About Me

Name: Dave
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

Liebermann's Folly

Joe Liebermann has announced that should he lose the Democratic nomination for Senator in the Connecticut primary, he plans to run as an independent. Based on his support of the Iraq War effort, this has resulted in several of the conservative pundits to laud his intentions, as well as make some statements that upon closer examination are either disingenuous, hypocritical, or simply moronic.

Earlier today on her show, Laura Ingraham spoke of how Liebermann should do "what's right", leave the Democratic Party altogether, and become a Republican, stating that the possibility of Liebermann losing the Democratic primary was further proof of Zell Miller's thesis that the Democrats are a "national party no more". Sean Hannity spoke of how it was an example of "the left... stabbing Liebermann in the back", and in several interviews with the Senator has expressed support for Liebermann's campaign.

The statements of Ingraham, Hannity, et al seem to ignore several facts. First of all, Liebermann is a committed liberal. A quick check of the Americans for Democratic Action ratings show Liebermann's voting record to the left of Mary Landrieu, equal to Harry Reid's, and only slightly to the right of Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel. Liebermann has voted against tax cuts, against estate tax repeal, and at various times has supported filibusters of judicial appointments. I believe he also opposed John Bolton's appointment to the UN. During the 2000 campaign, he endorsed the environmental policies of Al Gore. He supported campaign finance reform. He opposed drilling for oil in ANWR and on the Outer Continental Shelf. He supported John Kerry against George Bush in 2004. He has actively worked to make Harry Reid the Majority Leader of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House. This is a guy we want on the Republican side? Is this someone that is going to support free market capitalism -- issues like tax reform, private accounts for Social Security, medical savings accounts, property rights, and less regulation for businesses? I think not.

Using Hannity's logic, were "rightists" then stabbing Arlen Specter in the back in 2004 when they worked to beat him in the primary with a conservative, Pat Toomey? Hannity seems to think that Democrats should preserve its "moderate" members, but the Republican party should get rid of its own (think: Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, etc.). Yet now he seeks to welcome someone to the party who would vote to the left of Republicans that he's sought to remove in past years. When the Democrats undertake actions on the left that are consistent with and analogous to those he has supported on the right, the Democrats are "intolerant"; however, when Republicans do it, it is "standing up for conservative principles".

Personally, I think Sen. Liebermann is a good and reasonable man, and I think it is courageous that he is willing to take a stand that is unpopular within his own party on the war, especially in refusing to "moderate" his position in the heat of a strongly contested election.

Should Liebermann lose the primary, I think he should accept the defeat. To run as an independent, especially to begin planning ahead for it now, seems to me to be a bit too much desperation at holding onto power, however. There are times when one must stand one's ground and take the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune", as Shakespeare might say. There are times when such a stand might result in a loss, and a time when one must accept one's fate. Now is such a time for Joe Liebermann, conservative pundit cheerleading notwithstanding.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debate: Levin Style

Driving home from Beaumont the other night without my XM radio or iPod to listen to (thanks thieves!), I caught some of Mark Levin's radio talk show. If you haven't heard Levin on Hannity's show, he's basically the male version of Ann Coulter, sans the long legs and blonde hair. He's loud, brash, and intelligent, and like Ann and Hannity, a true demagogue. In the world of Mark Levin, there's no such thing as reasonable people coming to a different conclusion about a problem or solution -- you're either in agreement with him, or you're stupid. You're either a conservative, or you hate America. Life is easy when everything is that cut-and-dried.

I found it especially interesting when a caller pointed out a logical inconsistency in one of Levin's arguments. Rather than discuss the issue and debate the point, Levin just started making fun of the guy's voice and started insulting him. He asked the caller what he did for a living; the caller was (assuming he was honest) a computer programmer, so Levin started saying that he lived in his parents basement and had no social life, then hung up on him and called him stupid. He insulted the guy's point without really addressing the true issue raised by the caller; instead, he made an offhand remark about a side issue, then insulted the guy one more time.

I personally believe that good ideas benefit by being debated -- openly, honestly, and without the use of strawmen or insults. I also believe that reasonable and even intelligent people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions without necessarily being stupid (Dennis Kucinich notwithstanding), or hating America, or having some secret agenda they are trying to hide.

In Levin's case, he was arguing earlier in the show (and rightly, I might add) that minimum wage laws hurt low skilled and mostly young workers. He mentioned (again, rightly) that most workers don't work minimum wage jobs forever; as they develop job skills they get raises; in fact, the person with whom he was having this particular discussion was a one-time minimum wage worker making about $90,000 per year. He said that the wage out to be whatever it is; that is, that the worker should be paid whatever his labors are worth -- the market should determine it.

The aforementioned "basement dwelling" caller observed that Levin was using as a negative mark against immigration that low skilled workers from Mexico and Central America drive down wages. Levin started yelling that "what you don't get is that they are ILLEGAL!!!!" What this ignores, however, is that people who are advocating immigration reform are advocating that more workers be let into the country legally. So it wouldn't be illegal workers getting the jobs at a market price, it would be legal workers. Levin is criticizing Bush and others who want to allow more legal workers by using an argument about illegal workers. This is a logical inconsistency in Levin's argument.

Ultimately, I still believe that we're best served by an immigration policy that reflects the real world supply and demand of the market. Immigration quotas set arbitrarily below the market demand for low-skill workers will result in much more difficult, expensive, and ultimately liberty-infringing enforcement policies. However, don't expect an honest debate on the merits of the issue with the likes of Mark Levin. He'd rather just insult you and run you off his show.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Free Market an Insult?

I heard something that floored me from Laura Ingraham the other day. She was speaking of Representative Mike Pence's efforts to craft a compromise immigration bill -- he has been proposing a bill that has the enforcement provisions of the House bill, along with a guest worker program to get the bill through the Senate, but without the more egregious provisions of the bill that passed the Senate. He also tries to utilize a free market approach, using private sector staffing firms to process the guest worker applications.

The statement that caught my ear, was this: "I guess he just expects the free market to solve all our problems." She said this in a perjorative tone -- a self-proclaimed conservative (ostensibly being at least reasonably free market in nature) insulting a fellow conservative because he is trying to utilize the free market to help solve a problem?!? Since when did using the free market become a negative, a slander?

Of course, this is also the same Laura Ingraham that rails against the "cultural elites" while turning up her nose at cultural items that she doesn't like herself. If she doesn't like something, she has no problems insulting it. If someone insults something she likes, however, it is the "elites" trying to tell her (and, by extension, us) what to do.

Just another example of the intellectual dishonesty of talk radio today.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »