In Nate Silver's world, she's the fourth line agitator who takes the star player off their game by making it about her glove to the face rather than about scoring.
Silver's blog, FiveThirtyEight, is by far the best electoral projection coverage running.
For those of you have bets with me regarding Obama's margin of victory being greater or lesser than 15 electoral votes, I am standing by my revised bet and am willing to double down on Obama by 50+
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Three Andrews
Favourites
- 10 Zen Monkeys
- 82 Games
- Afarensis
- Bad Astronomy
- Basketbawful
- Battle of Alberta
- Bloggingheads TV
- Boing Boing
- Book Forum + Poli-sci daily review
- Bruce Sterling
- Cafe Hayek
- Calgary Grit
- Canadian Cynic
- Centauri Dreams
- Claremont Institute
- Crooks and Liars
- Darwinian Conservativism
- Detroit Bad Boys
- Discover Magazine
- Dispatches from the Culture Wars
- Ectoplasmosis
- Elect Econ
- Eric Duhatschek
- Film Threat
- Foreign Affairs
- Foreign Policy
- Freakonomics
- Free Darko
- Friendly Atheist
- From Deep
- Galloping Beaver
- Greg Mankiw
- Hoops Addict
- Huffington Post
- I hate the raptors
- Illegal Curve
- Internet Movie Data Base
- James Mirtle
- Japers' Rink
- John Hawks Anthropology blog
- Kukla's Korner
- Listening Towards - Lectures on-line
- Lowetide
- Marginal Revolution
- National Review
- Neurophilosophy
- NY Times - Politics
- NY Times - Science
- Open Culture
- Pharyngula
- Positive Liberty
- Psyblog
- Raptors HQ
- Reason Magazine
- Respectful Insolence
- Rising Suns
- Ruthless Reviews
- Seed Magazine
- Slate
- Stackleberg Follower
- Talking Points Memo
- The Loom
- The Painted Area
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Tom Benjamin
- Total Dick-Head
- William Gibson
- Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
- You Tube
13 comments:
Cameron;
I think that unless something earth shaking happens, McCain should win, thank god.
Hey Badrabbi!
I hate to burst your bubble but the even with McCain getting a bounce from his convention he is not going to have enough electoral votes to defeat Obama.
Personally, I liked the McCain who ran against George Bush four years ago 100% more than I like this one.
Obama is the right man for the right time - and I think he's got it locked up.
Cam;
You might be right about the electoral votes. The country has swung to the left and the country is taking a bluer shade every year.
Also, I agree with you regarding McCain's changing face. He is in the process of pandering to too many people, which is unbecoming.
I do not like Obama, though. I do not think he has the resume to be the President of the US. And when trying to analyze his stances on issues, I come to the conclusion that I do not know what his stances are on most issues. The one thing I do know is that he is planning to raise taxes, which is not a good thing.
So why vote for Obama?
As far as bursting my bubble, I am not really all that passionate about the election in general. In years past, I had not had a dog in the fight. I tended to hold my nose, and vote Republican. This year is a bit different. I actually admire McCain and his military past. I also think that Palin is beautiful, and frankly, all else being the same, I would rather look at her for the next 4 years than Biden.
You raise a couple of interesting issues Badrabbi (and welcome back I might add);
- Obama's lack of resume
- His stance on issues
- Raising taxes
Let me address the last first;
- The US has been running a massive (MASSIVE) deficit for every year of Bush's term - even if you take out the cost of the war in Iraq (and I don't) it is far, far larger than any Democrat ever put forth. I should point out here that McCain and Bush are from the same party - so if you elect McCain you would expect fiscal sanity...why?
Also worth noting that the last President to balance a budget was...Clinton - a Democrat.
- When it comes to the stance Obama has on 'the issues' it would depend on what issues you are concerned with. His website has a surprisingly wide range of policy proposals (many of which I disagree with, like his stance opposing gay marriage), but few if any where I think McCain offers any kind of positive alternative. In any case I'd be happy to debate any of these stances with you or even just review them in greater depth at your whim.
- As for Obama's experience, it is actually better than what you had in the previous President who literally failed at everything he did right up to the point he became POTUS. McCain has more experience but he is 72 years old and has flip-flopped on every issue I thought he actually had a good position on (opposing torture being the most obvious).
Finally, the Palin selection indicates how fully in the grip of religious extremists the Republican party is that it would force him to take an completely flyweight politician whose only claim to political fame is that she bans books and doesn't believe in evolution.
After the disaster of the Bush GOP I think Americans deserve a new direction - and McCain just ain't it.
Cameron;
It is good to be back.
The issues you raised deserve a comprehensive response. I want to deal with your points one by one.
By far, the easiest point to address is your contention that Obama has had more experience than GW. That is not exactly true in that Bush was a re-elected governor of a major state prior to his running for presidency.
Having said that, I agree that Bush has been a disaster as a President and that generally he has been incompetent. But you must agree that incompetence in the face of experience does not imply competence without experience! That is, if you show that a person with experience is bad, it does not logically follow that another person without experience will be good!
So, again, when we look at a candidate, we should look at his qualifications. Set aside Bush for the moment. What are Obama's qualifications?
As for your other points, they are more complex. I will address them in the next comment.
Now, it is true that Bush and McCain are of the same party.
But Bush's performance tarnishes Bush's reputation. His performance should not count against the Republicans.
I do not need to defend Bush in order to support McCain.
Now as far as fiscal restraint, it is a fundemental tenant of the Republican party to hold down spending and keep taxes low. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a general philosophy of federal spending to advance social causes.
My thinking in more aligned to the former, ie. Republican way of thinking. I agree that Clinton, a Democrat, was much more successful in holding spending down than the Republican Bush. I suspect, though, that both Bush and Clinton were anomolies with respect to their respective party.
So, I believe (and I could be wrong) that it is more likely to balance the budget by affecting spending cuts and increasing the size of GNP (the Republican strategy) than to raise the taxes and increase spending (Democratic strategy). Therefore, on this front, McCain seems to be a better candidate.
Hey again Badrabbi (given we've been engaged in more or less civil discussions for a couple of years now, do you have a name other than...'Bad' I can use?)
Badrabbi: But Bush's performance tarnishes Bush's reputation. His performance should not count against the Republicans.
- To which I have to disagree. The GOP (including McCain) have backed Bush to the hilt on a variety of issues; Iraq and WMDs, torture, the Patriot Act, Supreme Court Justices, etc. Aside from the Department of Justice fiascoes (Bush+Gonzalez), Katrina (Bush and FEMA), and 9-11 (more or less Bush, Cheney and Condoleeza Rice's fault as they failed to treat the threats as presented to them at all seriously) there are few failures that can't be linked to McCain and his role backing the President during his tenure.
