Displaying posts published in

March 2021

A Warning to Pelosi on Iowa Can she hold her caucus together to overturn a House election?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-warning-to-pelosi-on-iowa-11616453810?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

The eight-seat House Democratic majority has been remarkably disciplined so far in 2021, passing radical legislation on elections and unions with few defections. But the limits of loyalty to Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be tested as the party moves to overturn an Iowa House race and expel from Congress the certified winner.

GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks was certified the winner of Iowa’s 2nd district last year, prevailing by 47 votes in the first count and six votes after a county-by-county recount. The losing candidate, Democrat Rita Hart, points to 22 votes she says should have been counted and asked the House to seat her under the Federal Contested Elections Act—bypassing Iowa’s special court process for election disputes.

At a House Administration hearing this month, where Democrats hold a 6-3 majority, Mrs. Pelosi’s Members were unanimous in tabling Rep. Miller-Meeks’s motion to dismiss the challenge. That’s the first step toward a recommendation to overturn the election.

But as the reality of Mrs. Pelosi’s Iowa bloody-mindedness sets in, vulnerable Members are facing questions. On Monday Politico listed four Democratic Congressmen who have spoken publicly against reversing Iowa’s election in the last week. Another said anonymously that expelling Ms. Miller-Meeks would be “political malpractice. While we would gain one seat, we would lose a lot more next year.”

Ask Republicans, who suffered in the Georgia Senate races from trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In 1938, the last time the House kicked out a sitting Member over election disputes, New Hampshire voters seated him again in the next election. Democrats’ 1985 reversal of an Indiana election succeeded in the short term but invigorated Newt Gingrich’s rise to GOP leader.

Few politicians think about long-term institutional interests anymore, but let’s hope there are enough worried about political blowback to stop Mrs. Pelosi from a power play that would deepen the rancor on Capitol Hill.

Reconsidering Times v. Sullivan An influential judge says the ‘actual malice’ standard needs revision.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/reconsidering-times-v-sullivan-11616454219?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

EXCERPTS

“In any case the Silberman opinion ought to inspire some reflection about the low state of the media and its ideological conformity. The survival of a free press depends in part on the First Amendment. But in the long run it also requires support from a public that wants it to be free. A press that violates its privileges with impunity, born of legal protection from a dubious constitutional interpretation, is more vulnerable than righteous journalists think. ”

On the other hand, it’s hard to deny that many in the media have taken a bad turn in recent decades—often under the protection of the actual-malice standard. The public agrees, judging by opinion surveys on collapsing trust in the press.

Think of the way the media trashed the Covington, Ky., high school student for his silence and half smile as he was assailed by an adult after a pro-life rally in 2019. The Washington Post and CNN settled the young man’s lawsuits, but would the outlets have shown more caution without the protection of Times v. Sullivan?

Or recall Sarah Palin’s suit against the New York Times for claiming in 2017 she had incited the deranged man who shot Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011. The editorial was clearly false, the editing process was remarkably slipshod, and the Times ran a correction. A judge tossed the suit under the actual-malice standard until the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it, and it is now headed for trial.

Judge Silberman also has the liberal press in a lather because he called them out for one-sided bias. He says the New York Times and Washington Post “are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets,” and that most of the press follows their lead. He says the Journal news section “leans in the same direction,” which we think is wrong. The guiding ethic of our reporters is to play the news straight.

The judge cited our editorial pages, along with Fox News and the New York Post, as rare exceptions. But he noted they are controlled by “a single man and his son”— Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch —and that many Democrats are calling for the giant tech platforms to censor news from conservative publications. He says a press so one-sided is dangerous to democracy.

America’s Back—Against a Wall Three problems stand athwart Biden’s plans for a rules-based international order. By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-backagainst-a-wall-11616452400?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

Anyone who thought international politics would calm down once Donald Trump left center stage has had a rude awakening. After the Alaska confrontation between top U.S. and Chinese officials and the slanging match between Presidents Biden and Vladimir Putin, the world is as fraught as ever. American relations with Russia are at their lowest ebb since the Kennedy administration and U.S.-China relations at their frostiest since Henry Kissinger went to China in 1971, while Beijing and Moscow are more closely aligned than at any time since the death of Stalin.

It is not just the big boys who are testing the Biden team. Officials at Washington’s Fort McNair tightened security after reports of Iranian threats against the facility. North Korea is said to be moving toward new tests of long-range missiles. The Taliban announced that it plans to impose “Islamic rule” on Afghanistan when American forces leave. Meanwhile, U.S. Special Forces have arrived in Mozambique to train local troops in the face of a major offensive by ISIS-aligned militia groups. Authorities in Belarus have largely crushed the democracy movement in that country, and the Burmese military, despite facing unprecedented opposition at home and criticism abroad, shows no sign of relaxing its grip on power.

Relations with allies are also bumpy. The Biden administration threatened sanctions against European companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 project. And on a recent trip to Delhi, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned India against purchasing S-400 missile systems from Russia.

Bad relations with China and Russia and the troubled state of the world can’t be blamed on the Biden team, but the ideas driving this administration’s foreign policy are heading for severe and serious tests. Central to the Biden approach is the belief that the path to global stability involves reinvigoration of American leadership in the service of the “rules-based international order,” sometimes called Rubio. Supporting international institutions, promoting human rights and pushing back against revisionist powers may cause short-term disruptions until adversaries recognize the strength of the U.S. position, but ultimately a principled and forward-looking American stand will prevail.