watch this space
Excerpts from today's Wash Post article on Sen. Warner with my comments in brackets.
I regret that I was not more outspoken" during the Vietnam War. [Come Nov. '08 let's spare Warner any more opportunities for regret.]
The 80-year-old senator won't say whether he will run for a sixth term next year. [Who cares? He clearly doesn't deserve a seventh term. It's been rumored that Warner is going to hold off announcing his retirement until late in the game and throw his support to Tom Davis, an otherwise problematic candidate for the far right, but still a candidate who should be unacceptable to most Virginians. By acting to replace Warner with a good Democrat now we can foil this slick plot.]
"I gotta tell you, I've gotten to that wonderful age in life -- I don't worry," he said. "If you do what in your heart you feel is right, go to sleep. Don't worry. I go to sleep and I don't worry." [Can we at least agree that today's crises call for leadership that's a little less complacent?]
"John Warner understands full well that he is elected to the U.S. Senate, which is a separate and equal branch of government," said Gillespie, who has since become chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia. [Gillespie's words are worthless. Let's hear what Mr. Separation of Powers thinks of Bush's unitary executive power grab.]
Warner not only opposed North's candidacy, he recruited an independent challenger -- former Republican attorney general J. Marshall Coleman -- who helped give the race to then-incumbent Sen. Charles S. Robb (D). Infuriated, Virginia conservatives persuaded former president Ronald Reagan's budget director to challenge Warner in the 1996 Republican primary. [See? There's precedent for Warner's slick maneuvering.]
Warner won easily and in the process cemented what had been an evolving reputation as a moderate, independent politician. [Moderate these days seems to mean anyone who hasn't wholly bought into Bush and Cheney's imperial visions.]
"His support for a redeployment resolution -- and his opposition to the surge policy -- is very important," said U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a longtime friend. "It's going to have a very profound impact on the debate." [Uh oh. Let's hope Rep. Moran isn't displaying HIS independent streak.]
Warner's resolution gives some of his Republican colleagues a politically safe position to take on a war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public. "When John Warner decides that these issues have seriousness . . . there are a number of people who come with him," said Warner's new Virginia colleague, Sen. James Webb (D). [Much bigger uh oh. Assuming the Dems nominate a reasonably electable candidate, Webb will have no room to display just how serious he was when he joined the Democrats after a history of such Republican partisanship that he endorsed and voted for Allen over Robb.]
"John Warner can be a patriot and still do something foolish that hurts our foreign policy," Kristol said. [As harsh as I've been to Warner in my comments above, at this point, if I have to choose who's more foolish Warner or Bush, I think I know which way I'll go, and I'll take great glee in observing that self-styled intellectual Kristol has had a career that included being Chief of Staff to Dan Quayle and now is bottoming out with trying to scare people into thinking that if they disagree with the dumbest President in U.S. history they're foolish.]
"Those who say we're not doing the right thing, tell me, what is the obligation of the Senate?" he asked. "Do nothing?" [Then again, don't think I'm willing to accept marginally-less-foolish-than-Bush as some sort of great thing. Can we please have another Senator like Webb who doesn't resort to schoolyard debating tactics like this.]
Sen. Warner, just because the bloodthirsty xenophobic war profiteers are against your proposed resolution doesn't mean that it's right. The right thing to do is something that might actually force a change toward peace. If a toothless resolution like yours passes the Senate, that means the White House is allowing it to pass, which means Karl Rove has decided that, while they'd rather have no resolution, at least, a toothless resolution does nothing to stop the war (or any coming war with Iran). So, as the blood flows ever more, and our Treasury shrinks, and our future becomes less safe, you just keep sleeping soundly, and don't worry about the fact that while you sleep, we're working to make this your last term.
I'm not saying it'll happen or that she'll deserve it, but how cool would it be if Hillary Clinton were elected and had most of the country behind her?
My earliest political memories are of the '68 Dem Convention in nearby Chicago (age 7 when my father took us to his parents' house in Memphis to avoid the chaos), my friends' older siblings calling the President Tricky Dick and generally implying that Democrats were cooler than Republicans (age 9, backed up my uncool father leaving the Dems for Nixon in '72), and Watergate (age 11).
I remember despairing over Carter emerging as the front runner in '76 and believing that the Democratic Party decided after McGovern's huge defeat that they had no choice but to moderate. Only the nightmarish prospect of Ronald Reagan becoming President made me think that Carter being re-elected would be o.k. Mondale didn't have a prayer. I assumed the country would have given Reagan a third term if they could; so, I was not at all surprised that Dukakis lost.
