Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Itchin' For a Fight
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 9:38 AM

Last night as I finally made my way back to the Sunshine State, I watched President Bush’s press conference in its entirety. At first I thought, “He doesn’t even care anymore.” The president was unusually feisty. But he was also charmless. I can’t remember any other time in his administration when he’s made a public appearance and been so utterly indifferent to looking and acting nice.

And then I thought, “Shrewd.”

The president understands that, political obsessives aside, no one really cares about this U.S. Attorney thing. Regardless of the reason for the firings, even if it was a low one like the president didn’t like who the terminees were or weren’t prosecuting, he was within his right to fire them. (Impeding a federal investigation is another matter, but even my rabid friends on the left haven’t accused him of that.) Just as my petulant cleaning lady who’s apparently allergic to dusting serves at my pleasure, they serve at his pleasure. Just like me, he may swing the axe any time he likes. In short, there’s no Constitutional crisis to see here – just move along.

But the president understands something about these Democrats who now sit on Capitol Hill. They were elected with a narrow agenda – Get Bush!!! And if you can’t get Bush, be damn sure to get Rove!

Partisan witch-hunts are to be the order of the day. The president also understands that the American public is predisposed to dislike Congress. What’s more, this Congress, once its true colors show, will be uniquely unpopular. Already, Gallup has Congress’ approval numbers sinking to the level the Republican Congress sat at before the November calamity.

SO WHY NOT PICK A FIGHT WITH CONGRESS? Drag the bloody affair out. Let the battle rage so long that it becomes apparent that the only thing this Congress cares about is partisan warfare. What’s best about this little plan is it involves a freak side show in which the performers are Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. It doesn’t involve matters of real consequence such as the war.

So how will it play out? I hate to say it, but Glenn Greenwald is right. The president’s invocation of executive privilege given this set of circumstances is weak. When the matter goes to court, the administration will likely lose. But big deal. The more protracted the affair is, the more apparent it will become that the Democrats’ entire agenda has been reduced to pursuing Karl Rove.

Let me be clear – while the Democrats have the right to subpoena Rove and Miers, that doesn’t mean they should, either ethically or morally. Theoretically, as congressmen, they have important things to do. Attempting to paralyze the government by conducting a craven fishing expedition shouldn’t be their top priority. But it is.

For my friend JG who loves my historical analogies, I’ll provide one that he’ll particularly enjoy. A certain portion of the Republican Party devoted an inordinate amount of energy to “getting” Bill Clinton in the 1990’s. At the time, I cheered these efforts. I remain an aficionado on obscure Whitewater trivia to this day. Ask me “Who is Webb Hubbell?” and I can refer you to several Wall Street Journal editorials on the matter.

But I was wrong then, and so was the Republican Party. Especially after seizing Congress in 1994, it would have been much better if we had focused on matters of high import rather than our feckless president and his wicked, wicked ways.

I make this confession not as an offering of atonement that will serve as a plea to the left to go easy on my president. Quite the contrary - let the Waxmans and Dingells and Conyers come out with all their guns blazing. What we did in the 90’s was dreadful politics, all of which accrued to Clinton’s advantage. And the course they’re embarking on now is dreadful politics.

They ran on a platform of changing Washington. Instead, they’re simply going to indulge their own hostility and hatred, while abandoning any pretense of having a constructive agenda. I plan on enjoying the spectacle.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.



View in ascending order View in descending order
laborlawyer writes: Thursday, March, 22, 2007 1:25 AM
Blu
You know me so well already (moral relativist leftie) that there's no point in responding to your brilliant analysis.

btw have we met?:)
Blu writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 9:12 PM
please laborlawyer enough moralizing
what don't you dems get? the us attorney jobs are pure patronage jobs. they can look the wrong way at somebody and get fired for it.

and, please, tell me the difference between firing 93 competent lawyers at once and firing a few in the middle. there is none, and you people know it.

the bottom line is that if a pres feel like any one of these people is not doing his political bidding then they are gone. PERIOD. get over it. and stop with the phony moralizing.

remember, you guys are lefties, which by definition means you are moral relativists who don't think there is a difference between right and wrong.
terrye writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 8:51 PM
The Dems might lose
They might lose the court case too because there is no indication of an underlying crime and because Bush offered a reasonable alternative.

