The only President we have -----

During all of President Bush’s tenure in office a major segment of our population, accepting the lead of the Democratic political leadership attempted, with significant success, in turning every issue into a direct attack on, or an opportunity to undermine the stature of the only President we have. In fairness, the Republicans, led by the likes of Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich were less than constructive when dealing with positive initiatives of Bill Clinton during his eight years in office.

While it is certainly clear that political life calls for vigorous opposition and while it is certainly clear that both of the last two sitting presidents earned opposition attacks, the effort to totally demean, even destroy, our designated leader has been distasteful in general and costly to us all, as individuals and as a nation.

Things have gotten worse during the Bush administration, during a time when when our nation has been under threat, a time when a level of proper respect for our country’s carefully built structure cries out for maintenance.

Adopting the theme of Mr. Obama’s campaign, it is time for a change. And yes, I mean that in many ways.

For our nation to survive as a true land of opportunity, one that made Mr. Obama’s improbable ascendency possible, it is mandatory that the basic concepts, the foundational strengths of this experiment in democracy, be maintained. Every way must remain open for any person to achieve "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but those rights, though available to all cannot be guaranteed for all.

The idea that seemed to leak through from Mr. Obama’s philosophy is that rather than making sure that opportunity exists for all he is willing to extract the property and wealth from those that have achieved and to redistribute it to those that have not been able to do so.

While it makes all the sense in the world to insure that all people be equally able and encouraged to achieve, that steps be taken to insure that opportunity be available to all, those that have failed to make their way should not expect reach their goals in life, no matter how modest they may be, by taking away from those who have achieved their own goals, no matter how modest they are.

When Mr. Obama takes the oath of office in January I would hope he proceeds in a way that build on the basic precepts of this republic. I would hope that the extremes of both party’s be overwhelmed by the centrists and that we are able to move forward with a constructive agenda.
This is not a cry to keep taxes low. In fact, taxes must and will go up. It is the use and the method of using the needed tax dollars that will be the critical issue that will speak to the country’s future.

We need not be wed to the Bush tax cuts nor does it mean that we should discourage investment, there is room to maneuver for all. In the meantime the simple problems like Afghanistan, Iraq, the entire Middle East and our periously over extended economic balance sheet must be tended to.

Mr. Obama has a very full plate.

The least we can do is support his efforts and, when we can not, to let him know what we are having trouble with, but in a way that preserves the dignity of his office and as the elected leader of this country.

He too will be the only President we have.

Capitalism, free enterprise and common sense

In a Republican administration that prides itself on global and market economies, the government has, in the last two years, stepped in to tweak the system. It has taken control of the side flippers on the pinball machine of economic well being and is trying to prevent a world wide economic tilt and I wish them well.


At the same time I think the whole mess deserves serious thought by the general public. Unfortunately this is wishful thinking.


Our economy, which the Democrats try to lay at the feet of the Bush administration, belongs to all. Until recently Bush and his administration have done virtually nothing to improve our steadily deteriorating economic foundation and it can be convincingly argued that he has hastened the erosion. However, in the end, it is the general tone and expectations of our population, egged on by politicians and fools of both parties, who, for over 60 years has generated the conditions that we now find ourselves in.


The Great Depression of the 1930's "cured" by the demands and sacrifices, in blood and treasure, of World War II, provided a pent up demand that propelled this country forward into the 1960's. As the natural momentum slowed the Republicans amplified their preaching of free enterprise and the Democrats, supposedly echoing Franklin D. Roosevelt, urged programs that would "take care of the little guy." But, in the era of the great depression that was not only what Roosevelt was trying to do. Roosevelt was desperately trying to right the economic foundations of this country, a foundation built on excesses, that had crumbled.


It is interesting to find that it is now a Republican administration that is attempting to do the same thing and using tools that were first developed in the Roosevelt administration. I do not believe that Bush is leading this effort. In fact, I have not read or heard him say anything that indicates that he even recognizes or comprehends the fundamentals of what has transpired and what the possible ramifications are.


For perhaps different reasons neither of the two candidates for president or their running mates have given any indication that they are intellectually invested in the dilemma other than to toss blame.

Out on a limb, indeed very far out on a limb, is Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Paulson, who came to government after running Goldman Sachs, the free market, capitalistic giant of Wall Street, is wielding a large club and banging around the vested interests of this era’s financial excesses. He is, using long standing powers, that are vested in his position, as well as new powers recently voted by congress, to take steps that are unprecedented since Roosevelt declared a four day bank "holiday" in 1933.


First, a year ago, he took great liberty with his powers and forced the teetering Bear, Stearns, a Wall Street firm that was a perfect model of a traders and, bare knuckled , risk takers. A firm that believed "the market price, is the market price" showing no mercy, to those on the other side of a bad bet, and forced them to eat their own cake. He forced them to sell themselves to J. P. Morgan, Chase at a pittance. He did this as Bear had made tremendous bets on the mortgage market "securities" that, as the housing bubble burst, were anything but secure.


Helping the housing boom, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, was the creation of two companies, whose roots are historically tied to the Roosevelt era, that came to be called Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They were odd hybrids. Each was chartered as private, publicly traded corporations and were labeled Government Sponsored Entities. Their charter was for them to buy mortgages placed by banks, combine them into other forms of securities and sell those securities to all comers. Thus, they continuously replenished the originating banks capital creating a rolling snowball of revolving money with everyone involved taking fees. The Democrats looked at these GSE’s as a way to promote home ownership for the lower end of the middle class and the Republicans looked at them as engines of infinite liquidity and profit for all. The buyers of the securities issued by the GSE’s, banks, foreign and domestic, foreign government sovereign funds, etc. considered the investments to be implicitly backed by the United States government but nowhere did the securities that the Fannie’s issued state that they had the "full faith and backing" of our government. Still, the Fannie’s sold, or guaranteed, in the neighborhood of at least $ 5 trillion of paper.


