The Political Spectrum

This guy was several thousand votes away from being President.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

So I guess only idiots end up in the military, huh?

Well, Kerry is a vet.

Unreal.

Read more!

A Christian theocracy is suppodedly emerging in America, especially if you listen to the shrieks of people like Andy Sullivan and the like.  And there's no doubt much about Christianity that is suspect, especially as regards religion.  Take this story out of Australia:

Australia's most prominent Catholic priest was threatened with deportation today after he was reported to have said that women who "sway suggestively" and do not cover up can provoke sexual assault by men.

He went on to say to "worshippers in Sydney that women who display their bodies were like 'uncovered meat'."

This comes on the story of this Washington Post story.

When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Christian man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."

[snip]The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Christian world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha's work at my Morgantown church, where an Christian student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.

Truly shocking.  Of course, in the actual stories above, the words Catholic and Christian are replaced by Muslim, priest by cleric, and church by Mosque.  But you won't be seeing too many books about the horrors of impending Muslim Theocracy in your local bookstore.  While Kevin Phillips is railing about the evils of Bush's theocratic regime, this sort of bile is being spread throughout much of the world.

It's staggering that we've willfully blinded ourselves to the true horrors of this world in order that we can focus on the impending doom of global warming and the like. (And yes, I am currently reading Mark Steyn's new book, can't you tell?)  The internal combustion engine might be the greatest threat to human civilization, though an enraged jihadi with a suicide bomb strapped to his body can do an awful lot of damage, and if things keep going as they are in Europe, there will be a lot more of the latter to worry about than the former.

So, secularists, keep fretting about the evils of the Bush regime.  We surely can't deal with this oppressive theocracy.

Oh, by the way, the New Jersey Supreme Court has basically thus mandated gay marriage be permitted in the state.

When will this Christian theocracy be stopped?

Read more!

I'm proud to announce that the little guy above is my new son, Joseph Thomas Briscoe. We are very blessed as our third child was born healthy and reasonable happy on October 10, 2006 in Port Charlotte, Florida at a full 9 pounds, 15 ounces, and 21 inches long. He has dark green eyes and a full head of dark brown hair. Having a 4 year-old, a 2 year-old, and a newborn has proved a challenge these past 2 weeks. And I'm sure it'll drive me crazy at times! But it has also been even more rewarding. I know that being a Big Daddy will continue to define my life as I slide into my 30s this year.

Moving right along, I know there has been a lot of pessimism expressed on this blog over the past few months. And sure I know there are lots of real problems out there for which no candidate appearing on any ballot this November offers any real solutaions. But, personally, I'm pretty pumped about the state of our country's politcal spectrum these days. Whether the Democrats take Congress or the GOP manages to hang on, I think a strong message has been sent to Washington and, more specifically, to the President that we're ready for political change. All signs point towards 2008 being a watershed election in our nation's history. And that's something we should all welcome, regardless of politcal party.

Take the issue of Iraq for example. In another era, this could have easily become another Vietnam where protestors were forced to reside on the fringe of our culture (damn hippies!) and it takes 10 years or more to accomplish real change in a flawed government policy. Not anymore. With the internet, talk radio, blogs, satellite technology, an aggressive and embedded press, and all sorts of outlets for public expression, we don't need the candlelight vigils and annoying protest marches anymore. Those of us who have been standing up to the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense on Iraq for several years have now gained the clear moral backing of the America public. And I believe we'll see real change soon.

My final thought. The next time you hear a Republican defend Bush's Iraq policies by saying "we need to leave decision making in Iraq to the generals on the ground", remember that if Abraham Lincoln had done the same during the Civil War, we might still have two Americas to this day. Yes, we need to trust and consider the judgments of our generals. However, we also must remember that it is our elected leaders in Washington who oversee all aspects of our government -- including our military. Let's hold them accountable, and not allow blame for the mess in Iraq to be passed either to our brave soldiers or their leaders on the ground.

Hope everyone is well. 2 more weeks till Election Day!

Read more!

As part of my erstwhile attempt to bore the living daylights out of most of you, I’m going to continue to rant about the decline of what I’ve termed “institutionalism” (I don’t really want to take credit for the term, so if anyone can point to another more respected scholar who has used the term in a manner similar to the way I do, please let me know). This time, however, I’ve got a couple of concrete examples from today’s Washington Post. Returning to previous form, click read more to see the rest of the post.

The first story is a front pager, albeit below the fold, about Speaker Hastert and his inner circle with respect to their dealing with the Foley issue. I’m not concerned or interested at all in the specifics of the story as they relate to “Foley-gate,” rather I found a couple of comments much more worthy of exploration. At several times the article notes that Hastert is the leader of the GOP caucus and that his focus has been on running that group as opposed to being the leader of the House of Representatives. For example, the article notes that “[e]ven Hastert’s defenders acknowledge that his top priority as speaker has been protecting the GOP majority, not investigating the president or his own caucus.” A couple of other quotes, one from a Democrat and one from a Republican, seem to bear this observation out. According to Rham Emmanuel (D-Ill), “[w]hen it’s come to a choice between the integrity of the House or the Republican majority, he's always put his thumb on the scale to protect the majority.” According to Grover Norquist, “… everyone knows he represents the caucus agenda, not his own agenda.”

The shift from viewing the role of Speaker first as the leader of the House and then as caucus or party leader, to Speaker as party leader and then, when it’s politically convenient, as leader of the House, has been one of many examples of the decline of “institutionalism” that I’ve witnessed over the last 6 years. Perhaps much of this decline is due to the fact that the President and the Congress are led by members of the same party. While that may explain some of the decline, I’m not convinced that it explains all, or even most, of it. Rather, what seems to be happening is a general lack of interest and understanding of the roles that our respective institutions qua institutions are supposed to have in our tri-partite system of separation of powers. More depressing, at least for people like me -- who see Congress (and to a lesser extent state legislatures) as the cornerstone of a republic like ours – is that the other institutions (SCOTUS and the President) don’t appear to be suffering from the same institutional malaise. One often hears the President speak of “the Presidency,” or more broadly, what is in the best interest of the Executive Branch, which he is the constitutionally appointed leader. Similarly, if one pays close attention to the Court, you’d find similar sentiments coming from the Office of the Chief Justice, who is the constitutionally appointed leader of the Judiciary, and the only named officer in Article III of the Constitution. Conversely, one never, or hardly ever, hears anyone, not the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, or anyone else; speak about the House or the Senate as a body independent of the current political party that is currently in control. (I suppose one could point to the debates over the so-called “nuclear option,” where there was some mention of the “good of the Senate,” but outside of that I challenge anyone to find me examples of concern for the body itself)

Lest it not be forgotten, the Speaker of the House is a “constitutional officer,” at least in the sense that the position is specifically referenced in the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. 1, sec. 2, cl. 5. Unlike the Senate Majority Leader, who is not mentioned as the leader of the Senate (that is the Vice-President, though one could argue we’ve effectively changed that even without an amendment), the Speaker of the House arguably has a “constitutional” duty to protect and defend the interests of the body whenever challenged or threatened, either internally, by the actions or inactions of rank and file members, or externally, by the other branches. Again this harkens back to issues about rules and procedures, which are not the subject of our current political discourse, which, as previously noted, is preoccupied by innocuous spewing and meaningless platitudes about “issues” that aren’t ever going to be actually be addressed. The quiescence of Congress over the last 6+ years is doing damage to the institution itself. I say this regardless of which party controls.

By the way should one respond by saying that the Democrats are/were no better when they controlled the House, I’d have to respectfully disagree. For example, Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neil (D-Mass.) was arguably single-handedly responsible for the creation of the House General Counsel’s office, which is the body that represents the interest of the House during litigation. Prior to O’Neil, the House relied on the Department of Justice or individual Members to represent the body in litigation often merely though amicus briefs. While arguably not the most notable example or even a widely known one, it demonstrates a concern that the House as an institution needed its own legal representation and at times would have to defend its actions in court against a strong executive who’s positions may not always be in accord with what Congress needed or wanted done. I’ve got no sense that the current leadership (or any potential future democratic leadership) could do or would do what O’Neil did with respect to legal representation.

