From the Comments: Corrupt Dinners
Commenter C’n'R:
Steven [is one of] of the most intellectualy dishonest political ideologues I have ever seen.
No posts about Sestak.
No posts about Romanoff.
No posts about Blago.
If these three had ties to an administration with an “R” after the names of the major players, you both would be frothing at the mouth.
Last first: Blagojevich is a bad joke that gets worse with each retelling. He’s going on trial now, there’s every likelihood he will be convicted, and that will be that. His case seems an aberrant case of arrogance and corruption and I haven’t written about it because I don’t really see it’s application to the wider debate. I haven’t written about Mark Sanford either, and for the same reason–I feel that these cases lack wider relevance, except perhaps in the area of hypocrisy, and we have no shortage of that.
As for Sestak and Romanoff, all I keep thinking about is that these kinds of negotiations have been part of American history from the beginning. Alexander Hamilton got his debt assumption plan through Congress by making an agreement with Thomas Jefferson at a 1790 dinner that the national capitol would be moved from Philadelphia to the South. The spoils system goes back to Andrew Jackson. When Salmon P. Chase seemed to be emerging as a possible 1864 rival (besides being kind of annoying), Lincoln gave him something else he really wanted–Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. How do you think Lyndon Johnson got to be Vice-President when the Kennedy’s hated him? Same thing for John Nance Garner and FDR, and perhaps it’s the way that Hillary Clinton got to be Secretary of State–they had votes to trade, and a deal was arranged. This may or may not be the way it should be, but it’s the way it is.
We have a system in which the head of state is also the head of his political party, and has a whole lot to gain by making sure his party is run in a way that supports his efforts. If the law that everyone gets so exercised about in these cases was intended to make the executive branch utterly non-political, that would be a pretty big deal, one that would reshape our entire way of doing things… and we all slept through it until now. Even if that is the intention of the law, it’s just not functional. The head of a political party can’t be prohibited from discussing the deployment of his party’s resources in an election.
The penalty for this, by the way, would be a fine and/or a year in jail. The law doesn’t quite treat its own violation as a misdemeanor, but it seems pretty close. Now, I am appalled by the meddling in these races, not because I think the meddling amounted to a bribe, but rather because I object to the administration’s siding with incumbents and not wanting to gamble on an upgrade, particularly in the Spector race.
Wake me up when someone outs a CIA operative for political gain. Until then, I will continue to criticize this administration, as I have been criticizing it, but for its legitimate failings… And one other thing. There are few arguments I dislike more than “Hey, you didn’t kick when your guy did it!” which in this case has been employed in defense or rendition–except it’s not a defense, it’s just a pollution of the discussion with accusations of hypocrisy. If I present you with a wrong, and you present me with a wrong, well, now we have a pile of two wrongs. It’s not football; the penalties don’t offset.
June 4th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Steven,
As David from Cal said in the previous thread, Congress made it illegal for a reason and it is a big deal when the WH breaks the law. I’m not certain what relevance instances prior to this law going into effect has.
Steven stated: “Even if that is the intention of the law, it’s just not functional. The head of a political party can’t be prohibited from discussing the deployment of his party’s resources in an election.”
Translation into “Progressivese”: If you disagree with a law, it is OK to break it and find a way to rationalize it.”
Steven stated: “The penalty for this, by the way, would be a fine and/or a year in jail. The law doesn’t quite treat its own violation as a misdemeanor, but it seems pretty close.”
Translation into “Progressivese”: It is only an itsy bitsy law that is in conflict with my political goals, so nothing to see here.
Steven stated: “Wake me up when someone outs a CIA operative for political gain. Until then, I will continue to criticize this administration, as I have been criticizing it, but for its legitimate failings…”
CIA operatives…Hmmm. Do you mean like the brother of the Afghan President who was an ACTIVE operative (unlike Plame) and outed by the Obama WH? I bet you have TONS of posts about that in the archives from April.
