Charles Mahtesian Charles Mahtesian Fri Feb 13, 4:07 am ET
Judd Gregg was all but dead to his Republican colleagues just a few days ago, another collaborator drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.
But the New Hampshire senator's surprise decision to remove himself from consideration as President Barack Obama’s commerce secretary Thursday has provided the GOP with a new rallying cry, and a new hero against a foe who just a few weeks ago seemed almost unassailable.
In a way, it’s all a testament to just how far the Republican Party have fallen; what passes for victory now is an embarrassing flip-flop by an admired GOP senator and the passage of a massive economic recovery bill that most Republicans on the Hill oppose bitterly. When Obama’s stimulus bill clears the House today, Republicans will celebrate by pointing to how much House Democrats did without them – and then hope against hope that voters don’t notice if the economy improves as a result.
Republicans applauded boisterously when Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) opened a closed-door meeting in the Capitol basement Thursday night by announcing Gregg’s withdrawal.
"He made a difficult decision to turn down a job that a lot of Republicans could take," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "Here's a guy who's going to turn down his place in the history books."
In pulling out, Gregg pointed to “irresolvable conflicts” on the two issues behind which the Republicans have been closing ranks — the stimulus package and the alleged politicization of the census.
“We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy,” he said in a statement issued by his Senate office.
By citing reservations about the economic recovery package, Gregg reinforced widespread GOP criticism about wasteful spending that has less to do with reviving the economy than rewarding Democratic constituencies. And by noting his differing view on the census, Gregg breathed life into Republican charges of a White House power grab over a critical Commerce Department function.
Both issues are part of an emerging GOP case against Obama and the ruling Democratic Party: Strip away the new face, the lofty rhetoric and the promises of post-partisanship and you’ll find the same big-spending party of old, bent on politicizing government to consolidate its hold on power.
Even with the stimulus package on the verge of passing later this week, the unanimous GOP vote against the bill in the House and the near-unanimous opposition in the Senate revealed a Republican Party surprisingly united in direction and in message for perhaps the first time since losing its congressional majority in 2006.
The unity comes with huge risk, of course. A Gallup Poll out this week showed the public supporting passage of the economic recovery plan by nearly a two-to-one margin. By opposing it, the Republicans are making a long-term bet that the public will turn against the plan and those who pushed it – a bet, essentially, that the economy Obama inherited from a Republican president will continue to tank deep into the next election cycle.
It’s a massive gamble, and one the party might not have taken if the last two elections hadn’t all but purged it of its wayward moderates. In its diminished but highly concentrated form, the GOP is showing signs it’s regained its mojo, at least internally, and some see the withdrawal of Gregg – ironically, a moderate like the ones the party has been purging — as a pivotal moment in the building process.
"Sen. Gregg's decision reinforces suspicions about the stimulus bill and about moving the census from the Commerce Department to the White House," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
“By turning down a position of great honor, Sen. Gregg has made a bold statement for principle and responsibility today,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) in a statement. “The president’s politically charged move to place the nonpartisan census process in the hands of his staff contradicts every pledge of openness he made on the campaign trail. While the White House continues to break promises for politics, I commend Sen. Gregg for acting with integrity. Sen. Gregg has shown the American people the type of selfless leadership they should only hope to see from the White House.”
Gregg’s own explanation for his decision was less aggressive. He said he expects “there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the president’s proposals.”
He took no departing shots at Obama, instead acknowledging in an interview with Politico that he “should have faced up” to the conflicts he felt earlier. “The fault lies with me,” Gregg said. “I may have embarrassed myself, but hopefully not him.”
Nevertheless, for a Republican Party desperately careening from message to message, from “drill, baby, drill” to “the future is Cao,” Gregg’s move has rallied the troops and provided them with a set of organizing principles around which to begin rebuilding their tattered brand — or at least to sully Obama’s sterling brand.
The withdrawal was Obama’s third failed nomination in less than two weeks, an unexpected state of affairs for a president whose campaign was known for its discipline, flawless execution and ability to see around corners.
All in all, Gregg's decision in hardly the material to build a majority around, but given the GOP’s free-fall in recent years, even a minor victory has the feel of a major triumph.
"When your opponent trips and falls on his face, it certainly emboldens the opponent," added Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). "This has been blunder after blunder. As an administration, they are far from immune to tough days, weeks and months.
"It certainly emboldens us," McHenry said.
Patrick O’Connor contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090213/pl_politico/18821/print
Friday, February 13, 2009
Last Russian general warns US on Afghanistan
By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer Jim Heintz, Associated Press Writer 45 mins ago
MOSCOW – Twenty years after Red Army troops pulled out of Afghanistan, the last general to command them says the Soviets' devastating experience is a dismal omen for U.S. plans to build up troops there.
On Friday, the anniversary of the Soviet departure from the Afghan capital, the Russian parliament's lower house adopted a resolution honoring the soldiers who "were faithful to the warrior's duty, who displayed heroism, bravery and patriotism."
In retired Gen. Boris Gromov's view, the valor was shown in an unwinnable battle.
"Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson ... It has been and always will be impossible to solve political problems using force," said Gromov, the last soldier to leave Afghanistan two days after the Kabul pullout.
He told reporters that U.S. plans to send thousands of new troops to Afghanistan would make no difference against a resurgent Taliban, who came to power in 1996 in the chaos after the Soviet withdrawal.
