According to conservative author and uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan, she is. He offered that characterization on "Real Time with Bill Maher", in the midst of a heated discussion on her hawkish views on Iran between Sullivan and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander (and Clinton election advisor) Wesley Clark. Basically, Sullivan's contention is that Clinton's ardent support for a pair of resolutions, one authorizing the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force as a terrorist organization, and the other, a potentially more damaging one for Clinton, authorizing President Bush to take the necessary steps to explore potential conflict in Iran.
Extrapolating from these votes, Sullivan thus deemed her, as the title would indicate, "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" Normally, I would attribute this phrase to typical right-wing demagoguery (for more information on use of this tactic, see biographies of McConnell, Mitch or DeLay, Thomas R., on Wikipedia), but Sullivan is not a typical conservative, and therefore his views are more credible. For one, Sullivan is openly gay and HIV positive. You don't find many conservatives of that ilk, at least outside of a mega-church. In addition, Sullivan has inveighed against the 21st century Republican party on a number of issues (namely, the Iraq war), to the degree that he voted for John Kerry in 2004. Needless to say, Sullivan distinguishes himself from the seemingly innumerable hacks that currently predominate in the Republican party. So, when he offers such a pointed, unusual critique of the Democratic front-runner for president, Mrs. Clinton, further analysis is warranted.
Let's parse out the differences, or potential similarities between Tricky Dick and Hillary, in hopes of either rebuking or validating Sullivan's ostentatious remark:
Foreign Policy/War on Terror: Since this was the subject of discussion when Sullivan made the initial assertion, why not start here? In many ways, their views on National Security are where Darth Vader and Hillary Clinton are most similar. The Washington Post characterizes Clinton's views on intervention in foreign lands as "hawkish" Obviously, the same can be said for Mr. Cheney. Also, Clinton voted for the now ignominious resolution thereby allowing George W. Bush to invade Iraq, a position that would make even a curmudgeon like Cheney salivate. More over, she has been Cheney-esque in her refusal to apologize, or admit even a shred of regret for this decision.
In addition, Clinton and Cheney nearly mirror each other on their views on Iran. In remarks to the Washington Institute on October 21st, 2007, amidst a litany of other allegations and invective, Cheney declared that a nuclear Iran will not be permissible. Clinton, likewise, asserted that "no option is off the table" if Iran continues their efforts to refine nuclear energy. She is also publicly stated that Iran with any sort of nuclear capabilities is unacceptable. Furthermore, both politicians, though of different parties, share the same suspicious, paranoid and hyperbolic views towards Iran, a country with the GDP the size of Sweden.
Finally, vis a vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they both express an unwavering support for Israel. Clinton, in a shockingly myopic remark, has in the past evinced support for a total border fence separating the two peoples, not because of the Palestinians, but rather "because of the terrorists" Clinton has apparently learned that building a wall in places like East Germany was largely unsuccessful, and that both sides of the debate have expressed disdain for said wall. As for Cheney, because of his administration's sedentary position with respect to the peace process, little is known of his views with respect to this dilemma. However, Cheney once supposedly told the Israeli Defense Minister at the time that "Yassir Arafat" deserves to be hanged. Class as always from Cyborg Cheney.
Verdict: Hard to tell the two apart, save Cheney's indefensible and idiotic penchant for asserting a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 four years after its' definitive rejection by sane people. Otherwise, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Cheney have much common ground on foreign policy, and particularly, the Middle East. This fact has to send chills up the spine of those Democratic voters who will soon realize that their runaway leader for the Presidency most resembles a monomaniacal zealot like Cheney on the crucial foreign policy issues of the day. Sullivan's comparison rings true wholly in this instance.
Immigration: As evidenced by her Romney-esque indecisiveness during the Democratic debate on Tuesday night when asked about Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, Clinton position on immigration remains largely nebulous. In the span of 12 hours this week, she endorsed Spitzer's proposal, then disowned it mere minutes later, and then ultimately, supported it with an announcement the next morning. Clinton has generally supported the Democratic Party platform when voting on other immigration-related legislation. She supported the defunct comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, and she voted against a bill that she characterized as "attempting to deport 11 million people" in 2006. On Halloween 2006, she voted for the "Secure Fences Act", which would authorize funding for 700 miles of border fencing along the Southern border of the country. She differed from the 19 dissenting votes, all of which were Democrats. By in large, Clinton can be categorized as a "centrist" on immigration, as she supports a path to citizenship while simultaneously endorsing bills that declare English as the National Language, and the aforementioned Border Fence act.
Cheney's views on immigration are somewhat tough to glean, at least since his tenure as Vice President. Presumably, he supports the compromise legislation advocated by the President earlier on the year. While in the House, Cheney did co-sponsor three bills, all of which fell under the Conservative mantle at the time. Interestingly enough, when Clinton was waffling about the Spitzer plan during the debate on Tuesday, she offered the tautological "We have got to turn the page on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Ironically, their views are more in accordance with hers than she would like to acknowledge to Democratic primary voters.
Verdict: Hard to tell, though one has to think that Cheney would receive a D- conservative immigration PAC like Hillary did. That said, their respective positions are more in congruence than one might think. One notable difference between the two is that Cheney has an avowed interest in using immigrants in lieu of animals on hunting trips. (Kidding.....I think.)
Health Care: The social issues, starting with Health Care, is where Clinton distinguishes herself from the Veep. Cheney, according on OntheIssues.org, basically endorses the standard GOP platform on health care. He favors the absence of government intrusion into health care, where as Clinton came forth with an ambitious, comprehensive health care plan that relies on $110 billion dollars in funding annually. The source of the funding would be the federal treasury, a fact which Cheney would like find odious. In fact, the VP believes that "government funding of health care is as anachronistic as surgery without anaesthesia", according to the 2000 GOP party platform. More over, in 2002, Clinton joined a bi-partisan group in opposing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, an idea heavily valued on the domestic agenda of the first term of the Bush Administration.
Verdict: Judging from their speeches and voting records, these two politic ans could not be further apart on the ideological spectrum when it comes to health care. Sullivan's claim looks foolish, given the evidence.
Social Issues: Further analysis illustrates some unexpected congruence between Clinton and Cheney on social issues. Aside from abortion, which Clinton claims she finds personally abhorrent, but does not believe it should be illegal (a quintessential example of the Clintonian inclination to have it both ways on an issue, say her critics) while Cheney has steadfastly opposed it quotidian since his days in the House.
Otherwise, their legislative profiles are quite similiar; much to the chagrin of Democratic primary voters, though to be chagrined, they would have to wade through the morass of anti-Bush/Cheney rhetoric from Clinton to exhume it. How are they alike? Both support stem cell research. Clinton supported Bush's signature education bill, No Child Left Behind. In a Kafka-esque switch, Clinton, the Democrat does not support gay marriage, while Cheney, the conservative, has offered his tacit approval of gay relationships, going so far as to say that if a state, like Massachusetts, legalized gay marriage, he wouldn't find fault with that. Finally, both support the death penalty.
Verdict: Aside the pro-choice/pro-life question, if I laid out their positions, and it wasn't labeled, could you distinguish between the two? I know I'd have a difficult time. After initially dismissing Sullivan's comparison as run-of-the-mill conservative slander, I am starting to get a sinking feeling that he is prophetic in his assessment of Senator Clinton.
FINAL VERDICT: Tough to say definitively either way. As I look to assess the validity of Sullivan's remark, some facts support it (position on Iran, No Child Left Behind), while others directly contradict it (Abortion rights, gun control). Ultimately, if you are a voter, it depends on which issues concern you the most to determine if Sullivan is right in deeming Hillary a clone of Cheney. If terrorism is your main concern, then voting for Hillary will largely leave the face of American foreign policy changed, albeit the face will be a little prettier and less reminiscent of a movie villain. On the other hand, if you work for NARAL, Hillary ascending to the presidency would be a moment of nirvana.
If anything, the striking, and heretofore unknown harmony between Hilliary and Cheney is a microcosm of how little difference there really is between the 21st century incarnations of the Republicans and Democrats. Often times, those who refrain from voting cite their perception of having no real "choice" between the two as a reason for failing to patronize the ballot box. Given this set of facts, they may be on to something. Unfortunately, the symbiosis between the GOP and the left is unlikely to be challenged anytime in the near future, given the inherent constraints of our representative democracy. In the electoral college system, minor parties are pushed to the side, and even if they have any captivating ideas, more often than not, those ideas are just co-opted by one of the two parties. The similarities between the Democratic front-runner for President and the Vice-President, who is viewed as a war-criminal by many on the left, is a stark illustration of this principle.
But, given today's political climate, how can one really blame Hillary for her drift towards the center? The reason the Democrats took back the Senate in last year's mid-terms was because of a trio of centrist Democrats: Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb. All three hail from generally conservative states (a few of which Hillary would need to capture in a general election), and therefore, given the milieu in which they exist, their only hope towards winning would to adopt certain conservative positions, like anti-gun control laws, in order to get elected. As one of my sagely college professors remarked: "We live in a country where the electorate is middle minded, middle aged and middle income" Hold your horses Moveon.org, It's hardly meritorious for castigating Hillary for taking the most electable position. Otherwise, one of two foreboding developments will occur:
1. Rudolph Giuliani will get elected president. As Joe Biden astutely pointed out "With Rudy, every sentence from him is noun, verb 9/11" Trust me liberal voters, Rudy Giuliani is more likely to cross-dress at his inauguration (Imagine John Roberts trying to maintain his solemn, T-1000 like facial expression if Rudy shows up dressed like Bette Midler) than to extricate us from Iraq.
2. Super Mormon Mitt Romney will buy the presidency. Romney isn't capable of running a birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, much less an executive branch with an expansive view of his power.
Those possibilities are scary. The only thing worse: 4 more years of Dick Cheney running the imperial presidency.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Yet another Victory for Judicial "Activism"
Ever since its' ascendancy into political prominence in the 1980's, the Christian Right has placed foremost emphasis on selecting judges that conform to their ideological litmus test. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson and the rest of the evangelical ilk have stressed the need for Republicans that appoint judges who are "strict constructionists" who "interpret, not create the law" and most importantly, judges who do not "legislate from the bench."
Basically, as these innocuous terms attempt to obfuscate, Robinson and his cadre have tried to mete out any prospective nominee who is not fiercely pro-life, anti-gay marriage and pro-corporate welfare. The ideal judge, in their minds, would not only possess all of the aforementioned positions on social issues, but also would defer to state legislatures, voters and the executive branch on matters of creating law. In their warped perception, only judges who give near carte blanche to state legislatures in the creation, and implementation of laws, are permissible. Thus arises the murky Christian right buzz phrases like , "interpret the law, not create social policy with law" and most memorably, "do not legislate from the bench".
By in large, this movement to alter the requisite criterion for electing federal judges, most importantly, the Supreme Court, has been largely successful in diffusing out all judges save the arch-conservatives. As James Toobin laments in his insightful new novel "The Nine", when Robert Bork was foisted upon the Senate for confirmation, his confirmation hinged on whether not he was "pro Roe v. Wade" enough. Fast forward 20 years, and a judge like Roberts or Alito's confirmation is contingent on being "anti-Roe v. Wade" enough. In essence, a total paradigm shift on the issue of abortion has occurred in a mere two decades.
Ignoring the inherent hypocrisy of the conservatives preferred method for judicial selections (Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, deities to the far-right, are annually the leaders in overturning new laws, and eschewing past precedents, as reported last month by the Times), the systematic neutering and devaluing of the judicial branch of government has noticeably negative affects.
For one, the fundamental role of the judiciary, to combat unfair or unproductive legislation at the hands of renegade state legislatures, is rendered obsolete if the bench is dominated by the "strict constructionists" More over, fundamental minority rights, which the court assiduously endeavored to protect in landmark cases like Johnson v. Texas, or Brown v. Board of Education, are stunted greatly when judges defer to state legislatures or the "Framers" in interpreting the Constitution. In refusing to intervene in cases, provided the majority voted for a given law in such cases, irrespective of the merits of the law itself, judges commit an apostasy of justice, and help to create the "tyranny of the majority" that John Stuart Mill warned of two centuries ago.
These two negative consequences merged together to rear their negative head in the case of Genarlow Wilson, an African-American teenager in Georgia. Wilson, the prototypical All-American boy (except his race.....let's not operate under the false assumption that this country is color blind, particularly in the south) in the sense that he led his football team to the state championship, and he also succeeded in school to the point that he was recruited by Ivy League schools.
And then, given that background, it's only natural Genarlow would be incarcerated before he could even legally vote, right?! Only in America, folks. And what crime did this bright young man commit to earn a trip to the big house? One of the most indefensible, disgusting acts known to modern man: receiving consensual oral sex from a girl two years his junior (he was 17, she was 15 at the time) I know, he should be lynched, right?! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? An all-star athlete the recipient of physical pleasure? That never happened back in my day son! The Apocalypse truly is upon us, if miscreants like Genarlow can rome free amongst us god-fearing citizens.
All sarcasm aside, believe it or not, Wilson served two years in prison for this totally innocuous, quite enjoyable act. I could understand if he had given the girl oral sex, but he was on the receiving end. (After all, if I become president, any woman who's nether regions smells like the drive thru window at Long John Silver's will be immediately dispatched to a "re-education camp", as the Chinese so aptly deem it)
Finally, after years of court hearings and a protracted battle over Genarlow's fate, in a bit of much needed judicial "activism", he was freed on the grounds that his 10 year prison sentence was cruel and unusual punishment by the Georgia Supreme Court today. Without this intervention, Genarlow, with his appeals basically exhausted, would be thus forced to rot in prison while his immense talents go to waste. In this case, and in many others that preceded it, the judicial branch has served the vital function of exonerating persecuting minorities from the oppressive nature of some powerful Americans.
In essence, The most important principle of judicial activism, is its implicit acknowledgement to protect those who are unfavored in our society, if need be, through vitiation of unjust legislation, even if the majority of people are in favor of said law. Cover your ears arm-chair patriots: We Americans do not exactly radiate nor possess a demonstrable amount of political interest and knowledge.
Before the "This is Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuur Country" crowd drowns me out with caterwauls and questions my patriotism, chew on this: In a recent NPR poll of young women between the ages of 10-17, those selected answered, by a margin of 5 to 1, that they would rather be Britney Spears' personal assistant than a CEO of a major corporation, or a U.S. Senator.
