I’ll start this out by saying that I’m sure several of you are going to disagree with me.

Unlike conservatives, I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he appeared to give a deferential bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps it was just a rookie mistake, or the result of some bad advice from the protocol office.

But, this is starting to become a disturbing pattern:

How low will the new American president go for the world’s royalty?

This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference for a superior.

To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better. Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain’s Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America’s royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago.

This isn’t a matter of being polite, it’s not a matter of following Japanese custom, and it’s not a matter of maintain cordial relations with an ally.

Nor, as this video shows, what it a situation where Obama and the inbred son of the guy who authorized the attack on Pearl Harbor that resulted in the deaths of 2,000 Americans were exchanging mutual bows:

Obama clearly was being deferential in a manner that just isn’t acceptable for an American President.

It all boils down to a simple fact:

American Presidents do not bow to royalty. In fact, heads of state do not bow or genuflect to each other in the normal course of diplomacy. At least, they didn’t until this amateur came into office and failed to learn from the first time he did it. What will the White House say this time? He got stomach cramps?

Something like that, I’m sure.

These decorations are an easy, relatively inexpensive way to acknowledge the holiday. They require little or no thought beyond which one to buy and where to buy it. The set-up is easy, so is the clean up and off-season storage.

Easy is good.

The unfortunate trade-off is that most inflatables are hollow caricatures of tradition and a lousy representation of the individuals upon whose lawn they are displayed.

I took three classes in college with a professor who made every class read George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.

The essay warrants contemplation. The criticisms he makes of modern writing can be made of most modern pursuits. Holiday decorating for example.

He writes:

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. [...] If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious.

When you use ready-made decorations, you don’t have to untangle lights, build scarecrows or hang bats from trees. Just “gum together” a ghost and pumpkin that’s “already set in order by someone else” and you’re good to go. The result is cute, maybe. Mostly it’s uninspired and unremarkable.

The trouble with such thoughtlessness, Orwell writes, is that it feeds on itself:

[...] an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

It is rather the same thing that is happening to all arenas of our life. The more we choose to rely on the convenience of prefabricated expressions (of thought, holidays or anything else), the less effort we put into all aspects of our lives, and the more we become generic caricatures of ourselves.

Look at what passes for political discourse these days. The majority of people are vehemently arguing about which inflatable lawn ornament is better for the country – your goofy-grinned liberal scarecrow or my fat conservative, Disney witch.

The good news is that the condition is reversible – without taking a BB gun to the neighbors yard:

One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase [...] into the dustbin, where it belongs.

I suppose that means I’ll go outside and make a scarecrow.

Washington – A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.

The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.

This is the third poll done for the Club for Growth in the NY-23 special election, and Doug Hoffman is the only candidate to show an increase in his support levels in each successive poll. The momentum in the race is clearly with Hoffman.

This result stands in contracts to the other recent polls conducted in the race, which seemed to show that the Democratic candidate was benefiting from a divided Republican electorate:

Of course, it’s worth noting that there are obvious reasons to discount the Daily Kos poll, and there are some serious doubts about the Club for Growth poll as well.

For one thing, Basswood Research appears to be an exclusively Republican polling firm and there’s absolutely no indication that it’s methodology is accurate or reliable.

For another, the 5 3/4% margin of error is unusually high, and means that the numbers themselves give no indication of who might be in the lead.

Finally, with one-fifth of the electorate undecided, a number that doesn’t seem to have changed all that much from the previous polls, it’s pretty clear that this race is far from being decided.

Personally, I’m going to wait until we get a poll from an unbiased source like Siena College to see where this race might really be going.

When lawmakers return home for recess in August, they can expect to hear tough questions from constituents on the economy, health care and government spending.

But Republicans are preparing for something else: the birthers.

As GOP Rep. Mike Castle learned the hard way back home in Delaware this month, there’s no easy way to deal with the small but vocal crowd of right-wing activists who refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.

Castle’s town hall, of course, descended into chaos after a woman, later identified as a frequent local talk show caller dubbed “Crazy Eileen”, whipped the assembled crowd into a frenzy demanding answers about Obama’s eligibility to be President, and his experience is not going un-noticed by other members of Congress:

Having seen his colleague Castle come under attack, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) is taking no chances.

“Before I got back to Michigan before the break, we’ll go through it, so that we’re versed in it,” Hoekstra said recently. “Just like anything else, if you see a hot issue … it’s sort of like, ‘Let me go take a look at this and see what the status is.’”

Hoekstra believes there’s no “compelling case” questioning Obama’s origins. But after talking to Castle about his town hall, he knows that he’d better be ready with an answer.

The trick: What do you say?

(…)

Republican pollster Whit Ayers says that a member confronted with birther questions should immediately pivot the conversation back to big issues.

“You simply indicate that in a country where our fiscal policy is driving us toward bankruptcy, where we are wrestling with major issues of health care reform and fighting two wars for our safety, you don’t have time to deal with wild conspiracy theories,” he says.

That’s the approach House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana takes.

“On that issue, I’m pretty distinctive that the president is from Hawaii,” he said. “I just don’t know where he’s coming from on health care.”

It’s a smart response for the normal people in the audience, but if Crazy Eileen is any indication of how your average birther would behave at a town meeting, I doubt it’s going to work with the die-hards, especially since the Queen Bee is encouraging them to attend the meetings and bring the issue up:

[B]irthers say members should expect more of the same in the coming weeks.

“Absolutely,” says California resident Orly Taitz, the Russian-born attorney/dentist who has become a kind of ringleader for the movement. “It is a very important issue, one that politicians should have taken up a long time ago.”

(…)

Taitz says that until Obama is removed from office, America’s other problems cannot be addressed. The fact that a few members of Congress have taken up her cause, with 10 Republicans signing onto Floria Republican Rep. Bill Posey’s legislation to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, has only encouraged her to buckle down in the fight.

