Saturday, October 15, 2005
Card Playing
Posted by on 10.15.05 @ 5:03PM
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card is disputing our report from last Monday that he essentially railroaded his pick to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, through the selection process, and shouted down opposition to her from conservatives in staff meetings.
That's fine. Throughout this process our sources, as well as those of RedState, Bench Memos, and others, have proven consistently reliable in providing color and context to the innerworkings of the SCOTUS process. We'll trust our sources over those who are pushing the Miers nomination so hard any day.
In just the past 24 hours, more doubts have been raised about Miers, in part due to interviews Vice President Dick Cheney made on Fox News and Karl Rove made with Hugh Hewitt. Cheney declined to detail his insights into Miers' intellect, which he touted on Rush Limbaugh two weeks ago. Meanwhile Rove's assertion that Miers was deeply involved in the vetting and selection process of federal judges has now been thrown in to doubt by a White House insider -- unnamed -- who tells Ethics and Public Policy Center President Edward Whelan that Miers never sat in on judicial selection committee meetings while the source was present.
Word out of the White House last night and this morning is that communciations strategy is now shifting away from swaying public opinion, to a focus on the Senate. "For the next two weeks it's all about her qualifications, nothing more," says a White House source. "The Senate is where this is going to happen, and that's where the fight is."
Live From Baghdad
Posted by on 10.15.05 @ 4:45PM
Our man in Baghdad, John Connly Walsh, has just filed an eyewitness report on Referendum Day in Iraq. A sampling:
The polls closed literally a minute ago. The people in charge of security today must be letting out an immense and very long sigh of great relief!Just as I finished typing that sentence all hell broke loose! Heavy machine gun fire, nonstop AK fire, all of it from less than 200 yards north of us. I raced up to the roof with my M-5 along with one of my colleagues who has been here twice as long as I have. All I could hear him say was: "This is much worse than right after the last election."
Read the piece in full here. It's already posted for Monday.
Iraq Votes
Posted by on 10.15.05 @ 4:41PM
"During the Iraq elections last January there were 347 terrorist attacks on voters and polling places. Today there were 13." So reports Fox News, according to LA Daily News columnist Bridget Johnson's pseudonymous co-blogger "Dirty Harry."
For much more on the constitutional referendum, check out Jeff Garzik's Iraq Elections Newswire.
NYT Lag Time
Posted by on 10.15.05 @ 8:38AM
We now have empirical evidence of how long it takes the NYT to catch up to the facts. Last May 23, my Loose Canons column presented the ugly fact that Syria is, and has been since 2003, a sanctuary for terrorists killing Americans, coalition troops and Iraqis inside Iraq. The column called for covert and overt strikes into Syria to take out the terrorists in the places we knew them to be. Today, the NYT reports that, "Increasingly, officials say, Syria is to the Iraq war what Cambodia was in the Vietnam war: a sanctuary for fighters, money and supplies to flow over the border and, ultimately, a place for a shadow struggle. Five months lag time for the MSM? Not bad, all things considered.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Anything for the Coalition?
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 7:47PM
In many ways, Grover Norquist, via his Washington power broker status and weekly center-right coalition meetings, is a chairman of the conservative movement. In the fiercest storms of internecine fighting, Norquist closely follows the 11th Commandment -- unless a Republican raises taxes, in which case all bets are off.
Apparently Norquist is headlining the Log Cabin Republicans' fundraiser tomorrow night. And boy, nothing gets social conservatives madder than a chairman of the conservative movement fraternizing with the intraparty enemy. The Family Research Council takes Norquist to task in its daily email today:
Because of our relationship we have voiced our concern directly with Mr. Norquist over his apparent support of this anti-family group. We pointed out to Mr. Norquist that some of the funds raised would be plowed into Log Cabin's fight against the pro-marriage amendment on the ballot next month in Texas.Grover has spent years working to assemble a coalition of fiscal and social conservatives and his decision to aid those who are trying to destroy the institution of marriage is truly a disappointment and will no doubt split this important coalition. As social conservatives we remain committed to the country's fiscal and social well-being; we have tolerance neither for increasing taxes nor marginalizing marriage. If only that commitment ware mutual.
The establishment versus the believers, the economic conservatives versus the social cons. Could this fight take on another dimension?
Cheney Ducks Brit
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 6:45PM
Brit Hume's interview of Vice President Cheney broadcast a little while ago was significant for two reasons. First, Hume asked several times, in several ways, why Cheney believes Harriet Miers has a conservative judicial philosophy. The veep dodged and ducked. Second, when given the opportunity to quash rumors that criticism of Miers came out of his office, Cheney ducked again. In this town, that's about the same as saying "yes, I criticized her." Miers is neither sunk nor high and dry.
The Miers hearings may begin on November 7. If she doesn't dazzle the committee with her scholarship, constitutional philosophy and wit -- which is possible, but seems unlikely -- her nomination will fail. The bar hasn't been set low for Miers. It has been set even higher than it was for John Roberts.
Conventional Wisdom
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 6:43PM
Stop the presses. Walter Cronkite, the most revered figure in American television news history, offers a solution to the Democratic Party's political difficulties in time for 2006. The idea is not to "concentrate on the Bush administration's failures" but to offer "alternative programs to fix" what is "wrong with the Republican agenda."
But how can the party "command the greatest public attention for its positive agenda"? Easy. "It could within weeks call an extraordinary midterm convention to draw up its platform."
There's goods news here for McCain fans too: "The convention would not need to be expensive." Indeed, "the delegates could be those who attended the 2004 convention. Their meeting would be open to the public and of course the press." Of course.
Uncle Walter has long been a player at political conventions. Remember 1980, when he was ready to broker a co-presidency deal between Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford?
Re: Turning Point
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 4:12PM
Pop Quiz: Who would make a better Supreme Court Justice?
A: A real sweetheart of a liberal instrumentalist
B: A boorish jerk of a conservative originalist
Unless the answer is "A," I don't see what's so persuasive about Scully's op-ed.
French Whineries
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 4:05PM
If you need a little cheery news while we remain quagMiered (which I suspect is better than being beRoved), take a look at the Bloomberg report that says French wine producers have about 838 million gallons in unsold inventory. The French share of the world market is suffering from competition (!) from Australia and California, as well as Spain and Argentina. Even the hitherto secure UK market, less French wine is being sold. Another reason for the oversupply is that the average Frenchman is drinking only half of what he was in 1960. The annual consumption has fallen to a minuscule 73 bottles per year. Government-ordered production cuts threaten unemployment for an unknown number of the 240,000 people now in the French wine industry. We must all pitch in to help this weekend. I suggest a very crisp California or Washington State cabernet, or a nice Italian barolo.
Ms. Peggy
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 4:00PM
Did this strike anyone as unhinged? Yesterday, in her much cited column urging Miers's withdrawal, Peggy Noonan offered the following as one of the things the White House might do to change the story:
The full Tim McCarthy. He was the Secret Service agent who stood like Stonewall and took the bullet for Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton. Harriet Miers can withdraw her name, take the hit, and let the president's protectors throw him in the car....
Remember the liberal attacks on Ronald Reagan for supposedly confusing movie reality with reality? Noonan's gone one better: she's taken harsh reality and turned it into a celluloid moment. Agent McCarthy, a young husband and father, took a real bullet, in his stomach. He could have died. One can only imagine the pain and suffering he went through. It was horrible, not a game or clever set-up for throwaway glibness a quarter-century later. "...let the president' protectors throw him in the car"?! Could Noonan be that clueless? Has she been watching too many Seinfeld reruns? For a former presidential speechwriter, she sure can't hear herself.
Turning Point
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 2:41PM
If the Miers nomination is saved, Matthew Scully's N.Y. Times op-ed today in defense of her, his former boss when he was a Bush speechwriter, will be seen as the turning point. It turns the tables on such critics as David Frum, Scully's former junior colleague on the Bush speechwriting team, by noting while they were out cashing in she was dutifully, selflessly advancing this administration's commitments, utterly indifferent to the blandishments even conservatives now routinely succumb to. "[A]ll of us who leave our White House jobs and go on to write and trade on our service to the president could stand to learn more from Harriet Miers about service to a president," he writes.
Frum, it might be remembered, parlayed a brief White House stint into a hot memoir, The Right Man, whose every catty aside ("Missed you at Bible study") has been used against Bush. It was exactly the sort of experience that left the White House operation wary of outsiders whose primary loyalties weren't necessarily to the President.
Scully wrote a book too, Dominion, but it was a defense of animals, not a purported insider look at the Bush presidency. Now he defends Miers in the strongest personal terms, because too much of the criticism aimed at her has been ego-driven and ad hominem. The final anecdote -- in the op-ed's penultimate paragraph, which for full impact you best read for yourself -- should put to rest a great deal of the overheated talk regarding Miers.
But of course it won't.
Re: Rove in Trouble
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 1:44PM
The Rove story illustrates once again that the mainstream media are in the business not of reporting the news but of manufacturing it. Their reporting largely consists of reporting on news they've made -- events that happen only because of their baiting and manipulation -- with no mention of their involvement in the event's creation. Reporters are like people who cause car crashes, then wander up to the scene and ask innocently, "What happened?"Â
Notice a minor example of this in the New York Times' Rove story. The Times omnisciently reports, without mentioning its participation in the juvenile stalking, that Rove "nosed" his "Jaguar out of the garage" in the predawn gloom and "flashed his blinding high beams into the camera lenses and sped by." The Times can't bring itself to admit that it now operates at the level of the paparazzi. So it strains to bring dignity to its stalking by pretending like it is documenting for some high-minded reason how an important government offiicial spends his day during a crisis.
A Day of Revised Explanations
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 12:31PM
When the first excuse doesn't succeed, try, try again. Baseball playoffs and the Virginia gubernatorial race. Seemingly unrelated, right? Well, yes. However, both are quite serious enterprises which demand a great deal of attention and money in October. And both have a couple potential goats who are revising their explanations after their first attempts largely failed.
In the world of the Nation's Pasttime, umpire Doug Eddings is backpedaling from his no fault position on his call in Wednesday night's Angels-White Sox game. Following the game Wednesday, Eddings was defensive in the interview room. Now, ESPN reports that Eddings wishes that he had "been more emphatic" in calling the third strike "no catch." No apology, really. And unlikely to quiet the hordes of Angels fans. Okay, they're probably not hordes, but MLB had a security escort for him at the airport in Southern California.
Also unlikely to quiet the hordes is Tim Kaine's non-defense defense on the death penalty. The Kilgore campaign ran ads this week featuring the relatives of murdered Virginians and emphasizing his activism (the newspapers and Kaine call it "personal opposition" -- hogwash, if the guy's called for a moratorium in the political realm) against the death penalty. In the case of one ad, Stanley Rosenbluth takes issue with Tim Kaine's defense of his son and daughter-in-law's killer. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Kaine responded with "personal, faith-based opposition."
Now, Kaine's changing his story and claiming that he "spent less than an hour working on the case." As Commonwealth's Attorney Chad Dotson details, by the rules of the Fourth Circuit, if your name's on the brief, you represent that client. On Tuesday, Kaine was selling his work as principled and faith-based. When that didn't wash, it became something in which he was barely involved.
Eddings is one step closer to non-goat. Kaine has made his situation worse.
It's Official -- Rove in Trouble (cont.)
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 12:31PM
The New York Times gets much closer to the jugular than the Washington Post did in presenting a picture of gloom regarding Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of Karl Rove et al. in the Wilson-Plame case:
The result, say administration officials and friends and allies on the outside who speak regularly with them, is a mood of intense uncertainty in the White House that veers in some cases into fear of the personal and political consequences and anger at having been caught in the snare of a special prosecutor...."Everyone is going about the work at hand while bracing for the worst case," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to get around the official White House position that it will not comment on the investigation....
Why didn't the Post have access to this "senior administration official"? Or was he not necessarily referring to Rove?
'Staged' Teleconference?
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 11:04AM
Perhaps unsurprisingly, that AP dispatch yesterday claiming that Bush's teleconference with soldiers was "staged" -- you might have seen it breathlessly touted last night if you still watch the evening news -- is utter nonsense.
Cracking up? Not quite yet.
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 11:01AM
Fineman. Broder. The entire news and editorial desks at the Washington Post, New York Times etc.... All are convinced and giddy at what they perceive to be a fissure in the conservative movement (and the supposedly excellent chances the Democrats have to regain power in '06). As usual, they mistake principled public discussions of policy and politics within the conservative camp as the beginning of the end.
The left-leaning media has always been impressed with the so-called "discipline" exhibited by the Ds -- see the Clinton years -- in the face of intra-party struggles. So what that the Dems rarely air their dirty laundry? This discipline has produced a steadily increasing Republican majority across the country. It has allowed the left wing of an already left-wing party exhibit dominance in the form of funding threats. That dominance by the George Soros, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand wing of the party has also left the Democrats ideologically stagnant -- incapable of offering any interesting policy ideas. They think "We hate Bush" is a platform.
To my fellow conservatives who are dismayed at everything from the spending, to the Miers nomination, Katrina, Karl's potential problems and "No Child Left Behind with Medicare for all and to all a good night," I say, be of good cheer. Our fights are over the direction of national policy -- not over the President's trips to aircraft carriers, or what Karl told Judy about Valerie and Joe.
George Bush, though not perfect, has defended this nation. He lowered our taxes. He has been willing to take the heat from left (and the right) when it has most mattered.
I'm not saying that all is rosy in Conservative Land, but 20 years from now, when Iraq is a thriving democracy and freedom is actually starting to take hold in the Middle East, we will be glad we had the courage to "air our dirty laundry" in the forum of public discourse -- with the results being a thriving conservative movement that is still a governing majority. The Ds will still be hating Bush from an ever shrinking minority position.
Are We Gettin' to Ya?
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 9:35AM
The Qatari foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad, said today that the Middle East has troubles enough and that any problems between Syria and the United States should be handled diplomatically. In an interview in al-Jazeera, Hamad said the "last thing this region needs is another crisis." Like so many of the other old-line Arab leaders, Hamad refuses to recognize that there's one big crisis, and he's either part of the problem or part of the solution. He chooses the former by taking the ostrich position common among his peers.
One big way he chooses to do that is to equate the Israeli nuclear program with that of Iran. Again, he wants to deal with the Iranian issue by peaceful means without "any more escalation of tensions." Change is hard in the Middle East, and instability is something the old-line leaders find hard to address. Which means that the more there is among the terrorist supporting nations, the better it is for civilization. Qatar is not a supporter of terrorists. But its leaders are in denial about Iran.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council (IRGC, an acronym you will be seeing often) is ascendant under Ahmadinejad. They are now in charge of the Iranian nuke program, smuggling weapons (especially high-tech IEDs) into Iraq, and generally making as much trouble as possible. They are tough, determined, and -- as you'd expect -- very well financed. Iran is the central terrorist nation. And the IRGC is one of their most dangerous weapons.
[Correction: Yesterday, I accused Sen. Boxer of tying up the confirmation of Gordon England to be deputy secretary of defense. In fact, it is Olympia Snowe of Maine who has England on hold. Why isn't Bill Frist forcing the issue of the many DoD nominees frozen in Senate petty politics? You'd think, with a war on, we'd like those positions filled.]
More Bureaucracy, Less Private
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 8:23AM
So elation that Amtrak would be spinning off its Northeast Corridor operations was premature. The change only means that the Northeast Corridor will be operated by an Amtrak subsidiary, but with its own president and management. In other words, for now, another layer of bureaucracy. This is a first step toward privatization, but it looks like an ugly solution without the timeline of the next step.
Regarding Harriet
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 2:12AM
As one might glean from my column today, I think a scuttling of the Miers nomination is more likely now than I thought it was when I posted here on the topic last week. But it still depends in part on what the Democrats do.
Ironically, if you agree with RET that stopping Miers would be too costly, then it makes sense from the Democrats' perspective to oppose her. And if you agree with me that it's better for our side to stop Miers, then it makes sense for Democrats to vote to confirm. Thus, if one is trying to build a bipartisan coalition in the Senate -- whether pro-Miers or anti-Miers -- the task is to convince each side to read the political landscape differently.
Re: Breaking News
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 1:22AM
Ya gotta love the Al-Qaeda denial of the Zawahiri-Zarqawi letter. They say that it is the product of the imagination of the "Black House and their slaves." This communique certainly has all the earmarks of the favored literary style in those parts, what we Americans usually abandon after the 7th Grade: "Your Mama wears combat boots."
Black House, hahaha. White House, Black House, get it?
The BBC says that neither the original letter nor the denial can be confirmed. In other words, the word of the U.S. Department of Defense is considered of equal trustworthiness as the word of the Arab kid with the walleye -- who brings in a note and says that the man handed him a dinar and told him to deliver the Al Qaeda denial to the BBC reporter getting sozzled at the hotel bar somewhere on the quieter side of Baghdad.
It's Official -- Rove in Trouble
Posted by on 10.14.05 @ 12:12AM
"White House officials are privately bracing for the possibility that Rove or other officials could be indicted in the next two weeks," Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker report in Friday's Washington Post -- the same paper in which liberal columnist Richard Cohen on Thursday urged special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to close up shop and go back to Chicago and, if I may capture Cohen's essential point, put an end to the chronic criminalization of politics in Washington.
How do VandeHei and Baker know about this fear of a Rove indictment? Apparently from "two Republicans close to the White House," who told them "officials are nervous." Who might these two Republicans be? Elsewhere in the story, which touches on other aspects of "scandals" currently affecting Bush's second term, Republicans Mitch Daniels, Leonard Leo, Joseph diGenova, Charlie Black and Vin Weber, among others, are quoted in other contexts. Of these, only lobbyist and former congressman Weber is specifically identified as having "close ties to the White House." Leo, meanwhile, who is on leave from the Federalist Society to help push the Miers nomination, is quoted under the category of "Other White House advisers [who] see politics behind the recent spurt of investigations" -- which presumably means his pro-Miers works makes him a White House adviser. Unfortunately, no one other than Leo is quoted as one of these "other" advisers, unless it would be former Bush budget director and current Indiana governor Daniels, who, before he's quoted a paragraph earlier, falls under the category of "Some administration allies" -- though here too no one else is cited who might fit that description.
Presumably, then, those "two Republicans" purportedly telling the Post that White House "officials" (which officials? Rove himself -- thereby confirming his own worries?) are "nervous" about indictments are none other than Weber and Leo. But it's up to us to guess whether they're really in the know, or merely engaging in the same gossip everyone else in Washington has been sharing this past week.
That's no skin of the Post's nose, in any case. What matters is that the paper has pressed all the right buttons to "advance" a story that contains no more substance than any other rumor currently orbiting the nation's capital.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
OBL's Tin Cup
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 4:21PM
Al-Qaeda announced earlier today that the Zawahiri letter, in which OBL's #2 waves a tin cup at Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Q chief in Iraq, is a fake. (The Beeb is reporting the denial, of course, as big breaking news.) In that letter, Zawahiri asked Zarqawi to send him $100,000. Another senior DoD official told me the Defense Department is "absolutely standing by the authenticity" of the letter. Above which there is no higher endorsement.
Sounds like the world's most wanted terrorist is very afraid that his followers and supporters will burrow back into the sand when they realize how weakened he really is. And don't look for this bit of news on BBC tonight, or in Le Monde tomorrow.
Iraq Update
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 4:11PM
Earlier this afternoon I spoke with a senior Defense Department official who would only talk on background. He has a tough but hopeful forecast for the Iraq constitutional referendum this weekend.
First -- and this isn't news -- he said he expected a lot of violence leading up to, and probably on, the date of the election. Suicide bombers -- mostly Saudis and some from North Africa -- are expected to make their attacks and will likely kill a lot of people.
Second, despite the terrorist activity, he expects the referendum to succeed and be ratified even in the Sunni provinces. This, he said, should put Iraq on track to elect a new government in December. We'll see.
Thinking about the $100,000 al-Q deputy Zawahiri's letter begged from Zarqawi in Iraq, I asked him about the flow of money into Iraq and through it to terrorists elsewhere. Much of the terror funding is coming in by courier. He said we had already reduced substantially the amounts of money coming in (such as from Syrian banks). Some of the Arab states, such as Qatar, are apparently doing pretty well in reducing or stopping the flow of money to terrorists. Other regions, he said, were doing "less well."
Among the "less well" are North and South America. Most troubling, he said, of those doing "less well" is Europe. This gent was very clear: the EU nations are not doing enough to disrupt the operations of terrorist networks, including al-Qaeda. (Perhaps we should ask Jerry Lewis to make a personal appeal to Chirac.)
A Pudding Without Theme
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 3:08PM
If I had spilled my sentences across the page in the disorderly way Ramesh responds to them, I suppose I would agree with his one-liners. But my argument proceeded more solidly. Yet from the jumble he assembles I would make one observation. My argument is for depoliticizing court nominations in as much as that is possible. That does not seem to be his wish. He is for the politics of the moment. I am for the enduring usefulness of the Constitution.
Child Harold
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 1:09PM
A friend this morning informed me that Britain's America-bashing playwright Harold Pinter has just been awarded this year's Nobel in literature. He then asked, "What do you think he'll say in his speech?" I replied: "You mean, Al Gore didn't deliver it yesterday?"
Of course, it'd would be a livelier world if Gore were as talented as Pinter. Stuart Reid wrote about Pinter for us some years ago. The piece will be posted tomorrow. Here's a preview.
Meanwhile, my mind happily goes back to what John Simon wrote with foresight in June 1967:
It is Harold Pinter's misfortune to be an unusually clever child. At a time when the whole English-language theater is in one of its periodic stages of infancy, and the nursery is full of goody-goody toddlers, bawling brats, and burbling tykes, Pinter is just plain precocious. He has cunning, impudence, and wit way beyond his years, so what matter if his psyche is that of a baby? He is cosseted, rewarded, bowed down to, well beyond his deserts and ability to cope. If this child grows up at all, he will turn out bad.
A Nobel in anti-Americanism is about as bad as it gets.
Not a Trailblazer But a Conformist
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 1:01PM
The White House has tried to argue that Harriet Miers is a trailblazing nonconformist. But her shunning of the Federalist Society illustrates that she made sure to restrict her trailwalking to well-worn mainstream paths. Heavy involvement in the ABA, which is basically an arm of the Democratic Party? That's okay, she figured. But the Federalist Society? Oh no, that's the kiss of death. Why should anyone think Miers would stick her neck out on the Supreme Court? She's never done so before. Her instincts are conformist. The idea that a nominee who considered mere membership in the Federalist Society to be outré would overturn Roe v. Wade and decades of liberal jurisprudence is a joke.
Dobson, Rove, Miers, Whatever
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 12:57PM
Drudge is now reporting that Miers, testifying in a lawsuit fifteen years ago, professed her membership in something called the "Democratic Progressive Voters League" but eschewed membership in horrids such as the Federalist Society. She apparently didn't like the way Federalist Society membership -- which she characterized as "politically-charged" -- might be seen to color her views. At the same time, she said she didn't think the NAACP was a political organization. (And, to be fair, fifteen years ago they weren't as far out in deep left field as they are today.) But what the devil is the "DVPL"?
Meanwhile, the White House has confirmed that Karl Rove did speak to James Dobson about the Miers nomination (without, I believe, confirming all the details we looked at yesterday). This second issue is much more important than the first. All the concerns about what was told to Dobson by Rove, especially about her "judicial philosophy," are going to fuel a large fire in the Judiciary Committee.
For years, we've been hearing that the Bush White House's liaison with Congress is the weakest in memory. If this proves true on Miers, and the Miers doubters continue to thrash the Senate, it's possible that this nomination will get bottled up in committee or before it reaches the floor. Remember: the Senate has the "hold" process, by which individial members, anonymously and without citing a reason, can stop a nomination or bill from coming to the floor indefinitely. (Barbara Boxer held up the confirmation of DepSecDef Gordon England for months.) If the White House legislative team fail to sort this out before the committee vote, if Miers is confirmed at all, it's more and more unlikely that the confirmation will occur this year.
Privatize It
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 12:48PM
Great news if you support smaller government, better service, and free enterprise: Amtrak is one step closer to privatizing the Northeast Corridor. Now if we could only stop individual Congressmen and Senators from mandating that the rest of the country subsidize stops on low traffic routes.
Re: Harriet Prose
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 12:07PM
Wlady, I was taught early on that great things can be achieved by writing succinctly.
Re: Harriet Prose
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 12:03PM
You'll also like, Wlady, the can-do, upbeat attitude in her letters to Bush. She also makes effective use of the exclamation point: "Cool!" and "You and Laura are the greatest!"
Harriet Prose
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 11:55AM
Okay, Dave, Edna Ferber she's not. But have you ever seen a finer use of the passive voice than in this excerpt, quoted by Brooks? "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on the issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."
To CJ and Dave
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 11:01AM
CJ: It goes without saying Scioscia reacted as he did. He's already focused on the next game. Somehow or other the huge injustice will end up a motivator. But I must disagree with Kruk's ex-post-facto remark, Dave. Baseball runs on its routines. If players were constantly having to worry what call an ump might concoct next, they'd never get the ball out of their glove or bat off their shoulder.
'Republicanism on Stilts'
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 10:54AM
If the New York Times op-ed page were publicly available (for free, that is), their columnists might actually have an impact now and then. David Brooks takes a good, hard look at Harriet Miers' columns as head of the Texas Bar Association and finds very little to recommend her thinking and writing:
I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers's prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.
Back to Baseball for Just a Moment, Please
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 10:41AM
Wlady….did you notice how California Angels Manager Mike Scioscia -- previously referred to here by our mischevious Prowler as "classless" -- comported himself during and after the outright and outrageous 9th inning robbery last evening? The word "classy" comes to mind. Just saying.
Musings From Algore
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 10:40AM
I admit it. I miss Al. Has any single American politician ever had a more developed ability to both amuse and bore an audience simultaneously? Thank God the press caught his Stockholm gig.
Uncle Al's latest rant included a riff on "How America would be different if I had been elected..."
The media reported his remarks that we would not "routinely be torturing people." Unfortunately, they missed his silent musings which were later revealed in the thought bubble above his head.
"...and the lion would lay down with the lamb... people of all races, creeds and socioeconomic strata would join hands and sing... what would they sing? hmm, Joanie Baez sounded pretty good at that Cindy Sheehan thingy against Bush... that dumb bastard got his Supreme Court buddies to screw me...boy, I sure have to pee right now...drank too much iced tea again... no worry about this being misconstrued as a fundraiser... I'm in Sweden after all...Johnny Chung is nowhere in sight...President Al Gore...President Al Gore...boy, I sure tanked Kerry when I endorsed him, heh, heh, heh... if only Springsteen had campaigned for me...wait until I get to my line about Bush and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney being responsible for global warming...heck, all I'll have to say is "Halliburton" and the crowd will go wild...dude, I really need to pee..."
Federalist Fall Guys?
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 9:58AM
John Fund's latest on Harriet Miers definitely furthers the debate about her qualifications and shines a light on the vetting process, though sources inside the White House dispute that associate White House counsel William Kelley was the one who actually pushed Miers' candidacy.
Instead, they say that it this was WH chief of staff Andy Card's play all along.
More important than the tick-tock of the vetting process for Miers, the Fund article may loose some of the plugs from the dam holding back criticism of Miers from some quarters who have remained comparatively silent.
Word along K Street is that the Federalist Society is growing increasingly unhappy with the state of affairs with the Miers nomination. A White House source disputes this, saying, "Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society were kept in the loop on this nomination process from day one. They understood our vetting process, we talked to them all the time about where our thinking was and when it came time, they never objected to Miers. Leonard was one of the first, if not the first, to step forward and endorse her nomination. How could he and FedSoc not have been part of the process?"
Sources inside the Federalist Society offices say they were in the dark as much as everyone else on the Miers nomination, and that Leo, while working hard for the nomination, was no more plugged in to the process than other outside advisers to the White House. "Leo and the Society should not be dragged through this," says a Federalist Society member. "But we are looking to them to show some leadership here. If the group has doubts about Miers, they should step up and talk about it now."
ABC's Dirty Bomb Scenario
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 9:14AM
ABC's report on loose security at college nuclear reactors is more than a little disturbing. It reports that, at about 25 campuses around the nation, security was so lax around research reactors (some of which use highly-enriched weapons-grade uranium) the ABC crew was able to drive a large truck right up to the reactor. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating, but we have to wonder: where is the Department of Homeland Security (or, as Homer Simpson might accurately pronounce its acronym) the D'OHS?
Many of us have long wished for a liberal meltdown at Ivy League schools. But the thought of a large truck bomb being turned into a dirty bomb, or that some bunch of terrorists could infiltrate a school and steal quantities of weapons grade uranium, is enough to make me wonder just what the heck D'OHS has been doing for the past few years. Apparently, not enough.
Re: Bum Steer
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 8:46AM
Wlady, I was in bed too early to catch that ninth inning, but an email from my dad was waiting in my inbox, subject line, "They was robbed." Caught the replay on ESPN.com. The ball was caught, the ump gave the out sign. In the interview room, he maintained that even after watching the replays the ball hit the ground. But Jon Kruk had a fine point on Baseball Tonight: Josh Paul should have tagged Pierzynski.
Drinking the Global Warming Kool-Aid
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 7:56AM
The Post goes for the whole pitcher today, with a shrinking Arctic ice cap on the front page and alarming temperature graph after the jump. But as those who read Tom Bethell's "The False Alert of Global Warming" in the May issue of TAS know, this data is highly unreliable (which one scientist in the article points out). And the author suggests many different sources for the new "2005 is the hottest year on record" data, preventing a close look at the source. But the worst part is the lazy way in which the article raises the man-made global warming specter without comparing the years of rising temperatures to years of rising pollutants. But such data doesn't help the alarmists' case, as Bethell pointed out:
The surface data suggest that man-made carbon dioxide has not in fact increased global temperatures. From 1940 to 1975, coal-fired plants emitted fumes with great abandon and without restraint by Greens. Yet the Earth cooled slightly in that time. And if man-made global warming is real, atmospheric as well as surface temperatures should have increased steadily. But they haven't.
And until they answer for this absence of a correlation, these global warming alarms will fall flat.
Dividing Democratic Trust
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 7:41AM
Jerry Kilgore's death penalty ads continue to reverberate in the Virginia gubernatorial election. The Post pushes the issue to A1 today, featuring Tim Kaine's objection to the death penalty as a substantial wedge between him and his predecessor, Gov. Mark Warner.
They were such a success that the Commonwealth Conservative is calling this "the week that Tim Kaine lost the election." And with Kaine's new ad suggesting that the traffic solution is less growth, not more roads, the Home Builders Association of Virginia is now expected to send letters to its 6000 members criticizing Kaine. See TAS's notes on the ads here, here, and here.
UPDATE (10 a.m.): The Kaine campaign is well aware of the damage from this issue and has scheduled a conference call for 2 p.m. this afternoon. Keep in mind they tried this once on Tuesday in a rather abortive attempt. Also, the Post's Marc Fisher tries to help wrap Kaine in Catholic Church teaching: "Many American Roman Catholics reject some of the church's teachings. If Kaine said, okay, here's where I differ with my church, most voters would accept that. Instead, he embraces those teachings in his heart, yet resolves to ignore them in his daily work." Again, a lib doesn't bother to cite these teachings, but instead recites the mantra that the Church opposes the death penalty.
Bum Steer
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 2:10AM
Well, that didn't last long. John Roberts put in a good word for umpires at the start of his confirmation hearings. Now last night an umpire returns to his more typical role as arrogant regulator, gives the White Sox an extra out, and the Angels go down to bitter defeat. Given that the umpire in question initially gave an out sign on the swinging third strike, only to reverse himself for reasons best known to his hypnotist, people will be comparing his cynical, incompetent performance to that of the basketball officials who gave the USSR three chances to defeat the U.S. in the 1972 Olympics. I don't think we've heard the end of this.
Tina Time
Posted by on 10.13.05 @ 2:07AM
Thursday is a special time for Washington Post readers -- it's Tina Brown day. If there's ever been a sillier sharper super snob in newsprint, I've not yet come across him, er, her. She's a Brit, of course, now living in New York, probably dreaming that Tom Wolfe might still write a novel about her. Briefly, in her U.S. career, she saved (if that's the word for it) Vanity Fair, vulgarized the New Yorker while serving as editorial groupie to Bill Clinton, moved on to an even more ambitious undertaking with Talk, which blew up in her face. Then a chat show on cable that drew fewer viewers than a typical act at Hyde Park Corner, leaving her with only thing to do: write about herself and the "values" and politics of her Charlie Rose set. Who'd have thought that such a dynamo would end up doing her best work as a catty scribbler.
Today, with a few surprises thrown in, however tendentiously, mainly about Lady Thatcher (all those years in New York seem to have Brown missing the UK something fierce), she does some predictable bashing of Harriet Miers and psychologizing of George W. Bush and the women who serve him. She's exemplifies smartness at its most empty. Predictably, she loves to slander religion.
"The bleakest detail of Miers's résumé is that her decision to accept Jesus Christ as her savior took place at the office."
"She had shattered every glass ceiling of the Texas bar, only to be waiting alone after hours for her old pal Judge Nathan L. Hecht to pad down the corridor from his office with a consoling Bible and the promise of being born again."
But Tina does seem to like Germany's new chancellor, Angela Merkel, because she "didn't need Geena Davis's lips to become her country's commander in chief. Nor did she need the patronage and protection of some powerful male. Dour, forthright and serious, Merkel did it all by herself..." What, no slurs about Merkel's upbringing as the daughter of a stern Lutheran minister? I guess, in proper Upper East Side fashion, all shots must be directed at American targets.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Ed Gillespie Rules
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 7:30PM
Somehow we missed this quote from Manuel Miranda reported in the New York Sun: "I think Ed Gillespie is way out of his league. He's running this as if it's a campaign."
Miranda was referring to Gillespie's serving as an adviser on the Harriet Miers nomination. Miranda, who has a number of axes to grind against a number of Republican establishment and conservative types (he was a victim of political infighting in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was forced out of his position in the Senate), including Senator Orrin Hatch, has in classic Inside the Beltway fashion created a job for himself as judicial adviser to the Bush Administration whether they know it or not. But he shouldn't be taking pot-shots at or second guessing in the press a fellow like Ed Gillespie.
There are few in this town who could dispute that Gillespie did a bang-up job for Dick Armey and House Republicans back in the 1990s, or for Republicans nationally in the 2000 or 2004 elections. He by all accounts did a fine job with John Roberts. He surely is doing the best he can with Harriet Miers.
Yes, the Miers nomination is being treated like a campaign in the same way the Roberts nomination was treated like a campaign, and the way the Fed Chairmanship will be treated like a campaign. The difference is Gillespie this time may not have a great candidate. And by all accounts from folks who have spoken to Gillespie in both public and private settings, while he is loyal and doing the best he can for the Administration that has asked him to help, he has also been realistic, frank, and good natured about the Miers fight with his fellow conservatives. If only Miranda were capable to doing the same, we'd all be better off.
A Franc, a Mark, a Buck or a Pound?
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 7:19PM
Okay, last post of the day. Maybe. I hope.
The discussion of the Ayman al-Zawahiri letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- OBL's deputy to his putative subordinate in Iraq -- is ignoring one critical aspect of it. Yes, it shows al-Qaeda is under enormous pressure. Yes, it shows how al-Q is engaged in a media war. And yes, it shows that what's left of the al-Q leadership ain't happy with the results in Iraq. All good so far.
But why is Zawahiri holding out the tin cup to Zarqawi, asking -- please, sir -- send us $100 large? Maybe because the bucks flowing from Syrian banks to Zarqawi in Iraq are more reliable -- and easier to tap -- than OBL's other funding sources? And maybe we can do a whole lot more to disrupt them. Follow the money? Sure. But not forever. At this point it's probably more important to stop it than follow it in either direction.
Re: The Evolutionary Credo
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 5:56PM
Anderson's fundamental error is here:
This is the anti-evolution disclaimer the Dover teachers were ordered to read to their ninth-grade classes before they could teach evolution: "Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. . . . Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. . . . Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view." In a letter to the school superintendent explaining their refusal, the teachers at one point became especially emphatic: "INTELLIGENT DESIGN," they wrote, caps lock on, "IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY."Why does Anderson think these two statements are mutually exclusive? They are not. ID is indeed "an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view" (though actually, it's not Darwin but his successors who object to it). And it is indeed not science, since the god-in-the-gaps theory is not a testable hypothesis. ID is, rather, metaphysics. It's fine to argue that IDers are fundamentally dishonest in presenting a metaphysical theory as a scientific theory, but only if you know what you're talking about. Anderson doesn't.The teachers are right; the school board... is simply wrong. [Last set of ellipses mine; others his.]
Truth be told, I don't think very highly of ID as metaphysics,
either, but I think even less highly of the reductive atheism that
certain neo-Darwinists are fond of. Richard Dawkins, a brilliant
geneticist, is basically stark raving mad on metaphysical
questions. His response to the priest molestation scandals was to
write that raising a child Catholic is itself child abuse. That
such tripe should generate a backlash is hardly surprising.
Wasted Efforts
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 4:45PM
Erick over at Red State writes here what many of us had been hearing in the last few days but couldn't quite nail down the way he has.
What is now clear is that the White House badly bungled the selection process, and continues to do so. On morning surrogate calls for the past few days we've been hearing such excuses as "The White House Counsel's office has been understaffed and under pressure on a range of issues," or "Karl [Rove] is out of the loop and distracted."
When the New York Times is able to get some of the same Republican staffers in the Senate to say in its pages what they have been saying to people like us for weeks now, you know that things aren't going well.
How bad have things become? We're hearing that Senate Republicans are attempting to pull together a list of potential alternates for the White House to consider should Miers have the good graces to withdraw before the confirmation process formally begins. There are ongoing discussions between staff for Sens. Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott, and several conservatives on the Judiciary Committee. And such a suggestion may come early next week, when the Senate returns to full operations.
There is a sense of urgency all the way around here. That's because a number of important cases are expected to hit the Supreme Court in late November, around the time the White House was hoping to have its new justice seated.
We Ain't Seen Ugly Yet
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 4:06PM
Wlady: Sure, it's been ugly. But what is coming soon is going to redefine the word. The president now says that Miers's religion was a major factor in the nomination. That opens a door that was closed from 1776 until this morning: a barrage of questions to savage Miers about how her religion will shape her judgments. Questions of religious belief that were as bad only in 1960 when JFK was accused of placing Catholicism over patriotic duty. It was wrong then, and off-limits since.
Now, the hyperlibs have been given an open season on religion and there's no bag limit. The anti-religion lefties will be screaming for a secular court, and the MSM will pile on enthusiastically. The only good thing about it is that some of the libs may be too scared to join in this Inquisition. Schumer, Durbin and Leahy won't be. They'll do a Torquemada on Miers.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Dobson is blathering on, and no one from the White House is refuting what he says which -- in Washington -- is tantamount to affirmance. Your point about whether Dubya talked to her while sitting or standing or jogging in the "100 Degree Club" heat is right on the money. Miers will have to 'splain that away, and won't be able to, at least not to the satisfaction of the Dems and the media.
The problem we're having -- and pace, Jay Homnick -- is that both sides are not right. Both sides OF the right are arranged in the perfect circular firing squad. Damage continues to mount on the conservative side of the ledger while the hyperlibs practice what Sun Tzu preached. They're standing aside while the enemy -- us -- destroys himself. Both those who are opposing Miers outright, and those -- such as me -- who are saying she's a bad pick because she's too big a risk, are under fire from the White House.
It will get very ugly very soon. Rove and Dobson will be called to testify under oath at the hearings. And they will fudge. And that will damage everyone, including the president.
At this point, the only thing we can be concerned about is not Miers. It's not the president. It's the conservative movement, and the awful impact this is going to have if: (1) Miers is confirmed over conservative objections; (2) she turns out to be, as I believe she will, another Souter; and (3) grassroots conservatives give up on the whole mess. The cost of the Miers nom may be paid in the coin of conservative dedication to future Republican presidential aspirants. Which is something Mr. McCain may want to consider.
The Evolutionary Credo
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 3:42PM
Here we have another liberal getting red-faced and dogmatic as Intelligent Design scientists expose the pretensions of Darwinists. Jacob Weisberg likens ID'ers to segregationists; Kurt Andersen likens them to "Holocaust deniers." Neither of these guys could explain evolutionary theory. But what they can do is repeat the Darwinist creed over and over again and hope that their Leninist smears (Lenin said never engage your critics, just call them "traitors" to good causes and people will know "what's what") will dissuade too many people from questioning it.
Stand Up, Sit Down
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 2:40PM
"This is gonna get real ugly." Jed, you mean what's happened the last 10 days has been ugly, but not real ugly? The Bush coalition has split, Democrats and libs are doing victory dances around the campfire, and no one even remembers what they did to Tom DeLay's scalp.
When you mentioned "the president's statement that he hadn't sat down with Miers and discussed Roe v. Wade," it reminded me that when asked at his October 4 press conference whether he'd ever discussed abortion with Miers, Bush prefaced his reply with the Clinton-era standby, "Not to my recollection." Richard Cohen may have been right again when yesterday he surmised that Bush talked to Miers about abortion only while standing.
What Did James Dobson Know and Why Did He Know It?
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 1:32PM
Is anyone other than me puzzled by the continuing revelations by Focus on the Family's James Dobson on the Miers nomination? And the White House's total silence on whether Dobson's claims are true? The transcript of Dobson's radio broadcast yesterday indicates pretty clearly Dobson's claim that he was told Miers was almost certain to be the nominee days before the President announced it:
"And what I was referring to is the fact that on Saturday, the day before the President made his decision, I knew that Harrier Miers was at the top of the short list of names under consideration. And as you know, that information hadn't been released yet, and everyone in Washington and many people around the country wanted to know about it and the fact that he had shared with me is not something I wanted to reveal."
Worse still, Dobson claims that Rove explained to him Miers's "judicial philosophy":
"…because Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial philosophy which was consistent with the promises that President Bush had made when he was campaigning. Now he told the voters last year that he would select people to be on the Court who would interpret the law rather than create it and judges who would not make social policy from the bench. Most of all, the President promised to appoint people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their powers to advance their own political agenda. Now, Mr. Rove assured me in that telephone conversation that Harriet Miers fit that description and that the President knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence."
But that's not an explanation of a "judicial philosophy." What else did Rove say, or is Dobson confusing judicial philosophy with religion? Is the point that her religion is her judicial philosophy?
Dobson said Rove assured him "that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life. In other words, there is a characterization of her that was given to me before the President had actually made this decision."
Does that mean they discussed Roe v. Wade? Dobson denies it:
"We did not discuss Roe v. Wade in any context or any other pending issue that will be considered by the Court. I did not ask that question. You know, to be honest, I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade. But even if Karl had known the answer to that and I'm certain that he didn't, because the President himself said he didn't know, Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there and it was never part of our discussion."
This whole episode is very disturbing on several levels. There are several questions that arise if Dobson's statements are true. First and foremost, they confirm indirectly that the president's statement that he hadn't sat down with Miers and discussed Roe v. Wade is, literally, true. But they also imply that someone -- possibly Rove -- did. Second, it shows that the information was not shared with the legal luminaries -- such as Ken Starr, C. Boyden Gray and others who could normally be expected to rally around a Bush nominee -- and instead were shared with Dobson. Why? Last, and not least, Dobson implies elsewhere in the transcript that Miers was the pick because other women who might have been more qualified had withdrawn their names from consideration because they feared a vicious confirmation fight they might not win. What passed between the White House and the McCain Gang of Fourteen that convinced the president he couldn't win a tough fight?
All these questions will be answered in the confirmation hearings. One prediction: if Dobson's statements prove true, the answers will damage Miers and the White House greatly. The president chose to avoid a fight by appointing a demonstrably weaker nominee than many others he could have picked. He will get the fight anyway, and if he wins, we may yet end up with another Souter. Stay tuned. This is gonna get real ugly.
Religious Cronyism?
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 1:28PM
Re Dave's post, now Bush's selection of Miers looks like flat-out religious cronyism. Why did I select her? Well, we're both evangelicals ... That's basically his answer. The White House has managed to combine here hopeless PC pandering -- witness Laura Bush's inane feminist defense of Miers -- with bone-throwing to the Religious Right.
Harriet's Religion
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 1:09PM
Was a role in Bush choosing her, he told reporters today.
Vinocur Clarity
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 12:06PM
You wouldn't know from domestic coverage, but Angela Merkel accession as German chancellor is a big victory for U.S. foreign policy. In its editorial today, the New York Times suggests that the "grand coalition" arrangement Merkel had to agree to in order to become chancellor cost her "half the seat in her government, including foreign affairs..."-- the implication being that she'll have weak impact on foreign policy and that Germany will continue as before in its anti-U.S. drift.
Not so, if you read John Vinocur in the International Herald-Tribune. Vinocur, an excellent former Times foreign correspondent and then editor of the Times-owned IHT for which he continues to cover Europe as a senior correspondent, has never succumbed to the temptations of European neutralism and easy anti-Americanism. Which might explain why his work is so rarely if ever seen in the New York Times itself these days.
Here, straight from the top, in a story emphatically headlined, "A Coalition It May Be, but Merkel Has Won," is Vinocur's take:
Angela Merkel becomes chancellor of Germany in the fog of a grand coalition's shared powers, but with an exceptional precedent in hand that should very likely allow her to carry out part of her platform for change.She takes over the almost total control of German foreign policy by the chancellor's office that became routine under Gerhard Schröder. Since Willy Brandt in the 1970s, the chancellor's role as chief draftsman and actor in Germany's international relations has continuously strengthened, and under Schröder it became virtually presidential.
Now, with the likelihood of compromise limiting the extent of economic reform achievable between her Christian Democrats and their Social Democratic time-share partners, the force of appearing on the international stage as Germany's sole face and voice brings Merkel her clearest path to authority.
This is essential leverage and an identity that she will not care to delegate or water down.
They become all the more important against the real possibility that a coalition government, with posts like the Labor Ministry apportioned to the Social Democrats, will not be able to dramatically reform a job-protection system that stops firms from hiring and solidifies Germany's double-digit unemployment....
But foreign policy is different. The chancellor is on the phone with presidents and prime ministers. With a speech, or even a word, she holds a near total hand on public opinion concerning Germany abroad.
And at home, what a foreign minister from another party says, especially a Social Democrat with a potentially conflicting vision of the real world, can be praised away by a chancellor as fodder for future debate. If as rumored, Peter Struck, the current defense minister, moves to the Foreign Ministry, he'll be a compatible man who last year criticized Socialist Spain's sudden troop pullout from Iraq as destabilizing....
Let's see if anyone else notices what it is Merkel -- and by extension, Washington -- has won.
Leaky Leahy
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 11:25AM
The Washington Post, evidently irritated that Pat Leahy called its account of his meeting with Harriet Miers "not really all that accurate" on This Week, runs a little follow-up story today in an attempt to vindicate its reporting that Miers said "Warren," before saying "Warren Burger," in answer to Leahy's question about her favorite justices. Leahy, according to the Post, had told the story loudly to several aides who heard "the senator describe Miers as stumbling over Burger's name, at first calling him 'Warren'."
Neither Leahy nor the White House disputed the Post's account of the story last Friday. But for some reason Leahy felt the need to change his story on Sunday morning. The White House, no doubt thrilled that the new version of the story was less damaging to Miers, quickly said it agreed with Leahy's new account of the conversation.
The White House is still spinning Miers' admiration for Burger as nothing more than a respect for his administrative tidiness. But this doesn't add up because Burger was known as administratively inept. Could Miers have said, "Warren," caught herself, and then fished around for a better Warren than Earl Warren to name not realizing that would create a new set of problems for her?
Barr Bomb
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 10:08AM
"You obviously have picked her because she believes the sun rises and sets around you."
This and more from our friend Bob Barr, who urges the president to "take a mulligan" on the Miers pick in today's AJC.
The Full Ugarte Treatment
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 9:22AM
The link between the murder of former Lebanese PM Rafiq al-Hariri and Bashar Assad has now been identified, at least by the best of circumstantial evidence. Former Syrian Interior Minister and intelligence boss Ghazi Kanaan reportedly has suicided. Kanaan had been questioned by UN investigators looking into the Hariri assassination and, after making a rather despondent phone call to a radio station, killed himself at 11 am. The tongue-in-cheek Al-Jazeera report says that, "It was not clear whether he shot himself." Apparently, they haven't yet determined how many times he did so, or whether he was shot trying to escape.
No Reprieve For The Prince of Providence
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 9:11AM
Rhode Island's favorite criminal, Mayor Vincent A. "Buddy" Cianci, Jr., came to the end of the road in his appeals yesterday when the Supreme Court denied him certiorari. Serving time at Fort Dix, N.J., until July 28, 2007, Cianci was convicted in 2002 on federal corruption, bribery, and racketeering charges.
I had a few chances to see this consummate politician in action during my four years at Providence College. He was truly the type to show up at the opening of an envelope. When he stopped by a Friars basketball game for a few minutes, rowdy students always quickly vacated their courtside armchairs (you had to win a raffle to sit there) for Buddy. He lived in the Biltmore Hotel downtown, and at a freshman year dance, he stopped by, grabbed a mic in a less than coherent state, and pledged his undying love for "PC kids." And the guy has his own marinara sauce selling in grocery stores. Rhode Islanders remember him for his color, but also for his success at rehabbing downtown Providence into the jewel of a city that it is now. If Providence could elect him again from jail, they would.
And don't count him out once he gets out: he left office after a first go-'round to serve time for assault of a male friend of his ex-wife. Then he returned to office via a radio talk show. Third time's a charm?
Miers on Wednesday
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 8:42AM
Here's your Wednesday morning wrap on the Miers nomination:
-Judiciary Committee staffers (lawyers) are hostile to the nomination. That's a large problem for the White House, since the lawyers behind the scenes are the real work horses on that committee.
"You could say there is pretty much uniform disappointment with the nomination at the staff level," another Republican on the committee staff said. "It is clear there is quite a bit of skepticism, and even some flashes of hostility."
Another Republican aide close to the committee said, "I don't know a staffer who approves of this nomination, anywhere. Most of it is outright hostility throughout the Judiciary Committee staff."
-Miers' foes want to trip her up with tough questions on Constitutional law. Still, this story is a bit misleading in that it suggests this is a larger coordinated strategy. Instead, it cites the Concerned Women for America (major player) once and Eugene DelGaudio repeatedly (the nut who loudly opposed Chief Justice Roberts). Not exactly an honest depiction, especially when you don't fully describe DelGaudio.
-On his radio show today, James Dobson will add fuel to the theory that key candidates for the nomination dropped out at the last moment, the Washington Times reports. The Times also provides better details on the eroding Judiciary Committee support.
-And catch up on yesterday, when the First Lady agreed that sexism could be at work in the opposition to Miers. Michelle Malkin thinks Mrs. Bush should stick to those horse jokes.
The House of Mahony
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 8:25AM
The Los Angeles Archdiocese has released the personnel files of its priests accused of sexual abuse. The New York Times finds that Cardinal Mahony knew of priestly misbehavior yet eventually allowed them back into contact with young men and boys. Apparently, Mahony's favored solution was therapy.
The L.A. Times has more details on individual priests. In one case, after a decade of complaints against one priest, it took a L.A. Sheriff's Department investigation for him to be removed from ministry. "Despite the reports," he "was allowed to remain in his parish while undergoing therapy." See the full report here (pdf).
Will Mahony get the Cardinal Law treatment?
Angels in America
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 1:44AM
Is this permitted under U.S. labor laws? The Angels played long games in New York City on Sunday night, Anaheim on Monday night, and Chicago last night. You figure the jet-plane part of their cab rides to the ballpark alone must have taken up some 8 hours in the air over 4,000 airline miles. Maybe the key to their success in such harsh conditions lies in their ethereal name. Are these Angels enjoying an unfair advantage over teams with no evident spiritual claims? The NCAA would investigate. Will Major League Baseball? Or will it be up to the ACLU?
Funny Girl
Posted by on 10.12.05 @ 1:40AM
It's that time of week again, and I know you're dying to get a taste of Maureen Dowd's latest column, which few mortals can afford to access on the New York Times' new pay-as-you-play "select" site. What next, a 1-900 number at which the caller gets to hear Maureen read her column in that cool, sultry way of hers?
Her Wednesday offering is about -- shock, surprise -- Harriet ("Harry") and Bush. This time she mocks the contents of a birthday card Miers wrote to Bush in eight years ago. So she makes up lots of other missives Harry might have penned since. Here are a few of them. If you think Dowd could use a little human kindness, don't forget to laugh:
August 2001 "Thank you so much for letting me bundle up and drag away the brush that you cut down today. And if I might add, Sir, I've never seen a man wield the nippers so judiciously. It was awesome! You are the best brush cutter ever!!"...June 2005 "Make sure you take a good, long vacation this summer! Last year, you only took two weeks. You are pushing yourself way too hard, Sir!!"
August 2005 "I've half a mind to come down there myself and chase that witch, Cindy Sheehan, off your property with an injunction!! Yours, with you in Christ, Harriet."...
October 2005 "How can I thank you, Sir? I never, ever expected the Supreme Court. Phat! I hope Clarence doesn't make me watch 'Debbie Does Dallas' again. That movie is so anti-Texas! I miss you already!!
To think Dowd was once a nice Catholic girl.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Re: Harriet For Hillary
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 7:43PM
I suspect the explanation will be that Miers's firm, like lots of companies with PACs, spread their donations on both sides of the aisle (true), and that Miers wasn't the one who decided how funds were distributed (probably true). WorldNetDaily -- which the Boston Herald for some reason thinks is "left-leaning" -- has the full story that the Herald re-reports in summary; the firm supported 14 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the 2000 cycle. And OpenSecrets.org reveals that the firm's soft money donations favored Republicans in the 2000 cycle.
Her and her firm's political donation history tell us very little about Miers. Not that I'm warming to the nominee; quite the opposite. Her reported support for racial preferences may be reason enough to hope her nomination fails.
Freeh: No Buddy Young
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 6:42PM
Clinton wanted to turn Louis Freeh into one of his Arkansas state troopers, and was annoyed when Freeh wouldn't go along with it. Freeh relates a story in My FBI about an invitation he had to turn down from Clinton to have dinner with Tom Hanks. To his wife's consternation, Freeh declined the invite, as it was coming from a probable criminal. "I couldn't socialize with Bill Clinton because he was already the subject of a criminal investigation," he writes.
Kaine's Religious Shield
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 5:28PM
Tim Kaine is citing his religion in defense of his opposition to the death penalty. His new ad (last one here) has him saying, "As a Christian missionary in Honduras, I learned that life is sacred. And that's why I oppose the death penalty. I'll carry out a death sentence, because that's the law, but I won't change my religious beliefs."
A few points:
-No one's questioning his religious belief. They're questioning his activism against the death penalty. Likening it to the gulags shows a callousness for the most grave injustices.
-He only learned about the sacredness of life in his 20s? He was raised Catholic, so why didn't that sink in before then?
-The Catholic Church doesn't even teach outright opposition to the death penalty -- it's not grouped among inherent evils like abortion, which Tim Kaine has never lifted a finger against like his anti-death penalty work. In fact, Church teaching allows that the death penalty may be a just punishment. Avery Cardinal Dulles explains it particularly well in this 2001 article in First Things:
Re: A $25 Million Bust
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 5:18PM
I'm not a Yankee hater, but I think Mark C.'s entry must have made their day. To pin it all on A-Rod is rather harsh. What about Mr. Matsui, who left went 0-5 and left more runners on base than anyone ever in a game 5 (I'm guessing)? Is it A-Rod fault he's playing out of position? Is it his fault that he hit more home runs this year than any right-handed hitter, including Joe Di Maggio, in pinstripe history? Or that he's considered a better fielder at shortstop that Mr. Yankee, Derek Jeter, who didn't have a good fielding season at all. Way I see it, teams win as a team and lose as a team. Given how joyless playing for George Steinbrenner always proves to be, I'm amazed the Yankees did as well as they did. Jason Giambi bombed as a fielder, but as a former suspected steroids user hit remarkably well freed of the stuff. Jorge Posada probably caught more innings these last few years than Elston Howard did his entire career. Randy Johnson was tough in middle relief last night. Mike Mussina got knicked -- and even that blast by Adam Kennedy could have been caught if not for the fact that two Yankee outfielders hustled too hard to get to it and nearly collided in a fatal head-on manner in their all-out effort. Them's the breaks, as only baseball can have it. If there is a villain it's the three-out-of five format. Even Steinbrenner's wild spending can't be blamed for that.
Kilgore's Second Punch on the Death Penalty
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 1:59PM
The Kilgore camp has followed up this morning's conference call on the death penalty (see below) with two new ads featuring murder victims' surviving relatives.
The first is titled "Kelly," as in Kelly Timbrook, wife of Sergeant Rick Timbrook:
Edward Bell was a drug dealer illegally in this country. He was basically waiting for Rick underneath the stairs and shot him a few inches from his face. When they told me, I fell to my knees screaming. Edward Bell is in jail currently waiting on death row. Tim Kaine called for a moratorium on the death penalty. How couuld you not think the death penalty was appropriate? That's not justice. When Tim Kaine calls the death penalty murder, I find it offensive. And I don't trust Tim Kaine to uphold the law.
The second is "Stanley," as in Stanley Rosenbluth, the conference call participant and president of Virginians United Against Crime, whose son and daughter-in-law were murdered by Tim Kaine's client:
Richard was our first born…we had a great relationship. Married Becky. Everything they did, they did together, it was like two peas in a pod. Mark Sheppard shot Richard twice and went over and shot Becky two more times. Tim Kaine voluntarily represented the person who murdered my son. He stood with murderers in trying to get them off death row. No matter how heinous the crime, he doesn't believe that death is a punishment. Tim Kaine says that Adolf Hitler doesn't qualify for the death penalty. This was the…the worst mass murderer in modern times. Being as liberal as he is and the death penalty, he's not representing everybody in the state. I don't trust Tim Kaine when it comes to the death penalty. And I say that as a father whose had a son murdered. And the people of Virginia are entitled to know just what Tim Kaine is and what he stands for.
View both ads here.
My guess: this will dominate campaign coverage for the rest of the week. With such a hard hit, it'll be very difficult for the Kaine campaign to stick to its talking points on this one, which amount to, "This isn't an issue in this campaign," and, "Tim will uphold the law." This is a big day for Kilgore and a well executed day for his campaign. We'll keep you updated on how the Kaine camp responds.
A $25 Million Bust
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 1:47PM
Winter has come early for me. It came with the Yankees' ignominious elimination from October last night.
Alex Rodriguez once again proved that he is the worst “best player” in the history of baseball. His $25 million per year salary has produced for the Yankees exactly nothing for the second year in a row. That he is even being considered for the MVP is insulting. He hits home runs when his team has already run up a 6 or 7 run lead; or when they are losing by 10. In either case, the bulk of his 130 RBIs, including the 48 home runs, were meaningless.
Yankee fans know that AROD is not only NOT the best player in the game, he’s not even the best player on his team. Derek Jeter is and always has been.
For years, we have endured the backhanded comparisons to AROD that were meant to tarnish Jeter and his 4 World Series rings. When AROD arrived in the
Yankee fans knew better. It is October that matters in the
Last night, Jeter led off the 1st with a single to right. AROD weakly popped out.
In the second, Jeter hit a sac fly that drove in the Yankees second run. AROD followed by striking out.
In the 7th, Down 3, Jeter led off with a monster home run to cut the deficit to 2. AROD followed with a momentum-killing grounder.
In the 9th, Jeter ripped a bullet single to right off the second best closer in the game, Frankie Rodriguez (also known as KROD). AROD in an “all-will-be-forgiven-if-you-get-a-hit” moment, hit into a double play. By the time Gary Sheffield singled, it was painfully apparent. Had AROD, at a minimum, moved Jeter to second, it would have been 5-4 with one out and men on first and second. Had AROD actually done what his $25 million pedigree demanded – gotten a hit -- it would have been 5-4 with no outs and bases loaded. Instead, AROD became the face of failure and futility – the embodiment of losing.
I told Robert – my 7-year-old, pinstripe worshipping son -- to toss his AROD T-shirt in the trash where it belongs. AROD does not deserve my son’s admiration. Real heroes rise to the challenge, thrive under pressure and do whatever it takes to win. Not to worry, Robert has several “number 2” T-shirts and jerseys to remind him all about that.
Perhaps George Steinbrenner will finally understand that the biggest ice cream sundae always starts better than it finishes. All it ever really does it make you sick to your stomach.
Meanwhile, Robert and I will root for our old and sorely missed friend Andy Pettitte and the Astros. After the 18-inning street fight against
A Limbaugh Moment
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 12:41PM
Rush thought of the day: He's just said that critics of the Miers nomination have been more intellectually honest than have its defenders.
Tim Kaine's Death Penalty Record
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 12:22PM
Jerry Kilgore, the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia, just held a conference call to discuss Tim Kaine's record of opposition to the death penalty, particularly his defense of Mark Sheppard, who was eventually executed for a double murder. Joining Kilgore on the line was Stanley Rosenbluth, president of Virginians United Against Crime, whose son and daughter in law were murdered by Sheppard. Needless to say, this is a personal issue to Rosenbluth.
Kilgore argued that Kaine's defense of Sheppard was part of his "lifetime of activism" against the death penalty. "If Tim Kaine had been successful, Mark Sheppard wouldn't have been put to death. Everyone is entitled to representation, but not every activist defense attorney is entitled to be the governor of
Warren Fiske of the Virginian-Pilot asked rhetorically, "Was not this man entitled to a vigorous defense?" Kilgore said he was, but maintained that Kaine's defense of Sheppard cannot be separated from his overall opposition to the death penalty. "I draw the line where you take it from the courtroom to the public policy arena." Bob Lewis of the Associated Press tried to argue that the Commonwealth was to blame for Kaine's defense of Sheppard because it has underfunded public defenders, but the question fell flat.
TAS caught up with Kilgore spokesman Tucker Martin after the call, who noted that Kaine's defense of Sheppard extended to the appeals process, where in Sheppard v. Early Kaine argued that part of a Virginia death penalty statute was unconstitutional. Kaine said that the Virginia statute requiring that the Commonwealth set an execution date within 60 to 70 days of the federal appeals court denying habeas corpus violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Sheppard's action.
This won't play well for Kaine in Virginia's heartland (i.e., not Northern Virginia). Add this to Kaine's increasing desperation (as Chad Dotson argues) and his campaign's strange insistence on touting Kaine's support for last year's tax increase (code phrase: fiscal responsibility), and you have a candidate who has little chance of winning over the folks who delivered the Governor's Mansion to Mark Warner in 2001: conservatives willing to vote Democratic now and then.
And Don't Call Me Shirley
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 11:14AM
Breitbart is reporting the astounding news -- astounding to the Hollywoodenheads, at least -- that guys are responsible for the enormous decline of movie ticket sales. Studio heads are worried, and for answers they are turning to people such as the OnLine Testing Exchange's Shelly Zalis. Breitbart's report quotes her: "Consumers are saying that when they get to the theatre what they see there is as good as it's ever been...But the rising cost of tickets, gas and babysitters, combined with the improving nature of the in-home media experience are major factors keeping consumers from leaving the living room."
Spare me. The problem -- the uninterrupted stream of liberal nonsense and syrupy chick flicks -- is obvious to any male past puberty. Please, Ms. Zalis. Tell them the awful truth. I recall a line spoken by Q to 007 some years ago (I think in "Never Say Never Again") that went something like, "Oh, it's good you're back. Maybe now we'll have some more gratuitous sex and violence."
Less Jane, Shirley and Wesley Snipes. More Bruce Willis, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. Harry Callahan, please call your office.
Re: Wait Till Next Year
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 11:08AM
My day-to-day life keeps me too busy to follow baseball very closely during the regular season, but come playoff time I become a raving fanatic. This weekend I completely lost myself in the Yankees-Angels series, paying no attention whatsoever to Sunday shows, etc, and I feel so much the better for it.
Anyway, per Wlady's earlier post, I think the Yankees have a lot to be proud of. They had unusually difficult moments this season and to wind it up by going five in the playoffs against a team as fine-tuned as the current Angels lineup is solid. You simply don't find better baseball than that which was played by those two teams during this series -- particularly the last three games. As a fan of both the Angels (I grew up there) and the Yankees (I ended up there), I remained neutral over the last week and just enjoyed the games. Since the California Angels have now prevailed (I simply refuse to call them the ridiculous "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" and so should you), I'm up for some wagering. There's still a lot to be excited about...
Re: Hell's Angel
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 10:59AM
So typical of the Prowler to throw at someone's head when his back is turned. Now I know how aides and congressmen alike must feel after sampling his/her sucker punches. But, please, to suggest that the excellent Scioscia somehow insulted the mediocre Frank Robinson earlier this year is beyond comprehension. Frank has been a baseball hood for as long as I can remember. The Cincinnati Reds gave him away to Baltimore forty some years ago, perhaps because they couldn't trust a guy who'd been arrested for carrying a concealed .25 caliber pistol into a restaurant. What was he doing, auditioning for a role in The Godfather? His teams remain class acts. "Mike Scioscia, to me, is a piece of garbage," his star player Jose Guillen spewed after Scioscia stood up to Robinson's bullying. Last month Guillen was saying pretty much the same thing about Robinson after getting benched. The Prowler can keep Frank and Jose Guillen. I'll even throw in Cristian Guzman. Meanwhile, I'll stick with Mike and Adam Kennedy, Garret Anderson and Vladimir Guerrero, plus the Molina brothers.
Harriet For Hillary
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 10:30AM
The Boston Herald reports this morning that Harriet Miers' law firm political action committee donated to Hillary Clinton's political action committee in 2000, just two days after Miers contributed to her law firm's PAC. White House surrogates were telling conservatives last week that Miers had seen the light after her Al Gore/DNC/Lloyd Bentsen donations. How will they explain this one?
Hell's Angel
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 9:57AM
Wlady likes Mike Scioscia. Big surprise there. Who could forget Scioscia's embarrassing treatment of Nats manager Frank Robinson earlier this year? The frothing at the mouth, the screaming and insults and then using his Angels players to further needle Robinson was unbecoming. Then after all that Scioscia wouldn't even publicly apologize (Robinson stated that he wouldn't accept such an apology, but Scioscia could have been the bigger man regardless). A classless guy leading a fairly classy team. Scioscia may never manage the Dodgers -- though there are rumors that the Blue are interested -- given his hysterical behavior. Cleary he picked up a thing or two from Tommy Lasorda. Give me Joe Torre any day.
The Louis Freeh Era
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 9:37AM
Louis J. Freeh's book, My FBI, came in last night (released today). A few notes while flipping through it...
It's chock full of compelling stuff: the first-person account of the Unabomber investigation, tracking down Robert Hanssen, and others. This isn't just a front row narrative though: it comes with political significance attached, as Matt Drudge already let on in his previews. After the FBI nabbed Hanssen, Bush called Freeh to thank him and pass gratitude to the FBI. "It was the first time since I became director that a president -- and Bush had been in office less than thirty days -- had ever thanked the FBI for protecting the country."
Of course, the most salacious part (to the politicos) is Chapter 9, "Bill and Me." There's the Whitewater investigation, the Chinese contributions to the DNC, Freeh answering
The last chapter, "9/11," patiently explains the FBI's role in prosecuting terrorism during the 1990s. Freeh frankly discusses the agency's failures first and accepts responsibility where he ought to. As for Richard Clarke,
Freeh isn't writing to score points, or settle scores. He's settling the record, and so his account reads like an honest, detached man who's glad he escaped
Disturbing Bomb Pattern
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 8:20AM
Improvised explosive devices have appeared at three U.S. college campuses in the last week, Georgia Tech, University of Oklahoma, and UCLA. Michelle Malkin has more.
Hayes or Royal?
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 8:11AM
Ok, Mr. Pilger. I went back and forth on this all day yesterday with Reid Collins. It was Woody Hayes who said "There are three things that can happen when you pass, and two of them ain't good." Darryl Royal also said it. But the question of who said it first is unresolved. I'm betting on Woody, as the number of sources to support his claim is huge.
Castro's Geriatric Thugs
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 7:40AM
Times look tough for tyranny in Cuba when the old man sends the elderly to threaten democratic dissidents.
"Alberto Gonzales in a Dress"
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 7:39AM
That's what Polipundit calls Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers as he (/she?) switches positions and calls for her defeat.
The holiday weekend didn't cool the nomination storm. It's only
grown. Now more and more clear headed conservatives (a category
which doesn't include Pat Buchanan or George Will) are calling for
Miers' defeat in the Senate. Do the math. Half of the GOP caucus is
doubtful, the Washington Times reported yesterday. And while the
abortion lobby is holding fire, as soon as Miers clams up the Angry
Left will pressure Senate Democrats not to confirm. Desirable or
not, the rejection of Harriet Miers appears more likely by the day.
As James Taranto wrote
yesterday, "Anyone still think she's a shoo-in?" The White House's
best hope for Miers may be indictments from Patrick Fitzgerald,
which could distract the press and the left long in enough to slip
her in. That's a high price to pay.
Unfringed Unfringed
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 2:13AM
What's Maureen Dowd doing in the Washington Post, unleashing her paranoia for our entertainment pleasure? Here's her latest on the Harriet business:
I'm betting that she's no David Souter -- that she quickly signs up with the Scalia-Thomas fringe, even if she lacks Antonin Scalia's right-wing erudition or Clarence Thomas's persecution complex. They'll be like a middle-aged Mod Squad, a trio of groovy avengers fighting for truth, justice and the American Way circa 1805.
Oops, my bad. It wasn't Mo at all. On rechecking I see its by the Post's own Eugene Robinson. Only goes to show there's more than one good columnist on the left.
Robinson is quite a catch himself. In line for a top editing position at his paper, he was cynically passed over and given his own column as a consolation booby prize. He's been laughing through his pain ever since. Just the other week he expressed "schadenfreude" at Tom DeLay's indictment. Even said he wanted to see the guy do time. Misery loves company, it would seem.
Wait Till Next Year
Posted by on 10.11.05 @ 2:09AM
In media terms the Major League Baseball season ended last night. New York's Yankees were eliminated, several days after the same fate befell Boston's Red Sox, their only legitimate rival. The Powers That Be will have the off season to figure out how to have the Yanks and Sox not only open and close the regular season against each other, as occurred this past season, but also meet in each round of the postseason. Those with a somewhat less parochial, non-northeastern perspective might counter by suggesting that maybe the reason the two teams were eliminated in round one this year is that they maybe were never allowed to focus on anyone but each other. Baseball has many worthy franchises, and some of them are located in places like Chicago, St. Louis, even Houston and Disneyland.
I confess I'm partial to the Angels, a team I've followed with secondary devotion since their founding in 1961. It helps now that they're managed by one of the vintage Dodgers -- my primary team which has been missing in action ever since the O'Malley family sold it off. Mike Scioscia is his name. He manages the way he played catcher: he's steady, solid, stolid, and gentleman. His demeanor is as typical of good baseball as the bang-bang plays that snuffed out the Yankees in their final at-bat.
No doubt the New York press will spend the next week or two kvetching about what went wrong and figuring out who to blame. I half-expected some of their other players to rise to the occasion late in the game in the manner of Derek Jeter, who smashed the ball twice his last two times up. It wasn't to be. If nothing else, Jeter proved once again that he's one of a kind.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Carter Endorses Liberian Election
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 6:28PM
So does that mean there was massive fraud, like in the Venezuelan election he certified last year?
Another Virginia Debate
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 5:34PM
I didn't trek down to Richmond for the final debate in the Old Dominion's gubernatorial race. And it was unavailable on my TV last night. However, AmSpecBlog brings you the next best (maybe better?) thing: the Commonwealth Conservative's wrap.
