February 8th, 2009
Nate Silver, the man behind the surprise star of the blogshere during the 2008 elections, FiveThirtyEight.com, ran the numbers and provides some cogent lessons for president Obama:
Nº 1. Republicans will obstruct, because they have nothing to lose.
Nº 2. President Obama needs to be the face of his policy initiatives, and not outsource it to the Democratic Congress.
Nº 3. So-called bipartisanship is over-rated, and has been a drain on president Obama in the short term.
In more words, Nate Silver breaks down the lessons as:
Republicans have nothing to lose. Public perceptions of Congressional Republicans are also significantly down from their already-low levels since the stimulus debate began. But, the Republicans will gladly torpedo their own brand if it means taking Obama down with them. They are dangerous to him, in the way that a gang of rabid velociraptors is dangerous to a T-Rex.
Obama has to do the heavy lifting himself. Support for the stimulus dwindled when the Congressional Demorcats, who are not much more popular than their Republican colleagues, were charged with the job of selling it. The more Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the faces of the Democratic Party, the more Barack Obama’s approval ratings will come to resemble those of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The benefits of “bipartisanship” are dubious. The public says they want bipartisanship, and a large majority of the public believes that Obama acted in a bipartisan fashion during the stimulus debate. And yet, his approval ratings fell significantly during this period.
April 11th, 2006
This is pretty upsetting… unfortunately, if it were up to social conservatives and to the republican party, ideally (from their point of view), one day the United States will exist under a similar anti-privacy regiment as El Salvador:
Ever imagine what it might be like to live in a place that voted to thoroughly criminalize abortion? A place that sent abortion providers to jail? That policed hospitals? That investigated a woman’s uterus? Welcome to 21st-century El Salvador, the state of anti-abortion.
This is how a New York Times photo gallery introduces us to a series of dramatic black and white shots, with equally dramatic and even more moving captions. For example:
The Incarcerated: Carla Herrara, 11, clutches pictures of her mother, Carmen Climaco, who was given 30 years for an abortion that was ruled a homicide.
The photo gallery is part of an NY Times Magazine piece on how abortion was criminalized in El Salvador, and how that small Central American country is at the “vanguard” of a movement against abortion:
In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don’t apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990′s, in a period after the country’s long civil war ended. The country’s penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.
It goes without say that the abortion issue, that is, whether women and couples should have control over their reproductive futures, or whether such control should be placed in the hands of the state, is a central question in today’s political landscape in our own country. On the progressive side there are many that contend that: 1. Because it would be political suicide for republicans to end access to abortion, that therefore it is unlikely that they’ll criminalize the procedure; 2. Even if abortion is criminalized at the federal level, such an unlikely eventuality may bring with it some pragmatic and political advantages, because it would create an opportunity at the state level to “experiment” with local solutions; and, 3. Presently, Democratic candidates must be afforded wide latitude on the abortion question by their constituents, because elected Democrats must find some way of neutralizing the issue come national/presidential elections.
Now, while it may appear as a truism that over the long term criminalizing abortion would result in political suicide for republicans, that does not necessarily preclude them from inadvertently succeeding in criminalizing the procedure over the short term. After all, sometimes events get ahead of one’s ability to effectively manage and react to them — I present exhibit A., the Iraq invasion: clearly the situation in Iraq has gotten ahead of the Bush Administration’s ability to contain events and, therefore, is now merely reacting to events on the ground. With some pieces of the puzzle already in place (i.e., Roberts & Alito, et al; a religious right movement that’s confident of its ability to influence the republican party and, thereby, the terms of our national debate; and, too, a Democratic Party establishment that’s been forced to take on a defensive posture on abortion), it’s not difficult to imagine how, over the short term, abortion may be inadvertently criminalized if a certain tipping point is reached — even if it comes at the expense of long term electoral loses for the republican party. The risk, once that tipping point is reached towards criminalization, is that it may be years — if not decades — before our nation and the political establishment are once again ready to reverse course. After all, it’s taken 30-plus years for abortion opponents to come as close as they are to steering our nation back to a time when the right to privacy was not thought to be a constitutional guarantee.
