It isn't all that often that a political tactician at Karl Rove's level gives you a sneak preview of their campaign strategy, but that's exactly what happened on Meet The Press yesterday. Democratic candidates should marshal their arguments against these talking points, because they're going to need them next year.
There are a number of other cases pending which also deal with dissenting opinions being expressed at presidential appearances, and the fact that the Bush Administration has settled one of these for $80,000 is certainly good news for these cases, and for the First Amendment. I have written before about the ACLU's evidence in one of these cases, a heavily-redacted copy of the "Presidential Advance Manual," which shows a clear White House policy of unconstitutional disdain for such opposing viewpoints.
[ Posted Wednesday, August 8th, 2007 – 03:00 UTC ]
Farce returned his attention to her handbag. Digging past the outrageous wads of bills, he found two objects at the bottom. He pulled the first out. It was a gigantic medieval shield, something a knight in full armor would carry into battle. He pulled it out by its straps, and slowly turned it over to reveal the text of the Constitution on the face of it. He noticed right away that in the midst of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment had indeed been blacked out. Crudely spray painted on top of it in blood red letters was the phrase: "In Gonzales we trust."
There is a bigger question than "Is it legal?" or "How can we change the law to make it legal?" which must also be addressed: "Should it be legal?" Due to the secrecy surrounding the law in Congress (national secrecy sometimes means closed sessions and secret laws), this debate may have to happen among the public, since the lawmakers may be unable to legally discuss the issue.
This argument will fall along the fault line of those who strongly believe in civil liberties (even if it makes intelligence and law enforcement work harder), and those who believe in security at all costs (even if it means their phone will occasionally be tapped by a computer).
Enter a quirky Texan with a lot of money to spend named H. Ross Perot. He forced the issue into the campaign in a big way. He started renting television time in half-hour chunks and giving what were essentially infomercials on the subject of the deficit. He forced Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush to confront the issue. And he also got almost one vote in five on election day.
This is another reason the story isn't getting much play in the media. They seem to be accepting the spin from the White House that "this Congress can't do anything but investigate and obstruct."
President Bush isn't going to back down, either. Even if a delegation from the Republican National Committee, with leading Republicans from the House and Senate, and even the ghost of Ronald Reagan marched down to the White House to "lay down the law" -- in other words, to tell him: "Mr. President, we will let you destroy your presidential legacy, but we will not allow you to destroy the entire national Republican party" -- even then, I just don't see Bush and Cheney backing down. Nixon, remember, did resign when faced with such a delegation from his own party, but I doubt Bush and Cheney will follow his example.
Because the White House has just kicked sand in the face of Congress, slapped Congress in the face with a glove, called Congress' mother dirty names, stolen Congress' date to the prom, dumped a full glass of beer over Congress' head, knocked a chip off Congress' shoulder, and challenged Congress to pistols at dawn. All at the same time. The Bush administration's intent couldn't be clearer if it was made of the finest Waterford crystal
In other news from "G Tro N," D.C., FEMA appears to have been taken over by laywers who care more about protecting the agency's rear end than about U.S. citizens' health.
This falls into the realm of shocking and disgusting.