Palin Knocks It Out of the Park

Not bad for an "inexperienced mayor" (as the Democrats are smearing her as), eh?

She favors alternative energy but has the good sense that we need to ramp up domestic production of oil for the short term until we have those alternatives in place.

Plus, she takes it to the three B's: Biden, 'Bama, and Bush.

(H/T: Allahpundit @ HotAir).

Update: The full interview is available here. It's so refreshing to listen to a politician communicate clearly and in depth about an important issue of the day.

The Commutation of Reason

Heavy sigh.

I was starting to come to like Al Gore. A month ago I even praised his book. I was sure he and I would disagree on plenty of things, but I was encouraged that he, having published a book called "The Assault on Reason," was going to keep things civil, and, well, reasoned.

Then, today, he goes and gives an interview with the following exchange:

Q. Before I let you go, I’d like to ask you about the Scooter Libby case and the fact the president commuted his sentence. What was your reaction to that?

GORE: Well, I thought it was very disappointing.

Q: Because?

GORE: Well, I thought it was improper. He is charged with having knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House which included the vice president and the president. I thought it was very disappointing.

Q. And how is it different than when President Clinton pardoned, in some controversial cases…

GORE: Well it’s different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involve knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did.

Libby "is charged with having knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House which included the vice president and the president"?!

Give me a break. Al Gore has absolutely no base on which to build that argument. What non-speculative proof does Gore have that Libby has "knowledge that could incriminate his bosses"? None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

The notion that Libby has knowledge that could incriminate Bush and Cheney is a possibility, but it's not something one can state as a matter of fact. And yet, Gore went right ahead and did so.

Ugh.

Furthermore, unless Gore is going to equally criticize his former boss, who served no jail time for lying under oath, he has no moral platform from which he can lodge a reasoned argument against Libby also not serving jail time.

Apparently Gore only cares about reason when it serves his interests and helps him sell books... and otherwise, let the partisan slandering abound!

I can't believe I was no naive as to actually expect better than this...

Jimmy Carters Spouts Off Again

Looking over Digg's top stories today, I noticed Jimmy Carter opened his big mouth again and, in typical fashion, some (most?) on Digg can't praise him enough (or insult the current Administration enough):

President Carter is one of the smartest and noblest men in our day. He dedicated his life to serving men, women and children in every capacity he could. With the heart of a tender-loving parent and decades of service at the highest levels of government comes incredible insight, outstanding judgment and sound wisdom.

I respect him, agree with him and believe these statement represent the feelings of the American people.

- "readthis", 5/19

Give. me. a. break.

Some on Digg know enough history to criticize Carter, but their comments are getting "dugg down."

Meanwhile, over at QandO, some excellent commentary from McQ that I can (heartily) agree with:

The paucity of credibility Jimmy Carter brings to such criticism should be evident to anyone who lived through his presidency. If there is anyone more responsible for feeding the "paper tiger" meme which has so enabled our enemies, I'd like to know who it is. The 444 days in which Iran kidnapped and exploited our embassy employees while he sat morose and powerless stands right up there as the worst, as far as I'm concerned.

...

Having lived through the Carter presidency and now Bush's, I'll take the latter any day of the week, mistakes, blunders, ineptness and all.

Unfortunately Carter has to be the exception to the unwritten rule that former presidents remain silent about the administrations of serving presidents. Like so much in his miserable life, he can't even get that right. Following that tradition would require grace, restraint and class, virtues Carter has never had.

Instead we're again exposed to the pathetic mewling of a washed up former president who so screwed up his watch that he's reduced to trying to criticize other presidents in hope of having them awarded the "world's worst" crown he's worn since he was run out of DC on a landslide.

Allow me to reiterate that - the unwritten rule that former presidents remain silent about the administrations of serving presidents. Amen.

There's plenty the Bush Administration has screwed up on. Those things deserve criticism and debate. But former presidents should have the perspective, civility, humility, and honor to, at least publicly, keep out of it.

Firing the U.S. Attorneys Story

Half of me is in shock that this story (first reported at the beginning of February) is still in the news.

The other half is disgusted. Especially since Congress has aproved subpoenas about this.

In most of the coverage I've heard on this story, the press "dutifully" reports the Clinton administration was subpoenaed thirty odd times (it's been unclear to me whether those were all Congressional subpoenas or if they include subpoenas from other government branches as well.).

There's a world of difference between this "scandal" and the things the Clinton administration was subpoenaed for those 30-odd times. The Clinton subpoenas were over matters where strong evidence suggested the law had been broken.

That's not the case here.

The closest we come to evidence the law was broken was that Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather Wilson, both of New Mexico, apparently tried to pressure former U.S. attorney David Iglesias into giving them information as to why he wasn't prosecuting Democratic voter fraud.

If Iglesias's allegations are true, what these two legislators did was clearly inappropriate (speaking of inappropriate behavior...), but I haven't heard any charges that it was illegal. And even if what they did was illegal, they aren't part of the approved-to-be-subpoenaed Bush administration.

As the Wall Street Journal aptly points out (with my own emphasis added):

[The] House Judiciary Subcommittee promptly approved subpoenas yesterday for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other top current or former Presidential aides to testify before Congress, publicly and under oath.

The Beltway is now abuzz with talk of a "Constitutional crisis." We'd put it another way: What's at stake here is whether George W. Bush is going to let Congress roll up his Presidency two years early. Democrats are trying to use the manufactured outrage over the entirely legal sacking of Presidential appointees to insert themselves into private White House deliberations. Mr. Bush needs to draw a line somewhere, and fast, or Democrats will keep driving until the White House staff is all but working for Democratic Senate campaign chief Chuck Schumer.

These columns have long supported the principle of "executive privilege," though we realize it is not a blanket prerogative: Both the Burger Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon and the Rehnquist Court in Clinton v. Jones upheld the principle that a President cannot use the claims of his office to protect himself from criminal or civil legal claims.

But there's little doubt that this or any other President has the right--we'd say the obligation--to protect the confidentiality of internal White House discussions, especially over Presidential appointments. If Congress can solicit any email concerning advice to the President, or haul any White House official before Congress, then executive branch deliberations will soon be an oxymoron.

...

U.S. attorneys are "political appointees," and so by definition can be replaced for political reasons. If San Diego's Carol Lam was out of step with the Administration's priorities on immigration enforcement, or New Mexico's David Iglesias was judged insufficiently aggressive on voter fraud, then it was entirely appropriate for the President to replace them with officials more in line with his views. What's the alternative? Presumably, Mr. Bush's Congressional critics would have him--and his successors, Republican and Democratic--preside over political appointees who are unaccountable to anyone except Congress.

What would be genuine grounds for outrage is if a U.S. attorney were dismissed to interfere with a specific prosecution, or to protect some crony. This was the root of our objection, in 1993, to Janet Reno's dismissal (at Webster Hubbell's instigation) of all 93 U.S. attorneys in his Administration's earliest days. But there is no such evidence involving any of the eight Bush attorneys.

There are no criminal or civil claims here. The firings were done for increasingly obvious political reasons, and the Bush administration foolishly tried to paint them as having been done for performance reasons. But that's where this "scandal" ends. It's about time for the Congress and the Press move on to more important things.