On Tap

by Marshall

It’s been nearly a year since any of us have posted anything to On Tap. I suppose in blog parlance, this has become yet another of the millions of blogs that have become dormant, abandoned or disused.

The On Tap gang are still close, and we still write quite a lot.

For my own part, I miss long form writing, but the practical reality is that I really only have time for Twitter, and sometimes not even that. You can also find me on Facebook and Flickr. I’ve set up a Tumblr page lately too, but I’m not sure what I’ll be doing with it.

Jim’s got the day job blog and his own Twitter feed.

And you can find Cam at NRA News and various other spots if you know where to look.

Thanks for reading On Tap. We look forward to connecting with you elsewhere around the web.

Before Christmas, US Airways flight 1549 went down in the Hudson. In one of the most astonishing tales in aviation history, two braves pilots managed to ditch their A320 successfully without a single fatality. That’s where attention has rightfully been focused.

But this morning, the New York Times has a must read piece about the swift reaction of local, state and federal security agencies and emergency services. If you’ve read the 9/11 Commission report, this story is breathtaking for how fast the entire establishment was on alert, diagnosing the problem, and prepared to respond.

Much has rightly been made of the fact that the plane came down on a busy ferry route between New York and New Jersey, which meant rescue vessels were hand in seconds. But the article makes clear that even without the intervention of those on the scene by happen-stance, there was a massive response on the way which would have arrived within minutes.

Meanwhile, security forces in Washington, Colorado, and downtown Manhattan were making swift, well-informed judgements about what else needed to be done — or left undone as the case might be. For example, at NORAD headquarters, duty offices quickly made the decision that scrambling fighters to patrol the skies about New York wouldn’t be necessary.

Bottom line: Unlike 9/11, the systems basically worked. And the experience will allow everyone involved to keep learning and improving, so that the response is even better, more coordinated and on the ball the next time. Two thumbs up for progress.

Given Jim’s expertise on these issues, I’d love to hear his reaction… Jim?

UPDATE: One other thought: There has been tons of discussion about the Bush legacy. I myself have questioned his leadership in any number of areas. But I suspect that when it comes to U.S. response to emergencies, the response to Flight 1549 demonstrates that countless ways — some small, other massive — that the President and his team had a positive impact. And that’s a pretty good legacy unto itself.

Despite what Charles Dickens thought, it doesn’t really snow very much in London. But it did yesterday. The biggest snowfall in 18 years. And I got around with my camera. If you’re interested, you can see all of my photos on Flickr here.

A few samples:

With President Obama now holding the keys to the White House, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on President Bush’s two terms as President. I’ve tried to put my historian hat on in this post, and look at President Bush’s record as objectively as I can. For me, these are the key points. What do you think?

• The surge worked. The Middle East strategy didn’t, but the book is far from finished. President Bush took us to war in Iraq because he believed Saddam Hussein’s regime to be a threat to America. He also believed that a democratic Iraq might act as a seed for western-style democracy to spread in the Middle East. His plan failed initially because his administration did not adequately prepare for circumstances on the ground once primary military action against the regime was complete. His idea that Iraq could “sow the seeds of freedom” has failed thus far because of democracy’s inability to stabilize the country and ensure that the basic needs of the people are met. Still, it is not out of the question that Bush’s vision is vindicated in the end.
• There have been no further terrorist attacks in the U.S. Some day, many years from now, the proper files will be declassified and the story will emerge. No doubt, there are more than a few tails, now secret, about plots that were defeated. No doubt, the aggressive posture towards terrorism overseas made it more difficult for terrorists to achieve their deadly aims in the U.S. I suspect that the extent of the President’s accomplishments in both respects will not be known for sometime. But we must credit him and his team. The absence of terrorist attacks is a fact, and a heartening one.
• The Presidency is now at its zenith in terms of power and influence. President Bush’s posture on Constitutional prerogatives may be his longest lasting legacy. At no time in American history has the Presidency so dominated the other branches of government. The President’s use of signing statements to effectively rewrite legislation set new precedents for presidential power. Through both active regulation and intentional inaction, the President and the rest of the executive brand wielded the power of government to have a tremendous impact, often without much scrutiny. Congress should shoulder some of responsibility for this shift in power as well. Never in American history has the legislative branch been so ineffectual.
• Protections for individual rights are at their weakest since the Civil War. The Alien and Sedition Acts, enacted during John Adams’ administration, are seen in history as America at its most hostile toward individual liberty. But President Bush has pushed America as close to hostility towards liberty as it has been since those discredited acts. Often without Congressional authority and own his own executive initiative, President Bush took steps to make it more difficult than ever to enter the U.S., approved extra-constitutional proceedings to try terrorists captured overseas, signed off on transportation of prisoners to other nations for the purposes of torture, and signed legislation making it more difficult for Americans to exercise their Constitutional rights of speech and association.

