Playing Games with Presidential Address

The Republican members of Congress choosing to not attend the President’s speech tonight resemble children sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “lalalala, I can’t hear you.”

Ladies and gentlemen, hear the President out and then do something to help.  Enough of the partisan games, start doing your job, please.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Grassley’s Tantrum

I feel like I have picked on Senator Chuck Grassley recently in this space.  That was not my intent; the Senator deserves credit for many good things.  He has, however, made himself an easy target.   He did so again today.

Grassley held a conference call for Iowa reporters this morning.  Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal captured the just of the call fairly well in his blog.  Earlier in the day, Grassley joined 41 of his colleagues in pledging to block all Senate action until the Bush tax cuts were extended.  After standing up to almost every action brought to the floor by the folks the majority of Americans voted for in 2008, Grassley and friends now think they know exactly what the people – all the people – want because their guys won more seats this time.  It would be nice to be able to pick the results you like and discard the ones you do not.  It doesn’t work that way.

Grassley said the lesson of the 2010 election was a repudiation of Democratic leadership, that Americans want members of Congress to focus on deficit reduction, the economy and job creation.  OK, but that isn’t exactly or all they/we want.  I happen to think we want government to be better, more efficient and fair.  We want those in seats of power to work together, not stymie each other for selfish political gain.  Yes, we want you to find compromise, Senator.  More than anything, we want members of Congress to work toward the same end, our nation.

Don’t say you will thwart all legislation until you get what you want.  That’s how spoiled children behave.  Demand a vote on tax cuts and allow the other party the chance to have a few up and down votes on issues they feel are important to the people they represent, too.  Neither party has blanket authority to act and forward issues independently because of what happened in this election, the last one or what the latest poll says might happen in the next.

I’ll admit I am adamant about same sex marriage and the repeal of the unfair and silly Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law that has forced many a qualified American from military service.  I get that way when people aren’t treated equally in a country that is based on equality – call me crazy.  But, Grassley’s comments about DADT on today’s call were inane and this issue provides a good example of what I am talking about.

“Reid knows he doesn’t have the votes for a lot of things, like The Dream Act, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” said Grassley.

Senator Grassley, let us see that for ourselves.  Let Senator Reid bring issues like these to the floor.  There is plenty of time for the Senate to vote on these bills, your precious tax cuts and a few others, before you head off for your extended vacations.  He may win a few and you may win a few.  Better than that, the American people will win a bunch.  For once, Congressmen and Senators will be doing their jobs instead of whining and obstructing.

We sent you to Washington to lead.  Sitting on your hands and saying you won’t do anything unless you get your way was bad behavior in pre-school and it still is.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Justice in the Age of Terrorism

I have been trying for the last few days to write a piece about justice in the wake of the Ahmed Ghailani trial.  Ghailani went from being a suspected terrorist to a convicted felon last week.  He has yet to be sentenced, but he faces many years to life in a supermax prison.  Yet, he got off on the more serious murder and terrorism charges and, for many, this single count conviction was not good enough.  They are calling for terror suspects to be held indefinitely or to face military tribunals instead of federal prosecution.  I wanted to write about the need to support justice even in the worst of times, but doing so is proving more difficult than I thought.

Congressman Peter King, the incoming chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, was “disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice” and said the trial is evidence of the “absolute insanity of the Obama Administration’s decision to try al-Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.”

On the Senate floor, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said the president should offer assurances that “terrorists will be tried from now on in the military commission system that was established for this very purpose at the secure facility at Guantanamo Bay, or detained indefinitely, if they cannot be tried without jeopardizing national security.”

Congressman King is known for saying outrageous things and his comments above are over the top.  It is hard to reconcile “a total miscarriage of justice” with the fact the government secured a conviction and it is likely Ghailani will never again be a free man.

Senator McConnell, on the other hand, makes a compelling point when he says the combatants held at Guantánamo Bay should be “detained indefinitely, if they cannot be tried without jeopardizing national security.”  These guys aren’t suspected bank robbers.  If they are the demons we suspect them to be; they are out to destroy our country, way of life, concept of freedom, and each and every person who stands in their way as well as innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Most of the people being held at Guantánamo are immoral pieces of trash.  I cannot think about them without being reminded of the horrors of 9/11, the loss of life and the sacrifices made by our brave troops in the years since.  However, the weapons of those out to destroy us include anything that causes us to put limits on freedom.  Preserving justice in the face of evil is the safeguard of liberty.  Locking the degenerates up in Cuba and throwing away the key may keep them from doing further harm, but by denying Lady Justice a role in this, are we shortchanging the American promise of fairness?

