Small victories are what one hangs their hat on sometimes.
I was trying to obtain information the last few days about something from my county clerk. There was only one number given in the phone book, one that matched the one given by the "411" information line. The number given rang off the hook. These people apparently never heard of automated messages. Two days in a row. Called the "311" city information number -- first time I used this service -- and was given an alternate number. Same result.
I called again. I was given the NY State number. The number went through but at 11:45 the actual humans all go on a break for around an hour or so. I got through at 11:47. I called 311 a third time later in the day ... this time I got through to an actual person. At first, the person said she could not really help me -- call the county clerk. She talks to someone else, and I hear the person say "not our problem" (how nice), but eventually the other person does tell me the information I needed to know. I made it sure it was damn clear, annoying the person, but this is like the second time in a week I had to deal with shit like this, so I was in less polite mode.*
This is the sort of thing you laugh at (1) when it happens to someone else (2) after it is over or (3) you don't want to cry. I think I'm somewhat only the lines of the last two. Anyway, this should not have happened, but small victory. The ports deal is one as well since it forced Republicans to actually disagree with the President in a substantive way. How much is unclear -- (1) you get the idea this was planned, so they could have something to say for the '06 elections (2) who knows if shifting the operations to a U.S. company really means it is truly independent.
But, still, it shows that checks and balances, separation of powers, and public pressure all have some sign of life yet. I do wonder ... who designated Sen. Warner as the spokesman of Dubai? Again, he was out there serving as their press secretary, reading the release discussing the move, after the House committee voted 62-2 to reject the deal as current designed.
This is a bit more damning, by the House yet, than the recent Senate Intel agreement respecting the criminal eavesdropping program, for which they gave the President more power. In return, they will be "advised" about things, though perhaps it would be more helpful to actually investigate beforehand. Sen. Specter got annoyed at the NYT for calling the "kabuki" theater, but tellingly noted in his letter that the administration didn't tell him what he wanted to know. If you actually gave a shit Arlen, you would have demanded them to do so before delegating the problem to the usually subservient FISA Court. Crime does pay.
To emphasize my main concern with this whole deal: it was not really the actual deal. It was the sloppy way a surely not surprisingly controversial move was handled. Let's say that it was not really a threat to security and even was somewhat tinged with racism. For the sake of argument. So what? That is how things will be in reality sometimes, especially in these times, helped by fear mongering by you know who. So, the idea is to play it right, handle it with some finesse. This underlines the fundamental problem with these jokers -- they do not handle that very well. If they were in that Little House in the Prairie episode where Charles has to deliver the nitro, they would have blown things up early in the episode. This as much as their basic policy views is the problem, though some clueless sorts seem to miss the point. Surely, this is underlined in any number of cases, though the ass covering was much less successful in this case.
Anyway, I talked about this to a loyal reader, but I want to end by underlining my position on the impeachment deal. John Dean, who has been doing yeoman work on this in his writings (including Findlaw columns and a book) and media appearances, is right to say that impeachment is not a great '06 campaign message. Oversight is. And, I think that should be a major theme, along with a basic message of what the Democratic Party stands for. Oversight is what Congress stands for. It should be non-partisan, but sadly is not these days. But, the other half -- the Democratic part -- has to be joined with it this Fall.
But, my concern is not just with members of Congress -- in fact, a few are demanding more investigation on the relevant subjects here. The problem I have is that there is nearly no mention at all of the idea that impeachment might be a quite credible result (you know, in ideal world, where lying into war will not get you re-elected), especially if real investigation and changes are not put in place. A "third party" movement came to mind as a credible metaphor here -- not barn burners like Nader, but real ones, including the likes of Perot (and more sane ones, like the progressives).
They rarely win, though the likes of the Greens should do more to target local races, but they do influence the debate. The same applies to editorials and others in the media. They help to move the goalposts. So, I was a bit pissed at an editorial sent to me that did more than say politically impeachment is a no go. Sure ... that's true, surely now. It went one step further and suggested really Bush did not really do anything impeachable. This is ridiculous. Prosecutorial discretion is not the same thing as no crime ... and we are not just talking about Britain not targeting certain protestors as possible violators of their new (dubious) hate/promotion of violence laws. Lying us into war is not impeachable? If you look at the debates, this is THE impeachable offense.
But, even the likes of Molly Ivins do more than say impeachment is not a good idea as a Democratic strategy. She goes to the next level and suggests even discussion of it by certain activists is a bad idea. Clinton is raised. Oh shut up. Oversight and independent counsels were abused there too -- millions were wasted to investigate one aide because he gave some hush money to his mistress. Does this mean Patrick Fitzgerald is Javert? I see nothing wrong with some activists making the case for impeachment and some -- you know, other than the Nation -- editorialists talking a bit about it too (even a wee bit). Keep things in perspective, but sure. Medicinal marijuana is not a great issue for '06, but at times it seems less taboo.
Anyway, that's really where I'm coming from, inartfully put or not. I'd add that there should be a place for "alternate universes," a discussion point of what should be done, even if it cannot be right now. This too is where some sort of impeachment talk makes sense. If South Africa can have truth commissions that serve as an alternative to prosecutions for rank deprivations of human rights, surely impeachment proceedings are not the only way to go. But, such commissions underline the rights were violated. That too is part of my point -- "concern" and other play acting is not quite what is satisfying at this point.
---
* Partly since I was there, so to speak, I respect the position of the low level sorts involved in this situation. After all, I remain in the support business. So, I did note that I was trying to be crystal clear (especially on a not perfect line) because I was given the run around. But, quid pro quo is warranted -- some minimum level of respect is a bit too often not shown by both sides. Thus, to take a trivial example, I choose take out places in part based on customer service skills.