4 ms·

Then why didn't they pick Tribe? The problem isn't that Sunstein doesn't have the legal chops. The problem is that Sunstein has gone on record (and written a bo

Then why didn't they pick Tribe? The problem isn't that Sunstein doesn't have the legal chops. The problem is that Sunstein has gone on record (and written a book) supporting governmental overreach. You're hiring yes-men to do your "independent review".

tptacek 13y ago
This is the "purity test" theory of public policy. It's easy to be the kind of scholar that Obama (or Bush) can put on any panel; just shut up. Don't write anything ambitious or controversial. The idea that Cass Sunstein is a "yes man" for Obama is laughable. If anything, it's the other way around. You will also find in the work of most constitutional scholars something to upset any message board anarcho-libertarian, because very few of them believe in the black-letter absolutism that anarcho-libertarians choose to evaluate the Constitution in. You think there's nothing in Tribe's record to argue with? He's a gun control supporter, for one. You think pundits wouldn't be calling him an "Obama yes-man"?
- arjunnarayan 13y ago
  You're right. I concede that Cass Sunstein is not the problem on the panel. And acknowledge the very troubling "shut up and say nothing" outcomes that my viewpoint has on anyone with any sort of ambition of public office. But I'm still not convinced that the panel is anywhere near independent given the rest of the crew such as Morell and Richard Clarke.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I don't think the panel is ideologically independent at all, and rather doubt such independence was a goal of the panel to begin with. I don't think the panel is being run for "your" benefit. (I appreciate how gracious your comment was. Thank you.)
- rhizome 13y ago
  I don't think the critique is whether they are a "Yes Man for Obama," but what their body of work shows about their inclinations regarding the topic at hand, that they and Obama are both pointers to the addresses of these activities and the goal is to prevent the activities from being garbage-collected. In a manner of speaking, and metaphors are lossy.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Ok, just to be clear, the comment I actually replied to ends with You're hiring yes-men to do your "independent review".
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Right, and your rhetorical leap was in applying the concept of a yes-man to Obama himself. The quote: The problem is that Sunstein has gone on record (and written a book) supporting governmental overreach. You're hiring yes-men to do your "independent review". An issue at hand is whether the group will merely be researching means by which the ends can be maintained, that they are yes-men for the activities, the same way Obama appears to be. It's reasonable to question whether they have the same master, that they aren't truly independent.

tptacek 13y ago

This is the "purity test" theory of public policy. It's easy to be the kind of scholar that Obama (or Bush) can put on any panel; just shut up. Don't write anything ambitious or controversial. The idea that Cass Sunstein is a "yes man" for Obama is laughable. If anything, it's the other way around. You will also find in the work of most constitutional scholars something to upset any message board anarcho-libertarian, because very few of them believe in the black-letter absolutism that anarcho-libertarians choose to evaluate the Constitution in. You think there's nothing in Tribe's record to argue with? He's a gun control supporter, for one. You think pundits wouldn't be calling him an "Obama yes-man"?

arjunnarayan 13y ago
You're right. I concede that Cass Sunstein is not the problem on the panel. And acknowledge the very troubling "shut up and say nothing" outcomes that my viewpoint has on anyone with any sort of ambition of public office. But I'm still not convinced that the panel is anywhere near independent given the rest of the crew such as Morell and Richard Clarke.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I don't think the panel is ideologically independent at all, and rather doubt such independence was a goal of the panel to begin with. I don't think the panel is being run for "your" benefit. (I appreciate how gracious your comment was. Thank you.)
rhizome 13y ago
I don't think the critique is whether they are a "Yes Man for Obama," but what their body of work shows about their inclinations regarding the topic at hand, that they and Obama are both pointers to the addresses of these activities and the goal is to prevent the activities from being garbage-collected. In a manner of speaking, and metaphors are lossy.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Ok, just to be clear, the comment I actually replied to ends with You're hiring yes-men to do your "independent review".
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Right, and your rhetorical leap was in applying the concept of a yes-man to Obama himself. The quote: The problem is that Sunstein has gone on record (and written a book) supporting governmental overreach. You're hiring yes-men to do your "independent review". An issue at hand is whether the group will merely be researching means by which the ends can be maintained, that they are yes-men for the activities, the same way Obama appears to be. It's reasonable to question whether they have the same master, that they aren't truly independent.