August 30, 2004: Last Blog of the Night

John Kerry should take speech-making lessons from John McCain. And if McCain is busy, he should try Giuliani.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Hell yes.

Posted by: Terrye at August 30, 2004 8:48 PM

R-U-D-Y!

R-U-D-Y!

R-U-D-Y!

Posted by: Catherine at August 30, 2004 8:51 PM

Saddam was a Weapon of Mass Destruction!

Yes!

Yes!

Posted by: Syl at August 30, 2004 8:55 PM

Giuliani has my vote and money for a run in 2008. Awesome political speech, he is a man who is strong where it counts, no wonder he won in New York. How can you not like the man.

McCain is to much like Kerry, always looking for the advantage for himself. Giuliani actually gave himself over to Bush....strong stuff. It will be very hard for Bush if he is reelected not to strongly support anything Giuliani wants to do like run for President.

Pierre

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at August 30, 2004 8:57 PM

Roger,

Neither CSPAN nor FNC commented on how many parts of Guiliani's speech were aimed at Jews, talking about not just Israel now, but Israel's losses by Arab terrorism in the past, and even religious references (talking about how the history of freedom and libery beating out tyranny is the story of the Old Testament.) He repeatedly intertwined our story with Israel's, Christians with Jews as the two main peoples/nations standing up for freedom.

What did you think of that? Could Guiliani reach historically liberal American Jews and convince them to vote for GWB? If not Guiliani, who?

Posted by: Greifer at August 30, 2004 9:15 PM

Sshh. Be quiet. We want him to run for Guv and kick Albany's sedentary ass.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 30, 2004 9:20 PM

i agree, pierre. i really don't see how McCain can expect to receive any support for a presidential run in '08. he has not been a team player.

i admire him, and thought his speech was quite good, but rudy is my man. he took point against kerry, and his speech was designed to serve the CiC. and he delivered it with humor and humanity.

Posted by: frendlydude2k at August 30, 2004 9:21 PM

I have a really bad stomach ache from all the red meat Guiliani and McCain fed me.

Yummy.

Wouldn't want to be on Kerry's staff right now.

Posted by: Birkel at August 30, 2004 9:30 PM

Rudy said things ..out loud, to millions ... that absolutely needed to be said; about the ME, Israel, history of the terrorism that lead to 9/11...

Stuff the doom & gloom Leftists at the DemCon avoided like the plague.

Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful.

Posted by: Darleen at August 30, 2004 9:30 PM

As I sat and watched the opening of the convention, and as I witnessed the speeches by Ed Koch, Ron Silver, and others changed by 911, I felt anticipation for feelings I thought I could properly anticipate and experience. When John McCain spoke my excitement was peaked and I felt my cup of emotions getting somewhat peaked and agitated though in a good way.

Then came the testimonies and displays of memories by relatives of those fallen on September 11th. As they spoke I pondered, as they held a silent prayer my emotions began to well within and I could hold back no more began to weep. Exploitation? I think not, not to me. This is exploitation to those that don't understand and have grown callous. As I began to weep Danny Rodriguez sang his beautiful rendition of Amazing grace. As this was sung I was overcome with rare emotions that I can hardly explain or express and I never could have anticipated. No one in my family but my wife has ever witnessed me display such emotion and I just couldn't help it, yet out it flowed.

My youngest son inquired what was wrong but I didn't answer, I couldn't as I was so full of emotion that it rendered me incapable of speaking. I tried to gain my composure but struggled. Before I could fully gain my composure my wife explained to my son about September 11th and how it had changed the world but especially his father. I love my wife, she understands and supports me in this even though she sees the world differently. She sat and watched me fall apart, she is usually the emotional one yet she understands that September 11th in fact is very different to me than others in my family. She understands that for me it transcends politics and is not to be trifled with politically. I think she understands now even more. I am changed, and tonight reminded me why. As Rudy Giuliani said, "Thank God George Bush is our President!" Thank God indeed. Also thank God for Rudy Giuliani and a Party of grown-ups and a country that allows a Jew like me live in relaitive peace and properity. Good Night.

Posted by: Samuel at August 30, 2004 9:31 PM

Guys:

Give McCain a break. He hasn't always been a team player but when the chips were down he came through. Plus he still carries a lot of weight with many undecideds and to trash him is going to be seen as bad form. Go McCain, Hell yes for Rudy, GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Kevin P at August 30, 2004 9:45 PM

I agree that both speeches were great. I disagree with McCain on some issues like campaign finance reform (I disagree with Bush here too) but I believe that he has convictions and sticks to them. That means a lot to me.

Rudy of course is the man.

I have blogged in more depth on McCain's speech here and Giuliani's speech here.

Posted by: David W Justus at August 30, 2004 9:54 PM

Roger:

Another plus for McCain is that he bitch slapped that tub of lard Moore. It will be hard to reconcile that his man Kerry wanted him to be VP and includes him in his commercials and then turned around and pointed out what a self serving slug he truly is.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 30, 2004 9:59 PM

McCain did exactly what the Bush camp needed him to do - he defined the terms of the war on terrorism and how the president has brought it within our grasp.

Rudy, though, defined leadership and through that definition showed how and why George Bush is a great leader. Not coincidentally, he also illustrated how he could continue that leadership.

Posted by: RichieD at August 30, 2004 10:00 PM

Every time I see Rudy speak, I think he should be the VP candidate.

Yes, I know Cheney is the darling of the conservative part of the Republican party (though his stance on gay marriage seems to put him at odds).

But Giuliani could be a real leader for the whole nation, I think.

Oh well, 2008 is good enough.

Posted by: JeremyR at August 30, 2004 10:23 PM

Alas, Rudy is as anti-Second Amendment as they come. He'd turn the US into Australia. Perhaps if he could be pursuaded to sign a pledge, or something? But would he keep it? And here I was just getting use to the idea of throwing all my stupid 10 round clips in the garbage...

Posted by: Demosophist at August 31, 2004 12:12 AM

I've watched John McCain's speak a number of times over the years and must say that I have not seen him more relaxed and human. John is not capable of hiding his emotions. If you have watched him in the past you know this and I have always thought that his suppressed anger was a detriment. Last night John McCain said it right and with conviction. His summation said it all for me "Take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals and our unconquerable love for them. ... We fight for love of freedom and justice--a love that is invincible. Keep that faith! Keep your courage! Stick together! Stay strong! Do not yield! Do not flinch! Stand up! Stand up with our President and fight! We're Americans! We're Americans and we'll never surrender! They will!"

DAMN RIGHT

Posted by: thirdfinger at August 31, 2004 3:55 AM

Great speeches last night by all concerned. Night One simply could not have gone better.

Then you get up in the morning and Rudy G. spends nearly 30 minutes on Don Imus' show giving the same speech and handing Imus (pro-Kerry) his sorry ass on a platter over Iraq.

I love the smell of Republicanism in the morning.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at August 31, 2004 4:00 AM

Rudy's the guy.

My ABB husband would vote for the man.

Posted by: Catherine at August 31, 2004 4:45 AM

query

I missed Ron Silver's speech---is anyone video-streaming it anywhere?

I'll check the Republican web site, but last night, when I checked it to find a convention schedule, I got nowhere. So I don't have high hopes.

Posted by: Catherine at August 31, 2004 4:46 AM

Samuel

I cried all through the survivor's speeches, and Amazing Grace, too.

My 10-year old was sitting next to me on the couch, and I kept thinking: Does he really need to see his mother still heartbroken over that day?

I didn't know the answer.

Posted by: Catherine at August 31, 2004 4:48 AM

*he took point against kerry, and his speech was designed to serve the CiC. and he delivered it with humor and humanity.*

Agreed. Plus, he showed true leadership immediately following 9-11- I have never seen a leader step up to the plate like Guiliani did- it would have been so mucb easier for him to stand aside and let the Feds handle everything- he not only didn't stand aside, he led the charge and the Feds followed his lead. In terms of inspirational leadership, there's simply no one better then Rudy.

