Short Stories, Long Odds

Mr. Navarette (Dallas Morning News),

In response to your piece “… at the Democrats’ Peril“, I believe your stridently partisan logic falls apart in several key areas:

A) Everyone I know or speak to that personally has a problem with Gonzales as AG has that problem because of his actions, not his race. This includes civil servants and elected officials all the way down to Hector, my neighbor who is also a small business owner. Hector says he doesn’t like the idea of Gonzales getting to make decisions about civil liberties, because if he can justify circumventing the Geneva Conventions, what’s to stop him from also saying “In this specific situation, the Geneva Convention does not apply.”?

B) To say that Gonzales cannot be held responsible for Abu Ghraib and then immediately condemn “the goons on the night shift” is unfair in and of itself. Policy and counsel judgments have as much deliverable, pointed power in this country today as a cudgel did 30 years ago. In a time when morals and values are so important to the American public, the cold calculated disregard of human rights by a legal authority should by all means come under scrutiny. Yes, Spc. Graner and his band of ghouls all deserve what they got, but that accountability can’t stop there. You make headway in the right direction when you lay some blame at the feet of President Bush, but again this falls short.

C) Implying that a united front of Latino solidarity stood strong in the face of a liberal onslaught against Gonzales is ridiculous. For one thing, who are you to speak for all Latinos? Saying “Hurt us and we’ll hurt you” codifies Latinos in politics as little more than vindictive, reactionist Republicans. For another, why is it that the GOP only becomes concerned with championing the advancements of a diverse population when it is one of their appointees on the line? You can’t call yourself a dedicated defender of the public good when you can only be bothered to act in your own interest.

I also don’t need to tell you your implication that liberals shudder at the idea of a Republican president being the first to appoint a Mexican to the Supreme Court borders on the ridiculous. Your political reasoning, that Dems fear losing the Latino vote, is base and incorrect - in large part, they are already bereft of the Latino vote. It should be possible, in this country, to raise the question as to whether someone is right for a job without it turning into a race issue. It should also be possible for Congressional and Senate Democrats to thoroughly vet a presidential appointee - as has recently been evinced to be more necessary than ever - without being accused of obstructionism.

Saying the stakes couldn’t be higher is true - Gonzales will one day soon have powers as yet unrealized by most of the American public and be the chief component in the legal steerage of the ship of state. To claim that any questioning of his appointment is race-motivated is unfounded, sophomoric, and irresponsible. Clean up your journalistic act and stop fishing for unassailable ways to defend President Bush’s actions and intentions.

Josh Berthume
http://www.damntheman.net