The Latest from Iran (31 July): Past and Present

1520 GMT: More War, No Facts, Blah. The deputy head of Iran's armed forces, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, says the US is escalating its "war of nerves" against Iran: "US Congress Bill 1553 which gives the hated Zionist regime a free hand to confront Iran is part of a psychological warfare scenario devised at the request of an American think tank to affect Iranian nuclear insiders."

Hmm...Resolution 1553, which backs Israeli miitary action against Tehran, has been sponsored by a minority of Republicans --- which is the minority party --- in the House of Representatives, the junior chamber of the US Congress. It is unlikely to be adopted by Congress, let alone be supported by the Obama Administration.

Still, I'm not sure Jayazeri needs to worry about such details....(http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136890§ionid=351020101)

NEW Iran Analysis: Looking Back on the 1980s (Verde)

Iran Music Video Special: The Award-Winning “Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone”

Iran’s Persecution of Rights: The Pursuit of Lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei (Shahryar)

The Latest from Iran (30 July): Stepping Up the Criticism

1515 GMT: All Hail Rahim-Mashai. He may be widely disliked, even amongst conservatives, but the President's chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai continues to pile up the posts.

Indeed, the latest may help Rahim-Mashai answer his critics: Fars News says he will manage the Islamic Republic News Agency. (http://is.gd/dUUoU)

1340 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. A group of families of political prisoners have reportedly gathered in front of the office of the Tehran Prosecutor General to protest the detention of their relatives. (http://fb.me/ER74sOKd)

1330 GMT: Larijani Watch. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has said that that he is ready to “confront the government through legal channels” if they refuse to send their legislation to the parliament for review: “According to the constitution, government legislation has to be relayed to the parliament to assure correspondence with the law. But it is a while now that this has not been done and this is a blatant breach of law.”

Asked if he will summon President Ahmadinejad to the Parliament, Larijani said that it is not yet time for such an action.

The President’s parliamentary deputy has denied the allegation and said the Government is delivering the new legislation to Parliament before execution. (http://bit.ly/ccwHpe)

1315 GMT: We have posted a separate analysis considering the establishment of War with Iran as part of "normal" discussion in the US media.

1300 GMT: Missing Lawyer Mostafaei Update. A follow-up to this week's story on EA by Josh Shahryar about prominent human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who went into hiding after Iranian authorities tried to detain him, arresting his wife and brother-in-law....

Mostafaei has now written to the Tehran Prosecutor General, Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi. An Iranian activist summarises the letter, "I'll give myself in if my wife and brother-in law are released, and I am guaranteed a fair trial and legal process. Otherwise, catch me if you can." (http://bit.ly/9e9TLz)

1100 GMT: Threat of the Day. The head of Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, has become the go-to guy for Iranian state media for quotes challenging sanctions, and he does not disappoint today: “The European Union will receive an appropriate response should it put into practice [new] sanctions against the Iranian nation.” (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136860§ionid=351020104)

0600 GMT: We begin this morning with a feature from Mr Verde considering how the current political crisis is bringing out new information and debate on the Iran of the 1980s and the war with Iraq.

Meanwhile....

Getting (and Understanding) the News from Iran

Azadeh Moaveni has a sharp, incisive anlaysis on Foreign Policy, "What the West Isn't Hearing About":

With reporters on the ground so compromised by self-censorship, our ability to get a decent read of public opinion in Iran, let alone any smart, rigorously reported insight into domestic politics -- the opposition's strategy, the displeasure of the ayatollahs in Qom, the establishment's discomfiture at the prospect of sanctions -- is nonexistent. Even small, telling stories have become too sensitive to report, like the post-election defection of young journalists from Press TV (the government's English-language TV network) [Editor's Note: EA knows about this from personal correspondence with sources] or the distressing rise of so-called "experimental hires" as firms exploit young people's desperation for jobs to extract months of unpaid work under the false premise of a trial period....

