Marin Forum

With Hurricane Gustav set to make landfall on Monday, the McCain campaign finds itself in a lose-lose situation. Either it can continue with the nominating convention but suffer the criticisms of being out of touch or it can shorten the convention but suffer from significantly decreased media coverage. Senator John McCain has urged Republicans to shorten the convention and make the focus of the convention on providing aid and support to those affected by the hurricane. The Republicans have responded by shortening Monday’s events and President Bush and Vice President Cheney will not be making appearances.

Regardless of any decisions made by the RNC, Hurricane Gustav will surely detract from the festivities associated with the convention. Most likely the convetion will be much more somber than Republicans were hoping for and it will not match the Democratic convention. Media coverage will be less since the major networks will be focused on two events (Gustav and the convention) while during the the Democratic convention there was only one major news story (the Democratic convention). Many of the networks are pulling their anchors out of the Twin Cities and sending them to areas that are to be affected by Gustav.

While Hurricane Gustav will dampen the mood of the convention, McCain made the right decision to change the schedule of the nominating convention. If the convention were to continue as originally planned the Republicans and especially McCain would be portrayed as extremeley out of touch with the public. If anything the convention would be seen as a distraction to the pressing issue of the moment (Gustav). A lack of media coverage is far better than negative coverage.

Meanwhile, McCain is planning to be in the Gulf Coast region and has even considered accepting his nomination via satellite  and skipping the convention all together. There’s a small chance that McCain’s presence in the region will come off as taking advantage of the situation for his political gain, but most likely his presence will provide positive media coverage. As long as his presence does not hinder the relief effort (the reason given by President Bush and Senator Barack Obama for not going to the region) then his decision will be a boon to his campaign and perhaps make up for the lack of news coverage at the convention.

Everything depends on the deadliness and destructiveness of Hurricane Gustav. Hopefully we are better prepared than when Hurricane Katrina struck the region.

This morning John McCain announced that Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin would be his choice for vice-president. The favorite of the Republican’s conservative base, her selection rather shocked the other contenders (Romney and Pawlenty) as they feel that McCain wanted Palin on the ticket early on while he let the media focus their attention on Romney and Pawlenty. Many hail her as a reformer for her efforts to cut back government spending and eliminate corruption in government. Meanwhile, she tows the standard conservative role: anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-death penalty, lower taxes, smaller government, and pro-drilling. However, her lack of experience and Alaskan origins make her a questionable choice. So what does she bring to the ticket?

• First and foremost she is seen as a reformer. She was against Sen. Ted Steven’s push for funding the “bridge to nowhere” and many similar pork-barrel projects. One of her stronger beliefs was that Alaska should be self-sufficient and not rely on Federal funds. She successfully passed an ethnics bill and has exposed the close link between many Alaskan politicians and the energy companies and lobbyists. Her reformist reputation may reinforce McCain’s maverick reputation, and it may distance McCain from claims that he is tied to lobbyists.
• Her energy policy of pro-drilling is becoming increasingly popular among the American public. If gas prices remain high, her support for increased domestic drilling could be a plus.
• In Alaska she is extremely popular with an 80% approval rating. Perhaps she could drum up similar support in the lower 48 states.
• She has a strong family background with five children including one with Down syndrome. One of her sons is currently in the military and her husband works in the oil fields for BP. Her personal activities such as hunting and snowmobiling help to create an image of the average working person.
• It seems McCain picked Palin in an attempt to attract disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. McCain and his advisers hope that by putting a women on their ticket, they can draw women voters especially the soccer-mom constituency that played a key role in Bill Clinton’s election and Hillary Clinton’s push for the nomination. Yet would Clinton supporters support a candidate who is nearly the exact opposite of Clinton just for the sake of electing a women? Some voters will clearly be turned off by this rather low move, and it may drive many women voters to Obama. On the other hand it seems possible that some women voters will turn to Palin because of the gender issue.
• Her experience is a problem. She has been governor of Alaska for only two years and before that she was mayor of a small city (around 6,000 people). In an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow she said in response to a question about whether she wanted the VP slot: “I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does everyday.” However, the issue is not necessarily her experience but the neutralizing of the Republican claim that Barack Obama is too inexperienced. Now every time McCain’s brings up Obama’s lack of experience, Obama can quickly respond by saying that Palin has less national experience than him on matters such as foreign policy thus making her poorly suited to the job of President if something were to happen to the elder McCain. After today the issue of experience should become far less important as both sides may be inclined to avoid the issue. She gives no reassurances to the Party that if McCain were to become incapacitated in office that she would be capable of handling the Presidency. The choice of Palin once again raises issues about McCain’s age.
• It is questionable whether Palin will be able to energize the Republican base. She is a true conservative which could alleviate some fears by conservatives that McCain is too moderate, but she is an unknown. Until today the majority of Americans knew very little, if anything, about Palin. It is hard to get people excited about a candidate who they hardly know. That being said, her status as an unknown means she has few enemies.
• She is under investigation for the dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner. It is believed that she misused her office to fire the commissioner for his reluctance to remove a state trooper who was Palin’s  former brother in-law. Palin’s case seem fairly strong so it doesn’t seem that anything will come to light in the next few months, but it will provide a headache for the McCain campaign. It is one more unnecessary distraction.
• It doesn’t appear that she brings many substantive expertise to the table. McCain is weak on the economy but she has very little experience with economic issues. Her major claim to fame is reform, but McCain is already a “leader” on reform. However, her perceived lack of expertise in nationally important issues may be due to the fact that hardly anyone follows Alaskan politics.
• And that brings up the last point: who cares about Alaska? While Joe Biden hails from the solidly blue Delaware, he has connections to the battleground state of Pennsylvania. Alaska is not a battleground state and besides its natural resources and Senator Ted Stevens’ ridiculous appropriations it is political unimportant in the national scene.

