Suspicion? Me? How Dare You!

There's some national and state news — two separate issues — which are linked by two words: Due suspicion.

Nationally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is up against the CIA. The CIA says she heard all about the "advanced interrogation" techniques back in 2002. She replies "Nay!" and calls the CIA liars, even when asked to repeat it, saying "Yes (they lied), they misled the Congress of the United States."

The CIA retorts. They — they being headed by a former Democratic colleague of Pelosi by the way — say they've got documentation outlining what they said and when they said it, making no mention of much gray area. Biased information, slanted toward their argument? Perhaps. Until Pelosi backs off her statements, adjusting it to say that the good ole CIA didn't lie through their teeth, rather, it was that danged ole Bush Administration, always getting thems and everyone else into a heapin' helpin' of trouble. Aw horsefeathers, let's forget the whole thing. Right?

Wrong. Point goes to CIA. While decidedly Democratic punditry will say that Republicans are just trying to tie the Speaker to their own sinking Bush/Cheney ship — which I think is entirely accurate — that doesn't mean the rope is faulty. The usually unflappable Pelosi messed up, or, as they New York Times said, there's now a "chink in the armor."

I was alerted to the other instance of due suspicion over the weekend while out of town, via Twitter (groan). Arkansas House Speaker Robbie Wills was on his own defense about yet another lottery ethics story, this time from the ADG's Michael Wickline. "Another ethics story? Yep. I was quoted fairly and accurately. I guess I'll blog about it if I have time later today," said Wills, followed quickly by, "I welcome any concerns or comments about legislative ethics laws at robbiewills.com."

Good for him for standing up to seemingly on-going...I won't say 'criticism,' because his actions haven't been criticized, but perhaps his non-actions have been questioned. 'Questioned' is more apt in this case.

But those non-actions kinda ought to be questioned though, right? Like leaving things out of the lottery bills, and then referencing those things that were left out? Or referencing things that don't exist, like gambling-addiction programs, in the writ of the bill? In Wills' defense, it is a very large bill, one can't expect him to remember all of the ins and outs of it, "it" being the bill he authored.

Brummett has been leading the charge thus far for keeping legislators abreast of what they ought to be doing and saying with regard to Lady Transparency, who is often hailed but is more often neglected in the name of expediency, not necessarily covert malfeasance. He's always in his office, talking with legislators and then columnizing about transparency with the Lottery Commission, education, and mainly with keeping politicians out of the mix altogether. This is all while playing Text Twist. Not bad for an old a guy.

The lesson here is simple: Politicians on every level, by their very definition and mandate, are suspicious. Not to bore you with philosophical history, but Plato, while imagining his Socratic political utopia, called a kallipolis, that presiding over the country would be philosopher-kings. He chose philosophers not because they were smart or good-looking (Socrates was apparently hideously repugnant), but because philosophers in this case were judged to be the ones in the community who were most prudent, most judicious, and the least likely (as in never) to use their power corruptly.

Is there a politician out there who wants to be held to that standard? Pelosi acts offended that anyone would question her about tactics during the Buuuuush Administration. While pointing the finger, she didn't seem to consider the finger might be pointed back at her, as if being in the party of power is bulletproof. "Why aren't you believing me? I'm a Democrat! Who do you think I am? Cheney?"

One Wills quote kind of says it all for me with regard to the possibility of suspicion, this time on the subject of there being a cooling off period for legislators getting into the lobbying business, and perhaps creating various conflicts of interest while in office" He said it was "a solution in search of a problem."

It's true that you aren't seeing a bunch of legislators pushing a bunch of bills that they will just-so-happen to be advocates of via a hardy paycheck. But the "problem" is always there. Suspicion doesn't mean implication, and it certainly doesn't mean indictment. Unless legislators are claiming infallibility, which I don't think they are, then these ethics stories are going to keep mercifully rolling.

Good, I say.