As Taitz sees it, Campbell, who represents her congressional district in Southern California, was moved to co-sponsor the “Birthers’ bill” for fear of people like her.

And that, I think, is why merely ignoring the birthers to the point where Congressmen, candidates, and the Chairman of the RNC are too dense to realize they’ve befriended the Birther Queen Bee on Facebook isn’t going to work. Neither is running away when the question is asked. And, trying to deflect their questions won’t work when you’re dealing with obsessed, single-minded, zealots. Anything other than outright, emphatic, rejection of their meritless claims and their calls for desertion by members of the military will be taken by them as a sign of encouragement, and will only serve to divert energy that should otherwise be utilized re-making the Republican Party into an entity truly capable of beating Barack Obama in 2012 (and, no, it isn’t there yet).

Originally posted at Below The Beltway

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s army of canvassers fanned out across the nation over the weekend to drum up support for his $3.55 trillion budget, but they had no noticeable impact on members of Congress, who on Monday said they were largely unaware of the effort.

“News to me,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, a House Budget Committee member, of the canvassing. Later, his staff said that his office had heard from about 100 voters.

The president’s lieutenants tried to open a new front in the “Obama revolution,” the grassroots mobilization that propelled the once little-known Illinois senator to the White House last year. David Plouffe, who ran Obama’s campaign, now runs “Organizing for America” out of the Democratic National Committee. It uses the same Web-based tactics that won the presidency to mobilize public opinion behind Obama’s initiatives in a bid to redefine “business as usual” in Washington.

“The budget that passes Congress has the potential to take our country in a truly new direction — the kind of change we all worked so hard for,” Plouffe said in an e-mail alert to Obama followers last week. He asked them to rally people in their hometowns behind Obama’s budget.

Over the weekend, Obama supporters knocked on an estimated 1 million doors in all 50 states. Canvassers asked people to sign a two-point pledge saying that they support Obama’s “bold approach for renewing America’s economy,” and that they’ll ask family, friends and neighbors to back it.

It’s an interesting strategy, but there are several problems with trying translate the momentum of a campaign into a movement that can impact policy after the election:

Trying to mobilize voters to rally behind a complex, multi-trillion dollar budget that Congress will take months to enact is a different task from winning votes for a presidential candidate.

“You live in Terre Haute, Indiana, or suburban Denver, and someone you don’t know knocks on the door and talks politics — the election is over,” said Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Connecticut. “I’m not sure if it will make a big difference.”

Even if they were Obama supporters in November, how many of the people who had a canvasser come to their door over the past weekend are going to take the time to call or write their Congressman or Senator ? My guess that it would be a relatively small percentage of those people are going to be sufficiently motivated to get involved in that effort, and their people who are politically inclined to begin with.

My guess is that a good number of the people who talked to a canvasser said thank you and went back to watching the NCAA Tournament.

Did Stevie Wonder feel like a freshman at the senior prom? (AP photo)

Barack Obama is now turning Wednesdays into his own upscale version of Chamber of Commerce/Rotary Club mixers, serving up cocktails, Maryland crab, Wagyu beef, Nantucket scallops and citrus salad — according to a recent Associated Press review of 2009 White House parties.

I confess to not knowing what Wagyu beef is, but I do know the Cardinal Law of Networking: Never act too excited or overeager, regardless of how powerful your potential contact is.

The last thing you want is to be perceived as a fan instead of a potential business partner.

Apparently, several congressmen who have been invited to nibble on Maryland crab this year have been too starstruck to care.

Check out what U.S. Rep Mike Honda (D-Calif.) told the AP about his experience being in the same room as Barack Obama:

“People like me felt comfortable in his presence,” said Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., a self-described “poor country boy” who said he felt like a “freshman going to the senior prom” when he attended a White House reception for leaders of the congressional caucuses.

“Sometimes when you’re in the presence of the most powerful person in the world, in the most powerful democracy in the world … I was in awe that I was comfortable,” said Honda, chairman of the Asian Pacific American Caucus. “I think that’s his style and how he grew up, who he is.”

OMG, Mike, please text me and let me know what you’re gonna wear the next time you meet the president!

U.S. Rep Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) is blown away that Obama watched a football game with him.

Smitten even more is U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a guest at the same Super Bowl party.

“My favorite part was when he personally served us cookies — oatmeal raisin — when we were watching the game,” she said.

It is true that relationships and status can dramatically change when your colleague gets a big promotion. But Klobuchar served for two years in the Senate with Obama, likely rubbing elbows with him before at left-wing ice cream socials.

Now, she’s openly gushing about him serving her cookies.
**
Darren Garnick is a Boston-area freelance writer and documentary filmmaker. For more political schlock, visit www.cultureschlock.com

Veritocracy is a new social news recommendation site that I’ve been trying out behind the scenes for a couple months and now you have the opportunity to try it before it launches.

My contact over there explains it better than I so check this out and if you have any interest to use the technology before it launches, I’ll have that information after this blockquote:

Veri helps you get a better picture of the topics and news stories you really care about, and share your own opinion as well. Veri does this on a personalized basis, by finding the best articles from the mainstream media, readers, and the blogosphere (including from Donklephant!) – specifically for you. So if you’re non-partisan, instead of getting only a slice of information, you really get a full and unbiased picture of each story you read about.

You just read and vote for the articles you liked seeing, and Veri automatically does the rest. It’s a way to cut through the noise and get right to the things you want to read about. And if you ever have a better perspective on any topic, you can always submit your own.

And here’s a quick screenshot of the easy-to-use interface.

If you’d like to check it out right now go to Veri.com, enter in the code “Donklephant” into the “Have An Invite?” section. They’ve set aside 200 invites for our readers, so sign up before they run out.

