More on Immigration
The following is a conversation I had with a Republican blogger. As Usual he went on to point out the weakness of the Dem plan without really talking about the failures of the Bush administration.
ME:
I might be an easy grader. But, the baseline has been dramatically altered too. We can both probably agree on the current state of affairs in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is; this sorry state of affairs is the result of a very badly planned and executed Bush foreign policy. Yes, there aren’t a lot of appetizing options now in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And why is that? That is a legitimate question. To my mind it is the result of a poorly thought out and implemented policy by the Bush administration. This is where the Democrats can point out their differences with the Republicans.
If Gore had won in 2000 would we have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11? Yes. Would we have stayed to finish the job? I think so. Would we have invaded Iraq? I don’t think so. Would the world really be worse off if Saddam Hussein remained in power today? Speaking of dirty little secrets; I would so NO, the world, and the US in particular would not be worse off if Saddam remained in power. That’s the other dirty little secret Republicans don’t want to talk about.
As for the “here’s our vision”, at least the Democrats are offering up something other than “stay the course”. If the 2006 election ends up being about who has the better vision, the Democrats win. The American public has already seen way too much of the Bush/Republican vision of how the world ought to be.
Republican Blogger:
I think you're an easy grader, Teresa. This kind of generic "here's our vision" document would have been useful after 2004, when the Democrats really were back to square one, and needed to hammer out some basics before coming up with some more specific proposals.
(I'll provide you with a handy counterargument - "yeah, Jim, if the Democrats had followed your advice and done this earlier, they would be ahead in the polls and with great momentum for 2006 - oh, wait a minute, they didn't follow your advice and that happened anyway!")
I think the dirty little secret on national security policy is that there aren't a lot of appetizing options that are significantly distinct from what the Bush administration is doing right now. On catching OBL, presumably the biggest obstacle right now is Pakistan's shaky control over the tribal areas. Do we send in a bunch of troops and de facto invade? Very messy, probably very bloody. But beyond that, we're hoping for some informant to come through with something and/or hoping to get lucky with a Predator drone.
On "finishing the job in Afghanistan", I think the Rahman case showed us the ugly truth about Afghani tribal society. Are we twisting arms and applying diplomatic pressure over there as much as we could? If we twist or press harder, do they break and do the Afghanis turn on us? How much is too much, and persuades the average Afghani on the street that Karzai's our puppet?
On Iraq, it's like Afghanistan, but worse. I think Americans are tiring of waiting for the Iraqis to get their act together, and even I have my times where I wonder if the skeptics are right - that a civil society cannot be formed out of the sectarian hatred of the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd; or perhaps they need a decade-long bloodletting like the Balkans before they will consider peaceful coexistence.
Tough problems, that don't have easy solutions. Tough to turn that into a distinct, appealing political agenda.
But reciting goals with no plans, as Reid and Pelosi did today, isn't all that dissimilar from what many Administration critics call the Bush/Cheney/Rummy "happy talk."
Of course my Republican friend can't see beyond his own preconceived notion of reality. That's not a surprise. I always hope that Republicans will move beyond their own self created reality; but it rarely happens.
posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 7:11 PM
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Immigration
The big controversy of the day is immigration. That's not surprising. It's a classic wedge issue for the Republicans (and Lou Dobbs ratings), and this is after all an election year. So it's no surprise that we're talking about it.
The pleasant surprise for me is how the Senate Judiciary Committee is discussing the issue. On the whole the Senators are actually thinking about the situation and not just making speeches for their constituents (except Kyl and Cronin - no big surprise). The unpleasant aspect but not a surprise is Bill Frist's plan to bring up his own competing bill in the Senate.
Honestly, can that man be any more tone deaf when it comes to politics? He is doing his best to alienate the Senators in his own party on this issue. He can't leave the Senate soon enough. And, if he continues to play to the fundamentalist right he might just get the Republican nomination for President in 2008. For moderates and liberals in the country that would surely be a gift from
heaven. There is no way he gets elected. Even Hillary would win.
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal
at 2:36 PM
Friday, January 27, 1006
The Alito Filibuster
Is the Alito filibuster a
good idea? I can see problems (mostly political), but the basic idea is a
good one. I would even go so far as to say it's an excellent one. If Alito
is, as liberals believe going to rubberstamp the conservative viewpoint of
Scalio and Thomas, than the filibuster - though failed - puts in place the
mechanism whereby Democrats did everything they reasonably could to stop
this nomination. As the year goes on, and if Alito tows the line toward
more loss of personal privacy, including abortion rights; we will look
back on this attempted filibuster as a watershed moment in the growing of
the Democratic spine.
