Having cheerleaded for every American war for the last quarter-century, it's difficult to fathom what Weekly Standard editor and Fox News "all-star" Bill Kristol wouldn't support in the way of military intervention.
In the above-linked article, Kristol lambasted the dose of realism provided by defense secretary Robert Gates, when Gates noted, correctly, "In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined.'"
Kristol: Is it right to characterize an attack on the Qaddafi regime’s air defenses and airplanes, and the execution of a no-fly zone that would protect the Libyan people from Qaddafi, as “an attack on Libya”? Can’t we distinguish a regime that’s lost whatever legitimacy it once had from the nation that regime is destroying and the people that regime is terrorizing?
These are the same arguments -- offered by American liberals for decades to justify spending American blood and treasure in countries where the United States has virtually no strategic interest, and in the Bush era, were suddenly co-opted by the neoconservative right -- that led to the horrendous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Of course, this is fine with Kristol, as he always seems to think the answer is "more troops." But does Kristol -- who has never served in a presidential administration, on a Senate staff or in the military -- seriously think that an attack on Libya's air defenses would spare all civilian casualties? What portion of international law does Kristol cite to justify yet another invasion and attack of a sovereign nation? (That would be none.) What justification would Kristol suggest that the president offer to the American public when, inevitably, American blood is spilled in Libya? And most critically, what possible interest does the United States have in a Libyan civil war? Furthermore, as Pat Buchanan astutely noted, would neoconservatives like Kristol advocate intervening on the ground in Libya to beat back tanks and land forces that will be sent to strike the Libyan people, when Qaddafi inevitably does so?
Kristol: In many respects Gates has been an improvement as defense secretary over his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld.
In many respects? How about in all respects? Rumsfeld might well turn out to be the worst defense secretary in history.
Kristol: But he’s doing his president, and his country, no favors now. He has said for a while he wants to retire. Let him go, with all appropriate felicitations and salutations. And let someone take over as secretary of defense who believes in the missions in which American forces are now engaged, and who does not shy away from the understanding that American power is a crucial force for good in the world.
Does Kristol really believe that American power has been a transcendent force for good in Iraq, where, at the lowest end, an estimated 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion? Very quietly, the Iranian-backed Shiite cleric al-Sadr has risen to power, and Iraq is devolving yet again into a state mired in near-civil war. Last week in Afghanistan, 12 innocent boys were murdered by American forces outside their village, causing a nationwide anti-American uproar. The United States remains bogged down in a glorified nation-building exercise, with no identifiable end in sight, with the principal objective -- the removal of the Taliban from power -- having been accomplished nearly a decade ago. What possible evidence does Kristol have that the Arab peoples even want us intervening in their part of the world?
So goes the degeneration of the neoconservative mind. The fact that any sane American -- much less one as plugged into foreign policy matters as Kristol -- can urge, yet again, to intervene in a foreign country where (i) no American citizens are in danger and (ii) America has no identifiable interest whatsoever, is both preposterous and sad.
If the Republican Party hasn't learned its lessons from the awful decision to invade Iraq and get bogged down in an unwinnable war with no endgame in Afghanistan, then its time in the wilderness should continue until it has.
08 March 2011
07 March 2011
Will Romney be the nominee?
Daniel Larison thinks so, as does Jim Antle.
I continue to be skeptical.
Larison and Antle's points are well-taken, and are some of the same that I've made before in explaining why Sarah Palin has little chance at the Republican nomination.
First, Republican voters tend to gravitate toward candidates who are electable, and there is a perception -- one that I believe is incorrect, frankly -- that Romney will have a good chance of knocking off the incumbent president in the general election. (My theory: If he struggled to convince conservative voters that he was a better alternative than John McCain -- who talk radio and the base loathed -- and Mike Huckabee -- whose record as a profligate spender in Arkansas was outrageous -- how will Romney possibly convince the general electorate that he is a preferable alternative to a sitting president who remains personally quite popular?)
Second, the establishment vote is a critical in a Republican primary, and even in 2008, Romney had considerable establishment support. Romney not only has a ton of money of his own, but also has the backing of Republican elites who are so often kingmakers.
Third, it seems to be Romney's turn. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all came in second in a particular Republican primary, and in the next open primary cycle, they became the nominee. Romney effectively finished second to McCain in 2008 (he was second in total delegates when he suspended his campaign; Huckabee, who stayed in the race longer, technically ended up with more delegates), and there's a very clear perception that he's the frontrunner.
On the other hand, I believe Larison especially glosses over Romney's flaws.
This idea of "Romney as frontrunner," while admittedly borne out by polling data, seems to ignore the lessons of 2008.
As noted above, Romney had great difficulty connecting with Republican primarygoers in 2008, and there's no reason to think he won't have the same problem in 2012. Romney will have to battle with Tim Pawlenty -- who probably would have won the nomination in 2008 had he ran, has a clear conservative record of governance in a blue state, and is unfailingly likable; Newt Gingrich, who led the party for a decade and whose name recognition is off the charts; Haley Barbour, who will have money and establishment support of his own if he runs; Mitch Daniels, whose "charisma of competence" is only exceeded by his sterling record as Indiana governor; and yes, his old nemesis Huckabee. This will be a deeper field than Romney faced in 2008. While Barbour and Daniels have vacillated on running, it's quite clear that Pawlenty and Gingrich will be all-in. Both of these men are exceedingly more conservative candidates than either McCain or Huckabee, Romney's two chief rivals in 2008.
Second, Romney's incessant, embarrassing pandering has left the moderate vote up for grabs. Given the endorsements of Daniels by the likes of George Will, Ross Douthat and David Brooks, it's clear that the more moderate, pro-competence wing of the party will rally around the Indiana governor should he run. (Now, granted, Daniels co-opting this segment of the party will not be because Daniels is particularly moderate -- as we've noted here, he might actually be the most conservative guy in the field -- but rather because he has steadfastly refused to pander.) Based on his outrageous statements about Obamacare, his demagoguing of every major foreign policy issue and his new book full of red meat, Romney is clearly making a play for the conservative vote -- but this is the same group that largely backed him in 2008. The bottom line is that Romney won't have the conservative/establishment vote all to himself this time around -- he will have to battle with Pawlenty (who is believable and genuine) and Gingrich (who, if his political instincts get the better of him, will tear into Romney even more vociferously than did Huckabee).
Two sub-points here:
One, Romney would have been much better positioned in 2012 if he had marketed himself post-2008 as the serious, thoughtful venture capitalist, not some sort of right-wing panderer obsessed with calling the president names. I, personally -- though I find his stunning lack of principle offensive -- may have swallowed my bad feelings from 2008 and supported him. But because he has swung so hard and fast to the right, I have no interest whatsoever in voting for the man.
Two, point one cannot be overstated. Despite the rhetoric from the Limbaugh/Palin/Fox News noise machine, the moderate conservative vote is alive, well and up for grabs. How else to explain John McCain's 2008 candidacy? If Daniels co-opts the McCain vote and Romney has to split the conservative vote three ways with Pawlenty and Gingrich (or, four ways with Palin/Barbour/Huckabee), Romney's math becomes quite problematic.
Next: Romney didn't have to deal with the specter of his awful healthcare bill last time around. Romney simply isn't a credible opponent to Obamacare, since, as we and others have noted ad nauseum, the central features of Obamacare and Romneycare are strikingly similar.
Fourth, Romney's icy personality and incessant demagoguery make him an easy target for his primary opponents, simply because very few of them seem to like him personally.
Quite frankly, I think Romney would lose convincingly to Obama in the general election for a number of reasons, including but not limited to (i) the power of the incumbency; (ii) Romney's inability -- unlike, say, Daniels -- to convincingly make the case for conservatism; and (iii) his phoniness.
Despite Romney's massive cash advantage in 2008, most Republican voters saw right through his facade and voted for the one candidate who gave them a chance against the Obama tidal wave.
Much like 2008, a vote for Romney in the 2012 primaries is a vote for almost-certain defeat in November.
I continue to be skeptical.
Larison and Antle's points are well-taken, and are some of the same that I've made before in explaining why Sarah Palin has little chance at the Republican nomination.
First, Republican voters tend to gravitate toward candidates who are electable, and there is a perception -- one that I believe is incorrect, frankly -- that Romney will have a good chance of knocking off the incumbent president in the general election. (My theory: If he struggled to convince conservative voters that he was a better alternative than John McCain -- who talk radio and the base loathed -- and Mike Huckabee -- whose record as a profligate spender in Arkansas was outrageous -- how will Romney possibly convince the general electorate that he is a preferable alternative to a sitting president who remains personally quite popular?)
Second, the establishment vote is a critical in a Republican primary, and even in 2008, Romney had considerable establishment support. Romney not only has a ton of money of his own, but also has the backing of Republican elites who are so often kingmakers.
Third, it seems to be Romney's turn. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all came in second in a particular Republican primary, and in the next open primary cycle, they became the nominee. Romney effectively finished second to McCain in 2008 (he was second in total delegates when he suspended his campaign; Huckabee, who stayed in the race longer, technically ended up with more delegates), and there's a very clear perception that he's the frontrunner.
On the other hand, I believe Larison especially glosses over Romney's flaws.
This idea of "Romney as frontrunner," while admittedly borne out by polling data, seems to ignore the lessons of 2008.
As noted above, Romney had great difficulty connecting with Republican primarygoers in 2008, and there's no reason to think he won't have the same problem in 2012. Romney will have to battle with Tim Pawlenty -- who probably would have won the nomination in 2008 had he ran, has a clear conservative record of governance in a blue state, and is unfailingly likable; Newt Gingrich, who led the party for a decade and whose name recognition is off the charts; Haley Barbour, who will have money and establishment support of his own if he runs; Mitch Daniels, whose "charisma of competence" is only exceeded by his sterling record as Indiana governor; and yes, his old nemesis Huckabee. This will be a deeper field than Romney faced in 2008. While Barbour and Daniels have vacillated on running, it's quite clear that Pawlenty and Gingrich will be all-in. Both of these men are exceedingly more conservative candidates than either McCain or Huckabee, Romney's two chief rivals in 2008.
Second, Romney's incessant, embarrassing pandering has left the moderate vote up for grabs. Given the endorsements of Daniels by the likes of George Will, Ross Douthat and David Brooks, it's clear that the more moderate, pro-competence wing of the party will rally around the Indiana governor should he run. (Now, granted, Daniels co-opting this segment of the party will not be because Daniels is particularly moderate -- as we've noted here, he might actually be the most conservative guy in the field -- but rather because he has steadfastly refused to pander.) Based on his outrageous statements about Obamacare, his demagoguing of every major foreign policy issue and his new book full of red meat, Romney is clearly making a play for the conservative vote -- but this is the same group that largely backed him in 2008. The bottom line is that Romney won't have the conservative/establishment vote all to himself this time around -- he will have to battle with Pawlenty (who is believable and genuine) and Gingrich (who, if his political instincts get the better of him, will tear into Romney even more vociferously than did Huckabee).
Two sub-points here:
One, Romney would have been much better positioned in 2012 if he had marketed himself post-2008 as the serious, thoughtful venture capitalist, not some sort of right-wing panderer obsessed with calling the president names. I, personally -- though I find his stunning lack of principle offensive -- may have swallowed my bad feelings from 2008 and supported him. But because he has swung so hard and fast to the right, I have no interest whatsoever in voting for the man.
Two, point one cannot be overstated. Despite the rhetoric from the Limbaugh/Palin/Fox News noise machine, the moderate conservative vote is alive, well and up for grabs. How else to explain John McCain's 2008 candidacy? If Daniels co-opts the McCain vote and Romney has to split the conservative vote three ways with Pawlenty and Gingrich (or, four ways with Palin/Barbour/Huckabee), Romney's math becomes quite problematic.
Next: Romney didn't have to deal with the specter of his awful healthcare bill last time around. Romney simply isn't a credible opponent to Obamacare, since, as we and others have noted ad nauseum, the central features of Obamacare and Romneycare are strikingly similar.
Fourth, Romney's icy personality and incessant demagoguery make him an easy target for his primary opponents, simply because very few of them seem to like him personally.
Quite frankly, I think Romney would lose convincingly to Obama in the general election for a number of reasons, including but not limited to (i) the power of the incumbency; (ii) Romney's inability -- unlike, say, Daniels -- to convincingly make the case for conservatism; and (iii) his phoniness.
Despite Romney's massive cash advantage in 2008, most Republican voters saw right through his facade and voted for the one candidate who gave them a chance against the Obama tidal wave.
Much like 2008, a vote for Romney in the 2012 primaries is a vote for almost-certain defeat in November.
04 March 2011
The clear conservative choice
Mitch Daniels is the best governor in America.
When he took office in early 2005, Indiana faced a $200 million deficit and hadn’t balanced its budget in seven years. Four years later, all outstanding debts had been paid off, and after four consecutive balanced budgets, Daniels' Indiana was running a surplus of $1.3 billion to cushion it against the recession.
