23/03: House Votes for Timetable
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post :
"The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008" (read the entire article here).
The President promises to veto (condensed):
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops.
"Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.
"The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women [in uniform] standing with me here today."
The President's full statement here.
What does it mean? Speaker Nancy Pelosi won this vote with absolutely no room to spare.
Of course, my guess is that she had a few votes up here sleeve. Surely, they would not have taken the vote to the floor with such a razor-thin margin.
Analysis from Paul Kane of the Washinton Post here on who voted for what and why.
My analysis in brief: The Speaker won the vote--but she is still losing the war to lose the war. She and John Murtha ought not to laugh too loudly, my guess is that the laughing is not done.
Some brief notes: My favorite Democrat, Gene Taylor, voted against the timetable. A Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted, Texas 17 Representative, Chet Edwards, disappointingly, voted for the timetable. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
"The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008" (read the entire article here).
The President promises to veto (condensed):
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops.
"Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.
"The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women [in uniform] standing with me here today."
The President's full statement here.
What does it mean? Speaker Nancy Pelosi won this vote with absolutely no room to spare.
Of course, my guess is that she had a few votes up here sleeve. Surely, they would not have taken the vote to the floor with such a razor-thin margin.
Analysis from Paul Kane of the Washinton Post here on who voted for what and why.
My analysis in brief: The Speaker won the vote--but she is still losing the war to lose the war. She and John Murtha ought not to laugh too loudly, my guess is that the laughing is not done.
Some brief notes: My favorite Democrat, Gene Taylor, voted against the timetable. A Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted, Texas 17 Representative, Chet Edwards, disappointingly, voted for the timetable. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
22/03: A Wedding in Arkansas
Over Spring Break, I accompanied my family on a journey to attend a wedding in Searcy, Arkansas. Along the way, we visited the monument in Little Rock built to celebrate the life and contributions of an American president; from there, we spent two days and nights atop a mountain overlooking the Arkansas River Valley. And, finally, we traveled along the highways and back roads of the "Natural State" to witness and affirm the union of two young people dear to our hearts.
The Nuptials:
It was a classically simple but elegant church wedding in the heartland. The bride wore white, the men wore black tuxedos, and the bridesmaids wore tasteful strapless red dresses. The groom had known the minister for all of his remembered-life. The ceremony was personal and intimate--and traditional. The preacher, to no one's surprise, emphasized Paul's timeless expository essay on love written for the Church at Corinth nearly two millennia ago. They exchanged vows, lit a unity candle, and two became one.
None of this was new to me. I had seen and heard all of it many times before--but for some reason, this particular union of souls struck at my emotions in an extraordinary way.
Almost from the outset, and to my complete surprise, I felt my throat constrict and my eyes fill with tears. Struck by the gravity of the ceremony, I suddenly understood why so many religious traditions identify this ritual as a sacrament; it finally occurred to me why men and women go to the trouble and expense of standing up before God and man to make this commitment in such a purposefully public way.
My moment of clarity commenced as I watched my young cousin take a poignant moment to say goodbye to his mother, step back, and stand upright at the end of a church aisle waiting for his new life to begin. For the remainder of the ceremony, I was never able to fully regain my placidity.
Why do we cry at weddings?
Perhaps it is a combination of loss, anxiety, joy, and a momentary realization of how fragile we are.
Loss: A boy is gone. A man with new priorities takes his place. For the parents of that boy, they enter an entirely new stage of life. They cease to be primary caretakers. They are no longer the most important person in the life of the person who is most important to them. This must be a bone-shattering blow.
Marriage for the participants exists as a moment of surrender. Two become one, which must necessarily mean that individuality is submerged into union, just as full independence is forever sacrificed for the good of the new amalgamation.
Anxiety: Marriage is a leap of faith. One person places his life in the hands of another person about whom he knows very little. This is the most important decision in life, and, at the climactic moment of no-return, there is absolutely no way to know with certainty the wisdom of the choice.
The preacher spoke of love as a decision--not a feeling. The question is not whether they love one another, he said. Of course, they do. The question is whether they will love each other.
Love is a euphoric excitation--but it must also be a long term act of will.
Joy: Love between a man and a woman truly is God's greatest gift. Marriage also signals the beginning of the process of parenthood, which is another of God's most sublime dispensations. Parents sincerely desire this kind of love for their children whom they love. Young people instinctively anticipate this blessing with great delight. Jubilation.
Sobering Realization: How fragile we are individually. We are so desperately in need of one another. We need community. We need caring neighbors, a family of faith, and blood kin. Without the love of God, family, and community, we are hopelessly lost.
The marriage ceremony brings together those diverse feelings of love, joy, fear, and gratitude. Life is a precious gift. Love is an intoxicant and a safety net and a miracle cure. Family is a shelter against the cruelties of life. Matrimony is the renewal of the incredibly powerful and necessary bulwark of family, while at the same time marriage is held together by the ever increasingly fragile threads of love, commitment, and fealty to tradition.
