Wampum

Support The Right To Dissent, Support Mark Dayton

Kevin Drum points us to this noxious column by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard:

Senate Democrats have enough votes to block major Bush initiatives like Social Security reform and to reject Bush appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. They may be suicidal, but they could undermine the president's entire second term agenda. At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq. (Emphasis added).

Barnes is a reliable transmitter of White House ideas. The threat to delineate what is “permissible and what’s out of bounds” in regard to political speech about Iraq raises a couple of interesting questions. First, exactly how does the White House intend to enforce the threat? Secondly, against whom is the threat directed?

With regard to the first question, I presume that the method the President would use to make the delineation between permissible and impermissible dissent is political.

Of course, it is true that for almost three years, President Bush claimed the right to incarcerate any American citizen indefinitely, on just his own say so, without charges being filed, without access to a lawyer, and without the individual having any right to a trial or other judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court disagreed in the Hamdi decision.

I do not think even Fred Barnes, much less Karl Rove, would think that it would be good politics to have Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer arrested and shipped to Gitmo. It would be great theatre, perhaps, but disastrous politics.

No, I suspect that Barnes envisions the President making his Iraq critics pay a political price.

That brings us to the second question, to whom is the threat directed? Barnes mentions three Democratic Senators in his piece. Those three are Barbara Boxer of California, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Mark Dayton of Minnesota.

At least in the cases of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, any threat of political retaliation is empty.

Boxer won reelection to the Senate last November by a twenty-point margin, garnering 58% of the vote. Bush lost California to Kerry by a 54%-45% margin. When it comes to California voters, it would seem that it is Senator Boxer and not President Bush who has a mandate.

The same is true in Massachusetts. Bush lost the state by 25 percentage points and could not crack 40%. It would seem difficult for him to make a Massachusetts icon like Ted Kennedy pay any political price whatsoever for dissent on Iraq.

When Barnes talks about the White House getting tough with Iraq critics, he is talking about Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton. Barnes writes:

"I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity," said Democratic senator Mark Dayton, before impugning the integrity of Condoleezza Rice. "But I really don't like being lied to, repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally. It is wrong, it is undemocratic, it is un-American, and it is dangerous."

Barnes seems to think that Dayton's statement is beyond the pale. To that, Dayton might respond with two words: aluminum tubes.

Dayton may be politically vulnerable. He is a first term Senator who is up for reelection in 2006. He won his Senate seat in 2000 by fewer than 150,000 votes and failed to crack 50%. In the 2000 race, Dayton made an issue of his opponent’s support for privatizing Social Security.

Dayton is a liberal. Remember the bruhaha over whether or not John Kerry was the most liberal Senator? The National Journal ratings had Kerry 11th over his career. It rated Dayton first.

Dayton will oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales. He voted against the confirmation of Condi Rice.

According to The Hill, Dayton is at the top of the GOP Senate target list for 2006.

Given all of that, I think we should view Barnes’ article as a shot across Mark Dayton’s bow. Of course, there is not much Dayton can do to prevent the President from attacking him. Trying to cooperate with the Bush White House is a losing strategy as Max Cleland and Charlie Stenholm can attest.

Democrats should resist the effort to allow the President to decide what is permissible and what is not permissible dissent on Iraq. The right to only Government approved dissent is no right at all. One way to express that resistance is to support the reelection of Mark Dayton. To learn more about Mark Dayton, go here, or here, or here. To contribute to his campaign, go here.

Stand up for the right to express political opinions that are inconvenient to the White House. Support Mark Dayton.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at February 1, 2005 01:52 PM | TrackBack