Category: National

The Beltway

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I heard a story on Talk of the Nation today about the firing of federal prosecutors (Blog of the Nation post). The thing that caught my attention was that they were going to discuss how different the coverage on this story was "outside the beltway." If anyone is unfamiliar with the term – "inside the beltway" is Washington D.C. (specifically the politicians) and "outside the beltway" is the rest of us. Unsurprisingly the conclusion was that this story was getting much less coverage from the rest of us. As I heard that I think I know why that is. I believe that most people outside the beltway hear about these kinds of stories and think "oh boy, another stupid move by a politician – why am I not surprised."

I then wondered why this should be so newsworthy inside the beltway. Surely they are even more aware of the constant stream of questionable decisions by politicians. My best guess is that they find it newsworthy not because they are surprised by the news, but because they enjoy the circus they live in. They do not care about the latest poor decision so much as they care about how the whole political establishment will react and what the outcome will be. They just want to know whose job is on the line and who will benefit politically from the mess.

Perhaps I’m cynical, but if I’m right it’s no wonder nothing really serious can get done in Washington D.C. for the right reasons anymore.

Tags current events, NPR, reactions, thoughts

culture National

Partisan Playground

Three days after the elections I get an email calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It sounded a lot like playground politics. "You impeached our president so now that we are in control of congress we will impeach yours." I thought it was typical of staunch partisans that they would exaggerate their position from the outset. The email started with:

"On Election Day, the American people voted overwhelmingly for change." (emphasis mine)

I wonder about the threshold they use for "overwhelming." The fact is that if every race that remains undecided were to fall to the Democrats there would be 42 seats that changed hands in the House and the Senate combined. That is only 8% of the 535 seats in Congress. Only 6% of the Senate changed and 10% of the House. That sounds like a vote for change, but not an overwhelming vote for change. In fact, 25% of the seats that changed were still in doubt after 24 hours. (All the numbers I am using assume that every seat still in doubt goes blue.) To make this vote less overwhelming, the talk now is how the incoming Democrat representative are pragmatic and populist more than liberal. We really don’t know what to expect from this new Democrat controlled congress. See Update

I visited the forum where the email originated and found more level-headed thought being expressed. Things along the lines of, "President Bush deserves to be impeached, but it won’t accomplish anything positive in the country, so don’t bother."

Nancy Pelosi, likely the next Speaker of the House, has indicated that she will not pursue impeachment. Level-headed people from across the political spectrum will agree with her that impeachment is not a good course of action for the country at this time. The partisan impeachment proceedings against President Clinton should serve as proof of why we should not go down that road right now. At least when the Republican congress impeached Clinton they could be forgiven for having no memory of the last time we had an impeachment. This Democratic congress has no such excuse.

I looked around the forum site and they had a poll for people to vote on what they would like to see happen in the first 100 days of the new congress. They categorized the various suggestions. I discovered an interesting trend as I read the options. I found that I agreed or disagreed with them on a category by category basis.

Constitution & Courts
- I disagree heartily with almost every option
- I especially disagree with the constitutional amendments they propose
Economy, Business, Labor
- I agree with some of the options
- I am undecided on some of the options
- I disagree with a couple of the options
Elections
- I agree with almost all the options
- I disagree with one option and think a couple of options are redundant
Energy & Environment
- I am undecided on the majority of the options
Foreign & Military Policy
- Many of the options sound like vague ideals rather than solid plans
- I agree with their positions on torture
Government & Congress
- I agree with most of the options
Investigations
- Lots of redundancy related to the Iraq war
- Many of the options sound like they are living in the past
Media
- Sounds like a bunch of ways to expand government
Social Policy
- Sounds exactly like the Democratic party line

This got me wondering what kind of people were running the forum. The answer came in a different poll they had. This one asked who they would vote for in 2008 for president. The answer was overwhelmingly Al Gore. He got more than 1/3 of the votes with 13 candidates in the poll. Hilary Clinton (supposedly the front runner) was not even in second place on this poll, she got less than 1/8 of the votes. So these are Gore Democrats. This is nothing against Al Gore, he merely represents one faction of the Democratic party. The question is, what do the Pelosi Democrats think, or what do the Dean Democrats (the official party leadership) think? Lest anyone see this as bias, Republican factions include the McCain Republicans, Frist Republicans, and Mehlman Republicans.

UPDATE 11/14: I just found confirmation of what I had said about how overwhelming this vote for change was.

The scale of this loss was on par with the post-war average for such elections: close to 30 House seats versus the average of 32, and likely six Senate seats compared to the average of eight.

In elections during which the president’s popularity was low because of war, scandal or recession, however, the average is 47 House seats and eight Senate seats.

This "overwhelming vote for change" was about average, if not a little below average for the current situation.

