Mourning for America

As Americans we can disagree about how to proceed in Iraq, how to solve our illegal immigration problem, what to do about our health care crisis, and the list could go on. For the most part, we disagree with respect. Our Congress does not find itself in brawls like some other countries. Our politicians stand on the same stage as each other and can shake hands at the end. Even though the media loves for them to throw stones at each other, they refrain.

Even here at the VoterVault we can disagree, but we do so with the understanding that we are all on the same team. We all want to see a strong and prosperous America; we just disagree on how to best achieve that.

From time to time, though, the good-intentioned disagreement between our citizens becomes more than that. It crosses a line and goes from being a "disagreement" to something much, much worse.

That happened yesterday.

The anti-war movement has been quite strong for a long time. It has been the past six months or so that it has gained significant strength. Since the Democratic takeover of Congress, the anti-war protests have taken on a new fervor. In large part this is due to the high expectations Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders/candidates set in their months of campaigning. They used the War as a rallying cry for both the Liberal base and the moderate vote. Now that reality has set in, and governing has proved harder than campaigning, the anti-war movement seems to be ever-more frustrated. From their perspective it was the evil GOP who was running this war--now Pelosi et. al. have become complicit. They have not cut off the funding for the war, something for which the staunchest anti-war protesters long.

What this has caused in some of the protesters is something for which we should all mourn: they have turned from being anti-war to anti-America.

This was the scene from the protest in Portland yesterday:In case it is hard to make out, that is the the likeness of a U.S. soldier being burned as the crowd cheers and takes pictures.

It is generally easy for me to separate emotions from political analysis. Not with things like this. It doesn't fill me with rage, but with deep sadness for our country. We have lost all boundaries. We have left all decorum and all reason. We have lost respect, compassion, and limits.

Certainly, not all those who fall in the "anti-war" camp are like this. If anything, this makes me respect the Democrats in Congress more; at least they pay lip service to the troops while opposing their actions.

There is obviously a culture war going on in America. What I have failed to realize is how deep it runs. There is a faction in this country (albeit a small one) who thinks that America is essentially bad. We are the evil empire. We are the cause of most of the suffering in the world. They burn our flag, burn our troops, and long for a world where America is brought down so that there is "equality" between nations. They are not anti-war, anti-Republican, anti-capitalist, anti-traditional values. They have gone further than that.

As long as we are all on the same team we can strongly disagree all day long. We can cite our facts, support our side, argue for this policy or that, go back and forth, and ultimately there will either be compromise or one side will win. That is how our republic works.

But apparently some of us are not on the same team. In the name of peace they are becoming militant. In the name of compassion they are filled with hatred. To end what they see as aggression, they use greater aggression. And worst of all, they use the banner of "anti-war" to be anti-America.

Room at the Inn?

[Editor's Note: Today we have a guest post from freqent VoterVault reader ghbraves. Thank you to all who keep checking in here, and who obviously care about the serious issues facing our nation. Now, on to ghbraves first guest post. End Editor's Note]

Thanks to k. randolph for letting me post

This past Sunday, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) expressed that he may consider running for the Republican nomination for President. While many have expressed intrigue (there’s actually an online petition to encourage him to run) over the thought of this 6’6” television star running for the Republican nomination, the question remains: Is there room for him in this field?While it is still very early in the campaign season, there are some certainties which exist at this point--certainties that make his announcement interesting.

1. The trifecta of Democratic candidates are much more well liked by their base than the GOP3 candidates are by their base
   
2. Despite the support of various notable (yet random) conservatives across the nation, many conservatives are untrusting and/or unsupportive of Romney, Giuliani, or McCain.
   
3. Videos are now being created and shown on YouTube that reveal past statements of these three candidates that contradict statements that they are making today.

After the 2006 elections, I think it is brutally clear that we now live in a YouTube and iMovie political world. Footage of candidates will be reviewed by bloggers, techies, and political junkies for the purpose of creating YouTube ads that will affect the public’s perception of a candidate. This is important because everything we saw in 2006 was just the beginning. In 2008, everything is going to be magnified ten times as much. Candidates' past quotations will be examined, and, unfortunately for many candidates, their statements today will not agree with their statements of the past.

