reflectivepundit

Why a Female President?--€”Why Not?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Watching the lavish Pentagon farewell ceremony for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on television last week, I was struck by the image of George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Rumsfeld moving in unison and forceful like victorious warriors past enthusiastic guests. The vice-president praised Rumsfeld as the best Secretary of Defense ever (never mind that his friend presided over Iraq'€™s slide into civil war and complete chaos), and the President was upbeat and seemed to agree with Cheney (never mind that he had asked for Rumsfeld'€™s resignation). If this was a paradox, think of George W. Bush describing his presidency as "€œjoyful experience"€ in spite of the mounting numbers of Americans and Iraqis killed and injured on his watch as "€œwar president." It was this image of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of power at the Pentagon ceremony that made me think about the need for change at the top in 2008. I am sure there are very capable male politicians who would act drastically different than today's Decider in the White House. But I am even more confident that there are very capable female politicians who would not have a "€œjoyful experience"€ during a most difficult time of a controversial war €”and would not have led us into such a war in the first place.

Female Candidates Must Not Count on Sisterhood

By Brigitte L. Nacos
During one of the now plentiful discussions about a possible intra-party battle between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008, someone argued that Clinton had a better chance to prevail because there are far more female than black voters. But there is no evidence that women prefer female candidates when they cast their votes. In December 1984, after the defeat of Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro ticket, Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times, “One thing the year did prove is that the women's vote does not respond simply to the symbol of a woman's candidacy.” She cited Ethel Klein, author of a book titled Gender Politics, who said, “There has always been an ambiguous relationship of women voting for women candidates. Unlike blacks and other minorities, women do not vote on self-interest. They vote for a better society as a whole. Women see as selfish the argument of 'Vote for someone because she's a woman like you and you'll personally gain.' '' Since then, far more women have won seats in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures; there are more female governors as well. But  female candidates are ill advised to count on sisterhood at the ballot box. Nor do they get an automatic break, when it comes to leading female columnists. Lately, male columnists, especially conservatives like David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer and today George Will (“Run Now Obama”), are urging Obama to become a candidate (and to give Hillary hell, I suppose), but nobody seems tougher than Maureen Dowd, when it comes to scrutinize Senator Clinton. I came to that conclusion after reading Dowd's latest column and rereading a number of earlier ones about Hillary Clinton.   

Newspaper Columnists and Gender Diversity

By Brigitte L. Nacos
When William Saffire retired as New York Times columnist some time ago, I wondered whether a woman would succeed him since the paper had only one female columnist, Maureen Dowd. When this did not happen, I actually complained to Gail Collins, the editorial page editor of the Times. In today’s Washington Post, the papers ombudsperson Deborrah Howell, writes, “The Post needs more opinion writers and columnists who are of the female persuasion or are minorities. Overwhelmingly, Post columnists are white guys. Some are among the paper's best columnists, but more diversity would make The Post a richer paper. Numerical equality is not what readers look for, but women and minorities want to see themselves well represented in the news and opinion pages of The Post. This is a remarkably diverse region, and that should be better reflected in columnist jobs.” How could anyone take issue with the point that diversity among columnists (just like in news rooms) is desirable—not for the sake of women and minorities, as Ms. Howell seems to indicate, but for the sake of everyone.  

The Iraq Study Group: Surrender Monkeys or Sunshine Boys?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
As Michael Abramowitz and Glenn Kessler report in today’s Washington Post, “neoconservatives, who have been the most ardent supporters of the Bush administration since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, are angrily reacting to the Iraq Study Group Report. Richard Perle, one of the neoconservatives who pushed for the Iraq war in the first place, characterized the report as “a monumental disappointment” and its recommendations as “either wrong or of no consequence.” Last week, the front page of the New York Post showed James Baker and Lee Hamilton, the ISG’s co-chairs, as “Surrender Monkeys” and thus put them into the “cut and run” camp. In today’s New York Times, columnist Frank Rich calls the members of the Group “sunshine boys” (never mind the female member Sandra Day O’Connor) because in his view their report and recommendations do not reflect the whole reality of the Iraqdisaster. As Rich sees it, “The members of the Iraq Study Group are all good Americans of proven service to their country. But to the extent that their report forestalls reality and promotes pipe dreams of one last chance for success in this fiasco, it will be remembered as just one more delusional milestone in the tragedy of our age.” So, what are we to make of the Iraq Study Group Report? Is it the work of surrender monkeys, sunshine boys, or a panel that deserves far more credit?

