Strong Words, Bad Politics
Better to Stick to Principles
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | The White House — Comments (44) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Bush Administration badly miscalculated yesterday when it decided to make an offer of cooperation to Congressional Democrats investigating the pseudo-scandal over the firing of the Gonzales Eight. I’m sure White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s intentions were good. President Bush appeared appropriately annoyed by the whole affair in his press conference, even if he did get off to a halting start, and even if he did include a call for “comprehensive immigration reform” in his statement. That didn’t exactly rally the base to want to defend the president on this.
The problem for the White House is that by offering to cooperate in the sham investigation of the Democrats, it is accepting their premise that there is something worth investigating in the first place. In so doing, the White House has positioned itself as on the defensive. It will only get worse from here.
Read on…
As I have written here and here, there is no scandal in the Department of Justice deciding to fire any number of United States Attorneys for any reason, political or not. Summary dismissal of all US Attorneys has been done in the past by the Clinton, Bush (41) and Reagan Administrations, although the Clinton Administration set the standard for political hackery when it requested resignations within 10 days. In addition, Clinton fired at least two US Attorneys who were working on corruption cases involving high profile Democrats, including Clinton himself (sub. req.).
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another [friend of Bill], David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
There is not even a hint of Clinton’s actions in what the Bush (43) Justice Department has done.
Regardless, the White House has offered a way for the Democrats to get answers to their politically motivated questions from White House officials. It was good to see the president take umbrage at something that the Democrats have ginned up against him, but the White House should have left it at that. By agreeing to turn over documents--internal White House communications no less--and agreeing to make senior staff available for interviews, the White House has set up an all too familiar Washington political showdown.
No amount of material short of a video of President Bush watching as Karl Rove berates a US Attorney while demanding that said attorney pledge to never, ever, prosecute a Republican as a condition of keeping his job is going to satisfy the Democrats demand for information. Under those conditions, there is no volume of material that the White House can release that the Democrats will accept. They will demand more and more and ask why some information but not all information has been released. Similarly, they will question, and already have, why they can interview staff in priviate but cannot put them under oath in public hearings. “What are they hiding?”
Of course, the White House is attempting to protect a very important Constitutional principle, that of the Separation of Powers. By that doctrine, the President is not obliged to reveal the inner workings of the Executive Branch as it relates to the deliberative process within the White House or between the White House and the various government departments. But by releasing select e-mails and documentation as it has done, the White House undermines its own argument.
By definition the information it has released has been selected by some standard. It is only natural for the public to wonder what that standard is and why some things did not make the cut. Democrats will capitalize on this with the result being more pressure brought to bear on the White House, not less. The Democrats are not interested in information. They are interested in scalps. The White House has already given them Donald Rumsfeld’s. By agreeing to feed the beast with e-mails and interviews of senior staff, the White House has only encouraged the Democrats to search for more.
It would have been better if President Bush had explained the principle of Separation of Powers, characterized the matter from the White House’s perspective, cited previous precedent, called this a non-scandal, chided the Democrats, and moved on. There should have been no offer of cooperation beyond testimony from the Attorney General. There should have been no release of internal White House documents and e-mails. If the White House thought that it was going to make the Democrats appear to be unreasonable in their requests for information, it has misjudged both the way in which the press will report on this story and the way that the general public will receive it.
The mainstream press will never present this White House in a reasonable light. Period. It will always in lockstep advance the arguments of White House critics. Evidence was already apparent in White House Press Secretary Tony Snow’s briefing today. Question after question about why this e-mail but not that one, why intervirews but no transcripts, why not just set the record straight, and on and on. As a result, this non-scandal will go on and on.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Don't Tie the President's Hands on Iraq — Comments (0) »
Strong Words, Bad Politics 44 Comments (0 topical, 44 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Tony Snow is not the problem here. He handled the reporters' questions that the OP alludes to well.
The problem is that the messenger can only do so much with a bad message.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Snow's done well in dealing with reporters. Frankly, he seems to be one of the more competent people in the administration these days. The problem is the liberal MSM; not Snow.
I think Snow actually does a pretty good job of handling the reporters, and he is a huge improvement over McClellan.
is the best of this administration. Somewhere up the line is the culprit (or the very top) that refuses to fight with the Democrats or the MSM. The problem is NOT Tony Snow, he could be the solution if those above him would just let him.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I disagree. Firing Snow is no, not "thee" solution, but gosh it's HIS JOB to handle & control this sort of nonsense from happening. He has not been doing as such. I ask the impossible & I expect the improbable. Leadership.
The PressSec's job IS managing the message -- regardless if it's "good" or as you say "bad."
That's not my concern & I feel NO sympathy for him...
Managing the message is a long way from making the policy. Tony Snow does not do this. He is the messenger, not the message.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Are you a democrat?
You feel Bush didn't act appropriately?
when someone has been registered for a couple of hours and they post like you do, they have short posting careers.
Mark I is a frontpager, you aren't. Before you start asking stupid questions like "Are you a democrat?" of one of the editors why don't you take some time out of your busy schedule and get acquainted with the site? mmmkay?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
who is more than capable of carrying his own water, Bush hasn't acted "appropriately" with respect to the idiots who inhabit Congress for the last six years. He showed up promoting the "new tone" crap, and has imputed a desire to "work together for the good of the people" onto the Democrats who don't give a tinkers dam about working together or "the people".
Bush, in this particular instance, has failed to realize that the Congress is the enemy of progress and has acted the fool. He's done the same thing with the major media and the bureaucrats at foggy bottom and the CIA.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
dead. Not likely to return. Nor is Reagan.
Both were men who rose up for their times. Those times are now gone, we need new leaders to assume the mantle layed down by those who've come before.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
You're just about 3 hours old so it's obvious that you haven't hung around much.
So first of all, Welcome to Redstate.
Second: Use the Reply To This link at the bottom of the comment you're responding to.
Third: Mark I is NOT a Democrat by any possible means. In fact, he's actually a Frontpager.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I meant AGAG, not obviously the president.
It was a huge tactical error for the White House to try to negotiate terms for a briefing before invoking Executive Privilege. Now it appears there is something to hide.
You can be cliquey all that you want... (How clever!)
What we need more now than ever is a little rhetorical combat. Something is happening to the GOP (in general) & we all must be fearful for 2008.
I'm sure Mark I is a big boy & can actually respond for himself.
Why did I post did today? I thought Mark's top post was excellent...
You're problem started when I disagreed with you and you decided to call me out as a Democrat. We don't take kindly to people calling others out around here, let alone those who haven't established any street cred on this site, as you have yet to do.
That said, thank you for your review of the OP. If you are sincere in that review, than we only disagree on the degree to which Tony Snow is responsible for making policy. He is not. His job is to explain the policy to the public and the press. If the policy is bad to begin with, of course the messenger is going to look bad explaining it.
Tony is not the problem here. The policy is.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
first, use the "reply to this" tag when replying to a comment. You don't look quite as silly and the rest of us aren't inconvenienced.
second, rhetorical combat implies something other than name calling.
third, why did you post today? I've read your comments and I'm stumped. Why did you post today?
oh and fourth, don't screw with me.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I disagree. IMO President Bush is defusing this latest instance of executive incompetence by turning it into a "controversy about a controversy". I.e., give the Democrats an opportunity for more mindless partisan bickering, and waste their energy on that to keep them from focusing on something more dangerous.
The Democrats in Congress will leap upon this distraction as a means of placating their idiot base for the next primary election, which is the only election that counts for most of them. Incumbent Democrats will get a chance to mouth off in front of cameras, and nothing else will happen.
However, I will submit that this strategy would be more effective for a president with approval ratings in the 50's and not the low 30's. True, Congress's ratings are lower still. But they will be portrayed by the press as bravely standing up to a "stonewalling" White House.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I've actually gone ahead and read the US Constitution and no where in that document do I find a "separation of powers" clause. And, in fact, I skimmed SCOTUS's ruling in United States v. Nixon and SCOTUS made it pretty clear that the doctrine of separation of powers is a bunch of rubbish.
Personally, I'm a checks and balances sort of guy and I think the people (and thus by inference, Congress) have every right to know what is going on in the Oval Office unless it involves some sort of external party (such as in national security etc.)
Quite frankly, if the President isn't will to let the sunlight into the Oval Office, he really shouldn't have run for the office in the first place.
more than skim it.
I'm not surprised though. This is just another in your history of making posts which range from the disturbingly stupid to merely inane.
If you know so little about our system of government that you can write this it is obvious you're either trolling or you are incapable of participating. In either case, you aren't needed here.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I would recommend a cup of decaf & a hug. Sorry I'm not close enough to deliver the first and the second would be a banning offense and not improve your day at all, so you'll have to get that from Mrs. streiff.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
You'd quickly find that Nixon's end run of the judicial system was properly and quickly squashed.
Of course, it is easier to ban someone than admit you're wrong.
And as a strict constitutionalist, I'm surprised you can find the "separation of powers" clause in the document. Or are you just one of those fair weather strictist that only pounds on the table and demands a literal interpretation when some of the newfangled ideas like treating gays as human beings doesn't match up with the reality you so desperately want to manufacture.
Enjoy watching the Bush Administration self implode and take all of the right wing nut cases like yourself out into the wilderness for the next 40 years. You guys aren't even a good minority party any more, always putting party of country. Good riddens to bad rubbish, I say.
I'll go away for now, but I'll be back to gloat. Hopefully, Bush's impeachment won't drag too late into the summer.
bmbike
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Perhaps you should read US v. Nixon. The court approved of executive privilege as being constitutional. ("Nowhere in the Constitution, as we have noted earlier, is there any expicit reference to a privilege of confidentiality, yet to the extent this interest relates to the effective discharge of a President's powers, it is constitutionally based.")
Nixon was responding to a subpoena issued by an article III court in relation to a criminal trial, and the court said because his claim of privilege did not relate to Art. II powers the need for due process outweighed the need for Presidential privilege. The court did say "as to the areas of Art. II duties the courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities."
Enforcing the laws of the US is clearly an Art. II duty, and making a staff decision relating to USA's is clearly a responsibility related to that duty. If US v. Nixon is followed White House communications relating to USA staffing will be found privileged.
and who's name eludes me, when called before Congress after the failed Iranian hostage rescue was asked a stupid question by a Congressman. His reply, Sir, that is bull----!
Perhaps the gold standard of responses, but I'd settle for the bronze. The only way for appearances of administration figures to work is if they come out fighting. It doesn't have to be as nasty the Harold Ickes foray, I'd be nasty to if I only had eleven hairs on my head and tried to comb them, but it can be terse, testy when appropriate, and never on the defensive.
If watching Gonzalez was a lesson this might be hoped for, something may be salvaged. Otherwise it's twelve minute questions laced with insults and innuendo, and gross overuse of the word "troubling".
Put briefly, this worked properly could be turned to the administrations advantage because from here they can only go up.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Was Charlie Beckwith. I got to meet him once at the VFW bar in Austin where he occasionally went. He definitly was outspoken.
My gold standard would be Gen. Honore to a reporter after Katrina - "You are stuck on stupid and I'm not going to answer that question..."
Mark- My compliment was in fact sincere. Perhaps my anger (ok, was) misdirected at you. I feel so utterly angry though at the WH's recent nosedive -- in both policy (per example N. Korea) & message (per example, now!).
Firing Snow at best would be cosmetic, sure. What other (say substantive) change can I (we) hope for? And by that last sentence I'm of course referring to actual policy change. I have no hope of this happening before Bush leaves. Heck, all the great wonks & field-leaders are long-gone anyway... you know?
I'm depressed!
If this is a non-story and a non-scandal, then it will all go away when the officials involved testify under oath about the reason for the firings. It's pretty simple.
As the guy asked in the white house briefing today, if the true reason for the firings is poor performance, why has that now shown up in the 3,000+ pages of emails released?
And Snow's response, "that's a good question."
It seems there is clearly something else involved here, and it's congress' job to get to the bottom of it.
I cannot believe supporters of "separate powers of government" would so stringently advocate Bush protecting his, while not wanting Congress to do the same with its power.
I cannot believe supporters of "separate powers of government" would so stringently advocate Bush protecting his, while not wanting Congress to do the same with its power.
Except that Congress has no power to subpoena White House officials who work in the Executive Office of the President. That's due to a nasty little impediment known as the Constitution.
It seems there is clearly something else involved here, and it's congress' job to get to the bottom of it.
Except that there isn't.
As the guy asked in the white house briefing today...
Well, you got me there. I mean if "the guy" asked, who am I to disagree?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
It would appear that you and I are in agreement - I find arguments about abortion which rely upon the constitution as evidence to be tedious and unconvincing as well as these arguments about executive privilege.
Executive privilege may properly be asserted in response to a congressional subpoena seeking testimony by the Counsel to the President concerning the performance of official duties on the basis that the Counsel serves as an immediate adviser to the President and is therefore immune from compelled congressional testimony.
That is the conclusion of a Department of Justice brief on the subject prepared for President Clinton by Attorney General Janet Reno and dated September 16, 1999. Here's some more:
Advice to the President and other deliberative communications and materials fall within the scope of executive privilege. See generally United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-13 (1974); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 446-55 (1977). The Supreme Court has recognized
the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708. It is thus well established that not only does executive privilege apply to confidential communications to the President, but also to "communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties."
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Department of Justice - ran by the executive branch - finding that the executive branch has more powers? Why, I've never heard of such a thing!
No ... the Department of Justice is simply asserting powers it already has, not finding "more."
Congress has no more right to internal Executive Branch documents or to Executive Branch officials than it does to issue subpoenas to Judicial Branch officials or their documents.
should the FBI (an executive branch entity) be barging-in on the offices of legislators credibly accused of felonies.
Just ask Bill "The Fridge" Jefferson.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
... But then again, I thought that since the FBI had a valid search warrant from a Judge, it was the Executive and Judicial Branch getting together and ganging up on the Legislative ...
... which is the way the system is supposed to work
while recognizing the importance of protecting communications among the president's close advisors, the Court in Nixon ewnt on to say:
"neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide."
None of that matters, of course. The above wasn't the holding of the Court, we're not dealing with judicial process here, and the instant situation does not involve a criminal investigation. But it sure would be fun to see if the Court thought the same reasoning applied.
Remember when W gave the Taliban the option of turning over Osama? And they didn't?
W has a history of going out of his way to be cooperative and giving everyone more than enough opportunity to mend their ways (Taliban, Saddam, now the Dems, soon Iran). For some reason, this is a required prelude to destroying the enemy. When the time comes not to be nice, he is not nice. That time, apparently, has come. (Interesting that the Democrats are included in that little list...).
This is a political issue, and I expect Rove to come back from his sabbatical and hit the Dems between the eyes with this. If not, I expect to register as an independent soon.
I am thoroughly disgusted w/ this administration's inability to "get in front of this (and apparently any) non-issue story. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic & inexcusable.
Tony Snow (already) is in need of replacement -- not AGAG. He's reminiscence to me of my underperforming history middle school students: simply play dumb & offer NO subject matter authority or, heck...why even try? Does he even BOTHER to do HIS homework?
Gosh i'd love to have a Rummy-styled PresSec-- you know? (Hey what's he doing?)
And our once confident president last night looked like...well...sorry, the same.
SHOW ME SOME PASSION & AUTHORITY. NOW.
Britney went to rehab...and heck I'm ready to send the entire executive branch!
Really.
I want to be hopeful, but...