For one day only, I'm going to *gasp* defend both Bush & McCain. I know, I'm feeling queasy about it too!
Issue One: The Telecommunications Wire-Tap Immunity Thing
If you've been living under a rock, let me give you the short version: Feds ask big telecom companies for "open access" in a legally questionable maneuver all in the name of national security and fighting terrorism. The baby-bells quietly agree. The truth comes out. Legal debate ensues. Bush calls for Telecoms to receive immunity for their participation. Blah, blah, blah...
Am I the only liberal who thinks that this immunity is a good thing? Sure, it sickens me that civil liberties were stepped on. Sure, I believe Ben Franklin was right when he said that those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither. But the post-911 years have been tumultuous times. People were afraid. The government became zealous. Everyone from Big Business to Librarians were put on the spot for access. It's easy for us defenders of liberty to say, "You are bad!" to BellJr. I believe that the responsibility and the blame must rest on our President & government for any errors in judgment. Are the Telecoms without sin? Of course not. They take their customers for a ride every chance they get. But, if they are to blame, then we are to blame for re-electing the idiot-in-chief.
So, I support Bush's immunity for the Telecoms. I think the blame is his. He and Cheney should both be impeached.
Issue Two: The Lobbyist In Waiting
Reports are flooding the internet about McCain having an improper relationship with a lobbyist.
It's no secret that John McCain has pushed for campaign finance reform for years and has recently questioned Obama's funding. No Skeletons? Dude, he's been in Washington for years. Of course he'll have skeletons. Of course he's played the special-interest 2-step. Does anyone think that the timing is a bit odd?
It reminds me of the anti-Clinton zealots in the 90's. Seriously! True or not, I honestly think it's a zealously fueled smear campaign. My only question is from where? It's no secret that the "Religious Right" arm of the Republican Party hates him. It's also no secret that their backers have used this kind of tactic before. If it quacks like a duck!
I also wouldn't put it past some dumb-ass on our side. Seriously, zeal goes both ways. The fervor to get out of the war & turn this into a Democrat-run country is strong. McCain has gone at Obama & Clinton about finance before. McCain is the Republican front-runner. Why isn't this a smear from our side?
Look, here's the bottom-line: So-called morally superior people will do ethically questionable things for the "greater good." It's all too perfect timing. I don't care if it's true, because it feels like horse-shit. This shouldn't change the vote of any McCain supporter, unless they are sheep.
3 comments:
I'm going to have to disagree pretty strongly here, particularly on the McCain story. You claim this story that has broken about McCain's relationship to this lobbyist is akin to the whole Monicagate mess, but it's not. Monicagate was a tangent; If you'll recall that story broke during the Whitewater investigation and had nothing to do with Whitewater at all. It was just blood in the water for the sharks, the means that you rightly claim for Clinton's enemies to go after him.
This issue is very different, because McCain's entire reputation (and source of his popularity among independents and moderates) is based on how he's bucked the Washington system. He's the maverick. He's the one who doesn't work like all the others: bought and paid for by corporate America and/or any other special interest group. Hell, even I bought into that reputation and said as much in my own MySpace blog some weeks ago.
And now a story breaks that shows that he has been playing the game just like everyone else, that he is "bought and paid for" by the special interests that he supposedly opposes. Can you say "hypocrit?" Maybe anyone cynical about politics wouldn't be surprised by that, but this is certainly newsworthy and it should make anyone whose support of McCain is based on that maverick reputation take pause.
Nord, we've been friends for a long time. I feel that your frustration and sense of betrayal.
I'm neither a cynic nor a believer. McCain never stopped playing the game because no politician in their right mind would stop playing the game. Don't hate the player, hate the game!
If (conspiracy theorist in me) my gut is right, you are precisely the type of person whom this sudden outing is supposed to effect. Folks on the right and left of McCain who for one reason or another are considering him, but now will back off because they see him for what he really is: just another politician playing the game.
Now that your eyes are open (even for the wrong reasons) come back to us in the Democratic party. I know you can't stand Hillary. That's OK. Obama needs smart people like you voting for him!
I swear you say things like this because you haven't heard from me in about a week. I'm going to handle these in reverse order.
Abstract for the time impaired:
McCain is held to a higher standard because he created the standard. Telecom companies are responsible for their actions to at least the same level as real US citizens.
The McCain story has nothing to do with the 'potential' for sexual relations with a woman, not his wife, and almost 30 years his junior. It has everything to do with flouting the laws he wrote. The sex thing just makes it interesting to the voyeuristic media elites who talk about this stuff on TV.
Yes, Yes, "don't hate the player' (jeeze, remember you are a WHITE boy from Philly). But when you are part of the pair in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 you will (and should) be held to a higher standard. If Sen. Feingold had similar skeletons in his closet I am sure the Republican machine would be trotting them out as an example of how "they all do it".
Secondly, IANAL but, blanket immunity to an entire sector of any business is a bad idea. Especially if someone potentially violated Constitutional amendments. Immunity is usually provided under the auspices of getting testimony for other crimes not committed by the immunized party. And even then it is normally done on a specific basis. Not for any and all activities, but rather for activities during a specified time period (for example).
So, unless we plan on bringing the heads of the major telecomm companies (and their resident techies) to Capitol Hill for hearings into impeachment of Cheney & Bush, Inc. I don't see any reason to give ANYONE immunity. It sets a bad precedence and doesn't provide the US citizens (those who were hurt by these actions) with any legal redress.
If the police come to you, without a warrant, and tell you to listen in on the phone calls made by your cousin who is living in your extra bedroom (I know very tortured setup) do you do it? You know there have been some break ins around the neighborhood but have no reason to suspect your cousin. Oh, and you'll also be listening to his daughter's calls when she visits for the weekend.
Look, it is really simple. The companies should have said no. And we shouldn't be treating entire corporations as having greater rights than individual citizens.
Post a Comment