Category Archives: The Nation

That’ll show ’em!

It’s not enough for some hard-liners that the immigration bill was defeated in the U.S. Senate last week. In some parts of the country, retaliation is the order of the day.

To get even with Mexico for having a lousy economy and forcing all its poor to stream across our border, the Oregon legislature has decided to start sending our politicians down there.

That should stop the flow of illegal aliens quicker than any old wall. Anyway, here’s the Associated Press caption to the picture:

Oregon Senate President Peter Courtney is joined by his wife, Margie, on the Senate floor in Salem, Ore., Thursday, June 28, 2007, after receiving a gift trip to Mexico from fellow Senators as the legislature works to wind up this year’s session.

This might be more devastatingly effective than the time we sent the Marines down to Montezuma’s place.

Capt. Smith checks in from Kandahar

3 Replies

Here’s another of Capt. James Smith’s PDF updates to family and friends back home, from Kandahar Airfield, a forward base in the fight against the Taliban.

The photo above, taken on Saturday, shows him and "Ink" on the hood of his M114 Up-Armored Humvee.

DeMint got THAT part right…

4 Replies

There was one thing that Jim DeMint said about the demise of the immigration bill today that was absolutely correct:

"The people responded to this issue in a very emotional and just a very
engaged way, which changed the minds of many people here in the Senate."

Very emotional, indeed. And that is something that politicians certainly respond to, even in that most "deliberative" of bodies.

Here’s some quick-and-dirty, unedited video of Fred Thompson at a state Republican Party luncheon today at the Townhouse.

I’ll try to post something a little more polished later.

The light was a little low, and my camera kept adjusting its exposure to the white jacket that the lovely Mrs. Thompson — who was between him and me (that’s her holding what I assume is their child in the foreground of these clips), but we amateurs do what we can.

Note the size of the crowd, the response, etc. The party had a full house for this not-yet-official candidate.

Divided We Fail

12 Replies

Just about every morning, I run into my friend Samuel Tenenbaum at breakfast, and we talk about various wonkish things, and have a high old time ingesting caffeine and blueberries.

And just about every morning, he mentions that it’s past time I should write about AARP’s program, Divided We Fail. Essentially, it’s an effort by AARP to get candidates in the presidential campaign talking about important domestic issues such as health care.

Shortly after he started working at AARP — and Divided We Fail is his particular mission — I dropped by his office and shot this video (with my phone, sorry about the low quality), which is essentially his answer to my question, "What are you doing here?"

At around that same time, Jane Wiley and others from that organization came by to see the editorial board and talked to us about the same thing. And we have yet to write about it, whereas others who don’t run into Samuel all the time have already written about it. That’s Jane pictured below. (If I shot video at that meeting, I’m having trouble finding it now.)

Well, we’ve had the Legislature winding down, etc., and all sorts of other excuses. But Samuel (and Jane, in her lower-key way) is (are) right to nag me about it.

This is one of several efforts going on in our state that do the very same thing, only with different issues. I wrote previously about the folks trying to raise the profile of global warming in the campaign. There’s also something going on backed by Bono of U2 and saving-the-world fame, and something else pushed by Bill Gates and his lady. I plan to do a column on the whole phenomenon, now that it’s summer.

But in the meantime, check out the grainy video, as Samuel summarizes it better than I could, and then look at the Web site.

I will return to this subject. Yes, I will…

Jane_wiley

How would you end an “endless war?”

37 Replies

Set aside for a moment the increasing shrillness of the releases I get from antiwar groups. More and more, I find myself having trouble understanding what these folks actually want the United States to do. Take this release today, for instance:

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq
http://www.NoIraqEscalation.com

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR                            Contact: Moira Mack
Thursday, June 14, 2007                                     202-261-2383

"IRAQ SUMMER" BEGINS TODAY

Nearly 100 Organizers Begin Work
in Key Congressional Districts

Coalition Turns Up Heat on "Endless War" Republicans

WASHINGTON, DC – “Iraq Summer” begins today as Americans Against Escalation in Iraq prepares to dispatch nearly 100 organizers to the home states and districts of Republican Senators and Representatives who have opposed setting a timeline to end the US war in Iraq. The program is modeled on the “Freedom Summer” civil rights project. Organizers will be in fifteen states from Nevada to Maine, a total of 40 congressional districts.

Organizers will spend ten weeks in their assigned districts working with local veterans and advocacy groups to pressure targeted lawmakers to reject President Bush’s Iraq policy and instead vote to bring a responsible end to the war. A barrage of events, letter writing campaigns, endorsement efforts, and local legislative events are planned for each targeted state or district, building to large nationwide rallies at the end of August. The rallies come just in advance of anticipated votes on the war and the so-called “surge.”

With no real progress expected on the ground in Iraq, AAEI aims to turn growing nation-wide opposition to the war into intense political pressure to end the war responsibly. By mobilizing thousands of outraged citizens, AAEI will demonstrate that continued support for the war in Iraq has political consequences for those representatives seeking re-election in 2008. A recently released New York Times/CBS poll indicates that 63% of the public wants a timetable for withdrawal in 2008.

“Opposition to the war in Iraq is reaching a boiling point and this summer Republican members of Congress will be feeling the heat from their constituents,” said Moira Mack, spokeswoman for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. “As more and more rural and suburban voters turn against President Bush’s Iraq war policies, the President’s supporters in Congress will be facing their own political vulnerability. We will force Members of Congress to make a choice: continue to support President Bush’s wildly unpopular policy of endless war in Iraq and face the political consequences or side with the majority of Americans and vote to responsibly end the war.”

Most of the organizers in the program are local to the regions where they will be working, and are a mix of veterans, military family members, students and community organizers. They gather this weekend in Washington, DC, for four days of training and planning.

AAEI will be holding a press conference call to officially kick off the program.
            ###

I had to write back to Moira Mack to ask:

Moira, reading your release, I have a question.
Saying you oppose "endless war" suggests that you propose to end that war somehow.
What is your plan? Since you don’t think the surge or anything like it will bring the fighting to an end, what action do you propose to keep the various factions in Iraq from killing people?

I’ve been wondering about that for years, but the question is taking on a new urgency as more and more people say things like that, things which make no sense.

The "endlessness" of this war is not a policy; it’s a fact. The issue is, what do we do in the face of that fact?

And no, having a "timeline" is not a plan, unless the plan is to get the jihadist insurgents and Sunni and Shi’a combatants to agree to the timeline, which would be a neat trick.

Six-pack scores legislative victory

31 Replies

Just to let you know why I haven’t posted — I’m in Pennsylvania again, where my youngest daughter graduated from high school last night.

So as the S.C. General Assembly winds down with a feckless whimper — no budget, no DOT reform, no nothing — I’m keeping up with the doings up in Harrisburg.

Here was yesterday’s big legislative news, which is a very big deal, when you consider the only way you can buy beer here is to go to a special warehouse-type retailer, and you can buy nothing smaller than a case at a time:

Score one for Joe Six-pack.
A Pennsylvania Senate committee gave a 9-2 endorsement
yesterday to a bill that would permit beer distributors to
sell ales, malts and lagers by the six-pack for the first
time in generations. The bill moves to the full Senate,
where it might not see a vote until fall.
Supporters hailed yesterday’s vote as a great first
step.
Pennsylvanians have been limited to buying beer by the case
or paying a premium price for take-out at restaurants and
taverns, where six-pack sales are allowed.

I’ll let you know if anything else dramatic happens while I’m here.

Sunni-al-Qaida rift gets more interesting

11 Replies

You had probably heard about the increasing tension between Sunnis and foreign terrorists, but this piece that just moved is one of the more interesting, and promising, developments I’ve heard about lately:

Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq

BAGHDAD (AP) – U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors.

Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to a councilman and other residents of the Sunni district.

The fight reflects a trend that U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trumpeting recently to the west in Anbar province, once considered the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight al-Qaida, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces.

Three more U.S. soldiers were reported killed in combat, raising the number of American deaths to at least 122 for May, making it the third deadliest month for Americans in the conflict. The military said two soldiers died Wednesday from a roadside bomb in Baghdad and one died of wounds inflicted by a bomb attack northwest of the capital Tuesday.

Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military’s role in the fighting in the Sunni district. He said the battles raged Wednesday and Thursday but died off at night.

Although al-Qaida is a Sunni organization opposed to the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, its ruthlessness and reliance on foreign fighters have alienated many Sunnis in Iraq.

The U.S. military congratulated Amariyah residents for standing up to al-Qaida.

"The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They’re tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said.

A U.S. military officer, who agreed to discuss the fight only if not quoted by name because the information was not for release, said the Army was checking reports of a big al-Qaida enclave in Amariyah housing foreign fighters, including Afghans, doing temporary duty in Iraq.

U.S.-funded Alhurra television reported that non-Iraqi Arabs and Afghans were among the fighters over the past two days. Kuehl said he could not confirm those reports.

McCain pleased by S.C. poll numbers

13 Replies

Just got this release from the McCain campaign:

Exciting news: fresh polling numbers are just out from American Research Group, a national independent polling firm, for the three key primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
John McCain has surged ahead in all three states, posting his largest lead right here in the Palmetto State. Here are the new numbers:

South Carolina: McCain 32%, Giuliani 23%, F. Thompson 13%, Romney 10%

Iowa: McCain 25%, Giuliani 23%, Romney 16%

New Hampshire: McCain 30%, Romney 23%, Giuliani 21%

First numbers I’ve seen since the debate here. Has anybody seen any others?

Today’s immigration editorial

20 Replies

Hey, stop looking at that correction on today’s editorial page, and think about something else. How about a discussion of today’s lead editorial?

Compromise bill offers
best hope on immigration

THESE ARE PERILOUS times in America to try to work with those across the political aisle.
No one knows that more than the brave members of both parties who came together to try to forge a deal on one of the nation’s thorniest political issues: illegal immigration. They worked for weeks to try to balance the nation’s contradictory impulses and craft a balanced bill for Congress to debate. For their pains, they were pelted with invective as soon as the doors opened. Pro-immigration groups are fuming over some of the possible new restrictions, while anti-immigration groups have tossed about their own scarlet letter A, for “amnesty.” Sen. Jim DeMint particularly was eager to get his licks in before he had even read it.
This is all the more reason to praise their efforts, especially those of Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has taken considerable political risk. The only way in this environment that an immigration bill is going to pass is if a group of lawmakers from both parties who know how to take and hold the political center can come together. Anything that appeals to either extreme will fail to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate. More importantly, a centrist compromise — after a thorough debate, rather than being rushed through in a week — can include ideas from all sides.
And this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Our border is too open — to illegal immigrants who often fall prey to traffickers, to smuggled drugs and to intruders with criminal or even terrorist intentions. But that is only half of our problem. The nation has a shadow society already in place, with millions living here outside the bounds of the law. They build our businesses, drive our roads and seek help in our hospitals. Our economy encourages them to come and profits from their labor. The idea that those who wish to stay will be sent packing by the millions is ludicrous. We need a system that offers a route — not a shortcut, but an opportunity to be earned — to enter the legitimate world, where they pay all taxes and obey our laws.
This compromise bill offers a balanced way to do that, overall. It would greatly strengthen border enforcement, including an eventual doubling of the ranks of the Border Patrol. It calls for a tamper-proof ID that employers can check to know they are not hiring an illegal immigrant. It also calls for a new Z visa, which an illegal immigrant can obtain. But to keep it will require the visa holder to pay thousands of dollars in fines. Z visa holders would have to wait for the backlog of legal applicants to be processed before starting toward citizenship — a wait of eight years. That’s not amnesty; it’s paying some dues.
If anything, the bill has gone overboard to be punitive. The route to citizenship for those already here is too onerous to be effective: It would take a minimum of 13 years and cost at least $5,000 in reparations. Becoming a legal citizen, after breaking the law to sneak into the United States, shouldn’t be easy. But this bill lays out a path so long that it likely will not draw many illegals out of the shadows. That’s necessary if we really want to address this problem.
We hope that the Senate has the wisdom to improve the Z visa proposal and to reject the many amendments coming forward that are intended to sink the whole bill. Not every provision in this compromise plan is perfect, of course, but it seems the best chance for some time to craft the all-encompassing correction our immigration policy needs.

What? Is that not controversial enough for you? Do I have to come up with something else? Well, I’m busy, and that might take time. For now, chew on this instead.

Plucking at ‘conservative’ heartstrings

12 Replies

Lindsey Graham, trying very hard to sell the immigration deal to fellow Republicans, put out this release yesterday afternoon.

If he had wanted to put it more succinctly, he could have said, "Bill O’Reilly says it should pass, and The New York Times says it shouldn’t. What more do you people want?"

What is being said about
the Immigration Reform Bill
May 21, 2007

· Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard
   “In 2006, with Republicans in control of the Senate, an immigration bill that was anathema to most Republicans passed the Senate by a filibuster-proof margin. Now, oddly enough, with Democrats in charge, the Senate is likely to approve an immigration bill — call it Kyl-Kennedy — that from a Republican perspective represents a major improvement over the earlier bill in almost every conceivable way.”

· Fox News Channel Bill O’Reilly on the Compromise Legislation
“The bottom line here is that if the bill doesn’t pass, another ten million illegal aliens are going to come here in the next five years anyway. So the chaos we have now will double. The new immigration bill is unfair to those who’ve obeyed the rules. It is dangerous if not tightly controlled. And it is definitely amnesty. But if the bill does not pass, things will get even worse in America.”

· New York Times Opposes the Immigration Compromise
   “It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders.”

· Michael Barone in National Review
“In his negotiations with Kennedy, Kyl has secured many provisions that make this bill more stringent than the one that passed the Senate last May by a vote of 62 to 36. That’s a significant accomplishment. Changing U.S. public policy is like steering a giant ship — it’s impossible to sharply reverse course, but you can change the direction in a way that will make a significant difference over time.”

· Conservative Talk Radio Show Host Michael Medved
   “Do we want to encourage illegals to try to rectify their status – to come out of the shadows, play by the rules, pay all taxes due, learn English, and assimilate into our society? Or do we only want them to disappear – nursing the delusional fantasy that some 12 million human beings will somehow uproot themselves (in many cases after years of US residency) and return to their impoverished homelands simply because we want them to do so? And speaking of rewarding good behavior, and punishing the bad: those courageous conservatives (Senators Kyl, Graham, Isakson and, yes, McCain) who have worked constructively and seriously on immigration reform deserve our support, not our rage, while those politicians and media figures who have demagogued this issue in a way that only makes it worse, in no way merit our encouragement.”
______________________________
Kevin D. Bishop
Communications Director

And then there’s Fred Thompson

44 Replies

With all the talk we’ve had in the last few days of the Republicans who were at the presidential debate in Columbia, it’s interesting to pause and read Peggy Noonan’s column from Saturday, "The Man Who Wasn’t There." Here’s an excerpt:

He is running a great campaign. It’s just not a declared campaign. It’s a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn’t homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn’t it bad that colleges don’t teach military history? How about that Sarkozy — good news, isn’t it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they’re not heavy, not homework. They have an air of "This is the sound of a candidate thinking." That’s an unusual sound.

Regarding the Thompson video she talks about, here’s that link again.

She’s being a little naive on that one. His dig at Michael Moore wasn’t "almost . . . deliberately unclear." It was quite deliberately clear.

Immigration gap column

28 Replies

The GOP split between
rhetoric and reality

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
TUESDAY’S debate revealed a significant split in the Republican Party between Reality and Rhetoric, Ideas and Ideology.
Sen. John McCain was asked a question that sounded like it had been dreamed up by Tom Clancy: Would he, in a totally “what-if” scenario, torture prisoners to prevent a theoretical terrorist attack?
Sen. McCain, who has actually been tortured, for years on end, by a ruthless enemy, gave a thoughtful answer based on bitter experience: Knowing the United States would not do what the North Vietnamese were doing to him kept him going, kept him believing in his country and what it stood for. Besides, he didn’t want to give enemies an excuse to torture our troops.
Rep. Tom Tancredo said he would call the fictional Jack Bauer. Others were no more realistic. Their answers had nothing to do with winning a war and everything to do with stirring the blood.
Then there’s immigration.
During the debate, Sen. McCain — again — spoke of his work on the issue that most candidates, and most members of Congress, would rather rant than do anything about.
Two days later, he stood up with a bipartisan group of senators to announce a deal, months in the making, that represented the first attempt to address immigration comprehensively after a year of stalemate.
Immediately, the Big GOP Split reasserted itself with a thunderous crack. South Carolina’s U.S. senators illustrated the split. Lindsey Graham — who had been late for the debate Tuesday because the White House had asked him to stay and help hammer out the agreement — hailed the proposal as “the last, best chance we have, probably for decades, to fix immigration.”
Jim DeMint, sounding peeved at not having been in the room, was dismissive: “I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty.”
He didn’t know yet what was in the bill, but he knew the magic word for condemning it.
Sen. Graham had this to say about that: “Amnesty is a pardon and means all is forgiven. This legislation is not amnesty…. I hope all Senators, particularly those who were not part of the negotiations, will become more informed about the details of the bill before making incorrect statements. Here are the facts… . Illegal aliens will not be allowed to jump in line for citizenship ahead of those currently waiting. If they want to become citizens they must pay fines, learn English, pass a civics exam, undergo background checks and leave the United States and return to their country of origin. The punishment is fair and just. The public expects Members of Congress to speak their minds, but be informed in their opinions.”
That’s too much trouble for some. I asked Rep. Tancredo Friday morning, when he called into a radio show I was on, whether this compromise wasn’t better than doing nothing. He was unequivocal: “Doing nothing is better.”
I mentioned that to Sen. Graham Friday afternoon. “The Tancredo model never leads to a solution,” he said.
“I have decided, as a United States senator, to stand on principle, and try to solve problems. And they’re not inconsistent. One of the principles that made America great is that the problem-solvers have always been greater in number and will than the demagogues.”
He said, when a reporter asked, that he was not referring to Jim DeMint. “Jim is a very serious guy,” he said. But, he added, “one thing I would suggest is that before you enflame the public by using buzzwords, let’s look and see what we did.”
Shortly after Sen. Graham said that, Sen. DeMint put out another release, complaining that the negotiators were trying to rush the bill through without letting him and others see whether they could go for it (which may very well be what they’re doing). He raised the “A-word” again, but in a somewhat more conciliatory way: “As we understand it, this plan will grant amnesty… This can be fixed, but it will take time and there is no way the Senate can responsibly complete this debate in one week.”
On the presidential campaign trail, however, there was little appetite for closing gaps and getting things done. Mitt Romney wasn’t waiting around for details: “I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach.”
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign put out a statement purporting to address the proposal that was, to say the least, oblique: “The recent Fort Dix plot is a stark reminder that the threat of terrorism has made immigration an important matter of national security. We need to know who is coming in and who is going out of this country if we are going to deal with those who are here illegally.”
As Sen. McCain had said during the debate, the Fort Dix plotters didn’t all sneak into the country illegally. The issues are completely unrelated.
I don’t know what to do about illegal immigration. I want to see the laws enforced. I also want the laws to recognize reality.
In a different context, I asked former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee about the difference between being a governor and existing inside the Beltway: “You actually are going to have to do something” if you’re a governor, he said. “You don’t have the luxury of being an ideologue.”
Some inside the Beltway want to do something, too. They’ve made a dramatic effort in that direction with this immigration bill. I don’t know whether it’s the way to go or not. But I suspect that the biggest barrier facing it will be Republicans who prefer to luxuriate in ideology.

On the radio again, Friday morning

So THAT’S where ‘that little jerk’ was…

9 Replies

When John McCain was peering into the lights looking for "that little jerk" Lindsey Graham, his friend and ally was still on the way back from Washington.

It seems the White House had asked him to stick around to help at a critical moment in negotiations on an immigration deal. He had hoped to arrive in time to watch the debate, but by the time he got to Columbia, everything was over.

But he was pumped, knowing that the deal was finally done. He went on and on about it, keeping at least one supporter up into the wee hours, way past his bedtime, as he later complained.

McCain had referred during the intense negotiations during the debate, brushing off a suggestion that he was dodging the hot potato, noting that he had been involved in the talks as late as last Friday. He wasn’t in at the end, although his sidekick was.

I asked that same tired, worn-out old associate at lunch today when something would be announced. The news was out by the time we got back to our respective offices:

Bush Hails Deal
on Immigration Reform
WASHINGTON (AP) — Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border. The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S and a separate program to cover agricultural workers. Skills and education-level would for the first time be weighted over family connections in deciding whether future immigrants should get permanent legal status. New high-tech employment verification measures also would be instituted to ensure that workers are here legally.

John McCain is wrong about ONE thing…

13 Replies

John McCain is wrong about one issue that is of any personal importance to me: the Confederate flag. And of course the moderator in last night’s debate asked him, and only him, about it. That’s fitting, since a moderator should probe a candidate’s weak points in trying to get at the truth.

Fortunately for McCain — in terms of my vote, anyway — I don’t consider anyone’s position on that issue to be a qualification for the job of president of the United States. In fact, I’d prefer that presidential candidates stay out of the debate altogether.

Among the Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani has the right answer — to the extent that any non-South Carolinian could have the "right" answer. He says it’s a matter for South Carolinians to decide.

Indeed it is that and only that. That’s why I disagree so strongly with the NAACP’s approach — trying (without appreciable success, I might add) to get the rest of the world to FORCE the flag down by hurting South Carolina economically. Even if such a strategy worked — which it can’t, believe me — nothing would be accomplished. You’d still be left with a state perceived — and perceiving itself, sullenly, resentfully — as a place that WANTS to fly the flag, but has been forced not to.

I don’t care what happens to a piece of cloth. I live in a state that has profound political barriers to getting its act together and catching up to the rest of the country in terms of health, wealth, educational attainment, public safety, what have you. The attitudes that keep us from working together to address those issues meaningfully are closely related to the attitudes that keep that flag flying.

Only if we come together and say, "That’s not who we are anymore; we’re better than that," will we ever move forward as a people.

Sure, it would make me feel all warm and fuzzy to hear everybody — particularly people I like, such as John McCain — echoing my own personal attitudes on this and every other important issue. But it wouldn’t accomplish anything. In fact, on this issue outside voices can probably only make things worse, not better. That’s because of the xenophobia that is a corollary of the mentality that keeps the flag flying. You’ve seen the bumper stickers: "We don’t CARE how you did it up North."

John McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and wrestled too hard, ending up here, there, and all over the mat on the issue. It
was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.

I don’t mean that in a "go away and shut up, John" sense. But it has nothing to do with being president of the United States. Whatever opinion
he might have on that South Carolina matter should have no impact either on what we do about the flag, or on
whether he should be nominated and elected to the White House.

On issues that do have a bearing as to whether he should be
president, I find him to be far and away the best — among either
party’s candidates. For now.

I wrote the above thoughts, in somewhat sketchier form, in response to a comment on a previous post. Here’s how one of my more thoughtful correspondents replied:

Brad,

I’m struck by your post above re: McCain and the flag

“McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and
it was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.”

I find it puzzling that you would use Steve Spurrier’s uninvited
opinion on the flag as the impetus for a barrage of editorials but then
give the presidential candidates a pass on the issue.

Part of the point of primary politics is for voters to obtain a
close look at the candidates and have them take positions on local
issues. It is a very useful way to measure them, regardless of whether
the issue will ever come to them for a decision. Some of the national
issues will likely never come to them for a decision either-for
example, if the next president doesn’t appoint a Supreme Court justice,
it’s unlikely his or her opinion on abortion will have any impact.

You expect a president to have the wherewithal and decisiveness to
respond to another 9/11 attack but don’t feel they can be bothered to
be decisive about one of the most controversial issues in SC. Every
candidate should have a specific opinion (not just “it’s a state
matter”). McCain’s courage faltered in 2000 on this issue.
Unfortunately, it appears to be failing him again; I doubt he
personally believes that the flag should be anywhere on the State House
grounds given how much this issue pricked his conscience 8 years ago.
But he’s playing it safe in 2008, one of the reasons he’s a less
attractive candidate this time around.

Your willingness to accept McCain’s timidity about the flag makes me question your ability to view him objectively.

Posted by: Paul DeMarco | May 16, 2007 1:52:53 PM

As I said, Paul, Sen. McCain is clearly wrong on the issue.

As I also said, I don’t ask any candidate for president for his or her opinion about the flag. It’s irrelevant.

There are things he’s wrong about that ARE relevant — such as his willingness to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. That I have a problem with, as a voter considering who should be the next president. But I have greater problems on such relevant issues with every other candidate.

Spurrier lives in South Carolina, and is someone who — unfortunately, given that I think football is one of the least important things in the world — a lot of people in South Carolina listen to. He, like the 4 million other people in this state, has a right and an obligation to speak out as to what he wants our elected representatives to put on our State House lawn.

His comments were the first from a high-profile South Carolinian on the issue since everybody stopped talking about it in 2000. I mean, other than South Carolinians who are leaders in a NATIONAL organization — an organization which, because it was trying to use the outside world to coerce South Carolina into doing something, is the main obstacle to South Carolinians growing up on their own and putting this issue behind them.

Spurrier provided an opportunity to discuss this in another context. It was, and remains, my great hope that in the coming months, other prominent South Carolinians who are NOT trying to use a national boycott to force something that needs to happen voluntarily. If it doesn’t happen voluntarily, if South Carolina does not evolve to the point that collectively, we WANT to do this voluntarily, then absolutely nothing of value will be achieved.

Comments from Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd or John McCain are simply not a part of that discussion, but instead a distraction. The only reason they are asked about such things is because journalists on deadline are not a terribly reflective lot. They think, "They’re in South Carolina, and this is a controversial issue in South Carolina." It never occurs to them that it’s not an issue that has anything to do with the presidency. (This is an issue I’ve written about in other contexts — it’s now become a standard mindless ritual in the media to ask the president to comment on everything, from his underwear to the Columbine shootings, when such things have nothing at all to do with the president’s duties or responsibilities.)

As for abortion — well that IS a more relevant presidential issue than the flag, but only because the flag isn’t a presidential issue at all. As you say, Paul, the president’s only involvement with abortion is nominating Supreme Court justices, because of Roe. (If NOT for Roe, it would be a more legitimate political issue, and that is what it should be. The Court should never have removed it from the political branches.)

That said, I will not cast my own vote exclusively according to a candidate’s position on abortion. It will be one of many things I consider in making my decision about a candidate, but the candidate I choose could end up being someone who disagrees with me on that one issue.

I hope at this point to vote for McCain, with whom I happen to agree on the abortion issue, among many other issues.

But among the Republicans, my distant second choice would be Giuliani. Suppose McCain is no longer in the race when the primaries roll around. I could see looking to Giuliani instead. His stance on abortion would not prevent that.

