Pete Hoektra’s Exquisite Art of the Non-Answer

This Week had Terry Moran with Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan and a congressional panel with Representative Jane Harman, Sens. Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman and Representative Pete Hoekstra who is currently running for Governor in Michigan. You have to give it to Terry, for trying. Excerpted from the transcript.  

MORAN: One more note on politics, Congressman Hoekstra. Once upon a time, there was a tradition of solidarity in refraining from criticizing the president at the time the nation was under attack. Three days after this attempt to kill 300 people over the skies of Detroit, you sent out a fundraising letter, and I'd -- I'd like to read a portion of it so our audience gets the full flavor of it.

You said, "I have pledged that I will do everything possible to prevent these terrorists from coming to Michigan, but I need your help. If you agree that we need a governor who will stand up to the Obama-Pelosi efforts to weaken our security, please make a most generous contribution of $25, $50 or $100, or even $250, to my campaign." Given that tradition, that once was part of this country, are you proud of that, of fundraising off of a national crisis like that?

HOEKSTRA: Well, I've been leading on national security for the last nine years that I've been on the Intelligence Committee. You know, over the last two to three months, I've been very concerned about where there administration has taken us on national security issues.

The refusal to acknowledge that the Fort Hood attack was a terrorist attack...

MORAN: But I'm asking about raising money off the attempted murder of 300 people three days after it occurred.

HOEKSTRA: I -- I am proud of the role that I have played in making sure that America is safe.

MORAN: And raising money off it?

HOEKSTRA: I've been right on the facts all along on this -- on the recent attacks, the connections with Yemen. The -- the differences between this administration and myself have been purely substantive. They have been policy. I've been trying to drive this administration in a policy direction that keeps America safe.

I think if you listen to the language that we have heard over this -- this morning, with the guests that you've had on the program, we are now at a point where we have come back. We've got -- we've got some political disagreements or policy -- excuse me -- we've got some policy agreements, but we also have a recognition that this threat is real, it is imminent, and that we need to come together in a bipartisan basis to fix it.

MORAN: All right.

Ah, shame on you, Terry Moran! How dare you question that somebody who has been leading on national security for years?  Just because he’s running for governorship in a state with over 15% unemployment, raising funds off the attempted murder of 300 people three days after it occurred doesn’t mean he is an opportunistic loaf of bread ... or does it? We need more people like him who can scare us out of our wits; because if not him, who will? If not now, when?

No better time than now to say boo!

Diplomat in One Very Hot Oven

Senior Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin testified at a House of Commons committee in mid November that he warned the Canadian government and military officials that Afghan detainees being turned over by Canadian soldiers were being tortured.

“[O]ur actions were counter to our own stated policies. In April 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said publicly that “Canadian military officials don't send individuals off to be tortured.” That was indeed our official policy. But behind the military's wall of secrecy, that, unfortunately, is exactly what we were doing.”

A longer excerpt from his testimony is in The Globe and Mail website here.

The push back came quickly, of course. The Globe and Mail reported two days later that “The Harper government devoted the day to a public-relations counteroffensive against Mr. Colvin through phone calls and e-mails to reporters, as well as Mr. MacKay’s attacks. It painted the career diplomat’s testimony as groundless and “ridiculous” and suggested his reports of torture ultimately stem from Taliban propaganda.”

"We are being asked to accept testimony from people who throw acid in the faces of schoolchildren and who blow up buses of civilians in their own country," Defense Minister Peter MacKay reportedly told the Commons on November 19.

Today, several somebodies finally came forward to defend Mr. Colvin. Steven Chase and Campbell Clark reports that twenty-three former ambassadors are speaking out against the Harper government's attacks on the diplomat’s credibility, saying that Ottawa's response to his Afghan detainee abuse testimony threatens to cast a chill over Canada's foreign service. More from the report:

The ex-heads of Canadian diplomatic missions say in a letter released to the media that they're worried the treatment of Mr. Colvin will discourage diplomats from reporting frankly to Ottawa from their foreign postings.

"The Colvin affair risks creating a climate in which officers may be more inclined to report what they believe headquarters wants to hear, rather than facts and perceptions deemed unpalatable," the ex-ambassadors say.

"A fundamental requirement of a foreign service officer is that he or she report on a given situation as observed or understood," the former heads of mission said. "It is only in this way that any government can draw conclusions knowledgeably and make its considered decisions, even if at variance with the reports received."

Read the whole thing here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Harper rejects Afghan detainee inquiry (nationalpost.com)
• MacKay casts doubt on ex-diplomat's torture allegations (ctv.ca)

President Obama Just Can’t Catch a Break

President Obama just can’t catch a break. On one side, some Obama donors are feeling left out, lamenting the lack of access to the president and other traditional perks (see Some Obama donors are feeling left out | WaPo | December 4, 2009), and at the other side, some are complaining that he’s appointing too many bundlers to positions of influence. The latest salvo came from AFSA President Susan Johnson who, according to the Guardian, accused the president of “renting out ambassador roles” (see Barack Obama accused of 'renting out' ambassador roles | Guardian | 29 November 2009).

