There's something that's bothering me about these new-found confessions by Democratic Senators that "if we knew then what we know now, we would never have voted for this war."
The most recent admittance to this club is West Virginia's Rockefeller, who also happens to be the ranking member of the Senate "Intelligence" Committee. But others such as John Kerry and Tom Daschle have also come out of the closet with post-war-debacle statements of regret.
The case these Democrats have been making, if I understand them correctly, is that they got fooled by the bad intelligence, or by the Administration's spin of that intelligence.
But I don't think the "intelligence" was really responsible for us invading Baghdad. It was conducive of the propaganda and hysteria that was circulating at the time. But it wasn't the main element.
The truth is our Senators authorized the war out of fear. Not a fear of Baghdad (after all, lots of countries have WMD and not all of them like us either) but a fear of a public that had been whipped into a frenzy by Fox News, Clear Channel, hate radio, and the neocon "cabal".
On tonight's Hardball, Chris Matthews alluded to this factor when he was challenging Tucker Carlson on the administration's "Iraq was involved in 911" claims. Tucker, I think correctly, pointed out that few officials or leading political figures made any direct connection between Iraq and 911 (links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, yes, but very few direct connections between Iraq and 911). But Matthews responded by citing as an example of the public mood and the state of public misinformation, the country music song written in the lead-up to the war that did make such a link between Iraq and 911 ("we will not forget") or words to that effect. And certainly the Administration's lumping of 911, Iraq, and the Global War on Terrorism together made the connection implicit, if not explicit.
So, while I'm thankful for whatever change of heart Democrats feel free to muster two and a half years after the fact, and am hopeful that the debacle in Iraq will serve to dissuade the country and its most militant members from launching any further like minded endeavors, the fact remains that the country was scared into attacking Iraq, not out of a fear of what that country could do, but out of fear from our own citizens, goaded by Fox/Clear Channel propagandists, and armed with dubious information and misapplied "patriotic" zeal, the kind of which I hope not to see again.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
The Cheney Effect
I was one of the many who thought that George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney to be his running mate in 2000 was a bold, effective move. And by most all accounts, Cheney has been the strongest, most involved VP in history.
But therein lies the problem. He's been too involved, and too often wrong in his policy goals, and in his political prognostications (and this was even before the Iraq war was launched), as Josh Marshall documented almost three years ago.
Meanwhile, the Libby indictments have refocused attention on the Vice, and not in a flattering way.
There was this article in the Boston Globe that highlighted Cheney's proclivity to usurp authority. It also turns out that Cheney opposed detente with the Soviets, the War on Poverty programs (including the ones that worked), thought Gorbachev and his Glassnost/Perestroika a sham, and regretted the end of the Cold War. And naturally welcomed the military rejuvenation that 9-11 created.
Mahablog has a great summary and synthesis of the more recent material on Cheney that has come out in both the old and "new media". Atrios, the Washington Monthly, and Slate, among others have come forward with new interpretations of Cheney's influence and supposed competence. As Atrios wonders, what was it about Cheney that made us think he was bright and in charge?
The truth is it's not entirely clear where Dick Cheney's reputation for competence came from. I expect it came from being white, sounding serious, and talking the right talk.
But now we know.
Go read up on our Veep and all that he has wrought.
P.S. I was just thinking about the fact that at least one of the rumored candidates on Bush's VP list back in 2000 was John Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri, who has since come out a couple of times to warn about the dangers posed by the religious right in his party's and our country's politics. While I wouldn't have welcomed a Bush win under any circumstances, I can't help but think how much better off we would have been if Danforth, rather than Cheney, had had Bush's ear for the last five years.
But therein lies the problem. He's been too involved, and too often wrong in his policy goals, and in his political prognostications (and this was even before the Iraq war was launched), as Josh Marshall documented almost three years ago.
Meanwhile, the Libby indictments have refocused attention on the Vice, and not in a flattering way.
There was this article in the Boston Globe that highlighted Cheney's proclivity to usurp authority. It also turns out that Cheney opposed detente with the Soviets, the War on Poverty programs (including the ones that worked), thought Gorbachev and his Glassnost/Perestroika a sham, and regretted the end of the Cold War. And naturally welcomed the military rejuvenation that 9-11 created.
Mahablog has a great summary and synthesis of the more recent material on Cheney that has come out in both the old and "new media". Atrios, the Washington Monthly, and Slate, among others have come forward with new interpretations of Cheney's influence and supposed competence. As Atrios wonders, what was it about Cheney that made us think he was bright and in charge?
The truth is it's not entirely clear where Dick Cheney's reputation for competence came from. I expect it came from being white, sounding serious, and talking the right talk.
But now we know.
Go read up on our Veep and all that he has wrought.
P.S. I was just thinking about the fact that at least one of the rumored candidates on Bush's VP list back in 2000 was John Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri, who has since come out a couple of times to warn about the dangers posed by the religious right in his party's and our country's politics. While I wouldn't have welcomed a Bush win under any circumstances, I can't help but think how much better off we would have been if Danforth, rather than Cheney, had had Bush's ear for the last five years.
Kaine, Corzine Win
That Corzine appears to be winning handily in NJ, my home state, isn't surprising. And it appears that Corzine will be appointing acting NJ Governor Codey as his replacement in the U.S. Senate, so basically, in NJ, the Democratic governor and Senator are switching places.
Kaine had been leading, albeit only slightly, in most if not all of the polls leading up to election day. But with most of the polls within the margin of error, I wasn't comfortable he would be able to win a close race. As it turns out, it appears Kaine will win by 5 points. However, at this posting, Republicans are poised to win both the Lt. Gov and Attorney General positions in VA, although the AG race is still within 0.5 percentage points with about 95% of precincts reporting. So although Kaine wins, and with some margin to spare, it looks like he didn't have any coattails.
And it's probably worth saying that both of the big wins for Dems tonight were offices in states that were already Democratic.
Nevertheless, these are sweet victories for Democratics as the 2006 campaign approaches and the Bush Administration continues to reel.
Kaine had been leading, albeit only slightly, in most if not all of the polls leading up to election day. But with most of the polls within the margin of error, I wasn't comfortable he would be able to win a close race. As it turns out, it appears Kaine will win by 5 points. However, at this posting, Republicans are poised to win both the Lt. Gov and Attorney General positions in VA, although the AG race is still within 0.5 percentage points with about 95% of precincts reporting. So although Kaine wins, and with some margin to spare, it looks like he didn't have any coattails.
And it's probably worth saying that both of the big wins for Dems tonight were offices in states that were already Democratic.
Nevertheless, these are sweet victories for Democratics as the 2006 campaign approaches and the Bush Administration continues to reel.
Monday, November 07, 2005
1974, Not 1994
Mark Schmidt argues that for Democrats aiming to recapture Congress, 1974 makes a lot more sense as a model than 1994.
Theres a mundane reason that the 1994 model wont work for Democrats in 2006, and it can be summed up in the numbers 53 and 18. Going into the 1994 election, Gingrich could identify 53 congressional districts whose voters had backed the first President Bush in 1992, even as he carried only 37 percent of the nationwide vote, while sending a Democrat to Congress. Many of these districts had been voting reliably for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and even Barry Goldwater while never quite shedding their allegiance to a local Democratic representative. What Gingrich did in nationalizing the election was to encourage voters to look at their Democratic representative in the light of their already established presidential preferences. Even before the Contract with America or the verbal stylings of pollster Frank Luntz, once Gingrich had candidates and a tide of hostility to Bill Clinton in the South and rural districts elsewhere, he had all the ingredients he needed.
Going into 2006, however, there are only 18 districts that went for John Kerry and also sent a Republican, often a moderate, to Congress. Many of those districts are ripe targets, and perhaps enough of those Republicans will fall to make moderate Republicans eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act (assuming their party hasnt succeeded in repealing it). But thats a very small window of transitional districts compared with Gingrichs opportunity.
