by hilzoy
From the NYT:
"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.
Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the resignation had not yet been made public."
I'm actually somewhat surprised by this: the last time the man Spencer Ackerman calls "the Justice Department's master of disaster" testified before Congress, I thought his performance was so appalling, and in such easily preventable ways, that the only possible explanation was that he knew that he would never be asked to leave no matter what. But hey: from this administration, I take good news where I can get it.
The "senior administration official" who is the NYT's source blames Gonzales' departure on his critics: "“The unfair treatment that he’s been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department,” the official said." Naturally. It's the treatment he has received, not what he did to deserve it, that's the problem.
Moreover, the NYT reports that Gonzales lied to his own spokesman about his plans:
"As recently as Sunday afternoon, Mr. Gonzales was denying through his press spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, that he intended to leave.Mr. Roehrkasse said Sunday afternoon that he had telephoned Mr. Gonzales about the reports circulating in Washington that a resignation was imminent, “and he said it wasn’t true, so I don’t know what more I can say.”"
If you think about it, that's a pretty fitting coda to Gonzales' time in office. Admittedly, it doesn't hit all the low notes -- there's no torture, for instance, and no warrantless wiretapping -- but it epitomizes the pointless, transparent lies well enough. But Andrew Cohen provides the best summary of it all:
"There are times in the life of a "beat journalist"--my "beat" being the law--when the knowledge and experience you've gathered over the years--in my case, 10 years-- tells you that something is so horribly off-kilter with a particular person, institution, or practice that it cries out for a different kind of coverage, a different level of analysis; a different depth of commentary. And when that time comes, it seems to me, the commentator has a responsibility to explain forcefully and with passion why what is occurring is so different from and so much worse than what has occurred before.And so it was for me with Gonzales. His tenure as Attorney General, on matters of both substance and procedure, was so atrocious and beneath contempt to the men and women who care deeply about the Justice Department that I felt it necessary to stridently defend them at his expense. His lack of independence from the White House on critical matters of constitutional law--say, the legality of the domestic surveillance program, for example--was so glaring and destructive that I felt it needed to be highlighted for you so that you might be roused from your slumber into outrage. His utter lack of leadership at the Department--not knowing which federal prosecutors were to be fired, he says--was so unacceptable that I felt the typical "he-said/she said" analysis would not have been able to do credit to the incompetence at work in the corridors of power.
I took no joy in going after the Attorney General the way that I did and I take absolutely no satisfaction now that he is gone. That's because there are no winners in this story. There are only losers. Because the damage he caused to the Justice Department, and to the rule of law, and to the Constitution itself is so vast that it will take years to mend. And also because I cannot help but think about how different things might be today if only President George W. Bush had selected a qualified attorney general in 2005 (there were and are plenty of Republican candidates) instead of selecting his buddy, the hack crony, whose only qualification for the job was that he would willingly do the White House's bidding."
Alberto Gonzales helped to destroy the good name of our country. He wrote the legal opinions that allowed the administration to disregard laws it did not wish to follow, and in so doing did real damage to the structure of our government and to the separation of powers. He took a department that was, by all accounts, superb, and trashed it. And by being so transparently interested only in advancing the interests of George Bush at the expense of the laws he swore to uphold, the Constitution, and the national interest, he deepened cynicism about government at a time when we badly needed leaders worthy of our trust and our confidence.
Goodbye and good riddance.
And to top it all off, he gives no reason for his resignation. Not even a "I've become a distraction" or "More time with family" or "I don't recall..."
What a contemptible man.
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 11:18 AM
yeah, see yeah, screwy.
i can't wait to see the atrocity that follows, though. any bets on Hinderacker, Althouse, Coulter?
Posted by: cleek | August 27, 2007 at 11:19 AM
John Yoo?
I do wonder what prompted this. I speculated elsewhere that someone sat him down and told him he might face real jail-time for his misdeeds.
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Made his announcement, and then he walked away without taking a question...
Not that he would hae answered any honestly anyway.
Great snip from Cohen.
Posted by: Mr Furious | August 27, 2007 at 11:25 AM
It's a good question, Ugh. But resigning doesn't end the threat of jail time, and it gives him less control over the situation.
It is hard to imagine who Bush could appoint that would be loyal enough to protect him but could still get through the Senate. I'm still betting on a recess appointment, though there's always the possibility of Democratic spinelessness brought on by a few presidential speeches decrying the way the traitorous Democrats are endangering the American people (and helping child pornographers) by politicizing the confirmation process and leaving the Justice Department without a leader.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I think the White House correctly did the calculus that Gonzales being raked over the coals as sitting AG hurt their cause, and made it impossible to defend him through their minions in the media, but now, if he is up there stammering before Leahy's Committee, the FOX News & Co. can play the "the guy resigned already, what do the Democrats want?" and start to swing him over to sympathetic character.
As opposed to just merely pathetic.
Posted by: Mr Furious | August 27, 2007 at 11:28 AM
There is talk at Greenwald's that there may be no new AG but that Bush would use the rule that allows an "acting AG" for 210 days after an unexpected vacancy occurs and renewed each time after a new nomination fails. This way he would have just to nominate someone even the spineless would not confirm when the time limit approaches (he would have to do it only twice). At the same time he could blame the Dems for blocking his "honorable and qualified" candidates thus endangering national security.
Maybe he will propose Miers once again (after the SCOTUS nomination flopped).
The current bet is on Chertoff though.
Posted by: Hartmut | August 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM
But resigning doesn't end the threat of jail time, and it gives him less control over the situation.
True, I should have completed the thought. It likely stalls, if not stops, a lot of the investigations that may uncover even more serious misdeeds (even though I'm sure the Dems are claiming that they will continue, it certainly stops the media coverage). That, or perhaps someone he trusts or looks up to more than Bush got through to him. It certainly seems from the reportage that the WH was caught by surprise by this (though who knows these days).
Greenwald speculates they may use the "acting" provisions to run out the clock. Clement can be acting AG for 210, a clock that gets re-set depending on how the nomination process goes. Does two 210 day periods from 9/17 (the date AG AG's resignation is effective), get us to the end of Bush's term? Not quite, but pretty close.
Per Wikipedia, Ted Olson's 67 years-old, he may be willing to step in as AG as a finale to his career for the last 16 months of Bush's term.
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Hilzoy appropriately notes that Gonzalez had become a blunt but effective barrier for the WH to cower behind, to such an extent that his exit now is a bit startling.
He had long since passed the point where his continued presence was aggravating problems at Justice and the WH. Justice was in the crapper and will remain there for the foreseeable future.Bush thumbed his nose at the Congress and the public, content to benefit from the AG's ability to inhibit prosecutions, prevent inquiry into the political firings, and to continue his facilitation of the wiretap/torture/rendition/habeas corpus mess.
His exit will unblock lots of unpleasantness for Bush/Cheney. Hmmmmm
Posted by: Porcupine_Pal | August 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Goodbye and good riddance.
Amen.
Posted by: matttbastard | August 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM
TPM is now reporting that the groundwork is being set for a recess appointment, despite the supposed deal with Reid.
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Clement t is.
Posted by: cleek | August 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM
TPM's headline says that Bush names Clement. but the story that headline links to (and which my above links to) says nothing about Clement. oh well.
Posted by: cleek | August 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Ugh: TPM is now reporting that the groundwork is being set for a recess appointment, despite the supposed deal with Reid.
Figures.
Hartmut: There is talk at Greenwald's that there may be no new AG but that Bush would use the rule that allows an "acting AG" for 210 days after an unexpected vacancy occurs and renewed each time after a new nomination fails.
I wondered how Bush/Cheney would get around the need to appoint an attorney general: I was thinking of direct means such as blackmailing the Democrats in Congress to accept another Bush-crony as nominee. I hadn't realized they don't even have to do that, but can appoint an "acting AG" because they can claim this is an unexpected vacancy.
Over at Slacktivist: Liar's paradox: "If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he resigns, can we believe him?"
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM
I'm surprised I haven't heard Lieberman rumors yet. Have people finally gotten tired of proposing him for every possible administration vacancy?
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I just watched Bush on CSPAN announce Clement as acting AG. My prediction is that he lets Clement sit for as long as possible (over 200 days), make a big show of how uncooperative the Dems are with his appointments, then make a recess appointment next time around.
BTW, if you don't know who Clement is, he has been one of the most vocal proponents for broad executive wartime powers.
Posted by: Roll | August 27, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Ugh, is Olson really enough of a Bushite that he'd want to end his career that way?
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM
When Karl Rove quit, AG AG wasn't really needed anymore as a firewall between Congressional Oversight and the White House. With the exception of Cheney, the high value targets are gone.
At this point, I think uncovering what happened to all the money Congress sent to Iraq would pay more -- in terms of heightening disgust with the war and its proponents, giving the Democrats an opportunity to look like they are "doing something" about it, and perhaps also providing the best path to Cheney.
But maybe such investigations would ensnare Democrats* as well as associates of the Administration.
----------------------
If it costs us a Dianne Feinstein, that's addition by subtraction. The twofer becomes a threefor!
Posted by: Model 62 | August 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM
"Goodbye and good riddance."
I don't know. What are the rules about a guy sitting in a jail cell serving as a Supreme Court Justice?
Posted by: John Thullen | August 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Acting doesn't necessarily imply next nominee. Is Clement enough of a politician to be a good choice?
I'm quite impressed with those who recommended Scalia, Thomas or Roberts. That is out-of-the-box thinking.
Posted by: freelunch | August 27, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Appoint Chertoff to Justice and Gonzales to Homeland Security? If you're going to rearrange deck chairs, you might as well get into the spirit of it.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Maybe Latino groups should demand that Bush help restore their ethnic pride by nominating David Iglesias.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Model 62: When Karl Rove quit, AG AG wasn't really needed anymore as a firewall between Congressional Oversight and the White House. With the exception of Cheney, the high value targets are gone.
No, they're still alive, kicking, and available for investigation and prosecution. Rumsfeld, Rove, and Gonzales should all be in the dock.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
How about Jenna, or her fiance? They need a wedding present of some sort. A recess appointment of one of them as AG would be just the thing. And Henry Hager, at least, has the qualifications:
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 01:10 PM
KCinDC - I don't know. If he could be seen as restoring integrity and independence to DOJ, then he might take it (ignoring if Bush would even let him), tho who knows. Bringing in a "respected elder statesman" to finish out a short appointment for a lame duck President seems to be discussed alot (e.g., right now for IRS Commissioner).
Is James Baker a lawyer?
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 01:12 PM
"When Karl Rove quit, AG AG wasn't really needed anymore as a firewall between Congressional Oversight and the White House. With the exception of Cheney, the high value targets are gone."
Not if the purpose of investigation is to actually find out what happened.
Posted by: Katherine | August 27, 2007 at 01:12 PM
If the respected elder stateman is a good friend of Poppy's, Ugh, then I'd think Dubya would view that as a humiliation. So Baker's probably out.
But Olson would make it tricky for people wanting to confront him about curtailments of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 01:18 PM
You're right on that, Baker was the only other one I could think of, though I'm sure there are likely others. I'm not sure even some Bush-loving hack would want the job right now.
But look for Chertoff, Wiki says he was unanimously confirmed to DHS head, which I'm sure will be pounded into our heads if he gets nominated (along with his experience as an assistant US Atty and Circuit Court judge).
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Not if the purpose of investigation is to actually find out what happened.
Katherine (and Jesurgislac, too): Well, sure. Finding out what happened would be positive, and should be done because it's the right thing to do.
But if they ever got underway, these investigations were always going to be political investigations, first. That's why the opposition would undertake them. That's how the opposition serves its interests. With the targets resigned, the politics are more difficult ("Why bother -- the guy's already resigned," "The new guy should be given a chance to show what he can do without the cloud of someone else's misdeeds hanging over him," "Look, this proves the Democrats only want to throw mud," etc).
Turning our attention to finding out what happened to Iraq reconstruction is still a political winner. And it can also serve the truth.
Posted by: Model 62 | August 27, 2007 at 01:46 PM
I think his lasting legacy will be the legitimization of torture. I came up with Ten Reasons why he won't be missed.
Posted by: yellojkt | August 27, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Is James Baker a lawyer?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Baker Botts LLP
Posted by: Nell | August 27, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Finding out what happened will be politically beneficial for the Democrats. Sure, the Republicans could make the arguments, but if the Dems were smart they wouldn't listen. Unfortunately, however...
Posted by: Katherine | August 27, 2007 at 02:25 PM
i think Nifong's available
Posted by: cleek | August 27, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Looks like they've got someone good for DHS:
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 03:01 PM
But if they ever got underway, these investigations were always going to be political investigations, first.
That would doubtless under normal circumstances be true. However, give the publicly-available evidence of criminal actions on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Rove, these would be criminal investigations carried out by the only branch of government able to do so, since both the Department of Justice and the White House are implicated in the crimes to be investigated.
The crimes it appears Gonzales either committed or was complicit in have not disappeared because Gonzales has resigned. If the next Attorney General is not politically independent of the White House and the public corruption in the Department of Justice, the "new guy" won't be able to "show what he can do" because the first thing he needs to do is investigate his predecessor's misdeeds. If he won't, "the cloud of someone else's misdeeds" will be hanging over him - indeed, will become the cloud of his own misdeeds.
There's no two ways about it. Either the next Attorney General is willing to appoint an independent investigation to find out what happened in the US Attorneys scandal, or he is implicated in that scandal. He might escape being tarnished by the other scandals of the Bush administration - but he can't escape this one.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Erick at Bizarro World thinks the announcement was delayed until today because even worse news will come out later in the week that needs a cushion of a three-day weekend. Take it with a "only nixon could go to china" type of way.
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 04:49 PM
Jesurgislac: From your lips to God's ear.
You have more faith in our system than I do. I think the administration will be able to stall it out through next year's election, then clean up any messes with pardons, just as previous criminal GOP administrations have done (Bush Pere).
Posted by: Model 62 | August 27, 2007 at 06:44 PM
Erick at Bizarro World thinks the announcement was delayed until today because even worse news will come out later in the week
it's nice that he gave such a long list of credible sources for his statement!
Posted by: cleek | August 27, 2007 at 07:39 PM
it's nice that he gave such a long list of credible sources for his statement!
Hey, when an uber right-wing hack like him says "watch out for bad news coming down the pike that will reflect poorly on my hack-mates," I sit up and listen? Usually over there its "no one on my side of the could possibly have done anything wrong," at least until the guilty plea comes down.
Posted by: Ugh | August 27, 2007 at 09:58 PM
I wonder if he thinks the Larry Craig story is breaking now as a further bit of distraction from whatever the big thing is.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM
The most memorable thing about the resignation of this POS is his boss's eulogy: "It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."
Talented!? Honorable!? "important work"!? Gonzo is the most disgraceful, incompetent hack ever to occupy the office of AG in this country, an ass-clown whose slimy, lying and utterly pathetic testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee made me think of him as a kind of Hispanic Stepin Fetchit for Bush.
It is absolutely infuriating, though hardly surprising, that his idiot boss and mentor could mouth such platitudes about such a compliant, unprincipled and hollow fool. I absolutely can't wait for this Presidency to be over with.
Posted by: Redhand | August 28, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Model 62: You have more faith in our system than I do.
Oh, I have no faith at all in your system. I merely point out that when investigating people against whom there is solid evidence of having committed crimes, this is a criminal investigation. A political investigation is when you are investigating someone for political reasons, not because they have confessed to multiple felonies (Bush), are deeply implicated in war profiteering (Cheney), are deeply implicated in torturing prisoners of war (Rumsfeld) and kidnapping civilians (Rumsfeld), or have been corrupting the Department of Justice for partisan political purposes (Gonzales).
I doubt if anything will actually happen to any of them. But investigations of their crimes are criminal, not political.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 28, 2007 at 06:21 AM
But investigations of their crimes are criminal, not political.
When the US Congress does the criminal investigation, the investigation is both political and criminal*, with politics in the privileged position.
Our system is designed around the assumption that all men are created equally greedy, self-serving, and vain; and our governing institutions are arranged to steer those impulses into achieving the greater good (such as digging out the truth behind implications of grave wrong-doing by the leadership). Our system won't get to the criminal truth unless political needs are met while doing so.
This morning I read that Democratic Party leaders insist the investigation into the the fired US Attorneys will go forward. We'll see how far it gets.
-----------------------
*Not to mention farcical!
Posted by: Model 62 | August 28, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Our system also seems to depend on people having a capacity to feel shame, and I think that's the loophole this administration has discovered. Well, not discovered, but as with many other things (signing statements, recess appointments, etc.), used to an extent far out of proportion to previous administrations' use of it.
Once you've lost any ability to feel shame, it's amazing what you can get away with. Gonzales would have been gone months ago if he'd had it.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 28, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Not being a legal or government expert, I would like to know what law(s), if any, may have been broken in the USA firings. And I mean the firings themselves, not the subsequent (most likely) perjury. I ask this not to defend Gonzalez, but because it is key to the question of on-going investigation being political versus criminal, recognizing that they can be both in different proportions.
My take on the situation is that an almost entirely political investigation may be worthwhile, simply because what Gonzalez did (or ineptly allowed someone else to do) was plainly wrong if not illegal. Pointing out wrongdoing in public forums helps to sharpen the consciences of those not inclined to be conscientious on their own. It also helps to make the electorate aware of the kind of people they've handed power to and how those people abused that power.
We don't have laws telling people not to put beans up their noses. Maybe we don't care if people do put beans up their noses, but, even if we did, we might not make laws against nasal legume insertion if we didn't expect anyone to do such things. I guess once people did shockingly engage in such things, we would make laws against them.
I think there is some level of trust built into our system for those who reach high positions of power. We, at least to some degree, think they will behave morally, ethically and in a way that doesn't purposely damage our institutions. Thus, the beans-up-the-nose analogy. Unfortunately, it seems Gonzalez may have a head full of beans at this point.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 28, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Has anyone else had a song running through their head intermittently, refreshed every time they see the title of this thread in the sidebar?
Posted by: KCinDC | August 28, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Yeah, and I find it annoying.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 28, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Here you go, KC.
Posted by: matttbastard | August 28, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Fun as AG's resignation may be, I can't help but feel Digby's observation weighing heavily upon the scene: conservatism never fails, it is only failed. Anyone want to take bets on how long it'll take the ravening right to declare AG's failures a direct result of his liberalism?
Posted by: Anarch | August 28, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Not being a legal or government expert, I would like to know what law(s), if any, may have been broken in the USA firings.
Obstruction of justice - if evidence ever comes out that criminal investigations of Republicans were discontinued, and investigations of Democrats were bogus and/or timed to coincide with elections.
Interfering with elections.
A plentitude of Hatch Act violations.
Then there are charges which might have arisen from the short-circuited investigations themselves, particularly into Duke Cunningham's various doings.
Posted by: CaseyL | August 28, 2007 at 10:21 PM
How about Clarence Uncle Thomas?
