The Democrats think they smell blood, which ought to reassure Bush supporters. Of late, the Democratic sniffer has not been very reliable. I offer a guide to the approaching festivities.
1. The Political Question. Does any evidence emerge that the Bush administration used its powers of search and seizure against Bush's domestic enemies? If it is found that the NSA conducted warrantless surveillance of the Kerry Campaign, or Moveon.org, or the Daily KOS, that would be a twenty-four karat scandal. It might bring the public into line behind the Democrats in Congress. But it has to be a clean case of Nixonian mischief. I was in high school when Watergate broke, and I remember how reluctant most folk were to join the anti-Nixon bandwagon. I think that this sort of scenario is about as likely as a link between Osama bin Laden and Al Gore.
2. The Legal Question. Does the High Court or Congress determine that NSA surveillance was either illegal or unconstitutional? My guess is that the legal and constitutional questions will turn out to be murky. If the Administration's motives look clean (they really were looking for terrorists and trying to stop the next 9/11), then the worst that will happen is that Bush will be forced to give up the kind of warrantless searches in question. That may or may not hurt anti-terrorism investigations, but it is more likely to be a political plus for Bush than a minus.
3. The National Security Question. Does evidence emerge that the warrantless searches really helped the Administration foil terrorist's plots and monitor their activities? There are indications that Bush will be able to make the case. If so, it is a clean win for Bush and a pretty serious blow to the Democrats. It may be unfair, but in such a case Democrats will not be seen as defenders of civil liberties. They will be seen as a party that put partisan payback over national security.
* * *
Let me be clear: I think that many if not most Democrats are genuinely interested in protecting civil liberties. I also think that Bush thought he was doing everything in his power to protect these United States. But it is often the case in politics that no good deed goes unpunished. Bush is paying a cost for his efforts, if only in the greatly increased time and attention it now requires to defend his policies.
But, barring some really stupid behavior on the part of the Administration, I think the Democrats are far more vulnerable. They protest that Bush broke the law. But so did William Jefferson Clinton, when he lied to a grand jury. What was Clinton's motive? To cover up his sexual misbehavior. The Republican House impeached him, while the Democrats vociferously defended him. It didn't go too well for the former.
If Bush too broke the law, what was his motive? It was, apparently, to make sure that more Americans are not blown out of their socks by a terrorist bomb. Some Democrats are already whispering the word "impeachment." As we roll toward the next Congressional election, lets see how that debate plays out.
UPDATE
Powerline is providing excellent commentary on the legal and constitutional questions.
Recent Comments