Yesterday I woke up feeling weird and wrote a somewhat strange, though heartfelt, first dkos diary entitled I am not sorry (for being a republican). In it I stated that it might be my last diary as well, but now I feel that I owe a follow up to anyone to cares to read it.

I was presumptious and arrogant and for that I apologize because that was not my true intent. If you really read it you'd see that I do not bask in my own rational or intellectual superiority. In fact on the blog where I usually post (SC mentioned above) I easily take the larger portion of the argumentative beatings from the Left and am forced to retreat. While there is virtually no chance of me switching sides, that does not render inter-ideological debate useless as I am always forced to reevaluate my positions and reconsider whether the defenses I use are logical, rational or even fact-based. I hope that I, at least sometimes, challenge the liberals sparring with me to have to come up with new arguments to show me the error of my ways.

I just watched President Bush give one of the best press conferences I have seen him give.  The political tricks were far less obvious than usual.  But they were there.   The most obvious political ploy was that  he playing from Karl Rove's liberal strawman "Democrats Cut and Run" script.  And he was kick to paint all criticism as politically motivated.

The President gave the impression that he was above polls and would stay the course (although I noticed he carefully avoided using those words) no matter what the polls say.  The truth is that the Bush White House is and always has been obsessed with polls.  

Armando bases his discussion of the 1860 strategy on the Cooper Union Speech given by Abraham Lincoln while he was campaigning for President.  In the speech Lincoln takes the claims of his opponents and turns them back against said opponents in a masterful example of political ju-jit-su.  By so doing he manages to define himself in a favorable light and turn the table on his opponents.  Here is Armando's take from back in April 2006 (link):

I think, "Maybe Armando is onto something and we can have a reasonable debate with these clowns folks."

Then I read what the few brave (hey, at least they show up) Bush/Iraq War-backing souls have to say and I think, "Armando, quit wasting your time.  They're idiots."

And they are.

The most recent front page post by Armando's current sparring partner (as if Armando was Ali in his prime and his sparring partner was some poor sap who routinely found himself swallowing the last of his few remaining molars) touts the great advances we've made in Iraq in terms of elecricity production and sewer operations.

I kid you not.

(more)

Trevino's post on Liberals and the Military seeks to deny the obvious - the military's deliberate adoption of the liberal ethic - the Common Good.

And it is undeniable:

Immediately upon its organization in 1901, the 15^th Cavalry embarked  for the Philippines to quell an insurrection in the United States newly acquired  territory. The fierce combat in the Philippine jungles against the savage Moros  forged the spirit of the Regiment in fire and blood; a spirit exemplified in the  motto the Regiment chose for itself-TOUS POUR UN, UN POUR TOUS

<!--more-->

You got it pretty much right. Nice post, and thanks for the kind words. I'd only add three caveats:

a) It's a method for creating political possibilities, not winning elections or passing legislation per se. A lot of your critics seem to miss that.

b) While there is massive overlap between the GOP and the think tanks, it's the latter that originated and use this specific methodology (though not the concept, I think, which is an old one). The party is a bit more short-term and tactical. I wouldn't wholly conflate the two.

c) On DHinMI's specific comments, while I can't do anything about his particular dislike for me -- and it runs deep -- I can say that in response to his critique of the Mackinac Center, its political kneecapping of the Michigan teachers' union is a signal accomplishment.

Most resp.,

Josh Trevino

From Swords Crossed:

Make room for me:

(I]ts Left representative, Armando from Kos, is a timid mouse, and the Right representative, Tacitus, is a spectacularly dishonest trolling-artist whose specialty is longwinded diversions that fatigue his opponent into submission. What we have here then is the blogging equivalent of Hannity & Colmes; in this case the Hannity figure is marginally more intelligent and ever-so-slightly less vituperative, but such matters little when the Colmes figure, who is admittedly and admirably fine at the kung-fu of wonkery, is still such a pushover when it comes to direct clashes with certain ideological enemies who argue in massive bad faith.

Okaaay. So Alan, what are the perks at Faux again?