My second example deals with the line of Presidential succession, which was discussed in a small blurb on the federal page of today’s Washington Post. The article concerned the fact that there is a “non-public” (post says “secret”) document that contains a line of succession for the Speaker’s office for “continuity of Congress” purposes. This was reportedly done shortly after Sept. 11, due to the fear that a terrorist attack could potentially wipe out numerous Members of Congress and cripple the government. As I’m sure most of you know, the line of Presidential succession is determined in part by the Constitution and in part by a federal statute, 3 U.S.C. § 19 (2000). The Constitution, specifically the 25th Amendment, deals with succession from the President to the Vice-President, while the federal statute deals with other contingencies, including no eligible Vice-President, in which case the line proceeds to the Speaker of the House then the President pro-tempore of the Senate and down through the cabinet officials. Of course there has been a tremendous amount of debate over the statutory provisions as there constitutionality is at least questionable (though practically I think there is some merit to them). The fact that in the face of these unanswered and arguably unanswerable constitutional questions, the House would choose to potentially add further confusion to the issue by appointing a “non-public” line of succession to the Speaker’s office is a bit befuddling and at least to me demonstrates a bit of a “tin ear" with respect to the seriousness of these issues.

While there is nothing, in my opinion, illegal or unconstitutional (see U.S. Const. Art. 1, sec. 5, cl. 2 (granting each House the ability to make its own rules)) about a line of succession for the Speaker’s office in the event of a national emergency, the fact that such an action may have implications on the potential line of succession of the President appears not to have been considered, or if was considered, the rationale not made known. Moreover, I don’t really have a problem with the list itself being secret; what I object to is the potential oversight of the consequences (both intended and unintended) that the utilization of such a list might cause. One should keep in mind that the qualifications for Members of the House, the Senate, and Presidency are all different. Thus, it is possible for a person to be Speaker to be constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President (for example, a Speaker could either not be 35 years of age, or he/she could not be a native born citizen). That’s just the tip of the iceberg with respect to potential legal/constitutional problems with such an action. While on one hand I applaud the House for taking steps to ensure its continuity during a crisis. On the other hand, it seems a rather ill-conceived formulation and something that the general public arguably has a right to know about. I suppose my point is to reference another example of long-term institutional security getting second fiddle, when it should be the ONLY concern of Members regardless of party. I don't mean to suggest anything untoward here, I'm sure there were good intentions as much of the continunity issues have been dealt with in a bi-partisian manner. I'm merely suggesting that concern for the institution wasn't the main concern when it should have been, and that reflects poorly on all Members involved.

Read more!

A few posts below, GipperClone and I have been arguing, no, discussing (we may disagree about some details, but we’re hardly “arguing,” at least not the way we have on other issues) about the merits of a “line-item veto,” something to which readers of this space know that I am adamantly opposed to (see here). One of the debated points has been about what types of people should be elected to federal office, specifically Congress. GC, believes, (as always, he is free to correct anything I’ve attributed to him) and it is a legitimate belief, that Congress will never possess the “political will” to cut spending the way he, and many others, think should be done. To solve this problem, however, he proposes electing Presidents that, using a "line-item veto," will achieve his expressed goal of significantly reducing federal spending. I, on the other hand, as a liberal, don’t really have as big a problem with the spending. But, even assuming that I did, my solution is not for Congress to abdicate power to the President via a “line-item veto,” but rather to either institute real institutional changes in Congress, or elect better Congresspersons.

Of course, as readers of this space have noticed, and some have appropriately labeled me, I’m a big nerd/geek/wonkish type who pays far too much attention to minute details and finds things interesting that few if anyone else does. I could try to blame much of this on my profession, which requires, inter alia, an arcane knowledge of law, history, politics, and congressional procedure, but there are too many of you who know me personally for that to get me very far. All of this is by way of pointing out a flaw in my own position. Namely, that the average voter doesn’t care about procedures, they are only concerned with results. This rather obvious observation, I think, explains in large part why a “line-item veto” is so popular with the voting populace, even though I so firmly believe it to be a procedural disaster and an accident of destructive proportions just waiting to happen. In other words, support for the “line-item veto” has nothing to do with intelligence or even knowledge it has to do with getting a palpable change in the federal budget, primarly one that makes it smaller. GC is a very smart, intelligent person who has my utmost respect, and he supports the idea, though for very sophisticated reasons not often articulated by others. Support comes from the fact that the “line-item veto” will produce results, where as opposition appears to be a vote for the status quo (a bloated federal budget with too many special interest earmarks), which many people object to.

Yes, I’m oversimplifying to a huge degree. Nevertheless, I’ve been forced to ask the question, is it possible to elect better Congresspersons or I’m I merely deluding myself? I fear the latter may be true, especially when I get home and see TV ads for local candidates talking about how they “love puppies” (Michael Steele) or how they will “change the culture of Washington” (Ben Cardin). I mean come on, are these the criteria that we are supposed to use when electing Members of Congress? With crap like this from both parties, I can see why our very own Paul Zummo has taken a hiatus from politics blogging. Most campaigns are supposedly about “issues,” but too often the candidates don’t have a clue what the hell they are talking about. I’m not limiting this to the substance of these so-called "issues," but if I hear one more candidate say that if you send them to Washington they will “fix health care,” “reform social programs,” or “end the war in Iraq,” I’m going to punch someone. Members of Congress, especially freshman Members can’t do any of these things. They can’t investigate government waste, fraud, and abuse or other excesses by government actors; let’s be honest here, freshman Members can’t even walk and chew gum at the same time. They simply don't know enough. Congress is a complicated place; it is unlike any other office or group body in the country, even state legislatures or city councils can't measure up to its complexity. It litteraly takes years to master the rules and procedures. Thus, much of a Member's first couple of terms are spent just figuring out what the heck is happening around them on a daily basis (these observations, by the way, are some of the many practical reasons to oppose term limits, legal objections aside).

Is it too much to ask that our candidates actually know a thing or two about how Congress works? Instead of the questions normally put to candidates wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear someone ask about how a “motion to recommit” works, or how about ensuring that there are more “open rules” and, therefore, more actual substantive debate on the House floor? Why don’t we judge prospective members on the things they actually control, like whether to expand the jurisdiction of the ethics committees, or reduce the power of committee chairmen by requiring the express consent of the ranking member before proceeding to new business, taking votes, or passing bills? What about establishment of jurisdiction over committees, to ensure that the right people actually get to review substantive legislation before it goes to the floor, or inserting a 72-hour reading rule that isn’t able to be waived by a mere majority vote so that Members and staff can actually read the laws they pass?

I know, I know, we’d all rather read and talk about “maccaa” or what Jim Webb said about Naval Academy women 25 years ago, because that’s what really matters when you send people to Congress. Face facts folks, the procedures matter, the rules matter, the arcane history matters, it matters more than almost anything else up here. I don’t expect people to care deeply about these things, but I do expect that they at least expect their elected officials to care. Keep sending the pretty smiling faces, and the rich connected real estate moguls to Washington and you’ll continue to get more of the status quo, not because they like it, but because they don’t know or care enough about how to change it.

Read more!

How different the world looks during an election year…

The National Democratic Party wants to talk about North Korea now that the midget king lit off a nuclear device. More correctly, they want to paint a picture of a government so consumed by the Iraq war that it negligently encouraged the acquisition of nuclear technology by Kim Jung Il.

(All quotes lifted from FoxNews online.)

Harry Reid, that powerhouse of the American political machine, stated that, "[d]istracted by Iraq and paralyzed by internal divisions, the Bush administration has for several years been in a state of denial about the growing challenge of North Korea, and has too often tried to downplay the issue or change the subject."

Fearful that he might be perceived as other than a “team player” during this critical period of toadying, Robert Menendez, Sen-D-NJ, echoes his bosses in asserting that "[w]hile George Bush bogged our military down to topple a regime that had no weapons of mass destruction, a brutal dictator in North Korea has strengthened a nuclear arsenal that has the potential to threaten the West Coast of the United States." (I thought only the Administration engaged in “fear mongering.” The fear of nuclear annihilation must be REAL… After all, a Democrat is saying it. I mean, it is not like we are talking about terrorism… What are the chances that a rag-tag, fugitive army, led by an Islamist fanatic would attack the US on our own soil? What was the Administration thinking by laying out such a far-fetched tale?)

Fortunately, the collective memory of Washington is regularly inhibited by the heady pursuit of power or my Democratic counterparts might be forced to remember that Bush Sr. and Clinton failed to bring that evil Korean Oompah-Loompah to heel. Menendez has a particularly limited recollection of history, leading me to wonder if he has not suffered from some recent head injury. To illustrate, he stated that, “[w]e had the opportunity to stop North Korea from increasing its nuclear power, but George Bush went to sleep at the switch while he pursued his narrow agenda in Iraq. When the world was crying out for leadership, George Bush gave it negligence. The war in Iraq has tied our hands and our enemies know it."

Such noble concern about our enemies’ use of internal dissention and collective ignorance.

But, it is an election year and one can certainly be assured that calmer heads will prevail; that those politicians with a good head on their shoulders will make substantive, pertinent observations, without spin or misrepresentation. Take, for example Claire McCaskill’s observation that "[u]nder the Bush administration, North Korea dropped out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, kicked out inspectors, reprocessed nuclear fuel, flagrantly tested their delivery systems, and built an arsenal of six-12 nuclear weapons they did not have six years ago." (I assume from this idiotic diatribe that McCaskill sees the relationship between Mini-Me and Clinton to have been quite amicable and productive. Never mind the frank, and to their credit, acknowledgement by the former Clinton Whitehouse that Korea is a particularly thorny problem, exacerbated by the ill-will and deceitful character of its leadership.)

It is, however, refreshing to note that international crisis convinced the ever insightful Ted Kennedy to lift his head up from the bar long enough to state "[t]he Security Council should respond quickly and decisively to this act. And it is abundantly clear that the administration must go into diplomatic overdrive, working 24-7 with our allies in the region and the world to advance an effective response and prevent further North Korean tests." Thanks Ted. Where would we be without you? Hopefully your suggestion will be taken to heart and the Administration will replace its plans for the hiring of a voodoo priestess with your sage advice.

Of course, nothing plays better with the American people than a good game of “Nah-ah!!!” Take, for example, Sen. Sam Brownback’s (R-Kan) retort…"The Clinton administration didn't do much and, even while they were negotiating with the North Koreans, the North Koreans were continuing to develop nuclear weapons." Good one Sammy!!! You really got them there. There is NO way the Dems can retort to that! Hah!

So what you got Pelosi?

Well… Ms. Pelosi, House Minority Leader/D-CA, had some well-considered advice too… She noted that the House had ”recently passed [a] defense authorization bill [that] requires President Bush to appoint a high level coordinator for North Korean policy… That appointment should be made immediately and other nations whose policies on North Korea have also so clearly failed, like China, must urgently develop new approaches as well." Finally, some common-sense brought to the table. What we REALLY need is another negotiator. I mean, we’ve just been spinning our wheels for the last twenty years since we didn’t have anyone working on the problem… Oh, wait… We already have, and have had since the Korean War, a “Korean Desk” within the Dept. of State and a sitting team of negotiators in Korea. I’m sorry Madam Pelosi, what was that you insisted we should do again?

Of course, for the ultimate in comments, not based on knowledge or reason, one simply MUST go to Rep. Ed Royce, R-CA. Mr. Royce believes that the best way to deal with North Korea is “to stop every ship coming in and out of North Korea. And on each of these ships there's only two things they export. One are missiles and, two, they export opium. That will cut off the hard currency going into the regime." Of course Mr. Royce reportedly stops house fires by pouring kerosene on them, but I digress…

Not surprisingly, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. came out with the most “politically savvy” statement of the day, noting that "[t]his demonstration of defiance shows the weakness of the six-party approach as well as the danger of this administration's hands-off approach to North Korea. It is time for the U.S. to directly engage in this crisis and take strong action with the international community to address this threat to our national security." Note the subtlety of the statement… No direct assertion that the Administration has failed… just the conclusion that if we should NOW “directly engage” and “take strong action,” then we must not have been doing so up UNTIL now.

The most competent assessment in the piece was offered by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA. (I confess I never heard of this Rep before, but an intellect not corrupted by contact with the Hill is a rare find.) Rep. Rohrabacher opined: "[d]uring the Clinton administration we set up a policy and it was continued during the Bush administration, of subsidizing this lunatic regime in North Korea. That regime would have collapsed a long time ago had we not been subsidizing it. And we should immediately cut off that stipend. There is money available, we are in a tight spot now, if we don't get sucked into direct military action against North Korea, which should be the very last thing we look at, we can accomplish this by simply putting limited resources into setting up a missile defense shield now. Second, we are already moving to cut out their access to the banking system. China is now cooperating. They have frozen all the accounts. This means that Kim Jong Il will not be able to pay his generals."

You see? There ARE people in Congress with an IQ of greater than 10, loyalty to something other than their own narrow interest, and a focus on the nation as a whole rather than their respective party. They are just so DAMN rare.

Read more!

Here's your random political thought of the day. Assuming Uncle Dick decides to go home to Wyoming in 2008 to work on his shooting accuracy, the 2008 presidential election will be the first contest since 1952 where neither candidate for president will also be the incumbent president or vice-president. Yes, you have to go all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson to find one where no candidate took to the campaign trail on Air Force One or Two.

I think this bodes well for our nation. Few disagree with the thought that America longs for poltical change. This will be especially true if Democrats take Congress and we experience all those fun roadbumps of a divided government.

I don't know who will be on the ballot come November 2008. Hillary? McCain? Gore? Giuliani? Edwards? Romney? Obama? Biden? Not the most exciting bunch, at least for me right now. But 2008 has all the makings of a watershed election and it should be fun.

It's 4 weeks to Election Day and I'm already looking ahead to the following election! :-)

Read more!

I will spare us the back and forth accusations of the parties for the problems with North Korea and Iran. There is more than enough blame to go around. Suffice it to say that I believe that successive Administrations honestly sought to contain their nuclear ambitions. The U.S. has tried direct and multi-party talks, sanctions, bribery, international isolation, and internationalism. Nothing has worked.

I have argued that the difference between Iran and North Korea is one of rational and reasonable behavior. I still believe this to be true and humbly suggest that the approach to their respective problems must be individualized. We have reached the same point in both cases- North Korea has gone nuclear and Iran soon will.

Becoming a nuclear power makes both nations unassailable. It is simply as inconceivable today, as it was in 1962, that a conventional assault on a nuclear power could be contained. This effectively takes the "military option" off the table.

With regards to Iran, economic and political isolation dramatically helps the regime maintain itself. She has a largely self-contained economy, however weak, and continued dispute and international condemnation is not likely to be more effective in the next six years than it has in the last thirty.

With regards to North Korea, her people are on the edge of starvation and their economy is nonexistent. South Korea, Japan, and China are in the best position to move things along so we will have to follow their lead.

The point of this post is twofold:

First, I want to suggest that the US has no interest in maintaining the animus with Iran. Iran has a well-educated populous that clearly wants greater freedom of thought and action... albeit in a distinctly "Persian" way. We need to accept that "liberty" may take on different forms and that the Western experiment with unlimited personal and individual freedom may not be adaptable to nations with a root in communalism.

Second, I want to suggest that the US cannot take unilateral action- military, economic, or diplomatic, to bring North Korea to a state of reason. We are dealing with a collective inability to reason and a leadership that is not in touch with reality. Furthermore, our interests in the region are dwarfed by those of China. It is time to come to an agreement with China that increases her international prestige in exchange for a regime change in North Korea.

I am suggesting that the US should privately request the dismantling of the present regime (and the death of the midget king) and the installing of a subject/satellite regime in North Korea, in exchange for public acknowledgement of, and accolades for, China's pivotal role in the region. China is desperate for international prestige and a role in defining the future. We have it in our power to voluntarily cede regional hegemony and should do so.

More broadly, I envision a reinstablishment of the stability that the world enjoyed during the Cold War.

We should carve the world up into sectors of political control and negotiate only with the parties that are in the driver's seat in each sector. Iran can effectively control the Gulf states and South Central Asia. China can effectively keep the lid on Asia proper. Egypt can control North Africa and the western side of the Suez. South Africa can control Sub-Saharan Africa and Nigeria, with support, can bring Western Africa to heel. Kenya is the natural master of East Africa. Obviously Russia needs to be reinstalled as the undisputed ruler of the mountain lands of Central Asia.

So, what is left for us? Well, the Europeans will easily bring Eastern Europe under their sway, so we needn't worry about them. This leaves the US as the masters of the Western Hemisphere. We can easily bring South and Central America to us with economic and immigration policies that affirm our interrelatedness.

At the end of the day, our security rests not with our trying to control each and every threat to our interests but in placing responsibility for regional security in those nations that have the greatest interest in preventing chaos. Since our greatest contributions to Man stem not from control of land an peoples but from our influence in areas of intellectual development, technology, economic systems, and law, we need to work towards stability.

In my opinion, stability comes not from the world accepting our model of society, culture, and government but from relations between nations, devoid of military conflict. Without conflict, self-interest rules and self-interest is inherently disposed towards economic activity. Since we can't force those out of our sphere of influence, we need to accept regional hegemony as a remedy to national self-determination. If this means accepting brutality by a regional power over a smaller nation, so be it.

Read more!

This article is for those conservative or moderate readers who still plan to vote Republican in the forthcoming election. You've likely lost a lot of faith in the GOP White House after years of big government spending and foreign policy blunders. You've likely never had much faith in the GOP Senate packed with RINOs like Specter, Chaffee, Frist, and Snowe. However, your last bastion of faith in Republican leadership was probably the House of Represenatives -- the very body where Newt Gingrich's 1994 Republican Reveoltution was born.

Naturally, the news of the Mark Foley scandal bothers you. But you may feel that he's only 1 rotten apple in an otherwise decent bunch. Perhaps you can get beyond the recent disturbing news in order to focus on actual issues, like illegal immigration and homeland security, for example. And you see the House as the only place where conservatives voices have a chance to be heard. Afterall, it was the House leadership that finally took a stand (even against the will of President Bush) and last week won passage of a law that would construct a 700 mile security fence along our Mexican border. Chalk one up for the good guys, right? Something to take to the voters in November, right?

WRONG!!!

Don't believe the campaign soundbytes this fall, people. The article exposing this lie in today's Washington Post astounded me. Even I didn't think the Republican Congress was this shallow. Congress merely passed a bill that gave Homeland Security $1.2 billion (about the same amount we spend weekly in Iraq) to develop various security measures of its own choosing after consulting with world-renowned security experts like local Native American tribal chiefs.

And here's the real punchline: Bush's Homeland Security Department and its Secretary Michael Chertoff have already stated their opposition to the construction of any physical wall along the border with the money.

Read it and weep.

WASHINGTON, October 6, 2006 -- Shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."

What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure.

The office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison yesterday released a letter from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist promising to ensure that Secretary Chertoff has discretion over whether to build a fence or choose other options.

Read more!

Okay, so it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything here at TPS or anywhere for that matter. Thanks to BDJ for keeping things somewhat active during my extended absence. I could riddle you with the usual excuses, work, work, travel, work, and well there was the time when I was working, but you get the point. Now that things have slowed a bit, I’ve had some time to reflect and concoct this post.

While there are lots of things that one could say and write about the Congressman Foley situation, I only really find one element of it that is interesting to me. That element has to do with what will happen on Election Day in the Florida 16th, Foley’s district. As noted and well-respected Election Law blogger and law professor Rick Hasen has pointed out section 100.111(4)(a) of the Florida Elections Code appears to allow for “proxy candidates” in situations such as this one. By this I mean that former Congressman Foley’s name will appear on the November 7th ballot, but votes cast for him will be attributed to the Republican Party and not Foley himself. Thus, since the Florida GOP has named another candidate for the seat, a vote for Foley is in effect, assuming I’ve read and understood the law correctly, a vote for the replacement candidate. Unusual, for sure, but I’m not convinced that there is anything illegal/unconstitutional about it, nevertheless I’m opposed to such a “proxy candidate” scheme this being applied to congressional or senatorial elections.

So Mr. Hotshot Lawyer, explain that last sentence. Well as I said, my objection doesn’t necessarily stem from a strict legal or constitutional objection, but rather from a democratic and institutional perspective. I concur with Professor Hasen’s analysis of the constitutionality and legality of the Florida law, which you can read here. The Constitution clearly affords Florida the right to pass such a silly election law, but that doesn’t mean that Congress has to accept the results. Art. 1 sec. 5, cl. 1 states that “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members …,” which, of course, means that a person is not a member of Congress until Congress says that they are. Congress has in the past refused to seat members who have arrived in Washington D.C. with election credentials certifying them the winner. See, e.g., Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (reversing Congress’s decision not to seat Congressman Adam Clayton Powell on qualification clause grounds). Given the precedent for refusing to seat Members, Congress should exercise its right to refuse the seat should a “proxy candidate” wins the Florida 16th race. Simply put, the “proxy candidate” would not have “won” the election; note that I’m defining “won” in the simplest terms, namely, receipt of the most votes.

Congress, to the best of my knowledge, has always decided elections based on who received the most votes, and there is absolutely no reason to deviate from that precedent now. I don’t believe there has ever been a “proxy candidate” situation before, but from an institutional position I believe Congress should reject this idea. Besides it is not like there isn’t a solution. If Mr. Foley wins the most votes (unlikely I’m sure, but possible), he would of course refuse to take the seat and thus a vacancy would be declared and a special election would ensue. This scenario would likely result in a GOP win as the seat is a “safe” one for Republicans, according to almost every source I’ve seen. Allowing a proxy candidate” who only received votes by virtue of a quirky law would, in my opinion, do great damage to our democratic process and by extension Congress has a whole. The winner of the election wouldn’t necessarily be the person with the most votes. Thus, the legitimacy of the process would be questioned and rightly so. Congress depends on democratic legitimacy, the House of Representatives more so than any other part of our government, including the President. To allow a deviation from the principle of “person with the most votes wins,” would, it seems to me, irreparably damage that legitimacy. Of course, it is true that a write-in candidate who wins a majority of the vote outright posses no institutional problems and, therefore, should be seated by Congress. Any other combination, however, and I strongly believe Congress should refuse to seat the person and force a special election.

Read more!

Today's Pearl of Wisdom:

"The notion that it will take several hundred thousand troops to provide security in a post-Saddam Iraq is wildly off the mark."

--Paul Wolfowitz in testimony before Congress, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, February 2003

Read more!

I continue to feel vindicated about going independent after seeing more of the folly from the Republican party I left. You see, we live in the heart of the Mark Foley mess. Since 1994 he has been the representative to Congress for our hometown of Charlotte County, Florida. Foley is a disgrace to his office and our state after the news of his chasing after vulnerable and underage male Congressional interns. Actually, it wouldn't matter if he went after little girls or little boys. But what does matter is when you hide your sexual identity and/or lie about it, I believe you increase the chances of behaving like a predator when given power as Mark Foley did.

Credibility matters. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of electing Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) as an openly-gay male in the Democratic party that states its support for gay rights than with the idea of a wolf in sheep's clothing like Mark Foley who gladly accepted the votes and money of evangelical Christians opposed to gay rights for the past 12 years.

As for a possible cover-up, I think there is a strong chance Foley was protected by GOP leadership. And I hope the media stays after this story. I don't know why Dennis Hastert would help Foley stay out of trouble because the 16th district should be a "safe" Republican seat. But how could members of Congress close to Mark Foley not have known about all this? And shame on them for then allowing Foley to chair a House committee desgined to protect exploited children.

BTW, here's a quick check of my own 2006 Outbox. I knew this much and I'm a nobody. I wonder what and when others "in the know" knew?

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:37:01 -0700 (PDT)

BDJ: "However, I feel I'm a different type of conservative. Afterall, I'm the one planning to vote Democrat in November in both of my congressional elections for the first time in my life. For me, that means voting against Katherine Harris and Mark Foley. Can you really blame me? Harris is unelectable and probably unqualified. The latter is a very moderate Republican from the Palm Beach area who is a strong supporter of gay rights."

Sat, 2 Sep 2006 00:46:03 -0700 (PDT)

BDJ: "I have decided I cannot vote for Mark Foley. I'm serious about this, but it appears he is actually a Log Cabin Republican. He was "outed" last year by a gay magazine and called a press conference to denounce the story (not deny the story) and say that sexual preferences have no bearing on one's politics. Then this past year he was a leading GOP opponent of the same sex marriage ban ammendment. Hmmm. Guess what? He's also a life-long bachelor in his mid 50s and from posh and artsy Palm Beach."

Read more!