As many of us know, the title of this diary was borrowed from Barry Goldwater's (in)famous 1964 GOP acceptance speech. While this is the first (and likely the last) time I will ever quote a Goldwater speech here (or anywhere else), there's another line that's equally applicable today:
That, let me remind you, is the land of liberty built by decentralized power. On it also we must have balance between the branches of government at every level.
Those words need to be seriously contemplated by every House Dem today. Yesterday's Judiciary vote on contempt for Rove and today's district court ruling rejecting spurious Executive Privilege claims make it painfully clear that the time has come for a more aggressive approach.
Sadly, there's reason to expect that a more aggressive approach will not be taken. Margaret Carlson, in fact, predicted on Countdown last night that it won't be taken. The opening exchange from that interview truly stands out:
CARLSON: I want to sign on with Senator Whitehouse. There‘s no gag reflex. In all my years of watching hearings, I‘ve never encountered a witness who forgot so many things when he was questioned about potential illegalities as Alberto Gonzales. It was an insult. And if he‘s going to go Scott-free, that is criminal. That‘s not civil. That‘s criminal. And what‘s concerning is it was Nancy Pelosi saying she‘s waiting until September and this all falls—everything at the Justice Department falls on the shoulders of the 31-year-old Monica Goodling, is that no one is going to pay for any of this ever.
OLBERMANN: But nobody—nothing, rather, is going to happen even to the Monica Goodlings of this equation?
CARLSON: Well, she resigned under pressure when she testified before Congress. But I don‘t know, you leave your job. Is that punishment enough for having the most qualified person come in for a job in the anti-terrorism unit, somebody who had actually won a prize for his anti-terrorism efforts; Monica Goodling Googled his wife and doesn‘t like her politics and then she gives a job to a moron? You know, she made a joke of the civil service laws, and the 31-year-old was in charge and Alberto Gonzales knew nothing about it?
Remember, we have a lot of testimony on the record now from hearings Congress held where there‘s testimony that‘s in conflict with former Attorney General Gonzales, in that he was at meetings he said he couldn‘t remember being at and there were things said that he can‘t remember hearing. Also, government doesn‘t work in a way where a Monica Goodling does everything, you know, without adult supervision.
Like any sane person who understands core concepts like separation of powers and the rule of law, Carlson thinks that AG the AG was an utter travesty. She also thinks that his numerous questionable deeds cannot simply be swept under the rug b/c he finally left office. Sadly, she doesn't think that the House "leadership" agrees w/ this perspective:
CARLSON: I think Democrats want to freeze the ball because Republicans are in such deep doo-doo now, they don‘t want to change anything, and they don‘t want to be seen as overly aggressive. However, it could be done entirely within the rule of law, just enforcing the contempt citation without fanfare, and just let the system—let the system play out. To be afraid to come forward and exercise your prerogatives, when this administration uses its executive privilege as an excuse for every time they broke the law. It didn‘t work in the Clinton administration. Remember, Keith, how many Clinton administration people were marched before Congress during Monica Lewinsky, which actually had nothing to do with giving advice to the president.
So, it‘s not a blanket excuse, but it‘s been used that way. And you think Democrats now in control would exercise it.
Carlson is not talking about "moderation" in the pursuit of justice here. She's not even talking about cowardice in its non-pursuit. She's talking about cold political calculation. Sadly she seems to be talking about calculation that is based upon a fundamental misperception of the prevailing public mood.
Last time I checked, W's approval ratings were in the basement, Cheney's ratings were below the basement, and, when he left office, AGAG's were maybe even below Cheney's. In fact, since his departure last August, AGAG has had difficulty finding employment other than a part-time gig assisting a special masterin a patent case.
IOW, we have a disgraced former AG whose sworn testimony defied credibility. We have a 31 year old former top aide who, based upon her degree from a 3d-tier law school, apparently had the authority to fill senior positions in the DOJ. One of her primary criteria used in that role was political loyalty to a party and to its putative leader. She apparently used that criterion to reject the most qualified candidate for an anti-terrorism position.
Exactly who will rally to AG's and Goodling's defense if this scandal is actually pursued? Who will rally to Rove's defense if his involvement in the Siegelman prosecution is pursued? What downside risks exist here for showing much less than moderation in the pursuit of justice?
We knew all along that impeachment would be off the table. We were never told, however, that basic investigatory efforts would be off the table, too. We didn't think in 2006 that the election of a solidly Dem House would lead to the ratification of an executive power grab that Nixon could have only dreamed of.
One doesn't have to invoke the memories of brave Dems like Sam Ervin, Peter Rodino, and Archibald Cox here. One can invoke the words of Barry Goldwater just as easily. We need to rein in an utterly out of control Executive, and the current timidity and calculation will not achieve it.