I appeared on local TV this morning to comment on the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Although I grimaced visibly on camera when they introduced me as a political scientist, I recovered enough to throw out a few not-very-original observations and generalities during my four-minute spot. Here is a summary of my analysis, with just a bit of expansion.
1. The resignation comes as a great relief to both sides:
--For the GOP, the White House capitulation buoys the spirits of the Beltway faithful, who were convinced that Gonzales was not up to the job. Republicans are happy to have the AG retreating from the field of battle and hopeful that the President will replace him with a more competent warrior (a la a Robert Gates for Don Rumsfeld switch).
--For the Democrats, the resignation takes away the building pressure to make the case against Gonzales. The rising expectation among the hardcore left was that the AG had committed an illegal act; therefore, the majority party would find a smoking gun, dramatically confront Gonzales and take him off to jail. The hoped-for Perry Mason moment was a promise unlikely to be realized.
With all the investigations and awkward testimony, the Democrats were still millions of miles away from proving a criminal act. In truth the President and the Congress were at an impasse. The Democrats are happy to have the conflict resolved in a way that appears to be a big public victory. I don't take very seriously Harry Reid's declarations to pursue this scandal all the way to the bitter end. Democratic leadership is happy to have this perceived positive conclusion.
2. There was nothing unprecedented about the relationship between Gonzales and the President. The AG is at the heart of any administration--and presidents generally don't pick independent and/or apolitical department heads. Loyalty counts. It was not at all extraordinary for a president to pick a close friend (or even a relative) to head Justice. Perhaps the most egregious example is JFK and RFK--but more in line with Bush and Gonzales, Ronald Reagan picked life-long chum, William French Smith, as his AG, and Jimmy Carter tapped long-time political associate, Griffin Bell, for the post.
3. The Gonzales legacy? None. Gonzales was not AG long enough to carve out a legacy (or permanently injure the institution). Moreover, how many Attorneys General can most people name? It is a tough job and most folks don't do it for long. The longest serving AG was William Wirt (1817-1829). The second longest-serving? Janet Reno (1993-2001).
4. The office of the Attorney General is an inherently political position. Before John Ashcroft was a saint in the eyes of the Gonzales persecutors--the former AG was a sinner guilty of vicious crimes against the peace and tranquility of the republic. Janet Reno was a political lightning rod for Bill Clinton--as was Ed Meese for Ronald Reagan, to name only a few.
5. Who Next?
--Michael Chertoff? He is a famous and esteemed lawyer--but we wonder about his skill sets for running a big agency. Does the Bush administration really want a national conversation about Katrina?
--A sitting senator? Who would want to give up a Senate seat for a short-term gig in this situation in which the WH is unpopular and under siege and the opposition party smells blood. No thanks.
--A former senator? Maybe. I hear Mike DeWine mentioned. He would be a good choice--but a long shot, nevertheless.
--Fred Thompson? Perhaps a face-saving way to avoid running for president.
--Rudy?
--Paul Clement for the long haul?
6. What Next? More of the same. There are no initiatives to pursue. There are no more rewarding moments to anticipate in this administration. George Bush and company have one objective: secure Iraq and protect American foreign policy interests one hill at a time. Anybody who joins this outfit at this point can expect a long hard slog until January 20, 2009. Not to say that this is not an important mission. It is vitally important. But it is not going to be glamorous, exhilarating or enjoyable. No matter, some good American is going to have to do it.
1. The resignation comes as a great relief to both sides:
--For the GOP, the White House capitulation buoys the spirits of the Beltway faithful, who were convinced that Gonzales was not up to the job. Republicans are happy to have the AG retreating from the field of battle and hopeful that the President will replace him with a more competent warrior (a la a Robert Gates for Don Rumsfeld switch).
--For the Democrats, the resignation takes away the building pressure to make the case against Gonzales. The rising expectation among the hardcore left was that the AG had committed an illegal act; therefore, the majority party would find a smoking gun, dramatically confront Gonzales and take him off to jail. The hoped-for Perry Mason moment was a promise unlikely to be realized.
With all the investigations and awkward testimony, the Democrats were still millions of miles away from proving a criminal act. In truth the President and the Congress were at an impasse. The Democrats are happy to have the conflict resolved in a way that appears to be a big public victory. I don't take very seriously Harry Reid's declarations to pursue this scandal all the way to the bitter end. Democratic leadership is happy to have this perceived positive conclusion.
