The Un-Takeover

I just finished reading Charlie Savage's "Takeover." Strongly recommended. Four stars (out of five - and I forget the last time I gave a five.)

The author is the Boston Globe writer who first drew mainstream attention to yet another abusive and democracy-killing practice of the bush administration, namely the president's proclivity for "signing statements." These are annoying - really snotty - little appendages to the laws passed by our Congress. They are crafted by ideological little low-minded lawyer-vermin beholden to the concept of the president-uber-alles, to the general effect that Congress has no authority over the president and thus he will defy some details of the law.

Savage rightly earned a Pulitzer for his efforts in publicizing this imperialistic program in defiance of our former democracy. The disgust for this practice, especially favored by one dick cheney, is not confined to progressives and liberals. The only group seemingly supportive (more accurately mute - this once) of the concept that the president can more-or-less wing it when it comes to obeying the law is the inbred, DNA-challenged set hiding out in the cellar chanting their mantra with hands over ears: george channels god, mumbles on-camera the same sort of garble as aunt matilda, who actually attended high school once, and thus could never be wrong.

Luckily, there are those like Savage, inclined to channel and attempt to deal with reality.

"Takeover" is a terrific exposition of the execrable progress of the multi-decade program of Executive Office takeover of control and erosion of the checks-and-balances form of government the founders tried to pass on to us. There have been brief hiatuses, e.g., in response to the criminal transgressions of the Nixon cabal. Of course that cabal was nothing compared to the last seven years of full-out corruption, Congressional cowardice, and a virtual coma when it comes to the supposed Fourth House, i.e., independent media aggressively acting on check on government abuse. (Totally contemptible performance and makeup of "justice" branch noted below.)

But, as Savage makes ever so clear, even the most enlightened of our presidents (whoever you might crown) has almost inevitably found a way to enlarge the power of the White House. I promise you will be schooled by this book. The greedy aggrandisement of power is not limited to the obvious bad guys. It is a seeming hazard of the job. And one of the big messages of the book is that once a power-grab (e.g., egregious signing statements) has been gotten away with, it is awfully hard to undo the damage. That newly-aggrandized power hangs around to be abused in yet new ways for succeeding administrations.

Frankly, I am not any more happy with the idea of a Democratic administration coming in and having far more power than was intended when our country was founded. Even if I got my wish and John Edwards became president, I want him in a balanced relationship with Congress and the Judiciary. (Regardless of the obviously corrupt and criminal nature of several of our Supreme Court justices of late, conflicted of interest, paid off, and having testified dishonestly in their confirmation hearings. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are conspicuously shameful blots on the history of the Supreme Court.)

But one take-home conclusion is that cheney's involvement has elevated the grasping for dictator/despotic powers for the president to a wholly new level. The man was obviously born in the wrong country and time; he'd no doubt have chided Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini for their pettiness in settling for so little power. Has there ever been such an authoritarian, so totally antagonistic to the form of government so intensely fought for when our country was founded, in such a position of power?

The book reminds me that it is helpful to repeatedly re-visit this material. I know I have self-doubts at how often the material I am reading, in book form or on-line, seems repetitious - what's the point of going over this again? Cohorts are not shy about expressing their similar despair at the value of processing the same material over and over. But I offer that if you are a proper activist in the sense of gathering your own information on any subject (politics in this case), a superbly-connected thesis of the sort Savage presents in Takeover can be highly provocative and inspiring. I encourage you to take this book on.

One more item to personalize and further endorse the idea that this book will almost certainly provide you with detail and story-line you might have missed. Savage has great coverage of the high-tension recovery-room faceoff between patient Ashcroft and sleazy WH thugs Card and Gonzales, with Comey (acting Atty General) present. This was all about trying to get the Dept. of Justice to once-again sign off on what was almost-certainly illegal monitoring and spying on communications being done at White House behest. It is almost irrefutable from the goings-on that the most vital purpose was to expand presidential powers. Secondary purpose was to cover up bush administration lawbreaking. Third, the ability to spy on and provide information to harrass domestic foes. Somewhere way down the list was the purpose for which Congress was originally told this illegal wiretapping and overt snooping was intended, i.e., anything even vaguely resembling fighting terrorism. Even after perusing no fewer than a dozen different accounts of this hospital-room massacree, I greatly valued this one.

But that personal note, you ask? I'd been skeptical in prior readings about the actual mortal state of Mr. Ashcroft. I never liked what I knew of the man, to get cards on table. He had a good long swine history (and from what I can tell he has re-upped in that category). I don't recall reading details of his malaise or surgery, but the fact that he sat up and gave the jackals from the WH a proper going-over inclined me to think his medical issues might have been overplayed. I did indeed applaud his support of the idea that the DoJ should be making the calls on legality and hence his resistance to WH criminality.

But I confess I might have been insensitive or even lacking in empathy (a la george and dick, the unreconstructed playground bullies?) in prior readings of this affair. This time around, I read the words "gallstone pancreatitis" in an entirely different way.

As some are aware, we recently sweated through an emergency gall bladder removal for one of our cocker spaniels. I found the life-threatening aspect of that and tension over the procedures and choices that we experienced quite chastening when I re-encountered Ashcroft-on-the-bed via Savage. My personal research in the aftermath aroused me to the implications of the "gallstone" aspect in particular, together with the overall risks involved. The description as "heroic" for that hospital-bed diatribe now has my full approval. I'm glad Ashcroft and Minnie survived their respective ordeals. Pics are of our dog in early distress, apparently experimenting with all manner of previously-unthought-of contortions in hopes of easing discomfort.

Get yourself a copy of Takeover. And renew your vows for checks and balances! It's going to be a long slog to undo all the cheney-bush criminality.