House contempt vote

Yesterday's vote by the House of Representatives holding Bush administration officials Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress was meant to stick a finger in the eye of President Bush, nothing more. Nothing will come of it. The Justice Department will not act on the contempt charge. Congressional Democrats can take it to court but their chances there are slim and none. The vote was a waste of time and it was petty. Where were the adults among Congressional Democrats, if any?

Waxman hearing on doping in baseball

The Congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, in which baseball pitcher Roger Clemens and admitted doping facilitator Brian McNamee testified, got Waxman lots of ink and air time, but it had nothing to do with governing. Doping in baseball is a baseball problem and ought to be handled by the Commissioner of Baseball and the players' union. Speaker Pelosi ought to assign some useful work to Waxman, who is a publicity hound, besides which he is partisan, biased, unfair and tyranical.

LAT on terrorists' trials

The LAT argues in an editorial this morning that the planned military trial of six Al Qaeda terrorists presently held at Gitmo is illegal because prosecutors may use in the trial evidence obtained by waterboarding, and further that the prosecution is immoral because prosecutors will seek the death penalty. Finally, the LAT argues that military trials are illegitimate because Congress authorized them by passing an "odious" statute.

Waterboarding was legal then and likely is now in some situations, besides which it caused no bodily harm and was effective. The death penalty is a lawful penalty under federal and some state laws for some crimes. Congress has the power under our constitution to make laws -- some of which may be odious to some people -- subject only to presidential approval, except when overridden by a super majority. Does the LAT insist on U.N. approval of our laws?

Lexington on populism

In The Economist, the Lexington columnist this week writes on populism, arguing it will remain a factor in American politics even if the main populists in the presidential campaign have lost, a fact that seems not to matter to Lexington, presumably a committed populist. The arguments that John Edwards, the most committed populist of the presidential candidates, made were contrived and unconvincing. The majority of registered Democrats, the most liberal of Americans, weren't buying what Edwards was selling. Why would America's remaining political candidates choose to run for office using populist arguments that the majority of voters have already rejected?

Brooks on torture

David Brooks appeared on PBS's NewsHour last night, as he does most Friday nights. He was asked about Republicans generally, conservatives, McCain, Huckabee and waterboarding. On every issue he appeared a conservative light. On waterboarding, he essentially ridiculed the administration and took special aim at the vice president. He said that without Cheney, the Bush administration's position on waterboarding would be much clearer.

The liberal, moderate and conservative light position on waterboarding is irrational, or it's political, or both. Waterboarding is rarely used and then only in special circumstances. It does no bodily harm, merely frightens. Thousands of our own military and intelligence people have been waterboarded in training, apparently without permanent damage to minds or bodies. If waterboarding is torture then every effective method of persuasion is, including bright lights, loud or obnoxious music, high or low temperatures and isolation.

Noonan for Obama

Peggy Noonan argues in a WSJ column today that Hillary has lost and Obama has won, and she seems happy about it. He's brilliant, she says. He will campaign on the issues, she says, he will not go low like Hillary and, ugh, Bill. Consultants for Republicans will not dare attack him for fear the media will call them racists.

On that last point she may be right. But Hillary hasn't yet lost, though it would be good for Democrats if she did. Obama hasn't won and may not and in any case is not unbeatable. He is young and attractive but also young and inexperienced. His assertions that he will unite the country are mere assertions. What he's offering will not unite the country because he is offering what all liberals offer: defeat in Iraq, government healthcare, higher taxes, more government regulation, more government, period. These are not winning themes in a general election.

LAT speaks on taxes

The LAT editorializes on federal taxes today, and says that for President Bush to argue on the same subject is "laughable." It's an indication of the LAT's arrogance and poor judgment. According to the LAT, it's fair for editorial writers to express themselves but wrong for a president of the United States to do so.

More specifically, the LAT and Bush were arguing about whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Bush, of course says yes. The LAT says no; that instead measures that are "truly temporary" are needed, which is stupid. Taxpayers cannot tolerate constantly changing tax policy, which rules out policies that are "truly temporary."