 

The Iraq Study Group: Hope for Unifying the Country?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
While the situation in Iraq simply does not lend itself to terribly new assessments and recommendations nobody ever thought of or articulated, the Report of the Iraq Study Group (report is posted on the Washington Post site) has an important advantage over expected reviews by administration insiders as former Secretary of State James Baker pointed out during the Group’s press conference: it is the product of  bi-partisan cooperation and consensus. Indeed, yesterday’s comments by Democratic and Republican members of the Group were expressions of a shared commitment to transcend partisan and ideological differences. If implemented (and hours after unveiling the report on Capitol Hill, the study group's co-chairmen, former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), told Washington Post reporters and editors that their comprehensive plan has a chance to work, provided it is implemented in its entirety and not piecemeal), the recommendation package will not be a silver bullet that promises a miracle turnaround in Iraq. It is only the last best hope to change course for the better of all parties involved. But what hope is there that the political bickering stops and that Washington and the American people follow the example of the Baker/Hamilton panel?

Iraq: Time to Change the Course

By Brigitte L. Nacos
If leaked information is correct, the expectations surrounding the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group’s recommendations will be dashed, when the report will be released later this week. As columnist Paul Krugman put it in today’s New York Times, “Look at what seems to have happened to the Iraq Study Group, whose mission statement says that it would provide an “independent assessment.” If press reports are correct, the group did nothing of the sort. Instead, it watered down its conclusions and recommendations, trying to come up with something Mr. Bush wouldn’t reject out of hand.” In the Washington Post, Robert Novak writes, “As a creature of Congress (an institution that Bush dislikes), Baker's group spells trouble for Bush when it releases its report Wednesday. It will propose, however muted its tone, gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq before the president is ready for it. The hope is that Baker will nuance the report's words sufficiently and hedge calls for withdrawal in such a way that Bush can say that is what he has been doing anyway."

Will Congressional Democrats Break an Important Promise?

Brigitte L. Nacos
The 9/11 Commission Report states that of all the recommendations the commission made, “strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and the most important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.” Recognizing that the Congress’s oversight for intelligence and counterterrorism “is dysfunctional,” the Commission recommended either the creation of one joint committee or at least a single oversight committee in both congressional chambers. As the Commission Report stated, “The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress.” While the Republican majority did not act on this, Democrats promised before the election that they would implement all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But according to Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post, Democrats now reject this key 9/11 recommendation. If this turns out to be true, shame on Democrats in Congress. If they break their campaign pledge on this important reform, they stick to an oversight fragmentation that keeps too many committee and sub-committee chairs in power at the expense of effectiveness. 

Actually, for the sake of national security, congressional leaders must establish one joint congressional oversight committee for intelligence and counterterrorism along the lines of the old Joint Committee on Atomic Energy solution—not one committee in each chamber.

Preventing and responding to terrorism is a serious enough problem to subordinate turf battles inside the House and Senate and between the two chambers. When the next congress convenes in January, the Democrats have a golden opportunity to make important changes for the better—with the implementation of this crucial recommendation of the 9/11 Commission ranking very high on the priority list. According to the Post, “aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the ‘first 100 hours’ of the Democratic Congress.”

If the information provided by committee staffers revealed indeed what the Democratic leadership decided, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid must reconsider and go ahead with this crucial reform.