The Nuclear Option and Ethics

Much has been made recently over Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's deliberations on whether or not to end democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominations. And while most of the discussions have centered on whether the scheme would work and its political consequences, very little consideration has been given as to whether the scheme is ethical.

Filibusters in the Senate have been in existence for over 200 years. The current rule requiring 60 votes to end debate have been in place since 1917. This rule has allowed the minority party to exercise, on rare occasions, the ability to block legislation or appointments with which they vehemently disagree. Both Republicans and Democrats have used the 60/40 rule to block judicial nominations.

However, Republicans now feel that the rules should no longer apply to them. Frist is contemplating eliminating the Senate rule to push through Bush's extremist judges, perhaps one to the Supreme Court. Some Republicans, to their credit, are wary of this idea.

There is a reason people are calling this the "nuclear option." It would signal the end of over 200 years of tradition and the end of a rule that has existed for 87 years. It would signal that Republicans no longer care about the tradition of the Senate. But most of all, it would signal that Republicans no longer feel the rules apply to them.

People who don't like to follow the rules are childish and selfish. Their own gratification is more important that the social compact. Republicans want to break the social compact for their own personal gains. Breaking the social compact for such selfish reasons is unethical, and it should be noted as such.

Unethical, part 2

The most recent Republican plan to steal social security from millions of Americans is to simply not acknowledge the effect on the deficit. Instead, Republicans are divising complicated accounting tricks to hide the true cost of their plan.

This is completely unethical. Rather than have a true debate about the effects of their plan on the deficit, Republicans are demonstrating they have no interest in the truth. Being ethical means being forward and honest about the real cost. By using accounting tactics and subterfuge, Republicans are engaging in an unethical manner.

On a side note, no one should expect Republicans to come forward with the actual cost of their plan. Remember their health care plan wherein we learned after the bill was passed that it would cost billions more than they said it would. Expect the same with social security.

Unethical

One thing that should start becoming increasingly clear is that Republicans care little for ethics when it comes to helping their own. The vote to protect Tom Delay and the taxpayer provision that was inserted into the omnibus bill ("ominous" seems more appropriate) illustrated this quite well. However, progressives should argue that these are two sides of the same coin - ethical lapses by conservatives.

The vote to protect Delay is not about protecting their own. Rather, it's a demonstration that conservatives lack ethics. The IRS provision insertion is not a matter of privacy; it's unethical.

Progressives can either trot out a littany of instances against the Republicans, and hope death comes way of a 1000 cuts. Or, they can start pushing major themes. One of the best things about a major theme is that every time the Republicans do something questionable, we can label them as unethical. Each instance, and we know there will be more of them, will help reinforce the theme.

Rove likes to attack his opponent's strength. People seem to think that the GOP is the party of moral values. This is a good way to start chipping away at that perception.

Vioxx and Tort Reform

The recent removal of Vioxx from the market serves as a substantial reminder why tort reform must be defeated. Though conservatives often trumpet high medical malpractice insurance as a reason to cap damage awards, the real reason is to protect corporations from lawsuits. (Conservatives also like taking away income from a traditional progressive group: public protection attorneys.) The upcoming months will reveal whether Merck should have pulled Vioxx from shelves earlier. The liability that may ensue from their failure to do so could reach millions and millions of dollars.

Progressives need to remind the public that tort reform would mean that companies like Merck might keep dangerous products available for purchase even after they know their customers are dying. Companies that knowingly continue to sell dangerous products must be dissuaded from doing so. Consumers cannot rely on corporations to protect us; the threat of lawsuits must exist to keep us safer.

Thus, tort reform would make us less safe. We cannot rely on corporations to protect us.

Finally, in the future, we will consider whether "tort reform" is the proper terminology to discuss the conservative plan. Instead, progressives must frame the issue as one of corporate protectionism.

