Beating On A New Drum
Howard Dean sat down with Tim Russert on NBC’s "Meet The Press" this past Sunday. The transcript is a long one, so I will not quote the entire thing. The link below will take you to the transcript, but there were some interesting points that I picked up on. And these points show that this man has absolutely no clue as to what he is doing, or how to save his party. And I wonder if anyone who reads the transcript will pick up on the two gaffes that Dean made; one of them being the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/
MR. RUSSERT: Let's go right to it. The Republicans say on Tuesday that if the Democrats do not stop filibustering their judicial appointments made by President Clinton--President Bush, they will change the rules for the filibuster. What will that change mean?
DR. DEAN: I think the change will be dreadful for American democracy, and I think it's going to be, frankly, very bad for the Republican Party. One of the great geniuses of American democracy, unlike most of the democracies in the world that minority rights are protected, 48 percent of us didn't vote for President Bush, but we still have some say in shaping the agenda of the country. If the filibuster is gotten rid of, the extended debate is gotten rid of in the Senate, first of all, it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve. We've confirmed 205 of his judges. He wants those last 10, so they're willing to change the rules to do it.
Dean does not understand the workings of the government or of the Constitution. Minority rights are already protected. But the party in majority gets to lead the nation. The majority of the nation wanted these people there, they put their faith in them to serve the nation honorably and properly, and the Democrats are throwing a literal hissy fit that they are out of power. They cannot stop these nominees coming out of committee, and they know that if these people are allowed their enumerated right to a simple majority vote that they will not be able to stop them from making it to the federal bench.
MR. RUSSERT: The Republicans say the filibuster rules being changed would apply to judicial nominations not to legislation like Social Security.
DR. DEAN: That's what they say now. What possible indication is there they won't change their mind later. We could not have predicted when the Republicans were killing 25 of President Clinton's judges when President Clinton was in office, we couldn't have predicted that they were going to resort to this when they got into office. The problem with this, frankly, for the Republicans, is, first of all, Congress is at its lowest popularity rating since--actually since 1993 when we were in power. And secondly, this is an advertisement to the American people, who suspect it--suspect something may go wrong when only one party is in charge. And one party is pretty well in charge in Washington. This is the last opportunity the Democrats have to say anything about public policy. It is a very big mistake, I think, for America. But it's a huge mistake for the Republican Party to do this.
The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats during Clinton’s term is that the Republicans abided by the rules of the senate, and of the Constitution, to kill his judicial nominees. They did not make it out of committee. That is not a filibuster; it is the proper use of the power bestowed to the committees. And as to his initial charge that the Republicans may change their minds later on a complete elimination of the filibuster, only one party ever tried it before. That was the Democrats back in 1995. As for his insinuation that America does not want "one party" in charge, since when? The Democrats controlled Congress for forty-plus years, and America did not seem to have a problem with it then.
What Dean has forgotten is the rhetoric and party platform of the Democrats is what drove America more towards the right and center. It happened in 1994 when Newt Gingrich led a second conservative revolution and took the House back, and it has been downhill for the Democrats since then. America cannot embrace their platforms.
It's a matter of checks and balances. Look at the terrible things that are going on in Congress today. You have a Republican leader who has been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee, and his response is to get rid of the Ethics Committee or render them inoperable. Now, those kinds of things are less likely to go on if you have...
Dean took a nice swipe at Tom DeLay with that little snippet. I wonder what his thoughts are about Harry Reid being investigated for his Ethics violation of revealing the FBI report on a judicial nominee, and admitting to have seen that report; he has no business seeing that report, as he is not on the committee nor in the FBI. It was wrong for him to even bring it up, but now that he has the Senate is investigating him. Will anything happen to him? Probably not, but something should be done to him. He also brought up Jack Abramoff, and linked him straight to DeLay and the White House. Russert conveniently omits any challenge to Dean; a challenge like the connection that Abramoff has to Democrats, as well.
Right now the Republicans control everything except for this group of Democrats in the Senate who do raise issues about these particular 10 judges who we don't think are qualified to sit on the bench. Ten out of 205--it seems to me that a president on either side is not likely to be right 100 percent of the time. You do need an opposition party. That's what we're trying to build. This is going to make it harder.
