Republicans: Grand? (Hmm) Old? (Yes) Party? (Hardly)

What the Republicans need now is a major revamp. A new focus on policy, and a new way to integrate engaged, socially active members. What they need is youth and principles. Not Ann Coulter, who's overstating-the-obvious approach, spiced with a bit of Republicans-always-get-the-short-end whine and fake-y blondness, just blows all commitment to reality and progress out of the proverbial waters.

They're not alone: the Democrats need to figure out how to run an empire (more on that later).

The next election looms, and they're out of ideas. A proliferation of candidates means only one thing: they have no idea where they're going, no connection to their constituents and the things that matter to them, and no idea how to focus a coherent policy strategy based on real, conservative values (part of the problem is that no one remembers what "conservative" actually means).

Here's the best thing I've heard from them recently:

"A lonesome Republican voter is accosted by a gunman in the dead of night. The gunman points his weapon at the hapless voter and asks: 'Who will you vote for? Romney? McCain? Or Giuliani?'

The Republican thinks deeply, then shrugs and says: 'OK. Go ahead and shoot me!'"

There are a couple things about this that I find particularly funny.

Let's assume that the gunman is also a Republican - and given gun control politics, he must be - it's hilarious to think that the way a Republican expects to get an answer from someone is by holding a gun to their face.
[Think Walter Reed resignations, Attorneys General]

The hapless voter is also particularly funny, because just like the millions of soon-to-be-at-the-polls compatriots, his or her indecision will probably just result in a sacrifical death - and that means votes for Democrats.

The problem with the Democrats is that they have no idea how to put their party firmly in power and keep it there. The Republicans instrinsically understand empire in a way that the Democrats would be ideologically offended by, even though they need to understand and apply this methodology if they expect to move forward in any of their progressive visions for our nation.

What this all boils down to is a complete breakdown in the roles of government, media and populace.

The populace needs to insist on its values being conveyed to its leaders through both the media, and through individual accountability - don't be afraid to flood your Congress(wo)man's office with angry letters!

The media needs to stop sensationalizing politics as if it's high school drama at the prom, and what they really need to do is stop relying on press releases and government sources and go out and talk to people on the street to find out what it is they're actually looking for in the leadership. I mean, even my beloved BBC News has a comment forum (though whether or not the government pays attention is questionable).

Meanwhile, the individuals and agencies of government need to actively pursue and engage members of the public in their discourse. I'm talking open committees, citizen councils, high-ranking (unpaid) citizen ombudsmen, issue-based forums that are open to the public. Not only that, but procedures need to be in place for government officials to face public inquiries when charged with wrong-doing.

We preach Democracy, let's act like one.

The future for the Republican party demands a shift in personnel, and a dramatic retooling of policies to match the ideological preferences and global perspective of coming generations. Isolationism is no longer an option, hegemonic independence (whether economic, social or military) is impossible, segregationist social policies are archaic.

I've got a Republican Manifesto, along with a Divine Rights of Democrats treatise in the works. Just wait!

From the New York Times:
March 13, 2007
Chief Army Medical Officer Is Ousted
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, March 12 — The Army’s top medical officer was forced into retirement Monday, yet another aftereffect of the disclosure of shoddy conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The ousted officer, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, the Army surgeon general, became the third high-ranking official to lose his job because of shabby living quarters and bureaucratic tangles endured by wounded troops returned from combat.

“I submitted my retirement because I think it is in the best interest of the Army,” General Kiley said in a statement released by the military. “We are an Army Medical Department at war, supporting an Army at war. It shouldn’t be and it isn’t about one doctor.”

Before Monday’s announcement, General Kiley had indicated a desire to continue serving. Just last Tuesday, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “I still think I’ve got the right skill sets and the right experience to fix these problems.”

Army officials said General Kiley would most likely suffer the financial penalty of retirement benefits at two-star level, one rank lower, since he had not completed the required three years’ service as a three-star general to qualify for benefits at that rank.

The Army announced that Maj. Gen. Gale S. Pollock, the service’s deputy surgeon general since last October, had assumed the surgeon general’s duties. Pete Geren, the acting Army secretary, said a board would convene in April to recommend candidates to succeed General Kiley.

“We must move quickly to fill this position,” Mr. Geren said.

Though it was clear that General Kiley had been forced to retire, Mr. Geren expressed thanks “for his dedication to duty and long years of service.” General Kiley began his military career on July 1, 1976. He became the 41st surgeon general of the Army on Sept. 30, 2004.

The ouster of General Kiley followed by a week and a half that of Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, the Walter Reed commander, who was fired on March 1 because, the service said then, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey “had lost trust and confidence” in his ability to make improvements in outpatient care at the hospital.