Great speeches so far. I share several other folks reticence about McCain - I agree he's playing all the angles and has been for months- possibly playing for his 2008 bid ?

Posted by: Matt Evans at August 31, 2004 5:14 AM

Catherine,

Your son needs to see what is important to you. Don't hide that from him.

Can you net our for us the primary complaint(s) against Bush that your ABB husband holds?

Matt Evans,

You sound as if you were close enough to the scene to remember Rudy's leadership well. I'll point out, and you probably recognize, that Rudy didn't magically become a leader that day. He expanded his scope of leadership beyond what any of us could have expected or hoped for, but he had been leading NYC quite well for two terms.

Do you remember what the MSM/NYT (and many citizens of the NYC metro area) thought of him during those two terms pre-9/11? Hint: yet another Jackbooted Fascist whipping up the Brownshirts and imposing a Police State to wipe out Human Rights.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 5:33 AM

Catherine

I want to second Knucklehead's (your comment belies your username) comment. Letting your son see you cry is IMPORTANT. The fact is we were all hurt. Our country was hurt. And our country ain't perfect but it's the best thing going and your son needs to grow up with you telling/showing that to him. All the corruption of those moonbat LLLs who hate America must be confronted by people like you to keep your son straight. Besides, those ladies were so composed in front of 19k+ people and I so very much admired their poise, especially with the pain they must have been reliving during their respective talks.

BTW
I was offered a job with a law firm on the 80-something floor of the second WTC building hit. I didn't take it. I knew people in those buildings and couldn't get through on the phone. It was gut-wrenching. I cried last night as well.

Posted by: Birkel at August 31, 2004 5:48 AM

Catherine,

To see Silver's speech, go here:

http://www.cspan.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,

Click "Republican National Convention: Day 1, Evening Session, Part 1" and fast-forward to 1:00:20.

Hat tip to Allah.

Posted by: Akira at August 31, 2004 6:27 AM

I think we might have discovered our Lincoln-in-waiting candidate in 2008. Either guy will do. And I don't mean Lincoln on Mount Rushmore Lincoln, I mean Lincoln at Gettysberg Lincoln. That is, somebody 4 years from now that can frame the issues in the country and world in a dramatically new way, and has the intellect and gravitas to back it up.

I say this because the status quo will not and cannot remain, and, it is likely that there will be another terrorist strike of some kind. If we get a second sucker punch--even a small one--the challenges for that President are going to be enormous, and an enormous person will be required.

If I were a betting person, I would put the bet on McCain.

Posted by: Lapsed Randian at August 31, 2004 6:34 AM

Samuel: What a marvelous feeling post this morning !

Last night was a moment in political television to be preserved and remembered.

Guilani's speech was impassioned, humorous, warm, personal, soul felt and a wonderfully crafted argument - delivered with the deft of a real trial lawyer's closing argument. He said things no other politician could say. The MSM will not accord it the merit it deserves but what a fitting kickoff to the campaign.

Posted by: jedrury at August 31, 2004 6:39 AM

I'd love to see Guilani as VP, but Bush won't drop Cheny. 1) Cheny brings tremendous strength and wisdom to the administration 2) Bush is loyal, it's one of the reasons we like him 3) It would be giving in to the (utterly baseless) demonization that the left has been trying for the last 2 years.

But I'd be amazed if a second Bush term doesn't include Guilani somewhere. Probably either as AG or DHS Sec. To me, the big question is does Guilani want to sit on the Supreme Court?

Personally, I'd like to see him as Sec. State. But that's just me.

Posted by: Svolich at August 31, 2004 6:43 AM

At the moment I can't get on my own site because I'm not at the convention center and don't remember certain login procedures and passwords (don't ask). So I will use the comments to say something I was too blotto to write last night.

I wanted to salute my friend Ron Silver for his terrific and passionate speech last night. If had known back in '89 when we made "Enemies, A Love Story" together, which was, I think both of our finest hours artistically, that we would be two apostate liberals at the Republican Convention of 2004, finding as hard as we could in the War on Terror and for the reelection of a Bush, I would have been stunned.

Posted by: Roger at August 31, 2004 6:46 AM

Folks, not to be the conveyor of bad news, but I wouldn't get emotionlly invested in McCain for 2008. He's now had two occurrances of melanoma, and while I don't know enough about the histology and stage of the disease, the chances of McCain staying healthy that long aren't great.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 31, 2004 6:49 AM

Roger: some of us would argue that your insights and efforts on this website are pretty decent artistic efforts as well.

Posted by: Lapsed Randian at August 31, 2004 6:51 AM

Roger, I envy you. Judging by all accounts, the 2004 Republican Convention will go down in the books as a historic event.

Posted by: asher at August 31, 2004 6:52 AM

I can't add much to what everyone here has said, but I want to second what Greifer noted about how frankly and fearlessly Rudy recounted the way the recent history of terrorism is inextricably connected with Israel and the Jewish people, starting with the '72 Olympics.

It's stunning how reticent (dishonest?) the MSM are about this subject.

David Brooks in a NYT op-ed earlier this year pointed out humorously how the term "neo-con" is easy to understand: "con" is for "conservative," and "neo" means "Jew."

The MSM is very comfortable using this code word.

Jamie Irons

Posted by: Jamie Irons at August 31, 2004 6:59 AM

I have to inquire: Did the networks change their minds and actually broadcast last night's doings at the Republican Convention?

If not, one wonders how many Americans saw EITHER McCain or Giuliani's speech, and how many are, instead, going to have to live with a ten-second soundbite from Katie Couric or whomever?

Posted by: Sun-Tzu at August 31, 2004 7:16 AM

somebody 4 years from now that can frame the issues in the country and world in a dramatically new way, and has the intellect and gravitas to back it up

Word. er, words. Man, it would be nice to see more intellect and gravitas from our leaders.

In particular to have someone step up who will say that we are indeed at war, that we must prosecute this war with all our might AND avoid the stupidities and cruelty of Abu G and Gitmo. Not easy, I know, and the Supreme Court (incl Scalia) has already stepped in to override some of the more egregious silliness. But I believe that either McC or Rudy would have done a better job than Bush-- and far better than any of the Dems could have done-- in simultaneously achieving these two essential aims.

Is it unthinkable that Cheney's next visit to the doctor will find that he needs to retire from public service before November?

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 7:33 AM

Cheney is a huge liability. At best, his usefulness (in overcoming the Arabists at State and the realpolitikers at CIA) has passed. If Bush would signal to the nation and the world that we are indeed going to pursue this war without hesitation-- AND preserve our commitment to civil liberties in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's recent guidance-- then Bush would win in a landslide.

And Rudy would likely have a lock on the presidency in 2008. No better candidate than a hawkish centrist to trounce Hillary. Maybe even move NY into the Republican column. Certainly IL and PA.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 7:38 AM

Thibaud--

Give the Abu Ghraib prison thing a rest, will you. The president had nothing to do with it. Also, while there are a perhaps few too many moldering prisoners at Gitmo, by all accounts it's a well-run, humane operation. Almost all the prisoners put on weight, and several have said they would like to become American citizens some day. Better to be a prisoner at Gitmo than somewhere else on that Stalinist island.

As to your wish regarding Cheney's cardiologist: Believe it or not, Bush really values the man (Svolich at 6:43 got it right). In addition to proving Bush's loyalty, his standing by Cheney also proves he cares more about doing the right thing than getting re-elected. It's a powerful testament to the man's integrity, actually.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 7:42 AM

McCain is useful to threaten the pubbies with, but would not be a good president.

He doesn't have the temperment.

He wrote the incumbant protection act and is having a hissy that it doesn't work, wants to clamp down even more on freedom of speech. And isn't CFR his only piece of major legislation?

