Politics As Usual

[Gattigap]

""Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer. Over eight years it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service." -- GWB, today.

Boy, that hadda hurt.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No.

What was the idea?

The panel on Fox were discussing the parallels between RR and GWB - they both had controversial big picture ideas and were heavily criticized by the opposition as being too aggressive and alienating our allies. Bill just said that at the Rep Convention, one of the speakers needs to say "win one more for the Gipper." I like the idea, and it would certainly get a good response from the crowd, but it might backfire if not done right or not said by the right person.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
The panel on Fox were discussing the parallels between RR and GWB - they both had controversial big picture ideas and were heavily criticized by the opposition as being too aggressive and alienating our allies. Bill just said that at the Rep Convention, one of the speakers needs to say "win one more for the Gipper." I like the idea, and it would certainly get a good response from the crowd, but it might backfire if not done right or not said by the right person.

I think it would be a HUGE mistake, and is really unseemly to me. Bush needs to stand on his own record, not on Reagan's.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
""Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer. Over eight years it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service." -- GWB, today.

Boy, that hadda hurt.

He didn't really say much in that quote, but yet was gracious. He said that Clinton was working hard to bring a better day to America. He didn't say that Clinton succeeded. He said Bill loved the job of Prez. Sure, he loved access to fat interns with soft full lips. The only quote that can even be construed as saying something substantive is when he said Bill could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service. I am not even sure what that means, though.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
""Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer. Over eight years it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service." -- GWB, today.

Boy, that hadda hurt.

For what it's worth, I've heard they kind of get along. And remember it was Clinton in 2000 that, after meeing GWB, was warning DEMS not to misunderestimate him.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it would be a HUGE mistake, and is really unseemly to me. Bush needs to stand on his own record, not on Reagan's.

Yeah, it could come off bad if it wasn't done right. If Nancy spoke at the convention, maybe she could say it and it would work.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yeah, it could come off bad if it wasn't done right. If Nancy spoke at the convention, maybe she could say it and it would work.

She'll probably be dead by then. Her funeral may still be going on, though.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
He didn't really say much in that quote, but yet was gracious. He said that Clinton was working hard to bring a better day to America. He didn't say that Clinton succeeded. He said Bill loved the job of Prez. Sure, he loved access to fat interns with soft full lips. The only quote that can even be construed as saying something substantive is when he said Bill could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service. I am not even sure what that means, though.

Where do the official portraits go and why is there a Hillary portrait?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yeah, it could come off bad if it wasn't done right. If Nancy spoke at the convention, maybe she could say it and it would work.

Doubtful. As we've seen, especially in the last week, Nancy is the guardian of Reagan's legacy. There's nothing to be gained from her trying to leverage GWB's candidacy with it.*

Instead, maybe we could recruit Buchanan to say it instead. I visualize him using the line to exhort the faithful, possibly with a pitchfork in hand. Or maybe an AK-47.

Gattigap


*That's not to say, though, that GWB might not ask anyway. Apparently, he's making it a habit to request political help from (un)orthodox quarters.

During his June 4 visit, Bush asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

A Vatican official told NCR June 9 that in his meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, “Not all the American bishops are with me” on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism.

It seems like only yesterday when Kennedy had to swear that he wouldn't be taking instructions from the Pope. Good times, good times.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't really know enough about this area of law, but it is my understanding that this is not a case of first impression. So I'm not sure it is right to say he is undoubtedly entitled to Constitutional protections.

(a) Under what circumstances is a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, not entitled to Constitutional protections as against his government?
(Particularly when we are not, technically, at war with anyone?)

(b) As far as I know, this is pretty much a case of first impression. The "enemy combatant" cases that the administration's defenders kept throwing around early on involved Germans sent ashore from a submarine to spy/sabotage in the U.S. in WWII. I'm not aware of a case with facts that are even particularly close to this.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps you are arguing what the law should be, in which case, I believe there are constituencies on both sides whose rights need to be considered. From what I understand, the big fear of the GOV is that by giving him Constitutional rights, he would have access to communicate with those who mean to do us harm. If true, this is a serious concern to me. On the other side of the coin are, of course, the human rights issues. And on top of all this, we have separation of powers issues.

So given all this, it seems to me that the way to balance these competing issues is to have some sort of judicial review on the enemy combatant question, which I think is exactly what we have.

I'm not arguing what the law _should_ be -- I just listed what troubled me about how they've handled it.

However, Club -- how can you say that we HAVE judicial review of the "enemy combatant" designation when that is precisely the issue being fought in the courts, and the administration has taken the position that there can and should be NO REVIEW of such designation by the judiciary?

If there is some judicial review, and the designation is upheld -- is it your position that this is just fine? i.e. If you've been properly designated an "enemy combatant" (some kind of "reasonable basis" test, I'd assume) -- the government can hold him forever (or so long as desired), without charges, and with no right to further challenge his status? Shit, we should heve thought this up years ago and used it on Randy Weaver.

Sure, there are plenty of contituencies and issues to consider. There are legitimate national security concerns if the government is exercising its power responsibly.

What would prevent these issues from being handled in an expanded "national security" court system, where proceedings can be held in secret, with judges, attorneys, etc. who have the requisite clearances to hear the evidence? [The hell of it is that these scary secret courts, with the proper procedural protections, would be a vast improvement on what we have now for them.]

If the response is that the evidence won't meet the requisite burden of proof, because intelligence is always squishy, I'd ask whether we really want our government to be able to confine our citizens indefinitely based on vague or unprovable assertions?

Is whatever benefit we might be getting from this "enemy combatant" stuff really worth the cost to our civil liberties and national identity? It is true that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. However, people who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Where do the official portraits go and why is there a Hillary portrait?

I think the article mentions that there's an entrance hall in which the most recent president's portrait resides.

Hillary's will be downstairs with the other first ladies, but rumors are that there's a tiny mechanism hidden in the back of the frame that will detach HRC from the wall sometime in late August and start moving itsurreptitiously towards the Oval.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap


Hillary's will be downstairs with the other first ladies, but rumors are that there's a tiny mechanism hidden in the back of the frame that will detach HRC from the wall sometime in late August and start moving itsurreptitiously towards the Oval.

When it gets there, will it engage in a catfight with the monica lewinsky portrait hanging in the corridor off the Oval?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
I see Padilla being the same as an American who fights againt the US in a war and is captured - an enemy POW.

So, then, do you think that the protections of the Geneva Conventions should apply to Padilla and should have applied to Walker Lindh? Think carefully.

Or, if not -- and he's regarded as a plain-clothes spy and traitorous enemy operative, shouldn't he get his day in Court before being executed? Or not.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Particularly when we are not, technically, at war with anyone?

The entire issue turns on whether we are at war with Al Qaeda or not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is true that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

As Mark Kleiman said in a post that he's recently re-posted on his blog, people are wrenching that line from Justice Jackson's decision out of context. Al Qaeda is trying to kill us. But it is not a threat to our Constitution, our government or our way of life. Justice Jackson did not mean that the Constitution is suspended when, e.g., we're at war. (Kleiman's post on this is a good one; read it.)