Bush the Strict Constitutionalist
I admit I found reference to this in a Glenn Greenwald post, but rather than link to that, I’ll link directly to the original speech Bush recently gave before the Federalist Society. Go read it in its un-spun, un-commented-on form, as I believe it speaks entirely for itself.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
So what’s new, that’s been the schtick all along – tell ’em what they want to hear, tell ’em that they are doing noble deeds, are vital to America, that they are fighting a noble cause, tell ’em you do not condone torture, whatever – it doesn’t matter one wit because that does not prevent Bush’s administration from doing the exact opposite. Can’t be you say? Press would not stand for the hypocritic mess that would make, you say? Sorry, I’ve been watching this circus too long to be anything but 100% cynical. Bush knows that anything he says can be spun by the likes of Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales and the hundreds of spin doctors. He figures that’s what he’s paying them for. They’re fired if they can’t rationalize away the hypocrisy for the uneducated, innattentive or just plain apathetic peons who pay taxes of make up the cannon fodder for his sponsors’ military industries.
I wonder what the audience expected Bush to say, that “the Constitution’s just a god damn piece of paper”? Oops, apparently, according to 3 Doug Thompson sources, he already said that in one of his many private fits.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Oh I agree with you, it’s just… I dunno, it reaches a new level of blatant, depressing irony for me. I mean at this point I’m waiting for him to complain that members of Congress aren’t eloquent enough or that one of his top priorities is open government or something.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Yea, well, would you feel better if he suggested every hard working American deserves as many holidays as he takes?
Fahrenheit 911: “Now watch this swing.” That scene (unedited in the movie, contrary to the Bush’s clipped statement as shown on the news) was all anyone needed to realize the insincerity ran to his very core being.
And if that wasn’t enough, his interest in “My Pet Goat” on 911 should have been the end of his relevence as a leader. Period.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Thanks for that insightful article, I couldn’t agree more, I thought his/her reference to the Supreme Court was the best part. Keep up the good work. You guys are indeed a shining light in a sea of murkiness.
Shcb
Stepford haired country boy
November 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Which of Bush’s two faces about the Supreme Court did you agree with shcb? The part where he rightfully said the Judiciary and the other 2 branches of government serve as a check on each other? Or his silly statement about the Judiciary being a threat to our democracy?
November 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
the guys at work are going to get a kick out of that one.
November 18th, 2007 at 6:43 am
The answer to your question Sven is I agree with both the President’s points. You misstated what the president said. Surprise surprise, a liberal not giving a truthful account of something. He was referring to activist judges, not the judiciary as a whole.
For instance, in the 2000 election the Florida Supreme Court created law when they extended the period for votes to be counted. That isn’t the judiciary’s place, that is the legislature’s responsibility. But the legislature in Florida couldn’t extend the time for Democrats to steal the election because a federal law says a state can’t change the rules after 48 hours before an election, so the courts were their only choice. The US Supreme Court should have rolled back everything to the moment Katherine Harris declared Bush the winner, but even they wimped out to a degree. In the end the rightful winner was given the prize, but if it were not for activist judges that all would have been decided a month earlier.
http://shcb.blogspot.com/2007/11/answer-to-sven.html
November 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Let’s see how shcb’s reply sounds without the nastiness and without the bias, shall we?
shcb revised START:
The answer to your question Sven is I agree with both the President’s points. My understanding of what the President said is different than what you stated. Surprising that a conservative like me would have a different understanding than your account, perhaps you are a liberal? (I have great difficulty agreeing with liberal perspectives.)
I think that Bush was referring to what we conservatives like to call “activist” judges, not the judiciary as a whole. For instance, in the 2000 election the Florida Supreme Court created law (?) when they extended the period for votes to be counted. In my opinion, that isn’t an action that the judiciary is authorized to undertake, I think it is the sole responsibility of the legislature. But the legislature in Florida couldn’t extend the time for counting and verifying ballot results to ensure a full, complete and accurate counting of the election results because a federal law prohibits a state from altering schedules after 48 hours before an election. The courts were not encumbered by this prohibition on changing the schedule.
In my opinion the US Supreme Court should have rolled back everything to the moment Katherine Harris declared Bush the winner, but I do not think that they had the courage to take such an extreme measure. In the end the candidate with the most votes as counted under the revised schedule was declared to be the winner, but if it were not for activist judges that would have been declared a month earlier; and, if a full, complete and accurate counting of the election results were allowed to take place the result might have been different.
http://shcb.blogspot.com/2007/11/angry-agenda-driven-answer-to-sven.html
End shcb revised
So if a procedure such as hanging chads, partisan vote counters, and general screw-ups (malfunctioning voting machines in poor precincts) wreck a fair Florida election and the existing law is going to result in an unintended and unjust result, then the judiciary with the power to intervene are just supposed to sit idle so that the neo-cons don’t label and scapegoat them as being an “activist judge”?
Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but I’d like to have seen every eligible voter who wanted to vote and tried to do so actually get their vote counted.
November 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
A whole blog with a post dedicated to my name? All I can say is wow, shcb. I’m flattered.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Sven, I aim to please.
Knarly, so why did the Gore campaign only sue to have the votes counted in the 6 most Democratic counties? Seems like you would have liked to have the whole state recounted. At least that would have been fair. By the way, the hanging chad was a creation of mostly Democratic precinct officials since the 6 counties are overwhelmingly Democratic, same with the vote counters.
I believe it was the New York Times, not exactly a conservative rag, that studied the vote counting and all the things you mentioned and found the count was accurate and there was nothing malicious with the problems you mentioned. Many of the issues that were reported simply didn’t happen. Also, don’t forget the whole west section of Florida, the area that is most Republican is in the central time zone. The news outlets, including Fox, called the election before the polls were closed, people said they didn’t vote because they though Gore had already won Florida. Oh well, they should have voted anyway, Republicans bitched about that a little, but we didn’t sue for them to get to revote or anything like that. If you had gotten your wish, the margin would have been much greater in Bush’s favor. I don’t think they allowed the military vote that came in late to be counted either, but I could be wrong. And that vote is usually more Republican than Democratic, I think to the tune of a couple thousand votes.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:32 am
shcb,
Thanks for your opinions based on “Foxed facts”, however the reality is quite different. This impartial assessment of voting data released to press under Florida’s sunshine Act shows had all votes been counted, Gore would have been the likely winner (far more value in this study than this simple result, contains analysis buried by MSM reporting): http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Here are two articles by someone who formed his opinions by actual research, it may be refreshing for you since it is an opinion from outside Fox corporate headquarters for a change:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040517/palast
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
Also, one could do far worse to balance the MSM news agenda with reviewing these non-reported and under-reported stories:
http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=63#pt2
By the way, you are straying off topic with this pet subject of yours using the 2000 elections as an example of supposed activist judges like Scalia undermining the Constitution. As much as it does show how the neo-cons undermined fair elections (refer to Brag blog items above) I am sure there are far better examples of Bush undermining the Constitution that events that occurred prior to his presidency.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:33 am
shcb,
Thanks for your opinions based on “Foxed facts”, however the reality is quite different. This impartial assessment of voting data released to press under Florida’s sunshine Act shows had all votes been counted, Gore would have been the likely winner (far more value in this study than this simple result, contains analysis buried by MSM reporting): http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Here are two articles by someone who formed his opinions by actual research, it may be refreshing for you since it is an opinion from outside Fox corporate headquarters for a change:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040517/palast
http://www.archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
Also, one could do far worse to balance the MSM news agenda with reviewing these non-reported and under-reported stories:
http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=63#pt2
By the way, you are straying off topic with this pet subject of yours using the 2000 elections as an example of supposed activist judges like Scalia undermining the Constitution. As much as it does show how the neo-cons undermined fair elections (refer to Brag blog items above) I am sure there are far better examples of Bush undermining the Constitution that events that occurred prior to his presidency.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:34 am
*than events that occurred prior to his presidency.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:12 am
I’m game, give me one.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:06 am
how about gee-dubz quote on the US Constitution:
“it’s just a gawdam piece a paper!”
(presented with a phony texas twang)
google it
(hoping against hope I won’t be banned for this post) Enk
November 19th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I’m not “game” to wasting time with you on this, you can go play with yourself. There may be hundreds of examples by now, a good place for you to look might be at how his “signing statements” undermined the intent of Congress – especially anything that might relate to habeus corpus or torture. Remember: some truths are so basic that enlightened people “hold these truths to be self-evident.”
November 19th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Thats what I though you would say
November 19th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I doubt that. You probably thought I’d say something righteous (yet debatable via your simplistic and ultimately nonsensical neo-con talking points), something life affirming, honourable and GOOD, something like Mayor Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson of Salt Lake City said last week:
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/print/665.html
November 20th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I think that we’re missing part of the issue here. Bush makes some very valid points. Congress is dragging all of his appointees through the muck, and it is (to an extent) unprecedented. However, he fails to note his unprecedented actions of firing his federal prosecutors for ostensibly political reasons. Not illegal, but not exactly within the spirit of the law. Pot calling the kettle black? I think so, and the only way to move us forward as a nation is for both sides to transcend the pettiness and, well, move forward. (Or impeach the motherfucker, but I don’t really think that Bush has done anything worthy of being impeached – we, as Americans, simply made a shitty decision to elect/re-elect the guy).
Regarding the commentary of ‘activist’ judges — it’s a similar double-edged sword…sort of like the social conservatives notion of the liberal/academic elite, where the conservatives have taken on the position of the moral elite. Maybe there’s truth on both ends, but either sides is hiding behind their end of the ‘truth’ while ignoring the other end. Sure, there are ‘activist’ judges out there, even though I don’t see how interpreting civil rights clauses as inclusive to homosexuals qualifies as activism (this was the first time that I’ve heard the term used). But the abortion issue (again, on both sides) is a clear indicator of an expectation of activism from the bench. Conservatives seem to want a judiciary with a clear record of anti-abortion beliefs. Liberals seem to want the opposite. Most good nominees have done the right thing by dodging the question, and promising to follow the letter of the law. However, both sides want activist judges — just as long as they’re activist judges on the ‘right’ side.
Regarding Bush’s proclamation of his strict adherence to the constitution — well, that’s just laughable. Or maybe something that should make us cry…or just drive us to perform wanking motions with our fists when we hear BS like that.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Ethan,
Blocking nominations of judges at this stage of a presidency is not unusual, in fact it is the norm, it is one of the reasons they call them lame duck presidents. What was unprecedented was the filibustering by Democrats early in the Bush administration. Since judges are appointed and not elected the one way the people can determine the complexion of the judiciary is who they elect to the Senate and the presidency. So when one party holds both branches they get to pick more conservative or liberal judges than if the branches are of different parties. Democrats upset that balance by blocking nominations as the minority party. This set a dangerous precedent, hopefully more adult Senates in the future will not repeat this childish act.
Firing judges for political reasons is also not unprecedented, remember Clinton fired them all. Surely that was for political reasons.
I’ll stop there, I could go on for a full page on your second paragraph.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Yeah, exactly right, Ethan. The fact that there are examples of the judicial and legislative branches attempting to overreach their powers (shocking!) does almost nothing to diminish the fact that this executive branch has vastly overreached (successfully) its powers in almost every conceivable way:
It has asserted the right to legislate through sweeping signing statements (far further than any other president), it has asserted immunity from legislative oversight by executive privilege (not new, but certainly used vigorously), it has asserted immunity from judicial oversight both through subverting that oversight and by simply claiming areas of executive primacy, and it has asserted the exclusive right to make war. That is on a whole different scale of constitutional subversion than the arguments over the judiciary’s role in the grey area of state election process. If anything, I think the legislature has been derelict in its constitutional duty to push back against these assertions, rather than blithely enabling them.
