The Voice Of Reason: George Allen Gets It Right
Yesterday afternoon, Hugh Hewitt had Sen. George Allen on his show for an interview right before the vote for cloture on John Bolton. If anyone heard this, then you could sense that Allen knew Bolton was not going to get enough votes. And when the subject turned to the deal and the judicial nominees, one could tell that Allen definitely was not pleased. Below is a partial transcript of that interview (Hat-tip to RadioBlogger for putting it up. You can go to Duane’s site—via the link below—to read the transcript in it’s entirety.)
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000719
HH: Senator Allen, thanks for breaking away from the great debate over John Bolton. Will you get to a vote before you go on recess, Senator?
GA: We better. This is...we were supposed to be voting right now, as I'm on the sidelines in the Cloak Room, here. So I'm a sidelines reporter for you, and as is typical with the Senate, punctuality means about as much to the Senate as it does to a pig. And so, here we are waiting. And I'm not sure...we're going to try to get a cloture vote, and we need sixty votes. John Bolton will be an outstanding advocate for American...our taxpayers to the United Nations, and so it's going to be a pretty close vote on cloture, and hopefully we'll get to it this evening.
HH: Senator, will you be speaking later in the evening?
GA: On John Bolton?
HH: Yes.
GA: No, I've already spoken today. We were supposed to vote at 6:00 on cloture, and here we are, of course...
HH: Has anyone made the point that Lebanon is heading into crucial elections, about which the U.N. may have a strong influence on their fairness, and we do not have an ambassador there?
GA: I haven't...a good point, Hugh. Gosh, if I were going to speak, I could say that.
HH: Well, pass on a note to someone.
GA: I can't pass on a note. No one is speaking now. They're all huddling in the usual confusion, but the point is, the United Nations actually can be useful. It hasn't lived up to what we would hope, and obviously with the fraud and abuse and the scandals, people in this country question whether the United Nations is worth the $2 billion dollars we spend every year. But it can be made more credible, more useful, and someone like John Bolton is the type of person who I think would be perfect. He is not going to get seduced by all these meaningless pontifications of bureaucratic functionaries, but he's going to make sure these reforms and changes are made. And I want a watchdog up there, not somebody who's just going to be happy to warm a seat.
HH: Well, do you think you have the votes for cloture?
GA: Not sure. We're not sure.
HH: That's amazing.
GA: That's why things are so up in the air right now.
HH: Three hours ago, David Espo, AP, filed a story that Senator Reid said the Monday deal, about which we're going to talk shortly, could bring bipartisanship...
GA: yea...
HH: ...and three hours later they're denying cloture on the Bolton vote. Is that bipartisanship?
GA: Yup, there you go. That's pretty good influence there. I think we have every Republican. Even Voinovich is going to vote for cloture. He'll vote against Bolton, but he's going to vote for cloture. And so, therefore, we have to pick up five Democrats to get to sixty, although one of our members is apparently on a train, and I don't know this, Hugh. This is heresay and rumor.
HH: Oh well, good luck in that, Senator...
GA: Yea, but you know, all this bipartisanship, that's right. And this is not a lifetime appointment.
HH: Well, I wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard this morning that, don't let this go to your head, I'm sure you read it every day, that you were the big winner out of Monday's disaster, because everybody else's reputation sort of, they got taken off the board for dealing the deal. I've heard you say on Imus and other shows that it was a bad deal. But I haven't had anyone explain to me yet, what happens to Brett Cavanaugh and Griffiths and the other great judges that are in committee? Are they guaranteed an up or down vote?
GA: No. That's unclear, Hugh. Once we get through Janice Rogers Brown and Judge Pryor, I think the next one that should test all this should be William Myers for the 9th Circuit. Let's see what that means. Why did they...it seems to me that they threw Judge Saad and William Myers, or Bill Myers overboard in the midst of this deal, and that's a disappointment. The Democrats apparently got the scalps they wanted. I have urged that we go forward with those...that nomination, and he's for the 9th Circuit. And the reason that this is important to test what this is, this so-called deal, is one to see, all right, they said they're not going to be filibustered, so what are they going to do on Myers. And secondly, it's the 9th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed so often, they are Exhibit A of activist judges, who ignore the will of the people. This is the same court that struck down the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the words under God.
HH: Yea, it's Harry Pregerson, it's Reinhardt, it's your worst nightmare. I practice in front of it, Senator, so I know the 9th Circuit well.
GA: Well, okay. And if there's one court that needs some common sense judges, who understand the role of the judiciary's not to invent the law or apply...act as a super-legislature, it is the 9th Circuit. And let's see if the Democrats want to be on the side of these ludicrous, terrible rulings out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And that's why I think William Myers, or Bill Myers, is such a good, outstanding choice. And he's from Idaho, and I've talked to the Idaho Senators, and they think this guy is top notch. They'll try to characterize him, you know, far right-wing and so forth. As far as some of the folks I've talked to, they say gosh. He's not conservative enough.
HH: If Bill Myers comes up, and is filibustered, I can understand that being part of the deal. But do you expect any of your colleagues actually pledged votes against nominees? Is that rumor there? Because then, that's different than a deal. That's an actual attack on an individual, which I don't think people would be very approving of.
GA: Yea, there are, and I don't want to breach confidence, as there are some who are opposed to, who have at least stated, that they are opposed to...will vote against a...one of these judicial nominees. I don't want to breach confidences.
HH: Okay.
GA: Now how this applies to Cavanaugh and others is really unclear. The other thing that is even more unsettling is that one of the reasons I wanted us not to be cowering and timid on this, and not letting the Democrats steal the march on us on this issue that matters so much to people all across this country, and get it done sooner rather than later, is there's likely to be a vacancy next month on the Supreme Court.
HH: Or two.
GA: Or potentially two. But clearly, there'll be one, and that's when they usually, Justices, announce their retirement, because it's at the end of the term, and the president and the Senate have all the way until October, the October term, to fill the vacancy. I don't care to be going through this Constitutional option battle in the midst of the Supreme Court vacancy.
HH: It's a tactical screw-up, yup.
GA: Yea, and so see the Democrats, in this deal, doesn't settle that at all, and the Democrats would rather fight this on a Supreme Court nominee than they would on Circuit Courts, that most people may not necessarily understand. I also am very proud of what I call our magnificent seven. These are the magnificent seven new Republican Senators. They all understand, as I did campaigning with them. Whether I was down in the Carolinas and Floria, or Cajun country in Louisiana, Oklahoma or South Dakota, that the issue of judges was a key issue. And in fact, it fired up people more than even tax cuts, even more than less regulation. People were for energy independence, they were for leadership and innovation, but I tell you. I'd always finish off, give us a strong Republican majority, and we'll get judges who apply the law, not invent the law.
HH: And on that point, Senator Allen, I just had Dana Milbank on, and he said it's only social conservatives who are upset about the judges. Was that your experience as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee?
GA: Not at all. The social conservatives certainly were, but I think all people...just...the way I'd characterize it was, President Bush's nominees deserve, or should be accorded the fairness of an up or down vote. That's just simple fairness and due process that you don't hold up outstanding nominees, well qualified men and women, for three, four years, and then after they run through the gauntlet, not even give them the courtesy of an up or down vote. And so, I think that our base surely was fired up on this. But I also think that fair minded independent voters realized this is not an approach that is to their liking. After all, the architect of all this, Tom Daschle, who I branded as the chief obstructionist, is the first leader, Senate leader, to be defeated in 52 years.
HH: Yea, it resonated.
This was an awesome interview, and Sen. Allen is a man I can respect. He is a man that could very well be presidential material one day. He has the knowledge, he has the wisdom, and he has the backbone. He was governor of Virginia from 1994-1998. He has served in the US House, and the State House in Virginia. He was the chairman of the NRSC in 2002. The man has led before; he does know how to do so. He is up for reelection in 2006, and I hope he wins. Based on his popularity in Virginia, it would be a curse of hellish-proportions if he lost. Sen. Allen is precisely the sort of leader that the Republicans need in the Senate.
The leadership of the GOP is marching in lock-step. They know what must be done, and they are doing their best to assist the president in getting his agenda passed through the Senate. But we have far too many in the Senate that care nothing for the party. They care only about themselves. Sen. Allen stated in this interview that he had spoken to Lindsey Graham, and no, his colleague does not regret his decision from Monday. It is pathetic that someone cannot even recognize a serious error such as completely disregarding the Constitution of the United States; the same Constitution that that swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend."
If this is the sort of protection that the moderates are promising, then it is time to remove the moderates. And I disagree with anyone who believes this to be a foolish statement. Thomas and I have both said that the party has plenty of room for moderates. The mom-and-pop, Joe Q. Six-packs that put their money and their trust in the Republicans are fine. And moderation on legislation is fine, as well.
But there is no room for moderation on the Constitution. It burns a lot of conservatives up when they see McCain and his ilk spitting on it. And that is what we take it as. Our troops do not go out to protect our flag. They go out and protect this nation and the very document that ensures that freedom. I would certainly expect that from people like John McCain, who is such a vaunted and lauded "war hero", but I guess some things change.
What will never change is we expect our representatives to go to Washington, and speak for us. We expect them to protect and respect our rights, and to respect the Constitution. This week has been one in which we have watched a rogue group of senators wreck the Constitutional checks and balances, while both sides of the leadership diddled.
The Bunny ;)
Yesterday afternoon, Hugh Hewitt had Sen. George Allen on his show for an interview right before the vote for cloture on John Bolton. If anyone heard this, then you could sense that Allen knew Bolton was not going to get enough votes. And when the subject turned to the deal and the judicial nominees, one could tell that Allen definitely was not pleased. Below is a partial transcript of that interview (Hat-tip to RadioBlogger for putting it up. You can go to Duane’s site—via the link below—to read the transcript in it’s entirety.)
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000719
HH: Senator Allen, thanks for breaking away from the great debate over John Bolton. Will you get to a vote before you go on recess, Senator?
GA: We better. This is...we were supposed to be voting right now, as I'm on the sidelines in the Cloak Room, here. So I'm a sidelines reporter for you, and as is typical with the Senate, punctuality means about as much to the Senate as it does to a pig. And so, here we are waiting. And I'm not sure...we're going to try to get a cloture vote, and we need sixty votes. John Bolton will be an outstanding advocate for American...our taxpayers to the United Nations, and so it's going to be a pretty close vote on cloture, and hopefully we'll get to it this evening.
HH: Senator, will you be speaking later in the evening?
GA: On John Bolton?
HH: Yes.
GA: No, I've already spoken today. We were supposed to vote at 6:00 on cloture, and here we are, of course...
HH: Has anyone made the point that Lebanon is heading into crucial elections, about which the U.N. may have a strong influence on their fairness, and we do not have an ambassador there?
GA: I haven't...a good point, Hugh. Gosh, if I were going to speak, I could say that.
HH: Well, pass on a note to someone.
GA: I can't pass on a note. No one is speaking now. They're all huddling in the usual confusion, but the point is, the United Nations actually can be useful. It hasn't lived up to what we would hope, and obviously with the fraud and abuse and the scandals, people in this country question whether the United Nations is worth the $2 billion dollars we spend every year. But it can be made more credible, more useful, and someone like John Bolton is the type of person who I think would be perfect. He is not going to get seduced by all these meaningless pontifications of bureaucratic functionaries, but he's going to make sure these reforms and changes are made. And I want a watchdog up there, not somebody who's just going to be happy to warm a seat.
HH: Well, do you think you have the votes for cloture?
GA: Not sure. We're not sure.
HH: That's amazing.
GA: That's why things are so up in the air right now.
HH: Three hours ago, David Espo, AP, filed a story that Senator Reid said the Monday deal, about which we're going to talk shortly, could bring bipartisanship...
GA: yea...
HH: ...and three hours later they're denying cloture on the Bolton vote. Is that bipartisanship?
GA: Yup, there you go. That's pretty good influence there. I think we have every Republican. Even Voinovich is going to vote for cloture. He'll vote against Bolton, but he's going to vote for cloture. And so, therefore, we have to pick up five Democrats to get to sixty, although one of our members is apparently on a train, and I don't know this, Hugh. This is heresay and rumor.
HH: Oh well, good luck in that, Senator...
GA: Yea, but you know, all this bipartisanship, that's right. And this is not a lifetime appointment.
HH: Well, I wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard this morning that, don't let this go to your head, I'm sure you read it every day, that you were the big winner out of Monday's disaster, because everybody else's reputation sort of, they got taken off the board for dealing the deal. I've heard you say on Imus and other shows that it was a bad deal. But I haven't had anyone explain to me yet, what happens to Brett Cavanaugh and Griffiths and the other great judges that are in committee? Are they guaranteed an up or down vote?
GA: No. That's unclear, Hugh. Once we get through Janice Rogers Brown and Judge Pryor, I think the next one that should test all this should be William Myers for the 9th Circuit. Let's see what that means. Why did they...it seems to me that they threw Judge Saad and William Myers, or Bill Myers overboard in the midst of this deal, and that's a disappointment. The Democrats apparently got the scalps they wanted. I have urged that we go forward with those...that nomination, and he's for the 9th Circuit. And the reason that this is important to test what this is, this so-called deal, is one to see, all right, they said they're not going to be filibustered, so what are they going to do on Myers. And secondly, it's the 9th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed so often, they are Exhibit A of activist judges, who ignore the will of the people. This is the same court that struck down the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the words under God.
HH: Yea, it's Harry Pregerson, it's Reinhardt, it's your worst nightmare. I practice in front of it, Senator, so I know the 9th Circuit well.
GA: Well, okay. And if there's one court that needs some common sense judges, who understand the role of the judiciary's not to invent the law or apply...act as a super-legislature, it is the 9th Circuit. And let's see if the Democrats want to be on the side of these ludicrous, terrible rulings out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And that's why I think William Myers, or Bill Myers, is such a good, outstanding choice. And he's from Idaho, and I've talked to the Idaho Senators, and they think this guy is top notch. They'll try to characterize him, you know, far right-wing and so forth. As far as some of the folks I've talked to, they say gosh. He's not conservative enough.