I think the Democrats look like partisan hacks myself.
laborlawyer writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 7:37 PM
so many issues, so little space:)
Random thoughts of a liberal mind:)

...Dean isn't saying it was wrong morally, ethically, or patriotically to go after Clinton (though pasadena Phil, to his credit, does say so). Dean merely says it was bad politics. So let's not get all carried away on Dean's "change of heart", because there really hasn't been one.

...Democrats ran, among other things, on bringing accountability back to Washington, D.C. That's exactly what's happening in this US Attorney issue. Anyone who can't see the difference between a new President cleaning house and a sitting President selectively canning US Attorneys either to stop investigations against Republicans (Carol Lam)or as retaliation for not filing baseless charges against Democrats (David Iglesias) hasn't got much of a sense of what's ethical and what isn't.

...It isn't the "crime", it's the cover-up. Lanny Davis has made this point many times. As Matt, Esq. points out, had Clinton "come clean" about his foibles, it would have been a minor scandal. His lies and lack of judgement instead damaged his Presidency severely. Having sex with Lewinsky may have been unethical but it wasn't illegal; lying about it under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case is what got Clinton disbarred. Similarly, firing US Attorneys under these circumstances was unethical but it wasn't illegal; but Gonzales lied about it to Congress while under oath. Which is why it is bad politics for Bush to fight this out; at bottom, he's defending dishonesty, and "the folks" (as O'Reilly might say) won't like that.

...I don't know if Plame was technically "covert". I do know that if Democrats did to a CIA operative of ANY type what Republicans did to Plame, folks like those in this space would call it treason.
Blu writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 7:08 PM
enough with the Plame lie
Toady,

Keep repeating this: She wasn't covert. She wasn't covert........

She worked at the CIA building you imbicile. By definition, she was not covert ad under the law, she was not covert and that is why that egomaniac special prosecutor couldn't find a crime and so had to make one up for Libby.

Of course, the poor woman is so torn up about the loss of her "covert" job that she is touring the states with her lying, traitorous husband, pimping her story for money.

You people on the Left want to act like she was some covert field agent risking her life for her country when she was nothing more than a socialite, desk-jockey that everybody on the DC cocktail circuit knew and knew well. (A question Toady: How many times can a person's picture appear in the social section of the paper and that person claim a label of "covert.")

BTW, I pray the Dems keep pushing this US Attorney nonsense. Absolutely zero evidence of any midconduct. ZERO. But you have the same 2-digit IQ liberal usual suspects out in front of the cameras spewing their innudendo and lies.

The Dems will do what they always do - overplay their hand and pretend the American people support their socialist agenda.

Jeffrey writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 5:06 PM
Thanks for Admitting It
I was about to comment on how now that Republicans are in the minority, they're whining about how the Democrats are out to get the Bush Administration when the Republicans behaved the same way during the Clinton years. But then you addressed that in your closing and acknowledged your former error.

So now all I can say is, yes, Dean - you were wrong back then, and yes, you are right today. All things being equal, there are more important issues for the Democrats and Republicans to be dealing with than the firing of those U.S. Attorneys (even though I found it exceptionally crass and I'm glad Gonzales will lose his job over it).

Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net
Collin writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 4:32 PM
The Truth
>>I care about truth, but I have priorities.

Get Bush...
------------------------------
>>I do care about the truth about regaring the reputations of federal attorneys.

Except when Clinton fired all 93 of them.

>>I do care about the truth in science: geological, evolutionary and environmentally,

Tell me why the Ice Caps on Mars are shrinking then please.

>>I do care about the truth when our country goes to war.

There was a stronger international consensus about WMD's in Iraq pre-war than there is about global warming today.

>>I do care about the truth involving how the FBI investigates american citizens.

The FBI has proven totally incapable in dealing with terrorist threats. I agree.

