So why isn’t any of the so-called leadership — in the Capitol or in the Oval Office — listening?
On the Huffington Post, Paul Begala offers his own, lucid take on the choice facing Democrats: Pass the Senate bill, or collapse completely come November. It’s worth the time to read.
Now, here’s hoping the Democrats in charge get their acts together, get their courage on, and get moving. Pass. The. Damn. Bill.
(a) The rite in the Catholic Church formerly known as penace.
(b) A process whereby congressional resolutions are harmonized with the budget. Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, it provides a procedure to consider (certain types of) bills without allowing a fillibuster in the Senate. As such it’s suddenly become the hot topic legislatively. I would explain further but I’d muck it up. Instead, read this by Sarah Binder over at the Monkey Cage. It’s very lucid.
in convenient cartoon form.
I got this via Ezra Klein’s fantastic blog, but apparently it’s by Tom Toles.
I haven’t really gotten involved in haranguing my elected representatives before, but the possibility of health care reform is so tantalizingly close — and the apparent drift of the Democratic so-called “leadership” is so grindingly predictable and frustrating — that I’ve felt compelled to contact my representative several times. Below the fold is the email I’ve sent.
UPDATE: I claim no particular credit, but according to Talking Points Memo, Rep. Holt has in fact come out in support of (what I feel to be) the correct option, passing the Senate bill. (I am indifferent as to whether it needs to be done straight up or with amendments via reconciliation.)
(more…)One of the unsung heros of the health care debate is the Congressional Budget Office, an agency that few really understand and fewer appreciate. Ezra Klein has a tidbit on them, including a description so pithy I can’t help but steal it:
If the role of the Federal Reserve is to take away the punchbowl just as the party is getting started, the role of the Congressional Budget Office is to walk around the party telling everyone exactly how drunk they’re getting and reminding them that there will be consequences for their actions tomorrow.
I join with Mr. Klein in wishing all the hardworking government types a happy holiday.
Reading through Lawyers, Guns, and Money today, I was eventually directed to the US Army site on the service of African-Americans throughout history. The lead line of the section on the Civil War really raised my hackles: “When Federal troops invaded Southern states….” This bothered me so much I was motivated to actually write the webmaster (and my Congressman). Since I believe anything worth writing is worth using twice (at least), I’m just going to quote what I said to them:
I visited your site on the service of African-Americans in the US Army. I must admit to being extremely disturbed by the section on the Civil War, which opens with the line “When Federal troops invaded Southern states…”
Federal troops did not “invade” the South. Federal troops are free to move throughout the nation, subject only to concerns of Posse Commitatus. Federal troops redeployed to areas of the nation engaged in active insurrection, which to me seems the appropriate use of them. Secession by the Southern states was illegal and thus void, and carries no weight. Surely the official record of the Army of the United States should reflect this reality.
Likewise, without belittling those slaves impressed into frontline war service, it was not possible for them to serve “with honor” the Confederate cause — not through failings of their character, but because the South stripped them of their honor and forced them to support a rebellion dedicated to suppressing them.
I know that it’s becoming popular to sympathize with the Confederate cause, to focus on their “honor” and “chivalry” while downplaying or ignoring the brutal reality of four million people in chains for no better reason than the color of their skin. I am, however, shocked and dismayed to find such a pernicious lens deployed by the historians of the Army who fought to break those chains.
With respect,
-=-Bernard HP Gilroy
Pro-Confederate revisionism is on the rise and it really ticks me off.
I suspect I will write more on this, eventually, but for now, here’s what I’ve sent to the Obama campaign regarding the Senator’s disappointing collapse on FISA:
I have contributed over $500 to the Senator’s campaign, more than all my previous contributions in my life. I had intended to donate all the way to the $2300 limit. No more. I am finding it hard to even type the words that express my disappointment and my revulsion at the Senator’s craven position on the amended FISA bill that was just passed by the House. His words are disingenuous and misleading, and indicate either that he does not understand this issue or that — cynically — he assumes ordinary Americans won’t understand it.
As a senator he has taken an oath — the same oath he hopes to take on Inauguration Day — to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. A law that circumvents the Fourth Amendment, hands the executive unfettered powers of surveillance, and grants immunity to those who have flagrantly broken the law to date — that sort of law is the death knell of a free republic.
The Senator claims to offer change. I had hoped that the change would be Democrats standing up for what is right, stepping up to defend the Constitution. I had hoped the Senator would know to put principle before politics. I am no rosy-eyed daydreamer. I understand that taking the right stand would entail risks and would expose the Senator to the vacuous accusations of unpatriotism that is the forte of the rabid Right. I even concede that, with so many of his colleagues abandoning their own duties, there is a good chance that he would expend political capital only to be defeated.
I don’t care.
There are times to play the cards you’re dealt, and there are times to kick over the table and refuse to play the game. True leaders understand the difference. When fundamental protections that have been hallowed by centuries face erosion and destruction, I think the line is pretty bright. Senator Obama should have known that this is an issue on which there should be no compromise. This is the issue to take to the American people, who are smart enough to understand the threat. This is the issue to take to the wall, to the very edge, because if we tolerate the destruction of our Constitution, there will be no America in which to raise our children.
I am surprised and shocked and saddened that apparently the Senator does not see this. And until I see evidence that he does in fact have both the savvy and the character I thought he did, I will not contribute another penny. I will route that money, instead, to groups like ActBlue and the ACLU, who have their eyes on the ball.
The final irony here is that — literally at the moment I heard the news — I was clicking over to this site to donate another $100 as my show of support for his decision to reject public financing. From what I know of his supporters, he might come to regret that decision… a lot of us will be holding back.
On 2008 May 22, John McCain attacked his presumed opponent Barack Obama (and of course, that’s just politics, so it’s fine), saying
But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief.
Here’s the problem. McCain is wrong. He’s not running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. In case it’s slipped his mind, he’s running for the office of ???????? ????? ????????President of the United States. One of the roles played by the President — but only one — is Commander-in-Chief.
At first I was going to just note this and move on, assuming it’s just a mildly disturbing shorthand, a tea-leaf you have to peer at. I was going to caution that this creeping tendency — to identify the nation’s highest civil office soley with its military aspect — is a sign of the crumbling of our American ideals and that we all just blow by it too quickly.
Then I went online and read a few posts that scared the bejeebus out of me. Because apparently a lot of people don’t recognize even the abstract point. They literally do identify the two roles as if they are inseparable. In my life I’ve played the game of “What would it take to turn the Republic into an empire?” It’s always been fun and diverting. Suddenly I realize: We’re already almost there, not legally but in the far more important substrata of our social discourse. Too much of the America populace is ready to bow down and accept a strong man.
Yet people always like to tell me It Can Never Happen Here… when it virtually already has.
I’m sure that this is going get me marked as a rabid Obama supporter (which I am not). But I can’t help but gush over his impressive response on the issue of church and state. In an interview with BeliefNet, he was asked, “You wrote in The Audacity of Hope about the role that faith and faith-based programs could play in confronting social ills. Isn’t your view on that similar to George W. Bush’s?”
His answer — the clearest ever seen — follows below the fold.