He calls it a win for Kilgore, with fine substantial reasons (unlike the grasping-at-straws talking points email I received from the Kaine folks this morning), concluding: "'Governor Kilgore.' Get used to it." You'll also find a comprehensive summary of what all the Virginia blogs are saying and links to the MSM stories.
Also, Kilgore spokesman Tucker Martin emailed immediately last night, "We are thrilled with how tonight went." No surprises, but there you have it.
I must say, the post-debate spin from the Kaine people is odd. Besides the flurry of "Debate Fact Sheets" during the actual contest, the only other press release today is trying to make Jerry Kilgore's abortion position a sticking point... portraying him as too pro-life. Too pro-life for Virginia? If anything, Kilgore's already fairly exposed on the abortion issue, refusing to promise that he would sign any sort of abortion ban if Roe v. Wade were overturned. A pretty moot point, but it's best not to give the base reasons to doubt you (see Miers, Harriet). With this tactic, the Kaine camp is clearly trying to corner Northern Virginia pro-choice moderates. Yet they were already luke warm for Kilgore. Without harping on Kilgore's pro-life record, the media could turn Southwest Virginia luke warm with the abortion issue. Thanks to the Kaine folks, instead of two luke warm constituencies, you're likely left with one.
Diplomutts Elect New UN Sec Cncl Members
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 4:48PM
The Mad Hatter's Tea Party, aka the UN General Assembly, today elected five new members of the UN Security Council to begin their terms in January. They are the Congo Republic, Ghana, Slovakia, Peru and Qatar. They join the US, UK, France, Russia, China (permanent, Heaven help us, members) and non-permanent members Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan and Tanzania on the on the Security Council. This election is not expected to have a significant effect on restaurant reservations or parking in the vicinity of East 46th Street. Or anything else, for that matter.
Mormons, Joe Smith, Christians, and Polygamists
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 3:09PM
The Mormons -- that is, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -- have made the cover of Newsweek. Why are the Mormons on the cover when this isn't a slow news week (Miers, Plamegate)? It's tough to determine from the article. There's nothing particularly news-worthy, like a new apostate historian proving that Joseph Smith was a particularly skilled huckster. That said, if you're a little hazy on Mormon history, beliefs, and controversy, be sure to read this one. It sympathetically treats Mormon history and claims, but artfully tackles polygamy, whether the Indians were a lost tribe of Israel, and if the Mormons can credibly be called Christians.
Fighting Back?
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 12:06PM
Last Friday, Timothy Flanigan, former deputy White House counsel and President Bush's nominee to serve as Deputy Attorny General, withdrew his nomination to that post. His decision was due, in part, to the Judiciary Committee's delay in voting the nomination out of committee, and we're told, threats by Sens. Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy and Joe Biden to draw Flanigan's current employer, Tyco, into the debate. Flanigan, being an honorable fellow, chose not to play their dirty little game.
Leahy, though, being the snake that he is, and the New York Times being the shill that is, refused to play the politics of the nomination straight. Over the weekend, the Times published Leahy's statement:
"Rather than appointing professionals with relevant experience, the Bush administration has promoted a culture of cronyism by tapping political allies and close friends for key positions," Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in a written statement issued after Mr. Flanigan announced his withdrawal."Like Mike Brown at FEMA, Timothy Flanigan has strong credentials as a faithful Republican Party stalwart," he said. "But just as Mr. Brown did not have the qualifications to lead our nation's primary disaster response agency, there were serious doubts about Mr. Flanigan's qualifications to serve as the nation's second-highest ranking law enforcement officer."
This is absolute trash. Flanigan was more than qualified for the Deputy Attorney General position. A real conservative, an outstanding lawyer, he would have been outstanding in the position. In Leahy's statement we are seeing now the key argument Democrats will put up against any and all Bush nominations regardless of qualifications. When will the White House start pushing back?
Conservative Duck?
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 9:58AM
Raymond Sokolov's column in today's WSJ (subscription required) accuses conservatives of acting like a third party in opposing the Miers nomination and goes on to suggest we forsake the elephant and adopt the duck as our party symbol for various reasons including that many of us shoot them for food, the domestic ones do not carry avian flu, and they are secular (?). Despite the fact that Sokolov says PETA already has taken the duck for its flag, his advice is that we should take it back and make it quack for free enterprise.
Please, Mr. Sokolov, take your duck and, well, eat it. We're not ready to give up on the elephant for many reasons. Not the least of which is that it would never have reached its current binge-spending, crony-appointing, self-immolating prominence without us. Having gotten it drunk, it's now our duty to sober it up if we can. And even if we got to the point of seeking another mascot, it would not be to the duck we would turn.
Now that the original Evil Empire is out of business, the better symbol for conservatives would be the American Grizzly. It spends most of its life alone, eschewing big government. It respects its environment. It fights only in self defense (or for love) and, moreover, does so without seeking permission from the otters, moose and chipmunks in the neighborhood. It spends little besides its own energy, and pays no tax.
But we need not plan for a new party and mascot, at least not yet. We shall toil inside and outside the Beltway to sober up the elephant. We have, at least, the few weeks before the Miers hearings begin to do so.
Specter: Washington's "Lynch Mobs"
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 8:35AM
Sen. Arlen Specter is terming the crowd critical of Harriet Miers a "lynch mob." Perhaps he was speaking from the experience of his notorious opposition to a very well qualified judicial nominee, Judge Robert H. Bork.
Fund Flips on Miers
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 8:28AM
John Fund, TAS's "Politics" columnist, last week urged conservatives to close ranks and wait and see until Harriet Miers' Senate hearings. After talking to those who know her best in Texas, he's changed his mind: find out about Miers early and often.
Merkel For Chancellor
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 8:16AM
Apparently the SPD and Christian Democrats have reached a power sharing agreement, but it still requires final approval.
Tabloid Treatment of Miers?
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 8:10AM
The press, the Beltway, and National Enquirer will want to know the nature of the relationship between Harriet Miers and Nathan Hecht. But the L.A. Times will publish it? They're good friends. Leave it at that in print and gossip amongst yourselves over drinks at the Mayflower bar. Still, Hecht would seem to be fanning the flames with quotes like, "We are not dating. We are not seeing each other romantically. Not currently." Red meat for the dogs.
Didn't NASA Want It?
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 7:58AM
The SpaceShipOne team, Burt Rutan and Paul Allen, have donated the craft to the Smithsonian for display in the Air and Space Museum. A working spacecraft? Come to think of it, NASA could use one of those. Could they borrow it from the Smithsonian?
Gay Marriage and Full Faith and Credit
Posted by on 10.10.05 @ 7:48AM
Mitt Romney's use of a 1913 Massachusetts law barring gay couples from other states obtaining marriage licenses is threatened by a lawsuit in the Supreme Judicial Court. Remember the left's newfound affection for federalism as gay marriage heated up last year? As predicted, one state voiding the contracts of another could not stand for very long -- seizing upon one aspect of federalism destroys the overall quality of constitutional federalism. Of course, this isn't a new fangled argument, but merely Article IV.
Sunday, October 9, 2005
Avian Flu Fears Overblown?
Posted by on 10.9.05 @ 10:25PM
I'd been asking this question lately, but admittedly was too lazy to look into it. Thankfully, the New York Times did my legwork over the weekend: "But scientists say that although the threat from the current avian flu virus is real, it is probably not immediate." Not to discount completely the risk, fears, and preparations, but that's hardly scientifically rigorous, is it? Just about any possible catastrophe would qualify.
George Will's Decorum
Posted by on 10.9.05 @ 7:53PM
So George Will, the arbiter of all things conservative, has weighed in on Rep. Tom Tancredo and, through him, the immigration issue looming over the Republican Party. So how does Will treat immigration and Tancredo seriously? He implies that the immigrant's grandson is a hypocrite and treats him as the loose cannon of the party. But the kicker, the real smear, the final sentence shows all of Will's cards: "So Republicans may have found their Al Sharpton, a candidate who simply has no interest in being decorous."
Excuse me? If Tancredo's the Republican Party's Al Sharpton, who's his Tawana Brawley? Will could have chosen many other undiplomatic Democrats (Howard Dean comes to mind), yet he chose Sharpton. George Will's not ignorant of Sharpton's racist past. Instead of having the gall to smear Tancredo openly, he slips it in at the buzzer. How lame.
The Art of Repositioning
Posted by on 10.9.05 @ 6:58PM
David Brooks, the designated conservative on both the New York Times op-ed page and the PBS NewsHour, knows which way the wind blows. "After a while you get sick of the DeLays of the right and the Deans of the left," he wrote in the Times on Sunday. Unlike other conservative commentators who have been busy repositioning themselves -- Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer -- Brooks did not mention Harriet Miers, although he did cite Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Alexander Hamilton. When he turns away from the "push and shove of today's weary political titans" and gets "back to basics," Brooks said, he finds himself "invigorated."
And that's fine; and that's also how you get to be a designated conservative: You take the high ground. In this case it was clearly marked: between DeLay and Dean. The high ground is usually not that easy to define; but its distinguishing quality is that to stand there you must join hands with liberals.
Consider now some recent history. The deficit widened, while the national debt grew, and Iraq kept getting bloodier. Brownie mishandled FEMA, and Karen ("I'm a working mom") Hughes looked silly in Saudi Arabia. Many conservative commentators no doubt were uncomfortable, but they were reluctant to criticize the White House. That's not how they play the game, especially when they play it in Washington.
But then came the Miers' nomination, and it was clear Bush had gone too far. It's entirely possible Ms. Miers would be a fine Supreme Court justice, but Bush's claim that she was better equipped than anyone else for the job was absurd and otherworldly. This provided a wonderful opportunity for the conservative commentators and columnists to redeem themselves and recover their lost honor. They could also make a career move. The Miers nomination stiffened their spines, and allowed them to join hands with liberals.
Bill Kristol was first out of the box in denouncing the nomination. Will, Krauthammer, and others followed. It is now open season of sorts on the White House. Windy evangelicals join in on one side or the other, while politicians look for cover. Virginia's Senator George Allen was priceless. People he has a "great deal of admiration for" were unhappy with the Miers nomination, he said, but he wasn't sure how he felt about it himself.
Meanwhile pay attention now to what Pat Buchanan said on Sunday's Meet the Press. He said Bush did not really want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it's likely he was right. Momma Bush and Laura would like to keep Roe v. Wade; Condi and Karen no doubt would, too. In a face-off with Bush, I think the ladies would win.
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Useless Wonks
- Bowling Alone
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
