Well, frumps, you know how some professions require that before you can hang out a shingle you have to prove to some experts that you know what the hell you’re doing? You know what I mean, before you’re unleashed on the public, you have to take a test and prove you know your stuff then you get a piece of paper of some kind – a license, a diploma, a certificate. With that in hand, you’re free to take peoples’ money for your services whether you’re taking out gall bladders, filing tax returns, trading stocks and bonds, making drugs, fixing someone’s pipes – whatever. On top of that, many of those professions require some sort of “continuing education” and proof that you’re staying current on your field of expertise.
Just about the only important, high stakes career that one can aspire to simply by running one’s mouth is politics. It has become clear, recently, though that it might be time for us to require that people who serve or aspire to serve in our government, as elected officials, prove that they have a rudimentary grasp of Civics 101. Civics is the course you took in ninth grade, or so, that teaches American teens the basics of how the US government is structured and how it works. Many students find this an excruciatingly boring, irrelevant waste of time. It doesn’t change much, it’s far from sexy and very few students aspire to holding a government office when they’re fifteen.
Now most politicians come to us via the Law, so they actually have an extra helping of Civics, usually in the form of Political Science which looks good on the pre-Law resume, but is generally just as forgettable as its prerequisite, High School Civics. Civics is to running for office as English Grammar is to landing a job as a critic on the New York Review of Books. It is a necessary evil; any famous book reviewer will tell you that she/he would rather sip some brandy and banter about Satanic symbolism in The Heart of Darkness than diagram a sentence. And clearly, any good politician would rather speechify and fund-raise than worry about how well our ‘system of checks and balances” is holding up.
That last point has become painfully clear over the past week as Republicans tore themselves away from waging “holy war” on health care reform long enough to set loose the flying monkeys over Eric Holder’s decision to bring terrorists to trial in New York City, for a dose of that world-famous American criminal justice. Republican’s have made it abundantly clear that our criminal justice system may be world-famous but they don’t trust it for a second and they are so terrified that the system is going to fail and Mayor Bloomberg’s poor daughter is going to be kidnapped by a nefarious blind imam, freed on a technicality, who will fly out of O’Hare after it is seized by Muslim visitors and we all die when our World famous tall buildings come crashing down us . . . just as the Obama administration planned for it to play out so that he can take credit for job creation. Sounds bat-shit, foaming at the mouth crazy – doesn’t it?
Post Election-Loss Disorder: Prognosis – Hopeless
Clearly, Republicans have been so thoroughly unhinged by their minority status that they have forgotten all of their Civics lessons (and probably most of their English Grammar, too). How else could they be coming up with such embarrassingly ignorant statements about their own government for worldwide public consumption? Now I know that Republicans aren’t the only ones critical of this decision taken by the Department of Justice. But they are, by a long sight, the most absurdly fanciful and/or just profoundly dumb ones.
Before I share a sampling of GOP reactions, I want to remind us all that the United States government consists of three functional branches – the Executive branch consists of the President, Vice President, the Cabinet and advisors, etc; the Judicial branch consisting of the Federal courts, and the Legislative branch, which consists of the US House of Representatives and Senate.
Through a system of separation of powers and “checks and balances,” each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches. The Judicial Branch is independently responsible for decisions like the one that Attorney General Eric Holder made to try terror suspects in the New York criminal court system, as criminals, rather than in a military tribunal as enemy combatants.
Despite what some may think, that is rightfully Eric Holder’s decision to make, he does not have to consult with the President nor ask his permission. As Obama has said, at least a hundred times during the past year, Eric Holder would be reviewing the evidence and making the call. That’s as it is meant to be done and that’s the way it was done. Unfortunately, over the past eight years of the Bush administration, this separation of powers was – how shall I put it? – blurred and many members of the GOP have become used to that administration which was heavy on checks and way light on balances – if you get my drift.
So that is the context in which many outrageously offensive and silly statements have been duly delivered by political grandstanders who really should know better.
Unsolicited Opinions, Uneducated Analysis, Unneeded Advice and Other Hot Air
Here are some of the biggest boners, to date.
From The Hill comes a statement from Rep. Pete King (R-NY),
“Rep. Pete King (N.Y.), the only Republican member of New York City’s congressional delegation, condemned the Obama administration’s decision to move terrorist suspects to Manhattan for trial.”
“I am outraged by the Obama Administration’s decision to move Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, to American soil to be tried,” King said in a statement Friday.
“King suggested that the decision was a result of “confusion” since President Barack Obama decided to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that the announcement of the move was “rushed.”
“The New York Republican demanded answers of Obama in terms of his plans for future prosecutions of terror suspects, as well as how the administration would guarantee the safety of the U.S. and New Yorkers during the trial.”
“Unfortunately, Congress and the American people were never allowed a role in this debate,” King said. “Now the President has decided to bring some of the worst terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to New York City, without notifying Congress or the American people. This is an upsetting pattern for an Administration that promised an unprecedented level of transparency.”
What’s most “upsetting” about this is that Rep. King’s statement underscores his complete ignorance of how such decisions are made. First, the President is bringing no one to New York – the Department of Justice is. The President has no obligation, nor would it be appropriate for him to “notify Congress or the American people” about a decision that is not his to make. As far as his statement that “Congress and the American people were never allowed a role in this debate” – I have to wonder when was the last time that Rep. King remembers being invited to “debate” the venue for a Department of Justice trial before DOJ announced it?
Not satisfied with all of that puffery, Rep. King went on to wonder about Obama’s “plans for future prosecutions of terror suspects, as well as how the administration would guarantee the safety of the U.S. and New Yorkers during the trial.” Well, the answer to the first part of the question is easy: Obama has no plans for “future prosecutions,” just as he had no “plans” for the current prosecutions. Rep. King should re-direct that question to the proper person, Attorney General Holder; as far as the second part of the question – “how the administration would guarantee the safety of the U.S. and New Yorkers during the trial” – I’m going to give Mr. King the benefit of the doubt and assume that that is a rhetorical flourish.
Of course, Rep. King is no stranger to terrorism:
In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said:
“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.”
King was branded by a judge in a Northern Ireland court “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”.
He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA terrorist activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA terrorism in the UK.
King stopped supporting the IRA after being offended by Irish public opposition to the invasion of Iraq, labeling it as begrudgery rather than suspicion of and opposition to the war.
In 2008, King spoke in defense of bail for a fugitive IRA member, convicted terrorist Pól Brennan, who had escaped from prison in the UK and been detained in Texas 15 years later. The IRA member, who had broken out of prison during the Maze Prison escape and entered America illegally, was being held without bail after his work permit expired; King said: “My experience dealing with (Irish) republicans is that they don’t jump bail in this country. They honor their commitments.”
Now this is the same Pete King who urged John McCain to question Obama’s “ties” to William Ayers (who was a member of the Weather Underground when Obama was eight years old).
This is also the same Rep. Pete King who, in 2007, opined that there are “too many mosques in this country.” When that circulated and a public outcry went up, King tried to disown the statement and blame it on an interviewer from Politico taking his words out of context. Luckily, Politico had taped the interview:
Surely a Senator Knows How This Works?
Hot Air Pundit covered the “Sky is Falling” assessment of Sen. Jim DeMint, another Civics challenged elected official:
“This senseless decision puts more Americans at risk for future terrorist attacks and is completely unnecessary. Americans have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Guantanamo Bay where these violent radicals can be detained and safely tried by military commissions away from our communities.”
“Why would our President send terrorist masterminds away from an island fortress off our shores to trials in American courtrooms that will now become targets for enemy combatants? Further, by trying these terrorists in open courts, the same people that murdered thousands of our countrymen will now have access to highly classified intelligence that could further risk our security. The President’s decision is naive and reckless.”
Let’s see, “The President’s decision is naive and reckless.” Chalk up one Senator who doesn’t seem to know that Eric Holder, appropriately, made this decision, not Obama. Either these guys spent too much time serving a petty monarch and they really are that clueless, or they believe their constituents are so naive that they’ll buy this “blame Obama” meme they’re spewing to score some political points. Either way, very lame . . .
And the Award for Best Wingnut 2009 goes to . . .
Wilson Wannabe
Glenn Thrush, over at Politico, covered Louie Gohmert’s ravings on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Show (thanks Glenn, it’s a dirty job but somebody has to do it). And since I’m a big fan of Thrush, I’m throwing some of his editorial flourishes as well as the Gohmert quotes:
“Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who is about as conservative on homeland security as anybody living above ground, was on FOX last night riffing about the potential motivations of New Yorkers who actually want terrorists tried on their home soil.”
“He went on to provide a helpful list of potential weak spots that a well-informed terrorist — say someone who watched Louie Gohmert on FOX — might target during the trials.”
“’You’ve got millions of New Yorkers who would be put at risk by this,’ Gohmert, a former judge who represents East Texas, told Neil Cavuto.”
“For somebody like me who has put together the logistics of a court trial, you’ve got weak links all along the way from the jailers, the bailiffs, the clerks, the jurors, the judge, everybody in the courtroom, their families…You’ve got subways, tunnels, bridges all subject to terrorism.”
“Then, in an apparent reference to the billions in federal cash that flowed to the city after the Sept. 11 attack, he added: ‘And unless they’re trying to create a new jobs bill by allowing terrorism back in New York then this is insane. And even that would be insane.’”
