Archive for

Terror Detainees in New York: Neither Scary, Nor New

God help us all. Ahmed Ghailani, former Guantanamo detainee and suspect in the 1998 embassy bombings, arrived this morning in New York for trial, which means that, by the time you read this, Manhattan probably won’t exist anymore. At least, that’s RedState’s opinion. Excuse me if I’m skeptical.

Contrary to the conservative talking point, which frames detainee trials on American soil as novel and dangerous, America has been detaining suspects within the continental U.S. since the War on Terror began. As one example among many, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, whom the Bush Adminsitration designated as an “enemy combatant,” has been detained in Illinois and Charleston, and if I’m not mistaken, those states are still on the map.

GOP resistance to detaining terror suspects on American soil seems to be premised on the idea that jails somehow don’t work: where you read “detention and trial in New York,” they want you to substitute “a pleasant afternoon shopping on Fifth Avenue.” Please, don’t buy it.

Shallow Republican Talking Point Actually Loses Depth: Or, “Comrade Reagan”

Socialism on the march!

By attacking any form of progressive taxation as “socialism” or “class warfare” in 2008, the GOP arrayed itself fully against any form of intellectual honesty on the issue. After all, if taxing the rich is socialistic, America’s experiment with capitalism ended long, long before January 20, 2009. In fact, by that definition, the father of capitalism himself was a socialist:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

This neo-red baiting took yet another turn for the hypocritical yesterday, when Grover Norquist’s far-right “Club for Growth” nominated Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) for their “Comrade of the Month” award – all because he broke a promise not to raise taxes. Apparently, “socialism” now sweeps within its definition any increase in taxes, period. Mr. Norquist might be surprised to learn that, by this definition, even his hero President Reagan is a “socialist”: Reagan increased taxes at four times during his presidency, including the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was at the time “the largest corporate tax increase in history.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Taxes and tax increases are facts of life in a modern democracy. It’s time to get beyond the urban legend that taxes are either anti-capitalist, or avoidable. Until we do, I’ll be happy to bandy about the phrase “Comrade Reagan.”

In Texas, a Battle for the Soul of Conservatism, with Impacts for Feminism

A formidable opponent.

Anyone who’s spent half a second in Texas, or payed more than a moment’s attention to the recent history of the U.S. Senate, will have heard the name Kay Bailey Hutchinson (KBH to we honorary Texans). For her constituents, friend and foe alike, she’s synonymous with the honest, competent conservatism of the late governor Ann Richards, a reputation that’s won her a fair amount of bipartisan support (in the 60s, which is better than McCain did).

Despite her popularity, her moderation on some “red meat” issues – e.g., she wouldn’t completely overrule Roe – has unfairly bought her the outright enmity of elements of the GOP, potentially endangering her bid for governor. See for yourself:

SEN. HUTCHINSON (R-TX): “Because I speak in civil tones, some want to try to label me a moderate. My voting record is one of the most conservative in the U.S. Senate. … We can’t expect to remain the majority party in Texas if we drive out voters that support Republican principles but might not agree on every single issue.

She’s clearly right. Hutchinson is not only a Texas icon, she’s precisely that rare conservative – principled, intelligent, and unblemished – that the GOP will need to rebuild its shattered image (whither “conservative competence”?). And yet the state party stands poised to throw her under the bus in her primary challenge against state embarrassment, incumbent governor Rick Perry. For shame.

This story should sound familiar. While Texas is indeed the birthplace of conservative stateswoman-stars, they have a history of losing, unfairly, to unremarkable men. Take Ann Richards, a true progressive conservative, laid low by George W. Bush and his particular breed of nasty politics, eminently qualified to sum up his entire life in a nutshell: “some jerk.”

Just so. Don’t get me wrong – I’d prefer a Democrat in Hutchinson’s seat (like Barbara Ann Radnofsky) – but everyone benefits from a sensible opposition party. No matter how much fun we derive from sideshow acts like Rick Perry, we as Democrats should celebrate Republicans with real ideas, when they emerge, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson is just that. Here’s hoping the Texas GOP knows it.

Incidentally, this is precisely why people like me were skeptical of the GOP’s brief fling with feminism during ’08. Adding a name like Kay Bailey Hutchinson to a national ticket says “we believe in leaders who are strong, independent, and intelligent — oh, and if they’re women, all the better!” Adding Sarah Palin to a national ticket, though – a woman whose sole contributions to any national debate remain winking, smarmy catch phrases, and ‘Joe the Plumber’ – says “we believe in divas, photo shoots, and empty talking points.” That’s not feminism: that’s staging.

Too bad. Wake me when the GOP decides to put competence over shrill partisanship.