Memo to Political Commentators for the Next Four Years:
With a switch from Republican to Democratic control of the White House a few weeks away, I thought I would remind political commentators of the new ground rules.
1) Republicans Must Now Oppose Executive Power; Democrats Must Be In Favor Of It. In the last few years, Republicans have been the defenders of executive power: A muscular executive has been needed to fight the war on terror. On the other hand, Democrats have opposed a strong executive on the ground that it threatens the rule of law. Please note that these arguments must now switch. Republicans must now talk of the dangers of executive power; Democrats must now speak of how a strong and agile executive branch is necessary to a modern democracy.
2) Republicans Must Now Oppose Judicial Confirmations; Democrats Must Be In Favor. In the last few years, Republicans wanted an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees; one of their leading blogs on the judicial confirmations was ConfirmThem.com. On the other hand, Democrats focused on the importance of carefully evaluating judicial candidates. Please note that these arguments must now switch, too. Republicans should now visit RejectThem.com (still an available domain name, btw -- won't be for long!), and Democrats should emphasize the need for a quick up or down vote.
3) Republicans Must Now Favor Legislative Oversight; Democrats Must Now Oppose It. You get the point by now. Yup, everyone has to switch sides on this one, too. If we all stick to the script, in 6 months the old arguments of the Bush era will be long forgotten. (Oh, and extra credit to those who charge the other side with hypocrisy for changing sides without noting that they have changed sides, too.)
1) Republicans Must Now Oppose Executive Power; Democrats Must Be In Favor Of It. In the last few years, Republicans have been the defenders of executive power: A muscular executive has been needed to fight the war on terror. On the other hand, Democrats have opposed a strong executive on the ground that it threatens the rule of law. Please note that these arguments must now switch. Republicans must now talk of the dangers of executive power; Democrats must now speak of how a strong and agile executive branch is necessary to a modern democracy.
2) Republicans Must Now Oppose Judicial Confirmations; Democrats Must Be In Favor. In the last few years, Republicans wanted an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees; one of their leading blogs on the judicial confirmations was ConfirmThem.com. On the other hand, Democrats focused on the importance of carefully evaluating judicial candidates. Please note that these arguments must now switch, too. Republicans should now visit RejectThem.com (still an available domain name, btw -- won't be for long!), and Democrats should emphasize the need for a quick up or down vote.
3) Republicans Must Now Favor Legislative Oversight; Democrats Must Now Oppose It. You get the point by now. Yup, everyone has to switch sides on this one, too. If we all stick to the script, in 6 months the old arguments of the Bush era will be long forgotten. (Oh, and extra credit to those who charge the other side with hypocrisy for changing sides without noting that they have changed sides, too.)
Now, I am for it.
Now, Dangermouse is for babyslaughter.
Mmmmmm..... toddlerburgers.... soooooo tasty.
What's terrible about this country is that people don't care about intellectual integrity.
You'd think he'd be happy that we didn't elect the candidate know to have personally dropped explosives on Vietnamese, probably including a few children or pregnant ladies.
You just can't please some people!
Nothing to fear, except that if I make a commercial against Obama, he'll now use the Justice Department to throw me in jail. But my commercial probably couldn't be run on a radio station, because Senator Schumer's going to push the fairness doctrine through. And if you oppose Obama, his minions in the MSM will call you a RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST.
I think all mothers of Downs Syndrome babies have a LOT to fear. If Obama nationalizes health care, there's no telling how the Infanticide President will treat their babies. Maybe those kids will be denied medical care because they're deemed unworthy of life?
Can the GOP really hold themselves together that well? That will be an impressive feat of party discipline.
As it looks now, the Dems will only need 3 GOP defectors to get cloture.
We'll see. Frankly, I'm more worried that the Infanticide President will nationalize health care and mothers of Downs Syndrome Babies will be forced into abortions, possibly against their will. The guy is just sick when it comes to his abortion radicalism.
I'm more comfortable with this new set of talking points anyway. Did you hear about these "voting irregularities"? More like "voter fraud" if you ask me. The Democrats have stolen the election once again! Obama's tearing up the Constitution!
Perhaps we can take a clue from the way Democrats have acted over the past 8 years: Obama should be impeached.
As it happens, most of the pro-choice people that I know have much more profound respect for the concept of consent than anything you've ever demonstrated.
Yeah, those Democrats sure have been the party of gratuitous impeachment.
Sheesh....
The check on the president's core powers is the people electing, not the courts.
If you would like to comment here, keep it civil. If you cannot be civil, I will ban you from commenting.
People said stuff like this back when Kevorkian was doing his "death with dignity" stuff. And then they murdered Terry Schiavo. So yeah, I think that it's a possibility that forced abortions could happen in America under the Infanticide President. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
As it happens, most of the pro-choice people that I know have much more profound respect for the concept of consent than anything you've ever demonstrated.
That's funny. Most abortion advocates I know seem fine with China's one-child policy.
Best post of the day, no doubt.
I also look forward to all the work that his massive regulation of the economy will provide to lawyers.
I also look forward to demagoging him for the economic malaise that his economic policies will cause.
I don't look forward to losing the Supreme Court for another generation, or the continued inability for states and communities to ban the barbaric practice of abortion.
We should for the most part allow Obama to govern without obstructionism, otherwise it will take longer for conservatives to regain power.
Wake me up when Biden claims to be part of the executive when resisting congressional sanction while at the same time claiming to be part of the legislature when called upon to observe laws that bind the executive.
I'm amused by musings on Fox tonight that maybe the US is a centre-left, not centre-right, nation like they'd thunk. Of course it's a centre-right nation. That's why it elected Obama. It's no longer radical right, at least for now.
going with the tribal identification to your grave, huh? good for you. i am sure you won't be tempted by any of the points listed by prof. kerr.
Maybe now my arguments will start go gain some traction with them.
Maybe now we can go back to having at least one of the major parties being *against* expanding government powers over our economic and personal lives.
That would be a nice change.
Right on. Don't filibuster anything. Let them go all out: fairness doctrine, mandatory service in the Civilian Defense force; universal health care; repeal taft-hartley, repeal Nafta and embrace protectionism, tax payer fund abortions; 70% marginal tax rates; draconian enviro regs. Gosh it'll be like 1979 all over again.
We just need to find our Reagan for 2012. Jindal?
I can't find the draft op-ed you wrote a few years back when the Roberts and Alito nominations were being debated, but I'm reminded of it: "The [Democrats/Republicans] in the Senate should be [commended/ashamed] for [preserving the vital institution of/stooping so low as to use] the filibuster, a last [ditch loser's veto/resort check against tyranny]..." or something like that.
Pseudonymous blog commenters shouldn't say things like this.
2. Again, because Democrats control the senate, shouldn't conservatives start setting up shop at filibusterthem.com instead?
3. Not only must Republicans favor legislative oversight, they must favor minority Senate oversight. Since the minority in the House has virtually no other task than to complain about they minority status . . . .
That one was turned into an LAT op-ed.
this one is not quite true. much of the opposition to a strong executive under bush wasn't the strong executive per se but the fact that bush was using his power to break the law and lie to the american people. supporting a strong executive under obama would not be an example of cognitive dissonance as long as he doesn't use his power to blatently violate the law.
(i'll not for the inevitable reply comment that even if obama does break the law, it would still be hypocritical of most republicans to complain because they clearly had no problem with bush breaking the law.)
Taking a clue from the Dems would be a retrograde step. For pussies like them, it's 'should be'. For action heroes like the GOP it's 'will be'. (cf Clinton)
If that occurs, I was wrong and will volunteer for the Republicans in the nearest swing district to where I live.
VC commentators, you are terrifying.
Some of us swing voter/split ticket people actually think this stuff is more important than who wins any given election. And we keep score for a long time.
Whee!!!
I agree, except:
1. Obviously they need to attempt to obstruct policies which limit the ability of conservatives to ever regain power (fairness doctrine as an example).
2. Conservatives may need a long time to rediscover and rally around core principles of limited government and individual responsibility (perhaps now is the time for conservative Libertarians to stop toying around with a third party that never scrapes together more than a few votes, and redirect the Republican party?)
It's not always an issue of moral equivalencies to realize that if you complaint about your opponent's associations, your associations are going to come into question; if you take drastic measures to prevent your opponent's judicial nominees from confirmation, your nominees might face a hard road. As for my liberal brethren, I often wince when they complain about things such as Republican's stabbed-in-the-back meme (Iraq War wasn't wrong. It was just executed wrongly), when that same logic has been applied by liberals to a whole host of their chosen policy positions.
The point is, hopefully, people can maintain some level of intellectual honesty. For Republicans, that means not falling into Obama Derangement Syndrome once he takes office, since it was clearly a problem for some re:Bush. For Dems, that means, for example, not taking office thinking the election gave Obama an overwhelming amount of policitcal capital which he now needs to spend. [I think Obama's speech last night, at least on its face, showed a level of humility we liberals complained about with post-election Bush speeches, but time will tell]
Ahhh. Intellectual honesty.
So Gitmo's okay now.
I expect extraordinary rendition and vigorous interrogation to be legitimated within the month.
"And with that, I'll take leave of blogging at this site for the foreseeable future. I hope to return when a president nominates judges who have a solid record of supporting the rule of law instead of the rule of men, and who understand the grave damage done when judges exercise power without authority."
Right on cue.
They banned me.
The trigger can now be listed as ground rule four:
Republicans must now favor government transparency (and leaks to the press), while Democrats must now seek to lock down government information, in order to protect national security and to maximize the ability of the administration to manipulate the press.
1) Government is out of control, regardless of who is in office
2) The executive branch is becoming so bloated as to be an existential threat to republican liberty.
Hence why we are headed towards tyrrany. Maybe we have a few decades, maybe a few centuries, but that is the direction both parties are taking us.