Barack Obama And Richard Lugar
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, General Politics, The War On TerrorismIn the true spirit of Donklephantism, the freshman Dem looks to the senior Repub for guidance on foreign policy.
Obama has struck up a professional and personal relationship with the Republican Chairman of the Committee, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. The two just returned from a trip to trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, where they inspected weapons dumps and sites where WMDs and WMD-related materials were stored. They presented a report of their findings at an event attended by what Curry describes as the “foreign policy elite mandarins of past Presidential Administrations.” Obama got a thumbs-up from all in attendance both for his desire to learn and his quick mastery of the subject at hand.
And oh, the student then becomes the teacher?
It appears that Lugar is getting his share of influence from Obama as well. A couple of weeks ago, the two Senators joined forces to challenge Iraq rationales offered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Specifically, they asked fair but tough and embarrassing questions about the Bush Administration’s fallback plans should Iraqi factions ultimately decide they would prefer to split up rather than remain a united nation.
So, why is this important for the Dems?
I’ll give you one guess:
Many political analysts believe that rather than going far left and adopting an increasingly one note anti-Bush tone, Democrats would be better served to appeal to moderates and other centrists who have recently been voting Republican. In order to be taken seriously as a Party, these analysts argue, Democrats must produce candidates and leaders who can give credible tough talk regarding terrorism and foreign policy. They maintain this is necessary whether President Bush regains his current lost popularity or winds up going down in flames.
The nation seems polarized. At least our politicians do. But the fact of the matter is, we aren’t really. We just have a BIG issue where many people either fall on one side or the other. It’s an important issue, and it’s not the War on Terror. It’s the Iraq War, and it’s coming to a head now and well into 2006. In fact, it’ll probably be THE issue. But that doesn’t mean we can’t move forward now with other important issues and I predict that whichever party embraces the idea that this country needs to truly be unified will also be the party to field the next President of the United States.
I mean, McCain is one good example of a politician who seeks unity. When I do a “politics test”, I don’t agree with many of the things that McCain says. However, why is it that my most liberal friends say, “You know, I’d consider voting for him.” Because, more often than not, he doesn’t jerk us around AND he shows us a side that favors unity. That doesn’t mean we’re going to agree on everything, but it does mean he’s going to come out and give us a good explanation of why he’s doing what he’s doing. That still doesn’t mean I’ll vote for him, but will I consider it? Absolutely.
And I bet the same thing goes for a voter on the other side looking at Obama in 2016. Yes, 2016. He’s much too young to run in 2008, but he’s coming out of the gate with a moderate voice and a common sense agenda…two great traits. And I believe that as we follow him through the years, he will become the voice who can articulate strong positions to both sides and therefore find ways to build bridges between the party faithful. Now, he’s always going to be more in favor of policies that promote equality over order, but who wants to bet that Obama will seem much more fiscally conservative than Bush ever has?
In any event, it’s good to see this type of news about Obama. I’ll be following his career closely.
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 6th, 2005 and is filed under Foreign Policy, General Politics, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 6th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
It’s times like this when I wish Obama was older and had more experience. Would he even make a good VP in ‘08? Or would he still be too green? We really need more people like him in the Democratic Party before they’ll become more that just a broken record about Bush.
November 6th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
VP is increasingly a dead-end job for a politician: an opportunity to get tainted by the scandals and mistakes of the person above you, whom you have no ability to influence. I’d rather see Obama remain on his own, doing things like this, and building up both his resume and his experience.
Yet I still take objection to this: “Democrats must produce candidates and leaders who can give credible tough talk regarding terrorism and foreign policy.”
Um, no, Mr. Analyst. It’s not about talk. Anyone can talk. American voters (British newspaper headlines notwithstanding) are not that stupid. We generally can tell hollow talk from talk that is likely to be paired with walk.
November 6th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
JonBuck, patience. Obama needs to wait for the right time, and it certainly isn’t 08. John Edwards made a similar mistake in 04. He would be a perfect candidate for 08, but he was too impatient and has probably blown his chances.
And Cal, Of course he means walk WITH the talk. And Dems have put walk with the talk. But a lot of people feel betrayed because of the administration’s lack of planning for the post-war Iraq, and a rather large subset of that group also feel like they were fed a story that was cobbled together, but reported as bullet proof. In other words, the chagrin of the left isn’t unfounded.
