Continued from Page 1
ePluribus Media: But what distinguishes you from him? He's still viewed as leaning left.
SW: Let me give you a big difference. He has announced in the local
paper that he would support the George Bush plan to index Social Security benefits, reducing Social Security benefits for the middle class. I would not do that. As I said earlier, I think it's just unfair to be cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans while you are cutting Social Security benefits for middle-class Americans. The leadership vote is significant, the Social Security vote is significant, and he continues to support Bush on things like Bolton and on judges and so forth. There are a lot of points of differentiation, but the biggest are the leadership votes and Social Security.
ePluribus Media: He came out late on Bolton, but ultimately he supported Bolton's nomination.
SW: He did. He came out for him on various occasions.
ePluribus Media: What do you think about Bolton's getting the recess appointment?
SW: I think it shows the Republican administration's "my way or the highway" approach. America clearly has serious reservations about John Bolton -- even Republican senators are bolting from their party on Bolton. He's highly controversial. I think that our military members in Iraq deserve a calmer, more helpful and more sensible presence at the United Nations than John Bolton will give. The president's insistence on stuffing this guy through anyway because of his win-at-all-costs philosophy is a shame. I think its wrong.
ePluribus Media: It seems there's something else underlying the appointment, though; there's lots of talk from Republicans about "reforming" the UN. How do you respond to that?
SW: I've been involved in some of the biggest reforms in Rhode Island in the last 15 or 20 years -- reform of the banking system after the banking crisis, reform of the separation of powers, reform of the workers' compensation system, reform of judicial nominations and ethics reform -- and I've never found the cause of reform advanced by having somebody put a stick in the eye of the institutions he wants to reform. You have to have an underlying respect for the institution in order to do the job of reform right, in my opinion. And it doesn't appear that John Bolton has any underlying respect for either the United Nations as an institution or the job the UN was created to perform. That's consistent with the Bush administration's philosophy that America is going to do whatever it wants to and won't work with other countries to try to achieve its goals.
ePluribus Media: This last question is supremely important to us at ePluribus Media. Last year in Rhode Island veteran investigative journalist Jim Taricani was found guilty of criminal contempt for not naming his source regarding the corruption trial of then-Providence Mayor Vincent A. Cianci. He was sentenced to a maximum of six months in federal court. With Judith Miller now in jail for refusing to name her source regarding the outing of Valerie Plame, do you think justice is served by prosecuting journalists?
SW: Fundamentally, the basic rules of the administration of a system of justice require that, except in very specific ways set out by law, the justice system is entitled to what's called "every person's evidence" (see http://law.richmond.edu/news/20050320_smolla_journalists.htm). So, if someone is prosecuted for a crime that might entail a long jail sentence or even the death penalty, and if a journalist has information proving he's innocent, you want to get that information out. There is a difficult balance between the right of the people to have a system of justice where it's possible to get evidence needed to determine whether crimes have been committed, and the very laudable desire of journalists to protect their sources in order to be effective checks on government. But I don't think it's a one-sided question; you have to pick those very carefully to find the right answers.
ePluribus Media: The perception among journalists is that unnamed sources are, or ought to be, subject to the same confidentiality as the doctor-patient privilege. As a former district and state attorney-general, you have an inside view of the matter. Is it really two-sided? Is there really a privilege that needs to be protected constitutionally?
SW: At present there is no newsperson's privilege in the same way that there's a doctor/patient privilege.
ePluribus Media: Not really, although 30 or so states have some type of shield law.
SW: When it's passed by statute, then of course it's created. Then the legislature is free to create an appropriate statute. Unless and until that happens nationally, journalists are subject to the law of the land and should play by the established rules. The fight should be to get the determination made as to when and where the shield law or newsperson's privilege is appropriate.
ePluribus Media: Our conversation will be published for a very large Internet audience. Would you like to make any closing comments before we go?
SW: Yes. I'm glad you're out there! I was chairman of the Dean campaign here in Rhode Island, and I've seen first-hand how effective the Internet community can be in effecting change and driving public policy. I think you are an important force in our country and I wish you well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sheldon Whitehouse's campaign Web site is Sheldon Whitehouse for U.S. Senate.
For a sneak preview of ePluribus Media's Discussion site, join us at ePluribus Media Community.
ePluribus Media Credits
Special Thanks to ePluribus Media researchers Silence and Biblio.
Other ePluribus Media contributors include:
Nybri, SusanG, silence, Sue, JeninRI, Cho, Standingup, Aaron Barlow, DEFuning, avahome, KT, intranets and kfredPhoto Credits: Sheldon Whitehouse for U.S. Senate and Rhode Island Quality Institute