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal
at 3:39 PM
Iran and nukes
Well, isn't this just a mess? It's really
ugly all the way around. I think there is a way to avoid the nuclear
scenario though. That would be the one where we (and who
"we" are is yet to be determined) disable enough of Iran's
nuclear facilities to set them back some 20 years. A couple of things
– the Muslims in this world already hate the US, the great Satan, so
there's nothing to lose there. Hopefully, the current hateful
environment on the planet won't last forever. If you think back to the
state of affairs in 1941-1942, I would say emotionally the planet is
in about the same state. But, we didn't stay that way.
As much as I think we made a huge mistake attacking Iraq, it seems
like a no-brainer not to see that an attack on Iran that includes us
is inevitable. We need to be the ones who decide when and who decide
how.
The only question in my mind is do we have enough military forces,
bombs, etc to get the job done? And, by the way, I am not advocating
using ground forces here. Warn the cities that have the nuke
facilities in advance, give the people time to get out, than take out
the plants, research labs etc. Also, let's get some covert action
going on the scientists in Iran. Kidnap, kill, whatever it takes to
get the brains of the operation out
of the picture.
Now, before you liberals have a stroke, remember I'm a Pragmatic
Liberal. And it's as pragmatic as hell to take the nuclear scenario
out of Iran's future.
Can a 42 year old
even get through basic training?
So, the Army plans on reaching its
recruitment goals by luring in grandparents. The top age allowed has
been raised to 42. It sounds like some kind of SNL routine, but sadly,
it's the truth.
Do we actually think a 42 year old (and I can say this with authority)
will even make it through basic training? Will the arthritis get in
the way? Or other ailments endemic to the early 40's population?
If this is the only way to meet the Army's goals; don't we run the
risk of having an Army literally incapable of the job it is tasked to
do?
And, on a more practical note, isn't the health care of these recruits
going to be inordinately high?
Illegal Immigrants
There is lots of news today about the
Catholic Church and its supposed support for the illegal immigrants.
I want to ask a different question. How would this country look and
run if all of the illegal immigrants were to be deported? Have you
spent any time looking into the kinds of jobs they perform? From my
experience, they work in large numbers in the service industry -
maids, stockers, field workers, and more recently in the construction
industry. My question is, with the US unemployment rate running about
5%, where do we think we are going to get the workers to replace the
illegal aliens?
And, more importantly, why do we want to do this? If they provide a
service that does not seem to be filled by legal aliens or US citizens
now, what exactly is the problem with the service they provide?
Hillary, Take Two
Well, I've had a night to sleep on it.
And, I think I was right, but not completely. Now that Hillary has
gotten out there on the attack, she needs to stay there. Certainly she
can add clarity to the statements she has made, but don't back down an
inch.
And, from what I've seen today on the news she isn't. Furthermore, she
has to take on the Republican congress, Bush, and NOW, Laura Bush. How
ridiculous is it that what Laura thinks about this gets any air time
at all. And, now is a perfect time for Hillary to point out that Laura
is not an elected official, and once she gets herself elected to ANY
office at all, then she can speak with some authority.
I also notice that Barrack Obama backed up Clinton today on her
statements. This is good news. All Democrats need to stay together on
this issue, and not just defend the position, but go after the fake
outrage of the Republicans. The Republicans have no claim to any
outrage about any issue with regard to how Congress is run. They run
it, and badly.
Hillary and the
Plantation
I see that Hillary Clinton has given a
speech in a mostly black church in New York. She stated that the
leadership of Congress was "running it like a plantation; and you
know what I mean".
Now, she went on the very next sentence to state this meant that they
didn't allow any business but their business to see the light of day.
That the Democrats were shut out. This is true.
The question is, will anyone remember or bother to note anything other
than the "plantation" statement. I don't think so, and I
think her comments were at the least not well thought out, and at the
worst just stupid. She muddled the whole argument which is a good one
to the point where it will be hard to make it now.
I know I rant about the Republican's and their talking points, but
there is something to be said about prepared statements that don't end
up being taken out of context and creating situations where way too
much time is taken up explaining the statements and being on the
defensive.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
About Alito...
It seems pretty clear he is on his way to
confirmation. Like most nominees lately, he managed to pretty much not say
anything, and got away with it. It looks like we're left to hope that once
elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court, he will recognize the
importance of his job and conduct himself in a way that at least follows
the law. We'll see...
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 4:56 PM
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
What to do about Alito...
I want, really want to feel
comfortable with Judge Alito. But, I'm having problems. Surprisingly, it
actually doesn't have to do with his pro-life positions. That seems pretty
well established, which is not surprising, considering he has been nominated
by President Bush.
My bigger issues are
arising with his truthfulness. The discussions today about his membership
in the now defunct Concerned Alumni of Princeton. He was a member; in fact
he listed it on his resume for a job in the Reagan administration in 1985.
The merits/demerits of the association aside, his answer that he didn't
"remember" being a member is disingenuous at best and an
outright lie at worst. This man can quote extensively from numerous court
cases going back over a 15 years period, but can't "remember" if
he belonged to a group "demonstrating its anti-gay, anti-minority and anti-female sentiments"?
That defies belief, plan
and simple. This judge is lying and I think pretty much everyone in the
hearing room knows it. To my mind that disqualifies him from the job of
Supreme Court Justice on the face of it. He's lying about this, what else
is he lying about, or will lie about in the future? Why does he have so
much trouble acknowledging being a member of this group? He can easily
state that he does not hold these views today; that time and maturity have
changed his beliefs. I could believe that; it happens to all of us.
As it stands though; I find
him to be disingenuous and dishonest. I don't want him on the Supreme
Court.
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 7:49 PM
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
This is TOO funny:
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal at
6:31 PM
The Polar Ice Cap Is Melting
Here's an article sure to upset anyone
living near any coast on the planet:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13593302.htm
The melting of the polar ice cap has accelerated over the last few
years, and scientists are rightly concerned about what this means for us.
"Even if temperatures and conditions went flat from this point forward, we anticipate that Arctic ice would eventually disappear," Scambos said.
Here is a table showing how the earth's
temperature has risen over the last century:
What this means is hard to say exactly, except that the polar ice cap
is melting, and will completely melt regardless of what we do going
forward.
It's not clear how much the sea level will
rise, but some experts think it could rise 23 feet by the end of this
century. I won't be around for the big day, but my great grandchildren
will, and I'm sorry we're saddling them with this fiasco.
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 6:26 PM
Thursday, January 05, 2006
King George
| It is slowly becoming clear that the Bush administration's real goal is not winning the right to torture, or to spy on Americans, or to lock people up without recourse. It is absolute power. |
This is from a Salon opinion piece
about the push for absolute power. The old saying, absolute power corrupts
absolutely is particularly apt for this president. Here's a man raised in
wealth and privilege; never having to actually be responsible for any of
his actions. The thought that he would have of himself as truly above the
law isn't surprising. Nor is it surprising that he feels himself to be the
chosen one. Barbara always treated him that way. So has Laura.
The unfortunate part comes in when he takes these dysfunctional
beliefs and adds that to the fact that he isn't even really a properly
elected president. Truly, why would we think he would behave differently?
His intellect won't allow it; it upbringing won't allow it, and his
entourage won't allow it either.
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 7:20 PM
Was Christiane Amanpour wire tapped?
That is a working assumption now,
with NBC working on the story. This may have at least as much to do with
the fact that she is married to Jamie Rubin, who used to work for Clinton
and was adviser to Kerry in 2004. How convenient, while listening in on
any conversation Amonpour might have with some shady type, the NSA picks
up information on the Kerry campaign as Rubin foolishly uses the same
phone as his wife. How stupid could he be? Didn't he realize his wife
would be under the watchful eye of the NSA? Well, no, I don't suppose he
did.
I don't suppose my conversations are under
the watchful eye of the NSA either, but who knows? And there's the
problem. Without bothering to go through the FISA court there simply is NO
WAY to know who was listened to or why. And that is simply un-American.
It's against the law too.
I note that Rep. Jane Harman has sent a
letter to Bush making this exact point. Has someone finally noticed that
the Emperor has no clothes, and no brains, and no morals, and no idea how
to govern this country?
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 6:10 PM
Wednesday, January 04, 2005
What did I tell you?
I see where Hillary is
supposedly alienating left wing voters. Of course, this comes from Judicial Watch
so you can assess the source. However, there has been plenty of Hillary
bashing from left of center groups and writers. Spend a few minutes over
at Daily Kos and you'll see what I
mean. I have a diary over there under the name SFBay, and the few times
I've brought up the subject of the foolishness of Hillary bashing, I've
been sent to my room without dinner. Is Hillary a liberal, a moderate, a
conservative? I like to describe her as a "Pragmatic Liberal".
