Eric Holder vs Liz Cheney (Part Deux)

Originally Posted on Draft Liz Cheney:

Attorney General Eric Holder took his turn in front of the Senatorial talking-points firing squad (also known as a “Senate Committee Hearing,” where Senators don’t bother with what could be regarded as inquiry and instead try to fit as many one-liner rhetorical pot-shots they can during their allotted time) Wednesday.   Interestingly enough, the New York Times reported the event in a considerably concise manner: touching upon the concerns Republicans (and Democratic New Yorkers) had with the idea of the Justice Department holding terrorist trials in New York, or in the United States period.  The Times is also sure to point out the small spat between Senator Jeff Sessions (R – AL) and Mr. Holder, while de-emphasizing Mr. Holder’s respectable ability to quibble his way around Senator Session’s questions and points.  In the end, even Senator Schumer (D – NY) pointedly registered his view that New Yorkers’ had developed a fairly strong consensus against any terrorist trial being held in the state.

Of course, I write for this website that encourages Liz Cheney in a direction that would land her in some sort of public office.  With that in mind, I had to journey into forbidden waters to find what truly interested followers of Draft Liz Cheney, which was the part of the testimony where the Attorney General goes out of his way to address his contempt for Keep America Safe’s campaign to elucidate the nine lawyers working on terrorism cases that had defended ‘suspected’ terrorists in the past.  Fortunately, the HuffingtonPost does a fair and balanced article on the Attorney general’s scornful remarks:

“There has been an attempt to take the names of the people who represent Guantanamo detainees and to drag their reputations through the mud,” he said, when pressed to disclose more information about these lawyers by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There were reprehensible ads in essence to question their patriotism. I’m not going to allow these kids… I’m not going to be a part of this effort.”

Holder continued: “Their names are out there now. I’m simply not going to be a part of that effort. I would not allow good, decent lawyers who have followed the best traditions of American jurisprudence… I will not allow their reputations to be besmirched. I will not be a part of that.”

Had Mr. Holder answered the questions raised regarding the Justice Department’s employment of attorneys that had been involved in terrorist defense cases, no one’s reputation would have been “dragged through the mud.” Furthermore, it was not for the purpose of dragging through the mud that Senators (before Keep America Safe even became involved) asked the Attorney General for those names in November to begin with, it was in the interest of full disclosure and transparency: these two nefarious notions that the Obama Administration promised would be at the forefront of their Administration. When the Justice Department ducked and dived, Keep America Safe stepped up to the plate and Liz Cheney called Attorney General Holder out on it.

I find it interesting that Holder’s lawyers are “good” and “decent,” while the Bush Administration’s lawyers faced possible indictments the entire year following Bush 43’s ride into the sunset. What is killing the Obama Administration is the knowledge that they might be able to kick around Sarah Palin and a few others by calling them stupid or letting SNL do their dirty work for them; but they cannot do the same with Liz Cheney. This is what makes her such a force inside the beltway, and why we need to push her in that direction.

-rj

Kucinich Thrown Under The Bus

Ohio Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich is truly a far-left liberal. He supports a Department of Peace, told me he was against free trade when he visited my campus, was the only 2008 Democratic candidate for President who voted against invading Iraq and was slammed by Daily Kos founder and far-left fanatic Markos Moulitsas for being too principled on health care reform. (Kucinich is opposed to the current version of health care reform because it is not liberal enough.) Being a conservative, I disagree with Kucinich on just about every policy issue and perspective. However, as is true with most extreme Members of Congress- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), for two examples- I respect his holding to his principles.

Unfortunately for Kucinich, President Obama has an odd way of showing his respect for Kucinich’s principles. The president was in Kucinich’s district to talk about health care reform today, where he commended Kucinich for fighting for the average person. As a follow-up, literally seconds later, Obama asks an audience member who yelled “Vote Yes” to repeat his statement.

Perhaps I’m reaching for straws here, but why is President Obama needling Kucinich? The man introduced impeachment articles against former President Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, and supports enacting a new Fairness Doctrine. He is not going to bow to pressure. Besides, as AllahPundit put it, Kucinich could very well be the deciding vote on health care reform. Alienating him is not a good way to get his vote.

Interview With Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)

I was able to interview Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) today for about ten minutes, thanks to Ericka Andersen of the House Republican Conference. Below is our exchange (paraphrased and based upon notes I took during the interview):

DS: Debt is out biggest issue. My father believes that we will never get out of the debt hole Presidents Bush and Obama are putting us in. How would you work to get this country out of this debt and deficit load?

RB: I don’t mean to over-simplify the solution, but federalism should be applied. We need to redefine what the role of the federal government is. We have good programs, but who runs them? The federal government. It’s too big to run so many programs well.

We should have the states run many programs, and give them the tax revenue that would otherwise be given to the federal government.

Creativity, efficiency and justice can only be done at the state and local levels- the federal government is just too big. We need to get the federal government out of peripheral areas. Foreign policy and national defense should be handled at the federal level, though.

DS: What would be your strategy to federalize these programs?

RB: Empower states to fight Congress. Back in 1988, Bruce Babbitt proposed empowering the states to oppose Congressional acts. The basic proposal was that if 2/3 of the states opposed a Congressional act, it sunsets in a year. National defense and foreign policy would be exempt.

DS: The Pentagon budget is as full of waste, fraud and abuse as any program, including Medicare. I know it’s hard for a Republican to commit to streamlining the Pentagon budget, but would you do so?

RB: No. I would not. That’s partially because the Pentagon has already started a lean program in Depot Force, and is asking people on the front line of building what our military needs how we can make things cheaper, with less of a footprint and with fewer people.

What it Means To Be A Conservative

From Austin Russell:

At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand.  Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government.  That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.

The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.

Sovereignty At Risk?

Let’s pretend President Bush gave a domestic security organization unrestricted ability, complete with immunity from search-and-seizure and Freedom of Information Act laws. (For liberals, the wiretapping would be your closest analogy.) Well, guess what? President Obama did so two weeks ago, in a little-noticed Executive Order on the White House website. The Order, an innocuous statement for sure, was caught and reported on by several press organizations, including National Review’s The Corner and The Washington Examiner.

ThreatsWatch.org has the most thorough analysis of what this Executive Order, which “grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.” In short, it appears that our sovereignty is threatened by liberals who apparently believe such a concept is merely a fossil of the past.

Update: A former Bush official says it’s about time we allowed INTERPOL to have this status. Interesting piece by ABC’s Jake Tapper. It’s a good read.

Daily Kos Changes Its Story

After years of attacking President Bush for his “unilateral” invasion of Iraq, are liberals changing their story? Daily Kos, a defender of extreme liberalism and one of the most popular sites on the Internet, might be with this front page comment on their daily pundit round-up as part of the commentary on a Washington Post article on Iraq/Afghanistan military material: “The military and US voters may be surprised to learn that Obama is fighting this war single-handedly. The sad part is that teabaggers will believe it.”

Mmmmm…wasn’t it just a few years ago that Bush was invading Iraq without international support, despite evidence to the contrary? Oh, wait, we have other countries with us in Iraq? Or are they talking about the War on Terror? Or are they sliding over to the war in Afghanistan?

I just don’t understand the flexible logic these people use. Of course, I’m just a knucke-dragging conservative.