It is perhaps understandable that Western readers are less interested in granular details from Iran than in the broad geopolitical sweep of the last year. But the loss of these stories is still a travesty, for it obscures the extent to which the spirit of the opposition still rules Iran. Certainly, the Islamic Republic knows better than to underestimate the scale and depth of people's disillusion and the swiftness with which inchoate grievances can be transformed into running street battles. A year after events so extraordinary that staid Tehran matrons found themselves setting fire to the barracks of Iran's feared Basij paramilitary, it would be unfortunate indeed if Western journalists, with whatever good intentions, faltered in their understanding of Iran, when it is so obvious that the regime itself acknowledges the power of its foes.

The Detained Americans

President Obama has made another appeal to Tehran to free three Americans --- Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal --- detained one year ago when they allegedly crossed the Iran-Iraq border on foot.

Sarah, Shane and Josh committed absolutely no crime. Yet for a full year, they have been held in prison, causing extraordinary grief and uncertainty for them, for their families, and for their loved ones. I want to be perfectly clear: Sarah, Shane and Josh have never worked for the United States government....

I call on the Iranian government to immediately release Sarah, Shane and Josh. Their unjust detention has nothing to do with the issues that continue to divide the United States and the international community from the Iranian government.

On a related matter, Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh, sentenced last autumn to 15 years in prison (later reduced to 5 years on appeal), remains on temporary release.

US Politics: Why "Filibuster Reform" May Be the Big Issue of 2010 (Haddigan)

On Tuesday the Republican minority in the Senate prevented the proposed DISCLOSE Act, a campaign finance reform measure already passed by the House of Representatives, from proceeding to a floor vote. They failed to force an end to discussion of the Bill, losing a vote of cloture. (The Democrats had a majority of 57-41 but 60 votes are required to cut off debate.)

While the DISCLOSE Act is not, as yet, officially dead, Democrats will struggle to convince the lone Republican needed to force cloture before the Senate goes into recess, with implications for the near-future that extend far beyond the issue of campaign finance reform. Democrats, angry at this latest obstructionism in the Senate by Republicans, have begun discussing what changes they can make in Senate rules to prevent similar filibuster tactics. With the Democrats likely to have only a slender majority in the Senate after the mid-term elections, the future course of the Obama Presidencymay well rest on what reforms Democrats can make to Senate rules in the next few months.

The DISCLOSE (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) Act was introduced on 21 July by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. Its intention is to restrict some of the electoral influence granted to corporations in the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in January in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

In that decision the Court ruled that corporations, like individuals, can fund electoral campaigns under the First Amendment protection of political free speech. Corporations are still prohibited from donating directly to a candidate’s campaign fund or a national party committee, a restriction placed into law by the Tillman Act of 1907, but are now permitted to use "independent spending" to explicitly support a candidate.

"Independent spending" means that corporations and advocacy groups can fund political advertisements with their internal money, as long as they are independent from, or not associated with, the official campaign operations of the candidate. Corporations were formerly banned by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 from using their general treasury accounts to pay for television and radio advertisements that named the candidate they supported, or opposed, in the weeks before Federal elections for President or Congress.

Critics of Citizens United, largely Democrats, argue that the easing of curbs on corporations' funding of campaigns will lead to a sharp increase in the number of so-called ‘attack ads’ in the days before an election. This, opponents contend, will give a disproportionate influence on the outcome of an election to those wealthy organizations that can flood the airwaves in the critical period prior to the vote.

The DISCLOSE act attempts to weaken that political sway by requiring that all "electioneering communications" (i.e., media advertisements) include a full disclosure of who is funding the message. Democrats hope that this measure will allow the voter the chance to recognise when their vote is being "bought" by special interest groups.

The Act also wants to prevent “persons negotiating for or performing government contracts”, companies that received bail-out funds from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), and “United States corporations controlled by foreign entities” from exerting undue influence over elections. The Act suggests, “Independent expenditures and electioneering communications that benefit particular candidates or elected officials or disfavor their opponents can lead to apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements.”

As Citizens United mandates the principle of constitutional protection of political speech for corporations, there is little Congress can do to ban them from "independent expenditures and electioneering communications". But the DISCLOSE Act would limit the ‘apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements’ of all corporations by limiting the number eligible to legally finance independently an electoral campaign.

