As of this morning, it seems like it breaks down like this: you either support the White House's arrogant and precedent-shattering raid on Rep. Jefferson's offices or you support the rubber-stamp Republican majority's hollow and ironic outrage over it.
What's a Democrat to do? (For a solution, read down to the bottom.)
So far, I've heard reliably lefty Democrats choosing the former as opposed to the latter. The thinking seems to be that a corrupt Congress should not be above the law (and, what the hell, the FBI did get a warrant). That's all well and good.
But many of the same observers are outraged over the unprecedented encroachment by the Executive on the separation of powers as represented by the NSA's warrantless wiretapping & data-mining operations, the entire Patriot Act, Gitmo detainees, enemy combatants, the torture memorandum, the abuse of signing statements, and on and on and on.
On top of all that, many reasonable people (with legal and historical minds greater than my own) have opined that the FBI raid really does represent a serious constitutional breach.
In short, the issue is debatable.
That said, let's look at the politics of it and try to figure out the winners and losers.
Winners:
- Democrats
Fact is, the outrage over the constitutional issues has deprived the Republicans the one thing Karl Rove wanted out of this whole thing: shifting the focus from the Republican culture of corruption to the Democrats.
- The Unknown Leaker(s) in the Department of Justice
Who are these guys, anyway and what do they want? He (or they) dropped a dime on Denny Hastert and he also pulled Bush strings by leaking news that Gonzalez was ready to quit over this affair.
- Congressional Black Caucus
They get to argue both sides of the issue. Here's John Conyers: "We've never been told why the search had to be done in the middle of the night." Good point.
Losers:- Bush
He can't afford to piss of the House if he wants to get an immigration bill out of committee. Also, can it be possible that Bush had no knowledge of the raid before it went down? Sadly, yes.
- Republicans
As with immigration, this issue has split them right down the middle at a crucial time in the election cycle. No matter what they say or do, they look confused and ridiculous. Hastert is a case in point. After screaming bloody murder, he backed off with this absurd statement:In talking points distributed to GOP House members last week, Hastert and other House leaders conceded the perils of their position. "Is this a smart battle for Congress to fight?" the talking points asked. "Perhaps not. Defending Constitutional principles--particularly those related to institutional balances of power--is often not politically expedient and often results in bad publicity."
Right now, Hastert's reputation with his base is even lower than Pelosi's with hers, and that's saying a lot.
- Nancy Pelosi
In a recent Daily Kos straw poll, taken before her joint-news-conference-communal-howl-of-pain with Denny Hastert, the Minority Leader's approval rating with the netroots was a pathetic 30 percent; this will simply drive it lower.
There is a way to handle this and it does not involve "acting like a Republican." Yes, I'm talking to you Nancy Pelosi.
- It involves (re-)swearing your allegiance to the US Constitution and tying this back to the NSA, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, torture, signing statements, and on and on and on.
- It means (at least) paying lip service to the the fact that Jefferson is innocent until proven guilty -- and simultaneously making a retroactive rule saying if you are under investigation, you must relinquish all power except that given to you via the ballot box.
- And/but it means that the Congressional Black Caucus needs to get right with Jesus and stop fighting the leadership on this. We'd all like to see Charlie Rangel and John Conyers get their chairmanships, wouldn't we?