Kevin worries that using John Bolton’s malevolent personality as a reason for scuttling the nomination is bad news for us because it gives people like Bill Kristol an excuse to make the argument that Democrats are sissies.
It seems to me that nominations are almost always scuttled on trivial charges rather than the substantive ones. Nowadays, people are creating nanny problems for troubled nominees who don’t even have nannies. There seems to be a unspoken agreement that nominees will be allowed to bow out for some mistake or character quirk rather than a charge of incompetence or malfeasance. Perhaps it’s a strange form of face saving for the president who nominated the person.
And anyway, this isn’t really the Democrats’ play. As we all know, if it were only Democrats opposing Bolton he’d be in New York destroying the UN as we speak. It’s Republicans who are standing in Bolton’s way and it’s Republicans who Kristol is really taunting with that painfully stupid “girly-man” line.
I guess Voinovich is a girly man by Kristol’s standards, but he looks like a he-man to everybody else. He’s bucking a very powerful Republican machine and that takes cojones. That’s what Kristol is trying to stop. Who knows what might happen if the Republican moderates really start to flex their muscles?
The Bush administration issued a veto threat again Tuesday against a popular highway bill, saying the president would be likely to reject any legislation that exceeds a White House-set spending ceiling or adds to the deficit.
The administration, in saying the legislation “should exhibit funding restraint,” was at odds with many in Congress, including some conservatives, who say the deteriorating state of the nation’s roads, bridges and public transport demands more aggressive spending.
[…]
The bill currently on the Senate floor, like the House bill passed in March, approves $284 billion over a six-year period for highway, mass transit and safety programs. The White House says anything above that number would subject the legislation to a veto.
It issued a second veto threat Tuesday on any new borrowing that “negatively impacts the deficit.”
[…]
The popularity of the bill was demonstrated when the Senate voted 94-6 on Tuesday to proceed with it. All six voting no were Republicans, several because they said the bill was too expensive.
But the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, James Inhofe, R-Okla., said, “Those of us who are conservatives really believe this is something we should be doing here.”
Man, that codpiece is tight. Junior’s not gonna let a renegade Republican Majority pass that deficit spending crap. He’s tellin’ ’em to straighten up and fly right, damn it.
Still, with a vote of 94-6, it’s a little but unusual for a president to issue a veto threat since it could easily be over-ridden. How odd.
But hey, guys like Inhofe can at least say they voted for the highway bill which is almost as good as actually passing one. And heck, even if they end up passing one, The Big Kahuna shows that he’s a tough guy, which is almost as good as actually being one.
I must admit that I too am very excited about Ariana Huffington’s new blog. As Roger Ailes put it so well:
The “MSM” has for too long silenced the voices of Jann Wenner, Barry Diller, Walter Cronkite and Norman Mailer.
Tony Blankely for too long has been denied a platform to slander George Soros.
Where else could Conrad Black’s dogsbody, David Frum, find a space to suck up to his beleaguered master?
Where else would Michael Medved find an wide audience for his completely sane theory that “oil companies are always anti-semitic.”
Where would the malnourished John Fund find a buffet that hasn’t blacklisted him?
And where but such a blog could Mort Zuckerman publish his thoroughly researched, scholarly papers on tort reform?
Finally, a forum for those who’ve been shut out of the dialog for far too long. This could be the blogging breath of fresh air that could finally shake up the establishment.
As the New York Times reports:
Having prominent people join the blogosphere, Ms. Huffington said in an interview, “is an affirmation of its success and will only enrich and strengthen its impact on the national conversation.”
Absolutely. None of these people have nearly enough influence on the national conversation. It’s long past time they spoke out.
Update: Lest anyone think I’m being a snotty nobody, let it be known that I think it’s great that Democrats (which Huffington now proudly calls herself) are putting some money into countering Drudge. But I do think the idea that these people need a separate media platform to be heard is kind of hilarious. Is anyone in the least bit in the dark about what Tony Blankley thinks about everything?