Gun Safety

Control is a bad word. It carries a negative connotation when we consider someone else having control over our person or our property. Gun control conveys the idea that the government wants to tell you what you can and cannot do with guns. However, the issue has never been about control, but rather about safety. Thus, progressives should now refer to such legislation as gun safety programs.

And this makes perfect sense. Aside from recreational purposes, people buy guns to protect themselves and their family - to keep them safe. And progressives want to help these people keep their families safe. Trigger locks are not about control. They are designed to help gun owners keep their families safe by avoiding accidents. Closing the gun show loophole is not about control. It's about keeping families safe from felons who want to use guns to commit crimes.

Progressives should stop having arguments with gun owners about the 2nd Amendment. Such debates only further the divide and make gun owners feels as though we're not on their side. Instead, accept the 2nd Amendment and advocate for "common sense" legislation that is designed to keep gun owners, and their families, safe.

Veterans Day

Thank you, veterans, for all you have done for our country.

What is the New York Times smoking?

The NY Times today expressed hope that Bush's choice to replace Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, will restore evenhandedness and some semblance of bipartisanship to the Attorney General's office. One wonders if they've been paying attention the last four years. It's unlikely that a man who has been giving Bush awful legal advice on death row inmates and prison torture is suddenly going to be a paradigm for integrity in the Bush administration.

Does the nomination of Gonzales deserve to be challenged? Of course. Will progressives expend the political capital to do so? Unlikely - and it's probably for the best. The real battles will be over Supreme Court nominations. Until then, progressives should remind the public about Mr. Gonzales's past legal opinions and caution Gonzales on the dangers of a partisan administration of justice.

Why Bush Won

There has been a lot of discussion by the media pundits and throughout the blogging community about why Bush won. Some argue it was terrorism; others suggest that the ambiguous "moral values" propelled Bush to his second term. Whatever the real answer may be, it's a bit alarming that everyone feels it is urgent to figure out the reason immediately. I'm not convinced that the answer needs to be reached right now.

Instead of making a lot of assertions and statements about why Bush won, progressives need to spend more time asking questions and listening. One of the reasons "red staters" claim "blue staters" are elitist is because they say we don't listen enough. Whether that's true or not, one of the best things we can do right now is listen, without making judgments, and let it sink in for a while. Once we've spent some time and distanced ourselves a bit from the emotional aftermath of the election, we'll be able to start assessing what we should learn from November 2nd, 2004.

In the meantime, progressives should be focusing on how best to deal with the upcoming conservative onslaught.

No Mandate

Bush does not have a mandate. He is a wartime president and yet he received the lowest margin of victory for a second-term President since 1916. Further, more people voted against him than any other incumbent in history.

A lot has been made over Bush' politcal capital, however much a 2% vote differential gets him. However, Bush had a lot more than poltical capital after 9/11. He had the entire country ready to rally behind him, and almost the whole world's sympathy. Rather than use that goodwill towards uniting the country and pursuing a bipartisan agenda, he wasted it by becoming one of the most divisive Presidents in modern history. No matter how much capital the pundits proclaim Bush to have, it pales in comparison to the goodwill he had after 9/11. Just as Bush squandered the goodwill after 9/11, so too will he squander it again.

The Battle over Taxes

Bush's forthcoming tax plan should be referred to as "a shifting of the tax burden to the middle class." Do not refer to the plan as "tax reform" or "tax relief." Instead of projecting a positive frame of reformation or relief when discussing the tax plan, progresssives should frame it negatively as a "burden." Progressives should also emphasize that closing the tax loopholes for corporations should be the main goal of Bush' tax plan, especially those companies that outsource jobs overseas.

Welcome to Progressive Talking Points

This new blog will attempt to provide talking points for progressives. I am not a linguist; nor am I a psychologist. Rather, I'm someone who would like to share my ideas on how progressives can frame the debate when discussing politics. You may think some of my ideas are good; you may think others are horrible. Whatever they may be, I'm hoping to spark a few discussions that will help all of us in our political endeavors.