tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-142676792024-02-28T09:46:09.830-08:00Letters from the CenterI'm what you might call a "radical centrist" and these are my letters to bloggers, journalists, and politicians -- left, right, and center -- where I implore them to pull away from the edges and back to the mainstream. Come read if you like, but I'll keep writing either way.David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-65243604834356257272007-05-08T16:33:00.001-07:002007-05-08T16:33:20.796-07:00Docket-No.DHS-2006-0030-Comments<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>I’m opposed to the national ID on the grounds that it enables new capabilities for citizen monitoring to the federal government when it has persistently abused and misused its existing capabilities.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>I would support a national ID if it were introduced in conjunction with effective legislation to create additional congressional oversight of existing citizen-monitoring programs (eg, the anti-terrorist do-not-fly list) to require that these programs operate with increased transparency. Specifically, I would like this increased oversight and transparency to focus on increasing the accuracy and effectiveness of these programs, such as by publishing detailed reviews of all “false positives” created by the program and requiring that whatever flaw in the process that enabled that mistake be corrected.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>However, given the current state of these programs, and their lack of oversight, accountability, and transparency, I feel that might be too much to ask at this point and thus instead simply oppose the introduction of a national ID at this time.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>The problem that the national ID is meant to solve will only get easier over time, so I see no need to hurry.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>-david<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1154741726517948172006-08-04T18:35:00.000-07:002006-08-04T18:35:26.623-07:00Is Estate Tax Reform Dead?<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>In: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/04/estate-tax-reform-senate-cx_jh_0804estatetax.html">http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/04/estate-tax-reform-senate-cx_jh_0804estatetax.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>You said:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>With the old rates slated to return in 2011, it won't be long before the need for reform becomes urgent. The Senate leadership would be wise to not put off making a genuine stab at reform, as <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>eventually it will become a consumer issue</span></b> rather than just an irritant to small-business owners and the wealthy, warns Bass.</span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>How will it eventually become a consumer issue, and when?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>-david<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1144027409048525482006-04-02T18:23:00.000-07:002006-04-02T18:23:29.086-07:00RE: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war<p class="mobile-post">I entirely agree; it's almost impossibly difficult. But I'm eager to hear<br />your thoughts on this regardless.</p><p class="mobile-post">I think it's especially important for those like yourself to attempt the<br />exercise, otherwise we just leave it to those not like yourself.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p><p class="mobile-post">> -----Original Message-----<br />> From: mkatz@gmu.edu [mailto:mkatz@gmu.edu]<br />> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:20 PM<br />> To: David Barrett<br />> Subject: Re: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war<br />> <br />> Dear Mr. Barrett:<br />> <br />> Thanks for your message. I shall try to think of something along the<br />> lines you suggest. It is, however, very difficult to know what to do<br />> about this awful situation.<br />> <br />> Best regards,<br />> <br />> Mark N. Katz<br />> Professor of Government and Politics<br />> Department of Public and International Affairs<br />> MSN 3F4<br />> George Mason University<br />> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444<br />> (703) 993-1420<br />> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/pia/facultypages/katz.html<br />> <br />> ----- Original Message -----<br />> From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com><br />> Date: Saturday, April 1, 2006 6:48 pm<br />> Subject: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war<br />> <br />> > http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1151761.php<br />> ><br />> > Thank you for your excellent summary of options up on Monsters and<br />> > Critics.You do a wonderful job accentuating the delicate balance<br />> > the US must<br />> > maintain to succeed.<br />> ><br />> > However, what you don't do is make any actual recommendations.