Senators Coleman & Hagel debate Iraq Resolution

Watching the debate in the Foreign Relations Committee over Senate Concurrent Resolution # 2 (essentially stating that it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq), I had to wonder what was discussed between the two Republican Senators seated next to each other. Both came from their home states to Minnesota and now find themselves in the US Senate. No doubt, their backgrounds and life experiences – and even their time in Minnesota – had to shape their viewpoints.

The sound bite that made the evening news, was Chuck Hagel imploring his fellow Senators to take a stand :
“This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam.
Yes, sure, it’s tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?
If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.
This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do? I don’t think so. When I hear, on both sides of this argument, impugning motives and patriotism to our country, not only is it offensive and disgusting but it debases the whole system of our country and who we are.”

Selling shoes may be something that Chuck Hagel knows about … as well as Vietnam. As I recall during his student days at Brown Institute in Minneapolis, he worked selling men’s clothes. After graduating Brown, Hagel returned to Lincoln, Nebraska to work for a radio station only to find out that Uncle Sam wanted him. He faced the draft, applying for a college deferment, or enlistment. He volunteered knowing that Vietnam was where he would most likely end up. Going over as a private, he returned as a squad leader with two Purple Hearts for battle wounds.

No doubt those experiences shaped Hagel’s viewpoints of America’s role in Foreign Relations.

Sitting next to Senator Hagel was Norm Coleman. The days of Vietnam were a little different for Senator Coleman as documented by City Pages which published photos of a “long-haired radical protesting the draft at Hofstra University” in 1970.


Those that served in battle seem to have a different vantage point than those that have not. Bush and Cheney have been criticized for where they spent their time during the Vietnam conflict. Meanwhile, John Abizaid, George Casey, and Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker have made no secret of their strong reservations about sending large numbers of additional troops.

But this battle for Hagel did not start yesterday. Anyone who watched the Sunday talk shows before the liberation began will remember the concerns of Dick Lugar, Joe Biden, and Hagel. In their mind, there was never a doubt of America’s ability to depose Saddam Hussein, but the concern was also about the exit strategy. How many troops? What would be the mission? How long would we be there? What would be the costs? These are the same questions that all Americans are asking today.

Previously Coleman stated that he opposes the troop escalation in Baghdad (but would allow more troops in other areas.) After the State of the Union Address, Coleman said he was swayed by the President’s plea. His vote against the SR 2
was wrong. In the weeks to come, a resolution will be passed – maybe not Biden’s, maybe Warner’s – but a message will be sent to the President. Coleman will eventually fall in line, but in his first test in battle, he failed to heed the wisdom of a seasoned veteran.

Some may see the Senate Resolution as a rebuke of Bush’s decision to escalate the military action, but it has other important recommendations. Reading the resolution it encourages other nations in the Middle East to work toward peace and a reconciliation process for Iraq.

Engaging other countries is the crux of the solution. This week, Henry Kissinger writes :
“Diplomacy must mediate between Iraqi sects which, though in many respects mortal enemies, are assembled in a common governmental structure. It needs to relate that process to an international concept involving both Iraq's neighbors and countries further away that have a significant interest in the outcome.
Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:
(1) The creation of a contact group, assembling neighboring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination.
(2) Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order.”

Coleman has just been named the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs. In his press release discussing Iraq, he states “the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.” I hope that Coleman heeds the Kissinger’s advise including a personal visit to Syria. This is not the time for partisan politics – mindless attacking or supporting the President – it’s a time for Congress to be involved in Foreign Relations.

Senator Coleman needs to follow Sen. Specter’s path in Foreign Relations.

On Sunday’s This Week program, Senator Sam Brownback was asked to explain his reversal of position from supporting a temporary troop surge on December 31 to being against it on January 10th. His response was that he visited Iraq. A simple answer. He went and talked with the participants (Prime Minister Maliki. Kurdish leadership, U.S. Generals Raymond Odierno and George Casey, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, etc.) and gained a better appreciation of the problems. Brownback stated “We cannot achieve a political solution while a military solution is imposed.”

Brownback is just the most recent of our elected officials who after visiting Iraq have changed their thinking. Senator Norm Coleman, Senator Susan Collins, Senator John Warner, Representative Chris Shays, former Representative Gil Gutknecht are all Republicans who changed their positions after being able to discuss the situation face-to-face with principals in the country.

This commentary is not about troop surges and military tactics; it is about political dialogue.

Foreign policy is best practiced when Senators receive a wide range of opinions from experts and most importantly interact face-to-face with other country’s leadership.

Today, the Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a hearing and among the experts is Robert Malley. He is the Director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group and advocates “a clean break in the way the United States deals with the Iraqi government and the region. The United States should seek to enlist broad international support for a new political compact among Iraqis; cease treating the Iraqi government as a privileged partner and start seeing it as a party to the sectarian war; and engage in real diplomacy with all Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria included.”

The last part is the key – a diplomatic discussion with Syria.

The Iraq Study Group recommendations stress dialogue with Iran and Syria. If productive discussions can be held with Syria and relations improved, then that may lead to discussions directly with Iran.

Discussions with Syria does not mean going in with a blank checkbook willing to concede everything … just the opposite, we find joint interests and expand upon them.
Syria clearly has problems. They, as well as Jordan, have a refugee problem and an uncontrolled border. Syria should want a stable Iraq as it wants to run an oil pipeline from Kirkuk in northern Iraq to an outlet at the Mediterranean.
America also has goals. An independent Lebanon, free of Syrian interference, would be a big step toward a peaceful region. Syria is seen as being behind the arming Hezbollah and that needs to stop. The Iraqi Sunni population may be more supportive of the US if they feel that Syria is supporting America's desire for a stable Iraq.
Clearly, the State Department has a role in this, but so does the Senate.
Senator Coleman sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. He needs to follow the paths of Senators Arlen Specter, Bill Nelson, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry and visit Syria first hand. They visited Syria this past December and Specter after meeting with Bashar Assad, stated "Assad stated an interest in negotiating with Israel to try to bring a peaceful settlement to the Syrian-Israeli dispute under the U.N. doctrine of land-for-peace."

Not only do Jim Baker and the Iraq Study Group feel that engaging Syria is part of the Iraq solution , so does Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Just last Sunday, he said “I will seek to encourage our American friends to have a dialogue with Syria." "Syria wants ... stability in Iraq and is backing us in fighting terrorism. There is no justification for a stern (U.S.) stance on Syria," said Talabani, who lived in Syria in exile in the 1970s.

Coleman and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should not follow the path of blindly accepting the Bush Administrations viewpoint, they must visit the areas and engage in dialogue themselves.

Spotlight pointed at NBL Walz while OOS Bachmann spins

Regardless of your opinion of Tim Walz political viewpoints, you have to admit this guy is no shrinking violet.

The spotlight is firmly focused on Congressman Walz. No, I am not referring to his giving the Democratic Radio Address last week, nor his TV debate with Republican Party 2008 Presidential candidate, Duncan Hunter on Hardball. What I am referring to is his House Committee assignments.

Walz has been assigned to the Committee on Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

These committees are not going to be easy assignments.

The main legislation in the Agriculture Committee will be a new Farm Bill. The Washington Post has been running articles for over two years on inequities in the current legislation and editorialized about it as Congress convened. Lame Duck Bush, who now all of sudden realizes that deficits do matter, will complain about the high cost, trade objections from the World Trade Organization, and of course, the appropriateness of subsidies. In the end, something will get resolved, and no matter how well Walz fights, the Republican challenger will claim that Gutknecht would have done a better job and that farmers made a mistake electing Walz.

