Skip to content

Deliver us from Harry Reid

The Democrats have a real problem with Harry Reid. Right now we can see the pattern being set for weak, ineffectual, vacillating “leadership” of the Senate, which will inevitably lead to a failure to pass and implement Obama’s programs. The same people who rolled over to give Bush, an unelected President, carte blanche for eight years will join the Republicans to cripple Obama in the early going

First, let us pause to consider where Reid chooses to make a stand. Whatever you think of the Burris appointment, the fact is that there is no legal way that he can be refused a seat. Posturing prior to the appointment was acceptable, but posturing now makes no sense. It is particularly depressing that the Democrats can’t simply come forward and say that the law is the law, like it or not, and that Burris gets the seat. He’s an odd duck, but from all appearances, far superior to what passes for Senators from most of the red states. Reid has managed to make a bad situation far worse by fighting a battle that he must inevitably lose. He will inevitably have to back down, something he’s actually pretty good at, but Burris may be the first Democrat that’s ever made him do it.

Meanwhile, we have the spectacle of Harry Reid, the long time Bush enabler, signaling that he will by no means be enabling Obama:

Reid stated, “I don’t believe in the executive power trumping everything… I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.

Those are actually very laudable sentiments. Who can disagree? Harry may even have endorsed them during the Bush presidency, but if he ever talked the talk, he never walked the walk. Somehow, he couldn’t bring himself to actually face down the man he says was the worst president in history. Unfortunately, there’s little doubt that he’ll walk the walk now, frustrating Obama while continuing to roll over and spout his “It takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate” nonsense whenever the Republicans decide to be obstructionist, which will, by the way, be always.

The Democrats and Obama have about a 6 month window of opportunity to prove that they can govern effectively. The Republicans are going to try to shut that window, but they needn’t go to a great deal of effort. The Democrats, with Reid in the “lead”, will shut it for them.

Reid, by the way, also believes that poor Ted Stevens should be spared jail time. According to Reid, poor Ted just didn’t understand that we’re living in a different world from the graft ridden one in which he rose to power, and that he’s been punished enough. As far as I know, so far he’s only lost an election. I’ve probably lost more elections than Stevens. Maybe I should get some get out of jail free card for a crime of my choice.

I hazard a prediction: every major piece of legislation proposed by Obama will die or be maimed in the Senate.

Caroline Kennedy’s candidacy

By no means am I a Caroline Kennedy partisan. I will lose no sleep if she is not appointed to the Senate. Nonetheless I’m a bit mystified at the heated opposition her “candidacy” has generated in certain corners of the blogosphere, particularly at Firedoglake. In the latest piece on the subject, “Eli” argues that a potential Senator needs some minor league seasoning before hitting the big time:

The record shows that making the jump to the big leagues without any experience is not a recipe for prolonged success. Mike Morgan,the only one of those four players who sustained any kind of career, did spend two years in the minors after a terrible start. There is value to seasoning and experience, especially when it comes to high-pressure jobs like United States Senator or, yes, major-league pitcher.

In truth and in fact, plenty of people have made perfectly good Senators without serving time in the minors. It really isn’t like baseball. Baseball is harder. Just ask Jim Bunning, who had to retire when he lost his fastball, but who satisfies his constituents as a Senator, despite his senility. Moreover, if memory serves, Firedoglake was a big Lamont supporter, about whom the same argument was made by Joltin’ Joe (to extend the baseball analogy) Lieberman.

I can understand the anti-dynasty argument, and I’m sympathetic to it, but it seems that the anti-Kennedyites are becoming a bit rabid on this subject.


I want one


Coming Events

It’s that time again. While we ordinarily hold our Drinking Liberally Meetings on the first Thursday of the month, we decided that wouldn’t be such a good idea this month, considering the first Thursday was a holiday. So this month, and this month only, we will meet on the Second Thursday of the Month, once again at the Bulkeley House, 111 Bank Street in New London. We start at 6:30, though latecomers (within reason) are always welcome.

