Give Me A Break

by hilzoy

Bill Kristol wonders what accounts for the fact that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist (along with Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, various members of the Republican party in Ohio and Kentucky, and others he didn't see fit to mention) are all the subjects of criminal investigation:

"Why are conservative Republicans, who control the executive and legislative branches of government for the first time in living memory, so vulnerable to the phenomenon of criminalization? Is it simple payback for the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Or is it a reflection of some deep malady at the heart of American politics?"

Kristol opts for the 'deep malady' explanation. So do I. Oddly enough, though, Kristol and I differ about what that deep malady is. Kristol's view is that "the fall of 2005 will be remembered as a time when it became clear that a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives." And he asks: "If criminalization is seen to loom ahead for every conservative who begins successfully to act out his or her beliefs in government or politics, is the project of conservative reform sustainable?"

Now: I had not previously considered the possibility that the legal troubles of so many prominent conservatives reflected a Democratic strategy to go after particularly successful conservatives. But, now that I think of it, it makes sense. The Democrats, after all, do control the Securities and Exchange Commission, and no doubt the fact that it recently subpoenaed Bill Frist's personal records reflects nothing more than a vendetta by that latte-drinking, socialist-leaning, Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing fellow traveller of a chairman, Democrat Chris Cox. The Justice Department, as we all know, was headed by a barking moonbat, Democrat John Ashcroft (the agile tit-tyrant of the left), when it appointed well-known Communist sympathizer Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Ronnie Earle is a Republican, of course, but not a particularly loyal one: in his years as a prosecutor, he has investigated four Republican office-holders, but only twelve Democrats, which does not speak well of his loyalty to the Grand Old Party.

Moreover, while the connections between these various investigations might not be obvious, it's easy to imagine how the Democrats might use their unprecedented control over all three branches of government to harass their political opponents and impose rigid ideological conformity across the nation. The more I think of it, the more terrifying conservatives' position seems: the awesome power of the left is everywhere, and Janice Rogers Brown was right to say that conservatives should be put on the endangered species list and relegated "to some remote wetlands habitat where — out of sight and out of mind — we will cease being a dissonance in collectivist concerto of the liberal body politic."

***

Well, that was fun! If anyone can come up with a more plausible scenario that makes Kristol's conspiracy theory plausible, I'm all ears. In the meantime, though, I'll go back to thinking that Rove, Libby, DeLay, Abramoff, Frist, et al are being investigated because there is evidence that suggests that they may have committed crimes. Democrats are not the party that ginned up scandals to harass leaders opposed to us. (Note: here I'm not talking about the Lewinsky scandal, in which something actually happened, but about all the various other supposed scandals of the 90s that came to nothing.) That honor belongs to the Congressional Republicans and people like Kristol, who enabled them. Which no doubt explains their willingness to project it onto us.

Comments

[Tim]

Wasn't it Willie Sutton who said that he robbed banks because that's where all the money was?

"Why are conservative Republicans, who control the executive and legislative branches of government for the first time in living memory, so vulnerable to the phenomenon of criminalization?"

Because that's where all the criminals are!

[rilkefan]

Anybody understand how Fitzgerald came to be appointed instead of some softie or at least someone less energetic?

[rilkefan]

Ohmigod check out the NYT online. Miller's notes have "Valerie Flame[sic]" on them. etc etc.

Asked what she regretted about The Times's handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: "The entire thing."

[freelunch]

I suspect that is was that Ashcroft, though in a universe of his own, still took the job of prosecutor seriously. Remember that everyone in the White House had assured us that they had nothing to do with this, so siccing a good prosecutor on this problem wasn't going to get anyone in the Administration, and they might get a turncoat or liberal if they were lucky.

The moral of the story is, "When you do something stupid, never appoint competent people to investigate it and never tell lies to people who cannot tell a nudge and a wink."

[freelunch]

I remember when Bill Kristol seemed to be a sensible conservative, but, now that he has learned that he threw in with a bunch of racketeers, he's trying to blame everyone else for his failure to engage in critical thinking. Tough, Bill, you sold your for nothing. Even Faust made a better deal than you did.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Tough, Bill, you sold your [soul] for nothing.

This is a mistake; Kristol is the the grinning face of evil, and half his success is that no one acknowledges this.

I'm not sure that there's been a more important conservative than Kristol in the last fifteen years. He's well-connected, and a long-time member of the conservative Family, in a way that Karl Rove can only dream about. He's a well-connected and long-time member of Beltway crowd. He's been credited by some with killing HillaryCare. He launched the Weekly Standard and punked TNR in only ten years. He's a major author of National Greatness, which is what got us this craptastic mess we're in now. He's chairman of PNAC. And he's somehow maintained a reputation for fair-dealing and straight-shooting, allowing him to make outrageous claims like this and have them treated seriously.

Hell, I think he's one of Satan's major minions, and even I like him. We won't win as long as we keep pretending he (and people like him) are "decent conservatives."

[rilkefan]

What SCMT said, modulo the knowing what I'm talking about part.

[freelunch]

I don't know how Bill's soul disappeared from my sentence. Maybe there's a K-Street attic with a painting of the real William Kristol in it. There's really no reason for him to be making apologies for criminals who call themselves conservatives. By doing so, he makes it harder for real, honest, honorable conservatives to reassert power and control in the Republican party. These people are evil. They need to be ejected, now.

I'm a huge proponent of single-payer health (I first typed 'simple-payer', maybe that is a better way to sell it), but my memory is that Hillary-care listened to too many special business interests to work. It was exactly the kind of government program that gives conservatives and reactionaries ammunition. I'm just disappointed that a real plan is still out in the woods a decade after the pro-business plan died.

[hilzoy]

Yep: Amnesty International has become a fringe group, while Kristol is respectable and mainstream. Why? Because AI supposedly wrote something that had the wrong emphasis, while Kristol writes stuff like this, which could have been written with a straight face only by someone who had been abruptly taken off antipsychotic medication.

It's the New Normal.

[MnMnM]

Karl Rove nosed his Jaguar out of the garage at his home in Northwest Washington in the predawn gloom, starting another day in which he would be dealing with a troubled Supreme Court nomination, posthurricane reconstruction and all the other issues that come across the desk of President Bush's most influential aide.

But Mr. Rove's first challenge on Wednesday morning came before he cleared his driveway.

There was a beautiful woman in the front seat of the Jag. Trouble was, this one was dead.

Dead perhaps. But not soon enough. Little did he know that the copy of his Grand Jury testimony which she had stolen would be uploaded to her blog within the next hour based on the auto up-date feature she had enabled. To make matters worse, her weekly newsletter to her fellow bloggers would include the following words as the headline story:

Grand Jury testimony of Karl Rove leaked by Rove-ing reporter (humor). Please keep my identity a secret. Double super Secret. I could call in and have my voice disguised and/or my face blocked out. Please send me an email if you plan to use this. Thanks.

Middle-aged, Middle-of-the-road, Mid-Westerner
[email protected]

Testimony of Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff (of the United States) [COSTUS]. How much will COSTUS cost us?

It is posted at: It is posted at: Karl Rove Says Who Leaked First

Do a Google Blog Search using the words "Karl Rove", and this blog is number 2.

[rilkefan]

(Kinda thought Earle is a Dem, hilzoy.)

[Morat]

Fitzgerald was appointed because Ashcroft recused himself. Up until that point, Ashcroft was looking to squash the thing.

Fitzgerald was an interesting choice. If nothing else, his reputation is such that few of the liberals I know would question his findings -- even if it was acquittal.

However, it's looking increasingly likely that the real questions on indictments isn't "Will there by any" but "How many and how high? And will Bush or Cheney hit the unindicted co-conspirators list?".

[John Thullen]

I'll take whatever I can get. If the Democratic Party has had the wherewithal to criminalize Republican politicians' behavior, get me on the jury, pass the popcorn, and then appoint me to the appeals commission or the firing squad.

This is offered with the usual exceptions to Slart, Sebastian, Von, Charles, DaveC., Blogbudsman, and whomever else is tempted to take things personally.

Grover Norquist the other day told Governor Bill Owens, goverment hater extraordinaire and Governor of Colorado that he was finished in national politics because he favors loosening the draconian Tabor Amendment's stranglehold on state government. Norquist told Owens he was "looting" Colorado taxpayers. More of the taxes=theft theme from the bitter little architect of Bush's annual tax cuts. The amendment to change Tabor is up a bit in the polls, but not by any statistically significant amount. If it loses, there is a chance folks will die who otherwise would have received medical care from government.

That's murder. Period. Norquist is the first guy who will be punished, either legally or by vigilante action. I'm thinking of tar and feathers, because I'm a politically correct liberal who doesn't believe in the death penalty. That could change.

Incidentally, when whining share-cropper's daughter Janice Rogers Brown's name goes on the Endangered Species List, count me in on gutting the Endangered Species Act. Then hand me the chainsaw and show me the tree she lives in and let the clear-cutting begin.

Kristol: SCMT said it.

Enough of these people. There is a political wilderness. Make it a reservation. They can live there in perpetuity. They can have a casino if they want.

[rilkefan]

John, I don't approve of state-sponsored gambling.

[hilzoy]

rilkefan: next thing you know, you'll be saying that Ashcroft was a Republican.

[rilkefan]

Do you say Ashcroft is a Democrat above? If so, consider the next thing said.

[John Thullen]

Rilkefan:

Surely we can make an exception, being reasonable people. Since the reservation will have no system of taxation, by choice. given the inhabitants, the only way to provide services like police and fire protection and the road here and there will be to have Abramoff and the croupiers skimming money off house winnings and outsourcing it to various well-connected contractors.

[Barry]

Somecallmetim, re: Kristol: " He launched the Weekly Standard and punked TNR in only ten years."

That isn't just due to his efforts. He had massive help from Kinsley, Sullivan Kelly, Barnes, and....oh, just about every editor that the TNR had during the 1990's.

[liberal japonicus]

Or is it a reflection of some deep malady at the heart of American politics?
Admit it, how many of you flashed back on "a cancer on the presidency"?

[Donald Johnson]

Amnesty International didn't become a fringe group--it's always been treated as a fringe group when it criticized the United States. It's only taken with complete seriousness by Washington when it criticizes our enemies--Bush the First quoted it with pretended shock about the crimes of Saddam Hussein, less than a year after he'd stopped being an American ally. AI probably reached its political zenith in DC circles when it passed on the later-discredited baby incubator story in Kuwait.

Barry, I thought that TNR went down the toilet when they endorsed the contras sometime in the mid-80's.

[Jon H]

John Thullen writes: "Grover Norquist the other day told Governor Bill Owens, goverment hater extraordinaire and Governor of Colorado that he was finished in national politics because he favors loosening the draconian Tabor Amendment's stranglehold on state government."

The proper response to Grover in such instances is to simply point out that he's a long-time US operative for extreme Islamists.

So, given that, who cares about his opinions on taxes?

[felixrayman]

Kevin Drum is a genius, and for those of you who voted for Bush and have yet to apologize for your ill-considered actions...it's probably too late.

Start bailing, the level of the water is rising, and you didn't even get a balanced budget out of the whole deal. Pity.

Pro-torture conservatives feel free to ignore the above, you got your dearest wish.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry for the flippancy, but KagroX from the Next Hurrah (incredibly apt, that), writing on the Kristol column, has this

I had a law professor -- though like Judy Miller, I can't recall who it was -- who once opened a class with a variant of a classic joke. "A conservative is a liberal who's just been mugged," he began, reciting the line in its customary and shopworn form. Then came the twist. "A liberal, however, is a conservative whose friend has just been indicted."

[ral]

I've been mugged. Well, strictly speaking, robbed at knife point. It was a long time ago. It didn't seem to affect my political views.

[hilzoy]

ral: Likewise. Someone ran me down while I was biking home, and I just sort of froze and held onto my bike (which he was trying to get) until around the fifth slamming blow to the head, when I remember a little voice in my head saying: do you value your brain? And I let it go. That was about fourteen years ago, and it doesn't seem to have altered my views at all.

(PS: I spotted him on my bike, called the cops, and he vanished. The next day, there he was again, in Harvard Square, on my bike, so I very quietly notified the cops, and since this time I had cleverly brought the original bill of sale, with serial number, with me, he was arrested. Eventually, a trial happened, and he was convicted, and the judge ran down the world's longest rap sheet -- assault, assault w/ deadly weapon, B&E, larceny, etc., etc. -- and said: well, prison doesn't seem to have done you much good. I think this time we'll try probation. And despite that, I still love the legal system. Call me weird.)

[liberal japonicus]

But ral, I believe the conservative argument is that it's not whether your views actually changed, it's that they should have changed ;^)

[ral]

So far every direct contact I've had with the legal system has increased my faith in it. Call me crazy. Or lucky?

[P.S., I'm glad you weren't seriously harmed! Please be careful. I was only threatened, not assaulted. So, I don't know if that really counts as "mugged."]

[hilzoy]

ral: I had always thought that riding my bike afforded some measure of safety, but I guess not. Still, I haven't been assaulted since then. (Twice before, actually, but those weren't exactly muggings.)

[ral]

Hmmm, apparently "assault" definitions vary (in some, just the threat is enough).

lj, maybe I'm too stubborn. Or just dense.

[rilkefan]

Held up at gunpoint in Hyde Park.

Girlfriend randomly punched in the face, also in Hyde Park.

Pickpocketed by gypsy girls outside the Vatican.

Still a liberal.

[calmo]

Robbed by AI canvassers who would not accept "No sorry I gave at the Church";
Punched in the face at an intersection for smiling back at a spare changer;
trampelled at the last DC rally by Quakers who claimed later, they didn't see me;
swarmed by starving Biafrans looking for anything to eat

Still a conservative.

[liberal japonicus]

Still a conservative.

Yeah, but have any of your friends been indicted? ;^)

[Tommydee]

"Anybody understand how Fitzgerald came to be appointed instead of some softie or at least someone less energetic?"

Fitzgerald was appointed by Deputy Attorney General James Comey who took over right after Ashcroft Recused himself from the case.... Comey had served in the Southern United States Attorney's office from 1987 until his appointment to the number 2 at DOJ.... He appears to be more in the character of Fitzgerald than the political hack that is Ashcroft.
It appears as if the White House mis-judged the significance of Fitzgerald's appointment expecting a dot the "I" report and not expecting him the be the bulldog prosecutor who searches out criminality regardless of political consideration... A reputation Fitzgerald is known for here in Illinois...

Tommydee.

[Charles Bird]

The Frist case looks the weakest and may have been Kristol's tipping point. There never was any there there. If Delay is cleared of criminal wrongdoing, if no indictments are handed down on Rove or Libby, and if nothing comes of Frist, why would that not support Kristol's thesis?

[CaseyL]

Conservatives spent decades billing their GOP as the "Law and Order Party."

Conservatives agreed with Edwin Meese when he said anyone who gets charged with a crime is probably guilty of it.

Conservatives used to stoke themselves up into a rage when defendants "got off on mere technicalities."

Conservatives intoned that Bush would "bring honor and dignity back to the Oval Office."

Conservatives (including, particularly, Kristol) cheered on Kenneth Starr's $70 million witchhunt against the Clinton Administration. (How much fire was in that smoke again?)

And now conservatives are whining about "the criminalization of politics"? And citing technicalities to excuse criminal and unethical behavior? And saying it's no big deal to out a CIA operative, no big deal to start a war based on distorted intelligence, no big deal to commit perjury and obstruction of justice?

Excuse me while I laugh so hard I wet my pants.

[Morat]

The Frist case looks the weakest and may have been Kristol's tipping point. There never was any there there. If Delay is cleared of criminal wrongdoing, if no indictments are handed down on Rove or Libby, and if nothing comes of Frist, why would that not support Kristol's thesis?

[Morat]

Well, I had quoted Charles there to respond with what I felt was appropriate. Since apparently it got eaten by the internet, and I don't feel like retyping it, just imagine a sarcastic snicker.

[Phil]

If Delay is cleared of criminal wrongdoing, if no indictments are handed down on Rove or Libby, and if nothing comes of Frist, why would that not support Kristol's thesis?

Because his thesis relies on Democrats being in control of legal and investigative arms and power structures that they are clearly not in control of.

[hilzoy]

Charles: What Phil said. Hence my sarcasm in the original post. If you want to imagine that Ashcroft's Justice Department and Cox's SEC are part of a liberal plot to punish conservatives, fine. If you have some other suggestion as to how we might have led those charges to be investigated, fine. But absent some story about how Kristol's hypothesis might be more than mere paranoia, I don't see any reason to take it seriously.

[hilzoy]

Charles: Besides, the normal reason for having a criminal investigation is that there is good reason to think that a crime might have been committed. Not proof -- that's why you need an investigation -- but good reason. Kristol's alternate hypothesis is needed only if you don't think that there was good reason for investigating. I cannot imagine how one would make the case that there wasn't, in the case of the Plame leak and the DeLay and Abramoff investigations. I think there's reason enough to investigate in the Frist case, but I can imagine a reasonable disagreement there. On the other hand, Cox's SEC is the least likely of all the bodies involved to have been part of a liberal plot of any kind.

[John Thullen]

Charles: "why would that not support Kristol's thesis?"

It would seem that for Kristol and the rest of the movement conservatives, anything reality happens to cough up will support their theses, however formulated. Merely stating the thesis serves as all the support required. Stating the thesis in an earnest, principled, but deeply victimized Foghorn/Leghorn voice with American flags flapping in the background and a cut taxes pledge in one hand and a concealed weapon strapped to their dumb-ass beer guts will get them that one percent of the electorate needed to float and maintain whatever thesis they spew in perpetuity.

Jon H: "The proper response to Grover in such instances is to simply point out that he's a long-term U.S. operative for extreme Islamists."

Proper it may be, but if Osama Bin Laden himself ran for the Colorado Statehouse in Colorado as a Republican and pledged to eliminate taxes, kill the poor by denying them medical care, and let Mexican immigrants continue working (for free, without benefits, you know, to disincentivize them) in the state but make sure their kids don't get medical care or an education, he would win the election.

True. he might need to downplay the World Trade Center caper, but he could refer to the New Yorkers he murdered as elite East-Coast, liberal intelligentsia and pick up a few extra votes among the mouth-breathing, one-celled creatures we call, collectively (whoops, sorry, I didn't mean to refer to Stalin) the citizenry.

Told by Republicans Lou Sheldon, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (but not by Ayn Rand) and their political appointees that I will burn in eternity for my support for (pick a topic).......

told by Douglas Bruce, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Grover Norquist, William Bennett and the entire Bush Administration that government at all levels should be defunded, abolished, hated, destroyed, pulled out root and branch, drowned in the bathtub, mugged.....

listened to just about anything on Republican talk-radio, from Ayn Rand, and the traitorus but pure American TV network, Fox, regarding the destruction of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, the invasion of Iraq, and lies regarding the foreheadless Patrick Tillman, not to mention the effing blue dress and the political correctness of giving one whit about hordes of starving Biafrans who weren't lucky enough to have their stinking capital gains taxes cut ......

...still a non-violent (provisionally), unarmed (despite the desire by the Republican Party in my State that I head for the nearest gunshow to spit on anti-gun protestors from my 4x4 window and stock up on plenty of ammo for automatic weapons) Liberal.

[BroD]

Ok, Bill, why DID you let criminals take over conservatism?

Let me guess: it had something to do with the money. I'm not saying you got any. I know you wouldn't take it (mostly because you don't need it.) But that money did win a lot of elections and you really got off on that, didn't you?

It was like Christmas in November. Only, now, they've busted Santa Claus because it looks as though he paid for all your gifts with dirty money.

You wanted to believe that the conservative movement was a real awakening among the American people and now you're struggling with the realization that it was a sham created by larcenous thugs.

Growing up is hard, Bill, but you've put it off too long already.

[rilkefan]

Condi Rice refuses to say whether she testified under oath to the Fitzgerald grand jury. Can she do that?

[CaseyL]

You mean, can she refuse to answer the question?

Of course she can.

Unless one is on a witness stand, or being questioned by law enforcement, one is not legally required to answer any questions at all. And even then, one may invoke ones 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate.

[rilkefan]

Does Rice work for the American voter or for Bush? If the latter, ok; but if the former, she ought to say if she's testified. I agree she doesn't have to discuss her testimony.

[freelunch]

Charles, if it turns out that all of these apparent crimes are mere carelessness on the part of the minions of law and order and they are perfectly able to explain it, then I suppose that Kristol will have the right to crow. Right now, though, it looks as if these people don't care a bit about the law if it gets in their way. If you think that the weakest case is against Frist, it may be necessary to build a prison just for the Bush Administration. Frist has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

[CaseyL]

Does Rice work for the American voter or for Bush?

She works for Bush. All Administration officials other than the President and the Vice President serve "at the pleasure of the President." None of them have anything to do with voters, since they're all appointed, not elected.

Now, you might be able to make a case that Rice, and everyone else at the White House (including the President and Vice President) work for the American people (not just the voters).

But that's a hard case to argue nowadays, since the current Administration is explicitly uninterested in the prosperity and general welfare of the American people - and the American people responded to that explicit disinterest by (re-) electing the current Administration.

[Charles Bird]

Charles: What Phil said. Hence my sarcasm in the original post. If you want to imagine that Ashcroft's Justice Department and Cox's SEC are part of a liberal plot to punish conservatives, fine.

No "liberal plot" necessary, Hil. Liberal adversaries investigate Republicans, and those cases which hold a glimmer of water wind their way to the proper authorities who, Republican or Democrat, have sworn to uphold the law. It's all part of the post-Watergate culture. I'm not defending the political sleaze perpetrated by Delay and Rove, and I've already written that Delay should step down. I think Rove should as well, not because of Plame but because he's a lousy operator when not in campaign mode. Just saying that if nothing comes of any of this, Kristol will look prophetic and liberals will once again look like the No Party, trying to take down those in power, not by winning office, but by obstructing and by throwing up barriers and making dubious criminal allegations. Doesn't have to be true, but that will be the perception of it. The same culture was there during the Clinton years, just different parties playing the game.

[Gromit]

Charles Bird: Just saying that if nothing comes of any of this, Kristol will look prophetic and liberals will once again look like the No Party, trying to take down those in power, not by winning office, but by obstructing and by throwing up barriers and making dubious criminal allegations.

I see. You are really just offering some friendly advice, so we don't end up with egg on our faces, and you don't have to, with a heavy heart, write any more "Party of No" posts. Uh huh. Three things here:

1) "Liberals" aren't a party.
2) If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses a-hopping.
3) What do you call a party that can't say "no", even to money-laundering and the use of classified information as a political weapon? Just in case your fantasy scenario doesn't play out, I mean.

[hilzoy]

And, Charles: we didn't do this, oddly enough. We did not refer any of these cases to the relevant authorities. We just didn't. We didn't even investigate them. We have no investigative power, no subpoena authority, nothing. If you want to see us behind this, go ahead, but I can't see what you're basing it on other than faith.

[felixrayman]

To sum up, today I saw someone driving around with a Bush 2004 bumper sticker that had the slogan "Leadership, Integrity, Morality".

The poor schmucks that bought those stickers are feeling like a bunch of suckers now, huh?

[Morat]

Felix: No, they're not. Because they believe that it's all a liberal plot.

Like Charles does. Modern Conservistism means never having to say you're wrong. You just blame it on liberals.

[Anarch]

Strangely, Hunter over at dKos wasn't impressed by Kristol either...

