Pete, you sound a helpful warning on the dangers of overreach and the disturbing tendency to summon special prosecutors as a cure-all for bad government. There are a couple of issues that, I think, are helpful to keep in mind as we look at the issue of oversight and, more broadly, of divided government.
It is understandable that the Republicans would welcome the opportunity for congressional oversight. We have had virtually none of it during the last 18 months. Whether it has been on the failings that led up to Fort Hood, the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, the potential conflicts of interest for Justice Department lawyers who previously represented terrorists, or dozens of other issues, congressional Democrats have placed party loyalty above their obligation to act as a check on the executive branch through congressional oversight. Subpoenas are needed when the government refuses to cooperate with Congressional investigators. Some of those demands for information are not legitimate, in which case Congress generally retreats or is rebuffed by the courts. But at other times, it is the last resort when confronting a Nixonesque administration. In short, Congressional oversight can be abused and boomerang on the investigators, but when an administration is as overreaching and nontransparent as this one, robust oversight is generally a good idea.
The other issue to keep in mind is the distinction between political and legal consequences. Not every bad decision or decision undertaken for corrupt motives is illegal, but there is still a need to expose it and subject the participants to the scrutiny of voters. Normally this is a function we’d expect the media to perform. But again, they are doing a fraction of what they should and normally would do — if a Republicans were in power. For example, a congressional investigation on the shady job offers need not be intended to or result in criminal prosecution; the need to expose the ethical standards of this administration is more than enough reason to conduct some hearings and require testimony under oath.
I would suggest that the proper balance in this is ample congressional oversight, but selective (very selective) use of criminal proceedings. The punishment for unwise, ethically repugnant, and incompetent office holders should come from the ballot box. But to do that we first have to figure out what they are up to. In the Obama era, I think we could use plenty more of that.
This is a sad situation. Silver is as close a thing as exists to being a professional baseball analyst. But he’s a leftist and, unlike with baseball, cannot get past his own biases when it comes to politics. He should drop it. He’s not a pro like Barone or Cost, he’s an amateur pretending to be one.
I’m married to one, and she was cheering Sarah on fist in the air, scattering our two cats to the corners and shouting for joy. Funny what that stage of life can do to you.
Nate is a big fan of BHO, and posts, IIRC at both daily kos and Huffpo. As a result of the commentary on his otherwise very good site, i found that I use RCP and pollster.com instead.
Yeah – it’s clear this guy has no clue what a conservative woman thinks or feels. At one point he states that it was a speech written by a man for a man and it felt discordant because of that. I can only this this means it packed too hard a punch – clearly he doesn’t understand the hockey mom mentality and the fighting spirit of many conservative women. He’s out of touch and projecting his values onto others.
Or how about just calling them “hags?”
Don’t know Silver but if he wants to talk about demographics….
Pro-Hillary Clinton group decries ‘sexism’ at Palin
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pro-hillary-clinton-group-decries-sexism-at-palin-2008-09-02.html
Clinton aides on the record calling attacks on Palin “sexist”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/04/clinton-aides-on-the-record-calling-attacks-on-palin-sexist/
Sarah Palin is the ‘safety valve’. Women can vote FOR her rather than for Obama.
McCain is going to get a LOT of Clinton votes.
All of this speculation over whether HRC fans would cross party lines to vote for McCain/Palin ignores the potentially huge impact of HRC fans not being able to drag themselves out of bed on the morning of election day or otherwise bring themselves to vote at all. Given the range of pseudo-cathartic exercises planned or hoped for in connection with the DNC, this seems like a viable scenario. It would not take many to tip the scales.
I’ve been following Nate’s work at fivethirtyeight.com since day two, and while I still have great respect for his statistical work, his so-called “analysis” is terrible, and (I would argue) not even supported by his own data.
His increasingly Kossack analysis brings his statistical work increasingly into question, since the average reader has no insight into his specific formulas. Which is a shame, because they might be stellar.
But they might also be biased.