Democrats immediately called “Foul.” But for anyone who’s ever been on “Gohmert Watch,” this is pretty tame stuff. In case you’ve missed some of Rep. Gohmert’s ruminations on other issues, here’s a sampling:
On rescinding the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gays in the military:
“House lawmakers convened Tuesday night for a special session of floor speeches addressing the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. While many lawmakers made compelling cases for the repeal of DADT, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the house floor to deliver a vitriolic response to the issue.”
“Gohmert launched a sequence of assaults that began by calling DADT repeal a “perverse… social experimentation” that would hold soldiers hostage to a sociological attack.”
Despite the fact that he was speaking before a special House session specifically called to address DADT, Gohmert decided that as long as he was on the subject of “the gays” he might as well throw in a few thoughts on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill and the danger that passing the bill would open the door to legalizing necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality:
“If you’re oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you’re oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions, [...] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition. [...]
Amidst that rant, Gohmert asserted that he is not a racist, pointing out that he voted for Alan Keyes. Keyes is a birther-movement leader who has suggested that President Obama is a “radical communist” and Louie Gohmert, of course, is a signatory to the “Birther Bill” floating somewhere in the ether of the House of Representatives.
Of course Gohmert has also played an active role in health care reform fear-mongering:
“Rep Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) took to the floor of the House to relay a conversation he had with a senior citizen. The Texas Republican — who already caused a stir by predicting that one in five people would die if Congress were to pass ’socialized’ medicine — proclaimed that Democrats were “willing to let [seniors] die” in their efforts to slash the Medicare budget.”
“REP. GOHMERT: I was talking to a senior that I consider a very wise individual, and this weekend she said, “You know what concerns me about the 500 billion in cuts to Medicare? Maybe not, but I can’t help but think they know that as seniors we’ve been through World War II, we’ve seen the evils that lurk in this world, we have gained great wisdom from our years, and they’re willing to let us die off more quickly so that we’re not around to try to get our wisdom across to the young people of what is at risk by this government takeover.”
Good thing Louie didn’t tell the poor old guy that he, Louie Gohmert, has written his own health care reform legislation that, among other things, would do away with Medicare altogether.
Here’s the washingtonwatch.com synopsis of Gohmert’s bill:
“H.R. 3478 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify rules relating to health savings accounts, to provide payments for a health savings account and for a high deductible health plan instead of entitlement to benefits under Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, to give more control and coverage to patients, to lower health care costs through increased price transparency, and to require immigrants to have a health savings account and high deductible health coverage at time of admission.”
Sweet guy.
Stop! My Ears Are Bleeding . . .
That is by no means all of the criticism that has been unleashed over AG Holder’s decision. All of you have probably heard, by now, about Rudy Giuliani’s major flip-flop on holding terror trials in New York. It was one thing when Bush was President, quite the opposite now that Obama’s in office.
And of course Rep. John Shadegg’s tasteless attack on NYC Mayor Bloomberg, insinuating that the Mayor was putting his daughter at risk of being kidnapped by terrorists on the streets of New York, has already made the rounds. Shadegg has since “sort of” apologized, as he should. But he also couldn’t resist throwing in one more little breathless bit of fear-mongering while he was at it:
SHADEGG: “I apologize for the insensitivity of my remarks with respect to the mayor or his family, however I think it is important to note that this decision involves potential risk to innocent people.”
“Right about now, you might be wondering, “Is John Shadegg so clueless that he doesn’t realize that terrorists pose a ‘potential risk to innocent people’ no matter how or where or if or when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is tried?” And the answer is, no, he’s not that clueless. But Shadegg is not about to let reality impede his ability to offer insipid and self-indulgent political grandstanding!”
Actually, John, I think the lax gun laws and 57 varieties of skinheads and neo-Nazis in your state of Arizona pose a much greater threat to innocent people. Maybe you should work on that if you’re serious about making people safer . . .
A Fine Kettle of Fish
This is a pretty sorry state of affairs in general. What are these guys doing in our government? Who votes these people into office? Polls clearly show that the great majority of Americans feel that Congress does a piss-poor job of everything they touch. But do we really have anyone to blame but ourselves? We have a whole gang of Republicans and, sadly, too many Blue Dog Democrats who really haven’t done anything more than obstruct and lie and grandstand for an entire year.
It’s not always easy to pull ourselves together and get out the vote for state and local elections but it has become so important that there’s no excuse not to. We’ve seen, over this year, how bad things can get, even with Democrats in the majority. It’s hard for me to imagine anyone being proud to be represented by some of characters we’ve been watching “act out” but someone voted them in. I think it’s time to “clean house” and if we all resolve to show up at the polls again in 2010, we might just have a better future.
[tags]
President Obama, Eric Holder, Rep. Pete King, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. John Shadegg, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rudy Giuliani, terorists, Department of Justice, New York City[/tags]