I am, on the other hand, curious to see if Maggie Gyllenhall has anything interesting to say. She was one of the few celebs who had the guts to speak out against the Iraq war when she was getting an acting award (Independent Spirit) so I find her admirable. Everybody ese, except for the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore were disgustingly chickenshit. So, I’ll give her posts a read, out of appreciation for her courage if nothing else.
Citing Yglesias for the second time (how does he do it?) I have to wholeheartedly agree with him on this one. This report by the PPI on why we should take on popular culture seems to follow all the blog talk in which it’s just assumed that this is an issue that will move votes. I’ve seen absolutely no actual data to indicate that people will vote Democratic if we join the moralizing bandwagon.
I do however, see evidence in the polls that says people don’t like this incursion into people’s personal lives by the Republican party — which would suggest that adopting this “morals-lite” agenda may just backfire.
Here’s some data from the Washington Post poll (pdf):
Do you think a political leader should or should not rely on his or her religious beliefs in making policy decisions?
Should:40% Should Not:55% Depends:4% No Opinion:2%
Would you rather see religion have GREATER influence in politics and public life than it does now, LESS influence, or about the SAME influence as it does now?
Greater:27% Less:35% Same:36% No opinion:1%
23; Do you think that people and groups that hold values similar to yours are gaiing influence in American life in general these days, or do you thinks that they are losing influence?
4/24/05: Gaining:35% Losing:58% Neither:6% No opin:2%
8/16/98: Gaining:35% Losing:55% Neither:6% No opin:4%
24. Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you think better represents you own personal values?
4/24/05: Dems:47% Reps:38% Neither:10% No Opin:2%
3/14/99: Dems:47% Reps:39% Neither:8% No Opin:3%
25. Generally speaking, which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you think is more:
4/24/05 a. tolerant of different kinds of people and different points of view:
Dems:63% Reps:24% Both:4% neither:5% No opin:4%
b. sympathetic to religion and religious people
Dems:34% Reps:48% Both:6% neither:6% No opin:7%
9/17/00 a. tolerant of different kinds of people and different points of view:
Dems:62% Reps:22% Both:4% neither:4% No opin:8%
b. sympathetic to religion and religious people
Dems:41% Reps:36% Both:6% neither:5% No opin:11%
27. Do you think religious conservatives have too much influence, too little influence or about the right amount of influence over the Republican Party?
4/24/05 Too Much:40% Too Little:17% About the right amount:37% No Opin:6%
Do you think liberals have too much influence, too little influence or about the right amount of influence ovewr the Democratic Party?
4/24/05 Too Much:35% Too Little:21% About the right amount:38% No Opin:5%
Now, none if this proves anything with respect to whether the Democrats should attack popular culture as a way of connecting with voters on the allegedly all important values issues. Clearly, this doesn’t address that specifically. But it does address the fact that people seem to be more concerned at this point that politicians are too influenced by religion than that they are not influenced enough. And that tells me that we would be going in exactly the wrong direction if we think to capture a majority by twisting ourselves into pretzels on morals and values. The proponents certainly haven’t produced any data that would say otherwise.
It is true that the Republicans are perceived as more sympathetic to religion nowadays than they were back in 2000, but why wouldn’t they be? They are drenched in religious rhetoric and seem to be wholly at the mercy of the religious right. (You’ll note that at least some of their gain on the issue stems from many fewer people saying they have no opinion on the matter. It didn’t used to be understood that politics and religion were so intertwined.)
And in that respect, it doesn’t appear to be a net positive that they are now perceived as more sympathetic to religion, particularly considering the first question I highlighted, which is “do you think a politician should or should not rely on his or her religious beliefs in making policy decisions?” A clear majority say no. And 71% of people say that religion should have the same or less influence as it has today.(Significantly, more people think it should have less influence than think it should have more.) It does not appear to me that people are clamoring for more religious moralizing from politicians.
Indeed, the most interesting result in all of this is that more people say that Democrats represent their personal values than Republicans, and that number hasn’t changed since 1999. So if more people have identified with Democrats on personal values since 1999, the genesis of the Bush Frist Travelling Salvation Show, it seems pretty clear to me that values aren’t the reason we are losing. In fact, if they keep it up, it’s looking as if the Republicans will be the ones to lose on that issue in 2006.
