In The Bush Administration, Political Interests Triumph Over Fundamental Rights
In The Bush Administration, Political Interests Triumph Over Fundamental Rights
[Ed Note: Sen. Daschle will return this afternoon to respond to some of your comments.]
It’s good to be back online with you all.
I have been flabbergasted by the continuing news coming out of the Justice Department. I first wrote on this blog a few weeks ago to discuss the harmful impact that requiring photo IDs would have on the most basic right in this country – the right to vote. Just a couple of weeks later, I returned to Think Progress to discuss how political bureaucrats at the Department of Justice overrode the strong recommendation of experienced DOJ professionals who suggested that the Georgia photo ID law was inconsistent with requirements under the historically successful Voting Rights Act. We have since learned that political bureaucrats at Justice overrode the professionals on the Texas redistricting case, too.
Now, the Justice Department has enacted a policy to not even seek the recommendations of career professionals on cases regarding state compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Republican and Democratic Administrations for decades have sought to insulate this important process from politics by establishing a transparent process shepherded by experienced professionals, not political appointees.
In 2002, we fought to protect the rights of experienced professionals at the new Department of Homeland Security because we felt it was vital that we emphasize the role of experts who are able make decisions based on the merits and for the good of the country, not for the good of a political party. The Bush administration sees government as a mechanism to protect their own interests, not the most basic rights of American citizens.
What is amazing is the Administration does not even hide its intention to completely disregard checks and balances – it sees the historic institutions of our government as vehicles to protect its political equities, not as vehicles to protect Americans’ fundamental rights.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think the answer to this problem is to reduce the number of political appointees. There are so many posts, no one can keep them filled anyway. And the career people inevitably do a better job.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:45 pmI am not sure we want to have the professionals running without supervision. The CIA has a history of that and it was not good. However, we need to be able to review those times when professionals were overridden and later proved right, especially when the reason was pure political gamesmanship. By “we” I mean Congress in some form. The Bush administration have proved to be the poster children for how to be corrupt. Here is a party that said “you can hold us to a higher standard” and then proved that there is no depth to which they won’t sink. Folks, I am one embarrassed and ashamed life-long republican.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:52 pmThanks for the comments Senator, but I don’t buy it. I think this kind of thing is pretty standard no matter who is in charge. Are you saying that, when Clinton was in office, his political appointees wouldn’t overrule career bureaucrats when they disagreed?
December 13th, 2005 at 1:59 pmThis is the best administration money can buy…all thanks to your local K Street lobbyists and the corporations they front. Officially, it has been that way since 1994 and the ‘Contract with America’ that jerk-o scumbag Newt Gingrich vowed to uphold, but it started earlier, with the compassionate administration of Ron Reagan. It was then expanded by the PNAC document, that Cheney, Feith, and that gang of neo-Nazis created a few years later, and tried to pawn off to Clinton. Fortunately he was too busy staining dresses and selling off American manufacturing jobs with NAFTA, to be bothered with it.
Anyone that thinks this country hasn’t been taken over by greedy, scheming, uncaring, and unethical businesses and Fascists, needs their clock re-wound.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:05 pmTo paraphrase your objection to the new DOJ policies:
“that’s the way we’ve always done it…”
Not very substantial.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:08 pmAhh, here we have a distinguished guest blogger and the trolls are taking their shots at him. Curiously, none commented on the new DOJ regulations, as to whether or not they are a good thing.
We know that from having to live with you on a daily basis. Forgive them Senator, they only know how to repeat the talking points they are fed. They don’t read or listen of their own.
Myself, I only wish you hadn’t been such a gentleman Senator. With the folks in charge now, they only took that as weakness. But for your sake, I’m hoping you are enjoying life away from the grind of politics. Now you can choose your venues and times to participate. Plus, you now are given honorary distinction because of your past.
