I haven't visited all the blogs I like, but of those few that I have, I didn't see anything about Scooter. Though I felt a full pardon was in order, I'm happy George commuted his sentence. In a "much ado about nothing" case, it would have sucked out loud if Libby had to do time. Without backing out to double check, I think it was the article that Yahoo.com offered that spoke of Libby as an example of the administration's stifling of dissent. This is laughable. Wilson's article was proven to be garbage and distortions and that's considered dissent? A break is required for me here. In all I've read about regarding this case, I don't even see where there was an attempt to "out" anyone, though there was a leak. Too bad the leaker didn't take any heat at all.
In any case, I think one has to credit Bush with consistency. He said he didn't want to mess with the decision in the case, but you know he didn't want to see Libby crucified. He satisfied both with his commutation. Libby was convicted (despite how wrong it was), and Bush showed respect for the process by NOT pardoning, though a pardon isn't necessarily a show of disrespect for the process. After all, he was tried, convicted and sentenced, and, he still has to pay big bucks and has a criminal record...for not remembering. At least he's free.
34 comments:
You are right on about this! The sites I have read that are so outraged, are overlooking facts. They just hate Bush and love the opportunity to show it.
Since the real leaker (Armitage) was a Democrat, they don't talk about that.
I don't know Armitage's political leanings, but I know he was no fan of Bush.
mom2--
Armitage is not a Democrat.
marshall--
Sandy Burglar was only fined $50,000 and given 100 hours of community service for destroying documents from the National Archives about Clinton's handling of terrorism. Libby's sentence was indeed excessive, and Bush did a good thing by commuting the jail sentence.
I stand corrected.
After reading more about him, I believe that the reason the liberals are not interested in pursuing him is because they wanted to go after someone that they could link with the President by way of Cheney. The hate Bush gang just can't wait for an election. They have cried voter fraud for the entire time that Bush has been in office.
One could weep over the lack of any serious conviction here. I'm sorry, but this is not the last straw, but a whole bushel of straw dumped upon the poor camel now writhing on the ground because it's back was broken years ago.
The reason for the outrage (as opposed to rage) is simple. The public acknowledgment that Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst irreparably damaged our national security, as she was chief analyst on WMD for Iraq and Iran. Not only was her career ended, but lives were put in danger, the lives of her foreign contacts who were, to a person, committing treason by supplying her with information. With her gone, a senior analyst on an issue of some importance was lost. None of that mattered, however, in the pursuit of chief partisan payback.
Libby is no different from the rest of the Bush Administration, except on one point. He was actually taken to court for lying, and he was convicted of doing so. By using the "I don't recall" defense, Libby pulled on Fitzgerald what Gonzalez continually plays on Congress. Fitzgerald, luckily, is both smarter and more brave than the Democrats, and he called Libby's bluff.
I for one am not surprised by this, as I indicated in my own comments. I think the general cry of outrage is indicative of the fact that, unlike your commenters here, the rest of us, including the enabling press, get it. That you don't says volumes about your priorities.
It IS easier to believe that everyone who disagrees with this sidestepping of the judicial system disagrees merely because they're unthinking buffoons who hate Bush and will always act in opposition to him regardless.
But Geoffrey is correct, we are opposed to injustice and hate to see it when the leader of the free world willingly takes part in it.
Have evidence that the trial was wrong and that the jury of his peers was rigged and the judge bought out? Bring it forward.
Otherwise, admit this is just more cynical political maneuvering (of the sort that Clinton did when he pardoned his cronies) and a mockery of our American ideals.
Won't you join us in some righteous indignation?
We ARE indignant, Dan (& welcome by the way). We're indignant over the insignificant aspect of going after Libby who was supposedly protecting Bush, Cheney or Rove, and then do nothing with the person who actually "outed" Valerie Plame. How is this hard to fathom? For all that Geoff said, for all the damage done, don't you think Armitage should be gettting a major whipping by now? But he isn't tight with Bush & Co. so I guess it really doesn't matter about all of what Geoff spoke in his second paragraph. And apparently, the whole time they were doggin' Libby, they already knew that Armitage was their man. I just don't get it. So yes, Dan. There does seem to be a bit of buffoonery at play here.
