The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated

White House staffers receive subpoenas during an investigation to determine the source of a leak regarding a major government agency. A high-ranking official who is a close aide of the President’s is indicted. The parallel plotlines of hit TV show The West Wing which features a NASA leak and the real White House with its CIA leak are easy to confuse on the merits of their broad themes. It was recently revealed to viewers that the fictitious Communications Director, Toby Ziegler, had disclosed secrets about a nuclear missile to a New York Times reporter. The storyline was undoubtedly set up to mirror the events currently engulfing the real-life White House with (Deputy Chief of Staff) Karl Rove and (VP’s Chief of Staff) Lewis “Scooter” Libby having been implicated in the CIA leak case. There are however, some significant divergences in the plots of the dual leak investigations.

In the fake White House, Mr. Ziegler leaks a story to the press because he believes he has a moral obligation to do so. This is neither a religious crusade of his nor is it politically motivated; it is a choice he makes because he believes he is doing the right thing by the American people. In the real White House, it has become clear that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby leaked their information regarding a CIA operative to the press in retaliation to an article her husband had written. There were no higher motives here, no concern for the lives of the public, no saving graces to be found in their actions. The motivation here was nothing but revenge accomplished in the pettiest fashion.

On The West Wing, President Bartlett refuses to accept Mr. Ziegler’s resignation when he offers it upon confessing to being the source of the leak, choosing instead to fire him, thus completely renouncing Mr. Ziegler’s actions and distancing himself from his rogue staffer. In real life, not only have Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove not fully confessed to being the sources of the leak, not only are they refusing to accept responsibility for their actions, but the President stands by them reneging on his previous declaration that he would find the source of the leak and administer the appropriate penalty. Apparently Mr. Bush feels the appropriate action is to publicly support them despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

It is often said that in D.C., the cover-up is worse than the crime. The cover-up has been the unmaking of several presidencies in recent history and this case is no exception. While Mr. Libby has not been charged with violating the Identities Act, he has been charged with obstruction of justice and perjury for lying in the course of the ongoing investigation. The White House seems intent on covering up what we all already know and trying to alter our perception of what exactly constitutes a leak. The fact is, with the President’s image having suffered as it has in recent months, firing those who detract from any integrity that remains would be a sign that the White House recognizes its problems and is attempting to rectify them. Instead, it chooses loyalty to its cronies over loyalty to the people of this country.

Mr. Bush not only went back on his vow to find the leak and eradicate whoever it was from his administration, as he became increasingly aware who the leak might be, he attempted to soften his stance. In his latest statements, he reminded the nation that Mr. Libby was innocent of all charges until proven guilty and stated that he would concentrate on protecting the nation. What Mr. Bush has clearly failed to grasp is that when members of his administration are blowing the cover of our CIA agents that in itself is a grave threat to the safety of our nation. It is a shame that for all his patriotic rhetoric, Mr. Bush cannot bring himself to hold those accountable who are so cavalier with our nation’s security.

It is a sad state of affairs when we recognize a story as being the work of the entertainment industry on account of the integrity displayed by the characters involved. It remains to be seen how each government chooses to handle the sources of their respective leaks, but up till this point, the characters on the television show have shown far greater integrity. The Bush White House, unlike the Bartlett White House has had a rocky relationship with Hollywood. In this case, it would be wise to follow the advice of their alter egos on the silver screen.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Mr. Stewart’s guest was Bill O’Reilly of FOX News’ The O’Reilly Factor. One might call Mr. O’Reilly Mr. Stewart’s opposite number at the right-leaning news network, delivering the news with his own particular slant despite his repeated declarations that his show is a “No Spin Zone”. The differences between Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Stewart were stark and immediately noticeable. Apart from their personalities—Mr. O’Reilly’s abrasive manner contrasting sharply with Mr. Stewart’s congenial style—their approaches to reporting the news are polar opposites. While the latter attempts to illuminate his audience via humor, the former bludgeons them with his opinions. Mr. O’Reilly dismissed Mr. Stewart’s style as flippant, and claimed the world needed someone like himself to address matters in a more serious light.