When the big names like Cuomo opted out for '92, I assumed Bill Clinton would fare no better. I had many misgivings when Bill Clinton was elected in '92. Nevertheless, I remember getting swept up in the hype and the possibilities. Despite all his faults and the damage done to the Democratic Party in Congress during Clinton's two terms, there's no way I'll ever believe it would have been better if he had never been elected or re-elected.
How great did it feel when not only did the Dems fulfill expectations in re-capturing the House last November, but surprised all but the most optimistic Dems in re-capturing the Senate? Certainly, the climate has changed thus far this year. And prospects for continued Democratic control of the Congress that will convene in '09 look very good.
At least a couple of states, New Jersey and ours have state elections this year. If the Dems can keep up the momentum, the prospects of the Dem nominee winning the general election in Nov. 2008 will look very good, especially if Bush can't find some way to counter his massive unpopularity.
If Dems win both the White House and Congress in '08, especially if Hillary is the Dem nominee, they'll have to know the importance of avoiding the mistakes they made with that type of control in '93-'94.
As the Dem Presidential primary candidates begin to challenge each other, let's keep our eyes on the prize. There's always a lot we can do even if we don't hold the levers of power. Imagine, however, the possibilities if we do.
War in Iraq and looming war with Iran got you down? I recommend a visit to Larry Johnson's posting late yesterday at noquarter.typepad.com. In stark contrast to the blather from the few remaining defenders of Bush and the still timid majority in Congress, Johnson not only asks the right questions, but proposes sensible answers.
It's sad to think that our representatives believed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that we'd be unable to focus our need to react on the ones who actually perpetrated those acts. Once the routing of the Taliban was over, even with the escape of Bin Laden, Bush and Congress could have led us to continuing the hunt for terrorists over there while fortifying ourselves over here. Even if one accepts that our own xenophobic overreaction to 9/11 and the lack of any post-Cold War counterweight excuses our eliminating Saddam's regime in Iraq (we were willing, able, and had been trying to effect regime change ever since the first Gulf War anyway) what excuse do we have for believing that we'd end up in any better situation than the one we're in now?
I just don't see how it would make us less safe to admit our mistake and move our troops out of Iraq. If, as Johnson suggests, we need to keep some kind of presence either in Iraq or in the neighborhood to deter Iran and/or facilitate our reaction to aggression, I guess I could accept that. But it should be obvious that saying we must "succeed" in Iraq only begs the question of what success means. Do we have to stay until the various factions start to resolve their disputes peacefully? Do we have to stay until Iraq's neighbors demonstrate a respect for Iraq's inviolable sovereignty? Would even a doubling or tripling of our presence significantly hasten those outcomes?
Our representatives should be daring to ask those questions of us and when they see how quickly and overwhelmingly we reject as fantasy that definition of success in Iraq, they'll respond as they should have almost four years ago. Our country, our system, our way of life has survived much worse than having to retreat from Iraq. If Bush won't lead us out of this wilderness, we have legal and non-violent ways of replacing him with someone who will.
Well, it looks like my new mission will be to support Chap Petersen in his effort to defeat Jeannemarie Devolites Davis in her bid for re-election to the Virginia Senate. I assume Dave Marsden will run for re-election to his seat in the House of Delegates, and I've heard of no Republicans announcing they will challenge him. If that situation holds, I'll be able to devote all my energy to the state Senate race. I'm still very much not over the re-election of Tom Davis to the U.S. House of Representatives. It boggles my mind how many voters in my U.S. congressional district, VA-11, voted for Tim Kaine, Leslie Byrne, Creigh Deeds, and Dave Marsden in 2005, and in 2006 voted for Jim Webb and voted "no" on the definition of marriage amendment and still voted for Tom Davis. I think getting these voters to abandon Ms. Davis in favor of Mr. Petersen should be a lot easier than it was to convince them to take a chance on Andy Hurst. Tom Davis has already shamed us in his first votes in the new Congress, and as predicted, even if he were to be a better voter, he's in the minority now and considerably less powerful. Now we hear that he'll be continuing his lousy job of representing us by devoting his time and energy for the National Republican Campaign Committee, trying to get other political hacks elected or re-elected. It's also quite possible he'll use this post to again help his wife in her state race. I'm trying to do more research on that. You can be sure I'll be scrutinizing Ms. Davis's votes, conduct, and campaign closely as the year progresses. As the name states, watch this space.