Under Daniels' watch, Indiana has its fewest state employees since 1978. The state has the lowest effective property taxes and the third-lowest per capita spending of any state in the union. Indiana has reclaimed its long-lost triple-A bond rating.
He is as tough as Chris Christie on state spending, though he's done it much less bombastically.
On his first day as governor, Daniels signed an executive order banning collective bargaining by state employees. This was in 2005 -- six years before anyone heard of Scott Walker.
Shortly thereafter, he put a 120-day moratorium on new school bond issues. He required school boards across the state to show cause if they proposed any project costing more per square foot than the national average.
“More than $40,000 to teach someone how to read?" he once quizzed a reporter. "Any school district that can’t do it ought to face consequences.”
Fundamentally, Daniels gets it, as this Weekly Standard piece demonstrates.
“I want citizens to understand,” he said. “When people start demanding we spend more money, they’re saying, ‘We want to raise your taxes.’ And the citizens should say, ‘Okay, tell me. Which one of my taxes do you want to raise?"
Presidential primaries are full of shape-shifters (Mitt Romney, John Kerry), panderers (Newt Gingrich, John Edwards) and demagogues (Sarah Palin, Howard Dean). Mitch Daniels is none of those. He won't set a crowd afire with a stirring call to arms, and probably won't be interested in tossing much red meat to the base.
But as George Will has said, Daniels has the "charisma of competence" and pushes "conservatism for grown-ups."
That's because Daniels' record as a true fiscal conservative speaks for itself.
It's stunning that Daniels has received any criticism from any quarter of the Republican Party, considering he best embodies the ideals of Ronald Reagan -- low taxes, limited government and free markets.
And it's laughable that a self-styled "true believer" like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would endorse anyone else. If you are a true Reaganite, Daniels is your man. Perhaps a case can be made for Tim Pawlenty or Haley Barbour (if he runs), but lining up behind anyone else is nonsense.
Daniels has risen to prominence not due to rhetoric or personal charm, but on sheer results. By contrast, Romney's case for the presidency entirely hinges on him convincing voters to ignore the type of governor he was in Massachusetts.
Daniels has accumulated a mountain of evidence to suggest that he would be a tremendous president.
He doesn't need rhetoric -- he's delivered results.
UPDATE: Don't get me wrong: I love -- LOVE -- Chris Christie. He, almost singlehandedly, is responsible for exposing public-sector unions for the corrupt bloodsuckers that they are. If Christie ran for president and Daniels didn't, the big man from Trenton would be my clear-cut first choice. That said, as Jay Gatsby notes here, Daniels is fundamentally much more conservative than Christie. Daniels wants to overturn Roe v. Wade; Christie has said he wouldn't "shove" his pro-life beliefs "down people's throats." Christie has expressed support for public-sector collective bargaining; Daniels outlawed it six years ago. Christie is a virtual Democrat on gun control; Daniels is a pal of the NRA. Simply more evidence that the Egghead Wing of the GOP is more concerned with rhetoric than results.
When he took office in early 2005, Indiana faced a $200 million deficit and hadn’t balanced its budget in seven years. Four years later, all outstanding debts had been paid off, and after four consecutive balanced budgets, Daniels' Indiana was running a surplus of $1.3 billion to cushion it against the recession.
Under Daniels' watch, Indiana has its fewest state employees since 1978. The state has the lowest effective property taxes and the third-lowest per capita spending of any state in the union. Indiana has reclaimed its long-lost triple-A bond rating.
He is as tough as Chris Christie on state spending, though he's done it much less bombastically.
On his first day as governor, Daniels signed an executive order banning collective bargaining by state employees. This was in 2005 -- six years before anyone heard of Scott Walker.
Shortly thereafter, he put a 120-day moratorium on new school bond issues. He required school boards across the state to show cause if they proposed any project costing more per square foot than the national average.
“More than $40,000 to teach someone how to read?" he once quizzed a reporter. "Any school district that can’t do it ought to face consequences.”
Fundamentally, Daniels gets it, as this Weekly Standard piece demonstrates.
“I want citizens to understand,” he said. “When people start demanding we spend more money, they’re saying, ‘We want to raise your taxes.’ And the citizens should say, ‘Okay, tell me. Which one of my taxes do you want to raise?"
Presidential primaries are full of shape-shifters (Mitt Romney, John Kerry), panderers (Newt Gingrich, John Edwards) and demagogues (Sarah Palin, Howard Dean). Mitch Daniels is none of those. He won't set a crowd afire with a stirring call to arms, and probably won't be interested in tossing much red meat to the base.
But as George Will has said, Daniels has the "charisma of competence" and pushes "conservatism for grown-ups."
That's because Daniels' record as a true fiscal conservative speaks for itself.
It's stunning that Daniels has received any criticism from any quarter of the Republican Party, considering he best embodies the ideals of Ronald Reagan -- low taxes, limited government and free markets.
And it's laughable that a self-styled "true believer" like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would endorse anyone else. If you are a true Reaganite, Daniels is your man. Perhaps a case can be made for Tim Pawlenty or Haley Barbour (if he runs), but lining up behind anyone else is nonsense.
Daniels has risen to prominence not due to rhetoric or personal charm, but on sheer results. By contrast, Romney's case for the presidency entirely hinges on him convincing voters to ignore the type of governor he was in Massachusetts.
Daniels has accumulated a mountain of evidence to suggest that he would be a tremendous president.
He doesn't need rhetoric -- he's delivered results.
UPDATE: Don't get me wrong: I love -- LOVE -- Chris Christie. He, almost singlehandedly, is responsible for exposing public-sector unions for the corrupt bloodsuckers that they are. If Christie ran for president and Daniels didn't, the big man from Trenton would be my clear-cut first choice. That said, as Jay Gatsby notes here, Daniels is fundamentally much more conservative than Christie. Daniels wants to overturn Roe v. Wade; Christie has said he wouldn't "shove" his pro-life beliefs "down people's throats." Christie has expressed support for public-sector collective bargaining; Daniels outlawed it six years ago. Christie is a virtual Democrat on gun control; Daniels is a pal of the NRA. Simply more evidence that the Egghead Wing of the GOP is more concerned with rhetoric than results.
02 March 2011
Mike Huckabee is a disgrace
As if his disastrous fiscal record wasn't enough to destroy his case for the presidency, Mike Huckabee is cozying up to the Birther movement.
