Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Presidential candidate John Edwards, has announced that she is suffering from a recurrence of breast cancer. Her husband has said that he will continue to campaign for the Presidency, and Mrs. Edwards will continue treatment.
Hopefully the treatments will contain the cancer and Mrs. Edwards will be able to live a long and healthful life.
There are rumors that John Edwards will withdraw from the 2008 Presidential campaign. Edwards and his wife have scheduled a press conference for noon in Chapel Hill, NC. This comes after Edwards cut short an appearance an Iowa to meet with his wife after a medical checkup. Elizabeth Edwards had been diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004, and although doctors believed that the cancer was gone last year, the timing of these two events seems to point to something more than mere coincidence.
Sources in Iowa and CNN have indicated that Mrs. Edward’s recent medical tests were not good.
Should Edwards make an announcement in that regard, political considerations should step aside. There are some things far more important that mere politics, and no doubt Mr. Edwards will do what is right for his family, whatever that may be. In the meantime, good thoughts and prayers for the health of Mrs. Edwards would certainly not be amiss.
CNN reports that the source behind this anti-Hillary ad has been found:
Phillip de Vellis, a Democrat and Obama supporter, said he made the video “because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process.”
“This shows that the future of American politics rests in the hands of ordinary citizens,” de Vellis wrote on the popular blog “The Huffington Post,” where his identity was first discovered and reported.
Now, Mr. de Vellis deserves kudos for his creativity, as this is a brilliantly insightful parody. However, can one imagine the reaction if a Republican had made this video? We’d be hearing all about how terribly mean the Republicans are, how they’re trying to “silence dissent” and the like. Yet somehow this sort of character assassination is perfectly acceptable so long as its an example of Democratic fratricide.
In any event, the next year or so is going to be very interesting. Hillary Rodham Clinton does not take being slighted well, no less by an upstart like Barack Obama. By the the time those two finish with each other, the political landscape for the Democratic Party will look like a post-Godzilla Tokyo…
The Democratic motion to arbitrarily withdraw from Iraq has failed on a 48-50 vote. 60 votes were needed for passage. Republican-sponsored bills to support funding for the troops passed by wide margins.
The Democrats know they don’t have the votes to pass a bill that would set timetables on the war. They don’t even have the Constitutional authority to do so — the President as Commander in Chief has discretion in that area, not Congress. The only power Congress has is to cut off the funding, which the Democrats won’t do.
Even if such a bill passed, it would be vetoed and the Democrats have no chance of overriding a Presidential veto.
The Democrats have an opportunity to lead on Iraq. Unfortunately, they’d rather try to play to the anti-war base and advocate a deeply irresponsible policy position. The Democrats, despite their majority in the House and the Senate, can’t “stop” the war — what they can do is try to make as much political hay out of it as they can.
I’m not convinced that the Democratic leadership really wants to truly end the war on an arbitrary timetable. To do so would be politically disastrous and leave Iraq a ruin that would quickly spread chaos across the entire region. No smart politician wants to be caught holding that bag. Instead, it seems that the Democrats have every reason to want such resolutions to not succeed, as the war is a political albatross around the neck of Republican lawmakers. If the war really did “end” in 2008, that issue would lose much of its salience.
Speaker Pelosi is not a political novice — she knows she’s in an unwinnable position, but that the political fallout will still fall on the Administration rather than on the Democratic Congress. She has every reason and every ability to play the anti-war side for chumps, making promises to them that are impossible to keep. Granted, there is a danger that they may turn on the Democrats if they don’t produce some results, but as long as the Democrats keep toeing the anti-war party line, they needn’t worry about the political fallout.
There’s a minor political firestorm over the firing of 8 US Attorneys by the Bush Administration two years ago with the usual suspects rather breathlessly pronouncing this to be the next major Bush “scandal.”
Jeralyn Merritt notes that US Attorneys are Presidential appointments, and the President has the right to fire US Attorneys for whatever reason they choose. Indeed, President Clinton fired nearly every US Attorney when he assumed office. While it is unusual for a President to fire US Attorneys after taking office, it isn’t without precedent, nor is it by itself any sign of malfeasance. US Attorneys work at the sufferance of the Executive, and the Executive has the right to fire them and hire replacements at their discretion. (Which is part of the President’s executive powers under Article II, § 2.)
Power Line has a good background on the firings as well, including some questions that might make at least one of the firings inappropriate.
