Heehee, may I offer Geekesque a donut pillow for his/her sore behind? That's a pretty brutal spanking you just delivered, eriposte. And brilliant, thanks.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 9, 2007 08:33 AMThat was SO richly deserved.
I may diary it over at DK, if you don't mind.
I think what you are doing is very salutary.
If the Democratic field looks more unified on issues, it's better for the GE---although obviously not so great for those who illegitimately want to claim differences from Clinton.
MarkL - diary it all you want :-)
Posted by eriposte at November 9, 2007 09:32 AMMy rear end is faring just fine, but I appreciate the concern.
My response can be found here:
http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=166
Posted by Geek, Esq. at November 9, 2007 11:08 AMGlad I could be of help. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Posted by Reference Librarian at November 9, 2007 05:24 PMThis is a partial response to Geek esq response to Eriposte. Apparently you need to join One Million Strong to comment directly. This is not an organization which I would care to join at this time.
Eriposte attempts to muddy the water by citing the Foreign Affairs articles written by the two Senators. However, Eriposte declines to actually spell out what the implications of those two pieces are. Indeed, Eriposte fails to address the point that Obama has put very specific positive inducements on the table, while Clinton has not. Eriposte fails to address the fact that Obama has talked about taking regime change off the table, while Clinton has not. Clinton has talked about carefull calibrated incentives--which could be anything from MFN status in trading to a threat to nuke Tehran. Incentive can have positive or negative connotations.
Geek esq does not show the actual language of the two articles which I posted. Reading does indeed count and not even the most Talmudic reading can twist the fact that on Iran Obama and Clinton (and also John Edwards) are saying exactly the same thing. An article in Foreign Affairs must be treated as an authoritative statement of a candidate’s position on foreign policy. It has, after all, been the leading organ of the American foreign policy establishment since Woodrow Wilson. If Obama has put specific positive inducements on the table with Iran, he does not specify them in this article. For that matter there’s nothing in her article which suggests the Clinton has put change regime on the table. Indeed, considering that the concept of regime change is primarily the creation of neo-conservative ideology Clinton’s statement “We must return to a pragmatic willingness to look at the facts on the ground and make decisions based on evidence rather than ideology,” can arguably be considered a rejection of this entire approach.
Another point, the authority of Kyl-Lieberman
The (concurring) Supreme Court opinion below, (which has nothing to do with the Iraq/Iran or Bush) does have some interesting language which shows why legislation such as Kyl/Lieberman can in fact give Bush more authority to attack Iraq.
I think one of the key phrases below is:
____________________________________
...the Court began its analysis of the question of statutory construction by restating the proposition that in such cases, the intention of the drafters, rather than the strict language, controls.
___________________________________________
The facts of the case quoted from below don't really matter for my purposes. What matters is the statements which point out the importance of the intent of Congress when passing legislation. That is I think Kyl/Lieberman may wind up being much more important than many think.
Shall we look at the Constitution? “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article I Section One.
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sunday excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.” Article I Section Seven, Clauses 2 & 3
To make this as simple as possible the legislative power is VESTED IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. A resolution expressing the sentiments of one house without the explicit concurrence of the other house is not a legislative act. To use a famous phrase “it has no controlling legal authority.” Has the House of Representatives passed Kyl-Lieberman? Has the President signed it? Of course not. Thus, it is about as binding constitutionally as a Wall Street Journal editorial. Look, I’m not involved in any political campaign. I am in fact a public librarian, a profession which requires a certain degree of impartiality and absolute commitment to non-partisanship in executing its responsibilities. In private I’m as pigheaded opinionated as anyone. But Geek esq, I hope you realize how much damage such an intellectually dishonest and sloppy presentation does to your candidate. It is unworthy of Senator Obama.
I think Geekesqe is more interested in scoring points against eriposte than getting at the truth. And the insinuation that to examine the history and veracity of the labels applied to Clinton makes one a rabid supporter is really getting tedious, as is the further implication that as such, one "then does what many a Clinton supporter has done--ties him/herself in knots trying to defend the handiwork of Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl." I don't recall anyone doing such a thing.
I can understand that there's a fine line between examining the evidence objectively and supporting a candidate, especially in these hyperpartisan times. But just because Clinton may be the beneficiary of eriposte's examination (mainly because most of the misinformation spread around is about her), doesn't mean eriposte is an active supporter of her. While it's true Steve Soto has declared his support for Clinton, the other posters here are not obligated or inclined to follow suit.
I applaud eriposte's efforts to clear away some of the brush surrounding Hillary's image in the media and on the blogs. Clinton may very well be the Dem candidate, and if she is, she's going to have to beat Guiliani. For '08, there is just no alternative. I'll vote for whichever Dem gets the nod, and I'll feel better, if it ends up being Clinton, knowing that (thanks to eriposte's series) I'm not voting for the Devil!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 10, 2007 07:35 AMGeekesque,
Unfortunately you failed to *really* address the most significant problems that I raised with your original post and just by repeating stuff like "reading is fundamental" only makes your arguments look worse, as Reference Librarian has pointed out using a couple of examples.
I don't have time to write another line by line rebuttal - but at the end of the day, Sen. Obama said one thing and months later said something else (BTW, read his debate transcript *carefully* - he also talks about using residual troops for anti-terrorism operations, not just guarding the embassy and so on - and his position on withdrawals is not that fundamentally different from Sen. Clinton's). He said he was anti-Iraq-war and once he was in the Senate he voted just like Sen. Clinton who didn't claim to be against the Iraq war. Yet, you want to convince people that we should believe *some* of his *words* today more than we should believe his *other* words or the statements of Sen. Clinton's - and that he will act consistently with those *words* when he becomes President. You are free to believe that but you can't possibly think that that is a convincing argument. If anything, Sen. Clinton has voted more consistently with her stated positions - even if we don't agree with her positions. Bottom line - I will support Sen. Obama if he is the Democratic nominee - particularly because I think he will be a great leader and has helped bring a more progressive vision to the Democratic party - but I'm not going to be deluded to think that somehow everything he says today, he's going to stick to 6 months from now or when he assumes office. And I've read enough about his positions and that of Sen. Clinton to know, rationally, that they are not that far apart when it comes to Iran.
At the end of the day, you would rather try to score points by insinuating that I cling to a "pretense of impartiality". When I started blogging about campaign 2008 I noticed the deep anti-Clinton hatred in parts of the left-leaning blogosphere - something I really didn't see against the other Democratic candidates. In many cases, the hatred was fed by deep misinformation or irrationality and it became clear that people were spouting nonsense about her without even being aware of her actual voting record. Now, perhaps in your world, pointing out the actual voting record of a *Democrat* (and comparing it to the voting records of others) is a sin and constitutes an endorsement of that candidate, but in the real world it's different. I have never stated, in any post, that people should vote for her. I have even stated that she is not the most progressive nominee (mainly because of her positions on the Iraq war and terrorism) and voters should pick the right candidate based on what is important to them. Because, guess what, if she does end up being the nominee, Democrats should rally behind her if we don't want a Republican President. (Of course, maybe you don't agree with that last part). Not to mention, I have stated on the blog that Sen. Obama would make a great President, I have praised Sen. Edwards' campaign, I have praised Chris Dodd for his strong progressive position on the Bankruptcy Bill and so on. I intentionally am not endorsing any Democratic candidate in the primary because I believe that any Democrat in the White House would be better than a Republican in the White House. I don't want the primary to end up being a hate-fest between Democratic factions. We need airing of policy differences, sure, but unity within the Democratic voting population is equally important. That's much more important to me in this pivotal election, than anything else.
Posted by eriposte at November 10, 2007 09:24 AMReference Librarian: "To make this as simple as possible the legislative power is VESTED IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. A resolution expressing the sentiments of one house without the explicit concurrence of the other house is not a legislative act."
That is a very good, logical analysis. And it would be quite convincing IF we did not live in the Age of Bush.
Posted by gay veteran at November 10, 2007 03:40 PM