknowledging, when he was Bishop of Buenos Aires, that the Church did not do enough against the dictatorship and asking for forgiveness. The Vatican also pointed out that there had been many public declarations of how much he had done to protect citizens during the Military Dictatorship.

THE FUTURE

If there is going to be any major shift in policy it has to be in the domain of non  - doctrinaire issues. One would hope that the Pontiff would clean house with his administration at the Vatican, They have been, allegedly, responsible for failure to fully respond to the  the sexual abuse and banking scandals and their cover ups. The Vatican bureaucracy are immensely powerful as they provide the continuity in the Church and are responsible for the day to day running of an organization that involves every corner of the earth and one sixth of the world’s population. It is hard to imagine anyone, let alone a seventy – six year old spiritual leader of the World’s largest community, being able to keep tabs on all of this. Also the Church needs more decentralization. To this day, for example, every Bishop is appointed in Rome. Communities need to be allowed to take more responsibility.

The Pope would be wise to entrust the public resolution of the sexual and financial scandals, which have dogged the church for decades, to new officials that have experience in these areas. The belief that cover up after cover up will protect the Church has been proved erroneous again and again,

The doctrinaire issues, that have been responsible for loss of membership or total disinterest in the Church, such as a greater role for women, acceptance of homosexuality, priest celibacy and contraception are going to be a much tougher nut to crack even if Pope Francis is so inclined to tackle these.

However, there is one problem that, from a practical point of view, that has to be staring the new Pontiff in his face, and that is the demographics relating to the Priesthood. The number of Catholics has almost doubled since 1970 and the number of Priests has remained virtually the same. The average age of Priests in 1970 was thirty -five and in 2010 it was sixty-three. The social doctrinaire issues have had to play a significant role in this situation. In terms of Pope Francis’s philosophy the Church has to be about community and without leadership there the Church will stagnate. So to kick the can down the road on these issues is not going to move the Church out of crisis mode. If the root causes are not found and then addressed, in 2020 the average age of Priests will be seventy- three and the number even fewer.

CONCLUSION

There is little doubt that, on balance, Pope Francis is sending a loud and clear message for change. This is going to be a Pope who will be involved in the community and in social justice. Clearly these were not Pope Benedict XVI ‘s priorities who wanted to have a “smaller more cohesive Church”. In fact one of the criticsms of the  Leadership Conference of Women Religions, during Benedict XV1s Papacy, was that they concentrated too much on social justice rather than on the Church's doctrines.

 Clear too is the fact that the majority of the Cardinals who elected Bergoglio believed that change was needed. As matters stand at the moment the new Pope has given no indication that he will deviate one iota on the Church’s stance on the contentious social issues that are disrupting Church unity and the recruitment to the Priesthood. Although, given his radical stance in relation to the status quo in other areas, it might come as no surprise if he addressed an issue such as contraception.

In the few days since his election his sayings and public appearances and apparent accessibility has given him rock star status. In the long run the future of Catholic Church, however, will depend more on substance than on style.

OBAMA'S BIPARTISAN FISCAL INITIATIVE

OBAMA’S BIPARTISAN FISCAL INITIATIVE

Anyone, who is aware as to how politics works, recognizes that Obama’s fiscal initiative to the Republicans and his recent public fraternizing with the Congress did not occur in a vacuum.  Firstly, Obama had to be persuaded that this was the way to go and then he had to be sure of the response that his offer might evoke from the Republicans and how it would affect his public standing.

OBAMA’S POSITION

Till recently Obama had given up negotiating with the Republicans as a lost cause. In fact the Republican Civil War seemed to preclude any cooperation and compromise. (Blog: GOP Civil War Sabotages Obama Talks, March 2013). In addition he was doing very nicely whipping up more and more public support for his positions and had not stopped being in the campaign mode just because he had won the election.

Obviously, he must have been advised that he could not continue his campaigning forever and he had to get into negotiation with what Lincoln’s Secretary of State, Seward called, “That rats’ nest …. with its talentless hicks and hacks…”.  It cannot be co – incidence that he had dinner with the Clintons a week or so earlier as nobody but nobody knows the game better than them. Also several of his new administration, including his new Chief of Staff, all have had experience on working on the hill. This is the way you finally get things done.