He also doesn't listen to the people of his state, they want the illegal immigration issue handled. He's not.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 7:42 AM

Thibaud

People with intellect and gravitas don't enter politics, they run their own businesses.

I think that if Rudy wants to prepare himself for 2008, he should not be VP under Bush. The Republicans need an unemcumbered new start to go up against Hillary or whoever the Dems run in 08. I would agree that if Cheney were to drop out for no matter what announced reason, it would send the wrong signal...and Bush is obviously loyal as they come.

Posted by: sammy small at August 31, 2004 7:44 AM

Thibaud--

Follow-up:

I know this is veering off-topic, but what freaking civil liberties are you talking about? I mean, if you're trying to make a case our civil liberties are somehow being eroded, you better get busy and name a couple.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 7:45 AM

Sun-Tzu:

You are probably right that few people actually saw these speeches last night and will probably get very filtered versions from a hostile MSM. However I am not sure it makes any difference in the long run. McCain, Guiliani, et al will be on the campaign trail throughout the battleground states. (If you live in a nonbattleground state like me you will never even know there is an election going on). What we saw were the stump speeches they will be giving in those states, excerpts of which will be broadcast as soundbites and campaign commercials. The voters in those states will come to know them well. And thats what really counts in the end.

Posted by: PeterArgus at August 31, 2004 7:48 AM

Does anybody have a link to the Giuliani/Imus talker? I tried Google but I'm drilling a dry hole there...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 31, 2004 7:52 AM

Demosophist
Rudy is for gun control I assume from your comments?
What does Australia have versus the US as far as gun ownership prevalence and rights?

Matt Evans
I for one prefer McCain over anyone else pretty much. I'd take a McCain/Hart ticket alas....
McCain would have more maneuverability on the world stage and more backing of the middle. Yet, he could not get elected because the Conservatives have power due to some size but because of a high mobility.
The question is when/if the middle of this country will get big enough to elect the truly most popular and exemplar of the American public candidates.
Centrists preferably center right.
Obviously McCain could and would have crushed Bush and Gore in 2000.

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at August 31, 2004 7:56 AM

Hey folks, Roger -- w.r.t. Ron Silver's career path etc. I thought I'd seen he did a lot of producing, but IMDB doesn't show it.

Anyway, Tom Selleck finds work, so I suspect Ron Silver still will.

May not get invited to the big parties, though.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 31, 2004 7:57 AM

I might have to save this whole thread.

Akira

Thank you so much.

The funny thing is, I've always loved Ron Silver.

I'm not usually fond of actors; I lived in California long enough, and close enough to "the industry" for long enough, that I have an active prejudice against them.

But I always liked Ron Silver.

Knucklehead

Can you net our for us the primary complaint(s) against Bush that your ABB husband holds?

If I could answer that question in a serious way, i.e. in the way you've asked it--what lies at the heart of it?--I wouldn't need to read this blog.

I don't know how long you've been reading this page, but I jumped in one morning when Roger, whose blog I'd only seen once or twice, posted the question of why some people change in the wake of an event like 9/11, and some do not.

(pause)

OK, now I'm happy you asked.

Writing that last paragraph--why do some people change while others do not?--I realize, suddenly, that for my husband and me this is no longer the right question.

It's no longer the right question, because my husband has changed. It just took him longer.

This brings me back to Samuel's observation that the whole country has moved 5 points to the right. (Samuel: if that's not an accurate paraphrase, chime in--)

In fact, both my husband and I have, now, moved 5 points to the right. We just started from different points. I was always much more conservative than he even though we both called ourselves liberals.

A month ago he said to me, in a friendly moment, not an angry one, "You are a centrist who has moved center-right."

That was exactly right, and it was a moment like Samuel's with his wife last night.

So if I can go back to Roger's original question: one answer may be that in fact most people do change, it's just that change is hard to spot.

If you're sitting on "dead center" and you move right or left your change appears sharp and obvious, because you've "tipped."

But if you're well within one camp or the other, a shift rightward or leftward goes undetected. Other people don't see it, and you don't see it yourself. (Definitely happened to me during the Clinton administration. I was shifting rightward for at least the last four years of his administration, but I didn't realize how far I'd strayed from the liberal mainstream & neither did my husband.)

As to my husband's change, it's a funny thing, because the books he's been reading since 9-11 have all been WWII books on the great leaders of that era. He read Roy Jenkins' massive biography of Churchill in the immediate wake of 9-11; he's spent the last months reading, every night, Conrad Black's massive work on FDR.

Every time I turn around he's got his nose stuck inside a big, fat WWII-and-its-heroic-leaders tome.

I'm guessing those are the books you read if you're a Vietnam-era-liberal-moving-5-points-rightward.

(pause)

So I've moved off your question.

The fact is, I don't understand my husband's ABB-ness. I understand his policy objections to George Bush, and I agree with some of them. (I've now read enough accounts of post-war Iraq, from enough different people whom I trust, that I believe the post-war period in Iraq has been massively mishandled, for instance.)

What I can't understand, and what I would like to understand, is the "ABB" part.

My husband really, truly believes that any candidate the Democrats came up with would be better than George Bush.

That I don't get.

Posted by: Catherine at August 31, 2004 7:58 AM

The Lincoln analogy is apt because it encompasses the "major growth in office" factor. Who would have guessed the W would grow and become the President he became after 9/11? There is no reason to believe that McCain has his feet stuck in the mud for the rest of his life.

If I were McCain, and I wanted to be President in 08, I would disown CFR after Bush is reelected, write it off as a bad experiment, blame it on MoveOn.org types, and couch my reappraisal in terms of the First Amendment. Nobody loses their union card for admitting there were wrong.

Most would forgive him for his Free Speech sins if he did that.

Posted by: Lapsed Randian at August 31, 2004 7:58 AM

WSJ on political mutt America

Terrific op-ed in the WSJ this morning (don't know if it's subscription or not):

The real story, however, is that Mr. Schwarzenegger is the new face of moderate, mixed-bag, political-mutt America -- the great Muscular Middle, as it were. And he's riding the crest of a big-tent movement in the Republican Party that threatens to leave the increasingly ossified Democratic Party behind. It's no coincidence that four moderate Republicans -- Mr. Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell -- are the most popular political figures in America. The Democrats can point to no corollary Big Moderates with that level of authority. Each of these superstars is first and foremost a pragmatic problem-solver who can't be bought and speaks his mind. The Democrats must dig deep into their ranks to find the same.

Posted by: Catherine at August 31, 2004 8:02 AM

These responses are pretty funny. I second a poster's remark on the refreshing degree of intellect and gravitas with a wish for more of the same, and the response comes back that loyalty trumps both of those virtues.

Recalls the horror expressed by our rock-solid Republican neighbors thirty years ago when their son, a White House fellow, came home and told them that Nixon had greeted the Fellows on their first day and told them, glowering, "I want only one thing from you: be loyal to me."

Folks, the presidency is neither a business partnership nor a golf club. Personal loyalty does not trump the national interest. That, not Bush's family relations, is what I care about.

Which is why I'll give Abu G and Gitmo a rest when these three groups of people them a rest:

1) the Supreme Court, including Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas, who if I have it right have declared unconstitutional the holding of prisoners, including noncombatants who have been proven innocent of all charges, for years with no access to counsel,

2) rock-solid Republicans such as George Will, Wm F Buckley, Georgie Ann Geyer and others who have pointed out that no such abuses as Abu G occurred during Bush Sr's presidency after the first Iraq War, even though the number of prisoners held was an order of magnitude greater;

and

3) the leadership of the Conservative Party of the UK, which is as loyal an ally as they come and which has bitterly denounced the abuses and excesses of Abu G and Gitmo. Not least because in more than one case they involved completely innocent UK citizens and because Bush has, bizarrely and shamefully, refused to offer any explanation to the Tories as to why these innocent people were not turned over to the British instead of being held for years without counsel.