Dean and the Democrats may think that these ten judges are not qualified, but as we—and others—have pointed out, the ABA disagrees. The ABA has stated that each one is qualified to handle a post on the federal bench. And as for his "opposition party", the Democrats have been the opposing party on everything since they started to lose their power. And when they realized they could not get legislation passed that was central to their platform, they ventured into the courts where activist judges would rather be praised for standing up for a "living, breathing" Constitution. I agree with Justice Scalia: "I prefer to defend a dead one."
We have an agenda that calls for pension reform, it calls for leaving Social Security alone, except for the tweaks that may be needed to fix it. It calls for real jobs. It calls for closing the deficit. The last president--the only president in the last 35 years to balance the budget was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. You can't trust Republicans with your money. The country is at a crossroads. Are we going to be ethical in government? Are we going to stand up for fiscal responsibility? Are we going to stand up for freedom and personal responsibility?
Like the little tweaks done at the end of Clinton’s presidency where everyone was told that "all was well"? But when we look at the issue of Social Security, and the mess it is in, we can clearly see that Clinton and his team of bipartisan "experts" simply placed a Band-Aid on cancer, rather than removing the tumor itself, and finishing the treatment for the disease. And I would like to point out that Clinton did not balance the budget. The Republicans did, and forced him—kicking and screaming—to sign it. And how is it that we cannot trust Republicans with our money? We are the party that gives the money back in tax cuts, and tax credits. Dean also forgets that we do stand up for freedom (It is the cornerstone of the Constitution) and personal responsibility. We bloggers are big on that idea. Ask some of the heads on our wall about holding people accountable for their actions. (BTW, we still have room on the wall for Evan Thomas, Mark Whitaker, and Indira Nooyi)
The president keeps talking about freedom for Iraqis. What about the freedom for Americans to decide their most personal dilemmas in that family? Speaking of Tom DeLay, 14 judges made decisions in the Terri Schiavo case to allow that family to work out their problems through the court system. Tom DeLay didn't like it. He talks about now impeaching judges and removing them if they disagree. We need to retain American democracy. That means everybody has to be part of that American democracy, and, yes, that even includes Democrats and Independents who may not agree with the president.
He just cannot leave DeLay alone. DeLay, right now, reminds me more of Karl Rove—in terms of Democrat rhetoric—than anything else. (I am expecting to see Tom DeLay in Rove's old Vader costume soon on the floor of the House.) Yes, the judges allowed the Schiavo family to take their case through the system. It is regrettable that the Supreme Court did not take up that case, but I knew they would not.
The prospect that DeLay offered about holding judges accountable goes right back to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution that judges "shall hold their offices during good Behaviour". The state judge in Florida that blew off the Congressional subpoena hardly acted in "good Behaviour", and he started that ugly ball rolling in the matter.
DeLay was—in his own way—reminding judges that they operate on the bench at the sufferance of Congress, or more appropriately, the Senate, and the people. They confirmed them, and they can remove them. DeLay was not upset over the outcome nearly as much as he was upset with the foolish and inept process by which these courts went through to reach such a decision. This is why I, personally, had no problem with DeLay’s reminder to judges. It was not a threat; simply a reminder that they can be held accountable.
Where is Dean coming from with his idea that we have not retained "American democracy". We witnessed it in action in November of 2004. This country went to the polls and voted. They participated in decisions regarding state propositions, representatives, senators, judges, and yes, the President of the United States. So, I fail to grasp where his idea of a lost "American democracy" comes from.
DR. DEAN: Such as raising the cap. Right now the Social Security tax is only on the first, I think, about $85,000 worth of wages. I saw an economic analysis the other day that said if you remove that cap entirely that Social Security will be solvent.
MR. RUSSERT: But that's raising taxes.
DR. DEAN: Well, the president has said that he only--that's why we don't come up with a plan, because whatever plan we come up with, the president is just going to say, "Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this." All right, Mr. President, let's sit down and get serious. Take privatization of Social Security off the table, and I can guarantee you that Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi will sit down with the president. They have told me so privately. They would be delighted to sit down with the president and try to work this out.
Do you not just love how he completely avoided Russert’s question about the raising of taxes? That is precisely what the removal of that cap would do. Economists like Greenspan warned against such a measure when this debate was commenced. The simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats claim the president is not willing to negotiate when it is their own party that immediately stood—lock-step—against the private accounts. Is there a risk to such an endeavor? Of course. If private accounts are indeed settled upon, then those who opt to go for those will have to watch their investments. But the president has made it plainly clear that the private accounts are an option; they are not mandatory. And that is where a lot of the media and the Democrats are mischaracterizing this plan; they stand beside the idea it will be mandatory for all to join it. That has never been the case.