The Transportation Committee is behind the 8-ball thanks to the previous Congress. FY2007 SAFETEAU-LU bill, like many other spending bills, was left incomplete by the 109th Do-Nothing Congress. Through a continuing resolution, projects were kept afloat, but based on overall budget imbalances and the desire to achieve a balance budget, Transportation funding could be jeopardized. Overall, the Federal Aid Highway Funding is technically facing cuts of $4 Billion dollars that would impact 192,000 jobs (Minnesota's portion is just under $50 Million dollars and 2,370 jobs.) Restraints on earmarks may help in the future, but current projects may be partially underway and difficult to terminate. Once again, there will be a resolution, but since Don Young (Republican – Alaska) still has clout within the committee, the likelihood of cutting Alaskan pork-barrel projects may be difficult without effecting all other 50 states’ projects. Since Transportation projects generally are years in the making and Gutknecht was never good at getting projects for Minnesota, Walz will be blamed. In many ways, SAFETEAU-LU should not be a budgetary problem … motorists pay gas taxes that Congress redistributes … the key is to ensure that Minnesota gets in return what Minnesotans paid in. Reviewing the FY2005 SAFETEAU-LU bill, I compared the Iowa projects to the Minnesota projects and it was easy to see that our Congressmen did not get fair value. Leaving road projects aside, DM&E presents a real challenge … if Walz (and Coleman) affect major changes, they will be viewed favorably by many voters; if not, once again, Republicans will claim that Walz is ineffective. Lastly, the Transportation Committee needs to address port safety and incoming cargo inspections. In summary, another difficult committee assignment.

The Veterans’ Affairs Committee may seem to be the easiest assignment. But with 47,657 wounded (so far) in Iraq/Afghanistan, the care for our soldiers will be daunting. There is generally agreement of the need to boost veterans' health spending by $3 billion. Pentagon officials argue another $4 billion is needed for housing and other construction projects, while $700 million is needed to meet the healthcare needs of active-duty military personnel. In summary, the demand for dollars is there, the question is where will Congress get the money?

Customarily, first year Representatives are limited to two committee assignments, so why did Walz get three ?

Simple answer – NBL.
The Democratic leadership recognizes a Natural Born Leader. Walz may be the exception that will work for the betterment of the District even if his votes do not please everyone. His assignments reflect someone who is truly working without considering re-electablity. Funny, but the main characterization that I heard during the campaign was that Walz was just another teacher who would go to Washington to spend money on schools … looks like he is truly interested in caring for the country as a whole.


Now as the First District has a NBL Congressman, Minnesota’s Sixth has an OOS Congresswoman.


The first few weeks of the session has found Michelle Bachmann Out Of Step with Majority.

By Majority, I am not referring strictly to the Democratic Majority in the House. But before I discuss the 110th session of Congress, let us recall how the Hastert-Delay Congress operated. The House was managed by a “Majority of the Majority”. During caucus meetings, if a majority of the Republicans wanted a bill brought forward, then it would. If not, it just languished … such as the bill to negotiate drug prices which had support, but only the support of a minority of Republicans. Now, in the new Congress, Republicans feel free to vote their conscience and district sentiments.

The first six bills passed by the House have had an average of 62 Republicans joining with the Democrats.

For illustration, the House voted on HR 5 to cut the interest rate on many student loans in half. The legislation would lower the rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in stages over five years for need-based loans. The proposal would cost nearly $6 billion and affect nearly 5.5 million students who get the subsidized loans each year. Although all Democrats voted to approve this legislation, the Republican vote was 124 to 71 – a clear Majority of Republicans thought this was good legislation. Bachmann voted against this legislation stating "Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to help lower-income students pay for the skyrocketing cost of college tuition.” A nice Spin answer … ignore over five million students and blame it on the bill not being more expansive.

Bachmann might become the Mistress of Spin based on her inability to define where she stands on the “surge” troop question. The Star-Tribune has a great recap of SpinMistress. What we know is that Bachmann supports Victory in Iraq … what we don’t know is what strategy she supports although as President Bush told Jim Lehrer on the News Hour that the current course was a “a slow failure.”

Now, let's look at the committee assignments for Representative Bachmann. She has been appointed as the 32 ranking member (out of 33 Republicans) to the Financial Services Committee. The Financial Services Committee is chaired by Barney Frank, who George Will described as "what today's liberalism looks like when organized by a first-class mind", and Frank should provide an excellent debate advocate for how widing income inequalities have caused insecurities of millions of families … but then again, Bachmann is already concerned about the lower-income families.