That’s the irony I’m talking about.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
SHCB,
Actually, Congress are using filibusters more than ever right now…at a record level. This wasn’t only from the Democrats early in Bush’s term, it just started there and has only grown. It’s just not reported upon as much. See this wiki article. I think that we’re up to 70 this year as of Nov 15th.
Regarding the dismissals of US attorneys and your Clinton comment…this is a straw man argument. Please don’t misunderstand me, I say this with respect. My political center is no more with ‘these guys’ than it is with you. I don’t eat up the party line stuff either way (e.g. it’s BS from both sides). I’m also no Clinton fanboy. With the above disclaimers in mind, your Clinton comment regarding his dismissal of US attorneys is a total party line, and is misleading (at best). My hope is that the next few sentences will put that comment/ideal/bs to bed forever. There is a vast difference between Bush’s actions and Clinton’s actions with regard to the US attorney ‘issue’. What Bush did was unprecedented. Clinton, just like Reagan (and presumably Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc) appointed new US attorneys at the beginning of their term as president, as did Bush. However, the firing of multiple US attorneys at one time mid-term is completely unprecedented. Just so we’re clear (and so I don’t sound like I’m towing the liberal line) — the practice is not necessarily illegal, it’s just never been done before. To say that Clinton did the same thing is, at best, misleading. Do you disagree with this, or is the above statement accurate (fair and balanced ;) )?
I’m curious about what you have to say about my comments regarding activist judges. I thought that my assessment was pretty fair to both sides. I’ll just ask that you please remember to cut me some slack as I have my own opinions, they’re not regurgitated bumper-sticker politics — no need for false dichotomies. I’m neither attacking nor on anyone’s side here.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Ethan,
I’ll be gentle, I try and stay as civil as my opponent. Lets take care of the judges first. In your last post you say Congress is using the filibuster more and more, that is probably because they don’t actually filibuster any more they just show up in the morning, sign a little paperwork declaring a filibuster and go on about their business, no more reading the phone book or staying up all night. So it is painless, and both parties are to blame. But the problem isn’t the filibuster itself, it is the filibustering of the appointments, in the past that was considered off limits because the Senate understood it’s place was to “advise and consent” not appoint.
Of the 8 judges Bush fired, I believe 2 or 3 of them were had already resigned, so that leaves 5, (sorry for the bad math, but I’ll take the advantage when I can) you may be right that a president has never fired that many that late in his term, but if he had spread it out over a few months his opponents would have claimed he knew all along he was going to fire them all and to not fire them all at once an get it over with was the most underhanded event in the history of America,. The poor guy can’t win. I haven’t studied all the judge turnover sinceGeorge Washington, believe it or not I do have a life, but I would think it would be reasonable to assume at some point a president or three has fired a few judges over a period of a few months late in his term.
It was not only unprecedented but very disruptive to do what Clinton did. You are correct that most presidents change judges early in their terms, but they usually do it gradually over a period of time. This allows the courts to have a smooth transition. Giving the entire system 10 days to clean out their desk was just plain irresponsible. So on balance I think what Clinton did was worth and the left made a much bigger deal of what Bush did than was called for.
In that paragraph I don’t think you said anything outrageous or anything, especially coming from a liberal point of view, even though I appreciate you may not be as radical as some on this site am I correct in assuming you are on balance liberal? I’m torn whether to take it phrase by phrase or in general, dissecting it in pieces usually just turns into nitpicking. So just ignore me if I get to petty.
The both sides are hiding phrase, you are probably correct to a point but I don’t think either side is hiding behind their truths, and I don’t think they are ignoring the other sides argument, at least not the thinking faction of either side, sure there are the lemmings on either side, but people who have looked at the issues have made up their minds usually because of a deep philosophy. Now most people aren’t lockstep, I’m not anti abortion for instance. But by and large I agree with the bulk of the conservative agenda. So I don’t think they are ignoring the other side, they have looked at the arguments and have made up their minds. Now if new information comes out on an issue then the thinking man should reconsider but if he doesn’t change his mind that doesn’t mean he is ignoring the other side of the argument, it just means he is not convinced.
For instance if you guys gave me an example of how Bush has trashed the constitution I would look at it, I may even agree with you on a minor point or two, but for the most part all I have heard is rhetoric, when I have looked into specifics like the wireless wiretapping, I am convinced he is within the law and the constitution. The only place I have seen they may have been lax was the reporting every 6 months to a judge, but they seem to be complying with that now. And that is a fairly minor point in my opinion.
I had a paragraph on you homosexual example, but I took it out, it will just get us off topic. But I would be happy to give my views some other time.
I tend to agree with you on the abortion issue, but you are talking about the religious right (RR) with that issue. I feel the RR is similar to liberals in some ways. Now this is going to seem hurtful, but I don’t mean it that way, as you said, this is just an opinion and I mean no disrespect. It is just a right brain, left brain thing. Here goes, I think the anti abortion right and liberals tend to have more of an end justifies the means attitude, where as the rest of conservatives tend to follow the constitution and the rule of law. If conservatives don’t like a law, they work to get it changed, liberals and the RR will if they can, but if that is not expedient enough, they have no problem going to a judge and getting their way.
Conservatives tend to have an end justifies the means outlook on national security and law enforcement. So no one is perfect. But conservatives don’t tend to use activist judges, they just issue signing statements. Briefly on signing statements, the little I have read on the subject leads me to believe presidents didn’t use them much before Reagan, they just ignored congress when they thought congress was outside their bounds. From what I understand, Hoover pretty much ignored congress to the point of outright contempt. So it doesn’t seem the riff between congress and the President is new, just the methods have changes.
There is an example, Knarly doesn’t care what the law says, he just wants every vote to count, well, we all do, but it needs to be done within the law. I won’t go any further with the election, that will just confuse things.
So, I had a lot to say, but I don’t think you are totally off base either. Fair enough?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“So on balance I think what Clinton did was worth ” should be worse. And I proof read it, god I hate being stupid.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:37 am
I didn’t realize that it was so easy now. I guess that congress doesn’t have to work as hard to be a pain in the ass as they used to. Interestingly enough, I just read that the senate majority leader can force a real filibuster…if they choose. I’m not really sure how I feel about the Democrats using the filibuster to stop appointments. I can’t say that I approved of the Democrats tenure in congress during their recent minority anyway. They just seemed to be obstructionist on the not-so-important stuff, and failed to do so on some important decisions (e.g. certain provisions of the usa patriot act, and on the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq). I guess that the issue for me is less with their use of the filibuster, but their general suckiness. It’s almost like their attitude was to be dicks while simultaneously burying their heads in the sand until voters were pissed enough to overturn the Republican majority.
I know that Wikipedia isn’t an authoritative source or anything, but for general blog research, it’s all I have time to cite. In any case, the overview of the controversy (which seems to be documented well enough) suggests differently. I won’t bore you with too many quotes, but it basically says that over the last 25 years, 54 US attorneys did not serve their term — but only two were involuntary dismissals (both under the Reagan administration), and the reasons were documented. The article also says that there were other dismissals prior to the Dec, 2006 seven. In 2005, two were terminated, and earlier in 2006, another two were let go. The article also goes over some interesting bits about parts of the (recently changed) USA PATRIOT act that I won’t quote as they’re not entirely relevant, but were interesting (and I didn’t know about it). I can’t really speak for Bill Clinton’s 10-mintes dismissals at the beginning of his term. Do you have any reading for me on that subject? (yes, it’s late and I don’t want to do any more research)
My politics? I’m probably more of a civil libertarian than a liberal (and I’m really not much of a libertarian, and am certainly not a card-carrying member of the LP). I tend to distrust governments in general, and lean towards fiscal conservatism. I suppose that one could tag me socially liberal, but it may come from a belief that people should be free to do as they please so long as they don’t harm anyone else…and a desire for limiting government power/civil liberties. I’m not sure — is that liberal?
I don’t think that either liberal or conservative philosophies are necessarily bad things, but each are equally dangerous at their extreme ends.
I’ll have to cut this short, since it’s way too late for me to continue (I have some turkey day tasks). If I have time tomorrow, I’ll finish weighing in. Anyway, fair enough.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:17 am
Ethan,
Judging from that brief description, I would say you should probably be considered a practical Libertarian. You would probably approve more of the Cato Institute than either Brookings or the Heritage Foundation. Always good to know where someone sits before he tells you where he stands.
A person would have to do some more research into those numbers you gave to get a more clear view of the firings. For instance, how many did Bush let go at the beginning of his administration in comparison to other administrations, maybe he just let them go at a different time. But conceding this event was wholly unprecedented and wrong, it still doesn’t seem it was anything that approached a constitutional crisis as the Dems were suggesting.
I will find some stuff on the Clinton firings.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:51 am
that probably should have read “but even if I were to conceed” but either way is fine
November 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Someone is going to point this out, but I keep saying judges it is attorneys
November 21st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Thanks for pointing out it should be “attorneys”, that was nagging at me but I couldn’t put my finger on why. I think I have another very important point of clarification, I speak from a Canadian legal perspective, but I think it would apply as much to the US.
I said, “Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but I’d like to have seen every eligible voter who wanted to vote and tried to do so actually get their vote counted.”
Shcb said:
Don’t tell me what I do or do not care about, you have no idea. As a rule, laws are to be followed, but there are exceptions where self-evident truth and justice supersede man-made legislation. An extreme example is yesterday’s ruling by the Saudi Supreme Court which condemned a 19 year old woman, who was gang raped by 7 assailants, under Shia Law to 200 lashes for her crime. Her crime was that she was in the presence of a boy friend without chaperone immediately preceding the attack by the seven men. Concerned people and groups around the world, including the US government, recognize that the woman has already suffered enough for her “crime” and are urging an intervention so that this “lawful” punishment (200 lashes!) is not applied.
What has this to do with U.S. election law? Actually, a lot. The point is that “the law” is far greater than words printed in a book of statutes. I don’t know about Shia law, but in applying laws derived from the British legal tradition, due consideration for the intents and purposes of a particular law is a fundamental canon. In fact, where the application of a law seems to be providing a strange or deleterious result, a court may make decisions based on going back to what the legislator’s claimed were the intents and purposes for the law at the time that the law was passed. Therefore, if Florida election laws were passed with the intention of making sure that every eligible voter who wanted to vote and tried to do so actually get their vote counted, then the judicial application of election laws relating to this desired outcome by the legislative lawmakers should be consistent with that intent.
So you see, shcb, rather than some moron who simply wants to apply the “letter of the law” (as is expected and fitting for a referee to apply rules in, say, a football game), I actually care far more about law. I want our civilizations to continue its legal progress based on legal traditions which have resulted in justice systems for the betterment of human interactions by careful application of basic common law principles including the canon of considering legislator intent.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Knarly,
You would have a point if there would have been something like a natural disaster or foul play or some other unusual situation. But that wasn’t the case. Democrats were simply recounting and recounting, changing the rules as they went, gleaning a few hundred votes each time. Of course one of the reason we have judges is to take extenuating circumstances into account, but in this case there were none, the votes were cast, counted and recounted as per the law. Anything past that was judicial activism.