<br />> > Perhaps you<br />> > believe it's not your place, but I ask: who is better qualified?<br />> > What I'd<br />> > really like to hear from you (and from others who have studied the<br />> > regionsuch as yourself) is clear advice to the government, a clear<br />> > proposal for<br />> > action.<br />> ><br />> > Because the crowd of people who do sideline analyses is large<br />> > enough; we<br />> > need more people who leverage these analyses to actually put<br />> > forward their<br />> > own plans. Else we continue to defer planning to the same people, and<br />> > should only expect to get the same results.<br />> ><br />> > -david<br />> ><br />> ></p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1143935400447504682006-04-01T15:50:00.000-08:002006-04-01T15:50:01.036-08:00U.S. choices in Iraq civil war<p class="mobile-post">http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1151761.php </p><p class="mobile-post">Thank you for your excellent summary of options up on Monsters and Critics.<br />You do a wonderful job accentuating the delicate balance the US must<br />maintain to succeed.</p><p class="mobile-post">However, what you don't do is make any actual recommendations. Perhaps you<br />believe it's not your place, but I ask: who is better qualified? What I'd<br />really like to hear from you (and from others who have studied the region<br />such as yourself) is clear advice to the government, a clear proposal for<br />action.</p><p class="mobile-post">Because the crowd of people who do sideline analyses is large enough; we<br />need more people who leverage these analyses to actually put forward their<br />own plans. Else we continue to defer planning to the same people, and<br />should only expect to get the same results.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1142230315887030002006-03-12T22:11:00.000-08:002006-03-12T22:23:37.863-08:00The Guardian -- When the cheerleaders admit they were wrong, we'll move on<div class="Section1"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1729399,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1729399,00.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p>Madeleine,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p>Thanks for your great article in the Guardian. I entirely agree that our leaders are at fault for manipulating intelligence to justify these wars, and then failing spectacularly in their execution.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p>However, that story is well understood. What investigations into the matter have mostly concluded, and there seems little interest in taking them back up. The “truth” might never be known, like in countless other episodes throughout history.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p>I can understand (and share) your frustration in this. But I don’t share your apparent willingness to rehash and re-vent this frustration endlessly.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p>I could understand (and would support) you calling for more investigation into these topics. I’d enthusiastically endorse holding the Blair and Bush administration responsible for their many abject failures. I’d eagerly welcome a plan to bring heretofore information to light and to gain insight into the murky debate that is fading ino obscurity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p>But you’re calling for none of this. You’re not calling for *<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">anything</span></b>* (except maybe an apology from Bush and Blair, for whatever that’s worth). Rather, you’re just complaining.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;">Furthermore, you seem eager to draw energy *<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">away</span></b>* from the practical debate of what to do today (a debate in which you seem entirely disinterested) and focus it on... nothing that I can discern. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;">It’s great that you’re smart enough to see the big problem. But it’s sad that you’re not smart enough to do anything about it. There were thousands of people just like you who complained in the lead up to the war, who complained during the height of the war, and who now complain throughout the ongoing occupation. When will you learn that your complaints are meaningless without a call to act on some concrete alternative proposals?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;">In the meantime, you (and the countless others just like you) are a minor nuisance to Bush, but nothing more. If you ever got around to actually *<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">doing</span></b>* something, then maybe you’d matter. Because today you, and the myriad whiners like you, simply don’t.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Arial;">-david<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> </div>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1124047795822261772005-08-14T12:29:00.000-07:002005-08-14T12:29:55.843-07:00Daily Kos - The Many Democratic Parties<p class="mobile-post"><http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=412><br />> The point is Mark, we can win in PURPLE states. We can find a message<br />> that works in purple AND blue. And, to be frank, it is basically a<br />> negative message about the extremists that run the GOP. It is Lincoln<br />> 1860.