Mr. Stewart observed that while he respects Mr. O’Reilly’s view, why would the right-wing pundit not focus his efforts on the larger issues that face the nation? Surely between Tom DeLay’s indictment, the CIA leak, and the nomination of Harriet Miers, the administration is rife with causes for concern that are far greater than any threat Cindy Sheehan or France could possibly pose. While Mr. Stewart maintained his composure and remained articulate while respectfully disagreeing with Mr. O’Reilly’s style, the latter attempted to defend himself by calling Mr. Stewart a “pinhead” and attacking Stephen Colbert (former Daily Show correspondent and current host of The Colbert Report). When the audience reacted with boos and groans, Mr. O’Reilly acted as though this was to be expected of a Daily Show audience, despite their hostility not having been on display until the Mr. O’Reilly lowered the level of debate to childish name-calling.

Far from being simply an interesting contrast between two pundits’ styles however, their debate was a microcosm of the vast differences between those on their respective ends of the political spectrum. The right-wing has had a long-standing tendency to engage in personal attacks and negative campaigning. While this is not to say that the Democrats never resort to the negative ad strategy, for the Republicans, such tactics are their usual modus operandi. This should be of concern to every sentient person not only because no serious topical discussion will ever come of personal attacks, but because the more the right allows the focus to shift to personality issues, the less will actually be accomplished. By the same token, a hearty endorsement of a candidate or nominee because of their personality rather than their capabilities does not serve the interests of the electorate.

It has become painfully clear that the conservative faction of the federal government has become, perhaps irrevocably, accustomed to this method of politicking in order to get any point across—either to defend themselves or to promote their opinions. Harriet Miers’ nomination was presented by President Bush as someone who he knew personally and who he felt had a strong character. While strength of character may be an admirable quality, it is not a primary qualification for Supreme Court Justice. Following widespread criticism, President Bush’s next line of defense to support his nominee was to play up her credentials as a highly religious person. Again, he presented insufficient evidence to support her nomination and hoped that public opinion would swing her way once the members of Congress became more acquainted with her personality. To their credit, it appears those on both sides of the aisle have not been duped by this ploy and continue to criticize her inadequate judicial expertise.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay opted for a similar tack; rather than defend himself against the charges facing him, he attacked the credentials of the prosecutor investigating him. The prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, contrary to Mr. DeLay's allegations has proven to have an impeccable past and a track record almost inversely partisan, having investigated more Democrats than Republicans during his tenure. Mr. DeLay’s defense of himself is presumably to ignore the facts of the case and act as if he is being tried unfairly, railing against the very government he has willfully manipulated to within an inch of its legal life.

The politics of personality pugilism are probably most transparent in the case of the CIA leak investigation. When Joseph Wilson published an article in the New York Times questioning the motives of the administration with reference to the Iraq War, the administration’s response was to surreptitiously smear him by leaking information about his wife to the press in attempt to damage his credibility. The details of the leak are in the process of being brought to light, but it exposes the knee-jerk reaction of this White House to discredit any who dare to disagree with them. Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill would likely testify to that fact; both were high profile members of President Bush’s first term and published books exposing serious deficiencies within the administration. Both were the subject of personal attacks following the release of their tomes.

If right-wing politicians desire to continue to wield any influence in government, it is imperative that they articulate their positions and back them with hard facts. These smear tactics and attempts to obfuscate the facts by focusing on personality issues may work for a short time in getting them into a position of power, but they are smoke and mirrors—eventually the people will demand accountability and responsibility. For the most part, the political entanglements the Republicans find themselves in are a result of an inability to convince people to adopt their stance on its merits. They have fallen back on the politics of name-calling and eventually, just as Bill O’Reilly unraveled, so they will too come undone.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The debate regarding the forthcoming NBA dress code rages on, with David Stern expanding the new rules to include jewelry. As if the mandatory business suits hadn’t already drawn the ire of the players, the new restrictions regarding jewelry were bound to add to the controversy. Stephen Jackson (Indiana Pacers) was one of the first to speak up on the subject. Mr. Jackson’s view was an interesting one—he actually supported a dress code insofar as it applied to actual clothing; metallic accessories, he felt, were off limits. Mr. Jackson, in reference to the impending ban on bling, claimed it was racist—that the majority of those who have adopted this style of accessorizing are young black men who are now being unfairly targeted by the league. In retaliation, Mr. Jackson adorned himself with all the chains he owns when he next appeared in public.

The ban on jewelry may be vaguely racist, but worse still is that it also implies that how a person looks is, and should be, the sole criteria for judgment. The implication that certain types of jewelry and clothing are representative of a debauched persona is in itself the narrow-minded opinion of one person. Mr. Stern should concentrate on the personalities themselves and not the outward appearance of his players. For their part, the players, for all their hip-hop bravado, often engage in worthwhile activities that give back to the communities they play in. Some of this is evidenced by the NBA’s Community Assist Award, which honors an NBA player each month for outstanding contributions to his local community. And following the destruction in the south brought on by Hurricane Katrina, there was clearly no shortage of assists from the NBA all-star community.

With the dress code, the league and Commissioner David Stern are tacitly sending the message that clothing is a reflection on a person. Mr. Stern, by focusing on the superficial, has missed the point entirely. If he is trying to cultivate an image of the NBA as a league not being a group of egocentric, overpaid, shallow athletes who engage in brawls on the court as much as off of it, then he needs to shift the focus from the superficial and encourage community activities. Oftentimes, the good work professional athletes do off the court is overshadowed by the less-than-wholesome lives being led by a minority. The reports of any illegal activities are reported on out of all proportion to the charitable activities. Rather than fining athletes for dressing in a manner deemed inappropriate, which is itself a rather arbitrary measure of “good” versus “bad”, the league should encourage community involvement and altruistic pursuits by its players.

Michael Jordan, the sartorial paragon of a bygone era of the NBA—an epoch that featured three-piece suits on basketball stars and when the only bling in sight was an NBA championship ring—recently gave an interview to the news magazine show, 60 Minutes. In it, he attempts to defuse criticism that he never involved himself with politics or took a more vocal stance on any issue. His answer to his critics was that his job was to play basketball. Mr. Jordan was in a position of immense influence and, in his heyday, the most recognizable athlete, if not person, in the world. This remains true to this day, long after his latest retirement from the game. Granted, because a person has become a sporting superstar and wields an immense amount of influence, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is duty-bound to use that power and his free time for either charitable pursuits or to take a vocal stance on any topic. But Mr. Jordan has made time to endorse a variety of products—Nike, Wheaties, Hanes, and Gatorade, to name but a fraction of the companies vying to associate themselves with his franchise—to open a restaurant which bears his name, and to launch a cologne. He seems to have no problem raising his public profile via appearances in countless commercials but pleaded nolo contendere when questioned about Nike’s use of child labor or gun control following his father’s murder.

Staying out of legal trouble, in and of itself, should not be an admirable accomplishment. As Chris Rock has said, “You’re not supposed to go to jail.” Shilling for a variety of companies for personal profit while wearing a business suit is not more admirable than setting up a charity while wearing gold and diamond chains. Mr. Stern may want the current players in the NBA to be retrofitted with the attire from Mr. Jordan’s era, but the image of the league would be better served by players who are actively engaged in community service, rather than those who just wear a suit to work everyday in order to garner another shoe contract.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 05:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The NBA (read: Commissioner David Stern) has decided that in order to counteract what appears to be a rapidly deteriorating image associated with the game, a dress code should be instituted both on and off the court. Naturally, this has sparked no small amount of controversy as players and pundits alike weigh in on both sides of the issue. The motivations behind the dress code and specifics of the new rules themselves, which are slated to take effect at the start of the regular season, are largely the stuff of speculation at the moment, and the rumors that are circulating are merely adding fuel to the fire.

The proposed dress code comes as part of a package of initiatives concocted by the NBA players union and the league in their collective bargaining agreement to make the NBA more ‘user-friendly’, i.e. compelling players to be more accessible to the public via extended press conferences and autograph signings amongst a host of other activities unrelated to practice and games. It is no secret that Mr. Stern and the league have become increasingly concerned as to how NBA players are perceived among the public and wish reverse the steady loss of viewership. What is unclear is whether Mr. Stern believes that the players’ attitudes or the public’s view of the players will improve with the change in clothing. Many NBA players can currently be seen sporting a casual dress sense evocative of the gangsta rap style which itself drew from the low-rise baggy jeans worn in prison—prisoners would have their belts and laces confiscated to prevent hangings. Ironically, it was the league themselves who chose to tie the NBA in with the hip-hop culture for promotional purposes. As the hip-hop genre grew in popularity throughout the music and fashion worlds occupied by the younger generations, the league hopped on the bandwagon in order to add to its fan base. Now they shy away from that image, fearing it is scaring away the older generation.

While a dress code of some description appears to have been agreed upon by the players’ union, Mr. Stern will be making a unilateral decision as to what the specifics will be. This is not unusual for Mr. Stern, given his proclivity to act without taking the players’ viewpoints into consideration. Many were irked at Mr. Stern’s decision to grant suspensions with no recourse for appeal following the now infamous brawl in Detroit last season. Regardless of that situation, which admittedly was an entirely different scenario, the approval of a precept that affects the players’ lives outside of the basketball court should, at the very least, give some consideration to how the players may react to it. Mr. Stern was asked how he felt regarding the players views and responded, “Well, the job description has changed.” Mr. Stern’s cavalier statement regarding the players’ opinions is insulting and belies a megalomaniacal regard for the league.

Not surprisingly, the players have been vocal in response to Mr. Stern’s latest actions. Some have made comments that can be considered bordering on narcissistic ignorance—Marcus Camby’s (Denver Nuggets) suggestion of a clothing stipend in addition to his bloated salary rank among these—but others have valid concerns. Allen Iverson (Philadelphia 76ers) commented on the message it sends to kids, that they might feel inadequate unless attired in the “correct” clothes. Many sports commentators have taken Mr. Iverson to task over his remarks but he does have a point, despite the gauche phrasing. The NBA is implicitly stating via the dress code (and proposed fines in the case of noncompliance) that clothes are of paramount importance and integral to personal success and the maintenance of a high moral standard. Furthermore, it sends the message to the players that each of them is the property of the NBA; that the league wishes to control all aspects of a players’ life off the court, public appearances, media events, and now, their clothes. Wearing a uniform during a game or even a practice session is understandable. Forcing a player to wear a certain type of clothing in their personal life is at best a mild imposition, at worst, unduly restrictive.

Mr. Stern and the league are justified in their concern that a player’s behavior off the court may reflect poorly on the league. But a player’s personal life, so long as it is legal, is out of the control of the league and certainly will not alter given a change of clothes. Within the past several weeks, there were reports of three separate incidents involving gun violence which resulted in the authorities speaking to NBA players (the players involved were Andray Blatche, Melvin Ely, and Tony Allen) giving the league further cause for consternation. However, the violence was not instigated by any of the players—two were robbery victims while the third was a witness—and these incidents were no more or less likely to have occurred with a dress code in place. Compelling players to dress in a style Mr. Stern deems to be appropriate signifies nothing more a superficial change—it will not alter a player’s behavior as the league has hinted. The belief that suits relay a well-mannered image and promote a less violent lifestyle is an erroneous one; those who lived in fear of Al Capone will attest to that.

So what is the real motivation behind the dress code? The bottomline here is the bottomline. Mr. Stern, by his own admission, is concerned that the older fans of the game are turning away from the NBA due to the hip-hop look of the players. The majority of the NBA’s revenues in ticket sales and merchandising are unlikely to be from the younger fans, brought into the fold thanks to the hip-hop cross-marketing. For the commissioner to now decry that lifestyle as contributing to a poor image of the league, is hypocritical, to say the least. But history exposes the truth of the present: fearing the loss of corporate sponsors and older fans with greater cash at their disposal to spend on NBA luxury skyboxes, the commissioner has turned on his prior marketing gimmick and opted for a new one. That the commissioner is attempting to revive the league’s fortunes is laudable, after all, it is his job. But hiding behind the faux moral stance of improving player attitudes and cleaning up the poor image of the league is not.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In his unremitting struggle to win the war, President Bush once again turned to his favorite ratings enhancer: the video-op. No, the White House did not stage the bi-continental video conference in response to the Iraq War, nor the War on Terror, but the Public Perception War. This morning saw the president engaging in scripted banter with a handful of carefully selected troops stationed in Iraq. What was the message he was attempting to deliver so urgently? That everything is on track, we need to stay the course, etc. In other words, the usual spiel he delivers at every opportunity – empty rhetoric with no plan for withdrawal nor any news of any substantial progress. Unsurprisingly, no one veered from their prepared remarks—perhaps Specialist Thomas Wilson has ruined extemporized remarks for all troops—and the time delay rendered some of the banter painful as the president attempted to inject a couple of extremely slowly-paced—and noticeably rehearsed—jokes into the session.

Reports earlier this week that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings have fallen to a new low could have prompted the latest in this line of White House-produced reality videos. The irony of course being that these scripted TV spots do not necessarily reflect the actual reality. The video-op was ostensibly staged to provide the troops with a morale boost as well as to reassure those of us of the effort on the home front. But we’ve heard these platitudes before, and have yet to see any substantive results.

White House reporters later questioned White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and paid particular attention to the prepared appearance of the troops’ questions and responses. Mr. McClellan acted as though the mere suggestion that the troops had been prepped was an affront on Democracy itself, and while acknowledging that the troops were told what to expect from the President, he replied that they were allowed to ask Mr. Bush whatever they wished. One can only wonder if Specialist Wilson was watching and wondering why he was excoriated for being so bold as to take Mr. McClellan up on his offer.

This video-op is unlikely to provide a bump in the poll ratings for Mr. Bush. Americans have heard Mr. Bush sing this tune before and as the quagmire in Iraq continues, we have become inured to his pleadings to give him more time, that this is a slow process. Our troops have been in Iraq since March 2003 and it is clear that this administration has no real plan for the future or even the present. Although Mr. Bush declared an end to major military operations in early May 2003 on board the USS Abraham Lincoln and beneath a sign that read “Mission Accomplished”, the mission was in fact, far from accomplished. Subsequent attempts by the White House to deflect responsibility for the sign itself to the Navy could not have been more repellant.

Certainly the public is aware that the Navy does not dictate policy via banner suggestions for Presidential photo-ops. But there is a larger issue at play here, and that is that the administration has failed to grasp a simple fact: eventually the public will grow weary of the theatrics and demand genuine results. Neither blaming the Navy for the banner, nor Specialist Wilson for his exposure of a serious deficiency, nor endless clichés delivered in carefully scripted settings (be they with regard to natural disasters or wars) will deliver solutions to the issues facing the people of this nation. The White House should stop battling the perception problems the Mr. Bush is facing and focus on the real problems the country is facing.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 05:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After the immediate concerns resulting from Hurricane Katrina’s savage assault on New Orleans were dealt with—i.e. sheltering those who lost their homes, providing food to the hungry, and so forth—the secondary focus shifted to finding solutions for long term problems. One of many such issues was where the New Orleans Saints’ new home would be for the 2005-06 season. Millions watched on TV as the Louisiana Superdome, site of six Superbowls and home to those escaping theirs during the hurricane, was battered by the storm. New Orleans has hosted nine Superbowls, more than any other city, and the loss of the Superdome and consequently NFL football for the season was surely a tough blow for those who have already suffered greatly.

In the midst of the controversy surrounding possible locations for home games and a revised timetable for the games, several NFL commentators mentioned that of course, out of sympathy, everyone would be cheering for the Saints. Furthermore, they felt that if a team was leading in a game by a substantial margin (which was never defined), the opposing team would have to consider scaling back their offense in order to save the Saints from being humiliated.

In the meantime, a team which inhabits a locale nearly due north of Saints, the Green Bay Packers—that perennial playoff contender, a team with a storied NFL past, and a stadium arguably more historically rich than the Superdome—was struggling to find its feet, having yet to notch a single win this season. On the heels of an off-season in which rumors of quarterback Brett Favre’s imminent retirement were ubiquitous, if not substantiated, many commentators questioned the wisdom of starting Favre and were quick to pin the blame for their dismal start on him. Favre, no stranger to tragedy in his own personal life, was perhaps one of the most interviewed players following Hurricane Katrina—he was born in Mississippi and his childhood home was destroyed. He later contacted his family, who were unharmed, but few NFL players have been this close to the trauma which was Katrina.

On Sunday, the Green Bay Packers, with a record of 0-4 at the time, were slated to play the New Orleans Saints, at 2-2 prior to the game. Given the Packers’ record and the number of pessimists and doomsayers who predicted that Brett Favre would have to be ousted as starting quarterback, it seemed that no one could have predicted this outcome. That the Packers did not reign in their offense and that the Saints did not complain about the trouncing is a tribute to both teams’ commitment to football. Had the Packers not played to their full potential, it would have been patronizing to the Saints—the suggestion that other teams take pity on the Saints due to their circumstances is condescending. One would presume that the Saints would rather their opponents played them as they would play any other team, anything less is insulting.

After 9/11, the World Series trophy was certainly not given to the Yankees, nor Superbowl rings to the Giants. In fact, the NFL would not even seriously entertain the idea of moving the Superbowl location to the Meadowlands, even as an attempt to bring increased revenue to New York. The nation unites behind cities that have suffered through major disasters, both financially and emotionally. But to afford them undue consideration is humiliating to them and an affront to the sport itself.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. James Dobson, the prominent conservative radio personality and founder of Focus on the Family, commented on the Miers selection earlier this week. Dr. Dobson’s remarks are interesting since they reveal perhaps more than simply his endorsement of Ms. Miers. According to Dr. Dobson, Karl Rove reassured him that the high court pick was one that he could be satisfied with. Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention was equally satisfied with the President’s pick following similar conversations with Mr. Rove. This brings about a couple of points that should concern not just the liberal section of the populous, but anyone who believes in our system of elected government and the Constitution, perhaps not ironically, the very system and document the nominee in question will have such influence over.

The first point of concern: why are conservative talk show hosts and members of the conservative Christian wing of Mr. Bush’s base given prior notification regarding Supreme Court nominations? Apart from skating fairly close to the edge on the separation of church and state issue, Dr. Dobson and his ilk were not elected members of our federal government. If they were notified ahead of time, why weren’t any liberal pundits allowed the same insight? For that matter why wasn’t I? Or more pointedly, why weren’t any Congressional leaders? If Mr. Bush was seeking some input from them as he made his selection, it dramatically exposed his campaign mantra of being a “uniter, not a divider” as being nothing more than an outright lie. On the other hand, perhaps he was not seeking their approval, but merely offering them the courtesy of advance notification. This scenario is equally troubling, as it indicates a need to placate the extreme members of his party on matters as weighty as Supreme Court nominations.

Secondly, it should concern us all that Mr. Rove, or any member of this particular White House for that matter, is holding more secret meetings. Although Mr. Rove is being investigated—albeit extremely slowly by a sympathetic investigator—for leaking sensitive information, he continues to act in that vein by holding secret meetings with non-governmental officials and releasing sensitive information. Even now that the public has been made aware of the meetings, apparently the beneficiaries of Mr. Rove’s heads up are not at liberty to release the exact details of them, except to say that they are satisfied. Forgive us if we would prefer to make up our own minds regarding the nomination and would like to be privy to these insights offered to these conservatives. Mr. Rove’s brazen disregard for the political process gives us a glimpse into the hubris of this man and this administration.

On Meet The Press this morning, one of Tim Russert’s guests was Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. He stated that he is in favor of the nomination and stated that he felt that “she will vote the way he would want her to vote.” Mr. Russert then asked Mr. Land to comment on a remarks attributed to him in a posting on the Web site of People for the American Way. Mr. Land states he believes that if Ms. Miers didn’t vote the way Mr. Bush wanted her to, he would consider it an act of personal betrayal. On Meet The Press, Mr. Land attempted to back peddle on what would obviously be considered a troubling interpretation: that Ms. Miers’ allegiance was first to Mr. Bush, the man, not to the office of the Presidency and more to the point, not to the nation and the Constitution. While he softened his statements, his intent was clear: that Ms. Miers is a suitable nominee due to her loyalty to Mr. Bush and his values. Mr. Dobson would be wise to remember that the United States is a republic, not a monarchy.

Of course, nothing about this debate is beneficial to those of us hoping for real discussion on a Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats have remained largely silent and unengaged while the conservatives tear each other apart on the basis of Ms. Miers’ conservative credentials. Tellingly, Mr. Russert’s guest to oppose Mr. Dobson was Pat Buchanan. The debate over this, or any, Supreme Court nominee should not be cheapened to a question of her involvement in her church’s activities and willingness to vote a certain way on a Roe v. Wade case. The candidate should be a qualified one and that is clearly not the case here. But the controversy over Ms. Miers has served to highlight some of the fundamental problems that have plagued the Bush administration—the need to ask permission of the conservative faction of the country prior to making any significant decisions, the secrecy and deception that has ruled unchecked in this White House, and the idea that they are bigger than the offices they occupy.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 09:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“It ain’t over till it’s over.” –Yogi Berra

The Boston Red Sox certainly proved that last year, coming back from three games down in the ALCS to take the pennant from the New York Yankees. And the Yankees proved that this year, recovering from a disastrous start and many mediocre performances to end the regular season atop the AL East. The focus in the American League this year has been the Yankees and the Red Sox—partly thanks to the longstanding rivalry, partly thanks to last year’s theatrics, partly thanks to the hotly contested playoff berths in the AL. And this year, like last year could feature the Sox winning a championship and dissolving the “curse” that’s haunted the ball club for almost a century. Yes, this year could be the year that the Chicago White Sox finally shrug off their curse.

The ChiSox’s curse goes back to 1917, one year before the BoSox’s curse of the Bambino took effect. Unlike Boston, Chicago’s transgression was no simple trade to free up some cash so that the ballclub’s owner could finance a play. No, Chicago’s problem was one that has plagued professional sports for generations—accusations of a fixed game. The members of the 1919 team, who were thought to have been involved in the deception, were nicknamed the "Black Sox" and while no proof of the allegations emerged, the players suspected to have been involved were banned from major league baseball. Like Marlon Brando’s Terry Malloy, perhaps Shoeless Joe would look back in disgust at having had his talent nullified.

The Red Sox finally ended their World Series drought last year, in a year when many accepted tenets fell (e.g. historically, the taller candidate has lost the Presidential election only three times yet President Bush bucked that trend), so did the absolutism that the Red Sox would forever be haunted by the Ruth trade. The jinxed White Sox’s predicament has long been overshadowed by that of their east coast counterparts. Theoretically, the origination of the curse—illegality versus stupidity—may play a role in the public’s sympathies. Whatever the reason, hardcore White Sox fans have been just as long-suffering, if not as openly anguished, over their own haunted team.

Tonight the ChiSox eliminated the BoSox in an impressive first round sweep. With their solid play during the regular season and their ability to ratchet it up a notch in the post-season, this could very well be the year Shoeless Joe is avenged. Hey, stranger things have happened.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Prior to the nominations of Harriet Miers and the newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, many conservatives and Republicans had decried the tactics they feared the Democrats might use in order to block an appointment by Bush administration. Filibustering, that centuries old stratagem used on every side of the political spectrum in order to block appointments and laws when the majority appeared overly powerful, was itself called into question. Judging by some of the conservative propaganda released, one would be forgiven for believing that it was a new invention by the Democrats, thought up purely to impede Congressional proceedings and the democratic process. The right-wing, working on the presumption that President Bush would nominate a candidate who held views favorable to their base, launched a pre-emptive media strike—claiming that no candidate should be rejected on ideological grounds.

In recent history, the Republicans have become easily agitated on the subject of Supreme Court nominees in large part due to two instances: Robert Bork’s rejection and the perceived traitorous ideological switch by David Souter.

Robert Bork, a staunch conservative and a strict constructionist, was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987. His reputation preceded him and within hours of his nomination, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts famously delivered a speech in which he publicly denounced the nominee’s views. Mr. Kennedy painted a portrait abhorrent to most Americans—that with Mr. Bork on the court, civil rights and the right to privacy would be drastically rolled back. While many Republicans were outraged at Mr. Kennedy’s portrayal of their choice, Mr. Bork had admitted that his belief was that an individual’s right to privacy was not explicitly set out in the text of the Constitution. Still wounded from the rejection of Mr. Bork, the Republicans were later handed Justice David Souter. Although appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Justice Souter has migrated towards a more centrist role, and often writes opinions with the liberal end of the bench. Now Souter’s name is uttered with near-derision by conservatives who feel cheated by his ostensible shift in political philosophy.

In recent months, the Bush administration and their conservative base have laid the groundwork for a charged political battle by claiming that the Democrats will filibuster an ideologically-divisive nominee. Still bitter about their own failed attempts to appoint an ultra-conservative to the bench, they seem bent on pushing such a nominee through now that they have control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government. Ironically, many Constitutional scholars contend that the filibuster is an instrument required by a democratic government in order to prevent the appointment of extreme ideologues. Even President George Washington was not awarded a rubber stamp on his nominees for the high court.

Somewhat hypocritically, but perhaps not unexpectedly, the Republicans have modified their view on the issue. In fact, the President’s conservative base has contributed to a veritable uproar regarding Mr. Bush’s latest nominee. While they do not oppose Harriet Miers on the basis of cronyism (which I’ve previously stated is a justifiable concern) or her questionable judicial experience (or lack thereof), they oppose her on ideological grounds. The extent of their hypocrisy is astounding, their statements indefensibly illogical. Coming hot on the heels of their attacks on the Democrats for rejecting a candidate who has a philosophy that concerns them, one can only wonder how the Republicans can continue to irreverently switch their positions dramatically at opportune times and not appear to be making a mockery of the public. This is not to let the Democrats off the hook for their reaction. Senator Harry Reid for example, was quick to approve of Ms. Miers, barely taking the time to fully read up on her background. However, in this case, the Republicans’ offenses are far worse.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

President Bush this morning named his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—Harriet Miers, White House Counsel. Mr. Bush followed much the same pattern as with his first Supreme Court nomination, choosing a nominee with a limited judicial past, and whose past in the public eye gives little if any clue as to the candidate’s views on the various contentious issues that may face a future Associate Justice. But one thing is clear with his nomination of Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush has not given up on his primary guiding principle: to elevate his cronies to high positions in government. This in spite of the media outcry and public outrage that followed from the revelation that Michael Brown—the President’s choice for FEMA director—was appointed with no prior experience in disaster management.

On introducing his nominee, Mr. Bush provided the public and Congress with the information in the same vein as he did with now Chief Justice Roberts before her. He read a short encyclopediac biography, revealing little if anything about Ms. Miers. Mr. Bush, as with his nomination of John Roberts, volunteered little insight as to why he specifically chose Ms. Miers beyond his requirements of personal integrity and an unwillingness to “legislate from the bench”, then went on to deliver a profile of her life, including a recitation of her resume and an acknowledgement of her mother as her inspiration in her career. Once again, Mr. Bush failed to clarify why this particular candidate was fit for the highest court in the land.

Mr. Bush may appear to be seeking diversity on the court by selecting a woman, but the superficial features of his choice should not overshadow the beliefs that she may hold. Justice Clarence Thomas, though a member of the minority community himself, has a tendency to vote in line with the conservative members of the Supreme Court, and far from championing the cause of minorities, he has proven to be a hindrance. One can only hope that despite her conservative affinities, she will not conform to Justice Thomas’ model.

Although some commentators on the right have been vocally critical of the lack of a paper trail by which to determine whether or not Mr. Bush’s high court pick meets their standards, this is a red herring in the discussion, falsely leading the public to believe that perhaps Ms. Miers is not the ultra-conservative she [potentially] is. Mr. Bush has often cited Justices Scalia and Thomas as his preferred judges on the bench and such thinly veined references to his own hard right inclination should leave the public with no doubt as to Ms. Miers’ likely views.

As for Ms. Miers own statements, we were given a glimpse of her views in her short but telling set of remarks this morning. Despite her enigmatic judicial history, two themes were conspicuously revealed and were obscured amongst the usual modest civilities. One was her intention to “strictly apply the law and the Constitution”—a clearer statement by a strict constructionist of their beliefs has probably never been spoken. This leaves no doubt as to how she would vote, were she to succeed in the Senate confirmation process.

The other was the stanza on the “wisdom of… the founding fathers”, of which the statement above was the closer. She strenuously stated her conviction that the role of the courts was not to over-interpret the law, that the three branches of the federal government were isolated entities, and that the Supreme Court’s function remain in line with what the Founding Fathers had intended. All three views are consistent with those of strict constructionists and expose her views of the Court itself and how she would vote. Her comments imply that she intends to roll back the role of the Court in setting legislative precedent. Furthermore, such comments are almost paradoxical: she believes that the three branches of government should remain completely independent of one another, yet she has been nominated by a chief executive who relied on the Supreme Court’s intervention in order to get “elected” in the first place.

Ultimately, we are faced with another high court pick who embodies all of Mr. Bush’s requisite qualities: a strict constructionist, a vague judicial past to ensure a relatively comfortable nominating process, someone who the President believes possesses personal “integrity”, and someone who has served the President as a loyal friend—if not the country in any judicial capacity. Ironically, Mr. Bush’s search for an integrity-prone candidate sacrifices some of his own integrity. Appointing nominees to high level government positions because they are longtime friends, regardless of their background and suitability for the role, smacks of governmental corruption. We have already seen the results of the last failed experiment with cronyism when Michael Brown was forced to step down as head of FEMA. What will be the consequences of this latest trial?

Posted by Sam Clemens at 06:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)