>>I do care about the truth regarding the covert status of our CIA employees.

I assume you mean Plame, who wouldn't even claim she was covert herself under oath in front of congress. The CIA never claimed she was covert. Nobody was ever prosecuted for outing a covert agent though everyone knows who did it.

>>I do care about the truth about whether or America tortures people.

Me too. If we are fighting people that refuse to abide by the geneva conventions, murder civilians, decapitate living victims, use children as bait and generally act in a despicable and degenerate way, we better use every tool in the book against them including pliers. If they agree to wear uniforms and stop targetting civilians I would be happy to treat them like decent human beings deserve to be treated.

>>I do care about the truth about whether or not America secretly holds people in prisons that used to be run by the secret police of the Soviet Union.

See above.

>>I do care about the truth when american citizens are arrested on american soil and are denied habeus corpus, denied a lawyer, denied a speedy trial.

He admitted to moving to Afghanistan, being trained by the taliban, and fighting american troops. He moved here using his citizenship to continue his fight against us. Don't forget to mention the circuit court decision in favor of the executive branch. He acted like an enemy combattant and he better be treated like one.

>>But again, if you're talking about Clinton's sex life or anybody else's, I don't care that much about the truth.

If you don't care about a women's right to a fair trial, Paula Jones, there is something wrong with you. A women claimed she was sexually harrassed by Clinton, deposed him in the lawsuit, and he lied. He was denying her rights to a fair trial.

>>and unlike you, a man's "poor taste in interns" is of absolutely no concern to me.

But if he had a history of assaulting women and forcing himself on a string of victims either willing or not, and he was a Republican I would be willing to bet you would be pretty interested in the truth at that point. You are a jackass.
Jim writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 3:21 PM
Wrong on Clinton?
Clinton lied under oath in an attempt to make a sexual harassment charge go away. He suborned perjury by instructing Lewinsky to file a false affadavit. These are facts and his license to practice law was suspended and he was impeached by the HoR as a result. As President, he was the leading law enforcement officer and defender of the Constitution. What were Republicans supposed to do exactly; ignore clearly deliberate and criminal actions undermining the law? Clinton was stupid and reckless and all but demanded to be officially dealt with by his actions. Partisans may have been overzealous at times throughout that ordeal but this doesn't excuse Clinton's culpability or cause me to question the procedures against him. That message had to be sent. We should expect more from a President than Clinton was able to provide. Namely, don't deliberately break the laws you've been sworn to uphold, regardless of whether the underlying context is sex, money, war or picking your nose.

And as for whoever blamed the Republicans for preventing Clinton from doing something about Saddam or finding WMD, give us a break. Clinton had zero military credibility and would never_have_done what was necessary to deal with Saddam; that being putting feet on the ground in Iraq. Never would have happened. He was too much in love with his polling data. Truthfully, prior to 9/11, it's doubtful anybody would have been able to do that. It's a laughable argument to blame Republicans.

A lot of things could have been handled better during Clinton's time in office. The bottom line though is that a better man was required for that job and Clinton fell way short. I forget who said it, maybe George Will, that "Clinton was not the worst President we've ever had, but he was clearly the worst man to have ever been President." Damn right. Let Clinton have regrets. There's none here.
z421 writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 3:06 PM
It only helped Clinton in the short run
If you'll remember, the partisan witch hunts of the Clinton years boosted Clinton's ratings but they also amped up the phenomenon known as 'Clinton Fatigue' that prepared the way for Bush's election in 2000. So while people thought the strategy of the Republican Congress was asinine and petty at the time, it did the GOP some long-term good.

It's not going too far out on a limb to see that the current Congress thinks its mission is to prepare the way for 2008, and that this is part of that approach. Whether or not it works, we'll see.
TheodenKing writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 1:58 PM
Re: "I care about truth, but..."
In other words, toady_, the truth is relative. N'est-ce pas?

You care about it insofar as it supports your political agenda.
Pasadena Phil writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 1:15 PM
Missing the point
Dean's point, if I am reading his post correctly, is that this Gonzalez episode is the continuation of what has been increasingly bad government because of bipartisan overly political pettiness. I also cheered the impeachment of Clinton but in retrospect, in a post-9/11 world, I now recognize the pettiness of it and the serious damage incurred in fighting terrorism. I keep referring back to the "wag the dog" episode and how it prevented Clinton from taking out Saddam on 1998. It was the Republicans who prevented that action which would have actually resulted in capturing WMD when he actually still had them. May even have prevented 9/11. Instead, all he got was the ok to change our policy towards Iraq one of containment to one of regime change. The impeachment process also cost my congressional the services of a very good conservative Republican congressman, James Rogan who spearheaded the impeachment effort from the floor. Both sides have been, and continue to be, guilty of working themselves into a frenzy every times the other side stumbles. It is just bad politics that produces very bad government. It is also another argument in favor of electing honorable and virtuous men into office rather than sleazy, philandering opportunists.
KGK writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 1:02 PM
It took 6 years...
It took 6 years for the Bushies to fight back at the Beltway elites, the MSM and the Quisling socialist pacifist Dems. Whether this Meirs-Rove fight will help the GOP to grow a spine is questionable. The Bushies have spent more time in being nice to this Demoncrats instead of defending their agenda of permanent tax cuts, defeating the Islamofascists, and dealing with the malarky of Global Warming. Bush has no one but himself to blame that the Dems won the '06 election (well, whining Pubs who stayed home have part of the blame) because he refused to play Hard Ball with the Dems. He had plenty of ammo in the fight to show just how wussy the Dems were on national defense, how socialist they were in their love of the Great Society mentality but Bush refused to fight and turned so many cheeks that many BASE voters like myself just got tired of it. No wonder so many Pubs are looking to Rudy or Fred for strong leadership. We know the Dems will sell the nation out on national defense and tax cuts but we can only pray that newere tougher GOP leadership will fight for its principles instead of acting like the very party it had defeated since 1994.
Matt, Esq. writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 12:31 PM
Clinton lied
*was going to point out to Matt that I am not interested in the truth about anybody's sex life*

The problem, of course, is it wasn't just about Clinton's sex life- it was about what his sex life said about his lack of control in his personal life and his inability to make smart choices when a little bit of booty was dangled in front of his face (ok Monica was more than a "little bit of booty" but still). Personally, I said back then and I still say today, if Clinton had just said in the first place he had made a mistake (or whatever) rather than lying about it over and over again (both under oath and in the courtroom of public opinion), it would have been much less of an issue. Of course, there was also all the attempts to pay off or stifle Lewinsky by Clinton's people, which also reeked of bad judgment.

Personally, I could care less about the sex part- the lack of judgment (not to mention, poor taste in interns) and the lies were my issues with Clinton's sex life.

If you find truth to be as important as you say it is, then you should also have a problem with Mr. Clinton's lies about his affair, if not the affairs themselves.
Brian J writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 12:27 PM
Joe, that won't fly anymore
You're trying to defend lying about the reasons for firing the US Attorneys, trying to force Iglesias to initiate an investigation without evidence, and trying to halt investigations of at least three GOoPer Congressmen.

That goes well beyong the spoils system and into misconduct- possibly criminal misconduct.

And pointing out that Ray Gun and Clinton both lost executive privilege claims on stronger grounds than these is just being honest on Dean's part.

A few conservatives are actually trying to point out that the problems the Right is having are structural and chronic, rather than whistle past the graveyard pretending they're a one-off that can't be repeated. As a Democrat and a liberal, I'm glad you ignore them.
HNAV writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 12:14 PM
interesting DB...
but i don't agree about bringing a POTUS who lied under oath to justice...

that's what they had to do, the basis was there, not like the Dems fantasy today.

Billy tried to illegally fix his own sexual harrassment case, and you cannot ignore something like this...

you cannot govern with calculations on political image, but must lead with responsibility.

i can make a good case, the revealing of the lies of Bill Clinton through the impeachment, hurt the Democrat Party in major ways.

including the defeat of Gore...

the difference with today, is the lack of substance the Democrats have in their case.

the unethical Clintons lied about everything, even the Genocide in Rwanda.

the exposure of the unethical Bill Clinton, should have sent shockwaves through the Nation, and forced his removal.

but the bias in the MSM, masked much of the corrupt Clinton existence, blurring reality.

the problem with acting responsibility wasn't with the Republicans, but with the unethical partisans in the 'drive by media'.

eventually the entire negligence, protected by the biased American Press, enabled the weakness, which let our Nation become easy prey on 9-11.

if the Republicans were forced into the same position again, to do it over, they would have no choice in upholding the law.

we should always hope, someone in our elected representation should be strong enough to act responsible, even if it may be unpopular, to struggle for what is right.

if DB's were to apply this 'populist' view to the mission in Iraq, he would support abandoning the Iraqis.

the difference is basis.

Clinton was corrupt and vividly broke the law.

the Bush Administration may have made some mistakes, but the evidence is simply not there.

the Conservative Pundits who act as if they know it all, might realize they are failing at shaping public opinion.

they are weak, compared to the power of the unethical MSM, and more must be done, to present the facts to the public.

not governing by populist adventures...

kchand writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 12:10 PM
Dean
You wrote, "When the matter goes to court, the administration will likely lose."

Why? Where is there ANY evidence of CRIMINAL CONDUCT? The Congress cannot, legitimately, just go snooping on the Executive branch.

You may "plan on enjoying the spectacle", however it is BAD for the country.
dmsith writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 12:08 PM
C'mon now
No "dreadful politics" and no "blame Clinton for everything" mantra? - Townhall will cease to exist; executive recruiters will not find a forum to talk "intelligently" about politics.

Joe writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 11:31 AM
They should fight on this
Again, I am no fan of the AG. But firing U.S. Attorneys at will is a Presidential right. He should say flat out that he fired them to get new blood in and that is his right as President. Give Congress the right to approve the new U.S. Attorneys and hold tight.

The handling of this by the White House and especially the Attorney General has been hamfisted. Blaming Harriet Miers was especially stupid (I am surprised Miers is not out there testifying against the President given how his staff keeps treating her--a testament to her loyalty). Arguably Gonzales should be fired for that--but now the President cannot cave.
Matt, Esq. writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 11:21 AM
truth ?
*and whether or not the administration is capable of telling the truth.*

Since when is truth important to liberals ? It sure wasn't important during Bill CLinton's term of office.
Matt, Esq. writes: Wednesday, March, 21, 2007 11:19 AM
Greenwald
FYI Dean, if you ever quote or cite to that sockpuppet Greenwald again, it will be the last of your columns I ever read. Greenwald wouldn't know right if it dropped on his head from 5 stories.
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.
 


Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 12 Minutes 30 Seconds Ago
Last updated 12 Minutes 36 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 11 Minutes 48 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 36 Minutes 25 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 40 Minutes 49 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

douglas 11:59 AM
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By Bob Munck
clarityseeker claims
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By MellorSJ2
Jillian says:
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By DanNV
Lonny
 Re: NYT: Being On Food Stamps No Longer Carries A Stigma
  By peacefrog
Jo--for the utterly pedantic Libs...
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By clarityseeker
Lonny and Pat
 Re: Christmas Outlawed
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Lonny
 Re: Christmas Outlawed
  By Patriotic Liberal
Jo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Both Sides Now?
 Re: ACORN and "Journalistic Standards"
  By DanNV
Careful
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By MellorSJ2
Rainey may be wrong
 Re: ACORN and "Journalistic Standards"
  By Kermudjin
Examining Dreadnuts view on movies...
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Jo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Patriotic Liberal
Jo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
I have to go
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
They'll ignore it
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By Stoic Patriot
Flunck 12:15 PM...I rest my case...
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By clarityseeker
Timeline for Eugene 4
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
Timeline for Eugene 3
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
Timeline for Eugene 2
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll