More support for independent ethics enforcement
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
UPDATE (Friday): They keep coming. I missed the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday: Voters have made their dissatisfaction with the status quo clear by giving Democrats a working majority. The new House leaders must act swiftly to win approval for the task force recommendation and demonstrate that they are committed to ethics reform rather than business as usual. And the San Francisco Chronicle chimed in today: What we said: “There is no reason to trust Congress' ability to police itself. An independent watchdog commission should be established as a complement to any reforms. History has shown, beyond a doubt, that power corrupts without regard to whether someone has an R or a D after his or her name. I haven't seen or heard of anything from prominent TV pundits like Keith Olbermann (yet) on this, and I also haven't seen anything from prominent bloggers. Hopefully they'll jump on board for this final push -- if you know we've missed something, drop it in the comments.
...
Just trying to keep up with all the editorial support for an ethical Congress with independent oversight....
Last week, USA Today praised the proposal for its independence and transparency: When Congress judges itself, ethics fall by the wayside
Anyone who's been called for jury duty knows that one of the first questions a judge asks prospective jurors is: Do you know the defendant? A "yes" answer is almost always disqualifying, which makes perfect sense.
After all, how can people objectively sit in judgment of someone they know? Even if they could, the public would rightfully question the verdict.
Somehow, though, Congress has never been able to grasp that common-sense concept. They were joined by the New York Times: Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle -- and most recent campaign promises -- as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples' House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff -- the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members -- as a prevote mantra. And AlterNet ran my piece today on the strange contradiction of Congress hectoring Major League Baseball about the league's lack of independent oversight when Congress itself has a lack of... you know.
A pox on all their houses
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST
The New York Times weighs in again on a variety of money issues in the presidential race today. The editorial, "Money and the People's Choices," ends thus: Congress could put the public financing system on firmer footing by updating campaign subsidies to meet inflation. The voters, for their part, should insist that the candidates accept public money and operate within the rules of the system. That conclusion hits the mark. The editorial is generally a condemnation of all three major candidates for specific mishaps and misstatements. While the criticisms are valid, it's only part of the story; we put out our thoughts in Friday's statement, noting that all three candidates have made some important commitments and taken specific steps in support of long-term public financing reform, too. New York Times pushes public financing for the sake of sanity
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 09:43:37 AM EST
With the stratospheric costs of the 2008 election already apparent--$1 billion for the presidential candidates, more for congressional races, $300 per Iowa caucus-goer--the New York Times takes those numbers, stirs in a bit of common sense and democratic principle, and comes out with a steaming cup of presidential public financing. A worthy bill to restore public financing's relevancy is scheduled to be introduced this week. It is solidly bipartisan and bicameral, sponsored by Senators Russ Feingold and Susan Collins and Representatives Christopher Shays and David Price. The subsidy and spending formulas would be repaired to allow candidates to be competitive without plunging into the money maelstrom. This bill, slated to be introduced tomorrow, covers only the presidential races. Of course, the Fair Elections Now Act covers congressional races, which the Times editorial omits. But in looking at the presidential race and election law in general, the editorial board casts a critical eye on the FEC and the presidential candidates themselves--read more on the flip. NYT joins call for Gonzales impeachment
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:22:18 PM EST
In case you missed it on Sunday, the New York Times called for Alberto Gonzales' impeachment in lieu of real investigation and action by the administration, following in the steps of Common Cause.
Some choice passages (emphases mine):
President Bush often insists he has to be the decider -- ignoring Congress and the public when it comes to the tough matters on war, terrorism and torture, even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity. Apparently that burden does not apply to the functioning of one of the most vital government agencies, the Justice Department.
Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can't tell the truth....
...It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush -- in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program -- than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him....
...Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.
You're doing a heckuva job, Gonzie
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:01:53 PM EST
As you may have heard, today the Senate is scheduled to have a preliminary vote on the no-confidence resolution. As usual, the New York Times editorial board hits the nail squarely on the head when it comes to Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales is the Michael Brown of the Justice Department, smilingly presiding over incompetence, chaos and malfeasance, while President Bush insists that he is doing a heck of a job.
The Attorney General has presided over a radical politicization of a Cabinet Department that has the power to determine guilt or innocence, lock people up, destroy lives, and even affect the outcome of elections. As the NYT says, it must enforce the law impartially - but Alberto Gonzales instead has done just the opposite. The result has been the destruction of the DoJ's reputation and ability to hold the trust of the American people.
If that isn't a fire-able offense, then what is?
It's time for all those - Republicans and Democrats alike - who have called for Gonzales to resign or be dismissed to put their vote where their mouth is and prove their conviction.
UPDATE: (4:35 pm) Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) says he'll vote no-confidence.
UPDATE: (7:30 pm) The vote failed to reach the 60 ayes it needed to move forward. Of 92 votes, it was 53 nays to 38 ayes, with one "present" vote (Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK). Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) voted nay, and the following Republicans voted aye: Senators Norm Coleman (MN), Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Gordon Smith (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME), John E. Sununu (NH). Coleman, Collins, Hagel, Smith, and Sununu are all up for reelection in 2008.
NYT: Why This Scandal Matters
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:59:35 PM EST
Today in an editorial, the New York Times calls for action by Congress to "save the Justice Department." In strong words, the editorial lays out the meaning and impact of both Alberto Gonzales' actions, and the decision Congress now must make.
As Monica Goodling, a key player in the United States attorney scandal, prepares to testify before Congress on Wednesday, the administration's strategy is clear. It has offered up implausible excuses, hidden the most damaging evidence and feigned memory lapses, while hoping that the public's attention moves on. But this scandal is too important for the public or Congress to move on. This story should not end until Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired....
...These prosecutors have enormous power: they can wiretap people's homes, seize property and put people in jail for life. They can destroy businesses, and affect the outcomes of elections. It has always been understood that although they are appointed by a president, usually from his own party, once in office they must operate in a nonpartisan way, and be insulated from outside pressures.
This understanding has badly broken down. It is now clear that United States attorneys were pressured to act in the interests of the Republican Party, and lost their job if they failed to do so.
This gets right to the heart of the whole scandal - it doesn't matter that it's a Republican administration targeting Democratic politicians. Rather, what's important is the corruption of the institution - a disregard for the rule of law in favor of partisanship.
The NYT urges Congress to pass a "no confidence" resolution, and advocates for Gonzales' removal. But it hits upon the greater need facing the government:
But it also needs to insist on new leadership that will restore the department's traditions of professionalism and impartiality, and re-establish that in the United States, the legal system does not work to advance the interests of a political party.
Can I repeat that? "The legal system does not work to advance the interests of a political party."
"A Scandal That Keeps Growing"
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:32:39 PM EST
Yesterday's New York Times ran an editorial summarizing what's come to light about the firing of eight US Attorneys in recent weeks. They lay out the conclusions that are becoming more and more difficult to ignore:
At best, the firing of eight United States attorneys, most of them highly respected, is an example of such profound incompetence that it should cost Mr. Gonzales his job. At worst, it was a political purge followed by a cover-up. In either case, the scandal is only getting bigger and more disturbing.
New reports of possible malfeasance keep coming fast and furious. They all seem to make it more likely than ever that the firings were part of an attempt to turn the Justice Department into a partisan political operation. There is, to start, the very strong appearance that United States attorneys were fired because they were investigating powerful Republicans or refused to bring baseless charges against Democrats.
Such as Carol Lam, who put Duke Cunningham (R-CA) behind bars...or Paul Charlton, who was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Given last week's revelations from former dupty attorney general James Comey (2003-2005) that most of the prosecutors performed well - or even exceptionally - and from some of the fired attorneys that they were pressured, or even threatened, by Michael Elston, an aide to the deputy attorney general, the NYT challenges our representatives to do what's right and pursue the whole truth.
It is long past time for President Bush to fire Mr. Gonzales. But Congress, especially the Republicans who have dared confront the White House on this issue, should not be satisfied with that. There are strong indications that the purge was ordered out of the White House, involving at the very least the former counsel, Harriet Miers, and Karl Rove.
It is the duty of Congress to compel them and other officials to finally tell the truth to the American people.
Faking responsible coverage
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 06:04:01 PM EST
Here is what the New York Times editorial page said yesterday, in a piece titled "Running for Dollars," regarding the $129 million raised thus far in the 2008 presidential race: [This race] is setting a new low with a ludicrously premature handicapping
of the race based on the ability to raise cash. It is 19 months before
the election, and the quarterly fund-raising data were treated this
week like the dawning of poll results from Dixville Notch, N.H. Meanwhile, on the same day, the front page headline reads: Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton So the editorial page bemoans "handicapping of the race based on the ability to raise cash" while the front page, um, handicaps the race based on the ability to raise cash. It doesn't take an editor-in-chief to see the hypocrisy here. And it's no wonder that the public--and, apparently, editorial writers--grow increasingly tired with the length, nature, and cost of campaigns. Lest you think it's just one paper, here's the Washington Post editorial yesterday: But a more important question is whether it's possible to fix this mess... a
system in which candidates without the ability to raise enormous sums
never get a chance to have their messages heard; in which candidates
are increasingly beholden to well-connected financiers; and in which
the quest for cash crowds out campaigning. In short, it is the current
system, unpleasant for candidates and unhealthy for democracy. An eloquent and important point: A system "unhealthy for democracy" and in which the lesser candidates "never get a chance to have their messages heard." Well, let's flip back to the front page above-the-fold headline on that same day: Obama's Campaign Takes In $25 Million
He Nearly Matches Clinton, With Twice as Many Donors Bravo. Your editorial page laments the focus on fundraising, the horse-race overwhelming both the dialogue on issues and the voice of the lesser candidates, while your front page screams "Horse Race! Obama vs Clinton! Who Can Raise the Most?!" One way to avoid this would be to run front-page stories such as, "Where each candidate stands on
health care" or "How the candidates spend their time on the
campaign trail." But apparently we can't count on the New York Times or Washington Post for that sort of coverage.
|
Common Blog
