Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Republicans Drank Whiskey Neat
While some Republicans rehearse their blame-the-liberal-media oratoria for John McCain's likely loss next Tuesday, and others set their scope rifles on fashion-chasing Obamacons (or, in the Weekly Standard's case, uh, analogize John McCain to the Tianenman Square guy facing down a tank full of elitists?) ... there remains one stubbornly unhelpful figure contradicting all those narratives while consistently scoring the deepest blows against the Republican candidate: Conservative syndicated columnist George Will. Who, from what I understand, is still planning to vote for the guy about whom he writes stuff like this:
From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days.
Some polls show that Palin has become an even heavier weight in John McCain's saddle than his association with George W. Bush. Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin's never having attended a "Georgetown cocktail party" is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency, lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents "are in charge of the United States Senate"? [...]
Perhaps Palin's confusion about the office for which she is auditioning comes from listening to its current occupant. Dick Cheney, the foremost practitioner of this administration's constitutional carelessness in aggrandizing executive power [...]
Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: "So, who is the villain?" [...]
McCain revived a familiar villain -- "huge amounts" of political money -- when Barack Obama announced that he had received contributions of $150 million in September. "The dam is broken," said McCain, whose constitutional carelessness involves wanting to multiply impediments to people who want to participate in politics by contributing to candidates -- people such as the 632,000 first-time givers to Obama in September.
Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.
Whole thing
here. My take in May about the GOP coalition dissolving
here.
|10.30.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin's never having attended a "Georgetown cocktail party" is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency, lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents "are in charge of the United States Senate"?
In answering a question from a kid? Considering that the only
Constitutional job of the Vice-President is to the be the President
of the Senate, and that when the Constitution was ratified, people
expected that that was what the Vice-President would do?
The possibly unConstitutional part is the current Executive Branch
responsibilities of the Vice-President, depending on whether you
feel that the President can delegate such power. But the
Constitution assigns the Vice-President no Executive Branch powers
at all; it is only in recent years that Presidents have come to
delegate so many powers to the Vice-President.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Kind of working off of Thacker's point, I've always kind of wondered why the VPOTUS didn't hold on to the President of the Senate powers instead of delegating them away to the Senate itself. Wouldn't having the power to control the debate and bill schedule be kinda useful and important?
|10.30.08 @ 10:14AM|#
The "lessons" our Republican friends glean from this election will be wrong, and after a spasm of recriminations and self-doubt, they will embark pell-mell down the same road they have been on for the past decade; I say this with complete confidence.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 10:19AM|#
The "lessons" our Republican friends glean from this
election will be wrong, and after a spasm of recriminations and
self-doubt, they will embark pell-mell down the same road they have
been on for the past decade; I say this with complete
confidence.
You are probably right, which means that they have a remaining
life-span of eight years, tops.
It wouldn't be the first time.
|10.30.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Agree about the President of the Senate thing. Palin's answer was both scholarly and correct. One has to be extremely steeped in beltway bigotry to believe that John F'ing McCain (or Joe Biden or Barack Obama for that matter) is any smarter than Sarah Palin.
|10.30.08 @ 10:24AM|#
As a libertarian, I think I could live with a George Will-thinking-type president: Anti-"aggrandizing executive power" and pro-1st Amendment/anti-McCain-Feingold. That would be a much better option than the two major-party candidates.
|10.30.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Um, no, the Vice President does not, has never, and connot "get
all in there and influence legislation."
People will defend anything that comes out of that woman's mouth.
This is turning into "There is no Bush Doctrine, and there never
was!" all over again.
Scholarly. Yeah, that's it.
|10.30.08 @ 10:31AM|#
The "lessons" our Republican friends glean from this
election will be wrong, and after a spasm of recriminations and
self-doubt, they will embark pell-mell down the same road they have
been on for the past decade; I say this with complete
confidence.
You are probably right, which means that they have a remaining
life-span of eight years, tops.
Don't bet on it, alphabet dude. I have a feeling the retards in the
GOP will be happy to continue existing in their current state as a
minority party rather than make any kind of wrenching change. They
had a chance in 1994, took power, and then proceeded to blow it.
The desire to remain in office makes any kind of libertarian change
impossible in the long run.
kinnath|10.30.08 @ 10:36AM|#
George Will, 2012!
I'll be starting the draft petitions next Wednesday.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Epi --
I never said they'd turn libertarian. That's not what *most* people
out there in the wide wild world are objecting to. It's a more
primal distaste for their attitude concerning social issues
(hateful is the word I'd personally use) combined with the feeling
that the GOP tends to disdain evidence and inquiry when the answer
might not be something they like.
I really don't think it's a policy beef. It's an attitude and
bearing beef, along the lines of "I just can't bring myself to
stand next to these assholes".
It's gonna kill 'em, and quick, if they double down on their
"base".
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 10:39AM|#
joe,
This is why I ask "why?". Because her answer was not by any stretch
scholarly, but it was on a technical level *correct*. The VPOTUS
*is* the President of the Senate. Exactly at what point (and why,
and how) did this become a ceremonial rather than a functional
role?
classwarrior|10.30.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Q: Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow
of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment
right to political expression?
A: Because "citizens" who individually give huge amounts to
politicians usually want something in return, something that is at
best a conflict of interest against the electorate (and just
grounds for dismissal in employment) and at worst thinly disguised
bribery, which is a crime and specifically enumerated in the
Constitution as grounds for impeachment.
|10.30.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Agree about the President of the Senate thing. Palin's
answer was both scholarly and correct.
The President of the Senate can has only two duties, break ties and
certify the electoral college votes. There's no influencing policy
or anything like that. In fact, Senate rule 19 does not authorize
the VP to participate in debate and limits people that can address
the Senate to Senate members and the POTUS. So this was neither
scholarly nor correct.
|10.30.08 @ 10:44AM|#
It's gonna kill 'em, and quick, if they double down on their
"base".
This is where I disagree. I don't think it will kill them, I think
it will just keep them minority party. And I think the incumbents
who know they will get re-elected by that "base" are perfectly
willing to stay minority party as long as they themselves keep
getting re-elected. To be successful requires change that will
probably result in said incumbents being replaced by new blood. Why
would they risk that?
Guy Montag|10.30.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Matt,
Sounds like you have found your intern candidate, perhaps the
highest profile and most published intern ever. He is even
following the same 'logic' displayed by the
current staff!
Can check off that "ideological
diversity" requirement block as soon as you hand him his
notebook too. :)
|10.30.08 @ 10:50AM|#
I am pretty sure that the 600,000+ "first time givers" will get
back way more than the average $86 per giver that they are
giving.
Way more.
CB
Nigel Watt|10.30.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Episiarch, if you're right, we're even more doomed than I thought. SHTF in 20.
|10.30.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Exactly at what point (and why, and how) did this become a
ceremonial rather than a functional role?
What a great question. From the
Senate website Senate website:
Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in
part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a
violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who
would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers
"might as well put the President himself as head of the
legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with
Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were
not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment,
and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must
be deprived of his vote."
Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer
exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings.
Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by
the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a
doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus,
contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole
judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside
by the full Senate without his assent.
The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to
shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were
followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the
degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended
chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual
involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well,
while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining
order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington,
leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to
preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the
political agenda of the administration.
Apparently, the full exercise of Constitutional authority withered
away more or less because the VPs back when this was a
Constitutional republic found the limited authority exercisable by
the Senate not worth putting up with the Senators.
|10.30.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Episiarch, if you're right, we're even more doomed than I
thought. SHTF in 20.
The shit is already hitting the fan, Nigel. I guess you picked the
wrong day to stop doing amphetamines.
Guy Montag|10.30.08 @ 11:00AM|#
RCD,
Excellent info!
Also, for those wondering when the VP became a filter and a "muscle
guy" for the Pres., one has to go back before VP Cheney. All the
way back to VP Walter Mondale.
VP Mondale had his office moved into the West Wing, from whatever
remote location it had been before. He also drafted a paper
suggesting the expansion of VP duties to the President that has
continued through today.
Somehow, in this era of how the 1970s and 1980s were "so much
better" than today, the amnesia of the press has forgotten these
facts too.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 11:00AM|#
It's the Waukesha Effect, Elemenope.
