SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (3823)7/26/2003 10:01:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793575
 
Jacob's assertions, for instance of Bush as fascist are paralleled only by the assertions that Bush should go to Rushmore. Much more evidence for the former than the latter. I give you Ashcroft.

>>And what exactly has Ashcroft done that is so terrible?

If there were ever a litmus test question for political views, it's that question. If you don't know and don't care, it's hardly worth explaining.

>>I get the impression that Ashcroft is hated more for who he is and what he believes, not specific actions. This response only confirms my impression.

To use the term "hated" converts severe policy disagreements into simple emotional responses. Another way to put down disagreement.


Sure, now, John, of course you don't "hate" Ashcroft - you just produce him as ipso facto evidence that Bush is a fascist! then you tell me if I can't see why, it's useless to explain. Then you chastise the word "hated" as putting down disagreements!

Classic.



To: JohnM who wrote (3823)7/27/2003 12:55:30 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793575
 
I am not surprised the Dems are screaming on this one. It is very easy to sell that they are Anti-Catholic Bigots. And there are 80 Million Catholics out there, with a majority of them usually voting Democratic. They may not filibuster because of this.

Accusation of Bias Angers Democrats
By ROBIN TONER - NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, July 26 - The battle over judicial nominations has grown ever more bitter on Capitol Hill, but Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee say they are particularly outraged over the latest turn: the accusation that their resistance to some conservative nominees amounts to anti-Catholic bias.

In a recent newspaper advertising campaign, run by groups supporting the Bush administration's judicial nominees, a closed courtroom door bears the sign "Catholics Need Not Apply." The advertisement argues that William Pryor Jr., the Alabama attorney general and a conservative, anti-abortion nominee to the federal appeals court, was under attack in the Senate because of his "deeply held" Catholic beliefs.

Democrats say they oppose Mr. Pryor because of his record, including what they assert is a history of extreme statements on issues like abortion and the separation of church and state. All nine Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against Mr. Pryor's confirmation this week, while the 10 Republicans voted for it, sending the issue to the full Senate ? and the likelihood of further Democratic opposition.

Republicans and their conservative allies argue that the Democrats have created a de facto religious test by their emphasis on a nominee's stand on issues like abortion. "It's not just Catholics," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, one of the groups that paid for these advertisements, which are running in Maine and Rhode Island. "I think there's an element of the far left of the Democratic Party that sees as its project scrubbing the public square of religion, and in some cases not only religion but of religious people."

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sounded a similar theme this week, asserting that "the left is trying to enforce an antireligious litmus test" whereby "nominees who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines, as a matter of personal faith, are unqualified for the federal bench in the eyes of the liberal Washington interest groups."

The accusation of anti-Catholic bias seemed especially galling to some of the Democratic senators who happen to be Catholic. Four of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are Catholic. In fact, 57 percent of the Catholics in the House and the Senate are Democrats, according to the forthcoming Vital Statistics on Congress, 2003-4 edition.

Like many Americans of Irish descent, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on Judiciary, said he grew up hearing his father talk about the bad old days when Irish Catholics were greeted with signs saying they "need not apply." He added, "It was a horrible part of our history, and it's almost like you have people willing to rekindle that for a short-term political gain, for a couple of judges."

Senator Richard J. Durbin, who is Catholic, said he reached his limit at a committee meeting on Wednesday when Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama (and a Methodist), began explaining Mr. Pryor's positions as "what a good Catholic believes."

Mr. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who personally opposes abortion but backs abortion rights, added, "I understand the painful process I have to go through with the elders of the church on many of these issues, explaining my position. But it is galling, to say the least, when my colleagues in the Senate, of another religion, start speaking ex cathedra."

Many Catholic elected officials are, perhaps, particularly sensitive to the line between religious faith and public responsibilities. It was a line drawn most vividly by President John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, who had to deal with widespread fears that a Roman Catholic president would serve both Rome and the American people.

Kennedy responded by declaring, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be a Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." In recent years, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo reasserted that line, particularly regarding abortion.

Behind the anger of many Democrats is the suspicion that this advertising campaign is part of the Republican Party's courtship of Catholics, an important swing vote. In general, Andy Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said Mr. Bush was "doing pretty well with white Catholics" lately.

It is all part of a politics that has changed radically since 1960. Among the nine Democrats on the Judiciary Committee accused of working against the interests of Catholic judicial nominees is, of course, John Kennedy's brother, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (3823)7/27/2003 5:23:39 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793575
 
I thought Pollack was crawfishing with his last column. TNR thinks so also.

THE NEO CON: Reading Ronald Asmus and Kenneth Pollack's Washington Post op-ed contrasting the neoliberal and neoconservative approaches to the Middle East, we were struck much more by the similarities between the two positions than by the differences. Asmus and Pollack write, for example, that neocons believe, "If the regimes of the region won't change, American power should be used to bring change about." But then in the very next paragraph they note that neoliberals (the camp in which the authors place themselves) "supported the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq because we concluded that force was the only way to lance these boils." True, Asmus and Pollack argue that neocons believe that "[t]he invasion and reconstruction of Iraq are not an exception but a precedent that, if need be, can and will be replicated elsewhere," while neoliberals, they argue, believe in "political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort." But as a practical matter, what's the difference between these two positions? Few neocons would insist that preemption should be the option you turn to first. Meanwhile, most honest observers would concede that if Iraq falls into the category of countries for which preemption is justified as a last resort, then there are probably four or five other countries for which preemption could be similarly justified. In any case, all of that is beside the point, since even the most hawkish neocons rarely advocate preemptively attacking any one of those remaining candidates.

In a similar vein, Asmus and Pollack assert that, unlike neoliberals, "[n]eocons don't like nation-building." Really? Wasn't Paul Wolfowitz the one who suggested back in September that, with the proper amount of care and attention, postwar Iraq could become a model of democracy in the Middle East? That's certainly what he told The New York Times Magazine at the time:
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Iraq, properly managed--and it's going to take a lot of attention, and the stakes are enormous, much higher than Afghanistan--that it really could turn out to be, I hesitate to say it, the first Arab democracy, or at least the first one except for Lebanon's brief history ... And even if it makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world. In fact, listening to Wolfowitz sing the virtues of a pluralistic, democratic Iraq back in September sounds a lot like, well, listening to Ronald Ausmus and Kenneth Pollack sing the virtues of a pluralistic, democratic Iraq today: "In Iraq," the two argue, "[nation-building] is particularly worth the commitment because a stable, prosperous and pluralist Iraq could eventually become a model for the region, demonstrating that it is possible to be both 'Arab' and 'democratic.'"

Where Asmus and Pollack go wrong is in conflating (intentionally or not, our guess is intentionally) neocon foreign policy with Republican foreign policy. To wit, the sentence that begins, "Neocons don't like nation-building ..." ends with, "... and the Republican Party has largely opposed it for more than a decade." This in turn sets up the very next sentence: "Thus, while neoconservatives talk of democracy promotion, they have a hard time carrying through on it." The obvious point in response is that just because neocons have a hard time convincing the more retrograde elements of the Republican coalition that nation-building is a desirable undertaking doesn't mean that they don't personally support it. To the contrary, you'd expect neocons to be coy about their true position on nation-building precisely because others in the Republican Party are so skeptical of it.

What seems to be going on here is that, after being attacked as closet neoconservatives for their outspoken support of the war in Iraq these last several months, Asmus and Pollack are determined to prove both that they're truly neoliberals at heart and that their brand of sensible neoliberalism is completely at odds with the sort of brash war-mongering neoconservatives are wont to practice. Neither point is especially convincing.
tnr.com