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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17629)11/25/2003 1:17:18 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793624
 
When their own left starts writing columns like this one, you know the Democrats are on a slide.




washingtonpost.com
The Democrats Take a Dive

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, November 25, 2003; Page A29

The battle over a Medicare prescription drug benefit proves that Republicans are ruthless and determined and that Democrats are divided and hapless. Republicans have changed the rules in Washington, but some Democrats still pretend to be living in the good old days.

And so there was much bitterness among Democrats as the Republicans' Medicare drug bulldozer rolled inexorably forward with critical help from two Democratic senators. A majority of Democrats believe the bill was a bad deal -- it gave President Bush a political victory without demanding enough in return. "It's a combination of political stupidity and substantive gutlessness," said one influential Democratic congressional aide.

What Democrats failed to understand, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in an interview yesterday morning, is that Republicans "are on an ideological march. They have no intention of playing fair. They want what they want when they want it." And they get it.

If anyone doubted the rules had changed, House Republican leaders ended all illusions in the early hours of Saturday morning by holding open a 15-minute roll call vote for an unprecedented two hours and 51 minutes. At the end of the normal time for voting, Republican leaders faced defeat on the drug bill by a two-vote margin. Eventually, two Republicans were hammered into switching their votes.

"I don't mean to be alarmist, but this is the end of parliamentary democracy as we have known it," said Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. The new system amounted to "plebiscitary democracy" in which leaders of the House have imposed such a strong sense of party discipline that they will ultimately pass whatever legislation they bring to the floor. "The Republican Party in the House is the most ideologically cohesive and disciplined party in the democratic world," Frank said. In response, House Democrats were more united in opposition to the bill than Democratic senators, who are operating as if the older system of give-and-take were still in force.

Edward M. Kennedy was one senator who believed the old system could still work. He had urged his colleagues to pass an earlier version of the drug bill on the assumption that Republicans would agree to a compromise acceptable to Democrats.

Instead, House and Senate negotiators pushed the Senate bill to the right by adding in Medicare privatization experiments, big HMO subsidies and medical savings accounts. These and other changes pushed Kennedy to lead the last-ditch fight against the final version of the bill.

While Clinton and Frank admire Kennedy, both think he "made a mistake," as Frank put it, in thinking a real compromise would emerge from the current system. "I think we started down this slope in June," Clinton said, referring to the vote on the earlier bill, which she opposed and Kennedy favored. Clinton had predicted that the already inadequate drug benefit in that bill would be weakened by Republicans in subsequent negotiations.

Kennedy said in an interview that he had no regrets about trying to get the earlier bill passed. But he acknowledged that Republicans had shown far more discipline than Democrats have ever mustered. Kennedy recalled a conversation he had with then-Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas in the early 1990s about the wall of Republican opposition to President Clinton's health care bill. Gramm, he said, explained that Republicans were determined not to let Clinton and a Democratic Congress prove they were capable of "performing."

Bush is dealing with a more pliable opposition. Whatever discontent liberals expressed toward Kennedy was mild compared with their irritation toward Sens. John Breaux of Louisiana and Max Baucus of Montana.

Breaux and Baucus were the only two Democrats allowed to negotiate the Medicare bill with the Republicans, House Democrats having been totally excluded. Would Republicans have put up with such an arrangement?

Over the weekend, several Democrats complained that Breaux and Baucus promised to report back to their colleagues before reaching a deal. Instead, they announced their support for the Republican bill, setting in motion its rush to passage. And Baucus poured salt into his party's wounds when he opened his speech in defense of the bill on Sunday by taking issue with how House Democratic leaders had described his legislation. Bush must have been laughing as Baucus drove a wedge through the Democratic Party.

If Democrats wanted to give Bush a political victory, they could have insisted on a much better deal. Instead, their negotiators sold out for a bill full of subsidies to the HMOs that will make it harder to control drug costs. The moral, yet again, is that Republicans are much tougher than Democrats and fight much harder to win.

washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17629)11/25/2003 1:48:48 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793624
 

I don't think it's tolerant or civilized to have to "understand" murderous nihilism or to have to say only nice things about the people who preach it.

Where did anybody suggest that it was?



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17629)11/25/2003 9:48:41 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793624
 
This makes soooo much sense!

Fencing Out Terror
Peace through security.
Jed Babbin NRO

Open borders invite terrorists, and ours are almost completely vulnerable to infiltration. Slowly — all too slowly — the Department of Homeland Security is building fences and sensor towers, which will block some of those who want to enter illegally, and detect others in time to capture them. But while we're doing that, it's fascinating to see how much hell Israel is catching for building an antiterrorist barrier through occupied areas of the West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is feeling the heat, as this week he is expected to announce changes to the route of the fence, and possibly some phased withdrawal of West Bank settlements.

We don't hear a similar outcry against our border barriers for two reasons. First, our borders are real. Israel's West Bank fence follows no border because there isn't one, only the "Green Line," a ceasefire boundary that has no international legal standing. Second, we aren't Israel. Many in the Arab world are busy convincing themselves that the fence is an Israeli land grab, built only to oppress the Palestinians. Just last week, the EUnuchs said the new fence would make Palestinian life intolerable. (Like Paris in a heat wave?) And the Bush administration — which sees the fence as a complication — is threatening to reduce loan guarantees to Israel if construction continues. To the cash-strapped Sharon government, that amounts to a lot: At $25 million per kilometer, the fence could reduce the loan guarantees by billions of dollars.

Why build it, then? After the 1973 invasion by Syria and Iraq, the Israelis began settling the West Bank. The theory was that settlers — soldiers and their families — would form a defensive barrier to slow or stop another such incursion. But West Bank settlements quickly became the Palestinians' battle cry, and Arafat, the U.N., and various EUnuchs demand straight-facedly that Israel withdraw from the West Bank and stop building the fence. Therein, they insist, lies the road to peace. But "land for peace" is never a good trade: Just look at Munich in 1938. Last month, I rode up the main highway along the West Bank, through most of the 370 miles of the Green Line. For most of the drive, there is nothing between Israel and the Palestinians but a three-strand barbed-wire fence.

In September 2000, Yasser Arafat's "Al Aqsa intifada" began. Arafat named it for the mosque that sits on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, because he wants Jerusalem to be as holy a site for all Islam as Mecca is, and thus inviolate under Palestinian control. Since September 28, 2000, the Palestinians who share the West Bank with Israeli settlers — joined by Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, as well as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists — have been committing terrorist attacks at a horrific rate.

Everything from missile attacks — mostly from Hezbollah in Lebanon — to stabbings, shootings, and even mortar and artillery fire are part of the terrorists' tactics. As of October 25, 2003, 757 days had passed since the intifada began. According to a confidential Israeli report, of which I've been seen an excerpt, there have been over 19,000 attacks since that September day — more than 25 daily. According to that report, almost 900 Israelis have been killed, and nearly 6,000 wounded, in the terrorist attacks.

Protection against terrorist infiltration from Gaza and the West Bank is the business of the Israeli army. Hamas and other terror groups make their home in Gaza, so the Israelis fenced off the Gaza Strip, and limited the movement of all the Palestinians who lived there. Palestinians can only pass through the fence at Israeli security checkpoints, and once it was completed, the Israelis say, terror attacks from Gaza stopped. Now the West Bank is being fenced: About 76 miles have been completed, and almost 300 miles remain to be built.

Near Tulkarm — a Palestinian city from which many attacks have been mounted — I saw a part of the newly built "fence." It's not just a 25-foot high barricade. It is also a trench dug to block vehicles, and radar, and other sensors that detect movement. It's a serious barrier to infiltration, and apparently it's effective.

A senior Israeli government official told me that since September 2000, more than 100 bombers have mounted attacks from the West Bank. In the north, near the Jenin refugee camp, terrorists used to cross the road, board a bus on Route 65, and just ride in comfort to a target. Now, with part of the fence there, it's relatively quiet. "The fence is not making life of the Palestinians easier," he told me. Nor is it intended to. "It's making Israel more secure."

The fence is as hotly debated in Israel as it is elsewhere. That it should be built is not debated, but the route it should take — through many or few Palestinian areas — is. One senior Israeli official told me, "The fence goes where security takes it, not where it's convenient for the other side." It all boils down to one set of conflicting beliefs: Can Israel get peace before it gets security, or can it have security without first having peace?

Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority seems to think it's winning, and has ceased all cooperation in stopping terror. So long as Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest think they're gaining by using terror, it will not stop. To think otherwise — fence or no fence — is simply delusional. Sharon, responding to increasing political pressure, is floating a few test buoys this week, talking about "unilateral acts" to help create peace. The Israelis want a political peace process, and they don't care much what it looks like.

When the so-called Geneva initiative was announced, a fast poll of Israeli voters found that 40 percent favored it, without even knowing what it provided. Israel clearly can, and should, pull out of some of the West Bank settlements. The settlements, after all, were a defensive measure against a future invasion that now seems highly unlikely. Because Israel's enemies have long-range missiles, and because we occupy Iraq, the odds of a ground invasion from Syria and Jordan are very slim. But it's foolish to believe that withdrawal even from all the settlements will stop the terror, because the terror masters think their tactic is working.

Later this week, Sharon will announce his intentions, which will probably include rerouting the fence to accommodate some of President Bush's demands, moving some settlements inside the fence and withdrawing others completely. Many of these things Israel should do. Not because they will garner international support for anything else Israel does (which they won't), but because they are right to do. But stopping construction of the fence is not one of them. Security breeds peace; it's not the other way around.

— NRO Contributor Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, and is now an MSNBC military analyst.
nationalreview.com