I always knew that the GOP would be brought down by
cheeseheads.
robc|10.30.08 @ 11:00AM|#
lmnop,
You are needed back on the other thread to acknowledge the pwnage*
you took.
*Im pretending to be 20 years younger than I am. Probably not
pulling it off either.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 11:03AM|#
You are needed back on the other thread to acknowledge the
pwnage* you took.
*Im pretending to be 20 years younger than I am. Probably not
pulling it off either.
I'll take a look. ;)
robc|10.30.08 @ 11:03AM|#
lmnop,
I've always kind of wondered why the VPOTUS didn't hold on to
the President of the Senate powers instead of delegating them away
to the Senate itself.
Did you see the Adams mini-series on HBO? Or read the biography it
was based on? I think Adams was the last VP who tried to really be
President of the Senate. It didnt work out so well for him. The
Senators made it clear that they would ignore him if necessary. If
a tie happened, they would let him do something useful. Otherwise,
STFU.
Naga Sadow|10.30.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Palin as intelligent as McCain and Obama? YAWN!!! Don't care all that much. Someone link to that porn spoof of Palin, please.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Did you see the Adams mini-series on HBO?
It's on the list. Seriously, my list is fucking long. I just
finished up Rome.
|10.30.08 @ 11:15AM|#
If a tie happened, they would let him do something useful.
Otherwise, STFU.
...as the Constitutional language "shall only have a vote" when
they be evenly divided specifies.
Guy Montag|10.30.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Ah, the good old days of the Senate where old men were free to brawl and club each other. No, the Democrats of South Carolina did not put up with any crap from those nasty Massachusetts folk smelling up the chamber. Those were the days!
|10.30.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Will is pissed off, and has been for some time. He is not some
partisan hack (see Kristol, etc.) who feels the need to sell a load
of bullshit. He will vote GOP I suspect, but if they get
steamrolled, he'll be just as happy because it is the only way to
get them to change.
Of course whether they change to some form of modified Reaganism
(dropping the hate component that has arisen within the GOP) or go
for Palinism (embrace the hate) remains to be seen.
Abdul|10.30.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Um, no, the Vice President does not, has never, and connot
"get all in there and influence legislation."
The VP has an informal role in doing this, even if not an official
role. One of the reasons Cheney was picked as a VP was because his
former senatorial experience was thought to be helpful in
influencing legislative affairs.
Regrettably, cheney's display of senatorial experience probably
reached it's zenith when he told Sen. Patrick Leahy to f*ck himself
during a Senate photo session. But I'm sure the idea of getting a
former senator as VP seemed like a better idea at the time.
Naga Sadow|10.30.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Guy,
Thanks for the flashback. I didn't know that Charleston gave him a
new cane with that inscription.
shecky|10.30.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Being a underdog minority is, I think, a very comfortable
position for the Republicans and their legion of media mouths.
Remember, these folks are the ones who've been raging a culture war
for decades that has never really gone their way.
The question is, what happens to the moderates and fiscal
conservatives? I honestly don't see a viable third party rising up.
Do they reluctantly infiltrate Democratic politics? Trickle back
into the GOP? Sit out politics?
Guy Montag|10.30.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Abdul,
Sen. Lehey has not been given that instruction enough through
life.
|10.30.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Abdul,
The VP has an informal role in doing this, even if not an
official role. I suppose so, but by that standard, so does
every other executive branch officer (cabinet, subcabinet, civil
service) that the President decides to send up to the Hill.
Lyndon Johnson thought he was going to play a meaningful role in
the legislative process when he was sworn in as VP, and he ended up
attending one Democratic Senate Caucus meeting and never going
back, because the Senators made it clear that he wasn't going to
play the role of a legislator.
Also, Cheney was a Rep. Never a Senator.
robc|10.30.08 @ 11:26AM|#
joe,
...as the Constitutional language "shall only have a vote" when
they be evenly divided specifies.
That wasnt at all clear to the 1st congress. While it was clear the
VEEP could only vote when their was a tie, Adams
assumed that his President of the Senate dutie were similar to the
Speaker of the House duties. He, early on, proposed bills, tried to
control debate, etc and etc, before the Senate let him know that
they werent interested in what he had to say.
Abdul|10.30.08 @ 11:26AM|#
joe,
Did VP Lyndon Johnson ever "bulldog" legislators the way he
bulldogged people when he was a president? Because that's some
pretty serious legislative influence.
|10.30.08 @ 11:31AM|#
That wasnt at all clear to the 1st congress.
Was anything clear during the 1st Congress. It's the same principle
that guides never buying the first version of electronics or
software. The bugs still need to be worked out.
robc|10.30.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Mo,
How come taxes are higher now? Arent the early adopters supposed to
pay more?
robc|10.30.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Mo,
Also, the constitution was a 2.0 product. The 1.0 (Articles of
Confederation) was a miserable release, that like Windows ME, they
would like to have us forget ever existed.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Was anything clear during the 1st Congress. It's the same
principle that guides never buying the first version of electronics
or software. The bugs still need to be worked out.
Mo, point is that things like this, where there is apparent or
actual ambiguity, got resolved by the weight of time and
tradition.
There is no *inherent* reason why things must be the way they
are.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 11:41AM|#
How come taxes are higher now? Aren't the early adopters
supposed to pay more?
I really liked this line.
robc|10.30.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Following the theme, I guess we are technically on Constitution
2.27, although like with Linux releases, we went from 2.0 to 2.10
in a hurry.
2.21 was a major bug fix that was created in 2.18.
robc|10.30.08 @ 11:44AM|#
lmnop,
I really liked this line.
Thanks. Says something about our government that they cant become
more efficient with time. They cant even make economy of scale work
for them. More states, more people and they still cant make the
price per person go down.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 11:49AM|#
I have always believed that law-making would benefit from engineering principles and coding metaphors.
Kolohe|10.30.08 @ 11:58AM|#
I have always believed that law-making would benefit from
engineering principles and coding metaphors.
The two prezes w/ the most experience and background in
engineering:
Hoover and Carter
just sayin'
|10.30.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Also, the constitution was a 2.0 product. The 1.0 (Articles
of Confederation) was a miserable release, that like Windows ME,
they would like to have us forget ever existed.
Yeah, but just like XP, you needed a couple of service packs, after
the new version, to get the kinks worked out.
Mo, point is that things like this, where there is apparent or
actual ambiguity, got resolved by the weight of time and
tradition.
Totally agree. You have to see how it works and is effective in the
real world. But that makes the defense of, "But that's what people
thought during the debates," even more ridiculous. We have over 230
years of practice and precedent to look back on and the VP pretty
much never worked with the Senate and was rebuffed every time he
tried.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Kolohe --
That would (anecdotally) indicate that engineers make poor
*executives*.
Does not speak to the notion of what affect it might have on them
as legislators.
robc|10.30.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Kolohe,
Hoover and Carter
Interesting that they are probably the two most praised for their
work outside of politics.
|10.30.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Joe,
The Vice President if President of the Senate. That is his only
Constitutionally proscribed duty. So Palin was absolutely correct
in what she said. If she wants to, she will be able to Preside over
the Senate each and every day it is in session if her heart so
desires, and nobody, not even the President, can stop her. As far
as "getting in there" and influencing legislation and such, there
is no formal role for that, but she can certainly try if she wants
to. Cheney obviously had a massive role in the Energy Bill, which
Democrats claim was written entirely in his office. Would Palin be
as influential as Cheney? Probably not. But she could try. And she
could absolutely maintain a higher profile by availing herself of
her ability to preside over the Senate in person, which Cheney
rarely bothered to do.
The criticisms of Palin have reached the stage of pure
obnoxiousness. When she makes a practically correct comment about
the futility of the office by quipping, "what does a Vice President
even do?" she gets attacked for being stupid. When she makes a
technically accurate comment about the VP's technical job
(something I seriously doubt any of the other three candidates
could have correctly answered without first looking it up), she
gets attacked for being too technical.
Balsim|10.30.08 @ 1:48PM|#
The VP does have another constitutional duty, under the 25th Amendment, the VP along with the majority of the cabinet are reasonable for informing the House and Senate of an incapacitation of the President to exercise his duties, along with the end of such as well.
Robert Stacy McCain|10.30.08 @ 2:02PM|#
After the Palinistas seize total power, George Will is going to regret that column. The Palinista Revolutionary Peoples Army will make sure of that.
Geotpf|10.30.08 @ 2:13PM|#
The VP is president of the Senate. That much is very true-Palin
got one answer right, IMHO. But she got approximately 12,391 other
answers wrong.
I've always wondered if a VP would ever again take their Senate
Presidency seriously, being present most of the time when it is in
session, etc. Palin might do that. Not that that would be a good
thing in her case.
Elemenope|10.30.08 @ 2:17PM|#
The VP does have another constitutional duty, under the 25th
Amendment, the VP along with the majority of the cabinet are
responsible for informing the House and Senate of an incapacitation
of the President to exercise his duties, along with the end of such
as well.
Excellent catch FTW.
Nobody expects the 25th Amendment!
gmatts|10.30.08 @ 2:20PM|#
"The Vice President if President of the Senate. That is his only
Constitutionally proscribed duty. So Palin was absolutely correct
in what she said. If she wants to, she will be able to Preside over
the Senate each and every day it is in session if her heart so
desires, and nobody, not even the President, can stop her."
But she went further than just stating that the VP is the president
of the Senate. She stated that VP's are "in charge of the U.S
Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the
senators and make a lot of good policy changes". That is plainly
untrue. The VP is not in charge of the Senate, the Senators are and
make their own rules as to how things are done.
And this is on top of her statement during the debate that "I'm
thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority
given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to
exert it in working with the Senate". And then later on she said
this "Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing
through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of
the vice president."
Again, she just doesn't know what she's talking about.
Now I know that she knows more than anybody else on the planet when
it comes to energy issues, but she's just confused about the job
she agreed to campaign for.
|10.30.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Who, from what I understand, is still planning to vote for
the guy about whom he writes stuff like this
Matt -- got a link to a recent statement by George Will that he
intends to vote for McCain? Because, while Will may not (yet) be
ready,in the privacy of the voting booth, to pull the lever for the
LP party candidate, his steady disdain for McCain would lead me to
believe that he might pull a NOTA and leave that race unvoted on --
like millions of other conservative-leaning-libertarian voters who
yanked their support right after McCain pimped for the bailout.
|10.30.08 @ 3:32PM|#
FatDrunkandStupid,
The Vice President if President of the Senate. Yes, a role
whose sole duty is to break ties, and which has now lawmaking or
policy-creating duties otherwise.
So Palin was absolutely correct in what she said. That's
not what Palin said. She said that the Vice President was "in
charge of" the Senate - he's not, but that could be forgiven as a
simplification for a child - but then goes on to talk about gettin'
all up in the Senate's airspace and creatin' all kinds of good
policy to benefit people like little Billy.
That's where she does wrong. The Vice President does nothing of the
sort, and it is a misstatement, a misreading of the term "Presiding
Officer of the Senate," to assert that the VP does that.
BTW, I thought the flack she took for "Somebody needs to tell me
what the Vice President does every day" was unfair, too. The
day-to-day responsibilities of the VP vary widely from
administration to administration, and it was perfectly appropriate
for her to question what her role would be. Had she not made so
many blunders, I doubt that statement would have been read the same
way.
Syd Henderson|10.30.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Although the Vice-Presidency was pretty useless from the beginning, I wonder if part of the problem with them presiding over the Senate was the frequent vacancies in the office. Both of Madison's VPs died, as did Pierce's, Calhoun resigned, and Tyler and Fillmore succeeded, all before the Civil War.
Vermont Gun Owner|10.30.08 @ 11:09PM|#
Guy,
I agree. I'm ashamed to have the letters VT anywhere near his
title.
|11.3.08 @ 5:20AM|#
WORLDWIDE client base in the cell phone sector. Tremendous
opportunity to get in the stock now. Check out how big the
opportunity is at
www.icoft.com/roke.html
any clarification at
icoft123@gmail.com
|11.3.08 @ 5:21AM|#
This company stock (ROKE) is set to take off. Worldwide client
base in the mobile communications space. See the details at
www.icoft.com/roke.html
any clarification contact at
icoft123@gmail.com
|11.3.08 @ 5:21AM|#
Worldwide client base in the mobile communications space. See
the details at
www.icoft.com/roke.html
any clarification at
icoft123@gmail.com
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245