Linda Greenhouse has an article today about next term's Detainee Cases, which by coincidence I read after reading a bit of the amici brief of Israeli military experts. A brief that notes both the perilous state of Israel over the years as well as its ability to provide basic access to the courts for alleged terrorists. The closing of the article on a repeat offender that pops up here more than once is particularly telling:
Perhaps the most striking of all the briefs is the one filed by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. The withdrawal of habeas corpus, he tells the justices, “is anathema to fundamental liberty interests,” and the combatant status review tribunal process is so deeply flawed that it “demands robust habeas review.”
Mr. Specter was chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the Military Commissions Act was passed. He was, in fact, one of the 65 senators who voted for it.
Thus, Specter ultimately calls out himself and his party along with the Democratic enablers. On that something, there is an annoying review on an annoying sounding book on how f-ed up the Democrats, in particular new activists, are these days. I am no big defender of party elites as a whole, but the suggestion they have no ideas and just bash Bush (FDR and others btw got in power largely by suggesting the other person is horrible) etc. is stupid.
I am annoyed because I know there is something worth fighting for here. Something to support. I also know that many activists, including in the blogosphere, often are full with ideas. They dislike Bush both because he and his enablers are horrible to the country and because they promote ideas foreign to our own. (I'm a blogger, so can use that pronoun.) One critical review of the book, which apparently has some good reporting bits, points to a problem with the overall theme:
But the basic tenets of progressivism -- fairness and equality; human dignity and the ability to earn a living and support a family, no matter if it is gay or straight, married or not; corporate responsibility and an end to the rampant political corruption and corporate cronyism that so dominates the Republican party; affordable healthcare for all; green economic development; cutting back a bloated military budget and investing in infrastructure and education, and real security without fear-mongering -- none of these ideas are new. And if a candidate ran on them aggressively, and had the necessary resources, he or she would be on the road to getting elected.
True enough. Take Clinton. The core of his success is his personality and his political skill. Add the respect he gets from even those on the left that find him not progressive enough -- respect that comes from promoting basic progressive policies the FDR generation could understand -- you get an idea of why he is so popular. OTOH, his establishment brand has problems. As the review notes, "Bai doesn't get that this aim to democratize the political process is itself a vital and worthy idea." Enough on this 'no idea' and 'just Bush bashing' garbage.
The story of the cycle, however, is obviously Sen. (for now) Craig. I have checked some liberal leaning blog posts on this situation, see e.g. here per Bill Richardson's dubious input, and it is a bit depressing. Some, like Talking Points Memo, are wary of the whole thing ... including the "crime" involved. The Nation had a good piece that was basically sad as well.
Still, many comments are rather over the top, not just on his hypocrisy. Check some of the comments here as well. There is this implication he was found guilty of "public sex" or something. He was not. If this sort of vague "disorderly conduct," including code among some willing participants, is writ large, and it is in various cases, injustice will arise. I listened to the tape, played on Rachel Maddow, that supposedly "proves" his guilt or something. I think it ultimately suggests the limits of those who deem such tapes alone a way to stop the evils of secret interrogations.
The guy is a hypocrite, but what he is charged with here is not worthy of the disgust people on the left are supplying ... and I'm not talking disgust over his hypocrisy, a common trend in politics anyway. Lying to yourself is also a pretty common thing. This does not justify it, especially when it leads to negative public policy, but the scorn is a bit over the top. You join the Republicans, embarrassing the party factors into the job requirement, so that too should factor into the talk about his resignation. Given the party's problems, said embarrassment very well might arise for dubious reasons.
I myself think the voters should get a chance to decide in 2008 whether or not to keep him office. What he did was not so "terrible" to merit early retirement to spend more time with his family. Except, I guess, for his party as a whole. Oh well. It did change the subject, while his resignation suggest the party as a whole is not to blame (so is the spin), so they should not be too upset.
See, in comparison, the far from good news in Iraq and Afghanistan.