Were I To Be Nominated

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I think I’d like everyone to know I, too, used to read a lot of Nancy Drew books.  The new case files, not the old set, but only because they were cheaper and more readily available.  These were the days before Amazon.  Don’t judge me too harshly.

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I’d like everyone to know that the last album I bought was Green Day’s “21st Century Breakdown,” and that I listened to it all the way through twice.  I’d also like them to know I do this with nearly every album I buy, because I respect the order that the artist chooses for their songs.  It might be important to note that, while I do buy the occasional single, I am mostly an album collector, whether through iTunes purchase or through gifts/trades from friends.  Into this you may read either an abiding regard for, or a blatant disrespect of, intellectual property rights at your will.

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I hope no one would hold it against me that I use both a P.C. and a Mac.  I understand that this kind of open-minded technological embrace could be seen by some as signaling a flippy-floppy, go-with-the-flow nature that would make me a danger on the Court, likely to be swayed by whichever side had the shiniest apps.  In reality, though, I think it speaks to my ability to see both sides of an argument.  (And if forced to choose sides: Apple.  See?  I’m decisive).

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I worry I would have to buy more suitable clothing, and possibly hire a stylist.  Since people are already comparing Sonia Sotomayor to Susan Boyle, I can’t imagine any flattering comparisons in my own future.  I can’t sing, for one.  And I think there may be salsa on my shirt right now.  Does this disqualify me from the bench?

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I wonder if those columns I wrote for the college newspaper would come back to haunt me.  I suppose they would, despite often being composed during almost out-of-body experiences brought on by massive doses of caffeine, grease, fluorescent lighting, questionable (but loud, god, so loud) music, second-hand smoke, and long stretches without sleep.  I’m not saying I don’t take responsibility, but I’d like to see the people at Pepsi on the hook a bit, too.  But maybe the context isn’t important, and it should be assumed that the way I thought ten years ago is the way I think now.

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I hope I’d have enough notice to send out some very belated thank-you notes to everyone who attended my Kindergarten birthday party.  It was at McDonald’s and we had cake with whipped-cream icing, and I was so focused upon that cake and upon the various burdens of being six years old, I may have seemed distracted, or uptight, or even difficult.  I would hate to have anyone approach a reporter now and offer stories of my ungracious behavior, particularly knowing that filtering these things with something like research is not always how the journalism world works.

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I’d like to ask in advance that my name be spelled out for Mike Huckabee.  I know he’s busy, and it’s a hard name to remember, and through the telescope in his backyard maybe many planets seem to be of similar shape or something.  So if we could get someone to send him a little memo, that might make things easier.

Were I to be nominated to the Supreme Court, I believe I could learn to live with the disappointment I’d cause Rush Limbaugh.

But I doubt I’ll ever know, since this present pick seems to be going OK.

Better Angel or Bushian Demon? Is Obama Another Bush?

I’ve left the detainee abuse photo scandal alone this week, because my basic rule of blogging has been if you don’t have anything new to say, don’t say anything at all.  I’ve now reached a limit, though, of how many posts I can read that are taking this presidential decision as a sign of the coming Obamapocalypse, where, apparently, the Better Angels that Obama appealed to in his speech in Chicago have, instead, turned to hidden conservative Demons, bent on hiding information from the public, concealing torture, supporting evil regimes, and generally being as Bushian as possible.

To everyone making that argument, I say: Knock it off.

At least ten times in the past week I’ve read declarations by liberal bloggers about how they’ve lost faith in the president, how they’ve been deeply disappointed, how they’re disillusioned by his conduct, because he’s turned out to be just like his predecessor.

Seriously?  It’s taken fewer than 120 days to forget how bad things were?  Is the GOP that slick?

Let me remind you:

Barack Obama is nothing like George W. Bush.  Nothing.  Argue this any way you want, but his 120 days so far have so widely diverged from what we’ve seen in the last eight years that it’s almost a new country.  Take the photo scandal: We have a president who, having seen these photos, says releasing them into the world would only enflame anti-American sentiment.  That, my friends, is a debatable point — but what it isn’t is an endorsement of what’s in the photos.  Instead, it’s an admission that what’s in the photos is terrible, horrible stuff — not just embarassing stuff, as seemed to be the position at times of the last administration, but stuff that would make other people want to kill Americans.

That’s a leap forward from the previous president’s position that everything we did in Iraq and Afghanistan made America safer.  Bush left office still smiling, still saying that Operation Iraqi Freedom had helped not just Iraq but America and the entire world to become a safer place.  Our new president — the guy some would like to brand “Bush-lite” — has a pretty firm grasp on how unsafe things are for Americans in the world.  He understands there’s a balance to be struck.  He seems to also understand, if the switch of military personnel in Afghanistan this week is any sign, that our two on-going wars may not be winnable in conventional terms.

Think back to those shocking days in 2004 when the photos from Abu Ghraib were first released.  Think back to the administration’s reaction.  Donald Rumsfeld eventually testified before Congress that he took “full responsibility” for the events at that prison… and then continued to serve in the same job for another two years, during which he was frequently congratulated and celebrated by the president for the good job he was doing.

This president asked for the resignation of a guy who missed an e-mail about a plane making a photo-shoot pass by the Statue of Liberty.

We have an administration that is committed to greater accountability.  We have a president who comes out and explains his decisions, who takes responsibility, who seems focused on not just results but on the nuances of world diplomatic opinion.

Every time someone starts down the “just like Bush” path, it minimizes the tangible harm that Bush and his administration did to our country, by suggesting that the differences of opinion we have over how Obama is treating the clean-up are of similar magnitude to the differences of opinion we had over the things George W. Bush decided were OK: invasion of other countries without cause; abuse of the environment; rampant restriction on personal liberty; and an almost isolationist stance with friends and enemies alike that reduced America’s influence diplomatically worldwide.

Barack Obama is nothing like George W. Bush, except that he must now deal with issues that George W. Bush left behind.  The left is likely to disagree with his tactics for dealing with these things, but to say that the clean-up crew is in any way as responsible or reprehensible as the parties who made the mess in the first place is despicable and damaging.  Is it the maid’s fault that you didn’t make your bed?

I’m not saying Obama is above criticism.  I think many of his early moves have been questionable, particularly in the area of civil liberties.  But I’m tired of seeing the debate continue without context.  You can’t say, like the New York Times did, that Obama is acting like George W. Bush if you’re accurately remembering Bush’s positions at all.  When the Bush administration pushed to limit civil liberties, they did it to protect themselves; so far, the arguments that the Obama administration has made in court and in public have seemed more focused on actual points of security.

Criticism of the president is welcome.  But comparison to Bush, though tempting, is so far undeserved.