The government came very close to losing the Ghailani case.  The Judge excluded a key witness who admitted selling explosives to Ghailani.  This explains, in part, why the jury was unable to pronounce Ghailani guilty of the murder and other charges.  I will leave it to the legal experts to delve into the Judge’s decision and determine if and why he was wrong.  But, this decision by a single judge in a single case should not alone justify throwing our justice system out the window.  Logic tells me we should endeavor to make sure the system allows for evidence and witnesses to be presented fairly in every trial.  In other words, let’s fix what is broken before we give up on justice.

Then, I allow myself to recall that bright September day in 2001 when monsters appeared out of a bright blue sky and the 1998 attacks on US embassies in which Ghailani took part.  I remember the gripping account of Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell in his book Lone Survivor about the heroes of Operation Redwing.  As a Navy Seal, Luttrell knows what it is to be given an impossible task and summoning the courage to do what needs to be done.  He talked about war being a series of unthinkable, but sometimes unavoidable acts.  His words stick with me.

I do not like the idea of U.S. armed forces scooping people up from distant corners of the world and hauling them to undisclosed locations where they are quite likely tortured.  I believe we should allow our system of justice to work so that we may set a shining example of how a free people are the strongest people.  Until, I am reminded black and white often fade to grey.

I tried mightily to mount my high horse and rail against Peter King and the others.  In the end, I still think he is wrong to imply justice has no role when it comes to enemy combatants.  When I consider our enemies have no limits to what they would do to harm us, it is hard for this imperfect person to put all of my faith in Lady Justice when I know she, too, has her shortcomings.  Even with the conviction, the Ghailani trial showed these shortcomings.

I am not ready to join Congressman King and Senator McConnell’s call to sideline justice in times of war, but I am willing to admit we face some very difficult choices ahead.  I have put my high horse away, but I will do my best to remember that liberty and justice lie squarely in our hands even (perhaps, especially) when we are pondering the fates of the wicked.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

All Politics Aside, Gen. McChrystal had to Go

Today, President Obama sacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The President said McChrystal’s comments in this week’s Rolling Stone magazine, “do not meet standards that are needed and expected, or adhere to military code of conduct for comments.” President Obama had little choice in the matter. The Rolling Stone article revealed McChrystal and his team hold a shocking arrogance and contempt for the chain of command. Leaving them in position during this critical time in the war would have been nothing short of irresponsible. They had to go in order to preserve the integrity of the US mission and the order and discipline of the best trained military force the world has ever known.

General McChrystal and his subordinates appear both reckless and foolish in the Rolling Stone piece. Whether it was arrogance or bravado that compelled them to say such things to the reporter may never be known. It didn’t matter to the President and shouldn’t for the rest of us, either. Those guys were a team out of control and leaving them in place was not an option when so many lives hang in the balance.

In the hours after the Rolling Stone story broke, I watched some conservatives and others opposed to President Obama rush to “like” General McChrystal on Facebook and to jeer how great it was to see somebody stand up to Obama’s Chicago-style politics (whatever that means). I fear in this day of “your guy sucks” political banter we are at risk of losing sight of what being an American means.

President Barack Obama Nominates General David Patraeus as the top commander in Afghanistan. Photo courtesy of Doug Mills/The New York Times

General McChrystal is a decorated and proven military leader. While it is not his role to blindly follow the will of elected political leaders, his scorn for the chain of command cannot be tolerated either. It is important to point out that there was no apparent disagreement over military policy revealed in Rolling Stone. What the article did reveal was a complete lack of respect by McChrystal and company for nearly every other member of the US team assembled to guide us through this war.

Freedom of speech is one of our most precious American rights. But, it comes with a responsibility to show respect for those with whom we disagree but who share our common goal to preserve and protect this nation. We should never lose sight of what makes us the same and what makes this country great. The article shows General McChrystal did for a moment and he has paid a price for it. There is a lesson in this for all of us. At some point, name calling becomes more than political posturing and begins to hinder our collective ability to move forward. I join the President in thanking the General for his service and showing gratitude for what he has contributed. They both made the right decision today. Let’s hope the rest of us remember our patriotic responsibility as well.

