Quick, Blame the FBI!

So, I caught this headline: House Democrats press FBI on 2001 anthrax attacks, security guidelines  from today's GovExec newsletter.  (The full news story is here.)

The upshot is that Congressional Democrats want to avoid the Harry Truman label, "Do Nothing Congress," in an election year.  The McCain-Palin ticket already beat that drum during the RNC, and given the historically low approval ratings (yes, the American public is more disgusted with Congress than with W.), I'm sure they want to do SOMETHING before November.  Hmmm... you think they could try to actually do their jobs and pass some legislation?  Naaah, it's far easier to beat up the Director of the FBI during hearings that allow Honorable Members of the House Judiciary Committee to preen on national TV, even if it is C-SPAN.

Now, I certainly don't know anything about the inner workings of the Federal BI.  I don't doubt that warning signs pointing to Bruce Ivins were missed during the entire anthrax investigation.  The practice of hounding a "person of interest" was dissected by a WSJ opinion piece here (subscription req'd), and certainly, Steven Hatfill can feel vindicated these days.  I actually really liked a previous opinion piece where the WSJ attributed the "Steven Hatfill = Mad Scientist" theory to the left in general and Nicholas Kristoff of the NY Times in particular (story here) because they (the left) didn't want the anthrax attacks pinned to Iraq or Al Qaeda.

What I have a harder time with is the second punch the Congressional Democrats want to inflict upon Robert Mueller.  Quoting verbatim from GovExec:

"We are ... concerned about recent reports indicating that the FBI may have contributed to the current subprime mortgage crisis by failing to act on its knowledge of wide-scale mortgage fraud," they wrote. "It also appears that the FBI failed to prioritize this crime, as evidenced by the reported decrease in the number of agents devoted to the issue and the attorney general's refusal to create a national task force to centralize FBI mortgage fraud investigations."

Again, I really know nothing about the inner workings of the FBI.  I don't know how they prioritize their case load, and whether fraud of any sort would ever rise above the level of drug trafficking, murder, racketeering, or whatever else they investigate.  But given that the private companies involved in the massive collateralization or securitization of mortgage loans did everything in their power to hide the underlying shakiness of many of those loans ("Bundle that shinola up as quickly as possible and sell it to some other sucker!" I can imagine the brokers saying), I kinda doubt the FBI had much advance warning of mortgage-related fraud until after the press started exploring it.  Which is the same time as the rest of us really woke up to it.

Should the FBI have known what was going on in the real estate markets?  Maybe.  Was there an obvious crime being committed?  Were there any advance indicators that mortgage brokers were engaging in fraudulent activities?  Or is the FBI just being scapegoated here?  Basically, this is another example of passing the buck from the Legislative Branch, who probably could have written tighter laws preventing mortgage lenders from engaging in deceptive or outright fraudulent activities, to the Executive Branch, who is charged with enforcement of the existing laws.  

All of which is being done after the fact, in an election year, for the purposes of political grandstanding.  Look at us, voters!  We have your best interests at heart!

Nice.

Let the Woman Be, eh?

So, people either love her or hate her. The "her" in question is, of course, John McCain's selection for running mate, Sarah Palin. No one has been lukewarm about the announcement, it seems. Democrats have been looking for any reason to discredit the woman, from attacks on her family (I'm glad to see that both Obama and Biden have called for the family attacks to stop), to attacks on her beauty-queen looks, to even digging up ancient footage of when she did the sportscasting for her local news station. You know what? I've seen LOTS of male sportscasters on local TV stations who couldn't hold a candle to her performance captured above.

All I can say is, America is the land of opportunity. She's been handed a tremendous opportunity because John McCain and the Republican Party chose her for some reason in what has to be seen as a make-or-break gamble for the Presidency. So, let's see what she has to say and see how she handles herself during the rest of the campaign.

Personally, I was impressed with her speech yesterday. Perhaps because she has that experience in front of cameras, she showed no hesitation or fear of speaking in front of the raucous crowds at the RNC. She hit her lines, and the only drawback there was that they leaked the best lines during the day yesterday. Punchlines are always heightened when they are unexpected. I was sincerely disappointed that the GOP did not prepare a "Meet Sarah Palin" video the same way the Democrats did for Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (who needed that intro, by the way?), and Barack Obama. Shoot, even John McCain is getting his own video, and most people are already familiar with his story. So, why no video for a person who is a virtual unknown on the national stage?

Perhaps Sarah wanted to perform her own introductions. She certainly didn't hold back from introducing her loving husband, her five children, and her own back story. Good for her, I say.

A recent photo of the Palin family, pre-Trig

I really have only two negatives that I've seen thus far, one of which is offered up by my wife. After Sarah's speech yesterday, she pointed out how Sarah's piled high hair and outfit, while nicer than Hillary's pantsuits, still seemed very small-townish. I have very little to no idea about women's fashions, so when I suggested that Sarah was perhaps cultivating that small town look to demonstrate again that she's not from Washington or the east coast, my wife told me that women would notice and judge her for the clothes she wears and how she wears her hair. To me, if she goes all "Sex and the City" fashionable now, it would seem terribly phony and, most likely, backfire on her. She might be in an unwinnable position there.

My only other comment, and I really don't mean to attack her family in any way, is this: I, personally, am more of a traditionalist when it comes to naming children. My own children are named after relatives, so I probably shouldn't even make this comment. I just wouldn't name my own children Track*, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. To me, those are: something you run in middle school, the home of ESPN, a bad '80s movie, an airplane, and high school math. That's all I'll say about that.

*But good for Track to volunteer for the Army and proudly serve his country in our armed forces! 

I did love the commentators on NPR last night, after she delivered her speech. They talked about how she hit a home run with her delivery and her comportment. What I loved the most, however, was how they picked up on Rudy Guiliani's line about how no one -- NO ONE! -- would ever question a male candidate about his choice to run and whether he could still devote enough time and attention to his family. By questioning Palin's choice, the Democrats effectively ceded initiative on the feminism issue to Republicans, and who ever thought that would happen in their lifetime?

What I especially want to see now -- what I'm dying to see as soon as possible -- is the VP debate. Sure, I'll watch the Presidential candidates face off, just to see what they say head-to-head. But I'll be making popcorn and settling in early to see Sarah vs. Joe Biden. If she can hold her own against a long-time Washington insider, someone who has a long legislative track record and excellent foreign policy credentials; if she can hold her own and not freeze on a question against Biden; if she can make people laugh with an off-the-cuff witty rejoinder during the pressure-packed debate when the hot lights are shining and she has no place to hide, then I will be very impressed. I would feel much better about McCain's choice of running mate if she can perform on that stage.

I think she has already done a very good job of handling the pressure and media scrutiny since the announcement. She had to know the media circus would pounce on her background and start flinging mud against her family, and yet she chose to run anyway. That has to say something about her character. Let's give her a chance and see what she does with it. Isn't that what America is all about?