Senate Dems Reverse on Burris

The Washington Post is reporting this afternoon that Senate Democrats will probably seat Roland Burris later this week, after meeting with his lawyers today and deciding that his paperwork is sufficient. In hindsight, Democratic leaders probably handled this situation about as well as they could have. No one can blame Harry Reid (and Barack Obama) for expressing strong reservations about seating a Senate  appointee of an indicted (and now, impeached) governor, who didn’t even have the signature of the Illinois secretary of state to verify his selection. Although I think Burris should not have accepted the nomination (although his reported mausoleum decorated with his accomplishments makes one think that this guy might occassionally let his ambition get the better of him), he handled the situation with grace, acknowledging that neither he nor his race were an issue, but the governor who appointed him. This gave Harry Reid wiggle room to change his objection to the lack of a verification signature, which now appears to be in order, all the while making sure that Burris was in no way tainted by the Blagojevich scandal. The people of Illinois win the day.

What’s on the Horizon?

Hey, gang. Sorry for being silent for so long. I’ve had much more on my plate recently than I expected to have. Luckily I’m snowed in today, so I don’t have many excuses not to write. Here’s my list of possible surprises that could be among the headlines in 2009, in no particular order:

1. The Defeat of Ahmadinejad – Yes, he may actually lose this June’s presidential election. He’s been targeted for much of the blame behind Iran’s economic woes. Plus, most of the populace isn’t nearly as anti-American as he is, and they’re concerned that his antics could seriously damage Iran’s future prospects. However, while there are several candidates who could plausibly beat Ahmadinejad, including reformer Mehdi Karroubi and former president Mohammad Khatami, opposition is not much united. Also, Ahmadinejad enjoys the support of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei – at least for the time being.

2. Progress Toward Peace in Israel and Palestine – Don’t fall off your chairs, now. I know this sounds unlikely, given the recent escalation of violence in Gaza. But 2009 has only just begun. Israel will not stop wanting to get rid of Hamas anytime soon (nor will they stop having good reason to do so), but elections in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority could relax tension if moderates gain ground (Tzipi Livni’s Kadima in Israel and Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah in Palestine). Plus, sources keep hinting at a possible Israel-Syria peace treaty; this would be pretty Earth-shattering, given the historical animosity between the two, and the fact that it could change the balance of the region, given that Syria would be stretching its ties with ally Iran.

3. A Minor Meltdown in China – Most people have been touting China’s economic strength recently, and rightly so. However, with GDP growth rates possibly falling below the “magic number” 7% mark this fiscal year, unrest could grow, particularly among already struggling farmers. Also, soaring loan default rates, partially due to loans to failing state-owned enterprises, could cause China’s financial system to collapse. This would put a strain on a Communist Party already stressed by devolution of power to the provinces and minority groups. This may be a trying year for them.

4. The “American Century” Continues – Some claim that America’s time at the top has come to a close, and the vasty majority of foreign policy thinkers believe America will at least lose relative power. While it would be naive to think that the United States must always be the lone superpower it has been since the fall of the Soviet Union, a potential downfall may not be near in the offing. Though the doom-sayers have proclaimed a coming Great Depression, many economists believe 2009 could in fact see a recovery in the U.S. economy, aided by current government fiscal policy. Many of America’s competitors, however, could falter. China may be entering rough waters (see above). The Middle East is coming to grips with a plunge in oil prices and a resumption of violence in Palestine. Russia’s economy is plagued with potential pitfalls and its government is moving back towards repression and isolation from the rest of Europe, which is struggling just to ratify an EU constitution.

5. Readers’ Choice – Do you foresee any big suprises that I missed? Disagree with any that I mentioned? Comment, and tell me what your list would look like.

Until next time!

BREAKING NEWS: Blago to Appoint Replacement; Reid: Burris “Not Acceptable”

Just when you thought the Rod Blagojevich scandal couldn’t get any more bizarre, news broke within the last hour that the troubled Illinois governor will reportedly appoint former state attorney general Roland W. Burris to fill Barack Obama’s senate seat this afternoon. While Blago is fully within his rights to make this appointment, the fact that the governor was recently arrested for allegedly trying to sell this same senate seat, and is also in the midst of impeachment proceedings against him, makes this a politically shocking move.