<--more-->

In his critique of Left Blog reaction to Wonkette's critique of Steven Colbert's now beyond actual discussion White House Correspondents Dinner performance, Trevino missed the point in the same way that Wonkette does. Let's try again to see if the point can be understood. The TV critic for the Chicago Sun Times Doug Elfman explains:

How's this for a newsworthy lead? It was perhaps the first time in Bush's tenure that the president was forced to sit and listen to any American cite the litany of criminal and corruption allegations that have piled up against his administration. And mouth-tense Bush and first lady Laura Bush fled as soon as possible afterward.

From whom were they fleeing? A star comedian pretending to be a Fox News-like blowhard doing a sort of performance art that America hasn't witnessed nationally since the days of Andy Kaufman. Even if Colbert's bit had been reported as a train wreck, that would have sufficed. Instead, shocking lines like the following were barely covered by any traditional organ except industry magazine Editor & Publisher: "I stand by" Bush, Colbert cracked, "because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble, and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

. . . But ignoring a newsworthy keynote speech -- at an event the press corps itself set up -- doesn't go unnoticed anymore. Internet stables for liberals, like the behemoth dailykos.com, began rumbling as soon as the correspondents' dinner was reported in the mainstream press, with scant word of Colbert's combustive address.

Was Colbert funny? Was he trying to be conventionally funny? Reasonable minds can disagree. But the true question was was Colbert's performance newsworthy? Reasonable minds can NOT disagree on that point. It clearly was. For whatever reason, the Media did not cover Colbert's performance in any meaningful way UNTIL the Left blogs made a point of it. That was the point.

<--more-->

Trevino set forth conservative positions on abortion, Republican values, the 2006 election and fighting poverty and answers Hunter's essay on the GOP walkback at Swords Crossed. Here is what Trevino says about abortion:

If we want to craft a compromise between pro-life and pro-abortion forces, we must examine the premises of the latter. They are all monstrous -- and all inescapable. In brief, the arguments in favor of allowing abortion are:

  # Premised upon the denial-of-humanity of the unborn.
  # Premised upon the notion that a woman has total control over her child before birth.
  # Economic: a child not assured of a materially prosperous future should not exist.
  # Emotional: a child not assured of being "wanted" or loved should not exist.

The first argument is the only one which suggests little compromise: fortunately, it is also among the most self-discrediting. The basis for the denial of humanity of the unborn facilitates quite well the denial of humanity for the elderly, the infant, the ill, and the handicapped. (See the cited Anthony Daniels piece above for elaboration.) This is not to dismiss these dangers -- the baleful example of the Netherlands gives us ample reason to fear a society's onrush into these horrors -- but it is to note that they are extreme and repulsive even to many, and perhaps most, on the left. A slender hope of compromise here lies in the possibility that those who adhere to this premise might accede to its uncertainty; and from there allow restrictions on abortion based upon reasonable inconclusiveness.

BS. I replied in a comment, which will be expanded in a responding post:

I object most strenuously to your characterization of the rationale of the pro-choice position. There is NOT denial of the human nature of the fetus, there is the realization, unchallenged by history or fact, that the fetus is NOT a person and thus is not filled with Constitutional rights.

That is the legal position.

The moral positions are that we hold to our morality as individuals, but we respect the law. Morality is imposed on a societal basis by LAW and by persuasion.

The pro-Life (my nod to civility) movement is entitled, I would argue morally bound, to fight against abortion and to work to make it illegal, as they believe a fetus IS a person. I always thought Mario Cuomo's Notre Dame speech was one of the biggest pieces of drivel EVER. His comparing himself to Lincoln was offensive.

Lincoln was working to END slavery - gradually, which infuriated abolitionists. Mario Cuomo was bound to work to end abortion IF he really believed it murder. I believe he did not but found it politically expedient to say he did.

It is a critical question - I believe that a fetus is a POTENTIAL life and thus the State has an interest in it. However, that interest does not become compelling UNTIL VIABILITY. Yes, that is Roe/Casey.

Interestingly, I think that the Roe/Casey construct describes, more or less, my moral position as well, so I fight to keep it the law.

But there is no compromise possible. It is why I believe it is right and proper to insist that SCOTUS nominees tell us where they stand on Roe/Casey.

