The problem with partisanship

This was inspired by Tom Delay's farewell address to the House of Representatives in which he praised the Republican culture he helped create, criticized the Democrats for not letting Republicans pass whatever bill they wanted, and lauded partisanship in all its many forms. His speech got me thinking--how diluted can this man be?

Partisans have been a pain in the ass ever since the Russians made it popular. Adhering to one point of view, which can be admirable in many cases, is stupid, especially in Congress where debate and compromise are critical.

"Don't argue with someone who knows they're right."

That quote pretty much sums up the problems with partisanship. Some will argue (Tom Delay) that being a partisan leads to a lively and healthy debate on national issues, and I agree--to a certain extent. But once the line is crossed between being a mild-mannered partisan to full blown zealot for a political cause civil discourse is thrown out the window, and all debates end in three different ways: 1. God made it happen, 2. You don't know anything, or 3. Eye gouging.

For example, I support affording gays the right to get married to someone they love, and in my head I know my position is the right one, but when debating I'm not afraid to ponder the other sides stance on the issue and think how they might be right on the issue. Sure, I will most likely never change my position on this issue, and neither does anyone else, but when debating (if you want an honest debate) one must contemplate the other's position, if only for a few seconds.

And I'm right about that . . . no, you're wrong, I'm right. Yes. :)

DeLay....the ineviteble

Early this week Congressman Tom Delay (R-TX22) not only decided to not run for Congress again, but decided to resign his seat in the House of Representatives. As we know, Tom Delay has recently come under fire for his 'alleged' involvement in a money laundering scandal.

My take? Guy got what he deserved. Rep. Delay, in his resignation, has conceded that he could not win his re-election campaign. It's only time until this crook goes down, and it'll be another well-deserved embarrassment for the Republican party.

This isn't an issue the Democrats should run on, or even talk in length about; this is issue that should simply stay in the back of the voters mind on Election Day. Democrats need to run on a stronger domestic policy, a better foreign policy (including Iraq), and a wiser fiscal policy. Thanks to what Howard Dean said on Hardball today, I actually have some hope. Between now and November the Democrats need to put out a COMPREHENSIVE plan about what they would to in Iraq, and here at home. America has the chance to change a corrupt policy, and vote out a dishonest regime; hopefully we won't make the same mistake twice.

(It turns out this title was the same as one used on the Daily Show..)

A Presidential Censure?

Today, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), has proposed a censure against President Bush for breaking the law of the United States of America in regards to warrant wiretaps on American citizens. A censure would force President Bush to acknowledge that he broke the law and make him apologize for doing so. The video of him on the Senate floor is 30 minutes long (http://www.crooksandliars.com has a video of it Here - Right Click Save As), but a short summarization of it is in the following link in a conversation Senator Feingold had with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.

Video of Sen. Feignold's explanation

Now for my opinion on the whole thing:

This whole illegal warrant-less wiretapping story, although important in the area of executive power, is very hard to deal with in the political world. You'll always have people on one side arguing that it is legal, and on another arguing it is illegal, regardless of the facts.

Personally, I think that the President has broken the law with these warrant-less wiretaps on American citizens, because the Constitution specifically states that you must obtain a warrant to search/wiretap/etc., and the FISA court reiterates this. The excuse that the authorization of use of force in Afghanistan gave the President this power is baseless, and the administration simply thinks that it is up to them to determine what "necessary" force is -- does necessary force go as far as breaking the Constitution of the United States?

An argument often put out in favor of these warrant-less wiretaps (particularly by Scot McClellan, the White House Press Secretary) is that:

• Democrats don't want us to listen to terrorists - WRONG; Democrats are in favor of listening to terrorist conversations like everyone else; they're even in favor of listening to terrorist conversations with American citizens, IF the President has used the proper channels (like the law of the United States of America).
• Senator Feingold is grandstanding - WRONG; Russ Feingold has stood up against wide reaching executive power 5 years before this censure in the form of voting against the Patriot act. Senator Feingold is a man who wants American citizens to enjoy privacy, and doesn't want government to interfere in people's right to privacy.

Senator Feingold has taken another stand against wide-reaching executive power with the proposal of this censure (he was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001). Senator Feingold knows what it means to be a Senator; he isn't using this censure for political gain, or in a personal vendetta against the President, but he's proposing it because he believes in the dignity of the Constitution and the protection of American citizens civil liberties. Senator Feingold is my choice for President in 2008.

The Washington Post has an article on the censure

Smells like Politics

Just a note to all the readers of this blog, Keith Olbermann is a media mastermind in my opinion. Olbermann had recently engaged in a debate with Bill O'Reilly, and had made a funny spoof on a petition he had made to get Olbermann fired from his job and replaced with Phil Donahue.

Here's the hillarious segement Keith did on O'Reilly

As you should be able to see in the clip, this fortifies Keith as not only a great journalist (not percisely shown in the clip), but as a great comedian too. I urge the two and a half people who currently read this blog to watch Keith Olbermann every night at 8:00EST on MSNBC, not only does he give a great insight into politics through thoughtful questions, but he also offers a relief from the static, daily 24 hour news station shows.

Hopefully this first entry will be a bit of what is to come. Sure, it was just a funny story, but don't worry, the real news is to come (but don't think this is the last you've seen me write about Keith).