Let me be clear about this. I don’t care for the word “flip-flopper” very much. I believe that the term was created by the Freakshow that is D.C. and its politics. Most of us who frequent the VoterVault don't care for the Freakshow too much.

Having said that, the word flip-flopper harmed John Kerry in 2004. Regardless of whether it was true or not, or whether you liked it or not, it harmed him and definitely cost him many votes. Today, we have a situation where Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all have their flip-flopping problems clearly chronicled on the most popular video site in the world.

For example:

• McCain: Several videos detail how he has switched positions on many issues many different times. Someone is really enjoying creating these videos…as it seems like there’s a new video of McCain every week or so.
• Romney: Several videos highlight his liberal past, especially as a candidate for the U.S. Senate against the interminable Teddy Kennedy. For him, this is trouble.
• Giuliani: Rudy takes the cake with the most troublesome videos. Giuliani is shown criticizing H.W. Bush for his opinion on taxpayer-funded abortions, among other problems that social, fiscal, and small government conservatives won’t like. If elected, he would be the first leader of the free world who has dressed in drag, which is a new video that is now circulating.

I think it’s clear that these three candidates currently have several large issues with the Republican party base. Here’s where Fred Thompson comes in. He’s seemingly more conservative than the GOP3, he has political experience, and most importantly, he’s likable AND nationally known. So at this point, there may be room for him in the field.

Perhaps Thompson has looked at the situation and believes that these three gentlemen have little chance in this wired world. We’ll have to see where he goes from here, but as of now, he has very little negative footage on YouTube.

What about Thompson and YouTube? At the time of this post, there are only 13 videos relating to the former senator, none of which are meant to be negative.

In fact, the worst footage overall that you’ll find of Senator Thompson is his average performance as a private investigator in the remake of Cape Fear. And I don’t think that will hurt his chances too much. After all, if you can work with Nick Nolte, you can work with anyone.

Posted by ghbraves

Lies and Stats

Media bias has become a term so frequently used, and a concept so routinely batted about by those of us in the conservative community, that it is often not even worth mentioning. Other times, however, it should not be ignored.

For the most part I actually think the media does a good job of not tipping their hand. When I watch Brian Williams on NBC his inflection and expressions are almost always consistent. They do often (if not always) at least give a quote or two from both sides of an argument.

The kind of bias I find most grating and bothersome is the most subtle kind. NPR is blatantly biased, and everyone knows it. Fox News is biased, and everyone knows it. The bias of those two is less troublesome because it is known, accepted, and (to a certain degree) acknowledged.

The kind of bias that is the most detrimental to intellectual honesty is the kind that hides in the guise of objectivity. Take for example a poll conducted last week by CNN. The question posed was "Do you think the U.S. can or cannot win in Iraq?" Here are the results:Now let's use this chart and play a little game. The game is called "create the headline". It works like this: look at the chart, and make a headline that accurately tells the reader what this poll concluded. Go ahead and play now.

Okay, here's what I came up with: "Americans Divided Over U.S. Prospects in Iraq".

Perhaps you came up with something similar. If you did, good for you. Unfortunately, headline writers don't always like to be objective and honest. Here is the actual headline from CNN.com:Factually accurate? Yes. Intellectually honest? I would argue not. The larger problem with biased decisions such as these is that they exploit the reality that most Americans don't read the article. They read the headline, get the gist, and move on.

Obviously, people can use stats to lie. CNN, in this case, used the data to create a headline that falsely leads people to the conclusion that over half of Americans think we cannot win in Iraq. CNN's survey had other questions in it, too. The data from those questions could have been used to bias the data in the other direction if they so chose. For example, they could have reported that only 21% of Americans support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Or they could have reported that support for the troop surge is increasing. While both of those are factually honest claims, they both represent biased selection of data (see the poll results for yourself).

It is a great irony that in our age when there is more information available at our fingertips than ever before, people are still generally uninformed. If Joe American took the time to read the headline, CNN's bias would become as blatant as that of NPR or Fox News. Instead, news outlets like CNN know they can go on under the guise of objectivity and slant their presentation to influence the audience. Sadly, the average American doesn't even know what is happening to them.

[Editor's Note: Thank you to all who expressed concern for me during this prolonged absence from posting. No, I am not dead, nor am I in the infirmary. I just hit a patch of days at work wherein I left my house at 5:30am and got home around 9:30pm. We all know that when that happens, some things have to give. The first one, quite sadly, was the VoterVault. Back in the saddle. End Editor's Note]

Courts Over Country

[Editor's Note: This post is, in part, a follow-up to one of the
VoterVault's earliest (and most read) posts. For more background and thoughts on this matter, go back and check it out. End Editor's Note]

And so it was in November of 2003 that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in a 4-3 decisions, sparked one of the great controversies of the Culture War by institutionalizing gay marriage. This year, three more Supreme Courts will take up the issue: California, Connecticut, and Maryland.

Let's put this up front: this post is not about gay marriage. It is about the courts. It remains my contention that the Supreme Court of the United States--and the Supreme Courts in the states have followed their lead--has overstepped the bounds intended for it by the Founding Fathers. The Founders intended for the Courts to be the weakest of the three branches. Congress was to have the most power, followed very closely by the President, and coming up in a distant third was the judicial branch. That is why Article I of the Constitution deals with the Legislative branch, II the Executive, and III the Judicial. That was the intended order of importance.

In modern American, the Courts now dominate.

The reason gay marriage is worth discussing in this context is that it shows, quite clearly, the immense power contained in the hands of Supreme Court justices. It was in 1996 that the issue of gay marriage first entered the national spotlight. A state judge in Hawaii became the first to rule on the side of gay marriage. The voters in the state then reacted by amending their Constitution to wrest control over who defines marriage from the court's hands. Only their state legislature may define who can and cannot receive a marriage license.

Fast forward to 2004, and the now famous Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. Unlike many other states, the people in Massachusetts have no power to amend their own Constitution. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the people of the state opposed gay marriage, the Governor opposed gay marriage, and the position of the majority of those in the state legislature opposed gay marriage, the Supreme Court was the only body that mattered. Gay marriage thus came to be.

In the flurry of backlash against the Court decision we now stand, three years later, with 27 states having amended their Constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Massachusetts itself is considering such a measure (though it would immediately replace the institution with civil unions).

If the Founders were aware of this debate they would be rolling over in their graves, and not just because their 18^th Century sensibilities would be shocked (though they would). What would be even more shocking would be the realization that the biggest mistake they made in forming the Constitution was not putting a systematic check on the Court's power.

Those who founded our country never intended for our Constitutions to have to be amended to deal with specific policy issues. The Constitution was--and is--supposed to be a framework for governing. The Courts were supposed to deal with those things that the states and the Congress could not. They were meant to enforce the basic framework. They were not meant to be a policy-determining body.

The fact that every controversial issue that arises is bound for the Supreme Court--the only unelected, unaccountable, uncheckable body in our government--further supports the idea that the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Yes, such judicial activism can be used for good (see Brown v Board), but such cases are the exception to the rule.

Our democratic process is supposed to work in such a way that the Congress passes laws and sets policy, and the President ensures that such a law is appropriate, enforceable, and Constitutional. The Courts subvert such a process by imposing their will through interpretations based more on their own worldview/philosophy than on the Constitution.

In short, the Supreme Court, which claims to uphold the Constitution, violates its basic tenents when it creates law rather than interpreting it.

The Rule Book

As the Iraq War becomes the ever-increasingly hot potato, Congress and the President continue to square off. There debate is not limited to what the best course of action is. In fact, as incredibly important as the strategic decisions of the war are, there is a debate raging that has implications that are perhaps even broader. Who has the power over strategic wartime decisions?

It was about this time a week ago that the majority party in Congress was organizing legislation to limit the scope of the War in Iraq. The plan would have limited American troops to guarding the Iraqi border, training their policy and military, and fighting al Qaeda. The plan, fortunately, has been scrapped (or at least put on hold).

Had this plan been put to a vote it would have been a very negative development, but not because having the troops do only those things is a bad idea.

Let's suppose for a second that the Reid, Pelosi, et. al. had put this measure to a vote, and let's further suppose that it was able to get through both houses (highly unlikely). What would happen next? Obviously, a Presidential veto. On one hand, this could have been a great political move for the Left. They know full well that the American people support the position of "drawing down", "limiting the scope", and eventually bringing the troops home. Putting this to a vote would then put the GOP in the position of either abandoning the party or abandoning their principles. Either way, they lose, and the GOP in general gets the "bad guy" label. When 43 then vetoes the bill, he looks even worse (if such a thing is possible for someone with his approval ratings).

The immediate political implications could have been huge, but the scope of the implications would have been significantly larger.

In my view, such a bill would be unconstitutional.

I have read articles by Constitutional scholars debating this issue, and many would disagree with me. Congress, even today, has asked Baker and Hamilton to get back into the business of commission-leading and study whether or not Congress has such a power. Clearly it is up for debate. Since I have the pleasure of getting paid to study and teach the Constitution, I would like to lay out my case that such a move by the Democrats would be a violation of our founding document.

First, the words of the Constitution regarding the Executive's war power:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

Now here is what it says about the war powers of Congress:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States....

That's pretty lengthy, but when it is said and done, the bottom line for the two is this: Congress provides (read: pays for) the military, and sets it in motion. Once in motion, the President determines how to use it. Many disagree with me, and some of them have good points. But it seems that many of the explainations I have heard rely more on international law and questionable interpretations of Supreme Court rulings. The intent of the Founders seem to be that, despite the fact that most Americans disapprove of how President Bush has handled this war, he still has the Constitutional authority to be the Decider.

The Congressional establishment of a panel to study this issue, combined with the fact that the Democrats have backed off of this proposal, may suggest that they too see the questionable Constitutionality of this move.

It brings me hope that perhaps our Constitutuion still holds the weight it was intended to hold when it was written. With activist judges and groups like the ACLU all too willing to assault our Constitution and read in our modern political sensibilities to the Founders words, it is refreshing to think (however remote the odds may be) that maybe this once reverance for the Constitution had a hand in overriding politics. Maybe.

Reality Sets In

America is generally jaded toward politics and politicians. For the most part, they have good reason to be so. Political ads and the rhetoric of those who hold (or desire to hold) office often leave America with half-truths or distortions of fact. Those who pay the least attention to politics, and are therefore the most likely to become cynical, are the ones who have neither the time nor the inclination to understand and verify the claims of candidates.

Now that we are almost two months into the 110^th Congress, reality is starting to set in, and many of the promises/claims/intonations of politicians are being put to the test. Below is a brief rundown of some of the campaign pledges, and how they are fairing in the real world of Congress.

The House leadership's pledge of a five-day work week for Congress

• Nancy Pelosi and her House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, said there would be "votes on Monday and Friday", meaning those in Congress would have to be there, doing meaninful business five days a week. So far, Congress has had only one such week, with sessions being cancelled for important events like college football games.
  
  More to the point, reality has set in for Pelosi et. al. in that Congress does not always have things on which to vote for five days a week. Legislation moves very slowly through committee, wherein much of it dies. Further, those Congressmen and women focused on truly representative to their constituents (though they are very rare) spend a good deal of their time in their home districts, meeting with those they represent. Further, the more our politicians remain in the same place the more "groupthink" develops, which leads every few years to a strong "ousider" movement, where those with little political experience often have a stronger message than those with plenty (see the messages of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama).
  
  Now that these realities are pressing in on the Democratic leadership, it is becoming more and more clear that their criticism of the work week schedule instituted by the GOP was far less tainted by government largess, corruption, and apathy than the then-minority Democrats wanted America to believe.

The already-famous pledge from Speaker Pelosi that this would be the "most ethical Congress in history"

The single biggest complaint the voting public had about the GOP in November (next to the Iraq War) was corruption. The Democrats saw this advantage fully utilized it. Now that reality has set in, what do we see happening? The same people who pledged to "cut the tie" between politicians and lobbyists making the chairmen of their committees available to the highest bidders.

Missouri's very own Claire McCaskill, who made it part of her stump speech to blast the Republican connection to lobbyists, was unable to hold the line. Within weeks of being sworn in she held a fundraiser with lobbyists from big agriculture, big pharmacudical, big retail, and others.

Additionally, the Left (rightly) drew as much attention as they could to any and all Republican scandals. Their own scandaler, however, William Jefferson of Louisiana (who, if you remember, had $90,000 of money obtained through bribery hidden in his freezer) now finds himself on the Homeland Security Committee, with access to untold amounts of top-level national security information.

The Democratic complaint, repeated over and agan for the past decade, that the GOP refused to allow them open debate in the House

This requires little explaination: the first 100 hours of House activity included no committee hearings, limited floor debate, and party-line votes. Further, from the start of this Congressional session until today, Pelosi has allowed only one Republican alternative to a bill to be voiced on the floor.

My point in all of this is not simply to bash the Democrats in a burst of unbridled partisanship. Through all of this I do not pretend to excuse any of the Republican scandals, corruptions, or excesses of the past 12 years.

Instead, I hope to point out that when one party is in power, and the other campaigning, it is quiet easy for the minority to scream from a position of righteousness. It is easy to ignore any and all reality of governing: that politics plays a huge role; that money is a necessary evil; that what would be ideal is not always (or maybe ever) possible.

It is a certainty that the GOP will attack the Democrats with all these things I have listed above. They too will ignore the reality of governing in a broken world.

America's Most Powerful

Who is the most powerful political figure in the United States? There could be a lengthy list. Names like President Bush, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and others may come to mind. I would suggest, however, that one of the people who deserves serious consideration for the title is someone who only four months ago would have been considered the weakest of all politicians.

The man is Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's support for the Iraq War, and coziness with President Bush cost him his party's nomination for the seat he had held since 1988. The leaders of the party for which he was the Vice Presidential nominee only six years earlier abandoned him; they cast lots with his much more liberal opponent.

Now, only two months into the first Democratic Congress since the Republican Revolution, the Connecticut independent stands as one of the single most important people in the halls of Congress.With the Democrats holding control by the slimmest of margins in the Senate, the social moderate and war hawk's vote serves as the tipping point for Senate power.

When it comes to Iraq there are several Republicans willing to cross party lines and vote with their Democratic colleagues. This reality lessens the power Lieberman's vote. Nevertheless, last week Lieberman's staff used words that he has oft-denied: the swing Senator switching over to the GOP is a "very remote possibility". This kind of statement, while I doubt Senator Lieberman would ever make such a move, scares the party leadership at Democratic headquarters.

A Lieberman switch would have wide-reaching consequences. The most direct is that the Red Team would retake control of the Senate. As a result, the Iraq debate would be further mitigated. The likelihood of governmental gridlock would become even greater. Additionally, this would allow those Democrats in the Senate who are eyeing a White House run empowered to move further to the Left (since, as I argued here, they would be freed from having to produce meaningful legislation, as that job falls to the party in power).

Lieberman has forced the Democrats to change the topics they discuss in their caucus meetings, and has single-handedly forced Reid to change his positions by simply saying that one of the Majority Leader's positions makes him "upset". The Independent from Connecticut has the power to alter the behavior of the Senate in a greater fashion than anyone in politics.

Is having such power in the hands of one person a positive development? The initial reaction of most people to that question would depend on party affiliation. This is clearly a limiting factor for the Democrats, and therefore would generally be viewed by those on the Left as a negative reality. It should also be noted that the Right has been in the same position over the last several years. Moderates like Lincoln Chaffe of Rhode Island (and McCain, to a lesser extent) altered the behavior of the GOP much as Lieberman is doing to the Left today.

I view the Chaffes and the Liebermans of the Senate as positive forces. Though such people can be a pain in the side of party faithful, their existence breaks up the "group think" that so often occurs in halls of Congress. Their presence challenges the pressure applied by party whips and forces moderation and accommodation. Though the positions of someone like McCain may drive me crazy, as may the positions of Lieberman to those on the Left, I nonetheless must acknowledge that their presence creates more honest, more reasonable, less ideologically-driven policies. For this, they have my respect.

What will Joe Lieberman do with the power he currently wields? Time will tell, but time is also his enemy. As '08 nears, the action of Congress will be increasingly overshadowed by the election. But this is for certain: Joe Lieberman has shown that he will be more concerned with doing what is best than for enlarging his own power.