That is the single most important issue that hangs over the SCOTUS.

More in my post response.

Join us for the debates.

A Victory Strategy:

A British military helicopter crashed in Basra on Saturday, and Iraqis hurled stones at British troops and set fire to three armored vehicles that rushed to the scene. Clashes broke out between British troops and Shiite militias, police and witnesses said.

Police Capt. Mushtaq Khazim said the helicopter was apparently shot down in a residential district. He said the four-member crew was killed, but British officials would say only that there were ''casualties.''

British forces backed by armored vehicles rushed to the area but were met by a hail of stones from the crowd of at least 250 people, who jumped for joy and raised their fists as a plume of thick smoke rose into the air from the crash site.

The crowd set three British armored vehicles on fire, apparently with gasoline bombs and a rocket-propelled grenade, but the soldiers inside escaped unhurt, witnesses said.

British troops shot into the air trying to disperse the crowd, then shooting broke out between the British and Iraqi militiamen, Khazim said. At least four people, including a child, were killed, he said. Two of the victims were adults shot by British troops while driving a car in the area, Khazim said.

The crowd chanted ''we are all soldiers of al-Sayed,'' a reference to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an ardent foe of the presence of foreign troops in Iraq.

. . . The chaotic scene was widely shown on Iraqi state television and on the Al-Jazeera satellite station.

Josh Trevino has not finished explaining what we do now in Iraq. I repeat my query. Where do we go from here?

Georgia10  writes about the Bush Administration's "outrage" over charges that it condones torture:

Despite abuses in places like the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the American officials denied that the government systematically mistreated prisoners and they reiterated a commitment to a global ban on torture.  John B. Bellinger III, the legal adviser to the State Department, who led the delegation, said that criticism of United States policy has become "so hyperbolic as to be absurd." He added: "I would ask you not to believe every allegation that you have heard."

Speaking before the United Nation's Committee Against Torture, he also reiterated the "absolute commitment" of the United States to eradicating torture globally and said the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib were isolated incidents that have been, or will be, investigated and punished.

Oh please. Forget the facts we know about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and detention deaths. Just listen to what THE PRESIDENT SAID:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

The President of the United States expressly reserves the right to violate a recently enacted federal law banning the use of torture (a law the President signed!), and the UN Convention on Torture, which is codified as federal law, reserving the right to order torture.

This is a lie -- "absolute commitment" of the United States to eradicating torture globally. If the United States had an absolute commitment to eradicate torture the President of the United States would NOT reserve the right to order torture.

Georgia10 says the UN will issue a report on United States' compliance with the Convention on Torture on May 19. No need to wait. The President of the United States has reserved the right to order torture. That is a violation of the Convention and federal law.

Ezra Klein has a perceptive post:

This is a very weird idea by Ross Douthat:

Now, if Kristof wanted to write a column advocating a grand bargain - in which, say, pro-lifers accept increased funding for contraception and over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill in exchange for stronger legal restrictions on abortion - that would be interesting. Much too interesting, I'm afraid, to ever see print in the New York Times.

Douthat, it seems, has both the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers exactly backwards. The former believe a woman's control over her own body is an inviolable right, the latter see each and every abortion as an unconscionable murder. . .

To be sure, Ezra's next line is flat wrong. Pro-choice folk like myself are intensely interested in the availability of contraception. Strange that he would write that sentence.)  Ezra's contention is that compromise on the right to choose is really not possible. I happen to agree. And to prove my theory, I am going to test it on Trevino. I am going to make an offer that no one who is pro-choice would ever agree to, to see if Trevino will bite.

Here's my offer Josh -

I propose that the pro-choice and anti-choice movements agree to jointly advocate for a Constitutional amendment that will guarantee the right to choose during the first two trimesters of pregancy while providing States the right to ban abortions in the third trimester with an exception for life (not health, life) of the mother.

Think of it Josh. You can end the "scourge" of "partial birth abortion" forever by just being "reasonable."

Of course,  you can not interfere in any way with a woman's right to choose in the first two trimesters of pregnancy. you can't tell a woman about "fetal pain," you can't tell a doctor what to advise his patients, you can't impose waiting periods. Nothing.

How can you refuse that "reasonable compromise?"

Howard Kurtz points to this unintentionally hilarious Philly Inquirer piece  by Jonathan Last, the Online Editor of the Weekly Standard on blogging. This part struck me as hilarious coming from him:

But the biggest evil of blogs is that first flaw, blogging's original sin: the discounting of news-gathering in favor of news analysis. Bloggers are forever telling us how easy journalism is, yet very few of them have ever really practiced it. Sure, they may have written opinion pieces that compare favorably to the work of Molly Ivins or Ann Coulter, but opinion writing is a tiny - and let's be honest, inconsequential - corner of the journalism world. Real journalism - the practice of adding to the store of public knowledge by reporting news - is a difficult, thankless, and often unpleasant task. Bloggers want no part of it. Everyone wants E.J. Dionne's job; no one wants to be Michael Dobbs.

And what is the Weekly Standard, both on and offline, doing in terms of journalism? Why nothing of course. It is Rupert Murdoch's subsidized bloviating from the Right. Which is fine by me. But please, to come and preach about how BLOGS are leading to disdain for journalism when you are the Online Editor of the Weekly Standard? Come on. Here's a sample of the fine journalism offered by the Weekly Standard this week:

John Podhoretz reviews Flight 93. Ari Richter argues for McCain as SecDef.  Lee Smith theorizes on terrorism in Egypt. Wesley Smith labels assisted suicide groups as evil. Fred Barnes does whatever the hell Fred Barnes does. Thomas Jocelyn attacks the NYTimes. And so on.

Um, Mr. Last, I don't think much shoe leather was worn or phone bills run up for those stories. You work at a house of glass.
<!--more-->

Part 1 of 2.

---"War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means."
--- "The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking."
-Clausewitz, On War

Instead Trevino turns Clausewitz on his head:

Somewhere in the 20th century, the idea of victory as an end in itself was lost. With that loss came a startling divergence in the military and political outcomes of wars of Western powers against non-Western foes. By the time the French abandoned Algeria, they had eradicated the opposing guerrilla forces in the field, put vastly more Algerian Muslims under arms for France than fought for independence, and secured a more absolute territorial hegemony over the vast Algerian hinterland than had ever existed in the previous 124 years of French rule. But the time the United States abandoned South Vietnam, we had eliminated the Viet Cong as a fighting force, reduced endemic enemy activity from 80% of the country to roughly 20%, and established the ARVN as a fighting force capable of effective defenses (if not offenses) against the regular units of North Vietnam. Both these outcomes looked something like success on the ground, and both were transformed into unquestionable defeat by dint of politics.

This seems a remarkable statement to me and an ignorance of one of Clausewitz's most famous and accurate maxims:

"War is . . . an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

This begs the question - all military actions are political. Defeat is not compartmentalized for a nation.

--more--

Like Trevino, I am of a Latino background, in my case Cuban.

Unlike Trevino, I grew up in my heritage - my parents were political refugees from the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Though I was born in New Orleans, Louisiana and I have never stepped foot on Cuba, I feel my parents' country in my bones.

I spoke Spanish before I spoke English. I was raised on congris, arroz con pollo, pernil, pudin de pan and yuca. I listened and learned when my parents and their friends discussed Cuban politics, culture, heritage and issues. We had many Cuban flags in my house.

And yet I feel myself a good, patriotic American. Anyone who knows me has seen my reaction to having my patriotism, and the patriotism of my fellow Democrats questioned. Here is an example:

Speaking for me, I love the United States of America and am devoted to its well being. Again, speaking for me, I think it is the greatest country in the world. Yes, I am one of those folks who believes in American Exceptionalism.

Does my love of, some may even call it an obsession, with my Cuban heritage and the land of my forebears make me LESS patriotic? Less of a good American?

More on the flip.

The truth is that as we let in increasing numbers from communities that do not share the same cultural premises as the American mainstream, the chance for conflict increases proportionately.

