What would be “damaging” about that?
C’mon, BG, a president resigning when no formal complaint has been lodged against him? It would be a declaration that he had committed some wrong or botched the job or lost the capacity to lead (or more than one or all of the above).
Whatever your feelings about Bush, you have to recognize that such an act would “damage” his reputation as well as harming the Republican Party. Even if, in your view, it would be an act of correction or healing for the nation, it would still be a “damaging” act.
Of course, the editorials are a good step, though I still fail to see how this is anything other than any ethical issue. (If you reallly want to talk about ethics in politics, why not start with The Prince or, hell, the Declaration of Independence?)
But I really don’t see how showing propaganda to your students will do anything other than encourage academic laziness where actual content could do much, much more. Moreover, please do consider my student’s perspective that you will have a very hard time trying not to look like you’re preaching, in particular if you show this particular rant in the very first class.
Sure, Tom, it would be great if Bush were to resign. But it’s a stupid point, because he isn’t going to do so, and if some event were to occur that would cause him to do so, said event would have jack shit to do with Olbermann going on a moralistic tear.
For an education class awhile ago, I wrote up a lesson for fifth graders on the use of propaganda. I divided students (my college classmates pretending to be fifth graders) into four groups and had each group discuss this highly opinionated article on Tom Delay’s indictment. They answered a set of questions along the lines of, “What was the author’s opinion about the crime?” “How did the author communicate this opinion?” “What ‘dirty tricks,’ if any, did the author use in trying to persuade you to share his opinion?” “What do you think about Tom Delay’s indictment?”
After the groups had each discussed the questions and answered them, they formed new groups comprising one member from each of the previous groups. At this point they discovered that each of the first groups had read a different article from a different perspective (a WSJ editorial, a NYT editorial, a leftwing humorist, and Tom Delay’s statement).
I’d kinda like to do a lesson like this with high school students and with Scoot’s commutation. I think Olbermann’s essay would be a good piece of such a lesson.
Daniel
This brings to mind a Doonesbury comic from back in the Nixon days. Two investigators are listening to Nixon’s tapes. One laments to the other about there being a lack of a smoking gun and the other one says, “Yeah, if only he’d knock over a liquor store or something, then we’d have him!”
I agree. Olbermann is a political analyst and he host a show that is analysis, not news. Presenting students with several different perspectives on the same subject can help them formulate their own ideas.
So, what you’re saying is that it’s impossible for a dictator to abuse his authority, because there is no legal limit on his authority?
Because that’s a remarkably stupid thing to say, if indeed that’s what you’re saying.
Not if the dictator’s a Republican! 
Or the strip about John Mitchell, where Mark proclaimed: “Everything known to date could lead one to conclude that he’s guilty. That’s guilty, guilty, guilty!” 
No, he cannot. A vote of non confidence dissolves Parliament and triggers an election (in simple terms.) It doesn’t just remove Gordon Brown, it removes every single MP, including all the ones who voted for the non-confidence motion.
A non confidence motion has a completely different purpose than an impeachment.
:eek: That would be AWESOME!
Daniel
So, if Clinton had pardoned Tim McVeigh, your response would’ve been: “Meh. He is the president, after all.”
I’m assuming there is going to be a class discussion afterwards, and Olbermann’s words won’t be taken as holy writ. Given that, a Rush monologue that brought up equally important issues would be a good thing to play.
I’m sure that there are errors in logic in the monologue, which should be brought out even if he agrees.
What if Bush pardoned Hitler? What about that, smart guy?
Yeah, now you got nothin’.
There is quite a lot of resentment among some students and parents at a student being exposed to ideas and concepts the parents don’t approve of. This applies to science teaching and sex education also. In the current school situation, a student who does not like to think might do quite well on tests designed to assess how much he has memorized. I didn’t imply that the student was stupid or anti-academic - only anti-intellectual.
Olbermann is correct about the Constitution, which was written before there were political parties. The original way of selecting a President and Vice President was more like the way a school club might, and went down in flames in 1800. Because of this, there has always been a certain degree of restraint in dealing with the opposition. I don’t watch Olbermann, except for a few clips from time to time, but I rather suspect the bill of particulars had been covered in the past. He did mention how Bush betrayed the near universal support he got after 9/11, turning it into partisan advantage. So that is how he described the overstepping of bounds. Anyone can dredge up a hundred more examples, he didn’t have time.
As for the remedy - what else would you suggest. As has been mentioned impeachment is not politically possible. A call to resign has a long tradition. There were many calls for Rummy to resign before he finally got fired.
The New Yorker I just got started off with an attack on Cheney which makes Olbermann look moderate. This is the way politicians are made to listen. A few years ago, Cindy Sheehan seemed a wild-eyed loon - now her position is mainstream.
Olbermann didn’t say that either action was illegal or unconstitutional. Instead he said both actions (Libby and Cox) were indicative of a president no longer caring for the rule of law, and served as a flashpoint, to cause public support to corrode. I don’t know if Nixon would have been convicted or not. But the government was practically frozen during the investigation, and it would have been frozen during an impeachment. Nixon cared enough not to put the country through that. Does
Bush? Unlikely.
But government, and politics, is far more than reading the constitution and memorizing the names of Cabinet departments. The system works not just by laws, but by a set of ethical principles. Americans mostly pay taxes voluntarily. Political leaders mostly don’t stash money in Swiss bank accounts. Presidents used to listen to many voices. The majority respected the minority in Congress. Votes are usually not strict party line ones. The balance of power is beyond the strictly constitutional one between branches, but also includes the ethos of a president being one for all the people. Bush even gave lip service to this in 2000. I’m not aware of any high level leader pushing for a “permanent majority” before. That’s the direction of dictatorship, and the lack of oversight a permanent majority implies leads to corruption.
Now, if that’s not a good topic for a discussion, I don’t know what is.
Maybe Silenus intended to show it and say “Bush is a poopyhead” - but I doubt it.
What grates is not that the President excused the sentence of someone who did something illegal in the employ of the Executive. So it is basically a case of the President saying, “Go ahead and do it, if you get caught,we got you covered.” The President essentially excused the crime that benefitted him, or at least was supposed to. As long as we are throwing out “What Ifs”…What f Libby was convicted of kidnapping and torturing an opponent of the President, found guilty and then pardoned. Extreme, certainly, but it wouldbe distasteful and raise concerns. Where do we draw the line? Which crimes, commmitted to benefit the President, are fine to be excused?
[hijack]
Interestingly, ignoring the illegality of something does make it legal under the right circumstances. It’s called the doctrine of desuetude.
[/hijack]
Opposing is different from killing. I haven’t read the WaPo series on Cheney, but based on the New Yorker quote from it, Miers was not on Cheney’s list of approved Supreme Court appointees. Bush tried to appoint someone he wanted, Cheney had a fit, and he wound up appointing Alito who was on the list.
Remember the objection to Miers was that she wasn’t right wing enough.
For a sharp guy such as yourself, I see that’s its taken you a while to get The Straight Dope on MH.