Redstate

I'm struggling to understand the hostility I've seen expressed here toward the 9/11 Commission.  This is an honest question: how in your eyes is the role Kerry envisions for the Commission going forward different from the role played by the advisers any president would rely upon?

I could understand the hostility if the commission were overseeing one of the current roles of the federal government that conservatives believe should be handled by the states.  But it seems to me that national security (which is what I understand the Commission to be concerned with) is held even by the most hardline of consevatives to be the federal government's bailiwick.

Yes, national security is the federal government's bailiwick. But to cede important functions of the executive branch, the department of state, the department of defense and the intelligence community to a committee --- a committee of retired professional politicians (many of whom would rather grand-stand than make the tough decisions required to win a war),--- is not the mark of a strong, wise leader. It is the mark of a weak, foolish, unprincipled politician.

This is what I don't get: how is Kerry proposing to cede any functions?  As I asked Tacitus, how is what Kerry is talking about any different than the role of the various advisers any president will rely upon?

... Instapundit. Glenn Reynolds, at least, is among those who are paying attention.

But then the President has to take that advice and make policy. I want that policy to reflect the realities of those who voted for the President. Besides on a practical level much of the work of the commission is incomplete and some of the advice is not very smart, for instance the idea of having a central authority on intelligence just makes no sense to me. I want more opinions not a single opinion.

What happened to Abdul Rahman Yasin? What happened to Saddam warning our Ambassador in 1990 that even if his armies couldnt match ours that individual arabs certainly could, if we meddled in his plans to invade Kuwait? What happened to the Beggars Banquet of Terrorists held in Baghdad after the first Gulf War? Incomplete and because of that the commission should not to be taken too seriously.

Welcome back.

"Here was a man delivering a speech about two Americas when his own personal journey belied that very rhetoric. "

Since there seems to be continuing GOP befuddlement around this issue, maybe we can flesh it out.  Conservatives seem to take the attitude, "if he did, anyone can do it.  Look! John Edwards grew up in a working-class family, and became a Vice-Presidential candiate! Proves there really aren't any barriers at all to working-class people! Look! Clarence Thomas made it to the Supreme Court! Proves there isn't really any racism at all in America! And if they did it, why can't you do it? Nothing's wrong, everything's fair, you just need to work harder, you lazy whiner!"

That angle is so smug, so ignorant, and so condescending to all the people who work incredibly hard and really do the best they can but still see their dreams evaporate because they don't have extraordinary natural gifts that Edwards and Thomas had, or the structural gifts of a good school system, access to health care, etc, not to mention the incredible wealth and connections that were Geroge Bush's birthright.  Most people aren't brilliant.  Most people aren't incredibly lucky.  Most people who work just as hard as John Edwards don't get anywhere near his status.  And most people certainly can't be drunken failures for 40 years and then decide they want to be President and actually make it happen.  This idea that people just aren't working hard enough, or just lack "character" as a commenter suggested in a previous thread, is mind-boggling and absurd to almost anyone, but those priviliged few who don't see just how lucky they are.  There are plenty of people out there who work one job, then two jobs, maybe even three jobs, and they still struggle to buy their food and afford their prescriptions and send their kids to community college. I grew up surrounded by them. For the effort they put in, they deserve better than that- better school systems, better health care, better wages, and better leaders.  I "made it" because I was really lucky to have two parents who were teachers with a gift for providing me with an amazing head start in my education, and a genetic twist of fate that gave me a really solid brain. Most people aren't that lucky, and success in an advanced society must not depend so much on where you're born, and who you're born to.

But then again, why do I bother, when you have the simple Republican solution:

A campaign worker for President Bush said Thursday American workers unhappy with low-quality jobs should find new ones -- or pop a Prozac to make themselves feel better.

And there you have it.  Out of touch, patronizing, and just plain callous.

If the hard-working people stuck in these miserable jobs actually had health insurance and prescription drug coverage, I'm sure some of them might try Prozac.  Becuase nothing feels worse than giving it your best and seeing you and your family fall so short of your dreams, much less of what others achieve by nature of being born in the right town, or to the right family.  Of course, there's always the Republican answer of screaming "envy! socialism! un-American!" but the only thing un-American there is the vast, hurtful opportunity gap in the "two Americas."

Not going to get into it in depth now, but suffice it to say that my father made it quite well in the world as a fairly disadvantaged minority.

In any case, you're making quite the erroneous leap in assuming that because I assert Edwards' formulation is false, I think poverty and deprivation are not problems in America.

And most people certainly can't be drunken failures for 40 years and then decide they want to be President and actually make it happen.

And we're supposed to be the ones who are "so smug, so ignorant"? My friend, this kind of nastiness, this simple lack of decency, is right out of the Michael Moore playpook that an increasing percentage of the Left uses to guide its strategy.

I think it is widely acknowledged that President Bush struggled with an alcohol problem as a younger man. But I hardly think his life could be characterized as "drunken failure". It looks to me as if he at least had done a pretty capable job as a husband and father, and to big chunks of this country, that counts for a lot.

Moreover, Mr. Bush apparently has overcome his problem, and no matter what advantages he may have possessed, he couldn't have attained his current office and stature without a great deal of discipline, hard work, and intelligence. George Bush is no more a product of privilege than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy. I predict that unfortunately for your side, neither of these last two will have proved capable of converting those advantages into a successful run for the presidency.

I refer to "George Bush is no more a product of privilege than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy."

Although in Kerry's case, AFAIK, he wasn't a drunk.

If we could just get Tacitus to admit that he's been wrong in all of his criticism of the military's tactics in Iraq.

Officers Question Visibility of Army in Iraq

Some in Military Urge Lower Troop Profile

By Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, July 26, 2004; Page A01

Some top U.S. military officers are questioning whether the practice of keeping U.S. troops highly visible in Iraq is doing more harm than good, challenging a key tenet of the Army's approach to occupying the country.

Advocates of the new approach say U.S. troops would be more effective if they were kept out of view of the Iraqi public, and even removed to remote desert bases, appearing only when needed to conduct operations beyond the capacity of Iraqi security forces.

Link

So he doesn't need the 9/11 commission to stick around and see if their report is fully implemented.  They did their job, it is the responsibility of the professionals already appointed & hired by the Administration to implement it in a manner that best fits Bush's vision of national security:  not the 9/11's vision of national security.

Besides do you not remember the sick carnival of all the different commission members parading on TV while they were still conducting their work?  When the issue is national security I don't believe that is an effective way to work.  Leave the implementation of the 9/11 commission's proposals to the professionals we have in place.

Not even close.

I'm really sorry. My dad was the son of a sharecropper; he joined the Navy to get the G.I. Bill, played tag with a Soviet submarine, lived, went to college, then graduate school, and finished off middle class. His brothers and sisters, some with nearly the same intellectual ability, and better educational access, largely continue to rot in poverty.

If everyone reaches the top, the top will simply be the average. I'm no fan of social Darwinism, but trying to correct the fundamental unfairness of life seems a fool's errand.

Oh, and on the "not the brightest bulb in the bunch" point: My maternal grandfather was hardly the brightest bulb in the bunch, but he busted his butt and ended up quite solidly middle class. His kids took the next step up.

Will everyone get ahead? Nope. But having the freedom to try and fail means a lot.

I'm here to tell you that I was wrong. It may be close. It may be hard. It will be decisive:  We're going to win.

Did somebody spike 'ole Tac's milkshake or sumptin':)

The boy is on fire!

Outstanding, Lieutenant:)

Hmmm.

Considering that I'm a very successful computer programmer with 26+ years experience now in semi-retirement (I prefer working to retirement-boredom-hell) I can say with complete certainty that you're pretty much wrong.

Why?  Because I come from a very rural low-income blue collar background.  My dad worked for the municipal water dept. and my mother worked as a seamstress for a local clothing factory.  The schools in my area were all funded by local property taxes, taxes which didn't amount to much since the value of the land was pretty low.

Sorry "sunshine" but you're completely wrong.  The American dream is intact.  All you need is motivation and hard work.

condescending to all the people who work incredibly hard and really do the best they can but still see their dreams evaporate because they don't have extraordinary natural gifts

I absolutely demand, and I'm sure Sunshine will back me on this, the Harrison Bergeron Solution! Let's demand that President Kerry create the new position of United States Handicapper General. It would be a great post for Kucinich.

when a man accused him of being drunk

"Yes, I am drunk. And you're crazy. In the morning I will be sober, and you'll still be crazy."

"My friend, this kind of nastiness, this simple lack of decency, is right out of the Michael Moore playpook that an increasing percentage of the Left uses to guide its strategy."

Well Said!

At long last, have they no sense of shame?

they consider it a neo-con conspiracy.

Most people who work just as hard as John Edwards don't get anywhere near his status.

Most people dont think to use junk science, hard luck cases of birth defects, and gullible juries willing to believe phony medical theories, to extract millions for themselves from the health care system and doctors, thereby enriching oneself at the expense of costs of childbirth to everyone else.

In other words, there a few that have the surplus in salesmenship and the deficit in moral restraint to engage in such a low craft that does little to reall help the community at large.

Those junk-science trial lawyers are a special breed are they not?

My thoughts exactly, though I am not quite yet an optimist.

But my dad was raised by a single mother working several jobs to keep him and his sister fed.

Now he's an aero engineer working on missile defense.

Not incredibly wealthy, but well off. I learned a lot about conservatism from him.

John

ombudsman

SYLLABICATION:    om·buds·man

PRONUNCIATION:      mbdzmn, -bdz-, -bdz-

NOUN:    1. A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization. 2. A government official, especially in Scandinavian countries, who investigates citizens' complaints against the government or its functionaries.

ETYMOLOGY:    Swedish, from Old Norse umbodhsmadhr, deputy, plenipotentiary : umbodh, commission ( um, about; see ambhi in Appendix I + bodh, command; see bheudh- in Appendix I) + madhr, man; see man-1 in Appendix I. (American Heritage Dictionary).

the Commission should issue a status report every six months to address the following questions with absolute candor

If I'm reading correctly, Kerry is calling for the commission to issue a status report to address certain questions on national security. He doesn't say anything about granting mediation powers to the commission, or ceding it any governing authority whatsoever. You might argue the Commission has become a public flogging post for the grievous errors of the Bush administration, but that is not its purpose nor is that what Kerry is calling for.

