Monday, June 25, 2007
A PARDON FOR SCOOTER?
Republican candidates for president are equivocating all over the landscape when the question arises of a pardon for Scooter Libby, who has been convicted by twelve of his peers for obstructing justice through perjury in his statements to FBI investigators looking into the illegal outing of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA analyst.
For those who have just awakened from a long, long nap, this all came about as a result of the president using in a state of the union speech a reference to an alleged attempt by Saddam to obtain a form of uranium from an African nation. This allegation had previously been found baseless by the CIA and British intelligence, a conclusion confirmed by a report of former ambassador Wilson, sent to Africa to double check the facts.
After the president’s incorrect words, used to justify the war, Ambassador Wilson wrote a piece for the New York Times exposing the false claim. Wilson turns out to be the husband of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, whose identity was a classified secret until her identity was leaked to the press by Bush-related sources to cast doubt on his credibility by saying incorrectly that Plame had sent him on the errand .
Republican columnist Robert Novak first reported this. However, strangely enough, it was a woman reporter for the New York Times who served jail time for refusal to reveal her administration source.
Closing in on Bush aide, Carl Rove, and Vice President Cheney as insider manipulators of the leak, the prosecutor could not nail them because Scooter Libby (and perhaps others) lied to cover up the trail. An old administration crony serving as deputy to Condi Rice at the State Department was finally exposed as a leak source, but with no legal consequence.
So, now there are the big questions. Will President Bush allow Libby to actually go to jail for stonewalling to cover higher-ups’ illegal actions? Will Scooter threaten to spill the beans if they let him go to prison? Will a deal be made? Will this include a pardon for his lying to obstruct justice for his bosses? Will Bush wait until after the 2008 election to do the pardon? Will judges stall and allow Scooter to stay out of jail for appeals?
Maybe some other good questions would be: “Can Bush’s popularity ratings really sink much lower if he pardons Libby?” “Would that really even strengthen Bush with his conservative base?” “Would this be a favor to republican candidates by taking an unpopular issue off the table?”
Governor Romney was appropriately hoisted on his own petard by CNN reporter, John Roberts, in an interview. He questioned Romney’s equivocations in the debate, when Romney said there was “no crime” and Scooter should never have been sentenced to prison. Roberts pointed out Governor Romney’s refusal to pardon a young man who had been convicted as a 13 year old for shooting a companion with a BB-gun, had later served and won medals in Iraq, and was then applying for police academy. The young man needed the record cleared, and Romney refused.
Pushed by the reporter, a flustered Romney again did an ineffective verbal tap dance around the point. The country deserves a better, more honest and just president.
Then, again, we have the comparison of Martha Stewart. All the woman did was tell her broker to sell some stock she heard was going down, but she did not come clean with the whole story in conversations with investigators. But it became a political, federal case, and the woman went to prison. She suffered great financial losses and embarrassment.
Do republicans really think they will not be held accountable by the public for such inconsistent and unfair justice if they pardon Scooter Libby?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
For those who have just awakened from a long, long nap, this all came about as a result of the president using in a state of the union speech a reference to an alleged attempt by Saddam to obtain a form of uranium from an African nation. This allegation had previously been found baseless by the CIA and British intelligence, a conclusion confirmed by a report of former ambassador Wilson, sent to Africa to double check the facts.
After the president’s incorrect words, used to justify the war, Ambassador Wilson wrote a piece for the New York Times exposing the false claim. Wilson turns out to be the husband of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, whose identity was a classified secret until her identity was leaked to the press by Bush-related sources to cast doubt on his credibility by saying incorrectly that Plame had sent him on the errand .
Republican columnist Robert Novak first reported this. However, strangely enough, it was a woman reporter for the New York Times who served jail time for refusal to reveal her administration source.
Closing in on Bush aide, Carl Rove, and Vice President Cheney as insider manipulators of the leak, the prosecutor could not nail them because Scooter Libby (and perhaps others) lied to cover up the trail. An old administration crony serving as deputy to Condi Rice at the State Department was finally exposed as a leak source, but with no legal consequence.