. . . This is not simply an academic concern. We already have examples of troubling behavior from Muslim communities in the United States. If we are not in Europe's straits, why tread that path? If we cannot bring to bear internal and informal mechanisms to ward off this problem, why not external and formal ones? With that in mind, why not simply demand that new arrivals from the relevant faith take an oath, enforceable in a court of law, that they do not and will not support the concept of violent jihad, the idea of the dhimmi, the killing of Jews, et cetera? Surely this is a reasonable request to make of a person.

The objection will be raised that this is discriminatory and hence unjust. It is assuredly the former. But the latter is the result of a construct of the recent past that needs to be discarded. If there is a case that predisposing or prejudicial beliefs are somehow exempt from the judgmental gaze of government, it is yet to be made. The FBI surveys groups espousing white supremacism for a reason: why not groups espousing jihad? Does the religious nature of the belief place it under the protections of the Constitution, even as it seeks to destroy the very liberties of that Constitution? Is there any precedent in American history for this singling-out of a faith?

Yes.

I argue:

Trevino's example demonstrates that the "cultural unity" he strives for not only has never existed in the way that he and the Right believe, but that it is fractured by issues other than immigration as well.

The Founders were quite clear on this point - the First Amendment is the express and clear answer - the government can not and should not impose values - religious or cultural.

And now we get down to the gist of it - the security concerns. These are valid and also proper concerns for the government. Radical jihadist Islam is a real threat. The government CAN take this into account in my view in establishing immigration policy.

But how can these concerns be best addressed? I think the answer is simple and fair - by taking the concerns seriously across the board. While it is true that TODAY the jihadist concern is uppermost in our mind, will it always be the case, and is it the only security concern? Do we need a policy that explores the possible threat to security INDIVIDUAL immigrants might pose? We surely do.

But these concerns must be addressed individual by individivual. Whether the immigrant is from a Muslim country, Mexico or Timbuktu. It is ironic the Republicans and the Right (Trevino is not one of them) will deplore the notion of "group rights" when it comes to addressing inequalities in our society but will gladly condemn individuals by group when it comes time to impose restrictions.

Come join the debate.

What is the idea of Swords Crossed? For me it is this:

First, those who know me are aware that I am as fierce a partisan Democrat as you can possibly find. When writing at daily kos that is the hat I wear. While being faithful to the facts, I have always written with one thing uppermost in mind - how can this help the Democratic Party?

Here, my approach will be to try and discuss issues AND politics in a less partisan fashion. My beliefs will be the same. But my objectives will be different. My objective will be honest engagement.

Josh Trevino is a good friend and a good person. His political beliefs are anathema to me, as mine are to him. But I respect his integrity and his intellect. I admit that his conclusions sometimes amaze me, but generally (we're only human after all), I believe he arrives at them from honest thought.

To me, this is the important first principle that allows for honest engagement on issues and politics. I hope that participants at this site can take that approach as well. While both liberals and conservatives may marvel at the positions each of us holds, perhaps we can understand each other better by discussing them here.

That requires a leap of faith. Josh and I are taking that leap. We believe that each of us has arrived at our positions based on honest examination of the issues. We believe that it will be fruitful to discuss these positions and our thought processes in arriving at these positions. We believe it will be helpful to examine the underlying factual assumptions upon which our positions lie.

We hope SwordsCrossed will be a place that discussion of these things can occur in an open, honest, robust fashion. We will not assume the worst of anyone. There will be no trolls based on ideas. But personal invective has to be left at the door.

But crossing of the rhetorical swords on issues, facts, ideology and politics will not only be welcome, but encouraged. Swords Crossed will not be for the faint of heart. But it will not be a site where differing viewpoints will be shunned or censored. (Within reason of course, racism and sexism will not be tolerated.)

Faith and its intersection with politics will be an important subject. I am not a person of faith. Josh is. I respect that and insist it be respected by others. Sexual orientation, the right of privacy and choice and any number of hot button issues will be discussed, and in ways that will make a good number uncomfortable. But we are here to discuss the hard issues, in good faith.

This site will not be Red State or daily kos. It will be a bridge to both. Or so we hope.

At my diary at daily kos on the launching of Swords Crossed, someone questioned how this will work out. I responded:

As Lance (Eric Stoltz) said in Pulp Fiction, "I am curious about that myself."

Tomorrow Trevino and I debate immigration. I hope you can join us.