Jerry Springering Governance

As a nation we are facing a number of significant problems, among them how to handle the present and not insubstantial threat of global terrorism, how to de-fang rogue states arming themselves with nuclear weapons, determining how to deal with the funding shortfall of social security, resolving the difficult problem of a porous border and millions of illegal aliens making their homes here. Even with the best and noblest intentions these issues are hard to resolve, especially with so many competing ideas and interests at the table.

I think most Americans, however, do want to see Congress taking on these problems in an adult way. Instead, the newly elected Democratic Congress has decided that we are dopes who should be fed an unending stream of Jerry Springer-like fake fights. The Waxman Circus was the first and provided sustenance only to the portion of the public which is stupid enough to believe that the Administration was so angry at Ambassador Munchausen for spreading proven serial lies about it that they decided to put at risk countless undercover agents by revealing the identity of his desk-bound wife,whose status at the agency was so secret that even she didn't know if she was or wasn't covert.

Next, they claim to be shocked, shocked that the President, like every one who preceded him in office, exercised his plenary Constitutional powers to remove some US Attorneys he had appointed and replace them with others. So shocked that they insist on subpoenaing two people - Harriet Miers and Karl Rove (whose roles were tangential and inconsequential in the firings) - and subject them to show trial hearings. They want to get their mugs on TV and try to beat up on Meiers and Rove and goad them into some process crime.

How stupid is this one? The Democrats' staunchest  supporters, the media, are having a difficult time finding the pony  in the room even after they've had access to file cabinets full of documents.

The Washington Post:

For all their vivid detail, the e-mails and other records shed little light on the Bush administration's motives for carrying out the firings in the way it did. The new documents also provide little evidence that Justice officials sought to interfere with public corruption probes, as many Democrats and some of the prosecutors have alleged.
It's hard to see how the Democrats will make their argument that Carol Lam of San Diego, for example, was fired for reasons other than slack handling of immigration violations when the file shows stuff like this:
In June 2006, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to express concerns about Carol Lam's performance in office:
"It has come to my attention that despite high apprehension rates by Border Patrol agents along California's border with Mexico, prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of California appear to lag behind. . . . It is my understanding that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases ... I also want to stress the importance of vigorously prosecuting these types of cases so that California isn't viewed as an easy entry point for alien smugglers because there is no fear of prosecution if caught."
In July 2006, San Diego Border Patrol Sector Chief Darryl Griffen expressed concerns about changes made by Carol Lam to prosecutorial policies related to smugglers in front of a bipartisan House panel:

"Foot guides are the foot soldiers for the criminal cartels that traffic cargo, narcotics and contraband across our border," said Griffen who explained how Lam's policies reduced prosecutions of foot guides from 367 in one fiscal year to only five under the new policy in the following year. "What would happen then, we would apprehend people that were guiding people across the country, many times at risk. And without meeting prosecution guidelines, they were simply voluntarily returning back to Mexico where they could continue to conduct illicit activity. There is no level of consequences," Griffen stated.[/quote]
Some worry that the steady drip drip of manufactured, substance-free scandals will, like the Wilson fandango, persuade voters that this most honest of Administrations is crooked. Others worry that the ginned-up faux outrage at faux scandals will so wear down the Administration that it will destroy its power to accomplish anything.

There is yet a third school, that says the public is not stupid and that they want Congress to act responsibly. Too much focus on these sorts of things even when there was evidence of real criminal behavior by Clinton and his Administration - as is not the case here - turns the voters against them

I think that about 30% of Americans really are stupid (consider the bell curve distribution of intelligence), but even they have learned from Springer that the only thing worth paying attention to would be a program featuring Karl Rove's mother-in-law throwing a chair at him for some sexual indiscretion with her toy poodle. Ooops! Don't want to give the dumbbells on the Hill any ideas. (It's just a metaphor to illustrate that the public - even the dumbest of them - hasn't the sustained interest in these make believe "scandals" when there's juicier stuff every day to keep them entertained at a level of complexity they can grasp.)

I think I will confine myself to exposing the most ridiculous of the lies, support the Administration if it refuses to further try to compromise with this nonsense and let the good sense of the remaining 70% of Americans prevail.

How much longer, at any rate, will the Democratic Congress avoid being laughed out of power if they continue? Think of it, day after day of the shining light performances we saw in the Senate Judiciary Committee Roberts' confirmation hearings, and then add on the even worse performances we have grown to expect out of Harry Waxman, Maxine Waters, Linda Sanchez, and the like in the House.
Expose yourself, I say, and let the people judge you for the pifflers you are.  And if the good sense of the voters isn't good enough to see through this, they deserve what they get.

Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC and  frequent contributor to American Thinker.
As a nation we are facing a number of significant problems, among them how to handle the present and not insubstantial threat of global terrorism, how to de-fang rogue states arming themselves with nuclear weapons, determining how to deal with the funding shortfall of social security, resolving the difficult problem of a porous border and millions of illegal aliens making their homes here. Even with the best and noblest intentions these issues are hard to resolve, especially with so many competing ideas and interests at the table.

I think most Americans, however, do want to see Congress taking on these problems in an adult way. Instead, the newly elected Democratic Congress has decided that we are dopes who should be fed an unending stream of Jerry Springer-like fake fights. The Waxman Circus was the first and provided sustenance only to the portion of the public which is stupid enough to believe that the Administration was so angry at Ambassador Munchausen for spreading proven serial lies about it that they decided to put at risk countless undercover agents by revealing the identity of his desk-bound wife,whose status at the agency was so secret that even she didn't know if she was or wasn't covert.

Next, they claim to be shocked, shocked that the President, like every one who preceded him in office, exercised his plenary Constitutional powers to remove some US Attorneys he had appointed and replace them with others. So shocked that they insist on subpoenaing two people - Harriet Miers and Karl Rove (whose roles were tangential and inconsequential in the firings) - and subject them to show trial hearings. They want to get their mugs on TV and try to beat up on Meiers and Rove and goad them into some process crime.

How stupid is this one? The Democrats' staunchest  supporters, the media, are having a difficult time finding the pony  in the room even after they've had access to file cabinets full of documents.

The Washington Post:

For all their vivid detail, the e-mails and other records shed little light on the Bush administration's motives for carrying out the firings in the way it did. The new documents also provide little evidence that Justice officials sought to interfere with public corruption probes, as many Democrats and some of the prosecutors have alleged.
It's hard to see how the Democrats will make their argument that Carol Lam of San Diego, for example, was fired for reasons other than slack handling of immigration violations when the file shows stuff like this:
In June 2006, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to express concerns about Carol Lam's performance in office:
"It has come to my attention that despite high apprehension rates by Border Patrol agents along California's border with Mexico, prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of California appear to lag behind. . . . It is my understanding that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases ... I also want to stress the importance of vigorously prosecuting these types of cases so that California isn't viewed as an easy entry point for alien smugglers because there is no fear of prosecution if caught."
In July 2006, San Diego Border Patrol Sector Chief Darryl Griffen expressed concerns about changes made by Carol Lam to prosecutorial policies related to smugglers in front of a bipartisan House panel:

"Foot guides are the foot soldiers for the criminal cartels that traffic cargo, narcotics and contraband across our border," said Griffen who explained how Lam's policies reduced prosecutions of foot guides from 367 in one fiscal year to only five under the new policy in the following year. "What would happen then, we would apprehend people that were guiding people across the country, many times at risk. And without meeting prosecution guidelines, they were simply voluntarily returning back to Mexico where they could continue to conduct illicit activity. There is no level of consequences," Griffen stated.[/quote]
Some worry that the steady drip drip of manufactured, substance-free scandals will, like the Wilson fandango, persuade voters that this most honest of Administrations is crooked. Others worry that the ginned-up faux outrage at faux scandals will so wear down the Administration that it will destroy its power to accomplish anything.

There is yet a third school, that says the public is not stupid and that they want Congress to act responsibly. Too much focus on these sorts of things even when there was evidence of real criminal behavior by Clinton and his Administration - as is not the case here - turns the voters against them

I think that about 30% of Americans really are stupid (consider the bell curve distribution of intelligence), but even they have learned from Springer that the only thing worth paying attention to would be a program featuring Karl Rove's mother-in-law throwing a chair at him for some sexual indiscretion with her toy poodle. Ooops! Don't want to give the dumbbells on the Hill any ideas. (It's just a metaphor to illustrate that the public - even the dumbest of them - hasn't the sustained interest in these make believe "scandals" when there's juicier stuff every day to keep them entertained at a level of complexity they can grasp.)

I think I will confine myself to exposing the most ridiculous of the lies, support the Administration if it refuses to further try to compromise with this nonsense and let the good sense of the remaining 70% of Americans prevail.

How much longer, at any rate, will the Democratic Congress avoid being laughed out of power if they continue? Think of it, day after day of the shining light performances we saw in the Senate Judiciary Committee Roberts' confirmation hearings, and then add on the even worse performances we have grown to expect out of Harry Waxman, Maxine Waters, Linda Sanchez, and the like in the House.
Expose yourself, I say, and let the people judge you for the pifflers you are.  And if the good sense of the voters isn't good enough to see through this, they deserve what they get.

Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC and  frequent contributor to American Thinker.