Governor Palin’s choice for the VP seems more of an effort to throw a twist into the election than to strengthen McCain on substantive issues. Perhaps McCain’s advisers feel that McCain is already strong enough on substantive issues. In any event it makes this election truly historic. Whatever the outcome either the United States will see its first African American President or its first women Vice-President.

It is interesting that each candidate seems to perfectly fit into a puzzle. The Washington-insider McCain is strong on foreign policy and has much experience in the Senate but has some personal/family issues, while the outsider Obama is young but solid on domestic issues. Obama picks the Washington-insider Biden to strengthen his position on foreign policy and bring experience to the ticket. Biden also provides the family man and working man images with an emotional personal story. McCain responds by picking the young and outsider Palin who has strong family values. Palin is the counterpart to Obama and Biden is the counterpart to McCain. The vice-presidential candidates were carefully picked based on the opposing sides strengths and weaknesses, but Palin will prove to be a much riskier choice than Biden since she lacks substantive issues.

With the Democratic Convention in full swing focus is once again on reuniting the Party. Sure the Democratic leadership wants to increase the attack on the vulnerable John McCain, but it is first imperative that their own party completely throws there support behind Barack Obama. If the Democratic Party does not unite behind Obama then it will be an extremely tough general election for the Illinois Senator.

The roadblock to party unity is Hillary Clinton. Or rather it is not Clinton that is the problem but her loyal supporters and the ghosts of the primary campaign.

It seems inconceivable that people would vote against their party’s candidate simply because he (or she) beat their favored candidate, and yet that is exactly what is happening right now in the Democratic Party. Clinton’s primary campaign brewed a hatred among her supporters for Barack Obama. Most of this is due to the race between the two candidates being so close and competitive. It is troubling that even two months after Clinton dropped out some of her supporters have maintained their hatred for Obama. It seems that no matter what Clinton says now can turn her supporters over the Obama. Just has Obama has his movement among his supporters, Clinton has created a movement of her own and its on the verge of being uncontrollable.

The events and actions during the primary campaign are doing nothing to help unite the party. These so called “ghosts of the primary campaign” include Clinton’s negative ads against Obama (the 3 a.m. phone call) and statements made while campaigning such as “Obama is not ready to be the president.” McCain and the Republicans are now using these ads and statements as fuel to attack Obama. The same is also true for remarks made by Joe Biden during the primaries. The Republicans are using sound bites from the Democratic primaries to show that Clinton or Biden do not truly believe that Obama is presidential material. Of course Clinton and Biden are going to attack their competitors to show that they are the strongest candidate, but in a highly competitive election it provides very valuable fuel for the other party.

