What we really learned this week is that unless Democrats are willing to ram through a huge revolutionary change in health care that a majority of Americans don’t support on a strict party-line vote with the help of controversial legislative tricks, the only hope of reform lies in breaking it up into discrete parts, focusing on some incremental reforms with bipartisan support and calling it a day. At some point, I suspect, that is where we will wind up.
Jennifer Rubin, Contentions “Slowing to a Crawl“
Comments 45
You had to, you just had to, didn’t ya?
September 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Well, maybe this’ll make you feel better little frog: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024594.php
I read it after the JRub piece, otherwise I might have made it the CotD.
Though you’ve probably already read the NYT on Afghanistan decision-making at the WH. IF so, then you can skip to the PowerLiner’s conclusion:
September 26th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
@CK MacLeod – Who’s this guy? and would you bother reprinting that conclusion?
That was even less definite then the wager I proposed and you rejected.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Speaking of little frogs, here is a poem that appeared in the comic strip Pogo 40 or 50 years ago:
There was a froggie painted pink.
What did that pinkie froggie think?
I’ll tell you what that froggie thunk:
He thunk, “Kachunk, kachunk, kachunk.”
September 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
@George Jochnowitz – I was once convinced to allow myself to be covered with warm Fox’s U-Bet, but being painted pink is outside my experience.
That Kachunk sounds awfully ominous George, but what does it mean?
September 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
@fuster – what do you mean by “bother reprinting that conclusion”? Who “that guy” is, is yr typical racist terrorist Nazi, of course – well, one of the more widely respected righty bloggers. BTW -did you notice Feinstein the other day comparing Republican senators to the Japanese at Pearl Harbor?
September 26th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
@CK MacLeod – Sorry, I’ve never heard of him prior to this.
The conclusion about rejecting McChrystal’s request is way vague.
Which part of which of the menu of options?
Does Obama have to send 45,000 guys on Thursday or what?
September 26th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
fuster,
That Fox’s U-Bet sounds just wonderful. I’ve always loved it.
“Kachunk” means “satisfaction.” I learned to understand frogs when I lived on a farm near Goshen, NY, and again when I lived in Baoding, China. I was amazed at how the frogs spoke the same dialect in both places. However, the American frogs were more talkative.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
@CK MacLeod and, no, I didn’t hear that Feinstein compared Republicans to the Japanese.
I’m going to assume that she was making a comparison to the Japanese diplomats in DC negotiating with Sec Hull while the fleet was sailing for Pearl.
That’s stuff is pretty gross and contemptible and just the kind of stuff that gets posted here all the time when discussing Obama.
I’m sure certain Texans and Manhattanites regularly write far worse crude crud.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
No, actually, Mr Cluck, you guessed wrong, and your equivocation is silly. I could post foul indictments of Obama all day long at effin Zombie Contention by bloggers and journalists and other intellectuals and pols, and it wouldn’t even register on the scale against statements from leading Dems and Dem surrogates.
Feinstein’s statement was just ridiculous, but so was her entire raging performance on the Senate floor, excoriating McCain, Demint, and others for having the temerity to raise the issue of water for the California Central Valley. You see, not letting the Interior Department get around to it in its good time was a Pearl Harbor surprise attack.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
@CK MacLeod – I couldn’t find a decent link to Feinstein’s statement. Nothing more than a short para.
Do you have something longer to aid my education and sharpen my shame?
(what’s a Dem surrogate?)
September 26th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Excuse me while I whip it out…
September 26th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/866679.html
Once you have the date, if you really want to view the performance or get the full context, you might have to dig through C-SPAN or Thomas, unless Fox or CNN happens to have a video still available for one or another report.
The mention of Pearl Harbor was trivial – frankly I found it more amusing than offensive in itself, though neither Feinstein nor the thirsty farmers were amused at all.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Yes, you have. A while back I quoted John Hinderaker, and you called him a “bunghole” without explaining why. I replied that I have a great deal of respect for him. If you read him regularly you’ll realize that he and his colleagues Paul Mirengoff and Scott Johnson are exceptionally bright and knowledgeable people.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
@Peter Shalen – Peter, you’re right. I have heard of Hinderaker. I didn’t realize that this was his work as the name atop the opinion was only John and atop the site was a large picture of somebody else named John.
I confused the two.
If you respect the guy, I’ll read some more of his stuff in future and either take back my slur or bust your chops a bit.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
@CK MacLeod – You dazzling urbanite.
http://www.classicmovies.org/sounds/whipthisout.wav
Sorry, MacLeod, turns out it’s forbidden.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
How about some forbidden fruit?
http://thegenderblenderblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/banana-flasher1.jpg
September 26th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@fuster – I was going to delete my off-color remark, but I’m wondering if we should permit an “anything by Mel Brooks on Saturdays” exception to our usual standards of good taste.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
@CK MacLeod – MacLeod, I doubt that your remark was all that colorful.
If you could find that offensive, I would have to wonder how you’ve refrained from taking a horsewhip to me.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
@Peter Shalen – Peter, I poked around a bit and found one or two odd things that Hinderaker has said.
