26/03: Amen.
15/03: Finding Gold
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat and genuinely Progressive senator and candidate for president in 2008, introduced a resolution of "censure" this week against President Bush for "breaking laws" and "misleading Congress." The Washington Post provides this transcript of his remarks on Monday.
Dana Milbank's piece detailing the Democrats "run for the hills" reaction to Feingold's proposal is absolutely hilarious (perhaps Milbank is trying to make up for his orange clothes during the Cheney frenzy). Hugh Hewitt has it right: the Republicans in the Senate should make the Dems vote on this.
Mark Levin weighs in on the extra-constitutionalism of censure, which is irrelevant to me. Censure is basically a "spirit of the Congress"-type resolution; it is non-binding and has no meaning, but, certainly, the United States Senate has the right to make their opinion on this a matter of public record.
Added material: From the Historian of the United States Senate: a brief narrative on the Henry Clay-engineered censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834.
One more add: From the weekly whose ad reads: "If you think it is time to impeach Bush, then it is time for you to subsribe to the The Nation," William Greider pens a tribute to Feingold, "A Peculiar Politician," in which he casts him as "a lion of the Constitution," comparable to Sam Ervin.
Dana Milbank's piece detailing the Democrats "run for the hills" reaction to Feingold's proposal is absolutely hilarious (perhaps Milbank is trying to make up for his orange clothes during the Cheney frenzy). Hugh Hewitt has it right: the Republicans in the Senate should make the Dems vote on this.
Mark Levin weighs in on the extra-constitutionalism of censure, which is irrelevant to me. Censure is basically a "spirit of the Congress"-type resolution; it is non-binding and has no meaning, but, certainly, the United States Senate has the right to make their opinion on this a matter of public record.
Added material: From the Historian of the United States Senate: a brief narrative on the Henry Clay-engineered censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834.
One more add: From the weekly whose ad reads: "If you think it is time to impeach Bush, then it is time for you to subsribe to the The Nation," William Greider pens a tribute to Feingold, "A Peculiar Politician," in which he casts him as "a lion of the Constitution," comparable to Sam Ervin.
13/03: Why McCain?
Today New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (and the Democratic party) officially declared war on John McCain, calling him "slippery and evasive" and a "right-winger." Although I fought hard against McCain's candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2000, for the last several months I have been telling my friends that I think McCain may be our guy for 2008.
First of all, why was I so dead-set against McCain six years ago? Frankly, it is hard to remember exactly, but I came to genuinely dislike him for a time. I started out an Orin Hatch supporter, and then I reluctantly settled on George Bush because he looked like he could win and I liked his family. He also struck me as an unpolished but authentic and sincere man ("I believe in grace, because I have seen it ... In peace, because I have felt it ... In forgiveness, because I have needed it"). On the whole, George Bush has not disappointed me.
Why my dislike for McCain? Once committed to Bush in the early months of 2000, McCain was the enemy. I disagreed with McCain-Feingold, which was one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Perhaps most importantly, I was spooked by his boosters. Looking back, I was very suspicious of someone who courted the MSM and appealed to my hardcore Democratic friends (although I predicted back then that McCain's liberal admirers would desert him in the general election). Moreover, I felt he was playing to the Beltway press corps (and we are supposed to hate the Beltway press corps). In retrospect, my distaste for McCain based on his association with reporters who flocked to his bandwagon on the "straight-talk express" was unfair and not quite rational.
Why does McCain appeal to me today? McCain self-identifies as a Reagan Republican (as he has throughout his career). He is a Westerner. He is rock-solid on conservative issues (today Paul Krugman asserts that McCain's voting record is currently ranked the third-most conservative in the Senate). Krugman (who is not linked here; my policy is to not link the Times) has it just about right: McCain is not a radical opponent of tax cuts; McCain has a long history of toughness against rogue states (Krugman makes the important point that William Kristol supported McCain over Bush in 2000; McCain's foreign policy would have been similar to Bush's, only stronger). Krugman also fumes that McCain is now friendly with the Religious Right and positioning himself as "an extremist on abortion."
Krugman makes a lot of sense to me (did I really say that?).
Moreover, McCain, who had the power to derail Bush in 2000 and 2004, rallied around the flag and proved his loyalty to Republican ideas. McCain set aside any personal animus and did the right thing for the right reasons. He had every opportunity for revenge, and he passed. You must admire that kind of discipline. McCain has supported the war on terror unflinchingly. Although he balked on the torture question, and he called consistently for more troops in Iraq during 2003 and 2004, arguably, he was right on both counts.
Added comment: McCain drew near-unanimous condemnation from conservatives for his leadership role in the "Gang of Fourteen" (aka "The Mod Squad"), but that seems somewhat misplaced and wrong-headed now that the compromise netted us Roberts and Alito and broke up the logjam of conservative Circuit Court nominees.
Why now? In brief:
1. McCain will run as a Reagan Republican, but he will not carry the baggage of the Bush administration. The GOP faces tough times in 2006 and 2008. The next election will be a referendum on President Bush (35 percent approval). But no Repubilcan candidate can succeed running away from George Bush. Republicans cannot nominate an "outsider," anti-Washington governor (it just won't fly). Having said that, there needs to be some distance. McCain will run on his record of integrity and independence and fiscal responsibility, at the same time promising to stay the course where it counts.
To that end, McCain is an articulate spokesman for conservative common sense. The winning candidate will need to connect with the public. The GOP candidate will need to sell a program that is not very popular right now. McCain is a great communicator. His vaunted appeal to "moderates" (much criticized in some conservative circles) really means that many regular Americans perceive McCain as a good man and wise leader.
2. McCain is battle-tested and up to the challenge. The next presidential election will prove devastatingly cruel and heartless. Think Hillary Clinton and James Carville and Paul Begala and Paul Krugman unleashed. This is no time to learn as you go along. The Republicans need a tough guy for this very tough upcoming race. McCain's life experience and his sense of humor will help him navigate the ugliness.
3. Lindsey Graham. Graham is the brightest shining star on the Republican horizon and a long-time McCain supporter. Graham will be a floor leader in the Senate in a McCain presidency, positioning him for bigger and better things to come. McCain and Graham represent the future of the party.
What say you? What are your reasons for and/or against McCain?
First of all, why was I so dead-set against McCain six years ago? Frankly, it is hard to remember exactly, but I came to genuinely dislike him for a time. I started out an Orin Hatch supporter, and then I reluctantly settled on George Bush because he looked like he could win and I liked his family. He also struck me as an unpolished but authentic and sincere man ("I believe in grace, because I have seen it ... In peace, because I have felt it ... In forgiveness, because I have needed it"). On the whole, George Bush has not disappointed me.
Why my dislike for McCain? Once committed to Bush in the early months of 2000, McCain was the enemy. I disagreed with McCain-Feingold, which was one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Perhaps most importantly, I was spooked by his boosters. Looking back, I was very suspicious of someone who courted the MSM and appealed to my hardcore Democratic friends (although I predicted back then that McCain's liberal admirers would desert him in the general election). Moreover, I felt he was playing to the Beltway press corps (and we are supposed to hate the Beltway press corps). In retrospect, my distaste for McCain based on his association with reporters who flocked to his bandwagon on the "straight-talk express" was unfair and not quite rational.
Why does McCain appeal to me today? McCain self-identifies as a Reagan Republican (as he has throughout his career). He is a Westerner. He is rock-solid on conservative issues (today Paul Krugman asserts that McCain's voting record is currently ranked the third-most conservative in the Senate). Krugman (who is not linked here; my policy is to not link the Times) has it just about right: McCain is not a radical opponent of tax cuts; McCain has a long history of toughness against rogue states (Krugman makes the important point that William Kristol supported McCain over Bush in 2000; McCain's foreign policy would have been similar to Bush's, only stronger). Krugman also fumes that McCain is now friendly with the Religious Right and positioning himself as "an extremist on abortion."
Krugman makes a lot of sense to me (did I really say that?).
Moreover, McCain, who had the power to derail Bush in 2000 and 2004, rallied around the flag and proved his loyalty to Republican ideas. McCain set aside any personal animus and did the right thing for the right reasons. He had every opportunity for revenge, and he passed. You must admire that kind of discipline. McCain has supported the war on terror unflinchingly. Although he balked on the torture question, and he called consistently for more troops in Iraq during 2003 and 2004, arguably, he was right on both counts.
Added comment: McCain drew near-unanimous condemnation from conservatives for his leadership role in the "Gang of Fourteen" (aka "The Mod Squad"), but that seems somewhat misplaced and wrong-headed now that the compromise netted us Roberts and Alito and broke up the logjam of conservative Circuit Court nominees.
Why now? In brief:
1. McCain will run as a Reagan Republican, but he will not carry the baggage of the Bush administration. The GOP faces tough times in 2006 and 2008. The next election will be a referendum on President Bush (35 percent approval). But no Repubilcan candidate can succeed running away from George Bush. Republicans cannot nominate an "outsider," anti-Washington governor (it just won't fly). Having said that, there needs to be some distance. McCain will run on his record of integrity and independence and fiscal responsibility, at the same time promising to stay the course where it counts.
To that end, McCain is an articulate spokesman for conservative common sense. The winning candidate will need to connect with the public. The GOP candidate will need to sell a program that is not very popular right now. McCain is a great communicator. His vaunted appeal to "moderates" (much criticized in some conservative circles) really means that many regular Americans perceive McCain as a good man and wise leader.
2. McCain is battle-tested and up to the challenge. The next presidential election will prove devastatingly cruel and heartless. Think Hillary Clinton and James Carville and Paul Begala and Paul Krugman unleashed. This is no time to learn as you go along. The Republicans need a tough guy for this very tough upcoming race. McCain's life experience and his sense of humor will help him navigate the ugliness.
3. Lindsey Graham. Graham is the brightest shining star on the Republican horizon and a long-time McCain supporter. Graham will be a floor leader in the Senate in a McCain presidency, positioning him for bigger and better things to come. McCain and Graham represent the future of the party.
What say you? What are your reasons for and/or against McCain?
10/03: Congress Assailed
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
"THEY SPEND drunkenly, they fail at oversight and they can't stop the administration from abusing detainees or tapping phones. But never call the members of Congress powerless: Yesterday, in the exalted name of anti-terrorism, the Senate rebelled against its Republican leadership and joined the House in a vote to prevent a company based in a moderate, friendly Arab country from making a minor investment in the United States." So begins the lead editorial in this morning's Washington Post.
The Post's two Davids, Broder and Ignatius, also weigh in with somber assessments of this as Congressional folly, calling the episode anti-Arab "nativist sentiment" and "a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism." All three of these articles are must reads. Watching C-SPAN this morning (it is "Brian Lamb Friday;" my favorite day of the week), I was stunned, as was Brian, at the virtually unanimous bipartisan condemnation on the editorial pages of America's leading newspapers aimed at the craven Congress and the misplaced popular vigilance. Even the New York Times (not linked), which egged on its home-state senators and congressman and fanned the flames of this imbroglio, did not celebrate this "victory;" they merely shifted the subject to the broader question of port security.
One more point to make: the Bush administration, often characterized as unreasonably stubborn, demonstrates once again that they have the capacity to fold quickly and unabashedly when the political odds are clearly stacked against them. Of course, much needs to be said for their maladroitness in handling this episode. Broder is right that this is much bigger than this one issue. Are the troops in full mutiny? Is the prospect of Republican civil war and mayhem in Washington finally upon us?
On the other hand, we should also note that in the midst of losing on Dubai and Cheney's hunting accident, the USA Patriot Act reauthorization passed and the NSA surveillance unpleasantness reached compromise. Those are much bigger victories for the Bush administration.
More later...
The Post's two Davids, Broder and Ignatius, also weigh in with somber assessments of this as Congressional folly, calling the episode anti-Arab "nativist sentiment" and "a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism." All three of these articles are must reads. Watching C-SPAN this morning (it is "Brian Lamb Friday;" my favorite day of the week), I was stunned, as was Brian, at the virtually unanimous bipartisan condemnation on the editorial pages of America's leading newspapers aimed at the craven Congress and the misplaced popular vigilance. Even the New York Times (not linked), which egged on its home-state senators and congressman and fanned the flames of this imbroglio, did not celebrate this "victory;" they merely shifted the subject to the broader question of port security.
One more point to make: the Bush administration, often characterized as unreasonably stubborn, demonstrates once again that they have the capacity to fold quickly and unabashedly when the political odds are clearly stacked against them. Of course, much needs to be said for their maladroitness in handling this episode. Broder is right that this is much bigger than this one issue. Are the troops in full mutiny? Is the prospect of Republican civil war and mayhem in Washington finally upon us?
On the other hand, we should also note that in the midst of losing on Dubai and Cheney's hunting accident, the USA Patriot Act reauthorization passed and the NSA surveillance unpleasantness reached compromise. Those are much bigger victories for the Bush administration.
More later...
Sidebar
