Rob's Politics Blog

Bob Dole has spoken on the filibuster issue. It ain't pretty.

His second paragraph insinuates that he'd like Frist to act cautiously. His last paragraph argues that Frist would be justified in obliterating the filibuster.

Dole is, ultimately, a funny guy to argue for restraint with the filibuster. Twelve years ago, he was the one who greatly increased the usage of this device - maybe not against judicial nominees, but against a lot of the Clinton administration's key legislation. Dole, in fact, deemed Clinton an illegitimate president in January 1993 on the dubious grounds that he hadn't received 50% of the popular vote. It all had to do with setting the stage for Dole's stillborn presidential run in 1996.

After January of 1995, Dole didn't need a filibuster to deal with judicial nominees. He had majority control of the Senate and plenty of Clinton's judicial nominees died quiet deaths in committee hearings, leaving the federal bench underpopulated and overworked. Had they not won the majority in 1994, it's hard to say that the GOP would have refrained from filibustering nominations. Let's see, they shut down the government in 1995, forced impeachment through with a lame duck congress in 1998, and Dole himself violated Senate norms by criticizing Clinton while the president was overseas.

I had mild hopes that Dole might sound a cautionary note, but I also think the mythology constructed around the man is bullshit. At his core, he's a hatchet man. He rose to prominence because Richard Nixon could count on him to be a loyal attack dog when needed, and Dole played that role on his own behalf from 1993 to 1996. Now he's serving the Bush administration, ironically working to undo an institution that he was happy to exploit when he needed it. A man of principle indeed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to visit Israel tomorrow. This is a remarkable milestone, marking the emergence of a new partnership.

Russia and Israel have been historically antagonistic - at least as long as Russia was part of the Soviet Union. Since the dissolution of the USSR, post-Soviet Russia has moved closer to a genuine partnership with Israel. This hasn't resulted in a break between Russia and the Arab states, but it has added a new stabilizing factor to the perennial Arab-Israeli conflict. The Soviet Union was not always a force for stability; it played a key role in precipitating the 1967 war. Russia's interest in the region is in large part economic. Putin very much wants trade ties with Israel - and to encourage investment by its community of Russian emigres.

Clearly opposition to terrorism is another common thread uniting the two states. Neither is in a position to appease the Islamists - Israel would have to surrender its existence and Russia would have to surrender Chechnya.

This is not yet the closest of bonds - not yet comparable to Israel's ties to India or the United States. Still, the Russia-Israel bond, and Putin's visit will be developments to watch.

A lingering consequence of Il Duce's greatest crime, the brutal invasion of Ethiopia, is in the process of being redressed. During the 1935 invasion, Italian troops stole an ancient Ethiopian monument: a 24m tall obelisk situated in the ancient city of Axum. Despite a postwar UN resolution (in 1947), Italy hung onto the relic. In 2002, it was struck by lightning, enraging Ethiopians who had demanded its return for decades.

Now it's finally happening. Transporting this 160 ton object is no small feat, but its return will mark a form of redress for the crimes committed seven decades ago.

There is the prospect that this action will set a precedent for other countries to demand the return of relics - Greece might demand the Elgin marbles back (and they probably should get them). One need not condemn the treasure hunters of earlier eras as craven looters, though. Ottoman Greece did not offer good prospects for preservation - consider what happened to the Parthenon. More recently, consider what befell treasures in the Iraqi and Afghan national museums. The verdict here has to be mixed: it's a good thing that Ethiopia is getting its relic back, but the holders of other treasures are still entitled to ask whether historical treasures are better off in their host countries or their countries of origin.

Wow, Tom DeLay is seriously going around the bend. If the ethics cloud wasn't enough to occupy him, he's now publicly attacking Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee for "judicial activism." This is apparently fallout from the Schiavo verdict. This goes in tandem with his calls to hold the judiciary "accountable" for its actions.

This guy seems intent on kicking out one of the fundamental legs of the American system. However unrelated this is, the pursuit of the ethics investigation against him is assuming real urgency.

I just happened upon one of the more entertaining hours of C-Span I've seen in a while: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's deliberations over whether to vote on the nomination of John Bolton for UN Ambassador. Recent allegations have further indicated the possiblity that Bolton might be truly mad. A US AID worker, who was situated in Kyrgyzstan in 1994, has written that, after she criticized the actions of a contractor that Bolton was representing he,

proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door, and generally behaving like a madman.

This was perhaps the main development shaping how the committee acted this afternoon. Chairman Richard Lugar did his grandfatherly best to urge his colleagues to bring the nomination to a vote. Lugar is known far and wide for his geniality - he is not a White House hatchet man.

Facing Lugar was a quintet of aggressive Democrats: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Paul Sarbanes, and Chris Dodd. They pressed their points home and the excitable Biden occasionally interrupted the chair.

What was most intriguing was the apparent crack that formed among the GOP committee members. First Chuck Hagel said that he had reservations about Bolton but wanted them to be discussed on the floor. Faint praise, though an argument that sorta helped Lugar. Then George Voinovich said that the new allegations were serious and he could not support Bolton without some discussion of them. A nervous looking Lincoln Chafee asked Lugar if Voinovich's statement had changed his views. Chafee would probably experience real difficulty from an early vote in favor of Bolton. Rhode Island isn't getting any redder and his professions of filial piety justifying his GOP membership seem pretty thin. With these two seeming iffy and the Democrats seemingly united, the Bolton nomination stood to fail by a 10-8 vote. Beforehand, Chafee had indicated support for the nomination. Apparently it doesn't take too strong a wind to shake him.

The apparent reservations of Voinovich and Chafee set off a long procedural discussion in which Lugar sought to give ground gracefully - getting the minority to commit to a vote at some definite point in the future. Still, it would seem that Bolton might be too bitter a pill for GOP moderates to swallow. Depending how these new allegations play out, he might be dead in the water - the first significant defeat of the administration since the inauguration.

This Post editorial, Beyond the Pale, captures one troubling aspect of conservative practice in this country. Tom DeLay, John Cornyn, and others are making none-too-disguised threats against the judiciary. Not in the "rule this way or we'll shoot you" sense - but what emerges clearly is a determination to call the judiciary in to answer for decisions that go against conservative values.

This speaks, I think, to a larger problem with American conservatism. English conservatism is famously about conserving and protecting institutions. American conservatism doesn't seem to share that value. The filibuster, which conservatives exploited ruthlessly throughout the 90s, is under threat. There are rumbles about impeaching judges because they've made a ruling that conservatives dislike. The House ethics committee - which was pumped full of steroids by the Class of 94 - is an emaciated shell of its former self - all for the sake of preserving Tom DeLay from the fruits of his own misconduct.

James A. Baker, when called from retirement to manage Dubya's effort in Florida, memorably declared that you can't change the rules to get the outcome you want. Perhaps he'd care to say that again - to his own folks.

I've tended to be suspicious of the line that Bob Dole is, in the end sum, a grand old guy. Yes he served his country valiantly in World War 2, but the experience seemingly made him a very bitter guy afterward, as evidenced by his bizarre "Democrat wars" crack during the 1976 campaign. He very probably ensured that his Kansas opponents wound up on Nixon's enemies list. During Clinton's first term, Dole did quite a lot to turn the Senate into a battleground, deeming Clinton an essentially unelected president because he hadn't cleared 50% in a 3-way race. Dole's reelection campaign in 1992 was hit with a massive fine for campaign finance violations. His lead fundraiser went to prison. In 1996, candidate Dole tried to stir the heartland with a nativist, anti-UN pitch. Last summer, he lent credence to the Swift Boat clowns, saying basically the fact that they were making such a fuss proved that there must be something to their story. Collegiality among senators be damned.

So, I don't buy the argument that he's a class act. I much prefer the notion that he's been a willing hatchet man, with an odd tendency to refer to himself in the third person.

Anyway, he recently voiced, in his own small way, concerns about the ongoing GOP move to undermine the filibuster. On NPR, he said: "You want to think down the road. The Senate's going to change. It's not always going to be Republican. It changes back and forth. History shows that."

That's a good start, and nothing there is untrue. But if Bob Dole wants to be a real statesman, to live up to this image that has been so generously constructed around him, he'll need to do a bit more than say this on liberal radio (how many dittoheads were listening?). He's going to need to go on Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes and so forth. We're, after all, only talking about the institution that he invested his life in.

Time to step up and prove me wrong, Bob. Show us that this isn't what Bob Dole would want.

The New York Times reports that China is now trying to reign in the anti-Japanese protests after damage was done to one Japanese consulate and Japanese visitors were attacked. The funny thing about nationalism is that this genie is loath to go back into the bottle. Beijing is trying to cope with a monster of its own making - having tried to used the protests as a weapon against Japan in disputes over territorial waters and natural resources.

It will be interesting to see how this plays in India. Wen Jiabao's visit to India seemed designed to split the two aspirants to permanent seats on the Security Council - he spoke in favor of an Indian seat, but not one for Japan. India and Japan do have a recent history of defense cooperation, one which may be reenergized if China moves too quickly into the Indian Ocean. Together, along with Taiwan, the two powers pose a significant challenge to China's regional aspirations.

I agree with The Times on the transparent nature of the recent anti-Japan protests in China. Japanese evasion of wartime atrocities is old news, though the last decade has seen a growing willingness by Japanese leaders to address what was done and apologize for it. The value of having Japan as an adversary, though, has increased in China. Japan has legitimate cause to worry about China's avowed interest in violently opposing Taiwanese independence.

Moreover, what strikes me is the extent to which Japan, by virtue of past sins, has been elevated into the role of being China's nemesis. Certainly Japan could do more to appease its neighbors on the question of its past guilt - its record of acknowledging its past deeds is still terribly mixed. But one wonders if that is enough at this point. Chinese nationalism is filling the void left by Mao's Communism - it has to in an era where the government is promoting the accumulation of wealth. And nationalism tends to sanctify hatreds - particularly those in recent memory. Tokyo could do more, but the onus for forestalling a future Sino-Japanese War falls heavily on the shoulders of Beijing.