Only a day later, Mr. Harvey was let go by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who was described by aides as angry over Mr. Harvey’s choice of General Kiley to succeed General Weightman. General Kiley had earlier appeared to play down the problems at Walter Reed, where he was in command until 2004.

Maj. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, a longtime Army doctor, has since taken command at Walter Reed, and, in another personnel shift related to the troubles there, the Army announced Monday that Brig. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, currently the deputy commanding general of Fort Knox, Ky., would become General Schoomaker’s deputy.

In a speech Monday to the staff at Walter Reed, Mr. Geren said the service’s disability system “has become a maze, overly bureaucratic, in some cases unresponsive and needlessly complex.”

“It is a system that frustrates and often stymies the best intentions of dedicated public service and compromises the Army values we pledge to uphold,” Mr. Geren said. To the applause of the hospital staff, he added, “In simplest terms, a soldier who fights the battle should not have to come home and fight the battle of bureaucracy.”

The poor outpatient care at Walter Reed, first disclosed last month by The Washington Post, has given political ammunition to critics of the Bush administration.

“The challenges facing our men and women in uniform go well beyond just the Army medical system to the full range of support and services this administration should provide to all of our nation’s veterans,” the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said in a statement Monday. “As we enter the fifth year of war in Iraq, this administration has still failed to develop a plan to care for our troops from the battlefield to the V.A. and everywhere in between.”

Representative Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat who heads the House Armed Services Committee, said his members were preparing legislation “to improve administration, eliminate bureaucracy and ease transition issues for our service members and their families.”

Even as another top official was being forced out Monday, the office of the Army inspector general provided Congress a report on the service’s physical disability evaluation system “detailing findings of military medical and personnel policies, procedures and services for wounded and injured soldiers,” according to an Army news release.

The study, undertaken nearly a year ago and completed last Tuesday, “found policy variances between the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Defense Department and Army regulations,” according to the statement. The inquiry also found “that training for personnel assisting soldiers is not standardized and that current information-management databases are inadequate.”

The study’s recommendations include “updating Army regulations, improving timeliness standards, standardizing training, implementing quality controls and improving computer systems to better track soldiers’ medical information and case status.”



March 14, 2007
‘Loyalty’ to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors’ Firings, E-Mail Shows
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, March 13 — Late in the afternoon on Dec. 4, a deputy to Harriet E. Miers, then the White House counsel and one of President Bush’s most trusted aides, sent a two-line e-mail message to a top Justice Department aide. “We’re a go,” it said, approving a long-brewing plan to remove seven federal prosecutors considered weak or not team players.

The message, from William K. Kelley of the White House counsel’s office to D. Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, put in motion a plan to fire United States attorneys that had been hatched 22 months earlier by Ms. Miers. Three days later, the seven prosecutors were summarily dismissed. An eighth had been forced out in the summer.

The documents provided by the Justice Department add some new details to the chronicle of the fired prosecutors but leave many critical questions unanswered, including the nature of discussions inside the White House and the level of knowledge and involvement by the president and his closest political aide, Karl Rove.

The White House said Monday that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove had raised concerns about lax voter fraud prosecutions with the Justice Department. And several of the fired attorneys told Congress last week that some lawmakers had questioned them about corruption investigations, inquiries the prosecutors considered inappropriate. The documents do not specifically mention either topic.

While the target list of prosecutors was shaped and shifted, officials at the Justice Department and the White House, members of Congress and even an important Republican lawyer and lobbyist in New Mexico were raising various concerns.

In rating the prosecutors, Mr. Sampson factored in whether they “exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general,” according to documents released by the Justice Department. In one e-mail message, Mr. Sampson questioned a colleague about the record of the federal prosecutor in San Diego, Carol C. Lam. Referring to the office of the deputy attorney general, Mr. Sampson wrote: “Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?” Ms. Lam was one of the seven fired prosecutors.

Two others, Paul K. Charlton in Arizona and Daniel K. Bogden in Nevada, were faulted as being “unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them,” according to another e-mail message to Mr. Sampson, referring to pornography prosecutions.

Another United States attorney, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, was added to the hit list in the fall of 2006 after criticism from his home state, including a demand by Senator Pete V. Domenici, a Republican, to meet with the attorney general to discuss the performance of Mr. Iglesias’s office.

The fallout from the firings came swiftly, according to the documents. Within a day, messages were flying between the White House and the Justice Department about reaction to the dismissals. Administration officials were aware that the decisions were likely to be controversial, and the plan for carrying them out included a warning to “prepare to withstand political upheaval.”

