Drink Upstream

Reaction to Obama's Philadelphia Speech

I've been scanning the news and opinions for some well-formed commentary on Obama's recent speech on race. Only a few have made the grade. However, the most humorous (unintentionally) thus far has been Michael Gerson's recent Op-Ed in the Washington Post.

Michael Gerson - A Speech That Fell Short

More on this later.

Where Have All the Conservatives Gone? A follow-up

The Drink Upstream corner of the Blogosphere has been very quiet lately. Not much to say? No. I'm sure that's not true. More like too busy to say it. Well, this morning I have a little time and energy, and I thought I might continue my quest for a true Conservatism.

Despite being a social liberal, there are many conservative ideas that make sense to me. However, the Reaganite, Dick Armey, and George W. Bush visions of the Republican Party have continued to leave behind the true conservative values I know, only to replace them with values that are ultra-national, friendly to the large corporation, and profoundly violent and death-dealing. This morning, though, I read a three week old Op-Ed in the Washington Post that tugged at the old conservatism that resides in the depths of my heart. Michael Gerson--the former head speech-writer for President Bush--does well to argue for conservatism as it could be. His ideas have, for now, brought my thoughts back to a conservative shape.

Open-Arms Conservatism

I don't imagine this euphoric feeling will last. The next time Giuliani addresses a crowd of NASCAR enthusiasts calling theirs the quintessential American sport, or Thompson describes his feelings about the Terry Schiavo case saying that parents should outweigh spouses in such decisions, I will remember that good conservativism and the neo-conservatives that control the GOP are currently wrestling for dominance, and the neo-cons have the advantage. In that vein, I offer also Douglas Besharov's Opinion article, from this morning. It is what brought Gerson's to my attention.

The Right Kind of Hand Up

Bill Moyers on Karl Rove

Bill Moyers gave some commentary on Karl Rove the other day.   Transcript excerpt included if you Read More.

Cindy Sheehan, Please Stop!

On Independence Mall the other day, a group of war protesters, led by Cindy Sheehan, set up a small version of Arlington Cemetery, with little grave markers and the names of Iraq War casualties. Some held signs that said "Impeach Bush/Cheney" and "Fire the Republicans". Some passed out the usual literature that soon filled nearby trashcans. And Ms. Sheehan made her speeches and got her picture taken as always.

The next day, Sarah emailed me a link to the Philadelphia Inquirer's write-up about the protest. And two paragraphs in particular caught my attention:

Later, in a hurried conversation with reporters, she discussed what she said would be the main focus of her life in the months ahead: an attempt to defeat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) in Pelosi's San Francisco district next year.

A California resident, Sheehan plans to run as an independent. She announced her candidacy Monday night after Pelosi failed to meet Sheehan's deadline for backing an impeachment effort.

Seriously. Just let that sink in for a moment. Cindy Sheehan... runs for the House... hoping to defeat the first woman Speaker... and help lose another seat for the Democrats... who in 2008 have a chance to undo further the super-conservative Republican bloc that has built up during the first half of the decade. And her reasoning is because Speaker Pelosi has not met a Sheehan-imposed deadline to impeach the President of the United States.

Immediately, I thought back to a Daily Show after Sheehan met with and congratulated Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Jon Stewart hit his forehead and stated that she had simply destroyed all her credibility. I couldn't agree more. Cindy Sheehan is one of those liberals who give the rest of us a bad name.

Cindy, you were once in a place to make a real statement, to change the war and maybe elevate the level of political dialogue in this country. I was very much a supporter of you when you first came on the scene, camped outside of the President's ranch. But please, please, stop. Stop before you lead us further into this morass of name-calling and animosity.

Values Schmalues

Who knew I was so morally bankrupt as to not have any "values" just because I don't agree with these buffoons.

There I said it.  You happy now?  These guys are buffoons.

Link: Conservative Christian political group kicks off national 70-week crusade to boost 'value voters'.

A "value voter" is defined by Scarborough as someone who is pro-life (including at end-of-life) and pro-family, supports a tougher welfare system and the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman, plus a supporter of religious liberty and free speech.

Executive Branch and the Rule of Law

The ink is still fresh on the President's commutation of the sentence of I. Lewis Libby, and of course, now the American public have been condemned to listen to some cruel, but fairly usual and mundane, political posturing concerning the justice of this "pardon". Let us begin with the President's nuanced position:

"I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.” (quoted from the New York Times)

He seems to be happy that the people of the jury made their decision and will let that stand, but the sentence did not fit the crime, as far as he was concerned, regardless of how the law is written. Patrick Fitzgerald's response interests me most:

“In this case an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws,” Mr. Fitzgerald said in a statement. “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals.” (again, the New York Times)

Why this is interesting to me is because it makes me want to consider the idea of the Rule of Law in this country. The President, head of one of three branches established by the Constitution, has the power to circumvent the work of the other two branches (Congress, which made the law; the Judicial which imposed the sentence). How can that be? If the Judicial branch has already kept the Legislative in check, why does the President get to overrule that check, that is, in this case, he declared that the prescribed punishment and its implementation are "excessive".

I don't wish to criticize President Bush in this article, but rather the power of commutation and pardon in general. Doesn't it seem to be something left over from the monarchy? I will be checking the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers over the next few days, to see if there's any conversation about that.

In the meantime, what are other thoughts on the subject? Is this a power of the Executive Branch that is overtly exploitable? Or is the power yet another check?

Open-ended posts, that's my style these days.

Wanted: Devil's Advocate, Apply Within

Does anyone want to argue that yesterday's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District no. 1 Supreme Court decision was a good, well-crafted decision? I don't think it was. I'm very curious about it, given two facts: 1) both opinions appealed to Brown v. Board of Education for support, and 2) This is another in a string of 5-4 court decisions that contradicts Chief Justice Roberts's goal of unanimity on the court. Anyone who wants to help me see the light, or at least the errors of my thinking, please let me know (or direct me to your blog).

Bill

What's a Liberal to Do?

Two posts in one day? Is that even possible?

After my previous post, Sarah sent me a New York Times article that is critical of John Edwards's non-profit work. Check it out and let me know what you think.

In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008

Starter topic: Is it ethical to start a foundation that will serve as the main plank of your presidential platform? Especially when that foundation is not an Exploratory Committee and donations to it will not count as donations to your campaign?

Where Have All the Conservatives Gone?

A few months back, I began a search for some true conservative voices. Not the bellicose conservatives of the Project for the New American Century, who will throw out all other conservative values (such as fiscal responsibility or the free market) in order to force those same values down the throat of the world. And not the Religious Right conservatives, who will continually rally around the American family as long as it is their own wealthy, white, child-bearing, Christian family they are talking about. I'm looking for someone who is not so hypocritical-- someone who doesn't base their opinions on how outrageous and insulting they can be. Not a Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter, or (for now) Rudy Giuliani, or Vice President Cheney, or anyone that currently holds a megaphone in the Republican Party.

Yesterday, Matt introduced me to Congressman Ron Paul of the Texas 14th. Obviously, this man is extremely conservative... a libertarian by any definition. But in doing a little research about the Congressman, I ran across this gem of a speech that I thought worthy of sharing.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr060607.htm

I obviously do not agree with everything in it (I still don't see how income taxes are unconstitutional, if we have an amendment allowing them), but I did think it a nice poke in the eye of everyone using "tough on national security" as a bar for measuring presidential candidates.

So that's what those pointy hats are for....

Food for thought....