As I Was Saying...

Victor Davis Hanson's weekly column is up, and he echoes much of what I said last week about the Democrats' unseriousness and why they keep losing:

The problem with Democrats is that Americans are not convinced that they will ever act in any consistent manner. We can argue about Afghanistan, but if one were to go back and read accounts in October 2001 about hitting back, the news reflected liberals' doubt about both the wisdom and efficacy of taking out the Taliban.

Would Al Gore have invaded Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11? If John Kerry were President and China invaded Taiwan, what would he do?

What would an administration advised by Madeline Albright, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Jamie Rubin, Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter do if Iran sent a nuke into Israel, or North Korea fired a series of missiles over the top of Japan?

Or, if al Qaeda, operating from a sanctuary in Iran or Syria, took out the Sears Tower, how would a Kennedy, Kerry, or Gore respond? Six cruise missiles? A police matter? Proper work for the DA? Better "intelligence"? Let's work with our allies? Get the U.N. involved?

Whatever we think of George Bush, we know he would do something real — and just what that something might be frightens into hesitation — and yes, fear — many of those who would otherwise like to try something pretty awful.

Until Democrats promote someone who barks out something like, "We can and will win in Iraq," or, "Let the word go out: An attack on the United States originating from a rogue state is synonymous with its own destruction," or some such unguarded and perhaps slightly over-the-top statement, I don't think that the American people will entrust their safety to the party. John Kerry, to be frank, is no Harry Truman, and time is running out for Hillary Clinton to morph into Scoop Jackson.

When we see Democrats... apprising the world that we are principled abroad in our support of democratic nations and quite dangerous when attacked — they will be competitive again.

Since they will not do that, they will keep losing — no matter how much the economy worries, the war frightens, and the elite media scares the American people.

posted by Michael 10:35:00 AM

. . .

Filibuster This!

My opinion has been solicited on the filibuster. And awaaaaay we go:

Here's why I support the abolition of the filibuster for judicial nominees at this time:

1) The Democrats must be punished. I believe it is vitally important that we have (at least) two strong, viable political parties. The Democrats have become a deeply irresponsible, unserious and petty party, particularly on international affairs. Instead of serious debate on foreign policy, we get mischaracterization and slander of the President (he lied us into war, don't you know). You have a party whose "moderates" (Evan Bayh) oppose Condi Rice going to State, etc.

Simply put, a party that embraces Michael Moore and MoveOn.org must lose power and elections until they come back to seriousness. It's the only way (if there is any way) that they will learn. Anything that diminishes the power of the Democrats, and has the potential of teaching them a lesson, is a good thing.

2) The Democrats have abused the filibuster. Simply put, Bush's nominees are not "extreme". My evidence? The Democrats have a luxury the GOP does not: their opponents include many moderates in the their ranks. Why won't the Dems allow up or down votes? If Bush's nominees were indeed extreme, surely no Dems whatsoever would vote for them, and McCain, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter and others would vote against them. The Dems need the filibuster here because they know the judges are NOT extreme, and would easily win confirmation on the floor of the Senate. "The GOP abused the filibuster when Clinton was president"? See below.

3) "Worst case scenario". Shouldn't I be afraid of what will happen if Democrats come back into power and the GOP can't filibuster? I am not, because the new situation would simply be more democracy, regardless of who is in power. POTUS is elected with the full knowledge of the electorate that he will pick judges; Senators are elected with knowledge that they advise and consent. Yes, a judge is there for life once confirmed, but "extremism" in appointments can easily be punished at the polls. Requiring 50+1 votes is simply democracy in action. And it's all the Constitution requires.

Filibustering is by definition obstructionism. Whether the GOP is filibustering Clinton nominees, or the Dems are filibustering Bush's picks, the will of the majority is being thwarted to some degree. True, that may be an objectively good thing, depending on the judge. But despite my alleged "conservatism", I err on the side of giving the president a chance to take action and change things. The voters can always change them back.

And I am not afraid of "extremism" by the Dems here. If the president and the Senate are both Democratic again, I can only assume that would be because the Democrats came back to their senses and became serious again. Hence, I would have nothing to fear from a filibuster-less confirmation process under Democrats.

posted by Michael 3:44:00 PM

. . .

posted by Michael 11:23:00 AM

. . .

What will they think of next?

It's not exactly easy, and I won't make a habit of it, but I am writing this post on an Internet-enabled exercise bike at the gym!

So what's the most amazing? Blogging from a bike at the gym? Or me going to the gym at all? Or me updating Francis at all?

posted by Michael 6:53:00 PM

. . .