Part-Time Pundit

Sandbox Politics

UPDATE: Ok, with Pelosi changing her mind and the news that has come out since, I was wrong on this. It ended up being a great way to bring pressure and highlight an issue. And for once, it showed the Republicans fighting *for* something. Kudos.

Last Friday, the United States House of Representatives adjourned without voting on an offshore drilling bill supported by the Republicans. Instead of adjourning and going home for the five week recess that was scheduled, hilarity ensued.

The Republicans stayed, talking on the floor to "debate" the energy bill. In response, the Democrats turned off the microphones and the lights. A Republican Congressman figured out how to brute force the A/V closet and got the microphones back on. They tried to marshal the press out of the press room with the Capitol Police until a Republican decided to host an impromptu press conference.

To "pad" the numbers of people on the floor, they allowed staffers and visitors down and were shouting back up to the gallery and back. In short, it was a little bit like 7th grade homeroom when the teacher leaves the room.

Well, the Republicans decided that it was so much fun, they are doing it again today. To be fair, energy policy is something that merits serious consideration, but childish antics more suited for playgrounds than Congress is not the way to go about it.

But it appears that a faction, a small one at that, of Republicans have been spurred on by unserious pundits and activists. I say a small faction because this morning, RedState sent out a desperate e-mail for anyone in the DC area to head down to the House floor. That's right, they want the fever swamp bloggers down there to hoot and holler like it’s a high school house party when mom and dad are away. Of course, RedState is not new to childish and superficial politics.

Energy policy is a serious issue and families are being pinched by higher (albeit now falling) gas prices. I've been driving all around the state of Illinois in my pickup for a campaign I'm running, and I can tell you first hand its rough. We do need a diversified energy portfolio for this nation. Offshore and ANWR drilling certainly is part of that, as are other programs, such as expanded nuclear and wind power.

The Democrats, for their part, have shown themselves unwilling to deal with the issue, at least before Election Day. They have every incentive, the more pain people feel at the pump, the more they blame the party that controls the White House. It's a transparent hope that they drag their feet until November and then ride in to the rescue, showing the Democrats as the "energy" party. It isn't the first time someone played politics with important legislation; it won't be the last.

However, instead of carrying that message or showing that even Barack Obama is starting to support a new energy policy, childish games ensue. What happened to the party of ideas?

Instead of an intellectual advancement of a sound energy policy, the oxygen is sucked up by infantilism. The voters are fed up by politicians who are not advancing their values and they want solutions. They are so fed up, many have whole-heartedly embraced a mirage of hope and change. It should tell Republicans something that a strong chunk of the electorate has placed their hopes in cleaning up Washington on a … Chicago machine Democrat.

While it may be giddily amusing to engage in a general ruckus on the House floor, nothing is well-served. With the Republicans going into an election cycle where the conventional wisdom declares it to be a blood-bath-in-advance for them, you'd think they wouldn't give voters yet another reason to throw them out of office. Maybe they've already resigned themselves to defeat. I'd rather they be the party of ideas and leadership and not "a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more." At least those engaging in the antics are the minority of Republicans.

August 6th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, National, Politics | no comments

Rep. Murtha to America: How Dare you Question Me!!

When the incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi put her weight behind John Murtha for Majority Leader, neither expected the firestorm that would erupt. It is true that John Murtha has been implicated, but not charged, in ethics scandals in the past. So what does John Murtha say in response to questions of his ethics, a subject that is well within the right of the public to question:

It’s a right-wing swift boat style attack on me!

First off, the Republicans have no bone to pick with Murtha being elevated to a position of leadership. In fact, while the GOP took about 8 years to set up a “culture of corruption”, it took the Democrats about 8 minutes. They aren’t even inaugurated yet and they’re putting corrupt cronies in office.

Second, it isn’t the right, but a Soros-backed political group who also ranks Murtha as one of the 20 most unethical people in Congress. It’s the far left that has a problem with Murtha. Republicans don’t expect any say in who becomes the majority leader of a party not their own.

The fact is, a politician’s integrity, particularly in the matters of bribery and nepotism, are quite clearly in the purview of the public interest. The difference between public servants and public masters is that the former is accountable to the people. When the people raise legitimate concerns, they deserve an answer not a rebuke for daring to raise the question to begin with.

Murtha’s answer is a harbinger of things to come, a majority party in Congress who will not stoop so low as to actually engage the people. They’re just too good to answer to the public.

The worst part about the escapade is that not only have the Democrats shown that the “culture of corruption” goes both ways, but they are in every way how they are described; out-of-touch elites who only deign to talk to voters in the months before an election. Even worse is that it will likely lead to a very short-lived Democratic majority in which the GOP doesn’t learn the lesson it needs to: we expect conservatism and integrity in our government.

It’ll be another two years where ideas are pushed aside and partisan bickering reigns.
R

November 15th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Corruption, Elections, National, Politics | no comments

Preemptive Strike: Bush Firing Rumsfeld is Heading Off Congressional Harassment

Around 1pm Eastern the day after the election, while Democrats were still celebrating their victories, Bush made a sudden announcement of the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. To many, this was icing on the cake of a good election. Many missed the larger picture.

Democrats largely did not campaign on any issues. Even their “New Direction” was nothing that voters really cared about. One of the things they did promise and do intend to make good on is to investigate the Bush Administration, from Katrina (likely “finding” racism instead of fault where it belongs), to Iraq, to… Big Tobacco???

The key issue to be investigated is obviously Iraq and everyone knows it. The Democrats will likely waste no time in beginning the investigation so Bush launched a preemptive strike before the Democrats finished their celebrations. The strategy of the Bush Administration will likely to move forward and find new avenues for success in Iraq. Rumsfeld leaving is the obvious side-effect of this policy shift.

Two months from now when the Democrats start asking for investigation after investigation, Bush can say “I’m trying to move forward in Iraq and shift policy so we can achieve success and all the Democrats want to do is dredge up the past and yet still provide no alternatives of their own.”

Bush is establishing a defense by making the investigations moot. If heads have already rolled, the Democrats will likely be seen as beating a dead horse. This will put them in a difficult position, one where their most vocal camps will insist that Bush be made to suffer and the nation be dragged through the mud for 6 years and the less vocal camps who will be turned off by such antics. It’s telling that the races where the war was the central issue, the militant left fringe lost.

Bush made a good play and is keeping his eye on the ball (2008). Will the Democrats be as wise?

November 9th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Elections, Impeachment, Law / Legal Issues, Military / War, National, Politics | one comment

Should Denny Hastert Resign?

UPDATE: I just discussed this with Bruno Behrend on the Extreme Wisdom radio show on WKRS, now streaming to the world.

UPDATE 2: And for the record, I fully support Foley being gone.

In a word, yes. Perhaps he really didn’t know about the instant messages as he suggests. Perhaps the media is being too hard on the Republican leadership. Perhaps this was part of a coordinated “October Surprise” to throw Republicans off their game in the month leading up the election. It doesn’t matter, if he didn’t know, he should have known. Is it fair? Probably not. But this is politics and being a leader is about more than being fair. It’s about being impeccable.

A question of timing

Is this an October Surprise? Was this held on to for release to counteract Karl Rove’s “Treason Season” just as Republicans were starting to make gains? Its politics, I wouldn’t put it past either side to pull a stunt like that. Bob Woodward’s book is a great example. It was explicitly timed for the election targeting the issue that the Republicans are strong on.

If it was that, it went too early. Five weeks from now, every iota of detail will be vetted on this issue. If Denny Hastert is going to resign, he will have done it. The Republicans have time, not a lot, to figure out how to handle this. If this scandal ran 10 days before the election they’d be screwed. As it stands, they may still be screwed. However, there is still some time to kick Hastert out (after all Republicans seem to be the only party who routinely kicks out their disgraced leaders, McGreevy being a notable Democrat exception) and to find out if this was timed by Democrats in a controlled leak.