2. There was nothing unprecedented about the relationship between Gonzales and the President. The AG is at the heart of any administration--and presidents generally don't pick independent and/or apolitical department heads. Loyalty counts. It was not at all extraordinary for a president to pick a close friend (or even a relative) to head Justice. Perhaps the most egregious example is JFK and RFK--but more in line with Bush and Gonzales, Ronald Reagan picked life-long chum, William French Smith, as his AG, and Jimmy Carter tapped long-time political associate, Griffin Bell, for the post.
3. The Gonzales legacy? None. Gonzales was not AG long enough to carve out a legacy (or permanently injure the institution). Moreover, how many Attorneys General can most people name? It is a tough job and most folks don't do it for long. The longest serving AG was William Wirt (1817-1829). The second longest-serving? Janet Reno (1993-2001).
4. The office of the Attorney General is an inherently political position. Before John Ashcroft was a saint in the eyes of the Gonzales persecutors--the former AG was a sinner guilty of vicious crimes against the peace and tranquility of the republic. Janet Reno was a political lightning rod for Bill Clinton--as was Ed Meese for Ronald Reagan, to name only a few.
5. Who Next?
--Michael Chertoff? He is a famous and esteemed lawyer--but we wonder about his skill sets for running a big agency. Does the Bush administration really want a national conversation about Katrina?
--A sitting senator? Who would want to give up a Senate seat for a short-term gig in this situation in which the WH is unpopular and under siege and the opposition party smells blood. No thanks.
--A former senator? Maybe. I hear Mike DeWine mentioned. He would be a good choice--but a long shot, nevertheless.
--Fred Thompson? Perhaps a face-saving way to avoid running for president.
--Rudy?
--Paul Clement for the long haul?
6. What Next? More of the same. There are no initiatives to pursue. There are no more rewarding moments to anticipate in this administration. George Bush and company have one objective: secure Iraq and protect American foreign policy interests one hill at a time. Anybody who joins this outfit at this point can expect a long hard slog until January 20, 2009. Not to say that this is not an important mission. It is vitally important. But it is not going to be glamorous, exhilarating or enjoyable. No matter, some good American is going to have to do it.
21/08: Where is the Nuance?
I caught just a glimpse of C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning (here). Peter Slen's guest during the second hour was Air America on-air personality, Rachel Maddow, who offered her slant on politics in between viewer calls.
Walking by the TV, I was struck by her snarky throw-away analysis of the rationale for war in Iraq (paraphrasing):
Did we go to war over WMD? Or to depose a ruthless dictator? Or to liberate women from Muslim fundamentalism? Or to shore up a leaky sanctions regime? Or to make the Middle East less unstable? Or to move offending American troops out of Saudi Arabia? Or to provide consequences for a rogue state that flouted international authority?
Her litany of "shifting justifications" implied that the President should pick ONE.
The answer to those "either/or" questions, obviously, is YES. We invaded Iraq for all the reasons enumerated above and more.
It is unfair to single out this one unfortunate person, for she is emblematic of a host of Bush detractors. In fact, I continue to be puzzled by the plethora of well-educated anti-war activists who reject multi-causal reasoning on this particular issue.
Maddow, an authentic "San Francisco liberal," possesses genuine progressive intellectual bona fides.
From her bio (in full here):
"Rachel has a doctorate in political science [from Oxford] (she was a Rhodes Scholar) and a background in HIV/AIDS activism, prison reform, and other lefty rabblerousing."
"Rachel is 33 years old and lives in New York City and rural Western Massachusetts with her partner, artist Susan Mikula."
And from another friendly source, Maddow, a Stanford grad, "became the first openly-gay American to be awarded a Rhodes Scholarship."
If someone asked Dr. Maddow a serious question of great import, my guess is that she would pause, scratch her chin, look deeply into the eyes of the inquirer and say:
"That is a complicated issue for which there are no simple answers."
I am an historian by training. The first day of history school we were all made to write fifty times on the blackboard:
"History is the multi-layered study of change over time. Mono-causal explanations for human events are rarely accurate. Rather, think in terms of multiple motives. History is the product of a complicated web of contingency."
I am confident that Dr. Maddow understands this truism. In fact, my hunch is that she thinks President Bush is a simpleton inclined toward "black and white" thinking. Furthermore, I wager that she consciously favored the candidate in 2004 that she thought understood that "nuance" was an essential element to good leadership.