The president can get something done on Social Security, but he has got to stop this nonsense of insisting that we privatize the last bastion of hope for retirees in this country as they see, under this administration, their private pensions get eroded.
MR. RUSSERT: And if the president takes private personal accounts off the table, then you would sit down, the Democrats would sit down and everything else would be on the table.
DR. DEAN: I won't sit down, but I'm sure--it's not my job to do that. But the senators and the congressmen have indicated that they'd be happy to sit down if privatization comes off the table.
And here it is, in less than a heartbeat, where Dean states, once again, that the Democrats are opposed to the private accounts. So much so are they that he lapses into the doom-and-gloom fear rhetoric that they have used during this entire debate. The "we will compromise when he does" argument is really getting old. The president has mapped out the preliminaries of his plan. If they are a smart as they claim, where is their alternative? Is it the removal of the cap, and running away from the raising of taxes?
But I don't hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do. I hate deficits, as you know. When I was governor, I really was very tough on fiscal responsibility. Deficits in the long run aren't good for the country, and they do lower our standard of living. Every American family knows that you have to pay your bills. I hate the dishonesty, you know, the idea that you'd put a program through Congress without telling people what it costs, I think that's wrong. Some of the things that the president said on our way into Iraq, they just weren't true, and I don't think that's right. So...
Okay. Some one answer quickly: When have the Democrats ever stood for personal responsibility? They created welfare, which removed the need for a male in the home, and allowed irresponsible people to continue being irresponsible. Did Clinton stand up and take responsibility for his actions (prior to the story being splashed across the news)? How about his inaction for not getting bin Laden prior to his leaving office, or the ineptitude that was performed by his administration in attempting to get him later? And if you want "dishonesty" when it comes to fiscal responsibility, there is plenty to go around on both sides of the aisle. 2005 omnibus bill laden with pork spending? The new highway bill?
If you wanted to send troops into Iraq--you know, I supported his father when his father sent troops to Iraq. I thought his father made a reasonable case. Kuwait is an ally of the United States. Saddam Hussein has invaded it. He's torturing people. We have an obligation as the last superpower to fix this. Instead the president said, "Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States," and that was just flat-out false. And I don't think that's the way you run a government.
MR. RUSSERT: But John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman all said Saddam was a threat to the United States. That was the belief.
DR. DEAN: Because they were told that by the president of the United States, and there is a wide berth given to the president. And I think it's justifiable. In a time of threat to the United States, there is a wide berth given to the president. You trust the president of the United States to give you the information no matter what party they're in. And I think the president was not--did not treat the Senate and the House properly either.
First off, Hussein was a threat. He was a threat not just through his WMD programs, but more important were his ties to terrorist groups in that region. Our intelligence has known for years that he had ties with them (Anyone remember the death of Abu Nidal in Baghdad, or Abu Abbas whom we found hiding in Iraq during the invasion?) and that his Fedayeen forces were trained by the likes of Abu Nidal.
As for Russert’s well-planned (but again, left untouched follow up) those people held that belief because, as Dean points out, they were told by the president. And I note that Dean continued to refer to the "president" rather than naming him. Why? Maybe because it was Clinton—not Bush—who told this nation back in ’96 and ’98 that Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs were considered a threat to the security of the nation? Dean knows that, and is obfuscating that key piece of information. And, of course, Russert does not follow up and clarify that point.
MR. RUSSERT: When did the president ever suggest that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11?
DR. DEAN: He didn't. His nuance--his people suggested that. He suggested that in a nuanced way in many of his speeches. He was asked once directly about it and said, "No, I don't have that evidence." But the truth is in every speech, including the ones during the campaign where he deliberately muddled the anti-terrorism war that we're engaged in with the war in Iraq. They are two separate efforts. Unfortunately, now because of the president's actions, I would argue that we're in greater danger now because of what's going on in Iraq than we were before. Now, there are terrorists in Iraq. They have migrated there since our troops were there.
