A Ron Paul endorsement might be the last thing you'd expect from someone who offered a full-throated endorsement of John McCain in 2008.
But the country is much different four years later, and it's considerably worse off.
The housing bubble burst. National debt is expected to reach 100 percent of GDP by 2020. The entitlement crisis continues to loom. The federal government has claimed the novel power to coerce citizens to engage in private economic activities, such as purchasing private health insurance. The military-industrial complex has transformed into a bipartisan phenomenon. So has the thirst for endless war in the Middle East. The president has claimed the power to assassinate American citizens by executive order and will soon have the power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without trial.
Ron Paul represents a complete rejection of the last 11 years of Republican misrule.
George W. Bush was the most fiscally destructive president in American history. He ran up record deficits, passed an unfunded prescription drug liability and sat idly by as the Federal Reserve inflated the money supply, leading to the bursting of the housing bubble and the collapse of the markets. Ron Paul has promised to seek $1 trillion in cuts from the federal budget in 2013. Democrats call this "draconian." I call it fiscal responsibility.
The two "leading" contenders for the nomination, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, famously supported Barack Obama's cherished individual mandate to purchase health insurance. This is fundamentally unconservative, and the idea that a "conservative" could support such a policy is blasphemous. Ron Paul's conception of limited government and maximum liberty puts him at odds with Gingrich, Romney and Obama. He appears to be as upset with the idea of an individual mandate as me.
The war in Iraq cost 4,500 American lives, 30,000 other American casualties, 100,000 Iraqi civilians and about $1 trillion in American dollars. Once on the verge of a post-Saddam civil war, Iraq is spiraling toward a perpetual state of illiberal democracy, where Christians are persecuted and flee, the country is becoming Balkanized, political corruption is rampant and Iran -- America's supposed sworn worst enemy -- has gained considerable political influence.
Every Republican contender believes that America should launch another war against Iran and repeat our mistakes in Iraq. I'm supporting Ron Paul because he thinks this is absurd.
Every Republican contender supports sweeping federal laws codifying marriage, banning pornography and generally legislating morality. I'm supporting Ron Paul because he thinks the 10th Amendment still means something.
Every Republican contender supports President Obama's method of putting American citizens on "hit lists" without a shred of due process, and every contender appears to endorse the Imperial Executive's supposed power to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to counsel, a trial or even a formal charge. I'm supporting Ron Paul because he's read Amendments 4, 5 and 6.
Today's Republicans like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have more in common with Woodrow Wilson than Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley.
Conservatism demands an adherence to the Constitution's very words and a respect for the separation of powers that the Constitution has enshrined.
Aside from Jon Huntsman, who seems intent on alienating the Republican base, there is nothing fundamentally "conservative" about any of Ron Paul's challengers. The rest of the field is made up of big-government Republicans who would return America to the destructive era of George W. Bush, where the president enjoys unchecked executive power, deficits spiral even further out of control and the country pursues a foolish, Wilsonian foreign policy. I've had enough of that for one lifetime.
Paul's critics claim that he isn't electable. But according to whom? A recent Public Policy Polling report showed Paul running dead even with President Obama in Iowa, a state that John McCain lost by nine points in 2008. A CNN poll released today showed Paul performing equally as well as Mitt Romney in a hypothetical matchup with Obama, and nearly ten points better than Gingrich. Additionally, because of his staunch libertarian stance on executive power and foreign policy issues, Paul has the ability -- utterly unmatched by any of his competitors -- to carve into Obama's liberal base. The Glenn Greenwald/Russ Feingold vote is up for grabs, much as the Pat Buchanan/Conor Friedersdorf vote would be up for grabs if the contest putted Feingold against, say, Michele Bachmann. Paul could be the great fusion candidate so many liberals and libertarians have dreamed of, to run staunchly against the Bush/Obama perpetual warfare machine. We haven't ever seen a candidate like him on the national stage.
The more I write, the more this becomes a no-brainer for a conservative like me. I don't agree with Paul on everything -- I think his call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve contradicts conservatism's adherence to gradual structural change and a respect for existing institutions -- but I agree with him on far more than any of his rivals. The people who discount Paul as a serious general election candidate do so based on little to no hard evidence that he would make a poor nominee. To the contrary, given the country's fiscal crisis, the unpopularity of the president in most quarters outside of hardcore partisans and Paul's famous fidelity to the Constitution, it is just as likely that Paul wipes out Obama in a landslide.
21 December 2011
18 December 2011
Newt Gingrich hates the Constitution
Back with a vengeance.
Newt Gingrich has emerged as the "conservative" alternative to Mitt Romney. Right.
Over the remainder of the primary season, we could probably dedicate a post a day to some of the absurd, statist, fundamentally unconservative things Gingrich says.
The idea that Gingrich is "conservative" is truly laughable.
If you believe this, you are stupid, ill-informed and a sucker for cheap political demagoguery.
In the 1990s, Gingrich supported a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, which would be the centerpiece of Obamacare 15 years later.
He appeared next to Nancy Pelosi in a cap-and-trade commercial sponsored by an Al Gore-funded outfit.
He took $1.6 million of taxpayer money from Freddie Mac during the height of the housing bubble, all while endorsing its business model and the idiotic liberal ideal that, irrespective of a person's credit history or income, everyone should own a house -- things for which Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann have rightfully excoriated him.
He pushed congressional Republicans to pass the budget-busting Medicare Part D in 2004, while taking money from Big Pharma. Medicare Part D was the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society.
This is arguably just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm getting tired of not addressing what I just read 10 minutes ago.
On Face the Nation this morning, Gingrich doubled down on his outrageous idea that Congress should have the power to subpoena federal judges whose decisions they oppose. Not only did Gingrich reiterate his support for idea -- which is a completely unconstitutional usurping of the separation of powers doctrine -- but he endorsed the use of the federal marshals to haul these judges into the Rotunda. This is truly outrageous. A President Gingrich's first act would apparently be to put the Constitution through a paper shredder.
Furthermore, Gingrich told Bob Schieffer that he is running for president to stop federal judges from encroaching on the president's commander-in-chief powers.
This is outrageous. It should make any liberty-loving American sick to his stomach. The judiciary is charged with enforcing the Constitution, and it admirably curbed the grave excesses of the Bush administration during its unconstitutional assault on the Bill of Rights. Even Antonin Scalia and John Roberts -- conservative jurisprudence's two shining lights -- levied harsh criticisms of the unprecedented powers. Does Gingrich really believe what John Yoo and Dick Cheney believe -- that the Constitution is suspended, and the president can do whatever he wants, so long as the president says we're at war?
We should be thankful that someone so grossly unfit for the presidency comes across the American stage so infrequently. He believes that the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine should be junked, that the president should be able to operate without the constraints of the Constitution, and apparently, that big government can and should be used for "conservative" ends. And who is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't "conservative"? Gingrich, of course. Despite the fact that this man is so delusional and so outrageous, he is remarkably self-assured, such that many conservatives actually buy this nonsense. If Newt Gingrich is the nominee, it should be the end of American conservatism as we know it. Gingrich's deluded ideal of America has more in common with a Middle Eastern banana republic than it does the vision laid out by the Founders.
The fact that Republicans actually consider him the conservative alternative to anybody is sickening. The people who believe this are fools. Gingrich represents everything that Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan opposed. Even as much as Barack Obama -- and perhaps, arguably, more -- Newt Gingrich is an enemy of the Constitution.
Newt Gingrich has emerged as the "conservative" alternative to Mitt Romney. Right.
Over the remainder of the primary season, we could probably dedicate a post a day to some of the absurd, statist, fundamentally unconservative things Gingrich says.
The idea that Gingrich is "conservative" is truly laughable.
If you believe this, you are stupid, ill-informed and a sucker for cheap political demagoguery.
In the 1990s, Gingrich supported a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, which would be the centerpiece of Obamacare 15 years later.
He appeared next to Nancy Pelosi in a cap-and-trade commercial sponsored by an Al Gore-funded outfit.
He took $1.6 million of taxpayer money from Freddie Mac during the height of the housing bubble, all while endorsing its business model and the idiotic liberal ideal that, irrespective of a person's credit history or income, everyone should own a house -- things for which Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann have rightfully excoriated him.
He pushed congressional Republicans to pass the budget-busting Medicare Part D in 2004, while taking money from Big Pharma. Medicare Part D was the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society.
This is arguably just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm getting tired of not addressing what I just read 10 minutes ago.
On Face the Nation this morning, Gingrich doubled down on his outrageous idea that Congress should have the power to subpoena federal judges whose decisions they oppose. Not only did Gingrich reiterate his support for idea -- which is a completely unconstitutional usurping of the separation of powers doctrine -- but he endorsed the use of the federal marshals to haul these judges into the Rotunda. This is truly outrageous. A President Gingrich's first act would apparently be to put the Constitution through a paper shredder.
Furthermore, Gingrich told Bob Schieffer that he is running for president to stop federal judges from encroaching on the president's commander-in-chief powers.
This is outrageous. It should make any liberty-loving American sick to his stomach. The judiciary is charged with enforcing the Constitution, and it admirably curbed the grave excesses of the Bush administration during its unconstitutional assault on the Bill of Rights. Even Antonin Scalia and John Roberts -- conservative jurisprudence's two shining lights -- levied harsh criticisms of the unprecedented powers. Does Gingrich really believe what John Yoo and Dick Cheney believe -- that the Constitution is suspended, and the president can do whatever he wants, so long as the president says we're at war?
We should be thankful that someone so grossly unfit for the presidency comes across the American stage so infrequently. He believes that the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine should be junked, that the president should be able to operate without the constraints of the Constitution, and apparently, that big government can and should be used for "conservative" ends. And who is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't "conservative"? Gingrich, of course. Despite the fact that this man is so delusional and so outrageous, he is remarkably self-assured, such that many conservatives actually buy this nonsense. If Newt Gingrich is the nominee, it should be the end of American conservatism as we know it. Gingrich's deluded ideal of America has more in common with a Middle Eastern banana republic than it does the vision laid out by the Founders.
The fact that Republicans actually consider him the conservative alternative to anybody is sickening. The people who believe this are fools. Gingrich represents everything that Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan opposed. Even as much as Barack Obama -- and perhaps, arguably, more -- Newt Gingrich is an enemy of the Constitution.
08 September 2011
Debate reax
Mitt Romney was the clear winner. It's obvious that he has cemented himself as the moderate/electable alternative to Perry and Bachmann, and he won nearly every exchange with Perry due to his superior intellectual firepower. I've written here before that he is a dishonest, unprincipled hack, but I'll admit he had a fine showing last night, impressively trading punches with Perry from the get-go. He handled serious questions about Bain Capital with great skill. My concerns about Romney's viability in the general election are quickly disappearing. I think his business acumen would dwarf Obama on stage.
Jon Huntsman had an outstanding performance. While he demonstrated seriousness in the first debate, he was clearly a bit wooden and nervous. Last night, he was phenomenal, turning in one of the best debate performances I've ever seen. I liked that he took on Perry and Romney directly and contrasted his own, more impressive, economic record with theirs. Down in the polls, Huntsman is clearly trying to goad Perry and/or Romney into a fight to raise his profile. I've said before that I think Huntsman's ultimate goal is the nomination in 2016 or 2020, and he's obviously facing an uphill climb to peel away voters from the Romney machine. But last night's performance was fantastic, and I hope he stays in the race.
Michele Bachmann was laughably bad. Even next to an intellectual lightweight like Perry, she shrank deep into the periphery. She clearly is becoming a fringe candidate like Gary Bauer or Al Sharpton, which is precisely what she is. Pressed for a regulation she'd eliminate as president, Bachmann gave a tired, rehearsed line about Obamacare. While Obamacare is terrible policy, her answer was a complete copout, demonstrating that she has no clue about any other regulation that she'd repeal. Like Sarah Palin, she throws out tinny lines and soundbites without fully understanding what she's talking about.
As good as Ron Paul was in the previous debate, he was equally awful last night. Paul looked all of his 76 years, railing against FEMA, Social Security and the Fed, and failing to string together his libertarian narrative as he did so masterfully last month. If the moderators were attempting to paint Paul as an anti-government crank who shouldn't be trusted to sit next to the red phone, they did a superb job. He looked terrible. And despite what the polls might say, I cannot imagine some of these responses playing well against Obama in the general. Next to Obama's cerebral detachment, Paul will look hysterical and reactionary. He would make an excellent president, but after performances like this, I fear he'd be a terrible nominee.
Newt Gingrich was, as usual, abysmal. How a man who has been married to three women and cheated on two of them, and who was thrown out of Washington in disgrace 13 years ago, can proselytize like this is beyond the definition of chutzpah. His legacy is wasted potential, hypocrisy and unbounded egotism. Gingrich's attack of the moderators (and the "Liberal Media") for trying to flush out differences between the candidates was beyond absurd. It's a debate.
Herman Cain has a plan. Really. You can read it on his website.
Rick Santorum was his typically arrogant, aggrandizing self. I'm proud of the Republican Party that he remains on the fringe.
And finally, Rick Perry. He was underwhelming. He proved himself a lightweight when compared to Romney and Huntsman. His Texas jobs record, while facially impressive, has thousands of holes (massive oil and gas reserves, no state income tax, etc.). Despite the lines of attack being obvious from the opening, Perry stumbled badly several times when confronted with the spots on his record. We've written here before about Perry's serious deviations from conservative orthodoxy on issues like eminent domain and healthcare that are deeply disconcerting. Last night, I saw far too many resemblances between Perry and George W. Bush. The inability to match a smarter opponent (Romney) on policy. Heated rhetoric instead of policy prescriptions. The same lack of intellectual curiosity. What Perry has going for him is that many conservatives don't care about these things. They're more concerned with rhetoric than results -- hence the veneration of the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, who have never accomplished anything meaningful in terms of conservative public policy, and the distrust of Mitch Daniels and Hunstman, who have sterling conservative records that would make any Reaganite proud. Conservative bloggers likely will deem Perry last night's winner because he was combative and, probably, because he reminded them of Bush. But that's no solace for me. I will certainly vote for Perry against Barack Obama if he's the nominee. But I wish the Republican base would stop cheerleading for candidates like this.
Jon Huntsman had an outstanding performance. While he demonstrated seriousness in the first debate, he was clearly a bit wooden and nervous. Last night, he was phenomenal, turning in one of the best debate performances I've ever seen. I liked that he took on Perry and Romney directly and contrasted his own, more impressive, economic record with theirs. Down in the polls, Huntsman is clearly trying to goad Perry and/or Romney into a fight to raise his profile. I've said before that I think Huntsman's ultimate goal is the nomination in 2016 or 2020, and he's obviously facing an uphill climb to peel away voters from the Romney machine. But last night's performance was fantastic, and I hope he stays in the race.
Michele Bachmann was laughably bad. Even next to an intellectual lightweight like Perry, she shrank deep into the periphery. She clearly is becoming a fringe candidate like Gary Bauer or Al Sharpton, which is precisely what she is. Pressed for a regulation she'd eliminate as president, Bachmann gave a tired, rehearsed line about Obamacare. While Obamacare is terrible policy, her answer was a complete copout, demonstrating that she has no clue about any other regulation that she'd repeal. Like Sarah Palin, she throws out tinny lines and soundbites without fully understanding what she's talking about.
As good as Ron Paul was in the previous debate, he was equally awful last night. Paul looked all of his 76 years, railing against FEMA, Social Security and the Fed, and failing to string together his libertarian narrative as he did so masterfully last month. If the moderators were attempting to paint Paul as an anti-government crank who shouldn't be trusted to sit next to the red phone, they did a superb job. He looked terrible. And despite what the polls might say, I cannot imagine some of these responses playing well against Obama in the general. Next to Obama's cerebral detachment, Paul will look hysterical and reactionary. He would make an excellent president, but after performances like this, I fear he'd be a terrible nominee.
Newt Gingrich was, as usual, abysmal. How a man who has been married to three women and cheated on two of them, and who was thrown out of Washington in disgrace 13 years ago, can proselytize like this is beyond the definition of chutzpah. His legacy is wasted potential, hypocrisy and unbounded egotism. Gingrich's attack of the moderators (and the "Liberal Media") for trying to flush out differences between the candidates was beyond absurd. It's a debate.
Herman Cain has a plan. Really. You can read it on his website.
Rick Santorum was his typically arrogant, aggrandizing self. I'm proud of the Republican Party that he remains on the fringe.
And finally, Rick Perry. He was underwhelming. He proved himself a lightweight when compared to Romney and Huntsman. His Texas jobs record, while facially impressive, has thousands of holes (massive oil and gas reserves, no state income tax, etc.). Despite the lines of attack being obvious from the opening, Perry stumbled badly several times when confronted with the spots on his record. We've written here before about Perry's serious deviations from conservative orthodoxy on issues like eminent domain and healthcare that are deeply disconcerting. Last night, I saw far too many resemblances between Perry and George W. Bush. The inability to match a smarter opponent (Romney) on policy. Heated rhetoric instead of policy prescriptions. The same lack of intellectual curiosity. What Perry has going for him is that many conservatives don't care about these things. They're more concerned with rhetoric than results -- hence the veneration of the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, who have never accomplished anything meaningful in terms of conservative public policy, and the distrust of Mitch Daniels and Hunstman, who have sterling conservative records that would make any Reaganite proud. Conservative bloggers likely will deem Perry last night's winner because he was combative and, probably, because he reminded them of Bush. But that's no solace for me. I will certainly vote for Perry against Barack Obama if he's the nominee. But I wish the Republican base would stop cheerleading for candidates like this.
25 August 2011
The growing case against Rick Perry
I've been mostly apathetic about Rick Perry's entrance into the GOP primary, if for no other reason than none of his principal challengers thrills me. It's well-documented that I'd like to see the nominee come from the lower tiers -- specifically, Ron Paul (who is arguably a borderline first-tier candidate despite being completely ignored by most media types), Gary Johnson or Jon Hunstman.
Although Perry's entrance has thrilled many seeking an electable alternative to Michele Bachmann and a more conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, several damaging elements of Perry's record have emerged very quickly. While Romney's missteps are well-documented and have been discussed here ad nauseum, Perry is largely considered far more conservative than Romney, so his record is, as of yet, unimpeached.
First: In 2006, Perry supported a trans-Texan highway that would ostensibly link up the populous cities in the east to the sparsely populated west. To secure land on which to build the highway, Perry proposed gobbling up myriad property owners' homes through eminent domain. This reflects the worst excesses of the Kelo v. New London era, where state governments are held to an absurdly low standard when asked to justify why citizens should be thrown off their land. In the opinion of most conservatives (see the O'Connor/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas dissent in Kelo, for starters), the state must clear an exceptionally high bar, and have a deeply compelling interest, when taking private property through eminent domain. Building a "highway to nowhere" is far from a sufficient justification. West Texas is a notoriously sparse place, one of the most remote areas of the country. As such, Perry's initiative represented big government at its most dangerous. Property rights are sacrosanct. But apparently not to Rick Perry.
Second: While decrying the tyranny of big government, Perry is highly deferential to that same tyrannical government on matters of law and order. He exemplifies the maddening dichotomy that has enveloped 21st century conservatism: A distaste and even fear of intrusive government on the one hand, and ultimate deference to the Security State on the other. Perry vetoed a bill that would have spared mentally retarded defendants from the death penalty, despite Supreme Court decisions from time immemorial that require a minimum level of cognition in order to impose capital punishment. Since he took office a decade ago, he has seen fit to only reduce one death row inmate's sentence to life in prison, despite rampant evidence of prosecutorial misconduct nationwide. Perhaps most critically, Perry engaged in the most depraved sort of underhanded executive abuses regarding Cameron Todd Willingham. WIllingham was accused of setting fire to his home killing his wife and daughters. After he was convicted, and shortly before the execution, Willingham's lawyers provided Perry and his forensic science commission (who are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the governor) a report from an arson expert appearing to exonerate Willingham, and demonstrating that the prosecution's evidence and methodology was deeply flawed. The commission began to review the case after investigative journalists cast serious doubt on Willingham's guilt, and hired an investigator who was scheduled to give the commission a report. Shortly before the investigator's testimony, Perry dismissed the chairman and replaced three members of the commission. Willingham's appeal was subsequently denied, and he was executed in 2004. Whatever one's opinions about the death penalty, Perry's conduct was inexcusable and disgusting. That shouldn't be how "justice" is done in America.
Third: Perry once mandated that all 11- and 12-year-old girls be vaccinated with HPV while there were still serious questions about the drug's efficacy and safety. This was a mandate handed down from above without regard to parental control or local choice. Even the most genuine public health arguments are exactly those which have been made by liberals in defending Obamacare. To his credit, Perry now admits this was a mistake. Irrespective of whether mandating a vaccine is good policy, the equally damaging element of the story that Perry cannot possibly explain away is that one of the lobbyists pushing for the order, and who worked for the vaccine's manufacturer, once served as Perry's chief of staff and has since helped found a PAC for the purpose of elevating Perry to the presidency. This is cronyism of the worst kind.
Finally, Perry has engaged in embarrassing double-talk on the Tenth Amendment. Just weeks before announcing, Perry correctly, and admirably, told an audience that states should pass their own laws concerning gay marriage. Perry correctly pointed out that many Texans would not want to live in New York, and most New Yorkers probably would not care to live in Texas either. But shortly after announcing, Perry did a Gingrichian reversal, promising to impose a federal gay marriage ban if elected president. This is ludicrous and laughable. Someone must ask Perry whether he has read the Tenth Amendment lately. Even assuming the best, Perry was transparently pandering to a family-values audience. Assuming the worst, Perry is yet another Bachmann, mouthing support for the Constitution when it suits him and tossing it out the window when it doesn't.
The impression of Perry as a staunch, torch-bearing conservative is far from accurate. The press -- especially conservatives like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, National Review, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity and yes, even self-described water carrier Rush Limbaugh -- must hold his feet to the fire and demand answers about his record, parts of which would not be out of place on the resume of a liberal Democrat.
Although Perry's entrance has thrilled many seeking an electable alternative to Michele Bachmann and a more conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, several damaging elements of Perry's record have emerged very quickly. While Romney's missteps are well-documented and have been discussed here ad nauseum, Perry is largely considered far more conservative than Romney, so his record is, as of yet, unimpeached.
First: In 2006, Perry supported a trans-Texan highway that would ostensibly link up the populous cities in the east to the sparsely populated west. To secure land on which to build the highway, Perry proposed gobbling up myriad property owners' homes through eminent domain. This reflects the worst excesses of the Kelo v. New London era, where state governments are held to an absurdly low standard when asked to justify why citizens should be thrown off their land. In the opinion of most conservatives (see the O'Connor/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas dissent in Kelo, for starters), the state must clear an exceptionally high bar, and have a deeply compelling interest, when taking private property through eminent domain. Building a "highway to nowhere" is far from a sufficient justification. West Texas is a notoriously sparse place, one of the most remote areas of the country. As such, Perry's initiative represented big government at its most dangerous. Property rights are sacrosanct. But apparently not to Rick Perry.
Second: While decrying the tyranny of big government, Perry is highly deferential to that same tyrannical government on matters of law and order. He exemplifies the maddening dichotomy that has enveloped 21st century conservatism: A distaste and even fear of intrusive government on the one hand, and ultimate deference to the Security State on the other. Perry vetoed a bill that would have spared mentally retarded defendants from the death penalty, despite Supreme Court decisions from time immemorial that require a minimum level of cognition in order to impose capital punishment. Since he took office a decade ago, he has seen fit to only reduce one death row inmate's sentence to life in prison, despite rampant evidence of prosecutorial misconduct nationwide. Perhaps most critically, Perry engaged in the most depraved sort of underhanded executive abuses regarding Cameron Todd Willingham. WIllingham was accused of setting fire to his home killing his wife and daughters. After he was convicted, and shortly before the execution, Willingham's lawyers provided Perry and his forensic science commission (who are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the governor) a report from an arson expert appearing to exonerate Willingham, and demonstrating that the prosecution's evidence and methodology was deeply flawed. The commission began to review the case after investigative journalists cast serious doubt on Willingham's guilt, and hired an investigator who was scheduled to give the commission a report. Shortly before the investigator's testimony, Perry dismissed the chairman and replaced three members of the commission. Willingham's appeal was subsequently denied, and he was executed in 2004. Whatever one's opinions about the death penalty, Perry's conduct was inexcusable and disgusting. That shouldn't be how "justice" is done in America.
Third: Perry once mandated that all 11- and 12-year-old girls be vaccinated with HPV while there were still serious questions about the drug's efficacy and safety. This was a mandate handed down from above without regard to parental control or local choice. Even the most genuine public health arguments are exactly those which have been made by liberals in defending Obamacare. To his credit, Perry now admits this was a mistake. Irrespective of whether mandating a vaccine is good policy, the equally damaging element of the story that Perry cannot possibly explain away is that one of the lobbyists pushing for the order, and who worked for the vaccine's manufacturer, once served as Perry's chief of staff and has since helped found a PAC for the purpose of elevating Perry to the presidency. This is cronyism of the worst kind.
Finally, Perry has engaged in embarrassing double-talk on the Tenth Amendment. Just weeks before announcing, Perry correctly, and admirably, told an audience that states should pass their own laws concerning gay marriage. Perry correctly pointed out that many Texans would not want to live in New York, and most New Yorkers probably would not care to live in Texas either. But shortly after announcing, Perry did a Gingrichian reversal, promising to impose a federal gay marriage ban if elected president. This is ludicrous and laughable. Someone must ask Perry whether he has read the Tenth Amendment lately. Even assuming the best, Perry was transparently pandering to a family-values audience. Assuming the worst, Perry is yet another Bachmann, mouthing support for the Constitution when it suits him and tossing it out the window when it doesn't.
The impression of Perry as a staunch, torch-bearing conservative is far from accurate. The press -- especially conservatives like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, National Review, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity and yes, even self-described water carrier Rush Limbaugh -- must hold his feet to the fire and demand answers about his record, parts of which would not be out of place on the resume of a liberal Democrat.
15 August 2011
Exit Pawlenty
A year ago at this time, I would have been crushed if you had told me that Tim Pawlenty quit the presidential race after the Iowa straw poll.
Today, I frankly couldn't care less.
Tim Pawlenty ran an awful campaign. Despite building an infrastructure as early as 2009 to rival Mitt Romney's, hiring talented former McCain/Bush hands and accruing an impressive conservative record in Minnesota, Pawlenty badly underperformed in virtually every poll and never earned the "frontrunner" status so many tried to bestow on him. Lacking Romney's deep pockets or McCain's force of personality, Pawlenty had nothing to hang his hat on when Michele Bachmann entered the race and zoomed past him.
Pawlenty should have been a top-tier candidate, and instead was left fighting with the likes of Rick Santorum and Herman Cain in the also-ran bracket.
And good riddance. A pragmatic conservative who earned an "A" rating from the Cato Institute and coined the term "Sam's Club Republican," Pawlenty swung horrendously hard to the right once he announced his candidacy. He and Romney, embarrassingly, seemed intent on climbing over each other to reach Bachmann/Limbaugh territory. Pawlenty nauseatingly adopted neoconservative dogma on empire issues, promising never to cut a dime from the Pentagon's bloated budget, arguing that the Libyan military action was too weak and attacking Barack Obama for "alienating" Israel -- a ridiculous charge.
We remarked that Pawlenty seemed to be adrift, pandering to crowds that -- at least on foreign policy issues -- he didn't really understand.
In 2009, we assumed the primary rationale for his candidacy would be a sort of conservative pseudo-populism, highlighting his union background and blue-collar roots, and touting his record of job creation in Minnesota. Instead, Pawlenty tried to play culture warrior and McCain lapdog at once. In a time when unemployment is over 9% and voters are seeking economic results, this approach was baffling. Pawlenty gutted the entire rationale for his candidacy at a time when that message would have been so well-received.
Overall, Pawlenty's candidacy was a huge disappointment. He badly underachieved, pandered to a segment of the electorate that is much smaller than he assumed and became a hysterical reactionary.
Although many pundits and even Pawlenty's rivals are lamenting the exit of a genuinely civil guy, I fail to see how the race isn't better off without him.
Today, I frankly couldn't care less.
Tim Pawlenty ran an awful campaign. Despite building an infrastructure as early as 2009 to rival Mitt Romney's, hiring talented former McCain/Bush hands and accruing an impressive conservative record in Minnesota, Pawlenty badly underperformed in virtually every poll and never earned the "frontrunner" status so many tried to bestow on him. Lacking Romney's deep pockets or McCain's force of personality, Pawlenty had nothing to hang his hat on when Michele Bachmann entered the race and zoomed past him.
Pawlenty should have been a top-tier candidate, and instead was left fighting with the likes of Rick Santorum and Herman Cain in the also-ran bracket.
And good riddance. A pragmatic conservative who earned an "A" rating from the Cato Institute and coined the term "Sam's Club Republican," Pawlenty swung horrendously hard to the right once he announced his candidacy. He and Romney, embarrassingly, seemed intent on climbing over each other to reach Bachmann/Limbaugh territory. Pawlenty nauseatingly adopted neoconservative dogma on empire issues, promising never to cut a dime from the Pentagon's bloated budget, arguing that the Libyan military action was too weak and attacking Barack Obama for "alienating" Israel -- a ridiculous charge.
We remarked that Pawlenty seemed to be adrift, pandering to crowds that -- at least on foreign policy issues -- he didn't really understand.
In 2009, we assumed the primary rationale for his candidacy would be a sort of conservative pseudo-populism, highlighting his union background and blue-collar roots, and touting his record of job creation in Minnesota. Instead, Pawlenty tried to play culture warrior and McCain lapdog at once. In a time when unemployment is over 9% and voters are seeking economic results, this approach was baffling. Pawlenty gutted the entire rationale for his candidacy at a time when that message would have been so well-received.
Overall, Pawlenty's candidacy was a huge disappointment. He badly underachieved, pandered to a segment of the electorate that is much smaller than he assumed and became a hysterical reactionary.
Although many pundits and even Pawlenty's rivals are lamenting the exit of a genuinely civil guy, I fail to see how the race isn't better off without him.
12 August 2011
Debate post-mortem
Last night's GOP debate was highly entertaining and, surprisingly, informative. Here's a few observations:
1. I thought Tim Pawlenty had an excellent performance. I would have liked more specificity when he was going after Mitt Romney, but he did precisely what he needed to do. He criticized after Romney for his myriad missteps in Massachusetts and Bachmann for her nonexistent legislative record. He successfully painted Bachmann as a fringe voice rather than a real policymaker and leader. This was critical, because Pawlenty desperately needs a strong finish in the straw poll this weekend to keep his campaign viable.
2. After Pawlenty was through with her, Bachmann looked lost and defeated. This was the first time I can remember that Bachmann has had to face open hostility -- in the first debate, she went unchallenged and was the star -- and it was obvious. I haven't read any post-debate reaction, but I believe she took an enormous hit last night. It's offensive that Bachmann thinks she is even remotely qualified for the presidency, so I'm thrilled to see other candidates willing to step up and take shots at her.
3. I was also interested by how fixated Rick Santorum was on Bachmann. Santorum obviously thinks that he and Bachmann are going after the same segment of voters. If he would ease up on the culture-warrior shtick, voters might actually see a politician who grasps the nuances of public policy better than most of his competitors. Perhaps Santorum knows that the more he slobbers over social issues, the less likely it is that he will have to explain his vote on Medicare Part D.
4. The last point on Bachmann: I genuinely don't understand how true "conservatives" can line up behind her. She hasn't ever accomplished anything, so how do you know how she's going to govern? I can understand tea partiers lining up behind the likes of Jim DeMint, Rand Paul or even Pawlenty. But Bachmann? Is the tea party really about rhetoric and not results? If so, that would explain its fixation with Bachmann.
5. Herman Cain doesn't belong here. He has such a laughably poor grasp of public policy that I almost felt sorry for him. He is embarrassing himself and his party by continuing his campaign. I don't know that a less-informed man has ever taken a debate stage.
6. Newt Gingrich's obsession with trying to fit every world event into some grand historical puzzle is both dishonest and annoying. The next debate drinking game should be based on Gingrich's use of the phrase "in my lifetime." I give Republican primarygoers a great deal of credit for not buying his nonsense.
7. Chris Wallace's line of the night, to Jon Huntsman: "At the risk of raising Speaker Gingrich's ire, I'm going to ask about your record, sir." Brilliant.
8. Huntsman seems like the forgotten candidate after all the fur flying, but he is clearly a serious person concerned with serious things. Even if he is only truly running for 2016, he made an excellent first impression last night. Additionally, his record demonstrates that he is more conservative than John McCain or George W. Bush, so any suggestion that he's not "electable" in a Republican primary is completely off-base. I would be thrilled with Huntsman as the nominee.
9. While I have concerns about his electability, Ron Paul has powerful conservative ideas, and my agreement with him on so many issues will make it hard for me to vote for anyone else. Paul has studied monetary policy for three-plus decades, criticized the Bush administration long before it was in vogue for conservatives to do so, and regularly points out the folly of our interventionism overseas. Our country would be in a much better place if we had listened to Ron Paul in 2002 and 2003. Everyone seems to be obsessed with Gingrich as the "ideas man," but I have yet to see a candidate demonstrate such a deep understanding of the issues that have befallen American as Paul.
10. Finally, once again, where was Gary Johnson? He was a successful two-term governor of a blue state who cut taxes and annually ran balanced budgets. Bachmann has been in Congress for five years and never authored a single bill that has been signed into law. The fact that Johnson is a marginal candidate and Bachmann -- until last night, at least -- is considered a frontrunner is truly absurd.
1. I thought Tim Pawlenty had an excellent performance. I would have liked more specificity when he was going after Mitt Romney, but he did precisely what he needed to do. He criticized after Romney for his myriad missteps in Massachusetts and Bachmann for her nonexistent legislative record. He successfully painted Bachmann as a fringe voice rather than a real policymaker and leader. This was critical, because Pawlenty desperately needs a strong finish in the straw poll this weekend to keep his campaign viable.
2. After Pawlenty was through with her, Bachmann looked lost and defeated. This was the first time I can remember that Bachmann has had to face open hostility -- in the first debate, she went unchallenged and was the star -- and it was obvious. I haven't read any post-debate reaction, but I believe she took an enormous hit last night. It's offensive that Bachmann thinks she is even remotely qualified for the presidency, so I'm thrilled to see other candidates willing to step up and take shots at her.
3. I was also interested by how fixated Rick Santorum was on Bachmann. Santorum obviously thinks that he and Bachmann are going after the same segment of voters. If he would ease up on the culture-warrior shtick, voters might actually see a politician who grasps the nuances of public policy better than most of his competitors. Perhaps Santorum knows that the more he slobbers over social issues, the less likely it is that he will have to explain his vote on Medicare Part D.
4. The last point on Bachmann: I genuinely don't understand how true "conservatives" can line up behind her. She hasn't ever accomplished anything, so how do you know how she's going to govern? I can understand tea partiers lining up behind the likes of Jim DeMint, Rand Paul or even Pawlenty. But Bachmann? Is the tea party really about rhetoric and not results? If so, that would explain its fixation with Bachmann.
5. Herman Cain doesn't belong here. He has such a laughably poor grasp of public policy that I almost felt sorry for him. He is embarrassing himself and his party by continuing his campaign. I don't know that a less-informed man has ever taken a debate stage.
6. Newt Gingrich's obsession with trying to fit every world event into some grand historical puzzle is both dishonest and annoying. The next debate drinking game should be based on Gingrich's use of the phrase "in my lifetime." I give Republican primarygoers a great deal of credit for not buying his nonsense.
7. Chris Wallace's line of the night, to Jon Huntsman: "At the risk of raising Speaker Gingrich's ire, I'm going to ask about your record, sir." Brilliant.
8. Huntsman seems like the forgotten candidate after all the fur flying, but he is clearly a serious person concerned with serious things. Even if he is only truly running for 2016, he made an excellent first impression last night. Additionally, his record demonstrates that he is more conservative than John McCain or George W. Bush, so any suggestion that he's not "electable" in a Republican primary is completely off-base. I would be thrilled with Huntsman as the nominee.
9. While I have concerns about his electability, Ron Paul has powerful conservative ideas, and my agreement with him on so many issues will make it hard for me to vote for anyone else. Paul has studied monetary policy for three-plus decades, criticized the Bush administration long before it was in vogue for conservatives to do so, and regularly points out the folly of our interventionism overseas. Our country would be in a much better place if we had listened to Ron Paul in 2002 and 2003. Everyone seems to be obsessed with Gingrich as the "ideas man," but I have yet to see a candidate demonstrate such a deep understanding of the issues that have befallen American as Paul.
10. Finally, once again, where was Gary Johnson? He was a successful two-term governor of a blue state who cut taxes and annually ran balanced budgets. Bachmann has been in Congress for five years and never authored a single bill that has been signed into law. The fact that Johnson is a marginal candidate and Bachmann -- until last night, at least -- is considered a frontrunner is truly absurd.
20 July 2011
Is Michele Bachmann fit to be president?
The story of Michele Bachmann's migraines is sweeping the internet.
Politico had a wide-ranging story this morning citing several sources close to Bachmann, who confirmed that Bachmann has suffered several serious migraines during her time in the House that have affected her ability to work. The sources confirmed that Bachmann occasionally has to close the door to her office during the workday and lie down on the floor, in the dark.
Bachmann pushed back on the migraine issue last summer, alleging that while she suffered from them, they didn't affect her ability to legislate, but these new revelations have resuscitated the story. Due to Bachmann's original denials, this story has suddenly become much bigger than it needs to be.
I frankly don't care whether Bachmann suffers from migraines. I certainly hope she gets relief and stops having them, because I understand they are miserable and utterly debilitating. But it doesn't affect my evaluation of her fitness to be president one bit.
Michele Bachmann is unfit to be president because in five years in Congress, she has never drafted a bill that has been signed into law. She is unfit to be president because she routinely engages in wild conspiracy theories and name-calling. She is unfit to be president because, like Sarah Palin, she is woefully inexperienced. She is unfit to be president because she wraps herself in some parts of the Constitution (2nd Amendment) while completely ignoring others (4th Amendment). She is unfit to be president because her short, utterly unremarkable congressional career demonstrates that she would rather grandstand than legislate.
Bachmann is also unfit to be president because, when pushing back on the migraine story, she argued that migraines wouldn't affect her ability "to be commander in chief." It is not the president's primary constitutional responsibility to be commander in chief. Bachmann's job as president would be to take care that the nation's laws are faithfully executed. The Constitution -- which Bachmann claims to venerate -- states that the president is only the commander in chief of the armed forces -- not the entire country -- and the plain language of Article II indicates that the commander in chief power only vests once Congress declares war. If Bachmann believes her primary responsibility as president is to be in charge of the military, that is yet another strike against her.
Whether she suffers from migraines is irrelevant.
Any conservative who even fathoms voting for Bachmann for president is a hypocrite, since much of the conservative case against Barack Obama in 2008 was based on his nonexistent legislative resume and laughable inexperience. Now, many tea partiers are ready to elevate Bachmann -- who manages to have even fewer legislative accomplishments under her belt than Obama -- to the exact same office they said Obama was unfit to hold.
Politico had a wide-ranging story this morning citing several sources close to Bachmann, who confirmed that Bachmann has suffered several serious migraines during her time in the House that have affected her ability to work. The sources confirmed that Bachmann occasionally has to close the door to her office during the workday and lie down on the floor, in the dark.
Bachmann pushed back on the migraine issue last summer, alleging that while she suffered from them, they didn't affect her ability to legislate, but these new revelations have resuscitated the story. Due to Bachmann's original denials, this story has suddenly become much bigger than it needs to be.
I frankly don't care whether Bachmann suffers from migraines. I certainly hope she gets relief and stops having them, because I understand they are miserable and utterly debilitating. But it doesn't affect my evaluation of her fitness to be president one bit.
Michele Bachmann is unfit to be president because in five years in Congress, she has never drafted a bill that has been signed into law. She is unfit to be president because she routinely engages in wild conspiracy theories and name-calling. She is unfit to be president because, like Sarah Palin, she is woefully inexperienced. She is unfit to be president because she wraps herself in some parts of the Constitution (2nd Amendment) while completely ignoring others (4th Amendment). She is unfit to be president because her short, utterly unremarkable congressional career demonstrates that she would rather grandstand than legislate.
Bachmann is also unfit to be president because, when pushing back on the migraine story, she argued that migraines wouldn't affect her ability "to be commander in chief." It is not the president's primary constitutional responsibility to be commander in chief. Bachmann's job as president would be to take care that the nation's laws are faithfully executed. The Constitution -- which Bachmann claims to venerate -- states that the president is only the commander in chief of the armed forces -- not the entire country -- and the plain language of Article II indicates that the commander in chief power only vests once Congress declares war. If Bachmann believes her primary responsibility as president is to be in charge of the military, that is yet another strike against her.
Whether she suffers from migraines is irrelevant.
Any conservative who even fathoms voting for Bachmann for president is a hypocrite, since much of the conservative case against Barack Obama in 2008 was based on his nonexistent legislative resume and laughable inexperience. Now, many tea partiers are ready to elevate Bachmann -- who manages to have even fewer legislative accomplishments under her belt than Obama -- to the exact same office they said Obama was unfit to hold.
14 July 2011
Musings on the debt-ceiling showdown
It's no secret that this site is an avowed opponent of big government and believes that America's debt crisis is solely a function of out-of-control spending and government profligacy in virtually every area the state infects.
The fact is that out-of-control discretionary spending, unfunded wars and a looming entitlement crisis are pushing America to the brink of fiscal collapse. Both Republicans and Democrats share equally in the blame. George W. Bush -- enabled by first a Republican Congress, then a Democratic one -- doubled the size of the national debt in just eight years. Despite his assurances that he would do something about the deficit, Barack Obama has managed to be even worse than his predecessor, with his last fiscal budget clocking in with a $1.4 trillion deficit. Democrats in Congress have even failed to pass a budget. Short of taxing the rich and shrieking about rich yacht owners, the Democrats have done little to demonstrate any concern whatsoever with the massive fiscal crisis. President Obama -- as with the perpetual warfare state, executive power and civil liberties -- has completely ignored Candidate Obama's own words. Given that Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in four years, his presidency has been an utter failure.
But I was bitterly disappointed to see Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor walk the GOP away from a plan that would cut the deficit by an estimated $4 trillion over the next decade. Here's why:
1. Big-picture legislation requires compromise. There is not a single piece of significant legislation passed in the last 50 years that did not require each side to give, even a little.
2. Ronald Reagan, the ultimate conservative icon and the greatest president of the 20th century, presided over some sort of tax increase 11 times in 8 years. For conservatives to suggest -- as Cantor has implied -- that any tax increases are completely off the table because they are "not conservative" is preposterous. It's yet another example of the 21st century Republican Party wrapping itself in only part of Reagan's legacy while completely ignoring others.
3. Politically, Republicans (again, particularly Cantor) need to be careful about defending taxes and loopholes, such as the capital gains tax, that benefit only the wealthiest Americans. While most Americans do not want marginal rates to increase, the GOP is playing a very dangerous game by appearing to align themselves behind policies that only benefit the rich.
4. We've noted this before, but it is highly misleading for Republicans to suggest that the way to a balanced budget is through tax cuts, as Tim Pawlenty has. Marginal rates increased incrementally in 1993, and due to a combination of increased revenue and spending cuts, the government was running a surplus by 1999. That increase was reversed by the Bush tax cuts in 2001, and in FY 2002, the government began running a budget deficit and has never recovered. It is so mind-bogglingly stupid for anyone to suggest that cutting taxes automatically increases revenue, or raising taxes cuts revenue, that I cannot take them seriously.
5. Just so we are clear, my ideal tax reform would include 2 items: (i) throwing out the entire tax code, including all tax breaks and loopholes; and (ii) instituting a flat tax of 22 percent, applied equally to individuals and corporations.
6. For conservatives to suggest -- as Gov. Pawlenty has implied -- that it would be better for the U.S. to default on its obligations than to raise the debt limit is as unconservative a policy as one could concoct. Conservatism values stability, order and reason; it eschews radical change. And if the U.S. government defaults, it would throw the global financial market into upheaval. This is not in any way conservative. It is suicidal and stupid.
7. Since he took office, President Obama has engaged in egregious demagoguery on Social Security, but the fact that he put not only Social Security, but Medicare, on the table is significant. This has upset liberals like Glenn Greenwald, who have shrieked about taking money out of seniors' pockets and giving it to Wall Street.
8. The most critical part of any long-term deal is revamping Social Security and making it sustainable. As such, please ignore the atrocious AARP ads.
9. Finally, most damning to the Republicans: In March 2011, the House GOP blasted out a fantastic, in-depth study of comparable debt crises that had taken place over the past several decades across the globe. The report found that successful policy solutions to these crises had an average ratio of about 85% spending cuts to 15% revenue increases. In March, this was considered the "conservative" avenue. It has recently come to light that Republicans walked away from a package with a ratio of roughly 83/17. Minimally, walking away over such a small change in ratio makes the GOP look petulant at best, and hyper-partisan at worst.
The fact is that out-of-control discretionary spending, unfunded wars and a looming entitlement crisis are pushing America to the brink of fiscal collapse. Both Republicans and Democrats share equally in the blame. George W. Bush -- enabled by first a Republican Congress, then a Democratic one -- doubled the size of the national debt in just eight years. Despite his assurances that he would do something about the deficit, Barack Obama has managed to be even worse than his predecessor, with his last fiscal budget clocking in with a $1.4 trillion deficit. Democrats in Congress have even failed to pass a budget. Short of taxing the rich and shrieking about rich yacht owners, the Democrats have done little to demonstrate any concern whatsoever with the massive fiscal crisis. President Obama -- as with the perpetual warfare state, executive power and civil liberties -- has completely ignored Candidate Obama's own words. Given that Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in four years, his presidency has been an utter failure.
But I was bitterly disappointed to see Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor walk the GOP away from a plan that would cut the deficit by an estimated $4 trillion over the next decade. Here's why:
1. Big-picture legislation requires compromise. There is not a single piece of significant legislation passed in the last 50 years that did not require each side to give, even a little.
2. Ronald Reagan, the ultimate conservative icon and the greatest president of the 20th century, presided over some sort of tax increase 11 times in 8 years. For conservatives to suggest -- as Cantor has implied -- that any tax increases are completely off the table because they are "not conservative" is preposterous. It's yet another example of the 21st century Republican Party wrapping itself in only part of Reagan's legacy while completely ignoring others.
3. Politically, Republicans (again, particularly Cantor) need to be careful about defending taxes and loopholes, such as the capital gains tax, that benefit only the wealthiest Americans. While most Americans do not want marginal rates to increase, the GOP is playing a very dangerous game by appearing to align themselves behind policies that only benefit the rich.
4. We've noted this before, but it is highly misleading for Republicans to suggest that the way to a balanced budget is through tax cuts, as Tim Pawlenty has. Marginal rates increased incrementally in 1993, and due to a combination of increased revenue and spending cuts, the government was running a surplus by 1999. That increase was reversed by the Bush tax cuts in 2001, and in FY 2002, the government began running a budget deficit and has never recovered. It is so mind-bogglingly stupid for anyone to suggest that cutting taxes automatically increases revenue, or raising taxes cuts revenue, that I cannot take them seriously.
5. Just so we are clear, my ideal tax reform would include 2 items: (i) throwing out the entire tax code, including all tax breaks and loopholes; and (ii) instituting a flat tax of 22 percent, applied equally to individuals and corporations.
6. For conservatives to suggest -- as Gov. Pawlenty has implied -- that it would be better for the U.S. to default on its obligations than to raise the debt limit is as unconservative a policy as one could concoct. Conservatism values stability, order and reason; it eschews radical change. And if the U.S. government defaults, it would throw the global financial market into upheaval. This is not in any way conservative. It is suicidal and stupid.
7. Since he took office, President Obama has engaged in egregious demagoguery on Social Security, but the fact that he put not only Social Security, but Medicare, on the table is significant. This has upset liberals like Glenn Greenwald, who have shrieked about taking money out of seniors' pockets and giving it to Wall Street.
8. The most critical part of any long-term deal is revamping Social Security and making it sustainable. As such, please ignore the atrocious AARP ads.
9. Finally, most damning to the Republicans: In March 2011, the House GOP blasted out a fantastic, in-depth study of comparable debt crises that had taken place over the past several decades across the globe. The report found that successful policy solutions to these crises had an average ratio of about 85% spending cuts to 15% revenue increases. In March, this was considered the "conservative" avenue. It has recently come to light that Republicans walked away from a package with a ratio of roughly 83/17. Minimally, walking away over such a small change in ratio makes the GOP look petulant at best, and hyper-partisan at worst.
10 July 2011
Michele Bachmann's "constitutional conservatism"
She may be the rising anti-Romney, but contrary to her campaign tagline, Michele Bachmann is no "constitutional conservative."
For Bachmann, the actual words of the Constitution don't matter, outside of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, and the Tenth's exhortation that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. Perhaps she also likes Article I's commerce clause limitation on Congress, or Article II's commander in chief language.
What I'm certain of is that Bachmann is no big fan of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 or 14. If she actually took the time to internalize what those parts of the Constitution actually say, her critique of federal power would sound a lot like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
This past week, Bachmann pledged to support an outright ban on all pornography, a position that is patently violative of the First Amendment and Stanley v. Georgia, a 40-year-old case holding that the government cannot regulate the private possession of pornography.
George W. Bush claimed the novel power to break federal wiretapping laws, in obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Since time immemorial, jurisprudence has required a warrant before the government infringes on one's privacy. But for Bachmann, allowing the president to break the law is allowable under the Orwellian defense of Keeping Us Safe.
I have yet to hear Bachmann bring up the "state secrets" doctrine, extrajudicial assassinations, Jose Padilla or Yaser Hamdi. The plain language of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause notwithstanding, I have never heard Bachmann levy one complaint against the Imperial Executive's war on liberty.
Bachmann further has never levied a Constitution-based complaint against the Bush administration for its myriad violations of the Sixth Amendment's notice, speedy trial, right to counsel or confrontation provisions.
Ironically, Bachmann's "Pledge" also violates the Tenth Amendment which she claims to hold so dearly, in that it usurps the traditional rights of states by pushing a federal gay marriage ban, instead of allowing for federalist, state-by-state self-determination.
Conservatives -- mainly tea-party types -- love to wrap themselves in the flag and wave around copies of the Constitution, but when you dig into what the Constitution actually says, it's quite obvious that if you love the Constitution, you've ceased being a Republican.
Republicans claimed the president has unlimited wartime powers. Republicans claimed the president could break federal law without consequence. Republicans claimed that the president could designate someone an "enemy combatant" and make them disappear. Republicans -- led by John Yoo, championed by Dick Cheney -- crafted the most constitutionally destructive powers in our republic's history. And Republicans, led by Bachmann and the likes of Mike Huckabee, are pushing a "Pledge" that would impose a sweeping set of "family values" on individual states, federalism be damned.
If Michele Bachmann was truly a "constitutional conservative," she would conclude that the type of government championed by the 21st century Republican Party has very little in common with the text of the actual Constitution. Bachmann's critique would not include just President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, but George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. It would include not only the folly of intervention in Libya, but also the ill-advised war in Iraq. It would include not only Obamacare, but warrantless wiretaps, extrajudicial renditions and yes, a "Pledge" that aggregates federal power.
If Michele Bachmann takes Conor Friedersdorf's advice and runs at Obama from the left -- not only criticizing the Libyan intervention, but also his ridiculous conception of the "state secrets" doctrine, his presidential assassination program and the absurd executive powers he has claimed -- then perhaps I could take her claims of "constitutional conservatism" seriously. As it is, Bachmann has almost as little in common with the Constitution as Obama.
For Bachmann, the actual words of the Constitution don't matter, outside of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, and the Tenth's exhortation that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. Perhaps she also likes Article I's commerce clause limitation on Congress, or Article II's commander in chief language.
What I'm certain of is that Bachmann is no big fan of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 or 14. If she actually took the time to internalize what those parts of the Constitution actually say, her critique of federal power would sound a lot like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
This past week, Bachmann pledged to support an outright ban on all pornography, a position that is patently violative of the First Amendment and Stanley v. Georgia, a 40-year-old case holding that the government cannot regulate the private possession of pornography.
George W. Bush claimed the novel power to break federal wiretapping laws, in obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Since time immemorial, jurisprudence has required a warrant before the government infringes on one's privacy. But for Bachmann, allowing the president to break the law is allowable under the Orwellian defense of Keeping Us Safe.
I have yet to hear Bachmann bring up the "state secrets" doctrine, extrajudicial assassinations, Jose Padilla or Yaser Hamdi. The plain language of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause notwithstanding, I have never heard Bachmann levy one complaint against the Imperial Executive's war on liberty.
Bachmann further has never levied a Constitution-based complaint against the Bush administration for its myriad violations of the Sixth Amendment's notice, speedy trial, right to counsel or confrontation provisions.
Ironically, Bachmann's "Pledge" also violates the Tenth Amendment which she claims to hold so dearly, in that it usurps the traditional rights of states by pushing a federal gay marriage ban, instead of allowing for federalist, state-by-state self-determination.
Conservatives -- mainly tea-party types -- love to wrap themselves in the flag and wave around copies of the Constitution, but when you dig into what the Constitution actually says, it's quite obvious that if you love the Constitution, you've ceased being a Republican.
Republicans claimed the president has unlimited wartime powers. Republicans claimed the president could break federal law without consequence. Republicans claimed that the president could designate someone an "enemy combatant" and make them disappear. Republicans -- led by John Yoo, championed by Dick Cheney -- crafted the most constitutionally destructive powers in our republic's history. And Republicans, led by Bachmann and the likes of Mike Huckabee, are pushing a "Pledge" that would impose a sweeping set of "family values" on individual states, federalism be damned.
If Michele Bachmann was truly a "constitutional conservative," she would conclude that the type of government championed by the 21st century Republican Party has very little in common with the text of the actual Constitution. Bachmann's critique would not include just President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, but George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. It would include not only the folly of intervention in Libya, but also the ill-advised war in Iraq. It would include not only Obamacare, but warrantless wiretaps, extrajudicial renditions and yes, a "Pledge" that aggregates federal power.
If Michele Bachmann takes Conor Friedersdorf's advice and runs at Obama from the left -- not only criticizing the Libyan intervention, but also his ridiculous conception of the "state secrets" doctrine, his presidential assassination program and the absurd executive powers he has claimed -- then perhaps I could take her claims of "constitutional conservatism" seriously. As it is, Bachmann has almost as little in common with the Constitution as Obama.
29 June 2011
Tim Pawlenty's awful foreign policy
Tim Pawlenty is becoming a bad joke.
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Pawlenty established himself as the clear ideological heir to John McCain, giving remarks that could have been lifted wholesale from any of McCain's speeches over the last two decades.
That's not meant as a compliment.
First, he continued the outrageous argument, proffered by McCain, that the president should be able to wage war unrestricted by Congress. He seems to believe, as McCain does, that any Congress that attempts to discharge its responsibilities under Article I of the Constitution and exercise its rights under the War Powers Resolution hurts the country, puts our troops in danger and is generally unpatriotic. The plain language of the Constitution and relevant federal law notwithstanding, Pawlenty's argument is strikingly similar to that of the Bush administration, which would have the president alone determine the scope of his Article II power and remain unbound by pesky federal laws. This is at its heart a fundamentally un-conservative position, and one that would have abhorred James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. To argue that the president is somehow above the law, or alternatively, that Congress' power to declare war is meaningless, is absurd. If Pawlenty seriously believes this, that alone should disqualify him from being president.
Second: By a strict application of Pawlenty's metric, we can reasonably assume that a Pawlenty administration would launch military interventions nearly everywhere across Africa and the Middle East beginning in 2013. How America can finance such operations, both in terms of blood and treasure, is something that Pawlenty should probably explain. To examine the last decade's worth of misadventures and conclude, as Pawlenty apparently has, that they have been worth it -- and that the efforts should be replicated in countless other venues across the globe -- requires a suspension of reality that I'm not willing to engage in.
Third: Pawlenty's argument that it is the responsibility of the United States to impose democracy overseas blatantly ignores the effects of democratization in Arab countries. In nearly every place where elections have been liberalized -- Lebanon and Gaza being two examples -- extreme factions deeply hostile toward America have filled the vacuum. In Egypt, neocons like Pawlenty have shrieked about possible rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Does Pawlenty seriously think that a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood would serve America's interests better than did Hosni Mubarak? Does Pawlenty really think that we'd be better off if an elected Islamist party replaced the Saudi royal family? It's one thing to pander, which I seriously hope is all Pawlenty is doing -- but If he genuinely believes that the United States is better off with democratically elected radical Islamists in power across the Middle East, it demonstrates such poor judgment that it again should automatically disqualify him from the presidency.
Finally, as Conor Friedersdorf astutely noted, Pawlenty's logic suffers from an inherent contradiction: According to the governor, the United States has wrongfully backed dictators and despots in the Middle East for the last six decades, and the current U.S. policy is deeply flawed, but only the U.S. has the moral clarity to help the world lead the MIddle East out of darkness. It is a contradiction so blatantly obvious that it's hard to believe Pawlenty's advisers didn't at least alert him to how ridiculous his argument is.
Tim Pawlenty appears to be a nice guy, but the evidence is becoming overwhelming that he is so disconnected from reality, so shamelessly willing to pander, and so fundamentally unserious, that he would be a terrible president.
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Pawlenty established himself as the clear ideological heir to John McCain, giving remarks that could have been lifted wholesale from any of McCain's speeches over the last two decades.
That's not meant as a compliment.
First, he continued the outrageous argument, proffered by McCain, that the president should be able to wage war unrestricted by Congress. He seems to believe, as McCain does, that any Congress that attempts to discharge its responsibilities under Article I of the Constitution and exercise its rights under the War Powers Resolution hurts the country, puts our troops in danger and is generally unpatriotic. The plain language of the Constitution and relevant federal law notwithstanding, Pawlenty's argument is strikingly similar to that of the Bush administration, which would have the president alone determine the scope of his Article II power and remain unbound by pesky federal laws. This is at its heart a fundamentally un-conservative position, and one that would have abhorred James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. To argue that the president is somehow above the law, or alternatively, that Congress' power to declare war is meaningless, is absurd. If Pawlenty seriously believes this, that alone should disqualify him from being president.
Second: By a strict application of Pawlenty's metric, we can reasonably assume that a Pawlenty administration would launch military interventions nearly everywhere across Africa and the Middle East beginning in 2013. How America can finance such operations, both in terms of blood and treasure, is something that Pawlenty should probably explain. To examine the last decade's worth of misadventures and conclude, as Pawlenty apparently has, that they have been worth it -- and that the efforts should be replicated in countless other venues across the globe -- requires a suspension of reality that I'm not willing to engage in.
Third: Pawlenty's argument that it is the responsibility of the United States to impose democracy overseas blatantly ignores the effects of democratization in Arab countries. In nearly every place where elections have been liberalized -- Lebanon and Gaza being two examples -- extreme factions deeply hostile toward America have filled the vacuum. In Egypt, neocons like Pawlenty have shrieked about possible rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Does Pawlenty seriously think that a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood would serve America's interests better than did Hosni Mubarak? Does Pawlenty really think that we'd be better off if an elected Islamist party replaced the Saudi royal family? It's one thing to pander, which I seriously hope is all Pawlenty is doing -- but If he genuinely believes that the United States is better off with democratically elected radical Islamists in power across the Middle East, it demonstrates such poor judgment that it again should automatically disqualify him from the presidency.
Finally, as Conor Friedersdorf astutely noted, Pawlenty's logic suffers from an inherent contradiction: According to the governor, the United States has wrongfully backed dictators and despots in the Middle East for the last six decades, and the current U.S. policy is deeply flawed, but only the U.S. has the moral clarity to help the world lead the MIddle East out of darkness. It is a contradiction so blatantly obvious that it's hard to believe Pawlenty's advisers didn't at least alert him to how ridiculous his argument is.
Tim Pawlenty appears to be a nice guy, but the evidence is becoming overwhelming that he is so disconnected from reality, so shamelessly willing to pander, and so fundamentally unserious, that he would be a terrible president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)