Ironically, the people who are, in general, most likely to see the world as "complex" and "gray" are the same folks who are most likely to frame this particular issue in the most elementary terms.
My question: are Dr. Maddow and her cohorts purposely demagoguing the issue for partisan reasons? That is, all's fair in love, war, and in aid of a just cause, which includes employing rhetorical leger demain to sway the public debate.
Or, are they so blinded by their opposition to the President that they have temporarily lost their intellectual moorings, forsaking years of training and falling into the logical quick sand of "either/or" reasoning and monocausality?
These are complicated questions for which there are no definitve answers.
Regardless, the public discourse is ill-served by this brand of sloppy thinking.
Walking by the TV, I was struck by her snarky throw-away analysis of the rationale for war in Iraq (paraphrasing):
Did we go to war over WMD? Or to depose a ruthless dictator? Or to liberate women from Muslim fundamentalism? Or to shore up a leaky sanctions regime? Or to make the Middle East less unstable? Or to move offending American troops out of Saudi Arabia? Or to provide consequences for a rogue state that flouted international authority?
Her litany of "shifting justifications" implied that the President should pick ONE.
The answer to those "either/or" questions, obviously, is YES. We invaded Iraq for all the reasons enumerated above and more.
It is unfair to single out this one unfortunate person, for she is emblematic of a host of Bush detractors. In fact, I continue to be puzzled by the plethora of well-educated anti-war activists who reject multi-causal reasoning on this particular issue.
Maddow, an authentic "San Francisco liberal," possesses genuine progressive intellectual bona fides.
From her bio (in full here):
"Rachel has a doctorate in political science [from Oxford] (she was a Rhodes Scholar) and a background in HIV/AIDS activism, prison reform, and other lefty rabblerousing."
"Rachel is 33 years old and lives in New York City and rural Western Massachusetts with her partner, artist Susan Mikula."
And from another friendly source, Maddow, a Stanford grad, "became the first openly-gay American to be awarded a Rhodes Scholarship."
If someone asked Dr. Maddow a serious question of great import, my guess is that she would pause, scratch her chin, look deeply into the eyes of the inquirer and say:
"That is a complicated issue for which there are no simple answers."
I am an historian by training. The first day of history school we were all made to write fifty times on the blackboard:
"History is the multi-layered study of change over time. Mono-causal explanations for human events are rarely accurate. Rather, think in terms of multiple motives. History is the product of a complicated web of contingency."
I am confident that Dr. Maddow understands this truism. In fact, my hunch is that she thinks President Bush is a simpleton inclined toward "black and white" thinking. Furthermore, I wager that she consciously favored the candidate in 2004 that she thought understood that "nuance" was an essential element to good leadership.
Ironically, the people who are, in general, most likely to see the world as "complex" and "gray" are the same folks who are most likely to frame this particular issue in the most elementary terms.
My question: are Dr. Maddow and her cohorts purposely demagoguing the issue for partisan reasons? That is, all's fair in love, war, and in aid of a just cause, which includes employing rhetorical leger demain to sway the public debate.
Or, are they so blinded by their opposition to the President that they have temporarily lost their intellectual moorings, forsaking years of training and falling into the logical quick sand of "either/or" reasoning and monocausality?
These are complicated questions for which there are no definitve answers.
Regardless, the public discourse is ill-served by this brand of sloppy thinking.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The other day, Barry-s Head intimated that I might have a man crush on the President. Today, Barry-s wonders if my "contrarian bent is at work here-- would [the Farmer] support 43 if he had a 95% approval rating? Or is it [Farmer's] inclination to support the President no matter what (as in the earlier post on his theoretical support for H-44)? Or is it because 43 is Republicanish?"
As I have said before, my affinity for the President is admitted and well-documented.
For a one-stop-shopping post that delves deeply into this subject, you might start here.
But, in a few words, Barry-s is on to something in re my natural "contrarianism." While I am a big fan of the combined wisdom of the ages, I am inclined to buck the conventional wisdom of the moment; it is often facile, myopic and hyperbolic.
If you listen to the mob, George Bush is:
--stupid
--another Hitler
--the worst president in US history
--prosecuting a war in the interest of Halliburton, big oil and revenge for his father
--filling the courts with right-wing jurists intent on taking away all our liberties
--sitting atop an administration intent on taking away all our liberties
--the puppet of corporate America
--unprecedentedly partisan
--unprecedentedly secretive
--presiding over the worst economy of a generation
I can prove empirically that none of those common accusations are valid. Nevertheless, these incendiary and patently false "truisms" define Bush's term as president for many Americans.
Whether on the playground, or on the blogosphere, I have always attempted to resist the "tyranny of the majority" and work toward a degree of objectivity and fairness.
Objective Analysis
The truth is Bush has made some mistakes and made some bad moves. The truth is that all presidents have always had vociferous opponents who believed that the Republic was in danger as a result of his excesses.
The truth is that this President--like the vast majority of his predecessors--loves America, is doing the best job that he can, and deserves our support.
The truth is that the Presidency is a very tough job (perhaps it has even become an impossible job).
The Good News for radical Bush-loathers: We get the chance to change leaders every four years. The Constitution says that this particular president is finished in less than seventeen months, at which time we will install a new head of state.
The Bad News for radical Bush-loathers: The next president is NOT going to be radically different from this one.
Post Script: In answer to Barry-s last query, of course, I possess an extra degree of understanding and sensitivity for members of my own political tribe. This is human nature. That is, I am inclined to give my guy the benefit of the doubt--and feel for him more.
But we can watch me in the years to come to see if I keep to my pledge to support the next president--regardless of her party affiliation.
As I have said before, my affinity for the President is admitted and well-documented.
For a one-stop-shopping post that delves deeply into this subject, you might start here.
But, in a few words, Barry-s is on to something in re my natural "contrarianism." While I am a big fan of the combined wisdom of the ages, I am inclined to buck the conventional wisdom of the moment; it is often facile, myopic and hyperbolic.
If you listen to the mob, George Bush is:
--stupid
--another Hitler
--the worst president in US history
--prosecuting a war in the interest of Halliburton, big oil and revenge for his father
--filling the courts with right-wing jurists intent on taking away all our liberties
--sitting atop an administration intent on taking away all our liberties
--the puppet of corporate America
--unprecedentedly partisan
--unprecedentedly secretive
--presiding over the worst economy of a generation
I can prove empirically that none of those common accusations are valid. Nevertheless, these incendiary and patently false "truisms" define Bush's term as president for many Americans.
Whether on the playground, or on the blogosphere, I have always attempted to resist the "tyranny of the majority" and work toward a degree of objectivity and fairness.
Objective Analysis
The truth is Bush has made some mistakes and made some bad moves. The truth is that all presidents have always had vociferous opponents who believed that the Republic was in danger as a result of his excesses.
The truth is that this President--like the vast majority of his predecessors--loves America, is doing the best job that he can, and deserves our support.
The truth is that the Presidency is a very tough job (perhaps it has even become an impossible job).
The Good News for radical Bush-loathers: We get the chance to change leaders every four years. The Constitution says that this particular president is finished in less than seventeen months, at which time we will install a new head of state.
The Bad News for radical Bush-loathers: The next president is NOT going to be radically different from this one.
Post Script: In answer to Barry-s last query, of course, I possess an extra degree of understanding and sensitivity for members of my own political tribe. This is human nature. That is, I am inclined to give my guy the benefit of the doubt--and feel for him more.
But we can watch me in the years to come to see if I keep to my pledge to support the next president--regardless of her party affiliation.
07/08: Don't Break Out the Champagne Just Yet, but the poll numbers are not as dismal as they were...
But I should correct my statement from earlier this week when I identified myself as part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approved of George Bush. I now have some more company. According to Gallup, President Bush is in the midst of a "slight uptick."
His current approval rating is 34 percent. Alas, those aren't Clintonian numbers, but they are less Nixonian than they were a few weeks ago.
The Gallup article (here) also identifies the upward creeping numbers of Americans optimistic about the "surge" in Iraq, which Gallup credits to the positive tone of press coverage over the past fortnight.
Of course, before you get too excited, the number of Americans who feel the surge is working is only 31 percent (but 31 percent with a "bullet").
I agree with the analysis. The good news on the surge has lifted the pall over the WH and the President's supporters. I feel a sense of hope reforming among the faithful.
Very funny but also instructive: According to the Gallup piece, NYT pollsters found similar numbers in their own sample. Astounded, they redid the canvass, coming up with an identical finding the second time around.
My Own Analysis: one other reason for the "slight uptick," however, has got to be the return of the temporarily disaffected immigration conservatives who rallied back to the flag as the partisan standoff over Iraq returned to the forefront and potentially comes to a head soon in the near future.
All in all, a little good news today.
The Gallup piece in full here.
His current approval rating is 34 percent. Alas, those aren't Clintonian numbers, but they are less Nixonian than they were a few weeks ago.
The Gallup article (here) also identifies the upward creeping numbers of Americans optimistic about the "surge" in Iraq, which Gallup credits to the positive tone of press coverage over the past fortnight.
Of course, before you get too excited, the number of Americans who feel the surge is working is only 31 percent (but 31 percent with a "bullet").
I agree with the analysis. The good news on the surge has lifted the pall over the WH and the President's supporters. I feel a sense of hope reforming among the faithful.
Very funny but also instructive: According to the Gallup piece, NYT pollsters found similar numbers in their own sample. Astounded, they redid the canvass, coming up with an identical finding the second time around.
My Own Analysis: one other reason for the "slight uptick," however, has got to be the return of the temporarily disaffected immigration conservatives who rallied back to the flag as the partisan standoff over Iraq returned to the forefront and potentially comes to a head soon in the near future.
All in all, a little good news today.
The Gallup piece in full here.
A Texas Folk Tale*
Not many people know this, but George Washington was originally a Texan.
But one day Washington's father called him in to ask whether he had cut down the mesquite tree in the backyard.
"I cannot tell a lie," said George. "I took my hatchet and chopped down the mesquite tree."
At which point George's father told him to pack his bags--they were moving to Virginia.
"But why?" asked the boy. "Because I chopped down the only shade tree within fifty miles?"
"No", his father said, "Because if you cannot tell a lie, you'll never make it in Texas politics."
My President and His Faults
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I like and admire our President. I am a part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approve of the job he is doing. Having said that, sometimes I wonder if his Attorney General would rather obfuscate and stonewall when the truth would make a better story.
In re the US Attorneys: if the administration had come clean and faced the incident honestly, my hunch is that the President's operatives could have made a compelling case for their actions and come away with their dignity and honor intact.
I am still waiting for the explanation in re Scooter Libby and the entire Valerie Plame imbroglio. What really happened? And why? Like the firing of the US attorneys, my sense is that the administration could have made a convincing case for their actions early on. Or, barring that, they could have told a tale of human passions and errors in judgment, pled for understanding among reasonable people, and moved on.
But that is not the Bush style.
And, of course, I have other more much important objections to this President:
He misunderstood the grotesque magnitude of the task in Iraq. He did not prepare for the worst-case scenario. He has allowed the military to deteriorate to an alarmingly weakened state during a period of great risk. He did not ask the American people to engage and sacrifice. And there's more...
So, I don't approve of the President because I think he is perfect, but I think he is a good American attempting to do his duty (which happens to be the hardest duty on the planet). On the whole, President Bush has done an acceptable job confronting an exceedingly challenging set of circumstances. He is not perfect, but, then again, the "perfect" is the enemy of the good.
In other words, in our futile search for leaders without fault--we sometimes cast aside great statesmen for inconsequential reasons. And, more often, we fix our gaze on the human imperfections in those elected officials whom we are already predisposed to dislike for partisan reasons. To paraphrase George Washington's observations from long ago, "the spirit of party...is inseparable from our nature," but the blindness of factional enmity sets us on the road to the "ruin of public liberty."
MY PLEDGE to the next President:
My faith in the institutions of the United States is still very strong. I am anxious to support the next president, who will likely be a Democrat. Although I will vote for her opponent in the general election, I am actually rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination--but not because I think she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. I believe that she offers the best alternative from the opposition party. If elected, Mrs. Clinton will have my support. If elected, my sincerest wish will be that she proves to be the wisest president in our history--for we need a great leader at this particular moment in time. Her success will be my success and mean more security for my children. If elected, I will pray that she prospers. She will be my president.
*The Old Texas Folk Tale was famously told over the years by many a Lone Star politician (including John Connally and Ann Richards).
Not many people know this, but George Washington was originally a Texan.
But one day Washington's father called him in to ask whether he had cut down the mesquite tree in the backyard.
"I cannot tell a lie," said George. "I took my hatchet and chopped down the mesquite tree."
At which point George's father told him to pack his bags--they were moving to Virginia.
"But why?" asked the boy. "Because I chopped down the only shade tree within fifty miles?"
