Category Archives: The Nation

What got into Joe Wilson tonight?

26 Replies

In the hour or so after the president’s speech, my Blackberry wouldn’t stop buzzing. The Tweets came fast and furious as everyone discussed Joe Wilson’s outrageous behavior tonight. He was the guy who shouted, “You lie!” to the president of the United States during a joint address to Congress.

Which was, let’s face it, a new low in the annals of partisanship in America.

My wife was startled to hear it, saying, “I thought he was more mild-mannered than that.”

He is. But he was under the influence of a particularly insidious drug. It’s the same one that Jim DeMint was on when he spoke hopefully of the health care debate being Obama’s “Waterloo.”

Politicians in Washington, and increasingly right here at home, are so high on the frisson of perpetual partisan warfare that they find themselves thinking things, saying things and doing things that they wouldn’t think, say, and do otherwise. The positive reinforcement they get for it is considerable. Even as Democrats were beside themselves with indignation over Joe’s outburst, some of the more extreme Red Staters were ready to canonize Joe for his moment of irrationality.

So Joe had to choose. As it happens, he chose to apologize (ironically, he did so BEFORE I got the press release from the S.C. Democratic Party demanding that he do so):

“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”

Good. That’s something. But I’m afraid the standards for political disagreement just got ratcheted down another notch tonight, and I’m sorry that my congressman did the ratcheting. He’s sorry. Well, so am I.

Hoping the president does well tonight

50 Replies

Getting ready to watch the president’s address, and hoping he does well — because the country needs for him to do well. I know my family does, but so does the whole country. Not just the uninsured, but the insured who increasingly find their insurance unaffordable and a constant battle to get the private insurance companies to pay up. And especially for American business, which really doesn’t need this financial millstone around its neck any more.

One thing that gets me is that the advance hype is that the president will advocate a “public option.” Well, duh. A “public option” is health care reform. Without a public element there is no health care reform. The “private option” is what we have now, and it ain’t working.

Anyway, it’s going to start in a few moments. Your impressions will be welcome here as comments….

I’m going to try watching it on the NYT site. One nice thing about watching it on a newspaper’s Web site is that you don’t have to listen to all that superfluous commentary you get on TV…

Of course you think that, Joe — you’ve GOT a job

7 Replies

Y’all know I like Joe Biden, but he does tend to say things without a lot of forethought. Such as this:

(AP)  Trumpeting economic progress to a skeptical nation, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says the massive government program intended to stimulate and reshape the economy is reaching and exceeding goals.

Nearly 200 days into the effort, Biden says it is more effective “than we had hoped.”

Biden’s upbeat report card, to be delivered Thursday in a speech at the Brookings Institution, comes as economists say the United States is slowly breaking free of the most crippling recession in decades. Yet public angst is also deepening about the cost of government intervention, and millions of people remain out of work.

Of course, that may have had lots of forethought. He might be the designated guy in the administration to go a bit further than POTUS himself can go, and see if it gets saluted. It’s certainly a role to which Joe is suited, and a typical one for the Veep.

But it goes too far for me. I get turned off by either those who are too quick to say the stimulus has failed, or those who overstate its positive effect. Truth is, we don’t know yet. And may never know. Aren’t we still debating whether the New Deal pulled us out of the Great Depression?

Of course, my own situation may cause me to be a bit jaded on the subject. But I think I’m looking at it realistically.

Speaking of reality, here’s a cold dose of it: I ran into Sen. Hugh Leatherman at breakfast this morning. He was in town for a Budget and Control Board meeting, which I think he tends to dread these days because it always means another fruitless argument with the governor. (Here’s something interesting to watch: How much longer will Rich Eckstrom continue to back the gov, with re-election coming up next year?)

Anyway, I said something about my worry that prospective employers are hesitant to hire me, or anyone, until the economy warms back up, and the Senate Finance Chair said he doubted that would happen in S.C. until another year has passed. Or maybe two. He may be right, but I know I can’t wait that long. Nor can a lot of other people.

On that subject, Sen. Leatherman said he was recently talking to an economic development prospect, and the head of the company asked him, Isn’t South Carolina the state where a business prospect wanted to talk to the governor, but the governor ditched the meeting to go see his mistress in Argentina? Is that what doing business in South Carolina is like?

The senator said no, that’s not what South Carolina is like. But he hears that sort of thing a lot, unfortunately.

You tell ’em, Dr. Paul! (In your own sensible way)

13 Replies
Dr. Paul DeMarco of Marion, at the Gallivants Ferry Stump Meeting in 2006.

Dr. Paul DeMarco of Marion, at the Gallivants Ferry Stump Meeting in 2006.

Our own Dr. Paul DeMarco is as always dispensing wisdom, or at least good common sense, in his op-ed piece today.

As you know, Paul used to be a regular on my (old) blog, but he got sick and tired of all the pointless, childish yelling, and some of the comments bothered him too, so he quit contributing. But we remain friends and stay more or less in touch. And he’s one of those doctors who knows what’s good for what ails America: a single-payer health care system.