Why was this ceremony so powerful for me? Perhaps it was the fatigue of the journey. Perhaps it was the youth, promise, and earnestness of the couple. Perhaps it was the love of family so thick in the sanctuary. Perhaps it was maturity, having lived long enough and been married long enough to understand the miraculous transforming power of the institution. Or perhaps it was the full realization that I had stumbled on to the good, the true, and the beautiful in a church in Searcy, Arkansas. You can imagine my surprise at finding it there.
The Nuptials:
It was a classically simple but elegant church wedding in the heartland. The bride wore white, the men wore black tuxedos, and the bridesmaids wore tasteful strapless red dresses. The groom had known the minister for all of his remembered-life. The ceremony was personal and intimate--and traditional. The preacher, to no one's surprise, emphasized Paul's timeless expository essay on love written for the Church at Corinth nearly two millennia ago. They exchanged vows, lit a unity candle, and two became one.
None of this was new to me. I had seen and heard all of it many times before--but for some reason, this particular union of souls struck at my emotions in an extraordinary way.
Almost from the outset, and to my complete surprise, I felt my throat constrict and my eyes fill with tears. Struck by the gravity of the ceremony, I suddenly understood why so many religious traditions identify this ritual as a sacrament; it finally occurred to me why men and women go to the trouble and expense of standing up before God and man to make this commitment in such a purposefully public way.
My moment of clarity commenced as I watched my young cousin take a poignant moment to say goodbye to his mother, step back, and stand upright at the end of a church aisle waiting for his new life to begin. For the remainder of the ceremony, I was never able to fully regain my placidity.
Why do we cry at weddings?
Perhaps it is a combination of loss, anxiety, joy, and a momentary realization of how fragile we are.
Loss: A boy is gone. A man with new priorities takes his place. For the parents of that boy, they enter an entirely new stage of life. They cease to be primary caretakers. They are no longer the most important person in the life of the person who is most important to them. This must be a bone-shattering blow.
Marriage for the participants exists as a moment of surrender. Two become one, which must necessarily mean that individuality is submerged into union, just as full independence is forever sacrificed for the good of the new amalgamation.
Anxiety: Marriage is a leap of faith. One person places his life in the hands of another person about whom he knows very little. This is the most important decision in life, and, at the climactic moment of no-return, there is absolutely no way to know with certainty the wisdom of the choice.
The preacher spoke of love as a decision--not a feeling. The question is not whether they love one another, he said. Of course, they do. The question is whether they will love each other.
Love is a euphoric excitation--but it must also be a long term act of will.
Joy: Love between a man and a woman truly is God's greatest gift. Marriage also signals the beginning of the process of parenthood, which is another of God's most sublime dispensations. Parents sincerely desire this kind of love for their children whom they love. Young people instinctively anticipate this blessing with great delight. Jubilation.
Sobering Realization: How fragile we are individually. We are so desperately in need of one another. We need community. We need caring neighbors, a family of faith, and blood kin. Without the love of God, family, and community, we are hopelessly lost.
The marriage ceremony brings together those diverse feelings of love, joy, fear, and gratitude. Life is a precious gift. Love is an intoxicant and a safety net and a miracle cure. Family is a shelter against the cruelties of life. Matrimony is the renewal of the incredibly powerful and necessary bulwark of family, while at the same time marriage is held together by the ever increasingly fragile threads of love, commitment, and fealty to tradition.
Why was this ceremony so powerful for me? Perhaps it was the fatigue of the journey. Perhaps it was the youth, promise, and earnestness of the couple. Perhaps it was the love of family so thick in the sanctuary. Perhaps it was maturity, having lived long enough and been married long enough to understand the miraculous transforming power of the institution. Or perhaps it was the full realization that I had stumbled on to the good, the true, and the beautiful in a church in Searcy, Arkansas. You can imagine my surprise at finding it there.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Please consider this excellent Andrew McCarthy follow-up piece from NRO, which, once again, comes highly recommended by Tocqueville. By the way, it is easy to see why Tocqueville is such an admirer of McCarthy.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"From the very start, the Bush administration’s self-induced debacle over fired United States attorneys has blurred law and politics. Now, the blur has officially grown into the fog of inter-branch war.
"The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have threatened to subpoena two of President Bush’s top aides, senior adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers."
What does all this mean?
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. Such threats from Congress are politically tactical but legally dubious. They flout our bedrock separation-of-powers doctrine....
2. The President...offered a compromise. Members of the President’s executive staff would be made available for private interviews.... [Under this proposal] Congress would not be permitted to place the President’s advisers under oath and there would be no stenographic transcript. This offer is in keeping with recent precedent (e.g., 9/11 Commission hearings).
[Congress] would, of course, [maintain the power] to compel sworn testimony and other information from top executive officials at the Justice Department, over which Congress has funding and oversight authority. The administration, however, would not surrender internal communications between members of the President’s own staff.