The telling exchange:
INTERVIEWER: Don't you think it's fair also to ask him, I know your stance on this. How come we don't have a health record, we don't have a college record, we don't have a birth cer - why Mr. Obama did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate. It's one thing to say, I've -- you've seen it, goodbye. But why go to court and send lawyers to defend against having to show it? Don't you think we deserve to know more about this man?
HUCKABEE: I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the bust back to the Brits --
INTERVIEWER: Of Winston Churchill.
HUCKABEE: The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
And this guy wants to be president?
Several things.
First: Huckabee immediately backpedaled hard, claiming that instead of "Kenya," he meant "Indonesia." Of course, Obama did spend a few childhood years in Indonesia, but that can't be what Huckabee meant because the Mau Mau Revolution happened in Kenya. If he meant Indonesia, he wouldn't have referenced the Mau Mau Revolution in the first place. Huckabee is a smart enough guy who chose his words carefully and by doing so, knew exactly what he was doing. The wild conspiracy theories about Obama on the Right center around his secret birthplace in Kenya. If nothing else, this was the proverbial dog whistle.
Second: Huckabee seems to be latching onto the "Kenyan anti-colonialist" nonsense that Dinesh D'Souza peddled a few months ago in Forbes. As we pointed out at the time, this narrative ignores Obama's anger toward his absent father, his admiration of his American grandparents, his use of the American military and overreaching executive power abroad, and his general proclivity to become a creature of any institution he joins. This is precisely where the conservative movement has fallen down post-2008. There is a mountain of policy evidence that Obama has been an awful president, but instead of arguing policy, D'Souzas, Becks and Huckabees would rather tar the president as a cultural outsider. To Huckabee, that is Obama's greatest sin (probably because Obama's economic policies line up nicely with Huckabee's record as a profligate spender, and Huckabee knows he won't get anywhere arguing about fiscal records).
Finally, and most disturbingly: Huckabee appears to be dipping his toe in the water of the Birther movement. It is simply insane for a candidate for the presidency to do anything other than offer a sharp rebuke of any suggestion that Barack Obama is not American-born. There simply exists not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the president wasn't born in Hawaii. For Huckabee to even imply otherwise demonstrates a willingness to demagogue in the worst way to curry favor with fringe elements of a movement that would otherwise reject his pathetic record as governor.
This needs to stop. Mike Huckabee and his ilk -- George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove -- are engaged in a crusade to destroy the Republican Party. Idiocy such as that peddled by Huckabee yesterday cheapens the movement of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan, making the rest of us look like fools.
The telling exchange:
INTERVIEWER: Don't you think it's fair also to ask him, I know your stance on this. How come we don't have a health record, we don't have a college record, we don't have a birth cer - why Mr. Obama did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate. It's one thing to say, I've -- you've seen it, goodbye. But why go to court and send lawyers to defend against having to show it? Don't you think we deserve to know more about this man?
HUCKABEE: I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the bust back to the Brits --
INTERVIEWER: Of Winston Churchill.
HUCKABEE: The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
And this guy wants to be president?
Several things.
First: Huckabee immediately backpedaled hard, claiming that instead of "Kenya," he meant "Indonesia." Of course, Obama did spend a few childhood years in Indonesia, but that can't be what Huckabee meant because the Mau Mau Revolution happened in Kenya. If he meant Indonesia, he wouldn't have referenced the Mau Mau Revolution in the first place. Huckabee is a smart enough guy who chose his words carefully and by doing so, knew exactly what he was doing. The wild conspiracy theories about Obama on the Right center around his secret birthplace in Kenya. If nothing else, this was the proverbial dog whistle.
Second: Huckabee seems to be latching onto the "Kenyan anti-colonialist" nonsense that Dinesh D'Souza peddled a few months ago in Forbes. As we pointed out at the time, this narrative ignores Obama's anger toward his absent father, his admiration of his American grandparents, his use of the American military and overreaching executive power abroad, and his general proclivity to become a creature of any institution he joins. This is precisely where the conservative movement has fallen down post-2008. There is a mountain of policy evidence that Obama has been an awful president, but instead of arguing policy, D'Souzas, Becks and Huckabees would rather tar the president as a cultural outsider. To Huckabee, that is Obama's greatest sin (probably because Obama's economic policies line up nicely with Huckabee's record as a profligate spender, and Huckabee knows he won't get anywhere arguing about fiscal records).
Finally, and most disturbingly: Huckabee appears to be dipping his toe in the water of the Birther movement. It is simply insane for a candidate for the presidency to do anything other than offer a sharp rebuke of any suggestion that Barack Obama is not American-born. There simply exists not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the president wasn't born in Hawaii. For Huckabee to even imply otherwise demonstrates a willingness to demagogue in the worst way to curry favor with fringe elements of a movement that would otherwise reject his pathetic record as governor.
This needs to stop. Mike Huckabee and his ilk -- George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove -- are engaged in a crusade to destroy the Republican Party. Idiocy such as that peddled by Huckabee yesterday cheapens the movement of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan, making the rest of us look like fools.
23 February 2011
Change we can believe in, part 112
President Obama seems hellbent on convincing me to vote for "generic Republican" in 2012.
Despite a Republican opposition whose leadership has done little but obstruct for two years, Obama continues to remind Americans why John McCain was the correct choice in 2008.
Most recently, Obama's astounding entrance into the Wisconsin standoff between public employees and Republican Gov. Scott Walker demonstrates three things about him.
First, the president can't help but engage in small-bore firefights that have typically been beneath his predecessors. This strange obsession has manifested itself in the White House's battles with Fox News and Politico, and the president's awful commentary on Harvard Professor Gates, which culminated in the offensively juvenile "Beer Summit." There are some fights the president simply should stay out of -- and a budget battle in a state deep in the red is one.
Second, his reflexive, unfettered support for unions demonstrates that, as Chris Matthews pointed out a few months ago, Obama acts like he's still the liberal Democratic senator from Illinois, not the President of the United States. The same tired liberal streak that led him to introduce union-backed killer amendments to the McCain-Kennedy immigration compromise in the Senate continues to reappear in spades in the White House, no matter what the facts might be. Wisconsin is facing a staggering budget shortfall, and its state employees enjoy some of the most generous benefit packages in the nation. Gov. Walker was popularly elected to cut spending and fix Wisconsin's budgetary issues. He is not a dictator. He was given a mandate, and he is carrying it out.
Third, and most critically, it demonstrates that Obama has absolutely no conception of the seriousness of our country's fiscal problems. He passed a trillion dollar "economic stimulus" bill that was little more than a Christmas tree for liberal interest groups, defrayed most spending until the following calendar year and was laughably ineffectual. He put together a blue-ribbon deficit-reduction commission, and when its proposals received broad bipartisan support, he completely ignored them. He just proposed a budget that would run a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion. That's trillion, with a "T". When Republicans began to discuss entitlement reform, he engaged in rank demagoguery. He has managed to govern with an even worse fiscal agenda than that of George W. Bush, who was arguably the most fiscally disastrous president in history.
A crisis is sweeping the country. Not just Wisconsin, but Florida. California. New York. New Jersey. And yes, Obama's home state of Illinois. Governments everywhere have made lavish promises to their employees, and the bill is coming due. The same is true at the federal level with respect to Social Security, which will not be solvent by 2042. Period. This is not in dispute. And instead of seriously -- and nobly -- considering the Simpson-Bowles framework, which was floated months ago, Obama pretends that there isn't a crisis at all. These issues will bring the federal and state governments to their knees. It's already happening, right under our noses. And the president either doesn't care or is too fundamentally stupid to realize it.
Inexperienced, weak and gutless. Barack Obama is all three.
Despite a Republican opposition whose leadership has done little but obstruct for two years, Obama continues to remind Americans why John McCain was the correct choice in 2008.
Most recently, Obama's astounding entrance into the Wisconsin standoff between public employees and Republican Gov. Scott Walker demonstrates three things about him.
First, the president can't help but engage in small-bore firefights that have typically been beneath his predecessors. This strange obsession has manifested itself in the White House's battles with Fox News and Politico, and the president's awful commentary on Harvard Professor Gates, which culminated in the offensively juvenile "Beer Summit." There are some fights the president simply should stay out of -- and a budget battle in a state deep in the red is one.
Second, his reflexive, unfettered support for unions demonstrates that, as Chris Matthews pointed out a few months ago, Obama acts like he's still the liberal Democratic senator from Illinois, not the President of the United States. The same tired liberal streak that led him to introduce union-backed killer amendments to the McCain-Kennedy immigration compromise in the Senate continues to reappear in spades in the White House, no matter what the facts might be. Wisconsin is facing a staggering budget shortfall, and its state employees enjoy some of the most generous benefit packages in the nation. Gov. Walker was popularly elected to cut spending and fix Wisconsin's budgetary issues. He is not a dictator. He was given a mandate, and he is carrying it out.
Third, and most critically, it demonstrates that Obama has absolutely no conception of the seriousness of our country's fiscal problems. He passed a trillion dollar "economic stimulus" bill that was little more than a Christmas tree for liberal interest groups, defrayed most spending until the following calendar year and was laughably ineffectual. He put together a blue-ribbon deficit-reduction commission, and when its proposals received broad bipartisan support, he completely ignored them. He just proposed a budget that would run a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion. That's trillion, with a "T". When Republicans began to discuss entitlement reform, he engaged in rank demagoguery. He has managed to govern with an even worse fiscal agenda than that of George W. Bush, who was arguably the most fiscally disastrous president in history.
A crisis is sweeping the country. Not just Wisconsin, but Florida. California. New York. New Jersey. And yes, Obama's home state of Illinois. Governments everywhere have made lavish promises to their employees, and the bill is coming due. The same is true at the federal level with respect to Social Security, which will not be solvent by 2042. Period. This is not in dispute. And instead of seriously -- and nobly -- considering the Simpson-Bowles framework, which was floated months ago, Obama pretends that there isn't a crisis at all. These issues will bring the federal and state governments to their knees. It's already happening, right under our noses. And the president either doesn't care or is too fundamentally stupid to realize it.
Inexperienced, weak and gutless. Barack Obama is all three.
22 February 2011
Mike Huckabee would be a terrible president
But for those of you pining for a third Bush term, he unquestionably remains your man.
Earlier this week in a telephone conference with reporters, Huckabee strongly implied that he had neither the funding nor appetite for a 2012 presidential run.
On the one hand, Huckabee would be the most direct threat to a Sarah Palin candidacy, and would deeply cut into her support among the egghead wing of the GOP. These are the Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins-type culture warriors, who believe that the Republican Party should be the political wing of Christianity, whose allegiance to Israel outpaces their allegiance to the United States, and whose only qualification for membership in the GOP is that they don't want gay people to get married. This, unfortunately, is a huge feather in the cap of the Palin camp.
On the other hand, Huckabee would be a terrible president.
After his upset win in Iowa in 2008, he said that his victory was likely propelled by the same power that took five loaves of bread and two small fish and fed thousands of people.
As George Will wryly asked, "God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf?" Will spoke for reasonable people everywhere when he said that someone so delusional shouldn't come anywhere near nuclear weapons.
Mike Huckabee was a fundamentally unconservative governor. In his eight years at the helm in Arkansas, spending went up a total of 66 percent -- three times the rate of inflation. During his last two years in office, the Cato Institute gave him a "D" and an "F." Huckabee claims that he cut taxes 90-plus times as governor, but policy wonks have pointed out that many of those "cuts" were very small-bore measures that had little to no impact. The fact is that he had to raise taxes repeatedly to pay for his expansionistic agenda.
Huckabee represents the worst of the Republican Party -- a singular focus on social issues; mouthing support for Ronald Reagan while spitting on the Gipper's legacy with statist solutions that would make many Democrats blush; and a condescension toward an educated mind.
Huckabee may be entertaining on the stump and play a mean bass guitar, but he would make a terrible president.
Earlier this week in a telephone conference with reporters, Huckabee strongly implied that he had neither the funding nor appetite for a 2012 presidential run.
On the one hand, Huckabee would be the most direct threat to a Sarah Palin candidacy, and would deeply cut into her support among the egghead wing of the GOP. These are the Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins-type culture warriors, who believe that the Republican Party should be the political wing of Christianity, whose allegiance to Israel outpaces their allegiance to the United States, and whose only qualification for membership in the GOP is that they don't want gay people to get married. This, unfortunately, is a huge feather in the cap of the Palin camp.
On the other hand, Huckabee would be a terrible president.
After his upset win in Iowa in 2008, he said that his victory was likely propelled by the same power that took five loaves of bread and two small fish and fed thousands of people.
As George Will wryly asked, "God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf?" Will spoke for reasonable people everywhere when he said that someone so delusional shouldn't come anywhere near nuclear weapons.
Mike Huckabee was a fundamentally unconservative governor. In his eight years at the helm in Arkansas, spending went up a total of 66 percent -- three times the rate of inflation. During his last two years in office, the Cato Institute gave him a "D" and an "F." Huckabee claims that he cut taxes 90-plus times as governor, but policy wonks have pointed out that many of those "cuts" were very small-bore measures that had little to no impact. The fact is that he had to raise taxes repeatedly to pay for his expansionistic agenda.