Tags parties, reactions

National

More Good News

Here is some more good news within the GOP. Dick Cheney’s word is no longer gospel. He seems to be going the way of Karl Rove. I only wish that this article could have been true three years ago.

Tags Cheney, reactions

National

Bi-partisan Government

I read an article earlier today (can’t find it now, but that’s not important) stating that the likelihood of the House of Representatives coming under the control of the Democrats after the November elections has gone from being a long shot to being a distinct possibility. As that has simmered in the back of my brain I have begun to think of the merits of having the government not be controlled by a single party. I began to ask myself, "if I could choose which party would control the Senate and which party would control the House, what would I choose?" I’m not sure how I would answer that, but I think that I would probably choose to have them controlled by different parties.

What I am sure of is that between the presidency and the two houses of congress each of the major parties should be in control of at least one of the bodies – thus forcing the various governmental bodies to compromise in order to make things happen.

The next question I asked myself is, "would this administration be better if their party did not control both houses of congress?" Again, I have no answer, but I am beginning to think that I would like to see if that is the case. I am fairly confident that it would not be a major setback to the country (although it might be a major setback to the Republican party). Sadly, in our current environment I don’t think we would see a real positive change if the House changed hands this fall. Since President Bush cannot run for another term, and since nobody is under any illusion that Dick Cheney will become President, the likely result of a Democrat-controlled House would not be working with the President, instead I would expect the Democrats to just wait out the next two years until we get a new President.

One other consideration is that at least those in the House have some incentive to do something because they will face re-election in another two years. If it were the Senate which changed hands, they might be even more willing to wait since their six year terms would guarantee that most of them would still be in office after the new President took over the White House.

If either the Senate or the House change hands I hope that it will force the Republicans to rethink their position and come back toward the center as a party. I think the Democrats have already been forced into such a position because of their repeated failure to gain control of any government body over the last few election cycles. If one of the houses does change hands, I hope we will see lively debate in Washington rather than stubborn bickering between the parties.

Tags parties

National State

Back Door Legislation or The Root of Judicial Activism

Post author By David
Post date October 6, 2005
2 Comments on Back Door Legislation or The Root of Judicial Activism

If there is anyone who still reads this blog they will be well aware that I have been lousy at posting anything in the last month or so. I have been working on various other projects and purposely leaving this site dormant for the present, but I am compelled to post after I heard that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is hearing a lawsuit on gay marriage. The court is being used as a vehicle to try to get a 1913 law thrown out which prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not residents of Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home states.The argument is that the law is being used to discriminate against gay couples. Unfortunately this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the law is being used to discriminate against gays then it should be applied equitably rather than being repealed. These plaintiffs need to prove that heterosexual couples who would not be allowed to marry a home are being given marriage licenses in Massachusetts.

It is easy to see that the agenda operating behind this is not deterred by state boundaries. This is nothing more than a step to legalize gay marriage throughout the country. If this suit succeeds there will be couples from around the country who come to Massachusetts to marry and then complain in their home states that they are facing discrimination. Nobody can argue that this is not the case because the plaintiffs include eight out of state couples. This will happen despite the fact that there is already a federal law stating that one state is not obligated to recognize marriages performed in another state.

I will attempt to walk a very fine line here. I do not wish this to be viewed as a homophobic posting. Unfortunately I cannot claim to know and love a large number of gay people (that would strengthen my argument) but I would hope that it can be said that I treat all gay people with whom I come in contact with the same respect that any human being deserves. I might add that this is the same respect which I withold from bigots of every type. I abhor bigotry and hope never to be guilty of it. That being said I want to address this suit in the light of judicial activism.

Suits like this are the very thing that give rise for judges to exercise any pre-disposisiton towards judicial activism. If this suit has merit the proper course of action would be to have the law rewritten or applied fairly. The plaintiffs have expressed their intention – which is to have the law annulled. If they fully win their case activist judges on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts can use it as an excuse to rule that the law be removed rather than corrected and enforced properly.

Anyone who nievely argues that this case stops at Massachusetts must ask themselves what a gay couple gains by going to Massachusetts to get married if they then return to their home state knowing that their marriage will not be recognized. The answer is that they gain nothing except more leverage in their fight to legalize gay marriage in their home states. This is not the correct way to go about changing the law. If you want a legal gay marriage move somewhere that it is already legal. If you want to legalize gay marriage live within the bounds of the law and push for legislation to make gay marriage legal where you live.

We have an estalished process for the passage of laws. If a majority of people believe in something it will become law. We have checks in place to minimize the chance for majorities to trample the rights of minorities, but the judicial system is to interpret law and not write it through opinion. If the 1913 law should be repealed that should happen through a vote of the legislature or a ballot initiative. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger understood that when he vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage because the people of California had already passed a proposition stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The governor argued rightly that “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.” It can also be said that we cannot have a system where the people vote and judges derail the vote once it has passed by a super-majority.

Tags courts, gay marriage, issues, Massachusetts, reactions

National

Nomination and Confirmation

Post author By David
Post date July 21, 2005
No Comments on Nomination and Confirmation

Well, we’ve had the name of John Roberts as the niminee for the opening on the Supreme Court bench for a couple of days now. I have tried to give myself some time to gather some information and draw some conclusions before I posted my thoughts in this nomination. The main questions were: (1)should John Roberts be confirmed? and (2)will John Roberts be confirmed?My personal answers at this time are: (1)I still don’t have enough information to say for sure and (2)probably.

John Roberts has the objective credentials to be a supreme court justice. There are those who might complain about a lack of experience, but really we could do much worse on experience. So far the democratic senators who have spoken up seem to indicate that they will not make this a nasty confirmation. They have both the right and the responsibility to question Judge Roberts thoroughly during the confirmation hearings but it appears that they will not resort to a filibuster which means that he will probably be confirmed.

Now, because of how little I have been able to learn about this man with the thin judicial resume, the question has been raised in my head: is the way to get people appointed to the supreme court in these days of divisive politics to find someone who has a scant record who you hope will do what you want (based on your own ideological leaning) but who has very little for the opposition to oppose? That seems to be the formula here. I do not mean to imply that Judge Roberts is unqualified or even that the president might think him unqualified but dependable. I am saying that one of the reasons that I believe this nomination will succeed, and possibly one of the reasons that it was made, is because the liberals may have their objections and suspicions but they have very little ammunition from Roberts’ short tenure as a federal judge.

Hopefully I have made it clear what I am referring to when I ask: does our political situation dictate that this is how to make things happen? And if so: is it a safe situation to require that a judge have a short track record if he is to survive the confirmation process?

Tags nominations, questions, reactions, Supreme Court

National

The Power of the Minority

Post author By David
Post date January 18, 2005
No Comments on The Power of the Minority

I am very interested in the moves that the democrats will make as they try to get back to their winning ways. I found an interesting perspective by David Brooks in the New York times.

I really expect that American Politics are largely going to be determined – for better or worse – by what the Democrats end up doing in their efforts to start winning majorities at the national level.

Tags media, New York Times, parties

National

The Fastest Way Out

I drive around the city and see a smattering of yard signs saying “Bring the troops home now.” I feel that those who post the signs do not care about the welfare of the Iraqis. No matter how bad their lives are now with insurgents, the worst course of action we could take would be to walk away right now. After reading Friedman’s “Pop-Tarts or Freedom?” I had an interesting thought about those who display those signs. Undoubtedly those who post the signs disagree with the Bush administration regarding the war in Iraq. Friedman suggests that the fastest way to get the troops home is to hold elections. If people believe that then these people who don’t support the administration would have to support the stance of the administration in not postponing the Iraqi elections.

Tags international, Iraq, issues

National

A Little Prophecy

In one of his last columns William Safire makes an interesting prophecy about the political future of our nation. He says, “If I were starting out in politics or its commentary today, I’d become a Democrat.” Coming from one of the most staunchly Republican pundits I have ever read, that is an interesting statement.

His reasons offer a ray of hope to the democratic party today and a voice of warning to the Republicans who currently hold power. To the republicans he says, “The G.O.P. personality will split in a couple of years, as all huge majorities do in America. Idealistic neocons will be challenged by plodding, pragmatic paleocons, who, by fuzzing the party’s present character, will someday lead it down the road to defeat.” and to the Democrats he suggests that they can begin to win again if they will “take advantage of its bantamweight agility and ‘stand for something.'”

In some ways I am starting out in politics in that I figure that I still have at least 30 years worth of political participation ahead of me. I could not agree more with Mr. Safire that joining the Republicans represents jumping onto an old champion racehorse – lots of victories behind it, but not many left in front of it. Siding with the Democrats gives the newcomer an opportunity to help shape an up-and-coming champion which will start to produce greater and greater victories so long as discipline and principles are vigilantly maintained.

Tags media, New York Times, parties

National

The Election is Over

At the (earlier than expected) conclusion of this election season, I just thought I would add a thought in reaction to the ending. I hope that President Bush will be as gracious in his victory speach as Senator Kerry was in his concession speach. I hope that he talks about unifying the nation – as his opponenet did – but more importantly I hope the president follows such talk through with real action.

As for John Kerry, I think that he displayed real class in acknowledging when victory was out of reach and also in not buckling early while victory seemed remote but not impossible. I was prepared to wait for days while the provisional ballots were counted in Ohio. John Kerry made that possibility less disturbing by calmly allowing the process to proceed without crying foul or vowing to win at all cost or any other thing he could have done to make this election ugly. Before he cried for unity in his concession speach, John Kerry refrained from sowing dischord and thus displayed some of the qualities that make him a remarkable American.

My hat is off to this brave and determined competitor and citizen.

Tags 2004, elections