I suspect that I am the only political blogger who has not yet posted about the mosque/not mosque expected to be built/not built in a location somewhere near/not near ground zero in New York.

I have avoided this issue thus far because I feel a lot like this guy – or this guy – or perhaps like William Shakespeare – “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.“ I see this as little more than a excuse by partisans and bloggers on both the right and left to flog their favorite bogeymen in the hope of securing a minor political advantage. The significance of this story is just not worth the ink and electrons spilled on it.

But, that has not stopped anyone else, so let me make my position on this question perfectly clear – This blogger stands firmly with Michael Bloomberg, Grover Norquist, Chris Christie, Joe Scarborough, Michael Gerson and Barack Obama (Friday, 8/13/10 version) in support or indifference to the location of the Cordoba project mosque – and stands in opposition to Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Barack Obama (Saturday 8/14/10 version) who do not explicitly support the location of the Cordoba project mosque.

In America, in matters of religious tolerance, there should be no close calls, no qualification of primary principles, and the first amendment should not be location dependent. I am not sympathetic to the distinction of “rights” vs. right which strikes me as a Clinton-esque parsing for those looking to rationalize forcing the Cordoba Project to move the mosque/cultural center.

I”m going to make this easy on myself and crib extensively from a previous post invoking the views of a founding father whose words are as relevant now as they were 230 years ago.

Thomas Jefferson writing in the third person, in a letter to Dr. Jacob De La Motta on the occasion of the 1820 dedication of a synagogue in Savannah, Georgia:

His short letter speaks to both the intent and core convictions of an architect of our country and constitution. Consider the pride and importance that Jefferson invests in the principle of religious freedom and diversity in this letter. He finds it “gratifying” that our country was the “first to prove to the world” the “two truths” that are the most beneficial to human society - “that man can govern himself”, and absolute “religious freedom” is the only answer to “religious dissension”.

Andrew Sullivan reminds us that Islam was explicitly included in Jefferson’s message of tolerance. He quotes from Jefferson’s autobiography where Jefferson expands on the intent of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom – “Jefferson On The Toleration Of Islam”:

Finally in a letter to Moredcai Manuel Noah, Jefferson notes that while protection of religious freedom under the law is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient to ensure tolerance and the fair and equitable treatment of all religious belief.

The work of religious tolerance was incomplete in the time of Jefferson, and remains incomplete today. Religious intolerance is an issue that every generation of Americans must face anew. As Americans of good will fought for the principle of religious freedom at the beginning of the American experiment, it falls to Americans of good will in each generation, of every religion, race and creed, to ensure that in their own time their generation remembers and understands that – as regards religion – “divided we stand.”

To wrap this up I will invoke a poet/philosopher of our own time – Mojo Nixon. While these lyrics were written in response to another civil libertarian challenge, I don’t think Mojo would mind my applying them here…

^{Cross-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall}

UPDATED & EDITED: I added one word to the body of the post. You find it.

He’s saying it will pass in the next 60 days…

“I’ve had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi,” Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” in Nevada. “And we’re really trying to move forward on this.”

The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House.

“We’ll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we’ve already done,” Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process.

Will it happen?

Well, I have my doubts, but at a certain point the Dems have to put up or shut up and get something done. Maybe something different will happen because of Obama’s health care summit, but I’m thinking that’s likely a tactic by the White House to say, “So all of those ideas that you’re talking about…those are in the bill. Don’t force us to use reconciliation on this…because we will.”

And to that point, I think we all need to take a step back and remember that the bill they have now represents a pretty significant bipartisan compromise. Republicans can talk all they want about not being part of the actual drafting of the legislation, but they were part of the debate from day one. And this reform bill doesn’t include a single, federally controlled public option, but it still cuts the budget deficit significantly over the next decade and it has numerous insurance reforms in it that will help all Americans in some way. And with insurance companies raising their rates like crazy due to people dropping coverage because they’re unemployed, we all know that this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

But I want to talk about reconciliation for a moment…some politicos are calling it unconstitutional, hyperpartisan, etc. Obviously that’s nonsense. Bush used it 6 times during his presidency and somehow Republicans were perfectly fine with it then. And as I’ve done more research into reconciliation and filibusters, a very solid argument can be made that the filibuster is the result of a legislative mistake by the founders…which necessitates reconciliation as the only solution.

From wikipedia…

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate “to move the previous question,” ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

So, as you can see, the intention of the founders was not to create a procedural mechanism for eternal debate. No, they screwed up. It happens. They weren’t flawless, even though many on the right deify them as the arbiters of everything that is righteous and good and if they wouldn’t approve, well, it’s just not good for America.

And so, we need the reconciliation process to move things forward so the minority can’t hold up progress with their procedural tricks…especially after a rule was made that filibusters can be carried out without somebody actually having to speak.

More importantly, even though many have argued that reconciliation will be misused on a health care bill…those are the same people who will tout the filibuster as necessary and just. Well, sorry, you can’t have it both ways. It makes no sense that we got to the point where we always needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass something. A majority is all that has been needed in the past and that’s the way it should be now. End of story.

More as it develops…

But last week the undead meme was walking again:

The GOP’s Best Weapon In 2010
History Makes The Case For Divided Government
By Gary Andres

Morris Fiorina is a political scientist that wrote the definitive text on Divided Government, titled appropriately enough – “Divided Government“. His comment in this piece goes directly to the raison d’être for my blog. To seek an answer to this never-ending question – “Rather than trusting the partisan balancing choice to a subconscious impulse, would we not be much better off if a few percentage of the electorate simply voted consciously for divided government?” And to promote that divided government voting heuristic.

On that topic, two more recent articles on the same general theme:

Swing time is coming for Dems, GOP
By: Noemie Emery Examiner Columnist

THE REAL REASON AMERICANS ARE ANGRY
It’s the big government, stupid.
by Matt Welch

A side benefit of watching the undead specter of divided government haunt the media again – We are no longer hearing about how the United States is really a “center-left” country.

It may be a bit early for these proclamations and conclusions. We are still more than a year away from the midterms. I still think it will take until 2012 to get there, but when Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, and Harry Reid are all in trouble, we can safely say that divided government is rising from the grave.

Cross posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

They’re actually going to go on vacation instead of trying to pass it.

Wow…

Reid told reporters he expected the Senate Finance Committee would approve its version of the legislation before the Senate starts its recess August 7.

“We’ll come back in the fall,” and work in the full Senate on the bill, he said.

Get ready for the media to pounce on this as a failure by the Obama administration to pass it before the unnatural deadline they created.

Ugh.

“We can only turn the page from recession to recovery if we watch every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in their budget.”

Who said this? A fiscal conservative appalled at the unrestrained level of spending coming out of congress? Nope. It was the estimable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposing a decrease in the estate tax rate (WSJ editorial here).

The estate tax debate aside, Reid’s comments left me laughing, then crying, then irritated enough to blog about the hypocrisy on display. Apparently, in Reid’s world, “watching every single tax dollar” only applies to those dollars coming in and not at all to those going out. If Reid had shown even a passing interest in restraining some of the profligacy on display in Washington, then maybe he’d have a right to complain about plans to remove revenue. But he’s been happy to guide all manners of spending through the Senate with hardly a flinch.

I know many economists support spending during a recession. And I’m not against well-target deficit spending during this period of economic distress. But many Democrats seem to think the more we spend, the better off we’ll be. It’s as if there’s no concept of the law of diminishing returns. Does Reid really think that by opposing tax decreases he’s being fiscally responsible? As if there’s enough tax revenue in the world to pay for the level of spending underway.

To make this screed complete, let me add that, as much as the cluelessness of politicians like Reid frustrates me, I’m equally irritated by the large percentage of so-called conservatives who’ve decided to turn their opposition into a circus of inanities, offering trumped-up or fabricated reasons to scream and shout rather than offering reasonable counter-proposals to combat the over-spending. I know it’s fashionable to use spiteful hyperbole to oppose a sitting president, but it’s meritless. In serious times, we could use a few less clowns.

Okay. I’m done.

Thanks to a little-known congressional budget procedure called “reconciliation,” Democrats could pass sweeping healthcare reform without fear of a Republican filibuster in the Senate. When President Clinton wanted to use the rule in 1993, Democratic leaders in the Senate decided they didn’t want to abuse Senate rules on such important legislation. Sixteen years later, things have change. Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it known reconciliation should remain on the table.

What is reconciliation? Here’s the summary:

Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has been deficit reduction, but in recent years reconciliation has encompassed revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected program areas.

So, since healthcare reform is expected to be part of the new budget, it can be swept in through reconciliation.

Bear in mind, Reid has also stated that the bipartisan bill currently in the works from Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Chuck Grassley should be given a chance. I hope this is the opinion of President Obama as well, because resorting to reconciliation on such significant legislation would probably destroy any chance of bipartisanship in the future. Yes, some Republicans will obstruct whatever healthcare bill comes up for a vote, but there are still enough reasonable Republican Senators for the Democrats to be able to craft a balanced bill that can avoid a filibuster.

I understand Democrats are eager to reform healthcare and that it is an issue that needs some form of government action (to, if nothing else, correct previous, bad government actions from the municipal level to the federal level). But passing the first bill which can win 51 Senate votes is very unlikely to yield balanced, smart legislation. Giving Republican Senators a voice will ensure the regulation-happy contingent of the Democratic party will be somewhat subdued by smart deregulatory ideas that exist on the right.

I’m pretty sure a large majority of Americans want healthcare reform. Hopefully we will get reform that the majority can support.

Roland “I am the Senator” Burris

Today, the Illinois House of Representatives voted 114-1 to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich.  Meanwhile, the state’s Supreme Court declined to order Secretary of State, Jesse White, to sign the certificate by which appointed Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat, but also ruled that the appointment document was valid without the Secretary of State’s signature.  White then reiterated that he would not sign the Governor’s certificate of appointment as a matter of principle.

