Thursday Roundup: Dems Unite - Well, Not Really

Boy, I'd love for this to not be the lead story: The Hill covered a story that you can also find in just about every other major media outlet, discussing how Democrats are split on what to do about Iraq.

No, it doesn't seem like particularly breaking news, but for once the mainstream media is right: it should be. The article details the dilemma, in that the Democratic party is split between those calling for gradual steps and phased redeployment and those calling for a hard-line "out of Iraq now" policy with withdrawals beginning sooner and without any residual peacekeeping troops in the area. So Congress is at an impasse: they require centrist Republicans to side with them to have enough numbers to get a veto-proof majority, which has already proven to be necessary, but if they make moves to the center to satisfy the people they need to appease to get bills past the veto-happy President, they'll lose the vote of party hardliners and be back at square one. So nothing can really be done.

I wrote a piece touching on this topic a little while back, on how congressional Democrats are doing the best they can with limited political capital and the requirement to appeal to both sides of the aisle to get anything done on the Iraq matter. But it's still remarkably frustrating that a large part of our inability to get anything done on Iraq stems from those most eager to get out, and their refusal to accept any sort of compromise on the matter. They stick with their take on what's right instead of looking for a middle ground, and therefore nothing gets done. And in the end, that hurts Democrats all around.

Though frustration with some Democrats in Congress is par for the course these days, no matter which wing of the party you lean toward, it is still important to remember that we are far, far better served by a Democratic majority than by a Republican one. Tussles between Democrats in office are far outweighed by the fact that when we control Congress, we control the agenda and have an automatic positive effect on the system. Need proof? Allow me to direct you to the Washington Post, which has a story of a power shift that absolutely no one would have dreamed of even as recently as a year ago: The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers the Carolinas, the Virginias, and Maryland, and is one of the most conservative circuit courts in the nation, is up for grabs, and has a very strong chance of being "solidly Democratic for many, many years." This is mostly due to a number of resignations, few nominations by the Bush administration, and congressional Democrats blocking those nominations.

To say that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has played a pivotal role in a number of pro-administration rulings in terrorism cases and the rights of the executive to withhold rights from detainees is to shortchange the significance of an ideological swing in the court and its potential long-term ramifications. And this opportunity would never have occurred with a Republican congressional majority rubber-stamping Bush's nominations for the court. That may be a good thing to remember next time you hear someone criticizing conservative Democrats from conservative districts.

Speaking of Democrats, in quick succession after Tuesday's AFL-CIO Democratic candidate debate comes another debate, tonight at 8pm central. This debate will be aired on Logo, an MTV Networks channel geared toward the GLBT community, and will focus primarily on gay issues, according to Variety. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Dodd have confirmed attendance, and Richardson and Kucinich may be making appearances as well. It doesn't surprise me that all the front-runners would choose to attend, particularly after seeing the stats I saw yesterday: the GLBT community makes up an estimated 4% of the voting population, but a remarkable 90%+ of the demographic voted in the last presidential election. That blew my mind when I read it, and is something the community should be incredibly proud of.

From the "it's the economy, stupid!" department comes news of President Bush trying to ease the minds of investors across the nation trying to deal with a wildly volatile stock market. The Oracle of Texas (whose business acumen we know well) is predicting a "soft landing" from the mess of a market we currently are seeing. His justification for the rosy outlook?

"I'm a glass half-full person," the president said of his optimism. "I believe that if markets are given a chance they will adjust" in a way that won't endanger the economy, he said.

Yup, you don't need to mess with markets. They're self-adjusting. The less our involvement with them, the better. Oh, and by the way, due to my rosy outlook, we should cut corporate tax rates. Here's my idealistic wishful-thinking prediction for the day: GWB having made those two completely opposite statements in the same speech will finally get people to realize that there's no such thing as laissez-faire economic policy; all government decisions that affect business in any way end up affecting their profitability when all is said and done, so whether your monetarism is direct or indirect, the invisible hand is as dead as any inherently fictional entity can be. (Not that Adam Smith would have recognized it in its popular modern incarnation anyway.) Hey, I can hope, right?

And finally, in the Dear-God-not-again department: Still bitter at Kinky Friedman for basically helping ensure Rick Perry's election? Well, I don't know whether you should be thankful to have another crack at him or horrified at his return, but he's saying he's considering running for governor again in 2010. Apparently he's already bored of peddling his Honduran cigars (which were just released, but I can't imagine will do well anyway; Dominican filler's the in thing right now), and needs something new to make headlines before his book comes out. And get this: he's thinking of running as a Democrat. Considering that the only thing he's had on his site recently that even remotely approximates a policy statement is a defense of Don Imus, I can't see how that will work out so well. But there is a long time until 2010, I suppose. Goodness gracious, tell me I didn't just acknowledge that possibility.