The article in the Guardian says that the President has made almost 80 ambassadorial nominations, of which 56% went to political appointees. I don’t know where they got that number. Below is the breakdown of the official Chief of Mission List dated November 9, 2009 from the State Department:

BREAKDOWN OF CHIEFS OF MISSION LIST: 172 Total

• 102 (59%) Current career Ambassadors (includes Chief of Mission to USNATO)

• 33 (19%) Current non-career Ambassadors (includes Chiefs of Mission to USUN, UNVIE)

• 37 (22%) Vacant

Updated: 12/5There is something wrong with this Chiefs of Mission List put together by the State Department's HR office. The USNATO is actually a non-career appointee (Ambassador Daalder). Other noncareer appointees were also appointed/confirmed to USUN, OECD, OAS, AU, and USEU as of November 2009. The UNVIE appointee on the other hand is a career diplomat (Ambassador Davies), not a noncareer appointee as indicated above. This list also put down Ambassador Carlos Pascual (Mexico) as a career appointee. He was no longer in the active FS when he was appointed to the position in Mexico, so he should have been included in the non-career appointees for purposes of this breakdown. From best I could tell, there were 42 political appointees out of 172 as of end of November. Which put the percentage of political appointees currently at 24%. Let's see how much higher this would go by the President's first year in office.

AFSA's Ambassadors List is here. They have a total of 185 positions in the list and had political appointees posted at 54 or 29.2%

Insider Quote: I don’t do politics in this job

Image via Wikipedia

Question: Mr. Huntsman, you are a rising star in the GOP. And many people believe that you will run for President in the 2012 campaign. Who is going to take the credit for your job in China? You or the man who appointed you, President Obama?

Ambassador Huntsman: Thank you for that treacherous last question. [Laughter]. Which I’m not even going to touch because I don’t do politics in this job. I serve my country first and foremost.

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.US Ambassador to ChinaNCC Groundbreaking in GuangzhouPress Conference | October 26, 2009

Related articles by Zemanta

• US Envoy Pans Media Coverage of Obama China Visit (abcnews.go.com)

AFSA 2009: Four Post Election Possibilities

Image via Wikipedia

Here is what I got from an individual familiar with deliberations inside AFSA:

• A re-vote is not a prospect anyone in AFSA looks forward to.

• A new election would embarrass AFSA and cost the organization tens of thousands of dollars in things like postal fees, printing costs, etc.

• The DOL investigation has moved to the adjudicative phase, and it was the sense of the leadership that the membership should be informed, thus, the AFSANET message.

It is my understanding that there are three items pending before the Department of Labor with respect to the 2009 AFSA election:

1. Complaint by one of the slates alleging that several sitting AFSA Board members and committee chairs lobbied improperly for the competing slate. I was aware of this complaint but did not know this was formally submitted to AFSA or to DOL.
2. Challenge filed by a number of candidates who lost the election, asserting improper use of email addresses. I understand that one slate used a mailing list which had been previously distributed to candidates in the 2007 election but not in the 2009 election. NDS has something about this specific issue here and the Elections Committee response.
3. Challenge filed by one individual alleging a number of technical violations, like the wrong placement of paid advertisement, etc. This is the first time I've heard of this complaint.

The ruling from the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) is supposedly expected to happen soon. Four months after the 2009-2011 Governing Board was officially seated, here are four post-election possibilities:

-- No significant wrongdoing, results stand: If OLMS decide that no significant wrongdoing occurred and that despite some minor issues the election was essentially fair, it could rule that the results stand as is.

-- Wrongdoing occurred but results stand: If OLMS decide that wrongdoing occurred but it did not affect the outcome of the election, it could rule that the election results stand as is.

-- Order AFSA to re-do some races: If OLMS decide that wrongdoing occurred that affected the outcome of some races, it could order a redo of selected races, and let the other results stand.

-- Order AFSA to re-vote: If OLMS decide that wrongdoing occurred that affected the outcome of the entire election, it could order AFSA to redo the entire election.

Each of the above possibility will not make everybody happy but by far, the last possibility would be the most expensive and embarrassing possibility of all, specifically for AFSA but also for the Foreign Service community.

This may sound preachy -- but politics is often ugly, whether it is the high office or the school board, but it need not have to be ugly. As Secretary Gates said, "If you took all the Foreign Service officers in the world, they would barely crew one aircraft carrier.” The FS, in fact, is a very small world. And in that very small world of an "aircraft carrier," you need every crew to move that ship. You need people who can fight tooth and nails on the issues, but you also need them to maintain a sense of decorum, and collegial harmony. Because on this one – jumping ship is seldom an option.

I do think that the Election Guidelines need some work and some teeth. If a new one ever becomes available, I think it ought to be posted for comments before it becomes final. That would give the membership a chance to participate in crafting the ground rules of their election engagement. The challenges submitted and the corresponding decisions of the Elections Committee also ought to be publicly available and easily accessible in the union's website. The membership has a stake in the outcome, and should be aware of this information.

AFSA’s challenge is not unique, of course, as it is the same for all who engage in politics. The people must be able to believe that their representatives are concern about the state of the country/organization/board more than they care about the state of their own parties/slates or their own individual interest. Perhaps this is a naive way of looking at it, but when people stop believing, they stay away.

You can read the AFSA By-Laws here. The AFSA 2009 election materials are archived here. This matter is out of AFSA’s hands now, but it might not be too late to let the Governing Board hear your thoughts on this. After all, the next election is just around the corner.

White House Video: The Obama Health Plan in 4 Minutes

White House Video: The Obama Health Plan in 4 Minutes.