Apparently clutching at this last remaining straw, Senator Dick Durbin said later in the day that the Senate still would not accept Burris without White’s precious signature.  But White, who complained the other day that the Senate was making him the “fall guy,” announced that he was sending his own separate document to the Senate stating that Burris’s appointment document is “true and accurate.”  And Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan declared that White was no longer an obstacle to Burris being seated, which was up to the Senate.  Perhaps confused by all this, a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday evening that various Senate functionaries had to advise “the Senate Leadership as we consider a way forward.”

Reid and Durbin could use some good advice.  According to Politico.com, some Democrats are angry at the botching of the Burris affair and are blaming Reid, Durbin and Obama.

Maybe White’s separate certification will so obviously overcome grounds for Senate resistance that the issue will be gone by Saturday morning.  Still, what Reid and Durbin tried to do earlier today, after learning of the impeachment vote, was to put the issue into a holding pattern to see: (1) if the impeachment vote leads to enough pressure on Blago to get him to resign; (fat chance); or (2) how fast the Illinois Senate moves toward a conviction and removal from office (beats me).  If it looks as if Blago is going to be out and Lt. Governor Pat Quinn is going to be in quickly enough to head off further distracting theatrics involving Burris, Reid, Durbin and company may figure that they can stall long enough for Quinn to decide the matter.

But here’s the thing.  Will Quinn, who’ll immediately be looking to boost himself for election to a full term as Governor, really want to appoint someone other than Burris?  If he appoints, say, Lisa Madigan or Tammy Duckworth, both of whom are reported to be among the favorites but neither of whom is black, he will be feeding himself into a buzz saw, as Illinois’ large African-American constituency rallies around Burris as the legitimate appointee.

If he tries to dodge that bullet by appointing another African-American, unless Burris collapses and withdraws (not likely for a man who’s shown such spunk), Quinn will be setting up a black-on-black legal and political battle for which he’ll get no kudos from black voters.  In either case, a prolonged court contest over who is the rightful senator will ensue, keeping the national spotlight on the Blagojemess, as Barack Obama tries to move his program ahead.  In the end, the courts will almost certainly decide that Burris’ appointment is the valid one.

So the only course available to Governor Quinn that wouldn’t make him enemies, wouldn’t cast a shadow over Obama’s honeymoon period, and wouldn’t result in an ultimate defeat would be to appoint Roland Burris again!

And that means Burris is in like Flynn.

 

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

Durbin, Burris and Reid enjoy a chuckle together

Wow, that was fast! One minute Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are vowing never to seat anyone appointed to the Senate by Hot Rod Blagojevich and turning the appointee away in the rain. The next, we’re all chums (“Rod who?”).

After several days in which only attacks on Hamas in Gaza by the entire Israeli Army could compete with the saga of Roland “I am the Senator” Burris for media attention, Reid caved. He didn’t blink or wink; he just collapsed and invited Burris to join him for a cozy schmooze.

Of course, there are still several “conditions” Burris must meet to get his seat. One is to get the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White on his credential, as was supposedly required by the Senate rules. (One wag likened this to getting a note from the principal.) That got a lot easier when White, himself, being no fool, declared that his signature was merely “ceremonial” and “not required” for the Senate to seat Burris, and that he was not about to be made the “fall guy.”

A second condition is that Burris must testify to the Illinois Legislature’s impeachment committee about the circumstances of Blago’s offering him the appointment, presumably so Burris can swear there was no hanky panky involved. Burris testifies Thursday. Consider the condition fulfilled.

Finally, Reid still insists that the Senate Rules Committee will have to look into the appointment and recommend action to the entire Senate, which would then vote to seat Burris — or not. This gives Harry a bit of time to let the issue sink from public view and also allows him to force Republicans to vote, yes, along with Democrats, thereby diluting future partisan charges of caving to Blago-mail.

Meanwhile, Senators Diane Feinstein and Patrick Leahy broke ranks with the Majority Leader early to say they supported seating Burris, thus opening a potential flood. The Congressional Black Caucus voted unanimously to urge the Senate to seat him. President-elect Obama said it was a Senate matter but he thinks Burris is a fine fellow. According to Burris, Jimmy Carter phoned in an endorsement while in Washington for a photo op. And several sources reported that Obama urged a quick “amicable resolution” of the Burris mess when he met with Reid on Monday.

No wonder. Here we have Obama arriving in Washington to rev up his economic plan and finalize his top appointments, and the new Congress with its lop-sided Democratic majorities convening for the first time to great expectations, but CNN, MSNBC and Fox News had wall-to-wall, day-long coverage of the Burris drama. To use the old cliché, Burris was sucking up all the oxygen.

So, it is now clear, Burris is the Senator, or soon will be, and Blago has outfoxed everyone. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald reportedly went public early — before he could obtain a grand jury indictment — with his charges against Blago in order to head off a corrupt appointment to fill the President-elect’s Senate seat. Yet, all the Illinois pols — Pat Quinn, the various Madigans, Boss Daley, Durbin, White, et al. – the Democratic Senate Majority headed by Reid, and Obama himself, along with his highly touted transition team, “Rahmbo” and the rest, have managed to muff the play and let Blago make the appointment anyway. It’s not a corrupt appointment, now, to be sure, but it’s a big Blago win. I suspect this will not be the last we hear of Hot Rod.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)