Thursday, September 22, 2005
Random Musings and Apathy Towards Politics
What can I say; a week of vacation without any substantial access to news or the internet required a few days of catching up on work, blogs, and news. This experience has left me, at the moment, feeling pretty much disgusted with everything having to do with government, current events, and even the law. To be honest, right now I’m not particularly sure what there is to be happy with as either a Democrat or a Republican. Both parties and their respective “leaders” seem, at least to me, to be grasping at straws in vein attempts to appease an American population who, if nothing else, is looking for leadership and finding at best a bunch of stuffed shirts and empty suits. Let me just run through a couple of events with some comments and perhaps my lethargy will become more apparent.
Hurricane Relief
I don’t know that I have a lot to say about this that hasn’t already been said by others. I was able to watch much of the President’s speech last week, in which he basically promised to do whatever it took to fix the Gulf Coast and as best as he could tried to apologize or at least admit that mistakes were made by his administration. True, mistakes were made by all levels of government and the state and local officials deserve their fair share of the blame, which I am sure they will get from Congress once they start “investigating” (read grandstanding). Hopefully, with Hurricane Rita primed to hit Texas we all have learned something about disaster relief and will be better prepared for the damage that appears just around the corner.
The blame game, however, doesn’t really interest me all that much, as I said; I think there is more than plenty to go around to everyone at every level. What interests/bothers me is that it is this type of event, i.e., a natural disaster that seems to creating a schism in American politics. Just look at the newspapers and news accounts. Republicans are divided over how, or if, to pay for damage relief. Democrats are pissed off about the form that the investigation into the botched response is going to take and their role in the criticism chorus. I mean what are we all fighting about? Why can’t someone from either party simply step up and lead? (Please, GC, Paul, don’t tell me that the President has, because that’s just not the case. Sure he’s been marginally better than most, but come on, making a few visits to the damaged areas and promising to rebuild is the bare minimum of leadership, we all deserve better) We need a national figure that can resolve differences, quiet the bickering, and unite the country behind an effort that is likely going to require some sort of genuine sacrifice by all Americans, unlike any we’ve seen since WWII. Maybe that’s part of the problem; from the baby boomers through generation X, to whatever they are calling the latest generation, we don’t know or understand real sacrifice, as we have never really been required to give it. I don’t profess to know what the answers are, but I’m really tired of seeing the same old faces on TV and in the papers saying the same old things and expecting that we will all follow like lemmings off a cliff. Something’s got to give.
The Supreme Court
I have even less to say about the events of the last couple of weeks relating to Judge Roberts and whomever the President nominates to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat. I think that Senator Kerry summed it up the best when he called the confirmation process “increasingly sterile” and “little more than an empty shell.” We got exactly what was expected. Simply put, the hearing produced bad questions from the Senators of both parties and non-answers from an incredibly bright nominee. We don’t really know any more about him and his judicial philosophy than before he participated in the hearing. All of this of course, begs the question, why have hearings at all? I mean we didn’t used to hold nomination hearings and they seem to be less than necessary now. However, as we all know TV rules politics, and this was free air time for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, many of whom have never met a microphone that they didn’t like.
In partial response to GC’s earlier post about the Democrats response to Roberts, disappointed might be a bit strong, but I’ll say that I got exactly what I expected, i.e., nothing of substance. To me it seems like the opposition to Roberts, if you can call it that was nothing more than pure politics. The Dems trotted out the safest members of their caucus and have them doing the brunt of the talking and shouting against Roberts's confirmation. I mean come on, Senators Kennedy, Schumer, and Feinstein are three of the safest seats in existence, so they are the one in perfect position to “play to the base” and lay the foundation for the fire breathing that will ensue over the next nominee. Meanwhile, all the other Dems are free to “vote their conscious,” which means that any Democratic Senator from a “red” state or who is up for re-election in 2006 will vote to confirm Judge Roberts. Thus, at the end of the day Roberts will get between 65-75 votes, and will take his seat as Chief Justice, as expected, on the first Monday in October. Mark my words though, justified or not, Roberts was a cakewalk compared to whomever the President selects as his next nominee. This of course is, in and of itself, a sad commentary on the state of the Senate’s ability to perform its constitutional function of advice and consent, but that’s another post. I will say this though, I was glad to hear, from Senators on both sides of the isle, a bit of institutional interest expressed, especially on the issue of deference to the will and reasoning of the Congress. Unfortunately, that’s the only thing that I found as a positive about the whole experience.
Hopefully this in part explains my overall apathy towards things right now. I truly hope that things will improve in a short period of time, but we’re a week from the end of the federal fiscal year and Congress still hasn’t passed all of its required appropriations bills, so I’m not too optimistic. Maybe I’m wrong and a true national leader will emerge because as I honestly look ahead to the mid-terms in 2006 and the Presidential race in 2008, I do not like what and who I see from either major party.
Hurricane Relief
I don’t know that I have a lot to say about this that hasn’t already been said by others. I was able to watch much of the President’s speech last week, in which he basically promised to do whatever it took to fix the Gulf Coast and as best as he could tried to apologize or at least admit that mistakes were made by his administration. True, mistakes were made by all levels of government and the state and local officials deserve their fair share of the blame, which I am sure they will get from Congress once they start “investigating” (read grandstanding). Hopefully, with Hurricane Rita primed to hit Texas we all have learned something about disaster relief and will be better prepared for the damage that appears just around the corner.
The blame game, however, doesn’t really interest me all that much, as I said; I think there is more than plenty to go around to everyone at every level. What interests/bothers me is that it is this type of event, i.e., a natural disaster that seems to creating a schism in American politics. Just look at the newspapers and news accounts. Republicans are divided over how, or if, to pay for damage relief. Democrats are pissed off about the form that the investigation into the botched response is going to take and their role in the criticism chorus. I mean what are we all fighting about? Why can’t someone from either party simply step up and lead? (Please, GC, Paul, don’t tell me that the President has, because that’s just not the case. Sure he’s been marginally better than most, but come on, making a few visits to the damaged areas and promising to rebuild is the bare minimum of leadership, we all deserve better) We need a national figure that can resolve differences, quiet the bickering, and unite the country behind an effort that is likely going to require some sort of genuine sacrifice by all Americans, unlike any we’ve seen since WWII. Maybe that’s part of the problem; from the baby boomers through generation X, to whatever they are calling the latest generation, we don’t know or understand real sacrifice, as we have never really been required to give it. I don’t profess to know what the answers are, but I’m really tired of seeing the same old faces on TV and in the papers saying the same old things and expecting that we will all follow like lemmings off a cliff. Something’s got to give.
The Supreme Court
I have even less to say about the events of the last couple of weeks relating to Judge Roberts and whomever the President nominates to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat. I think that Senator Kerry summed it up the best when he called the confirmation process “increasingly sterile” and “little more than an empty shell.” We got exactly what was expected. Simply put, the hearing produced bad questions from the Senators of both parties and non-answers from an incredibly bright nominee. We don’t really know any more about him and his judicial philosophy than before he participated in the hearing. All of this of course, begs the question, why have hearings at all? I mean we didn’t used to hold nomination hearings and they seem to be less than necessary now. However, as we all know TV rules politics, and this was free air time for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, many of whom have never met a microphone that they didn’t like.
In partial response to GC’s earlier post about the Democrats response to Roberts, disappointed might be a bit strong, but I’ll say that I got exactly what I expected, i.e., nothing of substance. To me it seems like the opposition to Roberts, if you can call it that was nothing more than pure politics. The Dems trotted out the safest members of their caucus and have them doing the brunt of the talking and shouting against Roberts's confirmation. I mean come on, Senators Kennedy, Schumer, and Feinstein are three of the safest seats in existence, so they are the one in perfect position to “play to the base” and lay the foundation for the fire breathing that will ensue over the next nominee. Meanwhile, all the other Dems are free to “vote their conscious,” which means that any Democratic Senator from a “red” state or who is up for re-election in 2006 will vote to confirm Judge Roberts. Thus, at the end of the day Roberts will get between 65-75 votes, and will take his seat as Chief Justice, as expected, on the first Monday in October. Mark my words though, justified or not, Roberts was a cakewalk compared to whomever the President selects as his next nominee. This of course is, in and of itself, a sad commentary on the state of the Senate’s ability to perform its constitutional function of advice and consent, but that’s another post. I will say this though, I was glad to hear, from Senators on both sides of the isle, a bit of institutional interest expressed, especially on the issue of deference to the will and reasoning of the Congress. Unfortunately, that’s the only thing that I found as a positive about the whole experience.
Hopefully this in part explains my overall apathy towards things right now. I truly hope that things will improve in a short period of time, but we’re a week from the end of the federal fiscal year and Congress still hasn’t passed all of its required appropriations bills, so I’m not too optimistic. Maybe I’m wrong and a true national leader will emerge because as I honestly look ahead to the mid-terms in 2006 and the Presidential race in 2008, I do not like what and who I see from either major party.
# posted by mouldfan : 8:07 AM
