Klein’s Quips

I had no intention of turning this into a bash-Bill Frist blog, but I couldn’t help but notice that on the same day the Senate (and Frist) voted to raise the federal debt limit to nearly $9 trillion (bringing the debt to a staggering 66.1 % of GDP), Frist introduced a Securing America’s Borders Act, and then bragged about it at National Review Online.

With the November midterm elections fast approaching, Republicans will be eager to win back the support of their base. Bill Frist, who has 2008 presidential ambitions, is especially keen on winning over conservatives. He has already pledged to re-introduce the Federal Marriage Amendment this June (something we haven’t heard about since the 2004 election) and, and as I wrote in the post below, he wants to protect the American flag.

Should be interesting to watch what else he and other Republicans pull out of their hats this year in an effort to deflect attention from their fiscal recklessness.

You know things are bad for Republicans when they resurrect the drive for a flag burning amendment. It’s like when a TV show starts to go south and the producers bring in a parade of guest stars.

Fresh off of his straw poll victory, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he intends to bring the Flag Protection Amendment to the floor before Congress adjourns to celebrate the Fourth of July. Frist makes many of the typical arguments for the amendment about the American flag being a symbol of our country’s values. But he has a weak counterargument to people like me who oppose such an amendment on free speech grounds:

Opponents of the measure claim flag burning should be protected as an exercise of free speech. To these individuals, I would ask: Is defacing a government building speech? No, it is considered a criminal act of vandalism. By the same token, burning the flag is not a form of constructive speech but an act of physical assault.

That argument is a complete red herring. The reason you aren’t allowed to deface a government building is that it is government property, just like you couldn’t deface a painting in a museum, a dress in a clothing store or your neighbor’s lawn ornaments. Under existing laws, you couldn’t burn an American flag in front of a government building, because it isn’t yours. But the government doesn’t physically own every American flag, so once you purchase one you have the right to do what you want with it.

As reprehensible as the idea of burning an American flag is to me, I do think it is an act of expression that should be protected. But even if I were to acknowledge that under some circumstances the government has a compelling interest in protecting the flag that trumps free expression, I still cannot understand why it’s so urgent to amend the constitution now. If flag burning were a rampant problem, and if there were evidence that the widespread desecration of the flag was contributing to low troop morale, then perhaps you could make some argument for why the government needed to take the drastic measure of amending the constitution. Anybody who knows me or reads this blog understands that I’m no fan of the antiwar movement. But even I can acknowledge that burning American flags simply is not a popular means of expression for them right now, not like it was during the Vietnam War era.

Republicans are obviously trying to fire up the base in an election year by picking a fight over flag burning. But they would do everybody a favor if they tackled real problems. The budget would be a nice start.

In his column today (unavialable to non-subscibers), Paul Krugman bashes John McCain. He writes:

He isn’t a moderate. He’s much less of a maverick than you’d think. And he isn’t the straight talker he claims to be.

Krugman’s disapproval of the Arizona Senator can only be good news for McCain’s prospects of capturing the 2008 Republican nomination.

From a Sunday NY Times article disclosing a classified U.S. military account of the Iraq War :

The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation’s defense.

Worth noting that even Saddam’s top military leaders were convinced he had WMD until shortly before the war.

This post over at Red State suggests that Rudy Giuliani may be a veep candidate, saying:

as veep for 4-8 years, Rudy may be thinking, he’ll be able to take the Bush 41 road to the nomination, never really making an explicit conversion on the social issues, but spending so much time in a pro-life administration that it will be understood his views on that issue have changed.

The reality is that Giuliani would never want to play second fiddle to anybody. He would only run at the top of the ticket. Whether you want to call him stubborn, pigheaded, egomaniacal, or a great leader who is confident in his way of doing things, his personality is really only suited for the top role. I don’t think he could handle taking marching orders from somebody else.

Besides, if he were to wait until 2016 to run for president, he’d be 72. I mean, that’s not a deal breaker, and McCain will test that theory in 2008, when he’s 72. But once you get over 70 it can definitely be an obstacle. Even Ronald Reagan was 69 the first time he was elected.

Several long-term projetcs have monopolized my time the past few weeks, making it impossible for me to update this blog. Now that I’m back, I’d like to comment on the 2008 Republican Presidential Straw Poll straw poll down in Tennessee.

It’s hard for me to understand how anybody would take any straw poll seriously that would result in a win for Bill Frist. Obviously, he had an advantage because the poll was taken in his home state, but he has no chance to win the Republican nomination. In the March issue of the American Spectator (unavailable to nonsubscribers), I wrote an article detailing the frustration among grassroots conservatives with Republicans in Congress. Given how fed up conservatives are with Republicans lack of fiscal restraint, and that Frist has presided over the Senate as spending has skyrocketed, I don’t see any way he can win/