I think that the question that pollsters have to ask is if people think it is more important for the government to be tolerant of different kinds of people and different points of view or if they think it’s more important for government to be sympathetic toward religion. In that choice lies the answer to how we should proceed.
Matt Yglesias makes thepoint today (along with a number of other liberal publications and intellectuals) that the Democrats would be better off without the filibuster:
“…however opportunistic the judges-only anti-filibuster stance is, the reality is that the nuclear option will pave the way for Democrats to eliminate legislative filibusters as well whenever they find themselves in the majority. When that happens, the GOP will find that while their only big legislative idea — tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts — is already immune to the filibuster, they can no longer block Democratic ideas.”
I think that this would be true only in a world where double standards and lack of accountability did not rule. One would think that in the future, you could argue quite reasonably that the Republicans insisted back in 2005 that the filibuster against judicial nominees was undemocratic and the Democrats now just want to end that undemocratic practice altogether. Surely, since the Democrats acted out of principle then, the Republicans will act out of principle now and support this change. After all, they wouldn’t want to be called hypocrites for saying one thing in 2005 and another now, would they?
Needless to say, this will never happen. The modern Republicans do not worry about such things as consistency and the press shows no inclination to hold them accountable for anything they’ve ever done.
Crooks and Liars has the video today of the Walter Cronkite broadcast of October 2, 1968 — the day that Abe Fortas withdrew his nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Why? Because THE REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED IT!!!!
Here’s the quote from the Republican minority leader at the time Robert Griffin:
I believe that any chief justice should have widespread support among the people and the senate of the United States. In view of the deep division and the controversy that surrounds this nomination, I think Mr Fortas’ decision was very wise.
Just as the GOP argues that the fact that Orrin Hatch routinely prevented Clinton’s nominees from getting an up or down vote bears no relationship to filibustering nominees for the same end, the Republicans say that the principle involved in the Fortas filibuster was entirely different. He was being nominated for Chief justice which is nothing like being nominated for federal judgeships or just plain old Supreme Court judges. The principle is entirely different! Apples and oranges, my friends.
And I have read almost nothing in the press that makes it clear that the Republicans are being hypocritical on this issue. In fact, the Sunday gasbags and the likes of Dean Broder seem to be more concerned about the “principle” that Bush should be allowed to get anything he wants while the Democrats negotiate for the right to breathe the same air as he does. And Broder, anyway, should surely remember that Fortas was filibustered. He wasn’t young, even then.
And just as the Republicans would not be held responsible for their hypocrisy on this issue, neither would the Democrats be given any credit for being consistent. Nobody in the chattering classes gives a shit about any of that so it has absolutely no salience for future battles. The only thing that matters in these situations is if one of the parties reaches a point at which it will force the other to play chicken. This only happens when one party is so arrogant that they are willing to bet that they will not be retaliated against in the future. This battle is the Democrats’ way of saying that they most certainly will face retaliation — and right here and right now. Damn the future of the filibuster. At some point you just have to let bullies know that you won’t be rolled.
I suspect that the American people would find it disconcerting if they knew that the GOP is shamelessly hypocritical, but there is no evidence that they will be informed of this, so it isn’t going to happen. What does appear to be happening is a common sense response to majoritarian bullying — by more than 60%, the public doesn’t want the filibuster to be eliminated. I suspect this is because they figure it’s always good to have some brakes on the party in power. And that would very likely be the response if Democrats tried to end it when they are in power as well.
At this point I think there is no margin in trying to strategize with the idea that we will want to do something when we get back into power. As they have often done in the past ten years, the Republicans will merely adjust the argument to suit their needs at the time and the media will not call them on it.
Besides, we need to win as many battles as we can, right now. Our biggest problem isn’t that the American people don’t agree with us on the issues; I think it’s that they don’t think we are willing to fight for them. Look at this Washington Post poll (pdf). Not only does it show that a majority of Americans agree with our position on the issues, it shows that they agreed with our position on the issues before the election. The Repubicans have convinced themselves that our losing record on elections proves that the country is strongly behind them and that they cannot lose again. And just as they did in 1992, they are going to lose their minds when this is proven wrong.