Liberal yes, but one who lives in the real world where the Republicans
control the Congress, the Presidency (no matter how illegitimate you think
Bush is) and are taking over the courts. Running from the far left is a
loser on all fronts right now. I think anyone who has any hope of taking
the White House back from the Republicans has to be a "Pragmatic
Liberal".
Fall Out Abounds
Normally I don't spend much
time reading ABC's The Note. In my opinion they have swung to the right,
and no longer have an unbiased view of the politics of the day. That's
what makes today's edition so interesting. I'm lifting their top 20
questions for the day, and for a site that leans right, it's pretty clear
things must REALLY being going badly for this to be in print:
1. As Butch and Sundance would ask: who are these FBI agents and prosecutors with the temerity to investigate (mostly) Republican corruption in this era of single-party rule?
2. What is the range of rhetoric and policy proposals the White House is now considering on ethics for inclusion in the State of the Union?
3. Who are the swing votes in the House Conference in determining if DeLay survives as Leader?
4. Who are the members of the Republican congressional leadership who think lobbying reform legislation should be enacted because it is the right thing for America, and who are the ones who are interested in pursuing it because they are trying to solve a political problem?
5. How naïve does a Googling monkey have to be to ask the previous question?
6. Will all this help or hurt John McCain's chances of being president?
7. Who will ink the first real book deal?
8. How many members of the House Conference have read this New Year's Eve Washington Post story about the murky international funding of a DeLay charity, seemingly courtesy of Abramoff? LINK
9. (When) will DeLay's reelection campaign donate to charity the roughly $15,000 it received from Abramoff between 1995 and 2003? (tick tock)
10. What are the implications of Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher's definition of "excessive"? (At the presser, she said Abramoff gave "excessive meals and entertainment" to public officials.)
11. Will history record that yesterday was worse for Chairman Ney or Mr. DeLay?
12. Will New York Times management recognize how great Anne Kornblut is and act accordingly?
13. Did Abramoff get anything real for his clients?
14. Who will history record had a better day yesterday, Rep. Emanuel or Abbe Lowell?
15. Will Scott McClellan go still further later today, or pull back?
16. Will the President maintain his position that Mr. DeLay looks innocent until proven otherwise?
17. If Patrick Fitzgerald is jealous, what will he do about it?
18. How much would you wager, with even money, on the proposition that Ralph Reed will be the next lieutenant governor of Georgia?
19. How soon will Jeff Birnbaum write the story about Members of Congress lawyering up?
20. Who in the Bush Administration has the best handle on how much executive branch officials will be caught up in all this? |
Looks like the other shoe may be
falling on the entire Republican Party.
More on Abramoff
This is a time line put together by
the Associated Press:
A timeline of key events in the Jack Abramoff investigation:
2000:
- Abramoff and associate Adam Kidan purchase the SunCruz Casinos fleet of gambling boats.
2003:
- Abramoff donates more than $100,000 to President Bush's re-election campaign.
2004:
- Sept. 29: Abramoff refuses to answer questions from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee about his lobbying work on behalf of American Indian tribes and casino issues. The Senate committee's staff concluded after a seven-month investigation that Abramoff and partner Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, had charged six tribes in six states at least $66 million for the lobbying and may have manipulated at least two tribal elections to ensure they would get contracts with tribes.
2005:
- Aug. 11: Abramoff and Kidan indicted by a Miami federal grand jury on fraud charges in the 2000 casino boat deal. Federal prosecutors say the pair faked a $23 million wire transfer to make it appear that they were making a significant contribution of their own money into the deal. Based on that transfer, lenders Foothill Capital Corp. and Citadel Equity Fund Ltd. agreed to provide $60 million in financing for the purchase.
- Aug. 29: Abramoff pleads innocent to Miami fraud charges.
- Oct. 5: David Safavian, former chief of staff of the General Services Administration, is indicted on charges he made false statements and obstructed a federal investigation into his dealings with Abramoff.
- Nov. 21: Scanlon pleads guilty in Washington to conspiring to bribe public officials in connection with his lobbying work on behalf of Indian tribes and casino issues.
- Dec. 15: Kidan pleads guilty in Miami to fraud and conspiracy charges.
- Dec. 13-22: Six members of Congress - Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.; Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. - return or give away campaign donations they received from Abramoff and his associates.
2006:
- Jan. 3: Abramoff pleads guilty in Washington to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges in federal court in connection with his lobbying work. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., announces he will give money received from Abramoff to charity.
- Jan. 4: President Bush and DeLay announce they will give money they received from Abramoff to charity
|
If you look at the time line you'll
notice that it begins to get interesting in 2003 when Abramoff donates
$100,000 to Bush's re-election campaign. Now, after the money has done
what it was supposed to do - help buy Bush another 4 years, today Bush
announces he's going to give the money to charity. Well, that makes it OK
doesn't it?
It looks to me like the Abramoff
got what wanted. Power for himself and his friends. The fact that he
is caught, and dealing is interesting, and even good, but the underlying
fact is Bush is still our President thanks to men like this.
Our only real hope of avoiding
repeats of this type is to get private money in all forms out of
elections. They need to be funded in total by us - the US citizen through government
funding. It's our money; let's spend some of it to clean up politics.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Is the NSA conducting
warrnantless wire taps on its own?
The mere thought that is
has happened sends chills down my back. It's one thing for a megalomaniac
president to think he's above the law. But what about workers at the NSA?
What were they thinking?
This is from the New York
Times:
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - The National Security Agency acted on its own authority, without a formal directive from President Bush, to expand its domestic surveillance operations in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to declassified documents released Tuesday.
The N.S.A. operation prompted questions from a leading Democrat, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who said in an Oct. 11, 2001, letter to a top intelligence official that she was concerned about the agency's legal authority to expand its domestic operations, the documents showed. |
This story just keeps
getting worse. The congress needs to act now to reign in those who would
take our civil liberties away, all in the name of democracy. What a crock.
Kerry and 2008
I want to believe I've heard it wrong. That there's no way John Kerry would even think about running again. Not after running one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen. The man DIDN'T RESPOND to the Swift Boat attacks. What does that say about his ability to respond to a threat as President?
I'll be up front though. I voted for him in 2004. It was clear that we needed to get Bush out of office - and I'm not really prescient, I just didn’t want the power grab to continue, as it apparently has.
Let someone else run as the Democratic candidate. Someone who will strike back at those who launch unfounded attacks. Someone who isn't afraid of upsetting some wing of the party. Someone who realizes that the very liberal wing of the party is going to vote for whoever wins the nomination. What other choice do they have? Nader? Never again.
I want someone strong enough to respond to the filth dished out by the fundamentalist rightwing whackos.
posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 6:11 PM
Abramoff Cops a Plea
What does it all mean? Can we expect him to give us details on his dealings with members of congress? I know he was somewhat of an equal opportunity briber, but he was way more generous to the Republicans.
Certainly one of his biggest benefactors was Tom DeLay. I hope he brings down lots of people in high places.
posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 9:51 AM
New Blog
I'm in the process of setting up a web site through Homestead. I'll double post both places for a while, and let you know when I switch
completely over to the new site.
posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 9:49 AM
Monday, January 02, 2006
A Lawless President
Well, it's official now. The President has stated in his signing statement re: the McCain Amendment:
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
As far as Bush is concerned, if he wants to break the law, he will. If congress the media can't stop him from usurping power from congress and the courts, the name "King George" will be more than just a sarcastic phrase.
posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 4:27 PM
Friday, December 30, 2005
While we're worrying about the leakers...
Since the government seems so excited about learning who leaked the wiretapping info, I have to wonder why it is so unexcited about who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent.
This feels like a double standard to me. A convenient double standard I might point out. One investigation is designed to throw up a smoke screen having to do with Bush's actions. The other non-investigation is coincidently designed to do the very same thing.
What is the real shame is the fact that this administration seems to get away with it time and again. What there is to do about it, I have no idea. I leave that those smarter than me.
posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 9:20 PM
I see misdirect written all over this
I'm talking about the Justice Department launching an investigation into who leaked the information about the apparently illegal warrant less wiretapping. This is designed to take our eyes of the ball. Yes, someone surely illegally provided this information to the New York Times.
But NO, this is not the issue. The issue here is one of massive presidential overreach. It's not the first time, and sadly probably won't be the last. But it's one we know about, and can maybe through our legislators do something about. Knowing that the information may have come to us illegally doesn't detract from the factual matters addressed.
I think we should find out who leaked, but not at the expense of moving toward meaningful protection of our civil liberties.
posted by Pragmatic Liberal at 7:34 PM
|
Pragmatic Liberal