In a closing note, as a PR guy, I cannot help but address the obvious gaffe made by General McChrystal and his officers. They become about the 2 millionth people to learn the hard way that the journalist you invite to shadow you is there to report on you, not be impressed by you or be a laugh track for your jokes. Just like you, he has a job to do. Whatever you say and do is newsworthy, especially when you are in charge of a war. What your mother used to tell you still applies, think before you speak.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Mr. President, I Would Like an Apology

I am very troubled about something that is happening at the White House today. Let me be clear, I do not know whether sinister forces are at work there or not. I am troubled because the doors are locked and the American public is not allowed to listen and observe the discussion going on inside as candidate Obama promised. I know he promised this. I stood in the audience on many cold days during the Iowa Caucus campaign in 2007 and attended events in many of the key battleground states in 2008 when he repeatedly made this pledge. I am disappointed, Mr. President, that you are breaking your passionately delivered assurance that your administration would be transparent during the healthcare discussion.

Watch and listen to this clip from 12/21/2007:



I was there that day. Candidate Obama said the Clintons failed at health care reform because “they went about it the wrong way, they went behind closed doors.” He said he would change the process by allowing Americans the ability to watch and be a part of the process – he said he would “enlist the American people into the conversation.”

President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are again meeting behind closed doors at the White House today. The President’s failure to live up to his pledge for transparency is disappointing.

I know that governing in the open is hard. Participants get misquoted and, sometimes, it is difficult for people to say what they really mean when others are listening. But, the alternative is worse. Deals get cut and the public gets shortchanged. The bright lights, cameras and microphones that Mr. Obama promised during the campaign have been unplugged by his Administration.

We will never know what price we Americans have paid for these closed door meetings, because the President has opted to govern as usual instead of abiding to the lofty promises he made on snowy days when he was a candidate to bring change and openess. I know it is silly, but as a person who cheered him that cold day in Washington, Iowa and on countless other days and sites across the country when he said he would open the doors to his White House, I kind of feel he owes me a personal apology.

Many thanks to the Iowa Independent for being there that day and for preserving these comments on their website.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Republican Grumbling is Hurting the GOP and Other Nerdy Thoughts

I unwittingly started an interesting conversation via my Facebook page today when I posted a link to the latest unemployment figures. I realize you now think I must be the most boring and annoying Facebook friend of all time, but I march forward undaunted.

The November figures released today showed national unemployment dropped to 10%. Forgetting for a moment that there was a day not too long ago when we couldn’t have imagined celebrating a double digit unemployment figure, I said something simplistic like, “here’s some good news.”

Some of my Republican leaning friends grumbled about the numbers, questioned whether or not the figures were seasonally adjusted and speculated that the increase was in government, not private sector jobs. (Yes, they are seasonally adjusted. No, I do not know the breakdown of government and private sector jobs.) In back and forth conversations on the page, on the phone and via email an interesting conundrum unraveled.

One would expect fervent Republicans would dismiss these numbers, attack the President and grouse about the creep of socialism they portend. But, like the GOP leadership and the talking heads on TV, my friends stopped short of articulating what could be the keys to a winning argument for their Party; 1) this one month snapshot may be rendered meaningless over time once the stimulus dollars are all spent and 2) a fiscal policy that frees the private sector will serve our nation better in the long term than the one put in place this year. Instead, they gloomily twiddle about the numbers, Obama, and fail to offer much of an alternative solution. Why? Because, making such an argument is not in the Republican’s Party’s short term interest. Let me explain.

The economy was in freefall a year ago. If we could play with history and make it so the GOP had taken power in January, my guess is that Republicans would have done a few things differently. If they were true to their mantra, they would have let the free market bounce back on its own with a passionate plea that long run economic stability is built by allowing the private sector to flourish. I am not taking sides here; maybe this would have been good and maybe not.

What is likely is that without the billions in stimulus money, there would be fewer jobs today. Unemployment would still be on the rise, because those jobs created by the government infusion would not exist – fewer auto workers would have jobs, there would be fewer public works projects, etc. Plus, any tax incentive or other programs established by a Republican dominated government would still be working through the system. The bottom line is fewer jobs would have been created at this point.

The free market plan would have taken longer and that is painful for Republicans to admit. But, they should. By doing so, Republicans might be able to demonstrate the stimulus and other Democratic programs are temporary gimmickry that will hurt us in the long run, and that good public policy is less about short term manipulation of the marketplace and more about a long term plans for growth and prosperity. The problem? The Republican brand of medicine tastes a little yucky going down and its effects take longer to be felt. The Democratic medicine gives quicker relief and the side effects are not easily seen when administered. With the Republican plan the economy would have gotten worse before it could get better. With the Democrat’s a few jobs were created now by taking out a mortgage which may limit job growth in the future.