I am no business expert, but I’ll warrant the guess that all corporations in America with the financial clout to potentially affect an electoral result could wbe precluded from electioneering communications because they are government contractors/TARP funded/foreign-controlled. The last restriction, regarding foreign corporations, was especially written with the widest possible latitude for the Supreme Court to narrow campaign financing regulations. The Act states that: “As recognized in many areas of the law, foreign ownership interests and influences are exerted in a perceptible way even when the entity is not majority-foreign-owned”, leading to the contention that the “Federal Government has broad constitutional power to protect American interests and sovereignty from foreign interference and intrusion6.”

Republicans oppose the DISCLOSE act. They are, in general, excited at the prospect of corporations and advocacy organizations financing the campaigns of Party candidates. Despite the efforts of Democrats to sway the vote of three wavering senators, and President Obama’s pleas from the Rose Garden on Monday to end the threat of “shadow groups (that) are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections”,  the Republicans managed to stall the Act by unanimously voting against cloture. With similar delaying tactics by Republicans on banking reform and the extension of unemployment insurance payments, Democrats are becoming increasingly frustrated at the use or threat of the silent filibuster by their political adversaries. As a result there is increasing support in Democrat ranks, especially among progressive activist groups, to end the tradition of a Senate filibuster and make redundant the necessity of votes for cloture.

The use of a cloture vote to end a filibuster is not a constitutional issue. Congress is granted by the Constitution the right to determine for itself the procedural rules that organize the operations of the House and Senate. Cloture was introduced in 1917, in Senate Rule XXII, to end the delaying tactics of a small number of isolationist senators who opposed the arming of merchant ships in World War I. These tactics traditionally take the form of a senator, or group of senators, commenting on issues relating (however incidentally) to the proposed Act for as long as possible, ending in no vote taking place as time has run out.

Traditionally there is no limit on the time a Senator may hold the floor to debate a law, unlike the House which introduced cut-off points in 1842. This has led to the splendid fictional spectacle of Jimmy Stewart’s filibuster in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the rather less edifying real-life performance of Senator Strom Thurmond talking for more than 24 hours in a vain attempt to filibuster the 1957 Civil Rights Act (although he did succeed in watering down the Act’s provisions).

Senate Rule XXII of 1917 required a two-thirds majority to force a cloture vote. That number proved almost impossible to achieve, and in 1975 the majority number was reduced to 60. But, as the Democrats have found, obtaining a three-fifths majority to end a threatened filibuster is also a formidable obstacle to overcome. Hence, with an eye to the reduced majority they will command after November, Democrats are considering changing the rules of Senate procedure so that a simple majority (or a 50-50 tie broken by the vote of the Vice President) can bring debate on a proposed law to an end.

Democrats are mulling over the chances of using the constitutional option, or colloquially the "nuclear" option, for changing Senate procedures. This method of changing Senate rules was first given substance in 1979, when Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia was posed with the threat of filibuster on a rule change he had proposed. Invoking the example of the first Senate meeting of 1789, Senator Byrd argued that when each new Senate gathers for the first time, it is permitted to decide what rules will govern their operations for the next two years.  Just as Congress should not oppose the right of the majority of members to decide what laws are passed, Byrd maintained, the Senate cannot prevent the will of the majority of senators from becoming the operating rules for that particular congressional session. Under this procedure, on the opening of the new Senate, using tabling motions, a simple majority can change  rules to nullify the filibuster.

Immediately after the cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act failed, Max Baucus, a Democrat senator from Montana backed by liberal advocacy group People For the American Way, announced he would present to Congress a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. There is little likelihood, despite PFAW’s claims that a June poll shows 77% support, that the amendment will get serious consideration.

More ominously for Republican supporters of Citizens United, last weekend Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, to huge applause, that he would consider filibuster reform at the opening of the next Senate session. Vice President Joe Biden, who is also President of the Senate, has also spoken out against the filibuster, and if these two influential Democrats back the rule changes, it will be a brave Democrat senator who balks the party leadership and votes to continue the three-fifths majority currently needed for a vote on cloture.

The topic of filibuster reform, even if the DISCLOSE Act is eventually passed into law, is certain to provide one of the most acrimonious subjects of debate in the mid-term elections. Any electoral reform proposal that makes the American democratic system more open and participatory is sure to meet with joyous approval from the "progressive" Left. Filibuster reform would energize a constituency who are disillusioned at the lack of real change the current administration has achieved.