But Obama had an axe to grind. The Republicans had rejected his many advances in his first term. This so much so that Michael Moore, one of his biggest supporters, belittled his endless overtures to the Republicans. Moore did not know if he could support him for a second term. Moore compared him with a suitor that was rejected again and again and couldn’t get the message. In fact, Obama has borne the GOP snubs with dignity. These snubs have been private as well as public. Invitations to the White House were rejected with arrogance and bravado. Recently Obama held a private showing of Lincoln. In attendance were all the stars as well as Spielberg but Boehner and McConnell had “scheduling conflicts”. This behavior is gross. As the Reverend Sharpton maintained he disliked Bush 43 but he always accepted and prioritized invitations to the White House as a matter of form and out of respect for the Office.

So Obama could have just sat back and watch the Republicans disintegrate. However, this was not moving his agenda along and also what had he to lose? If the Republicans could not come to any accommodation, in the teeth of such public gestures, that would push their stocks even lower and if they did agree this would push Obama’s stature even higher.

So if it was good enough for Lincoln, Clinton and not to mention LBJ, it had to be good enough for Obama. So the backroom overtures began and the talks with the Republicans were put into the works. Obama began working the phones and all the other operatives did their thing like putting out feelers, arranging meetings and the like.

THE REPUBLICAN POSITION.

Indeed it was the Civil War within the Republican Party that had paralyzed any possibility of legislation let alone fiscal talks that would involve compromise. (Blog: GOP Civil War Sabotages Obama Talks, March 2013). Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives could not control his caucus and was wary about putting his Speakership on a line. So Boehner could not negotiate with any authority. McConnell, Republican Senate Minority Leader, had to worry about a Primary threat from the Tea Party if he appeared to be too accommodating.

The weakened Republican leadership could not get involved. However, there was nothing to stop individual Senate Republican members from being party to the bipartisan initiative.  Ideally the main thrust should come from the Senate because there the Democrats were in the majority. Also, as Boehner had so inelegantly put it, he needed the Senate to get of its ass and pass legislation. If the Senate did so with a big majority and in a bipartisan fashion it could make it easier for Boehner to pressure his own caucus or allow a free vote where the Establishment Republicans could join the Democrats and pass the Senate’s legislation. So lo and behold twelve Senators went to dinner.

WHO ARE THE TWELVE REPUBLICAN SENATORS?

Twelve is a lot of Republican Senators, more than a quarter of their number. They would create a real healthy majority in the Senate if a reasonable bipartisan deal was agreed to. It was not a surprise that 11 of the 12 were not running in 2014 so they could have no Primary threat from the Tea Party. Only one Lindsey Graham South Carolina is up for election and he is very well ensconced in his seat.

Of the twelve Senators four have name recognition. Graham and McCain have seniority and clout but policy wise they are really all over the show. They recently attacked Rand Paul the Senate Tea Party leader in the first major public Congressional spat between the two Republican factions.  They, also, have on occasion championed very conservative positions. The most important factor about McCain and Graham is that they have been around a long long time and know how Washington works. Tom Coburn is a fiscal and social conservative and has to be culturally a Tea Party supporter.  The fourth well-known Senator, Saxby Chambliss, is actually resigning from the Senate and has strong conservative credentials but has participated in bipartanship legislation.

Of the remaining eight Senators 4 come from States that Obama won, New Hampshire, New England, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So those Senators have a big stake in being constructive. Three come from States that Romney won handily, Indiana, Tennessee and North Dakota and the remaining Senator is from North Carolina that Romney barely won.

THE HOUSE

The Senate has to be the centerpiece of this exercise but there had to be some public involvement from the House of Representatives so Obama met Paul Ryan, Head of the Republican Budget Committee and his Democratic counterpart Chris Van Hollen. This was not for negotiation but just for form.

Now Paul Ryan, the beaten Republican Vice Presidential candidate is the Republican guru on finance. It was Ryan’s financial policies that were soundly defeated in the 2012 election.  This has not impacted his approach a jot and he has just proposed an even more radical budget as the Republican policy. Ryan, to the amazement of all, balances his 2013 budget by axing Obamacare, ending Medicare as it is presently constituted, gutting Medicaid and has several other spending cuts. There is not one source of revenue in his proposed budget. His lack of insight flabbergasted even the Fox interviewer who blurted out “That is not going to happen”.  So the Republican Establishment leadership is letting Ryan do his thing and carry on with denial of reality.  (Blog: The Republicans Ongoing Denial of Reality, December 2012).

RATIONALE AND POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

 This looks a pretty balanced bunch of Republican Senators who would have credibility if a deal could be worked out. So this dinner has to have been in the works a long time ago and the Republican delegation carefully chosen. Further, there is no way that this did not have the blessing of the Republican leadership in Congress. This was also their best way for McConnell and Boehner– stay out of the fray to keep their positions safe. If the Senate twelve work out a deal with Obama that would mean the Senate would pass it with a big majority and ostensibly McConnell would have had nothing to do with it. Boehner from the House of Representatives could legitimately allow an open vote in the House with such Senate support. The compromise legislation with Democratic and some Republican support would then pass the House, Obama would sign the fiscal legislation and we can all live happily ever after.

The Senate meeting with Obama is the tip of the iceberg of what has to be going on both before and after the confab. All the Senators that attended the Obama dinner gave the thumbs up. So all are publicly on board.  The Establishment Leadership of Republican Party has maneuvered a situation whereby there maybe compromise and they are nowhere in sight.

This all means that the Establishment component of the Republican Party will have achieved a victory in that the Party will no longer be seen obstructing everything and anything. In the process The Tea Party with their simplistic fiscal policy will make themselves look ridiculous as they continue to oppose consensus and hang on to their policies that were soundly rejected by the electorate.

Of course this has a long way to go but the framework is in place. Obama wants a deal for many reasons. The economy is picking up; unemployment has dropped to 7.7%. and the stock market is going gangbusters. Companies are also sitting on vast amounts of cash waiting for the go ahead to invest in manpower and plant. The sequester and the other GOP filibusters on the economy may well halt this recovery and that would reflect poorly on Obama even if the Republicans are the cause. A deal will help his leadership and legacy. On the other hand Obama cannot give to much as he will infuriate his base. He did not run on cutting expenditure on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. (Blog: Obama Must Not Cave Again, November 2012).

So on the face it is a win - win situation. The Republican Party will be able to move from their lunatic fringe position and the Establishment faction can gain some credibility with the electorate. The Democrats will obtain some of the legislation for revenues that they have been screaming for and the electorate, over 70% of whom favor a budget made up of increased revenues as well as spending cuts, will finally be represented.

This whole exercise can be seen as another battle in the Republican Civil War and an attempt to align the electorate’s preferences with Legislation. Whatever it is, it is still a long shot that those “hicks and hacks” can get their act together and cobble an acceptable fiscal deal that the country actually wants and voted for.

GOP'S CIVIL WAR SABOTAGES OBAMA TALKS

GOP FACADE

The facade that the Republican Party is a coherent entity participating in the Country’s future is becoming more and more each day, just that – a facade. Ostensibly their position is that the future of the Country depends on cutting spending and not getting any more revenue from taxes, nor closing loopholes in taxation such as, corporate jets, investing in tax havens both for individuals and corporations nor stopping senseless subsidies to entities such as oil companies. Also, besides “entitlement” spending their objections extend to spending money to repair the country’s infrastructure thereby creating jobs. The only expenditure they agree upon is more money for defense and that should come from cutting back on “entitlements” such as health care, social security, education and police and the like.

The real truth is that they have no agreed upon rational modern day fiscal policy at all other than to filibuster and do nothing. They cannot agree on anything internally so therefore they cannot negotiate with Obama. They just can pretend that they could negotiate if it wasn’t for Obama’s obstinacy.

GOP ON THE FISCAL CRISIS

The answer, the GOP thus maintain, lies in spending cuts across the board and adding no new revenue. (Code for leave the rich, (the makers), alone and take the money away from the rest who are   freeloaders, (the takers). The new Ryan budget has been characterized as denuding Medicare to give tax breaks for the billionaires and has raised eyebrows amongst several Congressional Republicans. The Republicans have successfully achieved some of their cuts by refusing to negotiate on the “sequester”. The latter was a draconian stratagem, agreed upon by both parties if a deal on fiscal policy was not achieved by March 31st, 2013, then an automatic $85 billion in spending cuts would come into effect. The purpose of both sides agreeing to the sequester was that these cuts were so off the wall that both sides would be forced to come to the negotiating table to avoid them. The Republicans could not come to the table as the Party is split in two and no consensus could be obtained as to their negotiation position.


Their ostensible rationale for obtaining no additional revenue is that they, the Republicans have already conceded on that issue. This they did by agreeing to increase the maximum income tax to 39% from 35% for any income earned above $400,000 a year!

