|
Friday, December 15, 2006
Trading on Tragedy
It seems as though the first reaction of many people on both sides of the political fence to the news of Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) sudden illness was, "How will this affect the balance of power in the Senate? Oh, and I hope he's alright." The mainstream media ghouls injected the question of Democratic control into every other sentence when covering the story. On one popular Left-wing web site, for instance, "well-wishers" posted such sentiments as, "Nothing is going to take away our victory. Period," and "sd has a repug gov ... the thought of majority leader mcconnell would be a damper on ... our holidays" Frankly, I hope Senator Johnson's soon up and about, and back on duty when the Senate goes into session.
First and foremost, it's immoral to hope a person suffers in order for one's "team" to make gains, whether we're discussing sports or politics. The Left may see people as pawns in a political game, but we should not sink to their level. Whatever his politics, Tim Johnson is a very sick man with a very worried family. Suffering a stroke, or whatever incapacitating event may have happened to him, is nothing short of a tragedy. I, for one, would not want Republicans gaining control of the Senate at such a price, even if that were to happen.
If Senator Johnson is unable to fulfill his duties, the Republican governor of South Dakota would likely appoint a Republican Senator to take Johnson's place for the remainder of his term. This would change the Senate from a Democratic majority to a 50-50 split, with all ties decided by Vice President Dick Cheney, who is also President of the Senate. All the ardent speculation, however, would be for nothing in the end anyway. Not only would Johnson's stepping down change nothing in reality, but hoping for it is demeaning and detrimental to everyone.
There would be no real gain for Republicans or Conservatives should the Senate be split evenly. The so-called "balance of power" would probably not shift an inch even if Governor Mike Rounds appointed the most fire-breathing Conservative in America (whoever the reader might think would fill that bill) to take Johnson's place. Democrats nearly always vote in lockstep, while too many Republicans vote with them all too often. The term RINO (Republican in Name Only) is familiar to those who follow politics, but there is no corresponding widely-used term like "DINO."
With 55 Republicans, the Senate still passed bills granting de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants, huge Medicare entitlements and massive pork-laden spending bills of all kinds. They failed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, had trouble confirming Federal judges at every level and were unable to even confirm John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. What makes anyone think that 50 Republicans can do what 55 could not? It would only take one Republican siding with the Democrats to pass (or kill) nearly any bill. The problem is not the number of Republicans in the Senate (and the House, and the White House), it's the number of Conservatives, which is woefully inadequate.
For the next two years, Democratic politicians will be unable to hide behind the myth of "Republican control" when explaining their failures to their far-Left base. The Democrats are now in the open, in control of both Houses, with nowhere to run. They have to switch from the party of obstruction to the party of action... and there are so few actions that will satisfy all the members of the fractured coalitions that vote Democrats into office.
I'll be damned, to make a bad pun, before I sell my soul for mere politics, especially when any gain would be a purely nominal one. I wish Senator Johnson a speedy and full recovery, for human as well as political reasons, and hope you all do the same.
Hat tip to Wuzzadem for the comments from Daily Kos and other sites.
Posted at Friday, December 15, 2006 by CavalierX
 | | | Tom
December 17, 2006 07:22 PM PST
The media is going into a panic at just the thought that their chosen party's majority might be threatened. | |
| | | Jimbob
December 19, 2006 08:15 AM PST
The media is going into a panic about the possibility that mad prince george will continue his reign unchecked (which he will anyway - he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution or basic civil rights). Is he the worst President America has suffered?
The funny thing is that Americans are losing their liberties - after generations have fought so hard for them, for so long. Thrown away at the whim of a single man. And you accept it happily...
A little something that should be remembered, by a great man:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Got to agree on one thing though - don't much like the media. Untrustworthy as a rule, and got their priorities all wrong.
By the way, it seems a bit silly that a governor can choose whoever he wants to replace an empty seat in the Senate. Surely the will of the people who voted for a certain party should be respected? Don't you think so?
| |
| | | Elvez73
December 19, 2006 12:37 PM PST
Good post, I couldn't agree with you more. Wishing ill on others for political gain, or for your favorite team to win is just not right. Politics in America is a full contact sport, but too many on the Left and the Right seem to have lost their innate American sense of fairness and civility. | |
| | | JM
December 19, 2006 04:26 PM PST
>mad prince george
BDS alert! Drool cleanup in aisle three!
>he doesn't give a damn about the
>Constitution or basic civil rights
Well, not for terrorists, I should hope.
>Americans are losing their liberties
I hope you have some hard evidence for me, as even Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was totally unable to find any to support this claim. So, who has lost a liberty, to whom, and why? Be specific.
>Benjamin Franklin
What "essential liberty" has anyone lost, and what evidence do you have to suppport your claim that the safety purchased thereby is temporary and little? Again, be specific.
>it seems a bit silly that a governor
>can choose whoever he wants to
>replace an empty seat in the
>Senate
I find it hilarious that you say that the President "doesn't give a damn about the Constitution," when you yourself call it "silly."
>Surely the will of the people who
>voted for a certain party should
>be respected? Don't you think so?
Silly me... I thought they voted for a man. And were you this upset when a Republican was replaced with a Democrat by a Governor? Does the name "John Heinz" ring a bell? | |
| | | Jimbob
December 20, 2006 11:16 AM PST
Bds lol! You're are probably right to the extent that I do have a pretty negative view of Bush. Though I'm sure he must have got something right somewhere....
Basic civil rights should always be respected for all and every person. That is something that I strongly believe in: when you start making exceptions you're on dangerous ground (and also because the exceptions created often tend to increase). Also because it can happen that people suspected of crimes are innocent.
