I read this today on Firedoglake and it got me thinking. Reid was/is looking at a very very difficult race for his own seat in Nevada. That's a big deal, even in a year that is as anti-incumbent as this one. But all of this is still up in the air. Will the Tea Party candidate run, my gut says yes. What we're essentially looking at here is the Tea Party serving as the Ralph Nader of the Nevada senate race. Only this time the Dems may come out on top.
I have very mixed feelings about this. I don't think I've said so before, but I don't like Harry Reid much. I think he's an ineffective party leader and he doesn't have enough spine to get the things done that need to be taken care of. But if I compare that to putting a Republican in that seat, I have to say I'm torn. On the one hand, if Reid loses, we get a new (hopefully more effective) party leader. Names like Dick Durbin have been thrown around. But, this scenario also means one less seat in the Senate for Democrats to be able to do the things we need them to do. I don't care what kind of reform you're pulling for most be it healthcare, the banking system, or something else; your best bet is to have as many Democrats in Congress as possible.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
And One More Thing...
I just got wind of this set of polling data from ABC News/Washington Post and Quinnipiac. Taking the two polls together it suggests that somewhere between 52 and 61 percent of the American Public supports trying terror suspects like the Underpants Bomber Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab in military tribunals instead of civilians courts. In this case the ABC News poll was of "adults" by phone; a very amorphous group, and the Quinnipiac poll was of registered voters. I won't pretend to be a polling expert. If you're looking for that then head over to 538.com to get all you ever wanted to know and more about evaluating polls.
In any case, I feel that even if these numbers were 30-40% instead of the 50-60% that they are, they would be too high. The Bush Administration tried terror suspects in criminal courts including Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber. Especially in the Reid case, which almost exactly parallels the attempted underpants attack, it has been shown that criminal prosecutions of these sort are usually successful (especially with an airplane load of witnesses). In fact, I think the biggest issue with this sort of trial is finding an unbiased jury. That, I think is also the biggest problem in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Where are you going to find 12 unbiased people within 100 miles of NYC? Or anywhere in the United States for that matter?
In any case, the arguements that have been made against civilian trials stem from the position that most of the "enemy combatants" that we're dealing with are not American citizens and so have no Miranda rights and so forth. I would argue that while this may be technically true, the rights afforded Americans under the Constitution and annunciated in the Declaration of Independence are there because they were viewed by the founders as basic human rights.
It is our duty as Americans to be better than those we oppose. Trying these men in civilian courts upholds the impartiality of our justice system as many on both sides of the aisle have noted. It also shows that we truly value that which is written into our basic founding documents. I don't see that we have any other choice unless we wish to return to the Bush era of being viewed as hypocrites by most of the free world.
In any case, I feel that even if these numbers were 30-40% instead of the 50-60% that they are, they would be too high. The Bush Administration tried terror suspects in criminal courts including Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber. Especially in the Reid case, which almost exactly parallels the attempted underpants attack, it has been shown that criminal prosecutions of these sort are usually successful (especially with an airplane load of witnesses). In fact, I think the biggest issue with this sort of trial is finding an unbiased jury. That, I think is also the biggest problem in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Where are you going to find 12 unbiased people within 100 miles of NYC? Or anywhere in the United States for that matter?
In any case, the arguements that have been made against civilian trials stem from the position that most of the "enemy combatants" that we're dealing with are not American citizens and so have no Miranda rights and so forth. I would argue that while this may be technically true, the rights afforded Americans under the Constitution and annunciated in the Declaration of Independence are there because they were viewed by the founders as basic human rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It is our duty as Americans to be better than those we oppose. Trying these men in civilian courts upholds the impartiality of our justice system as many on both sides of the aisle have noted. It also shows that we truly value that which is written into our basic founding documents. I don't see that we have any other choice unless we wish to return to the Bush era of being viewed as hypocrites by most of the free world.
Nominations get Nom'd!
Today I want to take a second to talk about a back burner issue that most people don't think too much about. It's one that, never the less, can affect policy and real people's lives and can cause a lot of consternation in the Senate. If you guessed Nominations (judicial and otherwise) you guessed right!
Really the only time Senate nomination hearings get any kind of real press coverage is when we're in the market for a new Supreme Court Justice. And rightfully so. If we're only going to pay attention to this important part of the Senate's job occasionally, that is certainly the occasion to pay attention. But I'm going to make the arguement that these sorts of nomination hearings are much more important than that.
Currently, the GOP caucus in the Senate is holding up a number of nomination hearings. The most recent to make any kind of news is that of Craig Baker for a position on the National Labor Relations Board. His nomination failed with 52 yea votes. Take a minute and look at that. The Senate has 100 members. So if Mr. Baker got 52, why did his nomination fail you ask? Because of the ever present Filibuster. In the world of the Senate right now, the GOP is threatening filibuster on every issue. Every nomination, piece of legislation, and every other bit of Senate business. Even that which they themselves propose. It's a tactic to make the Democrats look like they're weak and can't get anything done. Other recent examples are Erroll Southers and the Shelby snafu from the New York Times and Talking Points Memo respectively. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby blocked every nominee waiting for Senate hearings. He's effectively holding up the funcitoning of government all by himself. In fact, the only thing more effective at that right now is the Mid-Atlantic Snowpocalypse. This is the problem.
I am realizing now that this is more of a filibuster post than a nominee post, but forgive me for positing that the two issues are hopelessly tangled up.
There are several options for solving our filibuster problem and getting the country back to doing business. Honestly, I'd rather get rid of it. This allows the checks and balances of the system to work best. In that sort of system any percieved overreach by one party will be checked, eventually by the other when they come back into power. The good stuff will remain however. Things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which the GOP was against initially (and still are) will stay because they recognize the political popularity of these programs. As it currently stands it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a cloture motion. This is down from from the 67 originally mandated after 1975. I would argue that it needs to come down further if it should remain at all. Perhaps 55 or 53 votes would be better. But then again, at that point we're rapidly approaching cloture invocation at a simple majority of 50 which makes the provision essentially dead anyway.
I am sure I'll wax about this more later. It's an ongoing issue that will generate it's own news one way or the other. Likewise, I see it as an important question our Democracy is facing right now. I promise more coverage.
Really the only time Senate nomination hearings get any kind of real press coverage is when we're in the market for a new Supreme Court Justice. And rightfully so. If we're only going to pay attention to this important part of the Senate's job occasionally, that is certainly the occasion to pay attention. But I'm going to make the arguement that these sorts of nomination hearings are much more important than that.
Currently, the GOP caucus in the Senate is holding up a number of nomination hearings. The most recent to make any kind of news is that of Craig Baker for a position on the National Labor Relations Board. His nomination failed with 52 yea votes. Take a minute and look at that. The Senate has 100 members. So if Mr. Baker got 52, why did his nomination fail you ask? Because of the ever present Filibuster. In the world of the Senate right now, the GOP is threatening filibuster on every issue. Every nomination, piece of legislation, and every other bit of Senate business. Even that which they themselves propose. It's a tactic to make the Democrats look like they're weak and can't get anything done. Other recent examples are Erroll Southers and the Shelby snafu from the New York Times and Talking Points Memo respectively. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby blocked every nominee waiting for Senate hearings. He's effectively holding up the funcitoning of government all by himself. In fact, the only thing more effective at that right now is the Mid-Atlantic Snowpocalypse. This is the problem.
I am realizing now that this is more of a filibuster post than a nominee post, but forgive me for positing that the two issues are hopelessly tangled up.
There are several options for solving our filibuster problem and getting the country back to doing business. Honestly, I'd rather get rid of it. This allows the checks and balances of the system to work best. In that sort of system any percieved overreach by one party will be checked, eventually by the other when they come back into power. The good stuff will remain however. Things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which the GOP was against initially (and still are) will stay because they recognize the political popularity of these programs. As it currently stands it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a cloture motion. This is down from from the 67 originally mandated after 1975. I would argue that it needs to come down further if it should remain at all. Perhaps 55 or 53 votes would be better. But then again, at that point we're rapidly approaching cloture invocation at a simple majority of 50 which makes the provision essentially dead anyway.
I am sure I'll wax about this more later. It's an ongoing issue that will generate it's own news one way or the other. Likewise, I see it as an important question our Democracy is facing right now. I promise more coverage.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Senate Races
It's taking a lot to get used to forming my own ideas to put on this blog. Give me a while to get into gear. In any case, I want to take a moment to talk about the Florida Senate race today. Or more specifically, the Republican primary between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. This is an issue that has been brewing for a while, and in some contexts can be seen as representative of the larger issue in the Republican Party right now. A lot of talking heads have been saying that this race is a metaphor for the larger divide between the mainstream Republican Party and the Tea Party movement. While I would contend that the "mainstream" of the GOP is not that far to the left of the Tea Partiers anymore, how they view themselves within the party is really the important part here. Anyway, this article is what got me thinking about this issue this morning.
First off, the simple fact that there are outside influences like Mike Pence all the way from Indiana dipping their fingers into this race already is a statement on how big this is going to get. Believe me, this is Daschle/Thune territory that we're working toward. And it's just a GOP primary. Secondly, this race says loads about our political climate. By all accounts Charlie Crist is an excellent governor in both the big and little "G" senses. He's well liked in Florida. To see him slipping so majorly this early to someone like Marco Rubio says a lot about how the country, and really more specifically the GOP is going these days. That said, a moment ago I said, "this early". It is still early. The primary isn't until August 24th. Any manner of things could happen to turn Crist's chances around beginning with a fizzle in the popularity of the Tea Party. Stuff like this, especially Tancredo's comments could very well do that. Rachel Maddow's excellent coverage is here. Likewise, as strange as it sounds, President Obama could be Crist's biggest ally right now. If the momentum the President has been building since his Question Time with Congressional Republicans continues into the summer, the Tea Party could look very bad and a moderate seem the more reasonable choice to Florida GOP voters.
First off, the simple fact that there are outside influences like Mike Pence all the way from Indiana dipping their fingers into this race already is a statement on how big this is going to get. Believe me, this is Daschle/Thune territory that we're working toward. And it's just a GOP primary. Secondly, this race says loads about our political climate. By all accounts Charlie Crist is an excellent governor in both the big and little "G" senses. He's well liked in Florida. To see him slipping so majorly this early to someone like Marco Rubio says a lot about how the country, and really more specifically the GOP is going these days. That said, a moment ago I said, "this early". It is still early. The primary isn't until August 24th. Any manner of things could happen to turn Crist's chances around beginning with a fizzle in the popularity of the Tea Party. Stuff like this, especially Tancredo's comments could very well do that. Rachel Maddow's excellent coverage is here. Likewise, as strange as it sounds, President Obama could be Crist's biggest ally right now. If the momentum the President has been building since his Question Time with Congressional Republicans continues into the summer, the Tea Party could look very bad and a moderate seem the more reasonable choice to Florida GOP voters.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
State of the Union 2010
I have mixed feelings about the State of the Union address last night. Some of those come from getting a bit more drunk than I ought to have. But many of them came from what the President said and how he said it. While the fundamentals of the President's speech were strong, to borrow a phrase, some of the content bothered me. I've already told you about why I don't hold with the spending freeze. Some of the other programs and policies that were outlined in the speech were, in my view, too conservative as well. We'll talk about them in the moment. Let's start with the good.
This was another address that the President delivered with style, gusto, and that Obama flair that we've all come to know and recognize. After eight years of a President who could barely speak the English language this still makes me feel good.
I'm obviously way behind. So I'll leave my thoughts at this.
This was another address that the President delivered with style, gusto, and that Obama flair that we've all come to know and recognize. After eight years of a President who could barely speak the English language this still makes me feel good.
I'm obviously way behind. So I'll leave my thoughts at this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