As to the "I don't recall" defense, as I understand it, there were others testifying in that manner. Why is it only Libby can't use it? I think the fact that this guy, who by most accounts has been a good servant of his country, can have his career ruined over some statement he supposedly made months or years before his interview and then not recall it to the satisfaction of others, that seems pretty unjust to me. To deal with all that over an insignificant remark and then to be convicted of lying over something that apparently isn't worth further indictments when they have the guy who leaked. I mean, don't give me any crap about injustice in the face of this petty stuff. It's weak, I tell ya. If this is the straw, Geoff, that camel hasn't even felt it. The fact that Armitage, who isn't really in the Bush fan club, is still working, suggests a get Bush angle to the whole Libby case.
Jason,
I do believe this is your first posting here at Marshall Art's, though you've emailed me directly. I welcome you.
"The fact that Armitage, who isn't really in the Bush fan club, is still working, suggests a get Bush angle to the whole Libby case."
Then provide some real evidence and not just heresay to prove that somehow the judge and jury were compromised and this trial was a kangaroo court.
In fact, Bush claimed that the jury did a fine job, so perhaps you need to provide some evidence showing how he's in this plot to undo himself.
We don't oppose Bush because we hate him. That's fifth grade.
We oppose Bush because we don't trust him and because he seems to be setting himself above the law. The judge and jury in this case (not the prosecutor) found that to be the case with Libby.
Bush is circumventing that because this guy is a crony and it is wrong.
"Bush is circumventing that because this guy is a crony and it is wrong."
Yet, you believe him when he said he thought the jury did a fine job. Aren't you kinda picking out the parts you like? And frankly, the jury could indeed have done a fine job based on their judgement of the evidence and testimony presented. That doesn't mean their conclusion is the right one for the situation, only for the situation as presented in court.
And frankly, I don't recall too many who ever trusted Bush who claim not to trust him now. For most on the left, the lack of trust preceded any evidence to support it, and now, such as the Libby case is used as "another" point in their favor.
Marshall, in your little dialogue with Dan Trabue, you say that we libs didn't trust Bush before there was evidence that he was, in fact, untrustworthy. In fact, it is wise to withhold trust from any public figure; Bush has proven himself incredibly adept at showing himself untrustworthy. It's about the only thing he's good at.
I used to say that Bush and his Administration were the anti-Midas. Rather than gold, everything they touched turned into a stinking pile of poo. I have yet to see evidence that this is not in fact the case.
Keith Olbermann's little commentary last night just about sums it all up. This is both outrageous and easy to understand. Everyone, but those die-hard 30%ers, gets it.
The idea that Bush, the bloodiest governor in modern times - 158 death warrants signed, not a single commutation - carefully weighed evidence, court docs, etc. is laughable on its face. There is no evidence he has ever done anything of the sort. Ever. For a guy getting 2 and a half years for perjury and obstruction of justice, however, he spends weeks agonizing. I also have Iraqi WMDs buried in my backyard; Osama buried them there one night while we were sleeping.
Geoff,
Pardon me, but referring to Keith Olberman won't enhance your reputation one iota. I fear it lessens it considerably. Call upon a liberal source if you must, don't debase yourself by choosing KO.
I would also suspect your subjective speculation regarding the work Bush may or may not have put into either reviewing Texas cases during his governorship or his current labors regarding Libby. In fact, considering charges by you and Dan and others of cronyism, one would think it logical that he WOULD spend time on the case of an associate or friend. In addition, though the "spectre" of a pardon still looms over the fears of you and yours, his statement of respecting the court decision is consistent with your "evidence" of 158 warrants signed without a commutation. Not surprising that you'd use it against him, however.
Geoff,
I would also say that it really isn't a matter of withholding trust of a new president until he has proven himself that is the problem, but the immediate judgement of his character being something overwhich anyone should be concerned that is more to the point. Bush & Co, from the beginning has been accused of a variety of evils seemingly for the crime of being the son of a president who wants to be president himself. I recall Bill Maher from before the first election stating "besides, I HATE George Bush." Fine. Why? What had he done to deserve such emotion? But this emotion has shown itself to be typical for the average lefty/Democrat. It certainly makes it easy to suspect all sorts of evil intent in the Libby case. But it's not in itself proof of anything. And as we near the end of his seventh year in office, I still wait for that which exposes him to be the hellspawn evil incarnate for which he's been accused.