Use it wisely. But don’t forget to use it. We need all our resources to get ahead in modern day america.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Chaunikah(?), Happy Holidays one and all.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:16 pmthat’s the way we’ve always done it
I don’t think that’s at all what basket has said, tomaig. What he/she said was, why the righteous indignantion now that the opposite party’s guy is in office … if this is an issue now, perhaps it was an issue then as well.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:17 pmUnfortunately, not all politicians like the idea of voter registration because they can’t exploit Indian reservations in South Dakota to rig the vote for their proteges.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:17 pmThat’s right, tomaig. Precedent is completely irrelevant to this administration.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:20 pmThere was an interesting piece on NPR about a week ago, an interview with a (former?) Civil Rights attorney with DOJ, describing what has been going in the seciton for the last five years. Civil Rights attorneys with DOJ are complaining that they are being assigned to cases that have nothing to do with what they are supposed to be doing, such as the enforcement of immigration laws (that was the one example given that I can remember right of the top). Much like the EPA’s non-enforcement of regulations coming, apparently, from the top down, it would a similar situation exists at Justice with regard to Civil Rights.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:26 pmBasket;
December 13th, 2005 at 2:29 pmDo you have any examples of political appointees overruling Department of Justice career personal during the Clinton administration? This is not an attack, I was not following government policy closely at that time.
that’s the way we’ve always done it
I don’t think that’s at all what basket has said, tomaig. What he/she said was, why the righteous indignantion now that the opposite party’s guy is in office … if this is an issue now, perhaps it was an issue then as well.
Comment by Giacomo — December 13, 2005
You are arguing with two trolls. Probably the same guy using different names. No wonder you get lost around here.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:30 pmSenator Daschle,
While the questions and concerns you raise are important it seems to me that the Democratic party is missing the biggest threat to our individual voting rights.
DIEBOLD! There have been allegations for years, from former employees, as to just how corrupt and partsisan the senior management at Diebold has been. The recent resignation of CEO Wally O’Dell, under a cloud of insider trading, seems to confirm what these past “whistleblowers” have been alleging. Allegations that have been previously ignored as nothing more then the drivle of “disgruntled” workers.
Will the Senate/House Democrats demand an investigation into Diebold, and in particular former CEO Wally O’Dell? Please remember that Wally O’Dell pledged, at a GOP fundraiser, to deliver Ohio to Bush and apparently did so in spite of all exit polls and local papers predicting otherwise?
Is it important that in a free society we make sure that everyone eligible to vote does? Of course, and I applaude your efforts, but to my mind it is so much more important that we insure that the voting process can not be corrupted by partisan corporations. To paraphrase Stalin – it is not the number of voters that counts, but the people that count the votes.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:31 pmAny chance that Senator Daschle will comment on his name showing up in yesterday’s WASHINGTON POST on the list of the 20 biggest recipients of Abramoff’s Indian casino dirty money? These seems like such a great campaign tool to use against the GOP– until they start muddying the waters by saying “all politicians do it.”
December 13th, 2005 at 2:31 pmBasket;
Do you have any examples of political appointees overruling Department of Justice career personal during the Clinton administration? This is not an attack, I was not following government policy closely at that time.
Comment by Skeptic — December 13, 2005
Of course not. That was a classic troll-by Clinton bashing. Out of respect for Mr. Daschle, we could ignore them on this thread, unless they have something of merit to add, and let Mr. Daschle deal with them if he so chooses.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:40 pmif this is an issue now, perhaps it was an issue then as well.
Somehow, I have a feeling, if it was an issue then, we would have heard about incessantly. And I do not use that word lightly.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:41 pmMr. Daschle,
I appreciate your post. We’re patiently waiting to hear about this in Texas.
I find this to be a symptom of a larger problem of the minority not having the power to hold hearings. I would like to know if you think this a benefit or flaw of our system. If it’s a flaw I think any Democrat with $30 million to spend would have no problem winning their seats.
I find “Bring back checks and balances” to be a very effective message.
Comment?
December 13th, 2005 at 3:01 pmUnfortunately, not all politicians like the idea of voter registration because they can’t exploit Indian reservations in South Dakota to rig the vote for their proteges.
Comment by C-BS — December 13, 1005
Good golly! Were the rest of you folks aware of the pronounced “liberal bias” in the DOJ. Perhaps you would C less BS if you just kept it to yourself.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:38 pm#17 – maybe we wouldn’t need voter ID cards if the left didn’t exploit the poor for votes and commit random acts of fraud on election day. MAYBE…..