True, some are very passionate about public policy and the minutiae of the government, but that politically efficacious group does not nearly constitute a majority. Given that, why should we allow those same individuals to make critical decisions concerning the welfare of our society?
I'm not calling for a fascist regime, in which only those citizens who bear a striking resemblance to either Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie would have the right to vote. Rather, I'm advocating a political structure where there really are checks and balances, and in addition, one branch of government (the judiciary) is not the victim of subterfuge from an injurious, uninformed electorate. Is that so much to ask? After all, IBM wouldn't hire someone to work at their plant if they didn't possess the requisite skills to make the best decisions while on the job. Why can't we apply the same axiom to voting, and more broadly, political participation as a whole?
The Christian Right has catalyzed the public with it's message on the judiciary by basing their rhetoric on populist grounds. Essentially, they appeal to the selfish nature in all of us (myself certainly included) by saying "Why do these 9 robed dinosaurs get to decide that it's legal to kill a baby? They aren't elected, they are immune to the will of the people!. Leave it up to the state legislatures, those officials are accountable to us ( this is a prominent fallacy amongst many citizens)"
Sadly, manipulating the public with this sort of incendiary rhetoric has been a largely successful enterprise for the conservatives. What results are travesty's of justice, both to the Constitution, which mandates an independent judiciary, also to a normal person. Case in point: Genarlow Wilson.
In closing on a lighter note, courtesy of dumblaws.com, listed below is some recent state laws ratified by the "omniscient" state legislatures. Trust me, more of this is what will occur if you install judges who refuse to intervene against the legislative and executive branches.
Alabama- Incestuous Marriages are Legal
Georgia-All sex toys are banned
Mississippi- If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, you go to jail for one month.
And the list goes on and on. Thankfully, we still have the judiciary.
Basically, as these innocuous terms attempt to obfuscate, Robinson and his cadre have tried to mete out any prospective nominee who is not fiercely pro-life, anti-gay marriage and pro-corporate welfare. The ideal judge, in their minds, would not only possess all of the aforementioned positions on social issues, but also would defer to state legislatures, voters and the executive branch on matters of creating law. In their warped perception, only judges who give near carte blanche to state legislatures in the creation, and implementation of laws, are permissible. Thus arises the murky Christian right buzz phrases like , "interpret the law, not create social policy with law" and most memorably, "do not legislate from the bench".
By in large, this movement to alter the requisite criterion for electing federal judges, most importantly, the Supreme Court, has been largely successful in diffusing out all judges save the arch-conservatives. As James Toobin laments in his insightful new novel "The Nine", when Robert Bork was foisted upon the Senate for confirmation, his confirmation hinged on whether not he was "pro Roe v. Wade" enough. Fast forward 20 years, and a judge like Roberts or Alito's confirmation is contingent on being "anti-Roe v. Wade" enough. In essence, a total paradigm shift on the issue of abortion has occurred in a mere two decades.
Ignoring the inherent hypocrisy of the conservatives preferred method for judicial selections (Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, deities to the far-right, are annually the leaders in overturning new laws, and eschewing past precedents, as reported last month by the Times), the systematic neutering and devaluing of the judicial branch of government has noticeably negative affects.
For one, the fundamental role of the judiciary, to combat unfair or unproductive legislation at the hands of renegade state legislatures, is rendered obsolete if the bench is dominated by the "strict constructionists" More over, fundamental minority rights, which the court assiduously endeavored to protect in landmark cases like Johnson v. Texas, or Brown v. Board of Education, are stunted greatly when judges defer to state legislatures or the "Framers" in interpreting the Constitution. In refusing to intervene in cases, provided the majority voted for a given law in such cases, irrespective of the merits of the law itself, judges commit an apostasy of justice, and help to create the "tyranny of the majority" that John Stuart Mill warned of two centuries ago.
These two negative consequences merged together to rear their negative head in the case of Genarlow Wilson, an African-American teenager in Georgia. Wilson, the prototypical All-American boy (except his race.....let's not operate under the false assumption that this country is color blind, particularly in the south) in the sense that he led his football team to the state championship, and he also succeeded in school to the point that he was recruited by Ivy League schools.
And then, given that background, it's only natural Genarlow would be incarcerated before he could even legally vote, right?! Only in America, folks. And what crime did this bright young man commit to earn a trip to the big house? One of the most indefensible, disgusting acts known to modern man: receiving consensual oral sex from a girl two years his junior (he was 17, she was 15 at the time) I know, he should be lynched, right?! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? An all-star athlete the recipient of physical pleasure? That never happened back in my day son! The Apocalypse truly is upon us, if miscreants like Genarlow can rome free amongst us god-fearing citizens.
All sarcasm aside, believe it or not, Wilson served two years in prison for this totally innocuous, quite enjoyable act. I could understand if he had given the girl oral sex, but he was on the receiving end. (After all, if I become president, any woman who's nether regions smells like the drive thru window at Long John Silver's will be immediately dispatched to a "re-education camp", as the Chinese so aptly deem it)
Finally, after years of court hearings and a protracted battle over Genarlow's fate, in a bit of much needed judicial "activism", he was freed on the grounds that his 10 year prison sentence was cruel and unusual punishment by the Georgia Supreme Court today. Without this intervention, Genarlow, with his appeals basically exhausted, would be thus forced to rot in prison while his immense talents go to waste. In this case, and in many others that preceded it, the judicial branch has served the vital function of exonerating persecuting minorities from the oppressive nature of some powerful Americans.
In essence, The most important principle of judicial activism, is its implicit acknowledgement to protect those who are unfavored in our society, if need be, through vitiation of unjust legislation, even if the majority of people are in favor of said law. Cover your ears arm-chair patriots: We Americans do not exactly radiate nor possess a demonstrable amount of political interest and knowledge.
Before the "This is Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuur Country" crowd drowns me out with caterwauls and questions my patriotism, chew on this: In a recent NPR poll of young women between the ages of 10-17, those selected answered, by a margin of 5 to 1, that they would rather be Britney Spears' personal assistant than a CEO of a major corporation, or a U.S. Senator.
True, some are very passionate about public policy and the minutiae of the government, but that politically efficacious group does not nearly constitute a majority. Given that, why should we allow those same individuals to make critical decisions concerning the welfare of our society?
I'm not calling for a fascist regime, in which only those citizens who bear a striking resemblance to either Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie would have the right to vote. Rather, I'm advocating a political structure where there really are checks and balances, and in addition, one branch of government (the judiciary) is not the victim of subterfuge from an injurious, uninformed electorate. Is that so much to ask? After all, IBM wouldn't hire someone to work at their plant if they didn't possess the requisite skills to make the best decisions while on the job. Why can't we apply the same axiom to voting, and more broadly, political participation as a whole?
The Christian Right has catalyzed the public with it's message on the judiciary by basing their rhetoric on populist grounds. Essentially, they appeal to the selfish nature in all of us (myself certainly included) by saying "Why do these 9 robed dinosaurs get to decide that it's legal to kill a baby? They aren't elected, they are immune to the will of the people!. Leave it up to the state legislatures, those officials are accountable to us ( this is a prominent fallacy amongst many citizens)"
Sadly, manipulating the public with this sort of incendiary rhetoric has been a largely successful enterprise for the conservatives. What results are travesty's of justice, both to the Constitution, which mandates an independent judiciary, also to a normal person. Case in point: Genarlow Wilson.
In closing on a lighter note, courtesy of dumblaws.com, listed below is some recent state laws ratified by the "omniscient" state legislatures. Trust me, more of this is what will occur if you install judges who refuse to intervene against the legislative and executive branches.
Alabama- Incestuous Marriages are Legal
Georgia-All sex toys are banned
Mississippi- If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, you go to jail for one month.
And the list goes on and on. Thankfully, we still have the judiciary.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Bloomberg Makes His Move
Originally, the plan was to spend this entry praising the United States for its' wise decision to resume aid, after an 18 month moratorium, to the embattled Palestinian people, trapped in an internecine civil war in their own territory. This decision is deserving of praise, both for humanitarian and strategic reasons. More over, it's the first indication that the Bush Administration has fundamentally altered it's strategy towards intervention in the Middle East. Instead of bombing them into oblivion and inflaming long simmering sectarian tensions (see Iraq, War In", as has been the hallmark of this administration heretofore, this move indicates they may truly be ready to win the "hearts and minds" of the Islamic world. Because of those aforementioned reasons, this decision deserves a lengthy analysis.
However, today is not that particular day, as news concerning the gradually approaching 2008 Presidential Elections (/sarcasm) stormed to the front of the headlines. For those of you unaware, Michael Bloomberg, the immensely popular mayor of New York City, and namesake to the gargantuan media empire, has dropped his affiliation with the Republican Party, and decided to become classified as an independent. This act, in and of itself, is hardly significant. In fact, Bloomberg himself switched from Democrat to Republican in advance of his 2001 mayoral candidacy in the Big Apple. That said, the implications of his decision, particularly vis a vis the upcoming election for the 2008 presidential election are enormous.
First of all, by de-affiliating himself with the Republican Party, and in the process, not reverting back to his ties with the Democratic party, Bloomberg has therefore allowed himself to bypass the grueling primary process a mere 7 months away. This decision thus affords him the luxury of abstaining from participation in the grueling Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, where often times a campaign's fate can be determined simply by their showing in those two polls. Furthermore, while all of the candidates from each party systematically attack and discredit each other, Bloomberg remains smugly above the fray.
Lastly, and most importantly, by remaining independent of the rigid national party structures, which obviously possess authority over the entire electoral process for their respective candidates, the mayor can now select the most opportune moment to enter the race. As only the candidates with unlimited wealth can afford to do, Bloomberg can throw his name into the race, after he has given ample thought to who the nominees from each party will be, and how he will size up against them. Because of his incalculable personal wealth and connections, he is unencumbered by the constraints of entering the race so late.
I suppose there is one "caveat" to all of this hullabaloo I'm making about the ramifications of Bloomberg's de-affiliation from any of the two main parties: the public remarks of Mr. Bloomberg himself. Not more than a matter of minutes, during his press conference today, after announcing his plan to relinquish membership in the Republican party, did the mayor reiterate his desire as the head man in NYC for the next 952 some odd days. Despite the words, Mr. Bloomberg's actions (becoming independent) and his facial expression while offering the aforementioned statement about his nascent desire to stay in NYC (a shit eating grin worthy of Charlie Sheen after a night on Sunset with a few friends of Heidi Fleiss), offer prescient insight into his future goals. As a man succeeded in managing both a worldwide media conglomerate and the world's largest, most idiosyncratic and difficult city, his aspirations are so high that they are only satisfied by the apex of political power: the U.S. Presidency.
Despite this evidence, there will likely still be a formidable contingent who really take the mayor's statements at face value. Clearly, the people who adhere to the mayor's pledge to remain holed up in his Manhattan office through 2009, are the type who believe that Lindsey Lohan's 21st birthday party will consist merely of a scavenger hunt and glasses brimming with Shirley Temples. Rest assured though, Bloomberg, being the calculating, deliberative man that he has proven to be. would not take the risks of de-affiliation (loss of support from Party bosses in each state, denied access to the second to none GOP grassroots efforts) without eventually embracing the foremost benefits (freedom from the stringent primary schedule, the ability to enter the race whenever he damn well pleases.)
In essence, Bloomberg, even if he enters the race at the eleventh hour (which in this case would refer to a period after the respective nominees have been chosen), non withstanding retains two distinct advantages over his opponent, no matter their chosen political party:
1. Money, even copious, unfathomable amounts of cash to the lay person, is truly no deterrent to the mayor's hypothetical candidacy. Sure, the nominees from each of the two major parties' will possess a daunting war chest, but Bloomberg's portfolio renders that almost a pittance. Bloomberg's campaign will be furnished financially entirely from his own personal bankroll.
This is advantageous for two reasons: First of all, his candidacy will be entirely bereft of influence from powerful, though potentially politically damaging constituencies like big-business and influential lobbyists. Just ask Hillary Clinton; just this week, she disclosed a sale of her stocks in Pharmaceutical behemoths like Pfizer and GSK, at a substantial loss in profit, in hopes of pacifying any questions about conflict of interest. With disgust for corruption weighing heavily on voters decisions, funding a presidential campaign entirely with monies out of his own pocket is a decided advantage over potential general-election opponents like Obama or Giuliani.
Secondly, with unprecedented, astounding amounts of cash likely to be spent by each major candidate in 2008, the financial security solely possessed by Bloomberg looms large. As John McCain has ruefully learned, anemic fund-raising can have a disastrous effect on a campaign, even more than a year before the primary.
For one, when relying upon a litany of individual donors to buttress your war chest, valuable time is lost when one is pleading for another $2,100 instead of out delivering a stump speech to an enthusiastic crowd in Concord or Des Moines. Bloomberg, given his willingness to spend $500 million of his own cash on the campaign, will run the most efficient operation, the one devoid of the distractions a thin wallet will inevitably present to the other candidates.
In addition, a paucity of available funds often sends distress signals out to supporters, the press and undecided voters. In 2004, John Kerry's disclosure that he was forced to mortgage his Beacon Hill residence in order to inject ample funds into his run certainly did not insinuate positives about the vitality of his campaign. More recently, Sen. McCain was absolutely blasted in the media for his anemic showing during the first quarter 2007 fundraising period. $500 million, as Bloomberg brings to the table, gives a candidate immunity from the perceptions that the "support" e.g. the money, an essential for 2008, is anything but robust.
2. Bloomberg's decision to extract himself from the hectic, exhausting and potentially debilitating party primary process is a strategic coup. The complexion of the body politic has become increasingly divergent, and therefore, hazardous, from primary to general election in recent years. Particularly for Republicans, as Bloomberg was a mere 48 hours ago, maintaining a consistent position from the primaries to the general election is highly problematic. Because those who tend to vote in Republican primaries are social conservatives, and therefore far to the right from the average person, who often cast their ballot solely on single issues like abortion rights or same-sex marriage, candidates are habitually forced to alter their platforms to accommodate voters. More often than not, candidates came across as obsequious, artificial charlatans. The 2008 election has already brought plenty of insidious pandering, courtesy of the Republican front-runners.