The first is somewhat trivial. He wrote that Bush was a more accomplished public speaker than is Obama.
I would have to assume that he must really, really have a crush on Bush or an enormous untamed animus running loose somewhere.
The second I found to be fairly serious. He has repeatedly offered his opinion as a lawyer that the president has the Constitutional authority to operate a warrantless wiretap program within the country for the purpose of
gathering intelligence related to terrorist activity.
Hinderaker goes on to hold that even if both ends of the conversation are being held within the country, the executive may still Constitutionally intercept the call.
This is not a good opinion for him to advance without qualification and I didn’t see him qualifying.
Actually in one post he holds that Americans can Constitutionally have their conversations monitored without warrant if the executive deems it necessary.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Why do I have the sense that “poked around” on Hinderaker probably means “looked up some criticisms at leftwing sites,” but may not mean reading what Hinderaker actually wrote in full?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am
@fuster – Please give me some links, fuster.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
@CK MacLeod – and @ Peter, The stuff about the Constitutionality and wiretapping is from Powerline, and I would never have thought that a lawyer would very specifically have printed that a warrantless tap on American citizens would not be an “unreasonable search and seizure.”
If you guys can’t find this in the Powerline archives, let me know and I’ll go digging again.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
@fuster – Well of course it’s on Powerline. That’s where John Hinderaker writes; he’s one of the three bloggers there. I’ve read dozens of pieces by the three of them on the issues surrounding warantless wiretaps, and I’ve been impressed by their grasp of the consitutional law surrounding these issues. In fact, every time I hear someone use a simplistic slogan like “a warantless wiretap is an unreasonable search and seizure,” I wish I could explain the complexity of the issue the way the Powerline bloggers do.
We’re not going to get anywhere until and unless you provide me with the link you have in mind. Then I can read the specific passage you object to, and respond.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@Peter Shalen – Peter, here’s one link, but as you noted the posts ran through Dec 2005 and, IIRC, into Jan.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2005/12/012438.php
The post that contained the not an unreasonable search line was by another poster (Paul?) and not Hinderaker and I’ve got to apologize for the sloppy attribution.
I remain less impressed than yourself with the defense offered for unrestrained executive authority.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
fuster – the particular post you link to gives numerous examples of actual and theoretical legal “restraint” on the executive. It’s really not helpful to reduce detailed arguments to simplistic straw men. There is a lot of constitutional and historical gray area in the separation of powers, especially in regard to war powers. Enough gray area, I would add, to make many on the right very uncomfortable.
Could you link also your “more accomplished speaker” than BO source, too? Hinderaker and the other Powerliners have a history of playing Devil’s (or Bush’s) advocate on points of conventional wisdom, and have frequently had tongue-in-cheek descriptions of Republican “genius” treated with totally humorless seriousness by leftist critics who have either been duped or are arguing in bad faith. Without those two shifting and blending alternatives – duped and/or deceitful – sites like ThinkProgress and TPM would be starved for material.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
@CK MacLeod – I have not in any way reduced the argument to the strawman level as you’re suggesting.
Perhaps you don’t understand that Hinderaker bases his argument for domestic warrantless on Article II.
I’ll go make a quick look for the other thing, but be a good Tsar and cease worrying that your simple subjects are too simple.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Here, I’m not seeing the sarcasm.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022038.php
September 27th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Why shouldn’t he? Should he just ignore it? He rather extensively, for a blog post (in which he among other things argues against the “unrestrained” position of the Bushies on Hamdi) examines how executive powers have been interpreted and constrained legally.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
@fuster – so? Bush was Prez for 8 years, committed a handful of gaffes, had a few other statements or events blown out of proportion by his enemies. Obama had been President-elect for a few days, and had already managed to get himself in trouble. He’s done the same thing many times during this first year, though his overexposure has given him more opportunities to shoot from the hip and hit his toes. That he’s a complete space alien surrounded by left-liberal werewolves and vampires also harms his attempts to communicate with regular Amurricans.
Anyway, nothing in the linked comment supports your original statement on “accomplished public speaker.”
September 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
fuster, I’m frankly not at all certain that you read this post to the end. Most of it is devoting to to elaborating on this sentence: “There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts. The overriding principle is that searches of Americans (defined to include resident aliens) must be reasonable.” I don’t think you can read all the material following that sentence and then simply dismiss the argument with a slogan like “unrestrained executive authority.” If you think the discussion following that sentence is flawed, please explain why.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Way to gig the frog Peter and Colin!
September 27th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
@Peter Shalen – Peter, the argument isn’t good because the issue of warrantless searches was addressed by legislation.
The cases cited predate FISA.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
@Sully – Piling on, Sporky?
September 28th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
@fuster – You still haven’t read the article through to the end. Hinderaker addresses the very claim you are making. Every time I write something you read the article just far enough to think you can reply. Try reading the whole article.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Read the entire article, frog.
The power of
commands you.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Peter, have anything else of his for me to read?
This is still just wrong. What do you see here that you like?
