Editorials and Opinions

Gary Tischler • January 29, 2015

Was it just last November that the Republicans won their shot to take control of the Senate this month, added to their numbers in Congress and routed the Democrats by running mainly against the policies and the poll numbers of President Barack Obama?

If you were watching President Obama’s sixth State of the Union (SOTU to acronym lovers in the media and policy circles) address, you might be excused if you thought that he—aka POTUS, the President of the United States—didn’t get the message.

In a robust, sometimes rambling, Tony-the-Tiger speech that seemed to be full of confidence and sometimes questionable bravado, the president seemed to be announcing that things were swell, because his policies had been vindicated and worked.

He could indulge in a little chest-beating—the stock market was at record highs, jobs were going up, although wages did not follow, the unemployment rate was at its lowest since before the recession,  lower gas prices for whatever reasons were allowing people to spend and/or save, and expanded health care coverage (never mind that the GOP will still be trying to repeal it, and it was all because he had been right all along).

Even his startling Cuban initiative, these days, has been a popular choice if polls are any indication.

The one thing that people remain mad about is the lack of amity in Washington, which the president didn’t exactly help.  While talking about cooperation and bi-partisan efforts—perhaps on tax reform, trade, and other possibilities—he also rolled out the veto card time and again, on environmental matters, sanctions against Iran and other issues.

Obama offered up free community college tuition for everyone,  easing tax credits for college education, expanded sick leave for parents, more focus on early childhood education.

He barely said anything about the thorny issue of immigration reform, touched somewhat disingenuously  on the battle against Isis and terrorism in the Middle East, promised to safeguard privacy for internet users.

He also spent precious little time on foreign policy, which is—day-by-day—becoming increasingly important. He seemed to be operating in a time lag against events—Yemen, which allows the U.S. bases from which to launch  drone strikes, seemed to be collapsing, the backlash against the use of images of the prophet goes on relentlessly, and Isis is holding or making gains in Iraq and Syria, something he did not seem to be aware of.

Still, these SOTUs are more often than not about appearances, emotions, story-telling, scenes from the crowd, claims and counter-claims, the poker faces of the listeners, the size and length of applause and where it is coming from, in the sometimes devilish details.

The president always speaks at the podium, as the vice president and the house speaker frame a kind of living background.   Thus, you were faced with Vice President Joe Biden’s sometimes grim smile and the appearance of House Speaker John Boehner, who appeared to be battling a cold.  You could pretty much tell how the politics of legislation would go this year by how many times Biden stood up and how many times Boehner did not.   Mention of vetoes seemed only to deepen the speaker’s grim demeanor.

The president used one middle class family as an illustration about the ebb and flow of the struggle to stay above financial waters.  The middle class, in fact, will be the battleground in coming elections and in battles over issues.

The media made much of the lack of amenity at these affairs,  all rituals aside. When the president noted that there would be no more campaigns for him, there was a ripple of laughter from the GOP side, or perhaps a sigh of relief.  Duly noted by the president, who shot back: “That’s because I won two of them.”

Some media types suggested that this was not the way to work towards bipartisanship, that it was an ill-mannered comment, somewhat like goading a bull with a reminder of his wounds.

Good grief.

Rhetorically, Obama regained his stride after that, heading into the home stretch with a blast from the past and a little bit of hope and change and a lot of optimism, climaxing with “We’ve laid new foundations.  A brighter future is ours to write. Let’s begin this news chapter together—and let’s start the work right now.”

Sen. Joni Ernst, the newly elected Iowa Republican and the first female senator from Iowa, gave the opposing party’s rebuttal. Ernst grew up in rural Iowa and recalled having only one good pair of shoes, working  construction and plowing her family farm fields.  She said the Obama years were time of suffering and hardship and disunity, blaming Obama and Washington, D.C. She pledged that the new Republican congress would be reformed by the new majority. She also called Obamacare part of a stale mind set and that Republicans would continue to fight to repeal and replace it.  [gallery ids="101973,135584,135569,135600,135588,135573,135578,135597,135592" nav="thumbs"]

Georgetowner •

[Editor’s note: The following commentary is in response to the Jan. 14 Georgetowner cover story, “Cuban Dreams.”]

Since 1959, numerous overtures have been made by several U.S. presidents to improve relations with Cuba. The pattern has been repeated over and over: the Castro regime always finds a way to derail talks. Why?

Because if the U.S. were no longer “the empire” and the “enemy” of the Cuban people, the Castro brothers would have no reason to exist. Above all, they want to remain in control of every aspect of Cubans’ lives.
We now have the opportunity to observe whether the pattern is repeated.

