Thursday, Feb. 1, 2001 | 10:38 a.m.
Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.
I KNEW there was a good reason I have stayed a Republican all these years.
It certainly hasn't been the GOP's attitude about not allowing the government to invade our personal lives, because that idea has been stood on its head, even more so in the first two weeks of President George W. Bush's administration.
And I am certain I didn't stay in the party because of its adherence to the principle of states' rights, a concept that works to protect the property rights of major corporate donors, but when it comes to shoving nuclear waste down the throats of Nevadans it becomes some archaic concept destined for the scrap heap of political roadkill.
No, the reason I stayed a member of the Republican Party is because I admire those people so much for the way they are so organized in their ability to hate. OK, so that's not a good enough reason to stay in the party of Abraham Lincoln, but there is always reason for hope and that, I suppose, is what keeps me coming back.
But back to this hate thing for a moment. President Bush made it crystal clear this week that all this talk about the motivation for President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is just that -- talk. President Bush was adamant in his belief that the pardon authority is absolute and unequivocal and that he would be the last person to quibble, partly to protect his own prerogatives and also to protect that of future presidents.
The president is absolutely right in telling others to shut up and get a life, even though those acting on his behalf have already done all they could to discredit Clinton and his history-setting approval ratings. They just can't stand the thought that he went out on top and continues to stay there. Someone should tell them that the United States has a new president and that we ought to pay attention to what he is doing because we just might not like the pain when the ether wears off.
While we are at it, someone should set the record straight about Marc Rich, because what we have been spoon-fed by the Republicans through the media is not what really is. There are plenty of pardons that presidents have granted -- try the first President Bush's pardon of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, a decision that shut down the Iran-Contra investigation and probably saved W's dad a whole lot of personal aggravation -- that have not set well with the public and the pundits. But the fact remains that it is their right, and they are the people who must live with the consequences.
As for Rich, a little bit of speculation built on a mountain of facts would leave most reasonable people to conclude that not only did President Clinton do the right thing, but so would have his successor if given the opportunity, despite his protestations to the contrary.
Has it struck anybody as odd that the most controversial person who did not get a pardon, and who deserved it based on any reasonable reading of the facts, was Mike Milken? And Marc Rich did get one?
Has it registered on the minds of the naysayers that any money donated to the Democrats by Rich's ex, Denise, paled in comparison to the millions forwarded to Democratic coffers by billionaire and major Milken supporter Ron Burkle? If money was the motivator, Mike would be a pardoned man by now.
For those of us who fully expected Milken to walk among the free by Jan. 20, it came as quite a shock that the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and half of Wall Street brought out the big guns and pointed them at the president's head if he even thought about signing that pardon.
If the Rich case was so egregious, one can only assume that those same guns would be turned on Clinton again should he even think about leniency and that he would respond the same way to the same pressure. The obvious answer begs the question.
I'll bet that the Justice Department not only didn't oppose the pardon but, probably, considering all the facts and circumstances, encouraged President Clinton to act the way he did. That's the only reading of this thing that makes sense. I'll also be willing to wager a small amount -- if Congress will still allow it -- that the facts in the Rich case cried out for justice because of an overzealous and obnoxious prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani who acted true to his own ambitions and false to the concept of justice in this case.
Since the people pushing so hard for Marc Rich's freedom included top Republican lawyers, including Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, it is not difficult to conclude that had President Clinton not acted the way he did, President Bush would have been pressured to do so.
Since none of us know all the facts, although I am quite certain I am close to what really happened, it does this country no good to waste so many hours on radio and television and so much newsprint casting false impressions that tend to undermine the president's constitutional authority. Haven't we had enough of that for awhile?
What all this has done is deflect the appropriate criticism away from too narrow-minded people such as John Ashcroft and issues such as federal dollars hurdling the line that separates church and state -- both matters of far more significance than any single pardon.
And maybe that is why all this has happened. The GOP is so good at offense and the Democrats are so bad at defense that Americans find it difficult not to believe in the worst of us even when they would rather believe in the best this country has to offer.
I would love for President Clinton to tell the people why he pardoned Marc Rich because, if I am right, that would give the lie to all that has been done to make this matter smell so badly. But if he doesn't, I will understand that, too.
In that, he agrees with President Bush. The presidential pardoning authority is not a matter for second guessing.
So sayeth the Constitution. So should sayeth the rest of us.
archive
