Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
As the new Congress convenes we're hearing a lot about the prospect that Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa will begin investigations into Obama administration corruption. In many of the radio and TV interviews during my "book tour" the question repeatedly arose: "Are you saying Obama should be investigated and/or impeached?"
My stock answer was, "No, I am not advocating impeachment or impeachment inquiries, not because I think Obama hasn't possibly committed impeachable offenses, but that I just don't think it would be a good strategic move for the GOP, and it also might detract from more important substantive issues at hand," -- or words to that effect.
Let me try to clarify: I don't advocate subordinating the rule of law to pragmatic concerns and so I don't mean to project a cynical approach to this. It's just that I think that for many reasons, not the least of which is the enduring moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's Democratic Party, such a pursuit would be quixotic. Democrats are firmly ends-justifies-the-means oriented and would support almost anything and untold corruption if it furthered their causes. (They'd probably give Rangel a medal if they could get away with it.)
They circled the wagons around Clinton's felonious perjury, among other things, and they're much worse now than they were even then. If Republicans pursue Obama in this way, allegations of race will also inevitably ensue.
There is also in our climate the intellectually lazy presumption that anything and everything that is done by one party to the supposed detriment of the other, or one of its members, is purely politically motivated and not based on principle. When you couple that with the corollary lazy assumption that everything must always and forever be reduced to moral equivalence (both sides are guilty of always equal infractions, thus its wrong to unduly criticize any politicians for any act that can be rationalized away on grounds of justifiable partisanship), you have a formula for Democrats turning Obama into a sympathetic victim. This would serve to defeat the purpose of those Republicans who truly want to end or limit his abuses.
On the other hand, its unthinkable that Obama could be allowed to continue to act outside the scope of his authority with virtually no accountability save for the elections, which are few and far between.
If the purposes of Issa's investigations are to end these corrupt practices, as opposed to impeachment or whatever, perhaps he could make some headway in a manner that would not play into the victim scenario. But I truly doubt that as well.
My guess is that no matter how the investigations would proceed and no matter how properly motivated, Democrats will successfully demonize the investigators. And, to be fair, investigations do lend themselves to partisan witch hunts and abuse as we've seen in the case of independent counsels who never want to end their tenure. Nothing is scarier than abuses of power by prosecutorial or law enforcement type authorities -- whether inside or outside the political arena.
As you can see, I have mixed feelings about all this. I desperately believe we have to devise a way to prevent and limit governmental abuses of authority, including the routine disregard for constitutional limitations displayed by the president, his czars, his administrative agencies and by Congress, with all its shenanigans. The systemic checks and balances don't work well when dishonorable men repeatedly ignore them ("our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people"), and when we've become so cynical that we don't even think there's any teeth left in the Constitution to prevent such outrages as the health insurance purchase mandate. But there are serious downsides to "partisan" investigations -- downsides that could easily defeat the most honorable of purposes. Republicans are in a position of trust now -- albeit, trust, but verify -- and they mustn't squander this opportunity to try to restore the ideas of limited government. Will that opportunity be furthered by investigations also designed, in the end, to limit government, or harmed?
So, how do you wise people think we ought to proceed? And while you're at it, you can thank me for this post, because I had considered, instead, raising the issue of John Boehner's crying proclivities, which we're going to be reading more about as he assumes his new position of power, but I decided against it -- for now.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
I can think of another reason to dial back on investigations. I don't want this new congress getting sidetracked.
We sent those people to DC to begin the process of scaling back the size and scope of the federal government. Obamacare is the obvious first problem that needs fixing (read: repealing). The EPA is in the process of converting itself into a Stalin-esque command-and-control agency, and that's my vote for the second thing that needs attention.
Every molecule of the Washington establishment will be fighting the new guys. I think it's safe to say that we're asking this crop of Republicans to do something more difficult than anything any congress has ever been asked to do: to look the American people in the eye and tell us no, no more programs, no more spending, no more pork. And to do it over endless, shrill recriminations coming from the news media.
Investigations of Obama would surely come to dominate the news cycle and the national dialog, and I really, really don't want these guys to take their eyes off the ball.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 1:36pmRe: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
Starve the Beast: I can think of another reason to dial back on investigations. I don't want this new congress getting sidetracked.
We sent those people to DC to begin the process of scaling back the size and scope of the federal government.
Yes, that's what I meant by this: Republicans are in a position of trust now -- albeit, trust, but verify -- and they mustn't squander this opportunity to try to restore the ideas of limited government. Will that opportunity be furthered by investigations also designed, in the end, to limit government, or harmed?
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
The investigators should take a meat cleaver to Obama's appointees. The focus should be on Erich Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Tim Geithner, Donald Berwick. the list is long, and I could go on.
Obama should have gotten rid of Holder and Napolitano by now. He has not done so. He has not really gotten rid of anyone -- so they are all fair game. Myself, I would start with the Black Panther case. I would demand the papers, and I would make Holder an albatross for Obama.
Then I would turn on Sebelius, and I would focus on favoritism in enforcing the new healthcare provisions.
And Napolitano is a clown. Just make her talk.
Jun '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
Black Panthers: Are you going to believe the video or your own lying eyes? ACORN: We have the tapes on this one, too. SEIU: when have unions not been corrupt? Talk about a target rich environment. The American public needs to be reminded who the Democrats are, everyday, from now till November 2012.
Jul '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
David Limbaugh
Starve the Beast: I can think of another reason to dial back on investigations. I don't want this new congress getting sidetracked.
We sent those people to DC to begin the process of scaling back the size and scope of the federal government.
Yes, that's what I meant by this: Republicans are in a position of trust now -- albeit, trust, but verify -- and they mustn't squander this opportunity to try to restore the ideas of limited government. Will that opportunity be furthered by investigations also designed, in the end, to limit government, or harmed? · Jan 4 at 1:38pm
Absolutely. No distractions. We weren't waving signs at Tea Parties saying, "Investigate the Obama Administration!".
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
Paul A. Rahe: The investigators should take a meat cleaver to Obama's appointees. The focus should be on Erich Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Tim Geithner, Donald Berwick. the list is long, and I could go on.
Obama should have gotten rid of Holder and Napolitano by now. He has not done so. He has not really gotten rid of anyone -- so they are all fair game. Myself, I would start with the Black Panther case. I would demand the papers, and I would make Holder an albatross for Obama.
Then I would turn on Sebelius, and I would focus on favoritism in enforcing the new healthcare provisions.
And Napolitano is a clown. Just make her talk. · Jan 4 at 1:40pm
Paul, I trust you would agree that Obama hasn't gotten rid of Holder or Napolitano precisely because they're doing his bidding. Remember, this guy loves Van Jones -- who they claim they didn't vet, but whose position that actually carved out for him.
Dec '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
For the first time, in anything of his I have read, I disagree with Professor Rahe. I understand the military argument for harrassing operations, but do not believe they will have a worthwhile impact. Democrats, behaving unethically, or committing actual crimes, are implementing SOP. Recall that only Republicans are bound by the sort of indictment=disqualification ethics that were applied to Tom Delay. I am no fan of his, but I also believe he will eventually cleared of all charges. That was an efective policy for Democrats to pursue against a Republican. It would be a waste of time to expend too much effort in that direction, against Democrats. Conservatives and Independents already reject corruption, so modest efforts in this direction, just to keep the pressure on, would be adequate for keeping these issues in the public eye. Liberals would literally cheer any shenanigans that came to light. I do not usually lean to David Limbaugh's position on an issue, but on this one, I tend to agree with him. Address the issue with stamina and go after the obvious cases of excess, but do not push the pedal to the metal. Corrupt people are corrupt. We know that.
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
Sep '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
I agree with Paules--it doesn't seem so difficult to breach the flimsy defenses of these sitting duck targets with direct confrontation, while at the same time doing the Tea Party bidding.
