Month: October 2009

"Frankly, I would’ve given it to George Bush," – Sean Hannity, on the Peace Prize.

A reader writes:

Your comparison to Truman is not apt.  Racially integrating the military did not require legislation because there was no federal statute to be overturned.  Segregation in the military had been, since the Civil War, purely a matter of executive policy.  It could, therefore, easily be overturned by executive order.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a congressionally enacted statute, codified in 1993 as 10 USC Section 654.  What is more, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (in 10 USC Section 925) outlaws sodomy, even heterosexual sodomy.  Writing these laws is well within the scope of Congress's powers under Article I, Section 8, which reads in part, "The Congress shall have power…To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

The President cannot simply order one of the executive departments to not follow the law.  That is exactly the power Bush claimed to have when issued a "signing statement"  along with the Detainee Treatment

Act.

I know that homosexuality and torture are not the same thing.  I want to end DADT and repeal the anti-sodomy statute.  Disallowing soldiers from serving openly is unjust, unfair, and probably undermines national security, but it is the law.  Only legislation can change that.  This is not to say you should let up on Obama.  He made a promise, and you should hold him to it.  But please focus on the larger process, which will probably include some sort of blue ribbon committee, hearings in both Armed Services Committees, floor debates, votes in both houses, and the president's signature.  I think it is a very attainable goal.  Lindsay Graham (a veteran) certainly shows some open mindedness, and you have the American people on your side too.

 

I'm not asking you to give up.  I'm not even asking you for patience.  I'm asking you for genuine vigilance and follow-through.  Your real focus on repealing DADT should be Lieberman and Ike Skelton.  If you want something from Obama himself, stick to the HIV Ban.  That is something that really can be overturned by executive order.

Some Catholics can't handle a diversity of opinion.

Michelle Cottle hopes journalists won't pull punches:

Liz Cheney is a particularly dangerous combination of sweet-as-sugar looks and savage instincts. Going at her as roughly and directly as she does her opponents could backfire. But cutting her any slack–or sitting by as media types coo, gurgle, and make patronizing goo-goo eyes at her–is a good way to wind up stuck in the undercarriage of her SUV. Those who disagree with Liz's political vision would do well to start figuring out the right blend of non-brutish ruthlessness to deal with her. Because the most disturbing thing about Dick's little girl is the overwhelming sense that she is just getting warmed up.

The MSM wouldn't get all intimidated by a mere Cheney, would they? Oh noooo.

I hear increasingly positive things about the campaign to keep marriage equality in that state (and HRC deserves praise for helping). This ad is not coy; it’s not afraid; it’s real and it’s true. Treating people as if they deserve the straight argument, not hiding behind euphemisms, not running from our reality, even if it may mean a little temporary discomfort. People respond to conviction, not equivocation, in civil rights struggles. So this is encouraging news:

Megan:

I think it is more likely is that [healthcare] passes, and fails spectacularly. There are too many moving parts, and if any of them breaks, the whole thing rapidly starts to spin out of control and eat a gigantic hole in the deficit. If it does break, I think that Democrats keep control of Congress just long enough to explain why they keep having to enact whopping new tax increases every few years. Republicans don't need to improve their message. They just have to wait for Democrats to recover their reputation as tax and spend politicians who woefully underpredict the cost of everything they propose.

Reihan:

Among Democrats and liberals, there is a belief that Republican opposition to the various Democratic proposals represents a kind of "nihilism," and that because Baucuscare resembles proposals offered by liberal and moderate Republicans in the 1990s, today's opposition is obviously unprincipled if not insane. My sense is that we've learned a great deal about health reform over the intervening period, and that, as Christensen, Grossman, and Hwang have argued, it is disruptive competition that promises substantial improvement in the cost and quality of medical services over time. I'm increasingly convinced that the only way to move in this direction is to create a system of universal catastrophic coverage and universal health savings accounts, as proposed by Martin Feldstein and a number of others. The emerging consensus among congressional Democrats moves us in a very different direction, towards a highly centralized, highly regulated system that will give entrepreneurs very little room to dramatically improve care. With that in mind, I don't think opposition is "nihlistic"; rather, I think it's responsible.

Holy crap this is cool:

Bruce Bartlett marks the release of his new book “The New American Economy: The Failure Of Reaganomics And A New Way Forward” with a must-read post. His courage in confronting “conservative” dogma is rare and inspiring. If conservatism means a practical adjustment to events, with the intention of keeping the whole show on the road as coherently as possible, Bruce is dead-on. Well, you know what I think by now. Read his book. He wants Supply Side Economics to declare victory and go home:

Many of my friends believe I have abandoned supply side economics and become a Keynesian. (Among conservatives there are few insults more damning than to be labeled a “Keynesian.”) But as I try to explain in my book, my views haven’t changed at all; it’s circumstances that have changed. I believe that my friends are still stuck in the 1970s when tax rates were considerably higher and excessive demand (i.e., inflation) was our biggest economic problem. Today, tax rates are much lower and a lack of demand (i.e., deflation) is the central problem. I really don’t understand why conservatives insist on a one-size-fits-all economic policy consisting of more and bigger tax cuts no matter what the economic circumstances are; it’s simply become dogma totally disconnected from reality.

Nor do I understand the conservative antipathy for Keynes, who was in fact deeply conservative. He developed his theories primarily for the purpose of saving capitalism from some form of socialism. Same goes for Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose biggest economic mistake, I believe, was not that he ran big budget deficits, as all conservatives believe, but that he didn’t run deficits nearly large enough until the war forced his hand. (I discuss these points in columns here and here.)

Read the whole thing.

Playing one of the Washington's current parlour games, Massie explains why the general shouldn't run for president in 2012:

A 2012 campaign seems exceedingly improbable. For that to happen, Afghanistan would a) have to become a disaster, b) Petraeus would have to resign, blaming Barack Obama for failing in his duty and c) the public would have to back the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs rather than the President…I suspect many senior officers at the Pentagon would be horrified if this were to happen. It would politicise the military and place enormous strains upon the chain of command, not just now but in the future too, driving a wedge between the military and the civilian population. Even Douglas MacArthur realised he couldn't credibly run for the Presidency.

I'm against hate crime laws – every single one of them. I also understand and respect the argument for them, even as I strongly disagree. But what you cannot coherently hold is that there should be hate crime protections for people of faith and no hate crime protections for gays. Even if you believe, erroneously, that homoesxuality is a choice, so, obviously, is religion. The GOP's current position – against hate crime laws only when they apply to gays (even with strong guarantees of freedom of speech and religion) – is pure animus. It's bigotry – and it's coming from the very top.