OPINION & EDITORIAL
U.S. government missing honesty
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
- Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? (November 15, 2007)
- It's the media, stupid: Political coverage misleads (November 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- Protesters must speak up (March 14, 2007)
- Democracy extends to war (April 13, 2007)
- Democrats' stance on war cowardly (February 22, 2007)
- Gonzales' conduct merits resignation (April 24, 2007)
by Bassey Etim
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
If American politics has taught me anything, it's that you can't go wrong by keepin' it real. When Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., was recently confronted by a Marine mom and a cameraman questioning why he wouldn't vote to end funding for the war, Rep. Obey told the simple truth.
"We couldn't even get the votes to pass a nonbinding resolution one week ago. How the hell do you think we're going to get the votes to cut off the war?" Rep. Obey tersely said in the YouTube video. Mr. Obey went on to open his coat and ask another impromptu interrogator, "You see a magic wand in my pocket?"
"No sir."
"Then how the hell are we going to get the votes for it?"
Rep. Obey should be praised for leveling with this Marine mother and the other liberal activists waiting outside his office. Protest is an indispensable tool to vent popular disgust with government, but activists shouldn't blame cautious Democrats for refusing to immediately end funding for the war. Our political system is designed to be slow, for better or worse. So, the best legislators can do is attempt to build consensus by applying gradual pressure to the president. The war in Iraq will end through these incremental battles in Congress, not by taking the stage and screaming for an immediate pullout on C-SPAN2.
Rep. Obey's frankness has been sorely missed in today's political dialogue, especially when compared to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lying to the American people about why he fired eight U.S. attorneys. After claiming they were relieved due to poor performance, numerous Department of Justice records contradicting this claim — including loyalty rankings, strategies to "quiet" those who complained and recent positive reviews of these prosecutors — forced Mr. Gonzales to apologize to the remaining attorneys. These lawyers were fired for things like refusing to issue subpoenas against administration-targeted Democrats and not devoting more resources to obscenity cases, according to a Los Angeles Times report. For the Gonzales Department of Justice, politics is the fullest extent of the law.
For those of you wondering why the Department of Justice scandal is such a big deal, think of it this way: If your lawyer lied to your face, and you found concrete proof that he was scheming to keep you in the dark, wouldn't you fire him? After all, he is quite literally the nation's lawyer. Rather than represent the interests of America and give advice to the executive when asked, Mr. Gonzales has acted as nothing more than a partisan agent of this administration during his tenure.
The extent of Mr. Gonzales' incompetence is nothing short of astounding. The Department of Justice didn't even recognize the repercussions of creating a loyalty list and distributing it via e-mail. Even worse, they quickly appointed a GOP operative close to Karl Rove to one of the newly open U.S. attorney slots. So let's get this straight — a guy who so obviously botched a simple cover-up for something that isn't technically illegal is supposed to navigate the divide between constitutional rights and vigilance against terrorism?
To be sure, Mr. Gonzales "serves at the president's pleasure" in his own frequently quoted words. The same goes for every one of the 93 U.S. attorneys. But the "lie-first" approach to public policy is an embarrassment to the administration — which reportedly gave the final OK on the firings and cover-up strategy — and the office of the attorney general. For the sake of his office, and whatever threads of credibility the administration hasn't broken, Mr. Gonzales must resign immediately.
If high-level officials micromanage local politics to this extent, it is frightening to imagine the influence purely partisan concerns have on our nation's most pressing issues. Strangely, the administration that came to power by promising to restore integrity to the presidency has a frightening record of lying to the American people just to save face. Even more distressing, by refusing to hold anybody accountable for the countless breaches of public trust by his staff, this president has shown the American people he has more loyalty to his advisers than to the country. From Scooter Libby's conviction to censoring environmental scientists to doctoring intelligence to justify a war of choice to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, this president and his staff have repeatedly proven incapable of performing the basic functions of government.
That is why the president's approval ratings are so low that suggesting we take him at his word is a laughable proposition. The unprincipled patronage-politics inspired policies of this administration truly are the greatest threat to our nation. They have forgotten why they got here and are getting what they deserve.
If Alberto Gonzales is lucky enough to see a next time, he should level with the American people like Rep. Obey did and accept the consequences. A simple, "We fired these U.S. attorneys because they wouldn't help us win elections," would suffice.
Bassey Etim (betim@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (March 20, 2007 @ 8:07am):
How can anyone be honest when there are douche bags like Tom Delay writing books about the "unpatriotic 59% of America"? The Hammer should go back to killing bugs in Texas... friggin' dirt bag.
Aaron Johnson (March 20, 2007 @ 3:05pm):
Hmmmm....Your article curiously omits that Bill Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys in his first term. That couldn't have been partisan politics...or could it? Bottom line is that the president can hire or fire whom ever he wants, after all he is in charge. This is the principal of executive privledge and it has been in place since the beginning of this great country. It also means that he doesn't have to answer to anybody, so long as a crime hasn't been committed. Sure it can and has been used for shady purposes, by conservatives AND liberals, but the democrats are seeking to weaken the power of the presidency, which history will tell you is a dangerous proposition. In fact, some of the worst presidents in history were in the period after Andrew Johnson's impeachment and before Teddy Roseveldt. These presidents got nothing done because nobody was afraid to cross them. This system of government is designed to fight itself as opposed to its people, that is its particular genius; however, there are some decisions that are always going to be controversial and will never be made if left up to too many people. That is why the president must be slightly more powerful than the legislative and judicial branches. This principal is what keeps the government moving forward, albeit very slowly, versus constant deadlock. This "scandal" is made up by the media and seeks nothing else but to try and embarass the president. There are numerous other issues which must be addressed besides this that are being ignored and the media is just as culpable in the underproductivity of the government. Perhaps they should give their resignations for their shameful journalistic practices?
Anonymous (March 20, 2007 @ 4:31pm):
3:05- Let's just stop messing around with a congress and install a king or a military junta. Viva Pinochet!
Anonymous (March 20, 2007 @ 5:48pm):
3:05, why did they reverse the patriot act provision that allowed Bush to randomly sack judges? 94-2! Our senators seem to be anti-King.
Aaron Johnson (March 20, 2007 @ 8:11pm):
The ability to randomly fire judges gives too much power and is not consistent with checks and balances. It should never have been granted.
Anonymous (March 20, 2007 @ 8:16pm):
I love that now-common Republican line "Clinton fired all the attorneys." Yes, he fired those when he ENTERED office, as has been common practice among Presidents for quite some time. However, when you look at firings in the middle of a presidency, that number is shockingly low (Poli Sci professor put the stats up, I think it was five, but I'm not sure.) Now when you throw in all the business about attorneys being fired because they're not prosecuting enough Democrats, and repeated lies by everyone involved, that's where it really gets fun. Now the only question is whether Bush will continue to ignore everyone outside of his little circle and keep him, just like he kept good ole Rummy until after the election.
Aaron Johnson (March 21, 2007 @ 9:35am):
Nobody knows for sure why they were fired, except the media and poli sci professors who seem to know everything.....right! Hey 8:16, hopefully someday you grow up and learn to think all by yourself.
Anonymous (March 21, 2007 @ 12:14pm):
How do you know that?
Aaron Johnson (March 21, 2007 @ 1:28pm):
Ummm...that was sarcasm
Anonymous (March 21, 2007 @ 1:29pm):
Ok Aaron, it's called a statistic. I didn't say I knew exactly why they were fired, but there certainly is a whole lot of information out there pointing to the conclusion. The Poli Sci professor I mentioned did not offer opinion, he just put up the statistics on how many have been fired by different presidents, then put up the statistics of how many have been fired in the middle of a President's term (or two terms for those reelected.) Stop swallowing all the crap you hear from Fox News and the like, then you can talk to me about thinking for myself.
Aaron Johnson (March 24, 2007 @ 8:37pm):
I never watch any of the news channels for that reason alone Also, I don't have the statistics nor do I really care what they are. Ultimately, you have missed my major point. Which is that in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if eight US attorneys get fired? The democrats have done alot of bitching since taking over congress about anything and everything, but have not gotten anything substantive done. Social Security? Medicare? Tax Reform?
They can't even agree on their own agenda. There job is to make laws....not to obstruct the executive branch from doing theirs.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