More to the point, why would you trust McCain to do anything differently than Bush has? His selection of Palin is straight from the Karl Rove book of Christian identity politics, he got Bush's speechwriters to write her speech for the convention, he uses the same Neo-con advisors (prominent among them is ultra-hawk Bill Kristol), and he has even gone so far as to embrace the very 'agents of intolerance' that he once accused Bush of being in bed with (Fallwell, Dobson, etc.).
Badrabbi said: Now as far as fiscal restraint, it is a fundemental tenant of the Republican party to hold down spending and keep taxes low. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a general philosophy of federal spending to advance social causes.
- No question that this is what is typically thought of Republicans and something I believe you and I can agree on as being a worthy goal (reducing spending, limited government, etc.)
However, to continue to believe this in light of the last 20 years is to ignore reality. In reality Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 are among the three worst exploders of the US deficit of all time. All three spoke the tough talk about reducing government, yet all three lead the charge of expanding both governmental and executive powers to new levels.
Reagan was eventually reigned in (somewhat) by a Democratic congress. Bush 1 was reigned in by Clinton (who forced a Republican congress to balance budgets by using his veto to block anything that wasn't 'pay as you go'), and Bush 2 having; GOP controlled congress, GOP controlled senate, GOP controlled Supreme Court spent like a drunken sailor.
For sure I would see a McCain presidency as likely restrained by a Democratic congress, but given the record for the GOP of late, it hardly seems coherent to think of them as being fiscally responsible - the evidence is that they simply aren't.
As for cutting taxes if you take a look at Obama's tax cut plan he intends to reduce the tax burden on the middle class, and allow the tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthiest 1 percent to expire. In contrast, McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts to the upper class permanent.
As for growing the economy, I'd suggest again a quick look at history has shown that Democrats reduced (or in the case of Clinton eliminated) the Federal deficit, whereas have Republicans have insisted since Reagan that deficits don't matter.
The one argument I think you have in your favour is that I simply don't see Obama as the guy who will reduce the size of the overall spending. However, when you consider that the single biggest cost for the US is their war in Iraq (against...?), and that Obama has expressed his intention of ending it, it looks to me like he is obviously the more responsible candidate fiscally (not to mention from a foreign policy perspective, but that is a separate argument).
Finally we have the issue of character. Once upon a time (4 years ago actually) I would have said that McCain would crush Obama on this issue and should base his campaign on it.
However now I am convinced that McCain is as soul-less as his party. His latest ads show that he is willing to lie about everything and anything to get elected.
In contrast Obama has been in the spotlight and subjected to the harshest criticisms imaginable (I've always said the Clintons are just as nasty as the Republicans) and managed to retain both his dignity and moral character - no mean feat for a politician.
Of all the things he is accused of the one I think sticks is that he did say he wouldn't opt out of the Federal funding, and then when the time came and he realized he had a huge money advantage he in fact opted out.
Make no mistake, I think he is as Machiavellian as any candidate for the White House has been in our generation.
But I also think he is an order of magnitude more credible to lead a nation than McCain.
Finally, there is the age gap. McCain is 72 and literally needs assistance to get on-line and use e-mail. If ever there was a politician who was 'yesterday's man' it is McCain.
Four years ago I thought McCain was the best of the Republican bunch (Ron Paul is interesting, but full blown crazy), I still think that, but I no longer think he is capable of being President.
Cameron;
Your writing is so rich in content that it is almost impossible to address every issue. I will try a few:
- “Badrabbi do you have a name other than...'Bad' I can use?”
Cameron, I chose that name because for years now I have been engaging Rabbis and orthodox Jews in debate. The name has a funny ring to it and manages to irritate the extreme dogmatic Jews, so I like it. In real life, I am a physician. My first name is Mark.
- ”The GOP (including McCain) have backed Bush to the hilt on a variety of issues; Iraq”
True, to the shame of the Republicans. But don’t forget that most Democrats also voted for the war in Iraq.
- “torture”
It is true that Bush has allowed torture as a means of interrogation of enemy combatants, to his shame. It is important to point out, though, that McCain is against the use of torture.
- “the Patriot Act”
Again, I agree that the Patriot Act is a dangerous piece of legislation. It was enacted before Barak was in the Senate. However, when the act came up for re-authorization, although Obama went on the floor of the Senate to voice opposition to the legislation, he ultimately ended up voting for it. So here, both candidates are guilty.
- “Supreme Court Justices”
With the exception of Bush’s naming of Harriet Myers, which in my opinion is the single most effective example of his bone-headedness, I actually support the Supreme Court Justices selected. So I do not see a problem here.
- “Aside from the Department of Justice fiascoes (Bush+Gonzalez)”
Again, I do not see this as a “fiasco”. I do not know much about this, but my understanding of what you are referring to is the firing of attorneys general by Gonzalez. I do not know enough about the issue to comment. However, I do not think that this matter is related to John McCain.
- “Katrina (Bush and FEMA)”
I think Bush’s handling of Katrina is yet another example of his failures as president. But, again, I do not think that you can count Bush’s shortcomings against McCain.
- “9-11 (more or less Bush, Cheney and Condoleeza Rice's fault as they failed to treat the threats as presented to them at all seriously)”
I agree to some extent. My take on this is that the president and his Cabinet likely receive many warnings and threats on a daily basis. One can not take all the threats seriously as the country would be paralyzed if action was required to every threat. Evidently those in charge of threat assessments failed to anticipate 9-11. I do not think that it is fair to ascribe too much blame to Bush for this. In any case, again, this does not have anything to do with McCain. It is not as if McCain failed to act on any given threat prior to 9-11. He is, after all, only a senator.
- ”More to the point, why would you trust McCain to do anything differently than Bush has?”
Cameron, Bush and McCain are two different men. Other than their being in the same party, why would you think that McCain would do things the same way as Bush? That you and the Obama Campaign link McCain with Bush together is a clever but nefarious attempt to pull down McCain with Bush’s sinking coat tail.
- “His selection of Palin is straight from the Karl Rove book of Christian identity politics,”
I am not sure about “Christian identity politics”, but my understanding of the rationale behind McCain’s Palin pick is that he needed to shore up the fundamentalist Republican base, and wanted to capture the disaffected white women’s vote. I think McCain’s Palin pick was simply a stroke of genius, one that made it more likely for him to win the election.
- “he got Bush's speechwriters to write her speech for the convention”
So? Palin’s speech was spectacular!