"One can increase the forces or not — it won't lead to anything but a negative result," Gromov said.
The parliament resolution credited the Red Army with the "repulsion of international terrorism and narcotics trade" and "averting a breeding ground for a new war" on Russia's border.
That appeared to blame Afghanistan's current fighting and soaring opium trade on the U.S.-led military operation launched in 2001 against the Taliban. Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has made the same suggestion recently, saying the alliance has repeated the Soviet Union's mistakes in Afghanistan and added its own.
The Soviet Union lost some 15,000 soldiers in the war, which began when Moscow sent in troops to battle guerrillas who were fighting a Soviet-supported government. The invasion brought international opprobrium on the Soviet Union — including a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow by countries including the United States, China and Japan.
It also shocked millions of Soviets who had been taught their massive military was the world's most potent, but saw their heavy equipment and powerful weaponry overwhelmed by ragged, Western-backed insurgents.
"I don't see any sense in that war," veteran Oleg Samoilov told Associated Press Television News. "What did we do, what did we achieve? Practically nothing. There were only dead people left, our dead comrades, their mothers and widows — and that's it."
Russia has given nominal support to the international anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan, but did not send troops, and there are mixed signals on how fully it backs the operation.
This month, Moscow authorized a $2.15 billion package of aid to Kyrgyzstan that is widely seen as the key factor in the Kyrgyz president's announcement that a U.S. base will be closed. The base is an important transit point for coalition troops and cargo for Afghanistan and is the home to tanker planes that refuel warplanes over Afghanistan.
But Russia has granted some coalition countries permission to ship Afghanistan-bound military supplies through its territory; Germany even has permission to ship weaponry.
Washington and Moscow are negotiating a deal for the United States to use Russian territory to send supplies to Afghanistan through Russia; news reports this week cited Foreign Ministry officials as saying only some minor details remain to be worked out.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov this week suggested such cooperation could be expanded to allow weapons shipments if the United States shows good faith — presumably an indication that Russia would press Washington hard for concessions on sensitive issues such as NATO expansion and the controversial proposal to put U.S. missile defense elements in Eastern Europe.
___
Associated Press Television producer Olga Tregubova in Moscow contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_afghanistan_anniversary/print
MOSCOW – Twenty years after Red Army troops pulled out of Afghanistan, the last general to command them says the Soviets' devastating experience is a dismal omen for U.S. plans to build up troops there.
On Friday, the anniversary of the Soviet departure from the Afghan capital, the Russian parliament's lower house adopted a resolution honoring the soldiers who "were faithful to the warrior's duty, who displayed heroism, bravery and patriotism."
In retired Gen. Boris Gromov's view, the valor was shown in an unwinnable battle.
"Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson ... It has been and always will be impossible to solve political problems using force," said Gromov, the last soldier to leave Afghanistan two days after the Kabul pullout.
He told reporters that U.S. plans to send thousands of new troops to Afghanistan would make no difference against a resurgent Taliban, who came to power in 1996 in the chaos after the Soviet withdrawal.
"One can increase the forces or not — it won't lead to anything but a negative result," Gromov said.
The parliament resolution credited the Red Army with the "repulsion of international terrorism and narcotics trade" and "averting a breeding ground for a new war" on Russia's border.
That appeared to blame Afghanistan's current fighting and soaring opium trade on the U.S.-led military operation launched in 2001 against the Taliban. Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has made the same suggestion recently, saying the alliance has repeated the Soviet Union's mistakes in Afghanistan and added its own.
The Soviet Union lost some 15,000 soldiers in the war, which began when Moscow sent in troops to battle guerrillas who were fighting a Soviet-supported government. The invasion brought international opprobrium on the Soviet Union — including a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow by countries including the United States, China and Japan.
It also shocked millions of Soviets who had been taught their massive military was the world's most potent, but saw their heavy equipment and powerful weaponry overwhelmed by ragged, Western-backed insurgents.
"I don't see any sense in that war," veteran Oleg Samoilov told Associated Press Television News. "What did we do, what did we achieve? Practically nothing. There were only dead people left, our dead comrades, their mothers and widows — and that's it."
Russia has given nominal support to the international anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan, but did not send troops, and there are mixed signals on how fully it backs the operation.
This month, Moscow authorized a $2.15 billion package of aid to Kyrgyzstan that is widely seen as the key factor in the Kyrgyz president's announcement that a U.S. base will be closed. The base is an important transit point for coalition troops and cargo for Afghanistan and is the home to tanker planes that refuel warplanes over Afghanistan.
But Russia has granted some coalition countries permission to ship Afghanistan-bound military supplies through its territory; Germany even has permission to ship weaponry.
Washington and Moscow are negotiating a deal for the United States to use Russian territory to send supplies to Afghanistan through Russia; news reports this week cited Foreign Ministry officials as saying only some minor details remain to be worked out.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov this week suggested such cooperation could be expanded to allow weapons shipments if the United States shows good faith — presumably an indication that Russia would press Washington hard for concessions on sensitive issues such as NATO expansion and the controversial proposal to put U.S. missile defense elements in Eastern Europe.
___
Associated Press Television producer Olga Tregubova in Moscow contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_afghanistan_anniversary/print
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