Your second part is a laugher. Again, translated into Progressivese: “I will continue with my milquetoast admonitions of the “One” as long as I perceive that A) it does no political damage or B) he has no chance of winning a second term (meaning no more damage can be done) and I need to have plausible deniability that I am not an ideological clown.”
Steven stated: “And one other thing. There are few arguments I dislike more than “Hey, you didn’t kick when your guy did it!” which in this case has been employed in defense or rendition–except it’s not a defense, it’s just a pollution of the discussion with accusations of hypocrisy. If I present you with a wrong, and you present me with a wrong, well, now we have a pile of two wrongs. It’s not football; the penalties don’t offset.”
Here is the difference, Steven. Only one of us is willing to deliver anything close to serious admonishment to the individuals on our “side” when they present the “wrong.”
And it does undercut your credibility when you attempt to portray your position as having undergone serious thought.
June 4th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
It seems that liberals need to believe bad things about conservatives, even when those beliefs are false. In this post, I believe Steven is implying that the White House outed Valerie Plame for poitical gain. In fact, it is now known that she was not outed by the White House. She was outed by Richard Armitage.
June 4th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Ummm… Richard Armitage is a Republican, and a conservative…
http://mediamatters.org/research/201006020065
June 4th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Come on, David! We all know that Armitage just took the fall for Hitler (Bush) and the devil himself (Cheney).
Remember the old liberal mantra, “The absence of evidence is indicative of a cover-up.”
Seriously, though, your post goes right to the heart of my point. Steven and hantu are ready to believe everything bad about a guy with an “R” after his name and nothing about someone with a “D”.
The evidence does not matter.
June 4th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
C’n'R, your asserting bias over and over again doesn’t make it any more true, but you can go on with that if you enjoy it.
June 4th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Even Bush’s people are defending Obama:
Bush ethics lawyer Painter: “I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied” to this case. In a May 28 post, The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reported of his interview that day with former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter:
Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of “employment” as a “reward for any political activity.”
But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of “political activity” referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.
“Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it’s even more apparent that this is a non issue,” Painter said. “No scandal. Time to move on.”
——
Bush AG Mukasey: Based on White House and Sestak statements, offer “doesn’t violate the statute.” On the May 28 edition of Fox News’ America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is “highly questionable there was a crime,” adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be “made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it’s not, then it doesn’t violate the statute.”
June 4th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Yes, Hantu. But, Armitage was not part of the Bush-Cheney axis and there’s no indication that Armitage divulged the Plame info for political purposes. Nor did Armitage break any law.
June 4th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Right, but you and CnR have been going on about how liberals fabricate nasty things about conservatives. Except here it’s true…
June 4th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
IMHO Steven’s elliptical comment said or implied that:
1. Plame was outed by Bush or Cheney or someone close to them.
2. For political purposes
3. The outing was a serious crime.
None of these is true.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I don’t want to re-argue the whole affair, which is well documented elsewhere. But some quick points:
-The Administration, particularly the VP’s office, was aggressively going after Joe Wilson after he wrote his op-ed (proven accurate) after President Bush mentioned Iraq and Niger.
-Libby stated that he spoke with the VP about Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, as they were preparing to go after Wilson.
-The VP claims he doesn’t recall- the special prosecutor didn’t believe this and neither did the jury, but didn’t have evidence to charge Cheney.
-Libby leaked the name and her status to a number of reporters- absolutely for political purposes
-Armitage was the original leak to Novak- he claims accidentally, Novak said otherwise
-Karl Rove confirmed Plame’s CIA role to Novak and spoke to another reporter about it- he claims the reporter told him, but there is some inconsistency with his testimony and other White House officials. In fairness, the special prosecutor decided not to charge Rove, so it’s unlikely that he’s involved.
The Vice President’s Chief of Staff was sentenced to jail time as a result of this- the most senior White House staffer to be convicted of a felony in ages, so not sure why you can dismiss this so flippantly.
Now, I do believe that President Bush had nothing to do with this, and was genuinely disturbed to find out that this was going on. Many have reported that this is the crux of the distance between the President and Cheney.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Libby was convicted of perjury. In my opinion it was a bum rap. He claimed not to remember something that had occurred a long time before. Given how many different things he dealt with, I found his not remembering plausible. The jury did not.
Libby wasn’t convicted of leaking Plame. He wasn’t accused of leaking Plame. He couldn’t have been so accused, because the leak of Plame was not a crime.
Hantu, I’m glad you agree that Armitage was the original leaker. I am mystified by what political purpose was served by Libby supposedly leading Plame subsequently. The fact that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent doesn’t hurt Wilson’s credibility. If anything, it’s the reverse.
June 5th, 2010 at 7:17 am
I suspect it was something similar, in principle, to attempting to impeach a sitting president on blowjob charges…
With regard to Libby, I remember both the Special Prosecutor and the jury saying that the discussions about Plame weren’t some small passing reference in a busy day. He spent a lot of time talking about the Op-Ed with a number of different people, and the idea of talking to reporters about it was central to the strategy. They also both felt that he was the fall guy for someone else (presumably the VP).
Their intent was to question Wilson’s credibility by painting him as someone who got a paid junket because of who his wife was…
If you remember, it was during this time that Cheney’s office would leak something to reporters, solely so that Cheney or the President could then cite the published report as an independent validation of something they said. Something that Cheney remains very good at till today.
He’s really done more damage to the Republican party than anyone over the past 20 years… I think President Bush probably gets too much of a bad rap. His greatest fault was a lack of intellectual curiosity and an ideologically rigid belief system. Bad, but nothing particularly unique in American history. That he was so poorly served by those he appointed (and he has a lot of blame here), particularly the VP, was made it such a disaster.
It’s amazing that Cheney and his daughter are still welcome at GOP events. Even more amazing that his cronies, like Frank Gaffney, who have been proven wrong about EVERY SINGLE prediction they made about foreign policy are still treated as some sort of elite thinker in some conservative circles. Another sign of the stagnation of the movement….
June 5th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Steven, your asserting there is no bias over and over again doesn’t make it any less true, but you can go on with that if you enjoy it.
You know, you state that you want to discuss topics relevant to the “wider debate”, yet you choose topics that are almost all outdated, about a President that has been out of office for 1 1/2 years (or his party), and that the majority of Americans disagree with you about (in many cases, overwhelmingly).
The “wider debate” (and more important) is why our government owns car companies and banks. Even worse, they are being bludgeoned and intimidated by the government. We have one of the most powerful US Senators stating: “Corporations that received bailout funding from the federal government should not be permitted to use taxpayer money to influence elections.”
Great, our government is now telling corporations how to spend their money. Not exactly the vision the FF’s had in mind. Can you say corporatism?
The “wider debate” is our government looking to “reinvent journalism” through the FTC http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf
Take a look at page 15. “Additional funds to sustain journalism?” This should make EVERY American shudder, even as a “Discussion Draft”. Yet, you (even as a journalist) and the other useful idiots who are blind to everything but “R” and “D” are worried about a shamed ex-President who brought this country to the brink of financial disaster along with a willing Congress.
Go back through your archives. Compare your criticisms about Gitmo between each President. One started it, the other has kept it open despite promises.
Then compare The Patriot Act.
Then Afghanistan.
Then Iraq. Aren’t we supposed to be out by now?
I’d bet a year’s salary that the condemnations are one-sided.
The fact is, if you were honest with yourself and us, you would admit to having scorn for Carville, Begala, Limbaugh, Hannity (well, the last two).
Yet, you are no different than those clowns.
June 5th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Hantu stated: “I suspect it was something similar, in principle, to attempting to impeach a sitting president on blowjob charges…”
Thanks for making my point. It is almost like you and Steven are willing accomplices.
The last I knew, Bill Clinton lied in court to beat a civil lawsuit by a citizen of the United States. However, even though Progressives like you claim to be for the rights of the little guy against power, you cheer her right to a fair civil trial being steamrolled by one of the most powerful people in the world.
What were the words I heard over and over to describe her during the episode, “white trash”?
I can’t help being reminded of the words by the Progressive saint, Margaret Sanger, “human weeds” to describe Jews, blacks, hispanics, Catholics, the disabled, and the poor.
Progressivism, evil then, evil now.
June 6th, 2010 at 10:37 am
“Their intent was to question Wilson’s credibility by painting him as someone who got a paid junket because of who his wife was…”
Hantu, does this really make sense? Joe Wilson qualifications for his mission don’t depend on his wife’s job. Either he was qualified or he wasn’t. If anything, his wife’s qualifications made him look a bit better.
Can you imagine criticizing Barack Obama because his wife has a law degree from a top school? Or, criticizing Bush because his wife is a librarian and teacher? Do you think less of Dan Quayle because his wife is a lawyer and a novelist?
The established fact, which I believe you agree with, is that Plame’s name was leaked accidentally by Armitage. As I understand it, Plame’s status as a CIA operative was fairly widely known.* An intensive investigation found no evidence that the White House leaked the name. I’m not sure that a subsequent leak is even possible. Once something is public, the cat is out of the bag. And, the supposed political reason for the non-existant White House leak doesn’t even make sense.
*A few years ago a cousin of mine would never tell the family which government agency he worked for. However, the cat was out of the bag when we found out that he worked in the CIA Building.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The outing of Valerie Plame was relatively unimportant to our national security. It was blown up by Dems and their media allies because it was used to attack Republicans.
Today’s news reports a far worse security breach. This guy allegedly leaked HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of classifed records. But, this case will go under the radar because is isn’t useful to attack Republicans.
Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/
June 8th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I made a similar post yesterday but it never appeared. I’ll assume it was a technical issue.
Steven,
Your denying bias over and over again doesn’t make it any more untrue, but you can go on with that if you enjoy it.
Heck, you even admitted it in 2008. I wish you would just be as honest with us now. You stated:
Sure, I’m a Hypocrite, But That’s Not Important Right Now
When Michael Isikoff was constantly on TV keeping the Monica Lewinsky story alive, I found him to be kind of irritating, as that story never should have been a story. However, now that he’s on the McCain campaign’s ties to Freddie Mac, I’m kind of digging him.
http://www.wholesomereading.com/2008/09/28/sure-im-a-hypocrite-but-thats-not-important-right-now/
Face it. You are no different than Olbermann, Maddow, Hannity, or Limbaugh other than I’ve never heard them claim they were not biased.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
A quick note on disappearing comments: I have the blog set up so that if we’ve never seen you before, I have to approve you once and then you’re free to post. If you post from different a ISP each time (which seems to happen), I’m forced to do it again. This seems to happen for a few of our regulars. I’d rather just leave it open, but if I didn’t we’d be overwhelmed by crazy amounts of spam.
Lately, for reasons I don’t quite understand, I mark comments as approved (I’ve never denied a non-spammer) but they haven’t always shown up here on the site. I hope to upgrade the wordpress platform shortly, and perhaps that will solve the problem. I emphasize that this is kind of a random occurrence and doesn’t seem to be affecting the vast majority of comments.
Apologies for a few fallow days… I’ll be back shortly.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
No problem, Steven.
I do post from work and from home, so that is surely the problem along with some regular glitches in your software platform.
June 26th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
You don’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Just because everybody else is doing it doesn’t make it okay. If you get caught cheating on your taxes, trying telling the judge that you should get off because everyone else is doing it. That won’t fly.
Bottom line, the law says that it’s illegal. If you think it should not be illegal, then change the law.