And then report back here about what you think about it. I’m sure they’d be extremely interested in your feedback.

When President Obama nominated former Senator Tom Daschle to be his secretary of health and human services, it seemed to be a good choice. Mr. Daschle, as the co-author of a book on health care reform, knew a lot about one of the president’s signature issues. As a former Senate majority leader, he also knew a lot about guiding controversial bills through Congress, where he remains liked and respected by former colleagues.

Unfortunately, new facts have come to light — involving his failure to pay substantial taxes that were owed and his sizable income from health-related companies while he worked in the private sector — that call into question his suitability for the job. We believe that Mr. Daschle ought to step aside and let the president choose a less-blemished successor.

(…)

Mr. Daschle is one oversight case too many. The American tax system depends heavily on voluntary compliance. It would send a terrible message to the public if we ignore the failure of yet another high-level nominee to comply with the tax laws.

And the tax problems for Obama’s nominees don’t end with Tom Daschle either:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.

Killefer was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate their nomination after President Barack Obama announced their selection.

The White House said Obama had accepted Killefer’s decision and that the 55-year-old executive with consulting giant McKinsey & Co., would explain her reasons for pulling out later Tuesday.

When her selection was announced by Obama on Jan. 7, The Associated Press disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia government had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help.

One can make an intellectual case that Killefer’s oversight was minuscule and shouldn’t have prevented her from taking her position, but this is politics.

Usually, you only get one free pass and, when it came to nominees with tax problems Obama got that free pass with Timothy Geithner.

That’s why Killefer withdrew and why, I suspect, Daschle won’t be far behind.

Cross-posted at Below The Beltway

It appears that Caroline Kennedy’s withdrawal from consideration for the open New York Senate seat had nothing to do with her uncle’s illness:

ALBANY — Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy’s own description of her reasons for withdrawing.

The account emerged 14 hours after Ms. Kennedy announced that she was taking her name out of contention for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, and as Mr. Paterson, according to two well-placed Democrats told of his thinking, was leaning toward selecting Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand, an upstate lawmaker in her second term in Congress.

Hard feelings toward Ms. Kennedy were clearly building among the governor’s staff on Thursday, after a dramatic evening in which she was reported to be dropping out, then wavering, then ultimately, shortly after midnight on Thursday, issuing a statement ending her candidacy.

The person close to the governor said Mr. Paterson “never had any intention of picking Kennedy” because he had come to consider her unready for the job. The person did not describe the exact nature or seriousness of the tax and household employee issues.

So, it would appear that Princess Caroline’s withdrawal had nothing to do with Uncle Ted’s illness, and everything to do with the fact that she knew she wasn’t getting the job.

As for the “tax and household employee issues,” my guess is we’re talking about hiring an illegal alien nanny and/or not paying the required withholding taxes for said nanny.

Because, you know, only the little people pay taxes.

Cross-posted at Below The Beltway

This is Steven Greenstreet with American News Project.

Activists claim that money from the Mormon Church was the deciding factor in passing Proposition 8 in California – banning gay marriage. The church claims to have only spent a few thousand dollars on the campaign, but ANP has uncovered evidence that may expose a gaping hole in that claim. Also, the IRS forbids religious organizations from “substantially” lobbying for political legislation. But, since the IRS does not define what “substantial” means, how is anyone to know just how much was too much?

Now it’s true that immigration reform is a tough subject for conservatives. True too, that when it comes to immigration there are some many on the restrictionist wing who consider Bush to be either a) a sentimentalist or b) corporate America’s pawn or c) both of the above. Equally, the orthodox Republican position on immigration – border enforcement first, then reform – is not desperately unpopular. But a popular (or at least not unpopular) position is only half of the matter: you have to sell it well too. And on a subject as contentious as immigration, that requires a degree of tact and sophistication that, by and large, seems alien to many Congressional and grass-roots Republicans.

***

So it isn’t just that legal Hispanic immigrants might be turned off by the GOP’s language on immigration, so too are educated, upscale white voters who don’t like the idea of endorsing a party that gives the impression, unwittingly or not, of being hostile to immigration. The GOP’s posture on immigration fosters the impression, fairly or not, that they’re the “nasty party”. As far as political branding goes, that’s a toxic position for any party to find itself in.

And this is the real problem the GOP faces, and which we’ve been discussing over the last several weeks. The biggest problem with the party’s current situation (i.e., the problem of “talk radio dogmatism”) isn’t its position on the issues – it’s the downright meanness upon which it insists to push those positions.

As I wrote during my stint subbing for John Schwenkler, it’s terribly difficult to persuade people to vote for a party or even support its policies (regardless of whether they agree with those policies in principle) when:

• That party’s guiding lights, rather than make principled arguments for various “anti-terrorism” policies, insist on labeling your religion as “Islamofascism”;
• Rather than make principled arguments for stronger restrictions on immigration, you and your family are portrayed as foreign invaders seeking to destroy the country from within because of the Mexican flag hanging on your balcony – even as nothing is said about the Italian or Irish flag hanging on your neighbor’s balcony
• Rather than make principled arguments against gay marriage, you are accused of wanting to destroy your country’s traditions because you want legal recognition of your relationship.
• Those same guiding lights proudly promote, rather than simply defend, the use of words and phrases with a well-known role in oppressing you or your ancestors.
• Rather than make principled arguments against an auto bailout, you and your friends are accused of bleeding the American people dry
• Rather than make principled arguments for the use of force and/or for restrictions on civil liberties, you are accused of being a “Defeatocrat” or wanting to “let the terrorists win.”

