You Can't Spell Controversy Without R.O.V.E.
by Mark Adams
Shep (who really should start his own blog) points us here:
John Dean: Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President: "The House Judiciary Committee Should Undertake Appropriate ProceedingsExhibit "A" -- Elliot Abrams, despite his pardon, could have been disqualified from holding office through the impeachment process.Given the number of officials within the Bush Administration who may have been engaged in Constitutional high crimes or misdemeanors, and the nature of the impeachment process, there is no shortage of civil officers worthy of consideration. Where there is clear prima facie evidence of such constitutional misconduct, impeachment action should be commenced."
Currently Alberto Gonzales is the focus of much of the left's wrath with a growing chorus calling for his resignation, and some intra-party partisans will point out that many of the current Democratic presidential contenders voted against his nomination, notably Clinton, Obama and Biden. John Edwards came out against the nomination as well even though he wasn't in the Senate at the time.
My question is, (since so much has been made about Edwards' vote for the Iraq war lately, suggesting that he should have done something then and not just speak out now) is why Gonzales wasn't given the same treatment as John Bolton or even a closely fought battle like we saw with Alito?
The President is not the Attorney General's client - the people are. And so the true test of an Attorney General nominee is whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President. As such, I cannot approach this nomination the same way I approached that of Secretary of State Rice or VA Secretary Nicholson or any other Cabinet position. The standard is simply higher.Where was the filibuster threat? If this position was so important, so substantively different than other administration officials, where was the "hold" of the nomination from Joe, Hillary and Barack?
This isn't sour grapes, this is outrage that the man who gave cover to an administration engaged in kidnapping, torture, murder and wholesale spying on you and me was given the job in the first place -- without a fight.
NOW we're suprised, shocked! Shocked that there was some shenanigans going on?
Well, at least they didn't vote for Gonzo.
Comments
Trouble is, Democrats still have to face shameless Republicans and clueless media. Just as in the war measures above, until the beast (the people) turn ugly toward at least the morally adrift MSM (the amoral GOP can wait 'til '08), Democrats can only take the right positions and let the process take its course.
People who are totally correct in wanting this administration and this war over tomorrow, based on both moral and practical considerations, need to put a sock in it about Democrats not always accomplishing their goals. They can't and it just helps reinforce the Republican frame of Democrats (which is how we got in this mess in the first place). It is George Bush, Dick Cheney and their Republican lackeys in Congress who are responsible for the entire disaster that is the Bush Administration. That's where the activists should send their ire.
Blame Democrats first is supposed to be a Republican device.
Posted by: shep | March 14, 2007 02:59 PM
Welcome to my circular firing squad.
Posted by: Mark Adams | March 14, 2007 07:03 PM
Welcome to my circular firing squad.
Admirable, really. Questioning everything, starting with our own leaders. It's that liberal thing.
Posted by: shep | March 15, 2007 12:46 AM
Well, other than the reference to the circular firing squad (always a bad idea), I'm with Mark.
I think you have to give constant feedback, the good with the bad.
When Dems do good, you have to call that out.
When they do something stupid, you have to call that out as well.
I know -- Republicans have that whacky 11th commandment from Reagan ("Thou shalt not speak badly of another Republican.") But you can see where that got us: a rubber-stamp congress and a president who thinks he's answerable only to God.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan | March 15, 2007 07:50 AM
"I think you have to give constant feedback, the good with the bad."
Of course. But you can't blame them for failing to impeach Bush or stop the Iraq war on a dime. Or claim that they are weak or cowardly for failing to do so. That's a circular firing squad.
Posted by: shep | March 15, 2007 09:23 AM
Then how do you deal with the idea that the two leading Dem candidates, Barack and Hillary, have positions on the war that are nearly indistinguishable from Bush -- eventual draw-down but leaving a presence (permanent bases?) in the country for the indeterminate future?
I call Bullshit. I want us out, period. Obama isn't as clear in his plan as Hillary, but unless his idea is only to leave troops in Kurdistan, W.T.F.?
Sitting them there to do nothing while a civil war errupts is sociopathic and worse than leaving -- far worse to be there and watch while keeping your hands in your pockets. That's sick. And despite what Hillary says, that'll never happen.
Murtha and his plan have all but been pushed aside. Isn't anyone taking Biden seriously, or even Hagel?
Oh, yeah....I almost forgot. If you want the war to end, really end, you're either backing the quixotic Kucinich or that fellow from the Carolinas. Vilsack was stridently anti-war, but he's history.
Unless Obama figures this out, it's Edwards, boys. All Edwards or we're just rearranging pawns on the battlefield.
Hillary has given up on the anti-war crowd along with the netroots. Obama has a great opportunity to distinguish himself and be embraced, or can crash and burn while equivocating.
As far as I'm concerned, at this late date you're either against this war or not. I've been done with it for a long time.
Posted by: Mark Adams | March 15, 2007 10:25 AM
OK, Mark, now you've got me.
Leading Democrats absolutely suck at taking the moral high ground that is constantly being ceded to them, regardless of what they can accomplish legislatively (OTOH, Russ Feingold, a regular profile in such courage, is only a darling to the "fringe left").
This sh*t always comes back to the near total failure of the Fourth Estate and the inability of DLC-type consultants to learn to how get out in front of it.
Posted by: shep | March 15, 2007 11:46 AM
Shep, the DLC types don't want to get in front of it, they're just as beholden to K-street as DeLay's crowd.
I can name only two candidates who don't take PAC money and are truly union friendly.
At least none of them have hired Bob Shrum...who unfortunately is free to write books now.
Posted by: Mark Adams | March 15, 2007 12:15 PM
"At least none of them have hired Bob Shrum...who unfortunately is free to write books now."
Mark, I've read Bob Shrum. Even he's been forced to admit that the positioning problem is even simpler than money - he's just plain stupid.
Posted by: shep | March 15, 2007 12:22 PM