Real Politics!

Politics may be a game over power, and war a game over the rules. Power is all about if you don’t give it, someone will take it. Politics is about the rules as much as the power, for it is not just about who makes the rules but it is also how we make them. If the rules are not followed, it can and will only be about breaking them to make them for others. It is not about those who follow them being the losers.

Politics?

Some see it as a game, others as a war. It is more than a game and less than a war. If you dis or distance yourself from politics, it is only natural to be closer to war. If you dis or distance yourself from the law, you will only be closer to anarchy. Note who disses or distances themselves and if you don’t find who started it you may find who at lease will keep it going.

Bureaucracy did it.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently claimed that he never told the president to attack Iraq, but that the president knew his feelings on the matter or some such. Just what is the difference, if I have that clear? Whatever the president knew or understood, is the matter. And the chain of command is still in question for the Commander-in-Chief. The president who ran as a Commander-in-Chief now leaves it in the hands of the military to decide on the strategy in Iraq? It is bad enough that handling hurricane Katrina was complicated by a new layer of bureaucracy, FEMA under Homeland Security, but Rumsfeld had his own additional Office of Special Plans, which was another layer of the object filter which Bush prefers over the so-called filter of the media, not to mention intelligence.

If this is viewed as only the game of politics and that the timing is questionable, this piece shows who as fought and who has delayed, and that there should be no shame in taking advantage of the timing, as earlier would have been better. Like before the 2004 elections. The time is now and until the 2006 election when the only solution is replacement of the whole "bigger government" that has distanced our leader from realities on several levels.

Often it is hard not to stoop to childish refrains that siblings banter such as "you started it", but heck if that is not their policy of pre-emption that they be the ones to actually start things, if anybody is, not to mention will. Timing is also a thing they ignore not just preemptively but when they quote Democrats who said things, the difference is that they were in the past and then actually did thing or didn't and things changed, usually for the better, despite the resistance from the those who then resisted involvement in the world or being a force for good or democracy.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Politics is the Name.

The day began with my thoughts of politics. The politics that Bush says should not be used in a time of war, but which are regularly part of their daily method of operation. The budget later.

The House is considering a non-binding resolution offered by Republican leadership.
H.Res. 571 "It is the sense of the House that deployment of U S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

The politics?

Murtha’s resolution would have called for "redeployment" as quickly as possible. Instead the Republicans pushed for a vote just to vote against something. If that is not political, I don’t know what is.

If the Republicans claim that Democrats have no plans, they are first of all lying, but second, just voting against the Republican plans is a good enough plan.

Now Democrats can even vote against plans that are so bad, even the Republican makers can’t vote for them. If that is not political and irresponsible, I don’t know what is.

On the other hand, maybe that is the only way things will work. Republicans can blame Democrats for getting the troops out of Iraq.

If we got in on false pretenses, the only way out may be on false pretenses. The only test for the use of false anything is if they work. Wrong facts and shifting reasons usually won’t.

Thanks to Eleanor Clift of this weeks McGluaghlin Group for her fiery enthusiasm about the connection between Murtha and the military. I may be missing some credit to the false pretense concept.

[Below link and this comment added 11-24-05: Note the battle of the cut-and-run 2006 campaign has just begun, as that is the likely charge, no matter the outcome. Not in an attempt to have it both ways, let us not pre-empt success by such plays, but continue the work that will prevent, the continued hard work of war.}

A Pre-emptive Comment:

Remember this next October, when it is too political now to set a timetable, but then there will be talk of a troop withdrawal when an election is at stake.

Now when giving a timetable would be to cut-and-run, closer to an election reducing troop strengths will sound better. But remember that the Democrats wanted a timetable only to get it done, when the Republicans finally flip-flop in talk it must still be done.

THANK YOU VETERANS

French Recollections?

The best defense is non recollection. Back a few posts I was connecting Bush, Blair and Berlusconi, and now are we to see the bashing of the French?

Over the weekend, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig compared the current indictments to Watergate, but not in the way we should think. Or actually in the way they think, in that it is just political. Watergate was just about a party who lost an election getting even. First VP Agnew was replaced and then Nixon. So said Haig.

Given the plan of preemption, just how far does this framing go? Are the French now to be framed as the Democrats are as just pulling stunts? But one thing should be clear is that the three "B" were eager beavers for war.

Philosophy, still in the game?

Two points need making on judicial philosophy. First a question: what happened to the judicial philosophy question? A good question would be, is it trickle down or bottoms up?

These are two points of departure here and almost a pun in that there is not really a difference with the slip of a key, but now that there is a new nominee there is still a question surrounding the philosophy or is it in the original intent of the nomination which should hinge on one question? Is a corporation a person?

Further: Is there equal protection under the law, in particular how does citizenship and homeland security come into play and more originally how do these promote the general welfare as noted in the preamble of the constitution?

Philosophy or politics? Neither are bad, neither are games. Play them. Do the hard work that will always be needed to keep the solutions from being a flip or a flop.

Going back to some other word games, I think of the forum, a battle, a debate, and 4 "M"s; money, mechanics, media and message(not in any particular order) is not just for ’em.

Yesterday was "a victory for the American people".

What Senator Frist called a stunt is probably only the first battle for which the Democrat's powder has been kept dry. The Republicans are outraged at the unprecedented use of Senate rules and leaving the public out of the process. The irony is woven so thick even my head hurts.

The charge that Democrats are criminalizing politics is an indication that it seems they feel, that all is fair in love and war. Leaving love aside, since there is no love lost, they feel that rules are only for losers. War is only an extension of politics where the rules are only for others.

The complaint that they were not consulted and that the public was left out shows that they would love others to play by their rules without questioning their war. It is laughable if it were not likely treason that somehow they make light of revealing the name of a CIA agent while being offended by a request for a closed session concerning the use of intelligence, while VP Cheney is not only at the heart of the current inquiry, but was able to keep his energy panel secret.

If this does not make your head hurt too, see my earlier baseball analogy, and the recent indictment analogy by Fitzgerald. And the next time they want the public not kept in the dark, call their bluff and put all the cards on the table.

Bush's choice.

Some quick points on the beginning of the process to confirm Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito:

The president does not need to get an up or down vote as it was shown that a few outside of congress were able to prevent it in the case of Mier.

The "gang of 14" that settled on the compromise earlier, will need to refrain from preventing a filibuster other than by their individual vote for cloture, if the Senate (both parties) was not consulted on the current nomination.

Given the power of outsiders to prevent a president's choice from even getting to a vote it also should be clear that any nominee should not be a "slam dunk" . More is likely later on a litmus test.