Washington State legislators want to impeach the President. Some say this is not the state's business, but it is true that House rules allow states to submit requests for impeachment. So that's all fine.
What isn't fine, however, is that this bill is nonsense. Now, of course, Congress can impeach for any reason it wishes. But that doesn't mean those reasons can't be bad ones. And the three cases it attempts to make are uniformly bad.
Indeed, the author of the bill tells a half-truth right off the bat: the bill claims that a bipartisan Senate investigation into the use of prewar intelligence (S.Rep. 109-330) found that Bush was "misleading" and "deceptive." In fact, most of the Republicans disagreed with the report's conclusions (the "additional views" section of the report takes up 40 percent of the report: 125 pages vs. 83), and the Chair of the committee -- in a virtually unprecedented move -- wrote an addendum to the report that essentially called the Democrats liars. How is that bipartisan, let alone conclusive?
Here is what Chairman Roberts wrote, in his dispute of the findings, on page 130 (his emphasis), and joined by five of the other seven Republicans on the committee:
The adopted conclusions are not supported by fact. Taken as a whole, they misrepresent the [Iraq National Congress'] relationship to the Intelligence Community, leaving the impression that the INC (with the knowledge and acquiescence of intelligence officials and policy makers) intentionally provided the Intelligence Community with false information in an effort to push the United States to war with Iraq. These conclusions -- and the misconceptions they support -- are a myth.
Obviously, the implication that the conclusions stated by Senator Rockefeller are "bipartisan" is misleading at best. Yes, it was a bipartisan commission, but most of the Republicans disagreed with its conclusions. And Roberts is right: the evidence of deceit simply isn't there.
The second and third claims feed off the first: Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the public. Again, there is no serious evidence to back this up.
The fourth and fifth claims are about warrantless wiretapping. This brings us to two fundamental flaws of logic. For starters, they are asking Congress to impeach the President for something that the Congress knew about beforehand, and did not try to prevent. That is nonsensical on its face.
But additionally, there is a real legal disagreement about whether the wiretapping program was legal. This is something that should be decided by the Supreme Court, not Congress. And if the Supreme Court finds against the President, then impeachment should not follow unless the President continues in that course of action. If we allow Congress to threaten impeachment over a valid legal disagreement, then we are in effect ceding the President's obligation and authority to interpret the law and the Constitution for the Executive branch to the Legislative branch, which is a serious violation of the separation of powers.
There's a reason why the Democrats never took the warrantless wiretapping to the Supreme Court: it didn't want to lose. I personally think that the case is significantly stronger against wiretapping than for it, but the Democrats didn't want to turn this into a legal dispute. They wanted to keep it rhetorical.
The sixth claim has the same flaw, except that in this case, it did go to court, and the President lost: the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen cannot lose his rights by being declared an enemy combatant. However, again, this was a reasonable legal dispute, as Bush pointed to lots of precedent that supported the position. I disagreed with Bush's position, and am glad that the Supreme Court overruled him, but it would be a violation of separation of powers to say that Bush should not have done it just because Congress said so.
And that's it: half-truths, complaining about things the Congress conceded to beforehand, and attempting to violate the separation of powers. That is what all of the articles of impeachment I've ever seen drafted against Bush amount to.
Now, bill sponsor Eric Oemig would likely object and say, especially in regard to the first claim, "there's a lack of evidence, but that is what impeachment is for, to investigate." He argues in the text of the bill, "if the President and/or members of his administration committed such offenses, ignoring these offenses would undermine core American values of truth and justice." But this has already been investigated. And there remains no evidence.
Ths is not about "core American values of truth and justice." It's about attacking President Bush. And that's fine and all, but trying to couch this in facts that don't exist, and arguments that are not logical, is not.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 23, 2008 10:59 AM | Email ThisI wonder if they will have time to look into the viaduct and 520.
Or they could wrestle with the WASL.
Maybe they could finally work on a plan to fix the flooding issue in Lewis County.
Or they could seriously discuss their carbon emission fears and explain why, with only three bills submitted, a family of four over would end up paying increased taxes of over $22,000 in the next ten years. How much impact will all the other "save the planet bills" in the queue have on the taxpayers?
In 1875, Alexander Grahm Bell invented the telephone. Why don't these bozos just get on a conference call to Cantwell, Murray, McDermott, etc., etc. and just tell them to "get on it".
Then maybe they can get back to the REAL work of the State.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 23, 2008 12:00 PM1) Wasted time for Oemig means time he and other WA legislators won't be proposing Progressive expansionist legislation.
2) Progressive bloggers and other activists will glom on and think that this will lead somewhere, taking time away from efforts to defeat more reality based candidates.
3) Voters, even Progressive ones can see that this is a waste of time, and to some extent will actually turn and vote against Oemig and other Dems who waste time to the point of offending those who really do care about pressing WA matters.
4) Endless references to point back to with respect to Progressive Reps who wasted all of this time.
Progressives and the left in general continually demonstrate that they value emotion over reason. Let them demonstrate with their Bush tantrums. Whenever we see such irrational behavior, we invariable discredit and lose respect for those exhibiting such nonsense.
Smart Progressives would realize that even in they hate Bush, their efforts are far better focused on electing a candidate of their choice than on witch hunts which have little chance of going anywhere. But if these folks were that smart, they wouldn't be Progressives.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 23, 2008 12:00 PMthe president does not have the authority or obligation to "interpret the Constitution for the Executive branch," but rather the obligation to "faithfully execute the Office of the President" and "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."
say what you want, but the republicans impeaching clinton over lying under oath about a blow job really set a horrible precedent for this country. now one wonders why, for example, lying (if it can be proven) about saddam, wmd, fisa or torture should not trigger an impeachment.
suggesting that the republican congress has "already investigated" these claims in pure partisan fantasy. oemig is correct in asserting that impeachment proceedings would serve as an investigation, and if evidence were lacking, the president would not be convicted.
but, hey, bush is in his "last throes" if you will. the economy is screwed (shocking that bush will leave and the balance sheet will be wrecked, who could have predicted that from his prior record?).
he won't have to live with the consequences of his actions, but the rest of us will.
Posted by: dinesh on January 23, 2008 12:06 PMLet them rant, rave, wail and gnash their teeth. Let me know what they actually have the cajones to physically do something about it.
And then let's see what happens.
Posted by: jimg on January 23, 2008 12:07 PMIt is quite simple: how can he possibly "faithfully execute the Office of the President" and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" if he cannot determine what the Constitution SAYS? It must be interpreted for him to act according to it, so if he doesn't do it, who does?
There are only two other answers: first, that the Supreme Court tells him what the Constitution says. But the Supreme Court is not allowed to do so unless a proper court case is brought first, so that's unreasonable.
The other option, which many Democrats pretend to support while the President is a Republican, is that the Congress tells him what the Constitution says. But if that is the case, then the President no longer has any authority: it all belongs to Congress. And that violates Article II of the Constitution, which states that executive authority is vested in the President, and further violates his own oath "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution:" if Congress tells him the Constitution allows for Congress to order the President to use the military to take away every citizen-owned gun, and Congress so orders, then what is he to do?
Quite obviously, he has to interpret the Constitution, recognize that this is unconstitutional, and then not do it. It is necessarily the case that the President has the obligation and the authority to interpret the Constitution for the executive branch, because it is impossible for anyone else to do it, and it has to be done, or the Executive branch can never act. No Constitutional scholar disagrees with this.
suggesting that the republican congress has "already investigated" these claims in pure partisan fantasy.
Sigh. Dinesh, that denies the fact that the DEMOCRATS are the ones who voted got the report in question through committee.
The Republicans opposed it 7-1 on some issues, 6-2 on others, and were split 4-4 on the final approval. And Chairman Roberts himself only voted for final approval because, even though he disagreed with major portions of the report, thought the public had a right to see it.
Saying the "Republican Congress" is responsible for a partisan report passed by the Democrats is simply and obviously false, like most of what you say.
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2008 12:23 PMThey should know better than to waste time on this, especially when they already have a good chance at the Executive branch in 2008, and there's no reason to hurt that chance. But then again, look at how often the Dems have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Both Gore and Kerry committed foolish gaffes late in their campaigns that probably otherwise would have had us with four or eight more years of a Democrat President.
Go dinesh. You tell 'em.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 23, 2008 12:24 PM1) Pre-2000: Clinton didn't invade or start a war. You can say things to keep your enemy in the defensive but it's another thing altogether to act on it.
2) 2002-2003: Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Edwards, and many others were acting on intelligence provided by the administration. Even I agreed based on what I was told. The question is, was the information altered in any way or was the information shared with the public at large and congress exploited to highlight key areas that would support the effort?
I may have a gun in my possession, I may warn someone I will shoot them if they threaten me, but it is another thing to proactively shoot someone and then tell the police that they deserved it when they were not armed or able to strike the US in any way. Why did it take us 5 days to get to Bagdhad if the were so powerful and a grave threat.
For the record, I voted for Bush in 2000 and woke up to his corporate welfare scheme that takes our money from our pockets and redirects it to the military complex and big oil.
If you would just stop looking at this as a Rep versus Dem issue, it would really help the country regain trust in the international community.
The war monger mentality has hijacked our party and programmed everyone into a school yard bully.
It will cost us $2 trillion dollars to fight this none-war through 2010...that's $20,000 per household added on to the $3 trillion Bush added in his first 5 years (that's another $30,000 per household) and you will owe China, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia about $110,000 per household by the time Bushie is out of office.
I don't like Clinton but when he left office, we only owed $50,000 per household and the economy was in good shape.
Another Bush, another recession. And you call this guy a conservative?
Posted by: Coming Awakening on January 23, 2008 12:55 PMThe fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton committed a felony while in office. If that's okay, then what other felonies are allowed to be committed? Do we actually want to hold a federal judge to a higher standard than a president?
But that's not even the issue...the issue is that this is a complete waste of time...but democrats don't care about wasting the time and money of taxpayers!
The question is, was the information altered in any way or was the information shared with the public at large and congress exploited to highlight key areas that would support the effort?
This has been investigated, and the Democrats said Yes, but the only way they could come to that conclusion was by themselves cherry-picking, as Senator Roberts described.
I may have a gun in my possession, I may warn someone I will shoot them if they threaten me, but it is another thing to proactively shoot someone and then tell the police that they deserved it when they were not armed or able to strike the US in any way. Why did it take us 5 days to get to Bagdhad if the were so powerful and a grave threat.
No, the proper analogy is this: someone has been convicted and is out on parole, and has agreed to those terms, and has consistently violated those terms, and has signaled to the authorities that he intends to come after the people who captured him in the first place. Then those authorities corner him in a dark alley in an attempt to bring him to justice under those parole terms, and he reaches in his pocket and appears to be holding something shaped like a gun. The authorities shoot.
That is what happened.
Another Bush, another recession. And you call this guy a conservative?
Let's stick with the facts. A recession hit in Bush's term and ended before the election he lost. Another recession hit right after Clinton left office, which means that the economic conditions existing under Clinton are solely to blame for that recession occurring (not that he is to blame, since he doesn't control most of the economy).
And we are not now in a recession, as far as anyone knows. You may think we will be in one, but we won't know for several months or more. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we have no evidence of ONE quarter of negative growth. So even if the GDP report in the next week or so shows negative growth (which is possible, but we have no real idea), we have to wait three more months to know if we were in a recession. And that's assuming those numbers don't get adjusted later. Which they will be.
So to sum up: even if we are in a recession now, then we have been in a recession for each of the last THREE Presidents. And Reagan and Carter and Ford and Nixon too, come to think of it, so make that six.
And no, I don't call Bush a conservative.
Is it OK to lie under oath for theft of less than $100? Is it OK to lie under oath about speeding, or DUI? Is it OK to lie under oath for assault if the victim needed less than 10 stitches?
Since you've determined that it's OK to lie under oath about various subjects, please let us know what that list is.
In retrospect, I would have preferred if the GOP went to Clinton and said, look, we know you're lying, and we know we can prove it. Admit now that you were wrong, that you did it, and we won't investigate it. We'll drop the whole thing, including Whitewater (except for the existing charges against others involved) and it won't lead to impeachment.
(I don't know exactly how that would have worked out, because the investigation at that point was mostly in the hands of the three-judge panel and Janet Reno, but they could have done something, surely.)
And if that didn't fly, it still would have been better for the House to NOT vote to impeach. Get Newt to stand up and say, "the people see the facts. This is a terrible incident, and most of us believe the President lied under oath, but we need to move on."
(That would have been difficult given the GOP base wanted it so badly, but if anyone could have pulled it off, it would've been Newt.)
Shouldn't perjury be taken seriously - even for the littlest of offences? Probably, I suppose it depends on who gets to make the call on whther the offence was little of not...
Now, when he and his wife claimed hundreds of times that they don't remember, they don't recall, they have no recollection, etc., that was probably lying, but it wasn't proven to the point of perjury.
Still astounds me that, for two people who couldn't remember anything, how they were able to write such long memoirs.....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 23, 2008 02:26 PMThe record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. ... Although there are a number of aspects of the President's conduct in this case that might be characterized as contemptuous, the court addresses at this time only those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this court's discovery orders and which do not require a hearing, namely the President's sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.
It is difficult to construe the President's sworn statements in this civil lawsuit concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as anything other than a willful refusal to obey this court's discovery orders. Given the President's admission that he was misleading with regard to the questions being posed to him and the clarity with which his falsehoods are revealed by the record, there is no need to engage in an extended analysis of the President's sworn statements in this lawsuit. Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term ''sexual relations.''
And yes, absoulutely it should be taken seriously. But that doesn't mean we should necessarily impeach. In this case, I think the penalty for Clinton was more severe than any other case of perjury that comes to mind: he lost his law license, was fined $90,000, lost millions of dollars in lawyer fees, and his reputation for recorded history is severely tarnished.
I'm sure they'll both his the lecture circuit and make a ton of money.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 23, 2008 03:21 PMDo you thinhk this is revenge for the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski thing back in 1999?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 23, 2008 03:24 PMyour logic suggests that any branch can interpret the constitution as it sees fit. that is what happens in some instances, as a practical matter, and we rely on the process to validate/nullify such practice.
your logic would allow the executive to unilaterally violate the law....oh wait, you support a president who does just that.
pudge, thanks for responding to obi wan. i generally concur with your response. it was a horrible precedent.
bush is a conservative, a compassionate conservative. conservatives voted for him, twice. conservatives refused to demand that he veto spending bills served up by a republican congress. conservatives demonstrated unwavering loyalty right up until nov. 2006.
this recession has many reasons, not all of which we know. one thing we do know is that its seeds were sown during the last 6 years. to the extent the federal govt plays a role in this (and deficit spending does affect the economy), the alleged "fiscal conservative republican party" should accept responsibility.
instead of all that flag-waving, unfettered bush support that went on after 9/11 and running upto and through 2004, it would have helped if republican voters actually held republican politicians accountable.
whatever happened to questioning authority (regardless of party affiliation)? remember, they are politicians, who spend 85% fundraising for their next campaign and rely on staffers and lobbyists to draft legislation and interpret policy.
If congress goes to the level of assigning a special prosecutor...all bets are off. They have unlimited funds (in reality since congress isn't going to defund a prosecutor they hired), and after spending all that time and money...they BETTER come up with something. Otherwise, congress would've hired them for nothing.
That's why the special prosecutor should only be hired in extreme cases such as Watergate.
To do otherwise is spending a bunch of money and you usually get a recommendation for reaching just to justify their hiring.
Iran/Contra, Whitewater....these were political exercises..not Constitutional crisis.
But what's done is done. For the dems to try to impeach would be met with the same disgust at congress that the Repubs generated by impeaching Clinton.
Posted by: drw on January 23, 2008 03:58 PMYes. How can you execute, uphold, or defend something if you cannot determine what it IS that you are supposed to execute, uphold, and defend? That makes no sense. How else can he know what to do without interpreting the Constitution?
your logic suggests that any branch can interpret the constitution as it sees fit.
It must do so, yes, except where previously overruled by the Supreme Court.
your logic would allow the executive to unilaterally violate the law...
Yes, where those laws violate the Constitution. Exactly. The Executive is OBLIGATED to disregard an unconstitutional law, by his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the matter, then it falls to the Executive to make that interpretation as he sees fit, because Congress can't tell him what to do (separation of powers) and therefore there's no one else. It has to be him.
bush is a conservative, a compassionate conservative.
That is an opinion I do not share. He is conservative on some issues, but not on most.
conservatives voted for him, twice.
That is not evidence he is a conservative. I voted for him twice and would do so a third time if he were the legal candidate up against Obama or Hillary, but obviously, I do not think he is a conservative.
conservatives refused to demand that he veto spending bills served up by a republican congress.
Most of the spending in those bills was related to things Bush requested in HIS budgets. He deserves a lot more blame than simply "not vetoing" the bills. And I did criticize both the President and the Congress for all that spending, as many other conservatives did.
conservatives demonstrated unwavering loyalty right up until nov. 2006.
False. You must not read much of the conservative press. Both the Weekly Standard and National Review have been highly critical of Bush since long before Nov. 2006, going all the way back to well before the 2004 election. Prominent conservative think tanks have blasted Bush's budgets since his first one. You're just wrong.
this recession
-- which as of yet does not exist --
has many reasons, not all of which we know. one thing we do know is that its seeds were sown during the last 6 years.
If a recession happens, sure. Just like the seeds of the recession that began in early 2001 were sown during the previous years, all under Clinton.
to the extent the federal govt plays a role in this (and deficit spending does affect the economy), the alleged "fiscal conservative republican party" should accept responsibility.
Eh. I don't play that kind of game. I say it straight: the elected representatives of the Republican Party in Washington DC are directly to blame for high deficits, increased debt, a bloated budget, and the most rapid expanse in nondiscretionary spending we've seen in decades. How much those things contribute to this or that is a guessing game, but we know those things are bad in and of themselves.
instead of all that flag-waving, unfettered bush support that went on after 9/11 and running upto and through 2004, it would have helped if republican voters actually held republican politicians accountable.
The Democrats deserve a lot of the blame for that, because no matter how bad Bush and the other Republicans were, they were still better than the Democrats. Kerry wanted to spend even MORE money, while increasing taxes, which would have killed the economy (either immediately, or, if he dumped it into a lot of public works programs, would have made us much worse off down the road as we'd be incapable of paying it all off). Kerry's position on foreign policy was far worse. His positions on EVERYTHING were worse.
That is why in 2006, the Democrats finally moved back to the right, to win both houses of Congress. The old saying goes, Republicans get elected when they act like Republicans. And 2006 showed that Democrats get elected when they act like Republicans, too.
whatever happened to questioning authority (regardless of party affiliation)?
The fact that you don't recall it happening doesn't mean it didn't. It certainly came from me, many people I know, including local and state GOP leaders, the conservative press, and voters. A lot. But yes, at the end of the day, we still voted for them, because the alternative was far worse.
All of this is why after the 2004 elections, I was actually dismayed that the Democrats failed so miserably. We need a strong opposition party that represents a large segment of the people, in order for the system to work, and a weak Democratic party -- or one that catered too much to an extreme constituency, as it had in 2004 -- won't get the job done. The GOP had begun to right the ship after 2004, realizing midterms were coming, but they did so far too slowly and with far too little result.
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2008 04:02 PMthis recession has many reasons
No recession expected this year: Congressional Budget Office
Oops. Seems that the Democrat-controlled Congress' budgetary arm doesn't think there will be a recession...
Wishful thinking for a recession on your part, Dinesh?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 23, 2008 04:07 PMTheir definition of recession is broader than the conventional news media definition, and is: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real [inflation-adjusted] GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2008 04:23 PMOf course, for many people seeing their house value increase "only" 6% over the last year is a downright tragedy, given the last 5 years of 15%+ annual valuation increases!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 23, 2008 05:27 PMWouldn't want a single Gulpment worker to not get a 7+ % raise this year on the taxpayers dole...
Of course Gregoire accepted an 8% pay raise this year and next.
Must be nice, Gulpment Pension skyrocking at 8% per year!
I guess then ALL the candidates and power-players on the Democrat side of things are also liars. Given that many were chanting "WMDs! WMDs!" back in the 1990s before GWB even took office...
So, ready to call both Clintons, Albright, John Kerry, Diane Fienstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Burger, Wesley Clark, and dozens of others complete liars as well?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 23, 2008 09:25 PMThere's nothing new here, and almost all of it boils down to things that were simple disagreements, or that the Democrats agreed with at the time (with access to the same information as Bush, despite the lies to the contrary). And some it is downright false: they even include the proven lie that Bush's 16 words were related to the forged documents that Joe Wilson knew about it. They were, in fact, related to separate British intelligence.
All this is, literally, is a bunch of Bush-haters who compiled the same old things we already know about it and tried to pass it off as news, and the media is falling for it.
Yawn.
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2008 09:34 PMThat was never the primary case for war.
In 2002, Bush said he wanted regime change because Hussein was dangerous. This was elaborated upon: he has had WMD, he wants to get them again, he has used them before, and he has failed to follow the UN inspections regime as required by Resolution 687.
The U.S. Congress said, yes, let us work to do something about him, for those reasons.
Resolution 1441 was passed in late fall 2002. It did not mention Iraq actually had WMD. It was passed unanimously, and it served as the legal framework for the discussions that followed, leading to the invasion in March.
While the U.S. -- both parties -- and many other countries said Iraq had WMD, the main case was always Iraq's noncompliance, because without compliance, you can NEVER be sure that Iraq had no WMD. Hans Blix said in January 2003 that Iraq had failed to comply.
Even without ANY of evidence showing that WMD existed in Iraq, the case for invasion was perfectly solid, because the legal case was never based on the existence of WMD.
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2008 09:49 PMJust glancing, I found them claim this is a lie: "We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we have a dictator who is clearly pursuing these deadly capabilities."
But it is true. Hussein was clearly pursuing those capabilities. Maybe not at the moment, but the Duelfer Report shows he was planning to restart his programs.
Face it our Government is paid to do what the corporations want.
You guys may feel a moral positive but it was a sales job for the Corporations.
Look at what they are doing now pudge, those same corporations are now paying the D's because they think they are going to win because the R's have lost the trust of the American people,AND RIGHTFULLY SO.
Now its the D's turn to lie for the Corporations.
Sure beats spoffin on the blog all day.
I recall visiting this site plenty during that time. It was rah-rah central (in the comments section). gay marriage and national security were the 2 republican planks in 2004. please be serious. bush earning his "political capital", etc. this is not the platform of a governing party--this is a platform of a group of people wishing to hold onto power.
this administration has consistently underestimate, misinterpreted or just flat out misrepresented so many critical pieces of information, and delivered such poor results, its hard to believe its has such ardent defenders.
like i said, point me to some meaningful, contemporaneous (circa 2004) right-wing criticism of the federal govt.
Posted by: dinesh on January 24, 2008 03:47 PMThat was found in 15 seconds of looking.
Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2008 04:17 PMtake lumps like the average joe--maybe some jail time too for alleged hit & run like anyone else would? or was this an illegal-alien-type prosecution kid glove waiver?
how'd ya like that slick case-dropping of the Seattle official accused of wife-slapping? any outrcries? nope? sounded to me like lots o' quiet and no criticisms from ANY rights groups; no marches; why? unusual for this tolerant and protect-every-victim-&-perp-type of town;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 24, 2008 10:57 PMfurther, if i had a subscription to nro, i bet i could find far more posts by kristol, jonah, et al. supporting the president rather than being critical of him. the "anything but democrats" mind-set seemed to dominate the discourse.
Posted by: dinesh on January 25, 2008 12:39 PMSecond, yes, I understand that is your impression. And I believe, due to my own experience, that your impression is not an accurate representation of what conservatives were saying. You just didn't hear it, or don't remember it.
Third, yes, I agree that this was not THE dominant issue for conservatives. I never implied it was. I voted for Bush specifically because I preferred him over Kerry, not because I liked Bush a lot, and my main problem with Bush was his high spending (and what he was spending it on: Medicare drugs, NCLB, etc.). But Kerry would have (if he could have) spent even more, so that was no reason (to me) to not vote for Bush.
If the Democrats had nominated a fiscal conservative, then this could have been a bigger issue. Since they picked a traditional liberal tax-and-spender, it wasn't.
Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2008 12:49 PM