But wait, there’s more! Two political crises for the price of one! MSNBC reports that word from sources close to Harry Reid indicates that Senate Democrats will attempt to stick to their pledge that no Blago appointment would be acceptable to fill the vacant seat. Constitutionally, they may be limited in their options to oppose move, but could go as far as taking a rare vote to actually prevent Burris from taking his seat in the Senate.

I can’t wait to see how this mess plays out. Keep checking back with Empire for updates, and also for my upcoming piece on potential bright spots in 2009 politics, which I should get around to posting shortly after New Year’s.

Peace Collapses in Gaza

The wake of Christmas has not brought much cheer to the Middle East, or the incoming Obama administration, as Israel responded to Hamas’ uptick in rocket attacks with devastating air strikes of its own in Gaza and prepared for a potential ground invasion. Hundreds have been killed and wounded and the shaky cease-fire between the two sides has come to an abrupt end. This recent violence complicates an already muddled situation; both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are due for elections in the coming months which will determine their leadership. In Israel, the moderate Kadima Party led by Tzipi Livni is facing renewed challenges from the right-leaning Likud Party led by Benjamin Netanyahu. If the hardline Likud, who have been less likely to cede land to the Palestinians and have been less open to a partition of Jerusalem, regain leadership, prospects for peace could be stalled. In Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas must call an election early next year or risk creating a leadership vacuum which could be capitalized on by Hamas.

The Arab world has, unsurprisingly, roundly condemned the Israeli attacks. It’s no secret that there has been no love lost between Arabs and Jews since the creation of Israel in 1948. However, recent denunciations could have a more lasting impact. Syria’s rebuke places in doubt a much hoped-for agreement between Syria and Israel, which would have dramatically shifted power in the region away from Iran and its Hezbollah puppets in Syria. Instead, leaders of Hezbollah have now begun to call for a third intifada, or rebellion, against Israel, which would likely mean a resumption of suicide bombings for the first time since 2005.

The recent violence only cements the fact that 2009 could be a make or break year for the Middle East peace process. There have been promising signs in the region recently: the potential Syria-Israel agreement that I mentioned, willingness on the part of Saudi Arabia to take a lead in negotiations, and unrest that could topple Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a stumbling block to regional security in his own right, in his 2009 presidential election. It’s distressing to think that instead 2009 could see a total reversal. The incoming administration will have yet another tough balancing act to manage. Obama will need to restore faith in the 1994 Oslo Accords, in which  both sides affirmed the need for a Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel, and deal with the questions of partitioning Jerusalem and how to resettle Palestinian refugees.

Sorry to be the bearer of gloomy predictions and rain on your jolly holiday parade. To make it up to you, I’m going to come up with a list of possible successes on the political horizon in 2009. Keep a lookout for that post in the next couple days.

Mailbag Reminder!

Don’t forget our invitation to send your thoughts and questions to theempireofthemind@yahoo.com so you can see us write about interesting things you want to read.

An imperfectepoch Christmas

Hi everyone. Sorry it’s been approximately forever since my last update, but I rarely have any idea what to talk about in a political blog since I often have my television turned off and rarely visit news websites. Anyway, I decided in the spirit of Empire’s wishlist for Obama that I’d make my own wish list about what I’d like to see happen this year or in the years ahead in the political arena. Before I start, I’d like to acknowledge that “I’m wrong,” so thank you in advance to everyone thinking that for helping me figure it out:

5) It’s possible that rich people aren’t the source of everyone’s problems!

This one is something I struggle with a lot, but it really makes sense in a lot of ways. I think as human beings we often resort to complaining about what other people have and refuse to do much about changing the position we are in. Yes, you can sit around and be jealous of people with money all you want, but do you really want to be just like them? People with money often have to deal with a lot more stress because either their position/job affects many more people than we can ever think of affecting or the guilt they might feel about helping one person and not the other. There are positives to having money, but there are often a lot of problems that most people consider. Also, would you honestly be happier? I’d doubt it. Most of the problems we face as human beings are completely physical or emotional and money is often of little to no help. Plus, isn’t every person in this country technically rich compared to families that rarely see more than $1000 in a year? Should we feel guilty for having that money? Politically, this comes down to a taxing issue – does one tax the upper class more or less? I really don’t have an answer because I think either way the people who aren’t in the upper class wouldn’t be particularly better off. I guess the important thing is while sitting at dinner this Christmas to be happy about who you are and what you have, because no amount of money will ever really change who you are inside.