This incredibly nerdy Facebook exchange reminded me why I remain frustrated by the Republican Party. The GOP spends too much of its time complaining about what has happened and trying to make those in power look bad, and too little laying out an alternative vision that shows a better way. They would have to admit their cures may taste bad initially and that may turn a few people off, but it just might allow them to show an alternative route to health that the populace can embrace. Instead, they grumble and after rereading this post so do I it seems.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Education Forecast for U.S. and Iowa Remains Cloudy

One particularly cloudy day last spring a 15 year old walked out the doors of Callanan Middle School. He never came back. Nobody noticed him leave and few inside the school that afternoon have given much thought to where he went. Another dropout. Another casualty of our flawed school system. Education in America weeds out kids like him not by design, but by necessity.

With great fanfare, the last U.S. President announced Leave No Child Behind, a federal program to grade schools on performance, establish strict standards for improvement and to penalize schools that fail to make the grade. Leave No Child Behind creates the institutional equivalent of the middle school dropout I mentioned. Like him, once a school falls far enough behind there is little hope it will ever catch-up to its peers. Leave No Child Behind does a great job of identifying a problem, but little to fix it.

The current administration created a new program coined Race to the Top. The name is appropriate, because like any race there will be winners and there will be losers – some will graduate and some will dropout. States and schools compete for federal stimulus money based on a new set of rules. To qualify for the competition and be able to vie for Uncle Sam’s largesse, states and school districts must tie teacher evaluations to test scores, adopt tough sounding standards, turn-around low performing schools, build student tracking systems and remove restrictions on the creation of charter schools.

The “Race,” like its predecessor, is about rewarding those schools that make the grade and penalizing those that fail. Raise test scores and the money flows. The problem is that those who want to win the Race will focus on raising test scores, even though it is widely accepted that testing prowess is meaningless if students cannot apply what they learn in the real world. In Des Moines, fourth grade test scores have improved, but our drop-out rate is still climbing. Eighth grade test scores have ticked upwards, but we still have students graduating unprepared for college or the workplace.

When announcing the Race to the Top, President Obama said, “This competition will not be based on politics, ideology, or the preferences of a particular interest group. Instead, it will be based on a simple principle—whether a state is ready to do what works. We will use the best data available to determine whether a state can meet a few key benchmarks for reform—and states that outperform the rest will be rewarded with a grant. Not every state will win and not every school district will be happy with the results. But America’s children, America’s economy, and America itself will be better for it.”

Really? This sounds a lot like politics to me. States that perform well will be rewarded. Not every state will win. As usual, some will graduate and some will fall farther behind. Boo.

Governor Culver, fresh from his Florida triathlon, announced Iowa is going to enter the Race. It has to. Iowa is awash in red ink and there is $175 million at stake. He offered no details what entering would mean, but he is busily filling out our race entry form anyway.

Because space in a blog is limited, I will not address the rich irony in “stimulus” money being used to dole out educational dollars, money that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Education in America creates dropouts because our system is less about helping students reach their potential and more about winning the next test score race. Knee jerk, short-term political efforts to stimulate good feelings and talking tough about education may play well with some core constituent groups, but does little to address the educational failure in the United States. Education gets talked about during elections and when times are tough. The Race provides the illusion something is being done to reform education, but doesn’t do much to solve the real issues festering in our schools.

America’s schools meet the needs of some students at the expense of others. The boy who walked out of Callanan was passed through the system until he was so far behind he saw little reason to stay in the classroom. In the long run, test scores will go up because he and many like him are no longer taking the tests. False incentive programs like the Race and Leave No Child Behind identify troubled schools and push the problems into new places, but rarely solve them. This is similar to a circus clown squeezing the air in a balloon to change its shape from a dog to a party hat.

Waving a one-time prize purse in front of cash hungry states and school districts has gotten some people’s attention. Governor Culver told the Iowa Association of School Boards, “one thing is for certain: Iowa’s school system will not look the same a year from now as it does today.” Well, Governor, it may look different next year, but it will remain the same limp balloon.

Students like the former middle schooler above will continue to fall far short of their potential and through the gaping cracks in the system. Their prospects and the forecast for our collective future will remain cloudy until we commit to more than gimmicky races and short-term programs. America’s future is tied to its ability to educate and prepare students for tomorrow’s opportunities. We must stop playing political games with education money and launch a fundamental redesign of U.S. schools.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Presidential Bow to Emperor Sparks False Outrage

In case you missed it, the President of the United States bowed to the Emperor of Japan. The bow was deep and measured. The President’s opponents were aghast and claimed no President should ever bow to anyone, let alone the Emperor of Japan.

In response to the outcry, the President said, “I’m representing the United States of America. And we’re talking about a friend, and we’re talking about an ally. We’re talking about a nation with whom we have constructive relationships. Sure, we got some problems, but that was all overriding — and respect for the Emperor.”

Now, before we fast forward to the present, I should explain that the president who committed the act and I quoted above was George H.W. Bush and he was bowing to the body of the Emperor Hirohito, the man who was Emperor of Japan during World War II, at the Emperor’s funeral. President Bush was shot out of the air by the Japanese during that war, so he felt the pain of that era as acutely as anyone.

President Obama bowed to the current Emperor of Japan, Emperor Akihito, on Saturday and his opponents went red in the face with disgust, too.

One of those voicing outrage was conservative pundit William Kristol who said, “I don’t know why President Obama thought that was appropriate. Maybe he thought it would play well in Japan. But it’s not appropriate for an American president to bow to a foreign one.” He went on to add that the gesture bespoke a United States that has become weak and overly-deferential under Obama.

It should be noted that Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle when President Bush bowed to the dead Emperor. Kristol kept his outrage bottled up back then, or perhaps his memory is failing because he went on to say, “I’ll bet if you look at pictures of world leaders over 20 years meeting the emperor in Japan, they don’t bow.” Whoops. OK, President Bush did not meet with the Emperor, Bush attended his funeral and bowed to show his respect to the man in charge when we were at war with Japan. President Nixon, however, can be seen in a Life magazine photo from 1971 bowing to a living Emperor Hirohito.

William Bennett who was Secretary of Education in the Reagan years (incidentally, Kristol served as his chief of staff at the DoE) and was a “Drug Czar” in the Bush (41) Administration, had this to say about the Obama bow to CNN”s John King, “”It’s ugly. I don’t want to see it…We don’t defer to emperors. We don’t defer to kings or emperors. The president of the United States – this coupled with so many apologies from the United States — is just another thing.”

Kristol and Bennett are right to be embarrassed, but not because President Obama used a customary Japanese greeting when meeting the Emperor and Empress of Japan. President Obama showed that the United States is capable of showing kindness and respect to our neighbors in the world. Kristol and Bennett should be ashamed. They could overlook Nixon’s and Bush’s acts, but not Obama’s? Kristol and Bennett’s 2009 statements juxtaposed to the absence of statements in 1989 represent nothing more than a partisan hack job.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Top Photo: US President Barack Obama (L) bows as he shakes hands with Japanese Emperor Akihito (C) and as Empress Michiko (R) looks on upon Obama's arrival at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on November 14. (Courtesy AFB, 2009)

Bottom photo: President Richard Nixon bows to Japanese Emperor Hirohito in 1971. (Courtesy Life Magazine)

Individual Rights Must Come Before Protecting Religious Institutions

The Obama Administration has changed the way the United States relates to the world. I tend to think this is good on many levels, but change can be nerve-racking. An example of this is the recent United Nations Human Rights Council resolution regarding freedom of opinion and expression co-authored by the U.S. and Egypt. (You read that right. Egypt, who has demonstrated little interest or understanding of freedom of speech, was our co-author.) The diplomatic importance of reaching out and demonstrating goodwill to our neighbors in the world is obvious, but this resolution makes even some strident Obama supporters a little nervous.

If this resolution, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development, is anything, it is another humdrum example of why diplomatic documents accomplish so little. Wait, don’t leave. Before all three of my readers bolt due to a fear of another boring, wonky policy talk; I will step this up.

Some get to Section 4 and begin to hyperventilate. In it, the Council expresses concern “that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.”

Anne Bayefsky at the Weekly Standard wrote that this troubling paragraph gives license to countries to squash free speech in order to protect religion. She says the resolution shows, “threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that (the Obama Administration) is evidently prepared to pay.”

USAToday contributor Jonathan Turley described the action this way, “Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law.”

I cannot say whether they are right or not. What I can say is that we live in world where diplomacy is anything but clear cut. In these troubling times it is important for the United States to make a gesture of friendship, but it cannot give even the appearance that it accepts a compromise on human rights in the process.

The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N. Hisham Badr said upon passage of the Human Rights Council resolution that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations. Yikes.

At the same time, U.S. Diplomat Douglas Griffiths said that this resolution “is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” OK, but I would suggest he and his other U.S. colleagues make it clear we do not agree with those who think this document gives even tacit approval of placing church before individual freedom.

Individual rights can never be allowed to be subservient to those granted a religious institution. If the US allows that, 233 years of struggle will have been for naught. U.S. officials need to make this clear when they stand smiling at news conferences with foreign dignitaries and when they face them across a negotiating table.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.