Myths About Health Care Around the World

From the Washington Post, 5 Myths About Health Care Around the World http://bit.ly/2kHpEb

Have a look at some somewhat surprising facts below:

Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans - a broader choice than any American has.

In Austria & Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa.

In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; 20 c per $ for nonmedical costs.

Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays.

In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98.

"Foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit."

700,000 Americans go into bankruptcy/year because of medical bills. Number of medical bankruptcies = zero in France, Britain, Japan, Germany.

Comments from Twitter:

vasculardoc @DrVes my uncle was an FP in austria and he told me he regularly prescribes a spa for stress relief.hoping he will write 1 for me 4 2 weeks! about 12 hours ago from web in reply to DrVes

mariawolters @DrVes Germany has both private and "public" insurers. You can only go private if you earn well. Good choice of insurers in both sectors. about 9 hours ago from mobile web

mariawolters @DrVes public insurers also cover kids for free, spouses if they are unemployed. about 9 hours ago from mobile web

mariawolters @DrVes rich public insurers help finance those with many high risk, poor clients. about 9 hours ago from mobile web

Related:
U.S. Life Expectancy Shorter Than 41 Countries
Image source: Wikipedia, GNU Free Documentation License.

American Healthcare: A 4-Napkin Explanation

Healthcare Napkins All

View more documents from Dan Roam.

Part of slide 10 is incorrect: "Providers like to prescribe new and expensive treatments to keep money flowing in". This does not generally apply to non-procedure based specialties.

Western Sahara: A fight over independence

Lobbying Expenses: Algeria - $416,000; Morocco - $3.4 million

The following is excerpted from Opening the Window on Foreign Lobbying by Anupama Narayanswamy and Luke Rosiak, Sunlight Foundation and Jennifer LaFleur, ProPublica. Reprinted here under Creative Commons.

The Western Sahara [14] is an inhospitable patch of desert about the size of Colorado on Africa’s Atlantic coast, with a population of about 400,000, a GDP of only $900 million, and an economy based on nomadic herding, fishing and phosphorous mining. It is also one of the last colonies in the world — Morocco [15] annexed it a few years after Spain granted it independence in 1975 — and the subject of 34 U.N. Security Council resolutions on the territory since 1999.

In late 2007 and 2008, the desert region was a top priority for Morocco’s hired lobbyists. At issue was Western Sahara’s autonomy, but the story also shows how, in a foreign lobbying arms race, the side with the biggest arsenal can come out on top.

The government of Morocco sought the support of Congress in this lengthy territorial dispute. The region has long demanded independence. An indigenous insurgent group, the Polisario Front [16], waged a guerrilla war against the Moroccan military until the United Nations brokered a cease-fire in 1991.

Part of the terms of that deal included holding a referendum to determine the territory’s final status, but no vote has been held. In 2007, Morocco issued a proposal to grant Western Sahara autonomy within sovereign Morocco. The U.S. initially welcomed the proposal, and direct talks began between Morocco and the Polisario with the involvement of Algeria, which supports self-determination for the Sahrawi tribes from the area.

Toby Moffett, a lobbyist for Morocco who served as a Democratic congressman from Connecticut in the 1970s and ’80s, wrote an op-ed for the April 8, 2007, edition of The Los Angeles Times, explaining how he presented Morocco’s position to an unnamed member of Congress: “Morocco has a good story to tell,” he wrote. “It believes that the long-standing dispute with Algeria and the rebel Polisario group over the Western Sahara must be resolved.

“We tell the congresswoman and her staff that the region is becoming a possible Al Qaeda training area,” he wrote. “Algeria and the Polisario recently hired lobbyists, too, so we’ll have our hands full.”

Indeed, records show the Algerian government’s lobbyists had 36 contacts with members of Congress and staff promoting self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. The Algerians paid a modest $416,000 in lobbying fees.

By comparison, lobbyists for the government of Morocco had 305 contacts with members of Congress and their staff. Morocco paid $3.4 million in lobbying expenses — putting it among the top foreign government spenders for FARA filings in the period.

The intense campaign won converts. A bipartisan group of some 173 House members signed on to a statement supporting Morocco’s offer of autonomy for the region without formal independence. President Bush also expressed support [17] for Morocco’s plan in summer of 2008. And this April, 229 representatives sent a letter to President Obama urging him to back Morocco.

Until Obama reversed Bush’s stance [18] last month, Morocco’s investment worked.

* * *

The Foreign Lobbyist Influence Tracker is a joint project of ProPublica and the Sunlight Foundation. It digitizes information that representatives of foreign governments, political parties and government-controlled entities must disclose to the U.S. Justice Department when they seek to influence U.S. policy. Filings under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) provide details on how lobbyists interact with government officials than those required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act; they contain information on efforts by foreign governments and organizations to influence U.S. policy on trade, taxation, foreign aid, appropriations, human rights and national security.

You may query the database by member of Congress contacted, country, client or lobbying firm. You can also search by "contact issues" as reported by lobbyists.

Read more on Western Sahara here.

$4.2 million to dispute a single word

Image from ProPublica

Foreign Lobbyist Influence Tracker, a joint project of ProPublica and the Sunlight Foundation, digitizes information that representatives of foreign governments, political parties and government-controlled entities must disclose to the U.S. Justice Department when they seek to influence U.S. policy. Filings under the Foreign Agent Registration Act provide more details on how lobbyists interact with government officials than those required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act; they contain information on efforts by foreign governments and organizations to influence U.S. policy on trade, taxation, foreign aid, appropriations, human rights and national security.

