pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts

Lessee ... gay mariage, check; Haiti, don't care; Nader, check; Super Tuesday, don't care. Blah.

All of these things are interesting, I suppose, but most of them have been done to death for now.

Well, at least there was Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times. In yesterday's debate, she proved to be -- bar none -- the worst panelist in a presidential or primary debate that I've ever had the misfortune to witness.

She interrupted candidate and fellow panelist alike, multiple times. She was browbeating Kerry over whether or not he was a liberal, without defining what the term even meant. She actually took personal offense when Sharpton went on his regular "you're not giving me as much time as the top two candidates" rant, and responded with, "Well, I'm not going to be addressed like this." Yes you will, Ms. Bumiller, and what's more, you'll like it!

She was utterly ridiculous, and I expect CBS (co-sponsor of the debate with the Times) will ask that she not participate next time.

Speaking of Kerry being a liberal, when I heard he was the "most liberal" Senator according to National Journal vote rankings, my first and immediate thought was: on what basis is a given vote judged to be liberal? And sure enough, Kerry noted in his answer to Ms. Bumiller that his vote against the Medicare bill was "liberal." Kerry also complained his vote against tax cuts was "liberal."

I think voting against the tax cut was liberal. But who am I to say that? There's certainly a fiscally conservative case to be made for Kerry's vote. And even moreso for the vote against the Medicare plan: I have absolutely no doubts that if the Congress and President were Democrats, and the exact same bill were voted on and signed, that it would have been called a liberal bill (of course, I also have no doubts that Kerry would have voted for it, and many Republicans who voted for it would have voted against it).

Similarly, many people call Bush a far-right conservative, yet his steel tariffs, high spending on social programs, immigration reform, and more simply aren't right-wing policies.

In summary, I'd like to thank Ms. Bumiller for demonstrating -- unintentionally -- how inane political labels usually are.

While we're on voting records, Kerry's continues to be distorted. I said long before Iowa that it was ridiculous to say Kerry was against funding for our troops in Iraq just because he voted against the actual bill that was eventually signed by the President: Kerry said at the time he wanted the funding to go through, but wanted to pay for it in another way.

When asked on Face the Nation would he have voted for it if his vote had been the deciding one ... it became obvious the interviewer didn't really understand the point, which is sad for a journalist who had been covering DC politics since before I was born. If Kerry had been the deciding vote, then he would have had the power to change the funding to make it acceptable to him, and he would have then voted for the modified bill. That's how legislatures work.

Similarly, Kerry's been slammed all over the place for voting against this weapons program or that one. I'd wager a lot of fiscal conservatives voted against some of those too (setting aside, for a moment, the fact that many of those no votes were on one bill).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a no vote does not mean you disagree with the principles of a given bill. Legislators vote against bills all the time, for many reasons, such as -- but not limited to -- too much pork, too much in one bill (you like part of the bill, but not all of it), improper or insufficient funding, favor of a different bill that does the same thing but in a better way, etc.

When you vote for something, you throw your complete support to it. You may have other reasons for voting for it, but in the end, it is your name on the bill, and you own that action. It is unacceptable to say later, "I voted for it, but I didn't like it." If you don't like it, don't vote for it. Edwards does a good job of owning his vote, and I respect him for that.

But while you still own your vote if it was No, that doesn't mean you were against what's in the bill, and to assume that is about as nonsensical as assuming that someone is liberal just because a vote is characterized as such by a DC insider's journal.

That said, I do think Kerry is a fancy-pants liberal, but I wouldn't dare try to quantify that. I have too much interest in being not stupid.

you can vote yes and not own it

[John Harrison]

All your arguments to why you can vote no on a bill but still support aspects of it could be turned around and made for voting yes on a bill while not agreeing with all of it.

Our political process is a mess of compromises, backscratching, and even politics!

Re:you can vote yes and not own it

[pudge]

All your arguments to why you can vote no on a bill but still support aspects of it could be turned around and made for voting yes on a bill while not agreeing with all of it.

No, they can't. Your name is on there affirming the whole thing. Sorry.

Our political process is a mess of compromises, backscratching, and even politics!