The reason this meanness comes about is that the party has lost sight of the principles that gave rise to its policy preferences in the first place, principles that came from a number of different strains of political thought. Far from being a sort of “master conservatism,” the resulting set of litmus test policy preferences thus lacks a coherent ideological basis in any cognizable form of conservatism.

And when a party loses sight of underlying principles, the only way to maintain party unity is to scare its constituents into loyalty, turning every issue into “Us vs. Them.” While this can work in the short-term, it must inevitably result in unprecedented discord as once-loyal coalition members become fed up with consistently being called one of “Them.” Case in point – see Weigel on Malkin on Voinovich. And that says nothing about the effects it has on ensuring you don’t make inroads into the other coalition’s constituencies.

H/T: Conor Friedersdorf.

Cross-posted at Publius Endures.

And without a doubt, the basic tenets of neo-conservatism, with its emphasis on the spread of democracy as an end unto itself, are tenets with which I profoundly disagree. But it’s also worth remembering that neo-conservatism, at least in its most philosophical form, is very much concerned with a positive, idealistic worldview just as any other true political philosophy is. And while, just as other strains of conservatism and libertarianism, many prominent neo-conservatives have fallen under the spell of “talk radio dogmatism,” the actual philosophy of neo-conservatism itself – again much like other strains of conservatism and libertarianism – has deep intellectual roots.

Perhaps nothing provides a clearer example of the distinction between this “talk radio dogma” neo-conservatism and actual philosophical neo-conservatism than the reaction in conservative circles to the impending nomination of Leon Pannetta to head the CIA. As an outspoken critic of torture (aka “harsh interrogation techniques”) and the intelligence failures of the last 8 years who has no previous connection to the CIA, the Pannetta nomination has unsurprisingly drawn the praises of civil libertarians of all stripes – including Greenwald, Sullivan, Schwenkler, and Hilzoy.

What is, however, surprising is the way in which the pick has split the portions of the political Right that hold to a more-or-less neoconservative view of international relations. On the one hand, some of neo-conservatism’s biggest intellectual heavyweights, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, are almost completely supportive of the nomination – in spite of Panetta’s harsh criticism of policies that Feith and Perle either pushed or excused. The common thread for this group seems to be an acknowledgement of the failures of the last eight years, and a belief that those failures arose due to systemic, institutional problems within the Agency. To them, these problems can only be fixed by someone outside the Agency with strong managerial skills, and preferably, it would seem, a critic of the Agency. At base, this group recognizes that a neo-conservative agenda cannot succeed unless there is some sort of comprehensive reform of our intelligence services – and it is that idealistic (if, in my view, deeply flawed) neo-conservative agenda that remains their ultimate concern and goal.

But the GOP dogmatists, who do not understand the intellectual roots of the fundamentally neo-conservative foreign policy they advocate, have taken a vastly different tack.

Ed Morrissey, who is as close to an intellectually honest dogmatist as you will find:

Even the notion of “change” doesn’t apply here. Obama has no executive experience in government, and neither does Panetta, but Panetta hardly represents a breath of fresh air in Washington. He’s another Clinton-era retread, only in this case, put in charge of an organization about which he knows nothing. He’s there to exercise Obama’s political will and nothing more.

Similarly, Wizbang calls the pick the equivalent of the Bush decision to choose Mike Brown to head FEMA, while Ace of Spades says Panetta’s only qualification is “being a lifelong partisan hack.” And, of course, Michelle Malkin says “Another day, another clueless Clinton crony named to a top job for which he has no experience. The unqualified fish rots from the head down, after all. ”

Notably missing from any of the discussion amongst the dogmatists is an acknowledgement of the systemic problems faced by the CIA, whether it be in terms of the moral issues related to interrogation techniques or in terms of the embarassing intelligence failures in recent years.

Cross-posted at Publius Endures.

Over the last few months, there has been much finger-pointing as to which particular sect of the old GOP coalition is to blame for the policy failures of the last 8 years and the electoral failures of the last 2 years…..I think these accusations are deeply misplaced – the problems have not been caused by religious conservatives or adherence to free market beliefs, but instead by a sort of “talk radio” dogmatism in which any given issue becomes a litmus test for whether one is a “true” conservative or Republican.

This dogmatism has become terribly pervasive, dominating the party infrastructure and including many of the most prominent faces of conservatism both online and on the air. It is a dogmatism that is in some ways pushed by a wide variety of conservatives – free market conservatives and libertarians, religious conservatives, and defense conservatives. And yet it is also a dogmatism with which large elements of each of those groups take significant umbrage.

In and of itself, though, a little dogmatism is not necessarily a unique hindrance to a political party or movement’s electability or even its legislative agenda – political dogma has existed for at least as long as political parties have existed, and without some of it political parties cannot distinguish themselves from their competitors.

Instead, the problem with this particular form of dogma is its all-around meanness. Under this dogmatism, dissenters of any stripe are treated as the enemy, regardless of whether the dissenter’s general viewpoint could be described as “conservative,” and regardless of the dissenter’s political affiliation. Wide nets are cast to stereotype anyone who may be adversely affected by implementation of one of the dogma’s tenets. Where a particular tenet relies on a particular fact, and a suggestion is made that the fact is inaccurate, the personal loyalties of the questioner are called into question – even if the fact is demonstrably wrong.

What’s important here isn’t that GOP dogmatism (or political dogmatism more generally) is overly ideological – quite the opposite, actually. Instead, the problem is that it doesn’t recognize its lack of a firm ideological basis, turning the individual policy preferences of whichever strain of conservatism is most passionate about a given issue into a litmus test for some imagined “master conservatism.” Because this dogmatism represents the conclusions of numerous different philosophies, though, it cannot rely on the ideological arguments that gave rise to the policy preference in the first place. For instance, relying on principled libertarian arguments for a particular economic policy is not possible when you take a position on social policy that is inherently at odds with those arguments; similarly it is not possible to rely on principled religious conservative arguments for social policy when you take a position on economic policy that is directly at odds with those arguments. In short, the problem with dogmatism isn’t that it elevates principle over the common good – it’s that it is almost completely devoid of principle in the first place, a fact which Conor Friedersdorf seems to get. The result is that this imagined “master conservatism” is forced to rely on arguments that rely on a sense of fear and an “us against them” mentality.

This is not to say that this type of dogmatism is without value – it’s useful as a means of creating party unity and “getting out the base.” Nor is it particularly the province of conservatives – liberals and Democrats most certainly have their own type of fear-based, “us against them” dogmatism. Instead, the problem here is that the dogmatism has become far too pervasive, both in terms of those who insist on this dogmatism and – as importantly – in terms of the number of issues to which it extends (even extending to issues that have no inherent connection to policy preferences, such as whether Iraq had WMD’s, whether global warming is real or imagined, or whether AirTran was morally correct in its refusal to permit a Muslim family to reboard a flight after they were cleared by the FBI).

For instance, it’s one thing for talk-show hosts to rant and rave about “Defeatocrats,” the “homosexual mafia,” etc., since their purpose is not to persuade but is instead almost exclusively to rally the people who are already predisposed to agree with them. It’s a far different thing, however, when that attitude extends to campaign tactics, and/or a huge percentage of “talking heads,” whose purpose is at least nominally to persuade people to either vote Republican or to support a particular policy position.

Similarly, it’s one thing to rant and rave against a particular group as a means of motivating your “base” and maybe to scare the bejesus out of some fence-sitters into supporting your position. It is a far different thing, though, to do this on virtually every issue. So while Muslims, for instance, may be a tiny minority group whose support on any given issue is not worth being concerned about losing, the combination of Muslims, gays, social safety net beneficiaries, Latino immigrants, war opponents, etc. is a pretty large group.

By relying on rhetorical arguments that demonize so many groups and by making those arguments through so many different mediums, this form of dogma dramatically reduces the “pie” to whom conservatives may appeal – both for voting purposes and for purposes of winning support on policies that have nothing to do with the issue on which that group has been demonized. As Rod Dreher points out: “…if you build your political movement around constantly pointing out that it’s Us vs. Them, pretty soon you’ll find that there aren’t too many of Us left.”

But again – this problem is not one that is uniquely the province of conservatism or the Republican Party. Instead, it is a problem that will inevitably arise as any particular political coalition becomes ever-larger and attains a certain level of political success on issues where there is near-uniform intra-coalition agreement; in order to maintain the successful coalition, the party needs to manufacture loyalty on issues where there is less intra-coalition agreement. This is, however, an unsustainable strategy due to the way in which it “shrinks the pie” by demonizing policy opponents, even if they happen to be in the same political party. Eventually, the pie becomes small enough that the party can again find a coherent set of positive principles around which to build, and the cycle will begin anew.

The extremes of this cycle are just exacerbated today due to the way in which modern technology allows politics to pervade so much of everyday life. Eventually, the Dems will face similar problems as a result of their own successes, even as the GOP rebuilds around some as-yet unknown set of principles with a relatively broad appeal.

(Cross-posted at Publius Endures).

I don’t agree with Warren’s views on this of course, but I’m not convinced that this is a fight we need to pick. Why? Well, I agree with Steven Waldman, Warren has done a lot to highlight and try to solve issues like global poverty and AIDS. He is trying to get other evangelical ministers to not focus so exclusively on gay marriage and abortion and really focus on “the least of these.” He’s still a social conservative, but he is one that takes the Biblical concern for the poor seriously. I can’t ignore that and I think that is something that needs to be lifted up. The more people who are involved in try to solve poverty, the better and I don’t care what their background is when dealing with an issue like poverty.

Second, many gays and lesbians seem to forget that Obama was about bringing people together. Let’s go back to that speech that made him a household name in 2004:

It is that fundamental belief — It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of “anything goes.” Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an “awesome God” in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Now, politicians always talk about “bringing the country together” and then govern as a pure partisan. While I still have my doubts, I think Obama really means what he says. I think he really wants unity, to find some way to get beyond the petty partisan bickering and towards some true American consensus.

Many who are now angry at the Warren selection talked a good talk about coming together and unity. But unity for them meant being in totally agreement. In essence, it meant politics as usual, except with a liberal face instead of a conservative one.

The fact is, the guy is living what he said four years ago. He is trying to build bridges, not create new chasms.

I don’t agree with Warren on same sex marriage. However, his work has shown that while he might not appease some gays and liberal interest groups on this one issue, he is not a James Dobson.

Besides, we gay folk need to pick our battles and not go after everyone who supported Prop 8. Objecting to a guy that goes to the Third World and feed sick kids makes us, not Warren look bad. Gays need to be about making the case for gay marriage, not acting as some kind of ’star chamber’ for those who disagree with us.

I’m not saying we can’t criticize Warren or any other person for their role. But let’s show a bit of class, shall we?

SYRACUSE — In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted her on Wednesday and whisked her away when she was asked what her qualifications are to be a United States senator.

In her first public appearance since letting it be known that wants to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ms. Kennedy emerged from a closed-door meeting with Matthew J. Driscoll, the mayor of Syracuse, where about a dozen reporters were waiting.

She offered a 30-second statement saying that she would respect the process undertaken by Gov. David A. Paterson to fill the vacancy.

Then, as reporters asked why Ms. Kennedy was seeking the Senate seat and whether she was ready, she did not answer, then walked away, heading toward a waiting black sport-utility vehicle.

When one reporter asked what she would tell New Yorkers who question whether she has the qualifications for the job, Ms. Kennedy, 51, started to respond. But then an aide stopped her from saying more, and led her to the waiting vehicle.

“Hopefully I can come back and answer all those questions,” she called out as she got into the S.U.V.

But, of course, she really doesn’t.

After all, she’s not running for election. She doesn’t need anyone to vote for her. All she needs if the vote of one man, Governor David Patterson.

As Charles Mahtesian notes, though, Kennedy’s potential appointment is only one example of the extent to which nepotism has become ingrained in America’s political system:

Barack Obama’s path to the presidency included beating what had been one of the nation’s most powerful families. But, in an unusual twist, his election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics.

His secretary of state will be Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president. The Senate seat she’ll vacate is being pursued by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of a president and the niece of two senators. Joe Biden’s Senate seat may go to his son Beau. Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for interior secretary, could end up being replaced by his brother, Rep. John Salazar.

And Obama’s own seat could go to the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. – less likely now in light of developments in the Rod Blagojevich scandal – or to the daughter of Illinois’ current House speaker.

(…)

In 2008, the storied Udall clan, sometimes referred to as the Western Kennedys, saw two members elected to the Senate— Mark from Colorado and Tom from New Mexico. In 2010, they could be joined in the Senate by Florida’s Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and the grandson of a senator.

All told, it’s entirely possible that the Senate will be comprised of nearly a dozen congressional offspring by the end of Obama’s first term as president.

Of course, as James Joyner notes, this dynastic politics is really only a problem when you’re talking about someone, like Kennedy, who walks into high office rather than actually campaigning for it:

Far more troubling are the Mary Bonos, Lisa Murkowskis, Jean Carnahans, and (potentially) Caroline Kennedys. These people catapulted over dozens (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of more qualified people to get appointed to high office. Their sole qualification for the job, really, was being related to politicians.

The easiest way to stop this from happening, of course, is to end the practice of allowing Governors to appoint people to vacant Senate seats, as Ruth Marcus suggests in today’s Washington Post. We don’t have appointments without election for any other political office, and unless you’re going to follow my advice and return to the way we selected Senators before 1913, there’s no reason we need it for the Senate.

H/T: Originally posted at Below The Beltway

Former Illinois Governor George H. Ryan (above) is the Republican who preceded Democrat Rod Blagojevich in the Springfield state house and may soon be joined by Blagojevich at the nearest Federal Big House.  Ryan, who served one term as Governor from 1999 to 2003, was convicted in 2006 for his role in the widespread illegal sale of government licenses, contracts and leases by state employees during his service as Secretary of State (1991-1999).  At least 76 former aides, lobbyists and others have been convicted in this scandal, which led Ryan not to seek reelection in 2002, opening the way for Blagojevich.  Ryan now resides in a prison camp at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Over the past few days, remarkably wide agreement has emerged among reporters, pundits and bloggers, from left to right, to the effect that Governor Rod Blagovich’s alleged misconduct is so out of the ordinary as to make you wonder if he’s “nuts” or “delusional.”

The sad truth is that Blagogate is just another example of conduct that is all too commonplace among politicians of both parties.  Although not so unusual, it is far more more dramatic than most corruption cases, because it involves the Senate seat of the man who was just elected President, and because the FBI actually bugged the Governor’s office and has him on tape, complete with [bleeping] expletives. The last time we had such vivid and shocking evidence of crude venality in high places was in Abscam, when we could watch one Congressman after another meet with a supposed “Arab sheik” and sell their offices for cash.

This kind of thing is certainly “the Chicago way” but it may not be too much of a stretch to look at it as “the American way.”  One insightful, smart take on this comes from veteran Democratic pollster and consultant, Doug Schoen, who writes:

To be sure, what has appeared in the news has been shocking for those who are somewhat removed from the world of politics. But while what Blagojevich did is undeniably beyond the pale, it is frankly much more common in the political world than anyone has been willing to acknowledge.

But this time, we have it on tape:

Yes, the wiretaps reveal clear and unambiguous evidence that Blagojevich hoped to get something in exchange for the appointment. But this kind of horse trading, in my experience, goes on all the time. It usually isn’t articulated as bluntly as it apparently has here, though–and there usually aren’t as many wiretaps marshaled as evidence.

While Governor Ryan’s blazing the trail for Governor Blagojevich should be proof enough that Rod is no innovator, I thought it would be fun to look at some other cases in the recent past, which include these in the great state of Illinois (remember, these are only the guys who got caught):

Former Governor Daniel Walker was convicted in 1987 of wrongdoing in connection with the savings and loan scandals and sentenced to a federal penitentiary.

Governor Otto Kerner, who served from 1961-68, was convicted of bribery, conspiracy, income-tax evasion, mail fraud and perjury.

Secretary of State Paul Powell was found with $800,000 in cash in a shoe box in his hotel room, but was never convicted. He died in 1970.

State Treasurer Jerry Cosentino was convicted on check kiting charges in 1992.

And of course, wheeler dealer Tony Rezko was convicted earlier this year 16 federal felony corruption charges.

Ah, but special kudos are due the Chicago Board of Aldermen for what may be a record-setting conviction rate for a single public office!  Consider: 

Alderman Arenda Troutman was arrested and charged with bribery in 2007.

Alderman Percy Giles was sentenced to three years in prison for racketeering, extortion, among other things, in 2000.

Alderman Lawrence S. Bloom was sentenced to six months in 1999 for filing a false tax return (what a boy scout!).

Alderman Jesse J. Evans got 41 months in prison in 1997 for racketeering, extortion, conspiracy, attempted extortion, mail fraud, influence peddling, filing false tax returns, and obstruction of justice (now that’s what I call a record!).

Alderman Virgil E. Jones Jr. drew 2 1/2 years in prison for extortion in 1999.

Alderman Joseph A. Martinez pleaded guilty in 1998 to putting “ghosts” on the payroll and sentenced to five months in prison.

Alderman Ambrosio Medrano pleaded guilty to extortion in 1996 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

Alderman Allan J. Streeter pleaded guilty to extortion and filing false income tax returns and was sentenced to prison in 1998.  (What’s with all these pleas? Are there no real men ready to take the weight left in the Windy City?)

Alderman Fred B. Roti was sentenced to 48 months in 1993 for racketeering, conspiracy, and bribery, among other things. 

Phew!  Not to outdone by their colleagues at City Hall, Illinois state legislators have been doing their part:

In 1992, State Representative James DeLeo was caught in the “Operation Greylord” investigation of corruption in Cook County, indicted by a federal grand jury for taking bribes, negotiated a guilty plea, and got probation.

In 1997, State Representative Joe Kotlarz was convicted and sentenced to jail for theft and conspiracy for pocketing in about $200,000 for a sale of state land to a company he once served as legal counsel.

In 1999, State Senator Bruce A. Farley got 18 months in prison for mail fraud.

And State Senator John A. D’Arco Jr. served time in prison for bribery and extortion. 

OK, I admit I’m beating up pretty hard on Chicago, so here’s a recap of some of the greatest hits of American political corruption over the past three decades.  Let’s start with some governors:

Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton (1976-1979) lost his reelection bid after exposure of a bribery scandal. Before leaving office, he issued a large number of pardons to convicted felons, apparently in exchange for bribes.

Rhode Island Governor Edward D. DiPrete (1985-91) pleaded guilty to bribery, extortion and racketeering.

Maryland Governor Marvin Mandel was convicted of mail fraud and racketeering in 1977.

Arkansas Governor James Guy Tucker, Jr. was convicted of fraud cnspiracy in 1996.

Then there was Vice President Spiro Agnew who resigned his office to face corruption charges involving his years as Maryland Governor. He was convicted in 1973.

Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was found guilty of bribery, mail fraud and obstruction of justice in 2006 and sentenced to 88 months.

Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards was convicted of extortion in 2000.

Connecticut Governor John Rowland resigned in 2004 due to a corruption ivestigation. Later, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and tax fraud and served 10 months in a federal prison.

Last but not least, who can forget New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey who resigned from office in 2007 under a cloud for appointing his alleged male-sex partner as the sate’s homeland security director. (Jim really had to Pay to Play.) 

Yet, year after year, Congress remains home to a mother lode of illegal dealings involving money (not to mention all sorts of sexual hi jinks!). 

The Abscam boys are still, IMHO, recent history’s kings of Capitol Hill corruption. In this 1980 FBI sting, fake ‘Arabs’ tried to bribe 31 Congressmen.  A mere six were convicted, but many others were tainted. 

New Jersey Senator Harrison “Pete” Williams led the pack, being convicted on nine counts of bribery and conspiracy and became the first U.S. Senator to go to prison in 80 years.  Five members of the House were also convicted — John Jenrette of South Carolina, Richard Kelly of Florida, Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania, Michael Myers of Pennsylvania, and Frank Thompson of New Jersey.  (The Feds also bagged a New Jersey state senator and members of the Philadelphia city council along the way.)

Bronx Rep. Mario Biaggi was convicted in 1988 on 15 felony counts of obstruction of justice and accepting illegal gratuities.

Speaker of the House Jim Wright of Texas, no less, resigned in 1989 after an investigation into improper receipt of $145,000 in gifts.

Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, an Illinois (there I go again) big shot, was caught up in the great Congressional Post Office Scandal of the early 1990s, was convicted of heading a conspiracy to launder Post Office money through stamps and postal vouchers, and got 18 months in the slammer.

Rep. Buz Lukens of Ohio was convicted in 1995 on five counts of bribery and cnspiracy and served a year in prison.

Rep. Edward Mezvinsky of Iowa pleaded guilty in 2001 to 31 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud.

Rep. Jim Traficant of Ohio was found guilty in 2002 on 10 felony counts of financial corruption, sentenced to eight years in prison, and expelled from the House.

House Majority Leader Tom Delay of Texas, after years of ethics probes and reprimands, finally got his in 2005.  He was indicted and later resigned from the House.

Rep. Duke Cunningham of California pleaded guilty in 2005 to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail and wire fraud, and tax evasion and was sentenced to more than eight years.

Rep. William J. Jefferson of Louisiana — he of the $90,000 in cash stashed in his freezer — was indicted in 2007 on 16 charges of corruption for accepting bribes and defeated for reelection last month.

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, without whom no list is complete, at 85 with 40 years in the Senate, was snared in a sweeping federal probe of political corruption in his state and convicted last October on seven counts of bribery and tax evasion. 

I have to add one more, a case that is still working its way through the system, because it’s becoming a personal favorite:

Massachusetts State Senator Diane Wilkerson, a rising star in her state’s politics, resigned a few weeks ago after being indicted by a federal grand jury on eight counts of alleged corruption. Wilkerson is accused of taking over $23,000 in bribes.  The FBI has video and audio recordings of many of these alleged acts, including a video tape of Wilkerson stuffing bribe money into her bra.

So, what was that about Blagojevich’s conduct being so over the top that he must be crazy?

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

Paterson will appoint a Senator in January of 2009 who will hold that position until Jan. 3 of 2011. At that point, the winner of a special election in the fall of 2010 will take the seat. But that person will only be elected to fill out the unexpired term of Senator Clinton. Having last been elected in 2006, Hillary would have been up for reelection in 2012. This means that in order to win a full term, the Governor’s appointee will need to stand for election in both 2010 and 2012.

Given how much time and money are taken up by a Senate campaign, Hillary’s successor will have, at most, 10 months or so to find where the rest rooms are on the Hill before they begin running for the 2010 race. Assuming they win that one, they have at best another year before doing it all over again. This will be expensive and time consuming. There are also questions as to how they will fare in such contests.

Which means that the seat would be best suited for someone with a lot of name recognition and the ability to raise a ton of money, which is why my money is on either Andrew Cuomo or, unfortunately, Caroline Kennedy.

Prorogue

• transitive verb:
  1 : defer , postpone
  2 : to terminate a session of (as a British parliament) by royal prerogative
• intransitive verb:
  to suspend or end a legislative session

Canada has been in the international headlines recently as Stephen Harper’s minority conservative government faces dissolution from a coalition of opposition parties.

The best overview I found is What Is Happening In Canada by yarnharlot.

To quickly summarize, a coalition government of the Liberals (center-left), the NDP (left-left) would become the government with a cabinet of about 2/3 Liberals, 1/3 NDP. The Bloc Quebecois (”devoted to both the protection of Quebec’s interests on a federal level as well as the promotion of its sovereignty”^[1]) has agreed to support that government for 18 months.

Yarnharlot observed:

the Prime Minister has been rather aggressive, and instead of moderating his motions to the point where the opposition might vote for them anyway, he has instead taken to attaching a confidence motion to just about everything. This means that every time the house votes, they can either vote with him, or force an election. All last year, this strategy worked beautifully. The opposing parties (particularly the Liberals, who were having leadership troubles) didn’t want an election. Forcing the opposition to choose between forcing an election and agreeing with him rammed through a lot of legislation, but bred a lot of contempt. (Depending on whether you are a conservative or not, this strategy has alternately been called “being an aggressive parliamentarian who makes the most of the system” or “being a big fat bully”.)

It looks like this strategy has backfired. The opposition parties believe that the Conservatives haven’t done enough to address the economic crisis and are going to vote against the Conservatives, thus having a vote of no confidence. This is where it gets interesting…

Upon a vote of no confidence responsibility falls to the Governor General. The GG can either call an election (the last one was about 7 weeks ago – October 14th 2008) or ask the opposition to form a government.

But Harper had another option as well – ask the GG to prorogue parliament. This means parliament shuts down for a while. The GG decided to prorogue until January 26th.

I think this was a wise decision on the GG’s part. It allows her office some time to monitor public opinion over the next month or so and decide whether or not to favor a new election or the coalition’s government. In Harper’s favor, the coalition could break down during the time the parliament is prorogued.

The most realistic scenario is that at the first opportunity after parliament reconvenes, the Conservatives will be replaced by the coalition government. I doubt the GG will call a new election both because of the $300 million price tag during an economic crisis and because the results would be nearly the same (a Conservative minority).

Stay tuned for 2009, things should be interesting.

(Justin’s Note: In 2006, Gordon wrote about Canada in four great posts called:

• Would You Mind If I Told You How We Do Things In Canada?
• How We Do Things In Canada : Minority Goverments
• How We Do Things In Canada : A Conservative Work Ethic
• How We Do Things In Canada : Liberal Leadership

Definitely try to check them out for even more insight into how Canadian politics works.)

It hasn’t reached the mainstream media yet, but in the days since Hillary Clinton’s nomination to be Barack Obama’s Secretary of State became official, there’s been some discussion of a little-known provision in the Constitution that could bar Hillary Clinton from serving at Foggy Bottom:

[S]pecifically, Article One, Section Six, also known as the emoluments clause. (”Emoluments” means things like salaries.) It says that no member of Congress, during the term for which he was elected, shall be named to any office “the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during his term.” This applies, we’re advised, whether the member actually voted on the raises or not.

In Clinton’s case, during her current term in the Senate, which began in January 2007, cabinet salaries were increased from $186,600 to $191,300.

The language of the section itself would seem to be rather clear:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Since the salary for Cabinet Secretaries was increased while Hillary Clinton was a Senator, the Emolument Clause, as it’s called, would seem to apply pretty clearly.

There is a work around, but it’s Constitutionality is dubious:

That “fix” came in 1973, when President Nixon nominated Ohio Sen. William Saxbe (R) to be attorney general after the famed “Saturday Night Massacre” during the Watergate scandal. Saxbe was in the Senate in 1969 when the AG’s pay was raised.

(…)

Democrats in the past have inveighed against this sleight-of-hand. In the Saxbe case, 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against the ploy on constitutional grounds. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the only one of them who remains in the Senate, said at the time that the Constitution was explicit and “we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

Michael Stokes Paulson, a Law Professor who has written on the application of the Emoluments Clause in the past, says this regarding the Clinton appointment:

The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” As I understand it, President Bush’s executive order from earlier this year “encreased” the “Emoluments” (salary) of the office of Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time. Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be being appointed to an office for which “the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased” during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment … if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn’t on these matters, of course).

(…)

Unless one views the Constitution’s rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient; or as not really stating rules at all (but “standards” or “principles” to be viewed at more-convenient levels of generality); or as not applicable where a lawsuit might not be brought; or as not applicable to Democratic administrations, then the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text forbids the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I wouldn’t bet on this actually preventing the appointment, however. It didn’t stop Lloyd Bentsen from becoming Secretary of State [This appears to be a typographical error. Bentsen, of course, was Bill Clinton's first Secretary of the Treasury]. But it does make an interesting first test of how serious Barack Obama will be about taking the Constitution’s actual words seriously. We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth. But we don’t know what he thinks about provisions of the Constitution that do not need to be invented, but are actually there in the document.

Paulson’s argument is certainly persuasive, and while it’s unlikely under present circumstances that any Court will entertain a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Clinton’s appoint, it’s fairly clear that if the words of the Constitution are supposed to mean what they say, then Hillary Clinton should not be Secretary of State.