HH: If Bill Myers comes up, and is filibustered, I can understand that being part of the deal. But do you expect any of your colleagues actually pledged votes against nominees? Is that rumor there? Because then, that's different than a deal. That's an actual attack on an individual, which I don't think people would be very approving of.
GA: Yea, there are, and I don't want to breach confidence, as there are some who are opposed to, who have at least stated, that they are opposed to...will vote against a...one of these judicial nominees. I don't want to breach confidences.
HH: Okay.
GA: Now how this applies to Cavanaugh and others is really unclear. The other thing that is even more unsettling is that one of the reasons I wanted us not to be cowering and timid on this, and not letting the Democrats steal the march on us on this issue that matters so much to people all across this country, and get it done sooner rather than later, is there's likely to be a vacancy next month on the Supreme Court.
HH: Or two.
GA: Or potentially two. But clearly, there'll be one, and that's when they usually, Justices, announce their retirement, because it's at the end of the term, and the president and the Senate have all the way until October, the October term, to fill the vacancy. I don't care to be going through this Constitutional option battle in the midst of the Supreme Court vacancy.
HH: It's a tactical screw-up, yup.
GA: Yea, and so see the Democrats, in this deal, doesn't settle that at all, and the Democrats would rather fight this on a Supreme Court nominee than they would on Circuit Courts, that most people may not necessarily understand. I also am very proud of what I call our magnificent seven. These are the magnificent seven new Republican Senators. They all understand, as I did campaigning with them. Whether I was down in the Carolinas and Floria, or Cajun country in Louisiana, Oklahoma or South Dakota, that the issue of judges was a key issue. And in fact, it fired up people more than even tax cuts, even more than less regulation. People were for energy independence, they were for leadership and innovation, but I tell you. I'd always finish off, give us a strong Republican majority, and we'll get judges who apply the law, not invent the law.
HH: And on that point, Senator Allen, I just had Dana Milbank on, and he said it's only social conservatives who are upset about the judges. Was that your experience as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee?
GA: Not at all. The social conservatives certainly were, but I think all people...just...the way I'd characterize it was, President Bush's nominees deserve, or should be accorded the fairness of an up or down vote. That's just simple fairness and due process that you don't hold up outstanding nominees, well qualified men and women, for three, four years, and then after they run through the gauntlet, not even give them the courtesy of an up or down vote. And so, I think that our base surely was fired up on this. But I also think that fair minded independent voters realized this is not an approach that is to their liking. After all, the architect of all this, Tom Daschle, who I branded as the chief obstructionist, is the first leader, Senate leader, to be defeated in 52 years.
HH: Yea, it resonated.
This was an awesome interview, and Sen. Allen is a man I can respect. He is a man that could very well be presidential material one day. He has the knowledge, he has the wisdom, and he has the backbone. He was governor of Virginia from 1994-1998. He has served in the US House, and the State House in Virginia. He was the chairman of the NRSC in 2002. The man has led before; he does know how to do so. He is up for reelection in 2006, and I hope he wins. Based on his popularity in Virginia, it would be a curse of hellish-proportions if he lost. Sen. Allen is precisely the sort of leader that the Republicans need in the Senate.
The leadership of the GOP is marching in lock-step. They know what must be done, and they are doing their best to assist the president in getting his agenda passed through the Senate. But we have far too many in the Senate that care nothing for the party. They care only about themselves. Sen. Allen stated in this interview that he had spoken to Lindsey Graham, and no, his colleague does not regret his decision from Monday. It is pathetic that someone cannot even recognize a serious error such as completely disregarding the Constitution of the United States; the same Constitution that that swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend."
If this is the sort of protection that the moderates are promising, then it is time to remove the moderates. And I disagree with anyone who believes this to be a foolish statement. Thomas and I have both said that the party has plenty of room for moderates. The mom-and-pop, Joe Q. Six-packs that put their money and their trust in the Republicans are fine. And moderation on legislation is fine, as well.
But there is no room for moderation on the Constitution. It burns a lot of conservatives up when they see McCain and his ilk spitting on it. And that is what we take it as. Our troops do not go out to protect our flag. They go out and protect this nation and the very document that ensures that freedom. I would certainly expect that from people like John McCain, who is such a vaunted and lauded "war hero", but I guess some things change.
What will never change is we expect our representatives to go to Washington, and speak for us. We expect them to protect and respect our rights, and to respect the Constitution. This week has been one in which we have watched a rogue group of senators wreck the Constitutional checks and balances, while both sides of the leadership diddled.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home