[Charles Bird]

And, Charles: we didn't do this, oddly enough. We did not refer any of these cases to the relevant authorities. We just didn't.

You're not seeing the bigger picture, Hil. If nothing happens to Delay, Frist, Rove and Libby, the Left will get pegged with overreaching, just like the Clinton-haters did in the 1990s, like it or not, right or wrong. And Kristol will claim himself vindicated. The next charge that comes the pike--and surely one will--will get laughed at and belittled, unless something impeachable happens, further setting yourselves backward.

[liberal japonicus]

if no indictments are handed down on Rove or Libby, and if nothing comes of Frist, why would that not support Kristol's thesis?

This sounds like you believe that Kristol has a supportable thesis, but this

the Left will get pegged with overreaching, just like the Clinton-haters did in the 1990s, like it or not, right or wrong. And Kristol will claim himself vindicated.

sounds like you don't think so, it's just how the game is played. Which one is it?

[hilzoy]

Charles: that depends on whether the American people are willing to swallow the idea that outing a CIA agent to get back at her husband is something it's wrong to be upset about. Somehow, I don't think so.

[CharleyCarp]

The same culture was there during the Clinton years, just different parties playing the game.

But see this is the point: there isn't a different party playing the game this time. I am no more to blame than you for the Frist investigation. It won't be the Left that is discredited, if anyone, but the SEC. Just as it'll be the CIA, not the Democratic Party, that takes the hit if it turns out that leaking Ms. Plame's status was not a crime.

[Katherine]

Re: "unless something impeachable happens."--it's such an odd word, "impeachable." Does it mean a real high crime or misdemeanor, or does it mean what a majority of the House votes is one? As a matter of political reality, what Clinton did with Lewinsky was, in a literal sense, impeachable, because the House impeached him. Whereas the torture scandals are not and barring some political earthquake never will be.

But as a matter of what is actually is and is not a high crime or misdemeanor--you can guess what I think.

I'm never sure whether you see these as separate sorts of questions, Charles, because you'll often cite political success as if it's a moral argument. It's not.
That a government was more or less democratically elected--and the GOP's current dominance rests heavily on the less democratic parts of our system, like the corruption of redistricting and the underrepresentation of high population states in every national election to say nothing of the corrupt conference committee system--makes it legitimate for it to hold power, but what it does with that power is a separate question.

[CharleyCarp]

Doesn't have to be true, but that will be the perception of it.

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but there's another element. I'd say "It doesn't have to be true, because a perception of it will arise so long as there are partisans shameless enough to claim that it is nonetheless true, and people whose self-image depends on the perception that Dems are evil who will want to believe that it is true."

Perceptions of this kind do not arise spontaneously, or in an environment of moral integrity.

[Gary Farber]

DeLay. DeLay. DeLay.

His name is "Tom DeLay."

His name is "Tom DeLay."

His name is "Tom DeLay."

It's not, and never has been "Delay."

His name is not "Tom Delay."

His name is not "Tom Delay."

His name is not "Tom Delay."

There is no such politician as "Tom Delay." There is a major Republican politician named "Tom DeLay." The guy elected by the Republican caucus as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives was "Tom DeLay." Not "Tom Delay."

Please don't delay in implementing your knowledge about this little-known politician, "Tom DeLay," and the mythical character, "Tom Delay," who seems to be one of the most famous people in America who doesn't actually exist, but can wind up debated for years by otherwise intelligent people who, inexplicably, can't seem able to spell five whole letters. (Or are mystified by what a "capital letter" is, take your pick.)

(I'm sure that Tom Delay, though, visits Isreal, while reading Tolkein and Azimov, albeit not admiring Ghandi.)

[Slartibartfast]

His name is Robert Paulson.

[Gromit]

Is capitalization really a component of spelling? I always thought of it as a distinct process. For instance, in my view, "bill frist" is correctly spelled, but incorrectly capitalized. My basis for this assumption is that spelling is the placement of letters in their proper sequence, and "A" is the same letter as "a", though it is a different character.

[hilzoy]

Welcome back, Gary ;)