"No", his father said, "Because if you cannot tell a lie, you'll never make it in Texas politics."
My President and His Faults
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I like and admire our President. I am a part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approve of the job he is doing. Having said that, sometimes I wonder if his Attorney General would rather obfuscate and stonewall when the truth would make a better story.
In re the US Attorneys: if the administration had come clean and faced the incident honestly, my hunch is that the President's operatives could have made a compelling case for their actions and come away with their dignity and honor intact.
I am still waiting for the explanation in re Scooter Libby and the entire Valerie Plame imbroglio. What really happened? And why? Like the firing of the US attorneys, my sense is that the administration could have made a convincing case for their actions early on. Or, barring that, they could have told a tale of human passions and errors in judgment, pled for understanding among reasonable people, and moved on.
But that is not the Bush style.
And, of course, I have other more much important objections to this President:
He misunderstood the grotesque magnitude of the task in Iraq. He did not prepare for the worst-case scenario. He has allowed the military to deteriorate to an alarmingly weakened state during a period of great risk. He did not ask the American people to engage and sacrifice. And there's more...
So, I don't approve of the President because I think he is perfect, but I think he is a good American attempting to do his duty (which happens to be the hardest duty on the planet). On the whole, President Bush has done an acceptable job confronting an exceedingly challenging set of circumstances. He is not perfect, but, then again, the "perfect" is the enemy of the good.
In other words, in our futile search for leaders without fault--we sometimes cast aside great statesmen for inconsequential reasons. And, more often, we fix our gaze on the human imperfections in those elected officials whom we are already predisposed to dislike for partisan reasons. To paraphrase George Washington's observations from long ago, "the spirit of party...is inseparable from our nature," but the blindness of factional enmity sets us on the road to the "ruin of public liberty."
MY PLEDGE to the next President:
My faith in the institutions of the United States is still very strong. I am anxious to support the next president, who will likely be a Democrat. Although I will vote for her opponent in the general election, I am actually rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination--but not because I think she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. I believe that she offers the best alternative from the opposition party. If elected, Mrs. Clinton will have my support. If elected, my sincerest wish will be that she proves to be the wisest president in our history--for we need a great leader at this particular moment in time. Her success will be my success and mean more security for my children. If elected, I will pray that she prospers. She will be my president.
*The Old Texas Folk Tale was famously told over the years by many a Lone Star politician (including John Connally and Ann Richards).
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Excellent analysis from good friend of the Bosque Boys:
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
Quin Hillyer is always interesting and trenchant. In his piece this morning (here) he rather hits the nail on the head:
"In short, the unpopularity of Republicans right now gives Democrats the first time in 12 years a chance to win, say, 70% of what they want on some issues; but, instead, they are holding out for 95 or 100% and instead earning nothing but headlines."
He next notes that Feinstein's vote for Judge Southwick signals a smart political path for the Democrats -- episodic accommodation that raises with the voters a presumption of equanimity in dealing with the opposition. But will the Democrats catch the hint? The confirmation of Southwick offers the Democrats much political cover for 2008, if they are rational enough to seize it. In all probability, a rousing confirmation of Southwick would "cover" a virtual stonewall on confirmations in 2008. But will the Democratic nutroots and moonbat factions sit still for anything less than ideological purity?
Of course, below the surface is Feinstein looking at the attention paid to the rather pedestrian Pelosi, coupled with the obvious floundering and flummoxing of the preposterous (and corrupt) Harry Reid. If Reid's "leadership" continues to yield middling results, Feinstein stands to challenge Reid for the post that he doubtless never deserved (and I prefer Feinstein's solid and womanly voice to the pathetic, wimpish whining of Reid -- and Daschle before him). I wonder if Harry Reid sees Feinstein's vote for Southwick as a challenge? He should. Everyone else will.
Again, Hillyer's article here.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
Quin Hillyer is always interesting and trenchant. In his piece this morning (here) he rather hits the nail on the head:
"In short, the unpopularity of Republicans right now gives Democrats the first time in 12 years a chance to win, say, 70% of what they want on some issues; but, instead, they are holding out for 95 or 100% and instead earning nothing but headlines."
He next notes that Feinstein's vote for Judge Southwick signals a smart political path for the Democrats -- episodic accommodation that raises with the voters a presumption of equanimity in dealing with the opposition. But will the Democrats catch the hint? The confirmation of Southwick offers the Democrats much political cover for 2008, if they are rational enough to seize it. In all probability, a rousing confirmation of Southwick would "cover" a virtual stonewall on confirmations in 2008. But will the Democratic nutroots and moonbat factions sit still for anything less than ideological purity?