Those terrorists were already there. And yes, many more came flooding over the border. Our intelligence in Iraq points to the fact that many of them are coming from Syria—the Middle-East’s terrorist hotbed. Those that came from Iran came in hopes that they could destabilize enough of the country to keep it warring with itself; both countries have been bitter enemies for decades. And I am sick of hearing the Democrats separate the GWOT and Iraq. They are linked. Afghanistan was Stage 1, and Iraq is Stage 2. In World War II, had we simply stopped at Iwo Jima, or Myway, or Normandy, would we really have finished the overall goal? No. So why stop at Afghanistan? It is being sent—loud and clear around the world—that no terrorist will be tolerated. Yes, I do think there are problems we have in this regard. I am not happy with the president being involved in the Israeli problem. Let them work it out, and should they need our help, they will pick up a phone and make a call.
The problem is it is galling to Democrats, 48 percent of us who did not support the president, it is galling to be lectured to about moral values by folks who have their own problems. Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings. I don't think we ought to give a whole lot of lectures to people--I think the Bible says something to the effect that be careful when you talk about the shortcomings of somebody else when you haven't removed the moat from your own eye. And I don't think we ought to be lectured to by Republicans who have got all these problems themselves.
Rush Limbaugh has made a career of belittling other people and making jokes about President Clinton, about Mrs. Clinton and others. I don't think he's in any position to do that, nor do I think Bill O'Reilly is in a position to abuse families of survivors of 9/11, given his own ethical shortcomings. Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings.
The Democrats should be lectured by people that have morals about their own shortcomings; much of which sit right on the party platform for issues. Abortion—their number one issue—is abhorrent to over 70% of this nation. Being someone, much like Thomas is, that believes in the law, I must admit that it is the law of the land. It is legal. I do not agree with that court decision, but I do not just arbitrarily toss it aside either. I hope and pray that someday wisdom will prevail on the Court, it will be revisited, and that the Court will remand abortion back to the states, where it belongs.
But people like Rush and O’Reilly are entertainers. (I cannot take O’Reilly seriously any more.) Their jobs entail pointing out things they think America should be focused on. O’Reilly does it in his typical biting, "pithy" manner whereas Rush uses his talents as a broadcaster to poke fun at those dominating the headlines. I am no "perfect little angel", but in areas where I have screwed up, I do not level disdain or humor at another’s expense when they are going through a similar situation.
Hypocrisy has been a mainstay of the Democrat party for a long time. Look at the hypocrisy being shown in the Constitutional Option debate right now. They accuse the Republican of "playing politics" and not playing by the rules when they are doing precisely that. There is no provision within the Senate rules, nor in the Constitution, that one may filibuster a nominee. The Constitution is quite specific to the contrary. So, I need no lecture on hypocrisy from this man.
DR. DEAN: Absolutely. I'm not advocating we change our position. I believe that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets, and I think Democrats believe that in general. Here's the problem--and we were outmanipulated by the Republicans; there's no question about it. We have been forced into the idea of "We're going to defend abortion." I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their own mind about how their loved ones leave this world. I think the Republicans are intrusive and they invade people's personal privacy, and they don't have a right to do that.
But when you talk about framing this debate the way it ought to be framed, which is "Do you want Tom DeLay and the boys to make up your mind about this, or does a woman have a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets," then that pro-life woman says "Well, now, you know, I've had people try to make up my mind for me and I don't think that's right." This is an issue about who gets to make up their minds: the politicians or the individual. Democrats are for the individual. We believe in individual rights. We believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. And that debate is one that we didn't win, because we kept being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion.
So, in essence, he is saying that the Democrats will still stand and defend abortion. Thanks for the clarification, as if we did not already know that. And to point out a simple fact to Dr. Dean, Republicans did not kick in the door on privacy; the Supreme Court did, by inventing the idea in the first place in a blatant misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The case was Griswold v. Connecticut, and it was also a cited case in the decision for Roe v. Wade when the question of privacy for the woman was brought up.
And, of course, Tom DeLay jumps back into the debate, and with his second statement, Dean really shows he does not have the foggiest notion what he is talking about. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, then it is not the Congress that decides abortion, it is the States that do. It is their power under the Tenth Amendment. Thomas likes to call it "The Tenth Amendment Trump." And it is a shame that the courts have continued to trample on that right.
Not much else is seriously addressed from this point on, but one thing is crystal clear to me, and to anyone else with a right-center mentality. This man has no idea what he is doing, has no concept of the government, nor does he have any idea how to right the sinking ship he is helming. And if you read the whole transcript, you see how much he jumps around from topic to topic like an amateur.
The Bunny ;)
Howard Dean sat down with Tim Russert on NBC’s "Meet The Press" this past Sunday. The transcript is a long one, so I will not quote the entire thing. The link below will take you to the transcript, but there were some interesting points that I picked up on. And these points show that this man has absolutely no clue as to what he is doing, or how to save his party. And I wonder if anyone who reads the transcript will pick up on the two gaffes that Dean made; one of them being the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/
MR. RUSSERT: Let's go right to it. The Republicans say on Tuesday that if the Democrats do not stop filibustering their judicial appointments made by President Clinton--President Bush, they will change the rules for the filibuster. What will that change mean?
DR. DEAN: I think the change will be dreadful for American democracy, and I think it's going to be, frankly, very bad for the Republican Party. One of the great geniuses of American democracy, unlike most of the democracies in the world that minority rights are protected, 48 percent of us didn't vote for President Bush, but we still have some say in shaping the agenda of the country. If the filibuster is gotten rid of, the extended debate is gotten rid of in the Senate, first of all, it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve. We've confirmed 205 of his judges. He wants those last 10, so they're willing to change the rules to do it.
Dean does not understand the workings of the government or of the Constitution. Minority rights are already protected. But the party in majority gets to lead the nation. The majority of the nation wanted these people there, they put their faith in them to serve the nation honorably and properly, and the Democrats are throwing a literal hissy fit that they are out of power. They cannot stop these nominees coming out of committee, and they know that if these people are allowed their enumerated right to a simple majority vote that they will not be able to stop them from making it to the federal bench.
MR. RUSSERT: The Republicans say the filibuster rules being changed would apply to judicial nominations not to legislation like Social Security.
DR. DEAN: That's what they say now. What possible indication is there they won't change their mind later. We could not have predicted when the Republicans were killing 25 of President Clinton's judges when President Clinton was in office, we couldn't have predicted that they were going to resort to this when they got into office. The problem with this, frankly, for the Republicans, is, first of all, Congress is at its lowest popularity rating since--actually since 1993 when we were in power. And secondly, this is an advertisement to the American people, who suspect it--suspect something may go wrong when only one party is in charge. And one party is pretty well in charge in Washington. This is the last opportunity the Democrats have to say anything about public policy. It is a very big mistake, I think, for America. But it's a huge mistake for the Republican Party to do this.
The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats during Clinton’s term is that the Republicans abided by the rules of the senate, and of the Constitution, to kill his judicial nominees. They did not make it out of committee. That is not a filibuster; it is the proper use of the power bestowed to the committees. And as to his initial charge that the Republicans may change their minds later on a complete elimination of the filibuster, only one party ever tried it before. That was the Democrats back in 1995. As for his insinuation that America does not want "one party" in charge, since when? The Democrats controlled Congress for forty-plus years, and America did not seem to have a problem with it then.
What Dean has forgotten is the rhetoric and party platform of the Democrats is what drove America more towards the right and center. It happened in 1994 when Newt Gingrich led a second conservative revolution and took the House back, and it has been downhill for the Democrats since then. America cannot embrace their platforms.
It's a matter of checks and balances. Look at the terrible things that are going on in Congress today. You have a Republican leader who has been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee, and his response is to get rid of the Ethics Committee or render them inoperable. Now, those kinds of things are less likely to go on if you have...
Dean took a nice swipe at Tom DeLay with that little snippet. I wonder what his thoughts are about Harry Reid being investigated for his Ethics violation of revealing the FBI report on a judicial nominee, and admitting to have seen that report; he has no business seeing that report, as he is not on the committee nor in the FBI. It was wrong for him to even bring it up, but now that he has the Senate is investigating him. Will anything happen to him? Probably not, but something should be done to him. He also brought up Jack Abramoff, and linked him straight to DeLay and the White House. Russert conveniently omits any challenge to Dean; a challenge like the connection that Abramoff has to Democrats, as well.
Right now the Republicans control everything except for this group of Democrats in the Senate who do raise issues about these particular 10 judges who we don't think are qualified to sit on the bench. Ten out of 205--it seems to me that a president on either side is not likely to be right 100 percent of the time. You do need an opposition party. That's what we're trying to build. This is going to make it harder.
Dean and the Democrats may think that these ten judges are not qualified, but as we—and others—have pointed out, the ABA disagrees. The ABA has stated that each one is qualified to handle a post on the federal bench. And as for his "opposition party", the Democrats have been the opposing party on everything since they started to lose their power. And when they realized they could not get legislation passed that was central to their platform, they ventured into the courts where activist judges would rather be praised for standing up for a "living, breathing" Constitution. I agree with Justice Scalia: "I prefer to defend a dead one."
We have an agenda that calls for pension reform, it calls for leaving Social Security alone, except for the tweaks that may be needed to fix it. It calls for real jobs. It calls for closing the deficit. The last president--the only president in the last 35 years to balance the budget was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. You can't trust Republicans with your money. The country is at a crossroads. Are we going to be ethical in government? Are we going to stand up for fiscal responsibility? Are we going to stand up for freedom and personal responsibility?
Like the little tweaks done at the end of Clinton’s presidency where everyone was told that "all was well"? But when we look at the issue of Social Security, and the mess it is in, we can clearly see that Clinton and his team of bipartisan "experts" simply placed a Band-Aid on cancer, rather than removing the tumor itself, and finishing the treatment for the disease. And I would like to point out that Clinton did not balance the budget. The Republicans did, and forced him—kicking and screaming—to sign it. And how is it that we cannot trust Republicans with our money? We are the party that gives the money back in tax cuts, and tax credits. Dean also forgets that we do stand up for freedom (It is the cornerstone of the Constitution) and personal responsibility. We bloggers are big on that idea. Ask some of the heads on our wall about holding people accountable for their actions. (BTW, we still have room on the wall for Evan Thomas, Mark Whitaker, and Indira Nooyi)
The president keeps talking about freedom for Iraqis. What about the freedom for Americans to decide their most personal dilemmas in that family? Speaking of Tom DeLay, 14 judges made decisions in the Terri Schiavo case to allow that family to work out their problems through the court system. Tom DeLay didn't like it. He talks about now impeaching judges and removing them if they disagree. We need to retain American democracy. That means everybody has to be part of that American democracy, and, yes, that even includes Democrats and Independents who may not agree with the president.
He just cannot leave DeLay alone. DeLay, right now, reminds me more of Karl Rove—in terms of Democrat rhetoric—than anything else. (I am expecting to see Tom DeLay in Rove's old Vader costume soon on the floor of the House.) Yes, the judges allowed the Schiavo family to take their case through the system. It is regrettable that the Supreme Court did not take up that case, but I knew they would not.
The prospect that DeLay offered about holding judges accountable goes right back to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution that judges "shall hold their offices during good Behaviour". The state judge in Florida that blew off the Congressional subpoena hardly acted in "good Behaviour", and he started that ugly ball rolling in the matter.
DeLay was—in his own way—reminding judges that they operate on the bench at the sufferance of Congress, or more appropriately, the Senate, and the people. They confirmed them, and they can remove them. DeLay was not upset over the outcome nearly as much as he was upset with the foolish and inept process by which these courts went through to reach such a decision. This is why I, personally, had no problem with DeLay’s reminder to judges. It was not a threat; simply a reminder that they can be held accountable.
Where is Dean coming from with his idea that we have not retained "American democracy". We witnessed it in action in November of 2004. This country went to the polls and voted. They participated in decisions regarding state propositions, representatives, senators, judges, and yes, the President of the United States. So, I fail to grasp where his idea of a lost "American democracy" comes from.
DR. DEAN: Such as raising the cap. Right now the Social Security tax is only on the first, I think, about $85,000 worth of wages. I saw an economic analysis the other day that said if you remove that cap entirely that Social Security will be solvent.
MR. RUSSERT: But that's raising taxes.
DR. DEAN: Well, the president has said that he only--that's why we don't come up with a plan, because whatever plan we come up with, the president is just going to say, "Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this." All right, Mr. President, let's sit down and get serious. Take privatization of Social Security off the table, and I can guarantee you that Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi will sit down with the president. They have told me so privately. They would be delighted to sit down with the president and try to work this out.
Do you not just love how he completely avoided Russert’s question about the raising of taxes? That is precisely what the removal of that cap would do. Economists like Greenspan warned against such a measure when this debate was commenced. The simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats claim the president is not willing to negotiate when it is their own party that immediately stood—lock-step—against the private accounts. Is there a risk to such an endeavor? Of course. If private accounts are indeed settled upon, then those who opt to go for those will have to watch their investments. But the president has made it plainly clear that the private accounts are an option; they are not mandatory. And that is where a lot of the media and the Democrats are mischaracterizing this plan; they stand beside the idea it will be mandatory for all to join it. That has never been the case.
The president can get something done on Social Security, but he has got to stop this nonsense of insisting that we privatize the last bastion of hope for retirees in this country as they see, under this administration, their private pensions get eroded.
MR. RUSSERT: And if the president takes private personal accounts off the table, then you would sit down, the Democrats would sit down and everything else would be on the table.
DR. DEAN: I won't sit down, but I'm sure--it's not my job to do that. But the senators and the congressmen have indicated that they'd be happy to sit down if privatization comes off the table.
And here it is, in less than a heartbeat, where Dean states, once again, that the Democrats are opposed to the private accounts. So much so are they that he lapses into the doom-and-gloom fear rhetoric that they have used during this entire debate. The "we will compromise when he does" argument is really getting old. The president has mapped out the preliminaries of his plan. If they are a smart as they claim, where is their alternative? Is it the removal of the cap, and running away from the raising of taxes?
But I don't hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do. I hate deficits, as you know. When I was governor, I really was very tough on fiscal responsibility. Deficits in the long run aren't good for the country, and they do lower our standard of living. Every American family knows that you have to pay your bills. I hate the dishonesty, you know, the idea that you'd put a program through Congress without telling people what it costs, I think that's wrong. Some of the things that the president said on our way into Iraq, they just weren't true, and I don't think that's right. So...
Okay. Some one answer quickly: When have the Democrats ever stood for personal responsibility? They created welfare, which removed the need for a male in the home, and allowed irresponsible people to continue being irresponsible. Did Clinton stand up and take responsibility for his actions (prior to the story being splashed across the news)? How about his inaction for not getting bin Laden prior to his leaving office, or the ineptitude that was performed by his administration in attempting to get him later? And if you want "dishonesty" when it comes to fiscal responsibility, there is plenty to go around on both sides of the aisle. 2005 omnibus bill laden with pork spending? The new highway bill?
If you wanted to send troops into Iraq--you know, I supported his father when his father sent troops to Iraq. I thought his father made a reasonable case. Kuwait is an ally of the United States. Saddam Hussein has invaded it. He's torturing people. We have an obligation as the last superpower to fix this. Instead the president said, "Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States," and that was just flat-out false. And I don't think that's the way you run a government.
MR. RUSSERT: But John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman all said Saddam was a threat to the United States. That was the belief.
DR. DEAN: Because they were told that by the president of the United States, and there is a wide berth given to the president. And I think it's justifiable. In a time of threat to the United States, there is a wide berth given to the president. You trust the president of the United States to give you the information no matter what party they're in. And I think the president was not--did not treat the Senate and the House properly either.
First off, Hussein was a threat. He was a threat not just through his WMD programs, but more important were his ties to terrorist groups in that region. Our intelligence has known for years that he had ties with them (Anyone remember the death of Abu Nidal in Baghdad, or Abu Abbas whom we found hiding in Iraq during the invasion?) and that his Fedayeen forces were trained by the likes of Abu Nidal.
As for Russert’s well-planned (but again, left untouched follow up) those people held that belief because, as Dean points out, they were told by the president. And I note that Dean continued to refer to the "president" rather than naming him. Why? Maybe because it was Clinton—not Bush—who told this nation back in ’96 and ’98 that Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs were considered a threat to the security of the nation? Dean knows that, and is obfuscating that key piece of information. And, of course, Russert does not follow up and clarify that point.
MR. RUSSERT: When did the president ever suggest that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11?
DR. DEAN: He didn't. His nuance--his people suggested that. He suggested that in a nuanced way in many of his speeches. He was asked once directly about it and said, "No, I don't have that evidence." But the truth is in every speech, including the ones during the campaign where he deliberately muddled the anti-terrorism war that we're engaged in with the war in Iraq. They are two separate efforts. Unfortunately, now because of the president's actions, I would argue that we're in greater danger now because of what's going on in Iraq than we were before. Now, there are terrorists in Iraq. They have migrated there since our troops were there.
Those terrorists were already there. And yes, many more came flooding over the border. Our intelligence in Iraq points to the fact that many of them are coming from Syria—the Middle-East’s terrorist hotbed. Those that came from Iran came in hopes that they could destabilize enough of the country to keep it warring with itself; both countries have been bitter enemies for decades. And I am sick of hearing the Democrats separate the GWOT and Iraq. They are linked. Afghanistan was Stage 1, and Iraq is Stage 2. In World War II, had we simply stopped at Iwo Jima, or Myway, or Normandy, would we really have finished the overall goal? No. So why stop at Afghanistan? It is being sent—loud and clear around the world—that no terrorist will be tolerated. Yes, I do think there are problems we have in this regard. I am not happy with the president being involved in the Israeli problem. Let them work it out, and should they need our help, they will pick up a phone and make a call.
The problem is it is galling to Democrats, 48 percent of us who did not support the president, it is galling to be lectured to about moral values by folks who have their own problems. Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings. I don't think we ought to give a whole lot of lectures to people--I think the Bible says something to the effect that be careful when you talk about the shortcomings of somebody else when you haven't removed the moat from your own eye. And I don't think we ought to be lectured to by Republicans who have got all these problems themselves.
Rush Limbaugh has made a career of belittling other people and making jokes about President Clinton, about Mrs. Clinton and others. I don't think he's in any position to do that, nor do I think Bill O'Reilly is in a position to abuse families of survivors of 9/11, given his own ethical shortcomings. Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings.
The Democrats should be lectured by people that have morals about their own shortcomings; much of which sit right on the party platform for issues. Abortion—their number one issue—is abhorrent to over 70% of this nation. Being someone, much like Thomas is, that believes in the law, I must admit that it is the law of the land. It is legal. I do not agree with that court decision, but I do not just arbitrarily toss it aside either. I hope and pray that someday wisdom will prevail on the Court, it will be revisited, and that the Court will remand abortion back to the states, where it belongs.
But people like Rush and O’Reilly are entertainers. (I cannot take O’Reilly seriously any more.) Their jobs entail pointing out things they think America should be focused on. O’Reilly does it in his typical biting, "pithy" manner whereas Rush uses his talents as a broadcaster to poke fun at those dominating the headlines. I am no "perfect little angel", but in areas where I have screwed up, I do not level disdain or humor at another’s expense when they are going through a similar situation.
Hypocrisy has been a mainstay of the Democrat party for a long time. Look at the hypocrisy being shown in the Constitutional Option debate right now. They accuse the Republican of "playing politics" and not playing by the rules when they are doing precisely that. There is no provision within the Senate rules, nor in the Constitution, that one may filibuster a nominee. The Constitution is quite specific to the contrary. So, I need no lecture on hypocrisy from this man.
DR. DEAN: Absolutely. I'm not advocating we change our position. I believe that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets, and I think Democrats believe that in general. Here's the problem--and we were outmanipulated by the Republicans; there's no question about it. We have been forced into the idea of "We're going to defend abortion." I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their own mind about how their loved ones leave this world. I think the Republicans are intrusive and they invade people's personal privacy, and they don't have a right to do that.
But when you talk about framing this debate the way it ought to be framed, which is "Do you want Tom DeLay and the boys to make up your mind about this, or does a woman have a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets," then that pro-life woman says "Well, now, you know, I've had people try to make up my mind for me and I don't think that's right." This is an issue about who gets to make up their minds: the politicians or the individual. Democrats are for the individual. We believe in individual rights. We believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. And that debate is one that we didn't win, because we kept being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion.
So, in essence, he is saying that the Democrats will still stand and defend abortion. Thanks for the clarification, as if we did not already know that. And to point out a simple fact to Dr. Dean, Republicans did not kick in the door on privacy; the Supreme Court did, by inventing the idea in the first place in a blatant misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The case was Griswold v. Connecticut, and it was also a cited case in the decision for Roe v. Wade when the question of privacy for the woman was brought up.
And, of course, Tom DeLay jumps back into the debate, and with his second statement, Dean really shows he does not have the foggiest notion what he is talking about. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, then it is not the Congress that decides abortion, it is the States that do. It is their power under the Tenth Amendment. Thomas likes to call it "The Tenth Amendment Trump." And it is a shame that the courts have continued to trample on that right.
Not much else is seriously addressed from this point on, but one thing is crystal clear to me, and to anyone else with a right-center mentality. This man has no idea what he is doing, has no concept of the government, nor does he have any idea how to right the sinking ship he is helming. And if you read the whole transcript, you see how much he jumps around from topic to topic like an amateur.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home