It is interesting that John Boehner has also announced that he currently has vacancies on the Government Reform and Science & Technology Committees (those committees were previously served by Gil Gutknecht) – quite an accolade that even Boehner doesn't have confidence to give her more than one committee.

Bill Buckley says Bush Needs a new Coalition of the Willing

William F. Buckley, arguably the Father of the Conservative Movement, came out about a year ago questioning Bush’s Iraq policy. In his recent column, Buckley determines that the American role in Iraq is not critical.

Read it here

Further, he writes “A geographical division of Iraq is inevitable. The major players are obvious. It isn't plain how America, as an outside party, could play an effective role, let alone one that was decisive, in that national redefinition. And America would do well to encourage non-American agents to act as brokers — people with names like Ban Ki-moon.”

So now to the bane of the neo-conservatives and others such as Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, the resolution of the Iraq situation may require the United Nations under the leadership of Ban Ki-moon to act as brokers. Buckley’s opinion is not alone. Many in the region, including some Iraqi leaders, believe that outside help may be needed … but not led by the United States. Just this week, Adnan Pachachi, an experienced Iraqi politician and former head of the Iraqi Governing Council, argued that US troops should be replaced by an Arab and Islamic force under UN military control, since the Americans are an occupation force and the Sunni Arab guerrillas will never accept them.

Bush needs a new coalition of the willing.

His old coalition is leaving him.

Domestically, Senators Coleman, Hagel and Brownback are leading the Republican charge away from Bush’s decision to escalation the number of troops in Iraq and the mission of those troops in Iraq.

Internationally, the coaltion is shrinking fast. There are approximately 16,860 non-US troops in Iraq today. Last week, when Bush announced his escalation plan, Britain, in contrast to the United States, said it would not send more troops to Iraq and would press ahead with plans to scale back its presence in the key southern city of Basra. Britain has some 7,100 troops in southern Iraq and will cut troop levels in Iraq by almost 3,000 by the end of May. The South Korea government intends to withdraw 1,100 troops of its 2,300-strong contingent in the relatively peaceful, northern city of Irbil by April. Poland has 900 troops and has a target of withdrawing completely by the end of this year.

Buckley’s point is one that we’ve heard before - the resolution of the Iraq crisis must be through a political solution - yet Bush is pushing the police action of a military solution.

With various countries in the region readying troops to enter Iraq in case of a government collapse, wouldn’t Bush be prudent to engage the UN to create a new coalition of the willing to provide security and negotiate a peaceful political power sharing between the sectarian factions. America has left it to the Iraqi elected politicians to resolve the crisis, but with so many political parties representing the three main ethnic groups, the politicians have failed miserably. Resolving the key issues of distribution of oil revenues, reversal of the de-Bathification process, Shiite death squads, Shiite militias, etc. can lead to a national reconciliation – but the political leadership is so emerged in religious and ethnic concerns that resolution may only occur with the involvement of an outside mediator.

If this works in Iraq, could it be the basis for resolution in Lebanon? Palestine? It may be worth a try.

Which job “suits” Pawlenty best ?

Before I answer the question, “Which job “suits” Pawlenty best ?”, a quick trivia question.

In the classic television show, The Brady Bunch, there was an episode entitled "Adios, Johnny Bravo". After a musical audition during which he is picked to become a rock star, Greg gets a big head and is ready to skip college.
Question : Why did the producers pick Greg to be Johnny Bravo ?
Answer : He was only chosen because he "fit the suit."

Hence it is with so many politicians, they are selected because they fit the “suit” (or image) that can easily be sold to the voting public. Look at George W. Bush … failed in a run for Congress in 1978, used family connections to achieve some personal business success (-- err, make that personal financial success as these businesses were not successful) then a stint as Governor of Texas. Resume and qualifications were not his strong suit, but his image was presented as a Compassionate Conservative who promised straight talk and high moral standards, opposed nation building and advocated tax cuts. Bush fit the suit of what could be sold to the social and religious conservative voters who in the end only got tax cuts (deficits don’t matter). In virtually one year, the Iowa caucus will be held and voters will notice how the candidates are morphing into a “suit” that can be sold to their perceived base.