3. From a legal and policy perspective, the White House position is unassailable. [Constitutionally] Congress is entitled to nothing from the President’s staff.
4. This is common sense. Our political branches, [unlike a citizen testifying under oath in a court of law], are equals. The issuance of a subpoena and/or placing someone under oath connotes subservience, rendering the President subservient to Congress.
5. Similarly, transcript among equals is not a quest for the truth. It’s a set-up. If equals truly want a mutual understanding, they can get that by talking informally.
6. But, alas, none of that matters. As sound as the president’s legal position is, the politics strongly favor congressional Democrats.
7. Dissembling is how the administration bungled into its current straits. Now, its political opponents argue, it wants to compound that by insulating top advisers from sworn testimony and an accurate record of what they say.
8. [As a result of the administration's own self-inflicted wounds], this rhetoric is bound to resonate with the public, [which will naturally] wonder whether the administration has something to hide.
What to do?
1. [The President should] come clean about the politics...and the law will make more sense.
2. [The] investigation is about politics, not legal impropriety. It is about exploiting to the maximum degree the administration’s [political] missteps. Congress is within its rights to do that, but the president could undercut its force by (a) acknowledging that his administration was engaged in an inherently political exercise; (b) either putting out chapter-and-verse to justify the claim that some of those dismissed were subpar performers or, in the alternative, apologizing to those who were maligned and firing anyone who knowingly maligned them; and (c) committing that he has no strategy to use his interim-appointment authority to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to confirm executive branch officers.
In truth, this process is intensely political. Congress is egregiously hypocritical in this pursuit of political advantage.
[However] This controversy won’t go away until the administration concedes that politics is political. Until then, the legal underbrush will obscure the political hypocrisy, and the administration will dig itself ever deeper.
Read the entire article here.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"From the very start, the Bush administration’s self-induced debacle over fired United States attorneys has blurred law and politics. Now, the blur has officially grown into the fog of inter-branch war.
"The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have threatened to subpoena two of President Bush’s top aides, senior adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers."
What does all this mean?
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. Such threats from Congress are politically tactical but legally dubious. They flout our bedrock separation-of-powers doctrine....
2. The President...offered a compromise. Members of the President’s executive staff would be made available for private interviews.... [Under this proposal] Congress would not be permitted to place the President’s advisers under oath and there would be no stenographic transcript. This offer is in keeping with recent precedent (e.g., 9/11 Commission hearings).
[Congress] would, of course, [maintain the power] to compel sworn testimony and other information from top executive officials at the Justice Department, over which Congress has funding and oversight authority. The administration, however, would not surrender internal communications between members of the President’s own staff.
3. From a legal and policy perspective, the White House position is unassailable. [Constitutionally] Congress is entitled to nothing from the President’s staff.
4. This is common sense. Our political branches, [unlike a citizen testifying under oath in a court of law], are equals. The issuance of a subpoena and/or placing someone under oath connotes subservience, rendering the President subservient to Congress.
5. Similarly, transcript among equals is not a quest for the truth. It’s a set-up. If equals truly want a mutual understanding, they can get that by talking informally.
6. But, alas, none of that matters. As sound as the president’s legal position is, the politics strongly favor congressional Democrats.
7. Dissembling is how the administration bungled into its current straits. Now, its political opponents argue, it wants to compound that by insulating top advisers from sworn testimony and an accurate record of what they say.
8. [As a result of the administration's own self-inflicted wounds], this rhetoric is bound to resonate with the public, [which will naturally] wonder whether the administration has something to hide.
What to do?
1. [The President should] come clean about the politics...and the law will make more sense.
2. [The] investigation is about politics, not legal impropriety. It is about exploiting to the maximum degree the administration’s [political] missteps. Congress is within its rights to do that, but the president could undercut its force by (a) acknowledging that his administration was engaged in an inherently political exercise; (b) either putting out chapter-and-verse to justify the claim that some of those dismissed were subpar performers or, in the alternative, apologizing to those who were maligned and firing anyone who knowingly maligned them; and (c) committing that he has no strategy to use his interim-appointment authority to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to confirm executive branch officers.
In truth, this process is intensely political. Congress is egregiously hypocritical in this pursuit of political advantage.
[However] This controversy won’t go away until the administration concedes that politics is political. Until then, the legal underbrush will obscure the political hypocrisy, and the administration will dig itself ever deeper.
Read the entire article here.
21/03: A Silver Lining?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Washington Times notes today that the six bills passed by the Democratic-controlled House during the celebrated "first 100 hours" of the 110th Congress are still awaiting Senate action or reconciliation and are not close to coming before the President:
"Democrats 0 for 6 in Congress; agenda sidetracked by Iraq war."
Christina Bellantoni's article is something of a taunt. The paper quotes House Minority Leader John A. Boehner: "How many bills have they sent to the president? None? Somewhere around there."
Bellatoni highlights the friction between the House and the Senate, quoting Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (responding to reports of frustration from Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader): "Steny is my friend, and he hasn't spent much time in the Senate. They have expedited procedures on everything."
