Weekend thoughts

1. The protest movement in Iran seems to have lost its momentum, probably the result of both the violent crackdown by the government and the lack of an organization with a strong leader to keep the movement going. Musavi didn't start out to lead a reform movement; it was sort of forced on him, and he's tried to rise to the occation. But it's not the same as if he had a party organization behind him. Hints that various compromises were being worked out behind the scenes, with Rafsanjani wielding some negotiating power, have gone quiet. Wait and see.

2. What will the Repubicans say now about Obama's response? He did gradually increase his rhetoric condemning the government's repressive tactics -- and the movement faltered. Will it be his fault because he didn't threaten them enough, soon enough? Some way, it will all be his fault. I should remember there was a time when I honestly felt that everything that went wrong was george bush's fault. The difference was that, with bush, it really was all his fault.

3. On the other hand, I should listen to Jay Bookman, who said a true thing in the AJC yesterday: "In politics, an explanation that fits the facts is less powerful than an explanation that fits an emotional need." Sounds like he's been listening to Drew Westen.

4. The House passed the environment bill with cap and trade; it'll have a tougher time in the senate. Health care reform is at a pivotal spot. I'm most afraid that Obama and public plan advocates won't hang tough enough. Without that, I don't see reform as being enough to be effective. As Paul Krugman says: "Reform isn't worth having if you can only get it on terms so compromised that it's doomed to fail."

5. Obama did have a good line in his press conference about the objections to a public plan:

"If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

6. Rest in peace, Michael Jackson. I wasn't of the generation nor musical taste to appreciate his talent, so my interest was mostly in the oddities of his life. Nevertheless, that is less relevant now than the devoted following of his fans and the deep bonds of love he had with countless celebrities, from Elizabeth Taylor and Spike Lee to Deepak Chopra, who wrote a heart-felt piece about their long-standing friendship.

Ralph

Rush: It's Obama's fault

I never listen to Rush Limbaugh and rarely comment on quotes of his that I see. But this one is just too audacious to pass up.

You see, the whole Gov. Sanford affair is Obama's fault.

I kid you not. Rush's rant goes like this:

The country is going to hell in a handbasket. The federal government is taking over, and there's not anything we can do about it. Sanford tried to refuse Obama's stimulus money for South Carolina, and he failed. Obama has just killed everybody's spirit.

So he says, "What the hell. I want to enjoy life." Before Obama takes away everybody's money and their house, just say 'to hell with it.' Go enjoy yourself, while you can.

So Sanford takes off for Argentina to go have some fun with his mistress.

It's all Obama's fault -- despite the fact that Sanford began his affair more than a year before Obama even began running for president.

I'm speechless.

Ralph

Aslan on Iran

Reza Aslan, Iranian-American professor at the University of California Santa Barbara and articulate commentator about the current crisis, was on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last night.

Aslan says this movement is no longer about the election; it's about the future of the Iranian Republic, and it will continue as a struggle to change the current status quo. When it's over, it could be better or it could be worse.

He thinks that it will either become more militaristic and isolationist or it could remain Islamist but open up more to the outside world and become more democratic. He sums it up thus: it will become either like North Korea or like China. Clearly, he prefers and hopes for the latter.

He also was asked about the proper stance for the U.S. in this matter. His response: "Thank God for President Obama." He says Obama has taken exactly the right stance; the quickest way to destroy this movement would be to follow what Bill Bennett and John McCain want us to do, which is the usual kind of arrogant posturing and self-indulgent attempt to inject ourselves into the internal affairs of other nations.

Ralph

Crown them with clown hats

The New York State Senate has displaced the Georgia government for the title of most embarrassing debacle in state government. Crown them with the clown hats.

Perhaps there are other contenders that I overlook, but I've always had a personal stake in the 1947 episode when we had three people claiming the governorship. My personal stake? When I went away to college in another state three years later, it was still such a source of ridicule that I was often teased with, "How many governors does your state have today, Ralph?"

To review the history for younger folks: In 1946 former governor Eugene Talmadge was elected governor but died in December before his term was to begin in 1947. The GA Constitution was vague about such a situation, and three people had arguable claims: (1) outgoing governor Ellis Arnall claimed that he was governor until his successor was elected; (2) Lt. Gov.-Elect M. E. Thompson thought he should be governor, just as he would be if Talmadge had died after they took office; (3) the Talmadge camp claimed that an obscure provision in the constitution gave the legislature the power to choose between the #2 and #3 candidates on the ballot that elected the deceased governor-elect. Talmadge's opponent came in second, and Eugene's son, Herman Talmadge, had come in #3, based on a sprinkling of write-in votes. So the Talmadge dominated legislature chose him.

The Georgia Supreme Court settled the matter when they upheld Thompson as the rightful governor to serve until a special election, to be held in 1948. Then Herman defeated Thompson in that election.

OK -- that was embarrassing enough for a young kid from Georgia going "up north" to Duke in North Carolina, where southerners and northerners met and often clashed (good-naturedly) about the north/south rivalry. But it fed my sense of inferiority about being from the south.

But the NY Senate debacle seems even more childish. The Democrats held a one vote majority until June 8, when two of them defected to the Republican caucus in mid-session, temporarily giving Republican control of the Senate. But a few days later one of them waffled and rejoined the Democrats -- leaving a deadlocked Senate with each party having 31.

They've been paralyzed ever since and can't seem to find a way to go on functioning. Governor Paterson called them back for a special session Tuesday, and it turned into a farce. Here's how the New York Times' Danny Hakim described it:

Democrats sneaked into the Senate chamber shortly after noon, seizing control of the rostrum and locking Republicans out of the room. Republicans were finally allowed to enter about 2:30 p.m., but when they tried to station one of their own members on the dais they were blocked by the sergeants-at-arms.

So then something extraordinary — and rather embarrassing — happened.

The two sides, like feuding junior high schoolers refusing to acknowledge each other, began holding separate legislative sessions at the same time. Side by side, the parties, each asserting that it rightfully controls the Senate, talked and sometimes shouted over one another, gaveling through votes that are certain to be disputed. There were two Senate presidents, two gavels, two sets of bills being voted on.

The Democrats passed 14 bills, and the Repubicans passed 85, but they were mostly trivial, local things; and nobody has any idea about the legal standing of such bills. Both sides claimed a quorum, since all 62 members were present, and each side had 31.

But this is crazy insane. As serious as it was, it plays out as broad farce. What can you do but laugh?

Meanwhile, what about the same-sex marriage bill? The NY lower chamber has already passed it, and the senate was to have voted on it this month. Gov. Paterson has called another special session for tomorrow, and he has said that that bill is still on the agenda.

It might be more fun to watch than an old Three Stoogies flick.

Ralph

"Death by Bipartisanship"

Historian Nancy L. Cohen, writes about "Death by Bipartisanship" on HuffingtonPost:

Health care reform is wildly popular. Three separate polls show over 70% of Americans favor a public insurance plan. Remarkably, the majority of us are even willing to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for our uninsured compatriots. (see here, here, and here).

But elder statesmen and the Washington commentariat warn that it would be a grave political mistake to include a public option in health care reform. Why? Because it doesn't have bipartisan support.

When the ever elusive bipartisanship becomes a more important goal then, say, the well-being of nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, it's time to examine our priorities.

She goes on to debunk the myths about bipartisanship: that it implies consensus, when it does not; that it ensures proper compromises, which it doesn't; and that without it people will eventually turn against health care reform.

In truth, we will turn against health care reform if it doesn't work. And gutting the plan is the sure-fire way to guarantee that it won't work.

The worst problem, I think, in compromise on an issue like this is that in order get votes you gut the bill of what could make real substantive differences; as a result critics will "prove" that it didn't work, and we may be worse off than before.

Some compromise may be necessary in order to get enough votes to pass reform legislation, especially with centrists Democrats not on board. What we need is a Sam Rayburn or a Lyndon Johnson who knew how to knock heads and twist arms to get support for his bills. Unfortunately, those days may be gone along with those master legislative tacticians. Lobbyists and their money seem to rule the day in our time.

The art of pursuasion seems to have been replaced by the dollar sign.

When we can't get passed legislation of such importance with 70+% of the public supporting a public plan, I despair of our political process.

Ralph

"Rafsanjani poised to outflank Khamenei"

Billionaire George Soros' Open Society Institute-New York promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. Through its Eurasia.net project, it reports the following analysis at:
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav062209.shtml

"Rafsanjani poised to outflank Khamenei":

A source familiar with the thinking of decision-makers in state agencies that have strong ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said there is a sense among hardliners that a shoe is about to drop. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- Iran’s savviest political operator and an arch-enemy of Ayatollah Khamenei’s -- has kept out of the public spotlight since the rigged June 12 presidential election triggered the political crisis. The widespread belief is that Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"There is great apprehension among people in the supreme leader’s [camp] about what Rafsanjani may pull," said a source in Tehran who is familiar with hardliner thinking. "They [the supreme leader and his supporters] are much more concerned about Rafsanjani than the mass movement on the streets."

Ayatollah Khamenei now has a very big image problem among influential Shi’a clergymen. Over the course of the political crisis, stretching back to the days leading up to the election, Rafsanjani has succeeded in knocking the supreme leader off his pedestal by revealing Ayatollah Khamenei to be a political partisan rather than an above-the-fray spiritual leader. In other words, the supreme leader has become a divider, not a uniter.

Now that Ayatollah Khamenei has become inexorably connected to Ahmadinejad’s power grab, many clerics are coming around to the idea that the current system needs to be changed. Among those who are now believed to be arrayed against Ayatollah Khamenei is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shi’a cleric in neighboring Iraq. Rafsanjani is known to have met with Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani’s representative in Iran, Javad Shahrestani.

Now this begins to get really fascinating. The courageous street protests of the people are inspiring and touching -- and may provide the impetus for this kind of maneuvering. It takes nothing away from that importance to say that it is also a useful distraction from what is going on at the highest levels of government. It sounds like Rafsanjani may be able to pull this off.

I would think that, if there is any moral sense in this group of clerics of what is right -- and I would hope that there is -- they would see that their idealistic revolution of 1979 has become what they did not intend it to be. And now is the perfect time to change that direction.

Ralph

"You can't beat our grandmothers"

Melody Moezzi is an Iranian-American living in this country who has been in touch with relatives in Iran. She gave a very emotional report on CNN about what is happening.

The violence and intrusiveness of the government, and especially the para-military basij attacking people and entering their homes, has changed this from a fight over politics to a revolt of the people against a repressive government.

She has relatives who supported Ahmadenijad but who are now part of the resistance, because they abhor the way the people are being treated. Breaking down into tears, Melody described how old women in full chador were in the streets protesting -- and they were beaten.

"You can't beat old women !! You can't beat our grandmothers !!"

Khamenei has badly miscalculated. This has gone too far to stop now. He will either be overthrown or will quietly be ushered off stage in a bloodless, inside coup.

Ralph

Khamenei

Three important bits of news from Iran via Nico Pitney and my thoughts about where things stand:

1. There now appear to be definite plans for a general strike. Word is being spread to prepare for food shortages, no public transportation, and money shortage; expect that the government will cut off electric power.

2. It's been reported that Rafsanjani has a letter signed by 40 members of the 86 member Assembly of Experts calling for the annulment of the election.

3. Also reported but not verified: That Supreme Leader Khamenei has lung cancer and that the core argument is not just about the election but about the system of government, which started as a revolution to establish a republic but has become more like a monarchy. This is especially focused because Khamenei wants his son to replace him; and he rigged the election, thinking he would have less resistance from Ahmanedijad than from Mousavi.

Let's suppose they do annul the election, have another and Mousavi wins. It's uncertain how different Mousavi's policies would be unless they change the system of government. However, he is a very different man from Ahmanedijad, and he now is the leader of a grassroots movement for reform in which the young urban, educated class is a large portion. They want reform of social restrictions, and they want better relations with the Western world.

Also -- a nullification of the election would also mean loss of power for Khamenei. This is probably the end of his supreme control. So it would not just be Mousavi in the weak position of president with the strong Khamenei in control, but likely a change in Supreme Leader as well.

A general strike would be the logical, and probably effective, next step that the people can do to push the leadership councils to replace Khamenei and call for new elections.

All in all, I do not think this toothpaste is going to go back into the tube. The only way would be much more massive repressive measures than they've done yet, and it does not sound like Khamenei has enough support among the leaders for that.

Ralph

Another positive development

Although the Iranian government has cracked down violently on demonstrators, there has been another surprising development:

The spokesman for the Guardian Council, which has responsibility for overseeing elections, has admitted that in 50 cities the number of votes collected is greater than the number of people eligible to vote in those cities. The vote tally affected is over 3 million.

And this was announced on the state tv. So they are acknowledging that there was election fraud on a pretty massive scale. They're saying they don't know whether this was enough to have changed the outcome, but they're no longer claiming there was no irregularity.

It could be a first step in calling for a new election.

Ralph

Next step in Iran: strikes?

Nico Pitney's running blog on happenings in Iran has a note about a statement made by the dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. He is the one who last week said that no one in his right mind would believe the reported election results.

Now Montazeri is urging that, on Wednesday through Friday of this week, people mourn those who have died in the protest demonstrations. Pitney has been in touch with some Iranians, who told him that this is a covert way of asking people to strike.

That would be a significant development because it follows the pattern in the protests of 1979 that finally brought down the Shah's government and instituted the revolution. They also said that many more people would participate in strikes than risk going to street demonstrations.

Ralph

Iran -- not over yet

Yesterday's protest demonstrations had smaller crowds and they were met by violence from the government, especially the basij paramilitary forces.

It's important to look behind the government's determination to stop the street protests and try to get some sense of what may still be going on behind the scenes.

Early yesterday, the Tehran Times reported that the Assembly of Experts, a powerful clerical group, had expressed its strong support for the election results. However, it turns out that was not true. The statement had been signed by only the deputy leader of the Assembly, who is a rival of Rafsanjani and who apparently has little influence; it was not a statement by the full Assembly.

Later in the day, the Speaker of Iran's Parliament, Ali Larijani, spoke on the state tv (IRIB) and said that "a majority of people are of the opinion that the actual election results are different than what was officially announced. . . . The opinion of this majority should be respected and a line should be drawn between them and rioters and miscreants."

Not only was this the Speaker of Parliament, it was carried on state tv. And he didn't some "some people," he said "a majority of people."

It could be part of their repressive tactics: deal harshly with the "rioting" and make a show of respecting the widespread mistrust, do some sort of "recount," and still uphold the election.

Or is there some real power struggle going on behind the scenes that might end in some change?

Saying "majority" rather than "some" suggests to me that it is the latter.

Ralph