REPUBLICANS JUST DON’T GET IT
THE U.S. ATTORNEY KERFUFFLE—MUCH
ADO ABOUT LESS THAN NOTHING
by
Ken Eliasberg
Democrats are determined to follow Oscar Wilde’s old suggestion of never focusing on the necessary when the irrelevant is available. Of course there are obvious reasons for their ceaseless effort to find a scandal where none exists—one is that they have nothing else to offer, and the second is that they want 2008 so bad that they can taste it. And Republicans—weak, weary, and wimpy—just don’t get it—THEY DON’T LIKE YOU! In fact, it isn’t even about you. It’s about power—their lust for what you now have. So stop apologizing for sins that you did not commit or transgressions that mean nothing. As Bill Clinton so vigorously asserted when his hand was caught in Monica’s cookie jar, “I have to get back to work” —for the country no less (he was busy, you will recall, turning the White House into a whore house).
The Dems are going to do nothing but engage in a two-year scorched
earth oversight approach, investigating every little mole hill, real or imaginary, and trying to turn it into a mountain. And Republicans, in general, and Bush, in particular don’t get it—IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU; IT’S ABOUT POWER!! So get out of your customary defensive posture, and tell them—politely, of course—to either get serious or get out of your way. Of course this will never happen. Several columns ago, I referred to Thomas Sowell’s statement about the difference between Dems and Republicans, i.e. when Dems are criticized (whether guilty or not, but particularly when guilty), they immediately counterattack; when Republicans are criticized (particularly when not guilty, which, more often than not, is the case) they immediately go into their defensive posture. You know—somewhere between an ineffective response to an outright grovel. No wonder Republican troops are somewhat dismayed—it is difficult—nay, painful—to carry water for a leadership that refuses to stand up for itself. In this regard, Sowell (a Hoover scholar for whom I have considerable respect) further observed re the distinction between the 2 parties: The Republicans are disappointing, the Dem are dangerous). Once again, Professor Sowell is right on the money. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am (as are many others) watching various Republican elected officials do the G.O.P. grovel; I’m beginning to think that the “G” in G.O.P. stands for gutless.
The latest glaring example of this political theatre of the absurd is the dust up at the office of the Attorney General over the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys. Wait up, didn’t this happen before. Of course, it did. But that was Bill Clinton who fired 93 U.S. Attornies, saving only one in New Jersey at the request of then Senator Bill Bradley. Let me see, Bush fires 8 attornies, and the Dems go bonkers. Clinton fires 93—almost all of them—and all you get from the Republicans is a mild tsk, tsk. There are 2 reasons for the disparity of response, of course. The first is, as already observed at great lenth, Republicans don’t fight back. The second is equally disturbing: Clinton is a Dem, and the Media gives him a pass; Bush is a Republican, and the Media holds the Dem’s coat while they pummel the hell out of the president on a strictly phony charge (unless of course, they decide to assist in the pummeling by piling on).
Bush, they argue, fired the attorneys for political reasons. And your point is? Of course, they were fired for political reasons; that is the prerogative of the President. Why do you think Clinton fired all 93 of the then U.S. Attornies? Because he wanted his people in, and he was entitled to have his people in. How then is Bush’s situation different. Aside from the obvious mathematics of the situation—i.e. Bush fired 85 less attornies than did Clinton—the situation with Clinton was substantively far worse. No one has offered up a hint that Bush fired an attorney to prevent or frustrate an ongoing investigation. Quite to the contrary, in the case of some of these attornies they were fired because they failed to conduct an investigation where one was called for. Clinton, onthe other hand, fired a couple who were actually at work on a corruption investigation, e.g. Dan Rostenkowski, who, you will recall, was found guilty of a transgression, was removed from office, went to jail, and was later pardoned by Clinton - way to go, Bill.
In the current case, there is, in the words of Gertrude Stein, no there, there “although, on the basis of the incredibly weak and defensive response of Gonzalez, one might wonder. No, Gonzalez did nothing wrong in firing these guys. What he may have done wrong was fail to adequately apprise Congress of the firings, a miniscule transgression unworthy of comment let alone the current furor. What he also may have done wrong is not be completely forthright with regard to his role, if any, in the firing. That is, he seems to have taken the position that he played no role in the firing. This appears to be in direct conflict with the testimony of his recently resigned Chief of Staff, Mr. Sampson. This makes it look like he is either lying or doesn’t know what the hell’s going on in his own shop. This may prove to be either acutely embarrassing or the occasion for his dismissal. While it seems clear to me that there is nothing here of any great moment, the situation has been so badly handled as to definitely put Gonzalez’s job in jeopardy.
In any and all events, what Gonzalez has clearly done wrong is become so pathetically defensive as to make you wonder about his qualifications to serve in that position. In other words, I certainly would not even reprimand him for firing the U.S. Attornies, but I would give serious consideration to firing him for his pathetic response to the situation, and the embarrassment which it has occasioned, once it had arisen. One thing is for sure, based on his less than brilliant treatment of this situation, Gonzalez is not going to be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
Also, how stupid was it to say that these attornies were being fired for performance reasons. Did they expect these attornies to just sit by and say, of course, we’re incompetent. In addition to being gutless, some times some Republicans are brainless, and I’m afraid Gonzales is beginning to look like one of them.
Another point that bothered me at first was what I perceived to be the Bush Administration’s conciliatory position of granting Congress some role in future firing decisions. According to the Wall St. Jl’s. online discussion of the matter—see Meltdown at Justice, March 12, 2007—“[L]ast week, under pressure from Congress, Mr. Gonzales said he and Mr. Bush wouldn’t object if Congress wanted to strip him of his abililty to replace U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation and give that power to a district judge.” While characteristic of the Republican leadership’s readiness to roll over and play dead, this would be a tragic mistake. It would be a concession that, in my opinion, transgresses on the separation of powers. This is even more disturbing in view of the fact that in recent years there has been a very disturbing trend toward such a breakdown in the separation of powers—the Judiciary legislating, and now with this offer and Congress’s Resolutions on the War, of the legislature trying to execute. This must be stopped—Judges should judge, legislators should legislate, and the executive branch is to be the sole executor of those functions properly within the purview of the executive branch.
Back to the point - or the nonpoint, if you will. Republicans just don’t seem to get it—for the Dems this is a war, not with Osama, but with you. They want the White House back, they will say or do anything to achieve this result, and you, Mr. Bush, are in the way. It’s not personal, although a disinterested observer might find that hard to believe in view of the vitriol directed at you, Mr. Bush. So get over it and get on with it. The next two years are going to be an unrelenting assault on you—your character, your intelligence, your competence, your alleged wrongdoings, your suitability to serve—it’s all garbage. So pay no mind to it. You have less than 2 years left, and nothing to lose, since you won’t be on the ballot in 2008. Therefore you can afford to be bold—in either counterattacking the Dems or offering up important legislation. Although you know it won’t go through—it is the easiest way to expose not only the Dems hypocrisy, but their utter indifference to the health and well-being of this country.
As noted above, the Dems are going to do nothing but launch a series of unending oversight investigations into sins, real and imaginary. If the Bush Administration handles each of these as ineptly as they have handled the Gonzales, Libby, and Berger dust ups, it’s going to be death by a thousand cuts. Don’t these guys ever learn anything???