Tag: Tom Cotton

Member Post

 

The second of a series looking into Biden’s first few weeks in office. It ain’t pretty. Watching the Democratic Presidential primary debates of 2019-20, it wasn’t hard to find the “uh oh” moment when you knew something would not end well. And it came early – June 2019 – during an MSNBC debate moderated by Savannah Guthrie. […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, The Federalist staff give awards to the worst corporate media performances of 2020. Whether it was the New York Times controversy over Sen. Tom Cotton’s summer opinion editorial, Chris and Andrew Cuomo’s tone-deaf attempt at a brotherly comedy session on CNN, or the Pulitzer Prize committee for awarding Nikole Hannah-Jones for the revisionist and historically inaccurate 1619 Project, there are and will continue to be plenty of media blunders to go around.

Titus Digest

 

Friends, if you’re looking for conservative cultural criticism, I’m your huckleberry, especially this week. To begin with the burning problem of burning down cities, here’s my op-ed today at Law & Liberty, hot off the presses, about how Senator Tom Cotton turned the weapons of liberalism against the liberals in his New York Times op-ed. I explain the terrible things liberalism has done to black Americans and why the lie of systemic racism is necessary to the seemingly moderate elite liberals as it is to the obviously mad Progressive activists.

As a companion piece, here’s my debut in the American edition of the Spectator yesterday: I remind America of black conservatism–focusing on family, community, work, and justice through legal action — not just because liberals have silenced the inconvenient voices of American treasures like Denzel Washington, but because young conservatives need him as much as young black men do.

** Note that at the 10:33 mark we had some technical difficulties noted with a record scratch and we began recording again as best we could where we left off

In the wake of the protests over the death of George Floyd, a “Defund The Police” movement has emerged. Some argue it doesn’t really mean to defund but others are buying into the idea of getting rid of police departments as if it will be a net positive. The guys discuss issues surrounding it.

Buy Physical Media

 

A generous helping of shutdown-induced free time has allowed me to catch up on my ridiculous backlog of movies on disc.

Note “movies on disc.” I think it’s safe to say that I don’t personally know anyone who owns as many movies as I do in a physical form. I also own a healthy number of television shows on disc, as well as myriad sports-related selections. In all, I would estimate that I have something like 2,000 discs worth of content, all of which I keep in simple albums for the sake of efficient storage, allowing all of this material to occupy only two small shelves on a bookcase in my den.

Why do I own so many discs in an era in which streaming is now the preferred format?

Join Jim and Greg as they react to former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis slamming President Trump’s use of the military in response to massive protests in recent days, with Jim contending Mattis shouldn’t be able to drop a rhetorical bomb like that and slip away without scrutiny. They also fire back to the fierce condemnation against the New York Times – including from Times staffers – because the editors ran an opinion piece from Sen. Tom Cotton that they don’t like. And they fume as so many athletes and others invoke cancel culture against New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees after Brees suggested that kneeling during the national anthem was disrespectful.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are generally encouraged by reports suggesting CIA Director Mike Pompeo may soon replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and Sen. Tom Cotton would be tapped to lead the CIA.  They also discuss the latest lurid allegations against Minnesota Sen. Al Franken and longtime “Prairie Home Companion” host Garrison Keillor.  And they react to the reporting on Matt Lauer’s misbehavior, including the nugget that he had a special button under his desk that would lock his door.

Is Tom Cotton the Solution to a Contested Convention?

 

379px-Tom_Cotton_official_Senate_photoA recent post over at Ace of Spades discusses a convention scenario where neither Trump nor Senator Cruz are deemed electable. Whenever this subject is presented, it’s usually just a matter of time before Speaker Paul Ryan is suggested as a possible nominee, but I agree with Ace that Ryan is not a palatable choice for a significant number of Republicans. And while the idea of nominating someone other than Cruz or Trump still strikes me as far-fetched, it’s not as far fetched as I once thought.

Should we find ourselves in the situation Ace describes, I believe Senator Tom Cotton would be the perfect candidate for the party. His pedigree is similar to that of Cruz, but lacks some of the baggage: Cotton is a decorated veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he is solid on immigration and sanctuary cities, and he is the only senator to vote against the disastrous Corker Bill. He is an outsider, but has generally remained under the radar and hasn’t ruffled too many feathers.

The conservative movement and Republican party need a true unifier. The current civil war is proving disastrous, and parachuting an unpalatable candidate into the the convention at the last moment will permanently destroy us. I don’t believe we can ever go back to the way things were before this cycle, but Cotton could be a new unifying beginning.

Uncommon Knowledge: Tom Cotton on Whether He Still Thinks the Editors of the New York Times Should be Behind Bars

 

The first time that most Americans heard of now-Senator Tom Cotton was in 2006, when, while serving as a lieutenant in Iraq, he wrote a famous letter to the New York Times upbraiding them for publishing the secret details of the federal government’s anti-terrorist financing program. The conclusion of that letter: “By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.” In this final clip from our recent conversation on Uncommon Knowledge, I ask him, at the remove of nearly a decade, if he still stands by those words:

Uncommon Knowledge: Tom Cotton on the Threat From Iran

 

In this excerpt from my recent conversation with Senator Tom Cotton for Uncommon Knowledge, I ask him to diagnose the dangers posed by Iran. The most chilling part of his answer: the idea that Tehran need not even complete work on a nuclear weapon in order to throw the region—and, by extension, the world—into chaos.

Uncommon Knowledge: Tom Cotton on the Road Not Taken

 

As I prepared for my recent Uncommon Knowledge interview with newly-elected Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, this thought jumped out at me: at 37 years of age, with a couple of Harvard degrees to his name, a new wife, and a baby on the way, Tom Cotton is—on paper—the kind of guy you’d expect to be making a killing on Wall Street or a white shoe law firm. Instead, he’s opted for professional politics. Why? His answer below:

More on the Cotton Letter

 

XXX 3D7A4398.JPG AIn regard to Tommy De Seno’s comments on my previous post about Tom Cotton’s letter, we should all recognize that there is a difference between the policy of any agreement with Iran and the constitutional law that governs the agreement. We can have different views about the best way to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions without having to disagree on the constitutional foundations of sole executive agreements or a senator’s right to voice his or her personal views about the Constitution. For what it’s worth, one fix for the controversy would be for Senator Cotton to offer a resolution on the floor of the Senate opposing any nuclear deal with Iran that does not undergo advice and consent.

Some are criticizing the Cotton letter for attempting to interfere with the president’s “sole organ” authority to conduct the diplomacy of the nation. But I don’t think the president’s sole organ authority, first articulated by John Marshall (as a congressman) and approved by the Supreme Court (in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp in 1936), prohibits senators from making clear their positions on foreign policy matters. Senators can take votes that might oppose an executive branch policy. For example, the Senate passed a resolution opposing the Kyoto Accords, which effectively killed any chances of that treaty, and the American Servicemen’s Protection Act, which essentially defeated any hope for the International Criminal Court’s ratification by the U.S.

I, of course, have defended the sole organ authority of the president, probably more vigorously than any other law professor and few other government officials. But here the senators are not trying to negotiate with Iran or even trying to set out any terms for a deal. I thought the letter tried to avoid any substantive terms of the deal, but only went as far as stating clearly what U.S. constitutional law was (which I expect the Iranians already knew — or for which they paid advisors who could tell them). As a description of our constitutional law on international agreements, the letter was correct. What is the effective difference between sending the Constitution to the mullahs in an envelope, giving a speech reminding President Obama of the law of treaties, or publishing an op-ed criticizing the sole executive agreement? What would be best now would be for Senator Cotton to offer a Senate resolution opposing any sole executive agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear capability.

The Libertarian Podcast: The Cotton Controversy

 

We’ve been having a lively discussion here on the site about the propriety of the open letter to Iran sent by Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican senators. In the newest installment of The Libertarian podcast from the Hoover Institution, I ask Professor Epstein to weigh in: was the Cotton letter a breach of protocol…or law? Is President Obama right to pursue an executive agreement rather than a treaty with Iran? And what does it all mean for American national security? Find out by listening below or by subscribing to The Libertarian through iTunes or your favorite podcast service.

Tom Cotton’s Letter Is Exactly Right

 

Tom CottonTime for a primer on international agreements, thanks to the controversy over Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran. Joined by almost all of the Senate’s Republicans, Cotton’s missive warned Tehran that any nuclear deal with President Obama would not last unless it went to Congress for approval:

…We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

As a description of American constitutional law, Senator Cotton has it exactly right. It’s as if he’s just informing Iran about the text of the Constitution. There are three types of international agreements under U.S. law:

The Cotton Letter a Breach of Protocol? Tosh

 

Noting that the White House and journalists of every description on the left are now accusing senator Tom Cotton of violating protocol in writing to the leaders of Iran, Josh Trevino replies, in effect, “Nonsense.”  From his recent post on Facebook:

[I]n the modern era, we see United States Senators and Congressmen communicating and even traveling abroad to counter Presidential foreign policy rather often. There’s the Ted Kennedy 1984 outreach to Yuri Andropov to form an electoral alliance against Ronald Reagan (yes, you read that right); there is the 1985 John Kerry and Tom Harkin trip to Managua; there is the 1985 Jim Wright “Dear Commandante” letter; and there is the 2002 Jim McDermott trip to Baghdad. For starters.