And yes, the president, not Albert Gonzales or Rumsfeld or some field colonel, is ultimately responsible. Again, the Supreme Court has spoken, and Bush's father handled the problem of detainees without any incidents at all. There is no excuse, and loyal Americans should not tolerate any.

I'm at least as "loyal," btw, as anyone here. Loyalty does not mean you do not admit your f***-ups when they occur and refuse to make necessary changes. Dumping Cheney is one of those changes. Probably Rumsfeld as well.

sincerely,

lex

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 8:04 AM

Fresh Air,

Why don't you write a letter to Justice Scalia? Here's what he had to say about the unconstitutional, illegal, bizarre suspension by the executive branch of that ancient civil liberty known as habeas corpus:

http://foi.missouri.edu/execprivilege/rulingshint.html

Justice Antonin Scalia complained in his dissent in the Hamdi case that neither the president nor Congress seemed willing to do their duty as the Constitution demands.

“[the defendant] Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless (1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or (2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus.”

Scalia wondered why Bush has not asked Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, saying “if civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires” in Article I.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 8:12 AM

correction!

Sorry, this is more personal narrative, but I think it's relevant to what is happening in the country:

What my husband actually said to me was, "You've moved from left of center to right of center."

I think that's exactly right.

I also suspect that much of the country has been undergoing the same shift.

Posted by: Catherine at August 31, 2004 8:15 AM

Funny, isn't it, that the most conservative Supreme Court justice in our lifetime would so clearly and sharply denounce the executive branch's curtailment of habeas corpus as an undemocratic, secret, nad unconstitutional act.

Here's what Justice Stevens, who joined Scalia Rehnquist and Thomas in their dissent, had to say about th Jose Padilla case:

Three justices joined Justice John Paul Stevens as he declared in his dissent that the court ought to immediately order a hearing for Padilla and give him the chance to try to prove his innocence.

Stevens assails detention

“Even more important than the method of selecting the people’s rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law,” Stevens wrote.

“Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber,” a reference to the court used by the seventeenth-century Stuart kings in Britain to order torture and imprisonment of their opponents.

At that point, Stevens inserted a footnote raising the issue of torture. He quoted approvingly from a 1949 Supreme Court decision by Justice Felix Frankfurter in which the Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of a man interrogated by police relay teams for five nights and days, without being advised of his right to counsel.

"There is torture of mind as well as body; the will is as much affected by fear as by force,” wrote Frankfurter. “And there comes a point where this Court should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men.”

...Long-term detention of American citizens such as Padilla, Stevens said, cannot be justified “by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure. Whether the information so procured is more or less reliable than that acquired by more extreme forms of torture is of no consequence.”

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 8:19 AM

Thank god that one branch of our government is characterized by intellect and gravitas.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 8:21 AM

Roger:

LA Times Watch updated. The Left and Kerry Edwards now say that that to bring up Vietnam is devisive and is not relevent to the presidential discussion.Yet they can't stop themselves from bringing up at virtually every opportunity. Take for example the above the fold editorial in the Kinsley led LA LA fishwrap this morning. "Military Must Squarley Face New 'My Lai' by Andrew J. Bacevich. Once again the left has a pavlovian need to frame every discusion on this war in the terms of Vietnam. Move On, Vietnam is devisive, yet we will make that war the centerpiece of the Kerry campaign and we will bring it up at every dicusion, except if it shines a bad light on the Mass. Senator. Thibaud, no one here thinks that AG is a positive thing and no one is calling for the criminal prosecution of the people involved to be halted. Just don't wallow in it. The Iraq war is not defined by the abuses of AG. It is a small, horrible aspect of war that got rid of a madman, is setting up a fledging democracy in a country and a region that is criminally devoid of these beautifill and noble idea's. I don't think you are unloyal or unpatriotic and I do think that AG was a terrible mistake and if any Bush official claimed that it wasn't horrid I would ask that he or she resign. But to focus on it everyday is to miss the Big picture. The Left and the MSM want the discussion on the Iraq War to be AG, Vietnam, and Halliburton 24-7. They don't want the fact that Saddam is going to hang and that Iraq will have a more democratic form of governmment and some of the freedom's that we have to be discussed. AG is not suffering from lack of coverage or discussion. The perpatrators WILL go to jail. Give it a rest.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 8:27 AM

Thibaud--

Your post is riddled with misleading statements and fallacies. The prisoner level that was processed in Gulf I was nowhere near the prisoner level in Gulf II--far less. You ignore the fact that 99% of the prisoners run through Abu Ghraib and the other facilities were processed and released without harm.

Second, having said that there is no ipso facto reason George H.W. Bush being president made a hill of beans worth of difference in the treatment of prisoners. This is called the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Fourth, you have misstated the Supreme Court's position, which is that U.S. citizens may not be denied a right to an attorney. Unlawful combatants do not receive such privileges. Having said that, it has been reported that Bush requested even unlawful combatants be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Fifth, I'm not really sure what the Tories have to do with anything. Your case is known as an appeal to authority, in this case not even an authority that happens to be in power.

You can say the president is responsbile for everything that happens in the U.S. military, but that doesn't make it so, anymore than the Pope is responsible for the actions of pedophilic priests in Boston.

Seriously, give it a rest. It's a stupid line of reasoning, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Let's get back to talking about Rudolph Guiliani.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 8:27 AM

McCain got a pretty cool reception from the crowd, from what I could tell. Many Republicans don't like him, possibly because he cannot repress his prima donna attitude enough to be a good team player.

How anyone could seriously support the prime mover of the execrable McCain-Feingold bill for any office is beyond me. McCain is an authoritarian at heart, as can be seen from his reaction to the current exercise of free speech coming from his fellow veterans, the Swifties.

Between justifiable Republican suspicion of McCain, his own unstable, unpleasant personality, his age, and his health, McCain will never be President.

Thank God.

Posted by: R C Dean at August 31, 2004 8:28 AM

One reason that I haven't seen mentioned here that Giuliani is a more likely candidate for President than McCain is the difference in their ages. McCain was celebrating his 68th birthday yesterday, so he'd be 72 if he were to run in 2008. Guiliani is 60.

As Ronald Reagan proved, a man well into his seventies can be an effective and even vigorous President, but I think that the age factor, coupled with the bouts with cancer, weighs somewhat against McCain as compared with Giuliani.

Posted by: Silicon valley Jim at August 31, 2004 8:34 AM

Catherine,

The source of your 5% shift quote was this Pew Survey from Nov. '03. Although you identify certain factors as potentially causative regarding your own shift you may be overlooking the the most significant. The attraction of the left is theoretical in nature. That is, it draws upon an intellectually developed hypothetical that has never been observed. Over time and with exposure to the "real world" an intelligent person will recognize that their own cumulative experiential knowledge provides effective rebuttal to the leftist theory and the theory will be dismissed. Leftist theory is iconic only to those whose intellectual development is limited by lack of experiential input. The cocoon of the university (especially in the soft departments) is a perfect example of a nice warm place where stultification can proceed without any ugly interruptions by reality.

Your description of observing the ME fellows laughing was one of the best examples of knowledge's "bloody entrance" that I have ever read. They really would be much happier if we were all either in submission to them or dead. The survival of our culture makes it a necessity that they be disabused of the notion that there is the most minimal flicker of hope that the Islamists might prevail. Personally, I'm for letting those currently sitting in Gitmo rot there forever. I would also note that the Supreme Court has, in my view exceeded by far any theoretical mandate that could be presumed from the Constitution.

Your "shift to the right" then becomes only a "shift toward reality" and it appears that your husband (through exposure to your experiential conclusions) is going to if not join you, at least get closer to you.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 31, 2004 8:44 AM

--3) the leadership of the Conservative Party of the UK, which is as loyal an ally as they come and which has bitterly denounced the abuses and excesses of Abu G and Gitmo--

Ho, ho, ho, are you sure??????

via Samizdata.net - a UK libertarian site:

...Although the cause of this spat is laid at the door of Mr Howard's apparent equivocation over Iraq, I get the feeling that the real friction lies elsewhere. Strange as it may sound, I have been reading what sound like reasonably reliable reports in the UK press about squadrons of young British Conservative activists hot-footing it off to the USA to work in the Presidential election campaign...for the Democrats!.

...In short, the British Tories have managed to alienate one of their few powerful friends for no gain whatsoever and, since I assume that the leadership either gave their blessing to these transatlantic jaunts or, at the very least, turned a blind eye, then it merely reinforces my view that the British Conservatve Party is in the hands of buffoons and political pygmies.

Hope the link works, this is not a strong point of mine:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006592.html

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 8:47 AM

And I love Cheney - he has a really good sense of humor.

He stays, just for the poking the other side in the eye factor.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 8:48 AM

Catherine,

Thanks for taking a stab at answering my question. I've read the "intellectual" explanations for BDS such as the one given by VDH. I'm not entirely sure that ABB is the same disease even if it has substantial overlap in symptoms. What troubles me is I can't find a sufferer who can or is willing to give a reasonably concise answer about their ABB position. The sanest ones will bleat out a bunch of stuff all of which they can be knocked off of until they are left with nothing but pure Anybody But Bush. Like you, I don't get it.

Regarding positions held (using the worn out left-right spectrum), there is some small advantage to being center-right in a Blue State world of people somewhere over on the left. At least we are frequently faced with positions that are not "typical" and, therefore, have to examine them to some degree. We at least know that we are right of center even if we can't quantify that. Those who are left of center in a lefty world can easily believe themselves centrist but have nothing to force them to calibrate on "zero" from time to time. They only see half the spectrum and can easily see themselves as "centrist" when what they are is somewhere near halfway to the Land the Flaming Moonbats.

Oh well, nobody ever said life is easy (at least nobody anywhere on the right side of the spectrum ;>).

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 8:53 AM

And while Ahnold, R-U-D-Y and John are "moderates," they are on the wrong side of the abortion issue.

They are too liberal, the country is not going that way. The majority - has always - wanted limits. The majority has always been consistent - don't like it, don't want to pay for it, but not going to tell you what to do, but would prefer one not having one unless rape, incest, or danger to the mother. It's always been that way, but it always got buried under the screaming.

Even the youth who are more socially liberal don't like it. Med tech has done what 30 years of money couldn't, it's shown us.

Besides, look at their ages. All 50 and above, they don't have the pulse of the younger generations.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 8:54 AM

--Thank god that one branch of our government is characterized by intellect and gravitas.--

Yes, the same branch of government which is suggesting that future members of that august group take "international law" into consideration for future rulings.

How does the oath go again??????

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 8:59 AM

And it's a good thing thibaud wasn't around in WWII, I wonder what his comment would have been after the 537(?) court-martials.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 9:01 AM

FA,

I think it's a memebot v.2.2 with the Moby accessory package. Noted for strident insistence upon examination of the corpses of memes already laid to rest with a "Responsibility lies in the Oval office" finishing twist. This one seems to fitted with the "stream of incoherency" bandwith abuser adapter, too.

Not worth too many pixels.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 31, 2004 9:01 AM

Fresh Air,

Funny that you address me instead of Justice Scalia.

If you're not scandalized by the fact that we have tortured and in some cases killed innocent people, then I don't want to be a member of your party. As to your points, in reverse order:

Seriously, give it a rest. It's a stupid line of reasoning, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Let's get back to talking about Rudolph Guiliani.

Of course it's relevant. I seriously doubt that ex-prosecutor Giuliani does not have better sense than to order a sweeping suspension of habeas corpus, as Bush has done. Ditto for any other moderate with any acquaintance with constitutional law, including that former torture victim who's now a Senator from Arizona.

Your post is riddled with misleading statements and fallacies. The prisoner level that was processed in Gulf I was nowhere near the prisoner level in Gulf II--far less.

Not so. Tell that to General Schwartzkopf, who tallied over 50,000 prisoners.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/22/1047749993335.html?oneclick=true

One of the defining images of the 1991 Gulf War was the thousands of dispirited Iraqi soldiers giving themselves up. The huge number of prisoners became a massive logistical problem and battalions of infantry were required just to look after them. Schwartzkopf reported the shock on the faces of the Iraqi delegation that officially surrendered at the war's end when he told them the allies had more than 50,000 Iraqi POWs. They had no idea of the scale of their defeat.

You ignore the fact that 99% of the prisoners run through Abu Ghraib and the other facilities were processed and released without harm.

The Supreme Court ignored it as well. Funny how civil liberties work.

Second, having said that there is no ipso facto reason George H.W. Bush being president made a hill of beans worth of difference in the treatment of prisoners. This is called the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Your logic's as faulty as your latin. The President authorized these procedures, indeed, they were developed in the White House with the participation and advice of DoD. I suggest you re-read Scalia's comments. His whole point is that the White House may not arbitrarily suspend habeas corpus. White House means Bush. It's his policy and he should have the intellect and moral gravitas to come out and say that we had good intentions but we have screwed up, here's what we'll do differently, this is what we owe our people, our UK allies, and innocent citizens in Iraq and elsewhere.

Fourth, you have misstated the Supreme Court's position, which is that U.S. citizens may not be denied a right to an attorney. Unlawful combatants do not receive such privileges.

You're completely missing the point. There are indeed US citizens at Gitmo and those citizens, like Hamdi, "unquestionably ha[ve] the right to access to counsel," in O'Connor's words. That was the whole point of SCOITUS hearing the Hamdi case. Secondly, O'Connor also said that while non-citizens don't have the right to counsel, they certainly have the right to have their cases heard before some kind of a court such as a military tribunal. This has been denied them, and this is why our solid supporters in the COnservative Party in the UK are so upset.

Having said that, it has been reported that Bush requested even unlawful combatants be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Which were clearly, wantonly violated in scores of cases at Abu G, resulting in the deaths of many totally innocent Iraqis-- ie the very people we're trying at such enormous cost to make free.

Fifth, I'm not really sure what the Tories have to do with anything. Your case is known as an appeal to authority, in this case not even an authority that happens to be in power.

No, it's an appeal to simple common sense. The only solid and truly reliable ally we have on this planet is Britain, or to be exact, that 50% or so of Britain that sympathizes with the Conservatives and considers the Atlantic Alliance to be worth making sacrifices for. They are true friends. They will not desert us if we treat them with basic respect. But they are absolutely livid about the treatment of their innocent civilians at Gitmo, and we should not take their support for granted.

You can say the president is responsbile for everything that happens in the U.S. military

I did not say that. I said he's reponsible for broad policy, including the very new policies regarding "enemy combatants." Of course this is new ground for us, and of course we'll make mistakes. But it's long past time that Bush admitted that 1) his admin has made mistakes, and 2) the buck stops with him.

but that doesn't make it so, anymore than the Pope is responsible for the actions of pedophilic priests in Boston.

Interesting analogy. The Pope's refusal to condemn this early, and to do anything to intervene and stop it-- in fact, he's given several accused felons cushy posts in Rome, far from the authorities in latin America, Poland, or the US-- has severely damaged the Church's standing in the US and elsewhere. Is this what you want for the executive branch? If so, I'm not of your party and don't want to have anything to do with it.

Again, of course this issue is crucial, if you wish to retain the British as a loyal ally and if you wish to avoid the massive problem the admin now has. Justices Scalia and O'Connor and Stevens have guaranteed that there will now be a flood of legal challenges. I would urge you, if you still have critiques of their opinions, to send your comments to the Supreme Court. But you might want to do a little googling first.

rgds,
lex

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 9:09 AM

Alert, Alert, Thread hijack, I repeat thread hijacking in process, do not respond, do not respond, hijacker will fade away eventually

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 9:15 AM

All right, forget everything I've said about McCain as the next Lincoln. I just read Lileks' post referring to him as Don Rickles' younger brother who went to college...Go Rudy in 08'!

