Saturday, October 22, 2005
MSNBC
Posted by on 10.22.05 @ 8:15PM
MSNBC, Chris Matthews, and other MSM outlets have been having way too much fun at the expense of Karl Rove and others enmeshed in the mess brought on by the lies of former ambassador Joe Wilson.
On Friday, "Hardball" featured a breathless report about the possible huge shakeups at the White House were Rove and others forced to step aside to clear their good names. But in reality, Rove and others have been looking for a major shakeup before much of what is spinning out right now began to really take shape.
"There has been a sense now for more than six weeks that things have hit a wall," says an outside consultant who works with the White House. "The Roberts nomination put a lot of those thoughts on the backburner, but Rove has studied enough history to understand the pitfalls of a second-term President, and many of them are unavoidable. I think he believed some staff rollover would help with some of that."
What a number of MSM reporters miss is that there was very little turnover in White House and senior administration staff after the 2004 election cycle. In fact, if there was job shifting, it was taking place between Cabinet-level departments, not inside the White House and the Old Executive Office Building. "People we thought might leave didn't leave," says a White House source. "And those who did leave usually left for similar or better jobs with people like Condi [Rice] or Alberto [Gonzales]. It really is time for some changes. We still have three years to go. We have things to do."
More to Come Part Duh
Posted by on 10.22.05 @ 8:04PM
We're hearing the next big story to drop will do to Miers' reputation for competency what today's Post piece does in raising questions about her stand on important issues.
There has been much talk across the blogosphere today about the Washington Times report that the White House has begun laying out contingency plans should the Miers nomination be pulled back. We're getting major pushback on that report from our sources inside the White House.
"Miers was in meetings late Friday and made it clear that she's ready to move ahead," says a White House source. "She knew the Washington Post story was coming and is prepared to discuss it with Senators should the one-on-one meetings begin again."
Another White House source says that if there is chatter about withdrawing the nomination, it's chatter among mid-level staffers who are just feeling the pressure from outside forces like the media and their conservative friends.
What does appear to be more palpable is a sense that conservative Republican Senators are beginning to wonder what it will take to persuade the President to accept a Miers request that her nomination be withdrawn. "It would have to be a senior enough delegation from the Senate to make it clear this nomination isn't going to work out," says a Senate source. "Not necessarily [Majority Leader Bill] Frist, but serious enough that the President understands what is happening up here on the Hill."
More Miered Miers
Posted by on 10.22.05 @ 5:59PM
There has been a lot of talk about how poorly SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers performed in her private meetings. One U.S. Senator who met with her early in the process says he asked her what he considered to be the easiest question she will get throughout the whole confirmation process: "Why do you want to serve on the United States Supreme Court?"
Miers' response was what the Senator called, "Something you'd expect from a Miss America contestant." The poor performance prompted the Senator to meet with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who passed along the Senator's concerns to the White House.
More to come ...
Posted by on 10.22.05 @ 5:51PM
The Washington Post report on SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers' apparently shifting position on diversity issues is but the first of what we are hearing are several stories to break on various issues in the coming days.
Another one popped earlier today regarding any lack of clarity on what Miers' original denomination of faith might have been.
In and of itself, that is not a big thing, but the discrepencies and new questions are now piling up at a quick clip. "What is now clear is that that she simply was not vetted properly," says a Judiciary Committee staffer on the Democratic side. "We've been quiet, but Senator Leahy took out muzzle off on Thursday. We're getting into this now."
Problem is, and this may be a bigger problem for the White House to explain, multiple White House sources insist that Miers was vetted. "What you're seeing are writings and short articles that slipped through the process. That happens all the time," a White House staffer told us earlier today. "Miers told us she was raised a Catholic. What do you want us to do? It's not the kind of thing you put a person through the ringer over."
Will's Dud Nuke
Posted by on 10.22.05 @ 4:27PM
George Will's Sunday column on the Miers nomination -- hyped as a disapproval of Miers in the manner that Sitting Bull disapproved of Custer -- is, of course, out a day early. Though Will scores a number of points, the column won't damage Miers as much as it will damage the debate on her. Though his points are compelling, they are stated before conclusions that are, in turn, petulant, condescending and threatening. And the solution Will proposes -- though theoretically sound -- is stated in terms that can be used by the Dems to destroy one of the most important limits on the confirmation process.
Will writes, "In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the 'right' results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure." So far, so very good.