Last week in Havana, Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson met with her Cuban counterpart, Josefina Vidal. Before the meeting, the Obama administration announced the new U.S. regulations for travel, remittances, telecom, small business support and credit card use. The administration also confirmed its commitment to reestablish and review Cuba’s inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terror. The goal is to remove Cuba from the list.

I criticized the deal as being lopsided in Cuba’s favor when it was announced. However, it should be recognized that President Obama has so far delivered on his end of the bargain. How about Cuba?

To the dismay of some, the Cubans upped the ante dramatically at the first meeting: they want the Cuban Adjustment Act (“Wet foot, dry foot” policy) repealed, something Jacobson said the U.S. would not do. The bombshell was when Vidal asked how diplomatic relations can be established if the embargo is still in place. She knows well that lifting the embargo needs congressional approval since it would require a change in the law. This is highly unlikely. Once again, the Cubans are making the negotiations impossible. There will be other surprises.

We now have the opportunity to observe whether there truly is political will among the Cuban government to change, starting with human rights, release of political prisoners and allowing Cubans to open small businesses and buy supplies from the U.S.

If history repeats itself, the Cubans will find a way to derail the talks. I hope the media will track these events closely. We will then understand why Cuba has remained isolated for more than 55 years: because of Cuban reluctance to reestablish relations with the U.S. Stay tuned.

Born in Havana, Carlos Miguel Gutierrez was Secretary of Commerce (2005 to 2009) under President George W. Bush. The former CEO of the Kellogg Company, Gutierrez is a co-chair of Albright Stonebridge Group.

the Georgetowner Editorial Board •

Every winter, with the prospect of imminent snow – not to mention wind, cold and ice – people who go to school, run our schools and work in our schools go a little crazy.

Gone are the days when hardy kids (according to our grandparents in Idaho) walked at least five miles to school carrying their books and homework across the tundra. Nowadays, school officials avidly watch weather forecasts for the data they need to decide whether to close schools, call a two-hour delay or stay open.

As far as we can tell, it’s a crapshoot.

The last big brouhaha came several weeks ago, when local weather folks predicted the possibility of an inch of snow (maybe) or a little more at worst. We got three inches. Some schools and parents were blindsided and buses had a heck of a bad time on slippery roads. Officials who opted for their schools to open were roundly criticized and weather forecasters had egg – or snow – on their faces.

Later, when another storm was predicted, some school districts erred on the side of caution. They closed, but very little snow showed up (down?). They, too, were roundly criticized.

Weather forecasting remains an imprecise science. And on television it is as much a show as a vital source of information. Weather people on television love a certain amount of drama. They get excited about snow. It’s like a 50-car pileup for traffic reporters.

The TV talk hypes “possible” snow accumulation and plays on our memories of blizzards past, such as 2010’s Snowmageddon (or was it Snowpocalypse?).

That little note of anxiety coming from the various “Storm Centers” can panic school officials and make them jump the gun – or wait until the last minute, which means teachers have to get up early to find out if they’re going in late.

The decision to close or not to close, to open on time, late or not at all, isn’t an easy one. There’s more to it than trusting your favorite meteorologist. It’s not just about the commute to work for teachers, but also about whether it’s safe for buses on the rarely plowed back roads to get to freezing children waiting at bus stops. There are issues of black ice and extreme cold to consider.

Plus, schools are sometimes in the middle of testing periods, which are difficult to reschedule. And a heavy accumulation of snow days can lead to a backlog at the end of the school year.

But not every storm is a crisis, or a Perfect Storm. In the end, for both weather forecasters and school officials, it’s a judgment call. Let’s not make it sound so much like the Last Judgment. [gallery ids="118277,118290,118283" nav="thumbs"]

David Post • January 16, 2015

Mitt Romney was right when he introduced Paul Ryan as the “next President of the United States” in Norfolk, Va., Aug. 11.

Ryan is not the “next” president, but Romney handed him the keys to the White House in the future. At the very least, Romney likely handed Ryan the Republican nomination for the presidency — unless Ryan doesn’t want it or something totally unpredictable happens. Not all vice presidents become president, but they have the best shot.

Almost one-third – 14 out of 43 U.S. presidents – were vice presidents before they became president.
Vice presidential candidates make little difference in the outcome of an election, but they do make a difference in future elections. For that reason alone, the vice presidential selection is among the most important decisions that all presidential candidates make.

George Washington’s vice president was John Adams, who became the nation’s second president. Adams’ vice president was Thomas Jefferson, the third president. The presidency is like an Olympic relay race.

President Barack Obama, number 44, is the 12th president during my lifetime. There have been 43 individuals who have held the office; the non-consecutive, two-term Grover Cleveland is counted twice. I wasn’t there when Adams and Jefferson rose from vice president to president, but here’s what happened during my life.

1948: Harry Truman, President Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president, was president when I was born. In fact, in 1948, the year before I was born, another of Roosevelt’s former vice presidents, Henry Wallace, ran for president against Truman.

1952: President Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president, Richard Nixon, later became President.

1956: Candidates appear to feign interest in being a vice presidential nominee. John Kennedy understood the importance, was unapologetic and made no secret of his desire to be Adlai Stevenson’s running mate, even while he knew that Eisenhower was going to crush Adlai Stevenson. Kennedy didn’t get the nomination, but his effort catapulted him onto the national stage. Four years later, he won the nomination and the presidency.

1960: Kennedy’s veep, Lyndon Johnson, became president.

1964: Johnson’s vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, became the Democratic nominee in 1968.

1968: Though Humphrey lost his bid for the presidency, his vice presidential running mate, Ed Muskie, was the original front runner for the Democratic nomination in 1972. President Nixon, a former vice president who lost in the 1960 election, won in 1968.

1972: Nixon’s second vice president, Gerald Ford, became president.

1976: Ford’s running mate, Bob Dole, became the Republican nominee two decades later. Jimmy Carter won in 1976 but lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

1980: President Reagan selected George H. W. Bush as his vice president. Bush 41 was elected president in 1988.

1984: Carter’s vice president Mondale was the Democratic nominee.

1988: Like Kennedy, Bill Clinton made known his vice presidential interest known in 1988. He didn’t get it, but also like Kennedy, he won the nomination and the presidency four years later. Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1988, ran and lost in 1992, but did become Treasury Secretary.

1992: President Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, was the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2000.

1996: Bob Dole, Ford’s running mate, ran against President Clinton and lost.

2000: President Bush’s vice president, Dan Qualye, ran for president though he could not overcome his legacy as a tongue-tripping vice president. George W. Bush (number 43), never a VP, but the son of a president, defeated Al Gore who had been vice president for eight years. Gore’s running mate, Joe Lieberman, ran for president in 2004.

2004: The Democrats’ losing nominee, John Kerry, tapped John Edwards who became a leading candidate in 2008 until his personal life imploded.

2008: John McCain’s vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, energized the McCain campaign, electrified the nation and breathed life into the Tea Party. Had she run this year, she may have won the nomination. Palin is still drawing larger crowds and has raised more money for statewide races than Romney has. She may continue to do so.

The vice presidency or vice presidential nominee is undoubtedly the best platform from which to launch a presidential campaign.

Ryan is serious, smart, and young. By tapping him, Romney put him on the front row of the national stage. Within the next decade, Ryan will run for president. He will begin that race as the frontrunner, and the presidency will be Ryan’s to win or lose.

Georgetowner •

In every issue of The Georgetowner, Walter Nicholls, who passed away last Sunday, wrote a column called “What’s Cooking, Neighbor?” In the last of these, in this issue, we seem to be part of his conversation with Ruth Poupon.

This column and others over the past year make it clear that he was a real writer, a one-of-a-kind kind of person who breathed in and breathed out curiosity as if it were a rarefied ingredient in the atmosphere.

The former Washington Post staff writer was a Magellan of eateries and food shops. “He knew places nobody knew about and people who were not big culinary stars, but were special,” said Nancy McKeon, a former Washington Post editor who worked with him beginning in the 1990s.

He liked to go on expeditions where he would make discoveries – roots, vegetables, gardens, people who grew things or made them or cooked them – and the places where the process happened – barns, farms, country inns, out of the way bakeries and markets.

When you read his writing, you immediately get the idea that perhaps the most important ingredients of a meal are people: those who set the table, who serve the food, who cook and make and invent the food, and those who dine as opposed to just eat and digest. In this way, a dinner, a breakfast, a table can be a place where the imagination, in conjunction with educated and experienced taste buds, empathy, humor – and taste in the sense of appropriateness – can roam.

“We sent him to Alaska once for the Copper River Salmon Run, a fishing event, and he came back with detailed descriptions of the salmons, the fishing, the clothes people wore,” recalled McKeon. “He had so much energy, and he approached everything with intense excitement. He was almost like a toddler in his interests. He was always learning something new: a food, an ingredient.”

Walter Nicholls was 64. He had been diagnosed with liver cancer less than three weeks before he died.

Funeral arrangements are pending.