You may query the database by member of Congress contacted, country, client or lobbying firm. You can also search by "contact issues" as reported by lobbyists. Here are some sample queries: "Robert Wexler", "Tax", and "Executive Office of Dubai."

With the roll out of the influence tracker database, ProPublica also published two accompanying articles Adding it up: The Top Players in Foreign Agent Lobbying and Opening the Window on Foreign Lobbying. The latter by Anupama Narayanswamy and Luke Rosiak, Sunlight Foundation and Jennifer LaFleur, ProPublica. The following is excerpted from that piece (reprinted under Creative Commons):

Image via Wikipedia

$4.2 million to dispute a single word

Perhaps no player in the field shows the influence of foreign agents as much as Robert Livingston, the powerful ex-appropriations chairman who was in line to be House Speaker before a scandal derailed him. His firm, Livingston Group [6], reported the highest number of contacts with government officials, and Livingston was the second-biggest political giver among lobbyists for foreign agents, listing more than $99,000 in campaign contributions, most of which went to members of Congress. His clients — including the governments of Azerbaijan, Egypt, Libya and the Republic of Congo and the Bank of the Netherlands Antilles — showered his firm with $5 million in fees, the third-highest total among all firms that reported during the period.

Also among them was one country with a longstanding image problem: Turkey. From 1915 to 1923, as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished, many at the hands of the Ottoman government, but a precise description of the events has been an extraordinarily sensitive subject in Turkey. The issue also has risen regularly in Congress, thanks in part to American-Armenian groups that have pushed for government affirmation [7] that the killings amounted to genocide.

In October 2007, with elderly Armenian survivors from the era in attendance, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a resolution [8] that would do just that. The next step would be a vote before the entire House, something Turkey wanted desperately to avoid. On more than any other issue, Turkey, which has a U.S.-led war in Iraq on its border, is seeking help in a longstanding effort to join the European Union.

The genocide question split U.S. leaders. All eight living former secretaries of state at the time sent a letter warning Congress that offending Turkey could have serious diplomatic consequences for the United States. Both Barack Obama and his chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were in the Senate; Clinton backed a resolution recognizing the genocide, and Obama made it a campaign pledge.

Turkey’s lobbyists made contact with the executive branch 100 times in a coordinated effort to persuade congressional leaders to squash the resolution. The Livingston Group worked Congress. The firm’s lobbyists contacted the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., author of the resolution, four times on Oct. 4 to arrange a meeting with Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy. A few weeks later, Sensoy was withdrawn in protest of the House’s consideration of the measure.

Turkey didn’t lobby just Congress — the country hired foreign agents to promote the cause with people outside the administration, too. Noam Neusner, who served as a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, worked the powerful Jewish lobby, meeting with an array of groups including the influential American Israeli Public Affairs Committee [9] a combined 96 times to persuade them to oppose the resolution, FARA records show. Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, and relations have been generally positive; but in the end, AIPAC supported the resolution.

On Oct. 26, 2007, some sponsors of the resolution backed off a full floor vote, and the legislation never advanced. FARA records quantify the effort Turkey’s lobbyists put into the issue: 673 contacts in a single month, and more than 2,200 in the filings overall — the most of any country.

In all, records show, Turkey spent $4.2 million to mobilize its lobbyists to influence a resolution that hinged on the single word -- genocide. Some $1.9 million of that went to DLA Piper [10], a top-50 U.S. law firm that operates globally and has taken on such high-profile cases as the defense of imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar. The dispute demonstrates the power of labels — and the lengths to which a country will go to protect its world image.

Afghanistan Elections: They Both Won?

Image via Wikipedia

Three days before the Afghan Elections, Secretary Clinton released a statement urging caution until the official results: “It will be several days before we have preliminary results and we hope initial reports will refrain from speculation until results are announced. Final results could take several weeks. We call on candidates and their supporters to behave responsibly before and after the elections.”

One day after the elections, both Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah said they won yesterday's vote. UK’s The Guardian reports President Karzai's staff as saying that the incumbent president had taken a majority of votes, making a second round run-off unnecessary. It also reports that Abdullah's spokesman, Sayyid Agha Hussain Fazel Sancharaki, said the former foreign minister was ahead with 62% of the vote.

Image via Wikipedia

Pajhwok Afghan News is reporting that unofficial results indicate President Hamid Karzai and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah dominated vote counts in Kabul and are virtually in a dead heat (tied) in a dozen or so polling station counts.

The NYT quotes the Special Envoy to Af/Pak: “The test is going to be in the counting,” Richard C. Holbrooke [...] said in an interview after he toured four polling stations in Kabul. “If the will of the electorate is going to be thwarted, it will happen in the counting.”

Check out U.S. Embassy Kabul's Photos - Election Day 2009 here.

DoS Nominees: More Senate Holds and Jams?

Image by TheArtNerd via Flickr

Laura Rozen of The Cable reported on June 19 that “a Congressional source says that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put a hold on all State Department nominees earlier this week because he is not satisfied with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia.”

Over twenty State Department nominees are still pending in the SFRC. The following have been cleared by the Senate panel but with a blanket hold could be kept from going to a unanimous consent Senate floor vote:

Ellen O. Tauscher, of California, to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, vice Robert Joseph, resigned. Jun 16, 2009 Reported by Mr. Kerry, Committee on Foreign Relations, without printed report. [The Cable reported unconfirmed reports that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has placed a blanket hold on all State Department nominees].

