An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Bi Partisan support for Leach to UN Ambassador
50 House members promote Leach for ambassador
A Democratic congressman said today he will continue to push for Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa to be named as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
I likey.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Bi Partisan support for Leach to UN Ambassador”
I don’t know much about Leach, but the bipartisan support for him is a powerful, wonderful, inspiring thing to see. Let’s hope it makes a difference.
(I’m trying not to be cynical, Paul; really, I am!)
Let’s see… liberal RINO who sponsored a bill to block internet gambling, managed to lose to a guy named “Loebsack”, little foreign policy record, opposed the war in Iraq, and most assuredly won’t do a thing to deal with UN corruption or pedophillic rape…
Yeah, sounds like something I’d want pinned to the Democrats, too.
I had to do some reading about Leach. The good news is that he’s no leech. Apparently he’s pro-choice and voted against the war in Iraq. Besides being perceived as a Bush Jr. stooge, Bolton had an image problem. I mean, what’s up with that two-tone hair/moustache, ‘n mop haircut? Looks like one of them GD hippies.
The story is that after the 2000 election, Rove told Bush Jr. that there weren’t enough swing voters for him to actually be a “compassionate conservative,” causing him to move hard right. But there’s a difference between being steadfast and asinine/stubborn. After hawkish Dems/Repubs ‘n generals said that Rumsfeld should be canned, warning lights should have gone off. Oh well, some people with Ivy League degrees are still slow learners.
Repubs seems to be learning that what’s good for the GOP isn’t always good for the country. Perhaps the administration will start taking advice from those who have actually served in the U.S.military, rather than PNAC talking heads/chickenhawk Repub politicians–the vast majority of whom, have not.
I had to do some reading about Leach. The good news is that he’s no leech. Apparently he’s pro-choice and voted against the war in Iraq. Besides being perceived as a Bush Jr. stooge, Bolton had an image problem. I mean, what’s up with that two-tone hair/moustache, ‘n mop haircut? Looks like one of them GD hippies.
The story is that after the 2000 election, Rove told Bush Jr. that there weren’t enough swing voters for him to actually be a “compassionate conservative,” causing him to move hard right. But there’s a difference between being steadfast and asinine/stubborn. After hawkish Dems/Repubs ‘n generals said that Rumsfeld should be canned, warning lights should have gone off. Oh well, some people with Ivy League degrees are still slow learners.
Repubs seems to be learning that what’s good for the GOP isn’t always good for the country. Perhaps the administration will start taking advice from those who have actually served in the U.S.military, rather than PNAC talking heads/chickenhawk Repub politicians–the vast majority of whom, have not.
gattsuru
You have strong views on this.
Whom do you propose as UN ambassador?
The duplicate post was accidental.
response to: (gattsuru 12.5.2006 7:09pm)
I’m not sure where you’re going with the Internet gambling. As a blackjack fanatic, I don’t trust a virtual “dealer.”
Btw…your response is somewhat reactionary. Why must hardcore Cons oppose any Repubs who aren’t hardcore Cons? I’d probably vote for Repubs like Chaffee or Snowe. And I probably would have supported McCain for prez, until he started giving speeches at Liberty University. The problem is that hardcore Cons brand anyone who isn’t hard-right, as a Lib. That’s simply too myopic.
Not… quite, Dr. Don key.
I don’t gamble, myself. I just find it hard to trust the spine of a man who believes women should be able given the choice to destroy a clump of tissue that might count as human, but thinks Americans in general shouldn’t be able to make the choice of tossing twenty bucks at a gambling site.
If we could put forward a bleeding heart, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-welfare redistribution, Daily Kos liberal, that would actually help reform the United Nations, I’d do that. It’s not a reaction to his politics, those are merely a very strong flashing sign. It’s that he’s not likely to fix the problems in the United Nations.
I can deal with most who aren’t hardcore conservatives. Outside of guns, there’s no issue where I’m unwilling to take some deal of compromise between the ‘best candidate’s view and my own when there are no valid candidates closer (in rare events, opposing the republican view – for example, I was pro-Schavio killing)
Oh, and as for McCain, I just don’t like McCain Feingold, to the point where I offered to violate it. Free speech itself matters a lot to me.
Paul in Austin
[j]Kim Du Toit, but I don’t know if he’s available, and of course would never be affirmed.[/joke]
I dunno if there’s a good name. Probably no one in major politics, although maybe the House of Representatives has a good individual.
We need someone that’s actually willing to challenge the United Nation’s culture of corruption, abuse, and rape. Someone that will actually push for meaningful protections to be added to the United Nations protocols rather than simple recognition of “Human Dignity”.
Political lines don’t matter. Strength of character and backbone do. I don’t believe a man who accepts abortion as okay, but thinks Americans shouldn’t have the choice to waste their money on gambling without state sponsorship… don’t see enough backbone there.
Right now, we’re supporting a group that is best described as “not good”. Maybe even Evil. They claim to support human rights, while having a statue of a broken civilian weapon (a knotted Colt Python) at their front gates in New York patrolled by guards armed with automatic weapons. They’re an international group of ‘peace’bringers known more for its ability to rape children than keep the peace.
Gatts- If you think the UN is worse than useless, anyway, it shouldn’t matter who gets the post. Removing Bolton is mostly symbolic, anyway. It says that we are recognizing the limitations of our ability to force other nations to go along with our agenda. Hopefully our next ambassador to the UN will be more concilliatory than Mr. Bolton.
BTW, do hardline conservatives think that any Republican politician who gets along well with both sides and understands how to work in a bipartisan way is a RINO? I’d always thought of Leach as one of the few moderate Republicans left in congress- along the lines of Olympia Snowe.
What about:
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad,
Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky
Each of these could be described as foreign policy pragmatists from of Secretary Rice’s camp.
Gattsuru, you seem militantly Libertarian.
Why do you visit and comment at a blog that focuses on philosophically maleable moderates? Wouldn’t you have more fun hanging with your homeboys or bashing liberals over at Daily Kos?
If you can find someone who puts forward an agenda of working with other nations where it counts while working for reform of the U.N. then you have a winner who will do wonders to help restore the reputation of the U.S. I think that we’ll have to wait at least two years to see that happen though. Ambassador Kerrey, anyone?
response to: (gattsuru 12.5.2006 8:49pm)
“I just find it hard to trust the spine of a man who believes women should be able given the choice to destroy a clump of tissue that might count as human, but thinks Americans in general shouldn’t be able to make the choice of tossing twenty bucks at a gambling site.”
Those are two different issues. There are some pro-choice Repubs and anti-choice Dems. The problem with the issue is that the two sides are arguing two different things. The “pro-life” camp argues that a fetus is a child. The “pro-choice” camp believes that a fetus doesn’t have the same Constitutional rights that a born person does. Think about the fact that you don’t hear the terms “anti-life” or “anti-choice” used in the argument. Aside from social Cons, the issue isn’t really a priority for most people. I’m cool with banning the procedure for the 2nd/3rd trimesters, and requiring parental consent for minors. Other than that, most of America is anti-abortion, but pro-choice. As the saying goes, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Since the Civil War, Cons/Repubs have generally supported states-rights, while Progressives/Dems have generally supported more power being shifted to the federal government. The trend has become more blurred recently, with Repubs challenging the checks/balance system, aka the Schiavo case. The problem with Repubs is that they use libertarian fiscal policies, and maintain Puritanical social stances. Civil libertarianism has more merits in the real world.
For me, online gambling is somewhat of a non-issue. I’m more concerned about the companies being regulated, than committing some Puritanical sin of not being enslaved to “God’s will” or whatever. After 12 years of fundamentalist Baptist schools, I can tell you that it’s all b.s.
“If we could put forward a bleeding heart, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-welfare redistribution, Daily Kos liberal, that would actually help reform the United Nations, I’d do that. It’s not a reaction to his politics, those are merely a very strong flashing sign.”
You made a visceral, reactionary statement in arguing that you weren’t being reactionary. Think about that one for a while.
“I can deal with most who aren’t hardcore conservatives. Outside of guns, there’s no issue where I’m unwilling to take some deal of compromise”
From your previous statements, I’m assuming that “pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-welfare” candidates are also off the table. Admit it – you use a litmus test when voting.
“Oh, and as for McCain, I just don’t like McCain Feingold, to the point where I offered to violate it. Free speech itself matters a lot to me.”
The problem with McCain-Feinfold is that politicians found loopholes. The system has become out of control. If you’re running for president, you need something like $60M before the primaries even start, to be a contender. That’s absolutely ludicrous. More campaign finance reform should be passed to send the message to corporations that democracy is not for sale in America. The impact that the Swift-Boat “ad” on the ’04 election is a perfect example. A lot of people assumed it wasn’t biased, since it was on TV.
should have been: “Swift-Boat ‘ad’ (had) on”
Also, concerning campaigning in general, it’s very problematic that most people get most of their political news from the mass media? It essentially means that career campaigners (er, I’ll beat around the bush and won’t mention any names) have an edge in elections.
Well, among other things, I like to run into remotely sane people on a rare event or two, Paul in Austin.
Talking to folks here there’s an odd chance someone might actually use some information or viewpoint I provide in a useful manner. At DUmmie headquarters or Daily Kos, actually suggesting that a thing like the Second Amendment exists automatically places you on the blindlist.
Zalmay Khalilzad sounds good. Strong tactician, good at pulling separate sides together, the RAND connection should give a useful viewpoint… and would be a fairly strong anti-China voice.
Not much information as to how he’d do about corruption, but it’s a better voice than Leach. Most of the same goes for Paula Dobriansky, who looks to be just as strong a choice. I think they might be too far right-wing and tied to Iraq for European consumption, but they’re not bad starts.
Kim
The United Nations is not useless. It is in fact on of the most powerful vehicles for political might in the world, and many of its purposes, such as the prevention of genocide, are incredibly important. Disabilities, human rights, and many other aspects of the international legal system can be made or broken by the United Nations. It, and NATO, are the only powers which can reasonably prevent multiple individual acts of genocide.
However, the current format has been corrupted, and used for some very bad purposes. Placing a strategically strong head in our chair could quickly provide a method for encouraging anti-genocidal tendencies and internal clean-up.
Placing a yes-man on the council will just continue to allow systemic rape to continue.
As to the ‘moderate’ viewpoint… to go by the National Journal values, Leach was more liberal than 61% of the House of Representatives. For comparision, Republicans only had 53% of the House. The Nation, which leans pretty damned far left, considered Leach a liberal. This is different from the Lierberman DINO situation : he was a mainstream liberal for most votes, only being conservative on the Iraqi war (I believe it worked out to only slightly less liberal than Hilliary Clinton, although I don’t have any notes on the matter).
“You made a visceral, reactionary statement in arguing that you weren’t being reactionary. Think about that one for a while.”
Amazing. It’s almost like it was planned, like a punne or a play on words or something similar, designed to mess ever so slightly with the reader’s head. Almost like it was intentional.
Good thing I’m not nearly that elegant a writer.
The point was that I really don’t mind a stereotypical candidate here.
“From your previous statements, I’m assuming that “pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-welfare” candidates are also off the table. Admit it – you use a litmus test when voting.”
No, I actually will vote for a pro-gay marriage candidate. The only part of that I oppose is the court overturn method currently in place – I want it to be changed through the legislature (although I think the discrimination would be an easier target first). I’ll hold my nose and vote for income redistributionists if there’s no better candidates (see every election, ever), and while I don’t like abortion’s potential for eugenics, there are other places that battle can be fought.
I’d prefer someone who’s against mindless redistribution if I can get it, but I won’t vote for him/her if he/she is also as corrupt as all getout.
The problem with McCain-Feinfold is that politicians found loopholes. The system has become out of control. If you’re running for president, you need something like $60M before the primaries even start, to be a contender. That’s absolutely ludicrous. More campaign finance reform should be passed to send the message to corporations that democracy is not for sale in America. The impact that the Swift-Boat “ad” on the ’04 election is a perfect example. A lot of people assumed it wasn’t biased, since it was on TV.
No, the issue was that McCain-Feingold said that political speech wasn’t speech protected by the first amendment. The fact that it also separated us poor normal peons from the Journalistic Elite was merely a kick in the shins against drilling into our balls (or ovaries).
There’s no point to democracy if “free speech” only protects speeches valued at less than $5,000 by a group which considers five hundred free readers to be a violation of the law.
Gatts- If you are a hardline libertarian, aren’t you concerned about what the right wing has done to civil rights in this country? That we’ve twisted the Geneva Conventions to approve torture? That we’ve allowed America’s reputation to be dragged through the international mud with incidents like Abu Ghraib? What about warrantless wiretapping? Loss of habeas corpus? I never understand why people are more concerned with the rest of the world than what is going on in their own country. To reform an international organization like the UN, don’t we first have to be seen as benevolent, not as an imperialist power?
If you’re concerned about corruption, than you should be concerned about the myriad of scandals that have occurred on our shores in our own Democratic system of government. What about the corruption involved in no bid contracts in Iraq? What about 9 billion that just disappeared while Paul Bremer was in charge of the CPA? I’m just saying that we have a lot of image-repairing to do at home, in order to win any credibility in reforming the UN.
I personally support newly elected Representative “Loebsack” to be UN Ambassador.
Sorry, the $5000 should have been marked under this link
Kim:
First, I’m not a hard line libertarian, simply a militant one. As I noted, compromises are necessary – eventually ‘freedoms’ turn into attacks on others or worse. I merely believe that violence has a necessary place; this is one of the many reasons I’m pro-gun and pro-knife. Not really a fan of how militant has turned into journalist-speak for terrorist, since all it really originally meant was accepting the use of violence.
[A]ren’t you concerned about what the right wing has done to civil rights in this country?
Like requiring government permission to own a device I can make with thirty minutes, some piping, and a bit of saltpeter, and have a constitutional right to keep? Or was is the freedom to associate with people who might – rightly or wrongly – be called gangs?
No, wait, Violent Crime Control Act came under Clinton…
Previously married gays being driven apart… no, a couple decades too early. Meh, we’ll get to it.
“That we’ve twisted the Geneva Conventions to approve torture?”
No, that doesn’t particularly concern me. The Geneva Conventions have been meaningless to our enemies throughout the decades, and an important part of libertarian application requires a certain deal of compromise. Mainly, I personally find the right to be free of non-permanent damage of an individual caught red-handed committing an act of terrorism to be fairly minimal compared to the rights of innocents to not be blown to very small pieces by a bomb.
Libertarianism isn’t about liking minimal rules, or just preventing the government from doing bad things, ma’am. It’s about liking human rights, first and foremost, even when there are hard decisions to be made.
“What about warrantless wiretapping?”
I’d say communication over public infrastructure really doesn’t fit reasonable expectation of privacy, for the same reason you can be frisked going into a school or courthouse. It’s a bad thing, but we’re in a world of many bad things, and compared to the alternative, it’s not particularly so. More notably, all of the abuses that could be applied with the NSA scheme could just as easily be applied through FISA ( 100% approval rate, long delays, though). Terrorists who change cell phones or locations once a day, on the other hand, can easily drown FISA in paperwork.
I’m against it still – there are far more efficient techniques, and a situation where neither FISA nor the NSA tapping exists regularly would be a better world – but I’m not going to go out of my way to rip it down until it’s abused, not compared to actual problematic groups.
“Loss of habeas corpus?”
The MCA allows for review of status as an unlawful enemy to be reviewed by the Washington DC District Court of Appeals, as well as the final sentencing. Not quite sure if that’s what you’re talking about, though.
“To reform an international organization like the UN, don’t we first have to be seen as benevolent, not as an imperialist power?”
Let’s see… Japan, international imperialist power met with mass slaughter of civilians. Now functional.
No, power seems to work.
Do you honestly ever expect to get respect from these individual by sitting in a corner and waiting for them to quiet down? It didn’t work for a first grade teacher dealing with six year olds, I don’t see it doing wonders here.
“[T]han you should be concerned about the myriad of scandals that have occurred on our shores in our own Democratic system of government.
And I am. Coingate, for example, was a particularly bad example. The fact that we also need to deal with corruption here, where it’s not related to genocide, does not mean we should ignore corruption where it is.
“I’m just saying that we have a lot of image-repairing to do at home, in order to win any credibility in reforming the UN.”
None of those examples of corruption are quite similar to equal United Nations versions. For starters, Paul Bremer was not known to support suicide bombers. Lynndie England, et all, were not given desk positions.
Yes, we have room to improve. But merely getting the United Nations to our level would be an incredible beneficial change.
Thats because he isn’t a Libertarian Kim, he is a reactionary federalist/social conservative.
Not trying to pick a flame fest gatt, but your stances on the issues you raised go counter to Libertarian policy.
Pyst- when you’re right, you’re right. Gatts doesn’t seem to mind the “big brother” government we’ve had the past six years or the executive power grabs, or attempts by the administration and its allies to control the flow and content of information going out to the public. A true libertarian would be up in arms over encroaching governmental power over the private sector.
I think no one minds giving up some liberty for safety- but only if it truly makes us safer. We are definitely less safe, and in a weakened position since the 2000 election..