This non-binding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid. Let me explain what I mean by a constitutional crisis. Let us be clear about the likely consequences if we go down this path beyond this non-binding resolution. Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is. I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President’s strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war. Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one’s interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers.

My response: Senator Lieberman attempts to sound measured and responsible concerning the anti-surge resolution. He fails to understand some very basic realities concerning Iraq that animate a great deal of the reasoning behind the current efforts at publicly denouncing the surge. Realities like: Congress (yes, still one of those branches) has the exclusive authority to declare war and has never done so regarding Iraq. So yes, these ‘constitutional responsibilites’ have been almost wholly usurped by the President.

Also, the possibility of ‘a debilitating confrontation’ is largely the product of an administration that has not only avoided having productive conversation but has deliberately and consistently lied to, equivocated with and ignored Congress. As much as Lieberman may (rightly) feel abandoned by his party, it is absurd that his rebuke to it would take the form of such nonsense. Nicely scripted, finely prepared nonsense, but still, nonsense. We should expect better from him, even if we no longer can from that other fine branch of government.

TP

Does it strike anyone else as a very bad sign that so few House Republicans joined the Dems in supporting the anti-surge resolution?

Since the resolution had no teeth it would have been very easy for GOPers to sign on to it and signal their willingness to support the views of their constitutents. Certainly there are some districts where, for all practical purposes, there has no political shift since 2003 but those are few and far between. For nearly all the others, breaking ranks with the White House on this resolution would have had virtually no consequences. Since there were so many voting for it no real punishment could have followed. However instead of showing even a hint of independence the sheep followed their leaders once again.

Please understand, this kind of partisan idiocy exists on both sides of the aisle but it is sad that given an easy, cost free opportunity to reflect the depth of concern about Iraq, far too many Republicans just followed the footprints on the floor. The same footprints that three months ago made them members of the minority party in both houses…

TP

At the same time, I disagree deeply with Dickerson’s most important arguments; that his lack of American slave heritage has provided him a tremendous boost politically and “A non-black on the down low about his non-blackness is about to get what blacks have always asked for: to be judged on his merits”.

I just don’t believe that folks in Iowa are more likely to vote for Obama because his color is recently rooted in Africa not America. Considering the negative and limited perceptions most Americans have of Africa and Africans, Dickerson’s claim is puzzling. I agree that Obama may have benefitted personally from the details of his parentage but not in any significant fashion.

Part Two seems immediately ridiculous when you remember that Harold Ford, a black American with deep roots in the south, almost certainly lost his bid for Senate office in Tennessee two months ago because of racist fear mongering in those infamous commercials. Does Dickerson think that is an isolated situation? Have we really moved so far in two months that a black person of recent Muslim vintage and African ancestry is going to be judged simply on his merits? We’ve already seen radical fictions created about him as well as emphasis on his middle name (Hussein) and his surname altered to OSAMA. As much as Dickerson wants to keep a lid on the potential meanings and messages of Obama’s candidacy, she has struck a chord on unrealistic fiction herself.

TP