The Bosque Boys

The Waco Tribune-Herald, my home-town newspaper, has called Chet Edwards "one of Texas' most resilient Democrats." Edwards was the only one of six targeted Democratic incumbents in Texas to survive the much celebrated Tom Delay-orchestrated redistricting of 2003. He held off his Republican challenger in the tight race that followed in 2004, while the district went for President Bush with 69 percent of the vote. In 2006, Edwards whipped the GOP candidate by 18 points.

FYI: Edwards represents Texas 17, which includes the President's ranch in Crawford. This is Bush country (even now); and Representative Edwards is literally the President's congressman. He is also my congressman and the first Democrat for whom I can remember voting. And, like many of my fellow Republicans in Central Texas, I have voted for him consistently over the years.

How has a Democrat succeeded consistently in an increasingly, overwhelmingly Republican district?

1. He has a good (and justly earned) reputation in the community for working hard to service constituents, and he has skillfully distanced himself from the mainstream of his party on the issues that alienate many Central Texans. Back during the last campaign, when a Democratic House looked likely, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

2. More importantly, Edwards has stayed on top of the tiger with conservative votes. Up until a few months ago, the President could hardly have asked for a more loyal congressman.

But that has changed. In January, he voted for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." And, recently, he cast his vote to support the Democratic timetable to withdraw American troops by August of 2008.

Change of heart? If so, it has been a swift one. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war during the last election. These two votes are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.

Change of heart? If so, it has been a peculiar one. Representative Edwards has not issued a full-throated explanation. His March 23 public statement emphasized his vote for "full funding" for the troops, the added "flexibility for the Commander-in-Chief," and his support for the plan put forward by "former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker." His statement did not mention the current President Bush by name, and it criticized Speaker Pelosi and anti-war hero John Murtha.

From the statement his office released on March 23 (in full here):

In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief. As a result of Edwards’ efforts, a waiver was included in the bill to allow the president the flexibility to manage the war and troop rotations.

“I was one of the first to speak out publicly on proposals I thought would overly restrict the Commander-in-Chief’s ability to manage troop rotations. The bill now fully funds the president’s troop surge in Iraq while refocusing our mission there to fighting terrorists, training Iraqi security forces and increasing efforts to fight the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”

This is confusing at best. Maybe even outright disingenuous.

What happened?

I doubt Congressman Edwards is jumping off this cliff willingly. I would like to know how much pressure the Speaker and Democratic Leadership exerted on these votes.

The Congressman's rhetoric (which obfuscates the meaning of his vote) leads me to believe that he sees himself on very shaky ground with the Texas 17 voters.

It is possible that he was ill-served by his big margin of victory in the last election. He won by nearly 20 points in the last election. I can imagine that he is hard-pressed to make the case with Speaker Pelosi that he must buck leadership out of self-preservation.

My guess is that the next election in this district will be much more partisan than the last few. Edwards will not be able to run away from mainstream Democrats next time, as he is currently towing the party line in a big way.

Legendary UT football coach, Darrell Royal, famously advised: "You've got to dance with who brung you." I regret that Congressman Edwards is changing partners at this crucial juncture.

The blog is lazily celebrating its first full year of existence as a full-time political blog. Our official first post was on March 9, 2006. As a belated commemorative note, I am reissuing some of my favorites. By the way, my favorites are usually the ones in which I proved most prescient.

Something from last summer that still plays pretty well:

What Happens "When our Patience Wears Thin"?

Last Thursday (July 20, 2006), Real Clear Politics ran a Victor Davis Hanson essay entitled, "Patience is Wearing Thin," in which VDH argued that the West was running out of civilized choices in the Middle East and hinted that we might soon resort to massive retaliation against terrorists and their benefactors.

VDH reasons that despite the "conventional wisdom" against an additional American military mission aimed at Iran or Syria, the United States (and the West) may come to realize that "diplomacy, aid, support for democracy, multiculturalism, and [partial] withdrawal" does not satisfy the troublesome Islamists. At which point, once our patience is exhausted, we will "opt for hard and quick retaliation" and eschew our historic concerns for humanity, local sensibilities and world opinion.

I could not disagree more.

An aside: This VDH essay reflects the rapidly accumulating frustration and mounting dejection even among stout-hearted, intelligent, patriotic Americans.

