Happy Birthday, Compromise of 1850.
Let's all thank Henry Clay that Texas wasn't any bigger than it had to be.
Waiting For Democratic Courage
Democrats need to grow a sack. Last election, voters expressed dismay with the status quo and Bush's handling of Iraq. Recent polling shows that 70 percent of the public opposes the escalation plan and a majority want Democrats to use their majority power for Congressional oversight. Further, I think it was pretty clear from the '04 presidential election that Democrats lost, in part, because voters believed Democrats lacked courage, didn't have an easily understandable, coherent party platform, and would say whatever they had to to get elected. Notice that Democrats are far more concerned with the "electability" of their presidential candidates, but Republicans just go with the candidate they like the best. In short, Democrats need to toughen up and make courageous decisions regardless of what conventional wisdom, the punditry, and the right-wing attack machine has to say about it.
Democrats have a number of options with Iraq. Still, they have created an imaginary paralysis in which they feel helpless to influence decision making until Bush leaves office in January 2009. They appear terrified of taking positions that could leave them vulnerable Rove-Republican attack machine.
The conventional wisdom and perceived options: cutting off funding for the war is a radical option, not wise or prudent to exercise in the near future, and likely political suicide. Cutting off funding would show Democrats don't "support the troops" and would hurt the party in '08. Therefore, only two sensible options remain: the least popular is the Kennedy position and bill he has introduced which caps troop numbers at their current level (pre-escalation) and deprives funding for any extra troops. The more popular option, and the bill likely to be passed within the next couple of weeks, is to symbolically condemn Bush's new plan and show Congress's and the American people's disapproval.
Frankly, I am irritated by the second and more popular proposal. Bush does not care. The resolution will have zero impact on how he conducts the war over the next couple of years. He has "made his decision." If there's anything we've learned from the last six years, and particularly since the Iraq war, Bush and his administration have their own ideas of how best to lead the country and what policies to implement, and they are uninterested in what the opposition has to say about it. Of course Bush knows his plan is unpopular, but it's the defining issue of his presidency and he's not going to abandon his mission just because public opinion has mounted against him. Therefore, this resolution has no teeth and will have no impact on policy. It doesn't even force members of Congress to account to their constituencies because they have already made public statements on how they feel about Bush's plan. In short, I believe this resolution is an act of cowardice and a futile political ploy to pretend that Congress is exercising its power.
If I were a member of Congress, I would introduce a bill (along with Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) to set a date for the military to be out of Iraq and cut off funding beyond that date. Like Brad said in earlier posts, the date could be arranged in consultation with the generals on the ground to determine the most expeditious and safest way to carry out the withdrawal. This resolution would give Bush extended notice to comply with Congress to prevent American forces stranded in Iraq without the resources they need. The way this option is framed conventionally, it seems, is that if Congress votes to cut off funding, they are the ones that would be undermining the troops. But What if the resolution gave Bush months to prepare for withdrawal and he still didn't comply? Wouldn't he be the one keeping troops in Iraq when he knows they will be deprived of resources by a specific date?
Memo to Democrats: it would be nice if you could reach down and pull your genitals to the proper place in front of your body instead of continuing to look down and being deceived by a vaginal-type presence.
Democrats have a number of options with Iraq. Still, they have created an imaginary paralysis in which they feel helpless to influence decision making until Bush leaves office in January 2009. They appear terrified of taking positions that could leave them vulnerable Rove-Republican attack machine.
The conventional wisdom and perceived options: cutting off funding for the war is a radical option, not wise or prudent to exercise in the near future, and likely political suicide. Cutting off funding would show Democrats don't "support the troops" and would hurt the party in '08. Therefore, only two sensible options remain: the least popular is the Kennedy position and bill he has introduced which caps troop numbers at their current level (pre-escalation) and deprives funding for any extra troops. The more popular option, and the bill likely to be passed within the next couple of weeks, is to symbolically condemn Bush's new plan and show Congress's and the American people's disapproval.
Frankly, I am irritated by the second and more popular proposal. Bush does not care. The resolution will have zero impact on how he conducts the war over the next couple of years. He has "made his decision." If there's anything we've learned from the last six years, and particularly since the Iraq war, Bush and his administration have their own ideas of how best to lead the country and what policies to implement, and they are uninterested in what the opposition has to say about it. Of course Bush knows his plan is unpopular, but it's the defining issue of his presidency and he's not going to abandon his mission just because public opinion has mounted against him. Therefore, this resolution has no teeth and will have no impact on policy. It doesn't even force members of Congress to account to their constituencies because they have already made public statements on how they feel about Bush's plan. In short, I believe this resolution is an act of cowardice and a futile political ploy to pretend that Congress is exercising its power.
If I were a member of Congress, I would introduce a bill (along with Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) to set a date for the military to be out of Iraq and cut off funding beyond that date. Like Brad said in earlier posts, the date could be arranged in consultation with the generals on the ground to determine the most expeditious and safest way to carry out the withdrawal. This resolution would give Bush extended notice to comply with Congress to prevent American forces stranded in Iraq without the resources they need. The way this option is framed conventionally, it seems, is that if Congress votes to cut off funding, they are the ones that would be undermining the troops. But What if the resolution gave Bush months to prepare for withdrawal and he still didn't comply? Wouldn't he be the one keeping troops in Iraq when he knows they will be deprived of resources by a specific date?
Memo to Democrats: it would be nice if you could reach down and pull your genitals to the proper place in front of your body instead of continuing to look down and being deceived by a vaginal-type presence.
Happy New Year; Early Predictions
So it's January 22nd, and here I am ringing in the new year for Across the Aisle. I assume everyone leads a far more interesting life than I (besides Chris, perhaps, who has also noted the considerable sloth-like activity during the past few weeks)...
While I will be likely posting about the whole American Samoa/Minimum Wage issue soon, I thought a good first post of January would be about the upcoming Presidential campaigns. Some more people have thrown their hats into the ring of late, and I would be interested to hear everyone's early predictions as to how the primaries and general election will go.
From wikipedia, here are the candidates who have filed, formed committees, or declared serious interest - official filers are denoted with an asterisk:
Democratic Party:
- Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT)*
- F-Sen. John Edwards (NC)*
- F-Sen. Mike Gravel (AK)*
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)*
- Gov. Tom Vilsack (IA)*
- Sen. Joe Biden (DE)
- Sen. Barack Osama Bin Hussein Obama (IL)
- Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (NY)
- Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)
- F-Gen. Wesley Clark (AR)
- Sen. John Kerry (MA)
- Rev. Al Sharpton (NY)
Republican Party:
- Sen. Sam Brownback (KS)*
- John H. Cox (IL)*
- Michael Charles Smith (OR)*
- F-Gov. Jim Gilmore (KS)
- F-Mayor Rudy Guliani (NY)
- Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)
- Sen. John McCain (AZ)
- F-Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)
- Rep. Ron Paul (TX)
- Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO)
- F-Gov. Tommy Thompson (WI)
- F-Rep. Newt Gingrich (GA)
- Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE)
- F-Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
- F-Gov. George Pataki (NY)
At this point both races are quite interesting, although I think the Democratic primary seems to be more of a clash of the titans at this point. Dodd, Clinton, and Edwards are well established and Obama has made himself the face of emergent Democratic politics. Edwards was my favorite in the Democratic party in '04, and I have heard many Democrats have a "we should have picked Edwards over Kerry" mentality. As far as a running mate, Obama's surge in popularity may make him an ideal name for the ticket, and the southeast/midwest ticket would bring many intriguing electoral college scenarios to the table.
The Republican side is far less crystallized at this point. McCain, one would think, is the early front runner, but with the state of the party at present, there could be a surprise candidate who plays the primaries right. The Republican party will be split between those looking for someone who represents the moderates who were silenced in 2000 but have gained momentum in the face of Dubya's decline and those looking for a conservative to be proud of and to rally around after being kicked in the dirt the last few years. I give the edge to the latter and have selected Sen. Brownback as my early pick, but think a moderate from a blue state would be the best idea for a running mate. Rudy Guiliani would be ideal for these purposes and his name on the ticket would help regain the Republican party's former advantage the homeland security department, but this is an impossible marriage of social opposites... I'll go with another New Yorker, George Pataki, making a surprise run on Super Tuesday to gain the VP nod.
