Where Have All The Repubs Gone?

People retire all the time; it’s just the natural progression of career and life. However, when a pattern emerges, flags are raised and questions are asked. Over the past week I’ve noticed the following:

Karl Rove is leaving the White House

Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is retiring

Charles "Chip" Pickering, Jr. (R-MS) is expected to retire

Deborah Pryce (R-OH) will not seek re-election

Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is UN-retiring

Wait a minute, so are we seeing a pattern of "Cut and run" Republicans? They're too scared of some Democrat beating them in the next election that they're running away? They don’t see the Republican Party regaining the majority in the House and Senate, so they take their ball and go home? They don’t want to be associated with George Bush’s war in Iraq? It’s better to cut your political losses now than be exposed during the media circus that is the General Election in 2008?

Seems to me, these Republicans are acting in the same cowardly manner that they claim against Democrats. And these are the people who say we need to stay the course in Iraq.

So it's OK to retreat, cut-and-run, or whatever other euphemism is used when someone's pride and pocketbook are on the line. But, it's defeatist, cowardly, and unpatriotic if we want to bring our soldiers home, protect American lives, and save what’s left of our treasury.

EDIT: Now, it appears that Tony Snow will be leaving the White House, too.

The Roving Goodbye

As everyone in the United States is probably aware, Karl Rove resigned today as President Bush's political adviser. I won't get into the damage he's caused our country, the different ways he usurped the Constitution, his stonewalling and contempt of Congress, or even his bad hair.

Rather, I'll let John Edwards do the speaking for me. Here's his complete, in full, official response:

"Goodbye, good riddance."

Nicely put Mr. Edwards.

Thought Game on Clinton (Bill, that is...)

First, let me say that I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Nor am I an Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, et al, supporter. Meaning, I haven't made up my mind yet.

Hillary Clinton certainly seems to be leading in the national polls, with pretty good poll results state-wise.

What if Hillary wins the presidency - which could very well be a possibility? Ok, fine. Some people say business as usual, some people say there will be major changes. One thing that doesn't change is that the President has to appoint his or her cabinet members. One key post (and the one I personally follow the most) is Secretary of State.

There was talk during the Kerry campaign that President Bill Clinton would be tapped as Kerry's Secretary of State. I read one report that it would have been a somewhat cynical move on Kerry's part, simply because it would have dowsed any future campaigning by Hillary. I've also seen dozens - if not hundreds - of online posts expressing their support of a Secretary of State Bill Clinton. It would seem to be a very short list, though, of possible Secretary of States if Hillary won in 2008.

But, what I haven't been able to find is how an appointment like that would affect the Presidential Order of Succession. According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Secretary of State is fourth in line for the presidency.

However, according to the 22nd Amendment (Section 1):

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

So, of course, Bill Clinton cannot run for President again in an election. Yet, there are no provisions for succession if he was appointed a Cabinet position. Would he be able to succeed? Would he have to resign if the situation presented itself? Or, would he not even be allowed to be appointed as Secretary of State in the first place?

Hello Shame!

I remember reading, quite a few years ago, about a judge in California who made a teen, convicted of shoplifting candy bars, wear a poster-board saying something along the lines of “I’m a thief, because I stole from XXXX store. Do not trust me.” This punishment was in lieu of jail time, probation, or fines. At the time, I thought the approach was pretty novel and ingenious to play on a teen’s pride. Nowadays, more judges shame those convicted of misdemeanors rather than hand out harsher penalties.

AP ran an interesting story (picked up by CNN.com) along the same veins. Police in Bangkok, Thailand risk shame and ridicule from their fellow officers as punishment for various infractions:

Thai police officers who break rules will be forced to wear hot pink armbands featuring "Hello Kitty," the Japanese icon of cute, as a mark of shame, a senior officer said Monday.

Hello Kitty is not something "macho police officers want covering their biceps," a Thai police chief says.

Police officers caught littering, parking in a prohibited area, or arriving late -- among other misdemeanors -- will be forced to stay in the division office and wear the armband all day, said Police Col. Pongpat Chayaphan. The officers won't wear the armband in public.

The striking armband features Hello Kitty sitting atop two hearts.

When I first read this piece, I thought: Wow, if only we could make shame a more universal rule of punishment.

It seems like the traditional forms of punishment in our society does not work. I don’t need to cite prison recidivist statistics to prove our current court system seriously lacks. And, it’s not only in the blue-collar Midwest or gritty urban coasts that see this lack of criminal deterrence. Especially ambivalent to criminal behavior deterrence are the white-collar criminals, as well as government / public officials. If punishment hit harder home emotionally than a few years of prison time, a few million in fines, and the possibility of a Presidential pardon; then we might not see the likes of Jeff Skilling, Duke Cunningham, or I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Instead, make them wear their badge of shame.

"Simple warnings no longer work. This new twist is expected to make them feel
guilt and shame and prevent them from repeating the offense, no matter how
minor," said Pongpat, acting chief of the Crime Suppression Division in Bangkok.

"(Hello) Kitty is a cute icon for young girls. It's not something macho
police officers want covering their biceps," Pongpat said.

We let these white-collar criminals off too easily, in my opinion. Sure, they’re paraded around during the media circus of who can announce the guilty verdict first. But, after that? Rarely do we see follow-ups in the media on how Jeff Skilling is doing in prison. Or how Duke Cunningham is working with the FBI to nab more grafters. Or how “Scooter” Libby was actually convicted of a criminal offence.

Instead, give them the Hello Kitty armband. To paraphrase Pongpat: Hello Kitty is a cute icon for young girls. It’s not something power-hungry world leaders want covering their biceps.

Heck, let’s broaden the spectrum of who gets these armbands of shame. President’s approval rating hits below 35%? Give him an armband. The Attorney General obfuscates during a Congressional committee hearing? Give him an armband. A major presidential candidate flip-flops? Give him an armband.

Maybe the Hello Kitty armband could replace the disingenuous ribbon lapel pins sported by our business leaders, politicians, and government officials.