Perhaps we aren’t in agreement as to the facts of the surveillance program. If we were, maybe you would understand that Hinderaker is basing the bulk of his defense on the gathering of “foreign intelligence” which is usually defined as involving foreign governments and their agents.
He puts up citations of cases allowing for warrantless actions by the executives, but he never comes near to reaching the facts of the NSA program. He never explicitly addresses that, but instead goes on to the Constitutional argument.
This switch probably is an acknowlegement that the administration had the NSA go beyond the legislation (and case law), but the Constitutional argument is radically wrong.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
fuster, this is the first time (at least in a couple of hundred years) that we’ve been at war with a foreign non-governmental entity. It seems obvious to me that we need to adapt the definition of “foreign intelligence” to the new situation. Maybe that’s our fundamental disagreement.
I don’t know what you mean here. The constitutional issue is the subject of his post. He’s responding to people who are claiming that all warantless searches are unconstitutional, or that these particular warantless searches are unconstitutional because of FISA.
How did the administration go beyond case law? Is this again based on you claim regarding the definition of “foreign intelligence” or on something else? As for the claim that the administration went “beyond legislation,” I think that may come back to the Article II issue.
Now where did that come from? As far as I can see, you’ve been claiming up to now that JH was wrong in focusing on the constitutional argument and ignoring the details of these cases. Now you toss out the assertion that “the Constitutional argument is radically wrong” without explanation. What do you think is wrong with it?
September 29th, 2009 at 9:04 am
1) He may be responding to people who say that all warrantless searches are wrong, but that’s not significant. The Congress was clear about exceptions.
2) These exceptions do not reach anywhere near to what the NSA was directed to do, what it did, and what Hinderaker is attempting to defend.
When I ask you about the facts, I’m referring to the NSA intercept program.
Do you have an idea of what the NSA was doing with domestic communications?
If you read through Hind’s argument, he reaches the point where he says that there is no explicit legislative authorization for what the administration intercepted in domestic communication and neither is there judicial opinion to support collecting domestic communication. Hind holds that the intent is to capture foreign intelligence, but he omits that the means are too broad and forbidden by statute.
3) That’s where he does what I called switching to the Constitutional issue.
He attempts to say that the prohibitions aren’t valid because of the powers granted to the executive in Article II.
The argument is that the executive isn’t subject to the legislative limitation on domestic intelligence gathering if the intent is to develop foreign intelligence and protect the nation’s security.
It’s a rather sweeping assertion and not a good one from the point of view of someone
believing in individual liberty.
It pretty much says that the power to decide which searches and seizures are reasonable lies with the executive branch, not with the government as a whole.
The executive can’t be fettered by Congress and needn’t refer questions of reasonableness to the Judiciary until after doing whatever it deems reasonable.
It also is an argument that is not recognized as valid by SCOTUS in past and will be rejected again in the Ninth Circuit case (al-Haramain) that grew out of this program.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:53 am
fuster, there are obviously a lot of issues to address at this point, but let me start with this:
Perhaps you know something I don’t. My own starting point is what Hinderaker writes:
So what was NSA “doing with domestic communications” that I don’t know about, and that is so shocking?
September 30th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@Peter Shalen – Peter, start by reading the NYT story that Hinderaker joined in decrying and then you might want to follow my suggestion and read about al-Haramain v. Bush.
I do think that one is interesting. It’ll probably put an end to the Hinderaker Art II argument.
But it’s also interesting because it involves government intercepts of the plaintiffs talking with their attorneys.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
@fuster – fuster, I had decided that instead of trying to discuss 12 issues at once, I would take a specific sentence from your previous comment and ask you to explain it. You had written “Do you have an idea of what the NSA was doing with domestic communications?” I take this to mean not what information they were gathering, but how they were using that information. Was I misreading this? If not, you need to give me an example of how they were using information. If there’s an example in the Times article, say what it is instead of asking me to try to find it there. (I’ve read plenty of summaries of the article, and never a word about how information was being used.) As for government intercepts of plaintiffs talking with their attorneys, we can talk about the legality of that another time, but it’s not an example of how information was used.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
@Peter Shalen No, Peter, the issue of the gathering of information is primary, particularly the illegal gathering of information, and Hinderaker’s very over the top assertion that Article II allows the executive to gather information without regard to legislation if it decides that “national security’ is the purpose.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
In other words “what the NSA was doing with domestic communications” doesn’t mean what it seems to mean. It means “what domestic communications the NSA is monitoring,” or some such thing. Is that right? Peeling off the layers of confusion arising from the obscure way you express yourself is so exhausting that we may never actually get to the level where the source of our basic disagreement is revealed.
September 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Then there’s this:
Your complaint is not about his “switching to the Constitutional issue,” it’s about his ostensibly switching from the Fourth Amendment issue to the Article II issue. Earlier you had said “switching to the Constitutional issue” without further explanation. It made no sense to me because the whole discussion was about constitutional law. How do you expect anyone to guess what you mean?
I’m no closer to agreeing with you than I was before. I may be a little closer to knowing what you’re trying to say.
September 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm