Saad Smear Might Be Smart Tactics
By smagar Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By Harry Reid, that is.
Reid pulled the trigger on Thursday, by saying that Saad had troubling stuff in his confidential FBI file. GOOD DAY to do it , if you're trying to minimize the blowback from a public disclosure of privledged information. Here's why:
Thursday was the day that Bolton's nomination cleared committee. The next day, the BRAC list came out. Also, BRAC Day was Friday--the start of the weekend news lull.
Powerline's post list for today includes a spot entitled "Will Terrible Leadership Hurt The Dems".
In it, John Hindraker, or Hindrocket, says the following:
The Democrats generally don't pay a price for ths kind of misconduct, mainly because the press covers for them.
Reid's timing, if it was indeed deliberate, makes it easier for the MSM to "cover" for him.
Before I go any farther, I doubt the majority of the MSM drink Dem Kool-Aid with the dedication of Air America or dKos devotees. With the exception of the NY Times and LA Times, I consider most journalists to be liberal but conscientious in their work. But, I also don't doubt they'd prefer, by and large, to see Republicans squirm before Democrats. One way they can help the Democrats avoid squirming is to, whenever the Dems pull a stunt like this, write about something else. For example, they can discover the homeless crisis again. Always a useful standby.
But, the MSM does have professional pride. And, they don't want it to seem as if they're stooges for the liberals and Dems. So, it helps to have the OPPORTUNITY to write about something else. There need to be other worthwhile stories floating around they can legitimately focus on.
In that case, Reid dropped the Saad bomb on a perfect day. Plenty of other stuff to write about. As of 10 AM PST Saturday, there was only one AP story which covered the apparently-deliberate leaking by a Senate leader of information from a confidential FBI file.
From a Machiavellian point of view, Reid's move might not just be good tactics, but cold and calculating strategy as well. If Frist gets Bolton confirmed and nukes the filibuster, the Dems and liberals face the prospect of a stream of Bush nominees to the bench getting confirmed.
Unless the supply of nominees dries up.
Bush can't fill the benches and executive branch jobs with his allies if something keeps those allies from becoming nominees in the first place.
But how to keep those nominees from coming forward? Well, how about this.
Imagine if you're a potential Bush nominee. You see what's happened to Henry Saad. And, you see that there's no GOP cavalry riding to the rescue in the Senate, to punish Reid and make sure that something like this doesn't happen again. (Apparently preserving the collegiality of the Senate counts more than defending the reputation of the President's nominees and the security of their most personal information).
You imagine what would happen if, once you're nominated, an old opponent, or a new one with no scruples, goes to the FBI and tells them some really wild--and very untrue--stuff about you. The FBI investigates, verifies its untruthfulness, and ends the investigation. But, this crappy info stays in your file.
A Democratic legislator, with access to your confidential FBI file, leaks to a Dem operative who leaks to dKos or Air America, who quickly broadcast it. Who cares if it's true? All it has to do is hurt.
After the crappy info gets broadcast/rebroadcast/commented upon/re-commented upon enough, the MSM will start mentioning it. BINGO! Your reputation is smeared. And, there are few or no incriminating fingerprints, and no clear trail back to the source of the leaker.
You, the nominee, think about your family, and how they'd suffer in such a situation. You call the President back, tell him you're honored, but no thanks. You got the message. Loud and clear
And, your colleague also says no thanks to a nomination. As does his colleague, and most everyone else you know. And, slowly, the pool of quality conservative nominees dries up.
If the Dems feel they can't survive an impending flood of conservative appointees, why not try diverting the river instead?
Cold, calculating and unethical---but effective. And, if the ends really do justify the means, then why not do it?
"Come after Reid" for what he did? My my my old fellow, that simply is not done! Heavens, what would the Times say! We must keep up appearances!
The Senate, you see, is a collegial body. Cooling milk in the hot coffee of the House, and all that. Yes, what Senator Reid said is unfortunate. But, he is, after all, a colleague. And, one must keep perspective on these things.
I do so feel sorry for this Saad fellow (Waiter--another sherry). Must be miserable for his family. Unfortunate, yes, definately, definately. But...well...some things simply cannot be helped. And we mustn't lose sight of the big picture.
Mustn't lose sight of what is really important.
SEN Dick Durbin just finished his talking head segment on FNS Sunday. Chris Wallace asked Durbin directly about Reid's "outing" of Saad on the Senate floor, and whether this was appropriate.
Here was Durbin's chance, as a de facto spokesman for his party's Senate leadership, to forcefully state that, regardless of the merits of a particular nominee, NO ONE should have public hints made about the contents of their CONFIDENTIAL FBI file. ESPECIALLY by responsible authorities--such as, let's say, a Senate Minority Leader .
Durbin passed on his chance. Instead, he spoke about Saad, and other GWB judicial nominees, having quite a bit of questionable info in their backgrounds. No mention of the need to preserve the principle of confidentiality.
I see this as a shot across the bow of future GWB nominees. See what happened to Saad? We Dem Senators aren't going to forcefully prevent it from happening again. So, it MIGHT happen again. And, it might happen to YOU, if you're reckless enough to come forward as a Bush nominee for [insert name of any worthwhile executive branch job or judge's seat here].
So, do the smart thing. Think of your family. Think of the whispering your spouse and kids will have to endure if another Senator "unfortunately" slips in his comments on the Senate floor. Or, if sensitive info from your CONFIDENTIAL FBI file "unfortunately" falls into the hands of Air America or dKos. As we've seen, these unfortunate things do happen.
And probably WILL happen again. If they need to.
Harry Reid simply dusted off one of the Democrats tactics from 1991. In 1991, liberal Democrats began to realize that there were many moderate Democrat Senators willing and ready to vote to confirm Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court.
What to do?
Reach in that FBI file and leak some information to the press. Then, turn the Senate Judiciary Committee into the Jerry Springer show. Lots of talk about porno movies, public hair on coke cans, sex with animals and so on.
That ought to get Clarence Thomas to withdraw his nomination, right? Well, no. Thomas decided that to withdraw would be equivilent to admitting that the charges made against him were true. So, he stuck it out and got a 52 to 48 vote victory. 41 of 43 Republican US Senators voted for Clarence Thomas (Packwood-OR and Jefford-VT voted no); 11 of 57 Democrat US Senators voted for Thomas (Boren-OK, Dixon-IL, Nunn-GA, Fowler-GA, Johnston-LA, Breaux-LA, Shelby-AL, Hollings-SC, Exon-NE, DeConcini-AZ, Robb-Va).
I guess Democrats want a rerun of the Thomas 1991 hearings. But there was no filibuster in 1991. This time there will be, unless the Republicans outlaw judicial filibusters.
This summer/fall is going to make the Thomas hearings seem like a game of backgammon.
...I picked up from townhall.com. They have a link on their frontpage to the Center for Individual Freedom, who has filed a formal complaint to the Senate Ethics committee about Reid's FBI file smear. The press release contains this bit of information about relevant Senate rules:
"Section 5 of Rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate states: "Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.""
Reid expelled from the Senate? We can only hope. Doubt the Republicans on the Ethics Committee will ever follow through with it though.