Possible outcomes of the recent elections
Nov. 9th, 2006 03:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillThis post began as a response to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bedlamhouse's post about the recent elections at http://bedlamhouse.livejournal.com/52274.html?view=217650#t217650. My response rapidly expanded to the point where I figured it was kind of big for a reply, and maybe ought to go in my journal.
If the Dems who were stomped on when they were in the minority now want to show the GOP how it feels, that would be a very human impulse (which I even share, in my harsher moments). Not productive, of course--we should be *better* than that. But human.
Holding the people who got us into this mess responsible seems like a good idea to me. Accountability has been sadly lacking up to now. Certainly Bush's end run around the FISA courts about warrants was a criminal act--I'm willing to consider letting him off the hook the way Nixon was pardoned, i.e., not because he deserves to be, but for the good of the country. But I've never seen any credible explaination of how it could be a matter of interpretation whether you have to get a warrant to tap a phone. Furthermore, in a more general sense, it is past time that Bush's tendency to sign laws while announcing that he won't obey them unless he feels like it is curbed. The president is a powerful person--but not above the law.
As I recall, judicial appointments never "ground to a halt." Something like 2% of them were held up as being too right-wing reactionary. If you meant to average 60 mph and you average 58.8 mph that's nothing to complain about.
Holding up a potential third Supreme court nomination until Bush is out of office would be only decent common sense. He's appointed *two* already, which is way more than his share. And between them the last two Republican presidents have appointed four. Let somebody else have a turn; the Republicans shouldn't *own* the court.
We've already dumped Rumsfeld. I have high hopes that his successor will listen to the experienced military commanders and make better decisions and plans.
One thing I think a divided government is likely to give us is reduced spending and possibly even a reduced deficit. This has been the case over the last century anyway.
If (and I admit it's an if), a Democratic Congress can wring a bit more transparency out of the Bush administration we will be able to find out who's setting policy (remember the Energy policy?). I think that in itself is more likely to get us more honest policy--things like no-bid contracts will be more vigorously questioned, which I think can only help.
Solving the mess in Iraq... eh. My present belief is that George Bush smashed an egg. I don't have a plan to make it better, because I don't believe it *can* be made better. With Shiites and Sunnis taking this chance to get revenge on each other for genuine wrongs old and new, and Kurds hoping to finally have their own country de facto if not de jure, and everyone wanting the revenue from oil fields they can't get working because of sabotage, I think it will descend into civil war no matter when we leave--the only question is how much money and blood do we want to pour down that rathole before we accept that there's no fixing it and pull out and let it collapse in flames behind us.
I'm sick about this; I would really like for it to be different. I feel horrible that we've done this to the Iraqi people, and guilty that I didn't personally do more to try to stop the war before we started it. But I've seen "turning point" after "turning point" after "turning point" pass, and things don't ever seem to get better over there. Now, if someone can show hard evidence that this or that plan will make things better, I'm willing to look at the evidence. But I can't help but remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council about WMD--and I want harder evidence than a picture of a warehouse with and without trucks and a transcript of a phone conversation.
Wait, darn it. I was trying to be positive.
Well, maybe if Congress demands to see the evidence, maybe there will actually be some. Or maybe, with new minds looking at the situation with more information, someone smarter and more informed than I am will see how to solve this problem. I would love that. I will happily forgo shoving this failure down Bush's throat if someone can find a reliable way to turn it into a success.
bedlamhouse's post about the recent elections at http://bedlamhouse.livejournal.com/52274.html?view=217650#t217650. My response rapidly expanded to the point where I figured it was kind of big for a reply, and maybe ought to go in my journal.If the Dems who were stomped on when they were in the minority now want to show the GOP how it feels, that would be a very human impulse (which I even share, in my harsher moments). Not productive, of course--we should be *better* than that. But human.
Holding the people who got us into this mess responsible seems like a good idea to me. Accountability has been sadly lacking up to now. Certainly Bush's end run around the FISA courts about warrants was a criminal act--I'm willing to consider letting him off the hook the way Nixon was pardoned, i.e., not because he deserves to be, but for the good of the country. But I've never seen any credible explaination of how it could be a matter of interpretation whether you have to get a warrant to tap a phone. Furthermore, in a more general sense, it is past time that Bush's tendency to sign laws while announcing that he won't obey them unless he feels like it is curbed. The president is a powerful person--but not above the law.
As I recall, judicial appointments never "ground to a halt." Something like 2% of them were held up as being too right-wing reactionary. If you meant to average 60 mph and you average 58.8 mph that's nothing to complain about.
Holding up a potential third Supreme court nomination until Bush is out of office would be only decent common sense. He's appointed *two* already, which is way more than his share. And between them the last two Republican presidents have appointed four. Let somebody else have a turn; the Republicans shouldn't *own* the court.
We've already dumped Rumsfeld. I have high hopes that his successor will listen to the experienced military commanders and make better decisions and plans.
One thing I think a divided government is likely to give us is reduced spending and possibly even a reduced deficit. This has been the case over the last century anyway.
If (and I admit it's an if), a Democratic Congress can wring a bit more transparency out of the Bush administration we will be able to find out who's setting policy (remember the Energy policy?). I think that in itself is more likely to get us more honest policy--things like no-bid contracts will be more vigorously questioned, which I think can only help.
Solving the mess in Iraq... eh. My present belief is that George Bush smashed an egg. I don't have a plan to make it better, because I don't believe it *can* be made better. With Shiites and Sunnis taking this chance to get revenge on each other for genuine wrongs old and new, and Kurds hoping to finally have their own country de facto if not de jure, and everyone wanting the revenue from oil fields they can't get working because of sabotage, I think it will descend into civil war no matter when we leave--the only question is how much money and blood do we want to pour down that rathole before we accept that there's no fixing it and pull out and let it collapse in flames behind us.
I'm sick about this; I would really like for it to be different. I feel horrible that we've done this to the Iraqi people, and guilty that I didn't personally do more to try to stop the war before we started it. But I've seen "turning point" after "turning point" after "turning point" pass, and things don't ever seem to get better over there. Now, if someone can show hard evidence that this or that plan will make things better, I'm willing to look at the evidence. But I can't help but remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council about WMD--and I want harder evidence than a picture of a warehouse with and without trucks and a transcript of a phone conversation.
Wait, darn it. I was trying to be positive.
Well, maybe if Congress demands to see the evidence, maybe there will actually be some. Or maybe, with new minds looking at the situation with more information, someone smarter and more informed than I am will see how to solve this problem. I would love that. I will happily forgo shoving this failure down Bush's throat if someone can find a reliable way to turn it into a success.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-10 06:26 pm (UTC)The quibble as I understand it involves being in a state of war sort of (while Congress didn't declare war as such they basically granted the President most of the powers that declaring war would). When in capacity as Commander-in-Chief and during times of National Crisis (I am so tempted to put that in quotes *grin*) the powers of the Executive are (and historically have) expanded, such that certain restrictions may not apply.
In other words, law is not the issue so much as a gray area about what powers and restrictions are allowed to apply during muddily defined states of conflict.
Beyond this point I am not qualified to discuss as I don't have the cites used by those who favor either side. In any event, there seems to be grounds (valid or not is yet to be determined) for thought that FISA does not completely apply.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-12 04:38 pm (UTC)Maybe one good thing a Democratic Congress could do would be to end the "pseudo-state of war" and strip the president of his special powers. That might put a stop to a whole bunch of abuses (habeas corpus, domestic eavesdropping, use of torture) right there.