</p><p class="mobile-post">This is interesting -- I've been long complaining about a lack of <br />specific counter-proposals or clear message for the Democratic party. <br />And I've thought this is a weakness; I figured it was a necessary <br />characteristic for a leader to have a plan B if they disagree with plan A.</p><p class="mobile-post">However, it seems you're proposing quite the opposite, that a necessary <br />and sufficient reason to be a Democrat is to simply not be a Republican.</p><p class="mobile-post">Surely I'm over-simplifying things. I desperately hope I am. But I <br />don't see how. I'm no historian, so I don't know what your "Lincoln <br />1860" codeword means. But to me it sounds like your strategy is "if we <br />whine loud enough, they will come".</p><p class="mobile-post">Is that what we've become? And is that the grandest to which you can <br />aspire?</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1123544030349294182005-08-08T16:33:00.000-07:002005-08-08T16:33:50.366-07:00Daily Kos - Extremist Conservative Legal Reasoning on Abortion Rights<p class="mobile-post"><http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=363><br />> A few weeks ago I skewered NRO's legal analyst Ed Whelan for trying<br />> to spin Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas as being "neutral" on the right<br />> to choose.</p><p class="mobile-post">You "skewered" them? Is this your objective, unbiased view? Or your <br />self-promoting, overconfident view?</p><p class="mobile-post">I know you think you're great; please try to leave it to the reader to <br />decide if they think so too. Otherwise you just sound lame, to your <br />supporters and detractors alike.</p><p class="mobile-post">Again, I generally agree with your views. I just generally disagree <br />with how you communicate them.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1123373878528536682005-08-06T17:17:00.000-07:002005-08-06T17:17:58.536-07:00Daily Kos -- Military Performance in Iraq<p class="mobile-post"><http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=346><br />> We understand that it is not the fault of our troops that they have<br />> been sent to this Debacle. It is Bush's fault, to his everlasting and<br />> historic disgrace. He misled us to this war and critically damaged<br />> the global alliance against terrorism, causing mayhem, death and<br />> chaos. He has made us less safe, less prosperous, and less secure in<br />> our future. He is the worst President in the history of the nation.</p><p class="mobile-post">Ok, this starts out a little over the top (Worst President in the <br />history of the nation? At best this seems premature; but at worst it <br />seems downright whiny), but I think the rest of the article is excellent.</p><p class="mobile-post">I totally agree with that the insurgent force appears to be improving in <br />effectiveness. Whether it's due to growing numbers, increasing <br />sophistication, or some weakening on our part -- I have no idea. But it <br />does seem like they're getting more deadly, and that our words are <br />ringing increasingly hollow.</p><p class="mobile-post">I'd love to hear more analysis of why you believe this is the case, and <br />what we can encourage our representatives to do about it. Most <br />importantly, I'd love to hear your overall plan -- repeated again and <br />again on a daily basis -- for what we should be doing differently.</p><p class="mobile-post">It's old news to hear yet more ways that we're screwing up. What I want <br />to hear are specific proposals that will enable us to do better.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1123289696658684272005-08-05T17:54:00.000-07:002005-08-05T17:54:56.676-07:00Daily Kos - Fighting Dems<p class="mobile-post"><http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=341><br />> Ed, this is simply not true. And once you realize that, you will see<br />> why we are right and you are wrong.</p><p class="mobile-post">Sigh... Do you even realize how petulant and arrogant you sound? Do you <br />understand that the one uniting theme across Bush critics is his <br />righteous arrogance? If so, why do you follow his example?</p><p class="mobile-post">If I could summarize the Daily Kos voice, it would be "whine". Billmon <br />would be "despair". Power Line would be "confuse". Why can't any of <br />you guys just talk? Like real people do? Like adults do around a <br />dinner table?</p><p class="mobile-post">It sounds like you're using the same tactics of the brat kid who yells <br />until his parents buy him a candy bar. Yes, the tactics work in some <br />circumstances. But don't you see the long term damage you do to your <br />position to ostracize centrist, moderate voices with such bullshit? I <br />mean, you're treating one of your fellow Democrats like an idiot; what <br />hope can I have that you'll even remain coherent when in the same room <br />as an actual Republican?</p><p class="mobile-post">For many people, it's not about the issues. There are simply too many <br />of them, and they are all too complicated. It's about trust. And <br />whining doesn't engender trust.</p><p class="mobile-post">I agree with much that you say. I just disagree, vehemently, with how <br />you say it.</p><p class="mobile-post">I heard it said once that "The only people who Kos despises more than <br />Republicans are centrists." At first I thought it was silly. After <br />all, where do you think you'll get your votes if not from us? But I <br />can't help but see this statement echoed in your posts, and it depresses <br />me. You're the best liberal voice on the web. Why can't you do better?</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1123098015443251842005-08-03T12:40:00.000-07:002005-08-03T12:40:15.456-07:00In the Red Zone - Steven Vincent RIP<p class="mobile-post">http://spencepublishing.typepad.com/in_the_red_zone/</p><p class="mobile-post">I'm horribly saddened to hear about Steven's murder. Steven was an <br />incredible journalist and his writings have had a powerful effect on my <br />understanding of Iraq. There is simply no replacement.</p><p class="mobile-post">Furthermore, I've read that Layla was injured, but thankfully not <br />killed. I earnestly hope she recovers quick and well, and finds some <br />way to press on in Iraq.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1122933137092521742005-08-01T14:52:00.000-07:002005-08-01T14:52:17.110-07:00Chrenkoff - Fighting words from a German<p class="mobile-post">Arthur wrote:<br />http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/08/fighting-words-from-german.html<br />> <br />> As I've written many times before, at the root this attitude is the <br />> belief that Al Qaeda is essentially a reactive force, with no agenda of <br />> its own, except to oppose certain Western actions (if, among other <br />> things, the existence of the state of Israel can be termed a "Western <br />> action") - hence, if only we did, or stopped doing, X or Y, everything <br />> would be fine, since "these people" have no quarrel with us per se , <br />> just with some of our policies.</p><p class="mobile-post">I'm frustrated by your selective interpretation of the opposing <br />position. Yes, there are certainly those who fit into the <br />isolationist/appeasement category you paint above. But the degree to <br />which you focus on them -- in near exclusion of all others -- frustrates <br />me as so far as I can tell, numerically and politically, that category <br />is a minority.</p><p class="mobile-post">It's my impression that most centrist and liberal folks recognize <br />extremist terrorism is a real problem and needs dealing with, and not <br />hiding from. But there are many ways to deal with it other than (or in <br />addition to) the current approach. And thus rather than rehashing why <br />we shouldn't put our head in the sand (a position that few actually <br />take), I'd like to hear your views on what we *should* do differently <br />than right now.</p><p class="mobile-post">- For example, I'd like to hear more about how *you* propose we deal <br />with military recruitment problems, or your theories as to why we're <br />having them in the first place.</p><p class="mobile-post">- Likewise, liberals believe the perception of America as a nice guy is <br />a strategic asset -- accumulated over generations -- that we're spending <br />at a frantic pace. Do you disagree with this? Do you think we're <br />spending that currency wisely? How could we spend it better, or even <br />earn more?</p><p class="mobile-post">Neither of these complaints equate to "pull the troops now!" or "appease <br />the terrorists!" Rather, it's "let's do a better job fighting <br />terrorism!" If you want them (ie, us) to listen to your reassurances, <br />it'd be a huge help if you took seriously our concerns.</p><p class="mobile-post">What I'd like to hear more about from you is less how the small minority <br />of stupid people truly are stupid, and more about how the large majority <br />of concerned citizens are legitimately concerned, and what we can do <br />about it.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1121233472487662852005-07-12T22:44:00.000-07:002005-07-12T22:44:32.490-07:00Daily Kos - Followup<p class="mobile-post">Ok, so I read now on FoxNews that John Gibson is saying Rove should get <br />a medal for outing Plume *especially* if he's guilty (of treason, <br />effectively). So I'd go so far as to agree that Gibson agrees with the <br />Plume outing. But I'd still ask that you avoid categorically accusing <br />Republicans as a whole of such insanity until a few less extreme voices <br />take up the chorus. Or if they have already, show who and where.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p><p class="mobile-post"> And now I see there's an argument in favor of her outing (albeit a <br />bizarre one),</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1121225599737131442005-07-12T20:33:00.000-07:002005-07-12T20:33:19.743-07:00Daily Kos - Out of Practice<p class="mobile-post"><http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=68></p><p class="mobile-post">This article, on the other hand, is quite good. For example, I<br />appreciate this statement:</p><p class="mobile-post">> That's the story now. The law will take care of itself. The Plame<br /> > prosecutor will tell us about that if and when he hands down<br /> > indictments.<br />> <br />> But the White House has been lying to the American People about the<br /> > fact that Rove leaked Plame's identity and about the fact that the<br /> > President would fire whoever leaked this information.</p><p class="mobile-post">I like how you state your opinion (that the evidence points to Rove <br />being guilty) and then assert your confidence in the justice system to <br />come to the correct conclusion. Furthermore, I like how you direct the <br />reader to the *real* story (in my opinion) that the White House covered <br />all this up for so long.</p><p class="mobile-post">I'd like to see more articles written in this more respectful, less <br />frantic tone.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1121224307243668392005-07-12T20:11:00.000-07:002005-07-12T20:11:47.246-07:00Daily Kos - Republican Leaders: We Support Plame's Outing<p class="mobile-post"><http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=64></p><p class="mobile-post">I'm terribly disappointed with the headline of this article as nowhere <br />has any Republican official that I've seen -- nor that you cite -- said <br />anything even remotely close to this. Is this your notion of objective <br />analysis and reporting?</p><p class="mobile-post">Overall, I'm disappointed by your mischaracterization of the Republican <br />position. Granted, they are eager to shut up on the issue, and yes, <br />they're interpreting everything in the best possible light. But in the <br />same vein, you appear to be interpeting their every statement in the <br />worst possible light, too. Take, for example, the RNC quote and your <br />response. You quoted Ken Mehlman (Chairman of the RNC) in saying:</p><p class="mobile-post">"It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking <br />their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. *The <br />bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a <br />false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in <br />blatant partisan political attacks.*" (Emphasis yours.)</p><p class="mobile-post">While he is obviously minimizing the importance of the charages against <br />Rove, this statement on its face isn't demonstrably false. They believe <br />Rove cited Plume -- indirectly, and without knowledge that she was a <br />covert agent -- in order to "prove" the Nigerian cake story was false. <br />They further believe that there is some doubt whether Plume is in fact <br />covert, and whether any law was actually broken. From this perspective, <br />the story is a non-event, and the Democrats are over-hyping the issue as <br />a "blatant partisan political attack". In short, it's possible to <br />honestly believe the statement simply through a willingness to interpret <br />all the evidence in favor of Rove.</p><p class="mobile-post">In the same sense, it's entirely possible to honestly believe Rove is <br />guilty, lying through his teeth, a brilliant mastermind of the Plume <br />outing, and a honest-to-God traitor. All you have to do is interpret <br />all the evidence against Rove, and it's quite easy.</p><p class="mobile-post">But the key thing is that neither view is "correct", and neither is more <br />"honest" than the other.</p><p class="mobile-post">It's no surprise that the far-right ignores anything slightly damaging <br />to "their man" when the far-left ignores anything potentially <br />reassuring. Please try to be more accepting of alternate <br />interpretations of the evidence and at least acknowledge the limits of <br />our, and your, understanding. If you truly believe in the truth, be <br />confident you'll be vindicated in the end. But don't muddy the waters <br />so that it never becomes clear.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1121213882525396602005-07-12T17:18:00.001-07:002005-07-12T17:18:02.530-07:00Power Line - London calling<p class="mobile-post"><http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010985.php></p><p class="mobile-post">You wrote: "I wonder what it would take for Mr. Blair (and President<br />Bush) to entertain second thoughts about the wisdom of supporting the<br />savages who do to Israelis what al Qaeda has just done to our British<br />friends."</p><p class="mobile-post">I agree, the Palestinian terrorists have been as bad as they get. And I<br />certainly agree with the danger of including Hamas in the political<br />process (to the small degree they include themselves). However, I don't<br />see what alternative you are proposing. It would help me as a reader if<br />every time you said what *not* to do (in this case, not give the<br />Palestinian Authority $8B), you highlight what you think *should* be done.