Hillary Clinton supports Barack Obama because like any Democratic party leader she knows that even though she lost, she has to throw her support behind Obama if her Party is to get into the White House. Unfortunately her supporters do not see it that way, especially since in the United States parties play a backseat role to the candidates. People feel stronger ties to the candidates than the party. Since their candidate lost they may feel that there is no point to voting in the general election or they will vote for the opposing candidate simply because they cannot stand their candidate’s rival.

There is very little that Clinton can do to convince her supporters to back Obama short of actively campaigning. But why would she actively campaign when it is highly unlikely that she will be given a prominent role in the Obama administration? Instead the Democrats need to stress that McCain represents a continuation of the Bush administration because there is one thing that a vehement Clinton supporter hates more than Obama and that’s George Bush. Clinton supporters need to realize that they have to vote for Obama if they want their goals and ideas (withdrawal from Iraq, universal health-care, an improved economy, etc) to be achieved. At this point things are out of Clinton’s control; it is now up to the Democratic Party to be strong and Clinton’s supporters to come around on their own.

I will be taking another break for the next week. The Olympics are dominating the press coverage at the moment so I’m going to take a break until they pass (and the current “big” stories I’ve already covered well enough). Furthermore, I’m moving back into school so things are going to be a little hectic. Most likely I’ll resume writing sometime mid to late next week. Of course if there is some breaking story that occurs before then, I might just have to write about it.

After over a week of conflict in Georgia reports of ethnic conflict and violence are emerging in the breakaway province of South Ossetia. Early in the conflict the Russian government claimed that the Georgians were committing genocide as civilian casualties exceeding 1,000. However, recent reports have shown that that number is too high as the local hospital in Tskhinvali has only received 44 corpses. Meanwhile, reporters and Russian military commanders are saying that they have witnessed South Ossetians attacking Georgians and Georgian owned property.

Recently the Georgian government filed an application to the International Court of Justice asking the Court to judge that Russians and their proxy, the South Ossetians, have committed ethnic discrimination. The Georgian government claims that once South Ossetia achieved defacto independence in the early 1990s, Russian citizens and corporations moved into South Ossetia and began to force out native Georgians.

Now the ethnic conflict is beginning to turn into ethnic violence. There are claims that ethnic South Ossetians have burned homes belonging to ethnic Georgians in attempts to keep the Georgians from moving back. Of course during any war there is chaos and looting as people “take advantage” of the situation, but if these attacks prove to be primarily directed toward ethnic Georgians then it can be considered ethnic violence.

Even Russian officials have acknowledged that much of the looting and attacks have been conducted by South Ossetians against Georgians. The Russian military has done little to prevent the looting and attacks since they say that they are a military not a police force. There is very little proof, if any, suggesting that the Russians are behind the recent “ethnic” violence, but clearly South Ossetians have been responsible for some attacks against ethnic Georgians. Whether Georgians are responsible for any ethnically driven attacks remains to be seen.

After nine years in power Pervez Musharraf is likely to step down from the presidency after facing possible impeachment. Last week the ruling coalition planned to impeach Musharraf, and it is expected that he will step down rather than go through the formal charges. Musharraf has expressed no desire to flee Pakistan but it’s questionable whether he can steer clear of any acts of retribution. The last year saw him lose popularity with the international community and even the military, the long time place of power in Pakistan. This time around the military is remaining neutral and many former military leaders have expressed that Musharraf should leave.

Musharraf has proved to be difficult for the United States. He has been seen as vital to the War on Terror yet he is not even close to a good example of democracy. In the beginnings of the US involvement in Afghanistan following September 11th Musharraf proved to be a critical ally, and he has given the United States considerable access to Pakistan. However, Musharraf has also proved to be repressive and autocratic with no respect for the Pakistani constitution. His use of emergency power did not help his standing with the international community.

Musharraf will be gone before long so what does it mean for Pakistan and the United States?

Pakistan could be heading toward more turmoil. The country will be better off without Musharraf but the next president will face many problems and obstacles. While the military is remaining neutral at the moment if the civilian government is unable to maintain proper control of the country it is quite possible that they will launch another coup. The military still holds a lot of power in Pakistani politics.

US relations with Pakistan should significantly change. The new president may not be as supportive of the War on Terror as Musharraf. In any event, relations with Pakistan will become more distant as the new Pakistani government will probably not be as pro-Western. Cooperation with Coalition efforts in Afghanistan could become more tricky, but Musharraf wasn’t exactly cooperative with fighting the Taliban along the Pakistani-Afghani border. His hesitance to strongly tackle the border problem has turned the border into a lawless region.

Musharraf’s departure will signal a significant change in Pakistani politics. Domestically, Pakistan will have another try at democracy. On foreign relations Pakistan will not be as close to the United States, but perhaps international powers will show more support to Pakistan after being turned off my Musharraf. As far as security is concerned the military still has considerable power so there shouldn’t be any threat of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands. The next few months will be crucial to Pakistan’s development.

Before the first week of the 2008 Olympics have finished, there is already plenty of controversy surrounding the games. Long before the torch was lit in Beijing there were plenty of protests and in some cities the torch relay was nearly a disaster. Then on the eve on the Olympics war breaks out between Russia and Georgia (although that is far beyond the control of the Chinese and in the end of the day has little if any impact on the games). This was followed by the murder of an American in Beijing. Now the controversy continues as it centers on the Opening Ceremony and Chinese Gymnastics team.

At the Opening Ceremony the girl who sang “Ode to the Motherland” was actually lip-syncing while supposedly TV viewers saw doctored video of the fireworks. Meanwhile, there are claims (and perhaps rightly so) that the Chinese have underage gymnasts on their team. All three instances highlight how the media has been using a very critical eye on China’s performance.

The doctored fireworks claim shows how nit-picky the media is in regards to China. When people look back at the Beijing Olympics and the opening ceremony, they are not going to remember the fireworks, but the general grandeur of the event and the lighting of the torch. Similarly the lip-syncing is a relatively minor thing that made headline news. The Chinese do not seem to be bothered by the lip-syncing and were very straight-forward about why they made the decision (the actual singer was not pretty enough). Finally, the media has attacked the Chinese team for being underage, but they have absolutely no proof other than the very youthful looks of the Chinese gymnasts. While the US media may be bitter about the loss to China, the Chinese simply outperformed the Americans regardless of the age of their athletes. That being said, I concur with the general opinion that the Chinese team is underage.

In a way the 2008 Olympics are a learning experience for the Chinese government. They get to learn what it is like to have the international free press inside their country for over two weeks. Furthermore, they are not having it easy as the media is looking into every nook and cranny for faults. Of course the purpose of the free press is to be critical and question what is going on but the free press also has its biases. Running up to the Olympics there was and still is a feeling that China does not deserve to host the 2008 Olympics or any international event that promotes peace and unity until they clean up their actions on human rights. The media has latched onto that idea; therefore, in certain cases they have become overly critical.

On the eve of the 2008 Olympics international peace and unity was forgotten as Russia and Georgia engaged in war over the breakaway province of South Ossetia. The last few years has seen increased tensions between the two neighbors as Georgia pushes for NATO membership. In 2007 Russia completed its withdrawal of its troops from Georgia, but relations remained tense especially after Georgia expelled three Russian diplomats. In July 2008 Russian airplanes violated Georgian airspace; Georgia responded by saying that it would shoot down any Russian plane that violated its airspace again. Then on August 7th Georgian troops entered the province of South Ossetia that had gained unofficial autonomy several years earlier.

Russia responded by what many countries are claiming is a disproportionate use of force. Russian forces drove out Georgian forces from South Ossetia, bombed several areas in Georgia, and blockaded the Georgia coast. It is questionable whether it was necessary for Georgia to send its troops into South Ossetia in the first place, but Russia’s response was completely unwarranted.

With Putin in power Russia has been eager to reassert its former glory during the middle of the 20th century. It has begun to fly long range patrols which were stopped after the fall of communism and it held a military parade for the first time in years. Russia’s move in South Ossetia can be seen as a message to the world not to mess with the Russian Federation. Russian officials have expressed desire to remove Georgia’s president, Mikail Saakashvili, from power. It’s moves likes these that make European countries eager for defensive systems such as the proposed missile shield or alliance networks such as NATO.

With international attention focused on the Middle East and China, it is important that Russia is not allowed to fly under the radar. Russia has its own agenda which is consistently running contrary to the wishes of Europe and the United States. In the Security Council Russia is proving to be a strong obstacle to many initiatives, and it is using its natural gas supplies as a punishment and reward system in Eastern Europe. The difficulty is being able to stand up to Russia without further aggravating tensions. The missile defense shield make check Russia’s military expansion, but it also greatly increases tensions between the United States and Russia. The most important thing for the United States to remember is that it cannot face Russia alone, since it will need the support of all its European allies to keep Russia in check.

To further difficult things Russia is showing that it is not bothered by international opinion. Its invasion of South Ossetia and attacks on Georgia show that Russia is willing to isolate itself from the international community in order to put forward its national ambitions. And that is the scary aspect of Russia; China is economically tied to the United States and Iran is only a regional power with very little international clout. Clearly the next president of the United States will face many difficulties and headaches from the re-emerging Russian Federation.

This November Marin and Sonoma residents will again vote on a sales tax to fund SMART, the regional transit system that will serve both counties. SMART is not perfect, especially since it does not directly connect commuters to San Francisco, but it is extremely necessary in an area that lacks a solid transportation system. Gas prices are only going to increase which may make the cost of travel impractical for some people, yet at the moment there are very few alternatives. The only way to get people out of their cars is to develop a solid mass transit infrastructure. The current bus system is unreliable and at the moment Marin has no light rail option which are now becoming more common in outlying suburbs of today’s cities.

Besides issues raised by the anti-tax people, SMART seems to come under fire from two groups that I would like to highlight.

1. The Status Quo Group. This group consists of two subgroups. The first are those who do not see how they will be impacted by the light rail system since they live far (i.e. Southern Marin) from the service area. Voters tend to be selfish when it comes to money related issues since in their minds why should they fund something that they will never use. The second group would rather see current transportation improvements completed (the widening of US 101) before money is investing in a new project. The first group fails to realize that SMART will take many commuters off the road which in turn will make their commute less of a hassle. The problem with the second group is that widening freeways is not a solution to the problem. It will only encourage people to drive more and in a few years congestion will be back to today’s levels.
2. The BART Group. This groups wants to wait until the “ideal” transit system can be implemented. In most cases this means expanding BART to Marin or linking Marin to one of the other Bay Area transit systems. While they have the right idea, such a solution is completely impractical. Many years ago BART was going to be expanded to Marin, but voters rejected the idea. Today a project to expand BART to Marin would be very expensive. But lets consider three options. First, BART could run up to Vallejo and then along Highway 37 to Marin. This approach is probably the cheapest but most of the line would serve absolutely no one, and the travel time would make it undesirable to Marin commuters. The second option is to run BART under the Golden Gate Bridge as was original proposed. Not only would the project be costly, but it would run into immense opposition. In order to connect into the BART system a line would have to be run underneath a large part of San Francisco. BART does have plans to expand its service out to North Beach but that option is far into the future. The last option, is to run BART under the Richmond Bridge and connect into the Richmond line. Once again, it would be a very expensive project.

Another interesting point that I’ve see is that SMART would only facilitate the expansion of the suburbs. At the turn of the century mass transit was responsible for the movement of people away from the city centers. Then the 1950s was the age of the freeway. The expansion of the freeway and the automobile allowed for people to further move away from the dirty city centers. The twentieth century saw an exodus of people city centers and the expansion of the suburb, but demographics are changing. People are returning to the cities, and the shift will continue as commute times from the suburbs become longer and the price of gas increases. It is unlikely that the expansion of mass transit systems will reverse this demographic change. Instead mass transit will fix some of the problems that plague suburbia and the rapid expansion outwards that occurred during the second half of the twentieth century.

The two groups represent two ends of the spectrum. One side wants to put in as little effort as possible, while the other group has goals that are too lofty and ambitious. The current status quo is unacceptable but waiting for the “perfect” option is also unacceptable as chances are the “perfect” solution will never occur. However, the third BART solution may be practical in the future. SMART could run into San Rafael and then commuters could transfer to BART which would take them to the East Bay and San Francisco. First Marin needs to develop a light rail system. In the up coming years a solid mass transit system will be of high priority and if Marin fails to develop the infrastructure now, then it will be far behind when mass transit becomes a necessity. Opponents of SMART fail to see that SMART is about securing our future through the beginnings of a solid mass transit system.