First, I think Garland has been overcautious, no question. But that's MY perspective as someone who knows that Democrats have avoided politicizing the Justice Department while I can't think of a republican administration in my lifetime that has NOT politicized it.
So we come to the standard Democratic view that we have t…
First, I think Garland has been overcautious, no question. But that's MY perspective as someone who knows that Democrats have avoided politicizing the Justice Department while I can't think of a republican administration in my lifetime that has NOT politicized it.
So we come to the standard Democratic view that we have to be better than they are, which is not hard, but leads to stupidity like lowering the boom on Al Franken to prove that we don't tolerate whatever it was we aren't supposed to tolerate (which is not to minimize that he didn't do sexist or sleazy things--but give me a break).
But then we come to two other things.
One is that whatever happens in all this, we absolutely have to do it right and get it right. That was Garland's approach to prosecuting Timothy McVeigh, and it is worth bearing in mind. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., gave Ralph Waldo Emerson an essay to read, and Emerson's take on it was, "When you strike at a king, you must kill him." I'd rather have it happen slowly then badly or bunglingly.
Another is that we do not know what else was going on in the Justice Department, especially among those who did not talk to the media for this story. James Reston, who was a great reporter in his day, used to tell younger colleagues, "Look for the unhappy ones." There might just be some others shaking their heads right now in their offices there and thinking, this is how we are supposed to act.
Now, that doesn't excuse how the FBI has been a politicized organization since a man who had been a fine law professor and later became a fine Supreme Court justice, Harlan Fiske Stone, made the colossal mistake of naming young Justice Department lawyer John Edgar Hoover to run the FBI in 1924. In American history, in terms of choosing appointees and candidates, it ranks close to Abraham Lincoln either choosing or permitting the choice of Andrew Johnson as his running mate in 1864. Indeed, both sides are right about the FBI requiring a major enema. And if you don't believe me, one minute of listening to or reading James Comey should do it.
BTW, Comey's crime novel is excellent. Hits all points right where it should, keeps you wanting to dive into the next chapter. Undoubtedly Hollywood will pick it up, and they'll be right to do so. I ended up reading it in a day and a night, couldn't put it down.
I believe Comey bears more responsibility for Trump winning the Presidency than any one other person or factor, including Russian interference. He knowingly made a dire announcement eleven days before the election that tipped some independents and took the wind out of some democrat's sails who elected to stay home instead of risking having voted for someone who they feared might in a month or two turn out to have been guilty of something which Trump and his own family did immediately after taking office ... but before Trump those things just sounded oh, so much more dire. Comey knew what he was doing and the effect he'd have, and his explanations and excuses after the fact are pure illogical bull shit.
the way I'm feeling right now is fundamentally what you're saying, Michael.
and yeah, I'm as sick of the "when they go low, we go high" thing, but I can't possibly find myself embracing the "other side," which would end up being "when they go low, we go lower."
yes, maybe Garland wasn't a great choice. Wray is something else altogether. he just seems like either a fuck-up or a flunky. he IS in the Federalist Society. but I also think that firing Wray like, tomorrow, would have a terrible look.
now I also realize that whatever is or isn't done, TFF and his minions will say and believe what they want to anyway. so maybe I'm being SO fair-minded that I've fallen into the Schmuck Pile. in any event, Smith is great. and let's remember that Garland appointed him...
David- I so agree with you! “When they go low we go high” is just hand wringing virtue signaling and I’m sick to death of that mantra. Honestly, it’s as effective and meaningful as “thoughts and prayers”
Doesn’t mean Dems have to grovel in the mud ‘neath the belly of the beast, but you do have to recognize the rules of the game and play accordingly. Being holier than thou accomplishes nothing but getting steam-rolled agin and again.
I’m still angry at Al Franken for resigning. Come to think of it, I’m still angry at Al Gore for conceding. Also a little pissed at Obama for caving on the debt ceiling.
Absolutely! Sometimes you don't have to go low, you just have to go straight at the truth. When they go low call it out. Spell it out. And you can feel that healthy anger at your heroes and others you support because people are complex and imperfect, and you aren't in a cult.
I am of two minds.
First, I think Garland has been overcautious, no question. But that's MY perspective as someone who knows that Democrats have avoided politicizing the Justice Department while I can't think of a republican administration in my lifetime that has NOT politicized it.
So we come to the standard Democratic view that we have to be better than they are, which is not hard, but leads to stupidity like lowering the boom on Al Franken to prove that we don't tolerate whatever it was we aren't supposed to tolerate (which is not to minimize that he didn't do sexist or sleazy things--but give me a break).
But then we come to two other things.
One is that whatever happens in all this, we absolutely have to do it right and get it right. That was Garland's approach to prosecuting Timothy McVeigh, and it is worth bearing in mind. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., gave Ralph Waldo Emerson an essay to read, and Emerson's take on it was, "When you strike at a king, you must kill him." I'd rather have it happen slowly then badly or bunglingly.
Another is that we do not know what else was going on in the Justice Department, especially among those who did not talk to the media for this story. James Reston, who was a great reporter in his day, used to tell younger colleagues, "Look for the unhappy ones." There might just be some others shaking their heads right now in their offices there and thinking, this is how we are supposed to act.
Now, that doesn't excuse how the FBI has been a politicized organization since a man who had been a fine law professor and later became a fine Supreme Court justice, Harlan Fiske Stone, made the colossal mistake of naming young Justice Department lawyer John Edgar Hoover to run the FBI in 1924. In American history, in terms of choosing appointees and candidates, it ranks close to Abraham Lincoln either choosing or permitting the choice of Andrew Johnson as his running mate in 1864. Indeed, both sides are right about the FBI requiring a major enema. And if you don't believe me, one minute of listening to or reading James Comey should do it.
BTW, Comey's crime novel is excellent. Hits all points right where it should, keeps you wanting to dive into the next chapter. Undoubtedly Hollywood will pick it up, and they'll be right to do so. I ended up reading it in a day and a night, couldn't put it down.
He found his calling. If only he had gone into that before ....
I believe Comey bears more responsibility for Trump winning the Presidency than any one other person or factor, including Russian interference. He knowingly made a dire announcement eleven days before the election that tipped some independents and took the wind out of some democrat's sails who elected to stay home instead of risking having voted for someone who they feared might in a month or two turn out to have been guilty of something which Trump and his own family did immediately after taking office ... but before Trump those things just sounded oh, so much more dire. Comey knew what he was doing and the effect he'd have, and his explanations and excuses after the fact are pure illogical bull shit.
the way I'm feeling right now is fundamentally what you're saying, Michael.
and yeah, I'm as sick of the "when they go low, we go high" thing, but I can't possibly find myself embracing the "other side," which would end up being "when they go low, we go lower."
yes, maybe Garland wasn't a great choice. Wray is something else altogether. he just seems like either a fuck-up or a flunky. he IS in the Federalist Society. but I also think that firing Wray like, tomorrow, would have a terrible look.
now I also realize that whatever is or isn't done, TFF and his minions will say and believe what they want to anyway. so maybe I'm being SO fair-minded that I've fallen into the Schmuck Pile. in any event, Smith is great. and let's remember that Garland appointed him...
David- I so agree with you! “When they go low we go high” is just hand wringing virtue signaling and I’m sick to death of that mantra. Honestly, it’s as effective and meaningful as “thoughts and prayers”
Doesn’t mean Dems have to grovel in the mud ‘neath the belly of the beast, but you do have to recognize the rules of the game and play accordingly. Being holier than thou accomplishes nothing but getting steam-rolled agin and again.
I’m still angry at Al Franken for resigning. Come to think of it, I’m still angry at Al Gore for conceding. Also a little pissed at Obama for caving on the debt ceiling.
Agreed on all points, Sharon.
Amen, amen, amen!
Absolutely! Sometimes you don't have to go low, you just have to go straight at the truth. When they go low call it out. Spell it out. And you can feel that healthy anger at your heroes and others you support because people are complex and imperfect, and you aren't in a cult.
Dems seem to miss the field goal or easy touchdown very late in the game. This time we may win due to GOP overreach. I am counting on it.