I just sent this bit to Wes Clark at his website, www.securingamerica.com:
Your letter to the WSJ and your comments on Meet the Press are both right on the money. I think your stance hews very closely to the line that I believe all of us Democrats can take:
1) We would not have invaded Iraq in the way they have done.
2) We would not have occupied Iraq in the way they have done.
3) When we take back the reins of power in 2009, we will move promptly to withdraw any remaining occupation troops; and
4) In the meantime, we support the efforts of our troops.
In this way, we can impose an effective deadline on the occupation, of the only kind the Bushites can respect: Election Day, November, 2008. If they can withdraw safely before then, Iraq will not be such a big issue in 2008, and that is the best the Republicans can hope for. More than they deserve.
What more can we say or do? They don't listen, anyway...
Monday, August 29, 2005
Thursday, August 25, 2005
John Kay and Steppenwolf on Iraq?
While sitting on the toilet this morning, the words flooded back to me from one of my favorite songs of my late childhood. As I'm doing this from memory, apologies to the authors.
Monster
by John Kay and Steppenwolf (1971?)
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and Pope.
Like good Christians some would burn the witches
Later some bought slaves to gather riches
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
But she just patiently smiled and bore them a child
To be the spirit and guiding light .
(Bridge) The Blue and Grey the stomped it, they kicked it just like a dog
And when the war was over, they stuffed it just like a hog.
Though the past has its share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But its protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey.
The spirit was freedom and justice and its keepers seemed generous and kind
Its leaders were supposed to serve the country but now they don't pay no mind
'Cause the people got fat and grew lazy; now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order, but it's Oh! just an echo of what they've been told.
(Refrain) There's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into the noose
And it just sits there watching
Cities have turned into jungles and corruption is strangling the land
The police force is watching the people and the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our business because the whole world's got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there; no matter who's the winner, we can't pay the cost!
Refrain
American where are you now? Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now? We can't fight alone against the monster.
Monster
by John Kay and Steppenwolf (1971?)
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and Pope.
Like good Christians some would burn the witches
Later some bought slaves to gather riches
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
But she just patiently smiled and bore them a child
To be the spirit and guiding light .
(Bridge) The Blue and Grey the stomped it, they kicked it just like a dog
And when the war was over, they stuffed it just like a hog.
Though the past has its share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But its protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey.
The spirit was freedom and justice and its keepers seemed generous and kind
Its leaders were supposed to serve the country but now they don't pay no mind
'Cause the people got fat and grew lazy; now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order, but it's Oh! just an echo of what they've been told.
(Refrain) There's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into the noose
And it just sits there watching
Cities have turned into jungles and corruption is strangling the land
The police force is watching the people and the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our business because the whole world's got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there; no matter who's the winner, we can't pay the cost!
Refrain
American where are you now? Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now? We can't fight alone against the monster.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Topic: Plame Case
I agree that it's unlikely that Rove will go to jail for exposing Plame. It's still possible that he perjured himself. Regardless of the criminal culpability, Rove should remain in the spotlight for his reckless actions which harmed the interests of the people he and his superior in the White House allegedly serve. The court of public opinion is the relevant one here, and neither Ambassador Wilson nor his wife is on trial, no matter how the spinmeisters acting at Rove's will may try to shift the blame.
From:
mfkern
Aug-12 5:55 am
To:
chinshihtang
(43 of 231)
5185.43 in reply to 5185.40
Rove operates in that gray area which may not be provably illegal, but is clearly unethical and self-serving. This is the same landscape which much of our current administration seems to favor.
Gone are the days of low corruption and simple answers. Wilson is a self promoter. Plame is a player. Rove is a political thug and hatchet man. Yet we cannot throw them all in a pit and throw on gasoline- but each is unworthy of high honors in serving the American people.
As more facts are uncovered we are exposed to the low level of honor and ethics in governmnt and politics. The debate seems to center on if this low level crosses the line to illegal. Few comment on the overall state of the environment.
Such ubiquitous low level corruption is not new, but it is cyclical. We can seek to control it, to improve the standards.
But when we do so we should remember that Plame and Wilson are middle class people, pushed around by the paid operatives of the rich, the corporate, the poor, and foreign influence: those everpresent enemies of the American vision of a free middle class. We can perhaps forgive Plame and Wilson their minor transgressions- but Rove should be held to a higher standard as representing the office of the President.
From:
chinshihtang
Aug-12 12:15 pm
To:
mfkern
(59 of 231)
5185.59 in reply to 5185.43
I agree 100% with your posting. The important point is not whether Rove continues on in the Administration, but the condemnation of Rovian behavior as unacceptable. Otherwise, it will become the norm, and it is already too close to being so.
Too many quality people are scared off from public service by seeing how the low behaviors are rewarded, and how those who dare to challenge the system face career destruction and even physical danger--as we have seen too often in our lifetimes.
....But Kern and I got into it a bit on another topic, America's Future.
By the way, apologies to Ms. Plame for referring to her as "Flame" elsewhere, when the topic was not quite as hot.
From:
mfkern
Aug-12 5:55 am
To:
chinshihtang
(43 of 231)
5185.43 in reply to 5185.40
Rove operates in that gray area which may not be provably illegal, but is clearly unethical and self-serving. This is the same landscape which much of our current administration seems to favor.
Gone are the days of low corruption and simple answers. Wilson is a self promoter. Plame is a player. Rove is a political thug and hatchet man. Yet we cannot throw them all in a pit and throw on gasoline- but each is unworthy of high honors in serving the American people.
As more facts are uncovered we are exposed to the low level of honor and ethics in governmnt and politics. The debate seems to center on if this low level crosses the line to illegal. Few comment on the overall state of the environment.
Such ubiquitous low level corruption is not new, but it is cyclical. We can seek to control it, to improve the standards.
But when we do so we should remember that Plame and Wilson are middle class people, pushed around by the paid operatives of the rich, the corporate, the poor, and foreign influence: those everpresent enemies of the American vision of a free middle class. We can perhaps forgive Plame and Wilson their minor transgressions- but Rove should be held to a higher standard as representing the office of the President.
From:
chinshihtang
Aug-12 12:15 pm
To:
mfkern
(59 of 231)
5185.59 in reply to 5185.43
I agree 100% with your posting. The important point is not whether Rove continues on in the Administration, but the condemnation of Rovian behavior as unacceptable. Otherwise, it will become the norm, and it is already too close to being so.
Too many quality people are scared off from public service by seeing how the low behaviors are rewarded, and how those who dare to challenge the system face career destruction and even physical danger--as we have seen too often in our lifetimes.
....But Kern and I got into it a bit on another topic, America's Future.
By the way, apologies to Ms. Plame for referring to her as "Flame" elsewhere, when the topic was not quite as hot.
Topic Ohio 2nd Congressional: Fluke or Trend?
I'd go with both: it was a fluke because it was timed when the Republican manipulation machine was at its nadir (not Ralph--its lowest point); no more need to promote Bush, the Congressional campaign hasn't jelled, Rove's on the defensive. Also, because the Ohio Republicans are at a low point.
The Democrats had a very strong candidate: let's hope that's a trend.
One thing that is definitely a continuing trend: Democrats taking consolation from a losing election.
I am at least encouraged that, voting irregularities notwithstanding, the Democrats may have a good shot at putting Ohio into their column in 2008. And history shows that is a very bad indicator for the Republicans.Finally, and most importantly, I think it supports, but doesn't prove, the validity of Howard Dean's plan to contest the Republicans everywhere. With strong candidates and political positions that can convince someone other than the loyalist base, it's time to put the Republicans on the defensive for a change
The Democrats had a very strong candidate: let's hope that's a trend.
One thing that is definitely a continuing trend: Democrats taking consolation from a losing election.
I am at least encouraged that, voting irregularities notwithstanding, the Democrats may have a good shot at putting Ohio into their column in 2008. And history shows that is a very bad indicator for the Republicans.Finally, and most importantly, I think it supports, but doesn't prove, the validity of Howard Dean's plan to contest the Republicans everywhere. With strong candidates and political positions that can convince someone other than the loyalist base, it's time to put the Republicans on the defensive for a change
Monday, August 22, 2005
Topic: America's Future--Part 1
Initial question: In your opinion, where is America going in terms of its world position in areas of geopolitical leadership, education, innovation, culture, and economy?
This is one of my favorite topics ever on this Forum. I'm going to break it up a bit, as I've had a little trouble saving the whole thing at once.
My initial answer, before getting caught up in the back-and-forth:
For the short-term (10-20 years), America's position seems OK on most of those, especially innovation, culture, and economic. Geopolitical leadership won't be an issue over that time period (if we don't screw up the military too much with wars such as Iraq), either, though I see very little content in our leadership or vision for the future.
The bad news is education, the public version of which is poor and getting worse. The anti-intellectual nature of American society has filtered down into fear of learning in our schools. It's dangerous to be a standout student in most schools. This is going to have a serious negative effect in the long run.
In terms of long-term geopolitical leadership, the one thing America can not afford to do is to have the world united against it. That would be the long-term effect of Bushite logic in its military, diplomatic, and environmental policies. We might have 50 years or so left as a superpower if we don't wake up to the needs of the global community of the future. So it's in our interest to think of something beyond ourselves. Can we do it? So far I see little evidence that we can.
This is one of my favorite topics ever on this Forum. I'm going to break it up a bit, as I've had a little trouble saving the whole thing at once.
My initial answer, before getting caught up in the back-and-forth:
For the short-term (10-20 years), America's position seems OK on most of those, especially innovation, culture, and economic. Geopolitical leadership won't be an issue over that time period (if we don't screw up the military too much with wars such as Iraq), either, though I see very little content in our leadership or vision for the future.
The bad news is education, the public version of which is poor and getting worse. The anti-intellectual nature of American society has filtered down into fear of learning in our schools. It's dangerous to be a standout student in most schools. This is going to have a serious negative effect in the long run.
In terms of long-term geopolitical leadership, the one thing America can not afford to do is to have the world united against it. That would be the long-term effect of Bushite logic in its military, diplomatic, and environmental policies. We might have 50 years or so left as a superpower if we don't wake up to the needs of the global community of the future. So it's in our interest to think of something beyond ourselves. Can we do it? So far I see little evidence that we can.
Topic: America's Future--Part 2 (Progress)
Then, some abridged dialogue:
From mhr5: ...
Utopians, who actually expect that human beings and their institutions can reach a state of absolute perfection, are doomed to disappointment. And whatever else it was Bolshevism was utopian in every sense- and a monstrous failure. The men who directed it had as their goal the creation of a world of social justice and human equality. I am still deeply suspicious of politicians who talk in that vein
From mhr5: ...
Utopians, who actually expect that human beings and their institutions can reach a state of absolute perfection, are doomed to disappointment. And whatever else it was Bolshevism was utopian in every sense- and a monstrous failure. The men who directed it had as their goal the creation of a world of social justice and human equality. I am still deeply suspicious of politicians who talk in that vein
To which:
Have you got a better goal to suggest? History will not be kind to the Americans of this crucial period, if our legacy is the squandering of the fossil fuels, degrading of our environment, colossal consumption, and a permanent clash of civilizations.I agree that the Bolsheviks basically had it all wrong from the start. Unlike them (and the Bushites), we need to apply means consistent with our objectives.
Have to give credit to this--one of the best posts on the subject, in my view:
From:
TrueAim1
Aug-10 12:46 am
To:
Eve Chen (WPIntern)
(176 of 434)
In the future this will be regarded as the era of squandered opportunities.
A time when corporate interests consolidated their control over the U.S. government.
A new age of corporate robber barons, facilitated by the G.O.P. maladministration and the craven G.O.P. Congress. Together they take the corruption of the federal government by corporate opportunists to new levels.
A time when the president turned his back on science and followed the world's richest oil company advice to torpedo international efforts to rein in greenhouse gasses.
lornejn suggested that "material progress" needed to be a goal for America (as opposed to "social justice and equality") which provoked the following from me:
5178.258 in reply to 5178.241
I would simply say that social justice and equality of opportunity in the world would be a very material form of progress, then add the following:
Any thinking person should recognize that there is nothing more significant in this world (at least to us humans) than the continuing experiment of human civilization. The American Republic has been (was?) a very important innovation in our civilization and advanced many ideals, including liberty of expression, opposition to slavery, and opposition to tyranny. It had an unusual opportunity in the period after World War II, and especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, to provide leadership to the whole world on a scale and with potential positive influence that is unparalleled in human history.
Instead, we have become obsessed with our "material progress", much of it borne upon the labors and intimidation of other peoples. We spend and consume blindly without thought of the future, and we fool ourselves about the reasons for our imperialistic endeavors. We allow our federal government and our military, which combine to form the strongest power in the world, to endanger our own commitments to liberty. We spout hypocrisy about the religious underpinnings of our greed and selfishness, and we actively degrade our biological environment.
Quite simply, we need to take ownership of the opportunity that we have been granted, through accident or design, and start thinking about what human civilization might become, how we can start to make it happen, and what kind of people we must become in order for us to fulfill our enormous potential as a race. Then, we need to show some leadership--not imposing our will, but leadership through example, and through reasoned argument. I am optimistic enough to believe that this could be America's future, but realistic enough to know we are not going that way yet. At all.
Edited 8/12/2005 1:30 am ET by chinshihtang
To be fair, I was twisting words a bit--for which he got me:
From:
lornejn
Aug-12 12:08 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(279 of 434)
5178.279 in reply to 5178.258
<>
First, you have added a couple of words that completely change the concept from what the original poster that I was responding to had said.He said the goal should be equality (implying equality of outcomes), which is quite different from equality of opportunity. I am much more supportive of equality of opportunity. I do doubt that this can ever be completetly attained, but there are measures that would move us closer to this objective.
Second, you refer to "in the world" where this discussion is about the future of America.
Third, you are using a different meaning for the word material. In your context material means significant, while in mine material means having more things, inventions and systems that make life easier, healthier, longer and more productive. If you look back you will see that I was not saying that social justice and equality were not worthy objectives, but was saying that surely we have material objectives to improve our lives as well. We live better because of the advances of the last 100 years and can surely achieve further progress in the next 100.
From:
chinshihtang
Aug-12 12:23 pm
To:
lornejn
(280 of 434)
5178.280 in reply to 5178.279
OK, you're right: I twisted your point to my ends a bit.
But I do have two counterpoints to emphasize: 1) The future of America is central to the future of mankind; both are of great consequence, but the latter particularly so. I would deny the possibility for America alone to succeed in the world for long.
2) I think the material progress, the technological progress, and the scientific progress are all unstoppable (barring a total collapse of society). The challenge is on the social side, which moves much more slowly: can we make ourselves worthy of our scientific, technical, and material capabilities? All this power--to what end?
Topic: America's Future--Part 3 (Globalism)
Then kern and I got into it on the topic of globalism. His serve:
There is a globalist chain of thought that nations are obsolete. Government should become world government, sovereignty is obsolete, rule by the people and local self determination are obsolete in this nexus of thought. Recent signs of this thinking include the large number of fragments of international law in CAFTA, and the Supreme Court ducking the question of the validity of international law within our constitutional system. This thinking is advanced often by self-serving foreign interests, and guilty Americans who wish to give away our hard earned advantages. If globalist thinking continues in America obviously we will not lead in geopolitics.
Concerning education and economy, we cannot lead in either unless there is economic reward for the educated. When highly trained technologists are shoved aside for cheap foreign technological labor the incentive to take all thos darned hard math and science courses ends. English language education is crucial to the quality and depth of our education. We must eliminate the guilty need to sacrafice the education of American children for foreign speaking offspring of those who are mainly here illegaly anyway. Then we must again reward eloquence and depth of thought in the english language. We also cannot lead without a stronger manufacturing base- including the trades and skills of the working folks who manufacture. Until we return to the American ideal of a self-sufficient America we are doomed to economic decline. Back to basics.
As for culture: we suffer from excess multiculturalism. We also suffer from a backlash to multiculturalism which promotes teleevangelism as truth and seeks to supress science, free thought, and free speech. It is said that America is an open society, but no one wanted it this open-something must give. We can no longer find our own culture in the omnipresent noise. Until TV and radio and books and magazines return to sharing American culture and values and innovation and thought with the masses our society is doomed to view other cultures as dominant.
The challenge of your generation, intern, is to recover American sovereignty of law, thought, culture and technology against a vast rush of nonamerican influence. Cultural, economic and educational superiority does not occur by focusing on everyone else's thought, education and culture in everyone else's language based on their political dictums.America, as allways, is dependent on young Americans for continued freedom and success.
My riposte--just what he wanted:
5178.278 in reply to 5178.259
There is no such thing as "self-sufficient America". There really never has been, and it's certainly too late to create it now. To give one economic example, energy self-sufficiency is a nice idea, but we're a long way from there and going in the opposite direction.
There is such a thing as an emerging global culture, and we have an enormous role to play in it.
When we tried to close the doors to trade, we got the Great Depression. In more recent times, when we've failed to exercise sufficient vigilance in difficult times, we've gotten Pearl Harbor and 9/11. We can not escape the rest of the world, and there are many problems we all share that can only be addressed together. The challenge of this era is coming to grips with that fact, and beginning to think about how we can address it.
I would not say that nation-states and national sovereignty are obsolete, they are simply insufficient to the challenges of the age. We will still need local, state, national, and regional governance; we need to preserve individual self-determination, too; we just need something more.
5178.290 in reply to 5178.278
""There is no such thing as "self-sufficient America". ""
Well now, we shall see. Sovereignty and the right to manufacture here were significant factors in the early days of America, and there are certain parallels to today's economic maladies.
I find most strong proponents of globalism have an agenda. There is one guy who wrote a five part rave about everything from Hegel to Taoism to justify stealing US intellectual property and maintaining unfair trade practices- as a mouthpiece for China.
Self sufficiency has been a hallmark American value throughout our young history. Such notions do not die easily. Regardless of tiny imperfections the gross trend may have already begun. The pendulum is large and heavy, and historicaly has been enforced with much fierce support in the present direction. We shall just have to wait to see how wrong you may be.
5178.393 in reply to 5178.290
I recognize that I may be totally wrong about America's future, because I espouse unpopular views. Therefore, the objectives that I advocate may frequently and even consistently be voted down.
However, I think that you mistake the micro-level self-sufficiency of the American archetypes--the small farmer, the pioneer, the prospector, the entrepreneur, etc.--which surely have been important in American history, with the macro-level fact that America has always been a trading nation (when it's been successful), one that draws strength from immigrants from all over, one that has been repeatedly forced to face the reality of involvement in the messy affairs of the rest of the world. I don't doubt that a populist "Fortress America" stance can still draw support, even on a national level, but I am certain that it cannot succeed for long.
Your post also commented on how "people who advocate globalism always seem to have an agenda" (paraphrasing from memory here). I don't know about that, and I'd suggest that those who don't advocate it have an agenda, too, but I think I'll bare my own agenda. My agenda is always to convince Americans to face up to the realities and to own up to the responsibility our country has to provide positive leadership at the global level.
This might seem an awful lot like the neo-cons, but for two differences: 1) The means to the end is supremely important, as we have seen with Iraq. The Iraqis truly want democracy, or at least self-governance, there is no doubt of that in my mind, but they don't want that imposed at the point of a gun. That, and a pretty strong supposition that we are hypocritical in terms of our true desires for the country, is why we are universally resented there. If we are to move toward a global system of governing the issues that are irrefutably global, it matters enormously how we get there. Putting some turkey like Bolton in the UN to browbeat the nations of the world into cooperating is another good example of how not to do it. 2) There is a difference between owning up to our responsibility and a sense of entitlement. Let me make a personal argument. Since my childhood, I have looked around and seen that I am a fortunate son of the most powerful, rich nation in history. I often asked myself the question, Why? as though there had to be some meaning to that incredibly blessed position that I find myself in. The answer that I come up with is always more or less the same. I must argue for us to do the right thing as a people. I know that the outcome is not certain--the political setbacks are frequent (though there have also been magnificent advances, too).I don't want to ascribe motivations to anyone else; others have to answer for themselves. It appears to me, though, that the neocon viewpoint is to try and take the wonderful advantages and power that we have and exploit them for selfish purposes. Further, to do it from a point of view that assumes the superiority of our lifestyle, culture, and religion in every way.
Edited 8/14/2005 12:43 pm ET by chinshihtang
I may be totally wrong, but I'm a dancing fool. (Frank Zappa, Sheik Yerbuti)
He responds:
Sir, I find your globalism troubeling.
First, the government os the USA has a responsibility to the people of the USA- not to foreign powers or peoples. This is clear in the Declaration, the Constitution and even in the oaths of office. There is NO EXCUSE for our government to use taxpayer funds to advance the agendas of foreign peoples at the expense of Americans.
Second, if we have leaderrship to offer today it is in our notion of self sufficiency. Each country must, for the most part, find a means to become a thriving and stable endeavor. The successful nations of the world cannot sustain those without successful models except in times of unusual disaster.
Third, the realities we face are that America must fend for America. No one else will aid us, but for a few proven allies in times of unusual need. We can only afford international charity our of any surplus we might generate. Our first goal is a strong and thriving America unthreatened by unnneccasary or excessive foreign dependency.
Simply: if we must depend on others- so be it. Then we must manage the national security consequences of that dependency. Our security is not simply threat of war, but threat of terror and of bein held economic hostage to foreign dictums. Today the national security of average Americans is under economic threat by globalist antiamerican forces.
Globalism and the notion that we should buy things elsewhere in preference to US goods and services- simply because it is good for the "global economy" (read as good for someone else's economy)- is now clearly past. The subsidies to multinational corporations that have created record corporate profits but have harmed Americans are now widely exposed and unpopular.In short: your globalism seems to be bunk.
5178.431 in reply to 5178.396
OK, I got your point (over and over): I'll start with the crude response to your summary and say that your fancy rationalizations for selfishness and isolationism are bunk. The American people deserve credit for more than that. Notions of autarchy are absurd today, neither practical nor attainable.
I agree with you to the extent that your argument is that America's federal government, which is mainly concerned with America's federal government, is not up to the task of addressing the world's problems and will not be anytime soon. Perhaps, as you suggest, it never would or should be. That just means that we, the people, have to find other ways, rather than sticking our heads into the sand. It's important (and, these days, easy) to separate consideration of the American people, and their interests, from the interests of the American federal government.
That was a bit too easy to refute, I admit. At least I didn't say his spelling was "bunk".
Kern continues:
The American people are quite generous, not selfish at all. We host the UN, for example. The UN is the source of the globalist world government you and John Lennon desire. The failures of the UN are failures of the globalist agenda.
""Notions of autarchy are absurd today, neither practical nor attainable. ""
Since when is national sovereignty equivalent to autarchy? Furthermore, I am not isolationist. I do believe global trade should occur- just not at the expense of the American middle class via unfair subsidies- nor at the expense of our national security.
""I agree with you to the extent that your argument is that America's federal government, which is mainly concerned with America's federal government, is not up to the task of addressing the world's problems and will not be anytime soon. Perhaps, as you suggest, it never would or should be. ""
I am glad you agree. National governments support nations. Our government is not empowered by the constitution, nor by the people, to hand power over to a "world government" in theory or in practice. Democratic national governments serve the people, and are responsible to them. If not corrupt they form laws that reflect the will of the people, not the will of some global uberclass of multinational corporate managers with foreign driven agendas.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: chinshihtang@gmail.com [mailto:chinshihtang@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:13 PM
> > > To: mkern@mkern.com
> > > Subject: Recent postings on America's Future
> > >
> > > The following message was sent to you by CHINSHIHTANG while viewing
> > > your Member Profile:
> > >
> > > I'd like to lift some of the dialogue and put in my blog:
> > > chinshihtang.blogspot.com. I'll include what would have been my response to
> > > your last posting (before they shut the topic down).
> > >
> > > I hope you don't mind.
(abridged discussion of permission to reprint)
> On 8/16/05, mkern
> > So what was the reply you added after the forum closed?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chin_shih_tang stoner [mailto:chinshihtang@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:45 PM
> To: mkern@mkern.com
> Subject: Re: Recent postings on America's Future
>
I haven't written it yet. You're pretty much right with your
reference to John Lennon, though I wouldn't consider it as something
negative.
The point is, when it comes to the future, we can think about
something beyond that which exists already, and start to make it
happen. I find that there is real absence of vision in American
political discussion, and that basically goes for both parties. I
think that the future, and vision for it, may actually become
important in the 2008 election.
Here's a couple of points I'd include in the response (I'm going to
take my time):
1) About subsidies--I would assume that you are referring to the
deductions companies can take today for the cost of essentially
transferring jobs overseas (one of Kerry's favorite points until he
got the nomination). I'd just put that into the category of "mindless
subsidies", of which we have a lot. Many of them are designed to
protect nonstrategic American industries from foreign competition, so
it works both ways.
2) About the UN: You and I would probably both agree that it is
basically a failed organization. The difference is, I would replace
it--or part of it--with something very different, not based on or
limited to the selfish interests of national governments. I recognize
that, in the case of America, some sort of constitutional amendment
would be required which would specifically authorize an organization,
which I would look to be one representing the free peoples of the
world to act on certain global issues.
The UN was something that was created at a particular time, 60 years
ago, that hasn't really been updated. It was appropriate for
post-WWII, and served our interests at that time. Today, it's out of
date, and doesn't even serve our interests very well, though that
isn't the most important part of the "global test". Putting a turkey
like Bolton in there isn't going to help things, though.
3) America--selfish or generous? I think individual Americans have
plenty of generous impulses. I think our collective
actions--especially those of our government, and particularly this
Administration-- are pretty selfish and self-absorbed. We have a low
level of awareness of issues beyond our shores, given our undoubted
leadership status.
On 8/16/05, mkern
> Hmmmmmmm...
>
--I don't really think of the reference to JL as negative, just perhaps
idealistic and visionary. We need visions to drive toward, but
implementation is dirty, hard work. Sometimes implementation ugliness
outweighs visionary beauty- as in communism.
--There are many subsidies, hidden and explicit. For example the free
inspection services for imported goods are a subsidy. Doing that right
might cost billions, and is a cost that should be born by the shipper. Then
there is the recent energy bill pork. Add the transportation bill pork.
Then add services to corporations provided by Federal funds which come
mainly from the middle class (%70+) taxes.
--The UN needs reform alright. I say any lawmaking body must have elected
officials and not appointed cronies. If there must be international law, it
should be overseen by the UN or equiv. and officials should be ELECTED.
Furthermore, as a federated government, the scope of power of the UN should
be strictly and clearly limited.
--Selfish Amerca? Heck no. We work to better everyone- far too much in
times like theese when we need to focus on internal reform. We are
suffering from massive, low grade, internal corruption. I, at least, would
say that when Congress repeatedly screams that reform is required on
political donations and the majority of Americans disagree with each new
bill that that is low grade corruption. Government cannot be a charity
organization- corruption results. We are drownding in wasteful government
based on subsidies to the rich, the poor, the corporate and the foreign.
What we do need is a massive new branch of service, or massive expansion of
the peace corps, and mandatory service for each American. This could
perform those functions which are not charity but are required to maintain
the nation's infrastructure and clean up our worldwide messes. DoD is meant
to destroy enemies, not build civilizations. The mix and match service
advocated by McCain is a bad idea, however- one service per enlistment
please.
>
In short: funneling charity funds through government is limited by
government ineffectiveness as a charity, via politics, not by taxes... so
other organizations should (and do) act as more effective charities.
Government charity should be limited to government surpluss, for example--it
makes little sense to tax and harm Americans to help Nigerians or whatever.
Have you seen Detroit? Limited improvement of government altruism is
possible, within narrow boundries, if clearly purposed. We need efficient,
effective government, measured by return on taxation- and efficient
charities by common measures in use today. Governance is the issue.
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:59 PM
To: mkern@mkern.com
Subject: Re: Recent postings on America's Future
You make several good points. Certainly Americans can display great
generosity, as with the tsunami relief. I think the goodwill is
there, but there's no focus to our effort.
The most disappointing thing is the lack of interest in domestic
reform. Frankly, I don't see much happening to get the corruption out
of elections. Without that, the policies are going to remain a
pork-bellies marketplace.
Some kind of national service requirement has always made sense, but
again I see little sponsorship or public interest.
I wonder what kind of thing is needed to stir the sleeping giant--the
American public--into action?
You said: You make several good points. Certainly Americans can display
great generosity, as with the tsunami relief. I think the goodwill is
there, but there's no focus to our effort.
Forced charity is not charity. Centralized institutionalized charity would
be focused, but would not represent more than an opportunity for corruption
with vast sums of captive money- and a marketing campaign for America
masquerading as a charity.
Topic: America's Future--Part 4 (Roman Empire Parallels)
One other thread I enjoyed was someone who did bring in the Roman Empire to the discussion--and Ozymandias, too--much needed, should've thought of that myself.
From:
pmarvel1
Aug-10 12:04 pm
To:
MARCAURELIUS
(192 of 434)
5178.192 in reply to 5178.190
Roman History is one of my passions. There are so many parallels and lessons from that era. What is especially relevant, and disturbing, is reading of the gradual evolution from Republic to Empire, a process that we are well on our way in paralleling, keeping the forms, but not the functions of a free Republic.
As Rome was the last "Super Power" of the Ancient World, The United States will be the last Super Power of the "modern" World.
However it will end for us, however far in the future it will be; the world will be vastly different because of us. We still have the power to shape our course, and finish the story of America differently than current trends suggest, but this now seems to be the crossroads. We go in one direction or the other, and once on that path, we cannot easily turn back.
I fear we will be just another great "experiment" that succumbed to the siren song of Power rather than Principle. We have already strayed far beyond the ideals that, like early Rome, assumed that we would be content leave and be left alone, content to lead by the example of our institutions, not the power of our armies.
OZYMANDIAS
I met a traveler from an antique land,Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stoneStand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:And on the pedestal these words appear:"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"Nothing beside remains. Round the decayOf that colossal wreck, boundless and bareThe lone and level sands stretch far away.
PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY 1792-1822
Edited 8/10/2005 12:08 pm ET by pmarvel1
So I had to put my due centavi in:
5178.197 in reply to 5178.192
Excellent posting. The example of Rome shows that a great Empire, like that one or like ours, can survive even extremely bad emperors once in a while (like Caligula, or Dubya). And the Romans did pretty well with their Emperors, a good 500 years before their definitive downfall, so perhaps we can survive the militarization of our Republic as well, at least for a while.
Again from the Roman example, the two things that our status can not survive are the united opposition of the rest of the world and rot from within.
We need to think about what kind of world we would like to be our legacy, what kind of institutions would be required, what kind of global policies, and what kind of people we will need to make them happen.
From:
pmarvel1
Aug-10 2:01 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(200 of 434)
5178.200 in reply to 5178.197
Yes, but the real lesson to be avoided is how a Republic turned into an Empire with those "extremely bad emperors". Actually, there were some very good emperors that helped balance the bad ones, which is probably why the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did -- not because of the government so much as the nature of the institutions established long before the Empire that kept it running as efficiently as it did, regardless who the "Chief Executive" was. But the bottom line is, they were still emperors, and not elected Presidents/Consuls, no matter how good or bad they were.
And--finally--my last words for that subject (at this time):
5178.201 in reply to 5178.200
I think we're pretty far down the road already in our evolution to an Empire--as you say, the forms (like the Senate) continued on in Rome. Can we turn back the hands of time? I think it more productive to think of the future, and what we can give to the global civilization which is forming.
I would remind everyone of how long it took Western civilization to recover from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance (roughly 1000 years). It is true that the nuclear weapons present the possibility of much greater and swifter devastation than in the past.
Ultimately, I think planet Earth can take whatever we dish out, over a scale of millions of years. Should make for interesting paleontology, our era, assuming there's anyone to dig us up.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Topic: Axis of Evil and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
I don't want to say much about the "Axis of Evil"--there was no axis, they just happened to be the three most significant nasty national regimes with which we had bad relations at the time. Catchy phrase with no coherent policy backing it up.
I do want to make a comment about the nuclear weapons issue. The policy of nonproliferation worked very well for 30-40 years, but the cat is now well and truly out of the bag. There are now more holes in the dyck than we have fingers to plug them with. The evidence is all too apparent that having nukes--or at least giving a convincing impression of having them--gets you in a club which has some added security and gets you an added level of respect. In terms of the science and engineering required, it's not a serious obstacle for a nation that wants them. There's also big money and influence in spreading the information around, as Pakistan did.
The U.S. does not have very clean hands on this issue, either. Of course, we started the whole thing in the first place, but in more recent years we have plenty of harmful behavior at our own feet. Apart from the hypocrisy of the "No, you can not have them, but we will keep ours" argument, our willingness to continue to develop new weapons, unilaterally end our test-ban restraints, and blur the borderline with our depleted uranium weapons and tactical devices should give us reason to question our own moral high ground on this one.
We (all of us, the red states, the blue states, the swing states, and the ROTW states) have to rethink from fundamental principles how we can assure a modicum of safety and hope for the future in a world of readily accessible nuclear weapons. Our bully-boy tactics have seen their limits; our bluff has been called. By India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, so far, recently. There are probably 50 other countries that will have them by 2050 unless humanity comes up with a more convincing rationale not to go nuclear.
Then I got into a weird debate with a guy--normally a progressive--who insisted that the proliferation of nukes was a reason to cheer, because of the advancement of those societies that the weapons constitute. Wha?
(from Politics Talk, Washington Post)
I do want to make a comment about the nuclear weapons issue. The policy of nonproliferation worked very well for 30-40 years, but the cat is now well and truly out of the bag. There are now more holes in the dyck than we have fingers to plug them with. The evidence is all too apparent that having nukes--or at least giving a convincing impression of having them--gets you in a club which has some added security and gets you an added level of respect. In terms of the science and engineering required, it's not a serious obstacle for a nation that wants them. There's also big money and influence in spreading the information around, as Pakistan did.
The U.S. does not have very clean hands on this issue, either. Of course, we started the whole thing in the first place, but in more recent years we have plenty of harmful behavior at our own feet. Apart from the hypocrisy of the "No, you can not have them, but we will keep ours" argument, our willingness to continue to develop new weapons, unilaterally end our test-ban restraints, and blur the borderline with our depleted uranium weapons and tactical devices should give us reason to question our own moral high ground on this one.
We (all of us, the red states, the blue states, the swing states, and the ROTW states) have to rethink from fundamental principles how we can assure a modicum of safety and hope for the future in a world of readily accessible nuclear weapons. Our bully-boy tactics have seen their limits; our bluff has been called. By India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, so far, recently. There are probably 50 other countries that will have them by 2050 unless humanity comes up with a more convincing rationale not to go nuclear.
Then I got into a weird debate with a guy--normally a progressive--who insisted that the proliferation of nukes was a reason to cheer, because of the advancement of those societies that the weapons constitute. Wha?
(from Politics Talk, Washington Post)
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Downing St.. Memo and Iraq
From:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
Jun-13 10:50 pm
To:
hamblett1957 unread
(207 of 217)
3245.207 in reply to 3245.206
I actually do not believe that the facts were fit to the motive, although I do believe that both motive (independent of facts) and data supported a move - data being true or not. This is based on the general consensus (of intel agencies) at the time that there probably was something there and the post mortem investigations and even the Putin interview a year or year and a half later when he indicated that he thought WMD were there as well but disagreed with action.
All in all, I think WMDs were a part of the motivation, although not necessarily even the most importrant motive, although they were the easiest to point to. Probably few were as surprised as the admin not to find them.From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 12:23 am
To:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
(208 of 217)
3245.208 in reply to 3245.207
You know what? I don't care a bit what the Bushites' motivation may have been, or particularly what their intentions were. This has been an Administration whose major effects have all been unintended consequences. And as for motivations, they have amply proved that their philosophy has been that the ends justify the means. They deserve to be judged exclusively on what they have produced. If you think those results are all right, then by all means defend them. They do--by all means.
If you want my opinion of what actually happened, I think they looked at all kinds of potential military adventure scenarios with some kind of multivariate computerized models to evaluate the costs and benefits. Besides Iraq, they looked at Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and probably a few others. The electoral effect--ability to leverage elections through patriotic appeal, etc.--was highly weighted, so was control over oil production--the levels of production and where it would end up, and the degree to which the invasion would help drive the military reorganization they wanted to put through. They totally screwed up the predicted values of the number of US casualties (I'm sure it was a probability distribution, but they got the basic parameters of it all wrong), the time it would take to pacify the country, and a few other items (such as the importance of enlisting Turkish support, the impact on the military recruitment and reserve systems). They probably were pretty close on the political impact on neighboring countries, and on its weighting.
Bottom line, the model said this was the best country to invade, and that it was better to do it than not. The rest was just putting the decision in the proper frame, developing talking points, intimidating any opposition, directing the development of the war plan and signing off upon it.
Oh yes, and Iraqi civilian casualties got a weighting of zero in the model.
From:
extonpa1
Jun-14 2:00 am
To:
chinshihtang
(211 of 217)
3245.211 in reply to 3245.208
Oh yes, and Iraqi civilian casualties got a weighting of zero in the model.
That says it all!
Iraqis don't vote in US presidential elections.
From:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
Jun-14 7:49 am
To:
chinshihtang
(213 of 217)
3245.213 in reply to 3245.208
Well, as you can see by your own words and mine as well: most people have already decided for themselves what happened. The emergence of slowly-leaked memos and other opinions is really not going to change this.
Thread 2:
From:
Lzrhk
Jun-10 6:53 am
To:
Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS)
(17 of 217)
3245.17 in reply to 3245.1
I think that Morley and the liberals are hacked because President Bush has freed more people from dictatorships than their boy Clinton ever dreamed of doing, and in doing so he has gotten rid of their hero Saddam, and ran their favorite "freedom fighters" the Taliban and Osama's boys out of Afghanistan. And sometimes it is pitiful (not really) to see them groveling around in the mud trying to find something that tells them that, having lost so profoundly in the last election and many more times since, they still have some worth left even if it is a "he said, she said" memo that will prove them right, a memo that anyone could have written up on the way to the airport or as is the favorite among lib losers today, written and conceived in the toilet where some of their better "ideas" are born, so to speak.
As to why the public has not been stirred up by the "memo that won't die" maybe it's because after all the harm the liberal press has done to our soldiers and to our war efforts in Iraq by their lying, the public just doesn't trust them anymore or even care what they have to say. It's that simple, chumps!For the culturally deprived, there is a fable called "The boy who cried wolf." You might want to check it out Morley and share it with the rest of the losers.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 10:03 pm
To:
Lzrhk
(205 of 217)
3245.205 in reply to 3245.17
I know well the fable of "the boy who cried wolf": I brought it up in the last days of the 2004 campaign to point out the unintended irony of a campaign ad done by the Republicans with a bunch of wolves in them (implying that only the Republicans could protect us from the wolves out there in the rest of the world). OK, they won; I didn't. But Bush is still "the boy who cried wolf", particularly with regard to the Iraq war. There certainly won't be another occasion of the sort for us to believe or disbelieve him; there won't be any US forces available for another military adventure during the rest of his Administration. At least there is that consolation.
I was out of the USA in the months leading up to the invasion (actually, in the U.K.): it was clear in the news reporting, even what I could see from abroad, that the Bushites were looking for reasons to go in, and that the outcome was already settled as a matter of Administration policy.
What I didn't understand too well at the time, still don't, is what was the big hurry? Don't tell me it was the seasonal weather in Iraq: we still managed to catch the mother of all sandstorms in the middle of the invasion, and a couple of months to bring the Turks on board (with us going through eastern Turkey) would've made all the difference in the world in the post-invasion occupation--as we have learned to our sorrow.
Still, both questions are matters for the historians at this point, and the Downing Street Memo doesn't prove anything. It just shows what the perceptions at the time were, as noted by someone who was actually quite perceptive. I give Blair enough credit that I don't believe he was any more taken in by the evidence than the Bushites were. It was clear to any and all that Saddam was a caged beast, dangerous, homicidal, but under control from a strategic security standpoint. Blair simply decided that, on an issue of this magnitude, he had to be on the side of the US government.
From:
Lzrhk
Jun-14 12:40 am
To:
chinshihtang
(210 of 217)
3245.210 in reply to 3245.205
You find it consoling that Bush may not be able to engage in other "military adventures?" Like the ones that freed millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq? Like the ones that deposed Saddam, the Taliban and al Queda from their dictatorial and murderous roles over millions? I bet you do find the prospects of other tyrants escaping justice consoling.
Your post 3245.210 Inbox
chinshihtang@gmail.com
More options
Jun 14 (19 hours ago)
The following message was sent to you by CHINSHIHTANG while viewingyour Member Profile:They seemed to have closed that forum, I\'ll just reply to you directly.I supported both the involvement in Afghanistan and the way the Taliban was overthrown. There was a big difference; the US had a valid reason to attack (even to declare war, though they didn\'t gothat route). We also got lucky with our choice to handpick Hamid Karzai.I support the overthrow of dictators but generally reject the idea that we should do it forcibly, unilaterally, without adequate provocation. And we don\'t. I don\'t believe the whitewash about theIraq invasion being about democracy. What we\'ve achieved in Iraq, to date, is chaos for large parts of the country, and the creation of a pauper state in the Shiite South of the country. If that wasour goal, we could\'ve done that in \'91; wiser heads (like Colin Powell) prevented that then but couldn\'t prevent the Bushites (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and of course Dumb Dubya) from doing it in '03.=============================================================
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
Jun-13 10:50 pm
To:
hamblett1957 unread
(207 of 217)
3245.207 in reply to 3245.206
I actually do not believe that the facts were fit to the motive, although I do believe that both motive (independent of facts) and data supported a move - data being true or not. This is based on the general consensus (of intel agencies) at the time that there probably was something there and the post mortem investigations and even the Putin interview a year or year and a half later when he indicated that he thought WMD were there as well but disagreed with action.
All in all, I think WMDs were a part of the motivation, although not necessarily even the most importrant motive, although they were the easiest to point to. Probably few were as surprised as the admin not to find them.From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 12:23 am
To:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
(208 of 217)
3245.208 in reply to 3245.207
You know what? I don't care a bit what the Bushites' motivation may have been, or particularly what their intentions were. This has been an Administration whose major effects have all been unintended consequences. And as for motivations, they have amply proved that their philosophy has been that the ends justify the means. They deserve to be judged exclusively on what they have produced. If you think those results are all right, then by all means defend them. They do--by all means.
If you want my opinion of what actually happened, I think they looked at all kinds of potential military adventure scenarios with some kind of multivariate computerized models to evaluate the costs and benefits. Besides Iraq, they looked at Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and probably a few others. The electoral effect--ability to leverage elections through patriotic appeal, etc.--was highly weighted, so was control over oil production--the levels of production and where it would end up, and the degree to which the invasion would help drive the military reorganization they wanted to put through. They totally screwed up the predicted values of the number of US casualties (I'm sure it was a probability distribution, but they got the basic parameters of it all wrong), the time it would take to pacify the country, and a few other items (such as the importance of enlisting Turkish support, the impact on the military recruitment and reserve systems). They probably were pretty close on the political impact on neighboring countries, and on its weighting.
Bottom line, the model said this was the best country to invade, and that it was better to do it than not. The rest was just putting the decision in the proper frame, developing talking points, intimidating any opposition, directing the development of the war plan and signing off upon it.
Oh yes, and Iraqi civilian casualties got a weighting of zero in the model.
From:
extonpa1
Jun-14 2:00 am
To:
chinshihtang
(211 of 217)
3245.211 in reply to 3245.208
Oh yes, and Iraqi civilian casualties got a weighting of zero in the model.
That says it all!
Iraqis don't vote in US presidential elections.
From:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
Jun-14 7:49 am
To:
chinshihtang
(213 of 217)
3245.213 in reply to 3245.208
Well, as you can see by your own words and mine as well: most people have already decided for themselves what happened. The emergence of slowly-leaked memos and other opinions is really not going to change this.
Thread 2:
From:
Lzrhk
Jun-10 6:53 am
To:
Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS)
(17 of 217)
3245.17 in reply to 3245.1
I think that Morley and the liberals are hacked because President Bush has freed more people from dictatorships than their boy Clinton ever dreamed of doing, and in doing so he has gotten rid of their hero Saddam, and ran their favorite "freedom fighters" the Taliban and Osama's boys out of Afghanistan. And sometimes it is pitiful (not really) to see them groveling around in the mud trying to find something that tells them that, having lost so profoundly in the last election and many more times since, they still have some worth left even if it is a "he said, she said" memo that will prove them right, a memo that anyone could have written up on the way to the airport or as is the favorite among lib losers today, written and conceived in the toilet where some of their better "ideas" are born, so to speak.
As to why the public has not been stirred up by the "memo that won't die" maybe it's because after all the harm the liberal press has done to our soldiers and to our war efforts in Iraq by their lying, the public just doesn't trust them anymore or even care what they have to say. It's that simple, chumps!For the culturally deprived, there is a fable called "The boy who cried wolf." You might want to check it out Morley and share it with the rest of the losers.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 10:03 pm
To:
Lzrhk
(205 of 217)
3245.205 in reply to 3245.17
I know well the fable of "the boy who cried wolf": I brought it up in the last days of the 2004 campaign to point out the unintended irony of a campaign ad done by the Republicans with a bunch of wolves in them (implying that only the Republicans could protect us from the wolves out there in the rest of the world). OK, they won; I didn't. But Bush is still "the boy who cried wolf", particularly with regard to the Iraq war. There certainly won't be another occasion of the sort for us to believe or disbelieve him; there won't be any US forces available for another military adventure during the rest of his Administration. At least there is that consolation.
I was out of the USA in the months leading up to the invasion (actually, in the U.K.): it was clear in the news reporting, even what I could see from abroad, that the Bushites were looking for reasons to go in, and that the outcome was already settled as a matter of Administration policy.
What I didn't understand too well at the time, still don't, is what was the big hurry? Don't tell me it was the seasonal weather in Iraq: we still managed to catch the mother of all sandstorms in the middle of the invasion, and a couple of months to bring the Turks on board (with us going through eastern Turkey) would've made all the difference in the world in the post-invasion occupation--as we have learned to our sorrow.
Still, both questions are matters for the historians at this point, and the Downing Street Memo doesn't prove anything. It just shows what the perceptions at the time were, as noted by someone who was actually quite perceptive. I give Blair enough credit that I don't believe he was any more taken in by the evidence than the Bushites were. It was clear to any and all that Saddam was a caged beast, dangerous, homicidal, but under control from a strategic security standpoint. Blair simply decided that, on an issue of this magnitude, he had to be on the side of the US government.
From:
Lzrhk
Jun-14 12:40 am
To:
chinshihtang
(210 of 217)
3245.210 in reply to 3245.205
You find it consoling that Bush may not be able to engage in other "military adventures?" Like the ones that freed millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq? Like the ones that deposed Saddam, the Taliban and al Queda from their dictatorial and murderous roles over millions? I bet you do find the prospects of other tyrants escaping justice consoling.
Your post 3245.210 Inbox
chinshihtang@gmail.com
More options
Jun 14 (19 hours ago)
The following message was sent to you by CHINSHIHTANG while viewingyour Member Profile:They seemed to have closed that forum, I\'ll just reply to you directly.I supported both the involvement in Afghanistan and the way the Taliban was overthrown. There was a big difference; the US had a valid reason to attack (even to declare war, though they didn\'t gothat route). We also got lucky with our choice to handpick Hamid Karzai.I support the overthrow of dictators but generally reject the idea that we should do it forcibly, unilaterally, without adequate provocation. And we don\'t. I don\'t believe the whitewash about theIraq invasion being about democracy. What we\'ve achieved in Iraq, to date, is chaos for large parts of the country, and the creation of a pauper state in the Shiite South of the country. If that wasour goal, we could\'ve done that in \'91; wiser heads (like Colin Powell) prevented that then but couldn\'t prevent the Bushites (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and of course Dumb Dubya) from doing it in '03.=============================================================
Howard Dean and Republicans: conversations
Note: Thread 2 should probably come before thread 1 because of the convergence onto the subject of Lieberman, which was brought up in thread 2.
Style Forum (Reply-Only Folder) - Dean's Appearance Has Media in a Sweat
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 6:41 pm
To:
ALL
(20 of 64)
3249.20 in reply to 3249.19
Although I agree with Pelosi that Dean's comments "weren't helpful", I do admire his candor in telling it pretty much like it is. And I'm a Republican. I may be white and Christian but I do not approve of the obvious religion-based agenda and demeanor of the current GOP in Congress and the WH. That is not what government is supposed to be doing. EVERYONE should be represented.
I also don't like tiptoeing around an issue, phony rhetoric, or being disingenuous, so I guess I am kind of a Dean fan.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 9:32 pm
To:
tune_it
(25 of 64)
3249.25 in reply to 3249.20
I like tune_it's posting, and I think it brings up a really interesting point. Those who are Republican and not both white and Christian really do have to consider what they think they are doing--the reasons why these people should desert their party are almost self-evident.
The point that Dean should focus upon in his public statements is why those who ARE white and Christian (like Dean himself, for that matter) should be Democrats. This, in a nutshell, is the Democrat/values problem that he wishes to address. And, it is soluble: there are good solid reasons for white Christians to be Democrats, reasons that relate to their being white and being Christian.
I will admit that my feelings about Dean are quite complex. They have nothing to do with my disappointment with the 2004 failure of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, which had the odds against it from the start. I hope that Dean's role in the 2008 election will be to follow Bill Frist around and give him hell, particularly about health issues. All Americans who care about our country's future, regardless of party, have to keep as top priority ensuring that the next President will be anti-Bushite.
Edited 6/13/
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 10:43 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(26 of 64)
3249.26 in reply to 3249.25
The GOP has no monopoly on Christians. That and "religious right" are political code words for pro-lifers. Abortion and evangelical zeal is what really separates religious people politically.
Don't expect Republicans to vote Democrat real soon.
For reasons entirely aside from social issues I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat, Howard Dean or anyone else. That is what Dean needs to address. I wish I could pick and chose issues virtually owned by different parties, but right now the mix that suits me best is on the GOP side. That doesn't mean I like or would automatically defend this person or that or deserve application of anyone's GOP stereotype.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:15 pm
To:
tune_it
(27 of 64)
3249.27 in reply to 3249.26
OK, I won't try to convert you--after all, you did say you were white and Christian (joking!). I agree that "the GOP has no monopoly on Christians", and I think it would be very dangerous if the party tried to portray the reality as being otherwise.
I will point out, then perhaps resolve, a seeming contradiction in your posting. You say, "I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat", but then you also say you would not "automatically defend this person or that". I take this to mean that you will vote Republican in all cases, regardless of the individual and his/her stands, because the overall mix of issue positions--and not the positions on social issues--of the Republican national party suits you more. So, you would be a strategic Republican loyalist voter. Fine.
Although I think in general the independents and the third-party supporters of Libertarians and Greens are more fertile territory for Democrats to seek to recruit (at least for coalitions at election time), there are some Republicans that I do "expect to vote Democrat real soon". Those are the Republicans who are horrified by the policies of this Bush Administration and properly despair of their chances of reclaiming the party from the Bushites. The party--both parties--are all about political, and therefore electoral, power, and whatever else they've done, the Bushites have shown they can grab power with the best of them. The 2008 Republican nomination process will be the litmus test for these conscientious Republicans. If what should be a wide-open process proves to be fixed for another Bushite, I do expect them to desert. In droves. It's either that, continuing to live in delusion, or abandonment of their principles. I hope they won't do the latter out of sheer stubbornness.
Edited 6/13/2005 11:49 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
tune_it
Jun-14 7:52 am
To:
chinshihtang
(35 of 64)
3249.35 in reply to 3249.29
<>
Dean's hyperbole aside, demonizing Republicans is not going to win any converts. The issue is socialism. Republicans are against it. Disagreeing doesn't make someone evil.
As far as Leiberman is concerned, being moderate does not make a bad Democrat. Appreciating his position is exactly what it will take to win elections. A move toward the center would be more representative, no? Actually Dean is probing that territory. The math is pretty simple.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:31 pm
To:
tune_it unread
(60 of 64)
3249.60 in reply to 3249.35
I'm not demonizing Republicans; I'm condemning Bushism, which is only a part of the party that has hijacked control through its ruthlessness (and ability to deliver electoral victories). It may not be evil per se, but its means are immoral, its objectives contrary to the welfare of this country and the world, and its results--the true test--harmful. Bad government helps produce evil outcomes.
Sorry, but socialism is not the issue. Democrats are not for socialism, either. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production; I've never heard a Democratic leader advocate that. Both parties advocate mixed economies, and with the exception of the rapacious health insurance industry (and size of the military, perhaps), about the same mix. If you're against the current public/private mix, you should vote Libertarian, as they are the only party advocating any change there.
Redistribution of income or wealth is not socialism. You should be glad for that, because this Bushite regime is redistributing big time, from the working classes and even the upper middle class to the top 1-2%. This is undercutting the great strength of the American economy.
You seemed to misread me on Lieberman; I want him in the Democratic party, I just don't want to have to listen to his speeches.
I tend to agree that it looks better if one can sell oneself as a moderate for national elections (not so true in Congressional elections). This conservative/moderate/liberal stuff is way out of date; it is a difference of optics only and relates very little to meaningful differences of policy and particularly of long-term vision for the nation and world (of which there is precious little in either party). I think Hillary is doing a great job of positioning herself as a moderate, so with her high name recognition she is quite correctly the betting favorite, of all candidates of either party, as we stand right now.
Thread 2:
From:
smeesq
Jun-13 1:42 pm
To:
iside613
(16 of 64)
3249.16 in reply to 3249.11
Anybody who, like Mr. Berg, is offended because a Democrat talks about health care being the right of every citizen is probably a DINO (a Democrat in name only) and would be happier as an Independent or even a Republican. Now would be a good time for him and other Democrats who think that its possible to "triangulate" or "compromise" or " appease" the right wing fundamentalist extremists running the GOP, to find a new political affiliation.
I,too, talked to a lot of Democrats after the last presidential election. None of them responded to the election outcome as did Mr. Berg's group of friends. What I heard was total disgust that John Kerry has run the most bizarrely inept campaign in modern electoral history, had not even spent many millions of dollars that were raised on his behalf, took vacations to windsurf at the most inopportune moments, refused to disclose his military records while insisting on running as some kind of war hero, and generally appeared to be as wishy washy as the GOP painted him. All the while he continued to support an illegal war that HE voted for, and refused to acknowledge that it was based on the lies of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It was hard for ME to vote for the man, and I am a died in the wool liberal.
I liked Froomkin's joke this week about Democrats: "Do you know why the GOP doesn't want to fund stem cell research? They're afraid the Democrats will get ahold of the technology and grow a backbone."
Howard Dean is the backbone, we failed to recognize that in 2004, and the party let the Clintons and the corporate funded DLC destroy Dean's candidacy and put "their guy" Kerry in, to hold Hillary's place until 2008. Thats not going to happen again. Dean may not be the next Presidential candidate, but he is the leader of the new Demcratic Party in this country and the DLC is about to find out what that means.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:45 pm
To:
smeesq
(29 of 64)
3249.29 in reply to 3249.16
Personally, I don't much like this talk about DINO's--it seems to be something culled from extremist right-wing Republican blogs, then reversed. I think that people come to the Democratic party for a variety of reasons, and we should not exclude anyone who sincerely wants to work for our success. Particularly when we have a political enemy that is so unscrupulous and deleterious to the future of the human race. We're bigger than that. Let the Republicans persecute the "heretics" and "turncoats" in their own camp. If that means putting up with self-righteous bores like Joe Lieberman, OK, I'll accept that, as long as they accept basic principles like defeating Bushism, defending democracy, and advocating reform where needed.
I don't think you can count on Gov. Dean to pursue exclusionary policies toward the DLC, either. He's trying to expand the tent, and he basically had the support of all parts of the DNC when he was selected. I think the most you can expect is that he will resist the attempt by one faction or the other within the party to presume dominance. I wish him every success.
From:
smeesq
Jun-14 12:09 am
To:
chinshihtang
(31 of 64)
3249.31 in reply to 3249.29
<>
Anyone is welcome to the Democratic Party that wants to be there, but they are NOT welcome (AFAIC)if they vote against major policy goals and legislative efforts of their party. They can't claim to be progressive and supporters of middle class working Americans and then vote for the new Bankruptcy Act as Biden did. Lieberman is more of a neo-con and a bigger supporter of the invasion of Iraq than many Republicans. I don't want my efforts or contributions to go into electing the likes of Zell Miller or Lieberman or a number of others.
A LTTE in the NY Times today made the point that a lot of Democrats think they can win elections by attracting moderate Republicans. Actually, they'd gain more voters by trying to attract the Greens and the Libertarians and the disillusioned who've gibven up on political change because they view both parties as being completely unprincipled and owned by corporate interests. We tried being "Republican-lite" in the last election. Lets try being REAL Democrats and see if that works any better in 2006.
<>
I don't think so. If I recall there was very little enthusiasm for Dean from the DLC, it was the strentgth (in numbers and passion) of Dean's supporters that got him that job.
Edited 6/14/2005 12:12 am ET by smeesq
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:12 pm
To:
smeesq
(58 of 64)
3249.58 in reply to 3249.31
I disagree with you on the Bankruptcy Act. The legislation was not all it could be because some amendments that would've brought more fairness to it were defeated, but I believe that reform of bankruptcy law was needed; there is a lot of abuse. So, maybe the bill earned a "no" vote, but the call is closer than you think.
If your point is that people who get sick often file bankruptcy, my response is that you're complaining about the wrong issue--people need health insurance and a long-term/disability care system that treats them fairly to reduce their risk. As it stands the people who pay for these sick bankrupts (and the divorced ones, and the deadbeat ones) are the customers who pay their bills. I know whereof I speak.
I agree with you entirely on Libertarians/Greens/Independents (said the same thing yesterday in a forum here). I think moderate Republicans should be "worked upon", as with the 7 in the Senate, to empower them to vote their consciences and not parrot the Bushite line in the interest of blind party loyalty.
I disagree about Kerry--he was not of the moderate wing of the party, but the liberal one. He tried to have it both ways and (classically, with the Iraq position) his positions were too "nuanced" (which was interpreted by the Republicans to read: wishy-washy). I actually think he did a good job on the campaign given his negatives from VVAW, Massachusetts liberal reputation, and Bush wrapping himself in the flag.
I think the best course for Dems in 2004 would've been a true hawkish moderate like Wesley Clark (albeit one with a clear antiwar position on Iraq), but he couldn't run the media/primary gauntlet. Kerry did. 2008 will be an interesting case which will be hard to read until after 2006, but I can guarantee you that, whether it's Dean or someone else at DNC, its Chairman will be concerned only with having a winner, not his/her relative position within the Democratic range (fairly broad) of some ideological political spectrum that is mostly smoke and mirrors (see my current response to tune_it). It's about getting someone elected who has a better approach for this country's future and the world's. Kerry's ideas about the things that mattered were fine; he just lacked 1% of what he needed in Ohio and it came down to his perception among a few percent of voters. It was a close thing.
Style Forum (Reply-Only Folder) - Dean's Appearance Has Media in a Sweat
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 6:41 pm
To:
ALL
(20 of 64)
3249.20 in reply to 3249.19
Although I agree with Pelosi that Dean's comments "weren't helpful", I do admire his candor in telling it pretty much like it is. And I'm a Republican. I may be white and Christian but I do not approve of the obvious religion-based agenda and demeanor of the current GOP in Congress and the WH. That is not what government is supposed to be doing. EVERYONE should be represented.
I also don't like tiptoeing around an issue, phony rhetoric, or being disingenuous, so I guess I am kind of a Dean fan.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 9:32 pm
To:
tune_it
(25 of 64)
3249.25 in reply to 3249.20
I like tune_it's posting, and I think it brings up a really interesting point. Those who are Republican and not both white and Christian really do have to consider what they think they are doing--the reasons why these people should desert their party are almost self-evident.
The point that Dean should focus upon in his public statements is why those who ARE white and Christian (like Dean himself, for that matter) should be Democrats. This, in a nutshell, is the Democrat/values problem that he wishes to address. And, it is soluble: there are good solid reasons for white Christians to be Democrats, reasons that relate to their being white and being Christian.
I will admit that my feelings about Dean are quite complex. They have nothing to do with my disappointment with the 2004 failure of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, which had the odds against it from the start. I hope that Dean's role in the 2008 election will be to follow Bill Frist around and give him hell, particularly about health issues. All Americans who care about our country's future, regardless of party, have to keep as top priority ensuring that the next President will be anti-Bushite.
Edited 6/13/
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 10:43 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(26 of 64)
3249.26 in reply to 3249.25
The GOP has no monopoly on Christians. That and "religious right" are political code words for pro-lifers. Abortion and evangelical zeal is what really separates religious people politically.
Don't expect Republicans to vote Democrat real soon.
For reasons entirely aside from social issues I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat, Howard Dean or anyone else. That is what Dean needs to address. I wish I could pick and chose issues virtually owned by different parties, but right now the mix that suits me best is on the GOP side. That doesn't mean I like or would automatically defend this person or that or deserve application of anyone's GOP stereotype.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:15 pm
To:
tune_it
(27 of 64)
3249.27 in reply to 3249.26
OK, I won't try to convert you--after all, you did say you were white and Christian (joking!). I agree that "the GOP has no monopoly on Christians", and I think it would be very dangerous if the party tried to portray the reality as being otherwise.
I will point out, then perhaps resolve, a seeming contradiction in your posting. You say, "I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat", but then you also say you would not "automatically defend this person or that". I take this to mean that you will vote Republican in all cases, regardless of the individual and his/her stands, because the overall mix of issue positions--and not the positions on social issues--of the Republican national party suits you more. So, you would be a strategic Republican loyalist voter. Fine.
Although I think in general the independents and the third-party supporters of Libertarians and Greens are more fertile territory for Democrats to seek to recruit (at least for coalitions at election time), there are some Republicans that I do "expect to vote Democrat real soon". Those are the Republicans who are horrified by the policies of this Bush Administration and properly despair of their chances of reclaiming the party from the Bushites. The party--both parties--are all about political, and therefore electoral, power, and whatever else they've done, the Bushites have shown they can grab power with the best of them. The 2008 Republican nomination process will be the litmus test for these conscientious Republicans. If what should be a wide-open process proves to be fixed for another Bushite, I do expect them to desert. In droves. It's either that, continuing to live in delusion, or abandonment of their principles. I hope they won't do the latter out of sheer stubbornness.
Edited 6/13/2005 11:49 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
tune_it
Jun-14 7:52 am
To:
chinshihtang
(35 of 64)
3249.35 in reply to 3249.29
<
Dean's hyperbole aside, demonizing Republicans is not going to win any converts. The issue is socialism. Republicans are against it. Disagreeing doesn't make someone evil.
As far as Leiberman is concerned, being moderate does not make a bad Democrat. Appreciating his position is exactly what it will take to win elections. A move toward the center would be more representative, no? Actually Dean is probing that territory. The math is pretty simple.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:31 pm
To:
tune_it unread
(60 of 64)
3249.60 in reply to 3249.35
I'm not demonizing Republicans; I'm condemning Bushism, which is only a part of the party that has hijacked control through its ruthlessness (and ability to deliver electoral victories). It may not be evil per se, but its means are immoral, its objectives contrary to the welfare of this country and the world, and its results--the true test--harmful. Bad government helps produce evil outcomes.
Sorry, but socialism is not the issue. Democrats are not for socialism, either. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production; I've never heard a Democratic leader advocate that. Both parties advocate mixed economies, and with the exception of the rapacious health insurance industry (and size of the military, perhaps), about the same mix. If you're against the current public/private mix, you should vote Libertarian, as they are the only party advocating any change there.
Redistribution of income or wealth is not socialism. You should be glad for that, because this Bushite regime is redistributing big time, from the working classes and even the upper middle class to the top 1-2%. This is undercutting the great strength of the American economy.
You seemed to misread me on Lieberman; I want him in the Democratic party, I just don't want to have to listen to his speeches.
I tend to agree that it looks better if one can sell oneself as a moderate for national elections (not so true in Congressional elections). This conservative/moderate/liberal stuff is way out of date; it is a difference of optics only and relates very little to meaningful differences of policy and particularly of long-term vision for the nation and world (of which there is precious little in either party). I think Hillary is doing a great job of positioning herself as a moderate, so with her high name recognition she is quite correctly the betting favorite, of all candidates of either party, as we stand right now.
Thread 2:
From:
smeesq
Jun-13 1:42 pm
To:
iside613
(16 of 64)
3249.16 in reply to 3249.11
Anybody who, like Mr. Berg, is offended because a Democrat talks about health care being the right of every citizen is probably a DINO (a Democrat in name only) and would be happier as an Independent or even a Republican. Now would be a good time for him and other Democrats who think that its possible to "triangulate" or "compromise" or " appease" the right wing fundamentalist extremists running the GOP, to find a new political affiliation.
I,too, talked to a lot of Democrats after the last presidential election. None of them responded to the election outcome as did Mr. Berg's group of friends. What I heard was total disgust that John Kerry has run the most bizarrely inept campaign in modern electoral history, had not even spent many millions of dollars that were raised on his behalf, took vacations to windsurf at the most inopportune moments, refused to disclose his military records while insisting on running as some kind of war hero, and generally appeared to be as wishy washy as the GOP painted him. All the while he continued to support an illegal war that HE voted for, and refused to acknowledge that it was based on the lies of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It was hard for ME to vote for the man, and I am a died in the wool liberal.
I liked Froomkin's joke this week about Democrats: "Do you know why the GOP doesn't want to fund stem cell research? They're afraid the Democrats will get ahold of the technology and grow a backbone."
Howard Dean is the backbone, we failed to recognize that in 2004, and the party let the Clintons and the corporate funded DLC destroy Dean's candidacy and put "their guy" Kerry in, to hold Hillary's place until 2008. Thats not going to happen again. Dean may not be the next Presidential candidate, but he is the leader of the new Demcratic Party in this country and the DLC is about to find out what that means.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:45 pm
To:
smeesq
(29 of 64)
3249.29 in reply to 3249.16
Personally, I don't much like this talk about DINO's--it seems to be something culled from extremist right-wing Republican blogs, then reversed. I think that people come to the Democratic party for a variety of reasons, and we should not exclude anyone who sincerely wants to work for our success. Particularly when we have a political enemy that is so unscrupulous and deleterious to the future of the human race. We're bigger than that. Let the Republicans persecute the "heretics" and "turncoats" in their own camp. If that means putting up with self-righteous bores like Joe Lieberman, OK, I'll accept that, as long as they accept basic principles like defeating Bushism, defending democracy, and advocating reform where needed.
I don't think you can count on Gov. Dean to pursue exclusionary policies toward the DLC, either. He's trying to expand the tent, and he basically had the support of all parts of the DNC when he was selected. I think the most you can expect is that he will resist the attempt by one faction or the other within the party to presume dominance. I wish him every success.
From:
smeesq
Jun-14 12:09 am
To:
chinshihtang
(31 of 64)
3249.31 in reply to 3249.29
<
Anyone is welcome to the Democratic Party that wants to be there, but they are NOT welcome (AFAIC)if they vote against major policy goals and legislative efforts of their party. They can't claim to be progressive and supporters of middle class working Americans and then vote for the new Bankruptcy Act as Biden did. Lieberman is more of a neo-con and a bigger supporter of the invasion of Iraq than many Republicans. I don't want my efforts or contributions to go into electing the likes of Zell Miller or Lieberman or a number of others.
A LTTE in the NY Times today made the point that a lot of Democrats think they can win elections by attracting moderate Republicans. Actually, they'd gain more voters by trying to attract the Greens and the Libertarians and the disillusioned who've gibven up on political change because they view both parties as being completely unprincipled and owned by corporate interests. We tried being "Republican-lite" in the last election. Lets try being REAL Democrats and see if that works any better in 2006.
<
I don't think so. If I recall there was very little enthusiasm for Dean from the DLC, it was the strentgth (in numbers and passion) of Dean's supporters that got him that job.
Edited 6/14/2005 12:12 am ET by smeesq
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:12 pm
To:
smeesq
(58 of 64)
3249.58 in reply to 3249.31
I disagree with you on the Bankruptcy Act. The legislation was not all it could be because some amendments that would've brought more fairness to it were defeated, but I believe that reform of bankruptcy law was needed; there is a lot of abuse. So, maybe the bill earned a "no" vote, but the call is closer than you think.
If your point is that people who get sick often file bankruptcy, my response is that you're complaining about the wrong issue--people need health insurance and a long-term/disability care system that treats them fairly to reduce their risk. As it stands the people who pay for these sick bankrupts (and the divorced ones, and the deadbeat ones) are the customers who pay their bills. I know whereof I speak.
I agree with you entirely on Libertarians/Greens/Independents (said the same thing yesterday in a forum here). I think moderate Republicans should be "worked upon", as with the 7 in the Senate, to empower them to vote their consciences and not parrot the Bushite line in the interest of blind party loyalty.
I disagree about Kerry--he was not of the moderate wing of the party, but the liberal one. He tried to have it both ways and (classically, with the Iraq position) his positions were too "nuanced" (which was interpreted by the Republicans to read: wishy-washy). I actually think he did a good job on the campaign given his negatives from VVAW, Massachusetts liberal reputation, and Bush wrapping himself in the flag.
I think the best course for Dems in 2004 would've been a true hawkish moderate like Wesley Clark (albeit one with a clear antiwar position on Iraq), but he couldn't run the media/primary gauntlet. Kerry did. 2008 will be an interesting case which will be hard to read until after 2006, but I can guarantee you that, whether it's Dean or someone else at DNC, its Chairman will be concerned only with having a winner, not his/her relative position within the Democratic range (fairly broad) of some ideological political spectrum that is mostly smoke and mirrors (see my current response to tune_it). It's about getting someone elected who has a better approach for this country's future and the world's. Kerry's ideas about the things that mattered were fine; he just lacked 1% of what he needed in Ohio and it came down to his perception among a few percent of voters. It was a close thing.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
EU and America: Which has the "stultifying conservatism"?
posted on the NY Times forum in response to David Brooks' "Fear and Rejection" column of June 2, 2005( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/opinion/02brooks.html:
chinshihtang - 7:29 PM ET June 2, 2005 (#32665 of 32691) Stultifying conservatism
Brooks seems to be correct in the sense that the result of liberalism is "stultifying conservatism". That's what we have here in the post-liberal USA.
His column has scarily little about what was actually in the EU constitution that was rejected. I have heard that it was a 200-page document, which is not a good sign. We can infer a variety of things from the rejection of the proposed constitution, but apparently little about the constitution itself.
I would agree that perhaps Turkey is "a bridge too far" for Europeans; perhaps their economies are stagnant (as is ours) despite whatever may have been done by the EU, and particularly by the individual French and Dutch governments. I find it extremely farfetched to draw any American conclusions from the results, except for the "blunt and obvious" one that building one nation out of many independent states is quite difficult, particularly gaining approval for such a blueprint. We had our own experience with that some 200+ years ago.
I wish the Europeans both luck and success with their very difficult enterprise.
chinshihtang - 7:29 PM ET June 2, 2005 (#32665 of 32691) Stultifying conservatism
Brooks seems to be correct in the sense that the result of liberalism is "stultifying conservatism". That's what we have here in the post-liberal USA.
His column has scarily little about what was actually in the EU constitution that was rejected. I have heard that it was a 200-page document, which is not a good sign. We can infer a variety of things from the rejection of the proposed constitution, but apparently little about the constitution itself.
I would agree that perhaps Turkey is "a bridge too far" for Europeans; perhaps their economies are stagnant (as is ours) despite whatever may have been done by the EU, and particularly by the individual French and Dutch governments. I find it extremely farfetched to draw any American conclusions from the results, except for the "blunt and obvious" one that building one nation out of many independent states is quite difficult, particularly gaining approval for such a blueprint. We had our own experience with that some 200+ years ago.
I wish the Europeans both luck and success with their very difficult enterprise.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Filibuster Haiku and Exegesis
The following post was submitted to moveon's forum. Due to technical issues (what--password? ID? Better judgment? Internet runaround?) , it didn't get through.
I admit to having been "jstoner"; Occupation/Affiliation: "pamphleteer" when I tried to sign up there.
anyway, this was the text:
Very cool to link to the document itself, with the 14 signatures (two additional lines added by hand for reserve signees Chaffee and Inouye). Thank you.
You may have heard about abc news' contest for the best filibuster haiku, to while away the time of the judicial nominee debate. No prize was being awarded, so far as I know. Anyway, here's my entry. It should be intoned in the style of that great Zen poet, Yoda.
Pass the impasse, Yes.
We must; but Supreme Court soon.
Bushites hit the fan.
I was disappointed: mine was not mentioned. Can you guess why?
I admit to having been "jstoner"; Occupation/Affiliation: "pamphleteer" when I tried to sign up there.
anyway, this was the text:
Very cool to link to the document itself, with the 14 signatures (two additional lines added by hand for reserve signees Chaffee and Inouye). Thank you.
You may have heard about abc news' contest for the best filibuster haiku, to while away the time of the judicial nominee debate. No prize was being awarded, so far as I know. Anyway, here's my entry. It should be intoned in the style of that great Zen poet, Yoda.
Pass the impasse, Yes.
We must; but Supreme Court soon.
Bushites hit the fan.
I was disappointed: mine was not mentioned. Can you guess why?
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Senate Judicial Fireworks: Final WP Posting here
I promise not to bring any more on this subject into my blog after this. for once I will put the entire dialogue into this blog.
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 9:58 pm
To:
winters0
(88 of 214)
4998.88 in reply to 4998.43
These nominees should've been killed in committee--or passed by a bipartisan vote. Here's a suggestion: change the Senate rules so that nominees for lifetime positions need 60% support in committee (and protect committee assignments by party). Basically, that's the majority party plus one.
This will ensure that judges with lifetime tenure that are sent to the floor are in line with the mainstream. If there is a strict partisan divide on the qualifications of the nominee (such as was the case with Bolton, though I'd treat Cabinet/Executive nominations differently), it shouldn't go forward.
On the floor, there will always be party-line voting, or else public posturing for electoral purposes. That's OK, but it's not very relevant to the qualification/mainstream issue.
If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. Period. Senate majority may have the votes--with enough arm-twisting--to get their way in the showdown vote, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
It is the moderates who are being screwed in this debate by the extremists on both sides. They are slow to rouse, but their wrath is powerful--Bushites beware!
difess76:
*** If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. ***
That's not in the Constitution and the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules. One can argue that each Senate is a new Senate so each new Senate gets to set it's own rules. We know that each Senate is separate because they each get a number, i.e., 108th, 109th, etc.
The Constitution seems to require only a majority vote for each Senate to set it's rules. Why would the 109th Senate be required to follow the rules of the 108th Senate which no longer exists? Both the 108th and 109th Senate have equal authority under the Constitution so one can't bind the other one. At least some Constitutional scholars believe this to be the case.
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 11:39 pm
To:
djfess76
(93 of 214)
4998.93 in reply to 4998.92
I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.
If the Senate Rules Committee decided this broad and general provision made no sense, they would review each rule for fairness (and, yes, whether the rule makes sense in today's society) and determine whether it should continue from Congress to Congress, then get a bipartisan majority to support a change in the rules so that only some of them would carry forward. I see no move in that direction; only a move by a narrow majority to vitiate any opposition.
From:
djfess76
May-20 5:12 am
To:
chinshihtang
(100 of 214)
4998.100 in reply to 4998.93
*** I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.***
Sorry, I should have taken the time to point the article by the law professor who wrote it. I don't know the politics of the professor, but here is the article: Can the Senate Bind Itself So that Only a Supermajority Can Change Its Rules? The scholar seems to be just one of those typical legal beagles who teaches law for a living.
From:
chinshihtang
May-20 5:26 pm
To:
djfess76
(199 of 214)
4998.199 in reply to 4998.100
OK, I read the piece you referred to above. There is an interesting theoretical argument that makes sense on the surface--that legislatures are not limited in what they can do by what has been legislated in the past. He gives an extreme example--if the Senate rules required a unanimous vote to pass legislation.
The problem with such a theory is that the rules in place are not so extreme. The rules have been designed with wisdom, to protect the minority. The greatest example of how the Senate rules protect the minority and still remain practical is the unanimous consent aspect--the Senate can do all kinds of things by unanimous consent. When there is not consensus, though, the body has to proceed carefully, by the rules. The breaking of the rules to change the rules violates the Senate's traditions and norms.
But is it unconstitutional? Strangely enough, the author makes the argument that the rules to amend the Constitution itself are subject to the same argument. The will of the people being supreme, he argues, why not change the constitution by simple majority vote, instead of the arduous and usually unsuccessful process specified in the Constitution itself?
Why, indeed? We see what a slippery slope we'd be on. Funny, he doesn't even mention the alternative provided in the Constitution itself which directly addresses his suggestion, of a new Constitutional convention which could make its own rules.
I think the piece is useful to prod some thinking, but way off-base in terms of understanding where the door may be in this impasse. I will give some credit though: the piece was written 24 months or so ago, and it anticipates much of the current argument.
One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative.
Edited 5/20/2005 5:31 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
djfess76
May-20 6:30 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(202 of 214)
4998.202 in reply to 4998.199
*** One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative. ***
You noticed that I only pointed out the article and not the fact that the author did not seem to fit into a conservative mold at first glance. I have not researched his background, but suspect that you are correct.
The thing about the law is that it seems that when you follow a theme of thought you can arrive at a strange destination that seems to kill all the effort you spent getting to the end point. But it is logical to me that every numbered Senate should set its own rules and do it soon after they are sworn in. In my opinion, the setting of the rules should be part of the training given to all freshman Senators. They could even have a Rules Committee to help to speed things along.
I have concluded that most of the nominees put up by either side are qualified to be approved. Therefore, I believe that any nominee that gets to the Senate floor should be voted on by the full Senate.
I also think that the idea of one Senator from the state where the vacancy exists should not have the power to kill a nomination.
That leaves us with the Judiciary Committee and I have some doubts that it should have the power to kill a nomination. The Committee probably should hold whatever hearings that are needed and then just pass the nomination along and let the Senate vote. If there is a bad nominee based on the hearings then the Senators should go on record and not approve the nomination.
Then, there would be no need for the filibuster or filibuster rules with respect to judicial nominees.
From:
chinshihtang
3:04 am
To:
djfess76 unread
(214 of 214)
4998.214 in reply to 4998.202
Your tone is most smoothing, but I have to disagree with nearly every point you make after the opening pleasantries.
I would say the most general objection I have is the notion that the Senate needs to roll over more smoothly, like the House does (if you have the majority, or can twist arms sufficiently forcefully, as with the Medicare prescription legislation).
There is something to be said for deliberation; a little less alacrity in the resolutions supporting the invasion into Iraq would have been wise. What was the big hurry for, anyway, besides the re-election timetable? Don't tell me it was the local calendar: we managed to catch the mother of all sandstorms, after all, and we failed to get Turkish cooperation before the invasion. Of course, the bullying of the Executive, the scorched earth attack on anyone who questioned the military adventurism...would that the War Powers Act were a bit stronger or the requirement to declare war (it only takes a nanosecond, once there's resolve or a casus belli) a bit clearer. Who was it who leaked Valerie Flame's cover, anyway? I'm so glad the Executive is personally taking care of this one.
I think that if the Senate had to set its own rules, one of two things would result: 1) a party line vote with rules dictated by the Majority Leader (and thus, written by the M.L.'s staff); or2) chaos.
I think that the committee's hands should be strengthened to prevent placing onto the floor for advise and consent into lifetime positions those who cannot draw bipartisan support as to their qualifications, integrity, and temperament. Then it is a political question on the floor whether, given those attestations from the committee, the nominee should be given the post for life.
Although the circumstances in the Senate are not quite as clear as those I propose--both committee votes and floor votes are political, and both are around qualifications--these candidates did not get that kind of ringing endorsement, so protracted delay is justified (you know "protracted", he's Tom's cousin). I think both sides have fired their shots across the bow. The escalation can be ended if the Republicans give up their insistence on rolling up Senate debate at will. Then we can go on standby until the Administration has to come across with Supreme Court nominations. Then, if they're foolish once again, the Bushites will get "ventilated", so to speak.
And a good day to you, as well!
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 9:58 pm
To:
winters0
(88 of 214)
4998.88 in reply to 4998.43
These nominees should've been killed in committee--or passed by a bipartisan vote. Here's a suggestion: change the Senate rules so that nominees for lifetime positions need 60% support in committee (and protect committee assignments by party). Basically, that's the majority party plus one.
This will ensure that judges with lifetime tenure that are sent to the floor are in line with the mainstream. If there is a strict partisan divide on the qualifications of the nominee (such as was the case with Bolton, though I'd treat Cabinet/Executive nominations differently), it shouldn't go forward.
On the floor, there will always be party-line voting, or else public posturing for electoral purposes. That's OK, but it's not very relevant to the qualification/mainstream issue.
If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. Period. Senate majority may have the votes--with enough arm-twisting--to get their way in the showdown vote, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
It is the moderates who are being screwed in this debate by the extremists on both sides. They are slow to rouse, but their wrath is powerful--Bushites beware!
difess76:
*** If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. ***
That's not in the Constitution and the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules. One can argue that each Senate is a new Senate so each new Senate gets to set it's own rules. We know that each Senate is separate because they each get a number, i.e., 108th, 109th, etc.
The Constitution seems to require only a majority vote for each Senate to set it's rules. Why would the 109th Senate be required to follow the rules of the 108th Senate which no longer exists? Both the 108th and 109th Senate have equal authority under the Constitution so one can't bind the other one. At least some Constitutional scholars believe this to be the case.
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 11:39 pm
To:
djfess76
(93 of 214)
4998.93 in reply to 4998.92
I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.
If the Senate Rules Committee decided this broad and general provision made no sense, they would review each rule for fairness (and, yes, whether the rule makes sense in today's society) and determine whether it should continue from Congress to Congress, then get a bipartisan majority to support a change in the rules so that only some of them would carry forward. I see no move in that direction; only a move by a narrow majority to vitiate any opposition.
From:
djfess76
May-20 5:12 am
To:
chinshihtang
(100 of 214)
4998.100 in reply to 4998.93
*** I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.***
Sorry, I should have taken the time to point the article by the law professor who wrote it. I don't know the politics of the professor, but here is the article: Can the Senate Bind Itself So that Only a Supermajority Can Change Its Rules? The scholar seems to be just one of those typical legal beagles who teaches law for a living.
From:
chinshihtang
May-20 5:26 pm
To:
djfess76
(199 of 214)
4998.199 in reply to 4998.100
OK, I read the piece you referred to above. There is an interesting theoretical argument that makes sense on the surface--that legislatures are not limited in what they can do by what has been legislated in the past. He gives an extreme example--if the Senate rules required a unanimous vote to pass legislation.
The problem with such a theory is that the rules in place are not so extreme. The rules have been designed with wisdom, to protect the minority. The greatest example of how the Senate rules protect the minority and still remain practical is the unanimous consent aspect--the Senate can do all kinds of things by unanimous consent. When there is not consensus, though, the body has to proceed carefully, by the rules. The breaking of the rules to change the rules violates the Senate's traditions and norms.
But is it unconstitutional? Strangely enough, the author makes the argument that the rules to amend the Constitution itself are subject to the same argument. The will of the people being supreme, he argues, why not change the constitution by simple majority vote, instead of the arduous and usually unsuccessful process specified in the Constitution itself?
Why, indeed? We see what a slippery slope we'd be on. Funny, he doesn't even mention the alternative provided in the Constitution itself which directly addresses his suggestion, of a new Constitutional convention which could make its own rules.
I think the piece is useful to prod some thinking, but way off-base in terms of understanding where the door may be in this impasse. I will give some credit though: the piece was written 24 months or so ago, and it anticipates much of the current argument.
One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative.
Edited 5/20/2005 5:31 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
djfess76
May-20 6:30 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(202 of 214)
4998.202 in reply to 4998.199
*** One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative. ***
You noticed that I only pointed out the article and not the fact that the author did not seem to fit into a conservative mold at first glance. I have not researched his background, but suspect that you are correct.
The thing about the law is that it seems that when you follow a theme of thought you can arrive at a strange destination that seems to kill all the effort you spent getting to the end point. But it is logical to me that every numbered Senate should set its own rules and do it soon after they are sworn in. In my opinion, the setting of the rules should be part of the training given to all freshman Senators. They could even have a Rules Committee to help to speed things along.
I have concluded that most of the nominees put up by either side are qualified to be approved. Therefore, I believe that any nominee that gets to the Senate floor should be voted on by the full Senate.
I also think that the idea of one Senator from the state where the vacancy exists should not have the power to kill a nomination.
That leaves us with the Judiciary Committee and I have some doubts that it should have the power to kill a nomination. The Committee probably should hold whatever hearings that are needed and then just pass the nomination along and let the Senate vote. If there is a bad nominee based on the hearings then the Senators should go on record and not approve the nomination.
Then, there would be no need for the filibuster or filibuster rules with respect to judicial nominees.
From:
chinshihtang
3:04 am
To:
djfess76 unread
(214 of 214)
4998.214 in reply to 4998.202
Your tone is most smoothing, but I have to disagree with nearly every point you make after the opening pleasantries.
I would say the most general objection I have is the notion that the Senate needs to roll over more smoothly, like the House does (if you have the majority, or can twist arms sufficiently forcefully, as with the Medicare prescription legislation).
There is something to be said for deliberation; a little less alacrity in the resolutions supporting the invasion into Iraq would have been wise. What was the big hurry for, anyway, besides the re-election timetable? Don't tell me it was the local calendar: we managed to catch the mother of all sandstorms, after all, and we failed to get Turkish cooperation before the invasion. Of course, the bullying of the Executive, the scorched earth attack on anyone who questioned the military adventurism...would that the War Powers Act were a bit stronger or the requirement to declare war (it only takes a nanosecond, once there's resolve or a casus belli) a bit clearer. Who was it who leaked Valerie Flame's cover, anyway? I'm so glad the Executive is personally taking care of this one.
I think that if the Senate had to set its own rules, one of two things would result: 1) a party line vote with rules dictated by the Majority Leader (and thus, written by the M.L.'s staff); or2) chaos.
I think that the committee's hands should be strengthened to prevent placing onto the floor for advise and consent into lifetime positions those who cannot draw bipartisan support as to their qualifications, integrity, and temperament. Then it is a political question on the floor whether, given those attestations from the committee, the nominee should be given the post for life.
Although the circumstances in the Senate are not quite as clear as those I propose--both committee votes and floor votes are political, and both are around qualifications--these candidates did not get that kind of ringing endorsement, so protracted delay is justified (you know "protracted", he's Tom's cousin). I think both sides have fired their shots across the bow. The escalation can be ended if the Republicans give up their insistence on rolling up Senate debate at will. Then we can go on standby until the Administration has to come across with Supreme Court nominations. Then, if they're foolish once again, the Bushites will get "ventilated", so to speak.
And a good day to you, as well!
Sunday, May 15, 2005
It's pronounced "Nucular Option" in the White House...
...so nobody gets confused and calls in the Strategic Air Command.
More Post Politics Talk:
From:
chinshihtang
1:30 am
To:
winters0 unread
(130 of 130)
4988.130 in reply to 4988.127
Although I would agree that the Constitution itself is not endangered in this struggle, I don't take the whole thing nearly as mildly as you. The ground which is seriously in play is the small range of federal power which lies outside the imperial Presidency buttressed by Congressional majorities.
Currently, we're in Year 3 of Caesar W. Bush II's reign, which dates from the '02 midterm elections. So, in that sense, we are talking exactly about that bit of American Republic--as opposed to Empire--that remains.
And don't get me started on this thread about how the voters will settle this. I'd be surprised if The Senate Nafu (or its other framing names: "Countering the Judicial Activism Threat", "future Supreme Court nomination wars", "Nuclear/Constitutional Option", etc.) ever pops into the top 3 concerns of voters in the next decade (though I admit something similar might have crept in there once in the past, during the Clinton-Gingrich impasse). The substantive bit here is the battle of rival elite organizations for power on the ground, not the circus of superficiality which is mass-media-driven electoral politics.
This is a classic Bushite manufactured crisis, developed to divert attention from the embarrassing absence of creativity to address any domestic or international issues of the moment. And a sop to true conservatives appalled by the Bushite practices of fiscal irresponsibility, centralization of power, poaching on civil liberties, and military adventurism. Though Bush himself has sought to keep himself personally out of it, the whole embroglio has been conjured up in the White House's political affairs area upon the death of the Social Security initiative.
From:
winters0
May-15 5:15 pm
To:
JohnFBDC
(127 of 130)
4988.127 in reply to 4988.126
Caswell may have been along straingt party lines but I think it too had an element of bipartisanship. That is what truly makes this case unique. We are facing the party leadership leading a fillibuster. Want to know what really irks me about this? You and I probaly now know more of the history of filibustering judicial nominees than our Senators. My wife won't watch the news with me now because she has gotten tired of me spouting out, "That's not true". :)
All said and done though our Senators will hear from the electorate and the issue will be solved in the next decade or so. The Republic will not collapse. It is just another bump in our political evolution.
and here's another bit, posted on buffalobeast.blogspot.com:
Chin Shih Tang said...
I was struck as I randomly fell into your blog that we're on the same wavelength for many things, such as the recent "Voinovich Cave", "The White House's Nucular Option", etc. I've been pounding away on the Washington Post forums lately under this pseudonym, if you're interested. When it comes to third parties (and fourth, etc.) I also agree. I'm most willing to encourage dissatisfied Republicans to find new homes, and Indpendents to find a political home, even if it's Green, Libertarian, or Whatsnot. It's a question of really knowing what you believe in. In that regard, though, I have to disagree with those abandoning the whole Dem party because a few sold out on the bankruptcy bill. In the anals of Bluedog Bushite Salad Tossing, this one's a relative dingleberry. (As compared to the Medicare prescription legislative log, or even some Democrat voting for Brick Bolton on the floor to safeguard those vulnerable Presidential prerogatives!)Before the Card Industry and I reached a mutually amicable separation recently, I worked in the credit shops for many a year, and I can tell you that bankruptcy fraud is big, and that honest consumers end up paying for it.Sure, the rejected amendments would've made it a more humane legislation, but there is a real rationale beyond the usual Affirmative Action for the Privileged one.
16/5/05 2:39 AM
More Post Politics Talk:
From:
chinshihtang
1:30 am
To:
winters0 unread
(130 of 130)
4988.130 in reply to 4988.127
Although I would agree that the Constitution itself is not endangered in this struggle, I don't take the whole thing nearly as mildly as you. The ground which is seriously in play is the small range of federal power which lies outside the imperial Presidency buttressed by Congressional majorities.
Currently, we're in Year 3 of Caesar W. Bush II's reign, which dates from the '02 midterm elections. So, in that sense, we are talking exactly about that bit of American Republic--as opposed to Empire--that remains.
And don't get me started on this thread about how the voters will settle this. I'd be surprised if The Senate Nafu (or its other framing names: "Countering the Judicial Activism Threat", "future Supreme Court nomination wars", "Nuclear/Constitutional Option", etc.) ever pops into the top 3 concerns of voters in the next decade (though I admit something similar might have crept in there once in the past, during the Clinton-Gingrich impasse). The substantive bit here is the battle of rival elite organizations for power on the ground, not the circus of superficiality which is mass-media-driven electoral politics.
This is a classic Bushite manufactured crisis, developed to divert attention from the embarrassing absence of creativity to address any domestic or international issues of the moment. And a sop to true conservatives appalled by the Bushite practices of fiscal irresponsibility, centralization of power, poaching on civil liberties, and military adventurism. Though Bush himself has sought to keep himself personally out of it, the whole embroglio has been conjured up in the White House's political affairs area upon the death of the Social Security initiative.
From:
winters0
May-15 5:15 pm
To:
JohnFBDC
(127 of 130)
4988.127 in reply to 4988.126
Caswell may have been along straingt party lines but I think it too had an element of bipartisanship. That is what truly makes this case unique. We are facing the party leadership leading a fillibuster. Want to know what really irks me about this? You and I probaly now know more of the history of filibustering judicial nominees than our Senators. My wife won't watch the news with me now because she has gotten tired of me spouting out, "That's not true". :)
All said and done though our Senators will hear from the electorate and the issue will be solved in the next decade or so. The Republic will not collapse. It is just another bump in our political evolution.
and here's another bit, posted on buffalobeast.blogspot.com:
Chin Shih Tang said...
I was struck as I randomly fell into your blog that we're on the same wavelength for many things, such as the recent "Voinovich Cave", "The White House's Nucular Option", etc. I've been pounding away on the Washington Post forums lately under this pseudonym, if you're interested. When it comes to third parties (and fourth, etc.) I also agree. I'm most willing to encourage dissatisfied Republicans to find new homes, and Indpendents to find a political home, even if it's Green, Libertarian, or Whatsnot. It's a question of really knowing what you believe in. In that regard, though, I have to disagree with those abandoning the whole Dem party because a few sold out on the bankruptcy bill. In the anals of Bluedog Bushite Salad Tossing, this one's a relative dingleberry. (As compared to the Medicare prescription legislative log, or even some Democrat voting for Brick Bolton on the floor to safeguard those vulnerable Presidential prerogatives!)Before the Card Industry and I reached a mutually amicable separation recently, I worked in the credit shops for many a year, and I can tell you that bankruptcy fraud is big, and that honest consumers end up paying for it.Sure, the rejected amendments would've made it a more humane legislation, but there is a real rationale beyond the usual Affirmative Action for the Privileged one.
16/5/05 2:39 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