Bellatoni also notes that the internal struggle over an Iraq policy has slowed down the process: "Senators spent weeks negotiating resolutions on Mr. Bush's troop surge to Iraq, and House actions slowed to a crawl as Democrats offer smaller bills while huddling to come up with an Iraq plan."
Analysis: Every cloud has a silver lining. We should resist the temptation to assail the Democrats loudly and publicly for running a "do-nothing" Congress. In truth, an inactive Congress is a good thing. We would be better off to stay mum and count our blessings.
For true conservatives, Congressional gridlock is the last saving grace of modern government. Thomas Jefferson probably did not say this--but we often attribute it to him: "Government governs best that governs least." Let's keep our fingers crossed that these guys stay focused on grandstanding and investigating. When they are not legislating, the Republic is a safer place.
"Democrats 0 for 6 in Congress; agenda sidetracked by Iraq war."
Christina Bellantoni's article is something of a taunt. The paper quotes House Minority Leader John A. Boehner: "How many bills have they sent to the president? None? Somewhere around there."
Bellatoni highlights the friction between the House and the Senate, quoting Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (responding to reports of frustration from Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader): "Steny is my friend, and he hasn't spent much time in the Senate. They have expedited procedures on everything."
Bellatoni also notes that the internal struggle over an Iraq policy has slowed down the process: "Senators spent weeks negotiating resolutions on Mr. Bush's troop surge to Iraq, and House actions slowed to a crawl as Democrats offer smaller bills while huddling to come up with an Iraq plan."
Analysis: Every cloud has a silver lining. We should resist the temptation to assail the Democrats loudly and publicly for running a "do-nothing" Congress. In truth, an inactive Congress is a good thing. We would be better off to stay mum and count our blessings.
For true conservatives, Congressional gridlock is the last saving grace of modern government. Thomas Jefferson probably did not say this--but we often attribute it to him: "Government governs best that governs least." Let's keep our fingers crossed that these guys stay focused on grandstanding and investigating. When they are not legislating, the Republic is a safer place.
Please consider this excellent Andrew McCarthy analysis piece from NRO, which comes highly recommended by Tocqueville.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"Of all the Bush-administration controversies, the tempest over the termination of eight United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their jurisdictions, may ultimately rank as the most damaging. And not because it was the most serious, but because it was the most revealing: about the administration’s ineptitude and Washington’s hypocrisy."
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. [This] system is political. It is intended to be. Establishing [prosecutorial priorities] is a quintessentially political determination.
2. These are political judgments. They reflect what an administration thinks is important and will resonate with the voters who put it in power.
3. They are precisely the type of judgments for which an administration ought to be accountable.
4. Having said that, the President is at the top of this command pyramid. The Justice Department, including the attorney general and all 93 U.S. attorneys, are high-ranking officers in one of our two political branches. The head of that branch, the executive branch, is the president. Under our Constitution, he is vested with all of the executive power, including the police power. That power is not divided among several players; it is singularly reposed in him. The president chooses all the U.S. attorneys, and, after Senate confirmation, they, like all executive-branch officers, serve at his pleasure. He doesn’t need a reason to fire any of them....
5. Often, the administration’s judgments are bad.
6. There are countless points of tension in the dynamic between the president and the U.S. attorneys he chooses.
7. Being an act of political discretion, the removal of eight U.S. attorneys can and should be critiqued as wise or unwise; [notwithstanding], to be legitimate..., the removal requires no explanation.
8. [T]he Gonzales Justice Department has committed Washington’s worst sin: It has acted like its reasons were noble when in fact they were political, it has misled Congress about that fact, and, when called on it, it has caved … as if the act itself — rather than the dissembling about the act — was illegitimate.
9. The administration's pretense that this political act was, in fact, high-minded or a performance-based decision created this media firestorm.
10. So we have classic Washington farce. The politicians on Capitol Hill theatrically castigate the politicians in the administration for making political decisions about political appointees based on political considerations. The politicians in the administration reply, “That would never happen,” before conceding that it precisely happened … without their knowledge, of course. And the political press is aghast."
Read the entire article here.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"Of all the Bush-administration controversies, the tempest over the termination of eight United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their jurisdictions, may ultimately rank as the most damaging. And not because it was the most serious, but because it was the most revealing: about the administration’s ineptitude and Washington’s hypocrisy."
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. [This] system is political. It is intended to be. Establishing [prosecutorial priorities] is a quintessentially political determination.
2. These are political judgments. They reflect what an administration thinks is important and will resonate with the voters who put it in power.
3. They are precisely the type of judgments for which an administration ought to be accountable.
4. Having said that, the President is at the top of this command pyramid. The Justice Department, including the attorney general and all 93 U.S. attorneys, are high-ranking officers in one of our two political branches. The head of that branch, the executive branch, is the president. Under our Constitution, he is vested with all of the executive power, including the police power. That power is not divided among several players; it is singularly reposed in him. The president chooses all the U.S. attorneys, and, after Senate confirmation, they, like all executive-branch officers, serve at his pleasure. He doesn’t need a reason to fire any of them....
5. Often, the administration’s judgments are bad.
6. There are countless points of tension in the dynamic between the president and the U.S. attorneys he chooses.
7. Being an act of political discretion, the removal of eight U.S. attorneys can and should be critiqued as wise or unwise; [notwithstanding], to be legitimate..., the removal requires no explanation.
8. [T]he Gonzales Justice Department has committed Washington’s worst sin: It has acted like its reasons were noble when in fact they were political, it has misled Congress about that fact, and, when called on it, it has caved … as if the act itself — rather than the dissembling about the act — was illegitimate.
9. The administration's pretense that this political act was, in fact, high-minded or a performance-based decision created this media firestorm.
10. So we have classic Washington farce. The politicians on Capitol Hill theatrically castigate the politicians in the administration for making political decisions about political appointees based on political considerations. The politicians in the administration reply, “That would never happen,” before conceding that it precisely happened … without their knowledge, of course. And the political press is aghast."
Read the entire article here.
19/03: The Pain of the Presidency
Category: Bush Hagiography
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In one of the opening scenes of the Martin Scorcese movie, Good Fellas, a young Henry Hill must suffer the violent wrath of his father. As his hulking parent stands over him "pounding away," the action freezes, and we hear Henry's voice over the still frame:
My father was always pissed off...and, every once in a while, I had to take a beating. But by then, I didn't care. No matter how many beatings I took, I wouldn't listen to what he said. I don't think I even heard him. The way I saw it, everybody has to take a beating some time.
Perhaps better than any of his forty-one predecessors, George Bush understood the vagaries of the Oval Office. Reportedly, the stress of the task drove Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover to wander the hallways of the White House talking to portraits of dead presidents. Lyndon Johnson and Abraham Lincoln were famous insomniacs. All presidents seem to age at an alarming rate.
George Bush gets up every day and does his job. It is open season on the president all the time. Some moments are worse than others. This is one of those times in which very little seems to be going right. This analysis piece from Gloria Borger represents the tenor of the media coverage of the Bush administration.
Borger correctly observes: "The problem for this White House now is that Iraq is the overlay for everything."
She is also right to assert that most of the myriad problems for the Bush administration are problems of their own making. Of course, this applies a general truism of life specifically to this presidency, which creates a somewhat distorted impression through the omission of historical context and an acknowledgment of basic human nature.
Having said all that, the key for the President has always been victory in Iraq. Perceived failure in Iraq hamstrings the President in everything he does. As I have written before, the President must know that the clock is running out and it is now or never. He must make progress now. With the public breathing down his neck and Congress looking for every opportunity to embarrass and seek political advantage, the President must operate in the mistake-free zone.
Sometimes people react to stress in positive ways. Sometimes they crater. This President is someone with a track record of responding to adversity with internal toughness. Let's hope he has enough left to push back. Like Henry Hill, I am convinced that the President no longer feels the slings and arrows of outrageous opposition intent on hammering him at every turn.
The way he sees it, every President has to take a beating sometime.
One potentially positive note: there is a lag time in Washington. The President is currently dealing with the consequences of previous poor decisions. It is possible, and one can hope, that even now he is making moves that will pay off and relieve the pressure in the days to come.
My father was always pissed off...and, every once in a while, I had to take a beating. But by then, I didn't care. No matter how many beatings I took, I wouldn't listen to what he said. I don't think I even heard him. The way I saw it, everybody has to take a beating some time.
Perhaps better than any of his forty-one predecessors, George Bush understood the vagaries of the Oval Office. Reportedly, the stress of the task drove Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover to wander the hallways of the White House talking to portraits of dead presidents. Lyndon Johnson and Abraham Lincoln were famous insomniacs. All presidents seem to age at an alarming rate.
George Bush gets up every day and does his job. It is open season on the president all the time. Some moments are worse than others. This is one of those times in which very little seems to be going right. This analysis piece from Gloria Borger represents the tenor of the media coverage of the Bush administration.
Borger correctly observes: "The problem for this White House now is that Iraq is the overlay for everything."
She is also right to assert that most of the myriad problems for the Bush administration are problems of their own making. Of course, this applies a general truism of life specifically to this presidency, which creates a somewhat distorted impression through the omission of historical context and an acknowledgment of basic human nature.
Having said all that, the key for the President has always been victory in Iraq. Perceived failure in Iraq hamstrings the President in everything he does. As I have written before, the President must know that the clock is running out and it is now or never. He must make progress now. With the public breathing down his neck and Congress looking for every opportunity to embarrass and seek political advantage, the President must operate in the mistake-free zone.
Sometimes people react to stress in positive ways. Sometimes they crater. This President is someone with a track record of responding to adversity with internal toughness. Let's hope he has enough left to push back. Like Henry Hill, I am convinced that the President no longer feels the slings and arrows of outrageous opposition intent on hammering him at every turn.
The way he sees it, every President has to take a beating sometime.
One potentially positive note: there is a lag time in Washington. The President is currently dealing with the consequences of previous poor decisions. It is possible, and one can hope, that even now he is making moves that will pay off and relieve the pressure in the days to come.
19/03: The Year of the Dark Horse?
Category: Campaign 2008.2
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Remember my Mantra: Nobody Knows Anything (a review here).
Having said that, once again, here goes nothing:
If the proverb is right, and nature really does abhor a vacuum, we can look forward to a procession of boomlets for conservative candidates between now and January.
Enter Fred Thompson: You may sign on to his campaign here. You cannot deny the buzz he has created during the last week. Even on a mountain in Arkansas, I met people who were talking about him.
For the sake of full disclosure, I too am a long-time admirer of the former Senator from Tennessee. He is a formidable presence on the American political/cultural scene. But before we stampede over to the Fred Thompson camp, how much do we really know about him?
He looks and sounds presidential. He looks and sounds conservative.
Maybe he is our guy? Who knows? Time will tell.
Does it matter that we actually know very little about him? Or are we determined to elect someone with whom we are unacquainted. Are we so contemptuous of the candidates with whom we are familiar that we are bent on finding a mysterious stranger?
In other words, is this the year of the dark horse?
The first dark horse candidate for president was another Tennessean, James K. Polk. Although he was a former governor, former speaker of the House of Representatives and a protégé of Andrew Jackson, Polk was not well known nationally and not a candidate for president when he arrived at the Democratic nominating convention in 1844 (although he was hoping for consideration as the vice-presidential nominee). However, once the frontrunner stumbled, and the other three leading contenders failed to rally broad support, the convention turned to Polk, discovering him on the seventh ballot and nominating him on the ninth. Polk went on to win the national election that fall against a much more celebrated opponent, Henry Clay.
There have been other successful dark horse candidates since Polk (Franklin Pierce, 1852, Rutherford Hayes, 1876, James Garfield, 1880, and Warren Harding, 1920, come to mind). But is has been a while. Why? Today nominating conventions do not pick nominees. Party bosses no longer turn to lesser-knowns during the wee hours of the morning in some smoke-filled room. Long before the next convention, partisan voters in state primaries will elect the party nominees for 2008.
We are twenty months from the general election. Is it possible to remain mysterious and "available" for that long? The Democratic Party put forward James K. Polk in May of 1844 to run for president in an election five months later. They were able to introduce and sell him to the electorate as a hard working realist, who would judiciously oversee the expansion of a growing nation. Although the age of the telegraph and rotary press was upon them, there were no cable news networks and twenty-four hour news cycles to combat.
Can a dark horse succeed in the current digital age? Dexterously catching an anti-establishment popular wave in the wake of Watergate, Jimmy Carter successfully ran a more modern variety of the dark horse campaign in 1975 and 1976. But much has changed in the last three decades. The Carter candidacy probably has more in common with his nineteenth-century predecessors than the contemporary contestants.
In 2004, the primary voters unraveled the mystery of Howard Dean at the most inauspicious of times, transforming Dean's December 2003 sense of inevitability into humiliation and bitter derision for the insurgent candidate in January and February of 2004.
What awaits these candidates whom we partially know? Only time will tell. One thing is certain. We will know much, much more about all of these aspirants by January 2008.
My prediction: Fred Thompson won't be the last vessel of great expectations for Republicans in 2008. But, in the end, the race will most likely go to one of the candidates that perseveres over the long haul.
Having said that, once again, here goes nothing:
If the proverb is right, and nature really does abhor a vacuum, we can look forward to a procession of boomlets for conservative candidates between now and January.
Enter Fred Thompson: You may sign on to his campaign here. You cannot deny the buzz he has created during the last week. Even on a mountain in Arkansas, I met people who were talking about him.
For the sake of full disclosure, I too am a long-time admirer of the former Senator from Tennessee. He is a formidable presence on the American political/cultural scene. But before we stampede over to the Fred Thompson camp, how much do we really know about him?
He looks and sounds presidential. He looks and sounds conservative.
Maybe he is our guy? Who knows? Time will tell.
Does it matter that we actually know very little about him? Or are we determined to elect someone with whom we are unacquainted. Are we so contemptuous of the candidates with whom we are familiar that we are bent on finding a mysterious stranger?
In other words, is this the year of the dark horse?
The first dark horse candidate for president was another Tennessean, James K. Polk. Although he was a former governor, former speaker of the House of Representatives and a protégé of Andrew Jackson, Polk was not well known nationally and not a candidate for president when he arrived at the Democratic nominating convention in 1844 (although he was hoping for consideration as the vice-presidential nominee). However, once the frontrunner stumbled, and the other three leading contenders failed to rally broad support, the convention turned to Polk, discovering him on the seventh ballot and nominating him on the ninth. Polk went on to win the national election that fall against a much more celebrated opponent, Henry Clay.