Of course, below the surface is Feinstein looking at the attention paid to the rather pedestrian Pelosi, coupled with the obvious floundering and flummoxing of the preposterous (and corrupt) Harry Reid. If Reid's "leadership" continues to yield middling results, Feinstein stands to challenge Reid for the post that he doubtless never deserved (and I prefer Feinstein's solid and womanly voice to the pathetic, wimpish whining of Reid -- and Daschle before him). I wonder if Harry Reid sees Feinstein's vote for Southwick as a challenge? He should. Everyone else will.
Again, Hillyer's article here.
~~Tocqueville
19/07: Do You Approve of Congress?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Does it matter that public approval of Congress is at historic lows?
The dreadful numbers for Congress, even lower than the President's dreadful numbers, is an increasingly ubiquitous talking point in the conservative media. Does this mean that Americans are disgruntled with Democratic leadership in Congress? Should Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi read this polling data with alarm? Should we take heart from these polls?
Not really. Congressional approval ratings don't mean much.
Elections 101: Traditionally, the American people hate Congress but love their Congressman. While only 14 percent of voters voice approval for Congress, we can rest assured that no incumbent will go down to dramatic defeat in the next congressional election. Most of the incumbents will win easy victory, and the handful that will lose in November 2008 will run very close races. That is, you can bet the house that there will not be any incumbents polling within 30 points of that 14 percent mark on Election Day.
Most Americans cannot even identify their Congressman. Here is how it goes: "we hate Congress, but our guy is okay." Who is your guy? "Let me think...."
The President personifies American government. When voters get mad at government, the President is in trouble. I have not seen any polling data with this question, but my hunch is that a shockingly low percentage of Americans understand that Congress is currently in the hands of an opposition party.
Americans are frustrated and angry right now. They dislike the President, and they dislike his government. That brand of thinking is neither fair nor rational, but, I suspect with a high degree of certainty, that it is prevalent.
My point: don't hang your hat on low numbers for Congress. Dissatisfaction with Congress is closely linked with dissatisfaction with government, which is embodied by George Bush.
UPDATE: One more thing. Having said all that, I am convinced that if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Republican Congress had these kinds of public opinion numbers, they would be front-page news for the mainstream media.
The dreadful numbers for Congress, even lower than the President's dreadful numbers, is an increasingly ubiquitous talking point in the conservative media. Does this mean that Americans are disgruntled with Democratic leadership in Congress? Should Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi read this polling data with alarm? Should we take heart from these polls?
Not really. Congressional approval ratings don't mean much.
Elections 101: Traditionally, the American people hate Congress but love their Congressman. While only 14 percent of voters voice approval for Congress, we can rest assured that no incumbent will go down to dramatic defeat in the next congressional election. Most of the incumbents will win easy victory, and the handful that will lose in November 2008 will run very close races. That is, you can bet the house that there will not be any incumbents polling within 30 points of that 14 percent mark on Election Day.
Most Americans cannot even identify their Congressman. Here is how it goes: "we hate Congress, but our guy is okay." Who is your guy? "Let me think...."
The President personifies American government. When voters get mad at government, the President is in trouble. I have not seen any polling data with this question, but my hunch is that a shockingly low percentage of Americans understand that Congress is currently in the hands of an opposition party.
Americans are frustrated and angry right now. They dislike the President, and they dislike his government. That brand of thinking is neither fair nor rational, but, I suspect with a high degree of certainty, that it is prevalent.
My point: don't hang your hat on low numbers for Congress. Dissatisfaction with Congress is closely linked with dissatisfaction with government, which is embodied by George Bush.
UPDATE: One more thing. Having said all that, I am convinced that if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Republican Congress had these kinds of public opinion numbers, they would be front-page news for the mainstream media.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Newsmax has the story.
Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore will no longer seek the Republican presidential nomination.
God bless America. Anyone can try to get the nomination. So, who do you think will be the next to drop out?
Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore will no longer seek the Republican presidential nomination.
God bless America. Anyone can try to get the nomination. So, who do you think will be the next to drop out?
What ants and bees can teach us about the benefits of a free society.
The July issue of the National Geographic contains a great article entitled "The Genius of Swarms." It presents scientific findings on the behavior of swarming animals such as the movement of shoals of fish, herds of caribou, and flocks of birds. None of these groups has a leader coordinating the response to a predator, yet the groups respond with movements that confuse the attacker, giving a better chance of escape. It seems that each individual, while unaware of the "big picture," moves in response to those around it according to certain simple ingrained rules.
Even more amazing is the swarm behavior of social insects such as ants and bees. Without leaders giving commands, the hive or hill functions efficiently through the choices of each member. While an individual ant or bee is not smart, the group behaves in an intelligent way.
One key to an ant colony, for example, is that no one's in charge. No generals command ant warriors. No managers boss ant workers. The queen plays no role except to lay eggs. Even with half a million ants, a colony functions just fine with no management at all--at least none that we would recognize. It relies instead upon countless interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb. Scientists describe such a system as self-organizing.
Scientists are creating mathmatical/computer models of swarm behavior and finding fruitful applications. For example, a large company in Texas uses a computer model based on ant behavior to schedule delivery routes for its trucks--the money savings has been significant. Southwest Airlines is testing a similar model to manage plane traffic at the Phoenix airport.
Even more interesting, for the point of this blog, are the applications for human society. For example, bees choose a new hive during swarming based on the choice of a critical number of scouts: a bottom-up not a top-down decision making structure. One bee researcher has applied bee decision making methods to human choices.
The bees' rules for decision-making--seek a diversity of options, encourage free competition among ideas, and use an effective mechanism to narrow choices--so impressed [the researcher] that he now uses them at Cornell as chairman of his department.
So perhaps those who wish to create a command-economy and a society led by elites in a top-down manner, are the ones fighting nature. Free societies and free economies may be naturally more intelligent than elite managed ones.
The July issue of the National Geographic contains a great article entitled "The Genius of Swarms." It presents scientific findings on the behavior of swarming animals such as the movement of shoals of fish, herds of caribou, and flocks of birds. None of these groups has a leader coordinating the response to a predator, yet the groups respond with movements that confuse the attacker, giving a better chance of escape. It seems that each individual, while unaware of the "big picture," moves in response to those around it according to certain simple ingrained rules.
Even more amazing is the swarm behavior of social insects such as ants and bees. Without leaders giving commands, the hive or hill functions efficiently through the choices of each member. While an individual ant or bee is not smart, the group behaves in an intelligent way.
One key to an ant colony, for example, is that no one's in charge. No generals command ant warriors. No managers boss ant workers. The queen plays no role except to lay eggs. Even with half a million ants, a colony functions just fine with no management at all--at least none that we would recognize. It relies instead upon countless interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb. Scientists describe such a system as self-organizing.
Scientists are creating mathmatical/computer models of swarm behavior and finding fruitful applications. For example, a large company in Texas uses a computer model based on ant behavior to schedule delivery routes for its trucks--the money savings has been significant. Southwest Airlines is testing a similar model to manage plane traffic at the Phoenix airport.
Even more interesting, for the point of this blog, are the applications for human society. For example, bees choose a new hive during swarming based on the choice of a critical number of scouts: a bottom-up not a top-down decision making structure. One bee researcher has applied bee decision making methods to human choices.
The bees' rules for decision-making--seek a diversity of options, encourage free competition among ideas, and use an effective mechanism to narrow choices--so impressed [the researcher] that he now uses them at Cornell as chairman of his department.
So perhaps those who wish to create a command-economy and a society led by elites in a top-down manner, are the ones fighting nature. Free societies and free economies may be naturally more intelligent than elite managed ones.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has released its findings on positions taken by the presidential candidates relating to LGBT issues. Here is the information in chart form (Adobe needed). Here is the press release (Adobe not needed).
No real surprises in the information. In general, the Democrat aspirants are much more committed to LGBT issues than are the Republican, though only two of the Dems explicitly support same-sex marriage--Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. On the Republican side Rudy is in a weak first-place with his support for Civil Unions and opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Once more the modern Democrats show themselves to be the party committed to social change, and modern Republicans to be more committed to tradition.
No real surprises in the information. In general, the Democrat aspirants are much more committed to LGBT issues than are the Republican, though only two of the Dems explicitly support same-sex marriage--Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. On the Republican side Rudy is in a weak first-place with his support for Civil Unions and opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Once more the modern Democrats show themselves to be the party committed to social change, and modern Republicans to be more committed to tradition.
