Vice President Dick Cheney gave a saber-rattling talk this week before a pro-Israel group, threatening Iran if it didn’t abandon its nuclear aspirations. Predictably, the Iranians responded with their own veiled threats.
Will ratcheting up the rhetoric move the sides any closer to a diplomatic solution to this crisis? Doubtful. Former general and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark (in photo) has been bravely advocating a different, smarter tact: Direct high-level U.S. talks with Iran, by President Bush himself.
“The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather than passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don’t we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there’s not a way?” Clark said recently on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”
Considering how terrible the nondiplomatic options are, let’s hope Clark is right that “it’s not too late” to avoid a showdown.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
With Bush’s approval rating below 40 percent, Democrats are hoping to pick up congressional seats in the coming midterm elections. But when it comes to offering an alternative agenda to go along with their “Bush is bad” refrain, the Democrats are having trouble agreeing on one, The Washington Post reports. Democratic leaders have repeatedly delayed the unveiling of the party’s agenda — meant to be its own version of the GOP’s 1994 Contract With America.
But columnist E.J. Dionne argues that the effect of the Contract With America on the 1994 midterms has been overblown. The shift in power was more likely driven by voters’ dislike of Bill Clinton. But Democrats, he says, have failed to show that their critiques of Bush are the rational first step toward an alternative agenda, not just irrational ranting.
He writes: “The president’s critics need to identify precisely why they oppose him, not only so they can make clear that they are not psycho basket cases but also to convey the idea that they know what needs to be put right.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Though it’s cleared both chambers of the Legislature and only some details remain to be settled, the bill to make it unlawful to leave a child under 9 in a car for even a minute seems as overreaching and unenforceable as it is well-meaning. Proponents note that tragedies can happen in an instant and too many parents ignore the risk — no argument there. But police and prosecutors already can and do respond to such child endangerment. The state doesn’t need to newly criminalize something that’s a parental judgment call. Surely a better use of advocates’ and officials’ time would be to focus on finding foster parents and adoptive parents for the hundreds of Kansas kids in real need.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds this week signed into law a sweeping ban on all abortions, except in rare cases where it threatens the life of the mother. Not even rape and incest would be covered under this extreme — and extremely bad — law.
It’s unclear whether pro-choice groups will fight this at the state level in a referendum, which could be nasty, or at the U.S. Supreme Court, which despite its new anti-abortion majority surely would reject this reckless frontal assault on Roe v. Wade.
In fact, some pro-choice groups are regarding this law as a political gift that is likely to hand them a clear victory in the highest court. At the same time, it could energize pro-choice women by showing them what’s at stake if anti-abortion hard-liners write the laws.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Our editorial on today’s opinion pages notes that the long-awaited Kansas Senate plan to expand gambling has been built to attract votes, without regard to reality or fairness. Among the questions we ask: What would possess legislators to approve slot machines for a nonexistent dog track in Dodge City, yet be unwilling to allow destination casinos in three counties where voters have already endorsed them (Geary, Harvey and Sumner)? And why limit the populous Wichita area to slots at the track when this region is so ripe for a full-service destination casino — a conclusion supported by public opinion polls, market research and the local ad campaigns of tribal casinos elsewhere?
Each time we write one of these editorials expressing frustration with this process and our area legislators’ knee-jerk opposition to gambling, it can seem as if we’re dying to see a destination casino open in Wichita. Not so. Maybe it really is a terrible idea. But that decision should be made by local voters, and their ability to make that decision should not be blocked at every turn in Topeka.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
President Bush is pushing for line-item veto authority to bring federal spending under control. Unlike the line-item veto that was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, this version would send the vetoed items back to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
Although it’s no magic bullet for soaring deficits, a line-item veto could be a sensible tool for weeding out some of the special-interest pork in legislation.
But considering that President Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill during his entire presidency, you have to wonder — would he use a line-item veto if he had one?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Nothing says “slow news week” like a story about the decor in the Oval Office. But this one in The Washington Post is a little different, exploring how taken President Bush seems to be with the yellow-sunbeam rug he (or rather the first lady) chose for the Oval Office, and how he seems to view it as some kind of metaphor for his leadership. He mentioned it to ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, among other interviewers, and discusses it in a virtual tour. The rug story even goes on road trips: During his Kansas State University speech in January, Bush talked about choosing it and recalled telling Laura that he wanted her to “Make it say this: ‘Optimistic person comes here to work every single day.’ You can’t lead the nation, you can’t make good decisions unless you’re optimistic about the future.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