There have been other successful dark horse candidates since Polk (Franklin Pierce, 1852, Rutherford Hayes, 1876, James Garfield, 1880, and Warren Harding, 1920, come to mind). But is has been a while. Why? Today nominating conventions do not pick nominees. Party bosses no longer turn to lesser-knowns during the wee hours of the morning in some smoke-filled room. Long before the next convention, partisan voters in state primaries will elect the party nominees for 2008.
We are twenty months from the general election. Is it possible to remain mysterious and "available" for that long? The Democratic Party put forward James K. Polk in May of 1844 to run for president in an election five months later. They were able to introduce and sell him to the electorate as a hard working realist, who would judiciously oversee the expansion of a growing nation. Although the age of the telegraph and rotary press was upon them, there were no cable news networks and twenty-four hour news cycles to combat.
Can a dark horse succeed in the current digital age? Dexterously catching an anti-establishment popular wave in the wake of Watergate, Jimmy Carter successfully ran a more modern variety of the dark horse campaign in 1975 and 1976. But much has changed in the last three decades. The Carter candidacy probably has more in common with his nineteenth-century predecessors than the contemporary contestants.
In 2004, the primary voters unraveled the mystery of Howard Dean at the most inauspicious of times, transforming Dean's December 2003 sense of inevitability into humiliation and bitter derision for the insurgent candidate in January and February of 2004.
What awaits these candidates whom we partially know? Only time will tell. One thing is certain. We will know much, much more about all of these aspirants by January 2008.
My prediction: Fred Thompson won't be the last vessel of great expectations for Republicans in 2008. But, in the end, the race will most likely go to one of the candidates that perseveres over the long haul.
18/03: A Pilgrimage to Arkansas
Bill Clinton, Mt. Nebo and the sacrament of marriage.
Dateline: Texarkana, Texas.
Dear Friends,
I am back in the Lone Star state (albeit by only a few yards).
For the last few days I have accompanied my family on a journey to attend the wedding of a cousin in Searcy, Arkansas. Along the way, we visited the great monument in Little Rock built to celebrate the life and contributions of Bill Clinton; from there, we spent two days and nights atop a mountain overlooking the Arkansas River valley. And, finally, we traveled along the highways and backroads of the "Natural State" to witness and affirm the union of two young people.
I intend to report on all these events separately--although I am surprised to find that all three experiences are connected in a perverse but profound way.
Stay tuned.
Dateline: Texarkana, Texas.
Dear Friends,
I am back in the Lone Star state (albeit by only a few yards).
For the last few days I have accompanied my family on a journey to attend the wedding of a cousin in Searcy, Arkansas. Along the way, we visited the great monument in Little Rock built to celebrate the life and contributions of Bill Clinton; from there, we spent two days and nights atop a mountain overlooking the Arkansas River valley. And, finally, we traveled along the highways and backroads of the "Natural State" to witness and affirm the union of two young people.
I intend to report on all these events separately--although I am surprised to find that all three experiences are connected in a perverse but profound way.
Stay tuned.
Category: Campaign 2008.1
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few weeks ago, I attended a 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.
As I said then, I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....
With a recent spate of polls and news analysis pieces reinforcing his points, I thought it would be appropriate to re-emphasize the wisdom of Professor Patterson:
Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.
Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.
Some things to watch for between now and the primaries:
1. Follow the Money. A winning candidate will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to win the nomination. George Bush busted the ancien regime, opting out of the matching funds system in 2000. Flush with cash, Bush rebounded after a loss in New Hampshire by swamping the poorly funded opposition on Super Tuesday. Then John Kerry in 2004 reaffirmed that no candidate could afford to stay within the federally funded order. Unable to gain traction, Kerry used his own money to fund his comeback. Limited funds deny candidate flexibility. The more money a candidate possesses, the less lethal any one mistake or setback will be.
2. Follow the Media and the Media Paradox. Media coverage drives popularity. The Media only cover viable candidates. Candidates cannot gain popularity without media coverage. In an era of limited media resources, only candidates with momentum and popular appeal will draw coverage.
The conclusion: It is very difficult for second tier candidates to break into the front-runners. Having said that, it happens: Howard Dean in 2004 for example.
Who will break through this time? Maybe no one in the party of Jackson. Patterson sees the Democratic race fairly fixed. There are three major candidates: a charismatic fresh face with a classically liberal outlook, an experienced DLC centrist triangulator and a populist white guy outlier (Obama, Hillary and Edwards).
The one wild card? Al Gore. He keeps saying he won't run--but Patterson wondered if an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize might create enough momentum to change the course of the primary battle. Sunday night [2-25-07] reinforces Gore's improbable dream. However, based on personal acquaintance with some Gore insiders, and the physical appearance of the former VP, Patterson guesses that Gore stays out.
For the GOP. There are three prominent Republican candidates: Romney, McCain and Giuliani. But they don't strike Patterson as very GOP-like. There may be an opening because the Republicans really need another choice.
