Like many of you I heard the president’s speech.  However, what I observed was not the man with a “Texas swagger” nor the man who said “dead or alive” or “stay the course.”  Instead, I saw a man who finally acknowledged that after all this time, the billions spent and loss of American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians, that his plan is failing.  I will give him credit for acknowledging the mistakes that he has made.  It appears that people within his administration are finally either giving him the information or making him actually acknowledge the information.

Remember, this is a CEO type of President who likes to delegate and doesn’t care for long meetings or the details.  When he was Governor, he would review a death penalty case in as little as 15 minutes.  Some staff, even stated that you knew the governor was bored with a meeting, because he would start to play  solitaire on his computer.

This characteristic has continued with him as President.  Prior to creating the new strategy for Irag, the president met with his advisors for only three hours!  I would think the background information only would take more than three hours and the options laid out would even take longer!

This President has gone back and forth when it come to Iraq, from the reasons we went to war, to as recently as last Fall during the 2006 elections, when he stated in a variety of speeches that he would not be sending additional troops to iraq, because it would send the wrong message.  Now the President will be sending in more troops as early as next month.

During the President’s speech, I saw a man who looked defeated and worn out.  I didn’t see the usual “swagger” or hear the voice of confidence.  I also noticed, that the President did not conclude his speech, by asking God to Bless America.

The sad part, is that whether the republicans and democrats who will be running for their respective party’s nomination for President are looking at Iraq as a political problem and how best to score points with their bases.   If there ever is a time that political considerations should not come into being, now is that time.  The president and congress need to work together to develop a cohesive strategy, they need to determine what a victory is and have the military prepare the plans in order to achieve victory. This had not happened.  I would strongly encourage all of you to read a book titled “Fiasco” by Thomas Ricks.  It is a well-thought out a book that deals with Iraq from 1990 to the present.

Michael Cruz

Commentary

Last Friday was both a delight and disappointment. I felt honored to have placed seventh (I am tied with Planning Commissioner Diane Trautman) out of 15 for consideration to be appointed to the Santa Clarita City Council.  My goal like everyone else’s last Friday was to be ranked in the top five.  The top five consist of: an elected official, two appointed commissioners, a principal and a retired Captain of the Sheriff’s department.
 

The process was unique in the sense of a person judging you by just answering one question.  I believe, that we should have been given the time and format to engage in a dialogue instead of an “ask and answer.”  For example, what if I dodged a question?  I think the panel member should have been able to say you didn’t answer my question and then it would require me to expand on my response.
 

Also, it was difficult in the sense that I didn’t know how much information to provide in each answer.  Several questions required a yes or no answer, so should my answer only be either “yes” or “no” or do I answer “yes” or “no” and give my reason?  What you do?  I prefer the format utilized by the city council members last Wednesday night.  Each council member during their turn asked their specific questions, based upon the responses some council members requested clarification or to expand on the answer given by the candidate.  This allowed for a dialogue, which in my opinion is what you need in making this important decision.
 

Furthermore, Councilman Ferry brought up a good point.  None of the panels knew what the other panels asked nor did they know the candidates responses.  I believe, Councilman Ferry is correct, in that a panel member might have voted differently if he/she had an opportunity to hear all of the questions and responses provided during the entire interview process.
 

I don’t mean to diverge from the current topic of discussion.  I will try to be brief, Speaking of Councilman Ferry, during the special meeting, he asked all five candidates if they supported “aggressively pursuing annexation” of the West Side of the valley.  As I recall, every member stated that they did.  I don’t know how to define “aggressively.”  Because, one persons aggressiveness can be another persons complacency. 

In my opinion, the city needs to meet with local community leaders and elected members to the town councils and varous HOAs of the unincorporated areas and everyone needs to treat and be treated equally as partners in this endeavor.  I would ask the committee, first to determine what issues need to be addressed.  Afterwards, I would look for a precedent of some sort, so both groups would have a model to work from.  If annexation is to succeed, the city and the unincorporated areas need to work together for everyone!

I was disappointed in several ways.  First of all, the interviews took place during a workday.  I believe only several people from the public attended.  Either the interviews should have take place at night or last Saturday.  This would have given the public a better opportunity to attend.  In addition, the interviews were not televised on the local public access channel.

As to my own personal experience, I was very nervous and had butterflies each time I sat down with the panels.  I thought some of the questions were well thought out and others questions were based on a panel member’s own interest as it related to their individual industry.

The entire process was open to the public and the first interviews started at 8:30 am.  My first interview was not scheduled until 10:40 a.m.  Under the format, each member could only ask one question and the question had to be the same for all of the candidates.  Imagine taking a test in which you get the questions before the exam.  I thought it would be unethical although legal to do so.  Instead of sitting in on the interviews and getting the questions in advance, I went home and tried to relax after the welcome and introduction of the panels members concluded.  I am aware of at least one candidate who did in fact sit down in each panel before his interview.
 

Prior to my first interview, I met with a reporter from one of the local “fish wraps.”  I was asked if I noticed anything peculiar about the panels. I replied that there were no attorneys on the panel.  The reported stated there where no environmentalist on the panel.  This struck me as odd.  Reflecting on that observation and the questions asked of me, I can only recall one question, which could be considered related to the environment.  Richard Budman asked for my thoughts about the open-space initiative assessment, why it failed and what could be done differently.  I explained my thoughts on the subject and expressed my desire for the city to reduce its budget by 1%, so the city can finance the purchase of open space without the need for a tax increase on property owners.  You see! 1% of the city budget would generate more money than would be raised through the property tax increase.
 

Looking back on the process in selecting the panel (hindsight is 20-20), I think the city could have done a better job of selecting the panel members.  Instead of asking 18 people, the city should have selected approximately 50 people.  As you may recall the city manager stated that there were numerous people qualified to serve on the panel and that it was a difficult decision in selecting the 18 panel members to serve.  In other words, there was not a short supply of community leaders.  After the 50 people were selected, the city could conduct a lottery and the first 18 names pulled from a hat or bowl would then serve on the panel.  Then, no one could blame the city for “hand picking” a panel, which has been alleged by members of the community.  In all fairness to the city, I think regardless of the make-up of the panel, the city would have been criticized, no matter what method it used in the selection of the panel members.
 

If you read the various articles, many people assume that the city will be picking a council member Tuesday night.  Remember they are not required to pick a member.  As a matter of fact, there very well might be a special election still.  Don’t be surprised if you see campaign signs in May and June 2007.

Michael Cruz

Contrary to popular belief, the Democratic Party is not in trouble.  Sure, Speaker Elect Pelosi has made some bad mistakes, but I think she has learned from them.

Don’t get me wrong, if she continues to make mistakes, her tenure, as Speaker of the House of Representatives will be a short one.

Her first mistake was supporting John Murtha over Dennis Hoyer for Majority Leader.  She did this out of loyalty.  Generally speaking, the Speaker Elect stays out of the race for the leadership positions.  Pelosi violated this tradition and paid the price for it.

Hoyer beat Murtha by 80 plus votes.  Pelosi was acting of loyalty; she needs to understand that she has been elevated to a new position of power, which requires her to respect certain traditions.  She helped Murtha, because He helped her defeat Hoyer for the minority leadership position in 2004.

Pelosi strongly believes in loyalty, because she learned it as young girl from her Father, who was Mayor of a large East Coast city.  Her Father kept a folder of “favors.”  Every time someone asked him for a favor, she wrote down what the favor was and whom it was for.  Thus, Murtha helped her, so she helped Murtha.

Her second mistake was not appointing Rep. Jane Harman to chair the intelligence committee.  Rep. Harman is the senior democratic member of the committee. If you follow tradition in the House of Representatives, the chairmanship should be hers.

However, Pelosi feels that Harman should have been more confrontational with the Bush Administration during the last two years.  Rep. Harman is well respected by the intelligence community and by members of both political parties.

Lastly, if the democrats take back the White House in 2008, she will be on the short list to be Secretary of Homeland Security.  In other words, there is reasonable explanation in denying her the chairmanship.  As I am writing this, it is expected that a Congressman from Texas, will be the Chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Pelosi needs to realize that this is not the late 1800 early 1900s.  In other words, she needs to be more than a political machine boss.  She needs to put her party before her.  She needs to move the 100-hour agenda forward.  She needs to be The Speaker of the House and not a political boss.

Pelosi has stumbled coming out of the starting blocks, but this is not a sprint it is a marathon.  She has plenty of time to recover and make up the loss grounds.  In six months, no one will remember the infighting within the Democratic Party.
 

Michael Cruz