Feature of the Week
All this talk about the questionable ethics of White House Advisor Karl Rove calls to mind what it would look like if there were a separate ethical advisor in the White House whose advice is consistent with the actual practices of the Bush Administration. We first introduced this hypothetical character earlier this year, and heard from him again yesterday. Do you want to hear his advice on other Bush Administration policies? Let me know and I’ll ask him!
07.22.05 @ 10:57 PM EDT [link]

The White House Ethical Advisor on the Environment
Perhaps our beloved return visitors will remember our previous feature on the hypothetical Bush Administration Ethical Advisor. Even if you recall the ethical advice on deficits he gave to his “Chief Executive of a Major Western Hemisphere Superpower,” you’ll want to go back and read it again just for laughs! And for even more laughs, here’s new advice from his hypotheticalness. (In reality, it is of course Karl Rove who is providing such advice, and we can be sure it ain’t so ethical!)
Q: I am the Chief Executive of a Major Western Hemisphere Superpower. My administration has taken stands on fiscal and environmental policy that could possibly have serious negative impacts to future generations. On the plus side, my advisors keep telling me that there’s at least a chance that these impacts will not actually come to pass. For example, there could be a big burst of wealth creation from some new invention that creates massive surpluses (the best case being an invention that produces energy that’s cheaper than oil, killing two birds with one stone). Hey, why not? However, late at night as I’m walking past the portraits of my predecessors who spoke frequently about obligations to posterity, I think about the legacy they left for me and for our generation. This makes me wonder whether it’s ethical to so aggressively push policies that could very well reduce the quality of life for my descendents.
A: Screw ‘em! Just remember the first rule of skiing: worry about the skiers in front of you, not the ones behind you. Throughout American history politicians have focused on the interests of the voters of their day. In fact, those that didn’t quickly became ex-politicians! Keep in mind the first rule of politics: future generations don’t vote. If you don’t give people who do vote what they want, they’ll find someone who will. What good are you to anyone if you’re out of office? And why should we have to solve all of the problems of future generations for them? We ourselves have had to solve plenty of problems that were passed down from prior generations. Didn’t our generation have to deal with welfare queens, inheritance taxes, and the liberal media? Look at what a good job we’ve done with those! Why shouldn’t future generations be able to do just as well with their problems? What about those interstates? You think they could have had the decency to build enough lanes! Think about all the years when you couldn’t get sushi or a latte. Makes your blood want to boil! Future generations of Americans already have enough going for them. I mean, they could just as easily have been born somewhere else, right? It should be enough that they are born in the good old US of A, land of opportunity. Besides, now that you’re getting rid of the death tax, your descendants will be filthy rich, so I don’t think you need to worry too much about their quality of life, duh!
07.21.05 @ 09:02 PM EDT [link]

Dead Man Walking
Scene: Federal prison, January 19, 2009 (the final day of the Bush Administration). Reporter: “We’re here for the execution of Karl Rove for the death of Judith Miller. As you will recall, Miller, facing her fourth period of incarceration at the hands of crusading Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, finally signaled her willingness to give up what she knew, but was murdered before she could do so. A lucky break for investigators provided unimpeachable evidence against Rove convicting him of what could have easily been a perfect crime. Throughout the ordeal, Rove has remained the Bush Administration US Deputy Chief of Policy. Many expected him to be fired once he was indicted and again when he was convicted of murdering Miller, but President Bush has steadfastly stood by Rove. Here’s the President, speaking shortly after Rove's conviction for murder: ‘I said that anyone in my Administration convicted of revealing the identity of a covert agent would be fired, but all we have here is media speculation that Karl’s homicide verdict was somehow related. In the absence of clear evidence, this nation must continue to benefit from Karl’s competence and dedication. There is an ongoing investigation into what evidence Judith Miller had in her possession. Once it has been definitively determined that this evidence, if it exists, implicates a member of this Administration, at that point that individual will no longer be a member of this Administration.’ OK, ladies and gentlemen, at this point Karl Rove is leaving his cell in preparation for the walk to the execution chamber.” “Dead man walking!” “There it is, ladies and gentlemen – Rove is walking is last mile. He seems nonplussed, continuing his cellphone strategy session with Party leaders on a GOP comeback plan as he is marched down the corridor. Wait! The President is addressing the Nation. The question on everyone’s mind: will he finally fire Rove?” “My fellow Americans, there have been many calls for the resignation of Karl Rove. I am now prepared to commit to saying that I will ask for it at the point he should become available to resume his normal duties in the White House. It’s only fair that a significant personnel action like this be conducted face to face. While his execution today may be seen by some as precluding this, people of Faith know that there have been two occasions in history where it has not, so there are clearly still some open issues here that must be permitted time for resolution in an orderly fashion.”
07.20.05 @ 08:48 PM EDT [link]

Thumpin’ Joe
One of the entertaining features of the Rovegate controversy is the unprecedented levels of squirming behavior demonstrated by right wing apologists (i.e., anyone who would employ the term “conservative” as a personal descriptor). We catalogued many of these in a recent journal entry, but, in such cataloguing efforts, there is always likely to be yet more laughable behavior to be incorporated. Today let’s focus on their thumping of Joe Wilson. First, let’s all agree that the overall issue with Rovegate is that the identity of a CIA undercover agent was blasted out to the media. That outcome is wrong on the face of it, and this wrong can in no way be mitigated or excused any action on the part of her husband. Saying that anything that Joe did has any relevance to Valerie’s experience and talents no longer being available to the War on Terror is right up with the third-world practice of gang-raping a wife as payback for something the husband did. OK, we all agree that Joe’s actions are irrelevant? Good. Now let’s look at some of the irrelevant Joe-bashing going on. Here’s what Rush had to say: “So all roads lead to Joe Wilson in this, and probably his wife somewhere along the way. I mean, this woman is probably not clean and pure as the wind-drive snow either. We have this image of her as practically virginal, great heroine and someone has come along and corrupted her and ruined her life, and that isn't true either.” Now if that doesn’t recall the rape victim being blamed because “she asked for it,” what does! Here’s a recent news story: “former House Speaker Newt Gingrich contends that Wilson lied in claiming that Vice President Dick Cheney dispatched him on the mission to Niger. That echoes a Republican National Committee talking-points memo sent to party officials… The ‘Wilson/Rove Research & Talking Points' memo distributed by RNC Director of Television Carolyn Weyforth contends, ‘Both the Senate Committee on Intelligence and the CIA found assessments Wilson made in his report were wrong.'” By the way, news reports have disputed the accuracy of all of these allegations. So why are they victim-bashing? For the same reason that lawyers do it, based on the old legal chestnut “if you have the facts, you thump the facts, if you have the law you thump the law, and if you don’t have the facts or the law, you thump the victim.”
07.19.05 @ 09:45 PM EDT [link]

Rovegate for Google
I read the other day that the number of Google hits for the term “Rovegate” has increased exponentially over the last week or so. Despite the tender loving care SherWright.com has given to Karl over the years, Rovegate is not a term we have heretofore employed in a journal entry. We would hate to see us losing our reputation as a cutting-edge political humor site by not coming up on a Google search for a hot search term like Rovegate. We’re thus making up for lost time with this entry, which is on Rovegate. We expect that the number of sites incorporating the term Rovegate will really explode now that it came out over the weekend that Time reporter Matthew Cooper first heard from Rove that Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent. This will fan the Rovegate flames because Bush Administration apologists have been crowing that Rove was merely an innocent bystander. This based on the leak from the Rovegate investigation that columnist Novak did not hear about the CIA status of Wilson’s wife first from Rove, but instead told Rove of her status, which Rove then confirmed for Novak by saying “I heard that too,” thus giving Novak the second source journalists need for a story. Prior to this weekend’s disclosure, Republican defenders of Rove, trying to belittle the idea of a Rovegate, were clutching at the Novak straw in the vain hope that there were no other straws in this broom. It’s now clear, however, that there was a tag-team effort going underway in the White House, with Rove sometimes being the point man with a reporter for getting payback on Wilson for his “Emperor has no Uranium” article in the NY Times, and with other White House players also playing point, and considering that the White House is involved, isn’t it perfectly appropriate for a –gate term to be coined for this incident, specifically the term “Rovegate?”
07.18.05 @ 08:03 PM EDT [link]

Period Adjustment
One thing you have to give the right wing: they understand the power of definition! By that I mean the value of strategies that seek to achieve “bloodless” victories by tweaking the definitions of things. For example, Bush the Senior was elected partly on the basis of his moderate-sounding promise to allow no further development of wetlands, then, once elected, he changed the definition of “wetland!” He thus arguably was able to keep his conflicting promises to both environmentalists and fat-cat campaign contributors. The lesson was not lost on his successors. For example, GOP legislators just introduced a bill to redefine the term “conservation” as used in the Endangered Species Act, using this redefinition as a vehicle for gutting this popular Nixon initiative. And that’s not the only example. Bush 43, at the recent G8 conference, introduced the phrase “Kyoto period,” and then defined that period as “over.” It strikes me that this latest redefinition strategy is particularly ingenious. It’s the political equivalent of the colloquial phrases “that’s so last year,” “that’s so twentieth century,” and particularly “that’s so last millennium.” You’re hearing it first on SherWright.com that we should all expect this tactic to be an important weapon of mass distraction from the GOP spin machine. There are two flavors. The first is as I just described – there’s something (like the Endangered Species Act or Kyoto Treaty) that the right wing wants to just go away. The strategy is to describe the period that a particular undesirable point of view is in the public eye as “over.” The second flavor relates to ideas that the Cons want to be in the public eye. Calling them a “period” gives them tremendous substance. Look at the mileage Bush has gotten by consistently referring to the period beginning on September 11, 2001, the “War on Terror” period, a period that we can expect them to extend as far into the future as they think they can get away with (and they clearly think they can get away with a very long period.) Considering that there has never been a “period” in history without murderous dissidents, he’s clearly hitched his star to a wagon that rollin’ for the long haul!
07.17.05 @ 08:20 PM EDT [link]