From Mitt Romney masquerading as Yosemite Sam in an attempt to obfuscate his previous support for gun control, to John McCain attempting to portray himself as a Bush lackey, Republicans seem to have little shame in shifting as far to the right as conceivable, no matter how centrist the entire electorate may be. Although, an impartial observer can't really blame them. One can only preach those who will cast ballots for the next approaching election. Therein lies the Catch 22 of the American electoral process: candidates, by nature of essentially needing to win two separate elections, which are often times decided on fundamentally contradictory issues, are pushed into situations where they must accentuate long forgotten aspects of their political ideology, ignore their views prior to running for president, or even offer downright falsehoods as a means to garnering ample votes in both the primary and general elections. Luckily for Bloomberg, whose liberalism on social issues like gay marriage and abortion make Rudy Giuliani look like Jerry Falwell, is impervious to the contrived, politically dangerous nature of the primary election cycle.
Rather, Bloomberg can simply run on the platform that he utilized in previous successful campaigns. His appeal, as a manager, who conforms to the majority of Americans on both social issues and economic policy, will never be questioned in a hypothetical general election press conference by a skeptical reporter who heard him offer an entirely different contention during the primaries.
Certainly, Bloomberg's dramatic announcement will inject some life, at least temporarily, into this relatively moribund stage in the 2008 election cycle. You know journalists are clamoring for substantive news when the main stories circulating about the 2008 campaign center around Rudy Guiliani hiring Pablo Escobar to run his South Carolina campaign, and Hillary Clinton's Stanislivsky-inspire performance as Tony Soprano in her campaign spoof. At least for the next few days, Bloomberg provides fodder for those pundits. However, his announcement likely will engender long standing changes in the presidential election. Unless his very public decision to shun his Republican ties, accompanied by a excoriation of the culture pervading D.C. politics today, is merely a symbolic gesture designed to garner publicity, his decision has long-standing implications for the future.
However, today is not that particular day, as news concerning the gradually approaching 2008 Presidential Elections (/sarcasm) stormed to the front of the headlines. For those of you unaware, Michael Bloomberg, the immensely popular mayor of New York City, and namesake to the gargantuan media empire, has dropped his affiliation with the Republican Party, and decided to become classified as an independent. This act, in and of itself, is hardly significant. In fact, Bloomberg himself switched from Democrat to Republican in advance of his 2001 mayoral candidacy in the Big Apple. That said, the implications of his decision, particularly vis a vis the upcoming election for the 2008 presidential election are enormous.
First of all, by de-affiliating himself with the Republican Party, and in the process, not reverting back to his ties with the Democratic party, Bloomberg has therefore allowed himself to bypass the grueling primary process a mere 7 months away. This decision thus affords him the luxury of abstaining from participation in the grueling Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, where often times a campaign's fate can be determined simply by their showing in those two polls. Furthermore, while all of the candidates from each party systematically attack and discredit each other, Bloomberg remains smugly above the fray.
Lastly, and most importantly, by remaining independent of the rigid national party structures, which obviously possess authority over the entire electoral process for their respective candidates, the mayor can now select the most opportune moment to enter the race. As only the candidates with unlimited wealth can afford to do, Bloomberg can throw his name into the race, after he has given ample thought to who the nominees from each party will be, and how he will size up against them. Because of his incalculable personal wealth and connections, he is unencumbered by the constraints of entering the race so late.
I suppose there is one "caveat" to all of this hullabaloo I'm making about the ramifications of Bloomberg's de-affiliation from any of the two main parties: the public remarks of Mr. Bloomberg himself. Not more than a matter of minutes, during his press conference today, after announcing his plan to relinquish membership in the Republican party, did the mayor reiterate his desire as the head man in NYC for the next 952 some odd days. Despite the words, Mr. Bloomberg's actions (becoming independent) and his facial expression while offering the aforementioned statement about his nascent desire to stay in NYC (a shit eating grin worthy of Charlie Sheen after a night on Sunset with a few friends of Heidi Fleiss), offer prescient insight into his future goals. As a man succeeded in managing both a worldwide media conglomerate and the world's largest, most idiosyncratic and difficult city, his aspirations are so high that they are only satisfied by the apex of political power: the U.S. Presidency.
Despite this evidence, there will likely still be a formidable contingent who really take the mayor's statements at face value. Clearly, the people who adhere to the mayor's pledge to remain holed up in his Manhattan office through 2009, are the type who believe that Lindsey Lohan's 21st birthday party will consist merely of a scavenger hunt and glasses brimming with Shirley Temples. Rest assured though, Bloomberg, being the calculating, deliberative man that he has proven to be. would not take the risks of de-affiliation (loss of support from Party bosses in each state, denied access to the second to none GOP grassroots efforts) without eventually embracing the foremost benefits (freedom from the stringent primary schedule, the ability to enter the race whenever he damn well pleases.)
In essence, Bloomberg, even if he enters the race at the eleventh hour (which in this case would refer to a period after the respective nominees have been chosen), non withstanding retains two distinct advantages over his opponent, no matter their chosen political party:
1. Money, even copious, unfathomable amounts of cash to the lay person, is truly no deterrent to the mayor's hypothetical candidacy. Sure, the nominees from each of the two major parties' will possess a daunting war chest, but Bloomberg's portfolio renders that almost a pittance. Bloomberg's campaign will be furnished financially entirely from his own personal bankroll.
This is advantageous for two reasons: First of all, his candidacy will be entirely bereft of influence from powerful, though potentially politically damaging constituencies like big-business and influential lobbyists. Just ask Hillary Clinton; just this week, she disclosed a sale of her stocks in Pharmaceutical behemoths like Pfizer and GSK, at a substantial loss in profit, in hopes of pacifying any questions about conflict of interest. With disgust for corruption weighing heavily on voters decisions, funding a presidential campaign entirely with monies out of his own pocket is a decided advantage over potential general-election opponents like Obama or Giuliani.
Secondly, with unprecedented, astounding amounts of cash likely to be spent by each major candidate in 2008, the financial security solely possessed by Bloomberg looms large. As John McCain has ruefully learned, anemic fund-raising can have a disastrous effect on a campaign, even more than a year before the primary.
For one, when relying upon a litany of individual donors to buttress your war chest, valuable time is lost when one is pleading for another $2,100 instead of out delivering a stump speech to an enthusiastic crowd in Concord or Des Moines. Bloomberg, given his willingness to spend $500 million of his own cash on the campaign, will run the most efficient operation, the one devoid of the distractions a thin wallet will inevitably present to the other candidates.
In addition, a paucity of available funds often sends distress signals out to supporters, the press and undecided voters. In 2004, John Kerry's disclosure that he was forced to mortgage his Beacon Hill residence in order to inject ample funds into his run certainly did not insinuate positives about the vitality of his campaign. More recently, Sen. McCain was absolutely blasted in the media for his anemic showing during the first quarter 2007 fundraising period. $500 million, as Bloomberg brings to the table, gives a candidate immunity from the perceptions that the "support" e.g. the money, an essential for 2008, is anything but robust.
2. Bloomberg's decision to extract himself from the hectic, exhausting and potentially debilitating party primary process is a strategic coup. The complexion of the body politic has become increasingly divergent, and therefore, hazardous, from primary to general election in recent years. Particularly for Republicans, as Bloomberg was a mere 48 hours ago, maintaining a consistent position from the primaries to the general election is highly problematic. Because those who tend to vote in Republican primaries are social conservatives, and therefore far to the right from the average person, who often cast their ballot solely on single issues like abortion rights or same-sex marriage, candidates are habitually forced to alter their platforms to accommodate voters. More often than not, candidates came across as obsequious, artificial charlatans. The 2008 election has already brought plenty of insidious pandering, courtesy of the Republican front-runners.
From Mitt Romney masquerading as Yosemite Sam in an attempt to obfuscate his previous support for gun control, to John McCain attempting to portray himself as a Bush lackey, Republicans seem to have little shame in shifting as far to the right as conceivable, no matter how centrist the entire electorate may be. Although, an impartial observer can't really blame them. One can only preach those who will cast ballots for the next approaching election. Therein lies the Catch 22 of the American electoral process: candidates, by nature of essentially needing to win two separate elections, which are often times decided on fundamentally contradictory issues, are pushed into situations where they must accentuate long forgotten aspects of their political ideology, ignore their views prior to running for president, or even offer downright falsehoods as a means to garnering ample votes in both the primary and general elections. Luckily for Bloomberg, whose liberalism on social issues like gay marriage and abortion make Rudy Giuliani look like Jerry Falwell, is impervious to the contrived, politically dangerous nature of the primary election cycle.
Rather, Bloomberg can simply run on the platform that he utilized in previous successful campaigns. His appeal, as a manager, who conforms to the majority of Americans on both social issues and economic policy, will never be questioned in a hypothetical general election press conference by a skeptical reporter who heard him offer an entirely different contention during the primaries.
Certainly, Bloomberg's dramatic announcement will inject some life, at least temporarily, into this relatively moribund stage in the 2008 election cycle. You know journalists are clamoring for substantive news when the main stories circulating about the 2008 campaign center around Rudy Guiliani hiring Pablo Escobar to run his South Carolina campaign, and Hillary Clinton's Stanislivsky-inspire performance as Tony Soprano in her campaign spoof. At least for the next few days, Bloomberg provides fodder for those pundits. However, his announcement likely will engender long standing changes in the presidential election. Unless his very public decision to shun his Republican ties, accompanied by a excoriation of the culture pervading D.C. politics today, is merely a symbolic gesture designed to garner publicity, his decision has long-standing implications for the future.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Yep, the Constitution is Grand. But There are Amendments for a Reason. Here's a Proposal. Part 1.
So, in analyzing the debacle in Iraq, where does the list of the mistakes begin? Let's try to hash out a rough index:
First of all, General David Petraeus, the oft- anointed savior of the U.S. venture in Iraq, admits that very little progress has been observed, despite the surge of troops being at their maximum capacity.
The sophomoric Iraqi Parliament has hitherto been unable to agree on the color of the carpets in their chamber, much less come to any sort of accord on meaningful issues like oil wealth redistribution and the repeal of de-Baathification measures enacted at the outset of the invasion.
Casualties amongst all demographics, from civilians to the fledgling Iraqi soldiers, are at their apogee.
In Southern Iraq, Shiite militias, having secured their autonomy from the British earlier in the year, run major oil-producing cities like Basra similar to the old style Chicago political machines.
In the North, a burgeoning territorial dispute between the Kurds and their northern neighbors, the Turks, is threatening to devolve into an internecine war that could further destabilize the "nation" of Iraq.
Shockingly though, the aforementioned are yet still a mere pittance of the litany of problems confronting the embattled "nation" at present.
Given these sobering truths about our failure to succeed in Iraq, it's hardly a surprise that public sentiment here in the United States against the occupation, which gradually built to a fierce crescendo, finally culminated in the last few weeks.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 68% percent of the country does not believe in the direction of the country. Couple that fact, with record low approval rankings for both the President and the Congress (29 and 23 percent, respectively). Throw in the symbolic bete noire that was achieved this week when the number of American soldiers dead ascended over 3,500, and one can easily envision the overlying public sentiment as being one of disgust.
However, the institutions that are supposed to be most attuned to the public in a representative democracy, the House of Representatives and Senate, have heard not a mere single utterance from their membership concerning the situation in Iraq for nearly a month. The right and honorable Senators have instead spent their time focusing on inconsequential, non binding endeavors like a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and bills that would offer enormous subsidies to companies who intend to invest in coal as an energy source of the future. (Way to stay true to the party platform vis a vis the environment with that decision, Senator Reid.)
What makes this dereliction of Senatorial duty all the more surprising and reprehensible is that it occurs with the Democratic party in the majority, albeit a minuscule one. The public had, more or less, come to expect the rampant cronyism and lack of oversight when the Republicans were in power. It's no surprise then that the Democrats mounted a successful campaign as the alternative to that lack of accountability on Iraq, supposedly endemic to the GOP, during the 2006 mid-terms. Yet, despite all the promises to offer a diversion from the President's Iraq policy, inertia and entropy have reigned supreme in the higher chamber since the new majority assumed power in January.
The question that thus arises is: who is the foremost culprit responsible for the stagnancy that has pervaded the Senate in recent weeks? As is typical with problems arising in Washington, most principals are denying their culpability through one side of their mouth while pointing an accusatory finger at their colleagues across the aisle. However, in a matter of this importance, it is imperative that appropriate blame be meted out, particularly given the embarrassing inverse relationship between increasing public furor over the war and the decrease in tangible legislation emanating from the Senate.
As for endeavoring to identify the guilty party, the usual suspects predictably come to mind at first thought. Of course, the President himself deserves a considerable amount of ignominy in this matter. His petulant refusal to even negotiate with House leaders on the even the possibility of the inclusion of time lines to withdraw troops within the bill, despite objections from members of his own party, essentially neutered the changes in the bill, and thereby removed its effectiveness. Similarly, the stalling tactics of Senate GOP leaders McConnell and Lott eventually reduced the debate to an argument over procedural, not substantive matters with regards to Iraq. In the same vein, the Democrats are equally responsible, largely because of their total emasculation at the hands of the President during the negotiations prior to ratification of the bill, for the pathetic "compromise" legislation that ultimately materialized from the Senate.
Despite this, though the actions of the aforementioned individuals have served as a microcosm for the lack of a new approach per Iraq on Capitol Hill, they will not be served to history as the most grievous offenders. Even the President, whose complete refusal to acknowledge reality on the ground in Iraq, thereby committing more soldiers to a pointless death day by day, can be solely highlighted as the reason the recent Iraq legislation flamed out so miserably. In actuality, no single individual, no matter how deserving of opprobrium their actions or all-encompassing be their political clout, is responsible for the indolence that has consumed the Senate in recent weeks.
The responsibility for inaction thus lies with an entity that is far more resilient and insidious than any sole individual could ever be. Trust me, you will be surprised. The main enemy of progress are the rules and procedures, as ascribed by the Founding Fathers, of the U.S. Senate. Despite overwhelming sentiment in favor of a concerted detour from President Bush's Iraq policy, the structural parameters of Senate business, as instituted by Madison and his fellow Constitutional architects, stood unscathed against the assault of the America people.
In a sense, in ignoring the will of the people with the paucity of legislation on Iraq, the Senate worked exactly as the framers' originally envisioned. Realizing that chaos may ensue in the House, given the short terms and huge size, the Senate was created as a moderating counter-weight. Emanating from this idea was the extensive six-year term, the mandate demanding a two-thirds majority to override a veto, and most importantly, the staggering of Senatorial elections, which ensured only a third would be up for re-election each cycle. As Robert Caro eloquently theorized in his landmark third volume on Lyndon Johnson's, which centered on his tenure in the Senate, the framers sincerely believed that this body was meant to "serve as a bulwark against both overreaching power of the executive branch and the zeal of the populace as a whole."
As for protecting against the danger synonymous with the former, the Senate has undoubtedly performed meritorious work. At the height of the New Deal's popularity, it single handedly preserved the autonomy and legitimacy of the Judiciary when, after weeks of pensive debate and brilliant oratory, it rejected FDR's plan to reshuffle the Supreme Court at his whim. In the same vein, the Senate likely diffused the establishment of a one-party government when it nullified Andrew Jackson's plan to dismiss legitimate politicians based on their political affiliation a mere 30 years republic.
More often than not though, the Senate has served the second purpose of the framers: to curtail the popular sentiment of the country. Often times, as prescribed by the infrastructure of the Constitution, this institution was the last bastion against reform, social justice and egalitarianism. To every one's surprise, save perhaps Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and their ilk, the Senate nevertheless stood firm against the seemingly unstoppable forces for change, largely because of the aforementioned procedures governing the passage of legislation in this body.
The United States, believed to be the most progressive nation on Earth insofar as embodying universal values of human rights, still employed children in heinous conditions as late as 1915. An entry race, African-Americans, were systematically disenfranchised and harassed until the late 1960's, despite being emancipated nearly a century before. Yet, for nearly 100 years, they had little recourse, given the Senate's ability to dominate the legislative agenda in Washington. Time and time again, the House, buoyed by the will of their constituents passed legislation designed to enhance human rights, fairness and transparency in our society, only to be stymied by the higher chamber.
Furthermore, Senators, in brazenly dismissing innumerable bills, often times attempt to absolve themselves of blame by citing the complicated, onerous parliamentary procedures that govern Senate debate. The worst part: this, while seeming on the surface absurd, is a completely legitimate argument
Case in point: Freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) expressed both the collective frustration over the gridlock on Iraq, and the hegemony of Senate rules and procedures when she offered this assessment, courtesy of the Times, last week:
“I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, ‘Well, we need 60 votes,’ she said. “People are dying over there, so that isn’t always helpful.”
Her candid statement seems to epitomize how nonsensical the Senate has become with respect to Iraq. Instead of making decisions based on body counts, assessments from commanders on the field, or the opinions of our allies, we are held hostage by the anachronistic rules of the Senate. For more than 200 years, the Founders have succeeded, through the Senate's structural design, to thwart the will of the public. Through hell and high water, the institution has held firm, often to the countries distinct detriment.
It's finally time to modify these asinine, counter-productive rules. In an increasing complex, nuanced world, the need for flexibility, responsiveness and alacrity in legislation is paramount to honoring the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Those 3,500 Americans who have perished in Iraq at least deserve an honest debate, based on the issues, not the instructions of the Senate parliamentarian, don't they?
Without amending the Senate rules, they will never get it. And we will be ever the worse as a result.
Coming up next week: Part 2-Fixing the Senate: A Comprehensive Blueprint
First of all, General David Petraeus, the oft- anointed savior of the U.S. venture in Iraq, admits that very little progress has been observed, despite the surge of troops being at their maximum capacity.
The sophomoric Iraqi Parliament has hitherto been unable to agree on the color of the carpets in their chamber, much less come to any sort of accord on meaningful issues like oil wealth redistribution and the repeal of de-Baathification measures enacted at the outset of the invasion.
Casualties amongst all demographics, from civilians to the fledgling Iraqi soldiers, are at their apogee.
In Southern Iraq, Shiite militias, having secured their autonomy from the British earlier in the year, run major oil-producing cities like Basra similar to the old style Chicago political machines.
In the North, a burgeoning territorial dispute between the Kurds and their northern neighbors, the Turks, is threatening to devolve into an internecine war that could further destabilize the "nation" of Iraq.
Shockingly though, the aforementioned are yet still a mere pittance of the litany of problems confronting the embattled "nation" at present.
Given these sobering truths about our failure to succeed in Iraq, it's hardly a surprise that public sentiment here in the United States against the occupation, which gradually built to a fierce crescendo, finally culminated in the last few weeks.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 68% percent of the country does not believe in the direction of the country. Couple that fact, with record low approval rankings for both the President and the Congress (29 and 23 percent, respectively). Throw in the symbolic bete noire that was achieved this week when the number of American soldiers dead ascended over 3,500, and one can easily envision the overlying public sentiment as being one of disgust.
However, the institutions that are supposed to be most attuned to the public in a representative democracy, the House of Representatives and Senate, have heard not a mere single utterance from their membership concerning the situation in Iraq for nearly a month. The right and honorable Senators have instead spent their time focusing on inconsequential, non binding endeavors like a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and bills that would offer enormous subsidies to companies who intend to invest in coal as an energy source of the future. (Way to stay true to the party platform vis a vis the environment with that decision, Senator Reid.)
What makes this dereliction of Senatorial duty all the more surprising and reprehensible is that it occurs with the Democratic party in the majority, albeit a minuscule one. The public had, more or less, come to expect the rampant cronyism and lack of oversight when the Republicans were in power. It's no surprise then that the Democrats mounted a successful campaign as the alternative to that lack of accountability on Iraq, supposedly endemic to the GOP, during the 2006 mid-terms. Yet, despite all the promises to offer a diversion from the President's Iraq policy, inertia and entropy have reigned supreme in the higher chamber since the new majority assumed power in January.
The question that thus arises is: who is the foremost culprit responsible for the stagnancy that has pervaded the Senate in recent weeks? As is typical with problems arising in Washington, most principals are denying their culpability through one side of their mouth while pointing an accusatory finger at their colleagues across the aisle. However, in a matter of this importance, it is imperative that appropriate blame be meted out, particularly given the embarrassing inverse relationship between increasing public furor over the war and the decrease in tangible legislation emanating from the Senate.
As for endeavoring to identify the guilty party, the usual suspects predictably come to mind at first thought. Of course, the President himself deserves a considerable amount of ignominy in this matter. His petulant refusal to even negotiate with House leaders on the even the possibility of the inclusion of time lines to withdraw troops within the bill, despite objections from members of his own party, essentially neutered the changes in the bill, and thereby removed its effectiveness. Similarly, the stalling tactics of Senate GOP leaders McConnell and Lott eventually reduced the debate to an argument over procedural, not substantive matters with regards to Iraq. In the same vein, the Democrats are equally responsible, largely because of their total emasculation at the hands of the President during the negotiations prior to ratification of the bill, for the pathetic "compromise" legislation that ultimately materialized from the Senate.
Despite this, though the actions of the aforementioned individuals have served as a microcosm for the lack of a new approach per Iraq on Capitol Hill, they will not be served to history as the most grievous offenders. Even the President, whose complete refusal to acknowledge reality on the ground in Iraq, thereby committing more soldiers to a pointless death day by day, can be solely highlighted as the reason the recent Iraq legislation flamed out so miserably. In actuality, no single individual, no matter how deserving of opprobrium their actions or all-encompassing be their political clout, is responsible for the indolence that has consumed the Senate in recent weeks.
The responsibility for inaction thus lies with an entity that is far more resilient and insidious than any sole individual could ever be. Trust me, you will be surprised. The main enemy of progress are the rules and procedures, as ascribed by the Founding Fathers, of the U.S. Senate. Despite overwhelming sentiment in favor of a concerted detour from President Bush's Iraq policy, the structural parameters of Senate business, as instituted by Madison and his fellow Constitutional architects, stood unscathed against the assault of the America people.
In a sense, in ignoring the will of the people with the paucity of legislation on Iraq, the Senate worked exactly as the framers' originally envisioned. Realizing that chaos may ensue in the House, given the short terms and huge size, the Senate was created as a moderating counter-weight. Emanating from this idea was the extensive six-year term, the mandate demanding a two-thirds majority to override a veto, and most importantly, the staggering of Senatorial elections, which ensured only a third would be up for re-election each cycle. As Robert Caro eloquently theorized in his landmark third volume on Lyndon Johnson's, which centered on his tenure in the Senate, the framers sincerely believed that this body was meant to "serve as a bulwark against both overreaching power of the executive branch and the zeal of the populace as a whole."
As for protecting against the danger synonymous with the former, the Senate has undoubtedly performed meritorious work. At the height of the New Deal's popularity, it single handedly preserved the autonomy and legitimacy of the Judiciary when, after weeks of pensive debate and brilliant oratory, it rejected FDR's plan to reshuffle the Supreme Court at his whim. In the same vein, the Senate likely diffused the establishment of a one-party government when it nullified Andrew Jackson's plan to dismiss legitimate politicians based on their political affiliation a mere 30 years republic.
More often than not though, the Senate has served the second purpose of the framers: to curtail the popular sentiment of the country. Often times, as prescribed by the infrastructure of the Constitution, this institution was the last bastion against reform, social justice and egalitarianism. To every one's surprise, save perhaps Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and their ilk, the Senate nevertheless stood firm against the seemingly unstoppable forces for change, largely because of the aforementioned procedures governing the passage of legislation in this body.
The United States, believed to be the most progressive nation on Earth insofar as embodying universal values of human rights, still employed children in heinous conditions as late as 1915. An entry race, African-Americans, were systematically disenfranchised and harassed until the late 1960's, despite being emancipated nearly a century before. Yet, for nearly 100 years, they had little recourse, given the Senate's ability to dominate the legislative agenda in Washington. Time and time again, the House, buoyed by the will of their constituents passed legislation designed to enhance human rights, fairness and transparency in our society, only to be stymied by the higher chamber.
Furthermore, Senators, in brazenly dismissing innumerable bills, often times attempt to absolve themselves of blame by citing the complicated, onerous parliamentary procedures that govern Senate debate. The worst part: this, while seeming on the surface absurd, is a completely legitimate argument
Case in point: Freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) expressed both the collective frustration over the gridlock on Iraq, and the hegemony of Senate rules and procedures when she offered this assessment, courtesy of the Times, last week:
“I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, ‘Well, we need 60 votes,’ she said. “People are dying over there, so that isn’t always helpful.”
Her candid statement seems to epitomize how nonsensical the Senate has become with respect to Iraq. Instead of making decisions based on body counts, assessments from commanders on the field, or the opinions of our allies, we are held hostage by the anachronistic rules of the Senate. For more than 200 years, the Founders have succeeded, through the Senate's structural design, to thwart the will of the public. Through hell and high water, the institution has held firm, often to the countries distinct detriment.
It's finally time to modify these asinine, counter-productive rules. In an increasing complex, nuanced world, the need for flexibility, responsiveness and alacrity in legislation is paramount to honoring the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Those 3,500 Americans who have perished in Iraq at least deserve an honest debate, based on the issues, not the instructions of the Senate parliamentarian, don't they?
Without amending the Senate rules, they will never get it. And we will be ever the worse as a result.
Coming up next week: Part 2-Fixing the Senate: A Comprehensive Blueprint
Monday, May 21, 2007
2 Opposite Parties, Yet only 1 Ideology on Ethics Reform?
I suppose that, as a progressive, it may be considered somewhat blasphemous to go after the Democrats in my blog, particularly with the litany of transgressions propagated by the GOP (namely the Bush Administration) quotidian. To a degree, that viewpoint has merit. Just last week, the episode of General Hospital featuring John Ashcroft came to light, and boy was that a sordid tale. Season finale worthy, I'd say.
Also, the stalemate on Capitol Hill between an increasingly petulant President and a steadfast Congress over funding the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan persisted, with the piece de resistance arriving on Friday when Mr. Bush flatly declined to negotiate whatsoever with his Congressional counterparts, despite having both overwhelming public opinion and prominent leaders from his own party turning against him, has illustrated starkly the doctrinal futility of this brand of Republican. Mr Bush, just because you are from Texas, doesn't mean you have to imitate former presidents who decided to go into a self-imposed vacation from reality in times of war. (See-Johnson, Lyndon for future reference)
Yet the aforementioned summary is essentially a run of the mill 5 days for the Grand Ole' Party, especially since the Bush cabal (and their coterie of sycophants in both houses of Congress (Boehner, McConnell, Frist, et al.) came to power at the turn of the century. Given this, it is hardly insightful to highlight their buffoonery, and therefore I will leave it to others.
I will admit: It would be disingenuous of me to imply I shall spare the Republicans the point of my literary rod. Rather, I am just saving it for the next instance of their inimitable tendency to malign our country.
Now on to the prudent matters to be analyzed in this blog: As mentioned, Republicans have now established a routine of detrimental conduct in the last seven years. On the other hand, their colleagues from across the aisle, while hardly omniscient, have by in large advocated for policies that are far more conducive to an egalitarian, just and economically viable society.
Recently though, they have confronted their first full fledged crisis since assuming leadership in January with the problem over curtailing corruption within the halls of power in D.C. This was an issue that struck a prominent chord with voters last November, and it has become increasingly complicated for prominent democrats like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. In essence, failure to pass the legislation, which could be now fait accompli given the developments of last week, is a highly dangerous prospect for a party holding a minuscule lead in the Senate, and hardly a majority in the House.
As a recent Times' article by David Kirkpatrick explicitly detailed, said House Democratic leadership has faced a near revolt from the rank of file over the forthcoming ethics reform package. Essentially, the tumult has arisen specifically over a portion of the legislation that would mandate Lawmakers to double the time they must wait before entering the private, lucrative lobbying sector after their tenure on the Hill is done, from one year to two years. In addition, the bill would greatly inhibit lobbyists from engaging in "informal relations" with lawmakers, from plotting strategy or simply consultancy.
On the surface, this bill seems like an overdue solution to the dearth of accountability and transparency that has pervaded Capitol Hill as an institution for the last decade. Furthermore, in lieu of the specific, audacious scandals that have plagued both parties recently, from Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney with the GOP to Jim Traficant for the Democrats, the expediency needed to pass this particular legislation within Congress itself should have reached its crescendo in 2007. Furthermore, the revisions at hand are hardly the large scale reforms once proposed during the apogee of the fervor over Cunningham's bribery and fraud scandal. In fact, these provisions are largely neutered compared to their predecessors.
For example, let's look at the foremost bone of contention between the pro-approval Leadership of the House, and the revolting rank and file: The increase in entrance to the private sector upon retirement from public service from 1 year to 2. Give me a break. You can't wait one extra year to start raking in the bucks on K Street? Those who protest against the bill on these grounds offer at best, a flimsy defense of their vote. If a former Congressman is so eager to continue "serving his constituents, though in a different, yet equally important way" (yes, I'm lampooning their rhetoric right there), let him go join a non-profit. Wait, what am I thinking? The only thing less likely to happen than that is the Iraq war ending without an internecine civil war. Oh, but I digress.
However, despite the growing storm of criticism emanating from the voters at large, to whom politicians are supposedly accountable to, (Congress has an even lower approval rating than our beleaguered President at present), this bill is ultimately likely to die as part of a weak-ass "compromise" to get other facets of the legislation passed in due time.
This bitter legislative pill is even harder to swallow when it comes from a Democratic led Congress.
First of all, Democrats, though hardly immune to corrupt practices, have traditionally presented themselves as the party of the "middle class", or more broadly, the "party of the people". Therefore, they are held to a higher standard when it comes to ethical conduct, for better or worse. In addition, the GOP has proven in the past that they are beholden to large scale interests, like powerful lobbies (energy, pharmaceutical and auto) and corporations, than to the middle class of society. More over, the recent incarnation of the right in D.C. has proven they are more interested in re-election, no matter through what means, than enforcing the rule of law. Disregarding the principles of separation of powers, accountability and responsibility started at the Executive Branch, and it has now trickled down to the GOP in Congress.
Democrats, since they are the agent of the "people", were supposed to reverse this trend upon election, starting with a comprehensive, enforceable ethics reform package. They were supposed to differentiate themselves, by their willingness to eschew shady, barely legal relations with lobbyists. Rhetorically, they have promised to fulfill that pledge ad nauseum, from the campaign trail in November to myriad news conferences on Capitol Hill in January.
Regrettably though, when it came to taking tangible action on ethics reform, they have failed miserably. With the leadership being stonewalled on Iraq by the President and the passage of the ballyhooed Senate immigration deal looking dire, coupled with few legislative successes since inauguration, save a much needed minimum wage hike (even that was diluted by a ridiculous part of the bill that included unnecessary relief for small businesses), and one would think the Democrats would embrace a maneuver that would afford them a well publicized legislative success. Ethics reform was the epitome of that idea. Yet, they did not embrace it.
Call me an idealist, but I genuinely trusted that the Democrats would break from the recent history of opprobrium that has characterized the interactions between lobbyists and lawmakers. Instead, in revealing their cowardice, they could only mimic the pathetic Republicans. So much for a new vision, eh?
Secondly, idealism about the Democratic party, and the principles embodied there in: altruism, fairness, transparency of government, have long since been anachronistic. As such, Democratic leaders must have weighed that into their decision to renege on critical tenets of the ethics reform package as a mere affront to the small sect of political observers that espouse idealism.
That said, Democratic leadership is forgetting the immense hypocrisy involved with their decision on ethics reform. Throughout the entire 2006 mid-term campaign, the DNC absolutely destroyed the GOP on issues of corruption and accountability within government. Given the prominence of the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals, how could you blame them? Furthermore, aside from Iraq, combating corrupt public officials, was the most pressing issue on the conscience of voters, according to exit surveys. So, it's only expected to see a litany of advertisements attempting to distinguish the Democrats from their debauched Republican counterparts. This tactic was particularly effective in 2006 because of the 24/7 frenetic media climate in which we now live.
Eventually, publicizing their steadfast commitment to fighting unethical GOP conduct became one of the cornerstones of the campaign that allowed the Left to seize control of Congress for the first time since 1993. However, the Democrats, while embracing the benefits of the hyper-capitalized media world to win this election, forgot to abide by it's one general rule: do not bite the hand that feeds you.
With their eminent hypocrisy on evicting corruption and lobbyist influence, as epitomized by their craven stance on this ethics reform, the Democrats are playing a duplicitous game with the voters, one that is likely implausible within a political world where unmitigated negative advertising is the most preferred form of campaign advertising.
Historical precedent has starkly illustrated that brazen hypocrisy will not go un-punished by the voters. Just ask George H.W. Bush. In 1992, he was crippled by the Clinton campaign's decision to run on a continuous loop his his infamous, ultimately fraudulent pledge of "No New Taxes" at the 1988 GOP Convention. Lord knows, if the Democrats are willing to pounce on hypocritical statements made in the past by prominent politicians, what will the GOP do during the 2008 elections? After all, this is the party that chastised John McCain for having an adopted daughter that wasn't pearly white with radiant blonde hair!
Ultimately, Pelosi and her ilk must believe their decision on ethics reform will engender not enmity or outrage but indifference within the electorate. However, this is a highly myopic perception of voters, particularly with the mass of interest groups swarming around like a troop of frenzied bees.
As George W. Bush's re-election in 2004 proved, voters are willing to forgive incompetency, economic stagnancy and a disastrous foreign policy. Fast forward two years, and we find them thoroughly unwilling to tolerate the corruption of his party. In 2006, the Democrats accurately felt the pulse of the voters, and ousted the Republicans with a resounding message of transparency and amenability.
Apparently it only takes 5 months for that message to become obsolete.
Also, the stalemate on Capitol Hill between an increasingly petulant President and a steadfast Congress over funding the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan persisted, with the piece de resistance arriving on Friday when Mr. Bush flatly declined to negotiate whatsoever with his Congressional counterparts, despite having both overwhelming public opinion and prominent leaders from his own party turning against him, has illustrated starkly the doctrinal futility of this brand of Republican. Mr Bush, just because you are from Texas, doesn't mean you have to imitate former presidents who decided to go into a self-imposed vacation from reality in times of war. (See-Johnson, Lyndon for future reference)
Yet the aforementioned summary is essentially a run of the mill 5 days for the Grand Ole' Party, especially since the Bush cabal (and their coterie of sycophants in both houses of Congress (Boehner, McConnell, Frist, et al.) came to power at the turn of the century. Given this, it is hardly insightful to highlight their buffoonery, and therefore I will leave it to others.
I will admit: It would be disingenuous of me to imply I shall spare the Republicans the point of my literary rod. Rather, I am just saving it for the next instance of their inimitable tendency to malign our country.
Now on to the prudent matters to be analyzed in this blog: As mentioned, Republicans have now established a routine of detrimental conduct in the last seven years. On the other hand, their colleagues from across the aisle, while hardly omniscient, have by in large advocated for policies that are far more conducive to an egalitarian, just and economically viable society.
Recently though, they have confronted their first full fledged crisis since assuming leadership in January with the problem over curtailing corruption within the halls of power in D.C. This was an issue that struck a prominent chord with voters last November, and it has become increasingly complicated for prominent democrats like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. In essence, failure to pass the legislation, which could be now fait accompli given the developments of last week, is a highly dangerous prospect for a party holding a minuscule lead in the Senate, and hardly a majority in the House.
As a recent Times' article by David Kirkpatrick explicitly detailed, said House Democratic leadership has faced a near revolt from the rank of file over the forthcoming ethics reform package. Essentially, the tumult has arisen specifically over a portion of the legislation that would mandate Lawmakers to double the time they must wait before entering the private, lucrative lobbying sector after their tenure on the Hill is done, from one year to two years. In addition, the bill would greatly inhibit lobbyists from engaging in "informal relations" with lawmakers, from plotting strategy or simply consultancy.
On the surface, this bill seems like an overdue solution to the dearth of accountability and transparency that has pervaded Capitol Hill as an institution for the last decade. Furthermore, in lieu of the specific, audacious scandals that have plagued both parties recently, from Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney with the GOP to Jim Traficant for the Democrats, the expediency needed to pass this particular legislation within Congress itself should have reached its crescendo in 2007. Furthermore, the revisions at hand are hardly the large scale reforms once proposed during the apogee of the fervor over Cunningham's bribery and fraud scandal. In fact, these provisions are largely neutered compared to their predecessors.
For example, let's look at the foremost bone of contention between the pro-approval Leadership of the House, and the revolting rank and file: The increase in entrance to the private sector upon retirement from public service from 1 year to 2. Give me a break. You can't wait one extra year to start raking in the bucks on K Street? Those who protest against the bill on these grounds offer at best, a flimsy defense of their vote. If a former Congressman is so eager to continue "serving his constituents, though in a different, yet equally important way" (yes, I'm lampooning their rhetoric right there), let him go join a non-profit. Wait, what am I thinking? The only thing less likely to happen than that is the Iraq war ending without an internecine civil war. Oh, but I digress.
However, despite the growing storm of criticism emanating from the voters at large, to whom politicians are supposedly accountable to, (Congress has an even lower approval rating than our beleaguered President at present), this bill is ultimately likely to die as part of a weak-ass "compromise" to get other facets of the legislation passed in due time.
This bitter legislative pill is even harder to swallow when it comes from a Democratic led Congress.
First of all, Democrats, though hardly immune to corrupt practices, have traditionally presented themselves as the party of the "middle class", or more broadly, the "party of the people". Therefore, they are held to a higher standard when it comes to ethical conduct, for better or worse. In addition, the GOP has proven in the past that they are beholden to large scale interests, like powerful lobbies (energy, pharmaceutical and auto) and corporations, than to the middle class of society. More over, the recent incarnation of the right in D.C. has proven they are more interested in re-election, no matter through what means, than enforcing the rule of law. Disregarding the principles of separation of powers, accountability and responsibility started at the Executive Branch, and it has now trickled down to the GOP in Congress.
Democrats, since they are the agent of the "people", were supposed to reverse this trend upon election, starting with a comprehensive, enforceable ethics reform package. They were supposed to differentiate themselves, by their willingness to eschew shady, barely legal relations with lobbyists. Rhetorically, they have promised to fulfill that pledge ad nauseum, from the campaign trail in November to myriad news conferences on Capitol Hill in January.
Regrettably though, when it came to taking tangible action on ethics reform, they have failed miserably. With the leadership being stonewalled on Iraq by the President and the passage of the ballyhooed Senate immigration deal looking dire, coupled with few legislative successes since inauguration, save a much needed minimum wage hike (even that was diluted by a ridiculous part of the bill that included unnecessary relief for small businesses), and one would think the Democrats would embrace a maneuver that would afford them a well publicized legislative success. Ethics reform was the epitome of that idea. Yet, they did not embrace it.
Call me an idealist, but I genuinely trusted that the Democrats would break from the recent history of opprobrium that has characterized the interactions between lobbyists and lawmakers. Instead, in revealing their cowardice, they could only mimic the pathetic Republicans. So much for a new vision, eh?
Secondly, idealism about the Democratic party, and the principles embodied there in: altruism, fairness, transparency of government, have long since been anachronistic. As such, Democratic leaders must have weighed that into their decision to renege on critical tenets of the ethics reform package as a mere affront to the small sect of political observers that espouse idealism.
That said, Democratic leadership is forgetting the immense hypocrisy involved with their decision on ethics reform. Throughout the entire 2006 mid-term campaign, the DNC absolutely destroyed the GOP on issues of corruption and accountability within government. Given the prominence of the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals, how could you blame them? Furthermore, aside from Iraq, combating corrupt public officials, was the most pressing issue on the conscience of voters, according to exit surveys. So, it's only expected to see a litany of advertisements attempting to distinguish the Democrats from their debauched Republican counterparts. This tactic was particularly effective in 2006 because of the 24/7 frenetic media climate in which we now live.
Eventually, publicizing their steadfast commitment to fighting unethical GOP conduct became one of the cornerstones of the campaign that allowed the Left to seize control of Congress for the first time since 1993. However, the Democrats, while embracing the benefits of the hyper-capitalized media world to win this election, forgot to abide by it's one general rule: do not bite the hand that feeds you.
With their eminent hypocrisy on evicting corruption and lobbyist influence, as epitomized by their craven stance on this ethics reform, the Democrats are playing a duplicitous game with the voters, one that is likely implausible within a political world where unmitigated negative advertising is the most preferred form of campaign advertising.
Historical precedent has starkly illustrated that brazen hypocrisy will not go un-punished by the voters. Just ask George H.W. Bush. In 1992, he was crippled by the Clinton campaign's decision to run on a continuous loop his his infamous, ultimately fraudulent pledge of "No New Taxes" at the 1988 GOP Convention. Lord knows, if the Democrats are willing to pounce on hypocritical statements made in the past by prominent politicians, what will the GOP do during the 2008 elections? After all, this is the party that chastised John McCain for having an adopted daughter that wasn't pearly white with radiant blonde hair!
Ultimately, Pelosi and her ilk must believe their decision on ethics reform will engender not enmity or outrage but indifference within the electorate. However, this is a highly myopic perception of voters, particularly with the mass of interest groups swarming around like a troop of frenzied bees.
As George W. Bush's re-election in 2004 proved, voters are willing to forgive incompetency, economic stagnancy and a disastrous foreign policy. Fast forward two years, and we find them thoroughly unwilling to tolerate the corruption of his party. In 2006, the Democrats accurately felt the pulse of the voters, and ousted the Republicans with a resounding message of transparency and amenability.
Apparently it only takes 5 months for that message to become obsolete.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
"5 Games to Determine the Champion"-Thoughts on the Spurs-Suns series...
I hope my fellow Suns fans can forgive me for being quite antagonistic towards Mike D'Antoni in the last few days, even before the commencement of the monumental Western Conference Semifinal series versus the venerable San Antonio Spurs. After all, my sentiments of anger and confusion towards the former NBA Coach of the Year served the dual purpose of dampening the positive aura shrouding the squad after a resounding quarterfinal victory over the hated Lakers, while also introducing negative feelings, always simmering below the surface within a typical Suns fan when these two squads meet, prior to the first tip of the forthcoming semifinal series. Alas, obviously, I am hardly an important figure within the Suns' fan cabal, but I (in a typical manifestation of the Freudian concept of "Super Ego") nevertheless believe, that my knowledge of basketball allows my feelings on the Suns to be representative of the entire fan constituency. Nevertheless, I have to offer my sincere apologies for prematurely staining the Suns mood.
