Okay, we have some journalists in class today, so will take this nice and slow so that everyone can understand. This will be on the test so please pay attention.
To find out what a political debate is all about, look to see where the various parties disagree. The debate is about the disagreement, not the part on which everyone agrees.
When Congressional Democrats wanted to create a Homeland Security Department but the White House did not, the debate wass over whether or not we should have a Homeland Security Department.
When the White House flip flopped and agreed that we needed a Homeland Security Department, everyone was in agreement on that issue and it was no longer one of the terms of the debate. If Congressional Democrats wanted Civil Service protection for Homeland Security employees but the President did not, then the debate wass over whether or not Civil Service protections were appropriate.
Does everyone understand? Okay, let’s try a different example.
President Bush wanted $87 billion appropriated for Iraq and Afghanistan. He wanted to pay for it by borrowing the money and paying the loan off later. John Kerry was for appropriating the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan but wanted to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for it.
What was the debate about?
The debate was not over whether or not it was a good idea to appropriate the money. Everyone agreed that it was a good idea. The debate was over whether we should pay for it now or borrow the money and pay for it later.
Is that clear? Okay, class dismissed.
But, but, but...he voted against body armor for our troops!
Posted by: NTodd at March 18, 2004 07:32 PMThe debate should have been over some of the obvious rip-offs that were being funded. I have extensive experience programming for direct mail and I can tell you that a lot of the line items for the Iraqi postal system were 1000% more than necessary.
The damn bill was about "pork" and slush funds. They priced things as if Iraq never existed prior to the American invasion.
There sould have been two bills at least: a military appropriations bill and a separate reconstruction bill.
Posted by: Bryan at March 19, 2004 01:38 AMGood post. Have you looked at the legislative history of this bill? It's a real monster. Take, for example, the Brownback amendment (S.Amdt. 1885 to S.1689, roll call vote #376), which attempted to shift money from Iraq reconstruction to Afghanistan and the Iraq civil defense corps. The bill was tabled (defeated) on a mostly party line vote. I'm waiting to see the headlines: "Republicans voted to reduce funding for Afghanistan and the Iraqi civil defense corps." Obviously, the political gains of such a line would be minimal, but the claims would be about as accurate as the silliness we're getting out of the Bush administration right now on Kerry's voting record.
Posted by: Brett at March 19, 2004 11:07 AMI don't get it...That isn't what the President said. And he never lies.
Posted by: Chris at March 19, 2004 12:13 PM