Huckabee represents the worst of the Republican Party -- a singular focus on social issues; mouthing support for Ronald Reagan while spitting on the Gipper's legacy with statist solutions that would make many Democrats blush; and a condescension toward an educated mind.
Huckabee may be entertaining on the stump and play a mean bass guitar, but he would make a terrible president.
11 February 2011
The folly of democratization, Ctd.
Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative -- perhaps the web's foremost purveyor of realpolitik -- has informed my thoughts on Middle Eastern democratization more than any other writer.
Larison has written a number of compelling columns about why "free and fair elections" in Egypt are a fool's errand, one of which we cited on February 8 that in fact references President Reagan's policy toward democratic forces (and the pro-American dictators the forces were seeking to overthrow) in Nicaragua and the Philippines.
In short, I agree with nearly all of Larison's points when it comes to American foreign policy abroad. The policy pushed by the Bush administration post-9/11 of "square-peg/round-hole" democracy -- and America's role as democracy's deliverer to the oppressed -- is a terrible idea for many reasons. First, the American military -- as demonstrated by the obstacles encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is simply not capable of toppling repressive regimes, then engaging in long-term nation-building, one country after another. Less than half of the world's recognized states even pretend to be democratic, and short of drafting another 10 million adults into the armed forces, there is simply no way to functionally put this "democracy agenda" into practice. Second, post-9/11 proponents of democracy -- and those who cheer the Egyptian protesters in the streets -- completely ignore the consequence of what has happened when Arab peoples have been afforded "free and fair elections." In Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (al-Sadr), Iran (Ahmadenijhad) and Gaza (Hamas), serious anti-American forces have gained a foothold on power anytime they have secured a place on a ballot.
As Larison noted, time and again, Bushian democratizers ignore the consequence of leaving governance to Arab popular opinion.
In a 2009 poll of Egyptians conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, 60% of respondents believed that government "should be based on a form of democracy that is unique for Islamic countries." Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed that "there should be a body of senior religious scholars that has the power to overturn laws when it believes they are contrary to the Quran." And 34 percent said that a non-Muslim should not be allowed to run for president. In a more recent poll by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a very narrow plurality of Egyptians (36 percent to 29 percent) believe their country should have good relations with the United States, and over half of respondents say they do not trust America at all. A clear plurality of respondents (34 percent to 19 percent) believed that Egypt should either abrogate its peace treaty with Israel "and join as a full partner in the 'resistance front' against the Zionist entity" or distance itself from its relationship with the United States, versus opposed maintaining American ties. Similarly, nearly as many respondents (15 percent to 19 percent) said Egypt should restore full, friendly relations with Iran and Syria versus maintaining its relationship with the United States.
As Larison has implied, in many cases in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan and probably Egypt as the most noteworthy -- autocracies are in the best interests of the United States because, quite simply, ruling regimes are much more friendly toward the United States compared to the Arab street. At the risk of painting with a broad brush, this fact is actually quite obvious based on the above survey results from Egypt. Additionally, as Larison has expressly pointed out, when democracy is tried in developing or Middle Eastern countries, often the more extremist candidates seem to rise to power.
I genuinely empathize with the aspirations of those brave Egyptians who have taken to the streets. But I am an American, and my sole allegiance is to the country I love so deeply.
If it is in America's best interests that an autocrat remain in power, then it must be so.
Larison has written a number of compelling columns about why "free and fair elections" in Egypt are a fool's errand, one of which we cited on February 8 that in fact references President Reagan's policy toward democratic forces (and the pro-American dictators the forces were seeking to overthrow) in Nicaragua and the Philippines.
In short, I agree with nearly all of Larison's points when it comes to American foreign policy abroad. The policy pushed by the Bush administration post-9/11 of "square-peg/round-hole" democracy -- and America's role as democracy's deliverer to the oppressed -- is a terrible idea for many reasons. First, the American military -- as demonstrated by the obstacles encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is simply not capable of toppling repressive regimes, then engaging in long-term nation-building, one country after another. Less than half of the world's recognized states even pretend to be democratic, and short of drafting another 10 million adults into the armed forces, there is simply no way to functionally put this "democracy agenda" into practice. Second, post-9/11 proponents of democracy -- and those who cheer the Egyptian protesters in the streets -- completely ignore the consequence of what has happened when Arab peoples have been afforded "free and fair elections." In Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (al-Sadr), Iran (Ahmadenijhad) and Gaza (Hamas), serious anti-American forces have gained a foothold on power anytime they have secured a place on a ballot.
As Larison noted, time and again, Bushian democratizers ignore the consequence of leaving governance to Arab popular opinion.
In a 2009 poll of Egyptians conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, 60% of respondents believed that government "should be based on a form of democracy that is unique for Islamic countries." Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed that "there should be a body of senior religious scholars that has the power to overturn laws when it believes they are contrary to the Quran." And 34 percent said that a non-Muslim should not be allowed to run for president. In a more recent poll by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a very narrow plurality of Egyptians (36 percent to 29 percent) believe their country should have good relations with the United States, and over half of respondents say they do not trust America at all. A clear plurality of respondents (34 percent to 19 percent) believed that Egypt should either abrogate its peace treaty with Israel "and join as a full partner in the 'resistance front' against the Zionist entity" or distance itself from its relationship with the United States, versus opposed maintaining American ties. Similarly, nearly as many respondents (15 percent to 19 percent) said Egypt should restore full, friendly relations with Iran and Syria versus maintaining its relationship with the United States.
As Larison has implied, in many cases in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan and probably Egypt as the most noteworthy -- autocracies are in the best interests of the United States because, quite simply, ruling regimes are much more friendly toward the United States compared to the Arab street. At the risk of painting with a broad brush, this fact is actually quite obvious based on the above survey results from Egypt. Additionally, as Larison has expressly pointed out, when democracy is tried in developing or Middle Eastern countries, often the more extremist candidates seem to rise to power.
I genuinely empathize with the aspirations of those brave Egyptians who have taken to the streets. But I am an American, and my sole allegiance is to the country I love so deeply.
If it is in America's best interests that an autocrat remain in power, then it must be so.
08 February 2011
On Egypt and democratization
With President Mubarak's recent announcement that he will not run for re-election in September, the popular energy dedicated to regime change in Egypt has begun to dissipate. To be sure, some protesters have vowed to remain in the streets until Mubarak leaves, but at this point, that appears to be a futile exercise. The strongman has agreed to step down, and the incoming leadership -- however fragmented by opposition factions -- will likely replicate many of the same policies that Egypt has followed during the Mubarak era. This ostensibly includes maintaining the existing peace treaties with Israel, and more critically, maintaining a cordial relationship with America. As Fareed Zakaria astutely noted in an excellent cover story on the Egyptian uprising, the popular Egyptian military will serve as a buffer to ensure that any change in civil society is only incremental.
This is an exceptionally good result for the United States. Certainly, bleeding-heart liberals and the Bushian pro-democracy/square-peg-round-hole crowd are frustrated by the fact that the wishes of the Egyptian populace will be largely unrealized. But while many of Mubarak's tactics in quelling the uprising have been reprehensible, the fact remains that Mubarak has been a tremendously valuable ally in stabilizing the Middle East, thwarting radical Islamist extremist elements in his own country and co-existing with Israel. It is simply in America's strategic interests that his regime, or a similar one, stays in power.
In virtually every place this "democratization" has been tried in the Middle East, regimes have appeared with serious and severe anti-American sentiments and policies. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is the dominant political party. In Iraq, the Iranian-backed Mutdaqa al-Sadr wreaks havoc. In Afghanistan, the Taliban remains reasonably popular. In Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadenijhad enjoys support among the poor, the uneducated and the deeply religious. And in Gaza, the Palestinians are governed by Hamas. Each of these political parties or figures is enormously antagonistic -- sometimes outright hostile -- to America. It is patently obvious that it would be in the best interests of the United States if, for instance, a Mubarak-like strongman came to power in Lebanon, displacing the democratically elected Hezbollah.
In short, to say that as a general rule, democracy promotion in the Middle East is in America's national interest simply ignores the results of democratic elections.
Just two days past Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, it's important to remember what shaped the Gipper's foreign policy. As Daniel Larison noted, he was most certainly not a Bushian democratizer, but rather evaluated every foreign regime with one question in mind: What is in the best interests of the United States?
Larison writes:
Far from supporting Nicaragua’s ostensibly popular (and, post-1984, elected) government, Reagan was dedicated to overthrowing it. One of the main examples Guardiano uses to praise Reagan shows that Reagan was not only unsympathetic to popular movements when they posed a perceived threat to U.S. policy, but also that he actively tried to defeat them. Even if the Muslim Brotherhood remained only one force among many in a new regime, a new Egyptian government would almost certainly be much less interested in security cooperation with the U.S., and some or perhaps most members of any new government are going to look askance at U.S. policies. Put another way, the less influence the military has on any future Egyptian government, the less cooperative it is probably going to be. For some Americans, that is an argument in favor of regime change, but it simply doesn’t make sense to argue that empowering the Muslim Brotherhood helps “roll back radical Islam.” If “rolling back radical Islam” is the goal, it is hard to see how empowering some fairly radical Islamists will do that.
This is an exceptionally good result for the United States. Certainly, bleeding-heart liberals and the Bushian pro-democracy/square-peg-round-hole crowd are frustrated by the fact that the wishes of the Egyptian populace will be largely unrealized. But while many of Mubarak's tactics in quelling the uprising have been reprehensible, the fact remains that Mubarak has been a tremendously valuable ally in stabilizing the Middle East, thwarting radical Islamist extremist elements in his own country and co-existing with Israel. It is simply in America's strategic interests that his regime, or a similar one, stays in power.
In virtually every place this "democratization" has been tried in the Middle East, regimes have appeared with serious and severe anti-American sentiments and policies. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is the dominant political party. In Iraq, the Iranian-backed Mutdaqa al-Sadr wreaks havoc. In Afghanistan, the Taliban remains reasonably popular. In Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadenijhad enjoys support among the poor, the uneducated and the deeply religious. And in Gaza, the Palestinians are governed by Hamas. Each of these political parties or figures is enormously antagonistic -- sometimes outright hostile -- to America. It is patently obvious that it would be in the best interests of the United States if, for instance, a Mubarak-like strongman came to power in Lebanon, displacing the democratically elected Hezbollah.
In short, to say that as a general rule, democracy promotion in the Middle East is in America's national interest simply ignores the results of democratic elections.
Just two days past Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, it's important to remember what shaped the Gipper's foreign policy. As Daniel Larison noted, he was most certainly not a Bushian democratizer, but rather evaluated every foreign regime with one question in mind: What is in the best interests of the United States?
Larison writes:
Far from supporting Nicaragua’s ostensibly popular (and, post-1984, elected) government, Reagan was dedicated to overthrowing it. One of the main examples Guardiano uses to praise Reagan shows that Reagan was not only unsympathetic to popular movements when they posed a perceived threat to U.S. policy, but also that he actively tried to defeat them. Even if the Muslim Brotherhood remained only one force among many in a new regime, a new Egyptian government would almost certainly be much less interested in security cooperation with the U.S., and some or perhaps most members of any new government are going to look askance at U.S. policies. Put another way, the less influence the military has on any future Egyptian government, the less cooperative it is probably going to be. For some Americans, that is an argument in favor of regime change, but it simply doesn’t make sense to argue that empowering the Muslim Brotherhood helps “roll back radical Islam.” If “rolling back radical Islam” is the goal, it is hard to see how empowering some fairly radical Islamists will do that.
03 February 2011
Newt Gingrich is an idiot
Once the smartest man inside the Beltway, the former Speaker's stunning descent into the deep end of Palinesque egghead populism continues.
Today, when asked his opinion of the Obama administration's response to the upheaval in Egypt, Gingrich said "I don't think they have a clue. It's very frightening to watch this administration."
I can't imagine a place on the internet more bitingly critical of President Obama's domestic policy and his assaults on civil liberties than this site. But to say that he's operated in a "frightening" manner is just plain demagoguery.
To this point, the administration has carefully avoided both extremes -- calling for Mubarak's immediate ouster (which would raise the ire of King Abdullah of Jordan and the Saudi royal family -- both enormously important American allies, and create a huge power vacuum that, as Gingrich and many others on the Right have noted, might be filled at least in part by the Muslim Brotherhood) and standing with Mubarak due to his relative passivity toward Israel (which would throw the Arab street into an anti-American uproar). Obama has done plenty wrong thus far in his presidency, but he has thus far managed a delicate balance between expressing support for both the protesters publicly, and a besieged American ally privately.
As Daniel Larison correctly noted, Egypt is a sovereign nation of more than 80 million people. Exactly how much do administration critics think Obama can accomplish by meddling in its affairs?
If Gingrich is going to criticize Obama's conduct, then he has to tell us what he would do instead.