Now we come to Tim Pawlenty … a man who wears many suits. He has a radio program that is broadcast throughout the state via WCCO. He is currently Vice Chair of the National Governors Association (NGA) and Chair of the NGA Center for Best Practices and next fall, he assumes chairmanship of the NGA. Monday, John McCain’s presidential exploratory committee announced that Pawlenty will serve as National Co-Chair of Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign should he decide to run. Oh, and he’s also our current Governor and according to his campaign manager, he may run for a third term if he is not selected to run for Vice President.

Remember when Governor Ventura was criticized for various personal appearances and private business endeavors. In fact, then Representative Carol Molnau (current Lt. Governor) requested a ruling by the Office of the Legislative Auditor whether it was appropriate for the state’s taxpayers to be obligated to pay for security costs for state troopers and support staff expenses during book tours.

What I find concerning is that when Pawlenty was asked during the 2002 campaign whether he would pursue other endeavors, he stated that he would only be the Governor. Now, as McCain’s National Co-Chair, will he be actively sounding out donors and rounding up supporters at dinners in key primary states during the all-important financial primary? How many trips to Iowa ? How many TV appearances ?

Pawlenty was elected for a reason – to be Minnesota’s Governor. Tim Penny and Kevin Featherly penned a great Op-Ed in The Pioneer Press assessing Pawlenty’s talents and encouraging him to take some BOLD steps at leadership.

Listening to Pawlenty’s State of the State Address, he opted to address the easy issues that everyone can agree upon – better government, energy, education and health care. These issues were actively debated issues in the past election, and based on the legislative race results he has a pretty easy idea how the legislators feel. Hence, we heard revamping of his prior proposals using the term “compromise” and updating the version -- i.e. “Achieve II”. But there were other issues that the Governor did not mention – transportation and illegal immigration. These issues may not “suit” the image that he wants to project. He is adamant that he will veto a gas tax to address the state’s transporation needs. He knows that the illegal immigration issue is an exploitive wedge issue but the solution is politically very dicey. One comment that I can agree with him on – the need to stop paying for good intentions. To me that means the legislature should look at the subsidies that are on the books. He may be right that Minnesota is not overtaxed, but that does not mean that there is not inequity in the tax system. Subsidies transfers the tax burdens to ordinary citizens.

Although he addressed the issues, the solutions he offered were minmalistic yet somehow seemed to be adequately “suited” to resolve problems. He advocated additional opportunities to allow private business to obtain state spending (i.e. establish $4,000 scholarships for at risk students that may be used for private pre-schools.) In some cases he promotes rewarding the performers instead of elevating the underperformers (i.e. 2% increased additional funding if standards are achieved without consideration that some districts that based on Pawlenty’s own comments can be categorized as affluently educated communities which may easily achieve the targets.)

I believe that we can all agree with Pawlenty when he said "The state of our state is great, but we can make Minnesota even better," but to do that we need a BOLD Governor 100% committed to being the Governor.

House Republican flip-floppers … now vote against bills they sponsored.

The Washington Post has a piece indicating that House Republicans might be voting their conscience more this session. Well, if this is their conscience, then they are still not in sync with the majority of Americans.

Case in point. The vote approving the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act was passed with 24 Republicans joining the Democrats to pass the legislation while 170 voted against. Although many seniors have come to accept the new Medicare Part-D program, polling has been done that indicates that seniors also feel the Government should negotiate and get better prices. Roy Blunt, the Republican Minority Whip, commented that Democrats are passing “issues that poll at 80, 90 percent” -- so how do Republicans vote against legislation that Americans clearly want?

The pharmaceutical industry lobbyists are working hard against this legislation yet independent advocacy groups cite a recent study by Consumers Reports that finds that prices paid by seniors in the Medicare drug program are more than twice that paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which negotiates prices.

What is sad about this is that some Republicans seem to have changed their stance from last session. Part-D was considered too expensive for many fiscal conservatives. Republicans tried to alter the program last session to affect the prices that consumers pay. Jo Ann Emerson authored a bill that would have allowed price negations and Gil Gutknecht offered legislation that would have allowed re-importation of prescription drugs. These pieces of legislation had Democrat and Republican support but the Hastert-Delay K-street crowd would not permit a vote. Looking at the cosponsors and Friday’s vote, it would appear that the following Congressmen have decided it is better to vote for K-street than Main Street.
Elton Gallegly (CA-24)
Mike Simpson (ID-2)
John Boozman (AR-3)
Ginny Brown-White (FL-5)
Jeff Flake (AZ-6)
Trent Franks (AZ-2)
Wayne Gichrest (MD-6)
Doc Hastings (WA-4)
Steve King (IA-5)
Donald Manzullo (IL-16)
Chris Shays (CT-4)
Tom Tancredo (CO-6)

While the House bill has been approved, the Senate bill has not yet been voted upon. Norm Coleman has indicated that he will not support Main Street. Minnesotans need to contact Coleman’s office and indicate their displeasure. President Bush indicates that he will veto this legislation. To override a veto would take a 2/3rds majority, so it is important that Representatives Bachmann and Kline hear from their constituents and reconsider their votes.

Fiscal conservatives and consumer advocacy groups agree, America can save money with an improved Medicare Prescription Drug.

Is Norm Coleman repeating Kennedy's mistakes ?

November’s election was not only an opportunity for voters to elect members for the 110th Congress, but also send a message to those that were not up for election this term.

A lot will be written that voters sent a message concerning Iraq that President Bush is ignoring, but was there also a message that Norm Coleman is not hearing ?

A main issue in the Klobuchar-Kennedy race was Medicare Part-D Prescription Drug program. Kennedy proudly defended his vote and ran alarmist commercials that "Klobuchar's plan would ration prescription drugs, increase wait times for medicines, limit choices and take drugs like Prevacid and Lipitor completely away." Klobuchar issued a quick and dramatic response stating that she would never do anything that would impact the medications that Minnesotans including those that her Mother uses. Klobuchar’s plan cited the Veterans Administration as a good example of the government negotiating for lower drug prices.

Tuesday, Coleman said “We’ve got a system now that’s working” and that he would continue to oppose government involvement in Medicare drug prices as he is concerned that price negotiation would “add another layer of bureaucracy.”

Coleman doesn’t get it. The question is not whether the system is “working”, but is it working in a cost effective manner? "Working" does not mean efficient. "Working" doesn't mean that it should not be improved.

On July 18, 2006, The New York Times reported :
The pharmaceutical industry is beginning to reap a windfall from a surprisingly lucrative niche market: drugs for poor people. The windfall, which by some estimates could be $2 billion or more this year, is a result of the transfer of millions of low-income people into the new Medicare Part D drug program that went into effect in January. Under that program, as it turns out, the prices paid by insurers, and eventually the taxpayer, for the medications given to those transferred are likely to be higher than what was paid under the federal-state Medicaid programs for the poor.

Fiscal conservatives like myself have long complained about the cost effectiveness of this program. During the last session, the Senate passed legislation that would have improved the program, but the Republican House leadership would not bring the legislation forward. The Democrat-lead 110th Congress has already moved HR4 to the Ways and Means Committee. The bill has 196 co-sponsors including Minnesotans Elison, McCollum, Oberstar and Walz. Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Wyden (D-Oregon) re-introduce their legislation on January 10 - S250. Snowe and Wyden count 58 Senators as supporting their legislation.

Some form of this legislation will pass. Why Coleman does not see that he is not serving his constituents is beyond me. Alas, since the 2008 election will cost millions, he may be valueing donations and support from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America greater than an improved and cost effective program that users and taxpayers will like better.