Here’s an excerpt from his piece this morning (I’d reproduce the whole thing, but that might step over the line copyright-wise, and then Cindi would have to call me and yell at me, and I’d yell back at her, and she’d go to her office and sulk until she thought of some more choice things to call me, then she’d come back and yell at me some more, and it would be just like old times, but I know she’s busy, and I don’t want to put her to all that trouble):

Ironically, the cure is right at our fingertips: Simply expand Medicare to all Americans. Canadians, who cover all their citizens with a system similar to our Medicare, point to it as a source of national pride. In the ’60s, they recognized that justice was the first principle to be addressed in health care; once they decided that no citizen should go without reasonable access to medical care, they were well-positioned to face the difficult but not insurmountable questions about what should be covered and how to pay for it. While it is clear that the Canadian system has its problems, there is little doubt that taken as a whole it is better for the average citizen. The Canadians achieve similar overall health outcomes as the United States while spending just over half what we spend.

Are there Canadian health horror stories? Certainly, but America has no lack of those herself. More to the point, anecdotes shouldn’t be the basis for health policy. The United States would have to address legitimate concerns such as waiting times and access to specialists if we adopted Medicare for all. But universal coverage will immediately improve the lot of the many hard-working small-business people with chronic diseases who are floundering without health insurance. My barber is a perfect example. He’s one of Main Street’s most solid citizens. His shop lights are already on when I drive by in the early morning, but he must rely on charity care because as an owner-operator, he can’t afford a health policy. His plight does not exist in Canada.

Americans are rightly skeptical of government and wary of our recent deficit spending. But the notion that publicly funded health care is a new and radical idea for us is nonsense. Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration are all federally funded single-payer systems that have been in place for decades.

U.S. Medicare alone covers 45 million people — 12 million more than the entire population of Canada. Some seniors are so comfortable with Medicare they seem to have forgotten it is publicly funded; at town meetings, they have argued against the public option as unacceptable government intrusion while at the same time singing the praises of Medicare. And although the empty claim that government-funded health care would be bloated, intrusive and inefficient has been repeated incessantly, the truth is that U.S. Medicare achieves satisfaction rates similar to private insurers while operating with roughly a third of their overhead….

Notice how deferential Paul is to mindless anti-gummint sentiment, with that “Americans are rightly skeptical of government.” Paul’s a very civil guy, which is why the blog makes him uncomfortable. He gives the knee-jerk anti-gummint types more than their due, despite his politely reminded us that so many of them don’t know what they’re on about (such as the cranky old people at town meetings who somehow don’t understand that the Medicare they love so much is a gummint program, which to me ought to be grounds for having one’s right to vote revoked).

And before you Ayn Randians get all cranked up about the failings of gummint, let me say that you’re right: Gummint has it’s flaws, just the same as private companies or the Church or non-profit agencies or anything that’s run by mere humans. But as Paul also explains, Medicare produces results at least as satisfactory as the private sector, at about a third the overhead.

As I said, Paul always makes good sense…

Don’t give up on Afghanistan, Mr. President

7 Replies

So when did we start speaking of Afghanistan as though it were Iraq?

I seem to recall that the people who wanted us out of Iraq, until very recently were saying:

  • Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is the must-win war.
  • Afghanistan is the place that harbored Osama bin Laden and others responsible for 9/11.
  • It’s horrible the way we have neglected our commitments there (to spend resources on Iraq).

I mean, Barack Obama, who during the campaign would tell anyone who would listen how HE was the guy who had been against our involvement in Iraq from the beginning, was also one of the most aggressively belligerent U.S. politicians when it came to Afghanistan, and to the al Qaeda hideouts across the border in Pakistan.

And when he came into office, it looked like he was going to follow through. Not only that, it appeared that he was going to be sensible about our Iraq commitments, which was very reassuring.

Now, I read with horror this piece today in The State:

On Monday, McChrystal sent his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to the Pentagon, the U.S. Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO. Although the assessment didn’t include any request for more troops, senior military officials said they expect McChrystal later in September to seek between 21,000 and 45,000 more troops. There currently are 62,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops…

Say what? We’ve got our finger in the wind on Afghanistan now? We’re checking the polls to see if we’re going to fight the freaking Taliban, the guys who coddled Osama while he was dreaming up the Big One?

What is wrong with this country? And does a country that would let things come to this pass deserve to survive, in evolutionary terms? Apart from standing up and fighting for what is right and against what is demonstrably not only wrong but horrifically so, are we truly not willing to fight against those who would like to see us dead? What sort of organism, or social structure, gives up to that extent?

Political art, for art’s sake

5 Replies

Do you like my latest header image (I figured y’all had had your fill of the ugly, rusty car with the big Confederate flag painted on it)? It’s filled with hidden meaning, regarding our political past and future.

It was taken at the S.C. State Museum Dec. 15, 2007, a Saturday, after a John McCain event in which he had publicly accepted the support of a large number of retired admirals and generals. (It was the same day I got his attractive young press secretary to promise me, on video, that she would quit smoking if he got the nomination. I wonder whether she did?) He and supporters were getting onto the elevator, and before the doors closed I got this artsy-blurry shot, which I think looks fairly cool.

At the far right, somewhat out of focus, you have a figure from our recent political past. Then at the opposite end, you  see the back of someone we’ll hear a lot from going into 2010. Since he represents the future, you can’t see his face. You know, the future being hidden from us and all.

Like I said, Baby, fraught with meaning…

mccain-032

I’ll bet Obama asked him not to shave, either

4 Replies


First and foremost, I want to congratulate fellow South Carolinian Ben Bernanke for keeping his job under trying circumstances. I’m glad he doesn’t have to go back to working at South of the Border.

Any time any South Carolinian can keep his job in this economy, considering the total cock-up the folks in charge have made of it, it’s good news… Oh, wait, Ben Bernanke IS one of the people in charge of the economy…

Seriously, though, I have no complaints about Bernanke’s performance. And maybe he has even helped us avoid things getting worse, as the president suggested today in reappointing him.

At the same time, I’m not sure how much difference it makes. The president wanted to signal stability — was in such a hurry to do so that neither he nor Ben could take a moment to put on a tie — and he did that with this action. Fine. And I love it when Democrats appoint Republicans, and vice versa (in fact, about the only Republicans I can stand are those who would appoint or be appointed by Democrats, and again vice versa).

And that might be as far as substance goes. It would be unsettling to change horses at this point, so the president interrupted his vacation to tell the markets he’s not going to shake them up that way. Fine.

And while it wasn’t mentioned, I’ll bet part of the president’s private conversation with Bernanke involved begging the Fed chair to not even consider ever shaving his beard. You don’t think that’s important? Huh. Shows what you know. Just as Ben Bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression, I happen to be an expert on the subject of the economic impact of Ben Bernanke’s beard. I was quoted by The Wall Street Journal on the subject, no less. Do you know anyone else who’s been quoted by the Journal on that subject? I didn’t think so. So all right, then: That makes me the world’s leading authority.

And speaking ex cathedra from my considerable store of expertise, I can assure you that the president reappointed the Dillon Countian for the same reason why Bernanke doesn’t get up one morning and decide to shave (even though I sort of suggested he should last year, but the situation was more desperate then): Because the markets couldn’t handle the change. They’re too fragile.

‘Detainees?’ Why not just call them ‘prisoners?’

7 Replies

Today, reading about the latest on Gitmo and torture and prosecutions and so forth, I reached my saturation point on the word “detainees.”

Personally, I’m not too squeamish to go ahead and call them “prisoners.” Why don’t we just go ahead and do that? We’ve been holding some of these people since 2001, and many of them we don’t ever intend to let go (and if we do, we’re crazy). So why not “prisoners?”

Yes, I get it that their legal status is unsettled, and in U.S. crime-and-punishment parlance we generally save “prisoner” for someone duly convicted to spend time in a “prison,” which is an institution we distinguish from jails where people await trial or holding cells where they await bail or whatever.

But if we can’t be honest enough to say that Gitmo is a prison and they are prisoners, whatever the technicalities, could we please come up with something that sounds a little less prissy, somewhat less a-tiptoe, than “detainees?”

Whenever I hear the term, I picture a Victorian gentleman saying “Pardon me, sir, but I must detain you for a moment…”

Whose sensibilities are we overprotecting by the use of this word? Those who feel like the “detainees'” “rights” are being trampled? Those like me who are glad we have a secure place to put some of these people? (Hey, go ahead and close Gitmo if you’d like. That’s what Obama says he’ll do and it’s what McCain would have done, too. Fine. But find someplace just as secure to put the ones we need to hang onto.)

Maybe we could sort out all the rest of the mess — the legal status, the security issues, who should interrogate and how, whom to keep and whom to send home and whom to send to a third location, whether any of our own should be prosecuted, etc. — if we started by coming up with something less mealy-mouthed to call these people.

Is that a promise, Sen. DeMint?

40 Replies

My attention was drawn to this SCBiz headline:

DeMint says public option would destroy nation’s health care system

… to which I automatically responded, “Is that a promise? Are you sure? You’re not just teasing? All right! When do we get started?”

We’ve heard a lot of silly back-and-forth about health care in recent weeks, but this is the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest the one thing that makes the most sense to me: Blow up what we’ve got entirely and start over.

As my long-time readers will know, even back when I HAD good conventional health care coverage, I was agitating for this. Why? Because as I documented in this column and this one and elsewhere on the old blog, most folks who discuss the health care problem in this country focus on the wrong thing. They focus on the people like me who no longer have private employer-provided health care (although for a limited time I have access to the same care via COBRA thank God, at just under $600 a month — to go up over $1,500 after December, if I’m lucky).

But the real problem is that (note the numbers in my parenthetical above), medical coverage has gotten way too expensive even for the lucky ones who have it — and certainly far too expensive for the businesses that try to provide it.