Thats not to say Democrats cant win, but they wont do it solely by nationalizing the election in imitation of Gingrich. They will win as individuals in local races. It is not 1994 but 1974 that Democrats should be looking to as a model. That year brought 75 new Democrats to Washington. More than just a partisan shift, it brought a change in the style and approach of Democratic candidates and representatives. It is still easy to spot the politician who got his start in 1974 or shortly after, some were liberal, some less so, but most were very serious about policy. They had a national perspective but were diligent to a fault about constituent service, parades, local mayors, local problems. They understood that with a large and complicated federal government, a members role is not just to deliver pork but also to maneuver the system for peoples good. They were ready for C-SPAN, which arrived in the House four years after they did. They put out a press release a day. And they were generally reformist, although that impulse has waned over time. Above all, they got it, got that Congress was becoming a transparent institution, that reform was a core theme, that the executive branch was out of control.
(snip)
The Class of 74 Dems, by contrast (to 1994 and the Republicans), were not gate-crashers, rookies, or ideologues. Of the three Class of 74 Dems who remain in the House, George Miller of California, who last week forced the White House to back down on its plan to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act for Hurricane Katrina recovery, best exemplifies their pragmatic, intense, but liberal style, as do Tom Harkin and Chris Dodd in the Senate. Senator Chuck Schumer is the quintessential Class of 74 striver, but he won election to the New York state Senate that year, and needed to wait six more until a House seat opened. Bill Clinton, age 28, would have been in the Class of 74 had he won 6,000 more votes in his first race against a Republican who never faced a serious challenge before or since.
(snip)
The national issues of Watergate, reform, and Vietnam gave a common theme to the Class of 74 Dems, but they did not have a common slogan or a contract or get their talking points on 8-track tapes from Speaker Carl Albert. The national issues put some wind in their sails, but they were mostly skilled local candidates who learned their own constituencies better than their opponents or predecessors.
How did they develop those skills? For many it was the energetic but failed campaigns of the previous years, George McGovern, Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy. For some it was experience in movements, the civil-rights movement, the consumer movement. And for some, like Representative Toby Moffett of Connecticut, their experience came from statewide grass-roots progressive organizations, the kind of organizations that are built not just to win elections but also to change the agenda.
So what are the lessons of the Class of 74 for the Class of 06? First, that good candidates, independent, straight-talking, hardworking, are more valuable in current circumstances than finding a common message or contract for them. Like the Class of 74, they need to get it, that is, understand the culture of corruption they are up against, that Democrats are an opposition party today, and that the political culture created by George W. Bush and Tom DeLay is not business as usual. They need to be willing to talk about the three big issues, which I would define as reform, economic security, and Iraq, but they dont all have to say the same thing. They have to say what they think, in a way that works with their constituents.
And second, that good candidates may not come from obvious places. Like Paul Hackett in Ohios special election last August, they may not be the names that appear first when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee looks for popular state legislators or local millionaires who can finance their own campaigns. Like Richard Morrison running against DeLay last year or like Clinton in 1974, they may appear in districts that would never be targeted by standard electoral math but where a great candidate can at the very least soften up the incumbent for the next fight. It is also a lesson to campaign contributors large and small: dont act like risk-minimizers, concentrating resources on a handful of targeted seats and discouraging challengers elsewhere, but taking the fight to as many districts as possible, an argument laid out in more detail by political scientists Jonathan Krasno and Donald Green recently.
Further, the Class of 74 offers an important lesson that candidate recruitment doesnt begin and end by creating organizations dedicated to candidate recruitment. Without movements like those of the late 60s and early 70s, and broad-based grass-roots groups in which individuals can find their way to leadership, such candidates will never appear. Building organizations that live beyond the election cycle will do far more in the long term to build back a congressional majority than even the most perfect slogan, frame, or contract.
I think Schmidt is on to something here. And read the article he links to at Ruy Teixeira's website. The only thing I'd add is that what this all points to is the need for Democrats to not only target every congressional race, but to contest every election at every level of government. What this does is help to ensure a steady supply of talent that can be recruited for higher offices, and it also serves to help show Democrats making government work. As the Democrats search for a unifying message and appeal for 2006, 1974, and our own party, seem a better fit than 1994's Contract on America.
Theres a mundane reason that the 1994 model wont work for Democrats in 2006, and it can be summed up in the numbers 53 and 18. Going into the 1994 election, Gingrich could identify 53 congressional districts whose voters had backed the first President Bush in 1992, even as he carried only 37 percent of the nationwide vote, while sending a Democrat to Congress. Many of these districts had been voting reliably for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and even Barry Goldwater while never quite shedding their allegiance to a local Democratic representative. What Gingrich did in nationalizing the election was to encourage voters to look at their Democratic representative in the light of their already established presidential preferences. Even before the Contract with America or the verbal stylings of pollster Frank Luntz, once Gingrich had candidates and a tide of hostility to Bill Clinton in the South and rural districts elsewhere, he had all the ingredients he needed.
Going into 2006, however, there are only 18 districts that went for John Kerry and also sent a Republican, often a moderate, to Congress. Many of those districts are ripe targets, and perhaps enough of those Republicans will fall to make moderate Republicans eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act (assuming their party hasnt succeeded in repealing it). But thats a very small window of transitional districts compared with Gingrichs opportunity.
Thats not to say Democrats cant win, but they wont do it solely by nationalizing the election in imitation of Gingrich. They will win as individuals in local races. It is not 1994 but 1974 that Democrats should be looking to as a model. That year brought 75 new Democrats to Washington. More than just a partisan shift, it brought a change in the style and approach of Democratic candidates and representatives. It is still easy to spot the politician who got his start in 1974 or shortly after, some were liberal, some less so, but most were very serious about policy. They had a national perspective but were diligent to a fault about constituent service, parades, local mayors, local problems. They understood that with a large and complicated federal government, a members role is not just to deliver pork but also to maneuver the system for peoples good. They were ready for C-SPAN, which arrived in the House four years after they did. They put out a press release a day. And they were generally reformist, although that impulse has waned over time. Above all, they got it, got that Congress was becoming a transparent institution, that reform was a core theme, that the executive branch was out of control.
(snip)
The Class of 74 Dems, by contrast (to 1994 and the Republicans), were not gate-crashers, rookies, or ideologues. Of the three Class of 74 Dems who remain in the House, George Miller of California, who last week forced the White House to back down on its plan to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act for Hurricane Katrina recovery, best exemplifies their pragmatic, intense, but liberal style, as do Tom Harkin and Chris Dodd in the Senate. Senator Chuck Schumer is the quintessential Class of 74 striver, but he won election to the New York state Senate that year, and needed to wait six more until a House seat opened. Bill Clinton, age 28, would have been in the Class of 74 had he won 6,000 more votes in his first race against a Republican who never faced a serious challenge before or since.
(snip)
The national issues of Watergate, reform, and Vietnam gave a common theme to the Class of 74 Dems, but they did not have a common slogan or a contract or get their talking points on 8-track tapes from Speaker Carl Albert. The national issues put some wind in their sails, but they were mostly skilled local candidates who learned their own constituencies better than their opponents or predecessors.
How did they develop those skills? For many it was the energetic but failed campaigns of the previous years, George McGovern, Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy. For some it was experience in movements, the civil-rights movement, the consumer movement. And for some, like Representative Toby Moffett of Connecticut, their experience came from statewide grass-roots progressive organizations, the kind of organizations that are built not just to win elections but also to change the agenda.
So what are the lessons of the Class of 74 for the Class of 06? First, that good candidates, independent, straight-talking, hardworking, are more valuable in current circumstances than finding a common message or contract for them. Like the Class of 74, they need to get it, that is, understand the culture of corruption they are up against, that Democrats are an opposition party today, and that the political culture created by George W. Bush and Tom DeLay is not business as usual. They need to be willing to talk about the three big issues, which I would define as reform, economic security, and Iraq, but they dont all have to say the same thing. They have to say what they think, in a way that works with their constituents.
And second, that good candidates may not come from obvious places. Like Paul Hackett in Ohios special election last August, they may not be the names that appear first when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee looks for popular state legislators or local millionaires who can finance their own campaigns. Like Richard Morrison running against DeLay last year or like Clinton in 1974, they may appear in districts that would never be targeted by standard electoral math but where a great candidate can at the very least soften up the incumbent for the next fight. It is also a lesson to campaign contributors large and small: dont act like risk-minimizers, concentrating resources on a handful of targeted seats and discouraging challengers elsewhere, but taking the fight to as many districts as possible, an argument laid out in more detail by political scientists Jonathan Krasno and Donald Green recently.
Further, the Class of 74 offers an important lesson that candidate recruitment doesnt begin and end by creating organizations dedicated to candidate recruitment. Without movements like those of the late 60s and early 70s, and broad-based grass-roots groups in which individuals can find their way to leadership, such candidates will never appear. Building organizations that live beyond the election cycle will do far more in the long term to build back a congressional majority than even the most perfect slogan, frame, or contract.
I think Schmidt is on to something here. And read the article he links to at Ruy Teixeira's website. The only thing I'd add is that what this all points to is the need for Democrats to not only target every congressional race, but to contest every election at every level of government. What this does is help to ensure a steady supply of talent that can be recruited for higher offices, and it also serves to help show Democrats making government work. As the Democrats search for a unifying message and appeal for 2006, 1974, and our own party, seem a better fit than 1994's Contract on America.
The Case Against Gay Marriage
Somebody posted this up on Craigslist, but I ripped it off from Approximately Perfect:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.
Is the Filibuster Good or Bad for Progressives?
I tend to agree with Scott at LGM that Scalito is filibuster-worthy, and I agree with the arguments of those who say that as long as the filibuster is available for Democrats to use, they shouldn't be intimidated by Republicans or the press from exercising their right to use it. Even if it results in Republicans unleashing the Nuclear Option to defeat it.
But I'm not so sure I agree with Big Media Matt that Democrats should feel free to invoke the filibuster in an effort to make Republicans do, what will in effect, put the end to filibustering any and all legislation or appointments.
The filibuster is bad. In the long run, the aspects of the U.S. Constitution that make it hard to enact legislation favor conservatism. On any given day, of course, either side may be helped. At the moment, the Democrats are in the minority so filibusters let them do useful things. But over the long haul, a more parliamentary system would advantage liberals.Breaking the rules is also bad. This, at the end of the day, is what the nuclear option comes down to: not changing the filibuster rule, but violating some other procedural rules in order to change the filibuster rule.
The seven Republican members of the gang are engaging in shameful acts of political blackmail. If they think the Senate rules shouldn't be violated, they should stand against efforts to violate them, not go around striking compromises.
Last, Judge Alito is bad. Since filibusters are, under the current rules, permitted, Democrats may as well use them to stop bad things from happening.
All that being said, the worst possible outcome here is one in which moderate Democrats allow Alito on to the bench in order to preserve the filibuster -- a re-run, in other words, of the original "Gang of 14" deal. If Alito winds up on the Supreme Court, the best possible way for that to happen would be a way that also eliminates the filibuster rule. If the filibuster rule is to be maintained, then the best possible way for that to happen would be one that keeps bad judges off the bench.
I'm not as comfortable as Matt is that the filibuster is a damn holding back the tide of progressive politics. Certainly it was used to obstruct civil rights for many years, a not insignificant outcome where people's lives in the south were concerned.
But consider this list of (proposed) Constitutional Amendments posted over at Washington Monthly.
Progressives are fortunate that the liberalization of the Supreme Court has ensured that the worst of these measures haven't been able to clear the normal legislative process. But a more conservative court (and obviously the Alito nomination is relevant here) might enable Congress to act outside of the Constitutional Amendment process on matters such as flag-burning, school prayer, the income tax, and gay marriage. Should that day come, and it's certainly not beyond the realm of comprehension, the filibuster would come in handy.
So while I'm not opposed to filibustering court nominees, and this nominee (Scalito) in particular, doing it as a means to end the filibuster outright I believe is short-sighted. But might it, as Matt suggests, nevertheless work for progressives in the long run to get rid of the filibuster? Perhaps. But in the short-run, if the tenor of our current political environment is any indication, the lack of the filibuster could be catastrophic for human rights and national progress.
But I'm not so sure I agree with Big Media Matt that Democrats should feel free to invoke the filibuster in an effort to make Republicans do, what will in effect, put the end to filibustering any and all legislation or appointments.
The filibuster is bad. In the long run, the aspects of the U.S. Constitution that make it hard to enact legislation favor conservatism. On any given day, of course, either side may be helped. At the moment, the Democrats are in the minority so filibusters let them do useful things. But over the long haul, a more parliamentary system would advantage liberals.Breaking the rules is also bad. This, at the end of the day, is what the nuclear option comes down to: not changing the filibuster rule, but violating some other procedural rules in order to change the filibuster rule.
The seven Republican members of the gang are engaging in shameful acts of political blackmail. If they think the Senate rules shouldn't be violated, they should stand against efforts to violate them, not go around striking compromises.
Last, Judge Alito is bad. Since filibusters are, under the current rules, permitted, Democrats may as well use them to stop bad things from happening.
All that being said, the worst possible outcome here is one in which moderate Democrats allow Alito on to the bench in order to preserve the filibuster -- a re-run, in other words, of the original "Gang of 14" deal. If Alito winds up on the Supreme Court, the best possible way for that to happen would be a way that also eliminates the filibuster rule. If the filibuster rule is to be maintained, then the best possible way for that to happen would be one that keeps bad judges off the bench.
I'm not as comfortable as Matt is that the filibuster is a damn holding back the tide of progressive politics. Certainly it was used to obstruct civil rights for many years, a not insignificant outcome where people's lives in the south were concerned.
But consider this list of (proposed) Constitutional Amendments posted over at Washington Monthly.
Progressives are fortunate that the liberalization of the Supreme Court has ensured that the worst of these measures haven't been able to clear the normal legislative process. But a more conservative court (and obviously the Alito nomination is relevant here) might enable Congress to act outside of the Constitutional Amendment process on matters such as flag-burning, school prayer, the income tax, and gay marriage. Should that day come, and it's certainly not beyond the realm of comprehension, the filibuster would come in handy.
So while I'm not opposed to filibustering court nominees, and this nominee (Scalito) in particular, doing it as a means to end the filibuster outright I believe is short-sighted. But might it, as Matt suggests, nevertheless work for progressives in the long run to get rid of the filibuster? Perhaps. But in the short-run, if the tenor of our current political environment is any indication, the lack of the filibuster could be catastrophic for human rights and national progress.
I Love It When She's Angry
Amanda from Pandagon layeth the smacketh down on uber-conservative columnist John Leo and "spousal notification". (Leo's comments are in italics).
Can I just one more time point out that I love the way that Townhall columnists always feel the need to modify the word "feminist" and/or use the word "feminist" as a modifier? It's a tacit acceptance that most people don't have women's rights nearly as much as they do, so they have to spook up the word some.
Alito stands accused of patriarchal overreach and making it possible for outraged and abusive husbands to attack their wives. Planned Parenthood called Alito’s vote “callous disregard of battered women.” Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said much the same thing in a blog, and the criticism spread rapidly on the left. A woman writing in the Philadelphia Daily News said Alito’s vote in the case proved he is “dangerously radical.”
Silly feminists. Don't you know that it's not your job to determine when the patriarchy is overreaching? The patriarchy will tell you when it's overreaching and in this case, it's investigated itself and found itself innocent.
Yet this attack is all wrong on the facts. There was no callous disregard for women. Alito wrote in the 1991 decision that “the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern.”
Of course, that's not enough to satisfy those greedy bitches on the feminist left. What the hell do you women want? The man said he felt bad for women that he intends to send home to get beat by their husbands for daring to get pregnant--in the old days, they wouldn't have done abused women the favor of pretending to care but just laughed in their faces.
Oh, you want protection against male violence? Well, the patriarchy says that's just too fucking bad.
The law he was scrutinizing had an exception for the danger of abuse by the husband. The law did not require spousal notification if the abortion was a medical emergency, if the father couldn’t be located, if the spouse was not the father, if the pregnancy was caused by sexual assault, or if the woman believed bodily injury would result from telling her husband about the coming abortion.
Luckily, there's no judges sitting on benches that are unsympathetic to a woman's worries about being hurt--oh, I'm sorry. What's that you yipping hysterical feminists are saying? That women's concerns about violence are ignored all the fucking time and often with tragic results?
Well, no matter. A few dead or battered women is the price the patriarchy feels comfortable paying to make sure that men feel within their legal rights to lay claim to their wives' bodies.
The spousal notification provision passed the legislature with major support from both parties and was signed into law by a Democratic governor, Robert Casey.
And according to the rules written by Republicans for everyone else to follow, feminists are not allowed to criticize male dominance if any Democrat ever has supported it.
Can I just one more time point out that I love the way that Townhall columnists always feel the need to modify the word "feminist" and/or use the word "feminist" as a modifier? It's a tacit acceptance that most people don't have women's rights nearly as much as they do, so they have to spook up the word some.
Alito stands accused of patriarchal overreach and making it possible for outraged and abusive husbands to attack their wives. Planned Parenthood called Alito’s vote “callous disregard of battered women.” Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said much the same thing in a blog, and the criticism spread rapidly on the left. A woman writing in the Philadelphia Daily News said Alito’s vote in the case proved he is “dangerously radical.”
Silly feminists. Don't you know that it's not your job to determine when the patriarchy is overreaching? The patriarchy will tell you when it's overreaching and in this case, it's investigated itself and found itself innocent.
Yet this attack is all wrong on the facts. There was no callous disregard for women. Alito wrote in the 1991 decision that “the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern.”
Of course, that's not enough to satisfy those greedy bitches on the feminist left. What the hell do you women want? The man said he felt bad for women that he intends to send home to get beat by their husbands for daring to get pregnant--in the old days, they wouldn't have done abused women the favor of pretending to care but just laughed in their faces.
Oh, you want protection against male violence? Well, the patriarchy says that's just too fucking bad.
The law he was scrutinizing had an exception for the danger of abuse by the husband. The law did not require spousal notification if the abortion was a medical emergency, if the father couldn’t be located, if the spouse was not the father, if the pregnancy was caused by sexual assault, or if the woman believed bodily injury would result from telling her husband about the coming abortion.
Luckily, there's no judges sitting on benches that are unsympathetic to a woman's worries about being hurt--oh, I'm sorry. What's that you yipping hysterical feminists are saying? That women's concerns about violence are ignored all the fucking time and often with tragic results?
Well, no matter. A few dead or battered women is the price the patriarchy feels comfortable paying to make sure that men feel within their legal rights to lay claim to their wives' bodies.
The spousal notification provision passed the legislature with major support from both parties and was signed into law by a Democratic governor, Robert Casey.
And according to the rules written by Republicans for everyone else to follow, feminists are not allowed to criticize male dominance if any Democrat ever has supported it.
MMQB
Yesterday was a great day for my pick selections. I got 9 out of 13. Of the 4 I missed, only the Bengals-Ravens game was way off. I picked SD to cover against the Jets (6.5), KC to cover against the Raiders (4.5), and the Bears to cover against the Saints (3).
Anyway, on the games.
Eagles 10
Skins 17
First win by the Skins over the Eagles in four years, but it shouldn't have been this close. Dallas and Denver have ripped the Phily defense. The Eagles can't run the ball, they don't run the ball, McNabb has been playing with something called a sports hernia, and oh yeah, no TO. And even at that, the Skins needed a couple of McNabb miscues to hold on.
Raiders 23
Chiefs 27
Great call by Vermeil at the end to run it in rather than kick the field goal and go for the tie. But not really a surprising one. The ball was at the one and a half inch line. Yet the CBS announcers were saying "it'll be a pass...it'll be a pass...look for a pass". Why?
Giants 24
SF 6
A closer game than anyone expected as the niner's kept it close for most of the game.
Panthers 34
Bucs 14
Carolina looking like the team to beat in the NFC.
Bengals 21
Ravens 6
I expected Baltimore to come out on fire in this game after last Monday night's performance against the Steelers, but they didn't. I thought the Bengals got a really bad officiating call on a pass from Palmer into the endzone that looked like a TD, but was overturned on review. So the outcome could have been even worse.
Steelers 20
Pack 10
The line on this game went from 6 to 3 when the news of Rothlesberger's not playing became known. But the Steelers are a running team, which they did a lot of yesterday. Duce Staley, playing for practically the first time all season, looks to be about as big as The Bus.
Chargers 31
Jets 26
Chargers had a big lead then let it slip away as the Jets put a scare into the them in the final seconds. Vinny was on the bench, Brook Bollinger played and appeared to do very well. LT had four touchdowns (after the ESPN radio crew spent the morning ripping Schottenheimer for not running him more).
Next Week: Skins at Tampa and Ravens at Jaguars. I was more confident of Washington's changes before last night. The Jaguars are probably a lot better than the Ravens, but because they don't score much, this game should be close.
Anyway, on the games.
Eagles 10
Skins 17
First win by the Skins over the Eagles in four years, but it shouldn't have been this close. Dallas and Denver have ripped the Phily defense. The Eagles can't run the ball, they don't run the ball, McNabb has been playing with something called a sports hernia, and oh yeah, no TO. And even at that, the Skins needed a couple of McNabb miscues to hold on.
Raiders 23
Chiefs 27
Great call by Vermeil at the end to run it in rather than kick the field goal and go for the tie. But not really a surprising one. The ball was at the one and a half inch line. Yet the CBS announcers were saying "it'll be a pass...it'll be a pass...look for a pass". Why?
Giants 24
SF 6
A closer game than anyone expected as the niner's kept it close for most of the game.
Panthers 34
Bucs 14
Carolina looking like the team to beat in the NFC.
Bengals 21
Ravens 6
I expected Baltimore to come out on fire in this game after last Monday night's performance against the Steelers, but they didn't. I thought the Bengals got a really bad officiating call on a pass from Palmer into the endzone that looked like a TD, but was overturned on review. So the outcome could have been even worse.
Steelers 20
Pack 10
The line on this game went from 6 to 3 when the news of Rothlesberger's not playing became known. But the Steelers are a running team, which they did a lot of yesterday. Duce Staley, playing for practically the first time all season, looks to be about as big as The Bus.
Chargers 31
Jets 26
Chargers had a big lead then let it slip away as the Jets put a scare into the them in the final seconds. Vinny was on the bench, Brook Bollinger played and appeared to do very well. LT had four touchdowns (after the ESPN radio crew spent the morning ripping Schottenheimer for not running him more).
Next Week: Skins at Tampa and Ravens at Jaguars. I was more confident of Washington's changes before last night. The Jaguars are probably a lot better than the Ravens, but because they don't score much, this game should be close.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Partisan Democrats?
The Yellow Dog Democrat has two very good pieces analyzing the partisanship of Republican voting in the U.S. Senate.
The first is here:
Today's follow-up is here:
The bottom line is that for all the Republicans' bellyaching this week about Harry Reid's shutdown maneuver, the Republican Senate--including its supposedly moderate wing--has given Democrats absolutely zilch in the way of bipartisan cooperation. 80% of Democratic sponsored bills--many of them amendments--have been swatted down by the Republican majority, and most with near unanimous Republican solidarity.
The YDD derives from this that Republicans don't have anything to bitch about when it comes to "bipartisanship" or "cooperation" or "courtesy".
What I draw from these statistics, in addition, is that the so-called "moderate" group of Republicans is a myth. They may talk a good game, occasionally, about wanting to hold the administration accountable or of wanting to do good by the American people, but their voting undermines their claims. You might want to remember the pattern of voting among "moderate" Republican senators when Chuck Hagel and John McCain come calling for independent and Democratic votes in 2008.
Thanks to MahaBlog for the link.
The first is here:
Today's follow-up is here:
The bottom line is that for all the Republicans' bellyaching this week about Harry Reid's shutdown maneuver, the Republican Senate--including its supposedly moderate wing--has given Democrats absolutely zilch in the way of bipartisan cooperation. 80% of Democratic sponsored bills--many of them amendments--have been swatted down by the Republican majority, and most with near unanimous Republican solidarity.
The YDD derives from this that Republicans don't have anything to bitch about when it comes to "bipartisanship" or "cooperation" or "courtesy".
What I draw from these statistics, in addition, is that the so-called "moderate" group of Republicans is a myth. They may talk a good game, occasionally, about wanting to hold the administration accountable or of wanting to do good by the American people, but their voting undermines their claims. You might want to remember the pattern of voting among "moderate" Republican senators when Chuck Hagel and John McCain come calling for independent and Democratic votes in 2008.
Thanks to MahaBlog for the link.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Don't Forget C-Span
Although Harry Reid got the attention earlier this week when he shut down the Senate in protest over Republican foot-dragging on the Intelligence Committee's WMD-White House investigation, House Democrats have also been keeping the heat on.
On the night of Rule 21, four House Democrats, Tim Ryan (OH), William Delahunt (MA) and two reps from Florida (Debbie Shultz Wasserman and Kendrick Meek) let it rip. Picking up where Reid left off, the four let loose on Rove, Scooter, Cheney and the cabal's lies and failures. Tim Ryan was the best.
Tonight the same tandem was at it again, this time reading from the Michael Brown's greatest hits email trail.
With the dominance of the right wing media it sometimes feels as if Democrats are nowhere to be seen or heard, and have been intimidated into silence. But at least some aren't afraid and haven't mailed it in.
So when you get a chance, tune into C-Span at night, after hours. And remember to show these reps some love, too. Harry Reid was great this week, but others are helping, too.
On the night of Rule 21, four House Democrats, Tim Ryan (OH), William Delahunt (MA) and two reps from Florida (Debbie Shultz Wasserman and Kendrick Meek) let it rip. Picking up where Reid left off, the four let loose on Rove, Scooter, Cheney and the cabal's lies and failures. Tim Ryan was the best.
Tonight the same tandem was at it again, this time reading from the Michael Brown's greatest hits email trail.
With the dominance of the right wing media it sometimes feels as if Democrats are nowhere to be seen or heard, and have been intimidated into silence. But at least some aren't afraid and haven't mailed it in.
So when you get a chance, tune into C-Span at night, after hours. And remember to show these reps some love, too. Harry Reid was great this week, but others are helping, too.
Could Evan Bayh Win Indiana's Electoral Votes?
LA Democrat at MyDD assumes he can.
I'm not so sure. Yes, he's won his gubernatorial and Senate races there handily. But having those same voters choose him for the presidency, where they could reasonably assume his views--if more liberal than their own--would have more importance, give me pause. And his Republican competition would be much steeper in a presidential race than the state level.
Nevertheless, his prospects in that state, and in other proximate or border states (Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky) are probably better in those places than those any other candidate, at least on paper.
And while we're a million years from 2008, Bush's poll numbers are down everywhere, including these states, giving this Democrat at least a sliver of hope the Democratic candidate can pry one or more of those states away from the Republicans in 2008.
Bayh is also making himself seen. C-Span carried a speech he gave recently for New Hampshire's Democratic-sponsored, Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraiser, which was at least the second time he's been in the state, or at least the second time C-Span carried his presence there in the last couple of months.
At the same time, Joe Biden and John Edwards, appeared to appreciative crowds recently in Kentucky.
With beseiged and unpopular governors in Ohio and Kentucky, Republicans are on the defensive there.
Naturally, there's a lot of time left for Bush to regain his second-term footing, and even if he doesn't fully recapture his previous aura among the faithful, another Republican candidate in 08 may reignite conservatives. And Kentucky's Fletcher and Ohio's Taft will be gone by then.
But its better to have favorable indicators at even this early stage than to not have them.
I'm not so sure. Yes, he's won his gubernatorial and Senate races there handily. But having those same voters choose him for the presidency, where they could reasonably assume his views--if more liberal than their own--would have more importance, give me pause. And his Republican competition would be much steeper in a presidential race than the state level.
Nevertheless, his prospects in that state, and in other proximate or border states (Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky) are probably better in those places than those any other candidate, at least on paper.
And while we're a million years from 2008, Bush's poll numbers are down everywhere, including these states, giving this Democrat at least a sliver of hope the Democratic candidate can pry one or more of those states away from the Republicans in 2008.
Bayh is also making himself seen. C-Span carried a speech he gave recently for New Hampshire's Democratic-sponsored, Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraiser, which was at least the second time he's been in the state, or at least the second time C-Span carried his presence there in the last couple of months.
At the same time, Joe Biden and John Edwards, appeared to appreciative crowds recently in Kentucky.
With beseiged and unpopular governors in Ohio and Kentucky, Republicans are on the defensive there.
Naturally, there's a lot of time left for Bush to regain his second-term footing, and even if he doesn't fully recapture his previous aura among the faithful, another Republican candidate in 08 may reignite conservatives. And Kentucky's Fletcher and Ohio's Taft will be gone by then.
But its better to have favorable indicators at even this early stage than to not have them.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Bombshell
Harry Reid has effectively shut down the Senate, using a procedure known as Rule 21, which requires only a seconding motion to summon all the Senators to a behind-close-doors session, to call Republicans to task over the Plame outing, the Scooter Libby indictment, and the war fiasco. In particular, Reid is calling the Republican leadership and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts to task for not following through on their stated commitment to conduct a phase 2 investigation of the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
And he's blistering the administration on just about everything, from the war to Katrina and the prison abuse scandal.
Republicans were just starting to bask in the idea, and the media's acceptance of their spin, that the Libby indictment meant the end of the CIA-leak investigation ("there was no crime...only one indictment...Libby just one bad apple...nothing to see hear, please disperse and move along") and that with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers and the subsequent nomination of radical conservative Sam Alito, the conservatives were back in charge again. Well, they may be in charge, but Harry Reid is turning up the heat.
Republican leaders, conditioned by past Democratic acquiescence, are shocked, SHOCKED by the sudden spine growth:
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."
In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.
As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.
The Republicans are upset. What happened to "courtesy and consent"? Boo hoo hoo. And the Media was caught without its Republican talking points.
"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
---Harry S. Truman (Reid)
And he's blistering the administration on just about everything, from the war to Katrina and the prison abuse scandal.
Republicans were just starting to bask in the idea, and the media's acceptance of their spin, that the Libby indictment meant the end of the CIA-leak investigation ("there was no crime...only one indictment...Libby just one bad apple...nothing to see hear, please disperse and move along") and that with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers and the subsequent nomination of radical conservative Sam Alito, the conservatives were back in charge again. Well, they may be in charge, but Harry Reid is turning up the heat.
Republican leaders, conditioned by past Democratic acquiescence, are shocked, SHOCKED by the sudden spine growth:
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."
In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.
As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.
The Republicans are upset. What happened to "courtesy and consent"? Boo hoo hoo. And the Media was caught without its Republican talking points.
"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
---Harry S. Truman (Reid)
Scalito: A Filibuster-Worth Pick?
Democrats will soon have to consider whether the nomination of Sam "Scalito" warrants a filibuster to stop.
What are the main factors that should influence such a decision?
I think the factors break down between the practical and the principled.
The practical factors, of course, are whether the filibuster would be successful, both in its immediate impact on defeating Scalito, and on its deterrent effect in persuading Bush to nominate a more moderate jurist. A secondary practical factor is that of whether the party risks opposition from the conservative press, and public opinion for Democratic Senators in red states, by filibustering.
Principled factors include the party's long term policy agenda and ideological beliefs. Other principled factors could include the historical application of the filibuster to supreme court picks by a minority party, the Democratic Party's past support for "Scalito" and other conservative nominees, both under the current administration, and in past decades--such as the well-trumpeted (by conservatives) unanimous support for Scalia in the 1980's.
From a practical standpoint, I think a filibuster would fail. The Republicans would initiate the nuclear option. The conservative press, which is already trying to force an easy confirmation, would be hostile (witness the early antics of Tweety).
But if "Scalito" warrants a filibuster, I believe Democrats should go to the mattresses, anyway.
This is because while it's immediate practical implications might be negative, it would help, if not force, Democrats to finally confront the Constitutional issues that underly its opposition, thus serving to help distinguish itself from the radical conservatives heading the Republican Party.
As for any rhetoric from conservatives in the media that "it's unprecedented to filibuster" judicial nominees, and that Democrats risk appearing unprincipled, if not inconsistent, in approving past conservative appointments but opposing this one, let me just say this about that: That was then, this is now. The rules have changed. And the Republicans have changed them. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson point out in their book, Off Center, the Republican Power Elite has spent the last 20 years skewing the rules of politics to the benefit of themselves and their privileged supporters. Democrats should not feel obligated to play by old rules that the media wants applied only to the Democratic Party. If the filibuster is a tool remaining in the political arsenal, Democrats should not hesitate to use it.
As for the risk a Democratic led filibuster could cause for the next Democratic Administration or Democratic Senate, do you think the next Republican Congress in an Evan Bayh or Joe Biden administration is going to play nicely regardless of how the Democrats treat Scalito?
It's time that Democrats recognized their status as the minority party. As Hacker and Pierson point out, Democrats are a congressional minority in part due to the biases inherent in a system that apportions Senate votes equally to all the states, minimizing the influence of larger states with big cities (in fact, as the authors point out, the Democratic share of the vote in both the House and the Senate is higher than its representation), and in part due to the influence of redistricting in the House. Neither institutional constraint is going away anytime soon. The Democrats face a long road ahead. One of the ways to start the path back to power is to set out for all to see, what the party stands for. The Scalito nomination seems as good a place as any to start.
What are the main factors that should influence such a decision?
I think the factors break down between the practical and the principled.
The practical factors, of course, are whether the filibuster would be successful, both in its immediate impact on defeating Scalito, and on its deterrent effect in persuading Bush to nominate a more moderate jurist. A secondary practical factor is that of whether the party risks opposition from the conservative press, and public opinion for Democratic Senators in red states, by filibustering.
Principled factors include the party's long term policy agenda and ideological beliefs. Other principled factors could include the historical application of the filibuster to supreme court picks by a minority party, the Democratic Party's past support for "Scalito" and other conservative nominees, both under the current administration, and in past decades--such as the well-trumpeted (by conservatives) unanimous support for Scalia in the 1980's.
From a practical standpoint, I think a filibuster would fail. The Republicans would initiate the nuclear option. The conservative press, which is already trying to force an easy confirmation, would be hostile (witness the early antics of Tweety).
But if "Scalito" warrants a filibuster, I believe Democrats should go to the mattresses, anyway.
This is because while it's immediate practical implications might be negative, it would help, if not force, Democrats to finally confront the Constitutional issues that underly its opposition, thus serving to help distinguish itself from the radical conservatives heading the Republican Party.
As for any rhetoric from conservatives in the media that "it's unprecedented to filibuster" judicial nominees, and that Democrats risk appearing unprincipled, if not inconsistent, in approving past conservative appointments but opposing this one, let me just say this about that: That was then, this is now. The rules have changed. And the Republicans have changed them. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson point out in their book, Off Center, the Republican Power Elite has spent the last 20 years skewing the rules of politics to the benefit of themselves and their privileged supporters. Democrats should not feel obligated to play by old rules that the media wants applied only to the Democratic Party. If the filibuster is a tool remaining in the political arsenal, Democrats should not hesitate to use it.
As for the risk a Democratic led filibuster could cause for the next Democratic Administration or Democratic Senate, do you think the next Republican Congress in an Evan Bayh or Joe Biden administration is going to play nicely regardless of how the Democrats treat Scalito?
It's time that Democrats recognized their status as the minority party. As Hacker and Pierson point out, Democrats are a congressional minority in part due to the biases inherent in a system that apportions Senate votes equally to all the states, minimizing the influence of larger states with big cities (in fact, as the authors point out, the Democratic share of the vote in both the House and the Senate is higher than its representation), and in part due to the influence of redistricting in the House. Neither institutional constraint is going away anytime soon. The Democrats face a long road ahead. One of the ways to start the path back to power is to set out for all to see, what the party stands for. The Scalito nomination seems as good a place as any to start.
Scalito: Anti-Worker
Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe has the rundown on "Scalito's" anti-worker opinions while on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
It says a lot about the state of our nation's politics that not only is this the type of judge that could be nominated to the highest court in the land, but that there is a not insignificant portion of the body politic that views such a nomination with gusto.
And that the Democratic Party has not put forth a clear and concerted effort in recent years to repudiate the type of policies and the underlying philosophy that's represented by this pick is of even greater worry.
It says a lot about the state of our nation's politics that not only is this the type of judge that could be nominated to the highest court in the land, but that there is a not insignificant portion of the body politic that views such a nomination with gusto.
And that the Democratic Party has not put forth a clear and concerted effort in recent years to repudiate the type of policies and the underlying philosophy that's represented by this pick is of even greater worry.
An Interesting Ad
I saw an interesting political campaign ad over the weekend. It was targeted against Robert McDonnell, the Republican candidate for Virginia Attorney General, whose own ads I had already seen (and which, like this one, didn't openly identify his partisan affiliation).
Anyway, the ad reported that McDonnell was a graduate of Pat Roberton's Regent University, that Robertson had donated to McDonnell's campaign, and that McDonnell was opposed to, among other things, stem cell research (he's also, apparently, and not surprisingly, quite the homophobe).
Anyway, the ad interested me because it was the first ad I can recall seeing in a long time that openly took on the Republicans' achiles heel: the radical religious right.
Now, granted, I suspect this ad was restricted to the northern VA suburbs, and not playing down south, where Robertson, and his buddy, Jerry Falwell, are more revered.
And I don't enough about the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Creigh Deeds', to know whether this is an act of desperation, a throw-away tactic for northern VA and not part of a broader strategy, or something else.
Regardless, it's an important step for Democratic aspirants to make. Not all Republicans can be tied to Pat Robertson so directly, but Democrats can raise the issues this ad is raising, such as stem cell research, and turn the infamous problem of wedge issues against Republicans for a change.
I'd also like to see this tactic used to raise the profile of issues like the right to privacy, and the separation of church and state, which are not only critically important issues to our society as the politics of supreme court nominations make abundantly clear, but also from a practical standpoint in that I think the radically conservative position on these issues is not the popular one.
Anyway, the ad reported that McDonnell was a graduate of Pat Roberton's Regent University, that Robertson had donated to McDonnell's campaign, and that McDonnell was opposed to, among other things, stem cell research (he's also, apparently, and not surprisingly, quite the homophobe).
Anyway, the ad interested me because it was the first ad I can recall seeing in a long time that openly took on the Republicans' achiles heel: the radical religious right.
Now, granted, I suspect this ad was restricted to the northern VA suburbs, and not playing down south, where Robertson, and his buddy, Jerry Falwell, are more revered.
And I don't enough about the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Creigh Deeds', to know whether this is an act of desperation, a throw-away tactic for northern VA and not part of a broader strategy, or something else.
Regardless, it's an important step for Democratic aspirants to make. Not all Republicans can be tied to Pat Robertson so directly, but Democrats can raise the issues this ad is raising, such as stem cell research, and turn the infamous problem of wedge issues against Republicans for a change.
I'd also like to see this tactic used to raise the profile of issues like the right to privacy, and the separation of church and state, which are not only critically important issues to our society as the politics of supreme court nominations make abundantly clear, but also from a practical standpoint in that I think the radically conservative position on these issues is not the popular one.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Hittin' the Books
In addition to working on my dissertation proposal, I've been hitting Borders/Amazon far too much lately.
But I think there are some real soon-to-be-destined classics out there begging to be read. Last week I got Off Center by Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker as well as The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz.
Yesterday, I picked up Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals, as well as The Third Reich in Power by Richard Evans. This last book is apparently the second of a planned trilogy on the rise and fall of the Nazi's.
All four seem to be well written. Off Center is the shortest by far of the four and I am the furthest along in it. I hope to be done with it soon, and to have a book report of it up here shortly.
For now, happy reading.
But I think there are some real soon-to-be-destined classics out there begging to be read. Last week I got Off Center by Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker as well as The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz.
Yesterday, I picked up Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals, as well as The Third Reich in Power by Richard Evans. This last book is apparently the second of a planned trilogy on the rise and fall of the Nazi's.
All four seem to be well written. Off Center is the shortest by far of the four and I am the furthest along in it. I hope to be done with it soon, and to have a book report of it up here shortly.
For now, happy reading.
MMQ
Skins 0
NYFootball Giants 36
A brutal, brutal loss for the Redskins. A terrible performance. Fortunately I was out running errands and didn't see any of the game. But here's the thing. The rest of the Skins schedule doesn't look too bad. This was destined to be one of the season's worst games. Next week the Skins HOST the Eagles, who were beaten badly in Dallas three weeks ago, and yesterday, at Denver, 49-21, and last week they barely survived on a blocked kick to beat SD (at home). From there, the Skins go to Tampa, which doesn't have a starting quarterback, host Oakland and San Diego, host the Giants, go to Arizona, go to the St. Louis Rams, and wind up the season at the Eagles. These are all winnable games for Washington, as long as the injuries that appear to be piling up don't deplete them too much.
Eagles 21
Broncos 49
Great game if you hate the Eagles (or any other NFC East team). Actually more interesting than the score might reflect. Broncos went ahead 28-0, rushing everything they had at Donovan McNabb and daring the Eagles to run, which they don't do much of. The Eagles came back with 21 straight points and we're threatening to tie the game up before Denver intercepted a pass in the end zone, triggering another Denver run. The Broncos got some big plays from RB Tatum Bell, the most recent of a long list of runners who have done well in Shanahan's offense. Jake the Snake played smart, too. Everyone's talking about Indy in the AFC given their perfect start, but Denver is creeping up, ready and waiting if Indy slips at New England next week.
Vikes 13
Panthers 38
Vikes get pounded again. And oh yeah, Daunte Culpepper is hurt, and might be out the rest of the year.
Dolphins 21
Saints 6
Jim Haslet will no doubt be joining Mike Tice on the coaches unemployment line this offseason.
Cardinals 13
Dallas 34
Dallas can put up some points. If the Skins don't rebound, I look for either the Cowboys or the Giants to win the NFC East.
Baltimore tonight
Pittsburgh
Ravens are without defensive superstars, Ed Reed and Ray Lewis. But they will have either Kyle Boller or Anthony Wright at quarterback. This could be ugly.
NYFootball Giants 36
A brutal, brutal loss for the Redskins. A terrible performance. Fortunately I was out running errands and didn't see any of the game. But here's the thing. The rest of the Skins schedule doesn't look too bad. This was destined to be one of the season's worst games. Next week the Skins HOST the Eagles, who were beaten badly in Dallas three weeks ago, and yesterday, at Denver, 49-21, and last week they barely survived on a blocked kick to beat SD (at home). From there, the Skins go to Tampa, which doesn't have a starting quarterback, host Oakland and San Diego, host the Giants, go to Arizona, go to the St. Louis Rams, and wind up the season at the Eagles. These are all winnable games for Washington, as long as the injuries that appear to be piling up don't deplete them too much.
Eagles 21
Broncos 49
Great game if you hate the Eagles (or any other NFC East team). Actually more interesting than the score might reflect. Broncos went ahead 28-0, rushing everything they had at Donovan McNabb and daring the Eagles to run, which they don't do much of. The Eagles came back with 21 straight points and we're threatening to tie the game up before Denver intercepted a pass in the end zone, triggering another Denver run. The Broncos got some big plays from RB Tatum Bell, the most recent of a long list of runners who have done well in Shanahan's offense. Jake the Snake played smart, too. Everyone's talking about Indy in the AFC given their perfect start, but Denver is creeping up, ready and waiting if Indy slips at New England next week.
Vikes 13
Panthers 38
Vikes get pounded again. And oh yeah, Daunte Culpepper is hurt, and might be out the rest of the year.
Dolphins 21
Saints 6
Jim Haslet will no doubt be joining Mike Tice on the coaches unemployment line this offseason.
Cardinals 13
Dallas 34
Dallas can put up some points. If the Skins don't rebound, I look for either the Cowboys or the Giants to win the NFC East.
Baltimore tonight
Pittsburgh
Ravens are without defensive superstars, Ed Reed and Ray Lewis. But they will have either Kyle Boller or Anthony Wright at quarterback. This could be ugly.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Budget Deficits and Social Security Red Herings
In my last post I referred to a David Broder op-ed column that referenced a speech by Maya MacGuineas of the New American Foundation, delivered at a DLC conference. In it, Maya argued that in the face of the country's budget problems, Democrats need to step forward with bipartisan-like solutions, such as the willingness to whack Social Security benefits for future retirees.
Among the dumb ideas parroted by the DLC and like-minded "centrists", this the-budget-deficit-means-we-need-to-cut-Social Security line is close to the worst, in both logic and ultimate effect.
Social Security is running a surplus, and has been for the last two decades. Around 2018, annual benefit payouts from the program will begin to exceed incoming payroll taxes, although the program will still have interest payments due from the general budget fund as the result of the lending by Social Security of its annual surpluses to the general budget since the 1980's. And as everyone knows, Social Security's Trust Fund will become exhausted in or around 2042. That's a pretty long time off, and the date is likely to be continually pushed further out as new economic and demographic assumptions are configured into the Social Security actuary's logorithms.
In any event, since 2042 is a long way off, conservatives have tried to make a big whoop to do about the fact that between 2018 and 2042, the federal government will have to pay back what it's borrowed from Social Security, putting a strain on the rest of the budget. In this doomsday scenario, taxes would have to be raised, spending on other programs cut, or more money borrowed.
Well.
Before you get suckered into that spin, consider the fact that the current budget deficit is in the neighborhood of $400 billion per year. This means the federal budget is right now in exactly the same situation as it would be in the years between 2018 and 2042, give or take a couple hundred billion dollars. So, if conservatives want to be worried about budget deficits in 2018 and beyond, why aren't they upset about them now? And if conservatives were concerned about the retirement of the baby boomers and the needs of an aging population, then maybe they shouldn't have cut taxes as much as they did, and as much as they would like to do by extending the 2001-2004 tax cuts. So when conservatives talk about the looming fiscal problems set to begin around 2018, tell them that yes, it' s a crisis allright, but it's a budget crisis, not a Social Security crisis.
In short, don't be fooled by this shell game. Republicans are doing the same thing they did in the 1980's--cut marginal tax rates and tax revenue dramatically, increase defense spending, explode the deficit, and then blame Democrats and the social safety net of domestic spending programs for the sudden "budget crisis". And so now people like Maya MacGuineas want us to throw Social Security under the bus, hoping we'll be confused by the shell game the Republicans and organizations like hers have been playing.
Social Security is not the problem. It's the taxes and the defense spending (and the war), stupid.
Among the dumb ideas parroted by the DLC and like-minded "centrists", this the-budget-deficit-means-we-need-to-cut-Social Security line is close to the worst, in both logic and ultimate effect.
Social Security is running a surplus, and has been for the last two decades. Around 2018, annual benefit payouts from the program will begin to exceed incoming payroll taxes, although the program will still have interest payments due from the general budget fund as the result of the lending by Social Security of its annual surpluses to the general budget since the 1980's. And as everyone knows, Social Security's Trust Fund will become exhausted in or around 2042. That's a pretty long time off, and the date is likely to be continually pushed further out as new economic and demographic assumptions are configured into the Social Security actuary's logorithms.
In any event, since 2042 is a long way off, conservatives have tried to make a big whoop to do about the fact that between 2018 and 2042, the federal government will have to pay back what it's borrowed from Social Security, putting a strain on the rest of the budget. In this doomsday scenario, taxes would have to be raised, spending on other programs cut, or more money borrowed.
Well.
Before you get suckered into that spin, consider the fact that the current budget deficit is in the neighborhood of $400 billion per year. This means the federal budget is right now in exactly the same situation as it would be in the years between 2018 and 2042, give or take a couple hundred billion dollars. So, if conservatives want to be worried about budget deficits in 2018 and beyond, why aren't they upset about them now? And if conservatives were concerned about the retirement of the baby boomers and the needs of an aging population, then maybe they shouldn't have cut taxes as much as they did, and as much as they would like to do by extending the 2001-2004 tax cuts. So when conservatives talk about the looming fiscal problems set to begin around 2018, tell them that yes, it' s a crisis allright, but it's a budget crisis, not a Social Security crisis.
In short, don't be fooled by this shell game. Republicans are doing the same thing they did in the 1980's--cut marginal tax rates and tax revenue dramatically, increase defense spending, explode the deficit, and then blame Democrats and the social safety net of domestic spending programs for the sudden "budget crisis". And so now people like Maya MacGuineas want us to throw Social Security under the bus, hoping we'll be confused by the shell game the Republicans and organizations like hers have been playing.
Social Security is not the problem. It's the taxes and the defense spending (and the war), stupid.
Hangin' with the Wrong Crowd
There's a bizarre op-ed piece by David Broder in today's Wash Post.
The first distressing note is that Broder has apparently been hanging around the wrong crowd (and has also apparently been drinking from the cup of the group's own version of kool-aid). Here's what he has to say about the DLC:
It is not hard these days to find intelligent critiques of the budget policy and fiscal record of the Bush administration. Conservative and liberal think tanks alike grind out fresh analyses of the risks in the chronic refusal of the Republicans who govern the country to pay the bills they are amassing here and overseas.
Nonpartisan budget groups -- especially those with a historical attachment to budgetary prudence -- have been even tougher on the president and his allies on Capitol Hill for their seeming nonchalance in letting the debt of the federal government climb so rapidly on their watch.
What has been harder to discern is what the opposition Democrats would actually do to remedy the situation that may well confront them if their party comes back to power in the 2008 election. The other day, the thinking branch of the opposition -- centered these days in the Democratic Leadership Council and its allied organizations -- offered at least the start of a response.
First, if the DLC is the "thinking branch" of the Democratic Party, we are all in deep trouble indeed.
But it gets worse.
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, another of the DLC panelists, said the principle on which Democrats should approach the next campaign is a simple one: "Anything worth doing is worth paying for." Carper said that implies restoring the old budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go for both tax cuts and spending programs -- something Bush and the congressional Republicans have refused to do.
It also implies a greater readiness on the part of Democrats to reexamine the entitlement spending that poses the long-term danger of unsustainable deficits.
This message was spelled out by Maya MacGuineas, a panelist from the New America Foundation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. As one who has worked with Republican moderates as often as with Democrats, she was particularly insistent that Democrats must ante up for any bipartisan solutions to become possible.
Specifically, the Democrats who have profited politically this year (as in the past) by opposing any change in Social Security must, she said, recognize the necessity of reforming the country's retirement system before it becomes an impossible economic burden on working-age Americans.
MacGuineas urged the Democrats to begin examining ideas she and others have put forward that would not simply reduce future benefits or postpone the age at which retirees could claim them but would instead adapt the whole social insurance concept of the 1930s to the realities of a new millennium.
Her concepts include mandated programs of individual savings for the predictable expenses of child-rearing, education and retirement; social insurance for the costs of catastrophic but unforeseeable medical bills; and some guarantee of safety-net income for people who, through no fault of their own, lose jobs or retirement benefits because of broad economic changes.
Boys and girls, men, women, children, and pets of all ages, what the blog does Social Security have to do with the current exploding budget deficit? More specifically, what does reducing Social Security benefits (and privatizing the program as conservatives have also been seeking) have to do with the gaping budget hole created by the multiple Bush tax cuts (including the proposed elimination of the "death tax") and the unnecessary war in Iraq?
As you consider your answer to that question, pay special attention to the comment from MacGuineas that I put in bold print: mandated programs of individual savings for predictable expenses of retirement. What does this statement mean? It means that Social Security, the nation's premier public retirement program, shouldn't be thought of as insurance in general, or social insurance in particular. No. It should be thought of as a "predictable expense" for which individuals should be responsible for their own damn selves. And what does that mean? It means MacGuineas thinks Social Security could and should be scrapped. That's what MacGuineas thinks Democrats should be buying into and what Democrats should come to the alter of "bipartisan" bargaining prepared to jettisone in order to help rescue the country from the budget and fiscal catastrophe that the Republicans have spent five years creating. Make sense to you? Didn't think so.
Doesn't make sense to Steve Gilliard either:
MacGuineas is a Vichyite fool. Why the hell [sic] would Democrats endorse plans widely rejected as unpopular? No, personal savings plans don't work if you have a crappy job.
Why would the Dems offer a plan before they hold power to enact it?
We don't need any bipartisan solutions. We need a Democratic House and Senate and offering to screw people over on social security is not going to win any votes.
Bush made this mess, let him clean it up as best he can.
Exactly so.
But back to my original question? What does Social Security, Social Security "reform", or entitlement "reform" have to do with the budget mess the Republicans are creating?
It so happens that the Senator has done some thinking on this, and he'll be back later to discuss the odd and pernicious juxtaposition between Social Security and on-budget operating expenses made by conservatives.
The first distressing note is that Broder has apparently been hanging around the wrong crowd (and has also apparently been drinking from the cup of the group's own version of kool-aid). Here's what he has to say about the DLC:
It is not hard these days to find intelligent critiques of the budget policy and fiscal record of the Bush administration. Conservative and liberal think tanks alike grind out fresh analyses of the risks in the chronic refusal of the Republicans who govern the country to pay the bills they are amassing here and overseas.
Nonpartisan budget groups -- especially those with a historical attachment to budgetary prudence -- have been even tougher on the president and his allies on Capitol Hill for their seeming nonchalance in letting the debt of the federal government climb so rapidly on their watch.
What has been harder to discern is what the opposition Democrats would actually do to remedy the situation that may well confront them if their party comes back to power in the 2008 election. The other day, the thinking branch of the opposition -- centered these days in the Democratic Leadership Council and its allied organizations -- offered at least the start of a response.
First, if the DLC is the "thinking branch" of the Democratic Party, we are all in deep trouble indeed.
But it gets worse.
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, another of the DLC panelists, said the principle on which Democrats should approach the next campaign is a simple one: "Anything worth doing is worth paying for." Carper said that implies restoring the old budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go for both tax cuts and spending programs -- something Bush and the congressional Republicans have refused to do.
It also implies a greater readiness on the part of Democrats to reexamine the entitlement spending that poses the long-term danger of unsustainable deficits.
This message was spelled out by Maya MacGuineas, a panelist from the New America Foundation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. As one who has worked with Republican moderates as often as with Democrats, she was particularly insistent that Democrats must ante up for any bipartisan solutions to become possible.
Specifically, the Democrats who have profited politically this year (as in the past) by opposing any change in Social Security must, she said, recognize the necessity of reforming the country's retirement system before it becomes an impossible economic burden on working-age Americans.
MacGuineas urged the Democrats to begin examining ideas she and others have put forward that would not simply reduce future benefits or postpone the age at which retirees could claim them but would instead adapt the whole social insurance concept of the 1930s to the realities of a new millennium.
Her concepts include mandated programs of individual savings for the predictable expenses of child-rearing, education and retirement; social insurance for the costs of catastrophic but unforeseeable medical bills; and some guarantee of safety-net income for people who, through no fault of their own, lose jobs or retirement benefits because of broad economic changes.
Boys and girls, men, women, children, and pets of all ages, what the blog does Social Security have to do with the current exploding budget deficit? More specifically, what does reducing Social Security benefits (and privatizing the program as conservatives have also been seeking) have to do with the gaping budget hole created by the multiple Bush tax cuts (including the proposed elimination of the "death tax") and the unnecessary war in Iraq?
As you consider your answer to that question, pay special attention to the comment from MacGuineas that I put in bold print: mandated programs of individual savings for predictable expenses of retirement. What does this statement mean? It means that Social Security, the nation's premier public retirement program, shouldn't be thought of as insurance in general, or social insurance in particular. No. It should be thought of as a "predictable expense" for which individuals should be responsible for their own damn selves. And what does that mean? It means MacGuineas thinks Social Security could and should be scrapped. That's what MacGuineas thinks Democrats should be buying into and what Democrats should come to the alter of "bipartisan" bargaining prepared to jettisone in order to help rescue the country from the budget and fiscal catastrophe that the Republicans have spent five years creating. Make sense to you? Didn't think so.
Doesn't make sense to Steve Gilliard either:
MacGuineas is a Vichyite fool. Why the hell [sic] would Democrats endorse plans widely rejected as unpopular? No, personal savings plans don't work if you have a crappy job.
Why would the Dems offer a plan before they hold power to enact it?
We don't need any bipartisan solutions. We need a Democratic House and Senate and offering to screw people over on social security is not going to win any votes.
Bush made this mess, let him clean it up as best he can.
Exactly so.
But back to my original question? What does Social Security, Social Security "reform", or entitlement "reform" have to do with the budget mess the Republicans are creating?
It so happens that the Senator has done some thinking on this, and he'll be back later to discuss the odd and pernicious juxtaposition between Social Security and on-budget operating expenses made by conservatives.
The Inmates are Running the Asylum
Myers forced to withdraw due to conservative groups' litmus tests (of course she didn't help her own cause with the incomplete questionaire or the fawning notes to Bush).
In any event, now I guess we'll get one of the wingnut judges the conservatives have been salivating for.
In any event, now I guess we'll get one of the wingnut judges the conservatives have been salivating for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)