Posted by: Lapsed Randian at August 31, 2004 9:19 AM

I just re-watched McCain's speech. I could see through him a bit more this time.
I liked the speech a lot.
He looks a bit like a beaten down legit guy, to me, though. He's got to bide the party Line somewhat.
I think him and Powell sit in a room and say look at all this bullshit. And not that I agree with Powell's approach all the time, I don't. But they're both certainly in-arguably legit guys.

The content of his speech was great and in his own believable delivery as well, not that crescendos of Rudy perhaps.
But I just get the sense of someone who's been through some political wars... perhaps reading in my own beliefs a bit.
Its a shame because he should have and would have been President in 2000. I think he realizes that was his golden shot in his life and had he been President he'd be a sure bet I believe this time in 04.
He's starting to look older and a little less spry in his delivery and aura as well.

I don't condemn him for Campaign Finance Reform. Something has to change. There has to be some middle ground between nothing, no guidelines etc... and Big Coroporations and Special Interests dominating and the present law.

I don't think McCain was attempting to pass it to shove it up the President's ass, I think he thinks something needs to be done about it and noone wants to do anything on both sides.
Maybe the present bill can be tweeked instead of having nothing on the books.
Plus, at least in the 527 ads you see some regular people, people you know expressing opinions verus the mindless boring drone commercials we typically got.

Mike

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at August 31, 2004 9:25 AM

Roger:

Here are some suggestions for topics of discussion on this thread. Slavery in America. The Americant support of the whites in post czarist Russia, Vietnam, or, and here is a radical thought, the McCain, Rudy speeches of last night. I leave it up to everyone else to decide.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 9:25 AM

thibaud, the Honorable Justices are entitled to their dissenting opinions, but there's a reason the judiciary isn't our only branch of gov't, and why Presidents have executive authority. Especially during wartime. As Lincoln said when he unilaterally suspended habeas corpus, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces less that one be violated?"

Posted by: Bryan C at August 31, 2004 9:31 AM

Nice try, Kevin P. The issue at hand was the attractiveness of Giuliani and McCain as national leaders, and the relevance of their perceived moral and intellectual seriousness, or "gravitas."

I pointed out that either one of these men would have better judgment and show stronger leadership than W and Cheney as regards how we can simultaneously win the war and preserve our cherished moral high ground. Giuliani as an ex-prosecutor with a record of demonstrated political leadership would make a fine president, or vice-president.

The response to this observation has been bizarre assertions (like the one about the current war resulting in many more detainees than the >50,000 from Gulf War I), silly arguments and even sillier charges that the thread's somehow being "highjacked." That's a better description of what has happened to the Republican Party in recent years.

But I'm happy to leave it up to Roger. Somehow I seriously doubt that he shares your views that what has occurred is trivial and does not deserve rethinking by the president.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 9:34 AM

thibaud - "The only solid and truly reliable ally we have on this planet is Britain, or to be exact, that 50% or so of Britain that sympathizes with the Conservatives and considers the Atlantic Alliance to be worth making sacrifices for. They are true friends. They will not desert us if we treat them with basic respect. But they are absolutely livid about the treatment of their innocent civilians at Gitmo, and we should not take their support for granted."

That's mostly correct. Britain with 60 million people, one of the world's largest economies and one of the few countries with an excellent armed forces, that no Prime Minister is afraid to use, is obviously one of the US's most valuable allies, if not #1 - I'd say it is a toss up with Japan, especially with the latter's role in supporting the US$.

If it is true that Karl Rove called Michael Howard and told him off for making life tough for the sainted Tony Blair then the White House is living up to the European stereotype of a dictatorial administration looking for yes-men rather than allies. I bet they never talk to Israeli leaders like that! I think I speak for most British conservatives when I say the most important issue facing the country is our continued membership of the EU and more precisely the horrifying possibility that we will become even more integrated into an increasingly authoritarian left wing and federal Europe. This Europe will be more 'Old Europe' when it comes to foreign policy and so I don't see it being good for the US either. Blair is a Europhile and will do almost anything to railroad the country deeper into the EU - he supports joining the single currency. It is disconcerting to say the least that the US administration might rather see the Labour Party re-elected than the Tories. If they are seen by British conservatives to be supporting their arch enemy then the US will lose the support of those mostly pro-American conservatives.

As for Gitmo, few conservative Brits give a damn what happens to those being held there, and I doubt if many, if any, are truly innocent.

Posted by: Coisty at August 31, 2004 9:34 AM

Lapsed Randiam
All right, forget everything I've said about McCain as the next Lincoln. I just read Lileks' post referring to him as Don Rickles' younger brother who went to college...Go Rudy in 08'!

Here is Lileks grand detailed quote (with a picture of Rickels and McCain) http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0804/083104.html -

McCain ? eh. Didn?t listen. He reminds me of Don Rickles? brother. The smart one who went to college and never made as much money as his famous sibling, and it rankled. Oh how it rankled.

Mike

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at August 31, 2004 9:34 AM

Roger:

More suggestions- The Black Panther Party today, Haliburton, Bob Jones University, Haliburton in the first Gulf War, reparations, or, lets try this again, the Speeches of last night.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 9:36 AM

Sandy P,

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

There must be a hidden link or some unwritten part they affirm later that says something like

In the absence of support for argument taken from the Constitution and laws of the United States I will search out whatever I require in the Constitutions and laws of other nations or international organizations.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 9:37 AM

--I don't condemn him for Campaign Finance Reform. Something has to change. There has to be some middle ground between nothing, no guidelines etc... and Big Coroporations and Special Interests dominating and the present law.--

I don't agree. The contribution level was stuck in 1974, IIRC, $1000. No wonder why they were chasing money all the time.

Up the levels with tougher reporting requirements.

And let the fur fly.

People who are interested will pay attention, the others won't. Like we always have. But - shorten the campaign season, this 2 years stuff is wayyyy toooooo long.

We great unwashed masses have places like opensecret.org and the other place where we can put our zip codes in and find out which neighbors contributed now.

I am a special interest group. I am a citizen and I can join in with others who think my way be a small donation.

I am glad, tho, the IRS is going to audit all NFPs. About time.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 9:38 AM

Thibaud--

If you're not scandalized by the fact that we have tortured and in some cases killed innocent people, then I don't want to be a member of your party.

Just one comment: I am not scandalized by the actions of a few sadists in Iraq. I take responsbility for my actions and mine alone. Feeling "scandalized," whatever that may mean, is no substitute for justice--which is in process of being meted out.

I could spend all day arguing with you over this. You have served up a steaming, 18-car pile-up of non-sequiturs, red herrings and irrelevancies. But in the interests of maintaining the thread I will ignore the rest of your post.

You really need to get a grip, man! Read some Roman history or something.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 9:39 AM

Bryan,

thibaud, the Honorable Justices are entitled to their dissenting opinions, but there's a reason the judiciary isn't our only branch of gov't, and why Presidents have executive authority. Especially during wartime. As Lincoln said when he unilaterally suspended habeas corpus, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces less that one be violated?"

Are you arguing for suspension of habeas corpus in this country?

If so, then don't you agree with Justice Scalia that the president should announce his policy openly, as Lincoln did? You're entitled to your interpretation of Article I, but don't you think there would a better way to win lasting popular support for such a radical move would be, as Justice Scalia suggests, to win Congressional approval for this?

Put it another way: suppose Kerry wins in November and expands the policy beyond what Bush has done so far but without announcing this or seeking approval from Congress. Would you still be so keen on supporting the executive in that case?

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 9:41 AM

And we all must recognize that the British Conservative Party is still more left than US conservatives.

Especially w/what I've been reading about their stands lately.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 9:41 AM

Sandy P--

A tour through a recent edition of the Spectator would lead one to believe the Tories have set sail for Canada with Red Ken at the helm. I frankly think they've lost it.

Maybe PeterUK will log in to explain why.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 9:48 AM

"And we all must recognize that the British Conservative Party is still more left than US conservatives"

On some issues like economics yes that's true. On others like immigration they are moving rightward, where their supporters are, whereas Bush's immigration proposal is to the left of most European social democrats!

Posted by: Coisty at August 31, 2004 9:49 AM

Coisty,

As for Gitmo, few conservative Brits give a damn what happens to those being held there, and I doubt if many, if any, are truly innocent

Funny that the conservative UK publication The Economist has been banging on this issue for months and that the most right-wing and nationalist of the UK's newspapers, the Daily Mirror, has likewise been screaming about the Britons held at Gitmo. You may be right, but I'd be surprised if the combined audience of these respectively highbrow and lowbrow conservative publications were not broadly representative of conservative Britain.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 9:50 AM

Yeah, they're building a wall!

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 9:51 AM

Roger:

Yes, I agree, there is no issue more important then the prison scandal. The previous 30 threads were not enough. We must have it everyday, no matter what you decide to post on. If we don't focus on it exclusively we will be admitting that we think it is trivial.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 9:52 AM

Coisty-the BNP yanked them right.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 9:53 AM

thibaud - 'Funny that the conservative UK publication The Economist has been banging on this issue for months"

The Economist, founded by free trade liberals in the 19th century is conservative on economic issues, but not necessarily supportive of the Conservative Party. If I'm not mistaken they've endorsed Blair in the past - though I can't remember for sure.

"and that the most right-wing and nationalist of the UK's newspapers, the Daily Mirror, has likewise been screaming about the Britons held at Gitmo."

The Daily Mirror is left wing. You are probably thinking of the Daily Mail, which is right wing, and yes they originally broke the story about 'torture' at Gitmo. I'm not sure why such a conservative 'Middle England' paper should be so concerned about those at Gitmo, especially as most of their readers would advocate similar camps for illegal aliens. I know there is a feeling in Britain that they are being ignored and taken for granted by the Bush administration and perhaps talking about Gitmo has something to do with such feelings. But I've little doubt that those are crocodile tears.

SandyP - "the BNP yanked them right"

As did the UK Independence Party (Ukip). But the supporters of the Conservative Party, and not a few Labour supporters, have always been to the right on immigration.

But whatever the Tories may use to get rid of Blair, including criticising the war in Iraq once (if) they get into power they are more likely to be more dependent on the US as they would (hopefully) be distancing Britain from Europe thus making the relationship with the US all the more important.

Posted by: Coisty at August 31, 2004 10:07 AM

Rick Ballard:
"a nice warm place where stultification can proceed without any ugly interruptions by reality" - I *love* that line. Can I borrow it?

Posted by: BobT at August 31, 2004 10:11 AM

Yes, I meant the Daily Mail. Thanks for the correction. The girls on the inside pages all look the same after a while.

Posted by: thibaud at August 31, 2004 10:12 AM

Just in case anyone is interested in layman's explanation of habeus corpus.

Here is the decision remanding the case back to the Fourth Circuit. Neither a clear victory or defeat for either side of the argument.

Here is the Rumsfeld v. Padilla case. Interestingly, to me at least, the Padilla case was, according to the SCOTUS ruling, focused on two questions: 1) was Padilla's habeus corpus case properly filed and 2) was the President authorized to confine him. Question #1 was found "negative" and, therefore, question #2 was left unanswered. Once again, neither clear victory nor defeat for either side.

I fail to see how the Hamdi and/or Padilla cases can be used to suggest that the President has unlawfully suspended habeus corpus for a small number of US Citizens let alone done so in a sweeping manner. Given obvious precedents such as Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus in 1961 (one might consider that a sweeping example) and FDR's interment of Japanese Americans, the current situation seems downright mild and a long way from unprecedented.

BTW, it seems that Congress may grant the President the power to suspend habeus corpus and has done so in the case of the WoT. See the AUMF for the WoT. I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but my understanding of congressional authorization to use military force includes the power for the president to declare prisoners enemy combatants and incarcerate them as he sees fit subject to legal filings such as we see from Hamdi and Padilla.

The questions before the court are challenging the scope of the powers that Congress authorized and these do not seem to have been decided, at least not yet, against the executive (Rumsfeld being SecDef and, therefore, named in the cases). Claims that the President is arbitrarily suspending habeus corpus and shoudl be drummed out of office seem ill-founded (overwrought?).

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 10:31 AM

Please excuse the typos above. PIMF!!!!!

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 10:32 AM

OT:

How Kerry stood up for veterans
August 31st, 2004

SNIP---

So Kerry is proud of having called Vietnam Veterans and the men still fighting there drug-addled genocidal war criminals? That is how he stood up for Vietnam Veterans?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3798

Posted by: Sandy P at August 31, 2004 10:40 AM

Rick Ballard, second to BobT! Great analysis of the Left.

Posted by: asher at August 31, 2004 10:42 AM

I don't think Giuliani will ever be president. I think this mainly because of his past personal life, the past prostate cancer and the fact that he uses a toupee to cover his bald head.

Posted by: lindenen at August 31, 2004 10:45 AM

The only part of last night's RNC I got to see in full was Gulliani's speech. For those who also missed most, or all, PowerLine does an interesting review (scroll down to Last Night At The Garden). Other's have linked to the videos.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 10:53 AM

Lindeman:

2008 is a long time from now but don't underestimate the magnetism of Rudy. I agree that Rudy as Prez is a long shot but he gripped the imagination of the crowd last night. After McCain gave his speech I thought he would dominate the news cycle but Rudy blew the crowd away. If Bush wins in November Hilary will surely begin her run for prez and the loathing of the Clintons is so strong that the social conservitives in the party might swallow Rudy as president to make sure that Bill doesn't get another chance to go intern hunting for another 4 years. Plus if Bush wins and is able to pick 3 supremes it won't make a difference what Rudy's views on the hot button social issues are. The fact that Rudy was able to grip the party stalwarts with his speech last night shows how he can bring people who might be hostile to him under his wing.Rudy rocked last night and he can do it again.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 10:58 AM

Sorry, Lindenen

Posted by: Kevin P at August 31, 2004 10:59 AM

I thought Rudy only had a comb-over, not a toupee, but either way he doesn't any longer. Though I completely agree that a candidate trying to fake it up top would never win the presidency (at least there's no precedent for it, and I'm not counting those colonial wigs which weren't meant to fool anyone).

Posted by: Peter G. at August 31, 2004 11:08 AM

President Bush spoke with Rush Limbaugh for about ten-fifteen minutes this morning. The interview will be rebroadcast in its entirety on Rush's show at the top of the hour (2:00 EST).

Y'all may return to rearranging deck chairs with Thiabaud. I think that thirty threads referencing Abu Ghraib is a conservative (no pun intended) estimate.

I could vote for Giuliani or McCain if they won the primary process; neither would be a first choice candidate. Giuliani is a RINO - but he's competent and produces results. McCain? Any Republican that could embrace what McCain-Feingold stands for - incumbency protection at the cost of the First Amendment - has no business in any elective office. McCain's media free pass is based in the past sentiment that he could derail Bush's presidential prospects. Now they just keep him around because he's as left as a Republican can be and not be Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chaffee.

Both speeches were very good. I think that McCain might have brushed up on his Lincolnology in crafting his; NR's Corner blog tipped me to that conclusion - I felt the pace and points the speech were familiar but didn't make the connection at first.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 31, 2004 11:10 AM

thibaud:

You are once again beating the drum for this mythical moderate. Did you think John Anderson was talking sense? How about Ross Perot?