Tacitus, please, your party allegiances and misgivings are yours to give or withhold, but please, do stay on this side of the shark.

If I'm reading correctly, Kerry is calling for the commission to issue a status report to address certain questions on national security. He doesn't say anything about granting mediation powers to the commission, or ceding it any governing authority whatsoever.

"The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families.  As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission."

That would be from last night's speech.

Given the subject line, well -- it bears repeating.  

Anyway, Merriam-Webster gives as one of two definitions of "ombudsman," "one that investigates reported complaints....reports findings, and helps to achieve equitable settlements."  Which is exactly the role Kerry is proposing for the Commission.

By the bye, what you're erroneously accusing me of is not an error of reading comprehension, but of usage.  Seems if you're going to bray about process points as a means of avoiding the topic, you might want to get your own right.

Moving on.

the line would read

As President, the commission will immediately implement its recommendations.

M-W's definition doesn't accord any better with your assertion:

he wants power so badly he's actually prepared to cede some of it to attain the greater part of the whole.

You don't cede power to an ombudsman, maybe to an arbitrage court. There's your usage mistake. Kerry for his part calls for neither an arbitrator nor a mediator. He's calling for the panel to continue asking questions and making recommendations. There's your reading comprehension problem.

I'm going to be charitable and assume you're pretending to not grasp what everyone else is.

If Kerry said,

"The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families.  As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission."

Then the only difference between that and your assertion of Tac's meaning (which seems more or less correct):

As President, the commission will immediately implement its recommendations.

... is the immediate actor implementing the recommendations, not the prima causa, so to speak.

It does not matter if the 9/11 commission must do the work directly, or must order Kerry to do something; Kerry (probably inadvertantly, but who knows?) offers himself as helpmeet. An agent is excused for his principal's acts; that does not mean that the principal's acts are not done.

..but not much more..

He's calling for the panel to continue asking questions and making recommendations.

He's calling fot the panel to continue making recommendations that he will commit to implementing right now without knowing what those policies are and if they are really going to help.

John

I will immediately begin taking orders from the 9/11 Commission.

Still sounds several degrees off of true north to me.

Come now, Jordan.  Think this through.

You don't cede power to an ombudsman....

Two things:  First, you certainly can.  Second, what a picayune line of attack.  Reduced to this, I see.

He's calling for the panel to continue asking questions and making recommendations.

Moe already got you on this one by pointing out the relevant Kerry quote.  Think about it: If you are pre-committed to implementing whatever "recommendation" is issued, what's the difference between that and an order?  If you are pre-committed to submitting to whatever "recommendation" is issued, how is that consistent with leadership?  If you are pre-committed to submitting to whatever "recommendation" is issued, what latitude is left for your own powers of discernment or judgment?

To argue that this is meaningfully different from a willful abdication of powers -- based, apparently, on a debate-team tactical move over what an ombudsman does -- is risible.  You're in a poor position to be finger-wagging over shark-jumping.

Willful blindness and all that.  See my reply above.

The commission's recommendations are right here. Just because you don't know what they are, doesn't mean Kerry doesn't.

So I hope the President will now take the necessary steps. If he does not, then the day I become president I will lead, in a bipartisan manner, to ensure that the Commission's recommendations are implemented immediately. These are common sense ideas from a bipartisan Commission -- and we can't continue to ignore them, as doing so would be at our peril.

He's speaking of the current recommendations of the commission. Don't make me parse the word "these" at you.

....you're just desperate now.  Everyone but you grasps that he wants the Commission to continue issuing recommendations at six-month intervals.  

Rapidly becoming fruitless to discuss this with you....

Like the two paragraphs preceding the one you cite, perhaps.

Dishonest, Jordan.  I'm done with you here.

of 1000 nuances rather than admit you read something that wasn't in Kerry's statement.

Like this?

This from the guy who wants to wrangle over petty usage questions.  Eh.  Hey, if self-parody is your thing.

1. Ask pertinent questions.
   
   
2. Call on Bush to act on the findings.
   
   
3. If he doesn't, I will.

Still missing the part on ceding executive power, though.

from Kerry, who takes orders from the 9/11 Commission?

Yes, people do need the freedom to try. That means that the opportunity has to be there. One way to make sure opportunity exists is to stop stacking the deck for those who are rich through no effort of their own.

One way to make sure opportunity exists is to stop stacking the deck for those who are rich through no effort of their own.

How rich is rich? And who's stacking what deck, and how? And why does that matter?

Neither my father, nor my grandfather, nor any of the folks described in this thread, were unduly threatened by the rich, whether those rich folks came by the money by their own sweat, or the old fashioned way. Putting everything else to the side, your statement begs an argument: Even assuming the deck is stacked -- given your implication, a somewhat dubious assertion -- I fail to see how that affects anyone else's chances.