Do you really think the VP position is a dead-end? I mean, I agree about the scandals, but look how much influence Cheney has had. And actually, it appears as if he may be much more reponsible for the scandals within the Bush administration than Bush himself. Also, I can only imagine that if he didn’t have all the health problems, we’d see him running in 08. Disagree?
November 6th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Cheney absolutely should go. If Bush had read his Shakespeare, he’d know the best way for a sovereign to regain the public’s loyalty is to jettison the bad advisers, whom the public would prefer to see, rather than the sovereign, as the source of the trouble. But Bush is too loyal to those loyal to him. Old CW: Bush=Henry V, the reformed neer-do-well; new CW: Bush=Richard II, can’t give up his friends when they hurt him.
Which is exactly my argument. The Veep gets to be the dirty tricks man for the prez (Cheney) or the thumb-twiddler (Gore). Hell, even a First Lady ends up looking more presidential at the end of four years.
If you’re looking for who to blame for the bad pre-war info, how about George “Slam-dunk” Tenet and the Joe Wilson-friendly CIA?
So where’s this “walk” I’m supposed to be seeing from Democrats? I don’t mean telling me what you would have done differently in March 2003; tell me what you’ll do in the next three years. Haven’t seen enough of that lately — except from Kerry, who still wants to turn Iraq over to the U.N., as though the elections there never had happened. Next.
November 6th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
I gotta tell ya. 2016 is like 2116 to me. It’s going to be a different universe — I can’t fathom it right now, other than to say some seismic political events are going to occur in the world between now and then.
November 6th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Listen, Kerry put together a pretty broad plan to take the focus off of Iraq and back onto the stray nukes. He also talked about renewed effort to round up Al Qaeda leaders like Osama. But Kerry didn’t get elected and so the Dems don’t get to set the agenda.
And by the way, just because you don’t AGREE with the Dems’ ideas doesn’t mean they don’t have any, agreed?
Listen, if we’re going to lay blame, the buck should stop one place and one place only. When you run the country, you have to have the intelligence and curiosity enough to cut through the clutter when making a profound decision like invading a country that didn’t attack us. You must also have the work ethic and foresight to create a plan for peace. It’s certainly debatable if that first thing happened, although I think fear was their greatest motivator since 9/11 happened on their watch. They weren’t going to allow it happen again and I truly believe that fear blinded them from seeing some of the more ridiculous evidence as exactly that: ridiculous; especially the stuff Powell presented at the U.N.
However, it’s fairly obvious the second thing barely happened. And going to war without a real plan to broker peace is even more ridiculous and grounds for dismissal. But Bush won’t get rid of the people who have let him down. And that reflects extremely poor on his ability to manage the future of the War on Terror. In short, it seems he’s more concerned with loyalty than actually making good decisions for our nation’s safety. That bugs me. Does it bug you?
I hear ya, but it’s going to be here a lot quicker than you may think.
November 6th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
You mean the Feb. 27, 2004 Kerry plan? I read it. I saw a lot of what already was being done, with even the wordings borrowed from the Bush policies: “Direct Military Action. John Kerry will always be prepared to use military force when necessary to neutralize terrorists and drain the swamps where they breed.”
And not enough of the yardsticks, like when, exactly, does Kerry think force will be necessary? You just have to trust him on that.
Much of it was just “do what Bush is doing, only do it better.” Other aspects (the WMD-containment proposal) relied on an “international regime” of controls that I, and a great many others, simply don’t trust, especially after oil-for-food revelations. Some of it was just plain stupid: “broaden the coalition” in Iraq, to include Western European nations whose leaders held office precisely because they were whipping up anti-American and anti-war sentiment? Even I’m not dense enough to fall for that.
Those aren’t ideas. They’re a mix of platitudes, exploded myths, and biolerplate. Points for trying, I guess. I guess. Bah. Sorry. You thought that was good enough. I didn’t. Frankly, I’d much rather talk about Obama than Kerry.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:43 am
Actually, I’d amend this to say, “do what Bush says he’s going to do since he’s not really doing it.” Also, there are only so many tactics you can engage in when you’re fighting a long struggle such as this. Just because there’s overlap doesn’t mean Kerry didn’t have a plan.
