While Fidel’s influence and irritation coefficients have been declining, those of Osama Bin Laden have been rising.  Slated for capture or death by President Clinton and the target of cruise missiles in 1998 because of his role in attacks on U.S. Embassies in eastern Africa, Bin Laden became Public Enemy # 1 after the September 11 attacks.  Despite President Bush’s proclamation that he was “Wanted: Dead or Alive” and over eight years of manhunts, Bin Laden remains at liberty to fire periodic audio or video messages of threats or suggestions to the Western public and their leaders.  Speaking of the Tora Bora Battle of December 2001, John Kerry said:  “When Bush had an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords and bin Laden escaped.” He would later claim that Bin Laden’s last minute tape cost him the 2004 election and, as recently as last month, wrote:  “If we had captured or killed Bin Laden, the world would look very different today. His death or imprisonment would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat, but our failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism. It left the American people more vulnerable, and it inflamed the strife that now threatens to engulf Pakistan and Afghanistan.”  Now President Obama is entangled in the War in Afghanistan which was begun to deprive Bin Laden and Al Qaeda of sanctuaries from which to launch further attacks against the West.  Through all this, Bin Laden, protected by his band of tribal militants, roams the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  For how long will this outlaw avoid justice?  For how long will Western politics be influenced by his tapes and even his continued life?  For how many presidents will the capture or death of Bin Laden be an elusive goal?  Will he, in the end, be the next Castro, who will continue to avoid the long arm of the U.S. until, full of days, riches and, in the eyes of some, honors, he will die, perhaps at a time and place unknown to his pursuers?  The story develops.

The 2009 special election features Democrat Bill Owens, Republican Dierdre Scozzafava and Conservative Doug Hoffman. Identifying the players in New York politics is like finding the ends in a bowl of spaghetti, but a few ground rules are discernable. Democrats and Republicans nominate their own candidates. The next level of parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, then consider the major party candidates and, if one is to their liking, offer their party’s nomination to one of the major party candidates. Frequently, this results in the Democratic candidate also running on the Liberal Party line and the Republican also running on the Conservative Party line. If either the Liberals or Conservatives find neither major party candidate to be satisfactory, they can nominate their own candidate. Endorsements from minor parties can confuse things further.

In this election, the Working Families’ Party has given its nomination to Owens while the Independence Party has endorsed Scozzafava. The Liberals seem to be sitting this one out. The Conservative Party has chosen its own candidate, Doug Hoffman. This posed a problem for Republicans who had to choose between their official candidate, who is regarded by many as too liberal for their tastes, and the Conservative, who challenges party unity but whose positions are generally more to their liking. Scozzfava garnered endorsements from the Log Cabin Republicans, the National Rifle Association, local Republican leaders as well as some national figures including House Republican leader John Boehner, Sen. Susan Collins and former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Hoffman drew endorsements from prominent Republicans such as Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former N.Y. Gov. George Pataki, former Senators Fred Thompson and Rick Santourm, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many others. As of this writing, Diedre Scozzafava has withdrawn from the race and many of her supporters are transferring to Hoffman.

So what past election does this bring to mind? Think back to 1970. Rep. Charles Goodell had been appointed by Gov. Rockefeller to replace the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Although a mainstream Republican in the house, Goodell sought to enhance his statewide appeal by adopting liberal domestic policies and criticizing the conduct of the Vietnam War. These positions earned Goodell the nomination of the Liberal Party in addition to that of the Republican Party, but also ensured the opposition of many within the Republican Party and within the Nixon Administration. The Conservative challenge came from James L. Buckley who, like Hoffman 39 years later, gained endorsements from many prominent Republicans, most notably Vice-President Spiro Agnew. The field was rounded out by Democratic Rep. Richard Ottinger. During the campaign the Administration both aided Buckley and turned its guns on Goodell. The high point of the attack occurred when Vice-President Agnew called Goodell “The Christine Jorgenson of the Republican Party.” At that time Christine Jorgenson was the only well known person to have undergone a sex change operation.

In 1970 the administration efforts were successful as Buckley managed a narrow victory over Ottinger while Goodell lagged far behind. Similarly, the Conservative challenge to Scozzafava has been successful in driving her out of the race. In a few days we will know if, as in 1970, with support from conservative Republicans, the Conservative Party will be successful in electing one of its own in another three way New York race.

The challenge presented to President Obama brings to mind the Mayaguez incident which confronted President Ford and the Iranian hostage crisis of the Carter years. Going back further one draws on the example of President Jefferson’s handling of the Barbary Pirates and Theodore Roosevelt’s demand for “Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!”

Perhaps the closest precedent is Ford’s handling of the Mayaguez seizure. Occurring less than two weeks after the Fall of Saigon, America’s prestige was at a low ebb. Besides the obligation to defend American interests, the administration was receptive to an opportunity to, in Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s words, “Give somebody a bloody nose.” President Ford acted decisively, ordering U.S. troops to seize the ship and rescue the crew. The operation was regarded as a success and buoyed American spirits when they needed a lift.
Unsuccessful was the attempted rescue of the U. S. hostages held by the Iranian revolutionaries. President Carter approved the attempt planned by the military, but the exercise had to be abandoned when mechanical failures prevented the rescue of any hostages. This failure contributed to the continued malaise with which the Carter administration was identified, particularly during its last year.

Like President Ford’s actions in the Mayaguez incident, Obama’s response to the seizure of the Maersk Alabama was decisive and successful. Both incidents presented chances for a new president to set a tone for the handling of challenges by international outlaws. Ford, Carter and Obama all acted decisively when confronted with their challenges. Ford and Obama acted when U.S. military power was strong and capable of successfully carrying out the Commander in Chief’s orders. Carter acted after the policies of his Administration had sapped the strength of the U.S. military. Perhaps the test of the Obama Administration will be not what it can accomplish now, but what the military will be capable of after three years of Obama leadership. We will wait and hope.

