Stop the Disingenuousness!

Democrats' disingenuousness bugs me. Take John Bolton’s confirmation hearing as an example. Why do Democrats bork Bolton? Because they dislike Bush, and they want to serve him up a political defeat. Bolton is merely and extension of this battle.

Instead of making the Bolton confirmation about consequential things, e.g., his approach to diplomacy or his theories on foreign policy, Senators like Joe Biden have made the Bolton confirmation into a inquiry of alleged tantrums in a hotel in Moscow 25 years ago, or, more recently, why Bolton forgot to mention that he had been interviewed by a investigator about the "yellow cake uranium" statement in President Bush’s state of the union address. Could it be because Bolton had nothing to do with those words in The State of The Union speech and understandably forgot? Yes, that seems likely, but such lapses of memory about inconsequential minutia – these are the things of character! That’s right mister "I plagiarized my presidential campaign speeches from a British politician," lecture us about character! Tell us about this administrations lack of character!

But democrats have to do it this way, the strait up Bush-lied-kids-died approach just lost them the 2004 election. You see, this whole last election cycle was a referendum on Bush's neo-Wilsonian foreign policy, and miraculously Bush won. Since their straight-forward approach lost, Democrats have to try something else. They have to be sneaky! Thus They resort to concocting disingenuous arguments against Republicans that, just maybe they can get people to agree with. Sure, it may not be what Democrats actually think-- but if it's effective, who cares?

This whole forgetting-about-some-interview tempest in a teapot is only the Democrats' latest disingenous argument. The old reason for filibustering Bolton was Democrats like Biden didn’t have access to all of Bolton’s papers, memos, etc. You see, Democrats have this crazy theory that Bolton was requesting intelligence intercepts in order to dig up dirt on coworkers within the State department with whom he had had personal conflicts. At least that’s what they said. The administration responded that there were no intercepts that had anything to do with the individuals that Democrats identified as potential victims of Bolton's bullying. Democrats remain undeterred, using the refusal to release those documents as justification for filibustering Bolton. It's a cleaver strategy: Make outrageous and unprecedented demands for classified documents, and then, when the demands are rightly denied, claim the administration is hiding something.

Don't be fooled. Democrats have no idea what they are looking for. This is a fishing expedition, and the Bush administration has correctly decided it will not fold. As a result Democrats continue to filibuster and a recess appointment looks imminent.

Now we're seeing the same thing with Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts. Roberts, by all accounts, is one of the most capable appellate advocates that has ever lived. He graduated first in his class from Harvard Law, and has the respect of both liberal and conservative legal academics alike. He also has the publics support and seems very amiable. This leaves little wriggle room for Democrats who, if they could, would attack him straight on. But, because attacking Roberts would likely cost them politically, instead of being forthright they use legerdemain, pretending that their problem isn't with The Supreme Court shifting to the right, but with accessing Robert's Justice department memos and papers.

This complaint comes just days after The Bush administration released 75,000 documents related to John Roberts service in the Reagan administration (a courtesy not at all required by law). Do you think that Democrats and their staffers have read all 75,000 pages in the last two or three days. Who knew memos and the like could be such page-turners?

Now, one may ask: If there is nothing to hide, why not release all of the documents? The answer is this: In a high profile advisory position, the advisor needs to know his opinions are protected by confidentiality, otherwise he will be reluctant to talk openly and honestly. What if he believes an unpopular position to be correct and wants to advocate it, but, realizing he has no confidentiality, is scared of a potential media firestorm? What if there are major differences of opinion—such as in the Reagan administration—and he believes that what he advocates will be used to paint a picture of political infighting and power grabbing? He is scared to undermine those who have trusted him, but at the same time, those who have trusted him need to hear his honest unreserved judgments and opinions.

There are good reasons for confidentiality, and no doubt Democrats well understand some of them. But they also understand that the why-don't-you-release-those-classified-documents refrain is a more effective and easier argument to make than the less-well-understood arguments for confidentiality. And that is exactly what's so irritating about what they're doing. Democrats aren't making an argument for the principle of transparency -- they are making their current argument out of political expediency. Right now they want to damage Bush and his agenda through Bolton and Roberts. Don't be surprised if when a Democrat becomes president, Democrats suddenly discover the importance of confidentiality (just as they discovered the importance of the filibuster). That's because what they are doing now is disingenuous, it's cheep and --if I haven't already mentioned it-- it bugs me.