My first instinct:
Let him talk.
What could Iranian frontman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad possibly say at the Distinguished Lecture Series at Columbia University that could have a serious impact on our culture? Moreover, what possible impact could his mere appearance on the campus of Columbia University do for him and/or to us?
Reasonable people disagree about this. But I say:
Let him talk.
The most vociferous handwringers in all this are generally East-Coast intellectuals who put too much stock in the power of Ivy League universities to influence America and the world.
Let him talk.
True, Columbia President Lee Bollinger believes in free speech only as long as it does not extend to American conservative speech, but that is beside the point.
Let him talk.
For the most part, the Ahmadinejad speech went the way of all Ahmadinejad speeches.
Some things I expected:
Ahmadinejad would be boring.
Ahmadinejad would obfuscate, stonewall, and generally ignore the questions.
Ahmadinejad would not be attractive (although I was relieved not to see the Members Only jacket).
Ahmadinejad would prove incendiary (like a fox) and banal simultaneously.
Something I did not expect:
Columbia President Lee Bollinger, who spent the week sanctimoniously preaching free speech, the merits of open-mindedness, and fair hearings, would cravenly try to save his reputation by excoriating Ahmadinejad in a ten minute rant disguised as an introduction.
Something else I did not expect:
That I would agree with Ahmadinejad, when he pointed out that the prefatory remarks were insulting, inhospitable, and hypocritical:
“In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and students.”
Amen. Undoubtedly, we all agree with the substance of Bollinger's comments--but what was the point? Why invite the little creep (or, to quote Bollinger, the “petty and cruel dictator”), if only to dress him down in front of a forum dedicated to civil exchange. What was the point?
One other question: if John Bolton had offered a similar introductory challenge and hypercritical assessment of Ahmadinejad prior to his distinguished lecturer speech--would Lee Bollinger have thought it appropriate?
Let him talk.
What could Iranian frontman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad possibly say at the Distinguished Lecture Series at Columbia University that could have a serious impact on our culture? Moreover, what possible impact could his mere appearance on the campus of Columbia University do for him and/or to us?
Reasonable people disagree about this. But I say:
Let him talk.
The most vociferous handwringers in all this are generally East-Coast intellectuals who put too much stock in the power of Ivy League universities to influence America and the world.
Let him talk.
True, Columbia President Lee Bollinger believes in free speech only as long as it does not extend to American conservative speech, but that is beside the point.
Let him talk.
For the most part, the Ahmadinejad speech went the way of all Ahmadinejad speeches.
Some things I expected:
Ahmadinejad would be boring.
Ahmadinejad would obfuscate, stonewall, and generally ignore the questions.
Ahmadinejad would not be attractive (although I was relieved not to see the Members Only jacket).
Ahmadinejad would prove incendiary (like a fox) and banal simultaneously.
Something I did not expect:
Columbia President Lee Bollinger, who spent the week sanctimoniously preaching free speech, the merits of open-mindedness, and fair hearings, would cravenly try to save his reputation by excoriating Ahmadinejad in a ten minute rant disguised as an introduction.
Something else I did not expect:
That I would agree with Ahmadinejad, when he pointed out that the prefatory remarks were insulting, inhospitable, and hypocritical:
“In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and students.”
Amen. Undoubtedly, we all agree with the substance of Bollinger's comments--but what was the point? Why invite the little creep (or, to quote Bollinger, the “petty and cruel dictator”), if only to dress him down in front of a forum dedicated to civil exchange. What was the point?
One other question: if John Bolton had offered a similar introductory challenge and hypercritical assessment of Ahmadinejad prior to his distinguished lecturer speech--would Lee Bollinger have thought it appropriate?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am right now watching just a snippet of Alan Greenspan on C-SPAN2.
I cannot help but think that Vice President Dick Cheney miscalculated in his Wall Street Journal retort to the "maestro." A better strategy might have been embracing him. It seems to me that the former Fed chairman is much more upset about profligate spending than he dislikes the Bush tax policy. I keep hearing Greenspan say tax cuts are okay. Giving back the surplus was a good thing. The war debt is no big deal. But he is really mad at George Bush for 1) allowing (encouraging, instigating) big spending and 2) not attacking some of the massive entitlement programs looming as economic time bombs.
An alternative strategy for the White House might have gone something like this: "Alan Greenspan is absolutely right. A free-spending Congress and its unwillingness to eschew politics and solve the serious problems confronting the next generation has done great damage to the nation." A more politically adept Bush team could have used the moment to frame more favorably for history the President's failed attempt to reform social security.
On Friday I caught up with the Terry Gross interview on Fresh Air from earlier in the week. I was struck by her palpable disappointment with Greenspan’s vaunted comments on Bush failures. The always cryptic Greenspan does not tarry long on those much ballyhooed disagreements. In fact, if you keep him on those subjects long enough, he offers up assertions quite troubling for the Bush lynch mob. For example, he is not shy about affirming that he viewed the ouster of Saddam as absolutely necessary at the time. But, in the most general way, his selected comments move forward the anti-Bush drumbeat; therefore, Greenspan is getting a friendly reception from the MSM and usual suspects.
Moreover, the libertarian sage fits in with a favorite storyline: even smart Republicans and conservatives think Bush is an idiot, and they don't like him personally.
Another example of this re-emergent template a la Fresh Air again:
Terry Gross also interviewed Jeffrey Toobin last week. Toobin’s latest book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , explains how Sandra Day O'Connor, instrumental in making Bush president through judicial fiat, came to regret her perfidy as she got to know the wild-eyed Texan and come to understand his assault on the Constitution. When asked how he knew this to be true, Toobin responded: "You're just going to have to trust me on that one."
As for the bigger picture, is there a kernel of truth in this increasingly popular Bush-bashing MSM convention? Are Republicans really deserting the sinking ship? Only those who can read a poll. Are GOP Washington insiders saying they knew all along this guy was no good? Every minute of the day.
Is that surprising? Does it mean a whole lot? Not really.
This is life on the Potomac. Outsiders infuriate insiders. When things go bad, like in the case of Jimmy Carter, the insiders pound on the country bumpkin for a lack of sophistication and a reliance on his crude and boorish cronies. By the way, when things go bad for insiders, like the first George Bush, your friends pretty much desert you then as well—although they are forced to come up with different explanations for your failings and be more creative as to why they are not connected to you.
On the other hand, the Beltway “smarties” had to bite their tongues during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. They would have deserted Clinton and Reagan too, with gusto--but those outsider presidents succeeded grandly, and enjoyed protection as a result of high popularity, overwhelming reelection, and savvy communications operations.
Nobody said being president was going to be easy.
I cannot help but think that Vice President Dick Cheney miscalculated in his Wall Street Journal retort to the "maestro." A better strategy might have been embracing him. It seems to me that the former Fed chairman is much more upset about profligate spending than he dislikes the Bush tax policy. I keep hearing Greenspan say tax cuts are okay. Giving back the surplus was a good thing. The war debt is no big deal. But he is really mad at George Bush for 1) allowing (encouraging, instigating) big spending and 2) not attacking some of the massive entitlement programs looming as economic time bombs.
An alternative strategy for the White House might have gone something like this: "Alan Greenspan is absolutely right. A free-spending Congress and its unwillingness to eschew politics and solve the serious problems confronting the next generation has done great damage to the nation." A more politically adept Bush team could have used the moment to frame more favorably for history the President's failed attempt to reform social security.
On Friday I caught up with the Terry Gross interview on Fresh Air from earlier in the week. I was struck by her palpable disappointment with Greenspan’s vaunted comments on Bush failures. The always cryptic Greenspan does not tarry long on those much ballyhooed disagreements. In fact, if you keep him on those subjects long enough, he offers up assertions quite troubling for the Bush lynch mob. For example, he is not shy about affirming that he viewed the ouster of Saddam as absolutely necessary at the time. But, in the most general way, his selected comments move forward the anti-Bush drumbeat; therefore, Greenspan is getting a friendly reception from the MSM and usual suspects.
Moreover, the libertarian sage fits in with a favorite storyline: even smart Republicans and conservatives think Bush is an idiot, and they don't like him personally.
Another example of this re-emergent template a la Fresh Air again:
Terry Gross also interviewed Jeffrey Toobin last week. Toobin’s latest book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , explains how Sandra Day O'Connor, instrumental in making Bush president through judicial fiat, came to regret her perfidy as she got to know the wild-eyed Texan and come to understand his assault on the Constitution. When asked how he knew this to be true, Toobin responded: "You're just going to have to trust me on that one."
As for the bigger picture, is there a kernel of truth in this increasingly popular Bush-bashing MSM convention? Are Republicans really deserting the sinking ship? Only those who can read a poll. Are GOP Washington insiders saying they knew all along this guy was no good? Every minute of the day.
Is that surprising? Does it mean a whole lot? Not really.
This is life on the Potomac. Outsiders infuriate insiders. When things go bad, like in the case of Jimmy Carter, the insiders pound on the country bumpkin for a lack of sophistication and a reliance on his crude and boorish cronies. By the way, when things go bad for insiders, like the first George Bush, your friends pretty much desert you then as well—although they are forced to come up with different explanations for your failings and be more creative as to why they are not connected to you.
On the other hand, the Beltway “smarties” had to bite their tongues during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. They would have deserted Clinton and Reagan too, with gusto--but those outsider presidents succeeded grandly, and enjoyed protection as a result of high popularity, overwhelming reelection, and savvy communications operations.
Nobody said being president was going to be easy.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Tulane-trained historian and former-speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offered a succinct, reasonable, and balanced piece of analysis regarding the presidency of George Bush.
Peter Slen asked Gingrich to respond to a brief clip from the news conference yesterday, in which a reporter asked the President to assess whether he was an asset or liability to the 2008 Republican campaign. The President smiled, winked, and said forcefully with mock certainty: "Strong Asset! Next Question."
Newt chuckled and asserted:
"First of all, the President is a fact [of life for Republicans running for office in 2008].
"He is an honorable man who has worked very, very hard on very hard problems. He has succeeded more than some people want to give him credit for. We are safer than we might have been, if someone with less character had been president during this trying period. On the other hand, he did not recognize how deep and how hard the problems were. As a result, the nation is deeply dissatisfied with him and a government that seems supremely incompetent."
Well said. This struck me as a savvy summary, which I think will prove fairly close to the future consensus among open-minded historians.
Related (sort of):
Writing in the current issue of Imprimis, the monthly publication of Hillsdale College (view here), Amity Shlaes offers an unorthodox and critical account of the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt, and the Election of 1936.
Her narrative bemoans the end of traditional American federalism and the beginning of interest politics, which she ascribes to the baser motives of the first Roosevelt campaign to retain the presidency (1936).
Read the article and decide for yourself.
An aside: if you are not a subscriber to the unabashedly conservative and eminently erudite Imprimis, which is absolutely free, I encourage you to sign up now.
My larger point: history is argument. We often speak to one another about the present through conversations about the past. This is a valid function of history.
Amity Shlaes takes the same set of facts employed by a generation of historians who admired FDR and made us admire him, and she turns them on their head. Perhaps she has a point. Perhaps she misses completely. Either way, she has every right to throw her interpretation into the academic arena and see how it plays.
My caution: history is, by definition, subjective. No matter how hard practitioners attempt to avoid prejudice and "presentism," history is always filtered through the personal, the political, and the present. That is, we cannot write the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about any historical subject. We can only write what we know, which is limited, as viewed through our lens, which is colored, delivered in language that will be subject to further interpretation by future recipients.
Having said that, May God Bless the Historians.
Peter Slen asked Gingrich to respond to a brief clip from the news conference yesterday, in which a reporter asked the President to assess whether he was an asset or liability to the 2008 Republican campaign. The President smiled, winked, and said forcefully with mock certainty: "Strong Asset! Next Question."
Newt chuckled and asserted:
"First of all, the President is a fact [of life for Republicans running for office in 2008].
"He is an honorable man who has worked very, very hard on very hard problems. He has succeeded more than some people want to give him credit for. We are safer than we might have been, if someone with less character had been president during this trying period. On the other hand, he did not recognize how deep and how hard the problems were. As a result, the nation is deeply dissatisfied with him and a government that seems supremely incompetent."
Well said. This struck me as a savvy summary, which I think will prove fairly close to the future consensus among open-minded historians.
Related (sort of):
Writing in the current issue of Imprimis, the monthly publication of Hillsdale College (view here), Amity Shlaes offers an unorthodox and critical account of the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt, and the Election of 1936.
Her narrative bemoans the end of traditional American federalism and the beginning of interest politics, which she ascribes to the baser motives of the first Roosevelt campaign to retain the presidency (1936).
Read the article and decide for yourself.
An aside: if you are not a subscriber to the unabashedly conservative and eminently erudite Imprimis, which is absolutely free, I encourage you to sign up now.
My larger point: history is argument. We often speak to one another about the present through conversations about the past. This is a valid function of history.
Amity Shlaes takes the same set of facts employed by a generation of historians who admired FDR and made us admire him, and she turns them on their head. Perhaps she has a point. Perhaps she misses completely. Either way, she has every right to throw her interpretation into the academic arena and see how it plays.
My caution: history is, by definition, subjective. No matter how hard practitioners attempt to avoid prejudice and "presentism," history is always filtered through the personal, the political, and the present. That is, we cannot write the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about any historical subject. We can only write what we know, which is limited, as viewed through our lens, which is colored, delivered in language that will be subject to further interpretation by future recipients.
Having said that, May God Bless the Historians.
Adding to my earlier post, I reiterate my main point:
Speech, even hateful and threatening speech, does not excuse violent retaliation.
The question in Jena today:
How much punishment should six African American teenage boys receive from the justice system for their particular offense?
If we are going to argue about proportionality, then we should also examine the disproportionate response from the six teenagers who beat another teenager for being the friend of a racist.
Where is the righteous indignation over that?
I am amused that commentators and reporters keep speaking of the "alleged" victim of the beating. I have heard that phrase all day today.
Exactly what does alleged modify?
Do people question that there really was a beating?
Or do people question that the recipient of the beating was a victim?
Once again, is it implicit that friends of racists who receive beatings get what they deserve?
Speech, even hateful and threatening speech, does not excuse violent retaliation.
The question in Jena today:
How much punishment should six African American teenage boys receive from the justice system for their particular offense?
If we are going to argue about proportionality, then we should also examine the disproportionate response from the six teenagers who beat another teenager for being the friend of a racist.
Where is the righteous indignation over that?
I am amused that commentators and reporters keep speaking of the "alleged" victim of the beating. I have heard that phrase all day today.
Exactly what does alleged modify?
Do people question that there really was a beating?
Or do people question that the recipient of the beating was a victim?
Once again, is it implicit that friends of racists who receive beatings get what they deserve?
Last month I commented on the developing drama in Jena, Louisiana. I am re-running that post below, which concentrates on a Newsweek article from the Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue.
Today Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other Civil Rights leaders and organizations converge on the town to protest the perceived disparate race-tainted justice dispensed in this town.
I am also linking today's NPR coverage here, which gives more background.
The orginal post:
Is the system racist?
From a recent Newsweek exposé:
A Town In Turmoil
"As the new school year approaches, Jena, La., is struggling to move beyond the racial strife that ripped it apart and left the futures of six students in disarray."
Full article here.
The crux of the story: Six black teenagers are charged with beating a white teenager. Authorities have already tried and convicted one of the Jena Six for "aggravated second-degree battery."
UPDATE: On September 6, a Louisiana judge vacated the conviction on the grounds that the accused, a minor at the time of the crime, should not have been tried as an adult.
The back story: According to Newsweek's reporting, a black student violated the "school's unspoken racial codes" and occupied an "area reserved for white kids."
More Newsweek :
"Some white students didn't look kindly on the encroachment: the next day, three nooses hung from the oak's branches.
"That provocation, which conjured up the ugly history of lynch mobs and the Jim Crow South, unleashed a cycle of interracial strife that has roiled the tiny town of Jena. In the ensuing months, black and white students clashed violently, the school's academic wing was destroyed by arson and six black kids were charged with attempted murder for beating a white peer."
On the web photo gallery, a Newsweek caption reads:
"Justin Barker, 18, a friend of the students who hung the nooses, is the alleged victim of a beating by six black students at Jena High School."
Alleged? Wasn't there a conviction? Are we waiting on the appeal before we presume that the beating victim was actually beaten. Is Newsweek intimating that this might be a hoax?
Provocation? Do inflammatory symbols really excuse violent retribution--even if the target was a friend of the racist noose-hangers?
Another caption:
"Jena was 'entirely bypassed by the civil-rights movement,' says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. African-Americans continue to be concentrated in an area called 'the country,' a mix of tidy brick homes and rusted trailers. Whites tend to live in 'Snob Hill,' a middle-class neighborhood with tall pines and manicured lawns."
Wow! The de facto segregation rings true, but my experience with small towns in the South is that most whites are not wealthy and living in genteel surroundings. My hunch is that this glaring and likely erroneous generality (undisputed anywhere in the story) is emblematic of similarly slanted reporting and facile conclusions.
What should we make of all this? What is behind all this turmoil in Louisiana?
"The D.A. is a racist. There's just no other way to explain it," charged one of the parents of the accused. Newsweek does not quibble with that assessment.
On the other side of the country in Palmdale, California:
A black teenager, who attacked and killed another young man (who was white) in 2005, won a reduced conviction (from second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter). As a result of the reduced conviction, an appellate court ordered the black youth resentenced. Last week, a judge sentenced the perpetrator to four to 11 years (reduced from a seven-year minimum) in a California Youth Authority facility.
The background: The black teenager, 13 at the time, attacked and killed Jeremy Rourke, a 15-year-old white youth after losing a PONY League baseball game.
The reaction to the reduced sentence (which, after considering time already served, will make the convicted teen-killer eligible for release in two years)?
From the LA Daily News:
"[T]he parents of defendant Greg Harris Jr. decried the punishment and accused the judge of racism.
"'Something has to be done about this judge. This is ridiculous,' Greg Harris Sr. said after the hearing. 'Eleven years - c'mon. Adults don't even get that. Personally, we feel he's racist.'"
Full story here.
My Conclusion?
I feel for parents who are quick to defend their children and slow to face the enormity of their trespasses. Certainly we still face important questions regarding race and justice in America--and we should take those matters very seriously.
Having said that, racial insults are NEVER justification for physical assault.
Even more importantly, we must resist the temptation to see racism as a default motivation even when there are more compelling reasons to explain the workings of the justice system.
That is, a boy was killed; it was due to the purposeful actions of another boy. This is a tragedy, but, inarguably, the perpetrator deserves punishment. That is not essentially a story about race.
Note: I intend this essay as part one of a longer conversation regarding race and responsibility. My next installment will feature more hopeful signs (the good news) rather than the mournful stories related above.
Today Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other Civil Rights leaders and organizations converge on the town to protest the perceived disparate race-tainted justice dispensed in this town.
I am also linking today's NPR coverage here, which gives more background.
The orginal post:
Is the system racist?
From a recent Newsweek exposé:
A Town In Turmoil
"As the new school year approaches, Jena, La., is struggling to move beyond the racial strife that ripped it apart and left the futures of six students in disarray."
Full article here.
The crux of the story: Six black teenagers are charged with beating a white teenager. Authorities have already tried and convicted one of the Jena Six for "aggravated second-degree battery."
UPDATE: On September 6, a Louisiana judge vacated the conviction on the grounds that the accused, a minor at the time of the crime, should not have been tried as an adult.
The back story: According to Newsweek's reporting, a black student violated the "school's unspoken racial codes" and occupied an "area reserved for white kids."
More Newsweek :
"Some white students didn't look kindly on the encroachment: the next day, three nooses hung from the oak's branches.
"That provocation, which conjured up the ugly history of lynch mobs and the Jim Crow South, unleashed a cycle of interracial strife that has roiled the tiny town of Jena. In the ensuing months, black and white students clashed violently, the school's academic wing was destroyed by arson and six black kids were charged with attempted murder for beating a white peer."
On the web photo gallery, a Newsweek caption reads:
"Justin Barker, 18, a friend of the students who hung the nooses, is the alleged victim of a beating by six black students at Jena High School."
Alleged? Wasn't there a conviction? Are we waiting on the appeal before we presume that the beating victim was actually beaten. Is Newsweek intimating that this might be a hoax?
Provocation? Do inflammatory symbols really excuse violent retribution--even if the target was a friend of the racist noose-hangers?
Another caption:
"Jena was 'entirely bypassed by the civil-rights movement,' says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. African-Americans continue to be concentrated in an area called 'the country,' a mix of tidy brick homes and rusted trailers. Whites tend to live in 'Snob Hill,' a middle-class neighborhood with tall pines and manicured lawns."
Wow! The de facto segregation rings true, but my experience with small towns in the South is that most whites are not wealthy and living in genteel surroundings. My hunch is that this glaring and likely erroneous generality (undisputed anywhere in the story) is emblematic of similarly slanted reporting and facile conclusions.
What should we make of all this? What is behind all this turmoil in Louisiana?
"The D.A. is a racist. There's just no other way to explain it," charged one of the parents of the accused. Newsweek does not quibble with that assessment.
On the other side of the country in Palmdale, California:
A black teenager, who attacked and killed another young man (who was white) in 2005, won a reduced conviction (from second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter). As a result of the reduced conviction, an appellate court ordered the black youth resentenced. Last week, a judge sentenced the perpetrator to four to 11 years (reduced from a seven-year minimum) in a California Youth Authority facility.
The background: The black teenager, 13 at the time, attacked and killed Jeremy Rourke, a 15-year-old white youth after losing a PONY League baseball game.
The reaction to the reduced sentence (which, after considering time already served, will make the convicted teen-killer eligible for release in two years)?
From the LA Daily News:
"[T]he parents of defendant Greg Harris Jr. decried the punishment and accused the judge of racism.
"'Something has to be done about this judge. This is ridiculous,' Greg Harris Sr. said after the hearing. 'Eleven years - c'mon. Adults don't even get that. Personally, we feel he's racist.'"
Full story here.
My Conclusion?
I feel for parents who are quick to defend their children and slow to face the enormity of their trespasses. Certainly we still face important questions regarding race and justice in America--and we should take those matters very seriously.
Having said that, racial insults are NEVER justification for physical assault.
Even more importantly, we must resist the temptation to see racism as a default motivation even when there are more compelling reasons to explain the workings of the justice system.
That is, a boy was killed; it was due to the purposeful actions of another boy. This is a tragedy, but, inarguably, the perpetrator deserves punishment. That is not essentially a story about race.
Note: I intend this essay as part one of a longer conversation regarding race and responsibility. My next installment will feature more hopeful signs (the good news) rather than the mournful stories related above.
Category: Campaign 2008.5
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Dick Morris blistered Fred Thompson in his column today, calling the great GOP hope from Tennessee "ill-informed, inarticulate, badly briefed and downright lazy."
Not quite sure what Morris really thinks of Thompson? Consider this line: "Thompson seems to lack the interest, energy, will, ability and stamina to compete at this level."
I am always ambivalent about, and skeptical of, Dick Morris. He is unquestionably a brilliant political operator. However, it strikes me that Morris is often right about today but wrong about tomorrow. That is, no one is better at sensing and explaining the politics of the moment, but he is often way off in terms of long-term strategy and future predictions (and by long term I mean next week, next month or next year).
My other reservation concerning Morris is his petulance and vindictiveness. Although he was an insider, I am reluctant to accept much of his analysis or history of the Clintons, as it is filtered through his palpable hatred for Bill and Hill. Whenever I read scathing analysis from him like this, I always wonder if the target of the essay might have insulted Morris at some point and this is payback.
Having said all that, much of what Morris asserts rings true to me, especially this graph:
"Hillary is probably the next president anyway. But there is only one way to defeat her -- to nominate a candidate whose anti-terrorism credentials are so deep that if Americans return to their senses and grasp the nature of the dire and continuing threat we face, he can prevail in November. There are two candidates who fill that bill: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Neither Thompson nor Romney approach it."
Read in full here via RCP.
I remain open-minded and cautiously optimistic about Fred; nevertheless, clearly, he needs to kick things into gear over there at "Thompson 2008."
Not quite sure what Morris really thinks of Thompson? Consider this line: "Thompson seems to lack the interest, energy, will, ability and stamina to compete at this level."
I am always ambivalent about, and skeptical of, Dick Morris. He is unquestionably a brilliant political operator. However, it strikes me that Morris is often right about today but wrong about tomorrow. That is, no one is better at sensing and explaining the politics of the moment, but he is often way off in terms of long-term strategy and future predictions (and by long term I mean next week, next month or next year).