But, realistically, how can you blame me for being pessimistic about the forthcoming series? In everyday life, I am a cynic, admittedly one of an undue nature at certain times. However, if one deliberates on the recent clashes between Phoenix and San Antonio, from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective, the bleak picture that emerges generally engenders an outlook that is closely aligned with mine.
So, given the fact that the Suns have compiled an ignominious 4-11 record during the Nash era, playoffs sadly included, ( that's the quantitative part) coupled with numerous instances of Suns players admitting in interviews that San Antonio "demoralizes" them because the Spurs are the only squad that impedes, successfully, the Suns' patented style (and there is a qualitative example), I was rightfully incensed after D'Antoni started to shoot off his mouth in the days leading up to Sunday's Game 1.
His comments, for those of you unfamiliar, and I am essentially paraphrasing here, were something to the effect of "We (the Suns) know we have far more talent individually than Popovich's squad, they just happen to play better as a team presently."
Wow. This is the one instance where the Suns coach does not need to serve up, on a silver platter, some bulletin board material for the opponent. Sure, he tries to backtrack slightly by throwing San Antonio the proverbial bone with the "They are a better team presently" comment, but the damage had already been done. Frankly, that attempt to offer San Antonio the olive branch came across as decidedly disingenuous. Furthermore, though the Spurs' poise and unflappable demeanor in pressurized situations is already renowned, they are hardly immune to provocation at the hands of the opposing coach. Therein lies the genius of the Spurs: they are impervious to rattle (except maybe during the waning moments of regulation during Game 7 of the 2006 West Semifinals against Dallas), while simultaneously adroit enough to utilize any provocation from the opponent as positive motivation.
Fast forward to early Tuesday evening, hours before Game 2 is set to tip from US Airways center. Combine D'Antoni's idiotic prognostications about the talent disparity between the two teams before the series begun with his inexplicable schematic errors in judgement in the Game 1 defeat (benching Kurt Thomas for large swaths of the game, placing Steve Nash on the whirling dervish Tony Parker to begin the third quarter), and needless to say, I was quite incensed with the Suns coach.
Then, finally, a mere four hours later after Game 2, not only did the Suns players perhaps finally hurdle that seemingly insurmountable obstacle known as the San Antonio Spurs, but almost as importantly, so did their beleaguered coach.
D'Antoni, particularly in the last three years, has compiled an illustrious resume at the helm of the Suns. He has won a Coach of the Year, been the subject of a bestselling expose penned by a respected writer, and generally attributed to be the architect of a fast-paced, exciting brand of basketball that has reinvigorated both the NBA's diverse fan base, but also the disparate group of companies that sponsor basketball on television.
Despite this, D'Antoni has yet to ascend to the immortal echelon reserved for coaches who have led their teams to a championship. The San Antonio Spurs are largely responsible for this prominent deficiency in Mike's curriculum vitae, if you will, to this point. Yes, the Dallas Mavericks were responsible for eliminating Nash's gang in 2006. But, as team insiders will verify, this squad, through the myriad of injuries to Bell, Thomas, and Amare coupled with exhausting 7 game series versus the Clippers and Lakers, was essentially facing perilously long odds, regardless of their opponent in the 2006 Western Conference finals.
In reality, San Antonio has been the defensive monolith that has impeded the Suns championship aspirations, particularly during the run n' gun era instituted by D'Antoni in his three year tenure in Phoenix. Starting with the 2005 demolition, in a series where the lone Suns win was achieved only after a highly questionable non-goaltending call against Amare with precious seconds remaining, the Spurs' have been the proverbial thorn in the Suns' side. (no really bad pun intended, I promise) The Spurs, though known for their defensive prowess, have countered the Suns offensive onslaught, as evidenced by their 111 point performance in Game 1 of this series, throughout the years, and that has been the main reason for their 12-5 record against Phoenix in the Nash era. Furthermore, D'Antoni had largely been responsible for the Suns ineffectiveness, with his fundamental refusal to alter the Suns' game plan to rebut the litany of adjustments Popovich has made time and time again.
Then came Tuesday night.
By finally quelling his own personal hubris, which manifested itself in a painfully obvious way when he petulantly refused to pull James Jones' from the starting lineup despite his ineffectiveness, D'Antoni may have finally realized that his patented frenetic, awe-inducing style is not above reproach, or at the very least, alteration. In stifling his ego through inserting defensive stalwart Kurt Thomas in to the starting lineup, even at the expense of offensive fluidity, D'Antoni has shown signs that he is finally cognizant of the necessity of adjustments en route to a title chase.
Certainly, the bold move by the Suns boss has yet to atone for his rigidity in past playoff series. However, for at least the 48 minutes of perfect basketball (on both ends of the floor) played by Phoenix on Tuesday night, Mike D'Antoni has proven that he is beholden to the best interests of the team, not those that conform with furthering his quintessential basketball philosophy.
Coming up next, a look at the performance of Suns' players as we head to Game 3 on Saturday night.
But, realistically, how can you blame me for being pessimistic about the forthcoming series? In everyday life, I am a cynic, admittedly one of an undue nature at certain times. However, if one deliberates on the recent clashes between Phoenix and San Antonio, from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective, the bleak picture that emerges generally engenders an outlook that is closely aligned with mine.
So, given the fact that the Suns have compiled an ignominious 4-11 record during the Nash era, playoffs sadly included, ( that's the quantitative part) coupled with numerous instances of Suns players admitting in interviews that San Antonio "demoralizes" them because the Spurs are the only squad that impedes, successfully, the Suns' patented style (and there is a qualitative example), I was rightfully incensed after D'Antoni started to shoot off his mouth in the days leading up to Sunday's Game 1.
His comments, for those of you unfamiliar, and I am essentially paraphrasing here, were something to the effect of "We (the Suns) know we have far more talent individually than Popovich's squad, they just happen to play better as a team presently."
Wow. This is the one instance where the Suns coach does not need to serve up, on a silver platter, some bulletin board material for the opponent. Sure, he tries to backtrack slightly by throwing San Antonio the proverbial bone with the "They are a better team presently" comment, but the damage had already been done. Frankly, that attempt to offer San Antonio the olive branch came across as decidedly disingenuous. Furthermore, though the Spurs' poise and unflappable demeanor in pressurized situations is already renowned, they are hardly immune to provocation at the hands of the opposing coach. Therein lies the genius of the Spurs: they are impervious to rattle (except maybe during the waning moments of regulation during Game 7 of the 2006 West Semifinals against Dallas), while simultaneously adroit enough to utilize any provocation from the opponent as positive motivation.
Fast forward to early Tuesday evening, hours before Game 2 is set to tip from US Airways center. Combine D'Antoni's idiotic prognostications about the talent disparity between the two teams before the series begun with his inexplicable schematic errors in judgement in the Game 1 defeat (benching Kurt Thomas for large swaths of the game, placing Steve Nash on the whirling dervish Tony Parker to begin the third quarter), and needless to say, I was quite incensed with the Suns coach.
Then, finally, a mere four hours later after Game 2, not only did the Suns players perhaps finally hurdle that seemingly insurmountable obstacle known as the San Antonio Spurs, but almost as importantly, so did their beleaguered coach.
D'Antoni, particularly in the last three years, has compiled an illustrious resume at the helm of the Suns. He has won a Coach of the Year, been the subject of a bestselling expose penned by a respected writer, and generally attributed to be the architect of a fast-paced, exciting brand of basketball that has reinvigorated both the NBA's diverse fan base, but also the disparate group of companies that sponsor basketball on television.
Despite this, D'Antoni has yet to ascend to the immortal echelon reserved for coaches who have led their teams to a championship. The San Antonio Spurs are largely responsible for this prominent deficiency in Mike's curriculum vitae, if you will, to this point. Yes, the Dallas Mavericks were responsible for eliminating Nash's gang in 2006. But, as team insiders will verify, this squad, through the myriad of injuries to Bell, Thomas, and Amare coupled with exhausting 7 game series versus the Clippers and Lakers, was essentially facing perilously long odds, regardless of their opponent in the 2006 Western Conference finals.
In reality, San Antonio has been the defensive monolith that has impeded the Suns championship aspirations, particularly during the run n' gun era instituted by D'Antoni in his three year tenure in Phoenix. Starting with the 2005 demolition, in a series where the lone Suns win was achieved only after a highly questionable non-goaltending call against Amare with precious seconds remaining, the Spurs' have been the proverbial thorn in the Suns' side. (no really bad pun intended, I promise) The Spurs, though known for their defensive prowess, have countered the Suns offensive onslaught, as evidenced by their 111 point performance in Game 1 of this series, throughout the years, and that has been the main reason for their 12-5 record against Phoenix in the Nash era. Furthermore, D'Antoni had largely been responsible for the Suns ineffectiveness, with his fundamental refusal to alter the Suns' game plan to rebut the litany of adjustments Popovich has made time and time again.
Then came Tuesday night.
By finally quelling his own personal hubris, which manifested itself in a painfully obvious way when he petulantly refused to pull James Jones' from the starting lineup despite his ineffectiveness, D'Antoni may have finally realized that his patented frenetic, awe-inducing style is not above reproach, or at the very least, alteration. In stifling his ego through inserting defensive stalwart Kurt Thomas in to the starting lineup, even at the expense of offensive fluidity, D'Antoni has shown signs that he is finally cognizant of the necessity of adjustments en route to a title chase.
Certainly, the bold move by the Suns boss has yet to atone for his rigidity in past playoff series. However, for at least the 48 minutes of perfect basketball (on both ends of the floor) played by Phoenix on Tuesday night, Mike D'Antoni has proven that he is beholden to the best interests of the team, not those that conform with furthering his quintessential basketball philosophy.
Coming up next, a look at the performance of Suns' players as we head to Game 3 on Saturday night.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
The "Blur" overwhelms Kobe Ball
Color me positively giddy at tonight's developments in the world of the NBA. About an hour ago, a rapidly decomposing San Antonio Spurs squad (led by Tim Duncan, who looked so haphazard and befuddled with the ball in his hands that he made Gerald Ford look coordinated) instantly relinquished their home court advantage in a resounding loss to the Denver Nuggets. Though I picked San Antonio (risky prediction, I know) at the outset of the series, tonight's action has convinced me that 'Melo and A.I.'s boys can win this series, yet I am by no means assuring victory at this point.
First of all, the Nuggets have an inside defense presence perhaps, in the Western Conference, only matched by the top seeded Dallas Mavericks. Dark horse defensive player of the year Marcus Camby continually altered or extinguished the myriad shots in the lane that Tony Parker and Manure Ginobili love to throw up. Camby's defensive dominance allows the Nuggets perimeter players to stay home on the 3 shooters of SA, thereby vitiating the effectiveness of Horry, Barry and Bowen. Secondly, Bruce Bowen cannot guard both Carmelo and A.I. Obviously, he cannot literally guard two men on the floor. However, in a larger sense, Bowen's ability to neutralize the star player often allows for double teaming of the other stars on a given team. Unfortunately for San Antonio, Iverson has no equal defensively on the floor. Even if you try to double him, he consistently proved tonight that he will abdicate from his formerly selfish ways and dish the ball to open teammates near the cup. Couple A.I's recent proclivities towards charity on the court with the presence of two monsters of the post in Camby and Nene, and you have a viable offensive strategy for Denver.
That said, Denver fired the proverbial "first shot across the bow" in 2005 against the Spurs, only to be crushed by 28 in the second game. Thereafter, San Antonio won the series in relatively easy fashion. One caveat: the 2007 Spurs are a shell of the 2005 team. Duncan looks totally inept on the offensive end at times, half of their players possess essentially one skill (3-point shooting) and their bench recently has decalcified to the point that it now has qualified for benefits under AARP's physical disability parameters. Needless to say, one game is not an accurate barometer for an entire season, but Denver's win tonight may portend success down the road, especially as the series traverses the country back to Denver for game 3.
Dallas is also being outclassed by the run and gun Warriors at present, 30-23. To no one's surprise except perhaps Mark Cuban, Dirk has come out shooting blanks. He nearly went the entire first quarter scoreless. More interestingly, Nowitski has managed to break the NBA record for "flops in a game" after a mere quarter tonight. Thus far, Dirk's histrionics on the court make Anna Nicole Smith's Quaalude-aided quivering exhibition on the floor of the Hard Rock in the Bahamas look placid. Nevertheless, there is still 3 quarters to go, and we'll see if Golden State can continue to make shots as the game progresses.
First of all, the Nuggets have an inside defense presence perhaps, in the Western Conference, only matched by the top seeded Dallas Mavericks. Dark horse defensive player of the year Marcus Camby continually altered or extinguished the myriad shots in the lane that Tony Parker and Manure Ginobili love to throw up. Camby's defensive dominance allows the Nuggets perimeter players to stay home on the 3 shooters of SA, thereby vitiating the effectiveness of Horry, Barry and Bowen. Secondly, Bruce Bowen cannot guard both Carmelo and A.I. Obviously, he cannot literally guard two men on the floor. However, in a larger sense, Bowen's ability to neutralize the star player often allows for double teaming of the other stars on a given team. Unfortunately for San Antonio, Iverson has no equal defensively on the floor. Even if you try to double him, he consistently proved tonight that he will abdicate from his formerly selfish ways and dish the ball to open teammates near the cup. Couple A.I's recent proclivities towards charity on the court with the presence of two monsters of the post in Camby and Nene, and you have a viable offensive strategy for Denver.
That said, Denver fired the proverbial "first shot across the bow" in 2005 against the Spurs, only to be crushed by 28 in the second game. Thereafter, San Antonio won the series in relatively easy fashion. One caveat: the 2007 Spurs are a shell of the 2005 team. Duncan looks totally inept on the offensive end at times, half of their players possess essentially one skill (3-point shooting) and their bench recently has decalcified to the point that it now has qualified for benefits under AARP's physical disability parameters. Needless to say, one game is not an accurate barometer for an entire season, but Denver's win tonight may portend success down the road, especially as the series traverses the country back to Denver for game 3.
Dallas is also being outclassed by the run and gun Warriors at present, 30-23. To no one's surprise except perhaps Mark Cuban, Dirk has come out shooting blanks. He nearly went the entire first quarter scoreless. More interestingly, Nowitski has managed to break the NBA record for "flops in a game" after a mere quarter tonight. Thus far, Dirk's histrionics on the court make Anna Nicole Smith's Quaalude-aided quivering exhibition on the floor of the Hard Rock in the Bahamas look placid. Nevertheless, there is still 3 quarters to go, and we'll see if Golden State can continue to make shots as the game progresses.
To qualify: my present conviviality over the misfortunes of Dallas and San Antonio arises entirely from the Suns victory over the Lakers today. If the Suns had fallen to the fighting Kobe's today, all other series would be moot in my mind. In fact, I'd go as far to admit that if the Suns had been defeated today, I likely would have driven to Phoenix (in diapers, of course, to save time) and self-immolated in front of U.S. Airways Center. Though that is a slight exaggeration, I tell you of my masochistic tendencies vis a vis the Suns to explain the reasons for devoting the balance of this blog to a recap of today's game. Essentially, I cannot speak to an attractive woman without copious quantities of distilled spirits. In the same vein, it is impossible for yours truly to be in a great mood, if the Suns lose. Given this, it's only natural to analyze today's game. Some thoughts:
--I really believed that "Kobe" ball would possibly steal the Lakers a game in this series. But, as today proved, it may only be sufficient for one half of basketball. The 2006-07 version of the Suns, offensively, has the firepower inside that their predecessors lacked. As a result, it's very difficult for the Lakers to relegate the Suns to a jump shooting team for an entire game. The only way the Lakers, as spectacular as Kobe's skills are, would be able to defeat the Suns with the offense unilaterally emanating from Mamba is if they can force the Suns into only shooting from the perimeter. With the dominance of Amare becoming more apparent as each game progresses, it's highly unlikely Phoenix would make the foolish mistake of settling for a glut of 18-20 footers. (Especially, after being down 9 at half largely as a result of that faulty strategy)
--Given the versatility of the Suns offense, the Lakers thus must, even if Kobe protests and pouts (for reference: Game 7 of last year's Western Conference Quarterfinals), offer a multi-faceted attack if they wish to win even a single game in this tete a tete. The problem is, and Kobe would likely explicate this further off the record, most of the Lakers are pathetic offensively. Lamar Odom has yet to recover from debilitating injuries to his shoulder and knee, Luke Walton's jump shot has abandoned him, Jordan Farmar has started 3 games in his professional career, and Kwame Brown makes Pat Burke look skilled with his feeble post moves. But, as the Suns and many other squads have proven during the Lakers' 12-22 stretch to close out the regular season, Kobe simply cannot carry a squad for 48 minutes without assistance. Hell, even His Airness couldn't do it, why should we expect Kobe to do it? Time and time again, the Mamba fades towards the end of the game, as any human being would, and then the Lakers , when they rely on the flotsam that surrounds 24, essentially become a glorified version of the Charlotte Bobcats. In short, the Lakers are damned if they do (let Kobe run roughshod and take 4o shots) but also damned if they don't (let players like Smush Parker, Brian Cook and Andrew Bynum get more than a few touches).
--As for the Suns, let's start with the positives:
1. In an aggregate sense, the team itself really showed a distinct sense of resiliency in this contest. Some might theorize that the Suns knew they would eventually pull it out, and therefore coasted for the first 42 minutes, but I strongly disagree. Quite the contrary actually: On two separate occasions, at the end of the second quarter when Kobe was unconscious with his 3-point range, and later, at the beginning of the third quarter when the Lakers started 5 for 5, with their role players appearing to get into the flow of the game, the Suns were made fully aware of the threat of this team. Given that, it's hard to fathom they simply played lackadaisically until the last 5 minutes. Don't get me wrong, they didn't play a perfect game, or even a serviceable game. But in the past, I am not sure if the team could have played as calculating and focused as they did down the stretch in this contest. For example, they still made the hustle plays to keep themselves afloat, (Amare diving on the floor for loose balls, Marion interpolating himself into the passing lanes time and time again) and eventually the overwhelming talent of MV3, Marion, Stat and the Blur shined through.
2. Speaking of the Blur, he finally declared himself, for all the national TV audience to see, to be of the highest caliber of player the NBA has to offer. If he were to lose the 6th man to Manure, that would be an utter mockery of what the award signifies. Barbosa, as many helpless Lakers found out yet again today, personifies the old platitude in sports that you "can't teach speed." His lethal combination of blinding speed and uncanny coordination with the ball (in any spot on the floor) is a weapon for which even a stalwart defensive squad like San Antonio or Detroit has no answer for. Furthermore, since he is a true sixth man (unlike Manure), and therefore, he enters the game at an optimum time, since reserves are generally his opponents. One particular play stands out from today that epitomizes Barbosa's brilliance: Late in the 4th, the Suns ran a backdoor cut from Nash to Barbosa, a play they have run to success countless times. However, in a bit of flukish bad luck, the Blur fumbled with the ball upon receiving it. Almost any other player would have either turned the ball over, or been forced to reset the offense without converting the easy lay up. Not Barbosa. Instead, the Blur, with his new found poise and presence, quickly regained the ball, instinctively gauged where he was on the court, and finished the play beautifully with a majestic reverse layup.
3. Shawn Marion typified the whirling durbish style of basketball that we have grown to love over the years here in Phoenix. Instead of trying to do an Eddie House impression as he had prone to do lately, Shawn stuck to what he excels at today (not shooting a lot of jump shots a la Mr. House), and it was possibly the catalyst for the Suns attack. Let's hope that he doesn't revert back to his recent form, because it may not adversely effect the Suns in this series, but it will be the silver bullet in later rounds against Dallas and San Antonio.
Back tomorrow with the negatives, and some other general thoughts....
--I really believed that "Kobe" ball would possibly steal the Lakers a game in this series. But, as today proved, it may only be sufficient for one half of basketball. The 2006-07 version of the Suns, offensively, has the firepower inside that their predecessors lacked. As a result, it's very difficult for the Lakers to relegate the Suns to a jump shooting team for an entire game. The only way the Lakers, as spectacular as Kobe's skills are, would be able to defeat the Suns with the offense unilaterally emanating from Mamba is if they can force the Suns into only shooting from the perimeter. With the dominance of Amare becoming more apparent as each game progresses, it's highly unlikely Phoenix would make the foolish mistake of settling for a glut of 18-20 footers. (Especially, after being down 9 at half largely as a result of that faulty strategy)
--Given the versatility of the Suns offense, the Lakers thus must, even if Kobe protests and pouts (for reference: Game 7 of last year's Western Conference Quarterfinals), offer a multi-faceted attack if they wish to win even a single game in this tete a tete. The problem is, and Kobe would likely explicate this further off the record, most of the Lakers are pathetic offensively. Lamar Odom has yet to recover from debilitating injuries to his shoulder and knee, Luke Walton's jump shot has abandoned him, Jordan Farmar has started 3 games in his professional career, and Kwame Brown makes Pat Burke look skilled with his feeble post moves. But, as the Suns and many other squads have proven during the Lakers' 12-22 stretch to close out the regular season, Kobe simply cannot carry a squad for 48 minutes without assistance. Hell, even His Airness couldn't do it, why should we expect Kobe to do it? Time and time again, the Mamba fades towards the end of the game, as any human being would, and then the Lakers , when they rely on the flotsam that surrounds 24, essentially become a glorified version of the Charlotte Bobcats. In short, the Lakers are damned if they do (let Kobe run roughshod and take 4o shots) but also damned if they don't (let players like Smush Parker, Brian Cook and Andrew Bynum get more than a few touches).
--As for the Suns, let's start with the positives:
1. In an aggregate sense, the team itself really showed a distinct sense of resiliency in this contest. Some might theorize that the Suns knew they would eventually pull it out, and therefore coasted for the first 42 minutes, but I strongly disagree. Quite the contrary actually: On two separate occasions, at the end of the second quarter when Kobe was unconscious with his 3-point range, and later, at the beginning of the third quarter when the Lakers started 5 for 5, with their role players appearing to get into the flow of the game, the Suns were made fully aware of the threat of this team. Given that, it's hard to fathom they simply played lackadaisically until the last 5 minutes. Don't get me wrong, they didn't play a perfect game, or even a serviceable game. But in the past, I am not sure if the team could have played as calculating and focused as they did down the stretch in this contest. For example, they still made the hustle plays to keep themselves afloat, (Amare diving on the floor for loose balls, Marion interpolating himself into the passing lanes time and time again) and eventually the overwhelming talent of MV3, Marion, Stat and the Blur shined through.
2. Speaking of the Blur, he finally declared himself, for all the national TV audience to see, to be of the highest caliber of player the NBA has to offer. If he were to lose the 6th man to Manure, that would be an utter mockery of what the award signifies. Barbosa, as many helpless Lakers found out yet again today, personifies the old platitude in sports that you "can't teach speed." His lethal combination of blinding speed and uncanny coordination with the ball (in any spot on the floor) is a weapon for which even a stalwart defensive squad like San Antonio or Detroit has no answer for. Furthermore, since he is a true sixth man (unlike Manure), and therefore, he enters the game at an optimum time, since reserves are generally his opponents. One particular play stands out from today that epitomizes Barbosa's brilliance: Late in the 4th, the Suns ran a backdoor cut from Nash to Barbosa, a play they have run to success countless times. However, in a bit of flukish bad luck, the Blur fumbled with the ball upon receiving it. Almost any other player would have either turned the ball over, or been forced to reset the offense without converting the easy lay up. Not Barbosa. Instead, the Blur, with his new found poise and presence, quickly regained the ball, instinctively gauged where he was on the court, and finished the play beautifully with a majestic reverse layup.
3. Shawn Marion typified the whirling durbish style of basketball that we have grown to love over the years here in Phoenix. Instead of trying to do an Eddie House impression as he had prone to do lately, Shawn stuck to what he excels at today (not shooting a lot of jump shots a la Mr. House), and it was possibly the catalyst for the Suns attack. Let's hope that he doesn't revert back to his recent form, because it may not adversely effect the Suns in this series, but it will be the silver bullet in later rounds against Dallas and San Antonio.
Back tomorrow with the negatives, and some other general thoughts....
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
"If You Can't Beat Em, Join 'Em" -Even if you've always been superior??
"When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect." ~Adlai Stevenson
Though the former Democratic candidate for president twice over (he lost both times to Eisenhower) offered this glowing panegyric a mere 50 years ago, the Utopian America he describes sadly seems eons away here in 2007. Paradoxically, an observer would probably be inclined to believe that the country now is better off than five decades prior, given the stentorian progress in social justice for minorities, incalculable advances in technology, and a general sense of egalitarianism that pervades society presently. However, despite the aforementioned, the last seven years under the maliciously inept governance of the Bush Administration has systematically, albeit not completely, invalidated and neutralized the burnished view points, offered by Stevenson and his ilk, once espoused freely in this country.
Where do I start? (By the way, I hate rhetorical questions like that in essays, but I am feeling lazy and I'm frankly having a hard time focusing because of the apocalyptic incident of yesterday..... the pizza throwing imbroglio in the stands of Fenway Park) First of all, there are now 47 million people bereft of health care, even as HMO's and the czar's of health care companies receive sickening compensation. (increasingly, middle class professionals comprise this sect of the population). New Orleans, a beacon of the vitality, determination and cooperation of the American spirit destroyed equally by a cataclysmic hurricane and the anemic response that followed. The introduction of "pre-emptive" warfare in Iraq, a doctrine which has served to simultaneously eviscerate American military might (and resulting, influence) in volatile regions across the globe and serve as the greatest recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda to utilize against the United States since Courtney Love.
Be those things as they may, this blog is not a polemic about the litany of problems confronting American as a result of almost comically bad leadership (if only George W. Bush was not a real person, and was only a character played by Will Ferrell) No, on the other hand, this entry is devoted to analyzing the rhetoric the Bush Administration has employed to legitimate their counter-productive policies, language that has also served, occasionally, to mobilize their base and to pacify and ostracize their opponents on the left side of the aisle.
As Paul Krugman recently pointed out in an insightful column in the Times, the electorate generally opposes Republican policies on issues like health care, the war in Iraq and environmental conditions by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. However, as Krugman explicitly details, the GOP has nevertheless done astonishingly well in national elections. The pressing question thus arises: How does the right continue to accrue more love at the ballot box from the very voters who profess to disagree with their agenda?
Obviously, there is no singular reason for this seemingly contradictory phenomenon. Some of it can be attributed to a phlegmatic and leaderless Democratic Party. Undoubtedly, election victories for the GOP have some relation to the country's mood following 9/11. Also, the Rovian "get out the base" voting strategy has undoubtedly assisted in securing key swing states, particularly in presidential elections (Florida in 2000 and Ohio 2004) Ultimately, Krugman believes that the Republicans magnify and exaggerate very minor problems (e.g. Clinton's secretary entering the White House without a badge on the weekend nearly bringing Newt Gingrich to tears of rage on the House floor) as a means to obfuscate the larger scale issues, with the assumption being they would be slaughtered if they stuck to the difficult quandaries befuddling the country at a given moment. To a large extent, this strategy has worked beautifully. After all, how many times has the RNC been able to energize the far right base with preposterous slander about gay marriage along the lines of "what's next, men can marry their collie?" As disturbing as that rhetoric may be, it produces results. Krugman hits this notion right on the head, however he misses out on one key aspect of the Bush rhetorical arsenal, the facet which is, in fact, the most ignominious and disingenuous.
Let's be honest: George W. Bush is a man of few words, or at least, I should say, few intelligible words. He enjoys his policy analyses succinct and punchy. On Iraq: "Cut and Run" On Social Security: "Health Savings Accounts" On the Democrats: " Defeatocrats" On the War on Terror: "We are fighting them there so we don't have them here" On the questionable conduct of his Vice President: " In Texas, shooting your friend multiple times in the face, then subsequently refusing him medical attention for a number of hours, is a sign of friendship." You get the idea. Mostly, these pithy (/Bill O'Reilly) slogans have proven to be mostly fodder for the late night talk shows, especially after their ridiculousness and the essentially trivial nature of the solecisms became apparent.