So, now there are the big questions. Will President Bush allow Libby to actually go to jail for stonewalling to cover higher-ups’ illegal actions? Will Scooter threaten to spill the beans if they let him go to prison? Will a deal be made? Will this include a pardon for his lying to obstruct justice for his bosses? Will Bush wait until after the 2008 election to do the pardon? Will judges stall and allow Scooter to stay out of jail for appeals?
Maybe some other good questions would be: “Can Bush’s popularity ratings really sink much lower if he pardons Libby?” “Would that really even strengthen Bush with his conservative base?” “Would this be a favor to republican candidates by taking an unpopular issue off the table?”
Governor Romney was appropriately hoisted on his own petard by CNN reporter, John Roberts, in an interview. He questioned Romney’s equivocations in the debate, when Romney said there was “no crime” and Scooter should never have been sentenced to prison. Roberts pointed out Governor Romney’s refusal to pardon a young man who had been convicted as a 13 year old for shooting a companion with a BB-gun, had later served and won medals in Iraq, and was then applying for police academy. The young man needed the record cleared, and Romney refused.
Pushed by the reporter, a flustered Romney again did an ineffective verbal tap dance around the point. The country deserves a better, more honest and just president.
Then, again, we have the comparison of Martha Stewart. All the woman did was tell her broker to sell some stock she heard was going down, but she did not come clean with the whole story in conversations with investigators. But it became a political, federal case, and the woman went to prison. She suffered great financial losses and embarrassment.
Do republicans really think they will not be held accountable by the public for such inconsistent and unfair justice if they pardon Scooter Libby?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
CAUTION TO DEMOCRATS
Democrats would be wise to take a close look at the mainstream positions held by Americans on certain key issues. The importance of an issue to middle-of-the-road Americans is going to be extremely relevant to winning the next national election. Surveys have shown that some issues are significant to members of one party while other issues are important to the backbone of the other party.
But certain issues, and their framing for the moderate electorate, are of crucial importance to winning in 2008.
It is well to remember that job exportation, debt growth, health care costs and the uninsured, tax breaks for the rich, high gas prices, a president with no respect, business/government corruption, and a less than popular war were all on the issue tally when the republicans won in 2004. These are still issues, perhaps magnified, but the Democrats could still lose.
One may wonder why? Are voters just a bunch of dim bulbs? More likely it is the chosing, framing, and publicizing of certain issues, but voters do indeed tend to be gullible to manipulation.
Last time the issues of gay marriage and abortion were exploited to bring out the emotional religious voters en masse. Such emotion-arousing issues often appear on state referendums in highly important partisan elections. Democrats should look again for something akin to this, as well as the usual "liberal" aspersions and dirty character attacks. There will be huge sums of "527" corporate money available to clog the airwaves.
Demos should be wary of the reframing of the tragic Bush war in Iraq, killing and maiming thousands unnecessarily, into accusations against peace candidates with words like "cut and run," "give up," "white flag," and "surrender." They will try to give the opposition an imagege of weaklings. They will also use fear, as per "They will follow us home." There will be a need for a positive war strategy phrased and used.
Democrats should not be dragged into supporting an unpopular "immigration reform" bill. The mainstream is against any course which legitimizes the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Failure to enforce immigration laws is a republican problem, and demos should keep it that way.
Democrats have a corruption issue against the republicans which they must exploit with moderates, but this means keeping one's own record clean. Democrats cannot allow their own congressmen to follow the republican system of "earmarks" of taxpayer money, nor can they be found accepting the largesse of business special interests.
If the republicans can distract voters with controversies over gay rights and abortion, they will do so again. Democrats must stay mainstream. Give tacit acceptance of civil unions, but neither advocacy nor approval.
Don't talk about choice. Talk about opposing government interference in family maters and personal decisions, including family planning and limits. Talk about government interference in medical practice, and in matters that should be between a woman and her doctor.
Acknowledge the importance of religion in personal lives, and the importance of traditional Christian values. Attack the republicans as not living up to Christian teachings. Tag them a s "two-point" Christians. But maintain a strong stance on the separation of church and stte. The constitutional clause prohibiting the "establishment of religion" protects the nation from a voting majority putting religious doctrines into the law for everybody. Support that!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
But certain issues, and their framing for the moderate electorate, are of crucial importance to winning in 2008.
It is well to remember that job exportation, debt growth, health care costs and the uninsured, tax breaks for the rich, high gas prices, a president with no respect, business/government corruption, and a less than popular war were all on the issue tally when the republicans won in 2004. These are still issues, perhaps magnified, but the Democrats could still lose.
One may wonder why? Are voters just a bunch of dim bulbs? More likely it is the chosing, framing, and publicizing of certain issues, but voters do indeed tend to be gullible to manipulation.
Last time the issues of gay marriage and abortion were exploited to bring out the emotional religious voters en masse. Such emotion-arousing issues often appear on state referendums in highly important partisan elections. Democrats should look again for something akin to this, as well as the usual "liberal" aspersions and dirty character attacks. There will be huge sums of "527" corporate money available to clog the airwaves.
Demos should be wary of the reframing of the tragic Bush war in Iraq, killing and maiming thousands unnecessarily, into accusations against peace candidates with words like "cut and run," "give up," "white flag," and "surrender." They will try to give the opposition an imagege of weaklings. They will also use fear, as per "They will follow us home." There will be a need for a positive war strategy phrased and used.
Democrats should not be dragged into supporting an unpopular "immigration reform" bill. The mainstream is against any course which legitimizes the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Failure to enforce immigration laws is a republican problem, and demos should keep it that way.
Democrats have a corruption issue against the republicans which they must exploit with moderates, but this means keeping one's own record clean. Democrats cannot allow their own congressmen to follow the republican system of "earmarks" of taxpayer money, nor can they be found accepting the largesse of business special interests.
If the republicans can distract voters with controversies over gay rights and abortion, they will do so again. Democrats must stay mainstream. Give tacit acceptance of civil unions, but neither advocacy nor approval.
Don't talk about choice. Talk about opposing government interference in family maters and personal decisions, including family planning and limits. Talk about government interference in medical practice, and in matters that should be between a woman and her doctor.
Acknowledge the importance of religion in personal lives, and the importance of traditional Christian values. Attack the republicans as not living up to Christian teachings. Tag them a s "two-point" Christians. But maintain a strong stance on the separation of church and stte. The constitutional clause prohibiting the "establishment of religion" protects the nation from a voting majority putting religious doctrines into the law for everybody. Support that!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Thursday, June 07, 2007
DEBATES: ROUND TWO
The Militant Moderate lays claim to being one of the minority of Americans who watched every minute of both the democratic and the republican debates. That sacrifice and a constitutional privilege qualify him to a few opinions.
First, both debates were educative and illuminating. What a great thing it is that the American public has this opportunity to hear so early from so many aspirants to national leadership! None of these should be overlooked, unless or until their own expressions lead us to do so. By now, that has been the case for several, but a number of legitimate contenders remain for the nomination of each party.
This pair of debates was more revealing of party differences on issues, albeit some of them minor ones, than of differences between and among same party candidates.
On the war in Iraq, a terribly significant issue, there was a sharp contrast. Although decrying its bad management, the republican candidates supported Mr. Bush's war, the decision to go, remaining in Iraq, and view the young men and women who die there as protecting our security. One republican did cite, without attribution, democrat Joe Biden's plan for partitioning Iraq as a possible solution. On the other hand, every democrat wanted our troops removed from Iraq as early as possible to do so in a planned and orderly fashion. They saw our troops as targets in a sectarian war in an unfriendly land. This is a striking difference.
More was made by the press of the "sexy" issues than these deserved, but agian there were differences.
The democrats believed it was time to move past the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military, shifting instead to a behavioral standard of conduct as per the code of military justice. Almost every republican supported continuance of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
All republicans, other than Guilianni, favored putting the government in charge of decisions on pregnancy, rather than leaving those issue to the woman, her family, her church, and her doctor. Democrats opposed government interference in such personal and family decisions.
Other than McCain, republicans opposed the so-called "comprehensive immigration" legislation, some vehemently. Most democrats favored some kind of comprehensive immigration law, but added qualifiers on border control and accountability.
Democrats saw no need for a specific law making English the official language, saying it was unnecessary and redundant. Republicans believed strongly that such a law is important and necessary.
Every democrat saw tremendous problems with the health care system in America -- the cost of insurance, the millions uninsured, the high profitability for private sectors, cost of medicine, cost to our businesses, and other inefficiencies. Some offered medical plans. On the other hand, republicans cast aspersions toward democrat plans as being "socialized medicine," and hailed the free marketplace competition as the solution, along with a few additives like tax-deductible health savings accounts. They defended the high cost of prescriptions for Americans as compared with the same drugs elsewhere.
Some republicans cleared up their views on evolution by stating that regardless of the time and process of creation, or how science may describe it, God is involved. This position is similar to that taken by democrats earlier. However, some republicans said differing views should be taught in the schools, while democrats eschew any such dictations.
Both republicans and democrats expressed concern over global warming, differing in their intensity of expression and in the studied solutions offered. Only one or two democrats, and no republicans, mentioned stiffening auto mileage standards. McCain spoke of nuclear power plants.
Both democrats and republicans expressed concern over high gasoline prices. Democrats were concerned more with gouging, while republicans were interested in how the oil companies spend their huge profits.
Again, Round Two was a very valuable display of ideas and cogency in expression of those.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
First, both debates were educative and illuminating. What a great thing it is that the American public has this opportunity to hear so early from so many aspirants to national leadership! None of these should be overlooked, unless or until their own expressions lead us to do so. By now, that has been the case for several, but a number of legitimate contenders remain for the nomination of each party.
This pair of debates was more revealing of party differences on issues, albeit some of them minor ones, than of differences between and among same party candidates.
On the war in Iraq, a terribly significant issue, there was a sharp contrast. Although decrying its bad management, the republican candidates supported Mr. Bush's war, the decision to go, remaining in Iraq, and view the young men and women who die there as protecting our security. One republican did cite, without attribution, democrat Joe Biden's plan for partitioning Iraq as a possible solution. On the other hand, every democrat wanted our troops removed from Iraq as early as possible to do so in a planned and orderly fashion. They saw our troops as targets in a sectarian war in an unfriendly land. This is a striking difference.
More was made by the press of the "sexy" issues than these deserved, but agian there were differences.
The democrats believed it was time to move past the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military, shifting instead to a behavioral standard of conduct as per the code of military justice. Almost every republican supported continuance of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
All republicans, other than Guilianni, favored putting the government in charge of decisions on pregnancy, rather than leaving those issue to the woman, her family, her church, and her doctor. Democrats opposed government interference in such personal and family decisions.
Other than McCain, republicans opposed the so-called "comprehensive immigration" legislation, some vehemently. Most democrats favored some kind of comprehensive immigration law, but added qualifiers on border control and accountability.
Democrats saw no need for a specific law making English the official language, saying it was unnecessary and redundant. Republicans believed strongly that such a law is important and necessary.
Every democrat saw tremendous problems with the health care system in America -- the cost of insurance, the millions uninsured, the high profitability for private sectors, cost of medicine, cost to our businesses, and other inefficiencies. Some offered medical plans. On the other hand, republicans cast aspersions toward democrat plans as being "socialized medicine," and hailed the free marketplace competition as the solution, along with a few additives like tax-deductible health savings accounts. They defended the high cost of prescriptions for Americans as compared with the same drugs elsewhere.
Some republicans cleared up their views on evolution by stating that regardless of the time and process of creation, or how science may describe it, God is involved. This position is similar to that taken by democrats earlier. However, some republicans said differing views should be taught in the schools, while democrats eschew any such dictations.
Both republicans and democrats expressed concern over global warming, differing in their intensity of expression and in the studied solutions offered. Only one or two democrats, and no republicans, mentioned stiffening auto mileage standards. McCain spoke of nuclear power plants.
Both democrats and republicans expressed concern over high gasoline prices. Democrats were concerned more with gouging, while republicans were interested in how the oil companies spend their huge profits.
Again, Round Two was a very valuable display of ideas and cogency in expression of those.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