We need to reacquaint the public with recent Democrat scofflaws (Rangle, Geithner and Sebelius come to mind). Is there a statute of limitation on their crimes, or is it now not possible to prosecute them? Maybe the Republicans could hold a regular presser with a substantive question-and-answer format that is controversial enough to get the MSM's attention. (From the ever-increasing Fox News listenership springs hope that the MSM's notice might not even be needed). Any other ideas for novel tactics to use?
Whether we will be perceived as only trying to persuade or as taking the moral high ground by respecting the rule of law, or both, will these actions be seen as prosecution or persecution? Maybe float a test ballon or two, then somehow accurately determine the perception, using reliable, unbiased polling data, instead of basing the next move on predictable MSM critique.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 4:58pmNov '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
David Limbaugh
Starve the Beast: I can think of another reason to dial back on investigations. I don't want this new congress getting sidetracked.
We sent those people to DC to begin the process of scaling back the size and scope of the federal government.
"Will that opportunity be furthered by investigations also designed, in the end, to limit government, or harmed?"
I think harmed. We could get video and witnesses of Carol Browner sacrificing babies to Satan, but an investigation of it would still be spun by the New York Times and just more partisan bickering.
Seriously, I'd love to see these thugs get theirs, but this moment in American history is just too important to take chances with. We're walking in a mine field, and we need to be uber-careful.
Just one man's opinion.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 5:20pmOct '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
David Limbaugh:
So, how do you wise people think we ought to proceed?
My advice to Issa are:
1) Be boring. Don't grandstand.
2) Don't go after Obama personally--Unless you have the goods.
3) I don't mind "smallball." Investigate legit issues even if you know the media will never pay attention to it. eg Pigford (what, are they going to call Issa racist for that?)
In short, i don't mind if Issa's work doesnt produce any headlines or doesn't bring Obama down personally. As long as it helps produce accountable gov't and exposes Obamacare, I'm 100% all for it.
Oct '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
For almost every issue where "corruption" can be investigated there is a relevant committee in Congress with oversight responsibility. For Eric Holder there is the House Judiciary Committee. For the EPA there is the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with Cory Gardner running the show. Here they can deal with the areas where "corrupt" non-Constitutional administration is going hog wild, and not have the three ring atmosphere that the lame stream media will inevitably characterize anything Rep. Issa will do.
Obviously this is a mixed bag approach, since not all GOP male members have cajones, or am I not right in observing that there is more testosterone represented in the GOP Women's Caucus?
Sep '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
The public will correctly view the GOP investigating “Obama Administration corruption” as another case of the “pot calling the kettle black.” It would be nice to see something productive done by these committees in congress. You might believe that the country is $14T in debt because of purely Democratic malfeasance, but I happen to believe it could only have happened if both parties had willingly participated in the fraud. Questioned such as: How much did foreign banks profit from the tarp money ? Why is no one from Wall Street or the government in jail or charged? Why after 30 years do we still not have an energy policy? Haven’t you noticed that US oil production is down 11%, gas is up $2. I realize these issues are paltry compared with the Black Panther case but perhaps some attention should be paid to them.
Oct '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
From Ann Althouse, Was Issa just "pandering to Rush Limbaugh" when he called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times"?
That's not the way Rush Limbaugh sees it:
Nov '10
Re: Issa: To Investigate, or Not?
David Limbaugh:
My guess is that no matter how the investigations would proceed and no matter how properly motivated, Democrats will successfully demonize the investigators.
The first signs of demonization have begun with the mispronunciation of Rep. Issa's surname. Since Sunday some within the MSM have been vocalizing the leading "i" as that in "is," as opposed to rhyming it with "eye." This is not a mistake; it is done to belittle.
In the sixties Reagan's name was mispronounced "REE-gan" to show contempt. This is much the same thing, and it is a sign of whom the speaker fears. So whether or not Rep. Issa plans to be an investigative scourge, the potential targets think he will.