Since THAT, which is more relevant to the job, would not deter me, why would the Confederate flag issue? As I say, I’m more likely to be bothered by the tax cut stance. I don’t feel passionately about taxes the way I do about the flag, but it IS actually relevant.

I would assert that this is the objective way to look at things — reasoning them out, as opposed to going on the basis of mere passion. I could certainly be wrong about that, of course, since an individual is probably the least disinterested judge on the matter of whether he is disinterested.

Would I like it more if McCain were "right" about the flag (and "right" is saying what Giuliani says, which is that it’s a South Carolina matter)? Absolutely. Immensely. But once more, that’s more about how it would FEEL, rather than about the conclusions I reach when I THINK about candidates and try to choose between them.

I hate it when this happens

28 Replies

Generally speaking, I don’t agree with libertarians. But occasionally, I see things that way in spite of myself.

An example is “hate crimes.” It’s just unAmerican — downright Orwellian, in fact — to punish a person for his opinions rather than for what he did.

The majority in the Congress disagrees, as we saw today.

This puts me in another awkward position — agreeing with a partisan position. I haven’t seen a breakdown of the vote yet, but so far it seems to be Republicans who are putting out releases that denounce the outcome.

As much as I detest the rhetorical excesses to which parties resort to make their points, on this one I think the dissenters had a point. A release from Rep. Joe Wilson echoed the party line when it was headlined, “Wilson Opposes Thought Crimes Legislation.”

Like I said, Orwellian.

But this is a really funky issue. Here I am agreeing for once with the libertarian, don’t-tell-me-how-to-think position, but some avowed libertarians are taking the opposite tack:

Washington, DC — The American Civil Liberties Union today cheered the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, with strong bipartisan support. This legislation would allow federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute hate crimes offenses in cases where local law enforcement lacks the resources, or in some cases the willingness to do so.

That makes me feel a little better.

Now, let me see if I can help you feel better, in case you’re one of the many very nice people who think “Hate Crime” legislation is a good idea, and that I must be a really mean person to disagree…

If a person commits a murder, it should not matter — in a society guided by the rule of law — whether that person holds opinions that we regard as utterly abhorrent. The criminal justice system should be blind to such things, concentrating on actions rather than attitudes.

If people hold offensive opinions, let’s try to change their hearts and minds. But let’s save the punitive power of the criminal justice system for when they DO something bad, rather than THINK something bad.

And yes, the legislation goes out of its way to reaffirm our rights to free speech. But why do they need reaffirming, unless the overall bill implies otherwise? Which it does.

And the fact is, something like this does have a chilling effect on speech. I hesitated to write this because it can be so easily misunderstood. (You’re sticking up for those people? Well, no I’m not; I’m sticking up for impartial law.) And in the end, what the hell? If we have yet another reason to throw the book at a murderous monster, it’s not a thing to lose sleep over, right? Except that that’s not how our system of justice is supposed to work, or so I grok.

That’s what I think, anyway. But I could easily be wrong, since I am taking the libertarian position here…

Whatever you do, don’t dial this number!

8 Replies

I‘m going to have to be extra careful not to accidentally call the governor from my contacts list. The consequences to the nation of his hearing his phone ring could be dire.

I just got this release:

For Immediate Release

May 3, 2007

Gov. Sanford Says He Would Answer the
Call to Run for Veep Should His Phone Ring

Says Of Those Who Claim Otherwise, “I
don’t think they’re being honest ”

Columbia SC…In a taped
interview that aired on ETV’s The Big
Picture program Thursday night at 7:30
p.m., Gov. Mark Sanford told managing editor and host Andrew
Gobeil that if he were contacted by the 2008
Republican Presidential candidate, offering him the position of vice president
on the ticket, he would take that call.

“If somebody called, it’s about like a bolt of lightning
coming in your direction. Of course you’d take the call. And people who say…I
wouldn’t even take the call, I don’t think they’re being honest.”

Sanford acknowledged that his name is being floated as a
potential vice-presidential candidate-by friend and foe alike. “It’s been
bandied about by both friends and supporters,” he said. “Some who love you keep
throwing your name out there. And others who really don’t like you throw it out
there," the governor laughed. "So, it depends on the perspective."

Still, Sanford doesn’t appear to be hovering by the
phone, awaiting the nod. “I don’t believe there’s a chance in the world that it
will happen,” he told Gobeil. “So, we’re living our lives accordingly, quite
busy with four boys at the house and the budget cycle that we are in the middle
of.”

###

Of course, the consequences to SC would be worse. You know who is next in line to be governor, don’t you?

Democratic Debate Column

52 Replies

Orangeburg debate just
a start, but a good one

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
AS BOB COBLE walked out of a breakfast meeting Friday, the bearlike New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson placed him in a loose, amiable headlock and asked what he would have to do to get him to support his bid for the presidency.
“You’ll have to squeeze harder than that,” I thought. As the governor knew, the Columbia mayor is a John Edwards man.
But for those who had not made up their minds, the “debate” in Orangeburg Thursday night was a better-than-expected opportunity to begin the winnowing process.
Eight candidates in 90 minutes is patently ridiculous. But those who planned and executed it, from South Carolina State University to MSNBC, can take pride in making the most of the situation.
National media, as expected, focus on which of the “two candidates,” Hillary or Obama (like Madonna, they no longer need titles or full names), came out on top. Some stretch themselves and mention ex-Sen. Edwards.
OK, let’s dispense with that: Sen. Clinton presented no surprises, rock star Obama came across as pretty stiff playing in this orchestra — nothing of his usual, charismatic rolling thunder. Ex-Sen. Edwards did his usual shtick.
But some of us tuned in to learn something new. I did. And I didn’t care which of the overexposed, anointed titans of fund-raising would be a more ideologically pure party standard-bearer. Those of us who spurn both parties — in other words, those of us who actually decide national elections — were looking for someone we might vote for (if such a person survives the partisan gantlet far enough to give us the chance). We’ll be looking for the same when the Republicans meet at the Koger Center May 15.
I don’t think any of us got any conclusive answers. But the questions posed were good enough to provide some impressions, however scattered, that at least made the event worth the time invested:

Best new impression: I had heard good things about Gov. Richardson, but not met him before. The debate, plus his call-in to a radio show I was on Friday morning, made me want to find out more. I liked the fact that he was real, honest and unscripted, perhaps the result of being a governor and actually dealing with real problems instead of living in Washington’s 24-hour partisan echo chamber.

Best old impression: Could Sen. Joe Biden contain his gift of gab well enough to play well with others on such a crowded stage without his head exploding? “Yes.” Since I’ve heard him speak in our own board room for two hours almost without pause, this was a pleasant surprise. I’ve always liked the guy, but this is one Irishman who didn’t just kiss the Blarney Stone; he took it home with him.

Commander in chief? I expected the candidates to compete to see who was most against our involvement in Iraq and for the longest time. But if it’s fairly judged, Dennis Kucinich wins that pointless contest hands-down. It’s also a barrier to me, since I consider giving up in Iraq to be anathema. So I looked to see who was leaving themselves any room to present a more credible position in the general election, when it’s no longer necessary to court moveon.org. The winners of that contest: Sen. Biden, followed by Sen. Obama.

Second funniest moment: The look in John Edwards’ eyes when he acknowledged being filthy rich, just before going into his nostalgic boilerplate about having been poor once upon a time. This is a much-rehearsed look for him, intended to look like wide-eyed candor. But it struck me like, You bet I’m rich, and lovin’ it, too. Probably an anomaly in the camera angle.

Making Kucinich sound reasonable: A writer on Slate.com summed it up better than I can, as follows: “When the candidates were asked who owned a gun, (Ex-Sen. Mike) Gravel was one of those who raised his hand. ‘I was worried that he meant he had one with him at the moment,’ said a senior adviser to a top candidate.” I hadn’t gotten around to including a link to this particular candidate on my blog. After Thursday night, I don’t think I’ll bother.

Common sense: You could tell who really wanted to be president. They raised their hands to say they believed there’s such a thing as a global War on Terror, and didn’t raise their hands to support Dennis the Menace’s move to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Outside of partisan blogs there’s something we call the real world; everyone except Rep. Kucinich showed that they live in it at least part-time.

The most enduring litmus test: Even after all the times I’ve seen and heard this, the grip of the abortion lobby on the Democratic Party still strikes me as astounding. Is there any greater demonstration of the power of party uber alles than hearing a Roman Catholic such as Sen. Biden emphatically saying, “I strongly support Roe v. Wade,” and asserting complete faith in the existence of a right to privacy in the Constitution?

South Carolina’s shame: Only one thing was mentioned all night that let you know this took place in South Carolina — the Confederate flag at our State House. So much for our wish to build a new image based on hydrogen research and the like.

The event helped me begin to focus on this process, which has been easy to ignore with everything going on in South Carolina. There will be many debates, interviews and other opportunities before the winnowing is done. Whether this newspaper will support, or whether I personally will vote for, any of these candidates is a question that it is far too soon to answer.
But this was a start.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits