First, David Gregory's pet topic: is the civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a sham? I won't mince words: I believe that it is, because there is no way an acquittal leads to KSM's release. That said, this is ultimately a thought experiment, because they will play by the book and likely get a conviction (Joe Biden is sure, at least). So I wonder why no one has tried the following talking point to answer David Gregory's question:
DG: Is this trial a sham or will you release KSM if he is acquitted?
Response: He will not be acquitted because our evidence is too strong; this case is a slam dunk. Engaging your thought experiment, though, an acquittal would surely implicate systemic failure in the intelligence-gathering mechanism of the prior administration. The rule of law is the source of America's greatness, and should he be acquitted, we would be forced to comply with any resulting legal obligations. That said, to win the war on terror America must truly be as a City upon a Hill, and if we act within our Constitution, your hypothetical scenario will forever remain a thought experiment and never a real debate.
Second, the issue of stimulus funds. In the State of the Union, President Obama criticized Republicans for campaigning by claiming that they voted against stimulus money while at the same time garnering good will by going to ribbon cutting parties for stimulus projects. Rachel Maddow, who is almost always incredibly impressive, stated this remark again on Meet the Press. It sounds good, but only at first. The problem, of course, is that it ignores the fact that passage of the stimulus was a sunk cost. Once the bill passed, it made no sense for any congressman to actually turn down his/her district's share of the funds, because those funds were getting spent anyway. So, to criticize accepting funds that would otherwise just be spent on another district is to criticize good representation of your constituents, once you've already lost on principle. Obama and Maddow are phrasing the issue as if the Republicans are hypocritical here, but the case doesn't really hold up. Why not just go after the more accurate ways in which Republicans are hypocritical?? There are tons!
I think the hypocrisy that Rachel is pointing out on the stimulus funds issue is not the accepting of the funds, but the going to a big celebration where they accept praise for getting these funds for their district. On her show, she has had pictures of some of these Republicans at functions where they've handed out these huge poster sized cheques for the funds for a particular project, and have made big speeches about how good that project is for their district.
ReplyDeleteme
I guess I didn't really get the sense that Maddow meant that it was the accepting of praise that was wrong, but rather it was the accepting of the funds in the first place, after opposing the bill that makes them available. Accepting undeserved praise is definitely troublesome, but if that's our biggest complaint, it seems pretty minor in comparison to other issues anyway.
ReplyDelete