June 26, 2005
Aren't You Dead?
Reports of my demise have been only mildly exaggerated...
How else to say it? I've been in recovery for overblogging, and only now am beginning the 12th step - reblogging. Frankly, post election, a sort of malaise about politics and world events has grabbed hold and made political goings-on seem rather meager.
The last couple months have felt like the long deep breath before the plunge. As great effort is expended on rather small things, I've felt disinclined to take part in discussions without great merit. The great evil of our times lies dormant now, as we worry about freakish black men who dress like Captain Crunch or fillibustering circuit court nominees, or whether a UN that is in desperate need of hard charging housecleaning can tolerate a hard charging housecleaner. I worry that these are the days we will forget when that great challenge of our times awakens. Terrorism and the wars against the West will not forever sleep.
Without further adieu, let's catch up on some things...
Michael Jackson - as we predicted, the only way Jackson was going to get convicted was if the jury was a ringer. And it wasn't. In this kind of case, it comes down to credibility, and the accuser and his family have none. This jury was quite ready to believe that Jackson took advantage of children. But in order to make that leap, the testimony has to be believable. Instead, the accuser and his family came across like grasping ogres, especially the mother. Alot of breathless outrage has come from certain television types (read Nancy Grace) that is almost fanatical - how can they find him not guilty? It's just like OJ or Robert Blake, some say - except it utterly is not. In those cases, we know without a doubt that a crime was committed - we have the corpses to prove it. In this case, the crime itself is in doubt, which brings it down to a case of credibility of witnesses and strong corroborative evidence. There simply wasn't any.
Fillibustering judges - this is one of the most poorly understood issues of our time. When people start making charges or claims of (un)constitutionality, watch out, because few really know how to read the document. Some Republicans claim that fillibustering judges is somehow unconstitutional - this is hard to understand as the act is clearly not proscribed in the document. Some Democrats claim that fillibustering is their constituitional right - which it is only in the same vein that locking yourself in your bathroom and writhing nude in green jello is a constitutional right. Here is the straight skinny - the manner of approving judges nominated by the President is a matter entirely in the control of the Senate itself. If the Senate wants to allow fillibustering of judges, it may. If it wants to disallow fillibustering, it may. If the Founders wanted to require a super-majority in the Senate to approve judges, it would have delineated that in the document, as it does for other Senate functions such as overriding Presidential vetoes or ratifying treaties. Thus, the argument that a fillibuster applies to a judicial nominee isn't unconstitutional, merely extra-constitutional. It is up to the Senate itself how to proceed in these matters. The fillibuster is an internal housekeeping mechanism that can be controlled by the Senate as they see fit.
John Bolton - why isn't this guy confirmed yet? This is an embarassment for the White House and shows a real disconnect from what should be a powerful doubleteam with the Republican Legislative branch. Not only is Bill Frist a very unremarkable Senate leader, he is unable to move the President's business in the Senate. When the White House let Trent Lott twist in the wind in order to get a friendlier, more pliable hand in the Senate, it traded in a Senate mover and shaker who they had to deal with for a guy who'd make any deal with them but has yet to prove he can move or shake the Senate to the President's tune. Bolton is an acceptable nominee who has been approved with little fanfare in the past by the Senate. If the President wants him through, he needs to revamp the White House communication mechanisms and make a forceful case. Go on television, announce you are tired of the delays, that your opponents are acting in a cowardly manner, and they need to make their speeches, make their cases, take the vote, and move on with the people's business.
Flag burning - does the United States House of Representatives have nothing else to do but spend time on this pointless amendment? Do we really need to look like hysterical reactionaries who cannot tolerate the stupidity of others who desecrate symbols? Are we just like the Islamist fanatics who rioted and killed because
Rendition/torture/Gitmo - are you serious? This is almost to silly to discuss. Let me get everyone in on the dirty little secret - in every war this nation has ever fought, if you were captured and considered to have high value intelligence, whatever was needed to get it from you was done. Period. Folks, let's stop the handwringing and the compunction convention and grow up. Bad men hoping to do bad things are out there, and when they are captured, and we believe there is strong evidence that they are holding information that threatens the lives of Americans, they are going to get the rough stuff. Anyone who disputes this is fanicifully disengaged from what the United States and the West will be facing in the future. Here's the question you want to ask those who cannot bear the notion that someone might have a boot in their ass in Guantanamo: if, on September 10th, you had captured Mohammad Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers, and believed he had knowledge of an impending attack that might kill Americans, would you authorize all measures to obtain the information? Anyone who answers "no" is putting their personal compunctions above the safety of Americans. It's one thing to risk your own life for one's contrition, it's another thing to risk the lives of others for it.
The Bush Administration, Part II - I've never seen a more potent machine grind to a halt faster than the Bush Administration early in it's second term. A critical lesson has not been learned - you use your political momentum to push items and issues across the finish line in your direction, you don't exhaust it to merely get an issue moving. The Bush Administration insistence on expending it's energy on moving Social Security reform has indeed got that issue moving - but the Administration has no energy left to keep the issue moving, or move it in the direction they seek. The President should have merely put the issue on the agenda, made some speeches, and let the issue slowly gather it's own momentum. Instead, the issue is moving but with nobody left with energy to move it, it's going to slowly lose momentum until someone comes along to give it another push. This loss of energy has meant the Administration doesn't have the political juice to push hard on other topics. We have long bemoaned the state of White House communications. We hoped the return of Karen Hughes would remedy the situation. It has not. Scott "Revenge of the Nerds" McClellan is putting the nation to sleep on a daily basis with his defeated soft selling of the President's policies. The White House has Senator Frist milquetoasting it up in the Senate, whereas the House is still an area the White House can move it's agenda but only because of the more dynamic nature of that body.
President Hillary Clinton - puhLEEZ. The poll that was released showing the purported electability of Hillary Clinton was one of the most tortured scenarios and use of polling ever seen. It purpoted that 30% of conservatives would vote for her. HUH? Look, we like Hillary as a Senator from New York - she's been a centrist, competent, well spoken, smart lady. But she is utterly unelectable at the national level. Perhaps this poll fulfilled a few dreams on the coasts of a return of Bill and Hill to the House, but... no. First - when did the White House become a dynastic office? We're getting to be like Pharoahs, with the rule of Bush the Elder, followed by Clinton the Naughty, pharaoh Bush II, and the rule of Clinton of the Nile. Enough, we don't want Jeb Bush in 2008, we don't want Hillary Clinton in 2008. Yet for all of that, it really comes down to this - what state did John Kerry lose in 2004 that Hillary Clinton is going to win? It is simply an untenable argument to state with a serious face that Hillary is a competitive national candidate. If Hillary was smart, she'd attempt to come in on the undercard...
We had other little observations during our absence - Microsoft helping China censor it's internet access (obscene), taking private property in order to pave the way for someone else's private property (obscene), the idiocy of Senator Dick (earned that moniker) Durbin alluding US policy and actions toward genocidal acts of Communist regimes (obscene)... it's this kind of malodorous nonsense that makes one long for a good book and a news-free night.
Posted by MEC2 at June 26, 2005 07:21 PM