Leadership Tempered?

So both houses of Congress have retained their leadership.  Wow.  I'm not surprised about the Republicans but I am with the Democrats.

It is good to know Harry Reid wasn't re-elected unanimously. Some actually wanted some fresher, younger faces.  As a paean they promoted Elizabeth Warren to a minor leadership role.  Ms. Warren is 65.  Some youth movement. Actually, it has nothing to do with youth but rather her current popularity, especially with the far left who feel shortchanged by Obama.

Actually I don't think age is the problem.  It's attitude and we all know what both Pelosi and Reid have been when they were the majority leaders. For the most part nasty. And in Ms. Pelosi's case sometimes appearing to be from a different reality.

On the Republican side Mr. Boehner has often seemed ineffectual but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that there was good reason.  After all, he had the Tea Party group to hold in line.  As for McConnell, who knows.  Perhaps he was so  low key because he knew that as long as the Democrats had the upper hand there was no use being belligerent and in turn appear to be whining.  Nor would he go along with the shutting down of the government a la Ted Cruz.  It gained nothing but anger, angst and ridicule.

So now we go forward. Same leadership, reversed roles. I'm going to be cautiously optimistic that both houses will function better. At least until we get about three months into 2015 when a new assessment of that function will be more appropriate.

What worries me most is the President. I fear he will continue to run amok and make good Congressional intentions, if there are any, more difficult to achieve.  The problem is you never know what he's going to do or when.  So many things are hanging fire it's disturbing.

On the foreign policy side we're looking at decisions that could prove disastrous.  Consider Russia's emboldened pursuit of Ukraine and it's increased harassment of the west with it's air power.  Consider the now combined efforts of the Nursa Front and IS against the Kurds and the suggestion of the not dead Baghdadi to extend efforts into Saudi.  Consider climate control that will effect us immediately and the Chinese probably never.

Domestically there is still the Keystone pipeline which Obama desperately does not want. The immigration amnesty issue.  Ferguson. Tweaks to Obamacare and the largest worry to those not touched by the others, the economy.

Did I say I was cautiously optimistic?  Don't ask me why!

Let's Outlaw Pundits!

I've often wondered if pundits have any real value.  I find more and more often they do little research to back up their opinions.  Some will the same about me.  With that I hope no more people take them seriously than take me.

Let's look at the election just past.  The newly elected haven't even taken their seats yet but are being soundly criticized for what they haven't done.

The about to be Republican leadership has set forth issues they'd like to take priority but have yet to lay out the details.  I can understand that.  Up until the results were final they had no sure idea of who they would be working with - or against.  Both the House and Senate have mavericks who will have to be controlled. At least we should give the leadership the chance.

Maybe the criticism would be better aimed at those mavericks who because of their own ambition can sabotage good work. Or let them have the guts to run for leadership and see how many will actually back them.  Not enough?  Then sit down and be quiet.  Or as Chris Christie would say, "Sit down and shut up!"

There is so much that goes on behind the scenes to which we are not privy it seems fool hardy to be constantly griping about things that might not even happen. It seems pundits have very strong opinions on what should and should not be.  I wonder how they form their opinions. It certainly isn't from looking at all sides of an issue.  In many ways the conservative pundits are as bad as they'd like us to believe the Democrats are.  It has to be their way or no way.

I can listen to a Charles Krauthammer and learn because he is well informed and thoughtful. I can listen to a Sean Hannity and cringe at his shallowness and arrogance. Why is he even on the air? He alternates between preening and fawning and bullying therefore nullifying anything positive that might be gleaned from his interviews.

Print journalism is still the best source for information.  Even with that you still have to know the slant of the papers and read from each to determine where slant ends and fact begins.  Keeping informed is time consuming and an inexact science at best.  Perhaps this is why so many people don't bother.

Maybe outlawing pundits and the sound bite would force them into doing a bit more to keep informed.  But I doubt it.  I figure most would rely more heavily on Twitter than The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.  Talk about opposing points of view!

Funny.  Pundits are supposed to be experts on a subject.  Why are so many so one dimensional about so much? Does anyone really listen to them?

What If Bagdadhi IS Dead?

Unconfirmed rumors of Bagdadhi's wounding or even death have been running rampant all week end.  I'm guessing he'll be making an appearance whether he's dead or not to give his henchmen time to decide what to do next.

Of course, as savvy as the IS hierarchy has been, I'd think they'd have a contingency plan but that has to be tempered against the man's ego.  Time will tell.

For the sake of argument, let's say he is dead.  What will happen to the Islamic State?  Will there be a power struggle or mass defections to a less brutal way of life?  It's hard to say.

We saw what happened when bin Laden was eliminated.  Splinter groups went their way with much less cohesion.  Not that they did any less damage; it just wasn't as well co-ordinated.

With Bagdadhi, however, it's not a bunch of rag tag cells but rather the beginnings of an actual state. I'd guess it's survival will depend upon the fervor and single mindedness of those left behind.  It could go on as it has been or it could fall apart.

What would we have then?  The remnants of the Sunni/Shia struggle for regional dominance with a lessening of the brutality.  That's if you're willing to concede war is preferable to what IS has been waging - which is annihilating slaughter.   Would each be willing to retreat to previously held territories as long as the opposition did the same and live in an uneasy truce?  Talk about wishful thinking.  If that would happen, however, it would be a good out for us.

With the brutal slaughter curtailed we could leave the Iraqi army to revamp themselves.  The Free Syrian army could go back to trying to unseat al Assad and our advisers could exit the territory and leave the territorial strife where it belongs. Among the Islamic populations.

Again, time will tell.  If he has gone to meet his bevy of virgins, however, I'd not get too cocky and figure air strikes can win any war. It could have just been a lucky shot.

Women Should Fight Their Own War

I was listening to Condi Rice comment on the liberal use of the race card and was taken by her statement, "I've been black all my life. I don't need anyone to tell me how to be black."

Might the same apply to women, the "victims" of the war on women?  I've been a woman all my life.  I don't need anyone to tell me how to be a woman.  Or what my wants and needs are.  Especially a male zealot.

Okay, I've taken it a bit beyond.  It's time, though, for women to fight their own battles rather than having men do it.  The same goes for abortion.  Why is it the spokespeople ranting about it are usually men? At least the ones who reap the most media attention. Where are the women?  If a single mother, she's the one who has to bear the child, feed it, raise it, educate and clothe it. Let's hear more female voices in the fight.

We don't have the voice?  Nonsense.  If that's true it's because we haven't worked hard enough to get it.  But we're gaining.  According to the Center for American Women in Politics there are 99 women currently serving in Congress.  That number will be increasing next year. Of those 99 women 11 are in leadership roles serving both sides of the aisle.  They also hold 10 committee chairmanships. Four hold state governorships. They need not stay so silent.

So it's not because women aren't electable.  It's because they don't run. I suggest we encourage those with the ambition to take on women's issues head on to run for office. Of course they can't be one issue candidates to succeed but they have to be willing to listen to all sides of an issue and decide the best course of action.  Something that has been missing in male dominated politics.

Does this mean I'm softening my stance on Hillary?  Not one bit. In looking at female Presidential prospects I'd much rather keep my eye on those more like Nikki Haley of South Caroling, Susana Martinez of New Mexico or newcomer Joni Ernst of Iowa. A woman will become President with the right woman at the right time.  There's no need to hurry and end up with less than the best.  We did that with race and it hasn't turned out so well.

I'm hoping we're beyond electing 'personalities'.  We need substance and dedication to the country.  Actually, the right woman would be ideal.  No one can better listen, negotiate and make a decision than a mother. Some would call it nourishing.  It is an inbred trait in women - mother or not.

You ladies who are still young enough, all I can say is go for it! Don't cry uncle and especially don't let a man make that decision for you!

Will Hillary Be Relevant In 2016?

I've watched Hillary move about the country campaigning for mostly lost causes and wonder if her star power has already faded.  She is over weight and not aging well.  Botox shots only last so long and the natural aging process becomes more and more difficult to hide.

She has had one transient ischemic attack already, that is known.  It is suspected she may have had more as indicated by her changing speech patterns. The knowns, much less the unknowns, will become an issue.  Especially if she ends up being challenged by a kinetic fireball like Elizabeth Warren.

She isn't the best of speakers being strident in manner.  It's not the most positive of images.

All that perhaps can be excused because after all she is Hillary.  But will it be enough?  In 2016 will she even resonate with the voting bloc or will they be seeking a younger, more energetic individual with a vision? That's another thing Hillary lacks though she's certainly not alone. That vision thing.  Voters are beginning to demand their candidates present solutions to their problems, not just an admission that they exist.  Finally, having been beaten down enough, voters are waking up.

Who else do the Democrats have?  That's a good question if they don't want to move as far left as Elizabeth Warren. Joe Biden?

I look at the potential Republican field and see the same uninspiring faces.  Cruz whose rhetoric is sometime suspect.  Rand Paul who is still figuring out what he stands for.  Marco Rubio is still too wet behind the ears.  Chris Christie is too bombastic. Jeb Bush.  Another Bush?  Not likely.  Other than Bush, none have ever run anything.  Nor has Hillary.  But they are all younger and exude energy.

A couple of fresh faces are now emerging.  Ohio's John Kasich and Wisconsin's Scott Walker retained their governorships.  They are politically astute and they've experience running large state governments.  They could be formidable competition for a former Secretary of State who had a less than stellar tenure marred with still unanswered scandal.

So the question is whether or not the Democrats can recognize damaged goods and gently ease someone else to the forefront or if they will be forever be beholden to Hillary because she is - well - Hillary.

Time will tell.  If the Republicans manage to get their act together over the next two years I'm thinking voters, especially the up and coming young ones, will be asking Hillary who?