Playing Politics
How much longer are we going to put up with politicians playing politics with the so-called "War on Terror"?
The current power base (yes, that's "the Republicans" to you and me) has turned playing politics with terrorism into an art form, even to the extent of accusing anyone who calls them on their behavior as being the one playing politics.
The latest example comes from RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose latest letter to the faithful tries to equate the censure resolution with playing politics, and refers to the "calls of Democrats who would censure and impeach the President for fighting the terrorists."
Let's be clear: those of us who support ensuring that the President follows the laws of this country are NOT opposed to his fighting the terrorists. Not one bit. We'd be offended if he did any less.
But there is very real reason to believe that this President has broken the law, reason which would be much more apparent to many of the Republican faithful (and much less to many of the Democratic faithful) if this were President Clinton behaving this way.
However, the fact that some people view the "facts" shaded through their politics doesn't change them. There IS good reason to believe the laws of this country have been broken, not because the job couldn't be done within the system, but for the convenience of a President whose ego won't allow him to accept that he's constrained by the restrictions placed upon the rest of us.
That's all this censure resolution is about. If we had a Congress doing their job, it would be an impeachment hearing in order to determine whether the law was in fact eggregiously broken. Actually, if we had a Congress doing their job, it might never have come to this, because by now we'd have had real investigation into things and real checks placed on an overreaching President.
That is not playing politics. That's ensuring that in this land of freedoms and liberties, everyone from the top down plays by the rules. Last time I checked, that's one of the Constitutionally mandated jobs of the Congress.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 3/31/2006 04:12:00 PM
2 Comments:
I agree, Liam, but I want to add my 2 cents (has anyone else noticed that the cent key on a keyboard has disappeared?). As usual, I find it useful to approach these things with first clarifying the definition of words used so often, and in so many contexts that they become 'catchall' phrases. Liberal, to Rush Limbaugh, means all that disagree with the far right. Liberal, to me, means new ideas and innovative and terrifying ways of solving problems that while they don't necessarily go counter to the constitution, are definately not in there (Socalized medicine is one very Liberal idea).
Playing Politics is also very interesting. In basic Civics, 10th grade, I learned that the job of the Congress was to write laws and to act as a check on the other two branches of government. So, while Congress has the duty to censure the President, so that can't be playing politics, it doesn't have the duty to honor the promises each congressman made to his or her state. 'Playing' politics must, in my opinion, be (in order to be 'playing' and not doing the job) unnecessary.
The Clinton scandal, for instance, is a good example. The facts: Clinton engaged in improper behavior in the White House, he went on TV and lied about it. One of those actions requires censure, the other is a private matter between him and his wife.
So, in conclusion, if the (Republican) congress is censuring the President, it is not 'playing politics' it is doing their job of keeping him in line (and all Presidents have huge obligation, understandably so, they need to often be reminded that they are not above the law, and that they are still obligated to carry out the job for which they were hired).
Janet
Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:30:00 AM
IMO, and perhaps this does require a definition so that everyone is working under the same assumptions, there's a difference between "playing politics" and "being a politician". By definition, a politician is someone who engages in politics, and to ask them not to would be like hiring someone as a plumber and asking them not to work on your pipes, or hiring a computer programmer and asking them not to program.
However, the term "playing politics" has come to mean doing something solely for partisan gain. Generally, it is a matter of intent, but since it is difficult to judge intent (particularly the intent of people so skilled at "spin" as politicians), we sometimes have to go on appearances, which is why sometimes the same act will look like "doing their job" to one side and "playing politics" to the other.
To make it perfectly clear, let me illustrate by example. Certain ultra-right-wing politicians have as their base the uber-religious, SOME of whom consider homosexuality to be only marginally preferable to the devil incarnate. However, homosexuality is not illegal in this country, and in fact in many places, sexual orientation is included in the list of things which are expressly NOT allowed as discriminators. Nevertheless, a hard right winger who also happens to be gay might not want that known to his base of supporters. Along comes a more moderate conservative who wants to challenge for the seat. He "outs" the first politician, which gives him (the second one) two advantages: He gets to look tough on homosexuality to the base, AND he gets to smear the other guy with something that's not illegal, but will harm him anyway.
That's playing politics. Doing something purely for political maneuvering, to try to play a situation up to make oneself or one's party look good and the other guys look bad.
Now, lets take the above example and tweak it slightly: Politician two discovers that Politician one is not GAY but a pedophile, who has been using his office (in part) to cover up his molestation of children. Politician two reports this to the police and presses the point to make sure Pol 1 isn't able to just sweep it all under the rug again.
Same result for Pol 2, he gets to look good and gets to make Pol 1 look bad, and so his motive MIGHT be "playing politics". Nevertheless, a reasonable person would say "Yes, it's good to get a practicing pedophile off of the streets, especially one in a position of power and trust, abusing his position to avoid capture". A law was broken, a helpless population was being preyed upon, and someone stepped up to try to save them. This is most likely not "playing politics".
Now, take the censure hearing. Whether this is "playing politics" or not depends entirely on your perception (and the perception of those bringing the censure resolution) of the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. Those of us not on the right (that is to say, the left and center) look at this, compare it to the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment, and say "This is a White House out of control, and we need to reign it in quickly before all of our freedoms are subject to the whim of those in power, contrary to the core principles we've all learned about this nation". Yes, if the President is censured, it helps the Democrats (although perhaps not as much as you might think, read on...), but it is also Congress' job to keep the President in line if/when he crosses into illegal behavior. Those of us who believe the President is acting in a clearly illegal manner think the censure resolution is just what is called for, inserting some spine back into Congress and their "advise and consent" role, and taking the President down a peg or two. Not to keep him from doing his job, just to make sure that he doesn't get too casual with the rights of innocents while zealously pursuing the guilty.
Obviously, if you see nothing wrong or illegal with the wire tapping program, whether you come by this belief honestly or because of a fierce devotion to the Republican party, you're going to find the resolution to be "playing politics", because you'll think it's just rabble rousing among the electorate for something which isn't wrong.
While I'm here, let me point out that the reason I say censure of the President might actually work to Republican advantage long term is this:
1) The American mindset tends to be along the lines of "once you've been punished, you can return to society and start fresh". As such, a censure now might push all of the scandals (real and imagined) with this White House into the realm of old news, such that when November rolls around, instead of being implicated in a large number of CURRENT scandals, the Congressional Republicans will now be seen as having a clean slate.
2) Americans are also less likely to see the Congress as complicit in the scandals if they've done something about it. Yes, they'd be saying "one of our own mis-behaved", but they'd also be saying "See? When one of our own mis-behaves, we take care of it. We really ARE the party of law and order!", and they'd go into the election in November having shown themselves to be moral people willing to take action against the immoral in their midst.
Past misdeeds in which the Republicans in Congress are not complicit vs current scandals in which they are seen to BE complicit, which works to their advantage? If you really want to play politics well, it would be time for Republicans to throw this President under the bus.
Liam.
Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:13:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home