The Mantle of Leadership

What is the mantle of leadership? I'll tell you what it's not. It's not being a sheep and believing what you're told to believe. It's not subscribing blindly to a worldview on every single issue. It's not being afraid of your image with your friends or the public. It's not being afraid of accepting an element of risk.

The Democrats are losing the mantle of leadership on Iraq, drop by drop, like Chinese water torture, while the country suffers as a result. Last night, on Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill challenged Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Caucus Chair of the House of Representatives, on Iraq. Since we can't get the 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, why not take the only route left, stop the funding for the war and force Mr. Bush to withdraw the troops.

The crowd cheered. Many Democrats have started to favor this approach, but it's politically risky. Bush could accuse the Democrats of refusing to "support the troops." But Mr. Bush, if he really supported the troops himself, would have to withdraw them. It's a little bit like a game of "chicken." But sometimes, assuming the mantle of leadership requires following this approach, e.g., the Cuban missile crisis.

Anyway, Maher, egged on by the crowd, continued to press Rahm Emanuel. Rahm started to hem and haw. He squirmed in his seat. He gave a totally unconvincing response, and people in the crowd started to taunt him.

Hopefully, Mr. Emanuel will re-consider based on the audience reaction and discuss funding as a real alternative to the Democratic Caucus. The country would respect the Democrats for taking a stand, even if they disagreed with it.

Unfortunately, even the Democratic candidates for President are starting to qualify their responses on Iraq. In a recent debate, the three main contenders, Hillary, Obama and Edwards, refused to make a commitment to withdrawing the troops before the end of their first term. That's another four years in that quagmire.

As a concluding aside, anyone who refuses to vote for Hillary because she's "pro-war" should reconsider. If healthcare is an important issue for you, I think she represents the best chance of actually accomplishing something. She has assumed the mantle of leadership in many other areas as well, one reason why, despite all predictions, she is still the front runner.

CHIP and true Christianity

As a Pentecostal Christian and a Democrat, I am frequently amazed by the hypocrisy, the lack of feeling, and the poor understanding of the central tenets of Christianity by the Religious Right.

Jesus talked about the poor in the New Testament more frequently than he talked about heaven and hell. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus says, "...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Yet George W. Bush, fervent Christian that he is, has decided to make a fiscal stand by opposing the extension of healthcare to more poor children. Billions in tax cuts to the rich, and billions in a grinding war in Iraq are okay, but, all of sudden, Mr. Bush is threatening a rare veto to stop assistance to poor children so he can save the taxpayers money.

What conclusions can we draw from this action?

First, Bush is not, and never has been, a true Christian. He trots out the terminology to fire up his base but has been willing to compromise for political expediency. For example, his choice of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court provided a rare window into his thinking, based more on rewarding loyalty and cronies than any overarching belief.

Second, if you're any kind of minority, oppressed group, if you're poor or out of the mainstream, or even just a little eccentric, you will feel much more at home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. To me, a lot of Republicans seem so full of hate and lack of empathy for human suffering. I'll choose a President any day who "feels my pain" over one who doesn't.

Bush adopted the false moniker of "compassionate conservative" when he first ran for President because most conservatives aren't. You don't have to say "compassionate liberal" since that phrase would be repetitious.

What's in a Name?

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

With apologies to Shakespeare, why did Bush pick Petraeus in the first place? Surely, their PR operation must have realized that the guy sounds like a Roman gladiator. That's why the MoveOn.org advertisement was so threatening. How dare they make a play on such a strong name and expose it to ridicule: "Betray Us."

The attack on the MoveOn.org ad demonstrates the main strategy of the Republican Party. Diversion, then divide and conquer. Instead of focusing on Iraqi policy, they try to change the topic of the conversation. Patriotism instead of their incompetence.

Here's another example. Republicans also attacked Hillary Clinton for "essentially" calling David Petraeus a liar. Diversion again. And distortion, too.

Here's Hillary's quote in context:

The first part got the publicity: "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

The second part, following immediately after: "I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive a view of a rather grim reality, and I believe that you and certainly the very capable people working with both of you were dealt a very hard hand, and it's a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view."

Republicans ignored the second part for two reasons. One, it demonstrates Senator Clinton's respect for Petraeus, thus erasing their argument about her patriotism, and two, it places emphasis on the POLICY itself.

Videotape from Osama bin Laden

The main news this week, Osama bin Laden's videotape, released yesterday, brings to mind one of my pet theories about U.S. vulnerability. Bin Laden, or one of his deputies, previously stated that the next time they attack America, it will reach into everyone's homes. To me, this suggests an attempt to bring down the Internet. What else would affect just about every individual? The economic damage would be incalculable, and our country would grind to a halt.

The problem with anticipating the enemy's next move is that we are always "fighting the last war." Because Al Qaeda attacked our physical infrastructure, the World Trade Center, the last time, we are scurrying around protecting our ports, chemical facilities, nuclear plants, etc. But our enemy is cunning and resourceful. An attack on our virtual infrastructure is a real danger, and I'm not sure how much attention it is receiving from our law enforcement officials.

One scary item about the tape: Bin Laden said we should convert to Islam to avoid Al Qaeda's retribution. But the Koran commands the Muslim to make this very offer prior to engaging in jihad. Thus, this statement may portend an imminent action.

Introduction

The blog, "My Week in Review," derives its name from The New York Times Sunday section, "The Week in Review." It will cover mainly political matters based on my observations and experience during the previous week. Sometimes, it will comment on national issues, and sometimes, the entries will be more of a personal nature.

The goal of the blog is to challenge the reader to think of issues in a different light. It will avoid touting any party line, but the observations will be based on my very unique situation as a committed liberal Democrat and a fervent Pentecostal Christian.

The blog will also incorporate my business observations as President of Cut-It-Out Communications, a firm specializing in public relations, grant proposals and copywriting.

The reader should anticipate challenging, but brief, entries every Saturday.