The fact that some disagree, and do so strongly, with some of GG's remarks about Ron Paul (see yesterday) is only natural -- we all disagree sometimes. A critical mass, to further what end exactly is unclear, does agree upon some basic points. It is akin to those who note that those in our society agree on much more than we disagree, that is, about basics like the baseline rules of democracy, free speech and so on. Florida and Ohio was only possible (I retain my feeling Kerry lost Ohio, but enough occurred to be concerned either way) because of the closeness of the race overall. If Bush lost Florida by even five percent, it would have been much harder to push things over in his direction.
This underlines the problems with things being so close in Congress, since there is very little (in the Senate, none) margin for error. Life cannot work that way very well. Take yesterday's Cowboys/Carolina game, where Carolina's fourth QB (starter injured early, back-up too, Vinny Testaverde came in and was both iffy and hurt, leading to an undrafted guy to start the last two) did a quite credible job. But, the game arguably turned on two plays/calls -- a 4th and short early on that the Cowboys barely got (perhaps with a good spot) and a pass interference call that the announcers thought was a gimmee. This directly led to ten points. 20-13, Cowboys.
On the subject of sports, both people at Salon and some at the NY Daily News have current pieces questioning the value of the Mitchell Report. I wrote my immediate thoughts earlier, but I'm wiling to believe that the report was flawed and incomplete. Doubts and cynicism lingers. Bill Madden at the News btw referenced the integrity clause in Hall of Fame balloting. He notes if we want to toss it, let's not just do it sub silento. You know, all those who want to have Pete Rose, as if the integrity of the game really does not matter since he was such a great athlete. I personally still have this idea honor and integrity still mattes somewhat in the "national pastime," and if the integrity of the game is seriously violated, it should mean something.*
Mark Gruber has an timely piece highlighting the importance of not biting off more than one can chew as well as some of the compromises made over the year in the pursuit of beneficial ends. Consider the compromises made by FDR, including welcoming some undesirable elements into the "New Deal coalition." Populists including those from segregationist friendly areas and often rather racist elements from the North as well. Still, they agreed upon some basic things, and we benefited from the coalition. There is potential out there, with the right strategy and leadership, to go in a good direction. Consider a comment from Charlie Savage's piece on the candidates' view of executive power:
"It's fair to say that the Democrats, Senator McCain, and Representative Paul are united in supporting a reinvigoration of checks and balances and the reassertion of a meaningful congressional role in national security affairs," said Shane.**
There is reason for realistic optimism. But, we must be careful. Of course, there is differences on how to go about it -- thus my doubts about candidates others think are the best option. The devil is always in the details ... strategy important too.
---
* It does matter if something is against the rules or not, though for some reason a lot of the coverage and analysis does not really clearly remind how they developed. For instance, at what time did steroids (or particular substances) clearly become against the rules? How did the rules change over the last decade, aside from the current punishments for failed testing?
I honestly am not really clear on the contours of this, but it seems rather important to clarify just what is at stake. It seems a basic question, as is the basic effects (which are at times referenced, but not too often) of the substances involved. Yet again basic questions are left to those -- few in number -- who have the wherewithal to research the question. [Insert journalism jeremiad.]
Also, how valid is it for Congress to have people come and testify in open hearings? Can they do this in any situation, no matter what the possible loss of reputation and livelihood? Rather open-ended power, even if justified. Cf. Watkins v. U.S. (and Whalen v. Roe, perhaps). Anyway, since Bush Administration officials are not involved, I guess testimony in open Congress is appropriate.
** The Q&A is interesting and providing such a summary -- in their own words too -- of candidate views is a wonderful resource. Given recent discussions, this interplay with Ron Paul -- the need for clarification itself of note -- is of particular interest:
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the Senate has ratified?
Well, he never has the right to violate any human rights, but because he should obey the constitution, not because of the international treaty. But so I would get to that point but not because of the treaty but because of the Constitution.
Well, but the Constitution only has force on US soil, right, so the question is what happens when he is operating overseas? Do these other instruments bind him if the Senate has ratified them?
If he's overseas and the treaty is in effect and would protect human rights -- see I keep thinking well we shouldn't be over there. So if we're there -- and I can't see myself being over there - well, okay, the answer would be that he would have to obey the treaty.
The first answer is accurate enough in a fashion -- human rights tend to be secured by the Constitution, but in various cases they might be clarified and strengthened (without abridging constitutional rules in the process) via treaties. And, constitutionally, treaties are the law of the land. This suggests Paul's focus on the dangers of federal power, even though from the start, some aspects of federal power was deemed fundamental -- it was the very point of a federal Constitution.
The second Q&A is also notable. The question has a false premise -- can a President enslave troops overseas? Obviously not. But, this "off American soil, carte blanche" fiction is a big problem these days. In fact, even Paul is somewhat iffy in another question as to habeas for those off U.S. soil, accepting it as to Gitmo, but unclear about other situations. BTW, some of the questions warrant short answers ... a clear "no" or "of course not" ... and Dodd's approaches are appreciated.