Miers and the administration's information dissemination policies

[bascule]

This story really touched a nerve with me. For some reason the administration seems very forthcoming to those who hold no official position, your Robert Blake type. Yet official inquiries into information are often flat out denied with no explanation.

 

Secrets are needlessly kept from both the public and government officials, and the administration asks Congress to make decisions in ignorance. That's an absolutely abhorrent idea to me which seems to run directly counter to a free and open democratic process, and instead the information is kept within a small oligarchy who seems to think they should pull all the strings.

 

So, think of this as a case instance of what I would consider a systemic problem:

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4132728,00.html

 

WASHINGTON - If Focus on the Family founder James Dobson knows a secret about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Sen. Ken Salazar wants to know what it is.

 

Some prominent conservatives have expressed skepticism or dismay over Miers' nomination, saying her beliefs are less than crystal clear. But Dobson, one of the country's most outspoken evangelical Christian leaders, praised the pick.

 

In a release Monday, Dobson said he trusted President Bush's personal knowledge of Miers and his record of naming judges who will "not use the bench to write social policy."

 

The president's lead political adviser, Karl Rove, reportedly called Dobson and other conservatives ahead of time to reassure them about the Miers pick.

 

Afterward, Dobson told The New York Times he supported her because of her religious faith and because he has reason to believe she opposes abortion.

 

"Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," he told the newspaper.

 

That statement bothers Salazar, a first-term Denver Democrat who describes Miers as a "blank slate" whose views are little known.

 

"It's troublesome to me the comment would be made," Salazar said at a Tuesday news conference in Denver. "It seems to me, all of the (information) the White House knows about Harriet Miers should be made available to the Senate and the American people. If they're making information available to Dr. Dobson - whom I respect and disagree with from time to time - I believe that information should be shared equally with a U.S. senator."

 

[...]

[john5746]

They have the opportunity to grill her under oath. If they feel they don't have enought information, they can vote no. I don't think everyone that has ever talked to her must reveal everything they know.

 

Everyone is careful when providing info to their "enemy". Even within companies, departments are careful about giving information to other departments, etc.

 

Dobson obviously believes she will vote based on her beliefs, which he shares. He doesn't distinguish moral beliefs from law, most lawyers have to at some point, but he is hoping she won't most of the time.

[Douglas]

This story really touched a nerve with me. For some reason the administration seems very forthcoming to those who hold no official position, your Robert Blake type. Yet official inquiries into information are often flat out denied with no explanation.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you talking about executive privilage or something related?

 

As for Miers, I'm disappointed in Bush's selection. I would have loved him to select Janice Rogers Brown as the next associate judge on the supreme court.

[swansont]

Dobson obviously believes she will vote based on her beliefs, which he shares.

 

And I believe that the senator want to know if this is based on any factual information. Because if a person is going to rule based on belief rather than the law, they shouldn't be confirmed as a judge.

[Pangloss]

To me the most fascinating thing about the Miers story is the way it's turn conservatives against Bush. I'm astonished by the level of outrage and disgust. The George Will column floored me. I turned in Rush "My Middle Name is Bush" Limbaugh for an hour at lunch and couldn't believe my ears. The idea that this nomination could fail because of lack of *Republican* support is something I never in my wildest imagination considered for even a moment.

 

Of course, as far as I'm concerned anything that disappoints extremists is probably a pretty good idea. But I'm concerned about the fact that she has, as they sometimes say, two birthdays. "Objective born-again Christian" is practically a contradiction in terms.

 

Still, I think she's going to sail through the Senate like a John Kerry photo-op.

[Douglas]

I read Will's column and listened to Ann Coulter. Coulter sees her as an unqualified crony.

 

I'd like to see the senate repubs turn against Bush on this one.

[bascule]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you talking about executive privilage or something related?

 

I'm talking about them whispering secrets in James Dobson's ear then refusing to share that same information with a U.S. Senator (of whom Dobson makes up his constituency). It's downright disrespectful. So I guess we'll just have to wait for Miers to dodge Salazar's questions when he finally gets to grill her just like Roberts dodged Salazar's questions when he got to grill him.

[Douglas]

Talking about questioning potential judges, I read a good one from Ann Coulter via Michelle Malkin...........

 

Malkins blog

 

Best line from Ann's interview:

 

The one major beneficiary from [Miers'] nomination is Joe Biden, who will finally look like a constitutional scholar when questioning a judicial nominee.

 

Yowch!

[Pangloss]

There's a tremendous irony here in the way Republicans are talking about qualifications. The right wing is pretty offended by the fact that they didn't get their ideologue, and any talk about "qualifications" is just a smokescreen to cover the fact that they know darn well that her lack of ideology is not a valid excuse for failure to confirm.

 

In short, they're behaving exactly like Democrats were during the Roberts nomination. And Republicans were all over that, saying that Democrats were putting up a smokescreen for the fact that Roberts wasn't conforming to their desires with regard to abortion.

 

From my perspective, as a radical moderate intent on pointing out any and all hypocrisy in politics, the irony is delicious, and I'll be milking this one for years.

[john5746]

Talking about questioning potential judges' date=' I read a good one from Ann Coulter via Michelle Malkin...........

 

Malkins blog[/quote']

 

Ann Coulter is garbage, but has a point on this one, as does George Will. But, just because she isn't nationally know doesn't mean she isn't good enough. Anyone that could get Bush to understand complicated issues is pretty darn good, assuming she was successful at doing it.

[Douglas]

and any talk about "qualifications" is just a smokescreen to cover the fact that they know darn well that her lack of ideology is not a valid excuse for failure to confirm.

In theory, I agree. In reality I disagree. Ginzberg's lack of conservative ideology was enough for the Repubs to not confirm, just as Bork's conservative ideology was enough to have him tarred, featherd and put on the the first boxcar out of town.

 

The Repubs are in the drivers seat, and the conservatives want a bonafide, well known red blooded right winger.....(not a religeous nut)

 

Abortion is not the whole issue, issues like judges being soft on pedophiles, or allowing the state to take your property or allowing children to frivolously sue their parents or just plain far left liberalism in general.

[H W Copeland]

The problem is that the so-called religious right wants Roe V Wade overturned, and voted for Republicans in the hope that a Republican President would appoint Supreme Court Justices who would do just that.

 

The Republican party, on the other hand, don't want Roe overturned because they know that they are getting a lot of votes out of it (Roe).

 

The right wing has no where else to turn except toward a 3rd party candidate. The last time we had a powerful 3rd party candidate, was when Ross Perot handed the election to Clinton.

 

Alas Babalon.

[john5746]

The Republican party' date=' on the other hand, [i']don't[/i] want Roe overturned because they know that they are getting a lot of votes out of it (Roe).

 

This is the same argument the right says concerning race and poverty on the left. It may be treu of some, but that is a very small minority. Many republicans are pro-choice because it can be argued to be a conservative issue legally. Having the government step and tell someone what they can do with their bodies is not conservative. Of course, making the exception for murder is understandable, but not eveyone agrees it is murder.

[Pangloss]

In theory, I agree. In reality I disagree.

 

Well and here we see the reason why taking a middle road, rather than an ideological road, is a good idea. When it comes time to pass an objective assessment about something, people are more inclined to listen to you if you have not shown partisan bias in the past.

 

I like the bit above about how the right wing will now vote for a third party candidate. A year ago we were talking about how the left wing was going to do that because Kerry had come too far towards the center. A couple of years from now we'll be talking about the same thing again when Hillary gets nominated. It's a completely empty threat, because it would simply be handing the other side a victory -- the one thing that ideologues can NEVER do. The way you deal with partisan ideologues is by IGNORING THEM. One of these days we'll figure that out.

 

I tell you what, why don't we just take the 30% of this country (the 15% far left and the 15% far right) that has no interest in compromise or middle ground and put them all on Lost island. We'll tell them that they have to punch in a computer code every 108 minutes or the nukes will be launched (an apocryphal apocalypse, if you will). We'll put one group down the Hatch with the computer, and the other group on the shore. And then we'll make a TV reality show out of it, for the entertainment of the 70% of us who think they're a bunch of clowns. I give them a day before the conspiracy accusations start flying, and a week before they're dead to the last man.

 

(Hey lookie there, I just figured out "Lost"!)

[Douglas]

As I see it, most of us are "middle of the roaders" up to some point. At that point one swerves either left or right, at which time one becomes an ideologue. That is to say, at this point, there are only two answers...yes or no. The middle of the road means "I don't care"

 

For example, I can tolerate 1st trimester abortions, I cannot tolerate partial birth abortions.......thus I become an ideologue to the person who tolerates them.

[Pangloss]

That's a very middle of the road position on abortion, Douglas. Don't you care about unborn children?

 

(You see my point, right? I'm not actually suggesting that you don't care about unborn children.)

[Pangloss]

Interesting column by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal suggesting that the lopsided vote on the interrogation attachment to the defense spending bill was in part a payback for Harriet Miers.

 

I disagree with his conclusion -- I think he's saying that because the WSJ is opposed to the Miers nomination (which is why I put this here instead of in the other thread). But *either way* it's another interesting example of how upset conservatives are about Miers.

 

More to the point, I don't think the Bush administration will see this column the way I do. Conservatives look to the WSJ as a bellweather, and this column is going to ruffle more White House feathers than a dozen Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh rantings.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110007375&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage

[Douglas]

Interesting column by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal suggesting that the lopsided vote on the interrogation attachment to the defense spending bill was in part a payback for Harriet Miers.

I would think it was more of a wake up call for the way the administration has been procrastinating on defining "torture".

 

As for the Miers "pissed off" crowd, I think the Repubs view Miers as another incompetant crony similar to FEMA's Brown.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting. I've yet to hear anyone, on either side, call Harriet Miers

incompetent. Most seem to feel that she's unqualified, which is a different thing altogether. But it's possible I just missed it, of course. In what way has she done a poor job?

[Timetravler]

Why do people think bush is doing such a bad job?

 

i think bush has done a pretty good job after 9/11... i mean are we going to let people push us around!

 

 

I am in the army!

 

i am proud to fight for all you that are complaining about bush! I mean do you just want him to let other countrys come in america and kill our people, and not take any action!

 

man that is sad:mad:

[john5746]

Why do people think bush is doing such a bad job?

 

i think bush has done a pretty good job after 9/11... i mean are we going to let people push us around!

 

 

I am in the army!

 

i am proud to fight for all you that are complaining about bush! I mean do you just want him to let other countrys come in america and kill our people' date=' and not take any action!

 

man that is sad:mad:[/quote']

 

I thank you and all the soldiers who fight for my country. There are soldiers who probably don't completely agree with Bush. Just because you fight in a war, does that mean you agree with it?

 

The terrorists are not bound to a country, Iraq was not invaded to get terrorists. Iraq was invaded to keep terrorists from acquiring WMD. Instead of being a little patient and waiting to see if any evidence of WMD was found, he jumped right in and destabilized the region.

 

Now, instead of being able to focus completely on taking out the terrorist network, Iraq is the major focus on the GLOBAL war on terror. We cannot afford to have another screw up like that.

[Douglas]

incompetent. Most seem to feel that she's unqualified[/i'],

"unqualified" is a much better word......my mistake.

[Pangloss]

Ah, ok.