As to essential liberties lost: habeus corpus for one. The Law covers American citizens too, who may just be somewhere at the wrong time and place, or they may be someone who any member of this government or any future government doesn't like (doesn't have to be Dubya or his buddies), and with a certain label put on them they cannot contest their imprisonment.
This is going back to medieval times, and I certainly don't think that I am safer through this law. It's too much power to government, the whole idea of the judiciary is to help balance power... No one should be able to lock you up and throw away the key - at least not until you have been found guilty by the People (as opposed to suspected guilty by the Government or administration).
The reason I say the safety bought is "temporary" is because I hope, as does everyone I think, that this "war on terror" will end - that this is not a permanent situation for the future. It is "little" because as far as I can tell there is no gain in safety in not permitting people to contest their imprisonment. If there is good evidence against them they will stay in prison. Isn't that right?
Other essential liberties have been lost, but I think this is one of the most important ones. There are also other indications of possible loss of liberties, such as the redefinition of torture by the Administration. Doesn't bode well for anyone that...
About the Constitution - I think it's State law which defines that the Governor chooses the replacement Senator. In other States I think things sometimes work differently.
Seeing that what you said is right, that the vote was for a person and not necessarily for a Party, the best thing to do would be to hold new elections in the State.
However, if this did not occur, then the Governor should appoint a senator from the same party, because this would be the closest he could get to the presumed will of the people who voted. I don't know if you agree.
I don't remember John Heinz I'm afraid, but I think the Governor should always take into account the voters as much as possible with his appointment.
| |
| | | JM
December 20, 2006 11:50 AM PST
>You're are probably right to the
>extent that I do have a pretty
>negative view of Bush.
Thank you, O Master of the Obvious.
>Basic civil rights should always be
>respected for all and every
>person.
And what, precisely, are these rights to which you refer? List them, and tell me who does not seem to have them. Perhaps you mean "human rights." The US is very scrupulous in observing basic human rights, even for the scum held in Gitmo.
>people suspected of crimes are
>innocent
Criminal procedures and Constitutional protections have nothing to do with enemy combatants during wartime. This is not an episode of CSI; this is a war.
>habeus corpus for one
Which only covers American citizens, none of whom have had that right removed since Abraham Lincoln suspended it for the duration of the Civil War. Again, please be SPECIFIC, and list Americans who have lost this right.
>Other esential liberties have been
>lost
What essential liberties? Lost by whom? Your refusal to provide specifics is telling.
>redefinition of torture by the
>Administration
How on Earth does attempting to define what constitutes torture and what does not become a "redefinition" of turture, and a loss of civil liberties? I know you Liberals want to define "torture" as "anything that makes an enemy mildly uncomfortable in any way," but that's ridiculous.
>No one should be able to lock you
>up and throw away the key - at
>least not until you have been
>found guilty by the People
Again, you seem to be confusing war with criminal prosecution. I suggest you refer to the German soldiers held in prison camps across the country for the duration of WWII, AFTER which they were tried.
>If there is good evidence against
>them they will stay in prison.
Obviously, you've decided to ignore the fact that a) no Gitmo detainee is a US citizen and b) ever Gitmo detainee's case was carefully reviewed. Some were let go, and some of them went right back to fighting us, which means the standards for holding them are already too lax.
>the best thing to do
Tell you what: give the governor a call and tell him what you have decided is best, laws be damned.
>I don't know if you agree.
I agree that the law should be followed, not the judgments pronounced by various internet posters. The law says that the governor names a replacement. No qualifications (such as "he must name a Democrat" or "he must take a poll of internet comments") are included, as far as I know. | |
| | | kenny
December 22, 2006 01:58 AM PST
I completely agree with the first statement! | |
| | | Jimbob
December 24, 2006 08:35 AM PST
Haven't been able to answer yet, cause I've been really busy, but I will, and I'd like to wish you a Merry Xmas! | |
| | | Jimbob
January 4, 2007 07:26 AM PST
The point about the redefinition of torture is the following:
Torture has been clearly defined in the past. The Genevas do it, for example, as do other international conventions.
The fact that this Administration redefined it, with criticism all over the civilized world, shows that it went beyond the acceptable.
Countries which did not issue any sort of comment include China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Syria.... Not a happy group for America to belong to (in my opinion).
The argument that it is indicative of torture or, at least, of the intent to torture: If this is not the case - why did the Government bother to attempt to legitimize the methods they mentioned. Or, putting it otherwise: why did they move the borders of what is legal if they did not intend to use the new territory thus acquired?
I think intent is clear. The past history of this government - whether you agree with it or not - also points strongly to the fact that the methods in question were in fact applied. As does the evidence from witnesses and officials and victims.
About comparisons with POWs from the past: they are incorrect. America is fighting a war against a concept, not against a state. I mean - its gotta be won, but can it be won? You can't talk to terror, you can't have ceasefires with terror. Can anyone (this includes Dubya) actually end terror? And what if terror wins?
As such it can only be a perpetual war: even if the entire world was a single American nation it would still be easy to evoke a "war against terror".
And so, saying "this is a war" basically means that the so called enemy combatants will be locked up for the rest of their lives without a chance of challenging their imprisonment, whether combatants or not, whether fairly imprisoned or not, literally throwing away the key - is that your America?
About laws: I believe that bad laws should be revoked and good laws put in their place. While the bad law is still in effect, it should be interpreted in the best way possible.
So the governor, with the power to appoint a man to a position made vacant, and America being a democracy, should do his best to adhere to the presumable will of the people and not just appoint whoever he choses. Or do you think he should appoint his buddy, or maybe his nephew?
And if he does not respect the will of the people he is probably unworthy of office.
This goes for Repubicans as well as Democrats. Even if it is a bitter pill for the whoever is governor in whatever state at the time. Just because you have a certain power does not mean you should use it just as you like. | |
|
|
