Yeah, yeah, I know -- and I'm sorry. It's not that I'm burned out on keeping up Kn@ppster, it's that I have a lot of irons in a lot of fires right now. I'm working on the launch of a (paying!) project that you'll be hearing more about soon, trying to get Au Contraire off to a good start, busting skull on a new piece for Free Market News Network (and still waiting to hear from Mark Fadiman -- knock, knock!), tweaking that there superfrap Linux install, etc. This semi-hiatus will pay off, y'all. I promise.
'Twixt and 'tween all of this other stuff, yes, I've been following the news and thinking my cynical little thoughts. Latest topic of interest. The upcoming constitutional referendum in Iraq. A Sunni boycott is on-again, off-again; Parliament changed the rules to rig the outcome in favor of ratification, but just changed them back again today.
So how's it gonna go? My prediction is: The constitution gets ratified ... whether the voters want it to or not.
Many years ago, an associate who will remain nameless (and this time it's really not me) worked in a union shop. The contract was up, things were at a deadlock, and a strike seemed not only inevitable, but desirable. Sometimes ya just gotta show'em who's boss. My associate voted, and was in some way, shape manner or form involved in the ballot counting (which is why he or she remains nameless -- I don't know if there's a statute of limitations on what happened). The new contract was approved ... by two votes. And then the union business manager walked over to the table, picked up three of the counted "yes" ballots, wadded them up and threw them in the trash. "This strike is necessary," he said to my associate, "and I'll be damned if I'll let two votes stand in the way of what's necessary."
From the perspective of the sitting pre-constitutional government, and of the Bush administration, this constitution is necessary ... and I doubt that they'll let a few votes stand in the way. If Iraq's voters ratify the constitution, fine. If they don't, the ballot boxes will be stuffed until the desired outcome is achieved.
The Kurd/Shiite pre-constitution government has a vested interest in seeing its work ratified and the framework it has set up given durability (and, let's be honest here, they haven't given the Sunnis the kind of short shrift they could have chosen to give them). If the constitution is not ratified, that government loses its claim to any perceived legitimacy of a higher level than that of, say, the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party or al Qaeda in Iraq. They become just one more gaggle of gunslingers trying to have things their way.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, wants two things: It wants the hell out of Iraq, and it wants a plausible claim of "victory" to soften the political impact of the exit. If Iraq falls through the thin paper floor of the constitutional process and into de jure instead of just de facto civil war, then the available options both stink: Stay and continue pouring American blood into the sand (and probably in larger volumes), or leave in obvious defeat. The effect of either course will be measured in terms of lost GOP House and Senate seats next November.
To paraphrase Boss Tweed (or, depending on who tells it, Stalin), the Iraqis can do all the voting they want as long as the Americans -- or the right Iraqis -- do the counting. I'll be surprised if the constitution fails. I'll be even more surprised if its ratification isn't accompanied by more, and more credible, reports of fraud than last January's poll.
--
Technorati Tags: Politics, Iraq
IceRocket Tags: Politics, Iraq
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Monday, October 03, 2005
Curveball, low and outside?
I wasn't really sure what to expect from George W. Bush in the matter of filling Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court ... but I can tell you one thing. I didn't expect this. And, frankly, I don't know what the hell to think about it.
One route Bush could have taken was to appoint someone known as a staunch conservative, pleasing his base and setting up the Mother of All Judicial Appointment Battles with Senate Democrats. I considered this his most likely course of action. The Republicans are in deep trouble -- their only chance to come out of next year's elections in reasonably good shape would seem to be to locate, close with and destroy the Democrats in a good, hard fight. I don't know that I was expecting Albert Gonzales, but he was on my mental "short list" of likely picks.
Another way would have been to follow the Roberts route: Pick a judge with an established, but fairly non-controversial, record and then let the Democrats indulge their addiction to partisan pettifoggery to their own detriment again. That wouldn't have been the strongest approach to take, but it would have made sense -- it worked last time, right?
But Harriet Miers ... well, the opinions are coming in fast and furious. Conservative and neoconservative Republicans are outraged:
"If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large -- one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder." -- Michelle Malkin
"This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?" -- David Frum
"I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record -- someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown -- to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of." -- William Kristol
On the left, I usually take Kos as a starting point, then look for holes in the argument:
"[M]y early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fun watching conservatives go after Bush."
... and here's where I start to think that I'm seeing the outlines of the Bush strategy. I think this is a sacrifice appointment. The administration is counting on conervative opposition and Democratic obstructionism to combine and send Miers packing ... after which the former will be forgotten and the latter touted as evidence that the Dems aren't going to be reasonable about his appointments. Bush wants his battle with the Democrats without the battle part.
Yes, the Democrats look like they're on board for the moment ... but we know better. The usual suspects are going to oppose any Republican nominee; combined with conservative opposition, that's enough to sink Miers's nomination.