Kurt M. Campbell, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (East Asian and Pacific Affairs), vice Christopher R. Hill, resigned. Jun 16, 2009 Reported by Mr. Kerry, Committee on Foreign Relations, without printed report. [The Cable reported unconfirmed reports that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has placed a blanket hold on all State Department nominees].

Harold Hongju Koh, of Connecticut, to be Legal Adviser of the Department of State, vice John B. Bellinger III, resigned. May 13, 2009 Reported by Mr. Kerry, Committee on Foreign Relations, without printed report. [Anonymous hold; unconfirmed reports that the hold was placed by Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and David Vitter (R-LA)].

Jeffrey D. Feltman, of Ohio, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister- Counselor, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs), vice C. David Welch, resigned. May 19, 2009 Reported by Mr. Kerry, Committee on Foreign Relations, without printed report. [The Cable reported on May 22 that Carl Levin (D-MI) placed a hold on this nomination]

Laura Rozen in the same report writes that one source says “Republicans are threatening to put appointments for the entire administration on hold due to their ire over the scheduling of Obama's Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor for a July hearing.”

Oh, sweet joy! Don’t you just love ire?


Ire -- personified as one of the deadly sins, fatal to one's spiritual development and progress, but what the heck …

President Bush nominated Judge Sam Alito on October 31, 2005 as one of the Supremes. The WH sent his nomination to the Senate on November 10, 2005. The Senate voted to confirm Judge Alito as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court on January 31, 2006. About three months, more or less 80 days after the Senate received the nomination!

Judge John Roberts was nominated by President Bush as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on September 5, 2005, his nomination was sent to the Senate on September 6, 2005, and he was confirmed on September 29, 2005. Less than a month; he got his confirmation via a bullet train in 23 days!

President Obama announced the nomination of U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York for the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009. Judge Sotomayor’s nomination was sent to the Senate on June 1^st. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy reportedly has set July 13 as start date for her nomination hearings. That’ll be 43 days after her nomination was sent to the Senate, and that’s just the start of the hearings. Ugh! I bet somebody will put a hold on her nomination, too – maybe for wearing a pink suit to her nomination hearings. Or as pay back for something, anything …

And you wonder why folks get jaded with politics?

Update:
See The Cable - Confirmation Logjam Breaks?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings to Begin July 13 (time.com)
• The GOP's Initial Tactic on Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor: Play for Time (time.com)

2009 AFSA Elections: End Words and Such

Five days after the AFSA election results were supposed to be sent out, and three days after it actually went out on AFSNet, all I could find from the Team AFSA website is this short message that needs either grave editing or translation ...

AFSA Voters

Great results. a great finish for TEAM AFSA 2009 and a long and worthwhile journey!

As of late, yesterday evening the results are in, and will be officially declared as of this Monday. While the election committee still has a few issues to resolve, the basic fact is clear- the 2009 AFSA election is over.

It's important to note that while many bask in the glory of the results, one candidate who fancies himeself student of Churchill, let's allow the days and weeks to play out out before declaring victory.

A Diplopundit reader suggested that Churchill was a reference to Daniel Hirsch who won the State VP seat. Meanwhile, a check on the CLEAN Slate website has this message from David Firestein and his slate-mates.

Dear Fellow AFSA Members,

After one of the most intensely contested elections in modern AFSA history, the 2009 election is over and we have a split decision:

CLEAN Slate has won the active-duty vote and Team AFSA has won the retiree vote.

When the 2009-2011 AFSA Governing Board convenes its two-year term on July 15, nine members of CLEAN Slate and ten members of Team AFSA will join six independents (all of whom were endorsed by CLEAN Slate) to set about the business of strengthening the United States Foreign Service and defending the professional interests of AFSA's 14,000 members.

The eighteen members of CLEAN Slate congratulate all those who will take office next month and wish them only the best in the important work ahead. Those of us who were not elected stand ready to pitch in whenever needed.

Just 23% of AFSA members voted in this election (46% of retirees and well under 20% of active-duty personnel cast ballots) -- a turnout that, while certainly not what we would have hoped, nonetheless is the highest AFSA has seen since 2001. CLEAN Slate thanks all of those who voted for helping to shape the future of AFSA and the Foreign Service, and we encourage all those who did not vote in this election to get involved in 2011 -- and, as importantly, to engage with AFSA in the interim. Your voice is important and we want it to be heard.

The campaign is now over. Starting today, we work together, in common cause, to address the challenges confronting our Foreign Service.

The work ahead will not be easy, but we have every confidence that the experienced, capable, diverse and "bipartisan" team you have chosen to assume AFSA's reins on July 15 will work tirelessly for all of us and deliver the results AFSA's members deserve and pay for.

To all of those who supported CLEAN Slate in this election -- active-duty colleagues from State, USAID, FCS, FAS and IBB and retirees -- we say: THANK YOU! We are deeply grateful for, and humbled by, the trust you placed in us.

To those who supported our opponents, we say: the members of CLEAN Slate who have been elected to the next Board will represent you, too, and we will strive to earn your support and your confidence.

Again, thank you to all those who answered the call to run, congratulations to the candidates who won, and best of luck to the members-elect of the 2009-2011 Governing Board!

Sincerely,

CLEAN Slate 2009

David Firestein
Louise Crane
Nancy Brannaman
Daniel Hirsch (State Vice President-elect)
Ambassador Shirley Barnes
Rebecca Balogh (FCS Representative-elect)
Carleton Bulkin (State Representative-elect)
Jorge Delfin (State Representative-elect)
Les Hickman (State Representative-elect)
Michalene Kaczmarek
Joyce Namde (State Representative-elect)
Julie Stewart (State Representative-elect)
Mike Unglesbee (State Representative-elect)
Sharon White (State Representative-elect)
David T. Jones
Bill Savich
Sonja Sweek
Pete Wood

NDS has some post-mortem on the AFSA elections, read the comments section, too. I've written previously that the AFSA election engagement needs a makeover. I've now come to think that the AFSA election guidelines also need some work. I think it would also be useful to the membership if minutes of the AFSA meetings are posted online so that their deliberations are transparent. The truth of the mater is people won't care until they realize what are at stake. But people won't realize what are the stakes if everything is done behind closed doors.


Do stay around and watch and don't be shy about sending the new Governing Board your thoughts .... especially if you are in the active-service. I'll be watching ....

Drilling Down the 2009 AFSA Election Results

23.91% of AFSA Membership Voted

The Election Committee had certified the winners of the 2009 AFSA Elections. If you have not seen the results yet, check out NoDoubleStandards' post here with the winning candidates identified by slate or the official announcement of the results in afsa.org. The new Governing Board will take office on July 15 for the 2009-2011 term.

I’ve sent an email to the chair of the AFSA Elections Committee inquiring about the voters’ composition, and got this response back yesterday:

"Thank you for your question. Although I would welcome knowing who you are, I can inform you that the Committee released the certified election results to all candidates at about 10:30 PM June 15. This morning we expect to send out an AFSA message with a link to AFSA's website containing the voting tally by constituency,

Thank you for your interest. And thank you for not disclosing my personal email address on your blog."

Well, that’s what you get for being an anonymous blogger in your pjs (do you think, I’d have gotten a better response if I had a real name like Dandelion Silver instead of the unimaginative DS?)


In any case, a Diplopundit source was kind enough to forward me the voting composition. AFSA has now posted that document online (pdf) but its seems only page 1 is available online; the other pages have not been included.


So -- here is the AFSA membership and constituency breakdown as of 2008 (from annual report).

Total AFSA Members as of 2008: 13,905

State: 63.3 % (8,801)

Retiree: 26.4 % (3,670)

USAID: 7.1 % (987)

Associates: 1 % (139)

FCS: 1.2 % (166)

FAS: 0.8 % (111)

IBB: 0.1 % (13)

According to its latest Annual Report, AFSA has 13,905 dues-paying members as of 2008. There were 3,326 ballots cast in this election, slightly higher than the last five AFSA elections. However, the ballots cast still amount to about 24% of the total AFSA membership (see Dead Men Working's post on election stats here).

I'm not a numbers guru but there are some rather curious details when you drill down on these numbers. If you read the numbers differently, please feel free to add a comment:

Active-duty State employees are the largest voting bloc in AFSA at 63.3% of the total membership. In this election, State employees account for 1,459 of the total votes or 43% of the votes counted. However, 1,459 votes out of approximately 8,801 due-paying members amount to only 16.57% of this constituency. In short – only slightly more than 15% of active-duty State AFSA members sent in their votes.

Retirees are the second largest constituents of AFSA at 26.4% of the total membership. In this election, AFSA retirees account for 1,568 of the total votes or 47% of the votes counted. However, 1,568 retiree votes out of approximately 3,670 dues-paying retiree members amount to 42% of this constituency. In short – almost half the total AFSA retiree members sent in their votes.

And that made a difference.

David Firestein of CLEAN Slate won the majority votes in the AID, FAS and FCS constituencies; he also won the State votes by a thin margin. However, Susan Johnson of Team AFSA got the miniscule IBB votes and the Retiree votes; the latter is important because the retiree bloc decided this election with 927 voting for Johnson against 603 who voted for Firestein. They have also decided to return Tex Harris as Secretary (for a 5^th term) and Andrew Winter as Treasurer (for a 3^rd term). (See the Governing Board composition here for the last five terms, 2001-2011; names marked in bold red have been elected more than one term). CLEAN Slate's VP candidate, Daniel Hirsch also made the line-up, which must give those "ghost voters" in the AFSA forum some indigestion.


On the representatives for the two largest constituencies -- 8 candidates ran for 4 seats as Retiree Reps ; all 4 seats were carried by Team AFSA. On the State Representatives, 27 candidates ran for 9 open seats; CLEAN Slate won all but two of these seats. Which makes for an interesting combination in the new Governing Board: Team AFSA (10), CLEAN Slate (9), Unaligned/Undeclared? (5).

Now – I’m not sure why a large chunk of active-duty State employees did not vote. It could be because -- 1) they are happy with their lot; 2) they have no confidence in AFSA, 3) they feel their votes won’t make a difference, 4) they feel turned off by the negative tone of the campaign; 5) they forgot to send in their votes; 6) they meant to vote but ran out of time or 7) they feel anybody from the FS would represent them just as well.


Did I miss any other reason for not sending in the ballot? C’mon, you can dish here, can’t you?

