by publius
I’m not sure I entirely understand Brian Beutler’s argument here. The point — familiar enough — is that Congressional Democrats suck. But to support this conclusion, he offers up the failure to override the SCHIP veto. I’m not attacking Beutler (he’s one of the good ones), but I’m frankly tired of this line of argument. Democrats can’t alter the laws of mathematics. If they lack numbers, I don’t understand what exactly they’re supposed to do.
Democrats can’t transform Republicans into non-Republicans. Yes, Democrats control Congress, but not by much. For practical purposes, the parties basically have 50/50 support. The Senate, however, requires 60/40 support, while overriding a veto requires 2/3 support. So again — what exactly are Democrats supposed to do differently?
In the face of inferior numbers, there’s only one thing to do — politicize issues and tee them up for the next election. And on that front, the Democrats were wildly successful. What makes Beutler’s argument somewhat puzzling is that he praises this very strategy (the ones the Dems pursued), but ultimately dismisses them anyway. I mean, I guess the schedule of the RESTORE Act wasn’t a stroke of genius, but I don’t see how it changed anything on the SCHIP front. (Remember that everyone had already voted once — why would you expect Republicans to change for the override — flip-flop anyone?).
From a glass half-full perspective, the Dems have had weeks of positive coverage on quite possibly the most favorable, sympathetic issue of the entire congressional session (children’s health care). That’s all you can hope for. When the time comes, future Democratic candidates (especially the presidential nominee) can bang the opposition over the head with it. Again, Beutler notes all this, but still concludes the Dems failed miserably.
We’re seeing the exact same dynamic with the war and the Webb bill. The Democrats are being blamed by Democrats for Republican votes. But if Republicans continue voting this way, there are going to be fewer and fewer Republicans in the next session. It’s not ideal — the ideal would be to end the war, to pass the Webb bill, to enact SCHIP. But the Democrats lost the 2004 election. If you want to blame someone, blame the American people. Blame Republicans. But I don’t understand why the Democrats keep getting so much blame. At the very least, they are catching a disproportionate amount of crap. I mean, good God, just look at what they’re at least trying to do — through bills and hearings — as compared to the last Congress.
Granted, FISA is a different story. I strongly disagree with the leadership, but I also recognize it’s a much thornier political issue in the swing districts and swing states that determine political power.
But blaming Dems for lacking numbers just isn’t fair. And, frankly, it will ultimately lead them to embrace Broderism in the hopes of “doing something.” Sometimes, though, it’s better to do nothing if it ultimately leads to better and more progressive policies down the road.
Think chess, not horse races.
It’s not chess, it’s like this Monty Python skit about Hardy writing his first novel
For both FISA & the War the numbers are there.
The Dems do have the option of not approving additional funding for the war. i understand that’s a difficult approach and the GOP will demagogue them as “soft on communism”, but that’s why the Dems were elected – to end the war.
The Dems give the impression that they will fold very easily on most issues. If the GOP continues to force a cloture vote on the Webb amendment, then don’t bring a funding bill to the floor for a vote.
We don’t blame the Democratic Leadership for not having the votes to override a veto, we blame them for not standing up for the principles we believe in. Why isn’t Harry Reid supporting Dodd’s filibuster of immunity for the telcoms? Why did they roll over on the Fisa bill? Why did they roll over on the Iraq Funding bill? I understand their political calculation, but at some point these things should become matters of consience. They should stand up for what is right.
Every single Republican filibuster, while frustrating in itself, is also a maddening reminder of all the times the Democrats COULD have filibustered & didn’t; & that although we have the majority & they don’t, they are still better at blocking very popular Democratic initiatives than we are at blocking less popular GOP initiatives.
The SCHIP veto override is slightly different from a filibuster–we can’t force them to pass things with a 2/3 vote obviously. Nevertheless: Republicans maintain party disicipline even when their position is very clearly unpopular & electorally harmful. Democrats can’t even when the public is split or on their side. Maddening.
Republicans have no moral compass and will smear and hastle children and the elderly (much like other right-wing nationalistic organizations) all in the name of Baby Jesus.
I’d fear them too!
It’s easier to blame Democrats than Right-Wing fanatics.
“Democrats can’t alter the laws of mathematics. If they lack numbers, I don’t understand what exactly they’re supposed to do.”
Compromise?
you know another thing the dems should be screaming to the rooftops?
(since in a sense i agree with you, that they should be focusing on making arguments, which they can do, rather than passing legislation, which they cannot do.)
they ought to be getting the american people ready, right now, for the bush tax hikes that are coming down the road.
they ought to be telling people, every week, that what makes your taxes go up is the people who spend the money, not the people who collect the money. and no one has spent more money than george bush.
so the bush tax hikes are already a reality; it’s just a matter of when we’re going to have to pay them.
this is one of the messages they should be drumming home now, in order to make it clear that when we have to collect more taxes under a democratic administration, it will be because we ran such huge deficits, and squandered so much treasure on pointless wars, under the bush regime.
Compromise?
No. Compromise results in the FISA bill, in a weakened SCHIP, in Mukasey as AG. To tkae the country back, we have to stop the compromises.
On funding, I agree it’s different b/c they could block it themselves. But understand that (no matter how distasteful this argument sounds) it would be instant, generation-long political suicide to block war funding cold turkey. i don’t like it either – but the american people have a strong, excessive nationalistic streak, and I just don’t think they would see the nuance in that.
This is the reality that pelosi/reid face.
I agree on FISA and other things. But that form of chicken is a most dangerous game, particularly among the less-informed-than-blog-readers.
On SCHIP and war funding, I totally agree. But the Republicans screamed bloody murder about Democratic obstructionism whenever Dems filibustered – why aren’t Democrats doing the same thing now? It’s like the SCHIP strategy in that it’s geared to long-term political victories rather than short-term compromises, though if played well it might get some short-term stuff accomplished too.
Same with FISA, which ought to be basic. Especially considering that Pelosi’s willing to stand up for the Armenian genocide bill: why not FISA?
Also: Bush tax hikes = genius.
Thank you Publius. I finally stopped commenting over at Big Orange because whenever I’d say something like this, I’d get shouted down. When the numbers in the Senate are 51-49, and one of the majority is Lieberman, there’s precious little of substance you can get done.
But there’s another group that ought to be catching some hell over this perception of the Democratic Congress as being useless, and that’s the press. As many bloggers have noted, there’s nothing that can happen that isn’t somehow good for the Republicans. That Democrats are doing as well as they are in public opinion–and that’s not particularly well–is amazing to me.
The Democrats ran on ending the Iraq War and the American people elected them to defund it.
The American people want out. The military wants out (Ron Paul gets the majority of military members political donations). The people who live in Iraq do not deserve endless chances to get their act together and have proven that they are not capable of representative government. The end-game will be a violent power struggle and the longer we wait, and the more fully-automatic assault weapons we give to Muslim ‘security’ forces, the bigger the humanitarian disaster will eventually be.
But there is that unfortunate fact that the Democrats would have to share the blame in the public relations arena for defunding the disaster. The Democrats are cowards. They deserve no break.
Blocking the war cold turkey is not the only option. They caved almost instantly. They’ve done NOTHING w/ the appropriations authority–they won’t write an appropriations bill with habeas restoration in it; they won’t write an appropriations bill clearly stating that attacking Iran is illegal. They’re about to confirm Mukasey. The attempts to investigate the worst abuses are spotty to nonexistent. They’re not doing what they can on contempt citations. The “impeachment is off the table” strategy was idiotic.
I am not just kvetching–I feel personally betrayed & abandoned by the lot of them. I suppose they can get away with this: I have nowhere else to go with my vote. But long term, I don’t think it’s wise to have your natural supporters this alienated from your party.
Ogged wrote something good about this the other day:
There are people who represent me in Washington–some individual politicians; some NGOs; some journalists. The Democratic party, as such, really doesn’t. (This doesn’t mean I’m tempted by the Greens, either.)
Oh, and don’t try telling me about the “American people” forcing us to be cowards without specific poll numbers or recent election results to back it. The American people are a f*cking hell of a lot closer to me than the Democratic majority these days, and maybe the Congressional majority should try to crack the 20% mark in approval ratings before they claim to know the mind of the voter better than I do.
k – this again touches on the crux of the difference between our otherwise similar worldviews/preferences/etc.. i think you have far more faith in the american people than i do. maybe my view is skewed b/c i grew up where i did — or maybe i’m just scarred by the iraq war. but i just don’t put much stock in those polls.
if the gop ran coordinated commercials in districts saying “they voted to free terrorists” or “they cut funding”, I think those polls would shift dramatically and quickly.
i’d encourage feedback on this — maybe i’m too pessimistic. but the iraq war and the 2004 election have just fundamentally soured me on the public. i think they are too nationalistic.
you can’t watch a country go from 0 to 60 from July to September 2002 and continue to have much faith in the stability of their opinions.
we do what we can — and you in particular are to be commended for your efforts. but i tend to blame the public, rather than the Dems (who I feel reflect it in many ways).
That said, they should fight more on Iran and FISA and habeas. But i just don’t want to lose sight of the real culprits here — the Republicans and the american public. none of this would happen if the Dems alone decided these things.
Did you happen to catch the Arar hearings last week? Why is it that even Dana Rohrabacher can’t look him in the eye, even by video link, & tell him that what happened to him was justified, & the dismissal of his suit on state secrets grounds was justified? What was it that made so many GOP Congressmen apologize?
The polls on the war throughout 2002 were much less favorable than the Congressional vote in either house of Congress. Why is that?
Yes, polls shift. You know what? They can also shift in the Democrats’ favor. The fact that polls shift 25-30 points based on how you phrase the question ought to tell you that public opinion is not fixed, & there’s no reason only the Republicans can shift it. Your strategy is hopeless. Hopeless. It has failed my whole adult life. At best, things will get worse slowly; our countries decline will pause for a while. At worst, you get the last six years.
Follow your strategy & the civil rights movement never happens. The Vietnam War never ends. The women’s movement never happens. No civil unions in Vermont, no gay marriage in Massachusetts. No Voting Rights Act. We can’t nominate Obama, because America will never elect a black President–of course, if the only way to prove that America is ready for a black President is to already have elected one, then the day will never arrive.
Screw that. Please, if you think that the American voters are that irrevocably stupid & selfish, why bother with politics at all? “America: becoming a heartless empire more slowly & killing & torturing somewhat fewer foreigners than the Republicans would!”–this is what motivates you?
The Democrats haven’t done much about torture and Guantanamo, but a tiny group of reporters & underfunded human rights NGOs & volunteer habeas lawyers have actually accomplished quite a bit. The Democrats haven’t done much about global warming for years, but Al Gore’s movie has influenced public opinion enough that a lot of the presidential candidates actually have good plans. If it’s possible for the Republicans to change public opinion for the worse, & for Al Gore & Human Rights Watch to change it for the better, then it’s possible for the Democrats to change it for the better too. But they won’t try–and so it’s a better use of time to try to influence public opinion directly, and hope that the Democrats will eventually follow.
(They’re not all bad, of course. For instance, while I realize he probably won’t win, I kind of love Jim Neal).
Jeff – if by “take the country back” you mean “enact no useful legislation”, I agree with you completely.
The response to not having the numbers isn’t to throw one’s hands up, or to pass things that are essentially symbolic because one knows they’ll be defeated. And the idea that they can pass a load of nothing and blame Republican obstructionism is eventually going to backfire. People are not going to vote them into a bigger majority tomorrow if they see them as being ineffective today. Which they do. Rightly.
Publius, this is emphatically not intended as a gotcha question, and I apologize if it comes out that way. But if the American people are more aligned as you think than as, say, Katherine and I do at the moment, how do you account for the polling of recent years (say, from 2005 or so on)? There are times when I think substantial skepticism about polling is warranted, so if you want to say there’s a systematic skew – intended or otherwise – in most major opinion polling to make the public sound more opposed to the war in Iraq, more in favor of government involvement in health care, and so on than it is, I won’t say anything like “That’s impossible.” But I am curious how you reckon the gap between what appears to be the case via polling and your assessment of what the public will actually support.
Look, no one disagrees with that. It’s a question of means. But what exactly are Democrats supposed to do?
On habeas, they will vote and Bush will veto. On the war, they will vote and Bush will veto. They can’t do anything about this without playing chicken with funding — and that’s a loser. And even worse, it will get more Republicans elected.
But the larger point is that by politicizing these issues, they are doing exactly what you say — raising public awareness. Shifting consciousness. Doing the things that will make it a reality.
Look – the civil rights movement took 100 years, and even then was an ambiguous success. That’s not to say people shouldn’t fight, but it’s unreasonable to criticize the party FIGHTING FOR THIS STUFF for not reversing everything bad in a matter of months.
Piling and piling on the Dems is the wrong target. Yes, I’m frustrated too. (Despite my cynicism, I care too – otherwise it would difficult to do this as long as I have).
But the American people did endorse torture, abu ghraib, war, and everything else in November 2004. Their doing so leaves a very powerful executive in place that can block everything.
I’m not saying don’t criticize, but I think it should be recalibrated to the proper culprits. Now maybe I’m off on the ability of the American people to do the right thing. But my larger point is that people’s blame-o-meters are misdirected right now.
The Republicans are the obstacles to progress. They are the source for everything above you’ve cited. The way to solve is to defeat Republicans at the polls.
This endless tarring of the leadership (who have real swing district issues to deal with) just depresses base and makes the public think there’s no difference when there is an ENORMOUS difference.
bruce – i look at elections. bush won. even horribly atrocious candidates like burns and allen essentially got 50% of the vote even despite everything we know.
look at what the idiot republican candidates are saying day in and day out and rudy stills polls very close to all of them.
I also look at the rise of reagan. Military matters are in many ways different from women’s rights, civil rights, etc. There’s a nationalistic, America-first streak that is on display all across America. See, eg, immigration.
I just think the American people are enormously susceptible to jingoistic slogans and campaigns. More so than racist ones (i think we have made progress on that front).
I’m not saying we need to keep fighting — I’m just pleading for more understanding about the very real constraints that the Dem leadership is facing.
Hey my old TiO password doesn’t work anymore. How do I get an account?
It’s not me who’s depressing the base. People should vote for the Democratic candidate. But they are not fighting for what I’m fighting for. I know what that looks like, & what it doesn’t, & they’re not doing it. You might wish to believe otherwise, but don’t expect me to believe you or pretend to.
The American people endorsed Abu Ghraib, huh? On one level, you’re right. On the other hand, neither Bush nor Kerry so much as uttered the words all through the summer or fall, did they? The Democrats have been worse than the polls for five years now. And your attitude is what will prevent the party from changing.
And your attitude is what will prevent the party from changing.
That’s a touch over the line, no?
The Democrats could have stopped the Military Commissions Act. They didn’t. They could have put habeas on an appropriations bill. They didn’t. They could have filibustered Gonzales. They didn’t. They could have opposed the Iraq war from the start. They didn’t. They could pass bills on rendition & state secrets privilege–even if those were vetoed, it would give me some confidence that they would be signed in 2009. They haven’t. They could make some effort to stop the war with Iran. They haven’t. They could focus hearings on detainee issues. They haven’t. They could bother to actually get fully briefed on detainee issues. They haven’t. They could block Mukasey’s nomination. They won’t. They could at least vote against Mukasey’s nomination. They won’t. They could hold impeachment hearings. They won’t. They could have at least not made things worse on FISA over the summer. They didn’t. They could stop telecom immunity from passing. They won’t. The polls on every foreign policy & human rights issue of the past six years, while not what I’d like them to be, have averaged significantly better than the Congressional votes. They compare rather favorably to the polls Vietnam. The polls on immigration are actually all over the place, & significantly better than Congress thought back when Congress was first passing that damn Tom Tancredo bill. You are arguing based on the views of irrevocably stupid, racist, jingoistic, immoral Imaginary Americans who live in your head, and your attitude is precisely what has got this country where it is today.
Why is it over the line? I don’t think you actually agree with those policies, but unless a critical mass of Democratic voters thinks the Democrats are selling out worse than they have to & we should try convincing voters of our views instead instead of assuming they never can be, & votes accordingly in primaries, they’re not going to change.
I’m just happy it isn’t me today. 😉
Publius – believe that our frustration is based on how quickly the Dems gave up. Bush vetoed a war funding bill & then the Dems caved. they should have sent at least 1, maybe even 2-3 more bills up for Bush to veto and state each time that they were funding the troops while Bush was playing chicken with “the safety of our troops”.
GOP – have no hope with them. i can understand party loyalty up to a point, but even the “moderats” completely back bush on Iraq.
perhaps that’s the difference – we have no hope that the GOP will do the right thing, and our hopes are continually disappointed by the Dems.
Katherine is very much speaking for me here.
Things the Democrats could do include forcing real filibusters, and saying as widely as possible, “This is what the Republicans think is more important than rest for the troops, health care for your children, or any review of administrative declarations about who’s a terrorist.” They could honor holds placed by their own members, and let fewer bills out of committee. They could keep pressing for things we have reason to believe the public wants, and never ever publicly critize fellow Democrats for upholding the rule of law or pointing out that it’s the Republicans’ fault some crucial need is going unaddressed.
It’s true, Bush won in 2004. The public was still coming to terms with things, and of course since Congress decided not to investigate charges of vote fraud, we’ll never know just how honest the election was in Ohio or elsewhere. But the Democrats won in 2006 on a platform of peace and justice, or at least a temperate effort to try to get them, and lose popularity whenever they fail to carry through. The media machine is simply no longer decieving people as it did. Bush isn’t popular. The Republicans in general aren’t very popular. The Democrats could be hugely more popular than they are, simply by following through on very basic promises and well-demonstrated machinery of parliamentary procedure.
It’s not that people like Katherine and I expect all that effort would succeed right away. But we do expect people to try, and when they keep refusing to, we feel it appropriate to criticize the lack of efort.
Sebastian, I pretty much agree across the board with your past assessments of what the Democrats could do but aren’t doing, too. Just to note an area of agreement, given how often I disagree with you. 🙂
As I said, I don’t particularly have a problem with S-CHIP. It’s just: the Republicans obviously are willing to vote against a very popular program because of what their base thinks. The Democrats won’t even take the risk of opposing unpopular programs, or programs about which the polls are neutral or swing 30 points depending on how you phrase the question. So don’t claim to me that they have no choice–based on the polls, not only did they have a choice, but it ought to have been an easier choice than the GOP stopping SCHIP.
“It’s a question of means. But what exactly are Democrats supposed to do?”
They are supposed to impeach.
I’m not saying that in a smart ass way. The Constitution mandates that the President and Vice President should be impeached by Congress if the President breaks the law. They should have been impeached yesterday for re-writing the laws in their favor, fundamentally changing our government!
It really is that simple. I get so frustrated to read conversations by obviously intelligent people, like yourselves, and this simple truth is mentioned only briefly, if at all.
How about all of us that want the wars to stop, want the eavesdropping to stop, want the torture to stop, want the privatization to stop… how about if we all decided to stop fighting these individual issues and fought the one that is causing them all… The Bush Administration.
Email Pelosi and Reid once a day and demand impeachment. Call their offices once a day. Tell everyone you know to do the same and spread the word.
If the American people can just focus on one battle, one goal, I believe (as I think Katherine does) that the American people can and will respond.
The goal of impeachment will not only be a big first step to solving some huge problems being caused by our out of control Executive Branch. It is also the way we can do so via the Constitution, instead of staging public protests, spending money, and or resorting to violence.
Doesn’t this seem like something we could rally around?
Jen, I’m in favor. It for sure wouldn’t succeed right now, but then it might move public opinion and pressure in good ways. I think I’m not alone in saying that I see stuff like the above as steps along the way to giving Democrats the spine to do what’s really right, though.
Bruce – I’m curious why you say it wouldn’t succeed right now. I think there are plenty of people in this country that are well aware of all the law breaking and who are terrified of Bush bombing Iran on his own and igniting World War III.
Don’t you think that if Nancy Pelosi were to hold a press conference announcing that she’s ordering Articles of Impeachment to be filed, and dancing in the streets ensued all over the world, don’t you think that might sway some Republican votes?
I know I would throw a huge party… wouldn’t you?
And afterwards, after the Articles pass the House (where Democrats do have the numbers), how can the Senate Republicans rationally argue in trial that Bush and Cheney should stay in office? With all the evidence we have?
They really can’t.
The American people may still identify themselves as Democrat or Republican, making the smaller battles tough. But 76% of us are done with Bush and Cheney.
I believe it really could succeed.
And even if it doesn’t work- how can the Democrats lose? They will be able to honestly tell the American people that they did all they could, and I for one, will believe them. It would also force the Republicans in the Senate to stand on the Senate floor and defend Bush and Cheney. It’s a sure-fire way to show the American people just what kind of partisan hacks some of the Republican guys are.
It’s a win-win.
Jen, no, I really don’t think it would sway the Republican machine. They seem awesomely oblivious. Millions of people in the streets don’t faze them, and neither does 75% public opposition to their president or policies. I honestly don’t know what can faze them. I do think that impeachment hearings would be by far the best framework within which to mount a general investigation and exposure of the administration, and that possibly it might lead to the public revelation of something that could shake the machine. I think they’re worth doing even if that doesn’t happen, too – but I don’t think that the fact of doing would change their determination at all, at least not at the outset and maybe not ever.
Hey my old TiO password doesn’t work anymore. How do I get an account?
Above the top most entry and just below the banner, there is a link that says “Please register to comment”. If I remember correctly, you then get mailed a temporary password that you can change to something that you can remember.
Yeah, the Dems in leadership lack the intestinal fortitude to fight for what they believe in. Whether it’s because the leadership is effective psychologically broken by the early Bush presidency and thus constantly in the hard-scrabble to maintain something and not realizing that the landscape has changed for them or whether they really just don’t have an attack dog spirit, the Democratic party is fairly weak.
That is the descriptive. Now while I’d love to have Democrats go on the offensive – pass the funding bills; but only after Bush vetoes something that is nice and juicy such as increased pay/education benefits/at home time; and use that to hammer; or to force a stage show of a filibuster.
Of course, they got hammered the last time they tried a stunt like that. Mostly because the Democratic Party hasn’t learned to control the MSM. The Republican Party has learned something, the MSM is not an impartial observer, it is the enemy and must be treated as such. I hate, HATE typing those words, but observation has dictated that if the MSM is going to be lazy and take the lowest road, then you best be the one digging the lowest road for them to travel.
Sadly, it appears that Clinton has learned this the best. Over the weekend, I heard an NPR report on how she’s not doing open Q&A with reporters. The last one was in March. Everything else is a controlled environment.
That seems to be the way the things are going though, it used to be sound bits that the reporters would pick up (and we all bit…err…complained about sound bit politicking) now it is going to be controlled and released sound bit reporting that’ll make the news and the highlights.
And Publius, I’m with you on the cynicism. I have no doubt if the Democrats when on the offensive like I, (and others such as Katherine), would like them to, they’d get hammered in the polls. There’s no way to frame the narrative of withdrawal in positive terms, and the American people (like most people, I assume) hate a negative narrative about themselves, the “feel-good” nation and all that. So up until push came to shove, I’m sure the people would be all about getting out of Iraq; however, as soon as it started happening, the MSM would have the narrative, and their (understandable) fascination with the negative (damn the ratings war), and the Republican narrative which would reinforce that MSM negative narrative; would quickly make the American public feel like losers, and thus bad, and thus, in my opinion, blame the Democrats for that negative feeling.
Decided Fencesitter: I think you’re confusing what the media would say the American public are thinking/feeling, and what the American public are actually thinking/feeling. See Krugman, Greenwald, et al, on the split between the “national media” and the general public.
i’m starting to think that the Dems (esp. the leadership) aren’t really as weak as they seem. rather, i think they actually want votes to go the way they do, as matters of policy. in other words, they’re really out of touch with the Dem base. that’s a big problem.
publius, I used to think like you do, but I have changed my mind to some degree.
True, as Katherine says, there isn’t much they can do to override a veto like on S-CHIP. but at least they didn’t not vote it originally because Bush was going to veto.
Yes, they can pass bills and Bush can veto. Great, go ahead and do it. Force Bush to veto and put him on the spot.
Force Republicans to actually filibuster instead of giving the media a chance to say that Congress fails to act.
Scream from the roof tops about Republican obstructionism.
Stand up behind Dodd’s hold.
Force the Webb amendment to the floor.
Don’t talk about what can’t be done, focus on what can be done.
The estimable Erick Erickson of Red State took the Huckabee camp to mild task in a recent post for not spell-checking their press releases:
“We are at a time in our country where honest, conservative, innovative, thoughtful, clear, and decisive leadership is of the utmost impotance(sic)”
Substitute “progressive” for “conservative” and we arrive at “so it is”.
As for the American people, the prospect of at least 24 years (since the 1988 election) of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton trading off the Presidency must make them collectively feel like the Faye Dunaway Mrs. Mulroy(?)character in “Chinatown”:
my sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter ………
They are waiting for someone to give them a good slap to break the monotony.
The estimable Erick Erickson of Red State took the Huckabee camp to mild task in a recent post for not spell-checking their press releases:
“We are at a time in our country where honest, conservative, innovative, thoughtful, clear, and decisive leadership is of the utmost impotance(sic)”
Substitute “progressive” for “conservative” and we arrive at “so it is”.
As for the American people, the prospect of at least 24 years (since the 1988 election) of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton trading off the Presidency must make them collectively feel like the Faye Dunaway Mrs. Mulroy(?)character in “Chinatown”:
my sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter ………
They are waiting for someone to give them a good slap to break the monotony.
You folks could probably use a good slap to break the monotony of my multiple postings.
Not once, but twice, I misspelled “Mrs. Mulray”, as “Mrs Mulroy”.
Short form: what Baskaborr said.
Long form: they should make the Republicans own, lock stock and barrel, every bad policy of the last six years.
Iraq, FISA and every other refusal of intelligence oversight, telco amnesty. SCHIP, refusal to negotiate pharmaceutical prices, banning importation of drugs from Canada. The Military Commissions Act. Outsourcing security operations to private companies. Neglect of domestic infrastructure.
Take your pick. Find the 100 least popular policies of the last six years, put legislation on the table to roll them back, and then make every Republican party-line-voting lemming go on record. If it gets through Congress, let Bush veto it. Follow up every vote and veto with a press conference advertising, loud and long, the fact that the Dems tried to make a change but the Republicans wouldn’t let it happen.
Then, let the Republican members of Congress go back to their districts and run on their record.
SCHIP is, or should be, just the tip of the iceberg.
I see john miller has just made this point upthread. Well said.
Thanks –
I’d like to see the Democrats do more and bette politicaltheater with their majority, but I don’t think they have the votes to get much of anything substantive done.
The notion that they can force the war to end simply by refusing to pass a supplemental appropriation is naive. Until they get the votes to impeach and convict Bush and Cheney, they can’t enforce such a decision.
As for the notion that the Senate Republicans are honest men and women who will be constrained by the evidence to vote to convict Bush and Cheney if they are impeached–well, nothing about the hitsory of the last 27 years or so supports such a conclusion . . .
Russell, I wish that the FISA revision, telecom amnesty, and the MCA were among the least popular policies, but unfortunately I don’t think the public cares much about civil liberties. There are far too many people who think that if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide, especially if the policies are affecting mainly a bunch of brown people who aren’t like them.
That’s not to say that I don’t think the Democrats should be acting to reverse those policies, just that it’s not an easy battle. But you fight for civil liberties with the public and media you have, not the public and media you wish you had.
I agree entirely with rea and russell. We need better political theatre for the next 12 1/2 months, making the Republicans own what they have wrought. On the other hand, voting to cut off funds for the war is political suicide, plain and simple.
I also agree with Bruce Baugh on the effect of international demonstrations in favor of impeachment. In fact, I don’t think he goes far enough. International support for impeachment will most likely strengthen Republican resolve to prevent it, not weaken it.
All Right-Wing Nationalists need are a steady 25%-35% a squishy 25%-30%, you know the “moderates” and they get much of what they want.
By the way, all the “moderates” and “hawks” who were defending Israel’s bombing of Lebanon for two kidnapped soldiers…why aren’t you telling the Turks to get off their butts and start bombing Kurdistan?
All in the name of moderation and strength and all that.
Russell, I wish that the FISA revision, telecom amnesty, and the MCA were among the least popular policies, but unfortunately I don’t think the public cares much about civil liberties
I agree. So, don’t make it about civil liberties. Make it about the money.
The Patriot Act and subsequent laws increased and expanded the level of reporting that financial institutions were required to make to the government. So, now, if you make an investment with your broker, move some money around at your bank, or even just have a good day at the track or the casino, it gets reported to the feds, whether you like that or not. Dig into the details and you can make a story that will make lots of folks uncomfortable.
I did some political work around USAPA a few years ago. Nobody cared all that much about Muslim Americans being locked up, about phone tapping, or about federal agents sniffing around libraries. Everybody was bugged by the all the new information they had to give their broker, banker, or insurance agent every time they did anything with their money.
It’s a story that plays damned well in Peoria.
There’s also this. Between 2003 and 2005, something like 140,000 national security letters were issued by the FBI. NSLs are used by the FBI to seize “any tangible thing” about a person of interest. They’re 100% free of judicial review of any kind. If the FBI wants it, they write an NSL and they get it, and the party they get it from is not allowed to reveal that the “thing” was surrendered, or even that they received the NSL.
Between 2003 and 2005, 140,000 NSLs were issued. Does anyone think there are 140,000 terrorists in the US?
That pretty much always bugs people too.
It’s not hard to make the case. Put that in front of people every day for about six months, then put some legislation on the calendar to roll it back. Let the Republicans vote against it, then let them go home and explain why they need to know why Mr. Smith made $1,000 at the track.
Thanks –
Bruce and Dantheman – you guys are right. International celebrations in favor of impeachment probably won’t sway Republican opinion. But what about celebrations and pressure from their own constituents? Anything is possible…
Either way, that wasn’t my main point. The idea I wanted to get across is that there are only two possible outcomes from an impeachment trial: Bush and Cheney get thrown out of office or the Republicans will have to openly defend Bush’s presidency, destroying their chances of re-election as long as their competition has a TIVO. The Democrats have nothing to lose.
And if it makes the terrified Democrats feel more comfortable, I watched the Frontline episode called Cheney’s Law that aired last Tuesday (available to watch for free at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) and I truly believe that if Cheney alone were to be impeached, the nightmare would be on it’s way to being over. Bush is just the cover guy (obviously – the man can barely form a sentence). Cheney’s the brains of this operation.
And sometimes brain damage isn’t a bad thing.
If the Bush administration’s detention & surveilllance policies are so very popular, why are they so determined to prevent the public from ever learning about them?
Not that these are easy calls where the public overwhelmingly supports us already, like S-CHIP. But I think that a majority is at least open to persuasion. I’d estimate that 1/3 is 100% behind the President in whatever he might choose to do to The Terrorists, 1/3 of the country is pretty sick about these things by now, and 1/3 could go either way. In Congress, the “100% behind the President group” is much larger, and the “pretty sick about these things” group is 10% of Congress at the absolute maximum; probably closer to 5%.
The Democrats have nothing to lose.
In a nutshell.
Thanks –
Jen Clark,
“there are only two possible outcomes from an impeachment trial: Bush and Cheney get thrown out of office or the Republicans will have to openly defend Bush’s presidency, destroying their chances of re-election as long as their competition has a TIVO.”
Umm, no. As a third outcome, large portions of the public decides (with substantial pushing by the SCLM) that the Democrats are trying to tie the hands of the President in wartime, causing the Democrats to not merely lose the impeachment vote, but be take less seriously as a party who is looking to defend the country, crippling their chances for the next couple of decades.
“The Democrats have nothing to lose”
If they really had nothing to lose, they would be doing it. As it is, it would be just one more thing to fail protractedly at.
Stark apologizes.
*Sigh* Can we get the Democrats in power a spine? Even just one to share amongst themselves similarly to Perseus’ sea hags.
Dantheman – that sort of attitude is the source of the nation’s problems (not the election of George Bush by a record number of people, most of which don’t live in liberal urban areas).
publius,
Not disagreeing with you, but we need to talk about getting Democrats elected with the SCLM and voters we have, not the ones we would like to have.
d – i agree with you – i was being sarcastic
“that sort of attitude is the source of the nation’s problems”
I’m unwilling to believe that realism is the source of our problems.
At this point, there are two basic ways to get more voters than you have: 1) Suck people out of the middle by polarizing; and 2) Depolarize and take control of the middle. Choice number one is the source of a lot of our problems. I think it’s time to try choice number two.
When I miss obvious sarcasm, it means I’m way too emotional about an issue ;).
But it does seem like a lot of Democrats are supporting further polarization.
“I hope that with this apology, I return to being as insignificant as I should be,” he finished in an emotional, breaking voice.
wait, the The Onion write that for him ?
The Congressional Democrats seem to assume that the next POTUS will be a Democrat. I cannot imagine any other assumption that justifies their refusal to cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq now. The strategy seems to be: let’s elect a Democratic President, and THEN we can wind down Dick and Dubya’s Excellent Adventure.
But suppose, just suppose, that Giuliani (or, god help us, McCain) is President in 2009. Will a Democratic Congress STILL be timid about its power of the purse? Will Reid and Pelosi still be pretending that they need to over-ride, rather than not fund in the first place?
The Democrats in “marginal districts” seem to believe that the price of keeping their seats is continuing to “fund the troops” as long as a Republican President pig-headedly keeps them in Iraq. If these Dems are correctly gauging their constituents, what does that imply about the likelihood of a Republican winning the White House next year? And if a Republican does, how the hell do these (presumably re-elected) marginal Democrats vote to cut funding for the NEXT four years?
–TP
I’m glad the terrible threat of someone saying something mean about the president has once again been put down.
The polls on impeachment now compare favorably to the polls on the Clinton impeachment. The GOP lost seats in the 1998 midterms in part because of the impeachment mess, whereas 2006 went extremely well for the Democrats. The GOP hasn’t exactly been out of power for 20 years for impeaching anyway. And there’s no question we have a stronger case on the merits–& much of it probably isn’t yet known to the public. But there’s no arguing with the imaginary reactionary voters in liberals’ heads as excuses for inaction.
Tony, there’s a huge difference between supporting “cutting off funds for the troops” (as it would be spun in the media) and voting against a presidential candidate who thinks the occupation is going great and wants to continue it. Also, “marginal districts” are completely irrelevant to electing a president — only states matter,
And if Giuliani or McCain is elected, then yes, it’s highly unlikely Democrats will be able to end the occupation, since the public will have effectively demonstrated their support for continuing it indefinitely — not to mention that if the election goes that way Democrats will probably have even less control of Congress than they do now.
“As a third outcome, large portions of the public decides (with substantial pushing by the SCLM) that the Democrats are trying to tie the hands of the President in wartime, causing the Democrats to not merely lose the impeachment vote, but be take less seriously as a party who is looking to defend the country, crippling their chances for the next couple of decades.”
First of all, this argument is contingent on how well the Democrats can make their case to the American people. As soon as the crimes of the Bush administration make prime time coverage, I don’t think there is any way that the Democrats will be punished by the public for taking action. This is not an impeachment based on a blow job. This is based on tangible crimes which have resulted in American (and Iraqi and Afghanistani) deaths and severe damage to the Constitution.
But that’s really irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is the Constitution, which is being dismantled by the Bush Administration, and which every Congressional representative took an oath to defend.
The Constitution requires that Congress impeach in this situation. Acting (or not acting) to protect the electoral ambitions of any political party instead of protecting the Constitution is a violation of their oaths of office. I personally believe it borders on treason.
One of the reasons the Republicans in Congress sicken so many of us is that they put party and elections over the Constitution and the welfare of the American people. If the Democrats fail to impeach for the reason you put forth, they’re no different.
The American people are not complete morons… don’t you think the Democrats might be punished for this?
you know, with the stark thing, i just wonder:
what kind of pressure do they put on these people? how, and by what means?
i had the same question with durbin, and for that matter with the various republican apostates who were swiftly brought back into line (john di iulio, john snow, the guy that cheney shot).
somehow, and i really don’t know how, the republican machine is able to instill unbelievable amounts of fear and dread into people. grown-ups. people who are fairly powerful in their own lives.
i mean–what in gods name do they do to people–threaten to kill their children?
it’s very puzzling to me. i just cannot imagine what sorts of penalties could be brought to bear that would cause grown-ups to crumble like that, short of literal torture.
it’s also indicative of a huge disparity in power between dems and reps. but since i don’t know what concrete form this republican power takes–phone calls from voters? threats from donors?–i don’t even know what dems would do to even it up.
baffling. and of course, depressing.
Jen Clark,
“First of all, this argument is contingent on how well the Democrats can make their case to the American people. As soon as the crimes of the Bush administration make prime time coverage, I don’t think there is any way that the Democrats will be punished by the public for taking action.”
Since I view the SCLM as being largely complicit in the Bush Administration’s actions, I think you are starting from very false assumptions.
Dantheman – I see no reason to continue to discuss what the public as a whole would or would not do. I’m tired of the crystal ball…
What do you think about my actual point regarding the Constitutional obligations of our Congress?
Kid, Stark’s statement (saying on the House floor that troops were being sent “to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement”) was a lot less defensible than Durbin’s, but regardless I agree that it is surprising how effective they are in getting people to back down and it’s insane how the Republicans are able to whip up these frenzies for censuring people.
Coming late to the party, I know. And I rarely comment. But this post is in my view so massively strategically wrong that I can’t help responding – particularly since Publius tips his hat to strategic thinking – think “chess not horse races” right?
So at the outset, the baseline proposition is that the Dems do not have over-riding numbers and so ought not to be held to account for not ending the war, etc. Let alone that the GOP appears to be the only party capable of using parliamentary maneuvers to their advantage. The issue isn’t whether the Dems can completely win, but rather that so far, in every major head to head confrontation, the Dem side has completely collapsed without extracting even modest concessions. From the GOP standpoint, then, never budging is the obvious tactic. Unless and until the Dems are ready to allow something important to stall, they will completely lose, and they will lose all the way, every single time. And the damage from that is obvious, irreversible and extensive.
But you say – look to the future. “[t]here are going to be fewer and fewer Republicans in the next session.” Even if true, that is very weak recompense for failing to mitigate the damage now being done. But even more, I suggest that looking weak is going to get you knocked out of power quickly – especially if you are a “softy Dem.” And as for specifics, the electorate will simply never remember any of these “points” the Dems are supposedly storing away. SCHIP isn’t the issue of our time – it is the war. If SCHIP were so important, the approval ratings for Congress wouldn’t be where they are now. So these desired future benefits are hardly secured.
Worse yet, the capitulation strategy leaves the Iraq withdraw to the next POTUS and Congress, who will likely be a Dem/Dem controlled. That withdraw will almost certainly inject uncertainty into the middle east. Uncertainty = risk = higher oil prices . . . the economics of which will, I suggest, be horrible news for whatever incumbent is in power. And it will be the incumbent at the time who suffers – not the Bush Legacy.
So for me, it is indeed difficult to understand how any defense of the “capitulate strategy” is strategically defensible or why any but the least strategically minded would opt for it.
Jen Clark,
“What do you think about my actual point regarding the Constitutional obligations of our Congress?”
Very little. It would be far worse to try to impeach over this and fail than to sit on one’s hands and wait for the end of the Bush Presidency. It would be treated as vindication for what Bush has done.
And since I view the chances of success in impeaching Bush at somewhat less than slim…
What do you think about my actual point regarding the Constitutional obligations of our Congress?
I know this was meant for Dantheman, but I would say that, while I am sympathetic to your feelings, that particular assertion is, in practical terms, meaningless, even if true on some level.
“[t]here are going to be fewer and fewer Republicans in the next session.”
one wonders how many votes they’ll need before Reid and Pelosi decide to play hardball on anything.
of course, to repeat what I said above, that assumes Reid and Pelosi aren’t perfectly happy with the outcomes they’re getting now. and on the face of it, i think assuming that they do like what they’re getting now is more plausible than assuming they are embarrassingly incompetent at using the rules of the system for their own favor. after all, they did manage to get themselves elected to some pretty powerful positions, and that doesn’t usually happen to people who can’t fight for what they want.
kc–
yes, less defensible than durbin’s quote (which has now been repeated nearly verbatim by the president’s nominee for a.g.).
more defensible than things that limbaugh, o’reilly, beck, and coulter say every day of the week.
part of my curiosity simply is entirely at the level of mechanics. *what* exactly is it that stark and durbin were responding to? phone calls from constituents? emails? phone calls or emails from donors? threats from the white house? the kidnapping of their children?
i mean–here we sit out in left blogistan, convincing each other with ten sound arguments every day, and we *cannot make the needle budge* as far as visible effects of our activities on the national scene. for all of our efforts, we have practically zero evidence that anyone even listens.
so what the hell are we doing wrong? what levers of power are we overlooking? what levers of power did stark’s opponents have access to?
if this was an old-fashioned civics lesson, we would learn how votes are counted and bills are passed, to understand the mechanics of the procedure. i want the analogue of that: what is the procedure for making an elected official pee his pants on the floor of the house?
it would be very interesting to hear a first-person expose from someone who works in stark’s office about what’s been happening the last few days. what is the sharp end of the stick?
it’s very puzzling to me. i just cannot imagine what sorts of penalties could be brought to bear that would cause grown-ups to crumble like that, short of literal torture.
FWIW according to someone who called Stark’s office here is the explanation:
Oooooooh censure, how scary. Note how the GOP sent its useful idiots in to do the knee-capping
fledermaus–
okay, that’s interesting info.
stark’s choice now strikes me as utterly bullshit–i myself would wear such a censure as a badge of honor.
but at least this anecdote fleshes out the picture a bit.
and in another way, it doesn’t help at all.
since now the question just becomes:
what pressure was brought to bear on that putative majority of congress that is alleged to have been ready to censure him?
and why the *fuck* can’t we duplicate it?
I’m afraid for our future in this country if it is not “practical” for our Congressional representatives to follow the Constitution. I must say that I’m terribly disappointed to see my fellow “ordinary” Americans talking as if they’re politicians and making excuses for the members of Congress to not do the Constitutionally mandated thing (impeachment).
If we don’t have minimum standards for our politicians, how can we possibly expect our politicians to hold themselves to any kind of standards?
Isn’t the Constitution the one thing that all Americans can agree on?
Can’t we all stop being pundits for a few minutes, read the Constitution, and follow the founders?
“It would be far worse to try to impeach over this and fail than to sit on one’s hands and wait for the end of the Bush Presidency.”
It might not work, so screw it.
This is madness. We’re in deep sh**.
Kid, there’s a difference between what’s appropriate to say on the floor of Congress and what’s appropriate to say on talk radio. I doubt even the right-wing noise machine would have been able to whip up much outrage over someone making the same statement Stark did on Air America (though I’m sure they’d try). Stark violated the posting rules.
Jen, I don’t necessarily agree with Dan’s argument (I go back and forth), but it’s not “It might not work, so screw it.” It’s “It will almost certainly make things worse by encouraging further lawlessness, so unfortunately we’d better not try it.”
Jen Clark,
“”It would be far worse to try to impeach over this and fail than to sit on one’s hands and wait for the end of the Bush Presidency.”
It might not work, so screw it.”
Please learn reading skills, including those that include reading the whole comment, before responding.
OT — I am _so_ glad this is not my year to go to the lawyers conference my company sends me to occasionally. They just put up an announcement:
“ICSC SAN DIEGO LAW CONFERENCE CANCELLED
Based on the latest and urgent information on the San Diego fires, which have resulted in a state of emergency, and the need for hotel rooms to accommodate an increasing number of fire evacuees, the ICSC Law Conference, which had been scheduled for the Manchester Hyatt in San Diego California, October 23-27 has been cancelled. Further information will be provided to all registered attendees later this week.”
Unfortunately, my boss is already there, and cannot get a plane back.
Very little. It would be far worse to try to impeach over this and fail than to sit on one’s hands and wait for the end of the Bush Presidency. It would be treated as vindication for what Bush has done.
Much more than vindication, I’m afraid. If Bush skates through impeachment, just imagine what precedent that will set for every President to follow.
(Not that I think the precedent we’re setting now is much better. Eh, time wounds all heels, or so I’ve heard.)
Stark violated the posting rules.
Yeah I remember when Dick Cheney tearfully apologized to Sen. Leahy for his intemperate remarks back in 2004. Rules only work when both sides follow them.
No time to post, but after a quick read-through I’d like to offer heartfelt thanks to Katherine, john miller, russell, and Huh, among others.
The impression being left with Democratic and independent voters (who share the D policy preferences much more than the R) is that virtually no one is fighting for them and their interests. Instead, they see constant capitulation, defeatism (mental capitulation in advance), and fearful apologetics. It feels as if almost nothing has changed since 2002.
kid bitzer, my guess, and it’s only a guess, is that a lot of the Congressional Democrats, and quite possibly Hillary, did not want to spend the next 2 weeks on talk shows defending Stark’s hyperbole. So it was the Democrats who put pressure on Stark, not the Republicans.
I think they made exactly the wrong call. Part of the GOP’s success is due to its extremist stalking horses. People like Coulter and Limbaugh, and even politicians like Ted Stevens, make extreme statements that move the bar. The rest of the party can say anything, so long as it’s less provocative than that. And so the bar keeps moving rightwards, to the point where the mainstream left sound like nuts to the average voter out there in the heartland.
The Left used to know how to do this. Rev. M.L. King owed some of his success to the fact that he was seen as the nice alternative to Malcolm X, for example. Granted, it can go too far — the 1968 Chicago police riots helped kill Humphrey’s candidacy, for instance (thanks so much, Mayor Daley). But there is a lot more tolerance for wild-eyed dissent than the party seems to think.
Stark’s over-the-top comments provided a rare opportunity to get an extreme view real play in the SCLM. If we had let it stand, we might have taken a few lumps short-term, but long-term, it would have opened up space in the conventional conversational spectrum to say things a little more to the left of consensus reality.
But then, I suspect most Dem Congressmen wouldn’t know a leftist point of view if it came up and bit them on the…nose.
Dan- don’t insult my reading skills. I read your (entire) comment and I believe it to be madness. That’s not a personal assault on you. Just your comment.
I apologize if my previous words seemed a bit harsh, but I think you all can sense my frustration.
That said, NOT impeaching, with all the information we have, is a vindication of what Bush has done. Bush and Cheney being able to remain in office until January 20, 2009 sets the same terrible precedent, that all this law breaking by the Presient is ok. The situation will be no different if impeachment fails, so what’s the harm of giving it a try?
But if it succeeds, that will tell every other President that follows that Bush’s behavior was unacceptable. Letting him stay in office certainly doesn’t send this message.
I’m amazed by these arguments, saying that the situation will only get worse with impeachment. Exactly how much worse can it get? We are in two wars, going on a third. It’s confirmed that the Bush Administration is spying on us. Our climate is out of control (I say as I literally watch my hometown burn) and the Bush Administration will do nothing about it. The Bush Administration has filled the Justice Department with their own cronies. The list goes on…
And impeachment is going to cause more lawlessness? I don’t see anything slowing them down now.
No one in this administration has been held responsible for anything. They haven’t even been brought up for censure (but Pete Stark has for telling the truth). At the very least, it would be on the record that we tried to bust these guys and, hopefully, the impeachment proceedings would suck up so much time that the Bush Administration would be too busy to start another war or cause any additional damage to our Constitution (I think we can all agree that the chances of the Bush Administration doing any good in the next 15 months are slim to none).
And as for Congress, yes, an impeachment proceeding will take up most of their time too. But Bush just vetoed kid’s health care, basically, because he could. Since Congress isn’t getting anything done anyway, they might as well give accountability a whirl.
Since Congress isn’t getting anything done anyway, they might as well give accountability a whirl.
Hear, hear.
As for the fear that the public would be against it once the media filled their heads with lies…that’s exactly backwards. The one chance progressive views have to get through the minefield of the SCLM is to stage an event so big that even Fox has to cover it and give some airtime to the arguments on both sides.
Instead, we’re running away from the fight because we might not win.
“He either fears defeat too much, or his reward’s too small, who dares not put it to the touch, to win or gain all.”
Jen Clark,
If you read my comment, and understood it to say “It might not work, so screw it.”, then assuming that your reading skills were poor was the charitable interpretation. I won’t make that mistake again.
As to the rest of your comment, you seem to assume that the majority of the country has the same political views that you do, and therefore the only reason they are not doing what you think is best is due to some character flaw on their part. Dealing with the world as it is, and not how we want it to be, can be frustrating, but is typically the path which leads to greater ability to make changes.
Fledermaus, Cheney may have been on the floor when he cursed Leahy, but he wasn’t addressing the House. I don’t believe the rules govern conversations in the chamber. If they did, the conversation would be pretty strange, since members couldn’t address each other directly and would have to keep referring to “the Gentleman from Vermont” and so on.
Cheney’s behavior was clearly outrageous and uncivilized, and maybe the Democrats should have made a bigger stink about it, but the situation is not parallel.
Wow, Dantheman- seems like I hit a nerve.
If insulting me makes you feel better, have at it. I can’t read. You’re right. You win.
That said, NOT impeaching, with all the information we have, is a vindication of what Bush has done. Bush and Cheney being able to remain in office until January 20, 2009 sets the same terrible precedent, that all this law breaking by the Presient is ok. The situation will be no different if impeachment fails, so what’s the harm of giving it a try?
The goal here is not to flail away at some sort of moral victory over George W. Bush. Nothing in the past seven years – not even the drubbing the GOP got last November – have stopped them going to the mattresses to defend the President or his policies. They haven’t stopped spectering now, why would they if he was impeached?
No, the GOP has shown many many many times that they’re willing to live and die by Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment. The precedent Bush has created is not that you can play games with the Constitution and get away with it. Its that as long as your party has your back you can play games with the Constitution and get away with it. That is the message the Democrats need to defeat, because if we don’t it will resurface again and again and again.
The only way we’re going to stop Bushism is by breaking the GOP as it stands now. The Republicans have to learn that you can’t screw around like they have been and get away with it. Its not a lesson they’ll learn easily or quickly either. They didn’t learn last November, and a failed impeachment – and that’s exactly where impeachment would lead – would only give them a morale boost when we need to be kicking them in the teeth.
All the current GOP understands is power. How to get it, and how to use it to get more of it. Elections don’t intimidate them, shows of force don’t intimidate them, and failed impeachments certainly won’t either. he name of the game now is not just winning elections, but winning them big and winning them continuously. Only when the GOP finds itself out in the political wilderness and sharing a pup tent with the British Tories, then maybe they’ll start to smart up and return to reality.
kid bitzer, my guess, and it’s only a guess, is that a lot of the Congressional Democrats, and quite possibly Hillary, did not want to spend the next 2 weeks on talk shows defending Stark’s hyperbole.
This analysis sounds 100% plausible to me. If true, how stupid can they be.
Stark didn’t say anything anyone hasn’t heard at the dinner table at least 100 times over the last five years. Nobody out here in the real world was shocked.
Here’s the way the Democrats did not spin it.
“While I don’t endorse Rep Stark’s choice of words, it is nonetheless true that the war in Iraq is costing us $12 billion a month. That is more than a quarter of a million dollars a minute.”
The conversation is no longer about Stark. Any normal person hearing that will have the phrase “quarter of a million dollars a minute” running through their heads for the next week. I know I will.
For most folks, that’s more than their house cost them. It’s probably more than they make in a couple of years. What are they getting for that quarter of a million bucks?
How long is this going to go on? How much will it cost when all is said and done? Why isn’t the situation improving? When will it end?
Why the hell are we there again?
Those are the questions that leap right to mind when the phrase “quarter of million bucks a minute” is uttered. Whether you have a support the troops magnet on your car, or not. Everyone knows what a quarter million dollars is, and what it will buy.
Imagine being Congressman Smith, (R) Springfield, heading back to your district for some meet and greets, all proud of yourself for voting to censure Stark. The first question at the first town meeting will be, “Is Iraq really costing us a quarter of a million dollars a minute?”
Good luck to Rep Smith.
This is not “political theater”. It’s just stating the facts in plain language. The facts speak for themselves, they don’t need any dramatization.
As it is, it would be just one more thing to fail protractedly at.
Doing nothing is also a way to fail.
Thanks –
“The impression being left with Democratic and independent voters (who share the D policy preferences much more than the R) is that virtually no one is fighting for them and their interests.”
Welcome to my world. At least the figurehead leaders for the people that most outsiders would think of as ‘your side’ are only 40% insane rather than 90% insane. [Sigh]
KCinDC,
Well that was just one example. I’ve got plenty more. If I had the time or inclination – or if I thought it would make the slighest bit of difference – I could search the records from 1992-2000 and find stuff said on the floor about Clinton that makes Stark’s remarks look like kindergarden taunts.
Funny how all these ‘new rules’ seem to have popped up since the dems regained control. Suddenly 60 votes in the Senate is standard practice “upperdownvote!!!!!!!” and all these civility rules requiring censure.
Doug- I hear ya. You make a great argument and it’s definitely one to think about.
Got a question for you (or anyone else reading)… what do we do about the next 15 months? My concern is the damage that will be inflicted by Bush and Cheney before the next election. Will Bush enact NSPD-51? Will he bomb Iran and start World War III? Will our privacy be completely gone?
Precedent and all the moral/Constitutional arguments aside, what can be done other than impeachment that will tell Bush and Cheney that they are not Supreme Masters of the United States?
Jen, it’s not the primary point you seem to be trying to make, but you’re wrong to claim that therre are situations in which Congress is constitutionally obligated to impeach the president–the constitution says nothing of the sort.
The constitution permits but does not require impeachment and convcition of the president in the preset situation.
IN a slightly different context, the concept is called, “prosecutiorial discretion” . . .
Bush and Cheney are going to serve out their term of office, not matter what we or our shakey congressional majority do. Forget them, anyway–they’re rapidly headed for the refuse heap of history. The question for us instead is what tactics will best serve to change the course of the country.
Argue tactics vigorously, by all means–but don’t be so quick to attack those who disagree with you on tactics but share your goals.
I hate this war. I want it brought to an end as soon as possible. For that very reason, I’m very skeptical of schemes that might the war to an end quickly if they work–but that aren’t likely to work–and which have a potential significant downside if they fail.
Jen, why on earth do you think impeachment will prevent Bush and Cheney from doing any of those things? Even if I believed in the fantasy that 17 Republican senators will vote to remove them from office, I’m a little afraid that pursuing impeachment would make it more likely that they’ll bomb Iran while they have the chance, and to derail the impeachment.
I mostly agree that impeachment is the right thing to do, but this part of your argument makes no sense to me.
I’d be interested in some citation from the fall of 2006 of successful Dem candidates offering either denial of funding, or immediate (or near immediate) cessation of the war.
I strongly suspect that most of the campaign rhetoric would be very similar to the current positions of Sens. Clinton and Obama.
On impeachment, it’s much more stark. I’d be surprised if more than a handful of candidates offered anything positive at all on this.
It’s ugly, and I’m far from satisfied with what’s going on in, and coming out of, the Sausage Factory. That said, the notion that some kind of clear mandate was given and is being flouted is, imo, simply ahistorical.
With publius, I’m afraid that the current majority (of the population, of likely voters?) in favor of ending the war would break apart at the first sign of trouble. I still think the leadership could have and should have played harder ball — but I note that we haven’t see Defense appropriations yet either, and so there’s no sausage yet.
But people who think that the positions of the party as a whole are going to match the positions of the currently most liberal members (much less the most liberal supproters) are going to be disappointed every single day.
I’m not trying to attack anyone. I had one post earlier that I wrote in pure frustration and I apologized for that anger, but I do think that this is the exact situation that the founders imagined when they put impeachment in the Constitution. That’s more accurately the point I was trying to make.
I see your point though. I know we all have the same goals, but there’s more urgency with some of us than others. I’m in the age group that has friends being sent off to fight these wars, so my urgency is admittedly higher than most.
The thing is, I’m truly afraid of the damage that will be inflicted to our country in the next 15 months, and impeachment seems like the only way to stop it. All other solutions I hear being spoken about all involve waiting until 2009.
But what if that is too late?
We know that Bush and Cheney have had an agenda and it started pre-9/11. We know that they were spying on us without warrants starting at least as early as February 27, 2001 (Quest’s CEO testified as much). We know that they were hell-bent on taking us to war in Iraq. We know Cheney is hell-bent on taking us to war in Iran. We know they are allowing quite a large private military to be built (with taxpayer money). We know about NSPD-51.
We know these guys have some kind of plan for our country, but the picture is still too blurry. They keep so much secret from us. It’s hard to predict the actions of people whose motivations you can’t understand.
The thing we do know, though, is that they have an impressive pattern of actions that increase their own power. My fear is that they have something planned that will allow them to keep it.
I can’t stop thinking about NSPD-51.
So, here’s the source of my “impeachment passion”. I fear that we will regret sitting on our hands and waiting for the end of the ride with these guys in charge of the steering. I’d hate for us to look back 5 years from now and say, “If only we had done something when we had a chance.”
At least the figurehead leaders for the people that most outsiders would think of as ‘your side’ are only 40% insane rather than 90% insane.
Seb, do you mean that, regarded collectively, 40% of the Dem leadership is insane; or that each Dem leader is, individually, only “mostly sane”?
I agree with Charley.
Look – my bottom line on this is that 98% of the things people are upset about will go away with a new president. The entire executive branch will be replaced. Realistically, that’s the single best way to change our policy.
I didn’t mean to be snarky (but I don’t think I drew first blood on that front), but much of people are advocating above would simply give the presidency to Rudy or whoever the GOP nominates. And nothing will change – at best.
Are there some things to fight harder on? Of course – the telecom immunity is insane and is a sop to money. They can fight harder on Iran too.
But these unending attacks for not achieving the impossible are, to me, unfair. And I’m also exhausted with personal attacks for allies simply disagreeing on tactics to achieve shared goals.
The goal now is to win the Presidency. That will end torture. That will end rendition. That will end the Iran war. That will do everything. Unfortunately, the Electoral College requires candidates to win in places like Ohio, Florida, etc. That’s teh Electoral College we have.
But there’s no need to personalize policy and strategic disputes. Particularly with such alienating anger toward friends
For a long time now, a critical mass of Republicans have shared a simple vision on tactics: Win every battle, if possible, and make every defeat as costly as possible to the enemy.
Discussions of whether the political game is more like chess or whatever seem to me to miss the point. (I went back and re-read the original post, which is why I’m picking on that particular phrasing.) The political game is one more like King of the Hill, one that goes on as long as anyone’s willing to play it and in which there is no evolving midgame or endgame – there must always be someone at or closest to the top, and others are always (if they’re playing well) trying to pull them off.
If the game is King of the Hill, the Democrats are doing the equivalent of repeatedly asking the Republicans to let them on top for a while. This inspires contempt in both the Republicans and not-heavily-partisan bystanders.
As to the question of where to find additional Democratic voters, I say, ignore the “swing voters” – that is, those who assess themselves as likely to vote and yet can’t decide whether torture is good or bad, and so on. These people are useless. Democrats should be looking for votes among people who do have some convictions and could be persuaded that the Democrats could represent those convictions better in Congress than the Republicans do. For this election, at least, that includes some people in the situation of John Cole and OCSteve; more usually, it will include single women, non-fundamentalist believers, and the like. I don’t want the Democrats to repeat the Republican history of selling their souls to a handful of special interests. I do want to see them act on alleged principles in a consistent and determined way, and thereby (among other things) win the support of people who haven’t voted regularly before but who share the sense that this is an important time act.
But these unending attacks for not achieving the impossible are, to me, unfair. And I’m also exhausted with personal attacks for allies simply disagreeing on tactics to achieve shared goals.
This reminds me of when, on a tour of leftist groups protesting in Nagasaki against a US port visit, a friend who was there with a Japanese friend guiding him recounts that the Japanese friend spent the entire afternoon recounting things like ‘that group got in a fight with that group and one of their members got knifed, and that group has a grudge against this other group so….’
“Jen, why on earth do you think impeachment will prevent Bush and Cheney from doing any of those things?”
KC – to answer your question, I really don’t. In reality, I don’t think there is much we can do to stop these guys. The optimist in me (which is fighting so hard to stay alive) thinks that impeachment is the only tool we have left that might stop them.
Why? The only thing I think Bush and Cheney might respond to is a threat to their own power. They don’t respond to protests, letters, calls, or Congress. Maybe they’ll think twice about more power grabs or wars if there’s a possibility of getting thrown out on their asses.
Likely? Of course not. I’m completely aware that the deck is stacked against us. I’m aware that impeachment is likely to fail. I’m aware we are most likely going to be forced into another war. I’m aware that my emails will probably end up being read by the government and my phone calls tapped (if they’re not already). I’m aware that martial law is an all-too-real possibility. I’m aware of the prisons being built all over the country. I’m aware that my government tortures people.
But I haven’t given up hope. All of these things either haven’t happened yet or can be reversed.
For now.
But Bush and Cheney have got to either be totally preoccupied for the next 15 months or removed from office for any prevention or reversals to happen.
If you believe that we can’t wait until 2009, what else can we do but impeach?
Charley, I went back and looked 2006 campaign promises, and particularly at Pelosi’s “100 hours” checklist. Implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations in full was at the top of the list. Now it’s true that this list does not precisely say “let’s get the hell out of Iraq already”. But it would, if adopted in full, define a set of conceptual borders within which there’s no room for the occupation of Iraq as currently conducted. Skimming suggests to me – and I could be really wrong here – that interest in defunding rose as it became clear to more observers just how much increased oversight wasn’t going to happen, arising out of discussions about “Well, what can the legislature do?”
The goal now is to win the Presidency. That will end torture. That will end rendition. That will end the Iran war. That will do everything.
If only this were true.
The current rendition program began under Clinton. Depending on who’s elected President, that person may or may not decide to keep torture and/or rendition in their back pocket, just in case.
The thing that will end torture, rendition, and the rest are clear laws making them illegal, and a clear affirmation that the executive is bound by law. Congress does the first, and the courts will be required for anything other than a voluntary version of the second. Although, a voluntary version of the second would suit me just fine as a starting point.
Net/net, these issues are likely to persist well into the next administration, no matter who wins in November ’08.
To touch on Jen’s comments, IMO impeachment, possibly followed by jail, would be an excellent way to put a point on the rule of law question. It might be worth introducing articles of impeachment just to put the charges on the table, and to force Bush to defend his actions publicly. Actually removing Bush from office, however, is really, really unlikely.
I’m not sure it would be worth what it would cost. I think we’d really see the (metaphorical) knives come out, it would not be a pretty sight.
Achievable goals might include criminal prosecution of Gonzales and a clear refutation of the OLC opinions regarding torture and executive privilege. Possibly, impeachment of Cheney. If it got that far, Bush would not have a lot left.
Other than that, I’m not sure there’s much Congress can do. They can pass laws, but most of the really questionable stuff Bush does gets done through executive directives. What’s really, really needed is a clear and unambiguous affirmation that the executive is not above the law. I think that has to come from the courts.
Thanks –
Publius: The goal now is to win the Presidency. That will end torture. That will end rendition. That will end the Iran war. That will do everything.
You’ve already decided HRC has no chance at the nomination? 😉
BTW – This was a very interesting (for me) peek into the fractures on the left. It gives me a little better feeling for what your caucus is dealing with. (Phew!)
Bruce: Democrats should be looking for votes among people who do have some convictions and could be persuaded that the Democrats could represent those convictions better in Congress than the Republicans do.
That’s actually not an unreachable goal. At least, I’m willing to put some of my more dearly held conservative beliefs (low taxes, small government, fiscal restraint, etc.) on the shelf for four years in view of the big picture here. It’s not like Republicans have done anything productive in those areas anyway. It’s already a given that I won’t be canceling out your vote (Hilzoy’s actually). But it wouldn’t take that much more to get me a little further at this point and actually vote for a D. They just have to convince me they have a real plan to:
-End this war quickly and as responsibly as possible. Quick and responsible are opposites here so this is tough.
-Take care of the veterans and rebuild our military.
-Turn DHS into something other than a joke and a huge waste of money (makes it harder to laugh at the joke).
-Deal with proliferation in a serious way. Preferably diplomatically, but all options on the table.
-Restore habeas, end torture, and get FISA under control. (I initially typo’d FICA there but then said Oops – that goes on the shelf.)
-Stamp out corruption, really this time. Really. I mean it this time. Last chance.
Those are the biggies. If you want to throw in fixing the AMT that’s cool. If you have a plan for energy independence sell me on that too (cloak it in GW rhetoric if you have to). You can have the estate tax. Expand some entitlement programs if you like – just fund it responsibly (i.e. no regressive taxes) and don’t get too carried away.
That hardly sounds like a platform that would be difficult for a D candidate to embrace. And of course many of them are mouthing those words now. But the key part is “convince me” and “real plan”. Oh yeah, and don’t nominate HRC as she scares the crap out of me. 😉
The goal now is to win the Presidency. That will end torture. That will end rendition. That will end the Iran war. That will do everything.
Well, I think we’ve identified the source of the disagreement.
No wonder you’re so sensitive to criticism of the Democrats, publius.
If I believed what you do, I wouldn’t be so depressed. I almost wish I could believe it, but I’m too old. I grew up during the period when Democrats were clearly seen to be a big part of the problem.
I’m genuinely curious: what makes you so sure, what with the voting public being so reactionary that it would choose Rudy Giuliani if Dems were to push for real accountability and and end to the occupation and war, that a President HRC elected by that public would “do everything”?
“The goal now is to win the Presidency. That will end torture. That will end rendition. That will end the Iran war. That will do everything.”
Rendition? Some of Bill Clinton’s former advisors appear to be trying to rehabilitate it. Torture? Maybe we’ll stop for a few years; I would be extremely surprised to see us take any of the steps necessary to prevent the nightmare of the last 7 years from repeating.
“the voting public being so reactionary that it would choose Rudy Giuliani”
I doubt this would arise from reactivity.
I expect the next president will be a Democrat and that she or he will steer us back to a world where the US govt wasn’t every day doing something immoral and stupid. I didn’t like a number of things Bill did, but a lot of those were due to his having to fight Gingrich&Co plus the press plus leading a more conservative polity. With stronger, maybe even effective majorities in Congress the next president ought to do a better job for me than Bill. Maybe it will take two terms to repair most of the damage from the previous two, and certainly one may find what suits me or publius to be not nearly satisfactory – but we’ve argued over this before.
I do not believe we’ll even learn the extent of what happened in the last seven years until several decades from now, let alone doing what’s necessary to undo the damage or prevent it’s repetition.
“I would be extremely surprised to see us take any of the steps necessary to prevent the nightmare of the last 7 years from repeating.”
What can one do to keep a determined rogue (vice-)president with a majority in Congress, a frightened public, and a compliant press from violating the law – beyond pointing to the current mess?
My 8:23 was crossed by Katherine‘s 8:22.
What can one do? Investigate what happened–a truth commission, or a special prosecutor. Publicize the findings of a truth commission. Prosecute, in cases where the investigation uncovers evidence of a federal crime. Close the statutory loopholes that were used to justify many of these practices. Amend the statutes to make court jurisdiction over these areas clear. Reform the classification system.
I’ll bet you that President Clinton does none of these things.
OCSteve, I treat “decent conservative waiting for a delivery of sanity to the party” as a distinct category – I understand you’re not a “natural” Democratic voter, but someone who has some common caue with them thanks to the nature of the crisis. To me, at least, this is very different from someone whose longterm outlook and interests line up in a more significant way with the Democrats.
To be honest, I find the challenges of working out common cause with principled people of different outlooks much more interesting than trying to appeal to people of no particular conviction or clue. 🙂
As usual, Katherine speaks for me in explaining why the presidency isn’t enough, and why a foundation of good legislation and legislative practice is crucial.
And, of course, next time it actually happens? You can filibuster the parts of it that they asked Congress to sign off on, & the nominees you know will support it. And not fall over yourself to show that you would never *dream* of considering impeachment.
OCSteve: Oh yeah, and don’t nominate HRC as she scares the crap out of me. 😉
Take Pepto-Bismol. 😉
OCSteve – I think Clinton’s actually your best bet.
Based on his list, I think Obama is his guy. (The one I actually donated to was Dodd.)
publius, I’m also not sure what’s more personally hurtful & alienating about my saying that your view of this is what will prevent the Democratic party from becoming a real opposition party that stands for something, & you saying that my view of this would get Giuliani elected if it prevailed. I am obviously generally more angry, upset, despairing, & taking this more personally, but it’s largely directed at the party leadership. I do think your & Charley’s view is part of the problem, but you guys aren’t Democratic power brokers, & your effect on Democratic politicians is approximately as miniscule as mine. So I’m honestly not particularly angry at YOU. Also, I think that if you were actually in office, your votes would be closer to mine than to the center of the caucus. But I’m not going to hold back my anger at them & their attitude. I guess I can see why you take it personally when I start talking about imaginary voters, but it’s Chuck Schumer’s that are the problem, not yours.
publius
Look – my bottom line on this is that 98% of the things people are upset about will go away with a new president. The entire executive branch will be replaced.
What about all the good people who have been driven out by W’s politicising of the executive? You think they’re going to just walk back into their old jobs and it’ll be just like 2000 again?
What about all the judges we have to endure? How many more will be appointed after the Dems continue to cave?
It’s my belief that it will be years, if ever, before the damage to the executive branch is repaired.
It’s true – I do have faith in the Democratic Party individuals on a micro-level. Most of them have internalized the spirit/lessons of the 60s. And when they don’t, it’s usually b/c they’re forced to do otherwise b/c republicans have political power. Maybe it’s b/c I’m post-Vietnam. But I think things would be very good if modern, post-LBJ Democrats had power.
For instance, let’s take these in order of relative importance.
It is simply inconceivable that any Democrat would have gone to war in Iraq or would start one with Iran/China/Syria. It’s inconceivable. That alone justifies supporting the Democratic candidate.
Second, torture. Do you really think that any of the Democratic candidates are going to allow systematic torture? I don’t know Clinton’s history, but a rendition here or there (assuming that exists) is a world away from the systematic lawless assault on basic rights that we’ve seen. (And that the GOP brags about).
Third, all administrative agencies are going to be run by more liberal-minded people. Democratic judges, USAs, DOJ staffers, State Dept, etc. This underappreciated fact has enormous consequences.
It’s just not even close to me. Everything people are complaining about are Republican-inspired policies made possible by the control of the executive branch. Replace that — and almost all of it changes.
And again, some spine-stiffening is in order. But the Dem Party is light years (light years) better on all levels. This endless complaining about things like impeachment or funding just doesn’t fit. The Dems get no credit for all the things they are at least trying and for the (often invisible) things that political power prevents.
I’m not saying don’t criticize. I’m just some people’s expectations are wildly unrealistic and naive.
The election is roughly one year away. We’ve made it this long without bailing. Let a Democrat get elected and then pound pound away. But get one in office first.
Most everything begins with political power.
k – whatever, no hard feelings. i just took the imaginary voters line to be a personal barb.
i’m a blogger – things piss me off. but obviously, i – like everyone here – have enormous respect for you, what you do, and what you write (and wish you would write more).
i just want people focused on what i consider the true source of the problems you rightly complain about
All of that would be relevant if I were suggesting people support Nader. I have not. The Democrats, will indeed, torture fewer people than the Republicans & start fewer aggressive wars. If you want actual ACTIVE OPPOSITION to the Republican policies though; if you want things to get better instead of not getting worse for a few years; if you want to do something other than press pause for a few years on disastrous policies, give your time & money to Human Rights Watch or the Center for Constitutional Rights or the ACLU or the NRDC or the labor movement.
“Seb, do you mean that, regarded collectively, 40% of the Dem leadership is insane; or that each Dem leader is, individually, only “mostly sane”?”
Hmm, I think I meant on average. Wanting to seek national office at all in most states suggests personal insanity on some level–say 20% while we’re putting silly numbers on it.
HRC I’d put at 50-60%, she scares the crap out of me too.
I’d vote for Obama, for whatever that is worth. (Which considering that 7 years ago I would have thought I could never vote for a Democrat is saying something). He seems only about 30% crazy to me.
I strongly suspect I won’t be voting at all in 2008–I can’t support most Republicans and the likelyhood that I can learn to like Clinton seems low.
Or to put it another way: the Democrats get elected for the sake of getting elected & holding office & possessing political power & having the majority of Congress & the Presidency. Progressives should support the elections of Democrats because while Democrats hold the Presidency & the majority of Congress, those offices are NOT held by Republicans using them to do active harm–well, to do everything that Bush has done for the last 7 years, & the GOP Congress enthusiastically supported, & which Giuliani is promising to do harder & faster. So that’s worth something. But as far as actually using those offices to do active good, when doing so might risk their re-election? Some Democrats are interested & can be counted on to do this. But it’s a minority of Democratic office holders, such that if you’re looking to actively improve things, you are really much better off looking elsewhere for actual representation.
i think part of the issue is short-term versus long-term. it’s fine to give to the groups you list. personally, i think the netroots giving more to democratic candidates has had more effect, but that’s a different battle.
anyway, you’re arguing for things that will cause more long-term changes. that’s fine. but some of the tactics people are defending in the name of long-term change (which isn’t guaranteed to happen, by the way, even if we do this stuff) could cost Dems big-time in the short run.
Right now, i am laser-focused on the presidency next year.
impeachment. chicken with war funding against the executive. these are things that will cost dems the big prize next year, in my opinion.
i think we simply can’t dismiss or sacrifice short-term considerations at this point in history for longer-term change. we can do all that — but let’s keep an eye on the prize for the next year. criticize but don’t give up hope on the one party that’s actually trying.
Right, “yeah, you’re right long term, but short term it’s too important!” That’s why we couldn’t vote against the war in 2002. That’s why Kerry couldn’t mention Abu Ghraib in 2004. That’s why they couldn’t filibuster Gonzales or the MCA.
I’ve heard this all before. I used to find it a little bit convincing.
you’re also lumping every single thing into one category. as i’ve said, i don’t know, a million times, not all of these are the same.
2002 vote – fight til death. kerry should have spoken out on abu ghraib. they shouldn’t give telecom immunity. they shouldn’t vote for anything with kyl-lieberman in the title.
but, they also shouldn’t push impeachment. they shouldn’t play chicken with war funding (executive is structurally superior positition). and we shouldn’t castigate democrats for an inability to catch mathematics.
it’s more nuanced than you’re making it
the fact that someone wrongfully raised the argument in 2002 doesn’t taint the argument for the entire future on every issue.
Publius, by your own admission, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about on some important subjects. So please, go look at the archives on this site for Katherine’s multiple postings on the history of rendition and the legal apparatus about it. Torture became policy under Clinton, and the foundations were laid for what Bush did with it. True, under Clinton it was a policy for rare circumstances, but it was nonetheless a tool of executive power, there to be used. You have, and I don’t think i’m exaggerating, in Katherine one of the best-informed civilians in the world in a position to address the general public on the subject of torture. It is worth paying attention to her research.