My other reservation concerning Morris is his petulance and vindictiveness. Although he was an insider, I am reluctant to accept much of his analysis or history of the Clintons, as it is filtered through his palpable hatred for Bill and Hill. Whenever I read scathing analysis from him like this, I always wonder if the target of the essay might have insulted Morris at some point and this is payback.
Having said all that, much of what Morris asserts rings true to me, especially this graph:
"Hillary is probably the next president anyway. But there is only one way to defeat her -- to nominate a candidate whose anti-terrorism credentials are so deep that if Americans return to their senses and grasp the nature of the dire and continuing threat we face, he can prevail in November. There are two candidates who fill that bill: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Neither Thompson nor Romney approach it."
Read in full here via RCP.
I remain open-minded and cautiously optimistic about Fred; nevertheless, clearly, he needs to kick things into gear over there at "Thompson 2008."
18/09: Out-Fooled Again
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
George Bush is often described by his opponents as the dumbest human on the planet.
But, once again, the President is in the process of proving himself the dumbest human on the planet--except for Democratic Party leadership and the New York Times.
In the drama to replace the sufficiently scorched Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, the President signaled that he might elevate Ted Olson, former solicitor general and counsel of record for the Supreme Court case that ended the election of 2000, Bush v. Gore.
Oh, the howls that nomination was set to elicit. Democrats were sharpening the long knives, painting their faces for ritualized torture, and preparing for a long and painful non-confirmation hearing.
But, then, out of nowhere, the imbecile president emerged on Constitution Day to nominate straight arrow, non-friend, non-politician, experienced, competent, and all-around nice guy, Michael Mukasey.
Who?
From this Washington Post article: Mukasey is an Orthodox Jew from the Bronx, and the son of a coin laundry operator. Mukasey graduated from Columbia and then Yale Law School during the 1960s, practiced law for 20 years in New York, met and befriended Rudy Giuliani, and accumulated an 18-year brilliantly conservative record at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Is he conservative enough?
I love this quote from the Post attributed to Mukasey: Civil libertarians who criticized the detention campaign as an unprecedented or unauthorized use of federal powers were spreading "breathless half-truths and outright falsehoods."
Notwithstanding, Mukasey's record and endorsements are so stellar and unimpeachable that he keeps appearing on New York Senator Chuck Schumer's list of acceptable Republican nominees for various top legal posts.
The rub?
Somebody forgot to tell Patrick Leahy and the New York Times.
The senior senator from Vermont, chair of the Judiciary Committee, is threatening to block the President's nomination until he is allowed to extract a pound of flesh off the acrid political corpse of the former Attorney General.
As for the New York Times, they find the nominee "troubling." Evidently, quotes like the one above give the editorial board at the NYT great pause, calling him "too deferential to the government" and finding him not nearly obsequious enough to the American Library Association in their courageous mission to save unsuspecting readers from an inchoate police state.
So, the President now occupies the enviable position of presenting a nominee every one in the legal universe seems to admire personally and professionally (even the proudly liberal, Chuck Schumer), while a cranky but powerful senate Democrat and the unofficial party organ of the DNC attempt to head him off at the pass.
Bring it on.
But, once again, the President is in the process of proving himself the dumbest human on the planet--except for Democratic Party leadership and the New York Times.
In the drama to replace the sufficiently scorched Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, the President signaled that he might elevate Ted Olson, former solicitor general and counsel of record for the Supreme Court case that ended the election of 2000, Bush v. Gore.
Oh, the howls that nomination was set to elicit. Democrats were sharpening the long knives, painting their faces for ritualized torture, and preparing for a long and painful non-confirmation hearing.
But, then, out of nowhere, the imbecile president emerged on Constitution Day to nominate straight arrow, non-friend, non-politician, experienced, competent, and all-around nice guy, Michael Mukasey.
Who?
From this Washington Post article: Mukasey is an Orthodox Jew from the Bronx, and the son of a coin laundry operator. Mukasey graduated from Columbia and then Yale Law School during the 1960s, practiced law for 20 years in New York, met and befriended Rudy Giuliani, and accumulated an 18-year brilliantly conservative record at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Is he conservative enough?
I love this quote from the Post attributed to Mukasey: Civil libertarians who criticized the detention campaign as an unprecedented or unauthorized use of federal powers were spreading "breathless half-truths and outright falsehoods."
Notwithstanding, Mukasey's record and endorsements are so stellar and unimpeachable that he keeps appearing on New York Senator Chuck Schumer's list of acceptable Republican nominees for various top legal posts.
The rub?
Somebody forgot to tell Patrick Leahy and the New York Times.
The senior senator from Vermont, chair of the Judiciary Committee, is threatening to block the President's nomination until he is allowed to extract a pound of flesh off the acrid political corpse of the former Attorney General.
As for the New York Times, they find the nominee "troubling." Evidently, quotes like the one above give the editorial board at the NYT great pause, calling him "too deferential to the government" and finding him not nearly obsequious enough to the American Library Association in their courageous mission to save unsuspecting readers from an inchoate police state.
So, the President now occupies the enviable position of presenting a nominee every one in the legal universe seems to admire personally and professionally (even the proudly liberal, Chuck Schumer), while a cranky but powerful senate Democrat and the unofficial party organ of the DNC attempt to head him off at the pass.
Bring it on.
18/09: The Murkiness of Blackwater
From the Washington Post:
IRAQ BANS SECURITY CONTRACTOR:
Blackwater Faulted In Baghdad Killings
"BAGHDAD, Sept. 17 -- The Iraqi government on Monday said it had revoked the license of Blackwater USA, an American security company involved in a shootout in Baghdad that killed at least nine people, raising questions over which nation should regulate tens of thousands of civilian hired guns operating in Iraq."
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
Blackwater is one of those unfortunate names that just seems to scream out dirty deeds done in the service of the darker side of government. Thus far, Blackwater has surfaced mainly among anti-war zealots as a line in the litany of mysterious but sinister elements linked to the war in Iraq.
Get ready to hear a lot more about Blackwater.
The Washington Post story in full here.
Thinking Out Loud:
I have not formed a fully developed opinion on Blackwater, as I have not spent much time reflecting on the private security firms employed in the theater. In fact, for years I have done my best to avoid this nagging question:
Why are we spending $10,000 per month per copy on individual hired guns, when we could spend one third of that on a United States Marine?
And:
In the Rumsfeldian rush to light and agile (and un-Vietnam-like troop numbers), did we paint ourselves into a corner in which we are paying way too much for personnel in addition to forfeiting military expertise and control?
Is this really the best way to do this thing?
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
IRAQ BANS SECURITY CONTRACTOR:
Blackwater Faulted In Baghdad Killings
"BAGHDAD, Sept. 17 -- The Iraqi government on Monday said it had revoked the license of Blackwater USA, an American security company involved in a shootout in Baghdad that killed at least nine people, raising questions over which nation should regulate tens of thousands of civilian hired guns operating in Iraq."
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
Blackwater is one of those unfortunate names that just seems to scream out dirty deeds done in the service of the darker side of government. Thus far, Blackwater has surfaced mainly among anti-war zealots as a line in the litany of mysterious but sinister elements linked to the war in Iraq.
Get ready to hear a lot more about Blackwater.
The Washington Post story in full here.
Thinking Out Loud:
I have not formed a fully developed opinion on Blackwater, as I have not spent much time reflecting on the private security firms employed in the theater. In fact, for years I have done my best to avoid this nagging question:
Why are we spending $10,000 per month per copy on individual hired guns, when we could spend one third of that on a United States Marine?
And:
In the Rumsfeldian rush to light and agile (and un-Vietnam-like troop numbers), did we paint ourselves into a corner in which we are paying way too much for personnel in addition to forfeiting military expertise and control?
Is this really the best way to do this thing?
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In honor of Constitution Day, 17 September 2007, I am re-running an essay from July of last year bemoaning the miserable treatment accorded to one of my contemporarty heroes, Joe Lieberman. The good news is that this story ended quite happily, and democracy proved much wiser than I feared on my less hopeful days. Nevertheless, I am convinced that some of my observations are worth revisiting.
8 July 2006
On one hand, the trial of Joe Lieberman in the upcoming CT primary, August 8, is a perfect example of American democracy in action (click here for some bg and context from the Wash Post). "Throw the bums out!" has been an effective rallying cry for frustrated voters since the earliest moments of American self government. James Madison et al constructed the federal government of the United States to be responsive to the desires of the people. Joe Lieberman has offended a core constituency of the citizenry of CT; therefore, Joe Lieberman must go.
However, the framers divided government into departments, and the departments into distinct institutions, making some sections of the government more responsive to the people than others. For example, the House of Representatives is elected directly by the voters every two years. That keeps representatives in the lower house on a very short leash. The House is rightly the people's conduit to government. Congressman ought to be taking polls and monitoring their phone calls and email, fittingly hyper-sensitive to the will of the people.
The President. Elected by the people every four years (albeit indirectly through the somewhat arcane institution of the electoral college), the president, traditionally, is the one person in the government empowered to represent all the people. The rest of the executive branch works for him and answers to him (or his management team) directly; the enormous executive department, sworn to uphold the Constitution and abide by federal law, answers to the people only indirectly through congressional oversight.
The Courts. Intentionally removed from the election process, judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate for life terms. Federal judges are only grazed by the consent of the people--and only once, during the process of nomination and confirmation.
Why all this variation?
8 July 2006
On one hand, the trial of Joe Lieberman in the upcoming CT primary, August 8, is a perfect example of American democracy in action (click here for some bg and context from the Wash Post). "Throw the bums out!" has been an effective rallying cry for frustrated voters since the earliest moments of American self government. James Madison et al constructed the federal government of the United States to be responsive to the desires of the people. Joe Lieberman has offended a core constituency of the citizenry of CT; therefore, Joe Lieberman must go.
However, the framers divided government into departments, and the departments into distinct institutions, making some sections of the government more responsive to the people than others. For example, the House of Representatives is elected directly by the voters every two years. That keeps representatives in the lower house on a very short leash. The House is rightly the people's conduit to government. Congressman ought to be taking polls and monitoring their phone calls and email, fittingly hyper-sensitive to the will of the people.
The President. Elected by the people every four years (albeit indirectly through the somewhat arcane institution of the electoral college), the president, traditionally, is the one person in the government empowered to represent all the people. The rest of the executive branch works for him and answers to him (or his management team) directly; the enormous executive department, sworn to uphold the Constitution and abide by federal law, answers to the people only indirectly through congressional oversight.
The Courts. Intentionally removed from the election process, judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate for life terms. Federal judges are only grazed by the consent of the people--and only once, during the process of nomination and confirmation.
Why all this variation?
16/09: Constitution Day
September 17 is Constitution Day, honoring the date of signing of the proposed Constitution in 1787. Fly the flag.
I am impressed with our Constitution for many reasons. One which has struck me this fall, as I've taught American Government, is the way the founders dealt with the issue of stability versus responsiveness.
For a people truly to be self-governing, government must be responsive to the will of the voters. But, the will of the voters can swing wildly in short periods of time, making pure democracy unstable. Stability is needed to avoid anarchy. On the other hand, even though government needs to be stable, too much stability means that the will of the people is ignored, until it explodes in rebellion.
Think of the Legislative Branch. Two houses.
The House of Representatives is designed to be RESPONSIVE. Representatives are elected by the voters. They serve two year terms and the whole body must face the voters at once. Theoretically, we could have a 435 seat turnover every two years.
The Senate is designed to be STABLE. Senators originally were chosen by their state legislatures, which presumably know their interests with greater stability than the voters. Senators serve 6 year terms with only 1/3 of the terms expiring on the two-year election cycle. At most a 1/3 turnover is envisioned every two years, not counting the occasional resignation.
Stability and Responsiveness built into one branch. Of course, the House of Representatives is not complete democratic chaos, the terms are for two years, not monthly or weekly turnover.
The Executive Branch seems geared to Stability. Chosen by Electors, chosen by their states, and assumed to be more stable in their opinions than the average voter. And, 4 year terms. More stable than annual or every two-year elections. But, some responsiveness, mandatory election every 4 years.
The Judicial Branch: Stability. Once confirmed by the Senate, lifetime tenure on good behavior.
The Amendment Process. Responsiveness in that there is a process of amendment. No revolution needed to alter the Constitution. But, Stability is affirmed by the difficulty of the amending process. After coming out of Congress (by 2/3) or out of a Convention when requested by 2/3 of the states, then 3/4 of the State Legislatures must approve the amendment. Very stable, but still responsive to the will of the people.
A thinking out loud: is the responsiveness the Founders wanted for the House of Representatives eliminated by the creation of "safe" districts when State Legislatures do redistricting? It seems so to me. As it now stands, an incumbant Senator has a somewhat greater chance of being voted out of office than a Representative. You can't gerrymander a state.
I am impressed with our Constitution for many reasons. One which has struck me this fall, as I've taught American Government, is the way the founders dealt with the issue of stability versus responsiveness.
For a people truly to be self-governing, government must be responsive to the will of the voters. But, the will of the voters can swing wildly in short periods of time, making pure democracy unstable. Stability is needed to avoid anarchy. On the other hand, even though government needs to be stable, too much stability means that the will of the people is ignored, until it explodes in rebellion.
Think of the Legislative Branch. Two houses.
The House of Representatives is designed to be RESPONSIVE. Representatives are elected by the voters. They serve two year terms and the whole body must face the voters at once. Theoretically, we could have a 435 seat turnover every two years.
The Senate is designed to be STABLE. Senators originally were chosen by their state legislatures, which presumably know their interests with greater stability than the voters. Senators serve 6 year terms with only 1/3 of the terms expiring on the two-year election cycle. At most a 1/3 turnover is envisioned every two years, not counting the occasional resignation.
Stability and Responsiveness built into one branch. Of course, the House of Representatives is not complete democratic chaos, the terms are for two years, not monthly or weekly turnover.
The Executive Branch seems geared to Stability. Chosen by Electors, chosen by their states, and assumed to be more stable in their opinions than the average voter. And, 4 year terms. More stable than annual or every two-year elections. But, some responsiveness, mandatory election every 4 years.
The Judicial Branch: Stability. Once confirmed by the Senate, lifetime tenure on good behavior.
The Amendment Process. Responsiveness in that there is a process of amendment. No revolution needed to alter the Constitution. But, Stability is affirmed by the difficulty of the amending process. After coming out of Congress (by 2/3) or out of a Convention when requested by 2/3 of the states, then 3/4 of the State Legislatures must approve the amendment. Very stable, but still responsive to the will of the people.
A thinking out loud: is the responsiveness the Founders wanted for the House of Representatives eliminated by the creation of "safe" districts when State Legislatures do redistricting? It seems so to me. As it now stands, an incumbant Senator has a somewhat greater chance of being voted out of office than a Representative. You can't gerrymander a state.