I think the general election may hinge on how America views the job the Democratic congress does over the next year... if pressed to pick a winner in my mock '08 standoff I would say Edwards-Obama def. Brownback-Pataki. Edwards-Obama would be a fresh face and a media darling, surely a force to reckoned with in an election as open as '08 is looking to be.
If the Republicans go moderate, I'd say McCain-Guliani brings about some interesting scenarios but will still lose against Edwards-Obama because of weakness in the southeast. It's very hard for a Republican to win these days without FL, NC, etc. in their pocket.
While I will be likely posting about the whole American Samoa/Minimum Wage issue soon, I thought a good first post of January would be about the upcoming Presidential campaigns. Some more people have thrown their hats into the ring of late, and I would be interested to hear everyone's early predictions as to how the primaries and general election will go.
From wikipedia, here are the candidates who have filed, formed committees, or declared serious interest - official filers are denoted with an asterisk:
Democratic Party:
- Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT)*
- F-Sen. John Edwards (NC)*
- F-Sen. Mike Gravel (AK)*
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)*
- Gov. Tom Vilsack (IA)*
- Sen. Joe Biden (DE)
- Sen. Barack Osama Bin Hussein Obama (IL)
- Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (NY)
- Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)
- F-Gen. Wesley Clark (AR)
- Sen. John Kerry (MA)
- Rev. Al Sharpton (NY)
Republican Party:
- Sen. Sam Brownback (KS)*
- John H. Cox (IL)*
- Michael Charles Smith (OR)*
- F-Gov. Jim Gilmore (KS)
- F-Mayor Rudy Guliani (NY)
- Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)
- Sen. John McCain (AZ)
- F-Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)
- Rep. Ron Paul (TX)
- Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO)
- F-Gov. Tommy Thompson (WI)
- F-Rep. Newt Gingrich (GA)
- Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE)
- F-Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
- F-Gov. George Pataki (NY)
At this point both races are quite interesting, although I think the Democratic primary seems to be more of a clash of the titans at this point. Dodd, Clinton, and Edwards are well established and Obama has made himself the face of emergent Democratic politics. Edwards was my favorite in the Democratic party in '04, and I have heard many Democrats have a "we should have picked Edwards over Kerry" mentality. As far as a running mate, Obama's surge in popularity may make him an ideal name for the ticket, and the southeast/midwest ticket would bring many intriguing electoral college scenarios to the table.
The Republican side is far less crystallized at this point. McCain, one would think, is the early front runner, but with the state of the party at present, there could be a surprise candidate who plays the primaries right. The Republican party will be split between those looking for someone who represents the moderates who were silenced in 2000 but have gained momentum in the face of Dubya's decline and those looking for a conservative to be proud of and to rally around after being kicked in the dirt the last few years. I give the edge to the latter and have selected Sen. Brownback as my early pick, but think a moderate from a blue state would be the best idea for a running mate. Rudy Guiliani would be ideal for these purposes and his name on the ticket would help regain the Republican party's former advantage the homeland security department, but this is an impossible marriage of social opposites... I'll go with another New Yorker, George Pataki, making a surprise run on Super Tuesday to gain the VP nod.
I think the general election may hinge on how America views the job the Democratic congress does over the next year... if pressed to pick a winner in my mock '08 standoff I would say Edwards-Obama def. Brownback-Pataki. Edwards-Obama would be a fresh face and a media darling, surely a force to reckoned with in an election as open as '08 is looking to be.
If the Republicans go moderate, I'd say McCain-Guliani brings about some interesting scenarios but will still lose against Edwards-Obama because of weakness in the southeast. It's very hard for a Republican to win these days without FL, NC, etc. in their pocket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
