As much as I hate to borrow from idiot Republican mouthpieces, we've got Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Jefferson, Eric Holder ... throw in less offensive but still hateable figures like Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden (annointing his son), Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and possibly Caroline Kennedy, and even I've got to ask if the Democrats will use their power any more nobly than the Republicans did. Because they haven't even taken office yet, and it ain't lookin' good.
(Let me just add, since I'm begging the question above and I've been knocking it around in my head for a while: the role of Chris Dodd's political contributions from Fannie and Freddie in this economic crisis has been horribly overlooked. And I think it's Barney Frank who's playing the same role in the House, but I'm not as sure about that.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree. Not a very impressive start, especially as Obama announces massive tax cuts. At least he has broken from Bush on intelligence (in both general intelligence and the CIA-esque type of intelligence (e.g. waterboarding)).
ReplyDeleteOn Panetta - not sure how I feel about lack of experience, or making the appointment without informing, let alone conferring with, the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
ReplyDeleteStill not sure I oppose torture. The best argument I've heard was on NPR the other day, which basically stated that enemies can use our torture policy as a recruitment tool.
Still though, I don't see how in intelligence/security taking an option completely off the table is ever a good idea. In the little perfect world in my mind I wish we could set a limit like "no more than 10 people per year can be subject to 'enhanced interrogation'" or something like that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd love the option to hardly be used or even to not be used at all, but I don't want it to not be an option. I dunno. I'm open to argument on this.