E.J. Dionne makes some pleasant noises in this morning’s Washington Post about the president and his defenders’ hypocritical word splicing with regards to the leaking of classified information. Mostly a rehashing things that have already been said, with a few new questions about what Ashcroft may have known when he recused himself, but a nice opinion piece nevertheless. Nice, that is, until the swirling load of naive bullshit that constitutes his concluding paragraph.
The most heartening sign that all the spin in the world will not allow the administration to evade such questions was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter’s statement on Fox News Sunday that “there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated.” Specter, a Republican and a former district attorney in Philadelphia, is just the right man to take the lead in breaking the spin cycle.
Is he referring to the grinning sycophant in the picture below, who’s wearing the yellow tie and is standing behind the worst president ever, while he signs away a few more of our rights with the renewal of the Patriot Act?
Is he referring to the guy who recently refused to put Alberto Gonzales under oath while he was being questioned about the NSA domestic spying program? By golly, I think he is. The thing about guys like Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham is that you can count on them to say the right things on Sunday morning talk shows. The thing you can’t count on them to do, is the right thing. Not ever. E.J. darling, it’s time to go out and get yourself some cynicism.
Boy oh boy, Chris, have you hit the nail on the head with this one! They are all a bunch of liars and nutty actors. Thanks.
Specter gives the GOP cover that Congress really is fulfilling ots oversight function. The fact that nothing he says ever comes to fruition is beside the point. He and Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hagel merely lend their faces to the myth that the GOP pols do stand up to Bush.
Stand up and spout the bs about investigating, needing answers, etc. Go to lunch. Put paperwork on the bottom of the pile of other b.s. comments.
Repeat as necessary.
Only the spoon fed are believing the GOP is actually doing anything.
Specter might be able to explain how all these statements are actually a magic truth.
A little est this morning…what is – just is! Excuses and explanations are just stories and not what really is.
Truth is it’s own form of magic.
Damn now I’m feeling really old!
The lies paused in mid air for two seconds, made a dramatic right turn, thus converting the lies to truthiness.
The problems with cynicism are: you have to be cynical about everything and everyone, and it’s a non-motivator–or just great excuse not to try to change anything.
So while you are right about Specter’s recent record, I would rather employ skepticism. I also offer an alternative reading of Dionne. E.J. is a Washington player. He’s one of the most respected columnists, an independent but with a p.o.v. the rabid right would certainly identify as liberal. I doubt that he’s being naive. He may instead be sending a message to Specter to do the right thing. Because that’s what is expected of him. And you can bet that if he doesn’t, E.J. will call him on it.
That’s something else that blanket cynicism does: it blinds you to your friends.
That’s no criticism of keeping an eye on everybody, and offering your own analysis that E.J. is wrong about Specter. He probably expects that. So I’m with you on Specter, but not on E.J.
My writing is not what I wish it was. I do like Dionne quite a lot, and I do value him as an often rational voice. I should not have implied otherwise, though I think I did.
I have no problem assuming that you are correct that E.J. was trying to send a message with his column. I doubt, however, that his message will make a dime’s worth of difference with Specter.
Specter has all the freedom in the world to do whatever he wants in the senate, yet he is proving himself the ultimate failure. He won his last election because many of my (very liberal) fellow Philadelphians like him and trusted that he would serve honorably. I did not share their trust then, and I certainly do not now. E.J. can send my senior senator whatever messages he likes. He should know, and probably does, that his messages fall on deaf ears.
Specter owes his survival in the primary to the Bushites. That’s one pull on his decisions. Another is his liberal constituency in PA. And then there is the high opinion of people in Washington he respects, and I’ll bet one of them is E.J. This is probably Specters last term? So maybe there are multiple factors at work.
I don’t dispute your assessment of what Specter will do. But he’s fooled people before. And while there’s a chance to influence his future behavior with high expectations, I say, E.J., what do you have to lose? Go for it.
And nobody’s writing is what they wish it was. Write on.