What seems striking -- at least to me, is that the retiree bloc has decided to a large extent, the composition of the leadership of the AFSA Governing Board in this election (I don’t know if this has always been the case, enlighten me, if you have some AFSA history). The other thing that’s striking is how a few names kept popping up in the Governing Board list in the last 10 years.


I do think it is admirable that experienced hands are willing to contribute their time and talents to AFSA's work on behalf of the Foreign Service. However, it is also undeniable that AFSA needs to grow the next generation of leaders needed to negotiate with management on issues affecting a changing Foreign Service. It would be interesting to see if this incoming Board recognizes the importance of cultivating its leadership pipeline for the next decade.

AFSA Election Goes Undiplomatic?

A big election is just down the corner for Foreign Service folks -- the AFSA Governing Board is up for election for the 2009-2011 term. Some 40 days to go before the ballots are counted, and the campaign buzz is heating up and not nicely, I must say.

E3 Team AFSA 2009: Experience, Equity, Excellence claims that the Clean Slate endorsements are misleading. It looks like two individuals complained that their endorsements were misrepresented. One says the slate endorsement “appears to be a gross misrepresentation,” and another says she “strenuously object to the use of my name.” E3 Team AFSA has a screaming green link to “CLEAN SLATE ENDORSEMENTS ARE MISLEADING.” And in case you miss the point, it adds: On their website and in their mailings, Clean Slate lists numbers of endorsements. That is not a race that we have entered, but here are some comments from people who were listed in earlier Clean Slate e mailings as having endorsed the Clean Slate or individuals on it.


Look it up here, see what you’re missing.

Its website has a Guest Book with one entry. Seven endorsements have also been posted. I would not count “Great info Mark, thank you for the post - good to see specialists running for AFSA - keep us posted on what happens. Department of State: Information Resource Management Facebook page April 2, 2009” as official endorsement if I were you -- the writer might complain.


Some E3 Team AFSA links that might interest you: Who We Are and What We Believe – the latter page includes items on The Equity Imperative and Standards for Excellence. I wonder what happened to Experience, the first of the 3Es.

Susan R. Johnson (Maintains a TS Security Clearance) , a Foreign Service officer since 1979 is the top candidate for the E3 Team AFSA 2009 slate. She is a Senior FS Officer who has served twice as DCM (Romania and Mauritius) and who received the DCM of the Year Award in 2002. You can read more about her in the Women’s History Month page and her OHR bio from 2004. Diana Page (Maintains a TS Security Clearance) is also running in the same slate for State VP, as well as a few others whose last names did not include the “Maintains a TS Security Clearance” as surnames.

The other team running in this election is the CLEAN Slate (Courageous Leadership, Effective Action – Now). It promises to: A) Represent AFSA’s Members More Transparently, B) Secure Needed Resources and Better Management and C) Resolutely Defend Your Rights. Its platform is spelled out here. It calls its opponents “dedicated, distinguished professionals whom we are proud to call colleagues and friends” but points out to the major differences between the two slates including the fact that 11 of its 18 members are mid-level employees. And this not too subtle dig: “none of us has made AFSA a “second career.”

The CLEAN Slate page also includes a running a counter of endorsement, currently at 85. The other candidates running in this slate are here; none of them have the extended “TS” surnames, in case you’re interested. It also has a page on How to Vote.

David Firestein, a Foreign Service officer since 1992, is running at the top of the CLEAN slate ticket. You can read more about him here and here. In 2008, Firestein was appointed as senior advisor at the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. In 2006, he won the prestigious “Secretary of State’s Award for Public Outreach.” David Daniel M. Hirsh is also running in the same slate as State VP. He is probably the slate’s most controversial candidate – you can read Dead Men Working’s posts here, here and here. Daniel Hirsh himself recently posted in his blog An Open Letter To My DS Colleagues after a specific email has been circulated in what he says is an attempt to portray him as “a person hostile to DS.”

Okay, if you’re an election hound and up for some more of this -- go visit the election forum here. Somebody posted: “In order for you guys to winn you must stop using your negative tactics.” Another one said, “I have just been watching your campaign get dirtier and dirtier. And the latest email just adds even more filth.[…]Thanks for showing your true colors!”

{Update 5/4}: I should add that the two comments above and a couple more have been posted on the election forum thread of E3 Team AFSA but no similar complaints appears on the other slate. I understand that candidates may not always have full control over what their surrogates write or say, but I also think that it is a sign of a good and strong leadership to be able to set the right tone and limits in a heated campaign. I am hoping that Team AFSA and the CLEAN Slate would utilize more fully the purpose of the AFSA online forum during this election campaign. I think this would be one way for members to assess the potential responsiveness of all candidates, as well as an opportunity for everyone to engage in an active discussion on the state of the Foreign Service. I see that the mandatory age retirement (MAR) has been discussed in the CLEAN Slate page; I would like to see similar discussions on other topics on both slates. I can read perfectly the campaign platforms, thank you very much -- but I and other folks would like to see that give and take discussion online and on the record. {end of this update}

Seems like there are more election emails in circulation, is that allowed? Character assassination and red herrings have allegedly entered this year's campaign toolbox, also.


Seriously folks, you’re all diplomats -- fight hard and strong on the issues, but be dignified, do it nicely – you might scare the children.

The AFSA by-laws are here. See item V on the Governing Board.