4) It’s possible that each party has good points – amazing!

Imagine this – both parties are wrong sometimes. It’s hard to imaaaaaaa…

(imperfectepoch was captured by Democratic/Republican leaders and forced to become vegan/kill a rabbit with a gun against his will. After hours of hardship, he manages to slip away by stating that global warming is over there/Obama decided not to be president after all.)

Well, I’m glad that’s over. It’s hard to believe that either party, often seemingly the tools of either incredibly rich people or companies, is completely right on any issue. It’d nice to see some breaks from the incredibly partisan politics we’ve seen in the last few years. Obama is a nice start, but he’s not the entire congress. I think we need to get back to clubbing people on the floor of the Senate with canes. That might inspire some emotion in the legislators.

3) Switching to renewable energy is not only good for the environment!

It’s rather simple really. I know some people see the environmental movement as a group of hippies who enjoy all sorts of illegal drugs forcing their Mother Nature religion down the throats of Joe the Plumbers everywhere, but it’s only partially true (the part about drugs – um, no, actually I mean that I sort of agree that the environmental movement is often a bit too pushy). It turns out that switching over to renewable energy is a cost saving measure in many circumstances. If you hate the environment but love saving money, at least you’re helping to save the environment in the end I suppose. Also, we can do better with those light bulbs people. I’m sure we don’t need mercury in the energy efficient ones, right?

2) Maybe we shouldn’t be afraid of traditional American businesses dying – OMG!

Yes, I feel bad that the people in the auto industry are losing jobs and such (any industry that I forgot please don’t feel overlooked), but should we really be that worried about it? American cars have not been great in the last 20 or so years and it IS possible that companies in other countries might make better cars (impossible!). However, shouldn’t we be excited about other industries that might be rising in front of our eyes? I’m sure the environmental movement will create many jobs in the next few decades, and surely all of the things happening with computers and the internet offer many opportunities as well. Whenever an industry dies, another tends to fill the void. The railroad industry didn’t last forever, but eventually that void was filled. I’m sure there are countless other examples, but I’m too lazy to research that. When you’re a color commentator, you can basically say anything. Example: I like you.

1) We can talk to other nations without being friends with them, I promise!

This one really gets to me. Apparently, by talking with leaders from Iran we’re giving in to them. This is very similar to the kind of feuds we see in families. “Oh, Eddie (Rendell) really made me look like a loser yesterday, I’m totally not talking to him ever again!” Those types of things usually turn out well and often involve duels (card game or otherwise). Seriously, just because we talk to Iran doesn’t mean we’re idiotic. For those of you who don’t follow me, think of it this way. If we were REALLY smart, we’d convince those countries that we were their friends only to stab them in the back when they aren’t looking. Isn’t that much better than fighting them head on? Also, do we really need to be worried about some of these countries? It’s like David vs. Golia…oh right. Nevermind.

So those are the five I came up with. Anyone else have other ideas as to what should have made the list? Let me know! A Merry Christmas to everyone in advance.

—–
On the first day of Christmas, iepoch gave to me
A list of five things that he’d like to see
—–

Obama’s Foreign Policy Christmas List

Barack Obama will likely be mentioning his upcoming foreign policy quandaries when he sits on Santa’s lap at the mall this year (how much would you love to see that picture?). Here, I take a look at some of the top issues that he’ll ask for help in solving:

1. Afghanistan – The war here is not going well. Fueled by the immense corruption of Hamid Karzai’s government, the illegal opium trade (which supplies 90% of the world’s opium) is inadvertently enriching former Taliban fighters. Osama bin Laden has long since fled into Pakistan, and the NATO force has been left a historically disunited country led by tribal warlords. Additionally, individual NATO countries on the ground have had widely different approaches to the situation, which could throw off the balance in certain key areas. Afghanistan has become, in short, a mess, and it will be up to the Obama administration to sort it out to prevent the country from once again becoming a haven for those who threaten world security.

