Some dream about a Kerry/McCain ticket ... others a Bush/McCain ticket. This latter match-up seems unbelievable to some people because they feel that Sen. McCain (especially after the 2000 campaign) surely hates the guy! I had some of the same feelings when reading an editorial by Sidney Zion today suggesting this possibility.
Yes, they both have conservative views, but politics is more than that, right? There is a degree of integrity in Sen. McCain's career that just isn't there in this administration. It is true that he is the head of the President's campaign in Arizona, but that's what you have to do in politics -- oppose the re-election of the head of your party, you cross a certain line. Still, it rankles when we hear Sen. McCain say that the president "has led this country with moral clarity." And, "It's [Iraq/war on terror] a fight between right and wrong, good and evil. ... It's no more ambiguous than that."
Well, Democrats and others have something else to be wary about other than his opposition to abortion -- someone who is able to talk about the President and "with moral clarity" in the same sentence is a bit suspect in my mind. Is this the same President who opposed and then stonewalled the 9/11 Commission, which allowed the people in general the additional clarity it provided? Sen. McCain might do a lot of things in his public career that people across party lines respect, but this cheapens him, even if it is a political necessity on his part.
I read a local account of that morning today with a mixture of sadness and anger -- the latter emotion arising because of those who spit at the commission, considering it as some worthless partisan effort that threatens the administration. Anything that allows us to better understand that day, including the possible errors and missteps (how in the hell do we make sure that we can do better in the future if we don't do this? or is ass covering more important?) is essential. The person with "moral clarity" doesn't quite think so.
It is useful, as well, to know how to fight the administration. Timothy Noah, who has referenced Sen. Kerry's alleged "wont" to lie, today uses the President's letter to Congress justifying the Iraq War as proof that he lied when he said that the administration never said Saddam Hussein help to "orchestrate" the 9/11 attacks. As I discuss here, it really doesn't do this. The letter is troubling, all the same, given it supplies such a broad justification for executive action, thus I entitled my post "Orchestrating A Power Grab."
Overwrought and often hysterical, filled with distracting montages and portentous drumbeats, the documentary feels as cheesy as its subject or its smiling villain, Witchfinder-General Kenneth Starr. Still, the film makes one essential point. By recalling the nature of the media pile-on (with everyone hoping for another career-making Watergate), it demonstrates the way tabloid story trumps truth. (It also suggests the guilt behind the passivity in reporting the actual putsch that brought George W. Bush to power in 2000.)
-- Village Voice review of The Hunting of The President
This movie also is an example of how not to fight the powers that be. I have not read the book it was based on, but it does seem that it was overly condensed. Also, especially early on, it had cheesy touches that made it seem like a low rent John Grisham novel or as tabloidish as the stories that it rebelled against. The title suggests the tone, a conspiracy that might lead those notconvincedd to question the film's balance. For instance, Susan McDougal was clearly the heroine of the piece and her experiences in prison was truly hard to listen to, but I felt like I was only getting her side of the story.
It did well to not justify the President's actions (my problem was not with his private morality but his public morality -- a lack of public integrity was as troubling as his shift to the right on various issues). Also, once McDougal and Kenneth Starr got on the scene, the movie's more cheesy tone and bells and whistles (such as public domain clips from old movies) were pulled back, and the story spoke for itself. It might have been better if Joe Conason, the co-author of the book, didn't get F.O.B. and producer of Designing Women to work on the movie. Conason himself in Salon and the NY Observer is the antithesis of that, and it's unfortunate the documentary felt a need to use such techniques.
Such things as the imperial presidency friendly Federalist Society (including now Solicitor General Ted Olson; Cheney was also shown at a meeting of the society) helping to bring down the President by any means necessary (including weakening the presidency itself) speaks for itself without all the background cheesiness. On that note, and referring back to my concern for public integrity, I offer this final thought:
In the Bush Administration, ambition and syncophancy have triumphed over professionalism, sound judgment and moral seriousness. The corruptions of power have brought us to a sorry spectacle in which intelligent lawyers, many with impeccable credentials, have argued vigorously for an Imperial Presidency that is above the law and for the right to abuse and torture fellow human beings. This failure of moral imagination and professional scruple makes the participants unfit for judicial office, and no one should hesitate in saying so.
-- Prof. Jack Balkin (6/17)