Posted by: John in Nashville | August 28, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Hey, what about election law violations in Washington state, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Missouri, etc.?
If Al Gonzales has to take the fall for pressing the need for investigations and prosecutions, for criminently, don't ever ever complain about Ohio or Florida ever again.
Oh yeah, I love that "Uncle Thomas" dig, too. Ferchrissake, Clarence Thomas was a Civil Rights lawyer before he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: DaveC | August 28, 2007 at 10:57 PM
"Ferchrissake, Clarence Thomas was a Civil Rights lawyer before he was appointed to the Supreme Court."
Clarence Thomas hasn't spent a day of his life working on a civil rights case, for a civil rights organization, or as a civil rights advocate, in point of fact.
Instead:
Being given a political appointment to run an agency doesn't magically make you something you aren't. Working for the Department of Education didn't make Thomas a "civil rights lawyer." A "civil rights lawyer" practices civil rights cases. See, say, Thurgood Marshall for what a "civil rights lawyer" does and what the words mean.If Thomas had been hired as a career attorney by the EEOC, and worked on civil rights cases, he'd have been a "civil rights lawyer" while doing so. He never did this. Being given a political appointment to head the agency didn't make him a "civil rights lawyer" any more than Donald Rumsfeld being made Secretary of Defense turned him into an Air Force pilot.
FWIW, when he headed EEOC, he was best remembered for:
As it happens, every major civil rights organization in the country vigorously, furiously, opposed Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. Heaven forfend anyone should question his devotion to civil rights; far better we make up bogus claims that he "was a Civil Rights lawyer before he was appointed to the Supreme Court."Why let facts get in the way?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 29, 2007 at 01:28 AM
Oh, and lest this be misunderstood: "He abandoned the use of timetables and numeric goals, which allowed companies more flexibility in their hiring of minorities."
That means "more flexibility to hire fewer minorities."
It's not as if there were any problem with companies hiring more minorities, other than that they couldn't get around to it. They didn't need "more flexibility" to hire more minorities. They only needed "more flexibility" to not get fined for not not having hired enough minorities.
Hurrah for this accomplishment in civil rights, whereby fewer minorities were employed, but big corporations made more money and had fewer worries.
Ditto relieving companies of any worries about being sued for mere resulting employment discrimination; after Thomas, they need only worry if actual malicious racism could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Who cares if the employment force just happens to be identical in ethnic make-up to the KKK?
Why don't people give more recognition to Clarence Thomas for these civil rights accomplishments? Especially darker-skinned people.
It's a real puzzle.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 29, 2007 at 01:35 AM
(DaveC, that's your cue to say 'oops, my bad.'
*crickets*)
Posted by: matttbastard | August 29, 2007 at 07:22 AM
I'm wondering why I'd be obligated not to complain about real voting suppression and fraud cases being ignored simply because fake voting fraud cases (which were recognized as bogus by Republican appointees) weren't prosecuted. Fortunately the hideous idea of false balance hasn't yet migrated from journalism to criminal prosecutions.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 29, 2007 at 09:12 AM
When the US Congress does the criminal investigation, the investigation is both political and criminal*, with politics in the privileged position.
Whatever. If the courts won't do it, the Congress will have to do. Any port in a storm.
Our system is designed around the assumption that all men are created equally greedy, self-serving, and vain
No, not really. Our system is designed to provide curbs and checks on greed, self-serving, and vanity. Not the same thing, and it's an important difference.
All people are not, in fact, created equal as regards greed, self-serving, and vanity. There's nothing baked into our system of government that impedes folks who are actually acting in pursuit of the public interest.
Has anyone else had a song running through their head intermittently, refreshed every time they see the title of this thread in the sidebar?
Any day that makes Etta run through my head is a good day.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | August 29, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Our system is designed to provide curbs and checks on greed, self-serving, and vanity.
OK, a correction. Maybe not vanity.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | August 29, 2007 at 10:33 PM