An aide to Senator Domenici was said to be “happy as a clam” over the dismissal of Mr. Iglesias. But Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, was said to be “very unhappy” about the decision to dismiss Mr. Bogden, who Mr. Ensign said “has done a great job for Nevada.”

Mr. Sampson, an ambitious young Republican lawyer who was the Justice Department’s point man for the plan, resigned Monday. Mr. Gonzales, who approved the idea of the group firing, has been under fierce criticism from lawmakers of both parties over the dismissals, which have provoked charges that they were politically motivated.

Shortly after Mr. Bush’s second term began in January 2005, Ms. Miers proposed dismissing all 93 serving federal prosecutors, part of a broad review of political appointees. The Justice Department and Mr. Rove rejected that plan as impractical. But her proposal set in motion the series of events that led to December’s smaller-scale housecleaning and a major black eye for the White House.

The extensive consultations between the Justice Department and White House over which United States attorneys should be ousted started as early as March 2005, the e-mail messages show.

That is when Mr. Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s aide, sent a document to Ms. Miers ranking the nation’s federal prosecutors.

“Bold=Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general,” the e-mail message from Mr. Sampson said. “Strikeout=Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who had been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc.”

From the start, the “strikeout” list included Ms. Lam, Margaret M. Chiara of Michigan and H. E. Cummins of Arkansas, all of whom ultimately lost their jobs. But the “bold” list of stellar performers included Mr. Iglesias and Kevin V. Ryan of San Francisco, who would also be removed.

As the months passed and the list was refined, a broad range of parties provided comment, either by directly naming prosecutors or raising an issue that touched on them.

J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, then speaker of the House, for example, appeared in one exchange among Bush administration officials inquiring why the United States attorney’s office in Arizona was apparently not prosecuting marijuana possession cases involving less than 500 pounds.

Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, also asked a White House official to explain why prosecutors were pursuing charges against illegal immigrants only if they had been counted entering the country illegally eight or more times.

And Senator Domenici called the Justice Department in January 2006, “because he wants to discuss the ‘criminal docket and caseload’ in New Mexico,” an e-mail message sent among senior Justice Department officials said. As the lawmaker’s inquiry is followed up, a copy of Mr. Iglesias’s generally glowing 2005 performance evaluation was produced, along with a series of critical questions that Justice Department officials wanted answered.

“I assume the senator is hearing from either judges or others back home,” said the e-mail message written by William E. Moschella, who was then an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. The focus on Mr. Iglesias intensified in June 2006, when Mickey Barnett, a Republican Party activist in New Mexico, requested “a meeting with someone at DOJ to discuss the USATTY situation there.”

The e-mail message alerting Justice Department officials, sent by a senior official in the White House Office of Political Affairs, noted that Mr. Barnett is “the president’s nominee for the US Postal Board of Governors. He was heavily involved in the president’s campaign’s legal team.” The next day, Mr. Barnett and Patrick Rogers, a New Mexico lawyer who has led a campaign against voter fraud, met with Justice Department officials. Conservatives often worry that Democrats will inflate their vote count with fraudulent or illegal immigrant voters.

The plan for firing seven United States attorneys was refined in November and December in consultations between Mr. Sampson and Ms. Miers’s office. The five-step blueprint for the removals was finally approved by the White House counsel’s office on Dec. 4.

Along with detailed instructions on how to carry out the firings, the plan advised officials to tell any of the fired prosecutors who asked “Why me?” to respond, “The administration is grateful for your service, but wants to give someone else the chance to serve in your district.”

In choreographed phone calls on Dec. 7, the head of the liaison office for United States attorneys at the Justice Department informed the seven prosecutors that they were being removed. At the same time, Mr. Gonzales and officials in the White House communications office called senators and other lawmakers in each of the affected states.

In executing the plan, Mr. Sampson wrote that it was “very important” that the calls to prosecutors and courtesy calls to lawmakers in the affected states occur “simultaneously.”

The dismissal of the seven prosecutors was preceded the previous summer by the removal of Mr. Cummins in Arkansas. He was succeeded by J. Timothy Griffin, a former prosecutor who had once worked with Mr. Rove. In a Dec. 19 e-mail message, Mr. Sampson wrote: “Getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.,” a reference to Ms. Miers and Mr. Rove.

Mr. Sampson’s e-mail message, sent to the White House and Justice Department colleagues, suggested he was hoping to stall efforts by the state’s two Democratic senators to pick their own candidates as permanent successors for Mr. Cummins.

“I think we should gum this to death,” Mr. Sampson wrote. “Ask the senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say ‘no never’ (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All this should be done in ‘good faith’ of course.”

John M. Broder contributed reporting.