John J. McKay is a grumpy, aging liberal who lives in a small house with his wife, two cats, and a couple thousand books. To comment on anything in archy, send an e-mail.
Audio Clip President Carter: [speaking to an audience]: I have a friend named Ralph Nader. He was trusted enough by my family to have been permitted in Plains, Georgia to umpire a softball game where I pitched on one side and my brother pitched on the other side. That's a lot of confidence. When I was president he gave me a lot of advice. And tonight I want to return the favor by giving him some advice.
[Audience applauds]
President Carter: Ralph, go back to umpiring softball games or examining the rear end of automobiles, and don't risk costing the Democrats the White House this year as you did four years ago.
[Audience applauds louder]
I love Jimmy Carter. But I don't think this is the tone we need right now.
The more we liberals pitch bricks at Ralph, the more likely he is to dig in and start shooting back. The longer Ralph holds out, the uglier this gets. The primaries came close enough to turning into the usual election year circular firing squad on the left. We avoided that only because the primary voters and caucus participants had an unusual moment of clarity and focused on the goal of getting rid of Bush. Now we have the Ralph problem.
I hear some Democrats saying we should destroy Nader and be done with him. It's nice to feel the pure fire of righteous rage at Ralph for being a spoiler, but we cannot afford that emotion this year. It's a luxury. Beating Ralph isn't going to get rid of Bush. A fight on the left will only end up making voters stay home. We need Ralph's voters. We need Ralph's issues. We need Ralph.
This has to stop being a confrontation and start being a negotiation. Any deal that gets Ralph to withdraw and endorse Kerry must be embraced (providing the deal isn't so sleazy it drives voters away). I'm not sure who can broker that deal. Maybe Dean. Establishment Democrats, Deaniacs, Greens, and liberal independents need to act like grown-ups for a change. Too much is at stake this year.
Humiliating the 9/11 commission The more I think about the administration's "concession" in allowing Condoleeza Rice to testify in public, under oath before the 9/11 commission, the angrier I get. The conditions set by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales before allowing her to go turn my stomach:
"The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission does not set any precedent for future commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a national security adviser or any other White House official.
"Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."
With the first condition, they are demanding recognition of their interpretation of almost limitless executive privilege (see David Neiwert's two recent posts on this subject for details and background). It's not likely that such an agreement would create a legally or constitutionally binding precedent, but it would give the administration and their allies in congress a valuable club with which to bash open government advocates in the near future.
With the second condition, they are blocking the ability of the commission to follow the evidence wherever it may go. Sure, they can still request testimony in private, but one of the main purposes of the commission is to provide a public airing of the facts.
The whole letter just drips with royal condescension. After saying the White House agrees to the testimony subject to terms, Gonzales goes on for four paragraphs to describe what an unprecedented grand gesture this is on their part, before finally stating just what those terms are. The insistence--stated twice--that the commission's agreement be in writing can only be intended as a public humiliation of them for having the impudence to make demands of their betters. It's tantamount to making them stay after school and write on the black board "I will not question the commander in chief's judgment" one hundred times.
Gonzales follows the condition by again reminding them that this is a concession from the White House and not a right of the commission--"...we are proposing this extraordinary accommodation...."
Every day that the Bush camarilla remains in power they commit another outrage against our national traditions of balance of power, protection of rights, separation of church and state, and open government and they further tarnish our position as a beacon of hope and freedom in the world. It's going to take decades to undo the damage done by these four years. If they get a second term, I'm not sure the damage will be reparable. Bastards!
I would listen if I could Al Franken should have launched the era of liberal talk radio about an hour ago. Sadly, I don't live in one of the initial markets. And it appears that Air America doesn't have the promissed streaming audio up yet. When they do, I'll be there checking it out. If you are in one of the favored markets, be sure to tune in, patronize their sponsors, vote early, vote often, and vote Democratic. Oh, and shower Janeane Garofalo with demands that she have me on as a guest.
posted by John at 10:07 AM |
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Do it for Blades Meteor Blades, who is unquestionably my favorite writer over at Daily Kos, had a pulmonary embolism last week and nearly died. He will be out of the blogging circuit for a while as he recovers. Kos tells us that Meteor doesn't want flowers or presents, he just wants us to boot the Republicans out of Washington. Now, you all know that I was leaning toward endorsing Bush, Ashcroft, DeLay and all those other nice people, but since Meteor wants it, I guess I'll have to go Democrat this year.
Think nice thoughts send your prayer his direction. If you really need to send gifts, make a donation to his favorite cause, the Native American Rights Fund.
posted by John at 11:07 AM |
Sunday, March 28, 2004
What matters most to them The true priorities of this administration are revealed by the way they treat testifying before various committees and bodies outside the executive branch.
Even before 9/11 this administration was gaining a reputation as the most secrecy and privilege obsessed administration since Nixon. Cheney set the tone in his refusal to release records of his energy task force meetings to the General Accounting Office (GAO). The GAO’s frustration with Cheney’s stonewalling finally led them to sue the White House. The official line of defense offered by Cheney and others was "You just cannot accept that proposition without putting a chill over the ability of the president and vice president to receive unvarnished advice." At the time Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (D-MI) wrote a letter to Cheney stating that if he won his case in court, the White House would be "virtually immune from routine oversight." That, of course, is exactly what the Bush White House wants.
This same principle was recently invoked again, this time in defense of Condoleezza Rice’s refusing to testify in public, under oath, before the 9/11 commission.
But White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said that in order for presidents to receive the most candid advice from their staffs, “it is important that these advisers not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the commission.”
While some people might have been convinced by Cheney framing the energy task force issue as one of principle, it’s hard to do the same with Rice. The issue being investigated by the 9/11 commission is the security of the American people. This administration has asked us all to put security above our rights and privileges. Yet they refuse to do the same.
Their position is clear: it is more important to the Bush administration to protect their own executive privileges than it is to protect American lives.
posted by John at 12:59 PM |
Copyright 2003-2004 John J. McKay. Use what you want, but give credit where credit is due.
archy