If abortion is criminalized at the federal level it’ll be left up to the states to formulate their own local approaches. Accordingly, rather than waging a one front campaign, if one can think of the federal abortion issue as a single front, we’ll be forced to mount a 50 front wide campaign in defense of reproductive sovereignty. Clearly, some front lines will be easier to hold, while others will be deemed too deep in hostile territory to hold on to, thus sacrificeable. Accordingly, as with all wars, whether hot or merely ideological, there’ll be some collateral damage, primarily inside of those territories thought to be sacrificeable. The question thus becomes, as with all wars, what level of so-called collateral damage are WE willing to tolerate? Understandably, the vast majority of the collateral damage will be suffered by the poor (women and couples), the less educated, and by those living in rural areas. However, aside from the tangible collateral damage that will be incurred by particular individuals, the criminalization of abortion would open the door to other, though less tangible, more offensive and corrosive elements to a free and open society. For example, since the criminalization of abortion would inevitably depend on a Constitutional finding against an inherent right to privacy, we may end up having to engage in new battles where privacy is concerned — whether the issues at hand arise from medical, criminal or employment related matters. The point here is that, clearly, the criminalization of abortion would come with unacceptable levels of collateral damage and, too, at a high risk of introducing unintended consequences against Americans’ right to privacy.
Sure, the states could each serve as a petri dish; wherein, the theory goes, locally tailored and unique solutions could emerge that, at long last, would end the national debate on abortion; allowing the country to exist under a 50 state consensus on reproductive freedom — each state with its own unique response to the issue of abortion. Of course, the petri dish compromise is contingent on the abortion criminalization pushers and on the right to privacy advocates honoring an eventual compromise. Because, clearly, once one side or the other breaches whatever compromise is formulated, the other side would be compelled to push back. Clearly, the criminalization pushers see abortion as an abomination and as being morally repugnant; therefore, any compromise that, in their view, tolerates medical abortions in even one of the 50 states will be interpreted as unacceptable and as unfinished business. Now, from their standpoint, they would be correct; after all, the end goal of those seeking to criminalize abortion is to totally and utterly end medical abortions in our country, period. Now, our nation has already endured — and not very well, I might add — one national compromise on an issue where, in fact, there was no compromising, let’s not forget (yes, that compromise: the Missouri Compromise, which split the nation). It is clear, given the rhetoric of the abortion criminalization pushers, that this is an issue on which there’s no compromise. After all, does anyone really believe that any sort of compromise can ever be maintained when those seeking to criminalize abortion see themselves, however delusional, as marauding abolitionists unshackling fetuses from bondage? Now, I don’t mean to suggest that we’re any where near the level of tension that must have existed when that first national compromise collapsed. However, just as the abortion criminalization pushers will not tolerate the continued practice of medial abortion in even one state of the Union; likewise, those of us that support the right to privacy and that defend our reproductive sovereignty should not be willing to accept any compromise that would undermine these core principles.
As for elected Democrats needing more breathing room on the issue of abortion from the progressive grassroots, frankly, I simply wish that elected Dems would speak candidly on the issue — without some consultant standing over their shoulders telling them how they should respond. As has been remarked over and over again, no one is for abortion; however, we should all be for the right to privacy, and for sovereignty and security over our bodies — these, of course, extend to reproductive our freedom. Some have dismissed and caricatured what, at best, can be described as the shorthand version of the grassroots-approved Democratic Party comeback formula:
According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog (DailyKos.com) – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. [ Sen. Barack Obama ]
While this caricature touches on the major themes that the Dem grassroots have been agitating for and calling on the Democratic Party to pursue, I think that it intentionally misreads what the grassroots is really trying to say; which, very simply, is: formulate a Democratic agenda that shores up the advances of the New Deal, be vigorous advocates for that agenda, and refuse to let conservatives/republicans define the national debate — yes, a’la George Lakoff, shift to a progressive frame and redefine the terms of the debate. What does this have to do with abortion? Well, unlike the minority that seeks to criminalize its medical practice, the majority of Americans support access to abortion; because Americans intuitively understand that abortion, in spite of the rhetoric, is about one’s right to privacy, and about security and sovereignty over one’s body. Unfortunately, because those seeking to criminalize abortion are dominating the debate and its terms, these core principles, privacy and security, are being left out of the national debate by elected Democrats. So, while I’m perfectly willing to give Dems some breathing room while they get their bearings, it is unconscionable for anyone to ask the American people to surrender our right to privacy, and our security and sovereignty over one’s body.
We all agree that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.” Likewise, we can also agree that those seeking to criminalize medical abortion by overturning and/or undermining Roe v. Wade present a direct threat to our right to privacy, and to our personal security and sovereignty; accordingly, our Democratic representatives must be expected to engage the abortion debate on these terms, and not merely accept the terms imposed by the abortion criminalization pushers.
March 28th, 2006
This is truly remarkable: now bills can become law without going through the constitutionally mandated process. Incredible! Don’t republicans have any respect for anything that the constitution stands for? Are they so contemptuous of what our founding fathers fought for that, it seems, at every turn republicans wantonly disregard and trash the principles enshrined in our constitution? The truth is that, in spite of what they claim, of course republicans don’t value nor respect the constitution, since it reminds them of everything that their party stands against. Habeas Corpus, who needs that? republicans ask. Privacy? Pluuuze, republicans respond. First Amendment? What’s that!? Separation of church and state? Come on, that’s so post Enlightenment, we don’t need that. On and on republicans go on trashing the very core of our democracy.
And now we have the latest from the anti-constitution republicans: a bill no longer needs to pass the House for it to become law.
For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies or sang "I’m Just a Bill," how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, the president signs it.
"He signed ya, Bill — now you’re a law," shouts the cartoon lawmaker on "Schoolhouse Rock" as Bill acknowledges the cheers.
But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy, when President Bush signed into law a bill that actually never passed the House. Bill — in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans — became a law because it was "certified" by the leaders of the House and Senate. [Washington Post, Wednesday, March 22, 2006]
That’s right, under these anti-constitution republicans the supreme law of the land can be ignored in place of political expediency. Since this bill was signed by Bush, pro-constitution and other concerned groups have come forward to defend our founding document from the onslaught of republican attacks.
Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, sued yesterday to block the budget-cutting law, charging that Bush and Republican leaders of Congress flagrantly violated the Constitution when the president signed it into law knowing that the version that cleared the House was substantively different from the Senate’s version.
Keep in mind that, as anti-constitution republicans have done in the past, for example when Bush admitted to breaking the FISA law, republicans don’t dispute that they have chosen to ignore the constitution; they simply argue that, for reasons of convenience, that it is simply easier to skirt the constitution (and any law that stands in their way):
No one disputes the central facts of the lawsuit: Last December, Vice President Cheney broke a tie vote in the Senate to win passage of a bill that would cut nearly $40 billion over five years by reducing Medicaid rolls, raising work requirements for welfare, and trimming the student loan program, among other changes.
[...]
As the measure was being sent to the House last month, a Senate clerk inadvertently changed that 13-month restriction to 36 months, a $2 billion alteration. With the mistaken change, the measure squeaked through the House, 216 to 214.
Once the mistake was revealed, Republican leaders were loath to fight the battle again by having another vote, so White House officials simply deemed the Senate version to be the law.
How convenient, a Senate clerk inadvertently made a mistake. Please, if the immediate past serves as any lesson, at all, then it is this: republicans don’t simply make mistakes; in stead, republicans believe that they can get away with anything, so they ignore procedure and the law, knowing full well that in all likely hood they’ll get away with their law breaking or misdeed. Just think of it, midterm redistricting in Texas, a stolen election in Florida, collaborating with ENRON to create an energy crisis in California that lead to the recall of a Democratic governor, and, of course, there’s their war of choice, and on, and on, and on. Anti-constitution republicans believe that they are above the law and that they can get away with anything — this was no mistake, no way. They simply were too careless in their eventual cover up, that’s all.
As this case makes its way through the courts it’ll be curious to see where it ends up. If it ends up before an anti-constitution republican appointed judge we may see a new precedent being set, wherein a bill need not be approved by Congress as long as it’s signed by a quasi-monarchial president. However, if the judge that hears this case has any integrity, the only conclusion should be obvious:
"The Constitution is broad and vague on a number of things; this is not one of them," Zeigler said. "The same bill must be passed by House and Senate and signed by the president. Otherwise it’s not law. Case over."
December 28th, 2005
I came across the original post over at DailyKos.com. The Bulldog Manifesto asks:
Back when former President Clinton was being impeached, many of our current Congressmen and Senators were involved in the process. Men like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Henry Hyde, among others, came out strongly in support of the impeachment of Clinton based upon the highest standard of “rule of law.”
Today, as impeachment makes its way back into the American vernacular, this time related to George W. Bush, the following quotes become quite illuminating.
While reading them, perhaps ask yourself, ‘What happened to the “rule of law?”
The Bulldog then provides us with these gems:
What Did They Say When Clinton Was Being Impeached?
Tom Delay (R-TX):
“This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That�s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.”
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):
“I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it’s not a vengeful one, it’s not vindictive, and it’s not craven. It’s just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. … as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.
The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door.”
James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI):
“What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don’t accept the responsibility for them.”
Chuck Hagel (R-NB):
“There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America–one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?”
Bill Frist (R-TN):
“I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
“When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority — for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator — had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: “The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.”
You can find the Bulldog’s blog here: http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2005
We do envy Republicans sometimes, it’s true.
Well, Liberals and Democrats don’t envy their policies, much less their policy results, just look at some recent Republican accomplishments: failed Iraqi nation building project, a nuclear armed Iran and North Korea (remember the “Axis of Evil” line?), record deficits, the 6’4″ Osama Bin Ladin still plotting against the U.S., the Taleban is regrouping in Afghanistan, multiple Republican officials are under investigation for accepting brides, money laundering, leaking a CIA agent’s name and for many other illicit schemes betraying the public trust.
And yet, we suffer of Republican Operative/Strategist envy — otherwise known as Rove/Gingrich envy. In these two men, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich (and, actually, let’s add a third man, Grover Norquist), we have the architects of the Republican electoral successes of the past 10-15 years. Meanwhile, as these men, with the eager help of their allies in conservative circles, impeached a Democratic president, stole a presidential election (2000 and, some argue here and here and here, 2004), and exploited a national tragedy (i.e., 9/11) to advance their conservative/Republican agenda, the Democratic Party establishment largely stood by — too afraid to punch back, and punch back hard.
Unfortunately it’s not just the Democratic Party establishment that’s too afraid to got toe-to-toe against these Republican thugs. Sometimes we of the grassroots are too afraid to hit back with all we’ve got. Now, clearly, more of us, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, have grown tired enough to not want to take it any more and have started to punch back. That said, I recently came across a post at DailyKos.com where a diarist suggested that members of the Bush administration should be routinely described as:
[I]ncompetent, Liars, or both.
[and, too]
The Republican congress is unAmerican because it is not performing its constitutional duty to be a check and balance to the executive.
The executive branch continues its unAmerican activity by any number of activities that are not supported by the constitution or bill of rights.
The diarist’s suggestions may be completely wrong headed, I frankly don’t know. However, what struck me was the response the diarist’s suggestions illicited from another user:
What good does it do to name-call?
[...]
[Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration will] be gone with the lame duck President soon enough, and [they'll] not be on the ballot, so there’s no point attacking [them].
The unAmerican line lost its popularity a long time ago, and I’d rather not be the party to bring it back. And I’d rather not have this charge brought against us when we have the House and the Presidency and they work together.
I was so struck with the reflexive dismissal of the diarist’s suggestions by the other user, that I responded to the dismissal with the following:
This is just a quick reaction after reading your response: you sound like a Democratic party insider (or at least with direct ties to an elected member’s office in some capacity), more interested in the immediate tactical gain; rather than on the long term goal of building a “progressive movement.” Again, this is my immediate reaction to your reply, without taking too much time to “ponder and digest” your take on the diary. Now, the diarist’s talking points I’m sure can be refined and retooled; however, the diarist premise and main point is sound: negative language used to tarnished the opposition does work — just ask Newt Gingrich to provide his list of words he suggested be used in association with Democrats:
“Anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, anti-jobs, betray, coercion, collapse, consequences, corruption, crises, decay, deeper, destroy, destructive, devour, endanger, failure, greed, hypocrisy, ideological, impose, incompetent, insecure, liberal, lie, limit(s), pathetic, permissive attitude, radical, self-serving, sensationalists, shallow, sick, they/them, threaten, traitors, unionized bureaucracy, urgent, waste”
Now, I’m not a supporter of Gingrich, but the man is a visionary and a transformational “movement” leader, adept at using all tools at his disposal to provide his party with a political advantage — unfortunately for us Liberals and Democrats, Republicans seem to have monopolized the market on Gingrich’s type of party activist and leader (willing to reach into the operative’s tool bag for whatever is necessary to gain advantage over the opposition). Now, your point about not wanting to revive certain attack lines (i.e., un-American) is well taken; regrettably we, Democrats and Liberals, don’t have a choice on that matter, since the enemy (Republicans and conservatives) consistently pelt us with that very epithet. It seems to me that our only recourse is to wrestle the very notion of what it means to be American away from the opposition, and restore it to its rightful heirs: Liberals and Progressives that, with sweat, tears and blood, have welcomed previously excluded citizens into the American family — and, of course, all the while, the enemy blocked school house doors, blocked workers from organizing and generally could be heard from the sidelines chanting We don’t care, We don’t care.
Again, I’m sure that the diarist’s suggestions can be refined so that they are more than mere “personal attacks” against the administration; however, as I intimated in my response to the user that objected to “personal attack”: negative or attack language used to frame the opposition does work — just see how well it has served Rove and Gingrich, and their Republican/conservative causes.
Perhaps this is why some Liberals and Democrats, myself included, sometimes feel Rove/Gingrich envy: because these men don’t stop to ask themselves, Uh, perhaps we’ve gone too far. We don’t really need to attack them. In stead, these men and their Republican allies are always willing to go for the jugular to advance their cause. It’s about time we do the same; besides, it certainly isn’t a stretch to say that the Bush administration lied us into war, and it certainly is un-American for our Congress to ignore their Constitutional duties.