The most visible political battles of the last three months have taken place around the Congress – the president’s Social Security initiative, Terri Schiavo, Tom DeLay’s ethics issues and the debate around the filibuster rule for consideration of judicial nominees. Even when presented in the most neutral way, people respond to the totality and say, most often, that something is very wrong. Indeed, in the open-ended follow-up to this discussion in the survey, the mostfrequent reactions are “wrong, wrong, wrong,” “very wrong,” “wrong in every sense.” One in five offers a simple declarative negative: “bad,” “horrible,” “pathetic,” “unbelievable,” “disturbing,”or “shocking.”
Other sets of comments, each mentioned by about 6 percent, focused on the Republicans acting irresponsibly or recklessly (“out of control”) and the Republicans being intrusive and (interfering in personal matters.]
The open-ended reactions focused on the totality, though more about Schiavo than any other piece – which included interfering and being moralistic – and some talked about wrong priorities, wrong direction and the conservatives’ ideological agenda, but there was very little specific recall of the Social Security reforms.
When given a list of options that might describe these events, the voters gravitated to “arrogance of power” (35 percent) and priorities (26 percent), that is, Republicans devoting their time to the wrong things. Somewhat further down were people saying “out of touch” (20 percent)and “forcing views on others” (20 percent). But for independents and moderates, 45 percent say this is arrogance, the top mention by far.
The Republicans are finally showing their spots. We must allow that revelation to unfold and as we do it, we will show that we stand for something by standing together against this arrogance of power. I doubt that eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees will accrue to our advantage even when we obtain a majority; I’m certain it will not accrue to our benefit today. Acceding to the Republicans’ arrogance and hubris is the surest way to reinforce the idea the Democrats are simply useless.
Updtae: This is rich. Read this post by DHinMI at The Next Hurrah about the Fortas nominations. The son of above mentioned Republican leader Robert Griffin, is one of the judges being denied an up or down vote. Sweet.
And be sure to read the tortured argument from that hack C. Boyden Gray about why this is entirely different. Not only is it absurd, it’s factually incorrect.
I am on a couple of right wing mailing lists for which I am grateful because it allows me to keep up with the real Americans and what they are thinking. Here’s what they are sending around on social security.
TO TRUST A MATTRESS OR A DEMOCRAT?
Democrats, and Republicans too, have got us all confused about Social Security, but here is an explanation that even the mentally retarded can follow. The average American makes $16.05 per hour according The Bureau of Labor Statistics; lives to age 77 according to the Center for Disease control, officially retires at age 66 according to a law passed by Congress, and contributes 12.4% of his income to Social Security according to a legalized scam perpetrated by the Democrats.
So, $16.05 (per hour) x 40 (hours per week) x 52 (weeks per year) x 46 (years worked) gives you $153,566 that is now stolen by the Democrats, but might have been put in your mattress. To disguise this grand larceny the Democrats give back $952 (average Social Security monthly check) and say, ” the math is very complicated but trust us, this is a great deal; we love you and care for you, and those Republicans are just so selfish and mean.”
But, if you had been free from Democrats to put the 12.4% each pay period ($153,566 in total ) in your mattress until retirement, and then lived the average 11 years longer, you could take 22% more ($1163) per month in retirement income than the Democrats give you!
For those who are fortunate enough to fall above the retarded level of intelligence it is known that money, rather than being invested in a mattress, can be invested in a balanced Republican fund of stocks and bonds where it might return, conservatively, 5%, in which case the return would not be 22% above the Democratic grand theft return, but rather 422% above the Democratic grand theft return.
In point of fact, many Americans retire to a life at or near the poverty level because the Democrats steal their money by convincing them they are the caring Socialist Party. Sadly, those who can’t understand this are not functionally above the mentally retarded level, but rather have fallen prey to the same pack animal mentality that throughout history caused them to worship and trust strange Gods and stranger men who were far more likely to use that trust to kill or abuse them rather than to care for them. It all makes you wonder if the Jeffersonian concept of freedom from Gov’t is too unnatural to prevail in the end.