Yes, but that doesn't change anything. The compromise comes in you being required to approve of things you don't wish to approve of. But that doesn't mean you didn't approve

Re:you can vote yes and not own it

[John Harrison]

I think the process is much less ideal than we might like it to be. I don't think anybody votes yes on any bill thinking that they approve of the whole thing. I vote for candidates that are the lesser of two evils (or three) every time I go to the polls. Except for all the democrats running unopposed in MA. I ended up voting for the lesser of a single evil in those cases.

Re:you can vote yes and not own it

[pudge]

I think the process is much less ideal than we might like it to be. I don't think anybody votes yes on any bill thinking that they approve of the whole thing.

Then they are not very bright. They in fact DO approve of the whole thing. That is what a vote for a bill MEANS. When your name is on it, it means you approve of it. You can't get much simpler.

Re:you can vote yes and not own it

[John Harrison]

If bills were fine-grained enough to cover a single item then I would agree with you. The way things work, with monster bills that are so large as to be incomprehensible floating around, I think your view is too simplistic, which is odd because I usually think your opinions are well thought out.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but voting yes on a bill doesn't mean that you approve of every thing in it individually. I think that your exception above for casting the deciding vote is an insightful exampl

Re:you can vote yes and not own it

[pudge]

I think your view is too simplistic, which is odd because I usually think your opinions are well thought out.

Maybe that should be instructive to you. :-)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but voting yes on a bill doesn't mean that you approve of every thing in it individually.

It means exactly that. Your name is on record voting for that bill.

Let's go with an unrelated example. I want to save a boatload of people. In order to do that, I need to shoot and kill an innocent man. If I do shoot and kil

Bush/Kerry -- any REAL differences?

[Jhon]

Similarly, many people call Bush a far-right conservative, yet his steel tariffs, high spending on social programs, immigration reform, and more simply aren't right-wing policies.

Economically, I really don't see huge differences between the democrats and republicans. It should be painfully obvious when a companies and orginazations provide simultaneous financial support to opposing candidates for the same office.

If there's one thing I've learned as a tax-payer in California, when the Democrats and Repub

Kerry's votes against weapons programs

[jamie]

The GOP meme going around is that Kerry voted against this weapons program and that program, the F-15, F-16, F-18, blah-27, etc.

The part they don't tell you is that all those weapons programs were in one vote, for an omnibus defense spending bill. Oh, and that a dozen Republicans voted against it too. Kinda changes the picture, huh?

So speaking of Sunday Thoughts... any Thoughts on Bush's approving our "intensifying" and "refocusing" our resources back onto Osama bin Laden [calpundit.com]? Would you like to speculate wh

Re:Kerry's votes against weapons programs

[pudge]

The basis of your criticism here appears to be that Bush said we are intensifying and refocusing, when we have -- as usual -- no identifiable source saying this, and worse, no direct quotes! Of course, I couldn't trust the direct quotes without a source anyway, but this reporter is expecting me to believe he isn't putting words into the sources' mouths, and I have no reason to believe that.

Re:Kerry's votes against weapons programs

[jamie]

You have good reason to believe it; even at its worst toadying (the Judith Miller-Ahmed Chalabi disgraces), the New York Times of course had sources and the sources said what they said. The question with anonymous sources is just whether they have an obviously-undisclosed bias, and I don't see any reason to think that, do you?

Besides, the recent story just corroborates what we already knew; you didn't read the rest of the linked stories:

"There were decisions made," says Flynt Leverett, a former directo

Re:Kerry's votes against weapons programs

[pudge]

the sources said what they said

Which is WHAT? There was no direct quote saying what you said. How do I know those words -- intensifying and refocusing -- are not the reporters' interpretations of what was said, rather than what was actually said? I don't, and certainly, neither do you.

Besides, the recent story just corroborates what we already knew; you didn't read the rest of the linked stories:

Then why didn't you link to one of them instead? Are you just trying to annoy me? :-)

Don't you think

Re:WTF?! No no no no no

[pudge]

We are not against Islamism in any way shape or form.

You're misunderstanding me. You are speaking of "Islam," and I agree with what you say. I am speaking of "Islamism," a philosophy which says that if you are not orthodox Islam, you are an enemy. Well, it's not quite that, but in this context, it's what I am talking about. Here's what looks like a useful link in making the distinction. [danielpipes.org]

All that said, Islamism is indeed not the enemy either. I usually say "Islamist terrorists" or "radical Islamism"