Tom, although I share your sentiments regarding the Florida debacle in 2000, the prospect of either Bush or Cheney being convicted, much less led away in handcuffs per Keith and Brad's fantasy are remote. I also agree that over zealotry could backfire if the media is allowed to overdo the tried before trial images.
As the hyperactive GOP discovered during the Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent Holier-Than-Thou Impeachment proceedings, the good sense of Americans will not be completely overridden by extremism. Politics should be about policy, not primarily about personalities. Sadly, if Pres. Bush made a statement in a format of his choosing, making sincere apologies for his pre-political life he could manipulate public sentiment, especially American, for "making a clean slate". Or, as I've mentioned previously, capitalizing on the power of conversion. He does not strike me as the kind of man that can say out loud, "I was a first-class jerk but I'm not going to do that anymore, in fact, I'm going to make up for that because now the number one guy looking out for the American public and I'm going to prove it to you" or something of that caliber. Clinton made a public apology, though belatedly, and this had some positive impact, except with Armageddon-driven prudes, because he was seen by a majority of the public as out there doing his job. You can always wish an apology had been more truthful, quick or whatever, but if it is actually done, it takes the power away from the wronged, even in politics. Teddy Roosevelt used passion with great effect. Bush has a difficult time coming across as authentic, except when discussing baseball or family pastimes. FDR had charisma like Churchill, born of adversity and war, converted from an aristocratic bunny of a politician into a lion. To date, there does not appear to be any such conversion in Bush fils after the media lights go off. As Keith has observed, there is great irony on some of our posts concerning American politics, so let me add another: isn't it painfully ironic that the outcry about a president of low moral character has been replaced by an outcry about a president of low moral character - but the lyrics and chorus have changed? Though I find satisfaction that he is getting his just desserts, I do not rejoice in Bush's media trials, because of the damage it continues to do to the office of the presidency, a symbolic force in America we saw demeaned by the antiClinistas in their misguided anal crusade (and one can make the point that it has suffered from Watergate to the present, as Woodward argued in his book). A strong media in democracy is a good thing, public exhibitionism is not. We do not need public hangings of the old west or the public beheadings of the French Revolution. Let's keep applying pressure so that midterm elections are not endorsements of Bush-Cheney policy with the goal of making 43 and one-term president like 41. Until then, let him eat crow. Karen Tom wrote: The handcuffs were barbaric. Under U.S. law Rigas is innocent until proven guilty. If the handcuffs were meant as "punishment" rather than as restraints to prevent him from resisting arrest, they violated his right to a fair trial. They put the punishment before the conviction. It may even be that Rigas' defense builds on the issue of the climate in which Rigas can't receive a fair trial. Bush and Cheney are big "crooks". With the connivance of brother Jeb and the supremes, they stole an election. Bush and Cheney were, apparently, sleazy businessmen, too. Whether they did anything "illegal", though, is another matter. The point is not whether or not they broke any laws, the point is that political connections paved a rosy path for them to profiteer. The problem with any punishment for Bush or Cheney is that it would likely be in the context of crass symbolism. They would be sacrificed as scapegoats so that the system of monied political corruption could go on, with perhaps a few inconsequential concessions to popular democracy. On second thought, maybe the sight of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas being led away in handcuffs would "send a clear signal that things have changed" Justice Stevens: "One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent."
