Opinion
New Congress ripe with political posturing
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Zach Stern:
- Conservative betrayal (April 14, 2005)
- Freedom and responsibility (May 5, 2005)
- For everything else, there's bankruptcy (March 17, 2005)
- The revolution continues (March 3, 2005)
- Voter apathy with reason (February 17, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The 109th Congress has begun, its Republican majority in place and ready to begin its mighty task of bold new economic reform and supporting the president’s war against terror. That said, much of members’ time has already been held up by political posturing from the left, particularly involving the nomination debates of Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales for the posts Secretary of State and Attorney General, respectively. Each the first members of their respective minority group ever to be nominated to hold these lofty positions, Democrats have spent the time throughout their nomination proceedings lambasting administration policy, making wild claims in an effort to say anything that could improve their already dismal political position.
From the ever-illustrious Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia (former Ku Klux Klan member) to everyone’s favorite out-of-touch California senator, Barbara Boxer, Democrats lined up their leftist members in an almost parade-like fashion to attack Rice on highly specious grounds. In one of the most rigorous questionings in the history of Cabinet nomination proceedings, Rice answered almost 200 questions in testimony, and roughly the same in writing as well, all so that her inevitable acceptance could be delayed needlessly. The futility of their obstructionism never even kept private, many senators began their statements acknowledging the likelihood of her eventual approval. With a majority of Democrats joining with Republicans to approve Rice, only 13 senators voted against her.
This is not, however, to say that questioning Cabinet appointees is unnecessary or futile. It is to say that the rude manner in which Democrats used Rice’s nomination as an opportunity to take potshots at Bush is little more than Congressional obstructionism, the kind that got former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota thrown out of office by his constituents, the first Senate leader to have lost re-election in a half-century. Senators up for re-election in 2006 would be wise to remember that voters demand action, not stalling. Obvious to everyone, Rice is simply going to continue the policy of the administration as set by Bush. Debate over this fact is meaningless, and only serves as a way for members of the minority to stall progress and navel-gaze.
However, one Senator is already beginning to stand out from the crowd amongst the Democrats as a symbol of what his party once represented: Barack Obama of Illinois. In questioning Rice, Obama actually asked questions that were not personal attacks, balancing his personal biases toward effective policy with reasoned understanding. Calm yet stern, Obama did not waver on his tough questioning, but never resorted to the malicious and callous nature of his cohorts, preferring instead to actually try and learn from Rice about some of the most important issues facing our nation, such as nuclear proliferation and international credibility.
Democrats, you should be proud to claim Senator Obama as one of your own.
In addition to Obama’s wise questioning, other Democratic senators were wise to grill Alberto Gonzales for his unclear responses regarding torture.
Republicans, take note: defending torture in any capacity is a recipe for electoral defeat. Period. If it’s hard to convince voters of nuance involving congressional proceedings, imagine the difficulty in defending certain acts of coercion easily bordering on a common sense definition of torture. It’s not just poor policy — it’s bad politics. Democrats own this end of the debate, and it shows.
Alberto Gonzales, the man chosen to be the lead prosecutor for the people of the United States of America, found it difficult to condemn torture. This fact alone should be somewhat disturbing, not only in regard to the moral clarity involving such an issue at the more general level, but also the ineffectiveness of torture as an information extracting procedure. Information gained through torture is highly questionable given the nature of the coercion. Almost more importantly for Republicans, they must do a better job to convince those wary of Attorney General John Ashcroft that Gonzales is any different. Defending torture isn’t the best way to go about this.
And so the 109th Congress begins with both hope and trepidation, the stakes high and the possibilities for the future even higher. Two historic Cabinet appointment debates later, we can already begin to see how this Congress will likely play out. With a newly strengthened majority, Republicans will likely face stiff opposition from the more vitriolic leftists, they must also be wary of succumbing to the pitfalls of hubris: a difficult task, indeed. Power unchecked is a recipe for tyranny, and Democrats must fight against fully insulated thinking from the majority.
Hopefully, both sides of the aisle can follow in the footsteps Obama has already made in such a short time — question the opposition, but recognize the fact that not only are those who disagree with Democrats human beings as well, they are reasonable ones at that. Reasonable people can disagree; rational people discuss why. Let’s see where the Democrats end up.
Zach Stern (zstern@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
Why exactly is it inappropriate to ask Rice to be accountable for her role in the manipulation of the American people? Simply knowing that something is going to pass is no reason not to stand on your principles and fight it. Otherwise what's the point of Democrats even showing up for work since they know that the Neo-Cons can pretty much do whatever they want. If the Democrats have to be reduced to second class citizens in Washington they damn well better at least stand on their principles and make it as hard as possible for the Neo-Conmen to run us into war again. (Iran, here we come!)
Does the Badger Herald own a dictionary? This is the second time this week they put "ripe" when they should've put "rife" in a headline.
Oooh. Way to take a stand on torture there Zach. You're one tough, independent minded Republican. Yet, you didn't go far enough. If defending torture is inexcusable, why should Gonzales be head of the Justice Department? Hands down, he shouldn't, but you won't actually stick to your principles that far. You just sound like a centrist right, when in the end you defend your party do or die. Gonzales is one of the least qualified men to ever be in charge of the Justice Department. He's a corporate and personal lackey who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag if he didn't have someone leading the way.
And before anyone accuses this post of being racist, understand I couldn't give two shits over Gonzales, or Rice's race. I judge people on their actions, a priori of race as it were, and the fact that they both have inspirational stories and come from tough backgrounds (well, Gonzales did, not Rice) so fucking what? So did Clinton, Truman, Lincoln, the list goes on and fucking on.
BFD, and to that, Gonzales is a bad choice and so is Rice, for the simple reason that they are Bush's buttboys and girls and carry his water instead of thinking on their own.
How come racial minorities in agreement with the President are automatically assumed to have no minds of their own?
On the contrary, the white folks in the administration, i.e. Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft - are all assumed to be using the puppeteer strings on Bush.
I think there's something no so subtle coming from the left here.
Any Republican who had attacked any person of color appointed by a Democratic President would automatically be pilloried as a racist. It's amazing that a former KKK recruiter gets away with it without a peep by the politcally correct crowd!
ps. There more a little evidence that it is Rice who makes policy - not Bush.
"How come racial minorities in agreement with the President are automatically assumed to have no minds of their own?
On the contrary, the white folks in the administration, i.e. Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft - are all assumed to be using the puppeteer strings on Bush."
I make no such assumption about Rove, Rummy, and Ashcroft. I assume that they, like Rice, have no minds of their own.
I assume that the puppeteers are oil executives and rabid evangelicals.
While rife could work in the headline, ripe is also appropriate.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ripe
9. Emitting a foul odor, especially body odor.
see "Rice and Race"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006215
"A lot of African-Americans are watching this and they're wondering why [Democrats] are going after her so hard. She has an exemplary record. She's probably better qualified than most secretaries of state that we have had."
What I think this place needs is more rancor. Can we make that happen please folks?
"What I think this place needs is more rancor. Can we make that happen please folks?"
Absolutely! We just haven't been putting much effort behind being major league assholes yet.