The ugly truth: the conventional wisdom that our hands are tied, unfortunately, is absolutely right. If you are Iran (or North Korea), there is very little peril in disdaining the United States right now. Syria is a bit more vulnerable, because of internal uncertainty and weakness, but they might ask as well: what is the United States going to do?

There is no military option.

There is one insurmountable obstacle to another military expedition in the region: American public opinion.

Presently, the American people are in no mood to support any unprovoked aggressive military action anywhere in the world. Americans are no longer convinced that our invasion of Iraq was necessary. Much worse, they are thoroughly unimpressed with our government's administration of Iraq and increasingly pessimistic about our ability to remake the Middle East.

Because the President has lost the American people, he has lost the "loyal" opposition in Congress and is beginning to lose politicians on the periphery of his own party. In addition, the President's inner circle of advisors is in the midst of extended acrimonious hostilities with large parts of the executive bureaucracy. And the media and academia, also at odds with this President from the outset, now emboldened by his weakness, bombards him with derision and destabilizing accusations continuously. The President cannot go on the offensive in the Middle East because he cannot get off the defensive at home. This president does not have the time or the standing to prepare the nation for a greater war in the Middle East. We are stuck.

In the end, I agree with VDH's concluding statement, if not with his reasoning that undergirds the sentiment:

"So in the meantime, let us hope that democracy prevails in Iraq, that our massive aid is actually appreciated by the Middle East, that diplomacy ultimately works with Iran, that Syria quits supporting terrorists, and that Hamas and Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks against Israel -- more for all their sakes than ours."

What happens when our patience wears thin? We go home. We leave rather meekly (see Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia), and we are unlikely to blow up the place on the way out.

On Saturday (March 31), C-SPAN2 (Book TV) presented a Gay Marriage Debate with David Blankenhorn, author of The Future of Marriage and Evan Wolfson, author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. Pace Law School, in White Plains, NY, hosted the event.

Note: Currently C-SPAN does not have the program archive linked on its website; if that changes, I will add the link.

After watching a large portion of the exchange, here are a few observations about the larger ongoing debate concerning same-sex marriage:

Although Evan Wolfson would not agree with this, let us stipulate that procreation is at the center of marriage. Over time, the institution of marriage has consistently centered on creating strong families and facilitating the survival of the species. Specifically, marriage has proven an undeniable asset in producing, protecting, nurturing, and training the next generation of humanity. For this reason, communities have consistently promoted and protected marriage.

Two important caveats:

1. In addition to procreation, there are many other positive properties inherent in marriage. Procreation may be the most important positive element within the institution, but procreation is not the only attribute of marriage that makes a positive impact on society.

2. Because marriage benefits our community in myriad ways, we have extended the right to marry to non-procreators. We encourage men and women to marry and enjoy the advantages of marriage regardless of their capacity for reproduction. We allow infertile couples and couples past child-bearing years full rights of marriage, although we know they will not produce children.

Therefore, once we acknowledge that we regularly allow marriage outside of procreation, the key question becomes: should same-sex marriage be one of those non-procreation exceptions?

That is, the procreation test alone cannot determine the status of same-sex marriage; rather, the question of gay marriage is actually a question of equality, fairness, consistency, and the interest of the community.

On the other hand, proponents of same-sex marriage argue that prohibitions against same-sex marriage are discriminatory. In the C-SPAN debate, Mr. Wolfson advanced (again and again) a parallel between past American laws and traditions that discriminated against interracial marriage and the current proscriptions against same-sex unions.

Mr. Wolfson is right; barring same-sex couples from wedding is discrimination.

However, that is rhetorical legerdemain. Proponents are playing on our cultural tendency to "hear" all forms of discrimination as contemptible (making the facile analogy to our humiliating racial history further clouds and prejudices the discussion).

In truth, we discriminate all the time. Suspected terrorists are not allowed to board commercial jetliners. Extraordinarily tall people are not allowed to be Navy pilots. Students with certain SAT scores are not allowed admission to Harvard.

Certainly, in marriage, we discriminate as to who gets to marry. In many states, members of the same family cannot marry. States may establish an age of consent. We do not allow polygamy.

Are there compelling social reasons to discriminate against same-sex couples in granting marriage? If traditionalists are to prevail, they must bring more than procreation and/or biblical exegeses.

We have had a rich debate on this blog here (scroll down). Also, a recent reflection on marriage here.

The conversation is not merely worth having; the reality is that the debate over marriage looms large in our future as a national trial that we must confront.

The President's initiative in the Middle East was never a sure thing. But I have argued, and still believe, that it was a calculated risk worth taking and continues to be a calculated risk worth supporting.

But, at this critical stage of the long campaign, when a critical mass of Americans are increasingly disheartened and Congress is perilously close to pulling the plug, one must ask this question: what if we fail?

What then, if we succeed in losing this war?

Background: How did we get here? Why the project for "renewal in Iraq" and beyond? After 9/11, it was apparent to any observer that the status quo in the Middle East was no longer tenable for the United States. Our Cold-War era, "pragmatic" policy of accommodating and facilitating tyrannical regimes, for reasons of vital national interest, wrought a generation of jihadists intent on Islamic revolution. The Islamists hated their own exploitative and corrupt governments, they hated Israel, and they hated us for enabling the two primary objects of their enmity. 9/11 illustrated in the most horrific manner that our great island fortress could be penetrated by these jihadists, and likely would be again. America was under attack.

The project to remake the Middle East into a more just and safer place for its own people, and more friendly in general to the United States and the rest of Western civilization, was an attempt to "drain the swamp." A freer, more democratic Middle East, so the theory went, would take responsibility for itself and be consumed with self-improvement, looking inward instead of outward, which would drastically reduce the threat of terrorism. We would become brothers, bonded by our mutual love for self-determination, amelioration and peace.

Frankly, the Bush administration vastly underestimated how hard this would be. While some academics tossed around timetables of four, five, six years and beyond, Washington never took the "pessimists" seriously. The administration believed, with a little luck, this thing might go fairly quickly and easily, and then we could move on to the next outlaw. To the surprise of many, we encountered a great battle in Iraq. Notwithstanding, victory remains possible. Iraq is still the key. If we can stabilize Iraq (and I firmly believe that all is not lost), our aspiration for a safer Middle East remains viable.

But what happens if Iraq never gets better, and circumstances (or a Democratic controlled United States Congress) force the US to abandon the project to reform the Middle East? Are we back to square one? No. If we leave Iraq in defeat and disarray, we are actually much worse off than we were the day after 9/11. The world will no longer be a safe place for Americans to travel or do business. What will that mean? It will inaugurate a radical transformation of American life. Returning to the pre-9/11 realities is not an option.

The complicated terror network organized to humble the United States exists to break the American hegemony on their side of the world so that the jihadists can foment a revolution over there unhindered. In that way too, 9/11 is similar to Pearl Harbor. Japan attempted to obliterate the US naval presence in the Pacific not to conquer the United States, but to give Japan free reign to conquer the Pacific. Like our presence in the Pacific during the 1930s and 40s, we have myriad self-interested reasons to be in the Middle East, but we also play a stabilizing role in the region.

Can we do something that will make the Islamists leave us alone? Yes. We can pack up and go home. But not merely in Iraq. To appease the terrorists and extremists, we must fold our tent and leave the Middle East to the Arabs entirely. In the early moments of the national crisis following 9/11, I believed that the safest course would be complete retreat, a return to isolationism. President Bush offered a different course, which was bold and risky, but, if successful, it will preserve our way of life. I credit him for his vision and courage in the face of a horrible moment in which no good choices existed.

If not Bushism, what? The remaining option is qualified Buchanism: neo-isolationism. We must leave our friends in the Middle East to fend for themselves, and pull-up stakes as the key player in, and international protector of, the global economy. Failure in Iraq will force us, eventually, into a much wider involuntary retreat. The America-policed international order will collapse (probably sooner than later), and the world will likely devolve into a much more violent and less stable place.

Therefore, if we fail in Iraq, our withdrawal begins the inevitable process of leaving American business interests in the Middle East and around the world unprotected and irresistible targets for Islamist revolutionaries and other malefactors. If our ability to protect our interests abroad collapses, then our economic empire necessarily disintegrates as well. Our current world order evaporates and another takes its place.

What then?

No one knows. Only time will tell. My guess is that objective observers will find the next world order strikingly less benevolent than the American Century, but, from our perspective, we can rest assured that American interests will suffer in myriad ways.

Again, we can not predict the future. Perhaps the clock would turn back one hundred years. Perhaps it will mean a simpler spiritually richer life for many Americans. Of course, if that happens, more of us would probably need to work for a living, making things and growing things. It could mean that our culture would need fewer academics, poets, entertainers and service providers.

What we know for certain? Our lives would change dramatically.

This statement from the WH speaks for itself (slightly abridged) :

"On March 8th, we said that the President would veto any bill that tied a timetable or restrictions to the supplemental. So the Democrats have known for 20 days, nearly three weeks, that their current bill would never become law. Yet they continued down their current path.

"A week ago, they heard from the Secretary of Defense that if the emergency funding isn't provided by April 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their families. Yet they continued down their current path, and they cobbled together votes by adding extraneous spending and domestic spending for such things as the spinach, peanut, and shrimp lobbies."

"[T]he National Intelligence Estimate, released on February 2nd, predicted that withdrawing coalition forces from Iraq within the next 12 to 18 months would not solve Iraq's problems, but would, in fact, lead to catastrophe.

"Democrats in Congress must take responsibility for their votes and their statements, and stop trying to have it both ways. It is completely disingenuous to stand up and highlight the intelligence community's judgment about conditions on the ground in Iraq one month, as Senator Reid did, but then vote for the precise action that the same experts say would make the situation catastrophic the next. It is also disingenuous to praise the Iraq Study Group's report in December, but now support an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

"Secretary Baker, himself, says General Petraeus and our new strategy "ought to be given a chance." And the Iraq Study Group said of withdrawal, "the point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose."

"Have Democrats decided to reject the judgment of our intelligence community, the Baker-Hamilton report, and our military experts? If not, then they need to stop undermining the early progress we are seeing in Iraq, so that they can sound tough without having to take responsibility for their actions."

Today's (3-28) Full White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino here.

The tag from an NPR story from yesterday:

"Still, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid insisted Democrats are simply carrying out a mandate they got at the polls from a war-weary nation. Democrats seem confident that in this fight, public opinion's on their side" (link here).

Some caveats: I am not sure if "mandate" was solely NPR correspondent David Welna's interpretation; there is no direct quote concerning a "mandate" in the story, and Reid has avoided "mandate" talk before. However, "mandate" is the buzz word of this particular debate.

Is there a public mandate to withdraw US troops from Iraq?

Public polling is mixed, although there are a number of polls that indicate Americans are increasingly exasperated with our progress in Iraq. As well they should be. But I am skeptical that the understandable grumbling and frustration in the heartland is actually hard support for "redeployment" (as John Murtha likes to call it).

Also: there is a lag time to public polling. The polls will be behind any change in public sentiment resulting from any successes that might occur as a result of the Petraeus-coordinated influx.

But by the same token, admittedly, this is a fluid situation. Bad news or a lack of progress increases the momentum of discontent. The vote yesterday in the Senate may indicate that Gordon Smith, Chuck Hegel and Ben Nelson read the aforementioned current polls as significant.

However, in terms of an electoral mandate from the November election, I suspect the Democrats are overplaying their hand.

Some things to remember:

1. While no one can doubt that the war played a role in Democratic gains, arguably, the Republicans lost only one Senate seat directly as a result of Iraq: Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.

a. George Allen in Virginia shot himself in the foot--and then succumbed to a ferocious media campaign against him, in which the Washington Post trumpeted charges of racial violence against him, which as of today still remain uncorroborated. Even so, Allen lost by a whisker.

b. Jim Talent lost Missouri, always a close state, on a myriad of issues, including Michael J. Fox and stem cell politics.

c. The GOP lost Ohio and Montana as a result of scandals unconnected to Iraq.

d. The GOP held Arizona and Tennessee against serious antiwar opposition and ran very close in Democratic strongholds, NJ and Maryland.

2. The GOP lost the House as much as a result of pent-up conservative nausea as antiwar outrage. Mark Foley was the straw that broke the camel's back.

3. In fact, if there was a bell weather race in terms of the war, I would argue that it was Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman rebounded from a devastating attack on his war position to win the general election with enormous bipartisan support in a very Blue state.

4. One more thing, read this post from a few days ago concerning Texas 17 Representative Chet Edwards and the way he characterized his vote to set a timetable for withdrawal--and then tell me if Congressman Edwards thinks he was fulfilling a mandate from his voters.

Mandate? If given the choice, Americans prefer winning this war to losing it.

You may remember a couple of posts concerning an insightful discussion of the coming 2008 presidential race offered by Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Patterson spoke at a meeting in Austin in February, which I attended. You may read the most recent of those posts here.

An Update:

Professor Patterson reminds us:

"One of the points in your posting--the money trail--will be revealed in a few days when the candidates file their fundraising reports. Journalists are eagerly awaiting the results, which will affect their reporting, which in turn will affect the candidates' fundraising capacity in the next quarter. It's a self-sustaining circle with considerable consequences for the nominating races."

I agree wholeheartedly. The coming release will certainly mark an entirely new phase of the journey. It seems altogether likely that this information will give new life to a candidate (or maybe two) and probably make life much harder for a few more.

Also, Patterson generously notes:

"The parallels between the pamphleteers of early America and the bloggers of today are striking."

We appreciate the encouragement.

Texas 17 Representative Chet Edwards is a resilient Democrat in an increasingly overwhelmingly Republican district. The district, which includes the President's ranch in Crawford, went for Bush in 2004 with 69 percent of the vote. Edwards has stayed on top of the tiger with hard work and conservative votes.

To repeat what I said last Friday, Edwards is a center-right Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted. Disappointingly, he voted for the House timetable last week. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.

Painfully aware of how precarious his position in Texas 17 with votes such as these, here is how he explained his actions in a recent press release. By the way, much of the release made it into the Waco Tribune (here), not merely as quotes, but also as content. It helps to have a friendly local paper.

The Title of the Press Release:

Edwards: Iraq Bill Supports U.S. Combat Troops & Veterans, and Tells Iraqi Politicians to Take More Responsibility for Nation’s Future

How his office characterized his vote:

"U.S. Representative Chet Edwards today supported House passage of the $124 billion emergency war funding bill that gives the president and military commanders the flexibility and funds they need to carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Huh?

"This bill fully funds our U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Correct, but...

"...and sends a message to Iraqi political leaders that it is time for them to take responsibility for their own nation’s future."

Is that the message?

"This bill does not authorize an immediate withdrawal."

Thank God for small favors.

"I voted against immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and led the effort to give the Commander-in-Chief critical flexibility in managing troop rotations. I believe this is a reasonable, balanced approach that improves the chances for victory in Iraq.”

So, the President must be for this then, right?

"As recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker, Edwards supported provisions in the bill to refocus the U.S. military mission in Iraq and Afghanistan to prioritize fighting terrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces, and redeploy U.S. combat forces in Iraq by August 2008 to accomplish this goal."

So, again, the Bushes must be all for this then, right?

"In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief."

Wow, Murtha and Pelosi must be really mad at him right now. But why all the high-fives?

Analysis: As I say, I like Chet Edwards. But this vote (and his vote for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq") comes as a shock to me.

Back during the last campaign, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war. These two votes, notwithstanding his lame attempt to cast them as something they are not, are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.

I am anxious to see how this plays out during the next election cycle.

Peggy Noonan's March 23 column takes TIME Magazine to task for its already infamous recent cover, which depicted a digitally altered Ronald Reagan crying over the current state of the Republican Party: "Could I be correct that they only front-page weeping Republicans, and only laud conservatives when they're dead?" (read the whole Noonan column here).

She is right, of course. The cover struck me as thoughtlessly indelicate, at best, if not cruelly disrespectful. Notwithstanding, I agree with Noonan that Karen Tumulty's article is actually a "good piece" in that it poses a relevant question: What has happened to the party of Ronald Reagan? The query legitimately arises from the current Republican confusion.

In a nutshell: What now?

Authenticity, integrity and a healthy respect for the traditions that always right our collective course in tumultuous times.

» Read More

From Charles Krauthammer today (via RCP):

Alberto Gonzales has to go. I say this with no pleasure -- he's a decent and honorable man -- and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their bloodlust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.

It's not a question of probity, but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

Read entire piece here.

Not so fast.

I try not to disagree with Charles Krauthammer--but this strikes me as a bit harsh. If Gonzales is a "decent and honorable" man and this is not an issue of integrity, then this embarrassing misstep will seem less devastating over time. I like that the President is standing behind Gonzales. Let him ride it out. Let the administration stand up to Congress. Let the President and his men make their case before the nation. I don't see any long term advantage to cashiering Gonzales at this moment.

On the other hand, as many have noted, Gonzales is the latest ex-next Supreme Court Justice. In actuality, Gonzales fell from the list of viable candidates months ago. However, this imbroglio has probably ensured that the first Latino governor of Texas will not be Alberto Gonzales.

For more coverage on the would-be scandal:

Here for a summary of the facts.

Here for more on the separation of powers aspect within the context of the Constitution and a recipe for a political comeback on the part of the administration.