UPDATE: Fred Thompson mania may be just the beginning....
As I said then, I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....
With a recent spate of polls and news analysis pieces reinforcing his points, I thought it would be appropriate to re-emphasize the wisdom of Professor Patterson:
Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.
Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.
Some things to watch for between now and the primaries:
1. Follow the Money. A winning candidate will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to win the nomination. George Bush busted the ancien regime, opting out of the matching funds system in 2000. Flush with cash, Bush rebounded after a loss in New Hampshire by swamping the poorly funded opposition on Super Tuesday. Then John Kerry in 2004 reaffirmed that no candidate could afford to stay within the federally funded order. Unable to gain traction, Kerry used his own money to fund his comeback. Limited funds deny candidate flexibility. The more money a candidate possesses, the less lethal any one mistake or setback will be.
2. Follow the Media and the Media Paradox. Media coverage drives popularity. The Media only cover viable candidates. Candidates cannot gain popularity without media coverage. In an era of limited media resources, only candidates with momentum and popular appeal will draw coverage.
The conclusion: It is very difficult for second tier candidates to break into the front-runners. Having said that, it happens: Howard Dean in 2004 for example.
Who will break through this time? Maybe no one in the party of Jackson. Patterson sees the Democratic race fairly fixed. There are three major candidates: a charismatic fresh face with a classically liberal outlook, an experienced DLC centrist triangulator and a populist white guy outlier (Obama, Hillary and Edwards).
The one wild card? Al Gore. He keeps saying he won't run--but Patterson wondered if an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize might create enough momentum to change the course of the primary battle. Sunday night [2-25-07] reinforces Gore's improbable dream. However, based on personal acquaintance with some Gore insiders, and the physical appearance of the former VP, Patterson guesses that Gore stays out.
For the GOP. There are three prominent Republican candidates: Romney, McCain and Giuliani. But they don't strike Patterson as very GOP-like. There may be an opening because the Republicans really need another choice.
UPDATE: Fred Thompson mania may be just the beginning....
Category: Campaign 2008.1
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
My Mantra: Nobody Knows Anything (a review here).
Having said that, again, here goes nothing:
1. Barack Obama and Hillary continue to hammer at one another. Smart people continue to say watch for Edwards. NPR did a friendly piece on Edwards this afternoon (NPR feature here). The gist of the story was that Edwards is doing better in Iowa than his two larger-than-life opponents. Is that true today? Probably. Will it continue? Maybe. Will Iowa determine the eventual nominee this time around? Not so certain. The race among the states to front-load primaries may make Iowa much less significant than in times past.
I don't like Edwards (some previous unfavorable thoughts on him here). He strikes me as a trimmer. On the other hand, as I say, smart people continue to point to Edwards. I agree that he is brilliantly stroking the base. Moreover, I see clearly the possibility of Hillary and Obama dealing one another mortal blows, and a winner emerging from the pack. Notwithstanding, I have a hard time seeing Edwards in that role.
2. I like Barack Obama. A few weeks ago, I came across a cartoon depicting an Easter-Island-like sculpture in the likeness of Obama with the caption: "I don't know what it is, but I am strangely attracted."
3. The best thing that could happen for the Obama campaign is a tiff with Al Sharpton. Is this it? Obama is a viable candidate because white America likes him and trusts him. They don't feel the same way about Reverend Al or Jesse Jackson. Even more than Bill Clinton did in 1992, Barack Obama will, at some point, need and greatly benefit from a "Sister Souljah" moment of his own.
Having said that, again, here goes nothing:
1. Barack Obama and Hillary continue to hammer at one another. Smart people continue to say watch for Edwards. NPR did a friendly piece on Edwards this afternoon (NPR feature here). The gist of the story was that Edwards is doing better in Iowa than his two larger-than-life opponents. Is that true today? Probably. Will it continue? Maybe. Will Iowa determine the eventual nominee this time around? Not so certain. The race among the states to front-load primaries may make Iowa much less significant than in times past.
I don't like Edwards (some previous unfavorable thoughts on him here). He strikes me as a trimmer. On the other hand, as I say, smart people continue to point to Edwards. I agree that he is brilliantly stroking the base. Moreover, I see clearly the possibility of Hillary and Obama dealing one another mortal blows, and a winner emerging from the pack. Notwithstanding, I have a hard time seeing Edwards in that role.
2. I like Barack Obama. A few weeks ago, I came across a cartoon depicting an Easter-Island-like sculpture in the likeness of Obama with the caption: "I don't know what it is, but I am strangely attracted."
3. The best thing that could happen for the Obama campaign is a tiff with Al Sharpton. Is this it? Obama is a viable candidate because white America likes him and trusts him. They don't feel the same way about Reverend Al or Jesse Jackson. Even more than Bill Clinton did in 1992, Barack Obama will, at some point, need and greatly benefit from a "Sister Souljah" moment of his own.
