Just how many OldFriend's are there?
Posted on 10/15/2005 5:57:34 AM PDT by Pokey78
THE MOST EFFECTIVE CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATOR of--oh--the last century or so, Congressman Tom DeLay, was indicted last month for allegedly violating Texas campaign finance laws, and has vacated his position as House majority leader. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, is under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for his sale of stock in the medical company his family started.
White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby have been under investigation by a special federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, for more than two years. When appointed in 2003 by the Bush Justice Department, Fitzgerald's mandate was to find out if the leaking to reporters of the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was a violation of a 1982 statute known as the Philip Agee law, and if so, who violated it. It now seems clear that Rove and Libby are the main targets of the prosecutor, and that both are in imminent danger of indictment.
What do these four men have in common, other than their status as prosecutorial targets? Since 2001, they have been among the most prominent promoters of the conservative agenda of the Bush administration. For over four years, they have helped two strong conservatives, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, successfully advance an agenda for change in America. To the extent these four are sidelined, there is a real chance that the Bush-Cheney administration will become less successful.
A number of analysts have argued that all this
The situation today, however, seems different. There was plenty of political polarization in those earlier presidencies, but today polarization divides more neatly along partisan lines. The earlier presidencies had plenty of internal ideological rifts, but the incidence of scandal and investigation was not exclusive to one side or the other.
In today's Washington, as has been true for decades, classified information is leaked by many different players in any given policy fight in the government. The Bush administration has been replete with leaks of presumably classified information. Is the identity of Valerie Plame the most consequential leak of the last four years? Are Rove and Libby bigger leakers than, say, the CIA's George Tenet or Richard Armitage at the State Department? Do no employees of the Central Intelligence Agency (almost universally anti-Bush and anti-conservative) ever leak anything? If so, have they been indicted, or investigated by a special prosecutor? Any prosecutor?
Much the same is true of DeLay's alleged laundering of soft (corporate and/or unlimited) money in 2002 races for the Texas legislature, where only hard money (limited, individual contributions) is allowed. At the press conference called by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to comment on the DeLay indictment and the "culture of corruption" fostered in Washington by conservative Republicans, she was asked about her own high-dollar soft-money fundraising--supposedly banned for members of Congress by the 2002 McCain-Feingold law--to defeat a ballot initiative on congressional redistricting sponsored by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. She replied that her soft-money fundraising was utterly different from DeLay's because it had been blessed by her campaign lawyers, and she never raises soft money while standing or sitting on government property. Without missing a beat, reporters at the Pelosi press conference dropped the awkward subject and returned the focus to DeLay and to the larger pattern of Republican corruption DeLay's indictment supposedly signifies.
Bill Frist suddenly and unexpectedly became Senate Majority Leader in December 2002. In the 2004 campaign, Frist broke Senate precedent and visited the state of his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, to campaign for Daschle's Republican opponent.
Then, in 2005, Frist launched a campaign against Democratic judicial filibusters. Though he did not succeed in his goal of a Senate rules change, his efforts are widely believed to have greatly reduced the possibility that Democrats could successfully filibuster a Bush Supreme Court nominee. Having emerged in the last year as a conservative leader, Frist now finds himself under investigation. Just another coincidence?
Don't try selling the idea of coincidence to Kenneth Tomlinson, until recently the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Last May, the New York Times published a lengthy account of Tomlinson's efforts to bring increased balance to public television--i.e., giving a bit more of a hearing to conservatives. He commissioned a modest study to confirm what most everyone already knew, that the practice on shows produced or moderated by Bill Moyers is to interview conservatives and Republicans only when they are in disagreement with the predominant conservative or Republican position on a given issue.
Within days of the Times piece, Democratic congressmen David Obey and John Dingell, ranking minority members on two key committees, wrote a letter to the CPB inspector general, Kenneth Konz, demanding a detailed, elaborate investigation of Tomlinson. Not only did Konz comply, he asked Tomlinson to provide all his emails, which Tomlinson did, and conducted a search
Tomlinson's term as CPB chairman expired last month, though he remains a member of the board. But the inspector general's investigation of Tomlinson's conduct as chairman, designed by Obey and Dingell and their liberal staffers, continues with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, a kind of ideological criminalization of active, visible conservatives has become almost second nature to the left and the elite professions, including journalism and teaching, in which they predominate. Did Dick Cheney change his views on regime change in Iraq between 1991 and 2003? Don't ask him why. It's enough to give a one-word explanation of his views: "Halliburton." The unspoken premise is that Cheney changed his position to line his pockets.
And what was the left's central, most deeply felt image of the presidential campaign of 2004? Actively marketed by Dan Rather and CBS News, it was this: John Kerry was a war hero and George W. Bush went AWOL. AWOL is, of course, an acronym: "Absent Without Leave." In the military, being AWOL is a crime subject to court martial, and to lengthy imprisonment. So saying Bush was AWOL was not just an attempt to compare his military service unfavorably with Kerry's, which is fair enough. It was an attempt to criminalize Bush's military career. Though the attempt backfired when it became clear CBS had accepted faked evidence, Democratic and liberal elites were sold on the idea that "war hero" vs. "AWOL" was the key to undermining the widespread respect Bush had achieved by his response to 9/11.
Why are conservative Republicans, who control the executive and legislative branches of government for the first time in living memory, so vulnerable to the phenomenon of criminalization? Is it simple payback for the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Or is it a reflection of some deep malady at the heart of American politics? If criminalization is seen to loom ahead for every conservative who begins successfully to act out his or her beliefs in government or politics, is the project of conservative reform sustainable?
We don't pretend to have all the answers, or a solid answer even to one of these questions. But it's a reasonable bet that the fall of 2005 will be remembered as a time when it became clear that a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives. And it is clear that thinking through a response to this challenge is a task conservatives can no longer postpone.
"If criminalization is seen to loom ahead for every conservative who begins successfully to act out his or her beliefs in government or politics, is the project of conservative reform sustainable?"
Yep! See the 2nd amendment. That's why it's there.
ROFL!
Excellent title and excellent article.
Just how many OldFriend's are there?
It is be coming apparent that this may be much closer than we may think.
Well, don't be too sure about that (2nd Amendment that is). The states rights branch of conservatism allows states like mine to override the Bill of Rights. McCain and the big government branch of conservatism doesn't like the 2nd Amendment either. Bush is about to try to get rid of posse comitatus laws which prevent the use of the "standing army" for law enforcement inside our borders. Leftists sure don't like it and regularly infringe on our right to keep and bear arms too. All in all, we need to undo a LOT of legislation if the 2nd is going to work as intended. I hate to say it, but the Feds would win right now, they are better armed and if willing to abort the Constitution, the rest of us citizens couldn't stop them. Flame on.
First of all, conservative Republicans do NOT control the legislative branch, which of course, hamstrings the President. The legislative branch is controlled by a cabal of Senate Democrats and RINO's.......and when you get right down to it, the Senate is controlled by 6 or 7 faux Republicans in the McCain, Chaffee, Snowe mold. One might also add to this the "gang of 14" which deftly seized control in the judicial appointments process, again hamstringing the President.
Second, Republican solons don't know how to fight back and they never have. They are not alley-cat fighters like the Dems have always been. This pussiness is always praised by purists as being something "noble". About as "noble" as the phoney Nobel peace prizes.
Right off the bat, the "new tone" in DC disarmed the GOP victors. It lulled them, and soon, they preferred the state of lullness to any meaningful confrontations. The GOP elected hierarchy are, for the most part, paper tigers big on talk, short on wielding the big stick.
Mr. Krystal, you know the answer to your own question as well as we, you are just too delicate, sensitive and wussy to articulate it. Perhaps you fear a more manly critique of the fighting spirit of the DC GOP might hurt sales of your magazine. If so, then you are part of the problem.
Years ago, GOP "compassionate conservatism" in DC morphed into "dispassionate conservatism".....and therein lies the rub.
Leni
Kristol is such a glowing moderate that I'm rather surprised he could wrap his head around this concept, pleasantly surprised.
That was good!
"I hate to say it, but the Feds would win right now, they are better armed and if willing to abort the Constitution, the rest of us citizens couldn't stop them. Flame on."
The Fed's win when they can bully.
Theose nut-cases at Waco showed the Fed's for the cowards that they are when they plinked a few Feds and the Feds did what no Marine or Grunt could ever do in the same exact situation (without winding up in front of a fireing squad.)
The feds were better armed and the level of their defensive kit indicated an expectation of 'war'. Yet when they got the thing that is the setting for glory unparalleled---they broke and ran.
Another thing to consider is that those Fed agencies and, for that matter the military are staffed by a certain percentage of true, constitution respecting Americans.
I look it it this way: I am so out of phase with the PC, statist society that I live in that some clash--even if I am doing all I can to avoid it (which I would do)is inevitable--so I simply don't worry about anything.
Stick to your fundamental principles, get as near to Right as you can in any situation, and sleep the sleep of the just. And to hell with how well armed anyone is--is HE right or am I right--that's it at the end of the day
Get a life. You impress me so much with your great manliness, Mr. Macho.
A glowing moderate he is not. Unorthodox, yes...independant, yes...but I wouldn't call one of the three fathers of regime change in Iraq a "moderate".
Your post is an accurate description of American politics since at least Watergate times. To me the mystery is why Pubbies don't figure it out and naively keep kicking Lucy's football, expecting a different outcome "this time." The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that they truly don't comprehend the depth of Democrat corruption, cynicism, America-hatred and ruthlessness.
The criminality of dissenting opinion is a central tenet of leftist strategy and rhetoric. These specific cases are merely the public tip of a very large iceberg.
Out here in the trenches, even the dimmest liberal conformist sheep know that the first reaction to criticism, dissent, or opposition should be to represent such opposition as a criminal attack on liberal rights. Last week, I spoke with a high school English teacher who was almost comically obtuse about this.
She literally could not conceive of the idea that criticizing, say, the Dixie Chicks was not a criminal attack on their rights. She had no conception of the irony of pretending that total stone silence from those with certain opinions was the only way to protect "free expression."
Two generations of Americans have now been indoctrinated to believe implicitly in these imaginary rights for liberals and leftists: the right to the forum of their choice, the right to an audience, the right to financial support, and the right to be taken seriously.
I have come to believe there is a vast left wing conspiracy in this country. I am not kidding BTW.
I have always loved conspiracy theories, they are so darned interesting but I didn't really believe in them. In the last few years I have come to to totally believe in them. The only problem I have is many who think the same thing really are nuts.
How would I join in with a bunch that I know to be mostly if not all, at least a little strange?
Maybe 20 years ago, I noticed these things seemed to be staged and pushed by real forces. I am not even saying they are all wrong.
First of all came the anarchists and atheists who were also communists. Next came the civil rights movement. Then the sexual revolution, attack on the family (along with feminism) and open immigration.
I can remember back around 1988 when I was in grad school mentioning to a friend that the next big push was going to be homosexual rights. I also said I thought they had finally overstepped. Boy was I wrong.
A few days ago on the History Channel they had a program on secret societies. Among them was "skull and bones" and the various groups such as the CFR, Trilateral Commisssion and the Bilderbergers.
Then it hit me. These groups are just what the right wing nuts called them. They really are conspiracies to take over the world.
In fact they are really conspiracies right on the face of it, hiding in plain sight. The only thing which could be argued is what they are doing.
I haven't had much use for Kristol in recent years, although he was a hero in the old days. But he's right on target here.
What can we do about it? How about getting some backbones and fighting back? You can't blame the Democrats for using dirty tactics if they always work.
For one thing, why on earth have the Republicans kept that silly rule that the leader of the house has to step down if he is indicted? That's nothing but an invitation to indict, and as we have seen here it certainly doesn't contribute to what must have been the purpose of this stupid rule, that Republicans are cleaner than Democrats. Just the opposite. It give the media a free opportunity to say that Republicans are dirtier than Democrats. Get rid of that rule!
Also, why do we always agree to hold hearing and appoint investigative commissions, while the Democrats just dig in their heels and refuse? Under the rules Republicans seem to agree to, an indicted Republican is in a weaker position than a convicted Democrat.
Even Kristol, complaining about this, says that politics are more polarized than ever. Sure, but not equally. The Democrats have pulled out all the stops, while the Republicans just sit their with weak grins on their faces. How about fighting back?
"I think you also should point out ...
That is what I love about FR. When one omits, another picks him/ her up.
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.