2. Iran – A nuclear Iran is on no one’s wish list this Christmas. I’m hopeful that the recent plummet in the price of oil, which will significantly restrict Ahmedinejad’s spending, will convince the regime in Tehran to take seriously the carrots and sticks offered by the new administration. Worrisome, however, is what may happen if they don’t. Many in the Arab world say they would be “perfectly fine” with either a diplomatic or military solution. Ironically, most Arab countries, despite their varying discomfort with Israel, would rather Israel take out Iran’s nuclear capacity with their own nukes because they trust Israel to not use their nuclear weapons. On the other hand, they believe that a nuclear Iran would attempt to become a regional military hegemon at their expense.

3. Pakistan -  A nuclear-armed state with a teetering government is always a recipe for disaster. One whose state organs sponsor terrorist groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba group that is believed to have carried out the Mumbai attacks last month is even worse. Pakistan’s oppressive government with its lukewarm commitment to rooting out al Qaeda members within its borders has always been a delicate issue for the U.S. government. Likely, President-elect Obama will have to make tough decisions early in his presidency about the extent to which American forces will raid into Pakistan to fight jihadists there and the question of how best to encourage Pakistan’s government to reform without causing it to fall.

4. Iraq – A new Status of Forces Agreement signed by the U.S. and Iraq in the last week ensures that the U.S. military will vacate the country by the end of 2011. This seems to alleviate one of the new president’s first problems (what to do about Iraq?) but it means that the U.S. must be vigilant to prevent a loss of the remarkable, and delicate, stability which has come to Iraq in the last year or so.

5. Africa – Africa is a continent of both great hopes and great fears. Sub-Saharan Africa seems poised on the verge of increased foreign investment and attention. But the new administration will have to deal with quite a few problems. It’s difficult to choose the most pressing, so I’ll outline them in no particular order:

1. Zimbabwe – Robert Mugabe has ravaged his country in the last 25 years. At present, inflation stands at a mind-blowing 230 million percent and unemployment is nearing 90%. And as if matters couldn’t get worse, the government last week announced a national emergency due to a cholera epidemic. With most hospitals crippled already, it will be almost impossible to deal with this threat. Mugabe lost out on billions in desperately-needed aid from the U.S. and the U.K. by not giving the opposition party even one major cabinet post. He’s a madman who must go.
2. Darfur – With countless millions killed or displaced due to one of the world’s worst genocides and a president who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, Sudan is a mess as well. The joint UN-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) has been shaky at best. The new administration must put significant pressure on the international community to step in, and must make the AU realize that if they cannot deal with Darfur on their own, the UN must take a larger role.
3. Congo – The numbers reached by the crisis in the Congo rival those of Darfur. Perhaps 4 million have been killed or displaced by fighting between the government and the forces of rebel Laurent Nkunda. The Congolese military, along with MONUC, the UN Mission in the Congo, have held the eastern city of Goma from falling, but the situation remains perilous, with Nkunda threatening to march all the way to Kinshasa to take the capital.
4. Somalia – Called by the Economist “The World’s Most Utterly Failed State,” Somalia hasn’t had a central government in over 15 years. With no way to police its own waters, this political chaos has led to a spree of piracy that severely threatens international shipping lanes through the Gulf of Aden.
5. Runners up – Chad (massive spillover from Darfur), Egypt (government more and more repressive and unable to deal with problems), Nigeria (major oil pipelines threatened by rebels) and Uganda (Lord’s Resistance Army fighting in the north).

Runner Up – The new wild card on the foreign policy front is Russia. While it’s unlikely the former superpower wields as much power as it thinks it does, Russia can upset the politics of Europe and international bodies if it chooses. And it’s certainly shown a willingness to interfere in the largely domestic issues of its neighbors (and former SSRs). And of course, there’s Vladimir Putin, working to bring back the state control of the former USSR. I’m not as concerned as some are that he’ll succeed and that Russia will regain the focus it had during the Cold War, but it will be crucial for the new administration to warm relations with Russia through finding common ground with Russia on issues such as a nuclear Iran.

