Frog in a Mink Stole in a Boiling Pot

December 22nd, 2005  |  Published in old and busted  |  1 Comment

PuddingTime!: High crime:

> “A way of thinking about this that I’ve seen a few places and makes sense to me is that, in times of crisis and danger, the president may have not the right but the responsibility to break, expand, or circumnavigate the law–and then be prepared to explain himself and perhaps face certain consequences.

“The Constitution, not any president, is the governing entity of the nation. The president protects and defends it. The presidency is a position not of power and privilege but of duty and sacrifice. __When circumstances force a president into actions that go against existing law, he doesn’t get to break the law, he has to. Then his decision must be tried against the law.__

“Otherwise, the law is whatever he thinks it is and he can make it up as he goes, and the rest of us are just pawns, scribes, and onlookers. Which just about describes the state of affairs we have allowed to exist in this country for more than four years.”

Good comments from Phil on a good article at Salon.

From that article:

> “Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. ‘Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism,’ he says. ‘I’m surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle.'”

I feel a nagging urge to not say this, but I’m gonna anyhow:

Which is shorthand for “I think they’re gonna go ahead and take the ‘mockery’ hit.”

I mean … yeah … both parties have their problems. But if the Democratic camp followers are bonghit conspiracy theorists, left-over New Left washups and Trotskyists lurking on the periphery in hopes of picking up a new member for whatever UFO cult madness they’ve descended into, the Republican vanguard is the Coulters, Malkins, Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Reillys, Norquists and plenty of others who have proven they will say and do anything. They’re the leading rhetorical edge … the wedge used to squeeze the very worst into public discourse and hastily discount the worst excesses of this administration so the more “respectable” main column can step a millimeter or two toward the center and come off as more reasonable than the berserkers who preceded them into the fray.

Like Phil Agre noted:

> The flamboyant nastiness of rhetors such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter represents the destruction of conscience as a type of liberation. They are like cultists, continually egging on their audiences to destroy their own minds by punching through one layer after another of their consciences.

They’ve programmed themselves, as a political and social movement, to fail this particular test, and the reward for their efforts is in the process of manifesting. A president announces he broke the law, and any outrage you feel will be written off as partisan sniping, not the pot warming up toward boiling.

Since they’ve worked so hard to eradicate their own consciences, they can’t possibly admit that you’re acting on yours.

Leave a Response

© Michael Hall, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license.