Reflections From a Murky Pond

According to recent reports from The Politico President-Elect Barack Obama has selected Gregory B. Craig to be his White House Counsel.

As the White House counsel, Craig will be one of the most influential members of Obama’s cabal. He will serve as the president’s lawyer, giving him legal advice and administering pardons and conflict-of-interest issues. Craig would also be the one to handle any legal defense President Obama might need while in he’s in office.

This is not a surprising choice on the part of President-Elect Obama in the wake of a bitterly contested Democratic Primary race. Gregory Craig is known as the “Lawyer of the Left” and is yet another Clinton re-tread being included in Obama’s cabal.

Craig’s Qualifications

The 63 year old Craig is a very well-schooled and experienced lawyer. He is the protege of the the legendary Beltway power brokering attorney, Edward Bennett Williams and is is a partner at the boutique litigation firm Williams founded, Williams & Connolly LLP. One does have to hope though that Craig’s extensive qualifications are not uniquely suited to Obama’s upcoming administration.

Craig represented the would-be assassin, John Hinckley, Jr., who attempted to murder Republican President Reagan in 1981. Craig was reportedly the architect of Hinckley’s successful defense in which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity even though reports by the federal prosecution found Hinckley legally sane.

In 1998 President Clinton appointed Mr. Craig to be Assistant to the President and Special Counsel in the White House where Mr. Craig served as the head of the President’s team that was assembled to defend against his impeachment by Congress. Mr. Craig was also a member of the President’s trial team in the United States Senate and presented the President’s defense with respect to Count One during that trial.

Craig also represented Former Bolivian Defense Minister Carlos Sánchez-Berzaín in a federal lawsuit of crimes against humanity due to his alleged role in the suppression of labor union riots in 2003 that resulted in the deaths of 67 people. Sánchez-Berzaín stood accused of turning the army lose to butcher protesters in what was described as a brutal massacre of unarmed men, women and children, some of whom were reportedly shot at point-blank range.

Craig was counsel to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan during the Oil-For-Food scandal in which - alongside other grievous examples of corruption  - Annan was alleged to have arranged for his son Kojo to receive payments from the Swiss company Cotecna Inspection SA, which won a lucrative contract under the UN Oil-for-Food Program.

Craig currently represents Pedro Miguel González, president of the Panamanian legislator who is wanted in the United States on the charges of Murder and Attempted Murder. The FBI has creditable evidence proving that Gonzalez, a vocal enemy of America, murdered one U.S. Army soldier and attempted to murder another. These serious accusations and González’s Panamanian government position are a primary reason the U.S. has halted a U.S.-Panama free trade accord.

Yes, Gregory B. Craig - The Lawyer of the Left - has a long and storied history of accomplishments in defending assassins, mass murderers, murderers of US servicemen, and corrupt politicians. Craig also - based on his partnership in Williams & Connolly LLP - has a great deal of experience with punitive and/or opportunistic litigation.

These are all useful qualifications for the personal lawyer of a Head of State.  I’ve been told though that Obama wants to usher in a new brand of American politics, so I must hope that Craig’s qualifications are not suited for his new position. If that’s the case though, then the only remaining remaining reason I can find for Obama selecting Craig as the White House Counsel is that Craig is a yet another Clinton White House veteran for Obama’s roster.

Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of Barack Obama’s Transition Team was interviewed by Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press this weekend (November 9th, 2008) and she discussed her views on the transition from the Bush presidency to the Obama presidency.

Let me politely say that some of her words on the topic of Obama’s presidency were unfortunate.

YouTube excerpt from Valerie Jarrett’s interview on Meet the Press on November 9, 2008:

I must say that I’m not particularly pleased with the attitude displayed by Jarrett in regards to how Obama should proceed with his administration. I’m not alone either. Various Conservatives and Constitutionalists are already jumping on Jarrett’s gaffe as being a harbinger of the dictatorial excesses to come from President Obama. Much like Rahm Emanuel’s appointment as Chief of Staff, Valerie Jarrett’s gaffe - already being called a Freudian slip by some - does not bode well.

However, given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.

– Valerie Jarrett
November 9th Meet The Press Interview

In the United States our leaders “take office;” they do not “take power.” In the United States our leaders “govern” or “serve;” they do not “rule.” To rule is the province of kings, and America is staunchly opposed to such beings - at least within the US.

To be fair, there is no evidence so far that President-Elect Barack Obama harbors any delusions of being either able or allowed to rule as opposed to govern, serve, and administrate. Jarrett’s words and possible views should not be granted more weight than they deserve.

I believe that what should be of primary concern is that such views as “take power and rule” intimate show a certain type and level of expectations that are being placed upon Obama by his advisers, backers, and supporters. Many people crave “Change” as was proved by the recent elections. Obama may have trouble meeting their expectations while operating within the constitutionally bound powers of the Presidency.

Some secondary concern should be given to the idea of Obama at least maintaining a semblance of humility and bipartisanship in the wake of such a bitterly contested election. Neither Emanuel’s appointment or Jarrett’s comments show any such semblance and serve only to entrench the Right and further fuel the Left’s expectations of “payback.”

In the short time since the November 4th election in which America chose to install Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America I made various comments across the Blogosphere. These comments have ranged from despairing through rationally dissenting and onward into anger. The responses from President-Elect Obama’s supporters have been - irrespective of my tone - largely vitriolic, rude and/or condescending. One non-inflammatory response though has been heavily prevalent:

“The People Have Spoken”

Apparently in the minds of the Democrats and other Obama supporters since an approximately 7% majority of the American electorate chose Obama, Conservatives - and quasi-Conservatives like myself - are supposed to just be quiet and join in to support President-Elect Obama’s agenda.

OK, I can understand that sentiment. Here’s a thought though. Also on November 4th the state of California passed Proposition 8 and added an Amendment to the California State Constitution that outlawed same-sex marriages. This referendum was passed by an approximately 5% margin of the California electorate despite the opposition having spent significantly more than the proponents.

Homosexuals and supporters of their rights are currently engaged in large scale protests across the state of California. They also intend to continue to fight against this constitutional amendment though the courts system - presumably all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

If any of Obama’s supporters are so sure of the rightness and wisdom of the American electorate why don’t they tell the opponents of California’s Proposition 8 to be quiet and accept the outcome of the democratic process? After all -

“The People Have Spoken”

If they’re not willing to trust the wisdom of the American electorate, why should Conservatives do so? I’m fairly sure a large number of President-Elect Obama’s supporters do not approve of Proposition 8 and view its passing into law as an abject failure of the democratic process. I view both Obama’s election and Proposition 8 as failures of the democratic process.

If you’re not willing to tell the homosexuals in California to shut up and accept the outcome of the vote, show the same restraint towards those who supported Sen. McCain for President.