December 13th, 2005 at 3:52 pmI think the first Red flag went up after the 2000 election results. This nation didn’t have a voice then to have the election results investigated, nor in 2004 when there were, again, inconsistencies; what makes me think that this isn’t politics as usual? I haven’t seen a strong Democratic presence/platform do give any indication that professional politicians give a red rat’s patooty what common Joe (Ann) America thinks. Voters have been turned away from voting outlets, their votes haven’t been counted, and our legislative branch sits on their hands and doesn’t question a thing.
By the way, Mr. Daschle, I’ve asked in other venues before but keep missing you (or your response), why didn’t you support the Florida Black Caucus in 2000 when they wanted to stall the election ratification so the Florida election results could be investigated? Irrelavent now, I know, but I’m curious because you were the Minority Leader at the time, and all it needed was one senatorial signature.
Stop by sometime, on your way through Sturgis, sir; I have plenty of other questions and concerns I wouldn’t mind discussing with you, like when is the Democratic Party going to stop playing politics as usual and actually start representing constituents?
Merry Christmas.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:57 pm18- you mean like removing thousandes of eligible voters from the voter rolls? Disallowing registration cards because of the weight of the paper? Limiting voting machines in poorer communities? Not providing a verifiable paper trail for electronic voting? Claiming the same type of polling that showed fraud in the Ukranian elections somehow don’t work because Republicans are so tight-lipped? That kind of fraud?
December 13th, 2005 at 4:03 pmTomaig and basket have been drinking too much of the kool-aid this administration is serving to fools. When they start to take our rights away the constitution become less important. They love the Constitution, but they hate the Rights laid out in it for the American People.
This is as close to a dictatorship as we have ever gotten in this Country. They are drunk with power and have abused the rights of the poor, people of color and muslims. If you are white, it’s alright, if you are black, get back and if you are muslim you are a terrorist. I can’t wait until these bums get sent packing.
You can say I’m wrong but, Katrina showed exactly what they think of the non-white citizens of this country. If that had been Martha’s Vinyard or Cape Cod or some other all white place, they wouldn’t have waiting a week to start helping the people. Like it or not, “That’s the bottom line” as Rick Flare used to say.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:13 pm#17 – maybe we wouldn’t need voter ID cards if the left didn’t exploit the poor for votes and commit random acts of fraud on election day. MAYBE…..
Comment by C-BS — December 13, 2005
I can only surmise from this bizarre retort that you like to C and hear your own BS far too much to give any thought to what you are saying or care what a spectacle you make of yourself.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:25 pmLast spring I went with a group of Idiana voters {I’m from Michigan} to the Indiana House to lobby against a bill that would require pict ID such as drivers liscences to vote . What I witnessed was a kick-in-teeth to democracy . The local rep for our group wouldn’t even talk to us . The speaker tried to bring it to vote without discussion . I was appalled . This is the future of our government if we don’t regain control of all branches .
December 13th, 2005 at 4:28 pm#2 Ken
Ken I agree that adequate supervision in any working environment is important. But I don’t see the value of excluding professional review of issues relating to the rule of law. That is in essence the whole purpose of the Justice Department – that is to see that the rule of law is adhered to. That shouldn’t be a partisan issue regardless of the circumstances.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:55 pm#3 Yega
I’m not saying that those who are in political positions in the Justice Department or anywhere else don’t overrule professional staff – that is there right. But in this case, the Bush administration is saying they don’t even want professional staff opinions. In a transparent government, ultimately, any administration has to be held accountable.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:57 pm#5 Tomaig
Hopefully, respect for the rule of law is the way we’ve always done it. I think respect for the rule of law has to be our highest priority. This administration may now be bending its own adherence to the rule of law for political purposes. That’s wrong.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:59 pmHow about introducing as a law throughout the United States that all voting MUST include a paper trail so elections cannot be stolen in the future. Will that ever happen, or will the Diebolds of the world be allowed to fix the programs so we are stuck with Republicans until the end of time that they so desperately want to see?