You of course are going to point to one or another conspiracy site, but whether or not there was foul play, that wasn’t the reason the Florida Supremes changed the rules and allowed the votes to be continually recounted. So you can’t use that as a reason to justify their actions.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Ah, yes that is true. The voting in Florida was a splendid example of efficiency and fairness, the only thing that spoiled it were those heinously corrupt judges who insisted on recounts. Well done shcb!
By the way, for any morons out there who do not understand the above, that was sarcasm.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
ummm knarly, ever so sorry to bring this up dear chap, but it appears you have misspelled the word “moran”.
(will I be banned for making a joke?) Enk
November 21st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
knarlyknight wrote:
No, I’ll just delete this comment of yours, as well as the following completely irrelevant one.
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 am
Ethan,
Here a couple articles I found on the Clinton firings. They are both conservative opinion pieces from respectable sources with credibility. I tried to stay away from blogs. These are both contemporary, this happened so long ago it is hard to find anything written at that time. So take it through those filters.
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11396
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 am
Knarly,
So the obvious question is when would you have stopped the recounts? Remember some of the election judges said the ballots had been handled so many times they were showing sighs of wear.
Here is my opinion of your truthful answer, when your guy had one more vote than mine.
It’s late in the fourth quarter, 3rd and 4, Super Bowl. The running back makes a great cut and is close to the first down. A fifty-ish man in a striped shirt runs up a full second after the play ends and looks into the pile of really big men, he sees the ball, puts his foot in a point in space on over an acre of grass. Another official tosses him the ball and he places it on the ground six feet from where the original ball ended up. He does his best to place it in the same place in relation to the lines. A third official clips a flag on a chain in the middle of a line wide enough for the TV audience to see from that shot on top of the grandstands. He and two other guys carry this assembly 35 yards, he again estimates the center of the line that is presumed to be straight, even though it was painted by a guy making $12 an hour. They stretch the chains and where the end of the pole lands determines the outcome of the game. And half the people in Vegas made money and half lost. If it were up to you they would bring chains out from every direction until you got the result you wanted.
It’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best we’ve got. It wasn’t the recount we protested, it was the endless recounts. Actually they weren’t endless, they would have ended when Gore won. Which sort of makes my point that the ends justify the means with you.
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 am
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 am
In due time, with rules that changed from one precinct to another, from one county to another, sometimes from one day to the next, and given the political leadership in the particular precincts selected for recounts, Gore was essentially guaranteed an eventual win.
The Florida Supreme Court sanctioned those conditions and their guaranteed result when it quite literally set aside all pertinent provisions contained in Florida election laws, set no standardized procedures for the recount, and allowed whatever was necessary to accomplish their goal – and no one will ever convince me that their goal was sans political bias.
In Kentucky (until this year) we prefer basketball analogies: A biased referee threw out the rule book after the clock had expired, allowing unlimited free throws to continue until the losing team could gain the lead. The head referee stopped the process by enforcing the rules of the game. The losing fans have never forgiven that head referee, and their continued bitterness over losing a “freebee” is endless, and their revenge boundless.
I can sympathize somewhat with those fans, never having fully understood, accepted or forgiven those involved in the final moments of the ’72 Olympic USA vs USSR gold medal game. I wasted time and energy grumbling about the result for several days – please feel free to read into that part of the analogy.
I’m thankful for the opportunity to read – and make personal decisions based on – contrasting opinions, so Happy Thanksgiving to all y’all.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 am
Just my own 2 cents, I tend to agree that law prevailed in the end in the 2000 election. I think there is some evidence that some shady things happened and that it’s plausible that Gore should have won Florida. But I do agree that that has nothing to do with following Florida law first and foremost. I think this is why Gore conceded the election even when a lot of more strident supporters were talking about appeals and such.
That whole thing was a fairly emotional issue because of the political stakes and the drama of the thing, but at worst that was still a matter of judges pushing their powers in a fairly limited way, and in fact that overextension was almost immediately corrected by the Supreme Court, so the system worked. The system has not worked in stopping the substantial, unchecked, and precedent-setting overreaching of powers that the President has engaged in since then.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:04 am
In hindsight, given the path that your country has taken since November 2000, I think a full and complete recount, however impractical that might have seemed at the time and regardless of the delay, would have been best. At least that way people wouldn’t be arguing about the results a full seven years after the election, and had Bush won after such a recount then his presidency would not be marred by significant numbers of people believing his presidency to be wholly illegitimate from the start.
Re-posting this link from my Nov. 19 comments:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:16 am
By the way, those sports analogies are silly. It is not that the game was allowed to continue until the losing team eventually caught up. Quite the contrary, the game was OVER. The controversy was that the scorekeeper had lost track. The recounts were like playing back a video of the game to recount the baskets or goals. It was a close game, and only certain parts of the video were replayed to re-count the scores. The Keating paper, posted above, shows the likely results had the whole video been replayed.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
I absolutely think we should have a law stating that whenever the result of an election is within statistical error margins, then an automatic full recount should occur. (I also think that we should use a much more statistically accurate voting system.) However we sadly don’t have that much rigor in our election law, and trying to make it up on the fly at election time isn’t the way to go.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Knarly,
You just don’t seem to fully grasp the concept of analogies, nothing wrong with that, it just isn’t your strong suit. The problem wasn’t that anyone lost count it was that the margin was under the accuracy of the counting method, or at least the perceived accuracy of the counting method. I’m not sure a bunch of grandmas sitting at a table 10 hours a day counting pieces of paper is any more accurate, but it is still the most trusted method. I think in our own round about ways, Matt, TV and myself all agree one of the biggest issues to come out of the Florida mess is there was no clear procedure set down to handle this eventuality, and that neither the Florida or the US court seemed to give clear guidelines as to the procedure to follow when it did happen. I’m going from memory on that statement so correct me if I’m wrong. I think Matt is right, we need a more standardized system of rules regarding voting, at least in national elections. I think automatic recounts are a good start, as long as reasonable and firm guidelines are established. Now we can’t foresee every eventuality and the courts should be involved in unusual cases, but what triggers a recount and how it is conducted shouldn’t be an issue they get involved in.
I looked at the link on Approval Voting Matt, and I can’t see how that would work in our two party system and I don’t want to move from our system toward a more parliamentary system which this form of voting would seem to favor. I like having the factions and coalitions formed and in line with a candidate before an election not after. So I wouldn’t support that at all. I would also oppose any move from our Electoral College system to a simple majority of the country. I live in a small state population wise and the current system give us a slight advantage over more populous states.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Yes, one issue here is that I see the two-party system as an unfortunate side-effect of our voting system, not a reason for it. But if I put that aside, there are a number of errors that this voting system would correct:
– No “spoiler” third-party candidates. George HW Bush might well have won against Clinton if not for Ross Perot’s strong conservative run. I think it’s conceivable that Clinton winning was an “error” in terms of representing the true, collected will of Americans. The approval voting system would have allowed people to express their support for Perot without directly harming Bush as their second choice.
– Elimination of the nonsensical “electability” factor in party nominations. Electability consistently reduces us to the common denominator in nominations, forcing people to second-guess what their fellow man might on the surface consider the “strongest” candidate. Thus, strongly principled candidates with surface-level weaknesses (less powerful within the party, holding controversial views on some topic, or being black for example) are usually marginalized. Approval voting would allow me to vote for both my favorite candidate and a electability hero if I am so inclined. In general, I believe this would keep the candidates more honest to their values.
– Reduction in “playing to the base” games that polarize America. Both parties have realized that the most effective strategy to win isn’t trying to appeal to most of America, it’s giving 51% of the voting public no choice by pushing divisive issues. Approval voting would allow us to vote our conscience rather than feeling like we must vote with the party or risk failure. Thus moderate voters would be able to cast cross-over votes that will tend to select the candidate with the broadest overall appeal to Americans.
Vastly off-topic, but I feel fairly strongly about the failings of our voting system (no matter how popular it might be) and how that impacts our republic, so I had to add some detail.
Oh and as to the Electoral College, I guess I don’t feel as strongly about it, although I think the only reason it persists is because it represents a sort of “truce line” between the parties that neither wants to disturb because it would threaten both of them (which I think would be a good thing). Sure your small state might have more “power”, but I’m not sure that the role of states in driving the course of national (and international) policy is nearly as relevant as it was 200 years ago, versus the interest of us individuals as Americans. Also, your voting power as an individual would be increased, which I think is a good thing. But hey, I’d take the College if we could change the voting system…
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Well, I think in two moderately long comments we have voiced the two opposing sides of that issue quite well, we could go on and on about the plethora of reasons for those views, but then what would we discuss as it gets closer to the election. Wishing you and yours a safe and pleasant holiday.
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Happy turkey day.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Hope you had a happy turkey day, now digest this:
that was a tame excerpt, there is far more brutal reading within for anyone who still believes Bush’s lies about his respect for the constitution:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123496.html
then as a trifle for desert, there is this about why all that Constitution trashing legislation was wholly unnecessary:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123018.html
November 25th, 2007 at 8:17 am
I’ve always been a fan of Napolitano, but he is a little much of a civil libertarian for me. I generally agree with his theories. I just find that he is sort of selective with his examples. When he says no one has been convicted because of the patriot act but drug smugglers have, he is probably technically correct but only if you accept his definitions and parameters.
But I do respect his opinions to a point, and maybe it is time the Act is modified a bit. The one provision that always made the most sense was allowing the various agencies to share information, that should stay no matter what. The most contentious part has always been the warrantless wiretapping. I think at the time, right after 911, that was reasonable. We have made great strides to limit the terrorists since then, perhaps it is time to regain some of our liberties we surrendered in the name of security. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this administration has abused these powers, but they have used them. Good. There is nothing wrong with spying on your enemies, it is a legitimate aspect of war, but we frown on spying on citizens unless they are in collusion with the enemy.
Here is a suggestion, allow the warrantless wiretaps for spying on terrorists but have more oversight of programs by judges, in essence have a judge approve a program and then have that judge or another review reports on a monthly or weekly basis, if an arrest is made the judge should review all the information within say, 48 hours.
In the Jeff Taylor piece, one of the things he doesn’t tell you is that the pieces of info he is referring to “the dots” were not communicated to one inteligence branch or the other because of “the wall”. One of the problems with the wall was that it was not so much a law but a web of laws and rules that no one really understood so they would error on the side of caution and just not talk to each other, Bush cut through all that BS with the Patriot Act, I like that trait in a cowboy.
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress05/baginski041905.htm
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/31/102047.shtml
November 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Interesting. So that begs the question, (sorry if this sounds ignorant) what was the original purpose of the “wall”?