The Executive has the Constitutionally-derived right to set the policy for US Attorneys and remove those Attorneys who do not follow the Administration’s policy objectives. That is a right that Presidents can and do exercise at their discretion, which is why this “scandal” is less than scandalous. It may be questionable as to why the Administration fired these attorneys and certainly the timing is unusual, but to try and claim that Bush had no right to do so is not an opinion grounded in the law.
Moreover, the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud is a serious issue. Groups such as ACORN have already been the subject of indictments, and there is plenty of evidence — sufficient for grand jury indictments — that there are groups engaging in significant acts of voter fraud. There’s no illegitimate purpose in setting a policy agenda of vigorously prosecuting acts of voter fraud.
The only part of this scandal that seems to have any weight is that the Justice Department did not properly inform Congress of their discussions with the White House — which seems to be more likely explained by poor record-keeping than any nefarious purpose.
Like so many “scandals” this doesn’t seem to hold much water — the President has a right to set Executive Branch policy, and to base the status of political appointees accordingly with those objectives. The same principle applies to any President, and if Barack Obama wins in 2008 and decides on January 25, 2009 that he’s going to fire every US Attorney who doesn’t prosecute civil rights cases with sufficient zeal for his tastes, he’d be well within his Constitutional prerogatives to do so.
The Washington Post takes a deeply critical look at the Pelosi plan for Iraq:
The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush’s supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn’t attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn’t hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year — a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government’s weakness. It doesn’t explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world’s second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.
In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with “massive civilian casualties,” as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.
The Democrats are consistent trying to ignore the 800 pound gorilla at the table — which is the reality that a departure from Iraq would be a disaster for the Middle East. The reality of the situation is that the presence of the United States is vital towards preventing al-Qaeda from finding safe haven in the country and spreading chaos across the entire region. One can argue that consequence flows from Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq — which is a legitimate argument, but entirely academic now. Unless the Democrats have perfected a time machine, we can’t go back and change history. We must deal with the problems of the present, and those problems can’t be solved by running away from them.
Not only that, but the Congress has no authority under the Constitution to put conditions on the exercise of the President’s war powers. They do have the constitutional prerogative to cut off funding for the war. Yet the Democrats know that they don’t want to be the ones holding the bag when the situation in Iraq goes from bad to nightmarish. Their “principles” are based entirely in political expediency — they supported the war when it was popular, and now that it’s not they’re against it — but only so far. Actually having to take real action that would produce a real result would mean taking responsibility for the situation, a step which the Democratic leadership has assiduously avoided.
So instead, Speaker Pelosi offers another attempt to “end the war” without actually ending the war, something she could very easily propose. The problem is that Pelosi’s strategy, while a horrible war policy, is smart politics. She has to play to the anti-war base, but she doesn’t want to be saddled with actually ending the war. So by proposing a policy which the President is constitutionally required to veto, she can give the anti-war base what they want knowing that it will do nothing.
Trying to analyze the Democratic position on Iraq from a foreign-policy standpoint is fruitless, because the Democratic plan for Iraq has nothing to do with foreign policy. It’s all about domestic politics, and electing Democrats. Pelosi’s strategy has no political downside for her — if she wins, the Democratic base can declare a victory. If she loses, the anger of the anti-war movement is unlikely to move from its fixation on the President. In fact, it’s better for her politically if she loses, thus keeping this issue alive into the 2008 cycle where it could prove as poisonous politically as it did in the last cycle.
The Democrats are certainly ignoring the gorilla in the room, but that’s because they don’t care. What happens in Iraq is entirely immaterial to the Democratic Party — it’s all based on domestic political calculations. The geopolitics in Iraq don’t matter, but the political calculations do. Pelosi is no fool, and if she can do what it takes to placate the liberal base without having to deal with that 800 pound gorilla, that’s exactly what she’ll do.
John Podhoretz argues that a Fred Thompson candidate would add strength to the GOP field. Thompson is both an accomplished politician and an accomplished actor, but he’s going to have trouble getting organization going this “late” into an election cycle that’s already started in earnest.
My guess is that Thompson is situating himself for a VP nomination in the future. For instance, someone like Thompson, who has some solid conservative credentials could easily benefit a Northeastern Republican like Giuliani or Romney. Thompson would add instant gravitas to a ticket, he’s from a key region, and he could provide a major electoral boost to a candidate. If one were to compile a short-list of strong GOP VP candidates, his name would be at the top of that list.