He can't. That's the problem. Since he reemerged on the political scene a few years ago, Gingrich has done little other than critique and demagogue. Does he have the capacity to do anything else?
As if cheating on his second wife while railroading President Clinton through impeachment proceedings and calling a sitting president a "Kenyan anti-colonialist" weren't enough, Newt Gingrich has given voters yet another reason to ignore his laughable case for the presidency.
Today, when asked his opinion of the Obama administration's response to the upheaval in Egypt, Gingrich said "I don't think they have a clue. It's very frightening to watch this administration."
I can't imagine a place on the internet more bitingly critical of President Obama's domestic policy and his assaults on civil liberties than this site. But to say that he's operated in a "frightening" manner is just plain demagoguery.
To this point, the administration has carefully avoided both extremes -- calling for Mubarak's immediate ouster (which would raise the ire of King Abdullah of Jordan and the Saudi royal family -- both enormously important American allies, and create a huge power vacuum that, as Gingrich and many others on the Right have noted, might be filled at least in part by the Muslim Brotherhood) and standing with Mubarak due to his relative passivity toward Israel (which would throw the Arab street into an anti-American uproar). Obama has done plenty wrong thus far in his presidency, but he has thus far managed a delicate balance between expressing support for both the protesters publicly, and a besieged American ally privately.
As Daniel Larison correctly noted, Egypt is a sovereign nation of more than 80 million people. Exactly how much do administration critics think Obama can accomplish by meddling in its affairs?
If Gingrich is going to criticize Obama's conduct, then he has to tell us what he would do instead.
He can't. That's the problem. Since he reemerged on the political scene a few years ago, Gingrich has done little other than critique and demagogue. Does he have the capacity to do anything else?
As if cheating on his second wife while railroading President Clinton through impeachment proceedings and calling a sitting president a "Kenyan anti-colonialist" weren't enough, Newt Gingrich has given voters yet another reason to ignore his laughable case for the presidency.
02 February 2011
Joe Lieberman's police state rolls on
Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins continue to push an awful bill that would give the president "emergency powers" to shut down the internet.
Presumably, such powers would only be exercised in a "national cyber emergency."
Or, as Conor Friedersdorf pointed out, they could be exercised anytime the president wants to engage in a wanton abuse of power, because the bill expressly prohibits judicial review.
Remember: The recent history of presidential abuses in the White House is remarkable. Richard Nixon covered up a break-in of the Watergate building and resigned the presidency in disgrace as the House was about to impeach him. Bill Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with a White House staffer and similarly obstructed the ensuing federal investigation. He became the second president in American history to be impeached. And George W. Bush brazenly broke federal wiretapping laws and continues to brag about it.
The introduction of the Lieberman-Collins bill -- especially in the wake of the horrendous theories of executive power created by the Bush administration -- demonstrates a complete and utter ignorance toward the natural proclivities of our elected leaders to engage in gross (arguably criminal) misconduct while in office.
The Lieberman-Collins bill also evinces another terrible excess of the Bush years -- the desire to shield the president from any semblance of judicial review. Under this bill, the president's authority to shut down the internet could not be reviewed by any court in the nation. Bush argued that his "commander in chief" power could not be limited by judicial review, and Dick Cheney argued that the president alone determined the scope of his powers under Article II. Barack Obama's Justice Department has engaged in similar attempts to shield executive power abuses from judicial review, arguing that the president can unilaterally order the assassinations of American citizens abroad, and by using the "state secrets" doctrine as an affirmative defense to any action that challenges the president's conduct of the War on Terror.
And now this? Giving the president the power to shut down the internet?
Coincidentally, we wrote in this space last week about Lieberman's lust-filled obsession with federal power. Whether it's forcing citizens to engage in private enterprise, allowing the president to break federal law without consequence, or giving the president the power to completely shut down the internet, Lieberman's ideal of America has more in common with the Soviet Union than it does the country envisioned by the Founders.
Joe Lieberman is the ultimate enemy of individual liberty.
THIS -- not Obamacare or the scary congressman from Wisconsin who wants to take away your Social Security -- is the ultimate threat to liberty in the 21st century. Anyone who thinks otherwise (Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, House Democrats) is a fool.
Hats off to the likes of Friedersdorf, Radley Balko and the folks at Reason and Cato for highlighting these abuses, and doing the work that the American news media shirks.
Presumably, such powers would only be exercised in a "national cyber emergency."
Or, as Conor Friedersdorf pointed out, they could be exercised anytime the president wants to engage in a wanton abuse of power, because the bill expressly prohibits judicial review.
Remember: The recent history of presidential abuses in the White House is remarkable. Richard Nixon covered up a break-in of the Watergate building and resigned the presidency in disgrace as the House was about to impeach him. Bill Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with a White House staffer and similarly obstructed the ensuing federal investigation. He became the second president in American history to be impeached. And George W. Bush brazenly broke federal wiretapping laws and continues to brag about it.
The introduction of the Lieberman-Collins bill -- especially in the wake of the horrendous theories of executive power created by the Bush administration -- demonstrates a complete and utter ignorance toward the natural proclivities of our elected leaders to engage in gross (arguably criminal) misconduct while in office.
The Lieberman-Collins bill also evinces another terrible excess of the Bush years -- the desire to shield the president from any semblance of judicial review. Under this bill, the president's authority to shut down the internet could not be reviewed by any court in the nation. Bush argued that his "commander in chief" power could not be limited by judicial review, and Dick Cheney argued that the president alone determined the scope of his powers under Article II. Barack Obama's Justice Department has engaged in similar attempts to shield executive power abuses from judicial review, arguing that the president can unilaterally order the assassinations of American citizens abroad, and by using the "state secrets" doctrine as an affirmative defense to any action that challenges the president's conduct of the War on Terror.
And now this? Giving the president the power to shut down the internet?
Coincidentally, we wrote in this space last week about Lieberman's lust-filled obsession with federal power. Whether it's forcing citizens to engage in private enterprise, allowing the president to break federal law without consequence, or giving the president the power to completely shut down the internet, Lieberman's ideal of America has more in common with the Soviet Union than it does the country envisioned by the Founders.
Joe Lieberman is the ultimate enemy of individual liberty.
THIS -- not Obamacare or the scary congressman from Wisconsin who wants to take away your Social Security -- is the ultimate threat to liberty in the 21st century. Anyone who thinks otherwise (Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, House Democrats) is a fool.
Hats off to the likes of Friedersdorf, Radley Balko and the folks at Reason and Cato for highlighting these abuses, and doing the work that the American news media shirks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)