A) Why in the world do right-wingers quote idiots like Bill Maher, as if he had some kind of authority or power? What possible relevance is that to the position any one in this thread is taking? This is a straw argument and irrelevant.
B) I have not read anyone here who has mentioned the word "hate", "evil", etc. with regards to President Bush except you and Mom2 when you tell us how we all suffer from BSD. To be blunt, to me BSD just means bullshit detection device, and mine is squawking loudly right now. Methinks that, once again, you doth protest too much.
C) To act as if two-thirds to three quarters of the country, in poll after poll, are under the spell of delusional liberals bent upon the wanton destruction of mom, apple pie, the flag, and all straight people is such a lunatic delusion, one wonders why those who don't insist on it day after day aren't on Haldol.
D) I do not believe, nor have any commenters here expressed the opinion, that George W Bush is, as you say, evil incarnate or hellspawn. Again, this is a straw argument. The anger you read, the rejection you see in poll after poll, week after week - this is due not to delusions, or attributing some kind of metaphysical disorder upon the President. It is the considered response of people who care about this country, its traditions, its real values, its Constitution, its laws and are watching them vanish day after day. For some, it was the run up to the war. For some, it was Katrina. For some it was the incoherent searching for talking points last summer - first "we'll stand down when they stand down", then it was "cut and run" (followed, of course by the denial that that phrase was ever used, even as it was recorded hundreds of times coming from the lips of many many people in the Administration). For some it was the utter corruption and laziness of the Republican Congress. For some it was torture. I other words, the complaints are specific to very specific grievances. It isn't that Bush is evil in some metaphysical sense. He's just destroying all that is good and right about this country.
"For most on the left, the lack of trust preceded any evidence to support it"
"Bush & Co, from the beginning has been accused of a variety of evils"
1. In 2000, Bush was elected under what many consider very questionable circumstances - not because of any hatred towards Bush, but because of what the evidence showed.
2. In 2001, Bush hired two convicted felons (Abrams and Poindexter) who were convicted for lying to congress about our involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regardless of what one may think of our selling WMDs to Iran, Iraq and supporting Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, surely you can understand that if someone hires convicted liars (who lied about war crimes), it is justified to doubt their word.
Early on, Bush acted in such a way that prudent (ie, "conservative") people would distrust his word and actions.
That we looked at his actions and the actions of those around him and found evidence that he lacked credibility and trustworthiness is not an indicator of hatred, but of prudence and wisdom.
In his last comment, Dan Trabue makes a wonderful aside, pregnant with meaning. He uses the word "prudent" and parenthetically adds "conservative". How wonderful.
The great non-theorist of conservatism, Edmund Burke, was insistent on several topics. First was the organic nature of the state. Second was the demand that justice and law were superior to the passing whims and fancies of legislators and the executive. Third, he disdained the idea that metaphysical truth should somehow trump the commonsense and practical wisdom of the people's representatives, provided they were free from corruption. He was, in many ways a republican theorist in Whig drag.
Whenever I hear American conservatives talk about Burke, I blanch, because he would be appalled out our current Administration, its lawlessness, its carelessness with the people's finances, the nation's security, and the public trust. Having spent the first, compromised the second, and pissed away the third, one wonders how Burke would have treated the sordid business we have witnessed this week. For the most part I hate questions like this, but Trabue's comment just got me thinking.
Prudence is caution, the care and thoughtfulness and deliberation that the wise practice before acting. Prudence usually dictates that we move slowly, not take the easy road. Bush is rash, stupid, easily manipulated, and reckless - the very opposite of one of the most important republican virtues, prudence. Prudence marks off a true conservative from either a radical or reactionary. Or, as in the case of the Bush Administration, a radical reactionary.
Thanks, Dan, for putting that out there.
Geoff,
A) Because it was a ready example of the sentiment held by the left in general, certain Democratic opponents in particular, and a host of left-wing bloggers specifically. That each may express the sentiment in their own words does not diminish the fact that it shared by them all. It is quite relevant because it goes to motivation behind the relentless search for charges with which to indict, convict or simply further tarnish this president.
