Wednesday
Jan202010
US Politics: Scott Lucas on Obama "1 Year On" and on the US Senate
Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 20:14 
A day of political chatter, as I find myself with a different view than US-based pundits of both President Obama's first year in office and of last night's Republican victory in the special election for US Senator in Massachusetts. Take your pick from BBC World Service (from start, my contribution from 0:11:45), BBC Radio 5 (1:39:20 mark), BBC Radio Wales (2:37:00), or BBC Radio Scotland (0:40:00).
Reader Comments (8)
Oh, didn't know that BBC is everywhere. Klaus Kastan, commentator of German ARD (national TV) puts the blame for the Massachussetts loss on Obama's policy, being too liberal for many Americans, but also on the Democrat's female candidate because of her restricted campaign. He is much more optimistic on the economic development, believing that the recession is mostly overcome. On the other hand health care and war in Afghanistan remain issues to be solved. As a charismatic figure, Obama has raised many hopes, which he obviously could not fulfill. Until the next presidency elections in November 2012 he will remain a president on probation:
http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/usa274.html
I am not so pessimistic, but obviously Obama's future success heavily depends on coping with the worst economic crisis in 50 or even 70 years (listen to BBC Radio 5).
Arshama,
This is a topic I can comment on as a voter in the U.S. and as being familiar with the facts on the ground.
The loss of the senate seat in Massachusetts, a seat held by Ted Kennedy for half a century, is not small no matter how Obama administration and Democrats try to spin it. There are many reasons for this stunning turnaround. Indeed too many to enumerate in a blog. And none has to do with bad campaign tactic or strategy by one candidate and the opposite by the other.
Consider these facts:
1. For every registered republican in state of Massachusetts, there are three registered democrats.
2. Twelve percent of voters in the state of Massachusetts are registered republicans, 36% democrats, and 50%are independents (not a small potato).
3. Obama did not win the 2008 election by votes of democrats alone he had some of independent votes.
4. Special elections (elections other than November) usually do not have heavy turnout. Yesterday, however, 2.5 million went to the poll in Mass. Total number of votes cast in 2008 presidential election was 2.9 million (1.8 for Obama and 1.1 for McCain), http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/us_president/
Independent voters in Massachusetts walked away, big time, form democratic candidate who was strong supporter of Obama policy of big government.
Yesterday, voters in Massachusetts gave a shout to Obama administration and both houses of congress (in which democrats have majority) that they better listen. This was the second shout by voters. The first one was in November 2009 where democrats lost the governorship to republicans in state of New Jersey, a blue state by all measures (democrat), and in state of Virginia. So far neither Obama administration nor Congress is picking up the phone. If they continue putting people on mute, they will get the pink slip (you are fired) in 2010 general election this coming November.
Majority of Americans do not like big government. They want government to get out of the way and out of their lives. They pay taxes so that their government does what they cannot do for themselves like defending the country against foreign enemies or build roads and bridges, etc. We do not want government in every facet of our lives.
In one of the worst economic turmoil of my life time, a turmoil that emanated form incompetency of our Federal and State governments, we were promised that if we put our collective trust in the hands of democrats they will put an end to the government bad practices. Well, we did our part; we hired them and gave them the key. In return we have received, thus far, more bad practices, more big government, more borrowing and spending the money we do not have and more amateurish foreign policy. This administration has turned out to be G.W. Bush third term.
Majority of Americans have had it. They marched last April on tax day. They were ridiculed and dismissed. They went by million to Washington last September and administration left town and ignored D.C. streets were packed by people of all parties (Democrat s, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, etc). We will see if anybody is home to pick up the phone this time. If not they will be fired this November. Whether that will change anything in Washington, we will have to see. If it does not they will be fired too.
I heard Iranians in Massachusetts voted for the republican candidate yesterday. I do not know the number of Iranian voters in Mass. But however many there were their votes were counted. Majority of Iranians voted for Obama in 2008 election and they too are casting doubt and are disappointed with administrations passive approach to Iranian crisis. And trust me Iranian, outside D.C. metro area do not give a damn about what Trita Parsi and his 100- member organization NIAC say.
Megan, of course our monarchist Iranians voted Republican and are disappointed with Obama's wise policy on Iran. They sold out their country when they participated in shah's own version of nepotism.
Iranians left these folks behind long ago. If they want to have a role in a free Iran, they should stop revising history to make themselves feel good and instead listen to those who are fighting this regime with their lives.
Bahman,
I do not know if Iranians who voted for Obama were monarchists or not. I honestly do not care for and do not prescribe to your segregation concept. In the U.S. every law-abiding citizen 18 and older has one vote irrespective of his/her political views, religion, race, color, gender, place of birth, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, first language, state of health, etc.
I think if we truly want democracy in Iran we better understand it and start practicing it now and the above criteria for casting vote is a good starting point. I believe once we start segregating people it will perpetuate and we will be no different from the current regime that segregates people as Khodi (friend) and Na khodi (enemy).
With regard to the second Paragraph of your comments: I think you are putting the cart before the horse. First we have to win the battle and then worry about how to divide the reward. And again the best remedy is the ballot box. If as you say Iranians have long left monarchists, the group you do not agree with, then you should not worry.
If you are in the U.S. or follow U.S. politics, you may know David Duke, a former Ku Klus Klan and you may remember that he ran for president in 1988. There was no way he would have been elected but he had the right to run, he ran and was not elected. There was no need to let the Basiji dogs on him or arrest him and make him deliver a forced confession. Americans speak at the ballet box. I look forward to a day Iranians are able to do the same and we better start learning how now.
MEGAN,
Thank you for diferentiating the American populace from our Government leaders.
We do get to vote to change any politician who we don't agree with.
This one of the greatest freedoms we have.
I for one disagree totaly with our government's approach to Iran.
Mostly because I have spent time reading and wtching the Iran people fight for the freedom to speak freely and to create the system they want.
I have learned SOOO much in the last few months about the struggles and complexities of the situation in Iran and her people.
I hope many of us are watching and learning so that we can tell our politicians to open their eyes and let go of the preconcieved notions that our mainstream media tends to feed us.
Here's to learning and growing in friendship and understanding.
A supporter of freedom for the people of Iran.
John
Megan, I was commenting on your last paragraph which used the Iranians that you know as a point to support your argument.
Please do not imply that I said things that I did not. No where did I say that the monarchists should not be able to vote or that I have the slightest concern about the effect of their participation in a free vote in Iran. They never allowed such a freedoms when they controlled the country for 30+ years but they should be able to fully participate in a free Iran that our brave protesters are trying to create.
I just don't want your personal anti-Obama hatred to be erroneously taken as representing those of Iranian-Americans'. Many of us worked hard to get Obama elected and we definitely prefer him over a trigger-happy McCain/Palin White House.
Bahman,
Thank you for you comments. I do not hate, there is no need for that. I vote.
All in my large family and extended family, Iranian-Americans and Americans voted for Obama and they are all disappointed with Obama’s lack of understanding of the mind set of Iranian regime.
Obama administration is not smarter the 4 previous ones who got nowhere with IR. Obama administration should have studied and capitalized on failure and successes of 4 previous U.S. administrations and not scrapping everything and starting from scratch. That is not efficiency I expect from my government I support with my tax money.
You and I know as Iranians know the culture of authority in Iran. The culture that can be summarized as never bend, never concede, never admit or accept you are wrong, never apologize, never show weakness, demand more even when you get everything you asked for, boast that you brought your opponents to their knees, lie, procrastinate, find excuses to back off from deals you made, find excuses for not meeting your end of the bargain, cheat and when caught point finger to others, and drive for a win-lose (you win others lose) outcome in every deal. Conciliation is equal to weakness in the minds of Iranian authorities. Any person or government who does not understand the culture of Iranian authority and are not prepared to manage it will fail. And at the end of the day it will be a lose-lose for Iranian people and will lead to the disaster we are witnessing in our homeland today.
If you care for Iranians and, I am certain you do, then listen to and hear them chant "obama, Obama, Ya Ba Onha, Ya Ba Ma" (Obama Obama either stand with us or with them- the regime). And I, as an Iranian-American, echo the call of my compatriots and ask politicians I voted to office to choose side.
I am not asking my government to intervene through military means because my compatriots in Iran are not asking for that, at least not yet. I am asking Obama administration to side and support firmly, decisively, loudly, consistently with people of Iran. I am asking my government to rally the international community and EU to do the same. I am asking my government to pressure UN to move boldly and stop its half-ass approach. I am asking Obama administration to capitalize on knowledge in-house and work harder, smarter, and faster to get consensus from other nations to break Iranian regime financially, e.g. freezing their liquid assets, stopping shipment of raw materials that are used in government owned manufacturing operations, stopping sales of weapons to Iran, etc. etc. I want my government to rally other nations and push for humanitarian aids to injured, starved and distressed people and families in Iran, I want my government to push for release of all political prisoners in Iran.
I want my government to have a Green room and resource it with the best and brightest brain we have in this country in an effort to dissolving the current Iranian regime and free people of Iran from iis oppression. That is what I am asking from my politicians and if I do not see that I will fire them. When I have the power to fire, I have no need to hate.
Megan, I agree with most of you said. I'm all for sanctions that can be targeted to hurt the regime and not ordinary Iranians. Some claim that such sanctions do not exist but I think they do. I'm not big on speeches by foreign leaders since the regime will easily use them to distract people's focus from the its own atrocities to discuss the past atrocities of those countries (e.g., treatment of native americans and black, etc). I'd like to see every country condemn violations of human rights in Iran but we all know that that regime places little value to international condemnations...so there is no need to place much hope in the effects of such actions.
By no means I believe that international presuure will play a key role in overthrowing this regime, nor should it.
The key has all along been inside Iran and it is our ability to change the deep beliefs of the millions of regime loyalists as well as those sitting on the sidelines.
So with any sanction, we should ask if such actions will have a positive or negative impact on the minds of these segments. The task is already monumental and we cannot afford anything that makes it harder by driving them farther away.
A successful democratic Iran will need all its children and we cannot antagonize millions who still believe the regime's PR about representing Islam.
That's why I think the best option is to 1) do not offend the religious sensitivities of these Iranians, 2) don't try to jump from the current autocratic regime to the ideal secular one, it will take several steps along the way, 3) be inclusive of different idealogies and do not knit pick groups and individuals for things that they said or did decades ago. Focus on their current positions.