That was a far longer post than I first envisioned but I think it only touches on some of President-elect Obama’s biggest foreign policy threats. I haven’t even talked about North Korea, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, China, or India, after all. I’ll save those for next time. Until then, stay tuned!

Another Governor Acting Naughty, not Nice

If Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) thought he couldn’t have a worse Christmas, what with a scandal-ridden administration already suffering approval numbers nearing the single digits, he was sorely mistaken. Just when you thought the Republicans had the edge in the corruption game (save for Hail Marys by Elliot Spitzer and William Jefferson), the perpetually shady governor was arrested today on charges that he had tried to “sell” President-elect Obama’s vacant Senate seat. This drastically changes the dynamic of the appointment; if Blagojevich stays in office, anyone he picks will be forced to become a seat-filler until 2010 regardless of how clean their records might be. If he resigns, Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn (D) would be thrust into a first official act as governor that he is likely not prepared to make and be forced to prove his own innocence in the corruption case. Dick Durbin (D), Illinois’s senior senator, has called on the state legislature to call a special election to fill the vacancy. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. and state official Tammy Duckworth were considered frontrunners for the spot, but now the whole affair is at a standstill for the foreseeable future. After all, it’s not known whether any or all of the potential replacements could have been complicit in the governor’s illegal dealings. I expect we’ll know by week’s end whether Blagojevich will resign (I suspect he will). Illinois has not been having much luck with governors recently; you may recall that Blagojevich’s predecessor, George Ryan (R), was indicted in 2003 on corruption charges, and has since seen jail time.

On an intersting sidenote, the name of the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Blago investigation: Patrick Fitzgerald, the same prosecutor responsible for the indictment of Dick Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby.

Sorry for the lack of updates. It’s Finals Week until Friday, at which point I plan to update every other day or so, and will hopefully have assistance from several contributors. Check back for a special piece called “Barack Obama’s Christmas List” (hint: he’s not asking Santa to give him Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe as a member of his Cabinet).

Hurricane McCain?

My apologies for the extended silence. Empire was off for a few days catching up on a bit of work. However, I did manage to catch Sen. McCain’s acceptance speech on Thursday night. Since I thought the speech was favorable to McCain (he looked energetic and spoke some difficult truths), I was surprised to see such negative reactions in the press. Many commentators declared the marverick in McCain dead and claimed that his speech was fairly ordinary. Really? When was the last time we heard a politician focus the most emotional aspect of his speech around the fact that he was a selfish brat who learned a love of country the hard way? McCain made an effective case for why he wants to lead, centered around the statement, “My country saved me,” describing his efforts to endure torture in North Vietnam. He proclaimed that the Republican Party had lost the country’s trust. Rather than blame globalization for job loss, he announced that some jobs would not be coming back, but that the government should help people find jobs that won’t move away. These are not statements most other politicians would dare to make, and no other Republican likely could have given this speech. For the media to claim that McCain’s maverick image is dead because they’ve found they disagree with him on policy is unfair. McCain undoubtedly hopes the honesty and humility he tried to show on Thursday night will play well against Obama’s celebrity and policy proposals that McCain would say are unrealistic. Personally, I think McCain’s vision is more likely to come true than that of his detractors in the national press. Liberals likely found little to like among McCain’s policies, but conservatives and independents may be able to sink their teeth into McCain’s new style of Republican politics. However, the burden is still on the Arizona senator to prove that after so many years in Washington he’s capable of bringing this promised change to honest, lean government that demonizes pork. Still, after a lackluster summer, McCain’s campaign house is largely back in order, he’s regained some of his old charm with the selection of Sarah Palin, and the race seems for the most part even. May the better team win.

Gustav’s Wake and the Palin Pregnancy

Those of you that have been following the news for the past few days are likely aware of the top two stories at the moment: the landfall of Hurricane Gustav and the announcement by Sarah Palin that her 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant.

The first of these stories is largely good news. Gustav seems to have affected the Gulf region no worse than an average hurricane; certainly a hurricane’s landfall is never a good thing, but having seen in person Katrina’s affect on New Orleans and the Gulf, we could not help but breathe a huge sigh of relief that fears of a Katrina-like mega-storm did not materialize. Of course, we have to be guarded in our assessments so soon after the storm. Still, it certainly seems that the flood prevention infrastructure in the city held up this time around and that government response on all levels was a marked improvement from the Katrina tragedy. We can only hope that the learning that has taken place since 2005 grows and expands so that a similar debacle can be avoided in the future.

As to the stories about Ms. Palin’s pregnancy, we here at Empire believe that this event is purely a family issue which has no relevance to the campaign and that it should be left out of the public eye. We wish the Palin family the best and will say no more on the matter, although other Empire contributors are free to comment if they wish.

Stay tuned for coverage of the Republican National Convention, which seems to be in the midst of a return to normal routine.

John Edwards – Relevant?

Coming home from work on Friday, I was excited to eat my usual end-of-week meal of pizza and soda when I found my mother watching the news as always except the headlines didn’t seem to make much sense. John Edwards, former presidential candidate and all-around loveable Southern boy, was being attacked because of an affair he had with a member of his campaign. I had to stop for a moment and figure out what exactly was happening. The Olympics were beginning, Russia and Georgia were involved in an unpleasant dispute, and Brett Farve was on the Jets (a favorite topic of Fox News apparently!) and all of the major media networks were stuck on the fact that John Edwards had an affair. My John Edwards. Our John Edwards.

So let’s get this straight. Instead of focusing on the global unity/hatred of an international gathering, the media is more interested in the sexcapades of a man whose only real claim to fame was one term as a Senator. In lieu of focusing on a conflict which may or may not be relevant to the United States and international affairs in general, especially during a time when a ceasefire is considered an unspoken reality, the media considers a war of words more worthwhile. Instead of focusing on the incredibly important trade of a sports star to a team in New York City . . . OK, that’s just about as unimportant.

But seriously, why harp on Edwards? By my calculations, he’s not a politically relevant person. He ran as a Vice Presidential candidate and lost, he never made it back into the Senate, and he ran as a Presidential candidate in a year that seems to be obsessed with “History” and all sorts of other words that will turn out to be nothing more than exaggerations. I suppose there’s some motivation. I can think of another one-term Senator running for President for one. Also, it puts the Democrats back in the spotlight for being sexually active. In a year where almost everything is going wrong for Republicans, taking the spotlight off their own problems in similar areas is just what they’d want. Sadly, the American people are forced to choose between two parties that spread similar lies about how different the world can be day in and day out.

Don’t get me wrong – I’d like to see a Democratic era just for the sake of “change,” and we’ll save my ranting about the two party system for a never time. I guess we’re stuck with media in this country that, regardless of being liberal or conservative, decides that human “drama” is really that important. Paris Hilton spending time in jail was really breathtaking, as was the death of Anna Nicole Smith. The disappearence of Natalee Holloway seemed relevant, and who doesn’t expect a monthly update on the JonBenét Ramsey case? The fact is in each person’s life, there are people like those I mentioned who are not covered because they aren’t as attractive usually, which is sad/happy. I’d think it’s a good thing because all of those things mentioned above seem like private matters that don’t deserve media attention. If my daughter disappeared, I don’t think I’d want the media invovled because in the end the media is a machine – it doesn’t care about people, it cares about stories and ratings. John Edwards will be devourered in the next few days and the monster will step forward on its rampage. But seriously, why do we trust a media that chooses who will become president when they choose to cover such ridiculous stories on a daily basis?

Here’s my final analysis. John Edwards had an affair, and yes that’s wrong, but I’m not sure this is anyone’s business – it’s a private matter to be handled by those directly involved. He’s not currently a politician. By my analysis, he wasn’t going to be appointed to any positions by the next President. As a result, he doesn’t need to be publicly humiliated. Instead, let’s focus on affairs had by current politicians who actually influence the lives of citizens by allocating tax dollars properly, finding peaceful solutions to wars, and voting in those citizens’ best interests, because that’s what they always do, right?