For decades Sens. McCain and Biden, and for a few years Obama, had lived lives apart from those of ordinary Americans. Governor Palin, by contrast, has not. She is part of the Middle Class that the others were so anxious to help. The Palins have dealt, and do deal, with paying the bills, helping the homework, getting the kids to the hockey games and the other day in and day out chores that so many of us share. More than any other candidate for national office in living memory, Sarah Palin was one of us.

So, can one of us be trusted to run the country? We think that we have the common sense which is so uncommon in Washington. Well would we really trust ourselves, or our neighbors, with high office? We know our neighborhood grocer, who may be our town’s mayor, and countless others who have run the school auction, served on the hospital board, headed the church group or assumed any of the other tasks of civic leadership. Would we really feel confident in putting our nation’s destiny in their hands? They may not be ready to lead from day one, but, with a reasonable amount of seasoning in the vice-presidency, do we really believe that they, and we, could get up to speed pretty quickly? Or do we really need to know that our leaders have been trafficking with the elites and not with us little people?

When we look at Sarah Palin many of us look in a mirror. The way we responded to her tells us a lot about how we view ourselves. If we really do not feel comfortable with ourselves or our neighbors in high leadership, let’s be grateful for the elites and stop complaining about them If, on the other hand, we see someone in whom we can place our trust and confidence, let’s step up when we are called and support the Sarah Palins of the world who do.

A milestone was reached with the selection of Dick Cheney as running mate by George W. Bush. Prior vice-presidential candidates had generally been chosen to placate a wing of the party or to appeal to a segment of the electorate or a region of the country. While Cheney may have appealed to the conservative base, he was mainly chosen as a partner who could help govern. Both fans and foes would likely agree that Cheney has had significant influence over policy in the Bush-Cheney Administration. Cheney’s role has led to questions as to how his role would influence the selection of future vice-presidential candidates. Would a presidential candidate feel free to revert to a selection process which emphasized electability, or would future candidates be compelled to give primary consideration to the role the vice-president would play in his administration?

We have now seen the first two selections of the post-Cheney era. Sen. Obama has opted for a Cheney type selection with the choice of Sen. Joe Biden, a foreign policy expert from a small, reliably blue state. Sen. McCain has chosen Gov. Sarah Palin, who, he hopes, will appeal to women voters and send a message that the McCain Administration will not engage in business as usual, with earmarks, pork barrels and attendant corruption.

So what influence has the Cheney precedent had on these choices? While not raising the bar for all tickets, Cheney has provided a new rationale for vice-presidential choices. The Cheney model provides presidential candidates with a method to fill in deficiencies in their own resumes by permitting them to select running mates with expertise which they are lacking. Slim resumes have been a common characteristic of the campaigns of Gov. Bush and Sen. Obama. George W. Bush ran with a relatively little governmental experience. His foreign policy experience was limited to Tex-Mex border issues and what he picked up from listening to his father and his father’s friends. He used Dick Cheney to assure the voters that the team would have a seasoned veteran of Washington and foreign wars. Sen. Obama’ also lacks experience in foreign affairs. He hopes to convince voters that, if he gets in over his head, he can rely on Joe Biden to help him steer the Ship of State. Sen. McCain has clearly not followed the Cheney model. He has chosen Gov. Palin who has relatively little governmental experience which will be useful for governing, but may who attract key voting blocs.

Perhaps the determinative difference is that Sen. McCain has a record of experience which does not need supplementation by his running mate so he has the luxury of being able to choose a helpful campaigner. Sen. Obama needs to gain the voters confidence by promising to rely on his running mate while governing. At this point in the post Cheney era, it seems that we can expect the experience of running mates to be inversely proportional. The more impressive the resume of the presidential candidate, the more emphasis will be placed on the running mate’s campaign appeal. The sparser the credentials of the presidential candidate, the more likely he is to choose a Cheney type running mate who promises to “help govern.”

Donald Nixon ran some restaurants which required additional financing in 1956. When other sources did not materialize, he turned to Howard Hughes, who made a loan of $205,000, secured by real estate owned by Hannah Nixon, mother of Donald and Richard, which was worth a fraction of the value of the loan. Shortly after the loan was made, Hughes-associated enterprises received a series of favorable rulings from government agencies. After the restaurants went bankrupt, no attempt was made to collect the debt, which was never repaid.

The issue received little attention until two weeks before the 1960 election, when columnist Drew Pearson brought the matter to public attention.

Vice President Nixon was forced to say that he had no association with his brother’s business, that he was never asked to do anything for Howard Hughes, and that his mother had put a significant portion of her assets up as collateral for the note. Although not directly exploited by the Kennedy campaign, the issue remained an irritant and, in the close 1960 election, may have provided the margin of victory for Kennedy. The issue would be raised again by California Governor Pat Brown when Mr. Nixon ran against him in 1962.

Justified or not, the issue hurt Mr. Nixon in two races and may have contributed to a lingering suspicion among some about his integrity. It differs from the Obama-Wright matter in at least two respects. Mr. Nixon could not choose his brother (whom he, of course, loved), but Obama chose his pastor. The association with Mr. Nixon brought inevitable charges from political opponents that he had used his office for family financial gain. The questions about Obama and Wright deal with Obama’s fundamental views on the relationships between races in America and his vision of our nation and the world.

Mr. Nixon was hurt by his association with Donald. Recently Obama’s association with Pastor Wright has hampered his campaign. Will the association continue to dog Obama as did Mr. Nixon’s, or will he get over it as Nixon was ultimately able to do? We will have to wait for the answer. The answer may tell us much about Obama and even more about our nation.