- ”In reality Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 are among the three worst exploders of the US deficit of all time.”
Cameron, I could not agree more. I am very disaffected by the Republican Party. They talk a good game about holding down spending and reducing taxes. In reality, all they do is borrow more in order to spend more. This is very frustrating to a guy like me. But the alternative, I think, is even worse. The Democrats admit that they are much more interested in spending and increasing taxes. Here, I see two evil parties. It is simply a matter of selecting the less evil choice.
- ”For sure I would see a McCain presidency as likely restrained by a Democratic congress, but given the record for the GOP of late, it hardly seems coherent to think of them as being fiscally responsible - the evidence is that they simply aren't.”
I agree, but would submit that the Democrats are even drunker as sailors!
”However now I am convinced that McCain is as soul-less as his party. His latest ads show that he is willing to lie about everything and anything to get elected.”
I think that both sides are bereft. Neither is better than the other when it comes to political ads. Do not delude yourself.
”In contrast Obama has been in the spotlight and subjected to the harshest criticisms imaginable (I've always said the Clintons are just as nasty as the Republicans) and managed to retain both his dignity and moral character - no mean feat for a politician.”
This is an interesting statement, since as a McCain supporter, I could have written the same paragraph for him. These are purely subjective statements.
- ”But I also think he is an order of magnitude more credible to lead a nation than McCain.”
Can you please tell me how you are judging Obama’s credibility?
- ”McCain is 72 and literally needs assistance to get on-line and use e-mail. If ever there was a politician who was 'yesterday's man' it is McCain.”
Cam, McCain has been severely injured in Vietnam. His shoulders have been fractured and healed having not been set properly. His injuries prevent him from raising his arms. His injuries also prevent him from typing. He has never been able to type – neither on a typewriter nor on a computer. He has thus never been able to use a keyboard and can not email by himself. You can hardly take that against him.
I saw a TV ad of Obama’s today in which Obama made the point you are making that since McCain can not send emails, he is a man of the past. This is simply not true. Such ads negate your contention that Obama has managed to retain his dignity in the face of a tough campaign.
Mark said: My first name is Mark.
Cameron: I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance Mark.
Mark: True (the GOP backed Bush to the hilt), to the shame of the Republicans. But don’t forget that most Democrats also voted for the war in Iraq.
Cameron: An excellent point - to what I hope is the shame and regret of those who did.
Worth noting here that Obama did not fall prey to the craven concern that he would 'look weak' by voting against it. More evidence in my mind that he is both a man of conviction and astute intelligence.
Mark: McCain is against the use of torture.
Cameron: McCain WAS against the use of torture, but has refused to condemn the administration, or to vote against those measures raised by Democrats that would have held the administration accountable. Of all the issues for McCain to compromise on, it is this one that I find the most appalling.
How great must one mans ambition be that he cannot even call evil by its name when he himself was subjected to that evil? Again it is worth noting that Obama has clearly indicated he feels the techniques used at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere are violations of the Geneva Conventions and a stain on America's soul.
Mark: However, when the (Patriot) act came up for re-authorization, although Obama went on the floor of the Senate to voice opposition to the legislation, he ultimately ended up voting for it. So here, both candidates are guilty.
Cameron: Agreed. Actions speak louder than words, and both fail in opposing it, but I would note that when it comes to doing the right thing with regards the patriot act I believe Obama is closer to doing so (he voiced opposition) than McCain (full throated endorsement).
Mark: I actually support the Supreme Court Justices selected.
Cameron: For me the selections were bad two-fold, first Roberts was the lawyer the Bush family used in getting the Supreme Court to stop the ballot counting in Florida - and that IMO makes him toxic as a Supreme Court Justice. Two, both Alito and Roberts, while obviously staunch conservatives are even more noted for their belief in upholding executive powers. In short, it was clear (to me) that Bush wasn't as interested in getting justices who would be strict constructionists, or what have you, but rather that he was keen on having court members who would not charge him with war-crimes, etc.
When it comes to defending the constitution and electing SC Justices who will do so over the objections of the executive branch, Obama has IMO the much better platform to do so.
Mark: I think Bush’s handling of Katrina is yet another example of his failures as president. But, again, I do not think that you can count Bush’s shortcomings against McCain.
Cameron: This strikes at the question of how much McCain should be accountable for the party and administration he supported and endorsed (90% of his votes were in line with Bush - he wasn't just playing ball, he was carrying it for them). Personally, I don't understand how anyone can support the GOP or McCain after the last 8 years. That all said, you are correct that FEMA and Katrina have little directly to do with McCain - but everything to do with the party and apparatchiks that McCain is associated with.
Mark: My take on (9-11) is that the president and his Cabinet likely receive many warnings and threats on a daily basis. One can not take all the threats seriously as the country would be paralyzed if action was required to every threat.
Cameron: First it is the job of the intelligence agencies to bring to the President only those threats that require the attention of the President (or they would be swamped). But Bush (and more to the point Cheney) were only interested in ginning up a war in Iraq (largely I would argue for domestic political purposes - they wanted to claim war powers, wrap themselves in the flag, and they knew that sitting presidents - even incompetent ones, were rarely ever turfed in war-time). So when the intelligence about a possible Al-Qaeda strike in the US crossed his desk, he ignored it. When the briefer pressed the issue as important he is noted to have remarked 'You can go, you've covered your ass'. Which is to say, he was directly warned and simply chose to ignore it. This decision to ignore it can also be laid at the feet of Condoleeza Rice, someone who was well aware of the existence of Al-Qaeda, aware of the severity of the threat, and further aware that they had already attempted to strike at the UN buildings in the Clinton administration. Of all his advisors she is the one who should have sat up straight with alarm and suggested reasonable actions that might have prevented the attack.
Mark: Evidently those in charge of threat assessments failed to anticipate 9-11.
Cameron: Simply false. The presidential briefing memos indicated imminent activity, who the players were likely to be and called for high level meetings on the subject. Unfortunately, everybody in the administration was too busy preparing for a war with Iraq.
Mark: I do not think that it is fair to ascribe too much blame to Bush for this.
Cameron: Again, I disagree. Truman had a sign on his desk 'the buck stops here' - if a President is directly warned of an imminent attack, and does nothing who do you think should be blamed?
Mark: In any case, again, this does not have anything to do with McCain.
Cameron: Agreed - though I should point out I listed these items (Katrina and 9-11) as disasters that McCain was not directly involved in.
Mark: Bush and McCain are two different men. Other than their being in the same party, why would you think that McCain would do things the same way as Bush?
Cameron: I think this because;
A - The GOP in general has been profoundly corrupt, incompetent and I think in violation of the law and constitution. Why would you reward them with a third straight term holding the Presidency?
B - McCain had a 90% endorsement rate for Bush policies, appointments etc. As such he is directly responsible for placing incompetents, criminals and reckless idiots into positions of power that were then abused. Why would you reward him for this by making him President?
C - McCain of 2008 is not the McCain of 2004. I LIKED the McCain of 2004, he opposed religiosity in government, believed in accountability and was willing to oppose his party in matters of conscience. Now, he is thin shadow of that man. He toadies with religious fundamentalists, he refuses to oppose torture, he engages in the worst kind of political lies and below the belt smears (the pedophilia one is so outrageous I did a spit take) and he won't criticize his own party for the mistakes it has made. In short, he's been co-opted by the very evil he once stood apart from.
Mark: I think McCain’s Palin pick was simply a stroke of genius, one that made it more likely for him to win the election.
Cameron: I think it wasn't his pick at all. It seems fairly clear he wanted a moderate like Lieberman (a Democrat who would have helped him win the middle) or Tom Ridge. He had never even MET Palin until just before she was announced as his pick. It has the stamp of Karl Rove all over it.
Mark: In reality, all they (the GOP) do is borrow more in order to spend more. This is very frustrating to a guy like me. But the alternative, I think, is even worse.
Cameron: I'd simply say that if asked who I thought the more fiscally responsible part is I would point to the balanced budgets of Bill Clinton, and the exploded deficits and reckless waste of the GOP's last 8 years and ask that you draw your own conclusions. The same predjudices exist in Canada, the Liberals left power here with balanced budgets and declining debt. We were the strongest economy in the G-8. But then the Harper Conservatives took power (in a series of minority governments) and we got to see once again how a supposedly fiscally responsible party can spend like a teenager with dad's credit card. In short, it is simply a myth that the Republicans or Conservatives are fiscally responsible.
Mark: I think that both sides are bereft. Neither is better than the other when it comes to political ads. Do not delude yourself.
Cameron: Again I think the evidence betrays your argument here. McCain's ads are peddling demonstrable false-hoods. Obama did not support sex education for toddlers (in fact he supported a program to help prevent them from being abused), he does not think Iran is 'tiny' and irrelevant (he suggests that they are tiny as a threat compared to the Soviet Union and yet we still engaged in diplomacy with them) etc.
If you can point to an Obama ad that is based on a clear falsehood I will retract my claim that Obama is running a cleaner and more upstanding campaign.
Mark: Can you please tell me how you are judging Obama’s credibility?
Cameron: As I would with any politician, how in accordance with their own words are their policies? In the case of Obama he wants a middle class tax cut (and to raise taxes on the wealthiest), he wanted out of Iraq, he wants to pursue soft power options with belligerent states (like Iran), he is interested in closing Guantanamo bay, and opposes torture.
And whats more he has been saying these things even when they were extremely unpopular.
In contrast we have McCain who has opportunistically recanted on even the most personal of his positions - torture. I would rather follow a man who was willing to stand up for his convictions than one who would sell them out at the first political opportunity.
If this were the McCain of 2004 vs Obama I might have a tougher choice on who to endorse, but as it is, it seems crystal clear to me.
Mark: You can hardly take that (his lack of technological facility) against him.
Cameron: Its a lot more than just his inability to type, he is fundamentally uncurious about modern technologies. He has no knowledge of the internet not because he can't type, but because it doesn't exist in the world he lives in (sort of like human rights and Bush, but I digress).
Mark: This is simply not true. Such ads negate your contention that Obama has managed to retain his dignity in the face of a tough campaign.
Cameron: How can you suggest that an ad focusing on the fact that McCain is very old (he would be one of if not the, oldest elected presidents ever) and out of touch is undignified? It isn't clearly false the way McCain's ads are. It isn't a smear the way McCain's ads are. So how is it in any way undignified? It is certainly aggressive and hard-hitting, but it wasn't out of bounds in any way that the McCain ads have been.
In any case, I look forward to pursuing this discussion further.
Cameron;
Once again, your responses are so comprehensive that it is difficult to provide a quick response.
Suffice to say that I enjoy this back and forth greatly. At this point, most 'debates' usually degenerate into name calling and snide remarks. To your credit, and as usual, your comments are to the point, respectful, generally factual, and effective.
I am very glad to have met your cyber acquaintance. If you were in New York, I would love to talk about these things in person over a beer.
In any case, give me a day or two to respond as this is a busy weekend for me.
By the way, I think that your writing skills are probably wasted just on me. Are there any new blogs that you have found to deposit comments on, now that the Jewish Philosopher's blog has become unfriendly?
Cameron: McCain WAS against the use of torture, but has refused to condemn the administration, or to vote against those measures raised by Democrats….
Cam, I remember that McCain was very strong in his condemnation of torture interrogation practices. Again, I agree that at the time of this campaign he has blurred the lines and his statements are vaguer than usual, but campaigns are campaigns and both sides have turned into pusillanimous pipsqueaks!
Cameron: How great must one mans ambition be that he cannot even call evil by its name when he himself was subjected to that evil?
Cam, I think the irony is that most Americans are against torture of enemy combatants. Again, I agree with you that the rhetoric of this campaign is sickening. I do hear it from both candidates though.
Cameron: Again it is worth noting that Obama has clearly indicated he feels the techniques used at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere are violations of the Geneva Conventions and a stain on America's soul.
I do not agree with you. Just as McCain, Obama has made these statements and is not currently dwelling on them because of a misconception that American people are pro-torture!
On the patriot act, I think that the legislation is bad. I also agree that in general the Democrats appear to be more sensitive to the preservation of individual rights. To me, this is a shame since the Republican Party, particularly its Conservative wing was the champion of individual rights. That this role has been co-opted by the Democrats is ironic. I will have to give you this one.
Cameron: …Roberts was the lawyer the Bush family used in getting the Supreme Court to stop the ballot counting in Florida - and that IMO makes him toxic as a Supreme Court Justice.
How so? Does Robert’s participation in the historic litigation disqualify him as a supreme court justice?
Cameron: Two, both Alito and Roberts, while obviously staunch conservatives are even more noted for their belief in upholding executive powers. In short, it was clear (to me) that Bush wasn't as interested in getting justices who would be strict constructionists, or what have you, but rather that he was keen on having court members who would not charge him with war-crimes, etc.
Are you saying the Bush’s motivation in appointing Alito and Roberts was to avoid a criminal prosecution?
Cameron: When it comes to defending the constitution and electing SC Justices who will do so over the objections of the executive branch, Obama has IMO the much better platform to do so.
What platform? Obama does not have enough track to have any platform. Theoretically, there aught not be a litmus tests for the selection of SCJ’s. One, in theory, should select judges based on their intellect and judicial qualifications. In practice, this is of course not so in that each president attempts to shape the court in his image, which is understandable. If by platform you mean that the court in the image of Obama is more pleasing to your eyes, OK, but this is hardly a significant point. I can counter and say that my eyes are more pleased to witness a more conservative bunch in the SC.
Cameron: This strikes at the question of how much McCain should be accountable for the party and administration he supported and endorsed (90% of his votes were in line with Bush - he wasn't just playing ball, he was carrying it for them).
You see, Cameron, we have to be careful here. In principle, with some notable exceptions (torture, faith based initiatives, patriot act, and no-child left behind) I actually agree with Bush’s general philosophical view. He meant well in that he, at least in theory, believed in a smaller government and fewer regulations. The problem, of course, was that Bush executed terribly. He was a terrible executive and a horrible representative of the US.
Katrina is a prime example. In principle, if Bush had stood on the side-lines and claimed that the business of disaster relief is a local one, and simply played a supportive and minimal role, I would have supported him. Alternatively, if he assumed command and from the get-go involved the Federal Government in disaster recovery, I would have supported him. But he did neither. Instead, he did not act until it was very late in the game. His response was much too late. He then went on to over react, spending over $120 billion dollars on disaster relief. He gave residents of New Orleans credit cards from which to draw thousands of dollars, leased cruise ships to the tune of $600 million dollars to house a mere 3000 people, housing others in short terms shelters for years at great expense, etc. In short, he spent enormous amounts of money for very little gain.
Thus, it is Bush’s handling of matters that I criticize, not his principles. So, to say that McCain has voted with Bush on proposed legislation does not carry over to Bush’s executive blunders.
Even with respect to Iraq war, a war that I vehemently have opposed, it is conceivable that a wrong war could have been handled properly. A competent executive could have invaded Iraq with very different results. Thus, Bush failed on two fronts with Iraq: 1) His decision to invade Iraq was faulty, and 2) His execution of the war effort was disastrous. You can only blame the party and people within the party for the first failing, not the second. If you want to give McCain blame for supporting the war in Iraq, that is fair. But you can not blame McCain for Bush’s handling of the war.
Similarly, with Katrina, it is not fair to blame McCain for Bush’s executive decisions. Bush’s executive failings should not stain McCains’ reputation, even if he voted for Bush’s legislative proposals.
Cameron: Personally, I don't understand how anyone can support the GOP or McCain after the last 8 years.
See above.
Cameron:…but everything to do with the party and apparatchiks that McCain…
I love the word ‘apparatchik’. Only Cameron will include it in his written lexicon – it is only one of the many reasons why I admire your writing.
Cameron: First it is the job of the intelligence agencies to bring to the President only those threats that require the attention of the President (or they would be swamped).
True.
Cameron: But Bush (and more to the point Cheney) were only interested in ginning up a war in Iraq (largely I would argue for domestic political purposes - they wanted to claim war powers, wrap themselves in the flag, and they knew that sitting presidents - even incompetent ones, were rarely ever turfed in war-time). So when the intelligence about a possible Al-Qaeda strike in the US crossed his desk, he ignored it.
Now you are claiming the conspiracy that the information about an immanent attack was ignored deliberately to steer the country into war. I think here you are getting dangerously close to kooky conspiracy mongering and it is frankly unbecoming. Personally I would think that if the intention of the Bush administration was to start a war with Iraq prior to 9-11, they could have mustered a better excuse by allowing a plane to be shot down in Iraq’s former ‘no-fly’ zone. The administration could have found much easier and less painful targets than to allow a bunch of Saudi Arabians and Egyptians to slam planes into the Twin Towers.
Cameron: When the briefer pressed the issue as important he is noted to have remarked 'You can go, you've covered your ass'. Which is to say, he was directly warned and simply chose to ignore it.
There are tens of thousands of people working in the security agencies, and each of them has hundreds of conversations with various people. It is very easy to scrutinize the conversations of briefer after the fact. People have done this for all sorts of unanticipated events. Look at the history of Pearl Harbor, of the Chernobyl accident, of World War I, of the Yom Kippur war etc. You can come up with countless examples of individuals who forewarned of a forthcoming calamity which was ignored. You can perhaps make a claim of incompetence, but not of deliberate evil.
Cameron: Simply false (regarding 9-11 attack). The presidential briefing memos indicated imminent activity, who the players were likely to be and called for high level meetings on the subject. Unfortunately, everybody in the administration was too busy preparing for a war with Iraq.
Cam, please if you can, for my benefit, supply me with your sources of presidential briefing indicating imminent attacks.
Cameron: if a President is directly warned of an imminent attack, and does nothing who do you think should be blamed?
Again, please give me your source on this direct warning of a imminent attack.
Cameron: A - The GOP in general has been profoundly corrupt, incompetent and I think in violation of the law and constitution. Why would you reward them with a third straight term holding the Presidency?
I do not agree with this general statement that GOP has been profoundly corrupt or incompetent. What makes you indict the whole party?
Cameron: B - McCain had a 90% endorsement rate for Bush policies, appointments etc. As such he is directly responsible for placing incompetents, criminals and reckless idiots into positions of power that were then abused. Why would you reward him for this by making him President?
Specifically which policies or appointments are you talking about. Since both McCain and Obama are Senators, let us compare the policies and appointments and see how they do. So let’s see some examples.
C - Now, he (McCain) is thin shadow of that man.
I agree. But once again, I submit that both McCain and Obama have retreated into a campaign mode, spouting disingenuous platitudes. They both do it, Cameron.
Cameron: I'd simply say that if asked who I thought the more fiscally responsible part is I would point to the balanced budgets of Bill Clinton….
It is true that Clinton balanced the budget. He deserves credit for that. I was not a fan of Clinton in his first term but came to like him precisely because he held the budget in check. I do remember, though, that he did so as an overall policy of “triangulation” in order to placate the Republicans. In other words, in a large measure, the Republicans forced him to balance the budget. Also, please do not forget that the economy was booming at the time of Clinton’s presidency, with the Federal Coffers bursting at the seams.
Cameron: Obama did not support sex education for toddlers (in fact he supported a program to help prevent them from being abused), he does not think Iran is 'tiny' and irrelevant (he suggests that they are tiny as a threat compared to the Soviet Union and yet we still engaged in diplomacy with them) etc.
I completely agree. I did watch your YouTube advertisement of McCain’s with disgust. I am frankly ashamed that he would produce and endorse an ad like that. But, again, I submit that they both do this. Both sides produce misleading ads that distort each other’s positions (here is one example of Obama’s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCMVL5tXLGQ). Aside from this example, there are many others. Just YouTube Obama’s ads and you can come up with many of them.
Cameron: In any case, I look forward to pursuing this discussion further.
Me too. This is fun. However, with each response, our reply gets longer. I deliberately did not reply to some of your statements, not because I agree with them but because the reply gets too long otherwise. For future replies, I might suggest that we hold to a single idea, debate it, and then move on to another idea. Perhaps we can gain more concensus that way.
Also, I wonder whether we can move this to a different forum where we can get other peoples’ input and commentary. I think it would be more fun. Is there any place that you are depositing comments there days?
Mark said: I remember that McCain was very strong in his condemnation of torture interrogation practices.
Cameron: The fact is he previously was very strong on the issue of torture, but has abdicated that position (in the most cynical of ways) in order to placate the base of the GOP.
Mark: Again, I agree that at the time of this campaign he has blurred the lines and his statements are vaguer than usual, but campaigns are campaigns and both sides have turned into pusillanimous pipsqueaks!
Cameron: I just don't see any equivalence here. If Obama suddenly came out for the Bush tax cuts or for lowering the minimum wage we might have something similar going on with Obama - but we don't.
In fact we've seen the opposite happen. Despite all the advice given to him by the pacifist wing of his party Obama (correctly) suggested that the US pursue Al Qaeda targets into Pakistan if necessary. A position that earned him opprobrium from the left and right. Curiously just two months later this becomes EXACTLY the plan the Bush administration decides to pursue.
However, if you have an example of Obama reversing himself on a key position I'm open to considering it as a balance against McCain's cynicism.
Mark: I think the irony is that most Americans are against torture of enemy combatants. Again, I agree with you that the rhetoric of this campaign is sickening. I do hear it from both candidates though.
Cameron: I don't. I only hear it from Mitt Romney (Double Gitmo! as if that weren't the most absurd position ever), and the rest of the GOP field who practically tore themselves to pieces to go as Jack Bauer on the terrorists as they could. Did you see the GOP debates? Now THAT was sickening.
As for Obama, I expect he will live up to his promise to close Gitmo and return the detainees to their countries of origin, or charge them with crimes. Given that the Bush admin has had almost 8 years to do the latter under the most supine legal arrangements ever considered - and still failed to do so, I don't see it happening.
Mark: I do not agree with you (that Obama has been clear about the torture at Abu Ghraib). Just as McCain, Obama has made these statements and is not currently dwelling on them because of a misconception that American people are pro-torture!
Cameron: The only statements I am aware of are that Obama is not pro-torture. Worth noting too that the election so far is not about torture (the GOP certainly doesn't want to fight it on those grounds), but rather the economy and the war in Iraq. McCain's only chance (since he loses if it is about the economy or the war in Iraq) is to make the election a referendum on Obama and nothing else. Hence the personal smears, etc.
Mark: On the patriot act... I will have to give you this one.
Cameron: Noted.
Cameron: …Roberts was the lawyer the Bush family used in getting the Supreme Court to stop the ballot counting in Florida - and that IMO makes him toxic as a Supreme Court Justice.
How so? Does Robert’s participation in the historic litigation disqualify him as a supreme court justice?
Cameron: It doesn't strike you as a conflict of interest to have your personal lawyer sit on the very court that would prosecute you for war crimes? It's not about Roberts being unqualified (I believe he was), or that he has a view of the constitution I don't share (which he does), its that his role as Bush stooge has been expanded to include the role of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Mark: Are you saying the Bush’s motivation in appointing Alito and Roberts was to avoid a criminal prosecution?
Cameron: Yes.
Cameron: When it comes to defending the constitution and electing SC Justices who will do so over the objections of the executive branch, Obama has IMO the much better platform to do so.
Mark: What platform? Obama does not have enough track to have any platform.
Cameron: On the contrary, he was editor at the Harvard Law Review and we have an extensive record of his thoughts on a wide variety of legal opinions. Nor does he easily fall into the category of 'Liberal' (take note of his position on same sex marriage as being a matter for the states to decide as a good example).
Mark: If by platform you mean that the court in the image of Obama is more pleasing to your eyes, OK, but this is hardly a significant point.
Cameron: By platform I mean: an overall deference to states rights as outlined by the constitution (and in particular I am interested to see how or if he addresses the dysfunctional 'commerce clause' that gives extra powers to the feds), a rejection of the Kelo decision, defender of choice, etc. Obama is (unlike McCain) a rather sophisticated legal thinker - one who won't place his personal secretary on to the highest legal bench of the land.
I can counter and say that my eyes are more pleased to witness a more conservative bunch in the SC.
Cameron: 90% of his votes were in line with Bush - he wasn't just playing ball, he was carrying it for them.
Mark: We have to be careful here. In principle, with some notable exceptions (torture, faith based initiatives, patriot act, and no-child left behind) I actually agree with Bush’s general philosophical view.
Cameron: Oh? A doctrine of Pre-emptive war fits into your worldview? Of treating the entire planet as a legitimate battleground? Or is it just the establishment of a permanent US military presence in the Middle-East you endorse? Or perhaps it was the de-regulation of the banking industry over the last 8 years you are behind? Or the interference with science in areas like reproductive technology, and climate change?
I am not trying to be facetious, but perhaps it would be helpful if you could point to a few examples of Bush policy or philosophy you endorse - I can't think of any.
His position of 'Compassionate Conservatism' rubs me the wrong way, in every way. He exploded the deficit, expanded government into the lives of citizens, and punched holes in the wall separating Church and State. It is the anti-thesis of limited government.
Mark: He meant well in that he, at least in theory, believed in a smaller government and fewer regulations.
Cameron: I know he said he believed that, but why would you believe him? As Governor of Texas he did the exact same thing (exploded the deficit, intruded into peoples lives). And he ran the most efficient death penalty process in the US.
Mark: The problem, of course, was that Bush executed terribly. He was a terrible executive and a horrible representative of the US.
Cameron: I actually think he did exactly what the GOP expected him to do. He used a compliant congress to grant ear-marks, special projects, etc. to all his friends, cronies, business interests, etc. (the record of corruption for the GOP's last 7 years is nothing short of shocking), he rigged the Attorney Generals department to hire only loyal Bushies, and to fire any independent thinkers, and to nobody's shock or surprise he found reasons to go to war with Iraq.
Mark: Katrina is a prime example. In principle, if Bush had stood on the side-lines and claimed that the business of disaster relief is a local one, and simply played a supportive and minimal role, I would have supported him.
Cameron: Except that FEMA exists precisely to provide the kind of help and assistance that the devastation of Katrina required! Ray Nagin wasn't going to be able to save New Orleans on his own.
Mark: Alternatively, if he assumed command and from the get-go involved the Federal Government in disaster recovery, I would have supported him. But he did neither.
Cameron: Indeed he was doing a photo-op celebrating John McCain's birthday at the time. (no joke)
Mark: Thus, it is Bush’s handling of matters that I criticize, not his principles.
Cameron: I think you mistake your own principles for his. You (and I) believe in limited government, effective crisis management, realistic (rather than idealistic) foreign policy options that include diplomacy as a preference to war, etc.
Bush and the Republican party don't represent any of those things - and haven't for a very long time.
Mark: So, to say that McCain has voted with Bush on proposed legislation does not carry over to Bush’s executive blunders.
Cameron: Surely it does. Surely McCain endorsing the Invasion of Iraq is something we can hold against him. Surely McCain's position on endorsing 'enhanced interrogation techniques' by the CIA is something we can hold against him. Surely the fact the US was operating illegal 'black sites' across Eastern Europe (often in what were once Soviet buildings used for the same purpose) to conduct torture and iterrogations of dissapeared suspects is something we can hold against him.
But lets look at the two main issues so far in the campaign;
Iraq and the economy. Whose position on the economy do you hew closer to?
McCain (a charter member of the disgraced Keating Five), and someone who endorses tax cuts only for the wealthy.
Or
Obama, who has no record of being investigated for fraud ala the Keating Five, and who has a plan for middle class and lower class tax cuts? With a sane policy (IMO) of raising taxes on the most wealthy people and businesses.
Or lets consider Iraq and the war in general.
McCain opposed moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Despite the fact that Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and not Iraq. He also opposed the use of force in engagements in Pakistan - despite the fact that is where Bin Laden (if he is alive) actually is.
On the other side we have Obama who has consistently opposed the war in Iraq, supported the war in Afghanistan, and who recognizes that the failing Pakistan state with its nuclear weapons and hostility to India is the far greater threat to global order than Iraq.
I don't even think this comparison leaves the issue close. Obama has shown a willingness to engage with the opponent where they actually live and with all means (diplomacy is just war by other means) at his disposal. McCain has simply wrapped himself in the flag and spouted jingoistic platitudes. Oh yeah, and he is publicly in favour of bombing Iran.
Mark: A competent executive could have invaded Iraq with very different results.
Cameron: The dream of empire dies hard I guess. I always saw Iraq as a 'country' that was only possible under a dictatorship. Take out the dictatorship and the country flies apart. I still believe that one of three things will happen; the government will coalesce under some new tyrant (with US approval), or it will eventually split up into autonomous/semi-autonomous regions (ie. Kurdistan), or that the conflict will spread to include Turkey (who borders on the Kurds and has a long and troubled relationship with them), Iran, Pakistan and India. But then I've never been an optimist about invasions.
Mark: Thus, Bush failed on two fronts with Iraq: 1) His decision to invade Iraq was faulty, and 2) His execution of the war effort was disastrous. You can only blame the party and people within the party for the first failing, not the second.
Cameron: the fact is he supported the war in Iraq on false premises from the very beginning, and still does. A position I maintain isn't intellectually honest.
Cameron:…but everything to do with the party and apparatchiks that McCain…
Mark: I love the word ‘apparatchik’. Only Cameron will include it in his written lexicon – it is only one of the many reasons why I admire your writing.
Cameron: I wonder sometimes if you are damning me with faint praise - but since its the only praise I routinely get, I will just smile and say 'thanks!'
Cameron: But Bush (and more to the point Cheney) were only interested in ginning up a war in Iraq (largely I would argue for domestic political purposes - they wanted to claim war powers, wrap themselves in the flag, and they knew that sitting presidents - even incompetent ones, were rarely ever turfed in war-time). So when the intelligence about a possible Al-Qaeda strike in the US crossed his desk, he ignored it.
Mark: Now you are claiming the conspiracy that the information about an immanent attack was ignored deliberately to steer the country into war. I think here you are getting dangerously close to kooky conspiracy mongering and it is frankly unbecoming.
Cameron: You misunderstand me. I charge that the Bush administration had given every signal that they intended to invade Iraq well prior to being elected to office! Upon arriving in the White House Cheney established his Iraq Work Group - one presumes not so that he could engage in diplomatic relations with them. Recall that once upon a time Cheney publicly called for the Iraqi citizens to stand up and fight Hussein. They did - and the Americans sat back and did nothing when Hussein wiped them out and placed them into concentration camps. It is Cheney (far more than the 'win the war for Daddy' psychology of Bush Jr) who was obsessed with invading Iraq.
As for the failures to recognize the intelligence that was given to them about 9-11, I have said previously that the blame really falls on Rice. Of all the national security advisors, she should have known the threats were credibly serious. But instead she essentially ignored their importance. I don't believe she did this so that the attack would be successful (that would be a conspiracy theory!) but rather because as a charter member of the Project for a New American Century, her priorities were elsewhere (Iraq).
Mark: Personally I would think that if the intention of the Bush administration was to start a war with Iraq prior to 9-11, they could have mustered a better excuse by allowing a plane to be shot down in Iraq’s former ‘no-fly’ zone.
Cameron: I totally agree. 9-11 was unanticipated by the Bush regime - despite being warned about it. Incompetence not conspiracy is all that is required to explain it. As for ginning up excuses for war, Bush Sr (a former head spook at the CIA) was the absolute master at it. The invasion of Panama to secure the canal for another generation was a by-the-book plan for creating a military conflict. If only his son had possessed half his brains.
Mark: You can perhaps make a claim of incompetence, but not of deliberate evil.
Cameron: To a point I agree. They were incompetent to not prevent 9-11 based on the intelligence they received. However, they were evil for using it as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Cam, please if you can, for my benefit, supply me with your sources of presidential briefing indicating imminent attacks.
Cameron: Here's a copy of the briefing on-line;
http://www.agonist.org/annex/pdb.htm
I picked this site because it limited itself to just the PDB. (Whenever you search for documents related to 9-11 you run into very dubious sources.) Also worth noting is the infamous 'Downing Street Memo' a communication internal to the British PMs office that indicates they were fully aware that the reasons for invading Iraq were being 'sexed up' by the Bush admin.
Mark: I do not agree with this general statement that GOP has been profoundly corrupt or incompetent. What makes you indict the whole party?
Cameron: Here's just a few of the ongoing scandals you might be aware of;
- Jack Abrahmoff
- Duke Cunningham
- Sen Ted Stevens
- Guantanamo Bay
- Black Ops sites in Europe/Rendition
- Enron
- Libby/Plame
- US attorney's purge
- Terri Schiavo
- Walter Reed
I'm sure I can think of others if I try hard.
Mark: I submit that both McCain and Obama have retreated into a campaign mode, spouting disingenuous platitudes. They both do it, Cameron.
Mark: If it were just them being disingenuine, I wouldn't disagree so hard. The fact is that McCain isn't distorting his or Obama's record, he's out and out lying about it. It's one thing for Obama to backhandedly smack McCain for being old and out of touch, but it is quite another to say things that simply are factually false.
I made this point in my posting of McCain's ad, that he was crossing a line (one that is often crossed in elections to be sure), but doing so way too soon. All the media can see now is that everything coming out of the McCain campaign is an obvious lie. It's one thing to distort or manipulate your opponents position, but its another to make it up out of whole cloth.
Cameron: I'd simply say that if asked who I thought the more fiscally responsible part is I would point to the balanced budgets of Bill Clinton….
It is true that Clinton balanced the budget. He deserves credit for that. I was not a fan of Clinton in his first term but came to like him precisely because he held the budget in check. I do remember, though, that he did so as an overall policy of “triangulation” in order to placate the Republicans. In other words, in a large measure, the Republicans forced him to balance the budget.
Cameron: This was true only after we had the Gingrich 'contract with America' - till then Clinton had a Democratic house to work with - and was notably bi-partisan even then.
Mark: Also, please do not forget that the economy was booming at the time of Clinton’s presidency, with the Federal Coffers bursting at the seams.
Cameron: I think Clinton can take credit where credit is due. During his time in office reduced the deficit to zero, and restrained spending. Now you might wish to give the credit to the Republicans - fair enough, perhaps they played a role in his sucess.
But as soon as the Republicans came to power we no longer had balanced budgets, and they have stopped considering the costs of the war when calculating the budget deficit - that is, even without the war, Republican government has engaged in massive financial irresponsibility.
I note as well that no major banks collapsed during Clinton's reign, and yet just this week Lehman Brothers and Merril Lynch collapsed, Bear Stearns has already gone under, Freddy Mac and Fanny May were both taken over rather than allowed to fail, the largest insurer on the planet - AIG is about to be absorbed by the Federal government, and none of this massive (trillions of $s) of debt that the Feds are taking on has even been reported.
I'm an evidence over ideology guy. The evidence is that Democrats don't suck nearly as hard at managing the economy as Republicans do.
Mark: Just YouTube Obama’s ads and you can come up with many of them.
Cameron: As I understand it the only falsehood in the ad you linked to is that McCain actually owns 10 houses!
Lets also be clear that this is pretty standard fare for an election campaign. Obama is too new, too untested, etc. McCain is too old, and too out of touch. Those are run of the mill campaign ads. But saying that your opponent supports sex-ed for pre-schoolers? Or claiming his tax plan is something any body with google can find out it is not? Its one thing to attack your opponent, its another to lie openly about him.
Mark: This is fun.
Cameron: Agreed.
Mark: For future replies, I might suggest that we hold to a single idea, debate it, and then move on to another idea. Perhaps we can gain more concensus that way.
Cameron: Fair enough, pick a topic you wish to defend, and I'll create a separate post for it. Be warned several of my friends visit this site and are much further left than I (Highlander for one is a New Democrat Party member), so being pro-McCain could trigger some blowback. That said, my friends tend to be much more lucid and restrained than those we might encounter at JP's site. ;-)
Mark: Also, I wonder whether we can move this to a different forum where we can get other peoples’ input and commentary. I think it would be more fun. Is there any place that you are depositing comments there days?
Cameron: Nope. Sadly, this is it. Unless you wish to visit the FUNHL blog and give us your thoughts on the upcoming NHL season...
Hi Cameron;
Again, sorry for the tardy replies, but I have been somewhat consumed with work.
I also have been doing some research on the topics that you wrote about, as I have to confess, many of things that you write are new to me.
Cameron, there is much to write, and I do not know where to begin. I will start at a minor point. We had, in the previous entry, the following exchange:
Cameron: …Roberts was the lawyer the Bush family used in getting the Supreme Court to stop the ballot counting in Florida - and that IMO makes him toxic as a Supreme Court Justice.
How so? Does Robert’s participation in the historic litigation disqualify him as a supreme court justice?
Cameron: It doesn't strike you as a conflict of interest to have your personal lawyer sit on the very court that would prosecute you for war crimes? It's not about Roberts being unqualified (I believe he was), or that he has a view of the constitution I don't share (which he does), its that his role as Bush stooge has been expanded to include the role of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Mark: Are you saying the Bush’s motivation in appointing Alito and Roberts was to avoid a criminal prosecution?
Cameron: Yes.
I must confess that I had heard of Roberts’ participation regarding Bush v. Gore peripherally, but did not pay much attention to it. I went back and researched the role of the now Justice Robert’s role, and the following facts emerged:
Mr. Roberts either with an invitation or on his own (the facts are disputed) went to Tallahassee to meet with Mr. Jeb Bush, then the Governor of Florida, on legal matters having to do with Florida’s handling of the voting practices. He was also seen at a room full of lawyers by Ted Olson, president Bush’s legal counsel. He may have prepared a brief, though this is not clear. The three sources that read regarding this are (www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=224x891 , articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/21/nation/na-recount21, and, bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7228)
Now, it is clear that Roberts had a role on the 2000 Florida recounts, and he may even have a role, like hundreds of other scholars, in the Bush V. Gore litigation. However, it is certainly an exaggeration to say that “Roberts was THE (I placed the emphasis) lawyer the Bush family used….” Similarly, it is misleading to write “It doesn't strike you as a conflict of interest to have your personal lawyer sit on the very court…”as Roberts was not George Bush’s ‘personal’ lawyer.
Now you might have an argument (a weak one) if you said that all lawyers participating in the 2000 election either for the Republicans in Florida or for Republicans in general should be disqualified for consideration for the Supreme Court. You might say (as Edward Kennedy said) that such participation should be scrutinized. But to say as you did that Roberts’ selection is ‘toxic’ is an over-reach. To say that it shows Bush’s hubris or that he made this selection to protect himself against a future war crimes court is absurd.
What is even more crazy is to use Roberts’ selection to denigrate John McCain.
Post a Comment