June 2004

Circle Up and Fire!

Ray LaHood is great. Who else could could turn the guns inward just as Jack! was starting to get out from behind recent problems? The Hill covers LaHood’s comments on the Ryan strategery to date and they aren’t pretty.

?He?s running kind of a bonehead campaign right now,? LaHood said of Ryan. ?This idea of having one of his staffers trail around Obama and take video pictures of him at all of his events is about the stupidest thing I?ve ever seen in a high-profile campaign, and it?s been publicized all over Illinois, and when people in our party ask what?s going on I tell them it?s ridiculous.?

The fossil in the 8th District offers up this defense:

Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), who attended a fundraiser Friday for Ryan featuring Vice President Dick Cheney, said Ryan?s flagging campaign is the fault of the Illinois Republican Party, not Ryan.

?Our party has been in a state of disarray for many years, beginning with the scandal down in Springfield,? Crane said, referring to the corruption controversy surrounding former GOP Gov. George Ryan, who is no relation to Jack Ryan. Crane added that the scandal ?has caused a lot of people to be disenchanted. Jack Ryan is a dynamo out on the hustings.?

Kevin McCullough: Stupid or Dishonest

In his most recent tirade at the Leader he attacks Barack Obama for supporting suspect classification based on sexual orientation for employment, housing and other public interactions.

Obama’s turn in the legislature has been footnoted with radical initiatives. He was co-sponsor to the most radical pro-homosexual legislation to be put forward in the Illinois state senate – SB101. The bill actually attempted to have homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered individuals added to the Illinois civil rights act.

This bill would have equated active homosexual behavior to the same status as being born with African, Latino, or Asian, DNA. It also would have opened the door to “Homosexual Affirmative Action” allowing people preference in jobs, housing, or even getting married – because of homosexual behavior. On his campaign web-site Obama had posted his clear intentions of furthering this agenda.

This agenda means you can’t fire or hire someone based on who they love. You can’t discriminate in housing based on who someone loves. That’s all. It isn’t affirmative action at all–that is a lie. Suspect classification means that to differentiate based on the characteristic you have to meet a high burden of proof that such a distinction serves a purpose. We offer that protection to people due to their race, their religion, their gender, their national background and more.

How radical is this legislation? It is so radical that local ordinances similar to it have been passed in that bastion of radicalism Normal, Illinois. In Bloomington too. In Peoria.

Of course, Kevin is trying to terrify you with his claims of the horror of equal treatment, but he slips up and implies that marriage is included in SB 101. It is not.

And, in fact, Obama doesn’t support gay marriage. He supports civil unions that allow life long partners to enter into contracts that allow them to share the same rights as married folks. But not call it marriage. And he thinks federal benefits ought to be available to those in such unions so he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act.

He believes in limited government where adults in consensual, loving relationships are allowed to decide for themselves what is moral.

Dick Lugar’s Translator

Was in the Trib this weekend.

I’m an interventionist. A liberal one who believes that judicious use of US power can make the world a better place. I’ve seen the horrors of the misuse of that power in Nicaragua, but I still believe the US can be a productive force in keeping the world stable and avoiding genocide. And both those goals make us more secure.

Despite my change of heart on Iraq, I’ve supported most of our international efforts over the last 10-12 years. Used within the context of world institutions American power can do amazing things. Used outside of that context it is far less powerful. And I believe that there are decent Republicans who have similar beliefs. While partisan rancor is high right now, there are several Republicans I have a great deal of respect for–one of them being Dick Lugar. From the Trib article are some excellent insights:

“Unless the United States commits itself to a sustained program of repairing and rebuilding alliances, expanding trade, pursuing resolutions to regional conflicts, supporting democracy and development and controlling weapons of mass destruction, we are likely to experience acts of catastrophic terrorism that would undermine our economy, damage our society and kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people,” Lugar said.

Simple sentences are not his friend. But the point is obvious: The present strategy isn’t working.

“The United States, as a nation, simply has not made this commitment,” he continued. “We are worried about terrorism, but the evolution of national security policy has not kept up with the threat. We have relied heavily on military options and unilateral approaches that weakened our alliances. We have engaged in self-flagellation over the Sept. 11 tragedy rather than executive affirmative global strategies aimed at addressing the root causes of terrorism.”

The administration, which often regards Congress as little more than a nuisance, has even been reluctant to have key witnesses testify before Lugar’s committee.

Lugar isn’t perfect. He thought our efforts in the former Yugoslavia would fail. He was wrong there, but on Afghanistan and Iraq he has a depressingly nearly perfect record.

An Interesting Article in Harper’s

Though I haven’t read it yet and Harper’s isn’t full text The Washington Post gives a decent overview

Too often Americans buy into really easy stereotypes of who we are fighting in various conflicts. Part of this is the lack of attention spans by individuals and part is by the press so a good take on who is actually fighting can do a lot to explain incredibly complex situations. Some people we fight are violent Islamicists. Some are opportunists and some are simply patriots who think American forces won’t be benevolent in the long run. Each of these three are different challenges. One you defeat, one you jail, and the other you demonstrate your values to.

The sad irony is contained at the end of the first page:

Last November, Mohammed was arrested by American troops and sent to the now-notorious Abu Ghraib prison. But Abu Ali has fared better: He was hired to do contracting work for the occupation government and used his profits to support the resistance. This means, Graham notes, that “the American taxpayer was funding both sides of the conflict.”

What strikes me most about this is that we went in unprepared to deal with this sort of situation. Idiots like Perle suggested the Iraqi people would celebrate and be ready for full sovereignty right way almost, while realists such as Dick Lugar suggested a broader coalition and preparing the population for a long war.

Instead of understanding how complex this situation was, the civilians in the Pentagon sold this war on the cheap and full of hubris. The uniformed leaders suggested more troops. The civilians balked and suggested a new way. And now we know they wanted a way around the international law–or to put more plainly, the law of the land given the United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and treaties approved by the Senate are just that.

Well that new way is failing. War is never simple and there was no chance this would be a World War II that was straightforward (though not easy). We face multiple problems in Iraq, but the Secretary of Defense would like to make you think the problems are simply evil incarnate in a few places. Some of our foes are evil–others need to be shown what being American means. Instead of trusting Americans to understand the need for a prolonged effort, Pentagon civilians sold a lie that the problems were isolated and not a big deal. They were wrong and now there must be accountability at the top. Fire Rumsfeld.

A Political Science PhD in Congress? Heaven Forbid

The Leader is reporting that Bill Lipinski is stepping down and working to hand the seat over to Dan Lipinski, a PhD from Duke who teaches at University of Tennessee (a university much maligned for its rather moronic law school faculty that blogs). I’ve heard Dan is a nice guy and bright who is a stellar teacher and researcher, though I can’t be too excited about handing over a seat to a son.

I believe there is only one other PhD in political science currently serving in Congress though Jeff Smith running in the 3rd essentially is editing his dissertation down so that he might well be a PhD by the time he takes office.

Generally, a PhD in Political Science means one is likely to have a five sided discussion with oneself and thus is a disqualifier for public office.

Steinberg Seems a Bit Slow

His column today misses that the Blagorgeous Administration didn’t get the final agreement to the Attorney General until 2 Days before the closing date.

So Steinberg might be right—it might not be a coincidence, Team Blagorgeous might have tried to set her up knowing full well what a legal analysis would conclude.

A blog being a pithy medium and all, I’m sure I do this sort of thing with some regularity, but I’m not getting paid in a major daily paper.

Not All Republicans Are Clueless

Chris Rhodes takes on the hip factor between the major parties right now…

Keep up the Good work

It works for those on the other side of the aisle, but seriously, a rock band that is primarily known amongst young devout evangelicals isn’t exactly a way to target the average young person. That doesn’t mean they can’t have the evangelical band, but you might think of some other activities to attract others–I doubt you’ll get Wilco, there, but there are more than one way to skin a cat.

I’ll say the DTripC has gotten much hipper just as I’m getting much older. But I’m happy to see it. The Survivor bit is a riot and I think even in good fun everyone can find it funny.

Bringing me to the biggest problem of a potential Kerry presidency–the guy isn’t funny. At all. And he isn’t fun to make fun of. I mean, Bubba was fun. W is Gold. What will I do? Make fun of Inhofe every day?