Conversely, Republicans will be apoplectic --- furious does not adequately convey the sense of outrage in this instance --- at any proposed rule changes. They will object not only because the measures will seriously hamper their immediate efforts to halt Democratic policy proposals, but also because filibuster reform strikes at one of the central principles of conservative belief. Conservatives argue that the Constitution explicitly, through the system of checks and balances, adopts the idea that a simple majority is not by itself an adequate recommendation for political change.

There is a long way to go, and many scenarios that may be played out, before a new Senate gathers in January. It is more than possible that Democrats will step back from making such a radical change. But considering the current resurgence in the principles of traditional conservatism, and the progressives' need to find a ‘populist’ issue to boost the interest and commitment of the electorate in November, a bitter fight over filibuster reform looms large in the coming months.

Middle East Inside Line: Arab League & Israel-Palestine, British PM on Gaza "Prison Camp", Separation Fence Scandal

Thorny Road to Direct Israel-Palestine Talks: Arab League Foreign Ministers are meeting today in Cairo.

Talking to Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Jerusalem on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that continuing the construction freeze on West Bank settlements would be impossible politically and would bring down the coalition.

A Palestinian official told Reuters, "Abbas will tell [the Arab League] that, until this moment, there is nothing to convince us to go to direct talks.”

Israel-Palestine: Abbas’ Conditions, Netanyahu’s “Eastern Front” Response

Haaretz claims from Palestinian sources that Abbas will seek unequivocal clarifications from the US that the framework for direct talks will include a declaration that the Palestinian state will be based on the borders of 4 June 1967, with adjustments will be based on agreed exchanges of territory. The PA also wants an Israeli declaration that the construction freeze on settlements will continue and that building in East Jerusalem will stop.

Israeli cabinet minister Isaac Herzog (Labor Party) summarizes the dilemma of a "chicken-and-egg" situation. Talking to Israel Radio, he said:

Abu Mazen (Abbas) says: "I don't want to enter direct negotiations until I know what the final result will be."

Netanyahu says: "Enter direct negatiations and I will also tell you what the final result will be."

Each one looks at it opposite, and we are in a sort of political trap.

Britain's Cameron in Turkey, Comments on Gaza: British Prime Minister David Cameron made his first official visit to Turkey, warning European countries about anti-Muslim prejudice and the slow pace of accession talks with Turkey. He told Turkish businessmen:

When I think about what Turkey has done to defend Europe as a NATO ally and what Turkey is doing now in Afghanistan alongside European allies, it makes me angry that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the way it has been. I believe it's just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent.

Cameron's counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel’s raid on the Freedom Flotilla an act of “piracy” and compared Israeli officials to Somali pirates. Cameron said that the incident was “completely unacceptable” and called for a speedy and transparent Israeli inquiry into the incident. Cameron also sharpened his tone on Gaza:

The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

The Israeli embassy in the U.K. responded to Cameron quickly:

The people of Gaza are the prisoners of the terrorist organization Hamas. The situation in Gaza is the direct result of Hamas’ rule and priorities.

We know that the Prime Minister would also share our grave concerns about our own prisoner in the Gaza Strip, Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage there for over four years, without receiving a single Red Cross visit.

Separation Fence Scandal: EA has already reported that Walajeh, a village in the Bethlehem Governorate 8.5 kilometres (5.3 miles) to the southwest of Jerusalem, is in danger of being cut off from the rest of Palestinian lands, leaving 2,000 villagers encircled by Israeli settlements, roads, and security barriers.

In a court hearing on Sunday, it emerged that the order to expropriate village lands for the fence, which enabled the work to begin, had expired a year ago. However, instead of ordering a halt to the work, the court issued an injunction requiring the state to explain within 45 days why construction should not be stopped.

The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel and Palestinian villagers say that since the injunction was issued, the Defense Ministry and the contractors have been working much faster than before.

The Cost of an Eye: Emily Henochowicz, an Israeli-American studying at the Bezalel Academy of Art in Jerusalem, lost her left eye when Border Guards fired a tear gas canister during a demonstration following the raid on Freedom Flotilla.

According to Henochowicz, one policeman shot a canister directly at her face. Haaretz says that one of its reporter also witnessed the incident.

Following her treatment in Jerusalem, her father was handed a bill for NIS 14,000 (around $3,600). The Ministry of Defense refused to pay, claiming the tear gas was not fired directly at Henochowicz. The statement accused Henochowicz of putting herself at risk by voluntarily participating in a breach of the peace and accused:

From our reports, we know that the Border Police acted in accordance with the law at the violent demonstration at Qalandia, and that the shooting of tear gas canisters at demonstrators was justified. Of course, we regret that Emily Henochowicz was wounded in her eye. But under such circumstances, the Defense Ministry does not cover the expenses of medical treatment.

Middle East Inside Line: Abbas-US Tension, Netanyahu's "Political Risk", More Gaza Flotillas?, UN-Israeli Relations

Palestinian Leader Abbas Presses US: Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, talking to his Fatah Party, said that he wants a more specific US commitment on the borders of a future Palestinian state before agreeing to direct talks with Israel.

During a phone conversation after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama reportedly pledged Abbas that he would forth ut his own map if Netanyahu did not bring one before the winter. However, it appears that Abbas wants something more concrete: “With all due respect to the American president, his message was not clear. We want clear answers to questions we presented to the Americans, especially regarding security, borders and the status of Jerusalem. We continue to insist that any negotiations with Israel be based on recognition of 1967 as the future borders of the Palestinian state.”

Middle East Inside Line: Turkey-Hamas-Israel, Netanyahu Denies “Map”, No Russia Missiles to Iran?

Next week, the Fatah Central Committee and the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization are scheduled to hold meetings in Ramallah on the peace process and the financial crisis within Fatah.

US Responds to Abbas: State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said that final status issues are to be discussed in direct talks. Asked whether or not the United States had an idea of what the borders of the future Palestinian state would look like, Crowley said that Washington would " play a constructive role, but ultimately this is a - this is something that the parties themselves have to resolve."

But the question is: So why did we have the proximity talks? With no fruitful consequences, this process in prior to the expected/pressured direct talks is far from facilitating the reflexes of both parties, especially of the Palestinians.

Netanyahu's "Political Risks": On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the European Union's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton that he is ready to take a political risk to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, but only if he does not have to take a security risk.

Netanyahu did not say whether he will end the freeze on Israeli construction in the West bank but Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor told Army Radio on Tuesday that, at the end of September, Israel will no longer be bound by it:

My view is that it would be wrong to build in places where there will be a Palestinian state. But it would be right to build in places that are destined to be part of the State of Israel, in the settlement blocs and the communities along the [separation] fence. The government needs to discuss this.

Israel Defense Force Strikes: On Wednesday, Israeli Defense Forces fired uon a group of Palestinians approaching Gaza's northern border with Israel. It is reported that two people were killed, one of whom is claimed to be a top Islamic Jihad militant. Palestinian medical workers say seven people were wounded, including a 10-year-old girl.

Later Wednesday, the IDF fired at a group of Palestinians attempting to infiltrate the West Bank settlement of Barkan, killing one of them. The IDF spokesperson's office said that the casualty was armed though the group was trying to enter the settlement for criminal and not terror-related purposes.

Other Flotillas Coming?: After the Turkish organisation IHH, backers of the Freedom Flotilla, stated that there will be more convoys to break the siege, another flotilla is reportedly being organized by Palestinian businessman Yasser Kashlak, who last month tried and failed to organise ships from Lebanon. The two ships are slated to sail from Libya by the end of this week.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry instructed ambassadors to ask senior officials in the US, United Nations, European Union, and Egypt to pressure Syria and Lebanon to stop the flotilla. Officials think that Cairo will help again as it did when recently diverting the Amalthea to its port of el-Arish.

It is also reported that American activists are trying to raise funds for their own ship to Gaza, which they plan to call The Audacity of Hope, the same title as a book by President Obama.

Israel's F-35 Dream Coming True?: Israel is expected to make a decision in the coming weeks regarding the purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), senior defense officials said on Wednesday.

If Israel receives the jets, which will not be before 2015, it will be the first foreign country using them.

Israel is primarily concerned with the price of the aircraft, which could go as high as close to $150 million each. Therefore, officials are still considering whether it would be a better idea to get F-15s from Boeing.

UN-Israel Relations: On Wednesday, the UN Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs reported to the Security Council that aid convoys like May's Freedom Flotilla “are not helpful to resolving the basic economic problems in Gaza and needlessly carry the potential for escalation”. However, the report continued to call “for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards” regarding the 31 May attack on the Flotilla. While the report underlined "the Quartet's efforts to bring direct negotiations", it said, "The prospect of expulsion from their home city of Palestinian legislators in east Jerusalem would be a serious step backwards and would undermine hopes of making political progress."

In response, Israel's Ambassador Gabriela Shalev underlined Israel's two demands: right to security from threats and recognition as a Jewish state. She said, "A request that Israel recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people must be met with an acknowledgment that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people."

Shalev called on Hamas to release detained Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and explained the definition of "peace": "Peace is not merely a signed document. It is a set of values that allows us all to live our lives in security and with hope –-- Israelis and Palestinian alike."

US Politics: Why is Obama's Popularity Dipping?

In the Sunday Times of London this week, Christina Lamb observed that whilst Barack Obama is one of the most successful presidents in terms of passing legislation, his popularity has sunk to a new low.

A CBS/New York Times poll gives Obama an approval rating of 44%. Richard Nixon and George W Bush had ratings which were significantly lower, in the 20% range at their. The warning light for Obama is that, 18 months into their Presidencies, the approval ratings for Nixon and Bush were 58% and 62%.

The Obama Administration’s legislative record is the best since Franklin D Roosevelt’s. It has passed an economic stimulus package of almost $800 billion and has made an important start to health care legislation, although there will be challenges to the latter in the courts. The Finance Reform Bill, signed into law this week, will be the most significant finance regulatory package since the 1930s and undoes much of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation. After a slow reaction to the Louisiana oil rig disaster, Obama has shown leadership in bringing BP to the table and shaking out a huge compensation package. One would have expected the public to have some respect for these achievements.

So why are Obama’s ratings low? Recovery from the economic recession is slow and patchy. Unemployment at almost 10% remains high and is unlikely to improve for a while. Unsurprisingly, then, the President’s popularity suffers. Obama’s problem from Day One was that that the expectation bar was set so high in a shaky economy that no one could have cleared it.

There are other factor. Historically, it is not unusual for a Chief Executive to suffer as he approaches his first mid-term elections. Bill Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 and had to contend with Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who ran away with the idea that he was now in charge of the government. Odd notion, but the Republicans did shut down the Federal Government twice in Clinton’s time.

The media's criticisms have an impact. The unreconstructed neo-conservative, Charles Krauthammer, is crowing in The Washington Post that “there is a run on Obama shares”. (For perspective, consider that Krauthammer slammed George W. Bush in 2001 slammed “W” for declaring a regime-change war on Iraq and not the real enemy of democracy, Iran.) Other far-from-conservative newspapers, such as The New York Times, are claiming that Obama is losing with the voters. Media observations cross the political aisle.

In a politically divided country, Obama is bound to be unpopular in Republican strongholds and with Republican voters. He is not the only one suffering from tensions: in 2010, some middle-of-the-road Republicans are having problems with Tea Party candidates. It is now a dog-eat-dog political world in the USA.

Obama’s win in 2008 found many Democrats winning Congressional seats that be difficult to hold two years later, given that these seats are Republican in all but name. However, what is surprising is that Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, has expressed publicly that Democrats might lose control of both Houses of Congress. Sitting Democrats have blamed Obama for this message and he is now viewed by some as an electoral liability. The President's coattails, for some in his party, are getting short.

Beyond all this, Perhaps the truth lies in the oddity that --- apart from the Clinton years, and perhaps not even then --- Democrats are not used to holding the Executive Branch. Perhaps they are uncomfortable with power. Whatever the reason, the Democrats are starting to take their of the 70s and 80s when they were a firing squad……standing in a circle.