Next door, topically, why is it inconceivable that a Democratic president would launch a war against Iraq, Iran, or Syria? Democratic presidents have done catastrophically stupid things in the past and the pressures for war are very strong in the echo chamber Democratic leadership chooses to live in. Indeed, there’s extra pressure on Democrats to show they’re “really serious about national interests”, not just “in a Wag the Dog scenario” to be dismissed as Clinton’s attack on bin Laden’s encampment was, and so on. This was, as a matter of documented experience, a contributing factor in the last Democratic president’s decision to authorize torture and will be a heavy weight on the next one.
What this comes down to is that some of us simply can’t see the Democrats overall as a party that is trying. We see them as a party that is wishing for a chance to do nice things but unwilling to do the hard work of acting to block evil and foolish measures from the president and his legislative toadies, nor to keep pushing in the face of their opposition for good measures. But the principle behind Jesus’ parable of the talents applies: we want to see people being faithful in the use of the opportunities they have beore giving them a whole lot more. We have been burned before this way, and would like not to be burned again.
You’re wrong about funding & impeachment. There’s a point at which I might say “too risky,” but there was no good electoral reason to say “impeachment is off the table” & “I don’t see the connection between torture & impeachment” than from coming in & saying “I support impeachment in the event that we have strong evidence of high crimes & misdemeanors–they classified all the evidence, so I can’t tell you whether they did or not.” There was no good electoral reason to make absolutely clear in advance that they would pass every funding request. Those two decisions gave Bush license to do whatever he wants–what authority, ultimately, does Congress have to stop him? They let him know: you do not have to make any concessions at all, Mr. President; there is no risk to you in continuing the war indefinitely & ignoring every subpoena & continuing to commit felonies & we will never impeach you or cut off funds for your war; you can also probably get away with bombing Iran. What exactly do you make of 1974, or 1998?
You’re also wrong about the best use of funding, even short term. Which would have been a better use of money by the netroots in 2004: $100,000 for general election ad buys for Kerry in Ohio, or 100,000 towards the salary, benefits & travel expenses of Human Rights Watch counterterrorism research & advocacy staffers? There’s no comparison.
I’m glad you would have done differently on the 2002 Iraq vote, the recent FISA cave, etc. but that’s the Democratic party leadership that you’re defending. As I said, I’m happy to vote for Democratic candidates for the purpose of having people in those offices who are going to be actively harmful. But if you’re going to claim that they’re something better than “not actively harmful”, & that I should look to them rather than NGOs & a small handful of politicians to do active good, you’re going to have to convince me on the basis of their actual record, not on what you’d have advised them to do.
“who aren’t going to be actively harmful”, I mean.
Would trial under articles of impeachment give Congress a lever for requiring the President to produce information that he currently is withholding?
I recognize it is not a criminal trial, I’m just wondering if impeachment gives Congress any particular or additional power to compel testimony, either in person or in the form of documents.
Thanks –
“Torture became policy under Clinton”
I think this is an exaggeration – and even if it’s not, future policy isn’t going to be written on a blank slate. HRC or whoever is going to have a crystal-clear example of what happens when one dabbles on the dark side.
I’d be happy to take Katherine‘s bet above – HRC said the other day that when she got into office she was going to start with a review of the abuses of the Bush years.
Just to be clear, I don’t mean a private review where she decides, “huh, we really should stop torturing people”; I am not certain that would happen but it wouldn’t especially surprise me. I’m talking about a full public accounting of some sort.
Bruce Baugh: “Publius, by your own admission, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about on some important subjects.”
No need to be rude.
“I’m talking about a full public accounting of some sort.”
Sure, though it would be a circus, and contribute to the Neue Dolchstoßlegende. I don’t see why we won’t have another Church Committee – but I still think the main thing is for the president to follow the laws. I don’t know if this is more likely under a President Obama or HRC – maybe the former would find it harder from a new politics perspective, maybe the latter would look partisan. Getting anything done publicly will depend of course on how the ending of the Iraq war goes – I can well imagine that burning all the political capital of whichever Democrat wins. And the size of the majority in the Senate will be important (esp. if it means Lieberman will come over to our side and does something with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee).
I’ll invite you to nice dinner anywhere in the Bay Area (well, not the French Laundry) in Spring 2011 if I’m wrong.
RF, I don’t intend that to be rude. Publius says he doesn’t know the history of rendition under Clinton. That’s not knowing he’s talking about, when it comes to assessing what Democratic administrations of the future will, might, or can do. And as for whether it’s policy, when you’ve got guidelines and instructions and contigency plans and stuff, that’s policy, and Katherine has shown that these thing existed. What more would it take for you to consider Clinton’s practice policy?
Interesting and depressing thread.
Want some more?
Hillary Clinton is elected President and huddles with Bush/Cheney/Rice for a security briefing before the latter leave behind the wreckage of what they have wrought domestically and internationally. They lay out for her the inexorable trap they have sprung.
It turns out there is no wiggle room vis a vis the War in Iraq. All choices lead to chaos in the Middle East.
Worse, tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, assumed spent in Iraq, ends up in numerous offshore accounts, sequestered there by the Bush Administration to prevent it being spent on the domestic priorities of the newly elected enemy.
Yes, in all areas of government, Clinton brings in folks who maybe know how to run things, especially foreign policy, instead of polluting every facet of government with callow ideology.
She buys time in assuaging those who want a fast pullout, realizing the cost of letting Iraq be torn asunder.
In March of 2009, Benazir (sp?) Bhutto and many hundreds of Pakistanis are slaughtered in dozens of explosions across Pakistan. Simultaneously, Mussaraf is placed under house arrest, and generals sympathetic to radical Islam take the reins.
Eastern Afghanistan explodes with Taliban violence. Shiites and Sunnis butcher each other in Baghdad. Turkey invades Kurd territory in northern Iraq.
Iran intervenes …… everywhere, and its rhetoric against Israel becomes even more bellicose. American troops and contractors become separated from their supply lines in Iraq, forcing Clinton’s hand. The new embassy sustains a major hit.
Charlie Rangel brings a bill before the Congress authorizing a Draft.
The Left Wing of the Democratic Party takes to the streets in demonstrations not seen since the early 1970s, as the Democratic Party eats itself.
The Republican Party, always helpful, stands on Milton Friedman’s ideological principles and does its damage from the Right as it opposes the Draft, especially when their wives, mothers, and sisters begin to realize that their sons and daughters will take some time off from university to have their viscera shredded in George Bush’s ………. oh, sorry, now Hillary Clinton’s war.
Al Qaeda, always helpful, causes enough trouble in 18 different places to make everyone think the End Times are near. Plus, an al Qaeda leader, close to Osama Bin Laden and thought killed by American troops in 2007, receives an audience with the newly installed Pakistani dictatorship, as does Dick Cheney, now working as a consultant.
Hillary Clinton, a cold, hard individual, ruthless like Margaret Thatcher and practical and pedestrian like Harry Truman, becomes, against Bill’s pleadings, the first President since Truman to use the nuclear deterrent on three major population centers in the Mideast.
Or, Barack Obama gets elected and is nibbled to death by events. His hair turns white by 2012, but the world is saved through some combination of soaring but vacuous rhetoric, last minute luck, and Kennedyesque charm.
He survives the assassination attempt by shady fundamentalist hicks from South Carolina who participated in the Bob Jones University-Tehran Mullah Academy exchange program. Their papers read “Billy Bob Mohammed.”
End of bed-time story. Sweet dreams.
I don’t expect a full accounting. I do expect a very active opposition. This is going to be the key in trimming executive power, and it’s actually HRC’s greatest qualification for the office. No honeymoon, no deference, no cooperation from Congress. Dem congressmen from Mississippi and Alabama who won’t vote to restore habeas now also won’t back her on any separation of power issues whatsoever. Whatever AUMFs that might still be around will get read narrowly.
This is actually a big deal, and having the wicked witch in office will bring the office down a notch or two.
Katherine, you can say that the restraint re the MCA was unnecessary, but I don’t think we know that. Webb and Tester both won with razor thin margins, and a high profile fight on terrorism — a fight the Administration was desperate to pick because it thought the politics ran its way — might have made a difference. I’m very disappointed that Congress hasn’t fixed this, but then I’m very disappointed that the people of Connecticut decided that whatever it was they thought they were voting for (rejection of the DFH faction?) was more important than foreign policy sanity. Do they favor ending the war? I guess so. Did they send the most effective guy at keeping the war going back to the Senate, knowing he was going to do exactly what he is doing? It was pretty obvious.
I understood when the Dem leadership caved on the Iraq supplemental that they were betting on some defections in the Fall. It was a decent bet, given the whispers at the time and the trend in public opinion, and ostentatious restraint was designed (and needed) to give defectors space. None took it, and so while I think restraint was defensible earlier in the year, I think the failure of any of the supposed Rep moderates to break ranks means that we’re in a new ball game beginning a month or so ago.
Interesting and depressing thread.
Want some more?
Hillary Clinton is elected President and huddles with Bush/Cheney/Rice for a security briefing before the latter leave behind the wreckage of what they have wrought domestically and internationally. They lay out for her the inexorable trap they have sprung.
It turns out there is no wiggle room vis a vis the War in Iraq. All choices lead to chaos in the Middle East.
Worse, tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, assumed spent in Iraq, ends up in numerous offshore accounts, sequestered there by the Bush Administration to prevent it being spent on the domestic priorities of the newly elected enemy.
Yes, in all areas of government, Clinton brings in folks who maybe know how to run things, especially foreign policy, instead of polluting every facet of government with callow ideology.
She buys time in assuaging those who want a fast pullout, realizing the cost of letting Iraq be torn asunder.
In March of 2009, Benazir (sp?) Bhutto and many hundreds of Pakistanis are slaughtered in dozens of explosions across Pakistan. Simultaneously, Mussaraf is placed under house arrest, and generals sympathetic to radical Islam take the reins.
Eastern Afghanistan explodes with Taliban violence. Shiites and Sunnis butcher each other in Baghdad. Turkey invades Kurd territory in northern Iraq.
Iran intervenes …… everywhere, and its rhetoric against Israel becomes even more bellicose. American troops and contractors become separated from their supply lines in Iraq, forcing Clinton’s hand. The new embassy sustains a major hit.
Charlie Rangel brings a bill before the Congress authorizing a Draft.
The Left Wing of the Democratic Party takes to the streets in demonstrations not seen since the early 1970s, as the Democratic Party eats itself.
The Republican Party, always helpful, stands on Milton Friedman’s ideological principles and does its damage from the Right as it opposes the Draft, especially when their wives, mothers, and sisters begin to realize that their sons and daughters will take some time off from university to have their viscera shredded in George Bush’s ………. oh, sorry, now Hillary Clinton’s war.
Al Qaeda, always helpful, causes enough trouble in 18 different places to make everyone think the End Times are near. Plus, an al Qaeda leader, close to Osama Bin Laden and thought killed by American troops in 2007, receives an audience with the newly installed Pakistani dictatorship, as does Dick Cheney, now working as a consultant.
Hillary Clinton, a cold, hard individual, ruthless like Margaret Thatcher and practical and pedestrian like Harry Truman, becomes, against Bill’s pleadings, the first President since Truman to use the nuclear deterrent on three major population centers in the Mideast.
Or, Barack Obama gets elected and is nibbled to death by events. His hair turns white by 2012, but the world is saved through some combination of soaring but vacuous rhetoric, last minute luck, and Kennedyesque charm.
He survives the assassination attempt by shady fundamentalist hicks from South Carolina who participated in the Bob Jones University-Tehran Mullah Academy exchange program. Their papers read “Billy Bob Mohammed.”
End of bed-time story. Sweet dreams.
Maybe Obama will bomb Typepad.
Why would Lieberman be likely to do any oversight with his committee just because we get more Democrats in the Senate? A more realistic hope would be that, with a majority no longer dependent on Lieberman’s whim, an actual Democrat could be put in charge of the committee (especially considering that Lieberman will be campaigning for Collins). I’m not holding my breath for either, though.
Charley, Tester called for repeal of the Patriot Act in his campaign, so I’m not sure opposing the MCA would have been a problem for him. Webb’s situation might have been different.
As long as we’re talking about Democratic leadership versus people not only willing but eager to cooperate on a broad spectrum of human-rights issues, the loss of nerve over ENDA is another example of cowardice in action. A lot of LBGT people have worked on a lot of Democratic efforts over the years; it wasn’t unreasonable to expect some quid pro quo. But on politically oriented GLBT weblog these days, you’ll find a lot of “well, heck, why bother?” sentiment these days. These are folks for whom things like privacy rights are of critical importance, but who find themselves thinking very much like Katherine for very similar reasons.
KCinDC: “Why would Lieberman be likely to do any oversight with his committee just because we get more Democrats in the Senate? A more realistic hope would be that, with a majority no longer dependent on Lieberman’s whim, an actual Democrat could be put in charge of the committee”
Well, since you’ve kindly given me an intelligent response – the threat of the latter would force the former.
on a somewhat related logical point, you might also check out mccaskill’s statements on immigration pre-election. sadly, such things are the price of power AT TIMES given the state of the country as a whole. not always, but these are just often complicated questions.
KC, there’s a big difference, in Montana anyway, between a law that is designed to apply to Americans and one designed to apply to foreigners. Conservatives the country over talked a good game about suspicion of government power — for the last half century and more — but very few have been willing to live it. There’s a non-trivial number of non-liberal people in Montana, and probably other places in the West, for whom the Patriot Act is a real issue.
It’s a small number, of course, with the majority caught in the same tribalism we see all around us on the rightward flank.
Re “simply don’t know what you’re talking about on some important subjects”, there are polite ways of expressing your POV, and I don’t think this is one of them. As far as “policy” is concerned, Katherine will correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the Clinton admin had in the great majority of cases used rendition in cases where there were warrants or the rendee would face criminal charges, not as a way of outsourcing torture. Saying “torture was policy” (esp. in context) makes the reader think Gore was Cheney lite.
Incidentally, some people here should go yell at James Fallows and Ezra Klein etc. over the Armenian genocide resolution question – they’re portraying it as a no-brainer parallel to opposing AIPAC.
Incidentally, Obama and HRC are supporting Dodd’s filibuster threat.
Obama and HRC are supporting Dodd’s filibuster threat
In their way. Sure would be nice if Clinton would actually say it was telecom immunity she objects to.
But this is way better than silence or sticking by Jay Rockefeller. Thanks, Chris Dodd, and thanks to everyone who made some noise on this.
Yep, that’s some nice hedging, but I’m an optimist.
As Ezra Klein puts it, “The incentives for the president are to maximize power. That’s why Congress actually has to assert itself here, not look to the goodwill of some future executive to do it for them.”
“A lot of LBGT people have worked on a lot of Democratic efforts over the years; it wasn’t unreasonable to expect some quid pro quo. But on politically oriented GLBT weblog these days, you’ll find a lot of ‘well, heck, why bother?'”
Well of course. The Democrats have been ‘why bother’ on gays since at least Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (100% Bill Clinton)and certainly since the Defense of Marriage Act passed: Senate 85-14, House 342-67 signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. At the time the Democrats had 47 Senators and 204 House members. Even if we attribute all the ‘nay’ votes to Democrats that is 30% and 33%. Not even a bare majority of Democrats. Not even close to a majority. And they don’t even pretend they are going to try to get rid of it now.
“Don’t ask don’t tell” could be overturned in 10 seconds by the President alone. If that doesn’t happen in the first two weeks of a Democratic presidency, it will be obvious (again) that gay votes are just like black votes–appreciated in a “we don’t need to actually do anything for you” kind of way.
Clinton could have, with the stroke of a pen, allowed gays in the military. Instead, during a time when both the Senate and the House were FIRMLY in the control of Democrats, he came up with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, under which more gay people have been discharged than under the previous policy.
Democrats talk about gay rights. But they don’t actually mean it.
seb – that’s just not true at all. if the gop didn’t have control of congress, doma would never have seen the light of day. Seen a marriage amendment lately?
Actually, this is a perfect example of how political power matters. So many things like this just don’t come up b/c the leadership bottles it up. It’s hard to credit the Dems for this, but it’s true.
but the broader problem is that the Dems weren’t the ones who put demonizing gays as the centerpiece of the 2004 election strategy at state and federal levels. i think everyone knows this. it’s a bit disingenuous to treat both parties the same on this.
seb – that’s just not true at all. if the gop didn’t have control of congress, doma would never have seen the light of day.
Perhaps, but Clinton eagerly signed it, and enough Democrats eagerly voted “Yea” to make both majorities veto-proof.
Seen a marriage amendment lately?
Oh, they’re just doing it at the state level now.
Clinton had to adopt DADT as a fallback, when it became clear that neither Congress nor the military was going to tolerate tolerance. We’ve moved quite a bit as a society in 15 years, and I’d like to think that the next admin could instate the policy Clinton ran on in 1992. It’s totally unfair, though, to behave as if Clinton came up with this policy, out of the blue, as a way to oppress gays.
Oh, they’re just doing it at the state level now.
This is true. What’s really important for this thread, though, is that “they” seem to be substantial numbers of voters.
It’s also true that the progress going the other way is being made at the state level, and that a federal amendment would’ve cut that off irrevocably. As it is, where we’re going to go is that a few states will make progress, then a few more, and then, eventually, we’ll have a Supreme Court with the balls to say that they meant what they said in Loving v. Virginia, and that the remaining state bans are all invalid. OK, this isn’t my preferred alternative: I’d like people to act today as if individual human beings have full rights. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people see this thing the other way. It’s beyond vitally important, though, that even if my side can’t win this battle today, our ability to prevail in the end is fully preserved.
Intolerance against gays is a losing battle. We’re going to win. It’s going to be a long time, though, and along the way, many individuals lives will be unfairly disrupted. You can blame Bill Clinton for this if you want, rather than Jerry Falwell, but I think that’s pretty unrealistic. And adopting a stance that empowers the Falwells, because the Clintons can’t make progress fast enough, is worse than unrealistic.
And publius, while I agree with you that a do-nothing Dem Congress is better than any Rep Congress, I’m less than impressed with the Iran resolutions that have done pretty well in the Senate. I don’t think these are politically necessary, at this point.
CC: Clinton had to adopt DADT as a fallback, when it became clear that neither Congress nor the military was going to tolerate tolerance.
I think you have to separate “the military” from “the pentagon”, where “the pentagon” = “a bunch of old white men”.
“The military” tolerated gays just fine all through the 80’s (at least the Army). Even though official DoD policy was “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service” and was grounds for administrative discharge, it was an open secret that at least up through the battalion level no one cared. Everyone knew who was gay and I knew several gays who lived openly with their partners off post. There was more discretion in the barracks. The unofficial policy was more like “don’t flaunt it, don’t get in the wrong persons face with it”. You would be discharged for being consistently overweight or failing a drug test, but not for being gay (caveat – if you were a poor performer then any excuse would be used to get rid of you including that).
As Seb noted, DADT changed all that. Clinton made it a campaign issue. In a bizarre twist Barry Goldwater supported a repeal of the ban while opposition was led by Sam Nunn and Barney Frank wanted a compromise. In the years following passage discharges skyrocketed.
I think that this is truly a case where settling for a compromise was worse than never touching the issue to begin with.
FWIW, I think that enough of the old guard is gone and the social climate has changed enough that a complete repeal would be a slam dunk today.
CC – If I hadn’t been tied up with work at the time, I was going to write a rant about Kyl-Lieberman and the Iran softness and the next debate. I quite literally wouldn’t vote for anything with K-L in the title re foreign policy even if the resolution was “publius is awesome.”
this is been a pretty crazy thread anyway. and i tend to avoid this topic like the plague. but i do wonder how much intra-party interest groups (dare I say lobbies) are driving the iran semi-hawkishness among dems. Or, are they simply saying what they feel necessary to avoid political attacks from gop.
either way, the iran business is my most substantive disagreement with the dems. the other stuff, yes, but failing to stop a second war really would drive me to the greens or the new party, the Publius Rocks party (local grass-roots organization)
Publius, when it comes to Democrats flailing around and being semi-randomly hawkish, I don’t think that’s so much any specific lobby as the conventional wisdom of the capitol village. “We must not be seen as weak on security, and must therefore support things that may turn out to look macho” is an old song among Democratic leaders, after all. I’m sure that some lobbies make it worse, but it’s been in the air, certainly since i started noticing and I had my 42nd birthday last month.
Not to speak for Sebastian, who does fine on his own, but he said “the Democrats,” not just Clinton, have been “why bother” on gays. That sounds right, in the sense that the party as a whole has consistently ended up somewhere closer to Sam Nunn than to Barney Frank. Clinton wasn’t pushed into DADT by the Republicans, but by the social conservatives in his own party. Heck, even the supposedly-liberal Kerry, from supposedly gay-friendly MA, had to toe the line and say “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.” (Whatever that phrase means, anyway).
OTOH, if the fire-breathers on the right had their way, gay men would be forcibly placed into re-education programs where they would all learn to love JEEEzus and flinch in Pavlovian pain-reaction every time they saw a naked man. So, unpleasant though denial of full civil liberties is, it’s not like the parties are the same on this one.
o.k., diving for cover even before I post, but here are my two bits re Dem strategy shortfalls from an outsider’s (non-Dem) perspective:
1) Publius is mostly spot-on and right in sensing that the American people are not quite in lock-step with all Dem policies. While I disagree that this makes most American’s Neanderthals (o.k., that wasn’t exactly said, but it was implied), at least he senses it. Most of the posts here seem to think that is not the case.
2) Katherine is wrong (IMHO) to think that “The American people are a f*cking hell of a lot closer to me than the Democratic majority these days.” If the “American people” are defined as those living in Manhattan or in Huffington’s neighborhood perhaps that’s right. But Publius properly notes that a lot of people not living in liberal inner cities beg to differ.
3) Publius is right to see an impeachment trial as a disaster for the Dems. Katherine’s views of a protest party are laudable but would take the party straight down. Both points of views are ones that I appreciate and respond to even if I don’t agree (I find myself liking both of you just reading your posts). But I think the Dirty Harry response to an impeachment trial is apropos given Publius’ views of Republicans: “Go ahead, make my day.” Publius sees Dirty Harry’s 45 cal. and rightly senses danger.
4) Dems are over thinking things. It is not just what they are not doing, it is what they are in fact doing. I think the Dems waste time on meaningless stunts that rile up the Republican base. Reid and Pelosi attacked Limbaugh for something he really didn’t say. That was a bonehead move and the Ebay auction showed what the Repubs thought of it. And attacking Malkin for the SCHIP fiasco was a dumb move. At the heart of the controversy was a failure to vet the family held up as the paragon of SCHIP virtue. I would have found someone with a few less resources.
5) The fact that a Democratic president would never even think of starting a war with Iran/Syria (I’ll leave China out for now) is a problem for many Americans in spite of Iraq. Even though Israel will probably make any war with Iran unnecessary, it does not make one feel safe to know that the other side knows POTUS won’t ever pull the trigger. Regardless of how I feel about going to war, a legitimate threat of military action is something I would not want to concede. As Publius admits, that would be all but conceded with a Dem president. And it is nothing nationalistic-it’s just self-preservation.
I have to say the comments here have been really insightful. But please let me know when I can come out of my foxhole.
“Clinton had to adopt DADT as a fallback, when it became clear that neither Congress nor the military was going to tolerate tolerance.”
That shows a completely wrong understanding of who can do what. Clinton didn’t need Congress for that. There doesn’t need to be a bill. All he needed to do was change it by executive order. It was 100% within his power. It was at the beginning of his term (when reelection fears are at their lowest) and when he had a very firmly Democratic controlled Senate and House.
I don’t think you are paying close attention to the players here. When you say Congress opposed removing the ban (not that their permission was needed in any case) you are speaking of the Democratically controlled Congress.
The leader of the pro-ban forces was one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate–Sam Nunn. Sam Nunn was considered a strong vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic Party as recently as 2004 (3 years ago).
DADT was hugely worse than the Reagan/Bush Sr. era policies. It really can’t be overstated how many gay people who had been existing in the military for years suddenly got drummed out under the Clinton policy.
As for DOMA, the reason it came up when it did was the court case in Hawaii, not because of the sudden removal of heroic efforts by Democratic leaders.
You don’t seem to have looked at the vote totals I provided either. Less than 50% of Democrats (FAR LESS) voted against DOMA.
Democratic President Bill Clinton not only signed DOMA, he mentioned his defense of marriage after signing it in his 1996 campaign for re-election.
I’m not ‘blaming’ Clinton in the sense of “he was trying to screw with gay people”. I’m saying that the Democratic Party reputation of being ‘good’ on gay rights is very very dramatically overstated. They talk, but their real actions aren’t actually very helpful. The Ellen show and Will & Grace did hugely more than Democratic legislators. (Which is what a conservative would expect vis-a-vis government).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but gays in the military were BETTER OFF under Reagan and Bush I. (Technically they are less likely to get discharged under Bush II as well, but that is probably as much a sign of desperation at this point rather than gay-friendly policy after the counter-productive DADT has become such a big part of military culture–totally destroying the old compromises).
think you have to separate “the military” from “the pentagon”, where “the pentagon” = “a bunch of old white men”.
As long as you count Colin Powell as an “old white man” . . .
BC, this is not an attempted bomb-throwing; let me know if it comes out feeling like one.
I have for you the same question I had for Publius. For several years now, polls have consistently shown growing public opposition to the occupation of Iraq, in favor of disengagement, against the president’s and Republicans’ trustworthiness, and so on. This has been a pretty consistent trend in the polling since 2005, and there’s now…well, if the public could override vetos, the polls report, they could pass measures ending the war effort and sustain a presidential veto, and there’s either a plurality or an actual majority in favor of starting impeachment proceedings.
Now, polling can be misleading in various ways. But it isn’t always. You’re certainly suggesting that you think it is on matters of war. But please explain: what exactly is it that the polls are doing wrong, to find this sustained evolution of public thought over the course of several years, with all the polling firms finding the same general results? To what do you attribute the huge and growing gap between their findings and your sense of the public?
(By the way, the next time I express doubts about polling results, if I don’t preemptively answer this question myself, someone please be sure to toss it back at me. It’s a good one to require some answer on.)
Bruce: [aside]I haven’t looked at polls recently and have simply lost faith in them for the most part and think they sometimes do a great disservice to our country. The prevent free thought. (e.g. I know how to think because I saw the poll). For example, how would you phrase a polling question that would accurately reflect the discussion on this topic in this thread? It would be impossible to get all the nuances of thought. I get a kick out of approval ratings. They mean something in a broad sense. That’s about it. [done with aside]. I think the polls do reflect a dissatisfaction with the war in a general sense. My point is that dissatisfaction with Iraq does not equal dissatisfaction with the use of military force as a general proposition. Iraq and Iran are obviously two entirely different situations. Here goes my broad brush: Dems seem to think that dissatisfaction with Iraq = dissatisfaction with a strong military. I don’t think that is the case. The same repubs that want us out of Iraq probably (no polling data here) would at least support a strong military deterrent to Iran. I doubt they see a Dem POTUS as a viable option in that regard for the exact sentiments that Publius states.
Along those same lines (actually brush getting broader here and painting outside the lines), SCHIP doesn’t do a lot of good for dead children. [Allright, hold the fire!! Just exaggerating for effect] I still think a lot of repubs even if against the war would never vote for a candidate that doesn’t take national security seriously in spite of the domestic agenda. And they see the dems as not taking national security seriously.
As for the trustworthiness issue, and while I share many of the misgivings posted here, I still reserve my final judgment. I heard the same things regarding Reagan and I, for one, believe that history proved his policies correct for the time as far as national security goes (taxes as well!). I don’t know what the President sees on a daily basis in his intelligence briefings. History may take an entirely different view of what has happened. Then again, it may not. We all act as if we know “exactly” what the threats are against this country. We don’t know squat. And while my thinking may not be reflective of repubs, I think it is more reflective that what is posted here.
On Clinton & rendition:
1) it can still be “outsourcing torture” even if the receiving country has an arrest warrant, has tried them in absentia, etc. Those things are easy enough to trump up–Egypt has sometimes made basically fake requests for suspects when the U.S. asked it to. Even when they’re not trumped up, we are legally & morally obliged not to send someone to prison where they’re going to be tortured. So the “we got a warrant thing” I find to be pretty much a red herring.
2) Did Clinton render people to countries that tortured? Yes. Not Syria, as far as I know, but Egypt, whose record is comparable.
3) Were they actually tortured? Egyptian Human Rights groups say yes. In some cases they give pretty detailed accounts, which are consistent w/ later allegations from Bush-administration renditions. I tend to believe them.
4) Did we know they were going to be tortured? Probably. At the time there was not quite the lengthy track record of them violating diplomatic assurances that there is now. But CIA agents & FBI agents say they always knew & that they told higher officials as much. And Egypt’s record is well documented.
5) That’s sufficient for a violation of Article 3 of the CAT. You’re not allowed to send someone to a country where they’re more likely than not to be tortured. You’re also not allowed to rely on a diplomatic assurance when doing so requires you to ignore a country’s record of torture & it’s violation of past assurances.
6) The one potential mitigating factor that really carries any weight with me: there have been vague unconfirmed reports that we stopped rendering people to Egypt after they kept torturing them in violation of assurances. But those reports are unconfirmed & if it did happen, it happened after we’d sent a sig. # of people to tortre in Egyptian dungeons.
7) If by “outsourcing torture” you mean “conspired with a foreign gov’t to torture a suspect,” or “specifically intended that a foreign gov’t torture a prisoner,” then I don’t think we have enough evidence to say that Clinton administration did outsource torture, but we also don’t have the evidence to rule it out. CIA agents have said that the real purpose was to get people off the streets & disrupt cells without going through the muss & fuss of a genuine trial, & that interrogation was secondary. On the other hand, we did specifically intend to send them to Egpytian prisons, and the State Department had been reporting for years on what happened in Egyptian prisons. We did read the interrogation reports; we may also have provided some questions. On the third hand, if we actually stopped renditions based on the torture of suspects, that would tend to show that we were not trying to have them tortured.
It’s really, really hard to answer this without getting inside the heads of U.S. officials, and I can’t do that. Making culpability depend on “specific intent” to torture is a giant loophole. Legally, it allows for things like diplomatic assurances for the sake of plausible deniability. It allows for bad faith OLC arguments that any form of psychological is okay as long as you only meant to break them for long enough to get the information–you didn’t mean for them to stay broken afterwards.
Morally, if you know that your actions are going to result in someone being tortured in a foreign dungeon, I don’t think a vague regret about it, or a vague hope that maybe they wouldn’t be tortured, makes much real difference.
8) As bad as rendition was at the time, trying to rehabilitate it so it can continue under a new Democratic president, as Daniel Benjamin is trying to do, is much worse. I wish someone would ask Hillary Clinton about her husband’s rendition policy & Benjamin’s op-ed.
I agree with Sebastian regarding Bill Clinton’s failure of courage in the DADT controversy.
In fact, if push had come to shove as it did during the civil rights movement, Clinton should have sent troops to the gates of military bases whose commanders refused to comply or dragged their feet.
Which troops would be asking and which troops would not be telling would be difficult to parse in the melee, but Clinton wimped out.
On the other hand, a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the political realities in 1994 showing the currency of incentives and disincentives came down hard in favor of the latter.
Let’s see: Would Log Cabin Republicans relent on their criticism of tax increases early in the Clinton Presidency? Doubtful, to cite one example. So, where is the incentive?
That’s no excuse, natch, but the world in 1994 was not one that provided much cover for folks who wanted to do the right thing, from what I recall.
Also, Sam Nunn is from Georgia. They have telephones down there, as John McCain found out, and Nunn’s newly discovered gay, illegitimate children would have been dragged through the mud.
As an aside, my son received his registration form from the Selective Service yesterday. They didn’t ask but I wish he would tell, given the current environment. Both his parents and his girlfriend would be O.K. with that.
I would kiss Dick Cheney right on the lips to avoid the meat grinder that he likes to think extinquishes only the lives of prissy heterosexuals.
I don’t need a lecture on who can do what wrt executive power. Congress was set to legislate to reverse an executive action implementing Clinton’s campaign promise, and yes, Sen. Nunn was a big player in that, but without the Republicans providing the real hammer, the threat would have been meaningless. It’s true, though, that sourthern Dems have been, and remain, problematic. It’s also true that until the Republicans get done purging themselves of Northern moderates — and they’re well along — we’ll always need some southerners to have even a bare majority. This constrains what a Dem administration can do, no doubt about it.
The more important constraint is the general public. What WJC couldn’t do in 1993 (because Colin Powell and Sam Nunn spoke for a substantial majority of the country), though, HRC may well be able to do in 2009, and it’s not just because of personality, or campaign contributions, or anything like that. Our society has changed for the better on this. Are we far enough along to drop DADT in favor of simple tolerance? I’d like to think we are. And the onus will be on proponents of the policy to convince HRC that we are.
I’m not saying that Dems should be upset that their representatives couldn’t get the job done in 1993. It’s terrible, and I was disappointed about it. One shouldn’t act, though, as if it’s their fault alone that several hundred years of cultural baggage didn’t just disappear overnight when a guy got got a plurality of the vote.
A few comments in reply to bc’s upthread.
First, lots and lots of folks who don’t live either in Manhattan or near Arianna Huffington share many of Katherine’s views. I have family in NH, AZ, and OH, and know folks from lots of other places, and I can assure you folks everywhere are fed up.
Second, even if views such as hers were typical only in large coastal cities (which they are not), that would be a hell of a lot of people. If you think they aren’t “true Americans”, you would be wrong.
Third, it seems to me that what a lot of “average folks”, whoever they are, believe is wrong. I’m sorry that’s so, but it’s so. One responsibility of leadership is to help make that less so. I prefer my national policy based on reality rather than mythology, if possible.
In any case, I’m skeptical of allusions to “real Americans” because I know a lot of them, and they don’t really look, think, or act all that much like the TV ad version.
Dems seem to think that dissatisfaction with Iraq = dissatisfaction with a strong military.
Wrong. I think this is just what you think of Dems, not what they think about anything.
SCHIP doesn’t do a lot of good for dead children
You are correct, you are now outside the lines. SCHIP, pro or con, has little to do with national defense. This kind of argument is, really, a red herring.
We all act as if we know “exactly” what the threats are against this country. We don’t know squat
I’m not privy to the President’s daily security brief, that’s true.
I am privy to a wide spectrum of publicly available information, on a wide variety of topics, and it’s really not that hard for me or anyone else to figure out that certain things simply are, or are not, true.
Anyone with an interest can, in fact, know a lot more than squat. Anyone with an interest can also, without knowing details, make a decent assessment of who among those who do have access to privileged information have made good and responsible use of that information.
Regarding impeachment, I don’t support impeachment of Bush, not because I’m afraid of the Republican “Dirty Harrys” and their big 45. I don’t give a good GD about that kind of tough talk. They can pound sand.
I don’t support impeachment because, if initiated, that will be the big black hole that will suck up every ounce of political energy for the next year and half, and there are better things to do with the time.
Bush will be gone in about 15 months. He doesn’t need to be impeached, he just needs to be neutered. That’s doable.
Thanks –
“I don’t need a lecture on who can do what wrt executive power. Congress was set to legislate to reverse an executive action implementing Clinton’s campaign promise”
You are going to have to describe how Congress was ‘set to legislate’ to reverse the executive action. Did it have a veto-proof majority? I don’t think so, and if it did that would necessarily include an enormous number of Democratic Congressmen–illustrating my point rather well.
“One shouldn’t act, though, as if it’s their fault alone that several hundred years of cultural baggage didn’t just disappear overnight when a guy got got a plurality of the vote.”
Did I say that? I think I noted :
that Clinton made a campaign promise, that was 100% within his independent authority to implement;
that he nevertheless did not;
that this was at the beginning of the presidency when historically the President is at one of the higher points of his power;
that this was during a time when Democrats controlled (very strongly) both houses of Congress;
that the strongest opponent of ending the ban was a Democratic senator;
that this Democratic senator was still well respected enough in the Democratic party to be seriously mooted as a vice-presidential candidate only three years ago;
and that the strongest proponent of ending the ban was a former Republican senator.
You rejoinder apparently is that Congress had a veto-proof majority willing to overturn an executive order.
Which I believe to be false, and even if (improbably) true, that would certainly tend to indicate that my thesis (which is “The Democrats have been ‘why bother’ on gays since at least Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (100% Bill Clinton)and certainly since the Defense of Marriage Act passed” as responding to “the loss of nerve over ENDA is another example of cowardice in action. A lot of LBGT people have worked on a lot of Democratic efforts over the years; it wasn’t unreasonable to expect some quid pro quo. But on politically oriented GLBT weblog these days, you’ll find a lot of “well, heck, why bother?” sentiment these days.”
Russell:
“First, lots and lots of folks who don’t live either in Manhattan or near Arianna Huffington share many of Katherine’s views.”
Undoubtedly. I have no dispute. I was generalizing and being up front about it.
“If you think they aren’t “true Americans”, you would be wrong.”
Did I say that? I think I was saying the reverse in response to something Publius said knowing he was not saying it that way. I was broadening the definition of Americans to include repubs, not the reverse (excluding dems). I think you are a true American, Russell (if in fact you are American; no offense if you are not).
“Third, it seems to me that what a lot of “average folks”, whoever they are, believe is wrong.”
I’m not sure if this is the hubris I have seen on both sides of the aisle. I always assume I can learn and try to be open minded. I’m not saying you aren’t, but that comment gives me pause. There’s a lot of wisdom in the average man. I have learned in my practice to assume that my clients know more than me. It’s too often true. I’m not sure I see that deference in what I would loosely (very loosely) style the “liberal intelligentsia.”
“Dems seem to think that dissatisfaction with Iraq = dissatisfaction with a strong military. Wrong. I think this is just what you think of Dems, not what they think about anything.”
To be clear, I was not saying Dems that are Iraq-contra (no Reagan allusion intended)don’t believe in a strong military. I was saying that in looking at Repubs, I THINK (not sure, my opinion, not based on empirical evidence) Dems look at Iraq-contra Repubs and forget that those same Repubs are likely pro strong military. Just an opinion.
“SCHIP, pro or con, has little to do with national defense. This kind of argument is, really, a red herring.”
It’s not in the sense I intended. I was using SCHIP to stand for domestic policy. For a lot of Repubs, the only domestic policy is the war on terror, i.e. nothing else matters if we get hit big, so stop the big hit.
“I am privy to a wide spectrum of publicly available information . . .”
The “squat” I was referring to was very specific (actual threats against our safety and security). Sorry to have implied it was broader. To that extent, I agree completely with you.
“I’m [not] afraid of the Republican “Dirty Harrys” and their big 45. I don’t give a good GD about that kind of tough talk. They can pound sand.”
Don’t be so sensitive! I was supporting Publius! Dirty Harry was an attempt at humor. I thought Dems were the “fun” party! I do agree with the rest of your impeachment comments, unless your castration comments were literal. That just hurts to even think about it.
I didn’t say I thought the majority would be veto proof. Although it probably would have been. Goldwater notwithstanding.
It would certainly have been madness to try to have a veto fight over this at the outset of the administration, given the general political situation. This issue was picked by the opposition because of that situation. The Admin picked DADT to end a losing argument.
I’m not sure if this is the hubris I have seen on both sides of the aisle
No, it’s just an observation.
How many people thought Hussein had WMD?
How many still do?
How many believed Hussein had an active operational involvement with Al Qaeda?
How many still do?
How many believed Iraq was involved in 9/11?
How many still do?
Those people were wrong, and it wasn’t that hard to not be wrong.
It was really, really not hard, at all, to at least be skeptical enough to not swallow it hook, line, and sinker as a justification for war.
That is what I’m talking about.
Thanks for your posts here.
Thanks –
Sebastian- I’d think the fact that the Republicans actively work to make things worse for out homosexuals would be reason enough to vote Democrat.
“I’d think the fact that the Republicans actively work to make things worse for out homosexuals would be reason enough to vote Democrat.”
That depends on how competent you think Republicans are. Reagan and Bush I were MUCH better for gays in the military than Clinton ever was. And ‘out’ is relative in that context. Gay people in the military in the 80s could live with their lovers off base and it wasn’t the kind of problem it became in the Clinton years.
Republicans trying to make things worse are in much the same position as Democrats trying to make things better–swamped by the majority middle. I certainly won’t vote for those Republicans as individuals, but the party as a whole doesn’t do much on the topic.
And I’ve never said that either party was good on gay rights. They are both 90% indifferent. And that is why it hasn’t been worth my while to make gay rights a vote-deciding issue (on a Party basis–on an individual basis absolutely…I’m not voting for raging homophobes). But this idea that the Democratic Party in general is good on gay rights, is just silly. They aren’t.
All I’m saying is that if for some reason you are trying to decide between two candidates, voting for the Democrat as ‘better on gay rights’ in a general sense just from the party name is silly. The Party isn’t that good on the issue. And for those who vote based on promises, Bill Clinton pretty much betrayed that so if that is going to be your deciding factor, it can be difficult to trust.
So essentially I’m saying it isn’t this huge plus for gay voters.
You may have hundreds of other–far more reliable–reasons to vote one way or another.
Great! At this moment I have lots of reasons not to vote for generic Democrats, and far more reasons not to vote for generic Republicans. Which equates to lots of reasons to be really annoyed with our political system.
As I recall implementing DADT instead of something worse cost Clinton a great deal of political capital.
Frank: I’d think the fact that the Republicans actively work to make things worse for out homosexuals would be reason enough to vote Democrat.
Even after the Conservatives passed Section 28 in the UK (the infamous law forbidding local authorities to “promote homosexuality”), a law which Margaret Thatcher justified by arguing that without it teachers would tell children that it was “Okay to be gay”, you had gay men voting Conservative (and closety gay men becoming Conservative MPs). They’d justify it, if asked, by arguing that the Conservative discrimination against people of their sexual orientation was just one aspect of Conservative politics: that they felt the Conservative policies of keeping the poor poor and the rich richer were much more important to them personally than any declaration that LGBT people were second-class citizens in the UK. From the way they talked, too, they were quite sure that the right-wing habit of discriminating against LGBT people would never mean they themselves would experience discrimination: they were usually wealthy (or expecting to be), middle-to-upper class, white, male – highly privileged people, who expected that if they were “discreet” about their sexual orientation, they would continue to benefit by the system of privilege that the Conservative party supported.
In short, no: do not expect people who know that they will benefit from conservative/right-wing rule as well-off white men, to vote in order to help people with whom they share nothing but a sexual orientation.
Yes Jesurgislac, because heaven knows that since I’m not likely ever to be tortured by the government, that I can’t possibly be against that.
It certainly is easier to just attack me for my race rather than bother with…oh the freaking pages I’ve written on the topic just today.
For a lot of Repubs, the only domestic policy is the war on terror, i.e. nothing else matters if we get hit big, so stop the big hit.
I think these people should be, if not legally forbidden from holding office, then publicly shamed on a regular basis, because the only thing they can accomplish be being elected to government is to destroy it.
Sebastian, I very specifically stuck to the examples of gay men who voted Conservative in the UK whom I knew personally/had talked to. I did not call you out personally. Though, if I had, I would have asked (since it’s much more probable that you will someday want to marry than that you will ever be tortured) why the fact that the Republican Party does not want you to be able to marry the man of your choice, and indeed regards whipping up hatred against you as a valid electoral campaign tactic, didn’t turn you off ever voting Republican again.
Incidentally, and completely OT, I found the entries for your Fantasy Bio contest when googling just now. I wrote F sometime in December 2004: am I prescient or what? *pats self on back self-gratulatorily*
Sebastian, you’re making a lot of sense here to me. I do think that die-hard anti-GLBT bigots hold more power in the Republican system than in the Democratic one, but I’d agree at a minimum that the Democratic default is a sort of benign disregard, and that a lot of Democratic leaders wish very much that the whole thing would just go away.
In addition, the Democratic machine includes a significant constituency that is very specifically pro-gay rights – middle- and upper-class men, nearly all white, who are themselves gay but see themselves as simply gay members of the establishment. Many of them are racist, and perhaps even more are intensely sexist. They strongly dislike rabble-rousers, too; they tend to attribute their success to working within the system, and distrust efforts to change the basic terms of social structures. They often see themselves as part of a legacy of gay people independent of the movement that came together publicly and visibly at Stonewall and in its aftermath, and in some ways they’re right to do so, since they were there not rocking the boat beforehand and have been trying to keep things calm ever since. It is a major tension among people concerned with GLBT legal status.
(And yes, Sebastian, I know that you don’t need me to tell you that. 🙂 I’m commenting for the benefit of bystanders, laying a bit of context. The tension between “establishment person who is unusual in one regard” and “outsider” is one that drives weirdness in a lot of movements, too.)
bc: I, for one, believe that history proved [Reagan’s] policies correct for the time as far as national security goes (taxes as well!). … while my thinking may not be reflective of repubs …
Oh, your thinking is plenty reflective of Republicans. You’ve got all the talking points down: the fighting Democratic p.o.v. is just held by coastal and urban elites, Dems are at fault (due to “insufficient vetting” for outrageous harassment of the family whose son did the radio message on SCHIP, Reagan’s policies were right, Limbaugh was unfairly accused of something he didn’t say (which he did in fact say, he just edited the tape himself so as not to have to own up to it), and on and on and on.
And you’re on Publius’ side, eh? Your enthusiasm for his position only confirms one of the reasons for the strength of my disagreements with his view. But I doubt seriously that you share his outlook that a Democratic president will cure all our current constitutional, civil liberties, and endless-war ills.
Oh, dang. Desitalico!
In looking at the About Me page, I notice that publius is conspicuous by his abscence. This needs to rectified forthwith!
My only contribution would be something along the lines of “although he disdains capitol letters as an Eeeeeeeeevil Tool of the Patriarchy in comments, he bows to the pressures of Society in posts (but he feels really really guilty afterwards).”
For a lot of Repubs, the only domestic policy is the war on terror, i.e. nothing else matters if we get hit big, so stop the big hit.
I bet that this is true.
What I want to say is that this is a really bad point of view. It’s fearful, weak, and limiting.
It is, in the end, possible that we will take a big hit. By “big hit”, of course, we’re talking about a really, really catastrophic act of terror in the US. Suitcase nuke in Times Square on New Years Eve. Every citizen of Phoenix killed off by poison in the water supply. Something like that.
These things are not impossible. They’re not highly likely, but they’re also not out of the question. Dramatically tragic events of slightly less magnitude, even more so.
We need to do our best to make sure something like 9/11 doesn’t happen again. But we might make a mistake. We might, tragically, drop our guard at exactly the wrong time. “It”, whatever “it” is, could happen.
What do we, as a nation, want to be on the day after it happens?
If you’re of a mind that says “Nothing else matters except not taking the big hit”, you have nothing left. Nothing. Whatever you gave up to save you from the big hit was bartered away for nothing. You lose.
If you’re of a mind that says “No matter what, we cannot compromise what we, as a people, stand for”, then you have a hell of a tragedy to live through, but you have something to live and fight for. To borrow a Biblical analogy, if I may, you have not sold your birthright for a mess of pottage.
Let’s gird up our loins, shall we? Let’s stop living in the shadows of our own paranoia and live like free people. What are we, mice?
We’re all gonna go sometime. The question is how we want to live while we’re here.
Thanks –
The National Security Dilemma
THE NATIONAL SECURITY DILEMMA….Publius defends the Democratic Party leadership here. He makes some pretty good points. If you don’t have the votes, you don’t have the votes (though the whole Armenian genocide thing was pretty amateurish). Then he say…
But, but, the Dems were looking to be trimmers on their own. Pelosi’s “impeachment is off the table” comment last year show that.
For Sebastian and others, there is an alternative: Vote Green. At local and state levels, work to give third parties a more level playing field, above all through federal financing of Congressional campaigns.
To give third parties a level playing field, you need a lot more than federal financing. You need a different voting system — instant runoff or something else that allows voters to express preferences for more than one candidate.
As long as we have a system in which the plurality wins, a third party will always damage whichever of the two main parties agrees with it most, resulting in a win for the least desirable option. That’s the way the math works, regardless of financing, and it’s why Democrats are salivating at the prospect of the religious right backing a third-party candidate.
Russell and Nell:
Let me be clear: while I may personally believe most of what I posted, I do not believe all. I was responding to Publius’ original comment re Dem strategy and some comments re the American public, namely repubs. For example, I COMPLETELY agree, Russell, with your comments about how we live now. I agree that most repubs are too focused on the extreme danger and not on domestic policy.
And Nell, the “talking points” comment wasn’t fair. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t want to explore the issues. I was a conservative when Carter was in office and was starting to see things that way during the Ford administration. I’m still fairly young, so that is the greater part of my life. I got there without talk radio, pre-Reagan and without Chairman Ann’s books. In fact, if you take back my recent trip to the Reagan Museum while visiting family (a cool place regardless of political persuasion), I don’t read or hear the “talking points” to which you refer (where are they, BTW?). That, I believe, is part of the problem. Be dismissive with those with whom you disagree.
So, when you tell me Rush doctored the tape, I’m all ears. I only listened to the show myself after hearing about the controversy on the news. If true, that’s despicable.
Here is what I actually think (vs. me simply saying what most repubs think) on the talking points raised:
1) I don’t think the Dem p.o.v. is limted to coastal and urban elites. There is just a lot more of them there!
2) From what I heard re the Rush/soldier incident, it was a stupid move on the Dems. I will look into what you say. I wasn’t screaming “poor Rush,” but I was saying that was a dumb move from a political standpoint.
3) Ditto on the SCHIP. I already posted and conceded a lot of the “talking points” on that issue. But it was still a stupid move vis a vis campaign strategy. A family with no assets in a similar medical situation would have been unassailable. (note: I’m not saying attack the family here).
4) Most of Reagan’s policies were right. I was in the Baltic republics just before the wall came down. There’s a reason they love him there. And yes, I had on the wall of my dorm room during the Reagan years the “One Nuclear Bomb Can Ruin Your Entire Day” poster. So I had SOME balance.
5) On Publius’ side? Well, it’s not so simple. That’s why I take the talking points comment a bit personally. I agree on his Dem strategy. You remind me of the short guy on Princess Bride:
Vizzini: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’ve made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely . . .
So, no, I am not trying to put poison in the Dem’s goblet (not that I even could). I try to talk straight. My agreement with Publius shouldn’t reinforce your opposition.
And a Dem president? No, I don’t think any person just because they are of a political stripe are going to cure all of the ills, real or perceived, in the nation. I explicitly disagreed that having a president that would NEVER, ever, no way, no how use military force against Iran or Syria would be a good idea. Not that I am in favor of endless war, but I’m a firm believer in peace through strength (ARRRGGH!! Channeling Reagan again!) Gotta stop!
But if I had to pick only a Democratic president, who would I pick? I’ll get back to you on that one. (See, I didn’t reflexively throw up at the thought; can you say the same if it were reversed?:) )
1) What exactly do you mean when you use the word “elite”? Also, just because 55 or 60 percent of the people in a state vote for a particular party doesn’t mean the other 40 or 45 percent don’t exist. I think too many people rely too much on “red state, blue state” stereotypes.
2) What makes you think the “phony soldier” brouhaha was a net loss for Democrats? I imagine only a tiny portion of the public have even heard about it. Of course the Dittoheads rallied around Rush and accepted his explanation, supported by the edited audio and transcript. But they were hardly going to support Democrats anyway.
3) As for the right-wing attack on the Frosts, I’m even more mystified as to how you determined that was a loss for Democrats. Having Michelle Malkin and her stalkerific amateur detective minions as the face of the Republican Party’s opposition to a program to help sick children seems like a PR disaster for the GOP to me and reinforces a little more the image of Republicans as mean and uncaring. I don’t believe it affected the veto override one way or the other, and I don’t believe much would have.
KCinDC:
1) “Elite”: Just using it as other were using it to refer to what they thought my opinion was (specifically Nell stating that I was parroting GOP talking points, such as “only liberal coastal elites” believe such things.) So I was just saying I didn’t necessarily think that. But since we are on the topic, to me an “elitist” in the political sense is anyone who believes that due to their higher education, intelligence, education or monetary status their opinion is inherently superior to their fellow citizens not for the thrust of their argument, but just because. As in “I’m right because I went to [fill in the blank] or “you’re too stupid to really know what’s best for you; I do.” We find them on both sides of the aisle.
2) Limbaugh: I think the “phony soldier” was a net loss and is even becoming a bigger net loss with this “edited” nonsense. I just read the Media Matters version here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top
They are a bunch of morons on this one from what I read. Limbaugh was taken out of context and all they have to say is “wait, you said ‘entire transcript’ and you forgot to leave in the part where you said ‘I really like the beaches in Florida [not the actual quote BTW, but it might as well have been].'” What a non-issue that completely misses the point. Do you dispute that there have been “phony soldiers?” It certainly looks like it to me. TNR is keeping their mouth shut for good reason. Nothing good can come from it.
3) Frosts: I also wasn’t looking at the Limbaugh/SCHIP issues as whether they were net losses or not when I previously posted. Even if they are neutral or winners, though, they are not huge winners. The DNC should have picked a better representative family and avoided the distraction. Publius is right to be frustrated if this is where the energy of the DNC is going. And I am still not sure how driving past someone’s house and talking with their neighbor constitutes stalking. Please explain. As for the veto override, I agree-it made no difference.
The Frost issue is representative of one of the great divides between conservatives and liberals. Both agree on helping their fellow man, but conservatives think the government is a bad vehicle for making that happen. Government help tends to become a gravy train and then an entitlement. And conservatives as a result apparently tend to give more:
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
So, in short, the Frosts were somewhat affluent compared to those most conservatives think should be getting government help. The DNC could have picked a better poster family. Seems like a net loss to me. If nothing else, it fed that damn blue-baiting blogger beast!
The DNC should have picked a better representative family and avoided the distraction.
um, no. there was nothing wrong with the Frosts. the Malkinites would’ve gone into the same shrieking frenzy no matter who was in the commercial, the same way they shriek and foam about every other fncking thing that doesn’t have the GOP Seal Of Approval on it. their entire existence is based on finding things to shriek about and then shrieking until the MSM pays attention to them. they shriek and shriek and shriek and shriek until people walk away from the debate because they’re sick of listening to all the motherfncking shrieking.
Let me just follow up my last post in saying what I appreciate about this group is that the conversation is not the typical Limbaugh/Malkin bash, but a substantive discussion. Even in raising the issue, KCinDC, you question what it means in the broader context and I appreciate that. That, and the fact you didn’t call me a troll.
oops. Spoke too soon. 🙂
cute.
but it’s utterly nonsensical to talk about the Frost controversy without addressing who caused it and how she did it. she did what she always does, and things ended up the way they always do.
and it’s not the Dem’s responsibility to get their spokespeople pre-approved by people who hate them and apparently live to shriek about it.
You are making my point. Better to talk about the substance. Do we really want to provide government-sponsored health care to a family with X-assets and X-income? To me that is the issue, not whether Malkin “always” does something a certain way and “why” she does it. And I don’t hate Dems, BTW, not that you were saying I did.
And cross posting can be a marvelous thing.
bc –
Thanks for your thoughts here. Briefly, a couple of comments of my own.
I explicitly disagreed that having a president that would NEVER, ever, no way, no how use military force against Iran or Syria would be a good idea.
Unless I’m mistaken, no realistic Democratic candidate for President has taken that position. So, it’s kind of an abstract point.
Most of Reagan’s policies were right
Reagan’s policies, per se, don’t do much for me, but I’m sure that’s not a surprise.
The thing I give Reagan points for — big points — is going against the conventional wisdom of his advisors and approaching Gorbachev. That took courage, imagination, and good will. That’s called leadership. I’m happy to give him props for that.
The Frost issue is representative of one of the great divides between conservatives and liberals. Both agree on helping their fellow man, but conservatives think the government is a bad vehicle for making that happen
I think this analysis is correct. I’m a lefty, so I have no problem having the government involved in addressing anything at all that concerns the public interest or public good.
In general, I think the government does a pretty good job of it. Never perfect, not infrequently mediocre, sometimes terrible. But it gets done, and generally gets done well enough, and when it doesn’t, I can actually do something about it. Suits me fine. It keeps the wheels on.
For a suprising number of things, it’s more important simply that they be done, reliably and effectively, than that they be done in the most cost-effective or profitable manner possible. My two cents.
Thanks –
Do we really want to provide government-sponsored health care to a family with X-assets and X-income?
yes, for all values of X.
the private-sector system we have now is inadequate. health should not have to compete with the profit motive, especially not in a country as rich as this.
To me that is the issue, not whether Malkin “always” does something a certain way and “why” she does it.
yet you did mention the Frosts and gave the tame version of Malkin’s main shriek: the Frosts weren’t the right people to be talking about for S-CHIP. well, i’m saying they were, and i’m saying it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. and when the Dems brought out their next S-CHIP family, the Wilkersons, the shriekers went on shrieking about them, too (for example).
bc: The DNC should have picked a better representative family and avoided the distraction.
The Frosts were a good representative family: an excellent example of the striving middle-class family who are doing all the right things according to conservatives – but who can’t afford health insurance.
And, y’know, if the DNC had picked a family with no assets – who had sold their house and car and were living out of a homeless shelter – I’m somehow sure that Malkin would have found another reason to attack them.
Russell:
On the Pres issue, Publius stated:
“It is simply inconceivable that any Democrat would have gone to war in Iraq or would start one with Iran/China/Syria. It’s inconceivable. That alone justifies supporting the Democratic candidate.”
I was responding to that. I know of no Dem candidate that would say that publicly. My point was that many of the GOP believe what Publius says too and would not vote for the very reason Publius would vote for a Dem candidate.
On the Frost issue, I am more open to a government program than a lot of conservatives. But I like programs that take human nature into account and give incentives to NOT turn it into a fiasco. Like HSA’s (not saying this is the perfect solution, but it has it’s good points), personal savings accounts for social security, etc.
However, I could accept some inefficiency if, as you say, it truly was effective and reliable. Good point.
I agree with you on Reagan. One word: Reykjavik.
cleek/jesu:
I understand that you both apparently want nationalized health care. Fine. Valid position. I don’t agree.
The Frosts are not necessarily “an excellent example of the striving middle-class family who are doing all the right things according to conservatives – but who can’t afford health insurance.” We don’t know whether they could have afforded insurance. The issue is whether a family of their economic position should be getting government assistance. Reasonable minds can differ.
I doubt that any of the shriekers would shriek if they picked a family in true poverty. Maybe you’re right. But I think the Dem pitcher threw a softball right down the middle with the Frosts. Should have pitched a fastball.
Bc, you’re saying that many of the GOP want a president who will start a war with Iran/China/Syria? Is that all of them at once, or is just one enough? Maybe that’s true, but I don’t think most of the American people agree with them.
Don’t you think there’s a big difference between not starting a war and “NEVER, ever, no way, no how use military force”?
KCinDC:
No, not saying that. I think I already addressed that. We HAVE to keep the ability to make a threat of force in our back pocket for future use. Can’t just give it up.
And no, we should only pick on two at a time. Iran and Syria are too close together and the nuclear fallout would be duplicative. Better to bomb China and Iran because we could also have collateral damage in North Korea and avoid fallout over Israel with the prevailing jet stream going away from the Holy Land.
Yes, big difference between not starting a war and never using military force. Obviously.
bc: We don’t know whether they could have afforded insurance.
Who is the “we” in that sentence? If by “we” you mean “All of the right-wingers who decided not to examine the publicly-available information about the Frosts in order to be able to say they don’t know it” then that is perfectly true. But you could remove yourself from this group by reading the following paragraph:
To point out some basic arithmetic: if your income is $4,166 per month before tax, on which you are supporting a family of six, you sure as hell can’t afford $1,200 a month for health insurance after tax.
I understand that you both apparently want nationalized health care. Fine. Valid position. I don’t agree.
I will never understand people who prefer an expensive and inefficient system (US health care is 37th in the world for quality, even though you as a nation spend twice as much per head as any other nation) to one that’s cheaper and more efficient. Why put up with having the worst health care system of all the developed nations purely in order to make health insurance shareholders richer?
I just did some swift arithmetic: assuming the Frosts are paying 25% tax – a rule of thumb that would work in the UK at their income level, give or take, obviously I could be completely wrong in the US: deduct the $1,200 a month for health insurance, and bc thinks they should be able to live on $443 a week, for 2 adults and 4 children, to pay for everything else. In UK money that would be £216 (or, if I go by the 1990s exchange rate, £316.42) – but in the UK, the minimum amount the state would allow for a family of 2 adults and 4 children to live on for a week would be £337, and that would be assuming neither adult had a job: nor would it include any disability living allowance, which it seems likely Graeme and his sister would get. And, having known families who were trying to live on that kind of minimum – which looks like more than what the Frosts would be able to live on in your scenario – they were always just scraping by.
So, no. I think that it’s fairly definite, from publicly available information: the Frosts could not afford health insurance.
Jesurgislac:
I read that. Doesn’t prove a thing. The insurance quote was AFTER the accident, not before. They might very well have afforded it before. Self-employed woodworker and apparently fairly smart?-I’m sure he could find a job with insurance not to mention her. But why would he when the government provides it for free or reduced cost? He gets to follow his heart at my expense. Goes to my incentive comment above. Maybe I should go back to my music playing days and qualify for CHIP.
ARRRGGH! I’m just saying they are not the perfect poster family for SCHIP. I’m not trying to denigrate them personally.
And I would be very interested to see where you get that ranking of 37th. I’m not defending our system per se, but we do have the best docs in the world.
And your tax numbers are in fact skewed. they would have to make $31,850 in taxable income to be in that bracket. They would have at least $10,300 in standard deductions, $19,800 in personal exemptions and $4,000 in child tax credits. Not to mention earned income credit and any other deductions they could take (IRA, student loan interest, etc.). I doubt they pay any federal tax and would likely get a refund depending on how the self employment tax shakes out. At most they would owe $3,300( very unlikely)and at best would get a refund. Don’t know about state, but I would expect it to be very low.
Now, I could be wrong (any tax preparers out there?). I am using just the standard deduction and exemptions and assuming that most of the income came from Mrs. Frost since his neighbors have (anecdotally)said he is barely breaking even. The $3,281 assumes he makes $40,000 at the business and she only makes $10,000 in wages.
So, if health care pre accident only cost $500/mo for a reasonable plan, and they were only paying $200 in fed taxes, what then? And don’t forget most self-employed are masters of writing off personal expenses as business expenses (like his truck, probably one of the other cars, etc.).
Anyway, my point is we really don’t know. And Time is not an authoritative source.
“I doubt that any of the shriekers would shriek if they picked a family in true poverty. ”
That’s because the shriekers don’t think there is such a thing as “true poverty” in the US (” . . . but they all have cable TV and Xboxes and free libraries and Twinkies and . . .”): and if there is, it’s because the poor people are morally deficient/intellectually inferior/lazy and therefore don’t deserve our help.
Phil:
Maybe true. I’m not a shrieker (at least I don’t think I am) but I recognize people in true poverty. And although there are those truly deserving, there are a lot of lazy ones out there. Trust me. They live around me. “Disabled” with a bad back while riding a 4-wheeler or chopping wood. And you and I pay for them.
bc: Keep fighting the good fight. You’re wearing them down. 😉
Obama campaign not extricating itself from a difficult situation. Good idea, bad execution.
Gosh, Mr. bc, thanks for explaning to naive ol’ me that there are people out there who manage to take advantage of the system. I had no idea.
Now, perhaps you can read up on Type I errors vs. Type II errors, and see why one is preferable to the other. I prefer a system that actually helps people even if some cheaters take advantage of it You clearly prefer a system that might exclude some truly needy people just to exclude any risk of the system being gamed. You want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, that’s on you.
BTW, I’m far past the point of “you and I pay for them” to be an effective argument against much of anything. “You and I” pay for a lot of things, and very few of them really benefit the truly needy. Most of them benefit rich people. Really.
Phil:
I wasn’t meaning to be condescending and I’m sorry if you took it that way. Just saying that I see it daily and it bugs me that more resources aren’t there for the truly needy. I am not opposed to every government program. But when worker’s comp fraud exceeds 70% of claims filed by some estimates in my state, I get a little frustrated.
Type I and Type II errors: My head is starting to hurt. I think this is from statistics (my brother-in-law works for the census bureau and tried to teach me this once). Aren’t type I’s worse than II’s?
I think you are saying that a Type I error is letting someone truly needy go without and a Type II error is giving a cheater funds. I obviously prefer Type II errors, but I think each system has to be evaluated on its merits. You speak in such generalities that it is impossible to counter your argument. I also prefer the systems you prefer, depending on the error rate. I am not arguing for a perfect system, just a sane one.
For example, if a system had a less than 5% Type II error rate, I wouldn’t have much of a problem. As for Type I errors, the number should be lower.
But I also think that when the Type II error rate gets too high you are harming society more than the Type I errors that are created with an alternate system.
Plus, you assume that there is nobody else out there to help. If we stopped funding all the welfare and disability fraud-ooops, I mean Type II errors-out there we could all afford to help those in need that much more. And I think we have a better sense of who needs help that the government.
I don’t disagree that there is a lot of funds going the other way as well.
Just some thoughts.
OCSteve: Help me out. I’m sarcasm impaired today after too many posts. Was that sarcastic? thanks-
Phil:
Does my conservatism make me a Type I error in your world? I’m hoping I’m only a Type II.
“Just saying that I see it daily and it bugs me that more resources aren’t there for the truly needy.”
More resources aren’t devoted to the “truly needy” — setting aside arguments over the concept of judging who is “truly” anything” and why that’s important — because not enough people demand that their representatives enact programs and money to do so.
And, of course, most Republicans in Congress generally vote against such bills as do increase such spending.
When Congress and the President want to
spend the money, it turns out that $2.4 trillion is not a problem.
Agree or disagree about priorities, it’s perfectly obvious that that amount of money can be — or, at least, could have been — spent on “the truly needy” — and keeping anyone from entering that category — if Congress simply wanted to bother to.
Gary:
Wait a minute. We have spent over $9 Trillion on the war on poverty since Johnson and we STILL have a 12-15% percent below the poverty line.
In 2005 we spent $477 billion on poverty programs (that’s more than the total cost of the Iraq war to date!) If you count Social Security and Medicaid that number is FAR higher. (it was over $600 billion in 1995). And that’s only the fed money. There is only so much we can do with money.
Welfare reform dropped over 2 ½ million off of welfare rolls since 1996 and reduced poverty among many groups, including African Americans. I think that was simply because it encouraged work. Why should someone work when the welfare benefits exceed minimum wage in some states (as they did pre-welfare reform)? The surest way to avoid poverty is to get a high school degree, not get pregnant outside of marriage and be employed. So the goals of the war on poverty should be . . .
Someone joked about conservatives pointing out out the X-Boxes, etc. among the poor. I’m not sure why that is laughed at. When 43% own homes, virtually all own t.v.’s, most have money to make ends meet, virtually all have enough to eat, I just don’t get it. The few that fall through the cracks (the Type I errors) are the ones we should worry about. And it’s not clear at all that they fall through the cracks due to lack of government money.
If you think I’m wrong, point me to something I can read with cites. Thanks.
“Welfare reform […] reduced poverty among many groups, including African Americans.”
Could you offer a cite (or more, if you like) on this, please?
“The surest way to avoid poverty is to get a high school degree, not get pregnant outside of marriage and be employed.”
Sure. But for a wide variety of reasons, this isn’t always possible for many people, and thus the three questions are:
1) what can and can’t we reasonably do to help this happen, and help prevent it from not happening, if possible;
2) what can we do to help people for whom it’s problematic for one reason or another, and;
3) what can we do to help people who wound up one or more of the three above, or with a great difficulty in finding work, or with some condition preventing them from finding work?
As it happens, America is a terribly rich country, so we could afford to do quite a bit more, as I pointed out, if we wanted to.
Certainly the questions of exactly how much to spend, where diminishing returns genuinely becomes a problem, what seems in a given year to be the best kind of response, are all valid, if put forth sincerely, rather than merely as weapons to attack the notion that it makes any sense to actually help people out.
And, of course, all programs always need to be re-evaluated for effectiveness, and reconsidered if they’re insufficient or counter-productive, again if done sincerely.
But, as it happens, there’s also an industry on the right devoted to making up statistics and claims that attempt to prove that anti-poverty programs uniformly don’t work, etc., so, y’know, not all studies are equally credible.
Naturally, I imagine you may feel that there’s a liberal industry devoted to making up pro-poverty program stats, in which case I’d focus on government stats, but I don’t know if that would cut any ice with you.
My proposition would be that, in fact, government anti-poverty programs, starting with Social Security, and moving on to many Great Society programs, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit, while obviously of various effectiveness, have often indeed been very helpful and significant in lifting a great many people out of poverty.
Would you disagree?
“most have money to make ends meet, virtually all have enough to eat,”
That’s just ignorant. It’s difficult to believe you’ve known many actual poor people.
Honest to god, when you’re really poor, you definitionally don’t “have money to make ends meet.” I can personally attest to this.
Gary:
Couldn’t find the original cite I read that in, but here is another:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/33/2b.pdf
Yes, Roosevelt’s reforms did a lot, but I’m not sure about the effectiveness of the Great Society on poverty. We have been at a steady 12-15% poverty level ever since. Maybe the problem is simply the definition of poverty.
When I said “making ends meet” I probably should have said “having a roof over your head and food to eat.” Yes, a third of the poor are behind in rent and utilities and a lot are probably under credit card debt, but compared to the world’s poor, they are generally well off. I realize there are abject poor for whatever reason, and they are certainly truly deserving of our help.
Here’s some reading about our poor:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm#_ftn8
A lot of the statistics cited are from government sources. Some are not. I have read alternate writings in the past that paint a different picture. I am not sure where the truth lies. Like I said, I’m open minded to the subject. Maybe I’m off on what poverty really is like but I don’t think throwing a bunch more money at it will help. We already throw a ton of money at it.
“Welfare reform dropped over 2 ½ million off of welfare rolls since 1996 and reduced poverty among many groups, including African Americans. I think that was simply because it encouraged work.”
I think you perhaps need to research some facts about what’s happened to all those people who dropped off the welfare rolls since 1996. I can promise you that twelve years later they’re not all stable, job-holding middle-class Americans. Probably very few of them are. Read “Nickled & Dimed” by Barbara Ehrenreich for some clues as to why.
“Yes, a third of the poor are behind in rent and utilities and a lot are probably under credit card debt, but compared to the world’s poor, they are generally well off.”
This is tiresome. Why is this relevant? I really don’t understand this. On top of that, it’s not always true–as I recall, life expectancies for poor people in some countries are higher than they are here. But no, I don’t have any cites handy.
bc: I’m sarcasm impaired today after too many posts. Was that sarcastic?
Not at all – sincerely meant. It’s very tough to argue against the flow here and you’ve done a great job of handling the pile on while remaining firm but calm.
Thanks OCSteve. And I agree, Donald. I really don’t want to get sucked into a discussion I don’t know enough about(a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) when all I was saying was I don’t think the government is always the best vehicle for solving our problems. Sorry to tire you. I tired myself! And you’re right, Phil, I do need to read more on the issue. Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll take a look.
Couple of thoughts on the Frosts/SCHIP/public funding of health insurance/poor people in the US stuff.
Focussing on whether the Frosts could, or could not, have afforded a minimal health insurance plan before the accident (a) is kind of fruitless, and (b) misses the point.
It’s fruitless because none of us know, or can know, the answer. Could Mr. Frost have found a job that came with insurance? Was a less expensive plan available to them? Could they have afforded it if so?
There isn’t one person on this list for whom the answers to those questions aren’t “I don’t know”, “I don’t know”, and “I don’t know”.
It misses the point because, for any imaginable plan the Frosts might have been able to afford, their coverage would have been exhausted long before their need ended. The cost of two kids in the hospital for months worth of acute care, followed by years of therapy, would have beggared them and any combination of helpful friends and neighbors you care to imagine.
Which is why programs like SCHIP exist. They exist to help people who are too rich for Medicare, but too poor to deal with the whole enchilada from their own resources. There are *a lot* of people like that.
Regarding poverty in the US, it’s absolutely true that poor people in the US are better off than poor people in most of the rest of the world. That’s because (a) most of the rest of the world has nothing approaching the level of resources that we do to bring to bear, and (b) because for the last 70 years this country has decided to spend a lot of its great wealth on building a safety net sufficient to make basic services available to poor folks.
And, as Gary notes, in spite of all of that there are still *a lot* of people who don’t actually have the necessities.
Finally, it’s a plain and natural fact that the US pays more per capita than any other nation on earth, and has very poor public health results in return. I don’t know where the specific number “37th” comes from either, but I find it entirely credible.
If you want a cite, go here and run some numbers for yourself. It’s free and the information is pretty good.
And, last but not least, can we leave the damned Frosts alone now?
Thanks –
Among the reasons I support a much stronger safety net is the simple fact that I haven’t yet seen a good refutation of Bismarck’s concerns. People who feel themselves stuck in bad situations without prospect of relief and who feel alienated from the ways of the successful classes are the natural fodder for revolutionaries and demagogues. People who feel confident of their ability to cope with unexpected trouble and secure when it comes to the necessities of a safe and productive life with real prospects for improvement are much harder to exploit.
This is obviously true in the American experience. We have a lot of people who can be manipulated into supporting a lot of evil nonsense in part because they lack a better foundation for their sense of security. This is not me pointing and saying “ha ha morons”, either, because, well, I’ve fallen prey to the same sort of thing myself in past that’s more recent than I’d like. This is self-criticism alongside concern about anyone else.
I think that an America in which a lot more people had good reason to be a lot more secure when it comes to the routine needs of life and its random catastrophes would be happier, more productive, more interesting, and much less dangerous and more beneficial to the whole world.
Still on practical vs ideal, different views of the ENDA vote.
Russell:
As in defrosting this thread? Or Frost-free posting? No more frosting on the cake. . .o.k., those were bad, I admit.
Russell:
As in defrosting this thread? Or Frost-free posting? No more frosting on the cake. . .o.k., those were bad, I admit.
bc,
Be careful, or Jack Frost will start nipping at your nose.
at least the noseys have stopped nipping at the Frost’s.
You all secretly hate me.
O stupid stray apostrophe, insert thyself not randomly into my text!
And I would be very interested to see where you get that ranking of 37th. I’m not defending our system per se, but we do have the best docs in the world.
Unfortunately the US has to import most doctors and still have less doctor per capita than most first world countries. If you’d change to “socialized health care” I think that would be a major bottleneck and getting more doctors should be one of the priorities. Why are there not many US trained doctors?
If you look at averages (life span, mortality in kids, care for people with chronic illnesses) the US scores below average. Some other area’s the US scores really high – but most of those effect the ‘priviledged’. So how good you judge the healthcare to be depends on which group you belong too, and on averages like the one I mentioned the US scores 37th.
“I’m not defending our system per se, but we do have the best docs in the world.”
What metric are you citing? Link, please?
Oh, and to bring the discussion back to Democrats and wether they’d do better than Republicans; Tom Lantos has not made the democrats more popular in the Netherlands.