Thompson is more than an actor, he’s an accomplished public servant and lawyer. What he would bring to the race would be more than just star power, which is why there’s such interest in his candidacy. Even if he chooses not to run, don’t count him out — chances are he could end up being the star of the second act…
As Democrats get their knickers in a twist over a Nevada debate in which Fox News is a participant, Dennis Kucinich actually says something eminently sensible:
If you want to be the President of the United States, you can’t be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically,†Kucinich said. “No one is further removed from Fox’s political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership.â€Kucinich said “the public deserves honest, open, and fair public debate, and the media have a responsibility to demand that candidates come forward now, before the next war vote in Congress, to explain themselves.â€â€œI’m prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won’t shouldn’t be President of the United States.
Indeed, he’s right. Fox News is no less biased than the New York Times (although more prone to sensationalism), but that doesn’t mean that Republicans should dodge debates sponsored by the Times — in fact, if Republicans had the policy of not debating in front of any news agency with a pro-Democratic bias, they’d probably never be able to participate in a televised debate.
The whole silly little controversy about the Nevada debates is pure political pandering, and nothing but. No doubt that a candidate in a general election would not give up the free airtime, but since the Democrats are currently in a race to try to suck up to the “netroots” and the radical left, there’s no political price to be paid by skipping this debate.
When even Dennis Kucinich starts making more sense than most of the Democratic field on an issue, one knows that there’s something off…
The Los Angeles Times has a very clear-headed editorial on Congressional attempts to micromanage the war are a violation of the principle of separation of powers:
It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It’s quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.
This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.
But if Congress accepts Bush’s argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won’t be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this “surge and leverage” strategy.
By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It’s absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.
The Constitution does not give Congress the right to micromanage our troops — that is a function of the President who is vested with the executive power and made Commander in Chief of the nation’s military. Congress can certainly de-fund the war any time they like, that is their constitutional prerogative, but they can’t try to play armchair general and manipulate the US military.
What the Democrats are trying to do is force a defeat in Iraq so that they don’t have to take the political heat of actually ending the war themselves. If they can attach so many provisions and strings to funding that the war cannot continue, they can try to end the conflict without actually voting to de-fund it.
For one, as the LA Times notes, that’s not within their constitutional powers, and there’s no way that the Congress would be able to override the inevitable Presidential veto. Secondly, it should give the left pause that they have the very same goals in Iraq as al-Qaeda — force a precipitous US withdrawal. It is the height of willful ignorance to argue that Iraq would not become a petri-dish for terrorism long into the future if the US withdraws. Either we can deal with this problem now or we can deal with it in the future when it’s gotten worse. To argue that we can just ignore the Middle East and hope all goes well is not even close to sound policy.
The Democrats want to force defeat without ever having to admit to such — it’s a transparently spineless ploy. They have the ability to end the war by exercising their power of the purse — if they really believe their own rhetoric that this war is somehow the biggest debacle in US history, then they have an obligation to follow through and de-fund the conflict now. However, this isn’t about principled positions, this is about kowtowing to the radical left and scoring political points. That it emboldens our enemies, demoralizes our troops, and represents an utter abrogation of responsibility towards the people of Iraq isn’t even on the radar screen.
The Founders, in their wisdom, ensured that the Executive was given the power of Commander in Chief precisely because they knew that having the military subject to the whims of a Congress was unacceptable. No matter what the Democrats may want to do, that Constitutional principle ensures that Rep. Pelosi can’t override the Joint Chiefs of Staff and try to drive our military into defeat.
I haven’t had time to digest the conviction of L. “Scooter” Libby on four of the five counts relating to the Fitzgerald investigation — however, it is important to note that this doesn’t vindicate Joe Wilson in any way. He still lied to the press about what he found in Niger, there was no grand conspiracy to “out” his wife, and the real leaker was Richard Armitage all along. Mr. Libby may have lied, but even that is based on what is a rather flimsy case.
This isn’t vindication for anyone, and Patrick Fitzgerald’s overstretch of prosecutorial discretion doesn’t make this case any better. He couldn’t get the big fish he wanted, so he tried to nail who he could get. At the end of the day, Scooter Libby is being hung out to dry for something only tangentially related to the actual investigation. The President will undoubtedly pardon him, and he should do soon.