My problem with Obamacare all along has been that the president is too timid on this subject, and this is not a situation for tiptoeing. This nation desperately needs a do-over on the way it pays for health care, because we are paying too much for results that just aren’t good enough for an advanced nation.

So thank you, Sen. DeMint, for getting the conversation started in a more productive direction. Even if you didn’t mean to…

‘Sarah Palin is now in Argentina with a woman…’

2 Replies

Not really.

That’s just the punch line that my old buddy Michael Feldman is using on current promo spots for his show on public radio.

I pass it on because it provides a measurement of just how much of an automatic laughingstock we have become in South Carolina, thanks to the tireless exertions of our governor. You don’t even have to say “Mark Sanford.” You can just refer to him indirectly, at a step or two remove (in this case, the only connection is that he was until recently a fellow member of the same group to which ex-Gov. Palin still belongs, which I suppose we could describe as “marginal people whom the national media have inexplicably decided to regard as serious contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination”), and still get a laugh.

So this is what we’ve come to.

Where the growth is

34 Replies

Just got a release today from the state Chamber announcing that “The deadline is extended until August 31, 2009 for companies to nominate their business for the Top 25 South Carolina Fastest-Growing Companies program.”

I don’t know who’s going to make that list, but SCBiz reports that 31 South Carolina companies made Inc. magazine’s list of the 5,000 Fastest Growing Companies in America for 2009.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that not one of them made the top 500. The highest on the list was Customer Effective, a Greenville IT services company, at No. 541 on the list.

Anyway, it’s nice to know some part of the economy in South Carolina is actually growing, so congrats to Customer Effective and the other 30 growers. It will be even nicer when some of us find jobs as a result of said growth…

Gates saga gets treatment it so richly deserves

7 Replies

Credit to Stan Dubinsky for bringing this item in The Boston Globe to our attention:

(A street in Cambridgeham. Most Exalted University Professor HENRY LOUIS GATES, freshly returned from the Land of the Asian Khan, is rattling the door of his keep. Enter a WENCH.)

WENCH: Alarum! Alarum! A thief is about!

GATES: Peace, ye fat guts!

(Enter SHERIFF CROWLEY)

CROWLEY: Stay, now! Who disturbs our peaceful shire?

GATES: I disturb no man. My key unlocketh not.

CROWLEY: Forsooth, thou breakest and enterest.

GATES (entering his castle): I break not for witless constables. Begone!

CROWLEY: Back speaks no man to the Sheriff; I arrest thee!

GATES: Knowest thou whom I am? That I am coy with the Daily Beastmistress, Milady Tina? That I am most down with Lady Oprah, the Queen of afternoon tele-dalliances? That I am sworn liege to Dr. Faust, of whom Marlowe wrote? That I unravelest literary mysteries at the Greatest University Known to Man?

CROWLEY: Of Tufts you speak? Even so, thou art under arrest.

GATES: Thou detaineth me because I am a Moor!

CROWLEY: Some of my best friends are Moors. Your pleas availeth not.

GATES: You shall rue the day you crost my threshold….

… and so forth. ‘Tis a silly tale, but enjoyable withal.

Where I’ve been, in less than 140 characters at a time

Leave a reply

I may not know where I’m going (especially careerwise, and I’m eager to find out), but I can tell you where I’ve been.

You may have noticed I haven’t blogged the last couple of days — at least, not in this format. That’s because I drove to Pennsylvania on Sunday, and drove back Monday. I was pretty tired Monday night, but on the whole it was a good, enjoyable trip. I was driving, man! I knew time! I knew it! I was humming down the Shenandoah Valley in a stiff, jumpy Corolla — held the road like a prehistoric bird, you understand, ahem yes! (Apologies to Dean Moriarty, Neal Cassady, Jack Kerouac, Ken Kesey and Tom Wolfe).

I didn’t have a laptop with me, but I had my Blackberry, so yesterday I set myself the task of blogging (if you count Twitter, and it is indeed a truncated form of blogging) across six states. And NO, I didn’t type these while driving, but pulled off the road and came to a complete stop in a safe place each time. (In some places I posted two or three tweets before moving on.) The day started with breakfast with my daughter at my favorite PA spot, then she and I picked up the rental, then had a nice time walking around town in that beautiful weather until almost 10. Then I started the drive back alone. Looking and listening for things to pull over and post about helped keep me alert:

Just ate at the Middlesex Diner, my favorite spot in central PA. Those great fat sausages I can’t get at home…6:57 AM Aug 3rd from web

Just rented Toyota Corolla. Steering wheel awkwardly placed. Nowhere to put elbows. Nice car, though. Beautiful day in central PA…9:15 AM Aug 3rd from web

Twittering across 6 states. Just crossed Mason Dixon Line, our North-South Checkpoint Charlie…10:42 AM Aug 3rd from web

I’m briefly in Maryland, where the 1st Warthen to come to America settled in the 1630s… 10:44 AM Aug 3rd from web

West Va. provides a short stretch of speed between tighter limits of Md and Va…10:56 AM Aug 3rd from web