Posted by: jerry at August 31, 2004 11:12 AM

Tmj,

I don't know that RINO is a valid charge to be leveled against Rudy. Eeegads, Man, he was Mayor of NYC! His credentials wrt to law and order are impeccable and he was fiscally sane. Nobody in their right mind would try to get elected in NYC with a southern or western type position on guns. As far as various social issues go, he's certainly no "social conservative", but he's no where near Moonbatish. He's about as conservative a politician (at least the variety that has ever won re-election to anything) as you're likely to find in NY. I don't think he's a RINO - more like a Metropubby.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 11:21 AM

Bob T.,

Of course you may use it as you wish. Thank you for asking.

Asher,

Thanks. I've have always been and continue to be amzed at the cardinals of the left's ability to hold onto an Aristotelian view of the universe while reality fairly screams "eppure si muove" in their ear.

Wrt the speeches last night, I found the three women who came between McCain and Giuliani to be the most effective speakers. They are the ones who will reach that portion of the audience most in need of suasion.

BTW - It's G-I-U-L-I-A-N-I not "Guiliani"

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 31, 2004 11:27 AM

Roger must have gotten some very bad juniper berry juice yesterday. Hope he recovers soon.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 31, 2004 11:28 AM

Knucklehead -

His positions on abortion and the second amendment would affect my choice if given a field of Republican candidates to choose from.

I take NOTHING away from his character, competence, track record of delivering the goods as an effective prosecutor and mayor, and especially his leadership skills.

I said he was a RINO. I didn't say he was in any way disqualified from being a powerful candidate or effective office holder. What I was saying that the chance I might support him would have a lot to do with the caliber of his competition.

If the Democrats were to adopt Giuliani's standards of personal accountability and dedication to achieving results over conforming to dogma they might someday return to relevance. I don't see it happening any time soon.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 31, 2004 11:33 AM

TMJ--

If Rudy turns out to be an opponent of judicial activism, I could swallow his liberal social positions much better. As long as gay marriage, etc. arises from the Congress and not the courts we can at least be assured of a chance to correct it down the road. The problem is that stare decisis is making a mockery of our legislative process.

So the question is: Would Rudy appoint an Antonin Scalia or a David Souter to the SCOTUS? If the former, I'm for him. If the latter, I'm against.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 11:53 AM

I thought some of y'all might enjoy A Beer With John Kerry.

Tmj,

I figured where you were coming from. Keep in mind, however, that long term success for the Repbulicans will require turning some Blue States Red (or at least freakin' purple at heart). All y'all are gonna hafta resist rejecting every MetroPubby that comes along. Like it or not nobody's killing Roe v. Wade and even if we did get rid of that poor excuse for jurisprudence abortion is here to stay. Social Conservatives will be lucky to make even small limits stick. And while limiting the capacity of magazines may seem like an major affront to human rights, gun control has gone about as far as it can. The Republicans can't afford to take abortion in the direction they'd like, or not nearly as far as many would like, and the Democrats can't take gun control anywhere near as far as they'd like.

Can't win in a two party system without the biggest tent ;)

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 11:55 AM

OK, I went and had my beer with The Loon and nearly gagged it back up. I have to ask this eclectic bunch - does anyone ever read GQ let alone always have it around the house? Maybe DtP, but other than him?

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 12:01 PM

Knuckle--

Can't stand the putrescent rag. With all those perfume samples in there, it smells like a woman's toilette.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 12:04 PM

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I trust McCain. I certainly don't trust him enough to be president. His persona evidences a a straight-to-the-point former military guy but the past year or so evidences he prefers a kerry-esque nuanced position when it comes to divisive issues. Thats not to say I mind when someone plays middle of the road on occasion but McCain's tease of a possible VP run w/ Kerry left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. I didnt much care for him in 2000- his mouth was too big to be president- and he did nothing to change my mind about him over the last 3 1/2 years- not to mention, as discussed, the McCain-Feingold bill isn't worth the paper its written on.

While I suppose I'm pleased to have McCain on the side of the republicans, I do not find it outside the stretch of imagination that McCain resents the fact that he's not running for president as a democratic candidate instead of Kerry.

Posted by: Matt Evans at August 31, 2004 12:05 PM

Fresh Air,

I agree that the deciding issue for me re: Rudy would be where he stood on Judicial Usurpy. I have no idea. He don't tolerate no steenking criminals nor terrorists, he ain't one to hand out welfare like there's no tomorrow, and he ain't afraid to poke fun at Moonbats. The pro-choice and "guns ain't a great idea on the streets of NYC" are things I can live with cause, well, that stuff was settled ages ago and it ain't likely to change all that much anymore.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 12:13 PM

Knuckle--

The pro-choice and "guns ain't a great idea on the streets of NYC" are things I can live with cause, well, that stuff was settled ages ago and it ain't likely to change all that much anymore.

Whaddya mean? Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy say Republicans are trying to bring back abortions-by-coat-hanger in Unabomber shacks.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 12:27 PM

Matt Evans
While I suppose I'm pleased to have McCain on the side of the republicans, I do not find it outside the stretch of imagination that McCain resents the fact that he's not running for president as a democratic candidate instead of Kerry.
LOL.... you're kidding right?
McCain resents the fact that if not for Bush's or those connected to him in South Carolina, he likely would have been President.
He had huge MOMENTUM until they used every dirty trick in the book to take South Carolina. He may have lost South Carolina anyway, but who knows?
And there is no doubt that he would have been a more popular choice than BORE or GUSH.

He would have killed them in a 3 way race I think too.

Mike

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at August 31, 2004 12:35 PM

Mike--

Why is it that every time someone loses to a Republican they are a victim of "dirty tricks"? I hear this comment especially when the voters are from the South, with the sly implication those South of the Mason-Dixon line are rubes whose brainwaves are controlled by television signals.

As I recall it, McCain acted intemperately during the primary and the genteel people of S.C. thought he was an ass.

Besides, as Finley Peter Dunn observed in 1895 (an era when dirty tricks was a high art form): Politics ain't beanbag!

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 31, 2004 12:45 PM

...Republicans are trying to bring back abortions-by-rusty-coat-hanger in Unabomber shack at gunpoint...

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 12:50 PM

Samuel,
Lovely post about your night...I felt the same and thank you for articulating that particular, peculiar sense of...gratitude.
What an enjoyable thread this is...! Even with the confusion with the *other* "Catherine with a C". (who is an outstanding, thoughtful purveyor of political analysis).

Without giving up what isn't mine to give up, I have met with President Bush in the White House at a private event. I also have had conversations with media people who have worked both in the Clinton and Bush administration.
Democrat or Republican, they ALL value President Bush as a genuinely intelligent, thoughtful, moral man who respects their time and their work. They thought the Clintons (mind you, this came from Democrats too!) were petty, arrogant, paranoid, and disrespectful of those who served with or for them. If someone didn't offer them any political gain, they were dismissed. Oh yes, and notoriously late to everything...evidently President Bush is obsessive about being on time.
I also saw something (again, I am respecting the organization for which is event was for) that changed this nominally pro-Bush Republican into that variety of supporter who is emotionally, passionately working to re-elect our President
It was how he privately (with no cameras, PR flacks, pollsters, etc. in attendance...which btw, is exactly how the Clintons would have judged this event to be worthy of..it was a PR bonanza.) interacted with children. I tend to judge people on that type of interaction, and let me stress...the man is really wonderful.

Intregity is what you do when no one is watching.
President Bush has it in spades.

The Other Catherine, somewhere in McCain country.

Posted by: Catherine at August 31, 2004 12:50 PM

...Without giving up what isn't mine to give up...

Were you the Chief of Intern Staff for the Clinton Administration? (Sorry, that was uncalled for).

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 31, 2004 12:53 PM

Mike:

You must be a former denizen of the MSM because you are repeating one of biggest MSM lies about the 2000 primary season. The so-called smear of McCain was a series of adds that talked about McCain's specific votes and positions on issues. The Democrat/MSM combine always yells smear when Republicans point out what their actual positi