December 13th, 2005 at 5:04 pmThis administration never expects to be out of power, do they?
December 13th, 2005 at 5:04 pmWhat is amazing is the Administration does not even hide its intention to completely disregard checks and balances – it sees the historic institutions of our government as vehicles to protect its political equities, not as vehicles to protect Americans’ fundamental rights.
Sen. Daschle,
I sometimes get the feeling that the progress we have made over the last 70 years has been swept away by a tsunami of cynical Republican power-grabs.
What steps, besides gaining a Democratic majority in the House and Senate in 2006 and 2008, and possibly the WH in ‘08, are necessary to undo the damage and erosion of our fundamental rights, as well as the other hard fought progress? Is it even possible to do so in my lifetime, and if it is, how long will this take?
December 13th, 2005 at 5:07 pmThanks for your time Senator. We really do appreciate the effort you have made to speak here.
December 13th, 2005 at 6:16 pmMr. Daschle.
I give you credit for posting here, and you have many supporters here.
I am not among them. I think you were weak, and you sold out the democrats by handing unlimited power to the Bush administration, and I think the reason you lost your seat in 2004, is because you lost your way.
Since I am not one of your constituents, my voice is probably not very important to you, but I can tell you, it will take a lot, to ever make this liberal, and those who think like me, ever believe in a man like you again.
Democrats like you and Joe Lieberman, are the reason the Democratic Party is faltering, and has been unable to speak with a clear consistent voice. You give the opposition power by pandering to them.
If you want the support and respect of people who think like me, if you want our respect, then get behind Howard Dean, and support him with one voice. That’s all you need to do.
He is supposed to be the leader now of the party, and he says everything that needs to be said, problem is, none of you are listening.
Thank you if you took the time to read this.
December 13th, 2005 at 8:32 pmWell, if that doesn’t get me booted, nothing will :|
December 13th, 2005 at 8:46 pm[...] In doing my scan of the leftist blogs, I ran into Tom Daschle at Think Progress. He wrote a piece called In The Bush Administration, Political Interests Triumph Over Fundamental Rights. It’s good to be back online with you all. [...]
December 13th, 2005 at 10:23 pmOf course democrats wouldn’t want a photo ID be required to vote, it would stop illegal immigrants from voting. People who have no right to vote. I wonder why democrats would want illegal immigrants to be able to vote?
December 13th, 2005 at 11:06 pmThe people have spoken…Tom,you’ve embarrassed us enough. Maybe France has a spot for you.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:08 amSenator Daschle, with all due respect, when are you dems in congress going to start growing a backbone and calling Bush and his cronies what they are: LIARS? Not… misleading… not manipulating…. LYING… “we know where the weapons are”. “We know without a doubt that saddam hussien has WMD”. These are lies and you need to call them what they are, and you need to do it loudly and repeatedly. You should very publicly tell Dick Cheney that if he truly never lied about Iraq, to come give SWORN testimony and answer questions in front of congress about the way intelligence was selectively ignored. If hes truly telling the truth he should have nothing to fear from being under oath. When are you going to start bringing large pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussien to the senate floor and asking your opponents: “why are the very same Bush administration officials who sold this man chemical weapons now so convinced that americans should die to help his enemies in Iran”? You need to start saying the truth, that the people who are taking over Iraq now are radical islamic fanatics influenced by Iran, who will quickly turn a democracy into a radical islamic theocracy who will likely soon join its neighbor Iran in calling for the destruction of israel. You need to talk about the history. You need to be very blunt, and stop being polite with these people. They are monsters that are systematically destroying this country and the system of checks and balances that makes this country great. You’re not ever going to win if try to “play fair” with them. If you, our leaders, arent going to speak up, who is? A supreme court justice came and spoke at our law school a few weeks ago… I asked him how he would define “victory” in the “war on terror”.. he didnt have an answer for me. If you, the politicans, don’t speak up about what a cheap charade this regime is engaging in, who will? The “war” on “terror” will never be won. Have you ever read 1984?
For christ sakes, bring pictures of mangled iraqi children to the senate floor. Tell them “people around to world are seeing pictures like this all the time and fairly or not, they blame us… is this how we are going to win a war”? You need to start talking about how Hussien (secular) and Bin Laden (radical islamist) were actually enemies, and that Bush and co had that information and chose to ingore it.
Sir, I am not being melodramatic when I say that the fate of the world vert likely rests on whether enough people in positions of authority in this country will have the bravery to speak up, and not be afraid to say the emperor has no clothes.
I hope you and your fellow politicans will find the courage to be amongst them.
- john deek
December 14th, 2005 at 1:22 amThat’s a bullshit excuse and you know it Ryan Neat. Photo ID does not equal a drivers licence. You can get a state ID card. The whole argument against requiring a photo ID to vote is a made up bullshit excuse. Next!
December 14th, 2005 at 6:44 amComment by True American Hero
Do you sell posable action figures of your likeness at your site? Are they anatomically correct or do you augment your package like chimpy in his flight suit?
December 14th, 2005 at 9:08 amThis is an absolute classic. The former Senator was good enough to include a link for all of us to read, so that we could understand the basis for his comments that “the Justice Department has enacted a policy to not even seek the recommendations of career professionals on cases regarding state compliance with the Voting Rights Act.” Those of you on the left appear to have ignored the link and simply accepted the former Senator’s position at face value. Let’s look at the link and see what it actually says.
First, the story is based entirely by assertions made by persons speaking on condition of anonymity. In other words, the Washington Post was unable to find a single person who would let their name be tied to this story! No Justice Department employee, no former employee, no member of the House or Senate, no staff member in the House or Senate, nobody! That fact alone should make intelligent people wonder how this story made it into print in the first place.
Second, take a look at who is allegedly suppressing the views of career employees; “Sources familiar with the change said it was implemented by John K. Tanner, the voting section chief, who is a career employee.”
So let’s understand what’s going on here. Nameless persons say that career employees are being kept quiet by a career employee. Even assuming that all of this is true (an enormous leap to make), what does this have to do with this admnistration’s “intention to completely disregard checks and balances?”
Checks and balances are the distribution of power amongst the three co-equal branches of government. It doesn’t mean that Democrats holding career positions in DOJ are guaranteed a voice in policy making decisions. The accussation by the former Senator is, at best, misleading. I assume that he has a much better understanding of the system of checks and balances. However, based upon comment #13, it appears that misleading people through this type of hyperbole is effective.
I’m intrigued by Ryan Neat’s thought that a photo i.d. card would disenfranchise poor people who don’t drive. What is your thought process here? Do you really believe that you need to be able to drive to have your picture taken? Do you think, perhaps, the camera is mounted on the dashboard of the car? How do you think pictures are taken underwater, by submarine? If you’re oppossed to photo i.d. cards, you’re certainly entitled to that opinion. But again, it’s misleading, at best, to suggest that the only way a person’s photograph can be taken and used for a photo i.d card is if they drive. What’s your real concern?
December 14th, 2005 at 9:24 amAs long as Bush is permitted to override all reason and judgement, by introducing computerized voting across the board, and insist on no paper trail then who can be sure who won anything?
Photo ID’s schmoto ID’s. Who cares? Cause the neat little bot that some low level repub network admin working over at diebold dropped into the system, that changes democratic votes to republican votes, based on a random algorithm, is going to decide elections for years to come, unless someone, somewhere insists on implementing a paper trail.
Now I know how hard that is, I mean after all, who could ever conceive of something like a printer, being hooked up to a computer?
I know it’s a stretch, but we gotta try. :|
In fact, I may be wrong about Mr. Daschle, and maybe he did win his seat back, but until there is a paper trail, we will never really know.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:40 pmDear Distinguished Guest Contributor, the “honorable” former Senator Tom Daschle, You write, “In 2002, we fought to protect the rights of experienced professionals at the new Department of Homeland Security because we felt it was vital that we emphasize the role of experts who are able make decisions based on the merits and for the good of the country, not for the good of a political party.” You’re kidding, right??? Union consideration had NOTHING to do with protecting “professional”?? It’s a good thing you’re not delibering these comments verbally – I know even you couldn’t help but laugh!!!
December 15th, 2005 at 3:23 pm