Picked up free map at W. Va. welcome center. Good intel to have, just in case…10:59 AM Aug 3rd from web

Hint for writer of country song I just heard; “Move” & “love” don’t rhyme, no matter how they look…about 24 hours ago from web

Passed an aging biker who thought he was showing muscles — loose arm skin rippling in wind…about 24 hours ago from web

Another country song, this one an oldie, tries to rhyme “New Mexico” and “loved her so.” Ow, my ears…about 23 hours ago from web

Shenandoah Valley unspeakably beautiful as always. In Virginia, today’s 4th state…about 23 hours ago from web

I’m at the Barnes & Noble in Harrisonburg, Va., getting Starbucks. My kind of rest stop…about 22 hours ago from web

Gimme a break! Just heard Jim DeMint on radio in Virginia!!! Argghhh! There’s no escape…about 22 hours ago from web

I’m pausing in North Carolina just long enough to figure out that I’m only 132 miles from home…about 17 hours ago from web

Back home to SC, 6th state of the day. Just turned in Corolla. It gave me a nice ride — 30 mpg…about 15 hours ago from web

Yes, I realize — kind of a silly and trivial accomplishment, Twittering in six states in one day. But that’s how I get through a long drive on the rare occasions that I have to make a long drive alone: I set myself little goals. Drive so much farther, and I’ll get something to eat. Drive this much farther, and I’m exactly one-third of the way. Get coffee, then see how far I can go (without speeding) before it’s just the right temperature.

And so forth. Twittering served this purpose fairly well. Although you’ll notice that most of the posts are in the first third of the distance. After Harrisonburg, I decided I had to stop stopping if I were to get home before I got too tired. Besides, after Virginia there were only two states left — one stop for gas, and another one at home…

The answer to the burning immigration problem

15 Replies



For years, some of you have tried to convince me that our porous border with Mexico is a critical, nation-threatening problem, necessitating such absurdly grandiose measures as the construction of a wall.

I was unconvinced — until now. This important video report provides the arguments that were missing before.

(Warning: There is some less-than-polite language used in this report, for comic effect.)

As usual, Kulturkampf gets us nowhere

38 Replies

The Henry Louis Gates contretemps last week was a classic case of the kind of thing I studiously ignore — the kind of thing that ideological partisans love to shout at each other about, and which make it all that much harder to constructively discuss subjects that really matter.

But I will pass on this column on the subject in the WSJ, which I thought was good. Of course, I thought it was good; its point is the same one I just made — that this was a destructive distraction. Headlined, “The Gates of Political Distraction: Obama’s mistake was falling for a culture war diversion,” it is written by the Journal‘s iconoclastic house liberal, Thomas Frank. An excerpt:

Liberals, by and large, immediately plugged the event into their unfair-racial-profiling template, and proceeded to call for blacks and whites to “listen to each other’s narratives” and other such anodyne niceties even after it started to seem that police racism was probably not what caused the incident.

Conservatives, meanwhile, were following their own “narrative,” the one in which racism is often exaggerated and the real victim is the unassuming common man scorned by the deference-demanding “liberal elite.” Commentators on the right zeroed in on the fact that Mr. Gates is an “Ivy League big shot,” a “limousine liberal,” and a star professor at Harvard, an institution they regard with special loathing. They pointed out that Mr. Gates allegedly addressed the cop with that deathless snob phrase, “you don’t know who you’re messing with”; they reminded us that Cambridge, Mass., is home to a particularly obnoxious combination of left-wing orthodoxy and upper-class entitlement; and they boiled over Mr. Gates’s demand that the officer “beg my forgiveness.”

“Don’t you just love a rich guy who summers on the Vineyard asking a working-class cop to ‘beg’? How perfectly Cambridge,” wrote the right-wing radio talker Michael Graham in the Boston Herald.

Conservatives won this round in the culture wars, not merely because most of the facts broke their way, but because their grievance is one that a certain species of liberal never seems to grasp. Whether the issue is abortion, evolution or recycling, these liberal patricians are forever astonished to discover that the professions and institutions and attitudes that they revere are seen by others as arrogance and affectation.

Frank got that right.

Indeed, the very idea that the president would waste political capital on this at a time when the country needs him to be strong on health care reform is obscene, and a tragic waste.

Graham takes road less traveled, again

14 Replies

As you know, I appreciate politicians who run against type, who defy the boxes that the idiots who guide the incessant partisan wars demand that they stay within.

For instance, I like Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania for the simple fact that he’s a pro-life Democrat. He refuses to fit in the narrow little box.

And that means I like Lindsey Graham a lot, because he’s all about thinking an issue through and trying to do the right thing rather than what partisanship demands.