However, this issue, coming out as it did, gave the Democrats a key attack to use against Congressional Republicans. Until now, the Democrats were essentially running against Bush. You may get some voters with that, but odds are, mostly the ones who’d vote for you anyway. When’s the last time an anti-war activist voted Republican? However, this scandal gave voters a reason to vote against House Republicans specifically. As much as conservatives (or anyone for that matter) complain about pork barrel spending, no one really believes that Congressional Democrats will be any better (see Illinois’ current financial problems). There haven’t been a lot of polls out to assess the damage yet, but common sense dictates it won’t be good. Nevertheless, this is the Republicans’ race to lose and they seem to be doing their best to do exactly that.

But what about the Party?

To hell with the Party. Every time I hear this objection the more I think the Republican Party should be razed to the ground. I expect this from elitists in the Democratic Party that insist the “common man” should shut up and let the enfranchised deal with the important issues. There is a reason we call office-holders in this country “public servants” and not “public masters.”

If the party wants to rally around corruption, rally around ebophiles (older adults attracted to teens), and rally around wasteful spending, then quite frankly, they aren’t the party I thought I was giving votes to. I once wrote an open letter to the Illinois Republicans, basically asking them for a platform. They told me to shut up and walk a precinct. I’ve never supported a state Republican since and won’t unless they’re going to help raze the ILGOP to the ground.

The stakes

The Republicans may pull it off, if they manage to find their roots and do the right thing. They may still lose but the argument that we demote our corrupt leadership and the Democrats promote or defend it can sell on Election Day. If they don’t boot Hastert, Shimkus, and Boehner (and to be strictly technical, all must lose their leadership rolls) then they will lose in November.

Let’s analyze what this loss will mean. First, it means that the 44th President of the United States may take office, not because of direct election, but because of impeachment. That person will be Nancy Pelosi. The last time I made this claim, the knee-jerk class of right-wingers jumped on my case. Does anyone seriously believe that Nancy Pelosi won’t try to impeach Bush?

Bush was declared a lame duck the day after the 2004 elections; an impeachment will effectively neuter him even if he’s not thrown out of office by the Senate. I simply don’t believe the Senate Republicans will all the sudden manage to vote as a bloc when impeachment is on the line. Three words “Gang of Fourteen”. Odds are, if the House switches hands, the Senate may very well follow suit. They’d need to still garner at least 10, probably more like 15, Republican votes to impeach. Democrats bought Jim Jeffords; it’s not inconceivable that they’d make a bunch of purchases in the light of giving their party the Presidency. Even if they don’t get 67 votes, if they get a majority the damage to Bush will be severe.

If Bush is impeached, any policy presented to Congress will be dead on arrival. The Democrats will likely affect a premature withdrawal from Iraq. They will likely return to the criminal model of fighting terrorist that was proven ineffective on September 11, 2001. They will likely raise taxes, enact the Terrorist Bill of Rights, and criminalize conservatism.

For instance, Francis Boyle (a key author of a draft articles of impeachment) criminalizes such thought crimes as not providing Equal Protection to Katrina victims because a predominant amount of the victims were black. One factual problem, Whites were more likely to die in Katrina than Blacks.

Boyle constitutes the ineffectual response to Katrina as “homicides” despite the fact that the ineffectual response also falls on the shoulders of the Mayor and Governor, whom Bush has no effective control over. The implicit demand is that the federal government should be solely vested with disaster response, an even stronger central government than we have now.

He claims that the soldiers are predominantly poor who are coerced into service by being “denied viable opportunities.” Read as: it is the government’s constitutional obligation to provide for decent, high-paying, and high-benefit jobs for all its citizens under the penalty of criminal law.

The Democrats have used the courts to change the law around the will of the people and constitution for decades. Now they’ll use the impeachment process as well.

