Oddly, few bloggers are paying attention to John Ashcroft’s refusal to release a document allegedly “making the point that some forms of torture, if approved by the president, would not be illegal,” according to Andrew Sullivan. (He also writes that leaked memos suggest the Bush administration signed off on torture as an acceptable interrogation technique “with the personal approval of the president.”) Sullivan, who called Ashcroft’s response “lame,” is one notable exception to a loud silence on the subject, but we’ll defer to Jon Stewart, who, as Atrios tells us, suggested last night that Ashcroft was not invoking executive privilege so much as he was invoking the “Writ of Douchebaggery.”
Elsewhere in the blogosphere, Ronald Reagan still dominates — but the reverential remembrances (and not-so-reverential takedowns) have given way to analyses of what some are calling an exploitation of the Gipper’s passing. Josh Marshall, after discussing the Bush campaign’s decision to replace its website’s front page with a Reagan tribute (and noting that the old front page was more about bashing Kerry than celebrating Bush), poses the following question:
Now, how many days of leaving the site that way will it take before people start to see the obvious: that President Bush’s campaign staffers believe that pushing their own guy isn’t a particularly good political strategy and that bashing Kerry or grasping on to Reagan nostalgia is far preferable?
Law professor Eric Muller of IsThatLegal, meanwhile, suggests that Republicans are hypocrites for trying to benefit from Reagan’s death, considering that they accused Democrats of trying to exploit the passing of Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone. His (sarcastic) suggestion to the unwashed masses: “Just remember: It’s the Democrats who use a politician’s death and funeral for political advantage.”
Kos, meanwhile, wants to honor Reagan, but he’s not terribly excited about the suggestions put forth. “Republicans are falling over themselves proposing things to name after Reagan,” he writes. “The dime, $10 bill, $50 bill, half dollar coin, Mt. Rushmore, etc. Pretty soon, they’ll attempt to rename the capital ‘Reagan D.C.’ And the Atlantic Ocean ‘Reagan Ocean.’ We’ll invade Antarctica for the sole benefit of renaming it ‘Reagantarctica.'” Kos’ suggestion: “Honor him the way his own wife, Nancy, wants him honored — by permitting and funding the type of research that would’ve made his last few years bearable.” (That would be stem cell research.)
The folks at The Corner, meanwhile, note that Sen. Bill Frist wants to rename the Pentagon the “Ronald Reagan National Defense Building.” The second biggest building in the federal government already bears Reagan’s name: The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. “Wouldn’t it be ironic,” asks John J. Miller, if the government’s two largest buildings bore the name of a president who relentlessly preached an anti-government message? His colleague Jonah Goldberg has another idea. “How about we demolish the Reagan building (or any number of other Federal buildings) and name the hole after Reagan,” writes Goldberg. “He’d like that better.”
Finally, Jeanne at Body and Soul goes after the Weekly Standard‘s Katherine Mangu-Ward for her piece on Kerry’s statement following Reagan’s passing. She does agree with one of Mangu-Ward’s statements, however: that “Kerry was right to say kind words about Reagan on the day of his death. But [those words] shouldn’t obscure what Kerry said about Reagan during his life.” Writes Jeanne: “Exactly. Politeness is good. But it should never obscure the truth.”
–Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is a writer at CJR Daily.