Updated 5/1:
Thanks to Diplopundit reader, Mike for correcting me on the name of the State VP candidate for the CLEAN slate. The candidate's name is Daniel M. Hirsch not David as I 've previously posted here. Apologies, not enough sleep and too much java. I must also add that there is a third candidate running for State VP. Katherine Hadda is running as a non-slate/independent candidate; she has 20 years experience in the FS (see p.7 of AFSA News Special Election Edition). She writes: "I hope you will vote for me, but even if you don't, please vote! How will we get management to take us seriously if we don't make ourselves heard?"

And you know she's right. Go, fill out your ballot now before you forget it in your incoming box.

All Over But the Props ... er Congressional Record

The final vote count on the Christopher Hill nomination was 73 for YEAs and 23 for NAYs, with three senators not voting. Senators Brownback, McCain, Graham, Kyl were among those who voted Nays. 17 other GOP senators joined 56 Democrats to confirm Ambassador Hill. Senators Kennedy, Roberts and Rockefeller, did not vote.

Just for the record, the debate on Ambassador Hill’s nomination in the Senate yesterday ate 29 pages of the Congressional Record. Imagine how many more pages would have been added if the senators went on for 30 more hours of debate as was originally agreed.

The generals and former ambassadors were invoked repeatedly by the senators. Generals Petreus and Odierno and the former ambassadors to Iraq where cited here by Senator Kerry. Senator Whitehouse, a former FS brat (father and grandfather were FS officers) also did the same here.

Another General’s name was also invoked, perhaps not surprisingly by those who opposed the nomination. Senator Brownback asked the Senate floor: “Why didn't you nominate somebody such as Retired General Zinni, or why did you pick him and then pull him back?” Senator McCain who was not happy with all the ambassadors sent to Iraq so far, also managed to bring up General Zinni’s name saying: “We paid an enormous price for the gains we see in that country today. And I must say, in all candor, we have seen another Ambassador to Iraq who went there without experience, and things did not turn out so well. There are qualified individuals who are serving this Nation in and out of the Foreign Service. It well known that Marine General Zinni was offered the job, at least by some members of the administration, and then somehow that offer disappeared.”

Senator Kyl in his “anyone but Chris Hill” argument says: “While I don't expect a carbon copy of Ambassador Crocker, I do assert again that surely the State Department has to have at least one distinguished diplomat with relevant experience in the Middle East. If it doesn't--if its bench for Iraq is one diplomat deep--we need to find out what is going on over at the State Department.”

It is clear that the majority were able to round up more support for this nomination than the minority party; there certainly were more Senators who took to the floor in support of this nomination than those who opposed it. But Senator Kerry was the most steadfast supporter and returned every ball served by the senator from Kansas. At one point Senator Kerry called out Senator Brownback on one of his props, er exhibits of the starving children of North Korea.

screencapture from March 2009 video showing the same exhibit

Senator Kerry:

“But to show a picture of starving North Korean children in the debate on Ambassador Hill's qualifications and to imply somehow that he is indifferent to their plight does a good public servant an enormous disservice--particularly one whose record is what I have described, who time and again has fought for the implementation of the Human Rights Act and who has taken personal risks on occasion to enforce human rights. The date of the photograph that was there was not in fact declared, but I believe it was during the great Republic of North Korea's famine in 1996 and 1997. If that is true, that is 10 years before Ambassador Chris Hill began his duties as the lead envoy in the six-party talks. So, again, to create some sense of linkage or nexus here is inappropriate.”

And Senator Dodd on the conduct of diplomacy:

“Its not just about Chris Hill but also about how we conduct diplomacy and about a professional, an individual who has served in administrations, regardless of politics or party, but as a professional. It is extremely important, in my view, that we have a cadre of professional people in our diplomatic corps who can serve both Democratic and Republican administrations with dignity, with professionalism, with brilliance in this case, and that we recognize them. That will necessitate from time to time that there will be a change in policies, but having individuals who are able to accommodate those changes and serve the interests of our country in a highly professional capacity is something to be celebrated, in my view, and something we need more of, not less. My support for Chris Hill's nomination is not to suggest that I necessarily agreed with every decision he made when he served at the discretion of Condoleezza Rice and President Bush but because he did so professionally and with great capacity. That willingness is something I believe we need to celebrate, as I said a moment ago, more often.”

The senate rigodon is over, but it ain't over. There's a lesson here for career diplomats but that's for another post.



EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - April 21, 2009)

[Page: S4471] GPO's PDF
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know we are here to discuss the nomination of...
[Page: S4472] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4473] GPO's PDF
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished ...
[Page: S4474] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4475] GPO's PDF
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator from Rhode Island...
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to confirm...
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the...
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of...
[Page: S4476] GPO's PDF
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the...
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, today is a sad day in the history of the world....
[Page: S4477] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4478] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4479] GPO's PDF
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of Ambassador Hill. First...
EARTH DAY
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, tomorrow is Earth Day, and it is a good day to...
[Page: S4480] GPO's PDF
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. CASEY. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum...
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in late February, President Obama made an...
[Page: S4481] GPO's PDF
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
[Page: S4482] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4483] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4484] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4485] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4486] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4487] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4488] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4489] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4490] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4491] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4492] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4493] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4494] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4495] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4496] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4497] GPO's PDF
[Page: S4498] GPO's PDF
CONFIRMATION -- (Senate - April 21, 2009)
[Page: S4525] GPO's PDF