Today's escape from losing his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee caps Joe Lieberman's career of having it both ways in two decades of sanctimonious posturing and backroom politicking.
With a novelist's eye for the absurd, Joan Didion nailed him in her reporting of the 2000 election campaign:
"Senator Lieberman, who had come to the nation's attention as the hedge player who had previously seized center stage by managing both to denounce the president [Bill Clinton] for "disgraceful" and "immoral" behavior and to vote against his conviction (similarly, he had in 1991 both voiced support for and voted against the confirmation of Clarence Thomas) was not, except to the press, an immediately engaging personality...
"His speech patterns, grounded in the burdens he bore for the rest of us and the personal rewards he had received from God for bearing it, tended to self-congratulation."
Lieberman called today's verdict “fair and forward-looking” and one of “reconciliation and not retribution,” but others, like this constituent, will see it as another slithering out of responsibility for his actions by the weasel who was voted out by his party in the 2006 primaries but kept his seat when Republicans named a non-entity to throw the three-way race his way.
The President-Elect and Senate Democrats may congratulate themselves on today's act of anonymous generosity, but Connecticut residents who are enraged by and stuck with Lieberman's smug, self-righteous, self-serving wrong-headedness won't join in the celebration.
Showing posts with label 2000 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2000 elections. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Clarence Thomas' Confession
By writing his memoirs and promoting them on 60 Minutes, Clarence Thomas has not only breached the traditional Supreme Court wall of personal privacy but, in effect, made it clear that his critical vote to give George W. Bush the presidency in 2000 should never have been cast.
Given the bitterness and disdain he now publicly expresses for Democratic Senators over their behavior during his confirmation hearings in 1991, how could he possibly not have recused himself from the case that would give the presidency to their party or, as it actually did by a 5-4 vote, to the Republicans and the son of the man who named him to the court at that?
Could there be a case in which a Justice is compromised by personal prejudice any more clearly?
In his blog on The Hill web site, old Washington hand Brent Budowsky notes the unprecedented event of a Justice “using the Court’s return as a book promotion to remind the world of his enemies, demons, biases and vendettas.”
Budowsky, a former Democratic aide in Congress who advises politicians of both parties, went on to suggest that Thomas “should now recuse himself from any cases involving any litigants who opposed his confirmation, because his attacks on them destroy any pretense of judicial impartiality. This is a man with a chip on his shoulder, axes to grind and scores to settle.”
He was the same man in December, 2000 when he cast the only vote in the United States that counted to make George W. Bush the 43rd President. Almost seven years later, he is still so full of the anger behind that vote that he can’t resist confessing how wrong it was of him to cast it.
Given the bitterness and disdain he now publicly expresses for Democratic Senators over their behavior during his confirmation hearings in 1991, how could he possibly not have recused himself from the case that would give the presidency to their party or, as it actually did by a 5-4 vote, to the Republicans and the son of the man who named him to the court at that?
Could there be a case in which a Justice is compromised by personal prejudice any more clearly?
In his blog on The Hill web site, old Washington hand Brent Budowsky notes the unprecedented event of a Justice “using the Court’s return as a book promotion to remind the world of his enemies, demons, biases and vendettas.”
Budowsky, a former Democratic aide in Congress who advises politicians of both parties, went on to suggest that Thomas “should now recuse himself from any cases involving any litigants who opposed his confirmation, because his attacks on them destroy any pretense of judicial impartiality. This is a man with a chip on his shoulder, axes to grind and scores to settle.”
He was the same man in December, 2000 when he cast the only vote in the United States that counted to make George W. Bush the 43rd President. Almost seven years later, he is still so full of the anger behind that vote that he can’t resist confessing how wrong it was of him to cast it.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Lasting Losses of 9/11/01
That morning, when the second airliner hit the Twin Towers, life changed for every American, starting with the inane man who was reading “The Pet Goat” to second-graders in Sarasota, Florida. None of us would ever again feel as safe as we had before, and the accidental President who emerged from the disputed 2000 election would be empowered to change our lives in ways that would have otherwise been unimaginable.
Without 9/11, we would not now be enmeshed in an endless war in Iraq against the will of a majority of our people, be subjected to unthinkable government surveillance and invasions of privacy, and facing an election year in which voters with good reason seem to have lost faith in all politicians.
What happened that day might have, as it first appeared, brought us together in a shared sense of purpose arising from shock and grief. But the President who could have nurtured that unity was surrounded by politicians who saw fear as a way to win elections and crackpots who took it as an opportunity to test their theories of dominating the world with American military power.
With any other President in the Oval Office that day, we would be living in a different post-9/11 world than the one Bush, Cheney and their crew created.
Osama bin Laden’s murderous minions had to be lucky as well as cunning and evil to cause as much devastation as they did that day and, with the help of this Administration, in the six years since. On our part, we have much more to repair in America than Ground Zero in Manhattan.
Without 9/11, we would not now be enmeshed in an endless war in Iraq against the will of a majority of our people, be subjected to unthinkable government surveillance and invasions of privacy, and facing an election year in which voters with good reason seem to have lost faith in all politicians.
What happened that day might have, as it first appeared, brought us together in a shared sense of purpose arising from shock and grief. But the President who could have nurtured that unity was surrounded by politicians who saw fear as a way to win elections and crackpots who took it as an opportunity to test their theories of dominating the world with American military power.
With any other President in the Oval Office that day, we would be living in a different post-9/11 world than the one Bush, Cheney and their crew created.
Osama bin Laden’s murderous minions had to be lucky as well as cunning and evil to cause as much devastation as they did that day and, with the help of this Administration, in the six years since. On our part, we have much more to repair in America than Ground Zero in Manhattan.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
President Gore, Lame Duck
Reading “Going After Gore” in the current Vanity Fair, another reminder of the disaster that befell the nation in November, 2000 and the media's share of the blame, prompts a re-posting of this what-if from last December:
As Al Gore faces his final years in the White House, history will view his two terms as disappointing.
After a razor-thin victory over George Bush in 2000, the new President was ultra-cautious.
Republicans labeled him “Al Bore” for failing to pursue a muscular foreign policy and for endless consultations with UN members, NATO allies, even potential adversaries such as North Korea and Iran.
Then he overreacted to such criticism, using an intelligence report in August, 2001, as pretext for striking defenseless camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, arousing protests throughout the Middle East over the death of a populist leader, Osama bin Laden, and his followers.
Even more controversial was Gore’s expulsion of fifteen visitors from our ally, Saudi Arabia, for what Rush Limbaugh sarcastically termed “the heinous crime of taking flying lessons.”
The furor drove oil prices to $30 a barrel, with public protest bringing the President’s approval ratings down to 50 percent.
After that, Gore reverted to consensus by pushing for UN inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. This diplomatic waffling, critics claim, diminished the U.S.’s standing in the world.
On the domestic front, the President refused to stimulate the economy with tax cuts, despite an ongoing budget surplus, and pushed for crippling limits on industrial emissions to reduce the so-called greenhouse effect.
Despite such gaffes, Gore narrowly won reelection in 2004 by reverting to Bill Clinton’s ploy of “It’s the economy, stupid.” His opponent, Steve Forbes, never managed to stir voters with his proposal of a flat income tax.
As 2008 approaches, the blandness of the Gore years may end. Vice-President Joe Lieberman, with a lock on the Democratic nomination, favors an aggressive American stance in the world. He will likely face George W. Bush, who claims Gore's election sent the country into a downward spiral.
A major issue will be terrorism which, relatively quiescent in eight years of diplomatic bumbling, may come to the fore again when a new President has America acting like a superpower again.
The question in 2008 will be: How do we let the rest of the world know we can no longer be pushed around?
As Al Gore faces his final years in the White House, history will view his two terms as disappointing.
After a razor-thin victory over George Bush in 2000, the new President was ultra-cautious.
Republicans labeled him “Al Bore” for failing to pursue a muscular foreign policy and for endless consultations with UN members, NATO allies, even potential adversaries such as North Korea and Iran.
Then he overreacted to such criticism, using an intelligence report in August, 2001, as pretext for striking defenseless camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, arousing protests throughout the Middle East over the death of a populist leader, Osama bin Laden, and his followers.
Even more controversial was Gore’s expulsion of fifteen visitors from our ally, Saudi Arabia, for what Rush Limbaugh sarcastically termed “the heinous crime of taking flying lessons.”
The furor drove oil prices to $30 a barrel, with public protest bringing the President’s approval ratings down to 50 percent.
After that, Gore reverted to consensus by pushing for UN inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. This diplomatic waffling, critics claim, diminished the U.S.’s standing in the world.
On the domestic front, the President refused to stimulate the economy with tax cuts, despite an ongoing budget surplus, and pushed for crippling limits on industrial emissions to reduce the so-called greenhouse effect.
Despite such gaffes, Gore narrowly won reelection in 2004 by reverting to Bill Clinton’s ploy of “It’s the economy, stupid.” His opponent, Steve Forbes, never managed to stir voters with his proposal of a flat income tax.
As 2008 approaches, the blandness of the Gore years may end. Vice-President Joe Lieberman, with a lock on the Democratic nomination, favors an aggressive American stance in the world. He will likely face George W. Bush, who claims Gore's election sent the country into a downward spiral.
A major issue will be terrorism which, relatively quiescent in eight years of diplomatic bumbling, may come to the fore again when a new President has America acting like a superpower again.
The question in 2008 will be: How do we let the rest of the world know we can no longer be pushed around?
A Conservative's Tears
In 1990, when Supreme Court Justice David Souter was sworn in, he said, “Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right."
Ten years later, we now find out, his mind, heart and being were troubled by the 5-4 decision to stop the Florida vote recount and hand the presidency to George W. Bush, even though he could not possibly have imagined how many human lives would be changed by that decision.
In his new book, “The Nine,” Jeffrey Toobin writes that while the other justices put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case.
“For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice...At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”
The irony of Souter’s dissent in that case and distress afterward lies in the fact that he was appointed to the Court by George W. Bush’s father in the belief that he was a true conservative. He was and is, but not in the warped sense that the Bushes have given the word in the years since.
Ten years later, we now find out, his mind, heart and being were troubled by the 5-4 decision to stop the Florida vote recount and hand the presidency to George W. Bush, even though he could not possibly have imagined how many human lives would be changed by that decision.
In his new book, “The Nine,” Jeffrey Toobin writes that while the other justices put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case.
“For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice...At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”
The irony of Souter’s dissent in that case and distress afterward lies in the fact that he was appointed to the Court by George W. Bush’s father in the belief that he was a true conservative. He was and is, but not in the warped sense that the Bushes have given the word in the years since.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The McCain Mutiny
With mass departures today from his campaign staff, it may be time to write John McCain’s political obituary. The captain of the Straight Talk Express deserves to go out on his shield like the honorable warrior he has always been.
In an eerie parallel to Herman Wouk’s “The Caine Mutiny,” the Senator from Arizona morphed from a lifelong by-the-book career serviceman to the unhinged Capt. Queeg of the popular 1950’s novel, play and movie.
In the anger over his support for an insane war, it would be an injustice if McCain’s service to his country were swept out with the Iraq wreckage. Unlike Bush, Cheney and, yes, Bill Clinton, he served and suffered through Vietnam, another unjust war not of his making.
Born in the Panama Canal Zone where his father, an Admiral, was stationed, John Sidney McCain III went to Annapolis, was wounded in Vietnam, and captured and tortured during his five and a half years as a prisoner, most of it in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.”
As a Senator, he has advocated gun control, campaign finance reform and a humane approach to immigration legislation.
McCain might have been a quirky President, but unlike Bush, an honorable one if he hadn’t been derailed by the Rove smear machine in 2000 and his own mistakes for 2008.
But the Republican field of candidates he leaves behind provides the best possible contrast to his integrity.
Ave et vale, Senator.
In an eerie parallel to Herman Wouk’s “The Caine Mutiny,” the Senator from Arizona morphed from a lifelong by-the-book career serviceman to the unhinged Capt. Queeg of the popular 1950’s novel, play and movie.
In the anger over his support for an insane war, it would be an injustice if McCain’s service to his country were swept out with the Iraq wreckage. Unlike Bush, Cheney and, yes, Bill Clinton, he served and suffered through Vietnam, another unjust war not of his making.
Born in the Panama Canal Zone where his father, an Admiral, was stationed, John Sidney McCain III went to Annapolis, was wounded in Vietnam, and captured and tortured during his five and a half years as a prisoner, most of it in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.”
As a Senator, he has advocated gun control, campaign finance reform and a humane approach to immigration legislation.
McCain might have been a quirky President, but unlike Bush, an honorable one if he hadn’t been derailed by the Rove smear machine in 2000 and his own mistakes for 2008.
But the Republican field of candidates he leaves behind provides the best possible contrast to his integrity.
Ave et vale, Senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)