</p><p class="mobile-post">So in the case of Isreal and the Palestinian Authority, if you don't<br />recommend us working with them or helping them rebuild the Palestinian<br />infrastructure (as we did for the former Nazis), what do you suggest we<br />do otherwise?</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1121213881573201662005-07-12T17:18:00.000-07:002005-07-12T17:18:01.576-07:00Power Line - Closing in on Karl<p class="mobile-post"><http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010989.php></p><p class="mobile-post">I think your summary of the Rove/Plume affair was quite good. I tend to<br />agree: at worst it appears that Rove accidentally revealed Plume's<br />covert identity due to a slip of the tongue. Indeed, I see no evidence<br />that this was some intentional act to punsh Plume's husband, as was<br />originally suggested.</p><p class="mobile-post">However, I'd like to hear your comments about the apparent coverup of<br />this mistake. Had he acknowledged the mistake honestly and immediately,<br />I think it'd be easy for most people to forgive him. But if it's true<br />that he both personally covered up his involvement, and caused others to<br />cover up his involvement, over a period of years -- that's hard to<br />stomach from one of our President's closest and most trusted aides.</p><p class="mobile-post">Would you agree that *if* Rove did accidentally and indirectly reveal<br />Plume's covert relationship to the CIA, and *if* Rove did engage in a<br />pattern of coverup -- neither of which has been definitively decided --<br />would you agee that this is a serious matter for which Rove should answer?</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120978865382785032005-07-10T00:01:00.000-07:002005-07-10T00:01:05.386-07:00Power Line - More "heads I win, tails let's call it even" thinking
from a partisan Democrat<p class="mobile-post"><http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010982.php></p><p class="mobile-post">This was an excellent post. I really appreciated how you positioned the <br />debate as a choice between two competing methods of appointing judges:</p><p class="mobile-post">"There are two plausible ways our democratic society can go about <br />selecting Supreme Court Justices. Under one approach, the party in power <br />is able to place Justices on the Court who are in tune with its general <br />philosophy about judging. ... The other model is to make the selection <br />of Justices a truly collaborative effort between the two parties, in <br />some fashion."</p><p class="mobile-post">I really like how you state your view while acknowledging the <br />alternative in a fair way. We need more of this type of writing. Thank <br />you.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120943620447924232005-07-09T14:13:00.000-07:002005-07-09T14:13:40.450-07:00Power Line - How Democrats and Frenchmen Think (Follow up)<p class="mobile-post">Power Line wrote:<br />> Deciding cases.</p><p class="mobile-post">Ok, this is indeed succinct, but so much so it's lost all meaning. Yes <br />the point of the Supreme Court is to decide cases, just as the point of <br />Congress is to vote on legislation. But I believe this is missing the <br />forest for the trees.</p><p class="mobile-post">You've stated that "contemporary liberal" thought has wrongly attributed <br />to the supreme court the role of "final arbiter of all the great issues <br />of US society", and wrongly claimed that its rulings have "long-term <br />impact on the life of society in general". What part of these statement <br />do you dispute?</p><p class="mobile-post">I'd grant its rulings aren't "final" in an absolute sense, because <br />nothing in the US government is final (by design). The Supreme Court <br />can change its members, change its interpretation of the Constitution, <br />and the Constitution itself can change. But would you grant that in a <br />practical sense, controverisal and complex issues are often lent closure <br />by the unique responsibilities of the Supreme Court, typically for a <br />generation or more? Indeed, decisions by the Supreme Court are more <br />"final" than any other aspect of the US government, and that *is* by <br />design. Would you disagree with this?</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120874009389215962005-07-08T18:53:00.000-07:002005-07-08T18:53:29.393-07:00Power Line - How Democrats and Frenchmen Think<p class="mobile-post"><http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010975.php></p><p class="mobile-post">You gave a quote listing the effct of the Supreme Court as:<br />- "long-term impact on the lift of society in general"<br />- "*At the very heart of American political life, the Court is the final <br />arbiter of all the great issues of U.S. society*" [emphasis yours]</p><p class="mobile-post">About these statements you said:</p><p class="mobile-post">"That wasn't, of course, the role envisioned for the Court by the <br />Founders, but it certainly is the one favored by contemporary liberals"</p><p class="mobile-post">Perhaps I'm one of the "contemporary liberals" that you cite, but I <br />always assumed these statements were essentially true. Could you please <br />clarify what you believe the role of the Supreme Court to be, in as <br />succinct a fashion?</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120722526008306722005-07-06T22:18:00.000-07:002005-07-07T01:15:24.376-07:00Power Line - A blast from the past and an omen for the future?<p class="mobile-post">-------- Original Message --------<br />Subject: Re: A blast from the past and an omen for the future?<br />Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:18:36 -0700<br />From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com><br />To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com></p><p class="mobile-post">I agree with you the democrats haven't made a clear case for Bush's<br />supposed "incompetency" in Iraq. I find that people very confidently<br />and casually assert this "fact" and then find themselves unable to<br />justify it when pressed.</p><p class="mobile-post">However, I hope you agree that to a casual observer, based on the news<br />we receive from mainstream sources, it's not hard to come to this<br />conclusion -- even if not true. I think the general assertions of<br />incompetence come down to:</p><p class="mobile-post">1) Disbanding the Iraqi army. Personally, I think this was a hard call,<br />seemed like a good idea at the time, and might even have been the right<br />decision. It's impossible to tell, even with hindsight. But there's no<br />denying that the downside of this move is suddenly unemploying a huge<br />volume of armed soldiers, and this is unfortunate at best, or some might<br />say "incompetent" at worst.</p><p class="mobile-post">2) Calling "Mission Accomplished" well before the mission was anywhere<br />near accomplished. Now I suppose you could argue the "mission" was<br />merely toppling Saddam, and thus this was legit. But to many observers,<br />this was a sign of absurd overconfidence, and signalled an "incompetent"<br />presumption that it would be smooth sailing henceforth.</p><p class="mobile-post">3) Trusting the Nigerian uranium cake stories. This went to the highest<br />levels of the Bush administration -- including Colin Powell's address to<br />the United Nations -- and now it appears that the documents are obvious<br />forgeries. Though some might claim this was part of a campaign to "fix"<br />the evidence (to use the terminology of the "Downing Sreet Memos"),<br />others might merely assert this fits a pattern of incompetence.</p><p class="mobile-post">4) The armor-for-troops issue. It's hard for me to understand why we've<br />had such trouble outfitting our troops and equipment with decent armor<br />when we're spending such enormous sums of money on the war. This is<br />further complicated by assertions (at the time) by the manufacturers of<br />the armor that they have extra capacity that the Pentagon hasn't<br />requested. If this is true, it could be a sign that the Pentagon and<br />its civilian leadership were incompetent in the logistics of equipping<br />our troops.</p><p class="mobile-post">And these are only the first four that came to mind. I don't mean to<br />defend the assertions of incompetence. But I do mean to counter your<br />blaise response to such assertions. I'd prefer that you (and frankly,<br />the Bush administration) recognize that mistakes have been made, and<br />counter that these mistakes were simply unavoidable. Facing up to the<br />bad news builds our confidence when you assert there is good news --<br />especially good news that is too secret or complicated to detail.</p><p class="mobile-post">But by categorically denying or ignoring accusations of mistakes, and<br />then attacking anyone that suggests such a thing, you contribute to an<br />overall perception that you (and by extension, the Bush administration)<br />are out of touch with reality.</p><p class="mobile-post">Strong leaders don't hide from the truth, because they know that on<br />balance, the truth is on their side.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120722659979848612005-07-05T21:38:00.000-07:002005-07-07T01:15:37.116-07:00Power Line - Biden rules<p class="mobile-post">-------- Original Message --------<br />Subject: Re: Biden rules<br />Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:38:27 -0700<br />From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com><br />To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com></p><p class="mobile-post">If possible, please clarify the following questions:</p><p class="mobile-post">1) What is "judicial activism"?<br />2) Would you endorse a "judicial activist" for the Supreme Court?<br />3) Is it possible to be a "solid liberal" or "solid conservative" judge<br />without simultaneously being a "liberal/conservative activist judge"?</p><p class="mobile-post">My confusion is that one one hand, everyone seems to be against judicial<br />activism. But on the other hand, everyone seems to be in favor of<br />having "their guy" on the Supreme Court. Isn't this a direct contradiction?