He did it again today:

Date: 07/28/2009

The right vote for me and, I believe, the country

by Senator Lindsey Graham

Today, I voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  I understand the path of least resistance for me would be to vote no.  But I feel compelled to vote yes.  This is the right vote for me and, I believe, the country.  Here’s why:

Elections Have Consequences
I told Judge Sotomayor in the Judiciary Committee hearing that if Senator McCain had won the election, she probably would not have been nominated.  Senator McCain would have chosen a qualified jurist with a more conservative background – someone similar to Chief Justice John Roberts or Miguel Estrada.  Judge Sotomayor is definitely a more liberal judge than a Republican president would have nominated, but elections have consequences.

Judge Sotomayor is Very Qualified
Judge Sotomayor is one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades. She has seventeen years of judicial experience, twelve of those on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  I have reviewed her record closely.  She follows precedent and has not been an activist judge that would disqualify her from office.  She has demonstrated left-of-center reasoning but within the mainstream – a fact other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have openly acknowledged.

She has an outstanding background as a lawyer. She was a prosecutor for four years in New York. Her record of academic achievement is extraordinary – growing up under very difficult circumstances, being raised by a single mother, going to Princeton, being picked as the top student there, and doing an extraordinary job in law school at Yale.  She has received the highest rating of ‘well qualified’ by the American Bar Association for her nomination to the Supreme Court, which was an important reason why I supported Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

The “Obama Standard” – Wrong for the Nation and Judiciary
One of the things I chose not to do was to use the “Obama Standard” when it came to casting my vote.

As Senator, Barack Obama voted against both Justices Roberts and Alito.  He used the rationale that they were well qualified, extraordinarily intellectually gifted, but the last mile in the confirmation process was the heart.  He argued that in the final five percent of controversial cases that may change society, a Senator needs to look and see what is in a judge’s heart.

I totally reject this line of reasoning.  It runs contrary to more than 200 years of the Senate’s constitutionally-mandated role of providing “advice and consent” for judicial nominees.

If the Senate moves to a Barack Obama-style confirmation process where we explore another person’s heart, we are going to drive people away from wanting to become members of the judiciary.  Who would want to come before the Senate and have us try to figure out what is in his or her heart?  Can you imagine the questions that would be asked?  It will have a tremendously negative effect on the future recruitment of qualified candidates to be judges.

Also, one thing to note about Judge Sotomayor was that during the Judiciary Committee hearings on her nomination – she publicly disagreed with this “Obama Standard.”  She made it clear that trying to decipher what was in a nominee’s heart is not a good standard for selecting judges.

Return to the “Qualification Standard” for Supreme Court Nominees
I believe the Senate and nation should once again go back to the judicial standard for Supreme Court nominees which served our country well for over 200 years – the “Qualification Standard.”  Are the nominees qualified?  Do they have good character?  Do they present an extraordinary circumstance – having something about their life that would make them extraordinary – to the point they would be unqualified, e.g. they are related to the president or they tried to bribe someone for the position?

There was a time in this country, not long ago, where a conservative judge, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, received a 98-0 vote from the Senate.  Every Democrat who voted for Justice Scalia could not have been fooled as to what they were getting.  They were supporting an extremely qualified, talented, intellectual man who was qualified for the job but had a conservative philosophy different from most Democrats.

There was a time in this country where a Justice, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is clearly left-of-center, received a nearly-unanimous vote in the Senate.  Republicans who voted for Justice Ginsburg had to know what they were getting.  They were supporting someone who was very talented, extremely well-qualified, and incredibly smart – but who was also general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.  They knew her liberal philosophy but understood that President Clinton had won the election and earned the right to make the nomination.

What happened to those days?

The Balance of the Court Does Not Change
On balance, I do not believe the Supreme Court will dramatically change in terms of ideology due to her selection.  Justice Souter, whom I respect as an individual, has been far more liberal than I would prefer. Quite frankly, on some issues, Judge Sotomayor may be more balanced in her approach than Justice Souter, particularly when it comes to the War on Terror, the use of international law, and potentially the Second Amendment.

Judge Sotomayor received the backing of Ken Starr, the conservative special prosecutor during the Clinton Administration.  Even critics such as conservative commentator and radio talk show host Bill Bennett have made positive statements about her nomination.

Bennett told CNN, “Let me make a prediction. I’m actually probably a little more conservative than Mitch McConnell. I think this will be a very different record than David Souter’s. I think she (will) surprise people. I think she is larger than this caricature of her… I think this is going to be an interesting judge, and not one who will always displease conservatives.”

I am not voting for her believing I know how she will decide a case.  I expect she will align with the liberal side of the court based on philosophy not because she is a judicial activist.

I am voting for her because I find her to be well-qualified, because elections matter, because I believe the “Obama Standard” is harmful to the judiciary, and because the people who have served along her side for many years find an extraordinary woman in Judge Sotomayor.  I found the same.

As a member of the minority party in the Senate, I have a responsibility to look hard at the nominees sent to the Senate by President Obama.  Where I can, I will support his nominees.  But I will not abandon the right to say no.  I will not abandon the right to stop, in an extraordinary circumstance, a nominee who is bad for the country and unworthy of being confirmed.  But Judge Sotomayor does not rise to that standard and for that reason I chose to support her nomination.

