Wednesday, August 21, 2002

Instapundit points me to this comment by Jay Caruso about my objections to Instapundit's "Impeach Mineta" desires.

Addressing both of their comments at once: The issue, as I had said previously, is one of misdirection. It isn't that one can't critcize an administration official without adding "and as you know he/she was appointed by Bush so it is all Bush's fault! neener neener!" and nor have I claimed such a thing. But there is a difference between criticizing their policies and calling on them to be "impeached." Impeach is an imperative verb which is, in this case, directed at no one in particular. Not exactly a constructive call to arms for action because it is calling for an action that will not happen from a group of people (Congress) who are not responsible for the person's actions.

Instpundit says he thinks this could be an issue for Democrats. If by "this" he means the Bush administration's transportation/security policies I agree. If by "this" he means Mineta, who as far as I have seen has not done a single thing in opposition to the expressly stated policies and desires of his boss, then he's simply asking the Democrats to also redirect their possible concerns away from those responsible.


As Rush always tells us, Words Mean Things. And, as is occasionally the case, Rush is right. There's a reason "Impeach Mineta" gets the Borg all excited in a way that "Fire Mineta" would not. The latter emphasizes responsibility, the former doesn't. As Matthew Yglesias points says in my comments:


This has been Bush's real political genius — his supporters seem to disagree with him almost as often as I do, it's just that I see that Bush is to blame for all the absurd and incompetent things that his administration does.


Instapundit responds in my comments as well:


Hey, I've been blaming the Administration for this from day one, and I've been calling for firings. I've even got a post on the "Impeach Mineta" piece.

This is a freebie issue for the Democrats, and I've been pointing it out for months. They could do what Malcolm Wallop did with a dumb OSHA in 1976 (which wasn't nearly as dumb as the homeland security stuff), running some very clever attack commercials. Don't blame me if they don't pick it up.


Fair enough.