It’s interesting that they use the term mentally retarded, isn’t it? But then, it’s real Americans like this who elected fellow math whiz and actuarial expert, Junior Codpiece, to the presidency.
Via Talk Left, I find this interesting article by constitutional scholar (and self-professed moderate) Marci Hamilton. She seems to be a true centrist, seeing the limitations and extremism coming from both sides of the political divide. She’s obviously very smart, which is why I cannot believe that she begins her argument with this:
In recent years, the Supreme Court has been pilloried by the far right for being “activist” – while at the same time also being castigated by the far left for being “imperialistic.” When these kinds of allegations are trotted out by both ends of the political spectrum, it is very good evidence that what the Court is doing is neither activist nor imperialistic.
That’s not good evidence at all. All it means is that both sides have criticized the court; it says nothing about whether those criticisms are correct. Her reasoning is that if two parties criticize something, the object of their criticism must,therefore, not be guilty of either sides’ criticism. That’s nonsense. It could very well be true that the court is activist or imperialist or both or neither.
The press often uses this fallacious reasoning to fail to investigate whether criticisms of them might be true. If both liberals and conservatives are angry with something they wrote, then what they wrote must be correct. It’s lazy rubbish.
In fairness Hamilton goes on to make a persuasive case that the court is neither activist nor imperialist, but it is based upon her analysis of the arguments not the “evidence” that the court is criticized by both sides.
I would argue, however, that there is a difference in scale and power that she should have taken into account. The alleged attacks coming from the “extreme” left about imperialism are many magnitudes less significant than those coming from the right. By framing this argument as if both “extremes” are equal in the daily discourse she gives a false impression of the weight of the arguments and their practical implications in the coming judicial battles.
The liberal argument about “imperialism” is simply not on the table. Nobody is talking about it and there is no notion that any judicial nominee or any public criticism of the court is going to be swayed by this point of view. Hamilton makes an excellent argument against the idea that the Supreme Court is activist. But to offer this analysis as if the left’s criticism of the Court has the same level of relevance at this time and place is to dilute the power of her reasoning.
These are difficult times for moderates of all stripes, I know. But the present danger is coming quite clearly from the far right. Left wing legal arguments are simply not important at the moment and trying to use their academic musings to create a sense of balance, when the real danger the court faces is from right wing extremists who have the ear of a very powerful and ambitious Republican establishment, is a mistake. This is no theoretical discussion. Moderates can make a real difference this time and they need to be careful that they don’t give anyone reason to believe that this is politics as usual. This is one issue on which they need to take a clear and uncompromising stand — if they don’t, the default goes to those with the political power and the consequences of that are quite stark.
Republicans who have been lobbied by Bush say he is uncommonly engaged in the issue and more passionate than they have seen him since he was pushing his signature education initiative in 2001.
“You could see him sitting on the edge of his chair,” said Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.).
Bush typically focuses his pitch on detailing the long-term strain on Social Security’s resources and argues that it should be addressed sooner rather than later. “If we are going to be able to address and fix this problem, people need to be educated about the scope of the problem,” one Republican quoted him saying.
Whereas some analysts and associates have portrayed Bush as a brusque manager impatient with policy details, lawmakers see a different picture when he discusses Social Security. He has become a master of actuarial arcana, such as the concept of a “bend point” — a feature of the complex formula for calculating benefits.
Yes. His mastery of actuarial arcana is very impressive:
Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised.
Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
One can certainly understand why people would feel comfortable trusting their financial security in retirement to this man. I’m quite sure it’s why he’s been so successful with the issue so far.
I haven’t written much about the Bolton nomination because I pretty much said everything I thought about him in the first year of this blog, when I railed considerably about the bizarre notion that an insane, Jesse Helms protege should be in charge of arms control. Garance writes about this over on TAPPED today confriming one of the things that’s bothered me about the Bolton fight; if he isn’t confirmed for the UN, he just goes back to the State Department where he can do even worse damage in his current position. Remember, he was given the UN nomination in order to get him out of there in the first place.