Alas, some of the ultimate mortgages that backed the Fannie’s paper, in total fully one half of all mortgages in place in this country, started to sink rapidly in value as those who had been urged to buy homes, that they really could not afford, with mortgages that should never have been written, fell into foreclosure. All of a sudden the buyers of Fannie paper, the banks of Europe, China, Russia, etc. got very nervous. Paulson, fully realizing that a collapse of the Fannie’s could lead to a worldwide financial freeze up, not so different to the Great Depression, took government control of the Fannie’s using a conservatorship. Call it a gentle form of bankruptcy without using the word.


Economists have estimated that in the end this debacle may cost us taxpayers some $100 billion to cover the rotten paper. If it works, it will be cheap.


What we must think about is what will happen if it does not work. And on the brighter side, what can we do to stop it from happening again.

Am I missing something --------

As the Georgian fiasco unfolded factual on the ground reporting was hard to come by. Snippets of "facts" were everywhere. It did become clear that Georgia attacked and entered South Ossetia, in strength, on August 7. It also became clear that Russia’s prompt response, with overwhelming strength, had been planned for. Large forces of armor and personnel need massive amounts of fuel and support and the column that swept through South Ossetia and into Georgia was no ad hoc security force, brought quickly together. The Russian Black Sea fleet had steam up and was ready to go.

President Bush, showing alarm garnished with embarrassment and anger, set the tone for England, France and Germany to wail and the media said little to bring balance to the picture. After all, Democrat or Republican, who was going to offer justification much less rational understanding that could be taken as justification, for the marauding Russian bear.

Extensive video coverage, a virtually unlimited forum, for the distraught Georgian President to present his case, worked against him as each time he slid further into a the quicksand of sloppy lies.

As I scanned newspaper accounts of what had and was happening I noted that many, here and abroad, that were printing "news" as well as commentary , were showing a time line of events. Many commenced the time line on August 8, stating that this was when the Russians invaded Georgia.

August 7 and the events leading up to it were initially ignored.

Finally, on August 18, The New York Times printed an article (link below)

(http://(http//www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/washington/18diplo.html?em)

that provides a broader perspective and it is very helpful though it does not go far enough in reviewing the history of the Caucasus in general and Georgia and South Ossetia in specific. I find it interesting to consider that Georgia has been part of Russia, or what ever it was called, for longer than where I live, Maine, has been a state in this country.

In the article, describing how President Bush and Vice President Cheney embraced the President Saaskashvilli and today’s independent Republic of Georgia, that they promoted and even created, you have to wonder about the hubris and blind spots of both of them. What had they seen and what were they seeing. In a column of mine published in 2000 I touched on how I always watched the eyes. An excerpt follows:

"ALWAYS WATCH THE EYES
In my career I have had to walk into a room to negotiate this or that and the people on the other side of the table were frequently not known to me before the meeting. While one looks for all sorts of clues to learn about the adversary from clothing, haircut, size, build etc. the key to me has always been the eyes. Sooner or later the eyes do not lie. Body language is complex and revealing but sooner or later the eyes provide the key to break the performance code. Now, some people are awfully good actors and some can really control all of the extraneous little signals but as the husk is discarded the nut of the problem is usually revealed in the eyes.
So, if TV is of limited value for lots of things I find that it provides scads of information when you get to look at the national and political figures strut their stuff. To me Secretary of State Madeline Albright has the flat eyed stare of a stone cold assassin and Acting President of Russia, Vladimir Putin has a look of reptilian coolness. President Clinton has the eyes of a consummate deceiver. His problem is that we have all seen him flick them into different modes and what we know is that he is simply a person with no center. You want tough he flashes tough ("Now I want you to listen to me. I did not--") you want sincere he gives you sincere, you want fawning, just look at the old picture, when as a teenager when he came to Washington and shook hands with President Kennedy."

If our leaders had really watched the eyes of Mr.Saaskashvilli before the fiasco they would have seen a scheming and fawning neophyte. Had they watched him at his numerous post invasion news conferences they clearly should have thought things through before rushing to give Georgia unconditional support.

As it is, what the U.S and NATO are threatening to do to Russia so that, as Vice President Cheney states, "their action can not go unanswered," is a joke. The threat to bar Russia from the G- 7 and G - 8, the large country fraternities, is nuts. In the 1990's, Russia was basically bankrupt and close to anarchy and thus badly in need of credibility. They wanted and needed international acceptance and recognition. Those days are well behind them. Locking the big dog out of the kennel makes one wonder just who is locked up. Borrowing a line from the movie "Animal House," putting the Russia of today on "double secret probation" is just too funny.
It is equally absurd for our government and untold number of pundits to declare that "spheres of influence," are a thing of the past. After all, NATO is just one example of a western sphere of influence. It is the way this whole mess started.

At the special meeting of NATO, today, the representatives played double kissy cheek with our Secretary of Sate Condolleeza Rice and then frolicked around before they got down to business to issue stern warnings to Russia and do nothing. Which, after all, is better than if they had tried to do something.

So what to do.

Short term we will not be able, or wise, to try and do anything. War with Russia is neither justified or wanted. Our new president is going to have to lead a careful review of our entire foreign policy posture. Just consider the mess in Pakistan much less the Caucasus. It behooves us to sit down with Russia and learn their red lines and to let them know ours.

To me, Russia, at this time, does not appear to seek world domination. Neither does China or India the other predominant growing powers. they just want a bigger piece of the pie.

That could change.

However, a true understanding and rational acceptance of what these countries really want is critically needed. At the same time if their "eyes" and the facts indicate that what they want they cannot have we better reshape our own national character and direction to protect our "red lines."