The Spectacle Blog
After his breakfast meeting with Judge Alito, President Bush offered praise for his nominee and guarded optimism for the hearings:
And my hope, of course, is that the American people will be impressed by the process. It's very important that members of the Senate conduct a dignified hearing. The Supreme Court is a dignified body; Sam is a dignified person. And my hope, of course, is that the Senate bring dignity to the process and give this man a fair hearing and an up or down vote on the Senate floor.
Methinks the President isn't holding his breath.
So Rep. Eric Cantor and his backers are trying to clear the field for House Republican Whip with word that he has upwards of 110 caucus member backing him. Cantor was an early dark horse for GOP Leader, and he is popular among conservatives.
It's interesting that Rep. Mike Pence has not been able to gain any traction coming out of the appropriations fight he so honorably fought.
So High Noon it is.
Word out of the White House and Capitol Hill is that Samuel Alito will most likely not go the Chief Justice Roberts route and go unscripted for his opening statement.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and his staff were working over the weekend to coordinate and map out what will happen today. Specter appears ready, according to sources, to push back against his liberal critics and give him some running room. We shall see.
As we learn more, we'll post more.
If I were a Senate Democrat who had it out for Judge Alito, I would keep a much better poker face than the showboaters who hit the TV studios Sunday morning. I would say I'm looking forward to hearing from the nominee, have some concerns, and remain firm but upbeat. But instead Schumer, Feinstein, Leahy, and Kennedy openly threaten a filibuster before the hearings even begin. How do they expect to be taken seriously when they show their cards before Alito's said anything in the hearings?
My son and I consider "The John Batchelor Show" the one absolutely indispensable radio broadcast. To our disappointment, WRKO in Boston (THE Talk Station, as they style themselves) has dropped the Batchelor show in an evening re-shuffle. The Celtics occupy most early evenings; the post-10 slot gets a re-run of Michael Savage.
With my birthday coming up, I have asked my wife for two long-range AM radio antennas so we can reliably pull in New York's WABC.
You will be a credit to the AmspecBlog, John. Welcome, welcome!
Zbigniew Brzezinski - he whose Solomonic wisdom led us from the Shah to the Mullahs' kakistocracy - has delivered himself of another masterpiece in today's WaPo. He, like the rest of the lib hierarchy, can't stand the idea that we can and may win in Iraq. So he rephrases the "cut and run" suggestion of Pelosi, Murtha and the rest into a choice between "cut and run" (which he paraphrases to a 'relatively prompt disengagement') and a prolonged military occupation that the American people won't support. Does anyone doubt his preference?
Zbiggy says the prez should call in several Dems (such as George Mitchell) to redefine victory. How? In terms of "...an attainable yet tolerable outcome in Iraq." In other words, Brzezinski wants to redefine victory in terms of an acceptable level of defeat. Anyone who is surprised, please go to the back of the class.
Trusted source reports that a failed palace coup in December has left the al-Assad clan of Damascus in an Elizabethan state, with no safe resolution available. King Lear is dead, and the wretchedly banal and predictable children fight on for the throne.
Aged, bitter Hosni Mubarak and the unstable Egyptian Intelligence back the momentary President Bashar al-Assad, who damaged his credibility as an Arab warlord when he ordered the murder of Rafik Hariri last winter. King Abdullah of Arabia and French Intelligence back a combination of younger brother Maher al-Assad and his brother-in-law Intelligence Chief and skilled assassin Assef Shawqat, both supported by sister Bushra al-Assad, who is the vital powerbroker of the throne room; however, that palace coup failed in December, leaving a stalemate between brothers and sister.
Meanwhile Crown Prince Sultan of Arabia and his ambitious son Bandar favor a Sunni solution, an unnamed alternative to the al-Assads. Yet the Saudis lack conviction: they are reluctant schemers, filled with self-doubt, inferiority, weak imaginations.
The Sydney Morning Herald has a great analysis of the Bush presidency -- this from our ever-steady friends in Oz. From the piece, entitled "Bush Survives -- with a little help from his enemies," comes also this gem about the Democrats:
There's something else Bush has going for him: a politically inept and hopelessly divided Democratic Party in which it is never clear who speaks for it on any issue.
The excuse Democrats make for their ineptitude is that they control neither house of Congress nor the White House, which means they are virtually powerless to influence, let alone dictate, policy. But that does not explain why the leadership of the party in Congress is so mediocre or why, after John Kerry's bitter defeat in November 2004 because he couldn't decide where he stood on Iraq or the war on terrorism, the Democrats can't make up their minds where they stand on either issue.