B) It's "BDS". "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and it's an apt appellation for those who hold Bush to be some kind of criminal with selfish intent. They see behind every move he makes some sort of nefarious goal that will bring the sky crashing down upon us. It causes those who suffer from it to complain about anything Bush might do simply because it's Bush who is doing it. An analogy I like to use is that if George breaks wind, the left will complain about which cheek he lifted off the chair. So again, the words used are irrelevant. The sentiment is clear.
C) Approval ratings are an indication of how the man does his job: by what he believes is the correct course. Despite your later use of Burke, I've always felt that the executive was elected to lead. He lays out his ideas for doing so in the preceding campaign and his election is the green light to carry out those ideas. But that alone is one thing, the notion that low approval ratings means that the whole country agrees with you is a bit of arrogance on your part. At present the illegal immigration situation loomed large in the lack of approval. At any given moment, half the country will disapprove of Bush's execution of his duties. In the early days of the war, right after 9/11, his ratings were very high, but almost directly began to fall. Economic numbers slowed that drop and then various incidents began to occur, with varying degrees of negative impact, spurred on by a hostile media.
D) This point was a mere rehash of the above points, with a decided presentation of perception of events not shared by any other than those on the left. The left thinks our rights have evaporated under Bush. It is the left who thinks there's been some kind of assault on our traditions and "real values" (that's a laugh).
It has been the left that lays the entire debacle that was Katrina at the feet of Bush, who, though culpable for the fed's part, was only A part. (The locals have been setting the stage for that for decades.) It is the left who concerns themselves about the torture of the most heinous individuals without ever defining the word, and acting as if it is a widespread problem within our military, thereby besmirching all who serve. And your last line of this piece goes exactly and directly to my point: "He's just destroying all that is good and right about this country." Absolute utter and childish nonsense.
Dan,
1) What freakin' evidence? Evidently, the evidence was extremely weak or there'd never have been a Bush presidency. He won the election. Get the hell over it.
2) We've had this discussion before. The motivations of the Reagan admin are colored by the bias of whoever is relating the details. The motivations of the Democratically controlled Congress are equally colored. But if you expect me to believe that it is the hiring of these two men who have provoked the suspicion of Bush and his motivations, you're nuts. Because he didn't hire them until after he was elected and he was taking pipe well before that.
Early on Bush could have acted as a Bill Clinton clone and it wouldn't have been good enough for the imprudent and sour grapes left, who looked for any reason to reverse a legal and routine presidential election victory. Don't try to pass off such crap now, almost eight years later. That pig won't fly.
You looked around and found evidence of your own making, seeing evil in every action and event. Take that crap to the Daily Koz, because it smells to awful here.
For Geoff's last comments, I have only this to say: I have no doubt in my mind that the men who formed and led this country in it's infancy would find extreme fault in most of recent history's politicians, even the better ones. But you continue to project qualities and characteristics upon Bush that you can not know, nor are readily evident in his actions. The rantings of the left would not be so boring and without credibility if there would have ever been at least once some recognition for something that Bush has done. I can't recall anything that didn't precede a resounding "BUT!" The guy's not perfect and no one on the right would ever attempt to suggest he is. It's equally intellectually dishonest to suggest he's 180 degrees apart from that.
Now, getting back to the actual topic of this thread, I've spent a couple hours researching accounts of the Libby trial and the more I read, the more a pardon seems to be the right path. This guy was screwed and screwed big time. I shall continue my research and if any who are outraged!!!! by Bush's decision want to reccommend some article that supports their horror, I'd be more than happy to read it, with a bucket at my feet just in case.
There is so much to deconstruct in your multiple replies, Marshall, time and energy fail me. I shall attempt to be brief and succinct.
First, I apologize for getting the acronym wrong. BDS it is. Bullshit detection system.
Again, you claim that Bill Maher represents some fantasist's idea of "the left". Wrong. He's a comedian, and a television personality, and not really very good at either. He represents no one except himself. To try and make him out to be otherwise is comical. It is also irrelevant. My point was you dragged him, without any reason, into this discussion, as if something he said was representative of the views expressed by liberal commenters here. As I attempted to explain, the reasons people disapprove of Bush are related specific, concrete acts, or to be more precise, failures, of his Administration.
Which brings me to my second point. Job approval ratings are indeed indications of how people feel about the conduct of the Bush Administration. The reason they are low now, and have been consistently low for about a year, perhaps a bit more than a year, but certainly at least that, is that people are not happy with the things his administration has done, or the actions his administration had failed to do. This is not based upon the fickle whims of empty-headed sheep; it is based upon an acknowledgment by the vast majority of the American people that this is a failed Presidency. There is not hated here; there is only the exhaustion that comes when a society yearns for more, and better, knowing they deserve both.
The real values I spoke of are pluralism, liberalism in the best sense of that term, a sense of fundamental fairness, honor, decency, and integrity on the part of our public officials. Our core American values are not "family", "flag", and "hating fags". We Americans are a wonderfully diverse lot of people; what unites us is a simple set of core, social values rooted in our Constitution and expressed by the words of men and women like George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. DuBois, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., and even, yes, Ronald Reagan. Poets and writers from Nathaniel Hawthorne and Edgar Allen Poe through Twain and Melville to Faulkner, Hemingway, Langston Hughes, Countee Cullen, John Barth, and Howard Thurman have told us the best stories about ourselves, and the shown us the most horrible side of ourselves, sometimes at the same time. They all reflect the idea that there is no summary of what it means to be an American except for a few basic social and political values, which I named at the top. Those values, which you say are laughable, are what has helped us be great. Those values are threatened now by a small group of anti-intellectual, power-hungry individuals who care little about the traditions and laws of this country. They know only one thing - power. They are, to quote author Robert Anton Wilson, "Nursery Nietszches", thinking that to be powerful is an end in itself.
I am glad you spent "a couple hours" reviewing the Libby trial. Christy Hardin Smith of Fire Dog Lake attended, and live-blogged, the entire trial. A former prosecutor herself, she was intimately familiar with the legal issues, and the strategies, involved. The case was quite simple, and the question put to the jury was simple: In the course of investigating who committed a potential felony by leaking to the press the identity of a covert CIA agent, thus effectively ending her career, and putting our country's security, and the lives of her foreign contacts, at grave risk, did I. Lewis Libby knowingly and purposefully lie to the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, and in so doing, obstruct justice? That was the question.
The answer, after due deliberation, and considering the weight of the evidence, was guilty on four counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Throwing sand in the eyes of the public, bringing up all sorts of false issues and questions (is Scooter a good guy, take his dog for a walk and tuck his kids in to bed at night, as all those personal testimonials sent to the judge consistently claimed) are irrelevant. That was the question, the evidence was clear beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury rendered its verdict. That comes after reading day after day of posts over at Fire Dog Lake by a skilled former prosecutor.
"In the course of investigating who committed a potential felony by leaking to the press the identity of a covert CIA agent, thus effectively ending her career, and putting our country's security, and the lives of her foreign contacts, at grave risk..."
Fitzy wasn't investigating who committed a potential felony. He already knew, before he started the so-called investigation, who leaked the identity of Plame. It had nothing to do with Cheney, and he wanted to "get" Cheney, if not Bush. He couldn't "get" either one of them so he settled for Libby.
It was nothing but a high priced witch hunt.
Everyone who knew Valerie Plame knew she worked for the CIA, including her neighbors, and I'm sure most of them didn't have even the lowest security clearances. Everyone, with the exception of Liberals with Bush Hatred syndrome, knows ahe wasn't covert.
And why not quote Bill Maher? All one has to do is peruse the web sites Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos to see the exact same statements repeated ad nauseum. Maher is a typical example of the left wing mind set. He represents the Democratic, Liberal talking points as well as Harry Reid John Murtha, and Obi Wan Pelosi.
By the way, most Prosecutors are prosecutors because they aren't good or experienced enough lawyers to maintain a private practice. they are but one rung up the ladder from the bottom, just above public defenders. Mike Nifong, the Duke LaCrosse team prosecutor, is a "former Prosecutor, too. You saw how honest and reliable he was.
I don't know anything about the former prosecutor you mentioned, but on what grounds do you base your opinion that her word is any more reliable than Bill Maher's?
Geoff,
The Maher quote was, and I repeat: "A) ...a ready example of the sentiment held by the left in general," and I insist that's a pretty accurate statement. That you may wish to separate yourself from the likes of Maher is to your credit, but I maintain that his attitude in general is held by most on the left. It comes, it seems to me, first from the fact that he's born of privilege and the son of a president more than any gubernatorial record, and compounded by the sour grapes response to his winning his first term over the buffoonish AlGore. From there, all perception is thus tainted. I see no reason to abandon this opinion of the left in general.
Regarding what you think the true values and traditions of this country are, I really need to ponder "pluralism" and also to have you define "liberalism". The former is a word I believe is foisted upon the original intentions of the founders, and the latter has come to mean something it hasn't always meant.
Re, "I don't recall too many who ever trusted Bush who claim not to trust him now."
I'm one. Any one who cared to could go back on my blog and see where I gave him the benefot of the doubt, and see how I chanted my mind.
He lied, first to himself. And he's still lying. I was duped. I swallowed it. And I will never forgive myself for letting my guard down. Ever.
Oh, Olbermann fan here, too.
As to pluralism, read Federalist Paper #10. As to liberalism, read John Locke, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. Pluralism is an acceptance of divergent viewpoints, and the resulting social divide, as a reality that politics attempts to navigate. Pluralism refuses to accept single correct answers to questions, but insists that social harmony comes through providing enough space for divergent views to coexist, with conflict being limited to political discourse and action.
Liberalism is the idea that human freedom is inherent in human beings. Whether rooted in deism or the minimalist metaphysics of John Locke and David Hume, it understands human beings to possess a nature, and part of that nature is to be a free agent - morally, socially, politically. The object of the state is to facilitate the latter two either through action or inaction, so that the flowering of the first freedom can burst forth.
Liberality also concerns a certain generosity of spirit. When the conservative deTocqueville came to America he saw a liberal nation in all the senses, politically, economically, socially, and wondered how long it could last. He was concerned because we as a people had not inculcated a spirit of thrift and a sense of social status; we certainly has social classes in America, we just refused to acknowledge them. That, too, is a sign of liberalism.
Liberalism isn't FDR-style Democratic politics, or JFK-style New Frontier nonsense. Liberalism at its best is the sense that we human beings are in this project called America together. For all our differences, what divides us are the means towards the goals we all share - economic security (which is not the same as prosperity), social and political freedom, and a respect for the individual within the social whole that is never perfect and always needs to be renegotiated. Liberalism at its best recognizes that the state has certain obligations to the people, not the least of which is to let them alone in their private affairs, while providing, as the Constitution says, for the general welfare and common defense (the two most basic functions of any sovereign entity).
Liberalism at its best refuses to acknowledge the superiority or inferiority of any religious, philosophical, ethnic, or religious claims. It is, in this sense agnostic. As a (small "r") republican government, the United States is first and foremost a state where the people's will, as expressed through their laws, determine what is best. Not inherited wealth, not title, not even "merit" (itself a social construct of dubious lineage).
Just let Maher go. Just because you think the things he says have some kind of relevance among those you think are liberals means nothing. You will never read me claim that Limbaugh or Hannity are representative of those on the right, because I try to keep them in their place - they are entertainers, personalities (bad at the first, void at the second). I refuse to give them the kind of credibility they crave by taking them seriously. You should do the same with someone like Maher. Seriously, man. Give it up.
Mark - you really need to go back and read about what happened. It wasn't a question of Patrick Fitzgerald "knowing beforehand" what happened. He was assigned as special prosecutor because everyone else had recused themselves in this case. There was evidence that either Richard Armitage or Libby himself was the leak culprit, but not enough to prosecute. The key to the whole thing, however is this:
The reason there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute was that it became clear through a mountain of evidence that Scooter had lied. By lying he had obstructed justice, so that Fitzgerald could no longer continue his investigation. Since Libby still hasn't told the truth, the investigation is effectively over. All the nonsense about "no underlying crime" seems to ignore this little fun-fact. Had Libby not lied and obstructed justice, Fitzgerald most assuredly would have gathered enough evidence to prosecute someone.
Geoff,
As to pluralism, are you sure you meant #10? That seemed to me to not be so much about the varieties of opinions and beliefs as how to deal with the differences between the states, one state having greater influence over another, etc etc etc, leading to the reason for a republic over a democracy. Your definition of pluralism doesn't seem to be an issue of #10 in the sense that you seem to mean it's a goal.
As to liberalism, that's to what I was referring, that liberalism by today's definition is different than what it used to be. However, some aspects you've mentioned are without a doubt today's definition.
Let me try it this way: I'm NOT clinging to Maher in any way, shape or form. I no longer give him a micro-second's notice. I see him in a newspaper or periodical, I ignore it. I see him on TV, I change the channel. He's a buffoon, he lacks intelligence or common sense, he's not funny in the least and I don't know why he's given a forum. Yet, his attitude about Bush is typical of the left and there is little to argue about there.
So you're saying to me that one alleged lie has derailed an investigation by a special prosecutor with carte blanche to proceed as he sees fit? Is that what you're telling me? Then it's worse than I thought! What the hell kind of cop is he? "Aw, that Libby! He lied and f**ked up my investigation! Damn him!" Isn't that kinda what a cop is supposed to wade through as he investigates wrong doing? Sift out the untruth from the truth to get to the whole story as it happened?
And maybe I missed it, but just how did they confirm he lied instead of forgot?
"Oh, Olbermann fan here, too."
Why, ER? Because stupidity wrapped in an over-inflated sense of his own intelligence and cleverness makes you laugh?
As to "derailing" - investigations of this type are based upon evidence and testimony. Libby's perjury revolved around when he spoke to certain people - he claims it occurred after the Novak column appeared, when in fact multiple sources with detailed notes show otherwise. Although convicted, Libby refuses to admit his guilt or change his story in any way. Without this very key piece of evidence, and further testimony from Mr. Libby in regards to how he came about the information, and more important, who gave him the go ahead to destroy Ms. Plame's career, undermine our national security, and put the lives of hundreds and thousands of people at risk - yeah, I would say that pretty much put the kaibosh on the whole thing.
As to Federalist #10 - Madison is talking about how to negotiate the differences among the states, yes. In doing so he puts forth the idea that these varies interests can work together without nullifying the differences among them. That is pluralism. I can be me, you can be you, we can recognize our differences without either one of us actively trying to change each other. Madison was discussing a socio-political dimension of pluralism. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no way to adjudicate and negotiate these differences out of fear. Under the Constitution, they could be.
Re, "Because stupidity wrapped in an over-inflated sense of his own intelligence and cleverness makes you laugh?"
No, silly. That's why I come here!
Geoff,
"Madison was discussing a socio-political dimension of pluralism. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no way to adjudicate and negotiate these differences out of fear."
Maybe he did, but not in #10. I intend to re-read it (he ain't exactly talkin' street, ya dig?), but at first blush, I think his only point was to explain why they were to choose a republic, rather than a democracy. It had to do with REDUCING the various opinions, not celebrating them in the manner of which you speak. A democracy would have allowed every freakin' yahoo equal time. But a representative republic distills the ideas to those that are agreed to by factions, or by factions of states, so as to move to a conclusion more swiftly and please more people at the same time. So for example, if a Keith Olberman and his faction wished to further some legislation, the four of them would have to compete with opposing views held by greater numbers. Seeing as how his appeal is so terminally limited, he would never get anything passed. But a majority of states would speak for more people and through the republic form of government, well, you get the idea.
ER,
That was a very rude comment, particularly considering that Geoff and Dan are NOT stupid nor do they wrap themselves in an over-inflated sense of etc, etc, etc. I think you should apologize to them.
geoff--
You're confusing liberalism with if not welfare-statism, Marxism. Madison's entire point was to keep power diffuse and decentralized.
In addition, real diversity takes place in the marketplace, where individuals can customize their lives anyway they see fit. You claim pluralism rejects one size fits all answers. I agree. Today's Democrats, with their "comprehensive plans" want to mechanize our entire society by the bureaucratic principles of the army, not choice and consent. Call them a labor party, or a progressive party, or a socialist party. But there is nothing liberal about these people in a philosophic sense.
Contrary to contemporary interpretation, Madison was notinterested in keeping power diffuse and decentralized. That was the problem with the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were arguing that very point against the anti-Federalists. I wish, I wish, I wish people would actually read the Federalists rather than what George Will claims they say.
geoff--
It is true the founders argued for a federalist system of government. No one disputes that. None of them advocated centralizing power so the federal government could be God and do Good Works for the proletariat.
With Madison in particular, in Federalist #51 he writes
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
On the House floor in 1794, Madison stated
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
In a letter to James Robertson, Madison writes
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
And let us not forget about the 10th amendment, drafted by Madison:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Post a Comment