Pelosi and the CIA; Obama and Notre Dame
There is an advantage to recording the Sunday talk shows for later consumption.
Today, I'm finally watching the May 17 episode of State of the Union with John King on CNN. The guests are James Carville and Bill "Gambling Is Not A Vice" Bennett.
The first topic is Nancy Pelosi, and Bennett declares that she has lied, lied, lied about the CIA lying to her, yes she has, oh my, but let's not have a truth commission to find out for sure. No mention whatsoever of the people who came forward to point out that their written records and recollections show that the schedule of meetings that CIA Director Leon Panetta published are inaccurate and incomplete. Bennett claims that Panetta "slapped her back so hard. She's in bad shape on this" - when in fact, Panetta said only that he could produce Bush-era records from the time period in question, long prior to his tenure, but that Congress would have to decide if the records were accurate.
Bennett's enthusiastic venom is almost quaint in retrospect, since both pundits and the mainstream press have entirely forgotten this squabble about Pelosi now that they have Sonia Sotomayor to chew on. I'm writing on May 29. I don't remember hearing a word about this issue since Obama announced Sotomayor's selection as Justice-Designate on May 26. So the "Nancy Pelosi Lied" slander was only a nine-days-wonder for the Republicans, literally.
Carville pointed out that no one is going to be able to clear up who said what in an meeting seven years ago for which there is no transcript, and that what Pelosi knew is beside the point of whether torture is illegal.
The program moved on to Obama's speech at Notre Dame, which he had not yet given. Bennett launches into a "Obama's the most pro-abortion president ever" diatribe. Carville, however, takes an approach I hadn't heard before, and it's excellent. Phrases in brackets are where I corrected the transcript after listening to the tape ("settled" for "set", etc.):
Bennett began his chatter about Notre Dame by lauding a woman who refused to speak with Obama, which would have gotten her an honorary degree... but then admits he was content to appear with pro-choice speaker Mario Cuomo and accept an honorary degree for himself, which he then trashed on national television. So not just a liar, but a hypocrite as well, praising someone for rejecting an honor he took, and then dishonoring the university which honored him. He's promoting purity and censorship at this graduation, but was silent about it when he was the one being honored in the company of a pro-choice politician.
I have nothing but kind words for Notre Dame President John Jenkins, who endured endless vitriolage for his decision to invite the first black president of the United States and to maintain that invitation despite fury from the "purists" who wanted to ban Obama while, as Carville pointed out, not raising a single question about purging the actual teaching staff.
And that raises the unpleasant question: if the protesters aren't really about purifying Notre Dame, what were they about? The simple answer is attention and money; the infamous adulterer Randall Terry was there, trying to reclaim his lost prominence in the anti-choice movement. But as to the rank-and-file, why attack Obama and not the law school faculty? There are two possible answers to that. The most innocent is that he's a high-value target, being President. But that raises the second, less innocent, question of why the protesters are so comfortable attacking this president, far more than other pro-choice presidents such as Bill Clinton.
For that, we turn to Arizona State University, which withheld an honorary degree from Obama this year (and didn't he make them look like fools), on the grounds that the first black president and one of our youngest presidents ever hadn't accomplished much. Claims that he didn't have a sufficient "academic body of work" fail - first black president of the Harvard Law review, and ten years as a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago. But before accusing ASU of plain old-fashioned racism, let's look at other recipients of their honorary degrees. Let's see... Doug Wilder of Virginia, the first black governor in the country, got an honorary degree and delivered the commencement address in 2004; Wilder had no academic body of work whatsoever. And back in 1992, Californian Cesar Chavez, the Chicano labor and civil rights activist, also no academic body of work. So ASU can bring itself to give a person of color an honorary degree, but not this one. What's up with that? Is he too "big" for you, ASU? Too big and too close?*
ASU itself says, on the page announcing the Obama Scholars program,
*Political comedian and black civil rights activist Dick Gregory often said, "Down South they don't care how close you get, so long as you don't get too big; up North they don't care how big you get, so long as you don't get too close."
Today, I'm finally watching the May 17 episode of State of the Union with John King on CNN. The guests are James Carville and Bill "Gambling Is Not A Vice" Bennett.
The first topic is Nancy Pelosi, and Bennett declares that she has lied, lied, lied about the CIA lying to her, yes she has, oh my, but let's not have a truth commission to find out for sure. No mention whatsoever of the people who came forward to point out that their written records and recollections show that the schedule of meetings that CIA Director Leon Panetta published are inaccurate and incomplete. Bennett claims that Panetta "slapped her back so hard. She's in bad shape on this" - when in fact, Panetta said only that he could produce Bush-era records from the time period in question, long prior to his tenure, but that Congress would have to decide if the records were accurate.
Bennett's enthusiastic venom is almost quaint in retrospect, since both pundits and the mainstream press have entirely forgotten this squabble about Pelosi now that they have Sonia Sotomayor to chew on. I'm writing on May 29. I don't remember hearing a word about this issue since Obama announced Sotomayor's selection as Justice-Designate on May 26. So the "Nancy Pelosi Lied" slander was only a nine-days-wonder for the Republicans, literally.
Carville pointed out that no one is going to be able to clear up who said what in an meeting seven years ago for which there is no transcript, and that what Pelosi knew is beside the point of whether torture is illegal.
The program moved on to Obama's speech at Notre Dame, which he had not yet given. Bennett launches into a "Obama's the most pro-abortion president ever" diatribe. Carville, however, takes an approach I hadn't heard before, and it's excellent. Phrases in brackets are where I corrected the transcript after listening to the tape ("settled" for "set", etc.):
- If Notre Dame is serious and they're serious, this is what they need to do. They need to get every member of the faculty, particularly the law school -- I understand that there are law school professors teaching at Notre Dame that say Roe v. Wade is set [sic; he said "settled"] law. Now, how can you -- why don't they go through and see if their biology teacher, see if anybody on that faculty is pro-choice?
BENNETT: [That's] missing the point.
CARVILLE: I'm not missing the point. It's much more relevant to a university what a teacher is teaching in the classroom than somebody gets an honorary degree. I know people who have gotten 40 honorary degrees. That's another issue. Are you willing to have them go and make every law professor sign a statement saying that they, [they would] overturn Roe v. Wade? How can you teach [the] students that?
BENNETT: Free inquiry at the university is entirely appropriate. But the point of honoring someone who is the most pro-abortion president for his life and his work is inappropriate. I have one of those honorary degrees from Notre Dame, by the way [and] it ain't worth much. * * * * The day [that] I got my honorary degree at Notre Dame was the same day Mario Cuomo gave his speech about abortion. And there was a lot going on, on campus. * * * * I'm not surprised that students don't object. There are students who graduate from Georgetown who don't know they went to a Catholic university. They don't even know it's Catholic.
CARVILLE: I think...
(CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: I think these Catholics ought to get serious...
(CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: ... and get these statements down to these professors. You go in there, in the classroom, and be sure that you eradicate pro-choice professors from the law school, from the biology department...
(CROSSTALK [Bennett interjecting, "That's irrelevant"])
BENNETT: Totally irrelevant.
CARVILLE: No, it's not irrelevant.
Bennett began his chatter about Notre Dame by lauding a woman who refused to speak with Obama, which would have gotten her an honorary degree... but then admits he was content to appear with pro-choice speaker Mario Cuomo and accept an honorary degree for himself, which he then trashed on national television. So not just a liar, but a hypocrite as well, praising someone for rejecting an honor he took, and then dishonoring the university which honored him. He's promoting purity and censorship at this graduation, but was silent about it when he was the one being honored in the company of a pro-choice politician.
I have nothing but kind words for Notre Dame President John Jenkins, who endured endless vitriolage for his decision to invite the first black president of the United States and to maintain that invitation despite fury from the "purists" who wanted to ban Obama while, as Carville pointed out, not raising a single question about purging the actual teaching staff.
And that raises the unpleasant question: if the protesters aren't really about purifying Notre Dame, what were they about? The simple answer is attention and money; the infamous adulterer Randall Terry was there, trying to reclaim his lost prominence in the anti-choice movement. But as to the rank-and-file, why attack Obama and not the law school faculty? There are two possible answers to that. The most innocent is that he's a high-value target, being President. But that raises the second, less innocent, question of why the protesters are so comfortable attacking this president, far more than other pro-choice presidents such as Bill Clinton.
For that, we turn to Arizona State University, which withheld an honorary degree from Obama this year (and didn't he make them look like fools), on the grounds that the first black president and one of our youngest presidents ever hadn't accomplished much. Claims that he didn't have a sufficient "academic body of work" fail - first black president of the Harvard Law review, and ten years as a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago. But before accusing ASU of plain old-fashioned racism, let's look at other recipients of their honorary degrees. Let's see... Doug Wilder of Virginia, the first black governor in the country, got an honorary degree and delivered the commencement address in 2004; Wilder had no academic body of work whatsoever. And back in 1992, Californian Cesar Chavez, the Chicano labor and civil rights activist, also no academic body of work. So ASU can bring itself to give a person of color an honorary degree, but not this one. What's up with that? Is he too "big" for you, ASU? Too big and too close?*
ASU itself says, on the page announcing the Obama Scholars program,
- President Barack Obama represents outstanding academic achievement, thoughtfulness, a long record of service to others, inspired leadership and a commitment to building strong communities across this country. He has set new standards for what is possible in America, and encouraged people around the world to pursue their dreams.
*Political comedian and black civil rights activist Dick Gregory often said, "Down South they don't care how close you get, so long as you don't get too big; up North they don't care how big you get, so long as you don't get too close."