How deep runs the culture of corruption among the GOP? While House Republicans have been sniping at their Senate colleagues of late, most of them have nothing but praise for “dead man walking” Bob Ney. When Ney — despite having four big-name witnesses arrayed against him — recently vowed not to resign his seat, “an overwhelming majority of the members present, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), gave Ney a standing ovation.” And, in related news, The Hill finds that the anti-earmark provision of the recent phantom reform bill is riddled with loopholes big enough to drive a pork-truck through.
Tag: Election 2006
But stay away from the interns.
“‘Republicans ‘are in such desperate shape,’ he said, ‘We don’t want to give them anything to grab on to.'” A spokesman for Nancy Pelosi says impeachment is currently off the table in the planning for a Democratic House.
Taxing Days for the GOP.
“‘The point is the preponderance of these revenues will go to upper-income people, people who make a million dollars or more,’ Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said yesterday. ‘It’s a question of priorities.‘” Nevertheless, as expected, House and Senate GOP leaders strike a deal to extend Dubya’s tax breaks for the wealthy to 2010, with the House passing their end 244-185 today. Well, this tax gambit may help the GOP with their base among the “haves and have-mores,” I guess, but I really don’t see how this will stop the GOP’s 14-point freefall across the rest of the country. Update: The Senate follows suit, 54-44.
Hiding in Plain Right.
“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office.” Concerned about the desire for possible investigations of Dubya (as well as calls for withdrawal from Iraq) among the party’s grassroots and left-wing, the Democratic hawks of the DLC make a case for running on national security issues. I dunno..at first glance, it sounds like the same-old stale brand of warmed-over protective camouflage that the DLC’s been pushing on us for years…first you’d have to convince me that calling Dubya out for his multiple civil liberties violations and breaches of the public trust, as well as putting the brakes on our badly mismanaged foray into Iraq, aren’t national security issues.
The Dems Ascendant?
“‘This administration may be over,’ Lance Tarrance, a chief architect of the Republicans’ 1960s and ’70s Southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. ‘By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over.‘” Are we at the turn of the tide? As even committed conservatives and right-leaning observers start sticking a fork in the Dubya administration, newly confident Dems begin to prepare for a return of the House. Foremost in their plans is “a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls…a Democratic House would [also] launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House’s first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.”
And DeLay came tumbling after?
“‘It clearly shows some members live in a dream world of high-class living and fictional accounting. DeLay’s office was part of the public deception. It makes you wonder if there are more filings as fictional as this one is turning out to be,’ said Kent Cooper, the former chief of public disclosure for the Federal Election Commission.” Prosecutors disclose an e-mail trail indicating that Boss DeLay’s office knowingly filed false reports about Abramoff-paid boondoggles and were “concerned ‘if someone starts asking questions.’“
State of Emergency.
Defying Dubya’s talk of a veto — in keeping with the Operation Offset line of thinking, he wants less spending to help mitigate his ridiculous tax giveaways — and Dennis Hastert’s declaration that it was “dead on arrival” in the House, the Senate passes an $109 billion emergency spending bill 77-21. “The Senate bill would provide $70.9 billion to the military to pay for personnel, operation and maintenance, and procurement costs, along with diplomatic efforts such as democracy-building programs. The Senate more than doubled a $58 million request for peacekeeping assistance in Sudan, providing $173 million. Bush requested $19.8 billion in hurricane-related assistance, and the Senate responded with $28.9 billion — adding projects large and small.”
House of Corruption.
“Their bill…is an insult to voters who the GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be snookered by this feint. The procedures under which it is to be debated, allowing only meaningless amendments to be considered, are an insult also — to the democratic process.” Neverthless, despite the Post‘s pleading yesterday, the House makes a bet that Abramoff won’t stick and passes the GOP’s phantom reform bill 217-213. “Joan Claybrook, president of the liberal group Public Citizen, said the measure is ‘a fraud on the American public.’” A fraud…and hopefully a fatal error for the GOP majority, should Casino Jack’s travails remain front-page fodder from now through November.
A Relapse Binge for the GOP.
“‘You talk about completely detached from reality, that’s this place,’ said Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.” Throwing caution to the wind despite their imploding poll numbers and the ballooning deficit, the White House and congressional Republicans craft a deal to extend Dubya’s dividend and capital gains tax breaks for the wealthy. Still, the “compromise measure falls well short of making Bush’s first-term tax cuts permanent. Instead, all of the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would expire at the end of 2010.“
Update: The WP dissects the GOP’s tax gamesmanship: “If the deal wins congressional approval, every major tax cut passed in Bush’s first term will be set to expire on the same day five years from now. [Jan. 1, 2011.] At that moment, politicians would face a choice: Either allow taxes to rise suddenly and sharply on everyone who pays income taxes, is married, has children, holds stocks and bonds, or expects a large inheritance, or impose mounting budget deficits on the government far into the future, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”
Coming In from the Cold (War).
“[F]or all their practical failures, conservatives have at least told a coherent political story, with deep historical roots, about what keeps America safe and what makes it great. Liberals, by contrast, have offered adjectives drawn from focus groups and policy proposals linked by no larger theme.” In keeping with the intellectual territory he staked out after the 2004 election, former TNR editor Peter Beinart makes the case for a return to Cold War liberalism in a NYT excerpt of his new book, The Good Fight (also discussed in the recent Atlantic Monthly.)
I couldn’t agree more with Beinart’s paragraph above, but I don’t think the lack of a sufficiently robust national security emphasis is really the defining element missing among today’s Dems. Are there really Democrats out there who don’t agree with Beinart’s three main assessments here, that (a) America faces a real enemy in Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist terror networks, (b) our foreign policy should be less hubristic and more attuned to both local contingency and international institutions, and (c) our national sense of self should emphasize our own fallibility at times? Beinart would probably target the MoveOn crowd, but as Eric Alterman noted in the last round of this back-and-forth, that’s just a DLC straw man, roughly akin to Joe Klein’s cadre of phantom lefty consultants in the last update.
Plus, I think there are two significant historical problems with the Cold War liberalism Beinart unreservedly espouses, which he fails to discuss here. For one, Cold War liberals could very easily be seen as best inattentive to and — at worst complicit in — the excesses of McCarthyism. If the enemy abroad becomes the central defining focus of your national narrative, then the enemy within is undoubtedly going to start eating at you as well. For another, (and as John Gaddis, among others, has pointed out) — for all its early sense of diplomatic complexity and limited, realistic goals — the Cold War liberalism Beinart promotes all too readily (d)evolved into the guiding rationale for wildly wrongheaded foreign policy interventions, most notably in Vietnam. (You’d think Beinart would pay more lip service to this issue, particularly as he himself made much the same mistake in shilling for the Iraq war in The New Republic.)
In short, I agree with Beinart’s assessment that the Dems lack a sense of usable past, but the problems with his argument can be encapsulated by his ideal of a what a good, hawkish, Cold War liberal Democrat should look like these days: That, if Beinart’s tenure at TNR is any indication, would be Joe Lieberman, a politician who’s not only been flagrantly cheerleading for the administration during the current war, but has exhibited little interest in today’s wartime civil liberties issues. Simply put, Joe Lieberman would hardly be my choice of template for the Democratic party. (Who would? That’s easy: Russ Feingold, who’s displayed a strong commitment to preserving both national security and civil liberties at home, while arguing for a more level-headed, less-in-your-face American foreign policy.)