The Republicans claim that Obama offers no cuts to social programs. This is patently false, as he has offered, inter – alia, a means test for Medicare and a formula to decrease the annual increments of Social Security. The latter deal alone would save 130 billion dollars. He has again offered spending cuts that will impact on the social safety net. These offers have caused consternation among the liberal wing of the Democratic Party but Obama has insisted that there has to be compromise. (Obama, in his enthusiasm to obtain consensus on a deal better see to it that he has Reid and Pelosi onsides).

Now not even the Republicans can believe their own rhetoric. Behind it all is the life and death internal battle for control of the Party that is responsible for the paralysis of the GOP and it’s dismal performance in the public arena. All that they can do is just block anything that the administration is trying to do and sabotage, one way or another, any legislation that the administration wants to offer.

None of this is doing the Republican Party, whoever they are and whatever they stand for, any good, but they seem powerless to do anything else. Every opinion poll shows, that if no fiscal deal is cut then the public will believe it will be the Republicans’ fault.

Under normal circumstances the leader(s) of the Republican Party would negotiate a compromise on expenditure and taxation and everything else. The problem is that there is no – one in the Republican Party, that has the majority backing of the party, to effectively negotiate.  Hence we are subjected to an ersatz debate. The pretense is that there can be a true debate but the two sides sound like the dialogue from a Kafka play.

So the GOP cannot negotiate because it is embroiled in a Civil War .

SUNKEN LEVEL OF DEBATE

To illustrate the level to which the debate has degenerated as a result of this impasse, Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, is cheered when he says it is a waste of time negotiating with the President and for his gratuitous advice to the Senate to get off it’s arse and send the House legislation. The House has passed virtually no legislation this session and Boehner cannot really move till he has a passed Senate Act before him. An example of the inept and inane Republican performance in the Senate is their fatuous weeks long delay of the confirmation of Obama’s Secretary of Defense. The latter is a former Republican, who Obama is elevating into his cabinet and in a saner world the move would have been hailed as a bi-partisan gesture.

Between the Senate and the House of Representatives it took them 18 months to pass the Violence Against Women Act with the majority of Republicans in the House voting against the Act! What are these people thinking?

THE PARTIES IN THE GOP CIVILWAR.

Broadly speaking there are the Tea Party and the “Establishment”, the latter being the “Old” GOP adherents that made what originally constituted the Republican Party.  It is fair to say that both these factions claim to be conservative but it is even fairer to say that the Tea party are by the far more radical and the “establishment” are more moderate. At the moment the leadership of the Republican Party, - in the Senate, (McConnell), and the House, (Boehner), their latest Presidential candidate, (Romney), and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, (Pierce), are all “Establishment” members. However, they are all there by the grace of the Tea Party.

* The Tea Party

The Tea Party as a Party is a relatively new entity, as an official Party that is. In January 2011 Jay H Ell blogged,  “The Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin – All You Ever Needed to Know”, celebrating the coming out party of the Tea Party. It was common cause that they had been responsible for mobilizing the Republican base that had resulted in the GOP taking over the House of Representatives in 2010. Besides giving the low down of who and what the Tea Party was, Jay H. Ell posed the questions:

“Are they just a passing phenomenon or will they have a profound impact on the future? Are they going to take over the, GOP, blend with it, or go it alone? “

All these questions have been answered. The Tea Party is here to stay and is having a profound impact on the future. Many believe, that for practical purposes, they are the Party. If they have not taken over the Party completely they are controlling its agenda and have for the moment changed the face and direction of the GOP. Although they have not yet won the war they have won key battles and it is they who are responsible for changing the dialogue in Washington today as they dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. They are the central faction in the Republican Party, have their own caucus and identity to the extent that there are now two official replies to the President’s State of the Union address, the “official” one and the Tea Party one.

While there are shades of opinion in the Tea Party their line is pretty straight – no taxes, no regulations and “individual responsibility”, code for get rid of entitlements. Added to that are their social policies on abortion, gays, women’s rights, immigration and guns and the like that are out of sync with the way the country is going.

In the 2012 election the Tea Party lost some of its influence and were blamed for allowing the Democrats to retain and increase its representation in the Senate. Most significantly it became patently clear that Romney by adapting the Tea Party rhetoric was soundly beaten. A reality that no one in the Tea Party or “Establishment” seem to have internalized to this date.

* The Establishment.

The Establishment is just that and while their key precepts on taxation, regulations and entitlements are the same as the Tea Party they have always been open for compromise and debate. While the Republican Party Platform represents the Tea Party’s social policy, the Establishment disowns it more and more.  The Establishment realizes more and more that they will never ever win back the White House with Tea Party policies. Ironically, they are to blame for the Tea Party emergence. Karl Rove, the Godfather of the Establishment, unashamedly used them to get the mediocre Bush elected twice to the White House. Rove saw to it in that in every State in the Presidential elections, there were referenda on social issues on the ballot that would bring the base out. Once George W. was elected he ignored these issues other than on stem cell research where he was on the wrong side of history.

So the best the establishment can offer is “moderation”.  The Establishment has not learned that that is not enough in a changing USA and changing world. Nobody is really interested in a nebulous paternalistic kinder Party. That was Bush 43 and his name is mud.

THE WAR

The Establishment’s Karl Rove has fired the first official shots of the civil war by declaring that his moneyed PAC, American Crossroads, is going to use its resources to fight the Republican Primaries to see to it that “acceptable” candidates are elected to run against the Democrats. This resulted in Tea Party apologists calling Rove a Nazi trying to subvert the choice of the Republican voters.

In truth this fight has been there ever since the Tea Party became a viable entity. The Establishment was furious at the Senate Tea Party candidates that the Republican Primaries chose. The Establishment believed that these “no hope” candidates were responsible for the Democrats increasing their Senate majority in 2013 and for the loss of Republican House Seats.

The Tea Party has been unrepentant to say the least. Their current leader Joe Demint resigned from the Senate to head the prestigious moneyed conservative Heritage Foundation. His first statement was to say that he would rather have 30 Conservative Republican Senators than 60 Republican Senators who believed in “nothing”.

Reince Priebus the Republican National Chairman is busily moving the Party into the twenty first century, that is the information and Internet twenty first century, and talking to minorities and women!

Another “meaningful” effort by the Republicans to gain traction is to change the voting laws in the States making it harder for the poor, the elderly and minorities to be able to vote. In pursuit of this objective should the Supreme Court overturn a protection in the Civil Rights Voting Provisions it would help them no end.

For the rest, the 2016 Republican Presidential contenders are steadfastly positioning themselves more and more to the right. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are there already, Marc Rubrio is not far behind and Jed Bush jumped into the race with two right feet. Romney made a return at the Conservative Political Action Conference, (CPAC), and reinforced the delusion – that it was the way the message was delivered not the message itself that was to blame. The only viable Republican candidate, Chris Christie, was “insulted” by CPAC by not being even being invited.

The first major public signs of a split occured in the Senate when McCain  and Lindsay, who consider themselves the establishment, lambasted Paul Rand for his filibuster of the newly appointed CIA Director, Brennan. This was a bit rich because those two were in the forefront of the delay of appointment of Obama's new Scretary of Defence Hagel but there is no doubt that the purpose of the exercise was to distance themselves from the Tea Party leader in the Senate.  

REALITY

The only reality is that the Tea Party cannot win a Presidential election on their own and the Establishment cannot elect a candidate that has not major Tea Party support.  Likewise any position the Establishment takes has to have Tea Party backing.  This explains why nothing is happening. The Republican leadership, who are all establishment members, rather than face a threat to remove them, do nothing. That is exactly what the Tea Party wants. Also Republican members of the legislature, that usually can be counted upon to be “reasonable” are worried about a Primary threat if they deviate from the line. The Tea Party members themselves don’t give a hoot that they are way out of line of public opinion because they are usually in gerrymandered constituencies that guarantee re election.

So until this all sorts it out, so that we can get a Grand “New” Party, paralysis will remain. 

OBAMA TRYING TO BREAK THE DEADLOCK

Obama will do whatever he can on the stump to get the electorate to pressure Congress. The sequester cuts as they dig in will, ironically, help him to make the point that this is where Republican gridlock is leading us. Obama is also, finally, working the phones talking to Republicans whom he could compromise with. He is meeting with legislators and guess who he had to dinner - a dozen Republican Senators, incidentally only one of whom is up for re - election in 2014. He had lunch with Paul Ryan and is meeting all the caucuses on the hill. The Republicans are so pleased that the President is talking to them and all along we thought that they wouldn't been seen dead with him!

 Number one priority on the Obama agenda is winning back the House of Representatives in 2014 so he can proceed with his electoral mandate. If the Democrats succeed they will be actually doing the Republicans a favor because they will have to finally decide who and what they are. All the portents are that the GOP will become a right wing enclave. Or maybe this kumbaya with Obama will help the GOP create cohesive defensible policies on fiscal and social issues that will unite the GOP. 

If, however, the Tea Party win the GOP Civil War the country will have the greatest division since the Civil War between North and South .