</p><p class="mobile-post">It seems to me that the *only* way you fight against "judicial activism"<br />is to explicitly denounce any judge who is "solid" in any ideological<br />respect.</p><p class="mobile-post">Naturally, everyone has baises -- and judges are human. But there's an<br />enormous difference between someone who votes 60/40 conservative, and<br />90/10 conservative, wouldn't you agree? And the nearer you are to the<br />90/10 side, the more accurate the label is "judicial activism", correct?</p><p class="mobile-post">So with this in mind, how can we so casually call for/against a<br />political political/ideological bias in the judges we recommend, while<br />simultaneously lambast the the political/ideological bias of the judges<br />who are currently seated?</p><p class="mobile-post">If you could address this point in one of your posts, I'd greatly<br />appreciate it. Thanks!</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120724621161657572005-07-02T01:23:00.000-07:002005-07-07T01:24:41.770-07:00Please recommend a moderate supreme court choice to your readers<p class="mobile-post">(Sent to a list of perhaps a hundred journalists around the world.)</p><p class="mobile-post">-------- Original Message --------<br />Subject: Please recommend a moderate supreme court choice to your readers<br />Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:35:14 -0700<br />From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com></p><p class="mobile-post">Hello, I'm writing to ask you to endorse a moderate supreme court<br />candidate to replace Justice O'Connor. Personally, I believe it's<br />reprehensible for anyone to recommend a politically biased judge<br />(whether liberal or conservative) as doing so effectively negates the<br />value of the judiciary. I'm not so naive as to believe this isn't or<br />hasn't always been the case, but I am sufficiently idealistic to believe<br />that we should at least strive for improvement.</p><p class="mobile-post">Anyway, I merely ask that rather than you recommend a judge based on how<br />that judge would likely favor your views, consider whether that is the<br />right metric, and ask your fans to consider this as well. Thanks!</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120723085447192182005-06-13T16:06:00.000-07:002005-07-07T01:15:53.326-07:00Power Line - Unreal<p class="mobile-post">-------- Original Message --------<br />Subject: Re: Unreal<br />Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:06:59 -0700<br />From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com><br />To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com></p><p class="mobile-post">Interesting post on Clinton. I never really grasped the reasoning<br />behind the intense hatred of the man, and I appreciate you laying out<br />the pillars: health care, welfare reform, etc.</p><p class="mobile-post">That said, I was a bit surprised at how spiteful your tone was. Is it<br />really so hard to find anything positive to say other than "Clinton's<br />1992 campaign themes sounded good"?</p><p class="mobile-post">In order to really communicate with "the other side" I'd recommend<br />reaching out a bit more. Acknowledge the good and people will listen to<br />the bad. Else they might continue to tune you out entirely.</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p><p class="mobile-post"><http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010715.php></p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120723116457219872005-06-05T07:17:00.000-07:002005-07-07T01:16:06.146-07:00Power Line - Some perspective, please<p class="mobile-post">-------- Original Message --------<br />Subject: Re: Some perspective, please<br />Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 19:17:10 -0700<br />From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com><br />To: power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com></p><p class="mobile-post"><http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010636.php></p><p class="mobile-post">Excellent summary of the Koran report.</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14267679.post-1120723143839264032005-06-04T19:59:00.000-07:002005-07-07T01:16:20.713-07:00Power Line - Better than an apology<p class="mobile-post">-------- Original Message --------<br />Subject: Re: Better than an apology<br />Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:59:27 -0700<br />From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com><br />To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com></p><p class="mobile-post"><http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010632.php></p><p class="mobile-post">I agree entirely. It's frustrating to no end that the MSM devotes no<br />inches to the "good news" in Iraq. I'd love to have a better sense of<br />reconstruction progress -- just a weekly update would be great. Do you<br />have a source for where I can get this sort of summary?</p><p class="mobile-post">-david</p>David Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06665251639022075770noreply@blogger.com0