I have no reason to believe that the loyal Bolton will be shamed into quitting the administration entirely. Has anyone? It just doesn’t happen. No, he’ll just continue running around the world having temper tantrums in front of people like Kim Jong Il and browbeating the intelligence community into giving him the names of Americans on whom they are spying.
Nobody leaves a Bush administration official in the corner…any Bush administration. Hell, they’ve revived Eliot Abrams and John Negroponte. Unless Bolton wants to leave, nobody will ask him to. He’ll be back in charge of arms control.
Not that we shouldn’t have fought to take him out. The Republicans have shown that in modern politics you fight every battle to the death and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. It’s a helluva way to run a country, but there it is.
Matt Yglesias wonders why the Republicans have been so blase about nominees lying outright to the Senate during their confirmation hearings when they may very well be at the mercy of Democrats in the future. Yesterday, Bill Frist righteously rebutted the argument set forth by some Republicans that the nuclear option would leave them powerless when Democrats came into power, by saying that if it was wrong for Democrats today it would be wrong for Republicans tomorrow. In truth it doesn’t matter.
The trouble is that the IOKIYAR (it’s ok if you’re a republican) phenomenon is not just a little blogospheric joke. It’s quite real and it’s been demonstrated over and over again. There is absolutely no reason for the Republicans to fear that they will be held to the same standard as they hold Democrats, ever. These lies by Bush appointees are not going to be investigated and they will always remain in the realm of he said/she said, old news, whyareyoubringingthisupnow. Fuggedaboudit.
For instance, Matt brings up the fact that the Bush administration has hired convicted congressional liars from the iran Contra era. But, one must also remember that those same convicted liars were all pardoned by George Bush Sr at a time when he was personally under investigation by a special prosecutor, thus effectively ending the probe. Immediately after Senior left office, however, there began a relentless series of demands by Republicans for special prosecutors investigating a list of shockingly trivial charges that eventually led to the impeachment of the president. The Republicans didn’t worry that someone would make comparisons that would embarrass them. They are unembarrassable because they have found that they can ignore the prinicples of relevant difference, the universality principle, the golden rule or whatever you want to call it, and there will be no repercussions.
It may be that this is caused by a media that refuses to take a stance on even factual matters, which leaves people with the impression that there are no standards except those which are imposed by the loudest, the most powerful, the most entertaining or whatever. It’s a big problem for us in the reality based community, however, because we remain stuck in this rational mode of argumentation while they careen off into a relativist fallacy whenever they choose.
In other words, there are no rules — only actions that will keep them in power or strip them from it. The fight each battle separately and don’t worry about the one they are going to fight tomorrow. And when the worm has turned and Democrats gain power again, everything will go back to square one and all of the the crimes that we spent that last five years screaming to get covered and investigated will be turned by the Republicans into indictments of Democrats.
Yesterday, James Dobson, alleged arbiter of moral standards, came to a ringing defense of Tom DeLay. Using the approved right wing talking points, he claimed that DeLay was the subject of a witchhunt financed by liberal millionaires. This is, of course, exactly what they did to Bill Clinton for eight long years. They have no sense of embarrassment at this; no sense of irony; not even a little bit of shame for unoriginality. No, it is as if these arguments have never been uttered before and have the full force of moral righteousness even though it is, to our eyes, infuriatingly absurd. And, in truth, because we have uttered these words for so long they are out in the ether with some feeling of received wisdom to those who don’t follow the details of political warfare. (They are good at taking our received wisdom and turing it to their advantage. I wish we would start doing the same.)
The Republicans are rejecting reason in science, economics, rhetoric and governance and therefore we cannot expect that rules based upon a rational assumption that they will be applied to both sides equally are even relevant. We fight each battle anew. It’s never over. Nothing is settled. This is why they hate the courts. Reason and finality are their enemy. These are the “I Know You Are But What Am I” Republicans and they have taken us into a new world of post enlightenment reality. We’d better get used to it.