OT - Kill All Democrats
- From: "mozark" <swooning@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Jan 2006 08:21:27 -0800
Alito Hearings: The Democrats' Katrina
Robert Parry
January 17, 2006
For a constitutional confrontation at least five years in the making,
the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee looked as prepared to
confront Samuel Alito as FEMA chief Michael Brown did in responding to
Hurricane Katrina.
As with the hurricane that zeroed in on New Orleans days before coming
ashore, there should have been no surprise about Judge Alito. He was
exactly what the Republican base had long wanted in a Supreme Court
nominee: a hard-line judicial ideologue with a pleasant demeanor and a
soft-spoken style.
Indeed, Alito has been such an unapologetic supporter of the right's
beloved Imperial Presidency that Alito's one noteworthy
assurance-that George W. Bush was not "above the law"-was
essentially meaningless because in Alito's view, Bush is the law.
Yet the Democrats were incapable of making an issue out of Alito's
embrace of the "unitary executive," a concept so radical that it
effectively eliminates the checks and balances that the founding
fathers devised to protect against an out-of-control president.
Bush even gave the Democrats a news hook to make the peculiar phrase
"unitary executive " a household word. Bush cited his "unitary"
powers just days earlier in signaling that he would use his commander
in chief authority to override the provisions of Sen. John McCain's
anti-torture amendment, passed in December 2005.
Though the McCain amendment had been big news-and Bush's
announcement of his personal loophole on torture had been reported in
the press-the Democrats still failed to force this troubling concept
of an all-powerful president into the mainstream debate.
"Unitary executive" may have been the buzz of the blogs, but it was
barely mentioned on the evening news. The notion that Bush and Alito
believe the president has the power to abrogate the Bill of Rights,
authorize torture and seize control of independent regulatory agencies
got much less attention than a few tears shed by Alito's wife.
No Surprise
But very little that happened during Alito's three days of testimony
should have come as a surprise to the Democrats.
The senators knew Alito was going to dodge direct answers to questions
about Roe v. Wade and other hot-button issues. They knew the right
would rally its extensive media and grassroots operations, even lining
up people to cheer Alito when he arrived on Capitol Hill (much as they
did for Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings almost two decades
ago).
The Democrats must have realized that the mainstream media would focus
on the most trivial aspects of the hearings-as well as on the
windiness of the senators' long-prefaced questions. The only hope to
change those dynamics would have been to present a strong alternative
narrative.
That alternative narrative could have been how the right has spent
three decades steadily building its infrastructure and clout to
consolidate ideological control around an Imperial Presidency held
tightly in Republican hands and endorsed by a restructured Supreme
Court. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege .]
The Democrats could have built the drama by spotlighting the stakes
involved in Alito's nomination, that the final check and balance in
the U.S. political system-the courts-would be locked down by
ideologues who have long boasted of their determination to gain
one-party dominance in Washington.
By undergoing rhetorical liposuction, the Democrats also might have
trimmed down their flabby speechifying and instead posed pointed
question after pointed question to Alito, eventually making his refusal
to answer questions the central issue of the hearings, not their own
bloviating.
Does the president have the right to override the McCain amendment and
order the torture of detainees? What point is there in Congress passing
laws if Bush, as the "unitary executive," can simply declare them
meaningless? What would Alito do if Bush announced that he would begin
ignoring Supreme Court rulings?
Since the "unitary" theory holds that independent regulatory
agencies must cease to exist, should the president have total control
over a revamped Securities and Exchange Commission? If one of his
contributors is caught up in an accounting scandal, should the
president have the power to order the SEC to look the other way?
If a media outlet criticizes the president, should he have the power to
order the Federal Communications Commission to cancel the station's
broadcast license? Would it be okay for Bush to give the license to a
political ally or a campaign contributor?
Since you, Judge Alito, have long promoted the theory of the "unitary
executive," where are the boundaries of the president's powers? For
the duration of the war on terror, are there any meaningful limits on
the president's right to do whatever he deems necessary? Judge Alito,
how do you differentiate between a system run by a "unitary
executive" and a dictatorship?
Clearly, Alito would not have answered these questions. He would have
fallen back on his ritual response of declining to comment about issues
that might eventually come before the Supreme Court.
But many Americans would have been shocked by Alito's refusal to
stand decisively on the side of a traditional democratic Republic and
against an autocratic regime. It also might have dawned on millions of
Americans what's at stake in this debate.
Another advantage would have been that some Republicans might have been
put on the spot.
Instead of letting Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., set the Democrats up
for the melodramatic moment of Mrs. Alito leaving the hearing room in
tears, the Democrats could have demanded to know why Graham, who
supposedly objects to torturing U.S. detainees, was coddling a
right-wing jurist who helped craft the legal arguments for the
president's right to torture.
Instead, the Democrats made their own ineptitude the issue, both by
preening before the cameras and pandering to their interest groups.
With few exceptions, when the Democratic senators weren't looking
silly, they were sounding craven. They failed to elevate the importance
of the hearing beyond whether Alito was an active member of some creepy
Princeton alumni group.
The Left's Media Mistake
In a larger sense, however, the hapless Judiciary Committee Democrats
reflect some of the damaging strategies that liberals and progressives
have followed for 30 years.
Rather than building a media infrastructure to match up with the
imposing right-wing message machine, the American left has concentrated
on supporting interest groups in Washington and doing "grassroots
organizing," supposedly across the country.
The harsh reality, however, is that liberal interest groups in
Washington often are more concerned about churning their supporters for
money than getting results. The "grassroots organizing"-without
any significant media to get out a consistent message-has become
patchy and stunted, a political brownout.
The few bright media spots for the Democrats and the liberals have come
almost in defiance of the major funders on the left.
Cash-strapped Internet blogs have had the courage to take on the Bush
administration and the major media, but have limited influence with the
broad American public; progressive talk radio barely got started
because it was shunned by wealthy liberal funders; and Comedy Central
programming, such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," popped up
as a cultural, not a political, phenomenon. (See Consortiumnews.com's
"The Left's Media Miscalculation." )
The lack of any significant media on the left-at least any that
compares with the right's media juggernaut-has left Democratic
politicians feeling isolated, trying to triangulate the best deal they
can for themselves. Many leading Democrats seem to suffer a kind of
Stockholm Syndrome, in which they become passive or even helpful in the
face of their tormentors.
At a time when many rank-and-file Americans are alarmed that the
Constitution and the continued existence of a democratic Republic are
in jeopardy, they see congressional Democrats more concerned about
avoiding unpleasant confrontation than leading the fight against
encroaching authoritarianism.
Some Democrats, like Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, seem to think their
chief purpose in Washington is to be on as many network talk shows as
possible, a goal that requires them not to be seen as too extreme or
strident in their criticism of Bush or his administration.
All of these factors came together in the three days of hearings on
Alito. The Democrats looked disorganized, clueless, unprepared.
Though they knew this political disaster was bearing down on them for
months if not years, they looked as surprised and befuddled by the
predictable devastation as FEMA director Michael Brown did when
Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans.
Perhaps someone needs to go up to Capitol Hill with the message,
"Heck of a job, minority members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee."
.
- Prev by Date: OT - Vote?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
- Next by Date: OT - End of the Republic, Part 572
- Previous by thread: OT - Vote?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
- Next by thread: OT - End of the Republic, Part 572
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