Also on the horizon is the end of our national nightmare, scheduled to take place at the stroke of noon, Eastern Standard Time on the 20th. We in Groton are going to be celebrating on the 20th at the Par Four restaurant at 93 Plant Street. We plan to be there starting at around 11:30. Even people from outside our fair city are invited. Here’s a critical excerpt from the mass mailing that my spouse sent out:

Please understand —we have not made reservations for food…since we don’t know how many people will be coming. We’ve simply arranged for at least one of the large screen TV’s to broadcast the event, and agreed a few of us will definitely be there and we hope many others will join us!!! But if you want to, you can choose and purchase your own food and drink.

Just as you should not drink alone, you should not watch this inauguration alone. You need to be with like minded people, so come to the Par Four and enjoy this historic day.


Unmitigated gall

It’s hard to decide which is more egregious: the gall of John Yoo and John Bolton warning Barack Obama to stay within the constitutional limitations of the presidency, or the outrageousness of the New York Times decision to give these two fascists a platform.

I have said on numerous occasions that both the courts and the Republicans would suddenly discover that the president’s powers are limited, once a Democrat was elected. It will take a while for the courts to weigh in, but the Republicans are starting even before the inauguration. Imagine John Yoo, the torture enabler, the man who said that George Bush could make and unmake law at will, telling Barack Obama that he should avoid cutting constitutional corners. The article is in the opinion section of the New York Times. I refuse to provide a link, as a tiny protest against the irresponsibility of the Times giving these two a forum.

And who are Bolton and Yoo? Well, according to the Times:

John R. Bolton, the ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option.” John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003, is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Just a few facts are missing. Among them: John R. Bolton is also the man who became ambassador to the United Nations because George Bush chose to cut constitutional corners by giving him a recess appointment after his nomination failed to pass the Senate. John Yoo is the guy who authored the torture memo, which Kevin drum aptly summed up as follows:

Basically, the president can authorize any action at all as commander-in-chief in wartime. Congress can’t bind him, treaties can’t bind him, and the courts can’t bind him. The scope of power the memos suggest is, almost literally, absolute. And since this is a war without end, the grant of power is also without end.

The New York Times gives these guys space to lecture Obama on constitutional niceties. Will there ever come a time when the “liberal” media will stop enabling these people?


Harry Reid says that Bush is the worst president ever

Harry Reid states the obvious: Bush is the worst president ever:

Given that he believes that, we must wonder why he did such a terrible job opposing the man, and why he caved in to him at almost every turn.

(Video from Think Progress)


My nomination for the Bush turning point

Bush is busily trying to burnish his legacy, and while the Washington Post appears to be assisting in every way possible, it’s a pretty good bet that the American people have now arrived at a settled judgment that even the “liberal” media won’t be able to alter. Many of the articles discussing this subject date the significant shift in Bush’s standing to the Katrina disaster, but I would suggest that Katrina represented more of a knockout blow to an already staggering President.

Bush started his first term by trying to destroy Social Security, which didn’t set well with the 98% or more of us who will actually need that money to get by in our geezer years. But what really sent his approval on the downward slide was the now almost forgotten Terry Schiavo episode.

The American people had been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he was accused of preferring to extend his vacation rather than deal with a pre 9/11 terrorist threat. But the sight of him rushing back to Washington from yet another vacation in order to inject the federal government into a personal, family issue, on the side with which most sane people disagreed sent him into a tailspin from which he never recovered.

There were those (including me) who saw the political opportunities the Schiavo crisis gave to the Democrats, but in true Democratic style, which persists to this day (I admit the post to which I linked was wrong about Reid) the Democrats ran scared. But that didn’t matter much. The American people were appalled, and when the Democrats in Congress came out of hiding they realized that Bush had suffered a huge self inflicted wound.

It was the Schiavo fiasco (along with the Social Security debacle) that set Bush up for the Katrina kill. Not many people, except the usual right wing suspects, were willing to cut him any slack when he screwed that up, precisely because they had already turned on him. Katrina may have made his position irretrievable, but it was Schiavo that turned the American people against him.

In my own humble opinion, what Bush and the Republicans did about Schiavo (with help from some scared Democrats such as Dodd, and turncoats such as Lieberman) was worse as a matter of principle than the Katrina disaster. Katrina was an example of incompetence on a grand scale. That’s not good, but it’s not evil. Schiavo was an example of a calculated attack on our system of government and on the basic human rights of our citizens, all rolled up into one. It was evil, one among many, and perhaps not the worst atrocity in which Bush and his folks engaged. But it was one to which every American can relate (and it was free of ambiguity, as opposed to the torture issue, which after all only applied to suspected terrorists), because each of us knew that one day we might have to make the same decision that Schiavo’s husband had to make, and none of us wanted the government making that decision for us, particularly a government run by religious bigots.

Update: Digby agrees.


Franken lead swells

The recount is, as far as I can see, over, and Franken is ahead by 225 votes. You can watch the proceedings at theuptake.org.


Friday Night Music-Mavis Staples

Thanks to a reader for this suggestion, as well as a few more that I’m keeping in reserve. I never heard of this lady before, but I enjoyed this song.


Obama’s Vietnam

A case can be made that the best President this country has had, since Roosevelt, was Lyndon Johnson. It’s more than arguable that Kennedy did not have the political skills needed to get the Civil Rights bills through Congress, not to mention Medicare and a host of other initiatives. Johnson had all the tools to be a great domestic President, but he was undone by Vietnam. He was basically uninterested in foreign policy, but also basically uncertain, so he allowed himself to be led around by the best and the brightest, who led us and him into a morass. What a different history we would have had, if he had pulled out of Vietnam at the beginning of his first elected term. He could have done it, with a minimal erosion of political support. The inflation brought on by trying to fund a war and government programs might never have happened. We might never have had Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan would have died as he should have, a doddering old actor. We would likely have gotten National Health Care in the late 60s. The list goes on.

There are no truly exact parallels in history. Obama is not Johnson. He has more self confidence on issues of foreign policy, for one. But during the campaign, whether out of expedience or actual conviction, he tied himself to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, a war that could easily prove to be his Vietnam.

Afghanistan has a proud history of resisting foreign control. The people there would rather be under the heel of an Afghan than the thumb, however lightly pressed, of the foreigner. No one has ever been successful in dominating them and it’s unlikely that our culturally insensitive country will be any different. Add this to the history: our occupation was begun, and has been managed for seven years, by the most incompetent government this country has ever had. It’s a certainty that things will turn out bad when this is what we’ve created in the country so far:

Kept afloat by billions of dollars in American and other foreign aid, the government of Afghanistan is shot through with corruption and graft. From the lowliest traffic policeman to the family of President Hamid Karzai himself, the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it.

A raft of investigations has concluded that people at the highest levels of the Karzai administration, including President Karzai’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, are cooperating in the country’s opium trade, now the world’s largest. In the streets and government offices, hardly a public transaction seems to unfold here that does not carry with it the requirement of a bribe, a gift, or, in case you are a beggar, “harchee” — whatever you have in your pocket.

The corruption, publicly acknowledged by President Karzai, is contributing to the collapse of public confidence in his government and to the resurgence of the Taliban, whose fighters have moved to the outskirts of Kabul, the capital.

The bribes amount to a tax on ordinary Afghans of extraordinary proportions. Taxes are not so bad if the money is invested in something that benefits the taxpayer, but this money is mostly flowing into foreign banks.

I will hazard the not at all risky prediction that we will never succeed in establishing a stable government in Afghanistan. It is as rife, if not more rife, with corruption than the Vietnam we tried to prop up in the 60s. It will become as much of a Big Muddy as Vietnam and will, in the end, be far worse than Iraq.

Obama would do himself a favor if he could come up with some artful way of getting out. There will never be a good time to do so, but the best time is while he’s riding a wave of popularity and people are more concerned with the failing economy. Four years from now, were he to leave now, he will be judged almost solely on the state of the economy. If he stays, the war in Afghanistan, which started out as damaged goods he got from Bush, will belong to him. Just like Vietnam belonged to Johnson.