E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Tim Kaine should not cave on military force

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -- Barack Obama, 2007

One of the worst things about politics is the assumption that people must abandon their principles for the good of the party. Taking a position at odds with your party's candidate for whatever office damages that candidate and you must fall in line. That is why it will be interesting to see how the Tim Kaine deals with the War Powers Act as Hillary Clinton's running mate. In the Washington Post earlier this month, Democrats said that Kaine "must adhere to whatever posture Clinton takes on this issue."

Why?

This represents everything that is wrong with politics and why so many people do not trust or respect politicians.The view is they have no principles and will say whatever it takes to get elected. Sometimes those principles articulated in the campaign are adhered to, and sometimes those principles are discarded - like with Obama's statement in 2007 that he disregarded in his aggression against Syria.

Kaine had taken a principled stand in favor of restoring Constitutional authority over war to Congress, away from the executive branch that has continually broadened its powers when occupied by both Republicans and Democrats. Kaine had taken a position that is popular with his party's base and is echoed by many on the Right who worry about executive overreach and the rule of law. For Kaine to adopt Clinton's position would be a betrayal of his own principles and his supporters on both ends of the ideological spectrum.

There is no good reason why Kaine has to adopt Clinton's position on this issue. His stance was well known before he was ever nominated and it would be good to know that there is a moderating influence on Clinton's warmongering ways if and when she is elected President. Allowing Kaine to maintain his principles would show the Democratic Party welcomes differing viewpoints, respects those who disagree with the nominee, and is thoughtful about matters of policy. All of that also applies to Republicans in cases where their vice presidential candidate has differing opinions from the party's nominee.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.