In Response To Howard Kurtz

Update: While it's a somewhat different take from someone with whom I rarely agree, you might want to read this Kinsley piece. At root, it supports my reasoning for going after Specter. The hearings will be a charade in the sense that there is no evidence of any crime going in.

I like Howard Kurtz as he seems to be a pretty straight shooter and was disappointed to see him take exception to a blog post of mine. Obviously, the great upside is that he even noticed RWV at all. I mocked Arlen Specter's recent announcement of potential hearings on President Bush's high number of signing statements.

Is that what conservatives are calling oversight these days?

So because Bush gave Specter campaign help, he should repay the kindness by being a loyal toady?

I'm partly to blame here as I should have linked an earlier post in which I had already addressed the issue with at least some depth. When Specter made his announcement three days later, I simply tossed up off the cuff snark as I saw it as more politicking of the independent, headline grabbing variety from which Specter is far from immune to get what he wants.

One thing Specter probably really wants right now is for Bush to back off on Conservative judicial nominees. Specter has committed himself to the judiciary as the place he wants to leave his mark, not necessarily the Presidents, despite what the Constitution might say. In fairness to Specter, he certainly has the Advise and Consent argument to make. But it's less strong if one presumes many Bush nominees would pass on an up or down vote.

The heart of the Kurtz-related issue has two ventricles, if you will - congressional oversight of the executive and Presidential signing statements themselves. Also, there are already two corrections to the original Globe article, one below. I believe it originally listed 750 bills.

That matters because one signing statement, perhaps with one or two particulars of a bill in mind, would by default count toward any statue in the bill. The 750 number is, for all practical purposes, probably grossly inflated. It appears to be in line with the type of effective, headline-making precursor to a fishing expedition I and many other Americans have come to loathe - especially when they are about political power more than anything else. With all due respect to Mr. Kurtz, I sometimes imagine inside the beltway types see them as the ultimate in political entertainment. But how often, or how many of them have ever served good purpose, especially in recent years?

Also, because of an editing error, the story misstated the number of bills in which Bush has challenged provisions. He has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.)

As for the oversight issue, Kurtz suggests that I would sacrifice oversight for Party loyalty, despite my not being a Republican. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would have to be suggesting the deconstructing of dozens of standing bi-partisan Congressional committees to be supporting that. Objecting to legislative grandstanding with another high profile hearing on a likely non-issue has nothing to do with my feelings on oversight.

But more to the point. All of the statues covered under the non-binding Bush signing statements involve practical arms or departments of the Executive branch already overseen by any number of Congressional committees. Those committees, which taxpayers fund, ones that take up so much legislator's time, while allowing for junkets and such, of course, already oversee the Executive branch.

So, the question for me isn't: Do I support oversight? But I do have a few questions: When is enough oversight enough? When is oversight political gamesmanship, or simply grandstanding; or, perhaps more accurately, when is the grand hearing form not? And why can't it at least begin honestly, if we are supposed to accept it as honest oversight and not political maneuvering?

As I had already posted before Specter came out on the issue:

From the Clinton Justice Department:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority

Now look at the headings and editorials here: Bush is Hitler - Bush is King, etc. Even the Globe's under-header stated: Senator questions bypassing of laws. Yet, there isn't one iota of proof any law has ever been bypassed.

Presidential signing statements have no legal standing, they accomplish nothing other than honestly presenting the Executive's view of the Constitution. Yet, everyone is running around already screaming Bush is subverting the law. As regards that particular - ultimately, it is for the Supreme Court, not the Legislature to decide. But for a legislator like Specter to attack Bush on a tactical issue related to any isolated signing, say around NSA surveillance, he'd run a risk of political damage for appearing unpatriotic by attacking a program most Americans support. So, role the video and let's have a hearing ... what the hell, it'll be summer, soon.

The reality is, Specter, moderately Left, is probably fed up with Bush shoving Conservative judicial nominations down his throat and using a device, the Congressional hearing, to say, Hey, George, Enough's enough! And for that I'm supposed to kneel down and worship Specter the Altruistic, who has been a hard ball politician with one ideology, his, for however many years he's been around since I watched him as a Philadelphia DA?

Thank you for the link, Mr. Kurtz ... but I'll pass. Lastly, as always, I look forward to reading much of your work and I do thank you for having read some of mine.

As for, I suppose a reader of yours, Lou Morin of Freeport, ME, who emailed me this:

Hey bunghole:

Arlen Specter doesn't wear a hairpiece.  Throughout his recent chemotherapy treatment, he was BALD for chrissakes.  Flog him for whatever you want politically, as this is America after all and you are entitled to your opinions, however asinine.  But at least take the time to research them.

Oh wait, this is the blogosphere...no need for facts here.  Just sit back in your tidy whities, drink your Mountain Dew and let the inaccuracies rip!

Calling you an idiot would be an insult to people who are merely idiots.

I'm aware of Senator Specter's recovery from cancer and think it's absolutely terrific. But as I have observed the man to some degree for approximately 40 years and he was admitted to the bar before I was born, I'm not backing off on the hair crack one bit. I'll simply defend it as a Philly vs. South Jersey thing and leave it at that.

Comments

[rwilymz]

"Just sit back in your tidy whities, drink your Mountain Dew and let the inaccuracies rip!"

What if you prefer commando and dark beer? Can you still be inaccurate?

[DennisAOK]

If Bush were a real conservative he would at a minimum have been neutral in the PA Senate primary race. A true reformer would have backed the conservative challenger to the liberal Specter. Bush is fully responsible for his fall from grace as he utterly lacks principles.