Denny Hastert, Defender of Corruption

When Democrat Congressmen Jefferson’s office was searched by the FBI in the performance of a criminal investigation were copious amounts of evidence exist, Denny Hastert cried foul. He said it was a dire breach of separation of powers that the executive branch conducted a search of a legislative office after being authorized to do just that by the judiciary. Two branches authorized a check against the third. Jefferson was using his congressional office to facilitate crime and Hastert tried to blanket Congress with immunity. For that reason alone, he should resign. By the way, Jefferson is still in office. No credible evidence has been presented against Tom DeLay and DeLay resigned.

He oversaw rampant spending in the House, pulled the immunity stunt to defend Jefferson, and was at best negligent over Foley. I’m a cynical person so I’m not the best judge. I described the story to my wife and her first question was “Well, who else did Foley talk to?” Hastert looked at the issue like a politician and not a leader. He (along with the media who looked into the emails) looked at the emails, found there was nothing illegal, and looked no further. A leader would have looked for a pattern of behavior. In the end, he failed his Party, his colleagues, the pages, and the American people. Arguments that “political correctness” prevented an investigation because Foley was gay are just an excuse. A leader does his job not looks for excuses to cover his ass. Likewise, the fact that Foley was “closeted” caused his ebophilia are likewise nonsense. The idea that a failure to express same-sex attraction disorder leads to pathological sexual malformities is a myth that needs to be smashed center-stage.

Sexual predilections and Congress

What is it with Congress anyway? Gary Condit had an affair with someone who ended up dead. Foley wasn’t the first to be involved in a page scandal. Kennedy got drunk, smashed his car, and gets a ride home instead of a DUI. McKinney hits a cop and gets off. Not only do these political leaders come from an entire different class than common people. The days of the “citizen-legislator” are gone and this is what we get. The rules apply to us and not to them. It’s not until normal people start running for office when this crap will stop.

Conservatives want a change

Conservative apathy is considered a big problem for Republicans coming into November. Nothing would appease them better than saying they are going to go back to their roots and make the painful changes to prove it. This is probably their last opportunity to prove to their base that they plan to enact policies that we put them in office to enact. Will Denny do the right thing?

October 3rd, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Corruption, Hastert, National, Politics | 3 comments

“We Don’t Need To Tell You Our Agenda”

On FoxNews Sunday, during Studio B, there was a rather unremarkable segment on the recent uptick in Republicans poll numbers. For some reason the press likes talking about these silly little non-descript polls and endless debating what they “mean.” In this case a Democratic operative of little consequence talked about why it is good news for Democrats. What was interesting about the interview was not her comments about the polls but her comments about the Democratic agenda.

“It is not up to us to present an agenda, but for Republicans to prove their results” (best of my recollection). Translation: We don’t have to tell you what we’re going to do when we’re elected; you just have to hate the other guys. These comments were reminiscent of Kerry not wanting to present his economic agenda until elected during the 2004 elections.

Despite the fact that many Republicans have earned the right to lose their races in 2006, the shear hubris of telling voters that you don’t have to tell them what policies you will enact when elected shows an arrogant elite who has nothing but disdain for the voters. At least on every other day except Election Day.

When the Democrats presented their Congressional agenda if they were elected, that agenda had no connection to the issues that are most important to Americans. No position on Iraq was mentioned. Nothing about immigration was enunciated. They burned incense to the typical campaign slogans of “reform”, “cutting waste” and other such nuggets that are forgotten as soon as the ballots start being counted. The Democrats have presented no real agenda for any issue of importance to Americans.

At least with the Republicans, you know where they stand. They aren’t hiding anything. What policies are the Democrats trying to hide?

September 26th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Elections, National, Politics | no comments

Democrats Insist Only Republicans are to Blame for 9/11

Here’s a brief timeline of Al Qaeda. It was founded in 1988 by Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. In 1991, it moved training operations to Sudan. Feb. 26, 1993 was the first attack by Al Qaeda on US Soil, the first World Trade Center bombings. June 25, 1996, US servicemen were killed in Saudi in an attack by Al Qaeda. Feb. 28, 1998, Osama Bin Laden orders a fatwa against all US civilians. Aug. 7, 1998, the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya are bombed by Al Qaeda. Oct. 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by Al Qaeda. Last, Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda attacks the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

In short, Al Qaeda was present and around the entire Clinton presidency with no real action. Eight months into office, Bush dealt with an Al Qaeda attack on US soil. There has been no attack since. These facts alone speak volumes on whose foreign policy is more efficacious in dealing with Al Qaeda.

However, here are some more inconvenient truths. Sandy Berger was found guilty of stealing documents regarding daily briefings to then President Clinton, potentially about Al Qaeda. He then destroyed some of those documents and their copies leaving. Some of those documents have been lost forever.

In Fall of 1999, an intelligence program named Able Danger was created and it fingered some of the 9/11 hijackers. This program had its data erased in mid-2000 by the DIA and was formally abandoned in 2001. This took place during the Clinton Administration.

While Canada apparently likes to blame the US foreign policy for causing 9/11 (as opposed to the people actually flying the planes), the fact is, Al Qaeda grew and got its bones during the Clinton Administration. Al Qaeda wasn’t formed in response to George W. Bush, if anything; it was Clinton’s foreign policy. Specifically the components mentioned in the fatwa issues in 1998 (i.e. during Clinton’s presidency). We’ll skip past the well-documented failures of Clinton to accept Bin Laden offered up on a platter.

9/11 was a tragedy of huge proportions, the ramifications of which are still being felt today. There is plenty of failure to go all around but it seems only one group is causing a ruckus to avoid having any blame land on them. The editing process isn’t even done on the ABC 9/11 miniseries, and the Democrats are issuing threats that it better “turn out right.”

As the saying goes, “innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.”

September 8th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Military / War, National, Politics | 5 comments

Bush Admits to Nonexistent “High Crimes”; Will be Impeached in 2007

UPDATE: After reading around the web some, such as at Michelle Malkin, it seems the President tried to split hairs. If you take a nuanced approach, Bush tried to give the issue back to Congress to settle. However, I just don’t see how the public will see anything but a reversal, certainly with an knee-jerk reactionary press that is against everything Bush. I was afraid that perhaps I’m exaggerating, but I just don’t think the public will see this as anything but an admission that Bush was wrong. For now, I stand by my original prediction, that the GOP will lose the House and Bush will be successfully impeached, in part, based on this action.

Bush has admitted to the requisite “high crimes and misdemeanors” to allow for impeachment. It doesn’t matter that these supposed crimes aren’t truly crimes; he has effectively admitted to them being illegal and makes it impossible to claim otherwise. He has shown fundamental weakness leading up to the election that makes Congressional Republicans that much more vulnerable. Ultimately, the Democrats will gain control of the House, will successfully impeach the President, and he will likely be thrown out of office by a weak Senate Republican majority.

It is no secret that many Democrats (and certainly left-wing activists) want to impeach Bush. This drive started roughly on the day of inauguration in 2001. They’ve invented and refined charges throughout the past few years. Some of these have been completely debunked by the facts, others have hung around. For instance, the scandal of the Valerie Plame incident is that the prosecutor, after knowing who the leaker was the first day of the investigation, allowed the witch hunt to continue. The investigation also proved that not only did Bush not lie about Niger, but the claims were actually true.

However, the charge the Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions and tortured prisoners is one that cannot now be argued against by the President. By admitting that the terrorists have rights on the Geneva Conventions, he makes it impossible to turn around and say the decision not to grant them rights to begin with was legal. This is despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions are crystal clear that illegal combatants are entitled to no protections.

The Geneva Conventions protect only uniformed military who carry weapons openly. It does not protect spies, mercenaries, or terrorists. The fact that the language of the Geneva Conventions is clear on this point has not deterred the left from this rallying cry of human rights violations.

Discussions on what is or is not required in international law tend to border on the absurd. Usually the crowd that vigorously supports international law as binding is the same crowd that believes in the “living and breathing Constitution”. In short, they believe that what is written and agreed upon doesn’t matter; they believe that whatever is “progressive” is what the Constitution requires. The same is true of international law. Many scholars don’t argue what is actually required in the treaties, they argue what they believe the law should be, and thus, it becomes much more invidious to defend against. Think of it as trying to hit a moving target.

Bush, by admitting that Al Qaeda has Geneva Convention rights, has admitted that not giving those rights to Al Qaeda was illegal. He has conceded to the idea that international law can be “written” and “rewritten” at the whim of the “international community” regardless of the words that are on the page. He has justified the very same judicial activism he rails against domestically. He has emasculated the Republican opposition to judicial legislation and has allowed the law to be whatever Howard Dean, MoveOn, and George Soros says it is. The law will always be against whatever conservatives want to do as a result. The rule of law no longer matters to the GOP.

The left has argued that violating international law is a high crime and misdemeanor, a charge justified in the Constitution that treaties and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

Bush and the Republicans have run on a strong national security platform. The idea of terrorists sitting in plush cells and being given access to all the rights entitled to American criminals will do nothing but turn off his base. The idea that we have to treat terrorists, who intentionally kill civilians, with the utmost respect is a slap in the face to the conservative base.

Another component of the population that will be put off by this decision is the military. By Bush deciding that the Geneva Convention affords rights to terrorists, he justifies terrorism as an acceptable form of warfare. It is telling that there are no real cries to have Al Qaeda terrorists tried for human rights violations or war crimes. The military faces heavy restrictions that regulate how they fight the enemy. Those restrictions are paid for with the lives of soldiers.

The military has just been defecated on by the Bush administration by being equated as the moral equivalent to terrorists. There may be a few bad soldiers who are being tried for violating military regulations. There are no Al Qaeda trials for killing civilians. By and large, US soldiers are fighting honorably in tough conditions. Al Qaeda fights like cowards. The Bush Administration has effectively told the military they are no better than Al Qaeda.

Alienating these two groups and showing weakness on the one issue that has been the Bush Administration’s strength will likely undermine the GOP platform going into November. There are already over 30 seats in contention in the House and if the elections were held today, Democrats would likely gain at least 15 (and gain control of the House). Showing further weakness and undermining their main platform stance will likely make for an even more difficult case to sell to voters. Combine that with an alienation of two key voting blocs makes for a losing season for the Republicans.

Nancy Pelosi and others have signaled discreetly that they would certainly have hearings that could lead to impeachment. With Bush admitting to violating the Geneva Conventions, hearings almost become superfluous. There is no way Bush can state now that the Geneva Conventions do apply and then state during impeachment that they don’t. This decision amounts to a confession.

Bush will be impeached come January, but it won’t only be over the Geneva Conventions issue. Every set of Articles of Impeachment against Bush go far beyond international law and the war. They criminalize conservatism. The impeachment will attack not only the war, but opposition to embryo-destroying stem cell research, the Patriot Act, tax cuts, the NSA scandals, judicial appointments, and limited federal government. It will likely enshrine a “progressive” standard that all future presidents must follow. See this example of impeachment articles that has one article that says Bush’s response to Katrina was a crime (yet is suspiciously silent about Gov. Blanco’s and Mayor Nagin’s roles). The consistent feature of all articles of impeachment against Bush is that they include thought crimes.

The idea that impeachment won’t be used for partisan purposes is novel and interesting, yet unconvincing. The Clinton impeachment, if anything, was not about perjury (which it should have been), it was about partisan politics. It is not likely that this impeachment will be any different. With the left having a history of trying to outlaw opposing or traditional points of view, it would be nonsensical to believe they won’t try to do it in an impeachment.

Make no mistake, the Congressional GOP will lose at least the House in November and now possibly the Senate. Bush will be impeached in the House and those impeachment articles will include the thought crimes of not being a progressive. The Senate, which has always been weak when it came to sticking up for Republicans, will likely throw Bush out of office.

The Republican Revolution has been mortally wounded today. Now we get to watch its slow and painful euthanizing.

September 6th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Impeachment, Law / Legal Issues, Military / War, National, Politics | 5 comments