I would not have chosen her if I had been able to make the nomination.  But I understand why President Obama chose her, and I believe it is the right choice to vote for her confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Graham is one of those people — like Joe Lieberman — who causes me to think harder about a position if I find myself disagreeing with him, because I know he’s thought really hard about it. And he’s a really smart guy.

So after today, I would have to have really powerful reasons to oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. On the one hand we have partisan Democrats, who we know will vote for her without thinking. On the other hand we have partisan Republicans, who will oppose her without thinking. Then we have Lindsey Graham, who I know has studied the matter carefully — a lot more so than I have (I’m busy looking for a job), which of course is what representative democracy is all about — and decided to vote for her. To me, that means a lot more than just one senator’s vote.

DeMint vs. Obama: Health care debate takes downward turn

78 Replies

demint-021

Until today, the titanic battle over the future of health care in America was at least based in good grammar. Then I received this deeply troubling communication:

Thursday July 23, 2009

Dear Friends –

By now you’ve probably heard about the ongoing debate Senator DeMint has been having with President Obama on health care. Up until last night this debate, while spirited, was based on the issues.

Unfortunately, President Obama decided to turn the debate away from the issues by having the Democrat National Committee produce a patently false television ad accusing Senator DeMint of having “no plan” for health care.

We hope you will take a minute to watch our factual response in this short web video. Afterward please click here and give us your thoughts on health care reform. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Team DeMint

PS. Please click here to watch the response!

Being a trained observer who gets right to the heart of the matter without delay, I immediately responded to the e-mail thusly:

Actually, it’s the DemocratIC National Committee. You can look it up; you’ll see I’m right.

You see, “Democrat” is a noun, while “Democratic” is the adjective form. Since it’s being used to modify “committee” here, you want the adjective form.

I expect to get a note of thanks momentarily…

Seriously, folks, I feel really bad because I haven’t kept up with the back and forth on this issue. About all I know is that it must be going badly, because it seems Jim DeMint is getting a lot of ink, and from what little I can tell, the senator’s goal is to make sure the president is unsuccessful in reforming our insane health care system. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, but that seems to be the main point — to make sure the president suffers a defeat (“Waterloo” was mentioned, I believe) on this issue of critical importance to the nation.

Y’all know that I’m not a detail man on this stuff, which drives detail-oriented folks like bud and Doug (from their differing perspectives) nuts. But this doesn’t seem to be turning on the details. More and more, it seems to be about “my side up, your side down.” If you’ll recall, Obama ran against that sort of garbage. And if he can’t overcome it on this issue, then you can pretty much say goodbye to his accomplishing much of anything. His adversaries know this. And they care far more about him failing than they do about details.

So it is that in the few moments I’ve had to think about the issue, I find myself rooting for Obama. Back during the election, I was critical that he didn’t want to do enough on health care. But he at least wants to do something, other that rely on the DeMint/Sanford formula of praying to the almighty market.

But set that issue aside. Folks, I supported John McCain in the recent election. But I know our country desperately needs an effective president. It needs leadership. So even if I were neutral on the health care issue, which I’m not (I may not have kept up with the details, but I can see which parties are at least trying to do some good), I’d be rooting for the president on this. The country needs for him to succeed.

Tonight’s header picture: Rusty and Rudy

7 Replies

Since I unveiled the New Look several people have complimented me on the photos. Of course, I’ve been changing them out so fast that you’ve probably missed some of them. For instance, I just took down one of Stephen Colbert and me, and put up the one you see now on my home page, which shows Rudy Giuliani in Columbia back in 2007, while he was still a contender in the GOP nomination race.

Like most of the pictures I’m using (except the ones other people shot of me with somebody), I shot it with my little digital Canon, which you see me using to shoot video of Obama in the picture you get when you call up individual posts. Here’s the video I was shooting, by the way.

The one now gracing my home page was taken on August 14, 2007, at the convention center in Columbia. Here’s video I shot at the same event. I chose this image because, even though the focus and resolution aren’t great, it worked with the extreme-horizontal format. So we’re talking form over content. But let’s examine the content: Local political trivia buffs will see some familiar faces sitting listening to Rudy, such as Gayle Averyt and Rusty DePass. Rusty, who plays piano at my Rotary, made some news of his own recently, until the governor was kind enough to draw attention away from him.

And just to get WAY deeper into the recent political past than you probably care to go, here’s a piece Rusty wrote back at about this time explaining why he was for Rudy.

One thing this blog’s got, folks, is depth. Layers upon layers of info, whether you want it or not…

I’ll explain another picture tomorrow. And yes, the photo below is from the same event.

rudy-050

Imagine you’re Janet Napolitano, and you’re meeting Mark Sanford…

7 Replies

This morning, like many of you, I read the highly important, yet fairly routine, story about security at the port of Charleston:

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — Project Seahawk, a port security effort developed in South Carolina, is vital to waging the war on terrorism and a model for ports around the nation, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Monday.

Graham, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Gov. Mark Sanford and other leaders had a private briefing on the project during a visit to the Project Seahawk headquarters at the old Charleston Navy Base.

Seahawk, created in 2003 in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, brings together representatives of state, federal and local law enforcement agencies who meet each day in a command center to share and compare information on harbor activity.

But as I read it, all I could think was: Say you’re Janet Napolitano. You’re the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. You’re a serious person, with a serious job, and you’re here for a serious purpose. As you enter the room, visiting dignitary that you are, serious people turn to greet you… and Lindsey Graham introduces you to Mark Sanford.

So… do you have to suppress the urge to crack up? Do you say to yourself, Don’t smile, because then you’ll crack up! But then think, I have to smile, or it will seem unnatural… must make it the right kind of smile… And just when you think you’ve got the situation mastered, suddenly some line from a late-night comic, or something about crying in Argentina, or something else wildly incongruous to the sober subject of Homeland Security pops into your skull, just for a second, and you’re in trouble again…

Is there any way to carry on a normal conversation? And what about that first moment or so of small talk, when the natural thing is to mention something you’ve heard or read about the person you’re meeting, and naturally you think that just last week, this guy was going on and on with the press about his soulmate, going out of his way to cement his reputation as a total flake…

If you’re not a South Carolinian, and have no other context for perceiving this guy, how can you think of anything else upon meeting him? After all, while in South Carolina the headline on this story is, “Graham: Charleston port security project vital,” on CNN’s political ticker, it’s “Graham: Sanford says there’s hope’ for reconciliation with his wife.” Which was actually an element in the S.C. story; but to CNN, that’s all they care about.

Seriously. Follow the links. Previously, he was known nationally at the anti-stimulus guy. Now, he’s far better known (partly because of the same lurid popular culture that gives us obsession over Michael Jackson) as the runaway-to-Argentina guy.

Mind you, my imagining of the scene probably has flaws in it. Since they were both elected governor in the same year, Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Sanford may have already known each other. But still. A solemn, serious moment with this underlying sense of total absurdity.

That’s the way I imagine it, anyway. And if it didn’t happen that way this time, there are going to be plenty of times in which an important visitor keeps thinking, Here I am with the famous runaway governor! He actually runs this state (People from out of state wouldn’t know how insignificant the office of governor actually is here)! How weird the people of South Carolina must be!

Karen Floyd thinks it’s over. The party censures him and it’s over. Fat chance. As several people no doubt pointed out during that four-hour conference call, every minute that this guy is still governor, still going through the motions representing our state to the world, is a gold-plated gift to the Democrats in next year’s election.

No wonder the GOP executive committee was so divided:

Twenty-two committee members voted for a reprimand, 10 called for his resignation, while nine voted to support the governor.

Before we move on, could you (briefly) explain the Jacko thing to me?

15 Replies

My first thought glancing over the news today is, OK, after today can we move on? No more Michael Jackson this, Michael Jackson that, wherever I turn?

But then my second thought was, While I don’t want to delay the moving-on thing, could someone explain to me what everybody is worked up about?

I don’t get it, and I never will. It’s related, I think, to the phenomenon on reality shows in which the audience screams constantly — not when something remarkable happens on the stage, or someone shouts “fire!” — but at everything that happens, everything that is said. It drives me nuts, and my wife and daughters get tired of me complaining about it when they’re watching their dancing shows, but it still bugs me because I don’t get it. Why is it that exciting?

As for Michael Jackson — well, I don’t want to speak ill of the dead; I just look forward to when we’re not speaking about him at all. What I think about him now is what I thought four years back:

Tuesday, 14 June 2005

What’s WITH these people?

Celebrity worship is a mystery to me. This puzzlement is deepened by the case of Michael Jackson.

OK, I can sort of understand how someone might have become a fan of his at one point. In the early ’80s, he was a remarkably talented young black man. But now that he is no longer young, or black, or manly in any way you’d notice, and hasn’t put forth any striking evidence of talent lately, about all he’s got left is being remarkable. And not in a good way.

I’m not saying this to be mean or anything like that. I just don’t see how, beyond memories of some catchy tunes and dancing that seemed to defy physical laws, anybody would feel any sort of emotional involvement in anything that Mr. Jackson does, or anything that happens to him or doesn’t happen to him.

And yet there are people who really, really cared what happened in his trial. Michael_jackson_fans They were willing to put their whole lives in suspense over whether he was found “guilty” or “not guilty.” They made it their business to be there at the courthouse, as close to his side as possible. They were ecstatic at the verdict.

What I want to know is, Why? It seems to me that even a cursory examination of the stipulated facts regarding Mr. Jackson would give any sensible person considerable pause. I mean, I can seeing pitying a man who lives in a fantasy world and sleeps with young boys to whom he is not related (even innocently), and has obsessively done bizarre things to his own body. But I can’t see how anyone would admire him, or hitch one’s own happiness to his fate.

I’d appreciate any insight that anyone out there has into this phenomenon. If I could understand this, maybe I could understand the whole celebrity culture.

Anyway, before we move on, does anyone have an explanation for me? Preferably, a brief one?