However, the Bush Administration has recently utilized a rhetorical tactic that cannot be dismissed as non sequitur with the same ease as before. Recently, in defending their unpopular positions on the war in Iraq, and on environmental issues, Bush Administration officials have basically rebuffed their myriad critics by stating that "since (third world/developing nation) doesn't abide by the protocol, well then we (the United States) don't have to either" Taken literally, this line of argument comes across as petulant and simple minded. It's akin to my brother protesting about washing the dishes because I never had to. Additionally, and on a much deeper level, the judgement that the United States is not superior to a developing country is implicit in this comparison. For a party like the GOP, who espouses fervent pro-American "values" rhetoric when discussing immigration policy and trade affairs, to essentially render the United States as tantamount to fledgling nations in the Far East, is emblematic of how desperate these partisan hacks will go to justify their inexplicable actions. In a way, it's the most sobering indication of just how much the United States has descended, both in the view of other nations around the globe, and in the view of its own inhabitants, during the disastrous seven years since Bush defeated Gore in 2000.
For example, as detailed in an April 2nd article in the Times, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA (mind you, this organization has been effectively neutered by the Bush Administration) has the power to regulate harmful greenhouse gases. Aside from the lobbyists in Detroit, the most incredulous reaction to the ruling came from Bush administration officials. Now, rationally, even a layperson like yours truly knows that even the most ardent global warming skeptics are struggling for methods to rationalize their buffoonery. True to form, the skeptics in the Bush Administration, having run out of any rebuttal that could even be tangentially based in peer reviewed science, issues their standard rejoinder that "since China or India do not follow climate change treaties like Kyoto, the United States therefore must continually evaluate it's own position."
Apparently, despite the fact that Republicans blither on ad nauseum about how "we are the greatest country in the world" during heated immigration hearings, we are tantamount to India and China on environmental policy. The former is a nation which, according to The Australian, has a child malnutrition rate of 47 percent. Similarly, China, though it boasts a booming economy (one which is assisted exponentially by exploitation of a cheap labor market), the government of Hu Jintao nevertheless remains as stifling and authoritarian as ever. If you don't believe me, ask those members of Falun Gong who got the Abu Ghraib treatment simply for congregating in public space. Are these two developing, yet still deeply flawed nations, really our contemporaries vis a vis human rights, transparency and governmental accountability?
According to Bush Administration officials, we are at least next of kin, if not in equivalent echelons within the world milieu. Good thing this policy is new, otherwise the U.S. Government might have enslaved African-Americans until the late 1980's, with the justification being that South Africa still was under apartheid rule. Historically, imagine how societal equality would have been mitigated if women were not afforded the right to vote in the early 20th century since universal suffrage had not yet been bestowed to females in the Middle East. Obviously, those examples are somewhat hyperbolic, but they are not as ridiculous as one might think, if you stay in the parameters of the Administrations argument.
Reducing the United States to the same moral and ethical universe as countries that neglect basic rights for their populace, and thereby attempting to shirt responsibility on the impending climate disaster if urgent steps are not taken with celerity, is hypocritical, unfounded and puzzling. However, to the surprise of few, the caterwauls about ignoring Kyoto since "others do" is not the first instance of this line of argument since Bush ascended to the presidency in 2000.
In 2005, the Administration also proffered this excuse to vitiate the protests of critics, from both sides of the aisle, about their heinous treatment of detainees both at the Guantanamo site in Cuba and at Abu Ghraib. Basically, the argument of Mr. Bush, and his coterie of sycophants in the Senate like McConnell, Cornyn, DeMint, et al, was that, among other flimsy reasons, torturing enemy combatants was acceptable because, if U.S. servicemen and women were to be captured by said enemy, they would be subject to similar deplorable treatment at the hands of their captors. While the latter part of their conceit is likely true, since when do we possess equivocal standards of despicable, barbaric and uncivilized regimes and/or ideologies like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Is that really how far this country has plummeted since George W. Bush took office. Call me naive, but I always believed that the United States considered it a bastion of morality, fairness and magnanimity, even when it came to dealing with sworn enemies of the state. Most importantly, this facet of American doctrine always seemed to exist irrespective of the actions of other foreign actors, nation-state or otherwise. George W. Bush, like he has done with many fundamental precepts of the Constitution, has decided to disregard the standards of treatment of prisoners that have been universally ratified since the founding of the Republic more than 230 years ago.
I happened to be interning for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) when the brouhaha completely blew up, and the situation devolved into a standoff between the Administration, who favored torture, and former servicemen who now served in the Senate like McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who were staunchly opposed. I'll never forget the day I observed, from only a few feet away, a press conference McCain held in the hallway adjacent to his office in the Russell Building. As the throng of media continued to haggle the Senator about his brouhaha with the President on the torture issue, I could sense his frustration mounting. Finally, the incessant harangues rose to a crescendo and the Senator simply burst out something to the effect that: "We are the United States. We have never tortured before, and we wouldn't begin now. That is completely against our national identity."
In that moment, McCain, who is known more for his acerbic wit than his poetic eloquence, perfectly summed up the sentiments of those allayed against the President on this matter. Sadly, given that most Americans are patriotic, and therefore hold their country in high esteem, McCain's poignant defense of U.S. policy that stipulates abstaining from the disgusting act of torture needn't be said, especially to the Commander in Chief. It wasn't long ago that, save a few covert operations from CIA, a public endorsement of torture by the highest ranking official in the government would be unthinkable. Please, don't hasten to paint me one that views the past with rose colored glasses. Hardly. But, the change from 2000 to 2007 has been so dramatic and all-encompassing, that the darkened days of the past appear in a lighter hue. As McCain found out, unfortunately, as with most matters of common sense and ethics, this President has to be spoken to in the plainest possible terms, as if he has the intellect and moral quotient of a pre-pubescent boy.
Ultimately, their ridiculous, counter productive line of argument was discredited and maligned when it came down to making decisions on the treatment of detainees, and hopefully, environmental regulation. Despite that victory however, those who disdain the rhetoric still have an up hill battle forthcoming. The idea that American values can be cast aside, in light of the actions of another nation state, could have a pervasive and extremely detrimental effect on the country as whole in the future. George W. Bush and his cohorts, in an attempt to obfuscate the deleterious impact their policies levy upon most Americans, have been relegated to utilizing this demeaning assumption about the American polity. The collective malaise they have instilled into the mindset of the country's inhabitants could take decades to eradicate. By stating, as often as anyone is listening, that America's obligations are not to uphold the Constitution daily, but rather only when it's congruent with the policies of another nation, George W. Bush and those in his administration have been proven dually as ultimate hypocrites and enemies of the American way of life.
Consider if you will, this quote:
"The US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal."
The odd syntax of this rhetoric non withstanding, the charges levied upon the U.S. Government are probably as salient as they could possibly be as we continue through 2007. During the past 7 years, the Bush government truly has committed numerous unjust and illegal acts. From the Draconian practice known as "extraordinary rendition", which led to the false imprisonment of a Canadian national of Syrian descent for more than two years, to the insipid, invasive domestic wire trapping program, the Bush Administration has largely ignored the time honored ideals of justice, privacy and due process entwined in the Constitution. Oh, by the way, the sage who offered this prophetic assessment of America? Osama Bin Laden. Any time a maniacal zealot, in a rhetorical flourish, burnishes charges about a country, one tends to ignore the ramblings. However, given the recent scandals dominating the news, it's difficult to not lend at least some credence to OBL's dictum.
On January 20th, 2009, George W. Bush and his cabal will physically vacate the White House, and not a moment too soon. Thus, the important question remains: will their blatant disregard of the Constitution linger during the new administration? 7 years is not enough to override all of the progress endemic to this country since the founding of the republic. However, if this disease of irresponsibility and deceit persists, will we one day really be similar to China and India?
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
From Front Runner to First Out?
Finally, after enduring three or four months already of the exhausting lead up to the 2008 Presidential Election (only 19 months to go!!), we have our first seminal moment in the contest to decide who will get to clean up the morass George W. Bush and his administration has placed the United States. With American Presidential elections (and to a lesser extent, Congressional contests) essentially becoming determined by who can store the most in their election coffers (just ask George W. Bush in 2000: Those $2,100 a plate fundraisers certainly did their part in vitiating the advantage Gore possessed amongst registered voters on nearly every issue), the release of the 2007 FY first quarter fundraising totals on the part of each prominent contender is thus the initial barometer of the pulse of the electorate. Though it may seem ridiculous to extrapolate this particular data towards an election that takes place after the next Olympics, historically, the candidates who prevail in the first batch of fundraising tallies generally secure the primary nomination.
Right off the bat, this data portends a bright future for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il) By accumulating $25 million, the junior senator from Illinois has firmly established himself as a contender for the presidency, despite what those who decry his lack of experience and his supposed connection to an Islamic fundamentalist school in Indonesia (keep fishing for those slanderous stories, far right! Lord knows you wouldn't want to talk about the elections. Hey what happened in the last one, by the way?) may state to the contrary. In the same vein, on the right, Mitt Romney took the initial salvo amongst the GOP with his astonishing take of nearly $20 million. Romney has been besieged by a litany of problems, foremost his status as a Mormon, but more practically, how the former Mass. Governor can deal with his name recognition completely paling in comparison to his competitors, namely Guiliani and McCain. However, given his veritable war chest now in his arsenal, Romney will likely mount a comprehensive advertising campaign designed to dispel the fears the electorate may have about his candidacy. Romney's positions, as of late, has made Jerry Falwell look like Gloria Steinem, and if he can effectively publicize them to voters in key GOP primary states, he may well wistfully recollect this particular day as a watershed moment in his campaign.
That said, the admirable gains upon the release of the fundraising totals of Sen. Obama and Mitt are irrelevant when compared to yet another devastating blow incurred by the campaign of Sen. John McCain. McCain, though he has yet to "officially" announce his intentions to run for the Presidency, has seemingly been the prohibitive favorite to secure the Republican nomination since the moment after Bush was inaugurated for his second term in January 2005. Given this, how can the senior Senator from Arizona come in third in fundraising for the first quarter? A number of factors share complicity for this ignominious showing. First of all, McCain inexplicably conducted only 5 fundraisers for wealthy donors during January and February. Scheduling so few fund raisers is such a disastrous decision, especially compared to the piles of money Giuliani and Romney were raking in the cash, that only Michael Brown would be proud of this early campaign management. Secondly, McCain's campaign has thus far resisted the urge to institute a Bushian-hierarchical system for large scale donors, i.e. those who assist in contributing $100k+ are called "Rangers", et al. Never underestimate the power of a cheeky label on donor's minds, especially since we all know the amount of sycophants that generally donate large amounts to candidates is profligate.
Finally, McCain has re-emerged into the political reality, and thus, has hired prominent former fundraisers to run his money operations. However, this long-delayed decision may already be wholly inconsequential. Why? Because, though on the surface the dearth of funding could simply be attributed to early campaign mis-management on an operational level, in actuality the anemic performance portends larger scale truths about the viability (or lack thereof) of McCain's campaign. In fact, the paucity of funds in his war chest may be hardly anomalous, but instead, indicative of the future of the campaign, right until it's bitter end. Since the beginning of the campaign, McCain has endorsed a politically inpalatable position on Iraq, wavered on key social issues (an act that will kill him amongst independents in a general election) and been unable to counter questions about his increasing age and health. Given this litany of problems, in essence, I'm advocating McCain "cut and run" from his presidential aspirations now, and in the following paragraphs, I will enumerate explicitly the insurmountable problems he must overcome to stay in. Key word in that sentence boys and girls: insurmountable.
Right off the bat, this data portends a bright future for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il) By accumulating $25 million, the junior senator from Illinois has firmly established himself as a contender for the presidency, despite what those who decry his lack of experience and his supposed connection to an Islamic fundamentalist school in Indonesia (keep fishing for those slanderous stories, far right! Lord knows you wouldn't want to talk about the elections. Hey what happened in the last one, by the way?) may state to the contrary. In the same vein, on the right, Mitt Romney took the initial salvo amongst the GOP with his astonishing take of nearly $20 million. Romney has been besieged by a litany of problems, foremost his status as a Mormon, but more practically, how the former Mass. Governor can deal with his name recognition completely paling in comparison to his competitors, namely Guiliani and McCain. However, given his veritable war chest now in his arsenal, Romney will likely mount a comprehensive advertising campaign designed to dispel the fears the electorate may have about his candidacy. Romney's positions, as of late, has made Jerry Falwell look like Gloria Steinem, and if he can effectively publicize them to voters in key GOP primary states, he may well wistfully recollect this particular day as a watershed moment in his campaign.
That said, the admirable gains upon the release of the fundraising totals of Sen. Obama and Mitt are irrelevant when compared to yet another devastating blow incurred by the campaign of Sen. John McCain. McCain, though he has yet to "officially" announce his intentions to run for the Presidency, has seemingly been the prohibitive favorite to secure the Republican nomination since the moment after Bush was inaugurated for his second term in January 2005. Given this, how can the senior Senator from Arizona come in third in fundraising for the first quarter? A number of factors share complicity for this ignominious showing. First of all, McCain inexplicably conducted only 5 fundraisers for wealthy donors during January and February. Scheduling so few fund raisers is such a disastrous decision, especially compared to the piles of money Giuliani and Romney were raking in the cash, that only Michael Brown would be proud of this early campaign management. Secondly, McCain's campaign has thus far resisted the urge to institute a Bushian-hierarchical system for large scale donors, i.e. those who assist in contributing $100k+ are called "Rangers", et al. Never underestimate the power of a cheeky label on donor's minds, especially since we all know the amount of sycophants that generally donate large amounts to candidates is profligate.
Finally, McCain has re-emerged into the political reality, and thus, has hired prominent former fundraisers to run his money operations. However, this long-delayed decision may already be wholly inconsequential. Why? Because, though on the surface the dearth of funding could simply be attributed to early campaign mis-management on an operational level, in actuality the anemic performance portends larger scale truths about the viability (or lack thereof) of McCain's campaign. In fact, the paucity of funds in his war chest may be hardly anomalous, but instead, indicative of the future of the campaign, right until it's bitter end. Since the beginning of the campaign, McCain has endorsed a politically inpalatable position on Iraq, wavered on key social issues (an act that will kill him amongst independents in a general election) and been unable to counter questions about his increasing age and health. Given this litany of problems, in essence, I'm advocating McCain "cut and run" from his presidential aspirations now, and in the following paragraphs, I will enumerate explicitly the insurmountable problems he must overcome to stay in. Key word in that sentence boys and girls: insurmountable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)