Unfortunately, Mondale has decided to disgrace himself by spouting loony stuff. Rather than conduct himself in an honorable manner, he traded his dignity for spitefulness and joined the lib fray to bash the Bush administration.
It's really too bad.
Why emulate the disastrous Carter and the rabid Left?
Mondale writes of his experience as VP, serving one term with Carter.
The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.
...Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.
Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.
Then, Mondale details why he considers Vice President Dick Cheney to be a power hungry nutjob.
This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.
The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.
Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen.
The Democrats, present and past players, have really taken an ugly turn.
Their relentless thrashing of the Bush administration is unseemly at best, and aiding our enemies at worst.
I think much like Carter, Mondale can't bear the fact that he holds a negative place in our history.
By stomping on the current administration, he hopes to elevate himself.
It's a selfish, highly inappropriate move.
Past former presidents and vice presidents were much more restrained when it came to criticizing the sitting president and vice president.
With Carter, it's no holds barred. It's like a sickness with him. He's addicted to slamming Bush, Israel, and propping up terrorists.
Maybe Mondale is upset about Stephen Hayes' new book, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President. Mondale could be jealous that he has such an overwhelmingly pitiful legacy.
Maybe he thinks if he criticizes the United States and its leaders enough he'll get some recognition. A Nobel Peace Prize for him is out of the question, but some Lefties might at least give him a nod to acknowledge that they remember he once was a heartbeat from the presidency.
Mondale concludes his column with this:
Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.
I have no idea why Mondale would be proud to have been part of the disastrous Carter era.
I think Mondale has blocked out much of what happened during those four years.
They didn't keep the peace. They helped to create the mess of Iran and the rise of radical Islam. They were impotent in dealing with the Soviet Union. Domestically, they were complete failures, unless you find "malaise" a desired state.
It took Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to come in and clean up after them. It took years to undo the damage they did and the work isn't finished yet.
In short, Mondale should show more respect for the office he once held if he can't summon up the decency to respect its current occupant.
He should publish his scribblings on kook Left-wing blogs. Now that I think about it, I guess The Washington Post is the right place for his drivel.
No comments:
Post a Comment