In fact, John Kerry’s plan is right here: “Making America Secure Again: Setting the Right Course for Foreign Policy“.
And as far as the “when is force necessary” argument, that’s something he articulated time and again. He gave Bush the ability to use force because he thought he’d use it as a last resort. Well, Iraq wasn’t a last resort war. That’s apparent. And when we’re talking about Kerry’s philosophy about pre-emptive war, I think it would take a lot more evidence suggesting actual WMDs instead of just hints here and there. In short, war is a “last resort” for Kerry.
I mean, the fact is Saddam was destroying his missles when we pulled the weapons inspectors out. He was beginning to disarm, but that wasn’t enough. Why? So what became apparent at that point is that the war wasn’t about last resorts. It was about spreading democracy in the region, which was the neo-con philosophical argument made by Cheney, Rumsfeld and others in the early 90s. And you agreed with that. Fine. But Kerry told us what his philosophy was. I just don’t think many on the pro-war side were listening or cared. In fact, I’ve read many who have said they didn’t particularly care about WMDs, given Saddam’s track record. Fine, I can accept that too. But can you then accept that Kerry simply didn’t line up with the ideological stance that you aligned yourself with and stuck fast to? Again, doesn’t mean Kerry didn’t have a plan. It just means you didn’t care for it.
Agreed.
November 7th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
“Democrats would be better served to appeal to moderates and other centrists who have recently been voting Republican. ”
Hey, if you can’t beat em, join em.
November 7th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Hey, Clinton did it, and I don’t see too many Dems complaining about those eight years. And if our next Dem prez can keep his gun in his holster, we may have even more progress during his or her term(s).
November 7th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Which isn’t a plan. It isn’t an articulation. It just moves the question back one space. When will he use force? When force is necessary. When is force necessary? When it’s a last resort. When is it a last resort? _________
You can no more give an exact description of what you’re going to do in world affairs, as the sole remaining superpower, than you can give an exact description of how you’re going to drive in the Indianapolis 500. You have to have the ability to react quickly, partly based on guesswork and instinct, and adjust as you go along.
Kerry gave it his best try, I guess. He didn’t have a plan. He (eventually) had a general notion of how to approach the problem. It ended up not being substantially different than what Bush was doing. And he didn’t have the kind of experience that would tell me how, or even whether, he would implement the philosophies he expressed.
In fact, the way he responded (didn’t respond) to the campaign attacks against him by Swift Boat Veterans and others was not a promising indication of his understanding of when to use force and how much of it to apply.
So, in my book, a tie goes to the incumbent, when there are important forces both domestic and foreign looking at the election as a referendum on the whole decision to go to war in the first place.
Nobody ever would have known for certain what Saddam had and what he didn’t have without going to war to remove him from power. Now we know what he has. A toothbrush, a clean set of undies, and a lawyer.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
If he actually had a detailed plan, radically different than the present administration, for winning this desperate war, and it was such a good plan that he deserved to be elected president for it, isn’t it then his patriotic duty, as a senator, to share it with the nation or at least the powers in charge?
But it seems, in the course of your response, you stopped talking about “plan” and started talking about “philosophy.” So he had a philosophy. Big deal. I mean, that’s nice and all, but don’t call it a plan.
November 8th, 2005 at 8:59 am
He did. How is that not clear?
Plan…philosophy…same difference. You know it and I know it. Let’s not play semantic games with each other, alright?
And did you not read my sentence in the above comment that says, “In fact, John Kerry’s plan is right here: “Making America Secure Again: Setting the Right Course for Foreign Policy“.
He went to the American people with that plan, but then his Senate votes were called into question and the focus was placed on his “flip-flopping” instead of the plan that he laid out.
And again, of course there’s going to be some overlap between Kerry’s and Bush’s plan. There are only so many ways you can fight terrorism. What do you want Kerry to do? Come up with the foreign policy equivalent of a flea flicker?
You don’t like his plan. That’s fine. But you not liking it doesn’t mean he didn’t have one and it doesn’t mean he didn’t bring it to the American people.