  All of these actions made it more difficult for the U.S. to achieve the President’s own objectives abroad. In short, America appeared hypocritical while, on the one hand, it encouraged democracy and freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere yet, at the same time, acted as though it did not value the very principles it was espousing. More broadly, within the U.S., there is less respect and protection for individual rights and Constitutional mandates than at any time in the past. For too many public officials, the Constitution has, indeed, become a living document — one that can mean anything to anyone at any time. No one can seriously claim that President Bush is responsible for the long-term erosion of Constitutional respect, but he certainly contributed to it.

• On domestic policy, President Bush accomplished almost nothing of note. It’s difficult to recall much in the way of domestic policy accomplishments at all. Only three come to mind: Education Reform, aka No Child Left Behind; creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit; and significant across-the-board tax cuts. The first has been largely gutted by subsequent legislation. The second has become yet another entitlement boondoggle, though it does seem to have provided a safety net for seniors that needed it. And the jury is still out on whether the third helped drive economic growth, contributed to economic weakening, or had no meaningful impact at all. Two other domestic initiatives merit mention: social security reform and immigration reform. Despite a great deal of effort and tremendous political capital spent, President Bush failed to get either through Congress. Both failures will have meaningful consequences in years to come. The failure on social security simply punts the ball down the field to a future administration. The failure on immigration may have done long-term damage to the Republican party.
• The President’s single focus on the war on terror distracted important from longer term threats from China. Over the past eight years, China has steadily expanded its economic and military footprint. By spreading its wealth and resources, it is making friends and allies in every corner of the globe, even in south and central America. While terrorist remains the greatest short term threat to American interests, China is swiftly emerging as a much more significant long term threat. It’s difficult to see anything that President Bush did to address China or even to position the U.S. to address China’s growing importance in year’s to come.
• The most important legacy of President Bush may be the opportunity missed after 9/11. The world was united in the days following the terrorist attacks on America in a way it has never been before. There was an opportunity to capture that sentiment and unanimity of purpose and achieve something monumental. But within a year, that unanimity was lost, to the certain detriment of the U.S. as well as people around the world.

I wasn’t in the U.S. for yesterday’s inaugural. I wasn’t even at my adopted home in London. Work took me to Madrid, where I watch the inauguration in the company of spanish colleagues and, later, in the quiet of my hotel room.

The whole experience was fascinating.

My impression of people in Spain, the UK and elsewhere across Europe is that they spent the last few years being disappointed in America. You see, Europeans — not even the French — hate the U.S. or Americans. In my experience, quite the opposite is true. They love what America represents — freedom, liberty, and (yes) hope. The idea of starting with nothing and making oneself a tremendous success, however that idea might be defined, is still associated strongly with America.

And so, the emotion I saw yesterday wasn’t as much happiness as it was relief that their ideal of America could be restored.

To be sure, this is a sentiment that could quickly change, and our new President’s actions will have a lot to say about whether their good feelings persist.

In both Spain, which I witnessed myself, and in the London, where I’ve had reports from friends, work stopped to watch the swearing in and listen to the new President’s speech. With all that I’ve spoken to, it struck the right chords. And in Madrid, all were pleased enough that a post-speech toast was in order.

I suppose a cynic would ask why an American should care. After all, Europeans don’t vote in the U.S., and too often of late their policy and economic agendas seem to clash with ours. But that cynical view misses the point.

America won the cold war, in part, because even while the Soviet state apparatus tried to tear down the image of America, that image persisted among its own people. That image — and America’s standing among people abroad — has tremendous impact on our ability to achieve our objectives and to make the kind of difference in spreading freedom and prosperity that most Americans are committed to. Yet, whether or not you believe it’s appropriate or fair, that image has taken a battering over the last few years. And that has undermined our interests.

So, let there be hope. Because even though, as Jim says, hope is neither policy nor actionable, it does have value.

For my own part, I disagree with President Obama on many things, but I’m hoping and praying that he will succeed.

So, if you’re a regular reader, you probably noticed that On Tap isn’t really looking like itself. We’re having a bit of a technical problem with one of our wordpress plugins on our regular theme, so we’re using the WordPress default theme until we can get it fixed.

And if you’re a WordPress whiz, we’d love to hear from you…

Thanks for reading. On with the show…

Jim: I was convinced Congressman John Murtha was going down this year, after calling his constituents “racists” and “rednecks.” He faced a strong, extremely well-funded challenger, he inspired an entire sketch on Saturday Night Live… and it wasn’t even close. Won by 16 points. The man is, I fear, electorally bulletproof.

Marshall: I’m going to go with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. No one will ever accuse Brown of being photogenic or particularly inspirational. But he’s competent and smart. Down 20 points in the polls over the summer, he’s clawed Labour back to within a few points of the Tories, as British voters embrace stability and grown-up leadership in a time of turbulence. On the serious policy side, his move to nationalize UK banks, while not necessarily my favorite approach from a philosophical standpoint, saved the UK banking industry from a complete meltdown and became the model for similar programmes in the U.S. and other European countries.

I won’t have a vote when Brown calls the next election, but my bet is that he and his party will win it.

Jim: Obama would be an easy choice, but I think I’ll go with Joe Biden. As noted in the debate, he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about by mentioning specific details that he pulls out of his ass.

He’s a bullshit artist, who has never been called on it because he’s never had a competitive race, few members want to pick a fight with a committee chairman, and he’s used to being covered by the hard-hitting, skeptical and probing Delaware press. He’s been fairly quiet since Election Day, which is probably good news for both Obama and the country.

Marshall: That’s a great choice, Jim. And in this category, I think we’re faced with an embarrassment of riches.

Obama is certainly the easy choice. I think he’s also the right choice. And let me clear: I disagree with him on a lot of policy, but I want him to succeed. As an American, I’m rooting for him. But the expectations around and about him have been building for months. It will be impossible for him to live up to them. And, as Jim has pointed out, there have been so many superlatives thrown at him, and yet, his record is conspicuously thin and his experience insignificant.

Runners-up: Sarah Palin (by conservatives) and Nate Silver, the author of fivethirtyeight.com.

Jim: When Jake Tapper joined ABC News, I rolled my eyes at the news that a mainstream news organization hired an outspoken liberal from Salon.com. Yet here we are, years later, and Tapper was one of the few campaign correspondents who asked tough questions of both sides and wrote stories that discomforted both sides (and rapped me on the knuckles, fairly, at one point). He would have been my pick to replace Tim Russert; he writes as if he doesn’t care if his reports disturb either campaign’s carefully-calibrated narrative.

Jim: For Turncoat of the Year, I was initially tempted to suggest the Clintons, for their delightfully bipolar response to Obama’s nomination victory.

But it is hard to top the cowardly anonymous McCain staffer who, as the clothing brouhaha broke out, told Newsweek that Sarah and Todd Palin were “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.” Way to help the team there, pal. Of course, forget why you were hired and the job you came to do – there’s points to score and reporters to massage, and so who cares if you stab your bosses in the back? Anonymous quotes trashing the candidate always help a campaign.

Marshall: Doesn’t this have to be the very Reverend Jeremiah Wright? After all, as Obama was smoothly distancing himself from his evidently whacko pastor and mentor, Wright called a press conference to attack his protege. And what a press conference is was. In fact, let’s watch it again, in all of its glory: