** IT’S WILLIE TIME. Legendary Democratic power broker and bon vivant Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. will emcee the second inaugural of centrist Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger next month. Brown, who recently served eight years as mayor of a small city by a Northern California bay, had a record-setting 15-year tenure as California Assembly Speaker. His hold on legislative power in California was so pronounced that it sparked the narrowly successful term limits movement. NWN will get to the various Willie Brown-Arnold Schwarzenegger stories as the holidays approach.
Incidentally, NWN will also get back to health care. California Senate leader Don Perata introduced a proposal today that seems to require employers and (uninsured) employees to pay to provide health insurance to the uninsured. But expanding health care in California is going to be a long and winding road, on which a lot of boring analysis can be expended to little effect. Hmm, maybe Willie Brown will help with that. Not the boring analysis part.
** NEVADA PRESIDENTIAL CAUCUSES TAKING SHAPE, CALIFORNIAN SALAZAR IN KEY ROLE. Nevada Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins has just announced the formation of a team to work with the Silver State’s party leaders in organizing the 2008 Nevada presidential caucuses, which will be the second-in-the-nation event in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, following Iowa and preceding New Hampshire. Former Iowa Democratic Party executive director Jean Hessburg will provide overall coordination for the Nevada Caucuses, assisted by former Iowa Democratic Party field director Jaysom Sime.
Three Democratic PR experts will also work on organizing the Nevada contest. Roger Salazar of the rising Acosta Salazar firm was a strong campaign press secretary for former California Governor Gray Davis‘s winning 2002 re-election campaign, as well as national spokesman for John Edwards‘ 2004 presidential campaign. A co-publisher of the Democrats’ California Majority Report web site, he’ll work with Jamal Simmons and Bill Buck, who were top aides to General Wesley Clark, former Florida Senator Bob Graham, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, and former Vice President Al Gore.
Nevada has had presidential caucuses for years, but never in this sort of power slot, hence the emphasis on getting them organized with some people who’ve been through the process. I have some fun Nevada stories for the future, including winning there with Gary Hart and many years later spraining my knee in the Vegas airport on Valentine’s Day after covering John Kerry, but we’ll put those off for now.
** NATIONAL JOURNAL INSIDERS PICK CLINTON AND MCCAIN. The National Journal poll of political insiders overwhelmingly picks New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Arizona Senator John McCain as the favorites to win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. Two-thirds of Democratic insiders think Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Over 70% think McCain will win the Republican nomination. Among Democrats, Clinton is trailed by Illinois Senator Barack Obama, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former Vice President Al Gore and others. Among Republicans, McCain is trailed by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and others.
It’s striking that Giuliani is so lowly rated, since in polls he has to be rated a co-frontrunner with McCain among Republicans. But the insiders have doubts about his running, and feel that if he does run his New York background will cause trouble for him in Republican primaries. Interestingly, Republican insiders seem to think that Clinton has a good chance of winning the presidency.
Of course, insiders are not exactly always right. Last year, this poll had outgoing Virginia Senator George Allen as the insider favorite for the Republican nomination. And it ranked him second earlier this year. Allen, of course, got into big trouble running for re-election, losing in the end to former U.S. Navy Secretary and Vietnam War hero James Webb.
** GRITTY CASINO ROYALE‘S GLOBAL TAKE. The much grittier and darker new Bond film, Casino Royale, is doing roaringly well around the world. After just three-and-a-half weeks in release, the Daniel Craig-starrer has grossed $375.5 million in global box office. That puts it in the Top 100 of all-time, at number 92. Casino Royale has already passed three of the four Pierce Brosnan Bond films, which were very successful. While the film is doing extremely well in the US, nearly two-thirds of its take comes from foreign markets. It’s already the highest grossing Bond film in Britain.
This is probably of great interest to the guy who is perhaps California’s number one Bond fan, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former action superstar did his own version of a Bond film, True Lies, which opened with an homage to Goldfinger, replete with Schwarzenegger emerging from the water in a wet suit with a tux underneath. Actually, True Lies is about to be passed on the all-time global box office list by Casino Royale. Schwarzenegger has three films in the Top 100, Terminator 2, Terminator 3, and True Lies.
** MORE REPUBLICAN ANGST. Our conservative Republican Flash Report friends are obsessing again about why most of their statewide candidates lost. California Republican Assembly (the party’s far right wing) head Mike Spence bangs the drum again. Let’s recall that ALL of the Republican candidates lost four years ago. And that Republicans lost the House and the Senate in this national election, marked by Congressional corruption scandals and the collapsed war policy in Iraq. Oh, and that California is a mostly blue state.
A get out the vote operation is effective only on the margins. If you are in a close race, it can make the difference. This is why Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger raised $20 million for it, anticipating at the beginning of this year that he would be in a close race against a Democratic candidate. Which of course did not happen. The point is, unless a candidate is right there in the ballpark in a close race, GOTV doesn’t make much difference. Aside from Schwarzenegger and new Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, the moderate Silicon Valley entrepreneur, California Republicans simply don’t have many good candidates. I’ll get into this more at another time.
** COURT ORDER OR NO? The LA Times says that a federal judge has ordered the Schwarzenegger administration to immediately reduce prison overcrowding or face mandatory releases. The San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee say that advocates of mandatory releases were disappointed. What actually happened is that Judge Lawrence Karlton punted, for six months, saying the court will revisit the question in the middle of next year and might consider actions at that time. The court has not imposed a population cap. It’s pretty hard to see a court taking the action that prisoner rights advocates want.
** AMERICANS WANT OUT OF IRAQ. A striking new Gallup Poll indicates the depths of American dismay with the U.S. intervention in Iraq. 75% say they support the main directions of the Iraq Study Group — a pullback of combat troops, engaging with Iran and Syria, and focusing on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis.
** Monitor computer memory prices on a daily basis. Prices are stable.
** Track global and national energy prices in near real time via Bloomberg. Crude oil prices have risen slightly above $61 per barrel on word that OPEC may institute more production cuts at its December 14th meeting in Nigeria. But producing countries appear pretty happy with $60 per barrel, and Bloomberg says the last oil production cut has turned out to be less than half the amount publicly agreed to.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Turki, however, may not have been fired. The Saudi foreign minister apparently is ill. King Abdullah may also be ill, and Turki is in the line of succession to the Saudi throne.
For some reason, the link doesn’t work. Here is the article:
Stepping Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves
By Nawaf Obaid
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; Page A23
In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be “solving one problem and creating five more” if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.
One hopes he won’t make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that “since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited.” If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.
Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.
Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn’t meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn’t attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world’s Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.
Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran’s ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.
Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don’t run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq’s population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.
What’s clear is that the Iraqi government won’t be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.
There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia’s advice. Vice President Cheney’s visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.
In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran’s militarist actions in the region.
To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks — it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.
The writer, an adviser to the Saudi government, is managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect official Saudi policy.
Mr. Bradley:You know, you don’t have to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon to get from the Saudi leadership to Al Qaeda.
They have to help the Sunnis or they they will face a massisve uprising …and if they help the Sunnis they embolden Al Qaeda, who want to bring the Royal House down…Obaid’s oped was impressive …I hope the King and FM brought him back.
Mr. Bradley:Turki, however, may not have been fired. The Saudi foreign minister apparently is ill. King Abdullah may also be ill, and Turki is in the line of succession to the Saudi throne.”
I read that too …so I wonder who is entertaining Aziz during this visit?!…I have a girlfriend in Beirut working with a lay Catholic religious order…she said millions of people (not just followers of Hezbollah) are in the streets since Sunday yelling “death to the US and Israel”
I am worried about our bases in the Gulf …I am afraid another “Beirut Barracks” blow up will happen before/around Christmas…
It is Our Lady of Guadalupe Feast Day…I am going to go say the rosary for our troops…Toodles Here is link to NYT article:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
These situations are not easy to read. I remember in the Gary Hart days when a number of foreign governments wanted to get next to the presidential frontrunner, riding around with a Saudi representative in his Rolls Royce, trying to draw out which faction he was actually closest to.
And of course we have these people who imagine that they can re-engineer the Middle East.
I think “Fly Me To The Moon” is one of Mr. Sinatra’s signature tunes.
Obaid has given Dubya a convenient excuse – new information – for dodging the ISG recommendations and trying, however fitfully, to spin in another direction. If only he could find it.
Orchestration of this timely twist feels plausible.
We have to stay in Iraq if we don’t want war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Nawaf Obaid has published several important papers which are available on line at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) including a report dated April 6, 2006:Meeting the Challenge of a Fragmented Iraq: A Saudi Perspective:
Synopsis:
A report by Nawaf Obaid, an Adjunct Fellow at CSIS, gives a Saudi perspective to the insurgency in Iraq. The report analyzes the fear of fragmentation of Iraq and its implication to the Saudi national security
It is amazing that they did not anticipate a Shia- Sunni conflict. I remember Kristol arguing on Fox that Iraq was secular so it was something not to be concerned about!
“Fly Me To The Moon” is definitely signature Sinatra. Oliver Stone used it for the Manhattan skyline music at the beginning of Wall Street.
Yesterday, btw, was Frank Sinatra’s birthday.
Saddam and the ruling party were secular, not the country itself.
>It is amazing that they did not anticipate a Shia- Sunni conflict. I remember Kristol arguing on Fox that Iraq was secular so it was something not to be concerned about!
I know and i knew it at the time he said it…and I only went to Northwestern not Harvard like him! when the British occupied they ruled by bribing the tribal leaders and still could not keep order and they quashed the nationalist movement from growing …it remained confined to Baghdad…I was amazed to see the British get in so deep in this war..they had a bloody mess on their hands all thru the occupation, they knew what would happen…