Her record, non-judicial as it is, is controversial enough that it's going to make waves. We're going to hear -- correctly or incorrectly -- that while serving as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission, Miers helped direct a sweetheart contract renewal to former lieutenant governer Ben Barnes to keep him quiet about his role in getting George W. Bush a safe billet in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. We're going to hear from both sides of the aisle (as a matter of fact, we are already hearing it) that her nomination is pure, unadulterated cronyism and that her only qualification is enduring and absolute loyalty to George W. Bush.
So, Miers goes down in scandal ... and months later, nobody remembers that it was 40 Republicans and 20 Democrats who brought her down. Her defeat will be laid at the feet of the Democrats ... if Bush can pull it off. Instead of seeking a congressional Ragnarok, with Democrats filibustering and the GOP pulling the trigger on the "nuclear option," he wants to play a hit-and-run game. He's not willing to risk all-out battle; he wants to create space in which the GOP can maneuver without bringing on a general engagement.
Or maybe he's just paying off a supporter with patronage. Who knows?
Something is just not right here.
--
Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, Politics, News
IceRocket Tags: Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, Politics, News
One route Bush could have taken was to appoint someone known as a staunch conservative, pleasing his base and setting up the Mother of All Judicial Appointment Battles with Senate Democrats. I considered this his most likely course of action. The Republicans are in deep trouble -- their only chance to come out of next year's elections in reasonably good shape would seem to be to locate, close with and destroy the Democrats in a good, hard fight. I don't know that I was expecting Albert Gonzales, but he was on my mental "short list" of likely picks.
Another way would have been to follow the Roberts route: Pick a judge with an established, but fairly non-controversial, record and then let the Democrats indulge their addiction to partisan pettifoggery to their own detriment again. That wouldn't have been the strongest approach to take, but it would have made sense -- it worked last time, right?
But Harriet Miers ... well, the opinions are coming in fast and furious. Conservative and neoconservative Republicans are outraged:
"If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large -- one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder." -- Michelle Malkin
"This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?" -- David Frum
"I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record -- someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown -- to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of." -- William Kristol
On the left, I usually take Kos as a starting point, then look for holes in the argument:
"[M]y early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fun watching conservatives go after Bush."
... and here's where I start to think that I'm seeing the outlines of the Bush strategy. I think this is a sacrifice appointment. The administration is counting on conervative opposition and Democratic obstructionism to combine and send Miers packing ... after which the former will be forgotten and the latter touted as evidence that the Dems aren't going to be reasonable about his appointments. Bush wants his battle with the Democrats without the battle part.
Yes, the Democrats look like they're on board for the moment ... but we know better. The usual suspects are going to oppose any Republican nominee; combined with conservative opposition, that's enough to sink Miers's nomination.
Her record, non-judicial as it is, is controversial enough that it's going to make waves. We're going to hear -- correctly or incorrectly -- that while serving as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission, Miers helped direct a sweetheart contract renewal to former lieutenant governer Ben Barnes to keep him quiet about his role in getting George W. Bush a safe billet in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. We're going to hear from both sides of the aisle (as a matter of fact, we are already hearing it) that her nomination is pure, unadulterated cronyism and that her only qualification is enduring and absolute loyalty to George W. Bush.
So, Miers goes down in scandal ... and months later, nobody remembers that it was 40 Republicans and 20 Democrats who brought her down. Her defeat will be laid at the feet of the Democrats ... if Bush can pull it off. Instead of seeking a congressional Ragnarok, with Democrats filibustering and the GOP pulling the trigger on the "nuclear option," he wants to play a hit-and-run game. He's not willing to risk all-out battle; he wants to create space in which the GOP can maneuver without bringing on a general engagement.
Or maybe he's just paying off a supporter with patronage. Who knows?
Something is just not right here.
--
Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, Politics, News
IceRocket Tags: Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, Politics, News
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Back in the saddle again
Since getting serious about blogging, I've done my best never to miss more than a day or two here at Kn@ppster -- and I owe my readers an apology for my absence this week. Sorry about that. A number of other projects simultaneously reached their "this needs to be done now" stages, a new project came along which demanded immediate attention and actually involved (ahem) money, and influenza ran rampant in the Kn@ppster household. It happens. But we'll get through it.
One of the projects which hit the "shit or get off the pot" point is Au Contraire. It's on track now. Check it out.
Coming in for the save was Zube Girl, on whose blog I at least got in a guest post, even though I fumbled the ball and forgot to let y'all know about it on the day it appeared.
I plan to be back on Monday, if not before, with my trenchant, pointed political commentary (or, if you prefer, my treasonous, delusional ravings). Have a great weekend!
One of the projects which hit the "shit or get off the pot" point is Au Contraire. It's on track now. Check it out.
Coming in for the save was Zube Girl, on whose blog I at least got in a guest post, even though I fumbled the ball and forgot to let y'all know about it on the day it appeared.
I plan to be back on Monday, if not before, with my trenchant, pointed political commentary (or, if you prefer, my treasonous, delusional ravings). Have a great weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)