November 25th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Not as comprehensive as the article, but fascinating that this got on FOX (it wouldn’t have before the 2004 elections) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvu12z832Xc
November 26th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Knarly,
That is a good question, I have heard where the wall originated, but don’t remember for sure. I think it was formed, if that is the right word, after Iran/Contra. But I could be way off base. Conservatives, Limbaugh in particular blamed the Clinton administration. And there was a lot they did that was wrong, their biggest mistake was in trying to defeat this threat through the courts, making it a crime to be a terrorist rather than looking at actions like the Cole bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center as an act of war. But in my humble opinion, that was overblown, there were many obstacles that had been erected in the decades before Clinton took office, and even Bush’s administration had extended “the Wall” just a month or so before the 911 attack. I think you could even make the point that the CIA and FBI in some ways didn’t want the wall to be torn down. Let me be clear, probably most agents individually wanted it removed, but institutionally, probably not. These agencies are bureaucracies, and as such they don’t mind hiding behind rules like this if they can, they are also quite competitive and in some ways don’t mind not telling the “other side” what they are doing. If there is a drug smuggler who is also a terrorist, they want their team to be the one that catches him. There was plenty of blame to go around here and I don’t think you can find one single item that caused this breakdown; it was just a bunch of little things.
That is a good clip of the Judge; it shows very well what I was talking about. He starts out with the premise that our constitutional rights are absolute, they aren’t. The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theater, or slander or liable laws, that’s for the first amendment. Not being able to own fully automatic weapons or hand grenades without restriction, second amendment… He makes a good point after that but he starts off with a false premise, probably making his good point a bigger issue than it really is. If what he says is true about not being able to talk to a lawyer then that is a portion of the Patriot Act that should be addressed, at least as it pertains to US citizens.
PS, He says we have an absolute right to free speech, I wonder how he squares that statement with client attorney privilege. If an attorney had a juicy story he could make millions on, but that information was given to him in confidence, would the good judge say the client has no recourse? Of course not, he would say that a client has an absolute right. So what happened to the attorney’s absolute right? I believe Daniel Webster said “good manners are more important than good laws, because most good laws come from good manners.”
You are wrong about the Judge not saying these things before 2004. I think he started on Fox during the 2000 election. And he has always taken the civil libertarian stance, it’s just who he is.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Glad to hear I was wrong about the judge not talking about these things prior to 2004: (1) maybe things weren’t as bleak as they seemed, and (2) wow that was a huge assumption on my part that I didn’t even realize I’d made. Thanks.
As for your other comments, points taken but with a few grains of salt given your biases. I think a judge making statements like those – even with the statements helping promote his book – is a flashing red neon sign that there is lots of rancid tuna in the casserole.
And that stinks more than a mixed metaphor.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I listened to an old Rosen hour this morning where he was interviewing Rowan Scarborough. The subject was the wall among other things, they blamed it on the Frank Church era, 1975-76 time frame. I also read a Media Matters piece that was loosely tied to the subject, they said it was a product of 60 years of legislation with the 80’s being the hot spot. So I don’t think there is a spot in time you can point to and say “that is it!”
You should absolutely take my comments through a filter just as you should take the Judge’s remarks through a similar filter. Napolitano is a brilliant man and a great speaker as a guest on the talk shows, he can explain complex legal doctrine in a way even slow folks like me can understand, he gets it said quickly and then he shuts up and lets someone else talk. He also doesn’t waver in his beliefs and doesn’t seem too partisan. I just don’t agree with all his conclusions. But that is why we have chocolate vanilla and strawberry
November 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Came across this gem relating to a discussion here on lies a few months ago:
The full article here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_112707O.shtml
November 29th, 2007 at 5:31 am
So let’s say the author is right, the reason I say “let’s say” is because while they are probably right, there is also a good chance that the words “stationed” or “resided” are used in another area of the law. But let’s say the author is right, how does that trace back to Bush when Dick Armitage was the leak? He worked at State, and was openly opposed to invading Iraq. I didn’t read the whole article but I doubt the author mentioned that the law protecting covert agents says the person outing the agent has to do it maliciously. Which is why no one is going after Armitage because he thought everyone knew, and everyone did. I wish you could get Rosen’s show, oddly enough in the hour I mentioned in the post above they talk about Plame’s cover in detail. And they actually add some credence to the idea that she was technically covert, but that it is absurd to think she was covered by this law because of her and the CIA’s actions and the intentions of the “leakers”.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Maybe I’m not concentrating hard enough because I have trouble keeping track of the relevance of the details, but from a big picture outlook but it seems to me that nasty things went down in the Valerie Plame-Wilson affair. As you like to point out shcb, sometimes simple explanations are the best?
My understanding is that there were some very poorly forged documents in England that indicated Saddam was trying to purchase “yellowcake” uranium from Nigeria to create a nuclear bomb. It had already been determined by the British that it was a forgery, but the Americans wanted to determine whether there was any truth to the claim. Wilson, an experienced diplomat with the right skill set for the task, was selected by a senior CIA officer (not Valerie Plame) to go to Nigeria. His wife, Valerie Plame, herself a middle-east CIA agent (field commander?), asked him to go as requested by her CIA superiors. Wilson did extensive interviews with senior Nigerian officials etc.
He then returned to the states and reported his findings (confirming the “yellowcake” claims were bogus) to his superiors and senior members in the Bush administration. Then a short time (long time?) later Wilson was astonished to see the claims repeated in Bush’s state of the union address as justification for attacking Iraq, and Bush had no supporting evidence other than the original forgery. Incredulous, Wilson went public that the administration knew they were making false “yellowcake” claims in their path to war.
In what seemed like retaliation but was surely at least an attempt to retain some credibility, the administration attacked Wilson. Rather than comment on what Wilson’s role was, what he determined, when he reported it and the veracity of his findings, there was a campaign to discredit him which included suggesting that the Niger trip was nothing but a ridiculous junket authorised by his wife.
The Wilson’s were dumbfounded by that attack, because they realised it was not true, that it was nothing but a smear attempt, but mostly because they believed that Valerie’s role with the CIA included some covert status protections that were treasonous to disclose, and they were livid that her fellow CIA covert agent’s lives may have been jeapardized by this administration purely to save political face.
Why is it that the more details I get from shcb the more obfuscated the issue becomes?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Without going into detail, each point you make in the sequence of events you listed is about 20 degrees off course according to the folks I trust for my information. Which leads us to ask who is telling the truth on which points, the guys you are listening to or the guys I am? Nothing you said above is way wrong, just a little but added together it makes a completely different conclusion probable, or visa versa of course. Is it worth the effort of taking it point by point?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Nope, but course directions noted (I’m assuming you’re observing a 20 deg shift to the port side?)
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Yes, your statements are definitely to the port. That’s fine if you don’t want to get into it at that level, it would be a big task. I took a few minutes and divided your timeline verbatim into points of interest, I came up with 19, out of those 19 I only have 2 or 3 that I wouldn’t challenge, I would have to listen to several hours of Rosen, take notes and look up documents and such on each of those points, quite a lot of work.
Let me take one of the points just to give you an idea of how far to port you are. Number 8 “He then returned to the states and reported his findings” He did, but he never filed a written report, and in the verbal report he gave to an agent that debriefed him, he said there was evidence Sadam had tried to acquire yellow cake from Niger, but in his book he said just the opposite. Now why he never filed a report is problematic, I have to file a report if I go to Mississippi to look at a machine, surely if this was such an important trip that a 5 year war depended on it, a few paragraphs were in order.
So my statement would be that he never filed a report, and you would have to find that he did, a lot of work on your part as well.
That is the type of thing I would refute, and the way I would do it. But I have a lot going on at work right and probably don’t have time for it anyway.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Shcb, closing the gap between us is not a very constructive use of our time. In an attempt to conclude my part in this I’ll try to restrict my comments to what you’ve set on the table (Wilson’s report).
It seems you are attempting to suggest that Wilson verbally reported the exact opposite of what (a) he originally stated that he found out from American embassy officials immediately upon arrival in Nigeria (that the yellowcake rumours were already debunked), and (b) of what he determined from his own meetings and analysis (the yellowcake claims had no basis in truth.) What evidence do you have that he lied in his report?
You might do well to review his initial statement to the New York Times about his report, and then consider how irrelevant, underhanded, (i.e. potentially treasonous) and petty it would be at that point for Bush’s administration to drag his wife into the fray:
Given all the events since then, including Richard Perle’s recent public admission that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law (see below), Joseph Wilson’s concluding paragraph has proven to be a howl of dire portent. (And the Plame-gate events that followed that howl was an omen (threat) to all who might opposed the new official policy of wars forevermore.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1089158%2C00.html
December 4th, 2007 at 5:05 am
I am saying he said one thing to the agent debriefing him and the opposite in his book. Pretty simple, you don’t have to complicate it any more than that. Of all people, with all you conspiracies and such don’t you find it odd that he didn’t file a report? He is life long bureaucrat, if for no other reason wouldn’t you want to file a report in your own words to cover your ass? The CIA wasn’t without fault here, they didn’t get him to sign a confidentiality statement. This allowed him to release information from the reports he has never seen without fear of prosecution.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Pretty simple? It couldn’t be more simple. You claim he gave a false report to the CIA, the “opposite” of what he, and the embassy before him, had concluded. That’s a ridiculous figment of your imagination. Either provide some real evidence to support that or just admit that you are nuts.
So why didn’t he file a report? If the CIA told him not to or that they would not accept a written report, he would not offer one. His butt was already covered by the report of the Embassy staff in Nigeria. Wilson is not some mid level bureaucrat scared about his role in a land development.
Wilson dealt with upper echelon diplomats and CIA, and the nature of his mission to Nigeria was at the time secret. But they underestimated his integrity. When he went public, which would have been a terrifying thing to do in July 2003, his message set the stage for realizations (i.e. the Downing Street memo) about Americans cherry picking intelligence to fit their agenda to attack Iraq.
Had Wilson found that the “yellowcake” rumours to be true, you can bet the CIA would have demanded that he file a written report and it may even have gone to the newspapers the next day.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Actually, I’m saying he was truthful to the CIA and lied in his book, but either way he was lying one place or the other, “two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong”.
In Wilson’s verbal report to the CIA he said the rumors were true or at least plausible, once something is true it can hardly be considered a rumor.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
That’s an amazing claim shcb, but my challenge from the last post still stands.
Either present some credible evidence Wilson lied about the Niger yellowcake claims or admit that was just another figment of your nutty imagination.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Fair enough, I’ll see what I can find.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
and don’t get me wrong, a nutty imagination is sometimes a good thing.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
We would be roommates in a sanitarium somewhere if it weren’t. My wife is fond of saying “you don’t want to go to Ricky’s world (my imagination), it’s a scary, scary place”
December 4th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Here is that information you wanted, the following is from the Cliff May piece, with a Washington Post article that is about the same. This is from page 43 and 44 of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report July 7, 2004. You need to read about 15-20 pages to get the whole picture of Plame’s involvement and Wilson’s trip.
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
December 4th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
can’t respond now but I’d come across that info earlier and I don’t think it fits the criteria. Can’t elaborate now, hectic here, hope to be more clearer for you later. Thanks for the post and for taking me seriously shcb. cheers mate.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:20 am
No problems, I’ll take another stab at it but I think that is the evidence most pundits are using when they are defending the Joe Wilson Lied statement. I think one of things that came out of this mess was how unprofessionally run the CIA is/was. If you get the chance, read the section of the Senate report I pointed to, there is a pdf on the margin of the Post article, it is 500+ pages so be patient. They didn’t require Joe to file a report or it seems proof and sign one written by an agent. They conducted the interview in his home, not a very secure place, his wife was present, of course she was CIA, but one wonders what if she wasn’t, would they still conduct the interview while she served tea? Anyway, take care of business. We can continue this later, I think everyone will be focused on their presidential speeches for a while anyway.