Month: November 2005

Today’s debate in the US House is the sort of thoughtful deliberation I like to see:

The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

“He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: cowards cut and run, Marines never do,” Schmidt said.

Democrats booed and shouted her down, causing the House to come to a standstill.

I believe poor Mr. Murtha is sincere but misguided, and because of that, doesn’t deserve being called a coward; Ms. Schmidt should dial her rhetoric down a notch.

The Republicans aced the Democrats on this one. Murtha’s resolution was basically an immediate troop withdrawal with all sorts of loopholes and caveats that would have provided too much cover to members trying to have it both ways. It’s right that the troops in Iraq should know that their mission is, and how its success will be measured.

It’s a shame that Arnie’s reform proposals all flamed-out at the polls yesterday. California desperately needs redistricting, and the other proposals to blunt public employee union influence and balance the budget were commendable. Arnie blew this election by running a shoddy campaign, putting too many things on the ballot, and holding a special election instead of letting the voters deal with his reforms during a high-turnout regular election.

But all is not lost. Dan Walters, the king of California poilitical journalists, writes a prescription:

The final weeks of the campaign gave flashes of the more thoughtful approach that would better serve his – and Californians’ – interests. He performed well during his unscripted television appearances, making cogent arguments for reform. He should continue in that vein, laying out the issues and the contradictions inherent in governing such a complex state without sugar-coating, and beginning the laborious task of rebuilding the trust that Californians invested him in 2003.

That said, he need not surrender to the forces of the status quo who apparently prevailed in Tuesday’s election. The status quo is not acceptable. The state budget process is screwed up, the gerrymandered legislative districts create an undemocratic and unresponsive Legislature and the public education system is performing poorly. One might fault Schwarzenegger’s prescriptions – and his campaign for them was poorly conceived and executed – but the issues themselves are very legitimate.

Schwarzenegger, having stumbled so badly, may be tempted to back away from confronting the status quo and do some face-saving small beer deals with the Legislature to rebuild his popularity and win re-election, much as he did in the first months of his governorship. That, however, would be doing himself and the state an immense disservice because California cannot afford to delay addressing pressing matters that have been ignored for far too long.

A straight-talking, humbled Schwarzenegger would lay out the issues that need attention and offer specific and credible proposals to deal with them, no matter what the reaction would be from those inside the Capitol who are more interested in playing partisan or ideological games than taking care of the public’s business.

Schwarzenegger’s political internship is over; it’s time to get serious.

It’s move forward with reforms or choke in the status quo for California.

It’s like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties have fostered an intelligence officer’s resentment against the government. Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.

But the rules on agents are clear. They can’t purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.

But their spouse can.

Read the whole thing.