But Will, and other Miers critics, seem willing to give up too much to sink her. We won, in the Roberts confirmation, the ability to ensure future justices against the political pressure on specific issues that senators eagerly impose to mandate their own litmus tests. Will's solution is stated in sufficiently loose terms to knock down that barrier and enable Biden and Co. to drive through at high speed:
"As Miers's confirmation hearings draw near, her advocates will make an argument that is always false but that they, especially, must make, considering the unusual nature of their nominee. The argument is that it is somehow inappropriate for senators to ask a nominee -- a nominee for a lifetime position making unappealable decisions of enormous social impact -- searching questions about specific Supreme Court decisions and the principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America's present and future.(emphasis added)
Miers can, and should, be opposed on many grounds, not the least of which is her unproven and almost certainly malleable judicial philosophy. Thus her judicial philosophy -- really her constitutional understanding -- must be tested in the hearings without sacrificing the barrier to prejudged positions in the process. To demand her positions on "principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America's present and future" is to demand answers to questions such as: Do you agree with the result in Roe v. Wade?
Miers can -- and must -- be tested, but not that way. It can be done by pressing her firmly and repeatedly on her understanding of the reasoning in already-decided cases. If, as I expect, she fails to demonstrate a constitutional scholar's understanding of the reasoning of significant cases, that is reason enough to vote her nomination down. To demonstrate understanding of the reasoning one need not agree or disagree with the result. And that is where George Will should have stopped. But he didn't.
We, as conservatives, must not allow the Miers nomination to destroy the immunity court nominees must have against political litmus tests. At this point, her advocates and her opponents seem to have sunk to the same ad hominem level. A pox on both their houses.
Miers may yet, unfortunately, be confirmed. The president is adamantly in support, and none of her supporters are backing down. Will's conclusions -- that Democrats must oppose Miers or forever surrender their arguments against cronyism, and that conservative Republicans must oppose her or forfeit their right to a presidential nomination -- ring hollow. It is no use making threats no one will remember past tomorrow's nightly news.
Miers: Racial Quota Enthusiast (UPDATED)
Posted by on 10.22.05 @ 1:36PM
This must be the Washington Post scoop that The Prowler warned of on Thursday:
As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that "our legal community must reflect our population as a whole," and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal...What are the chances that she's going to find it unconstitutional for the government to do the same thing? Answer: very small. (UPDATE 9 PM: I hadn't realized it, but the Texas State Bar actually is a branch of government. [Hat Tip: Jonah Goldberg.]) If she joins the court, Miers will most likely be to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor on this issue.Miers was a believer in mentoring programs, but during her tenure she and the board of directors went further, passing a resolution urging Texas law firms to set a goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates. The directors also reiterated support for a policy of setting aside a specific number of seats on the board for women and minorities.
Although Miers was not the author of either policy, she never objected to them, according to tapes of the meetings, and numerous board members who served with her said she fully supported both efforts.
It's a good thing her nomination is doomed. I hope the Washington Times is right that the White House is looking to cut their losses.
Friday, October 21, 2005
New Deputy Attorney General
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 7:21PM
Word late Friday is that Paul McNulty, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, is going to be President Bush's new nominee for Deputy Attorney General.
This isn't necessarily bad news for conservatives...but it isn't good news, either. The White House apparently passed up a good opportunity to place a solid, professional woman in the slot, Karen Tandy, who heads the DEA and is considered a capable and reliable prosecutor and administrator. Instead, they went with someone cut from the same political cloth as former DAG James Comey.
McNulty is believed to be political, but in a bad way, looking for the spotlight, but with little interest in taking one for the team, whether it is conservatives or Republicans. He has been a tough prosecutor, but also a huge self-promoter, and DOJ insiders predict this will be trouble for the current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.
There are rumblings that McNulty is similar to fellow White House nominee Harriet Miers in at least one way: he left the Catholic Church some time ago for an Evangelical Church, and was known during his time in DOJ headquarters back in the late 1980s to enjoy spreading the Gospel, as it were.
Summit of All Fears
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 7:18PM
Earlier in the week, the Ibero-American summit in Spain adopted a resolution criticizing the U.S. embargo, or "blockade," on Cuba. Prime Minister Zapatero did his best to explain it away as no big deal, but Cuba has painted it as support for the regime. And World Markets Research Center reports that Hugo Chavez didn't do so badly either, especially now that Jacques Chirac has embraced him with an effort to identify "areas of transnational collaboration."
According to the Spanish website, ABC.es, the Honduran President Ricardo Maduro came out of the talks questioning the democratic calling of the leftist governments in South America, but his voice was fairly singular. Andres Oppenheimer argues in the Miami Herald that there wasn't anyone to act as a counterbalance to the criticism Bush faces, and that in investing his hopes in the regionally unknown Colombian president, Bush will have very little capital in South America. But it's not simply that Bush has picked the wrong intermediaries (Vicente Fox included) -- when was the last time you saw Bush dealing with anything in South America? That's the sound of a can getting kicked down the road.
Hugh Hewitt
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 5:40PM
Coming up today on the Hugh Hewitt show -- starting at 6 pm EDT on the Salem Radio Network-- we'll be all over the Plame/Name/Blame/Game, the Miers nom, and most importantly, a good solid half hour on....(wait for it)...cigars. And, don't forget, at about 7 pm we'll have The Beltway Boys, Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke. Should be a rockin' show. See ya on the radio.
Breaking News: CNN is For Smart People!
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 5:39PM
Jon Klein and Jim Walton, the two uber news/corporate suits now directing CNN, held a "State of CNN" earlier this week, and, it being a room full of reporter types, of course the gossip is flowing, and much of it is hilarious.
Apparently both Klein and Walton were claiming that while it was true that CNN continues to lag behind Fox News in the ratings, it didn't really matter, because CNN's fewer viewers were actually more intelligent than Fox's many more viewers. See? It all balances out!
But perhaps more telling about CNN's mindset on news and its viewers, was that when asked which news show on another network either man would want to bring to CNN, Klein said, "60 Minutes," and Walton said, "The Daily Show."
Klein is a former "60 Minutes" producer, and was one of the show's biggest on-air defenders during the "Rathergate" scandal last year. When it was pointed out to Walton that "The Daily Show" wasn't really a news show, Walton strongly disagreed. Somewhere, Larry King was smiling.
Huh?
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 4:41PM
Who in the Department of Justice had the bright idea to create this on the official Department website?
Press reports make it sound as though it was Fitzgerald's idea, but someone at DOJ headquarters had to authorize it and sign off, as it's a link created off the main DOJ site. So much for trusting politicial appointees!
Miers Miered Update
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 4:31PM
The New York Times article this morning that lays out Harriet Miers' "murder board" prep sessions for her upcoming confirmation grillings, er, hearings, could not be an accurate portrayal of what is taking place.
If it is, then things are so much worse than we thought. Miers requires much more preparation than Roberts did, particularly on the "big picture" Constitutional issues.
And it isn't just Miers who is receiving bad press up on Capitol Hill, by the way. Sen. Dan Coats is not earning any points for his performance as Miers's mentor on the Hill. While confidences will not be broken, Coats earlier this week met with a select group of social conservatives on the Senate side and did little to help the Miers nomination.
Specter Deals
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 4:26PM
It looks like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist did good by getting Sen. Arlen Specter to back off his demands for a fast vote on stem cell legislation. Specter had been threatening an attempt to tack his embryonic stem cell bill onto the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that is hitting the Senate floor shortly.
Penn Politics
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 3:45PM
Always interested in what the other half thinks, we often go to the here for a big heaping helping of what goes on in the fevered brain of a Left Coast, Blue Stater.
Jeffrey Wells has issues with Republicans, but he's got a fine sense of film and the vagaries of Hollywood. His lead item this morning about the delay of Sean Penn's remake of All the King's Men is interesting. Wells says it's all about production delays, but given Penn's and Hollywood's political aspirations, couldn't there be a far more sinister reason to delay this movie about political graft and the evils of power? Could it only be coincidental that they are now talking about a release date leading into the mid-term elections? We think not. Hollywood types are far too intelligent to pass up such an obvious ploy.
How else to explain the remake of The Dukes of Hazzard?
Peyton's Place
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 2:03PM
You'd think that with a war on, a town with a long naval tradition would welcome the 250 strike fighters the navy wants to move there from Virginia Beach. And you'd be wrong. The mayor of Jacksonville, Fla. is turning a deaf ear to the sound of freedom. Listening to a minority of locals, he's telling the Navy his town doesn't like the idea of reviving the Cecil Field Naval Air Station. Jax mayor John Peyton told the navy, "...at the end of the day, the quality of life for residents of the Westside is the most important thing."
A navy pal e-mailed the story to me with a note that said, "Beginning to lose my belief in the public. Give us protection and give us oil, just don't train near us and don't drill off of our shoreline so we can drive down the pristine beach burning that oil in peace and quiet." Things aren't that bad, pal, even though Peyton is. Peyton must be running for higher office. He'd surely fit in with Howlin' Howie, Kucinich and the rest. We shall keep an eye on the mayor.
The Tax Commission
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 1:29PM
Is it just me, or did another "blue ribbon panel" blow an opportunity to spark a serious debate? Led by former Senator Connie Mack, the tax panel offered little to spark a much needed national debate on the tax code. Heck, Dick Armey and Billy Tauzin's two-man road show "Flat Tax versus Sales Tax" from a few years back was a more productive exercise than this turkey. At a time when movement conservatives are trying to offer some direction to a drifting, and increasingly ad-hoc, national agenda, this panel could have provided the foundations of a transformative national debate by offering several proposals ranging from modest adjustments to "burn the entire tax-code and start all over again" positions. This is a debate that is sorely needed before we can seriously propose reforms to the entitlements that are eating more than 50% of tax revenues. I feel like Linus in A Charlie Brown Christmas yelling, "Isn't there anybody out there who understands the true meaning of... tax reform?"
Happy Trafalgar Day
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 11:11AM
200 years ago today, Nelson "crossed Villeneuve's T" in what may have been the greatest naval battle in history. The battle is celebrated every year in Britain and not, presumably, in France. In those days, warships had to close, grapple and board or line up parallel and slug it out because their big guns could not be turned to fire in any direction other than perpendicular to the line of travel. Nelson managed to maneuver and sail through the French/Spanish line, his guns able to bear on the enemy while they, at least at first, couldn't turn to fire. Nelson died, shot by a sniper in the rigging of an enemy ship. Trafalgar made Britain the greatest seapower in the world, and institutionalized France's time-honored tradition of military defeat.
Strange New Respect
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 11:07AM
The Washington Post has made an effort this week to appear less cartoonishly liberal on social issues, including in this morning's story on the Dover trial. Instead of just cheerleading for the Darwinists, the Post notes that "bringing a legal case against intelligent design is a tricky business. The small band of scientists who publicly support intelligent design are able debaters, and, as became clear when Behe took the stand, they do not sound remotely like William Jennings Bryan..."
Fitzleaky
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 10:46AM
Wlady: The leaks coming out of Fitzgerald's team are growing into a flood. And it's not merely improper, it's illegal. Last time I checked, it's a federal felony to leak grand jury information like the stuff pouring out of Fitzleaky. More later, and on Monday in Loose Canons.
Re: Brilliant
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 10:36AM
That's the best photo of DeLay anyone's ever taken. If he could have smiled like that more regularly he'd have become an endearing figure and we'd be talking about him as a successor to GWB. Regardless, he's not going down. What jury in the world would convict such a sweeet man?
Re: Brilliant
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 10:30AM
Too bad they couldn't put an American flag behind DeLay in the mug shot. He then could have used it for his next official House photo!
Brilliant
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 10:08AM
I can't get over how cleverly Tom DeLay and his team handled the Mug Shot photo. The man isn't going down without one hell of a fight...
The Noose Tightens
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 2:33AM
If the Washington Post's report on Rove is frothy, the New York Times's is seemingly coldly specific. "Some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments." But whose lawyers? "Lawyers involved in the case," the story says at an earlier point. But apparently these aren't Rove's and Scooter Libby's lawyers, because, the story says, "Lawyers for the two men declined to comment on their legal status." The Times's sources couldn't be lawyers working under Fitzgerald, could they? Presumably leaks from Fitzgerald would be highly improper, if not illegal. What about lawyers for other possible targets? Their motivation presumably would be to shift attention away from their own clients. But it's unlikely they'd be in a position to know as much as Fitzgerald's own team does. And who but Fitzgerald's team would be on the same page?
To add insult to injury, the story also notes that "...some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments." Yet right after that, we're told: "None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case." So talking on background is not a violation of the prosecutor's requests? Or are they talking on background with the prosecutor's tacit if not full approval?
The rule of law works in mysterious ways. Kafka never had it so good.
Lynch Mob Mentality
Posted by on 10.21.05 @ 1:09AM
Nobody knows anything, yet according to disinterested outside observers such as the Washington Post, Karl Rove has already been frog-marched to Sing-Sing. It's home page headline reads: "Post-Rove Deliberations Begin: White House is now confronting the looming prospect of a Bush presidency without Karl Rove." Nice Freudian slip, by the way, that bit about "Post-Rove" -- Does it mean after Rove? Or is it a reference to deliberations inside the Post's newsroom about how to spin against Rove? For all the reader can find out from the story itself, everyone is supposedly spooked, but no one knows anything. "In a capital consumed by scandal speculation, most White House senior officials are no more privy than outsiders to the prosecutor's intentions." So why run a page one story rooted in no substance anyone can divine? If Rove isn't indicted, won't such stories become the equivalent of Jayson Blair's and Stephen Glass's finest work?
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Senate vs. The Taxpayer
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 9:20PM
What happens when everyone from the National Taxpayer Union and the Club for Growth to the Sierra Club and Daily Kos calls on the Senate to cut wasteful spending to pay for post-Katrina rebuilding? Pork-addicted senators overwhelmingly say no.
Miered Miers
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 6:14PM
Look for some more damaging stories that will have conservatives pulling their hair out. Word is the Washington Post may be dropping something on Miers as early as Friday.
The apparent depth of anger Sen. Arlen Specter feels toward the way the White House and Miers have approached the nomination process has apparently not been portrayed accurately by the mainstream press. "It wouldn't be possible to describe how angry he is," says a Judiciary Committee source. "Livid, murderously mad, nothing does it justice, pardon the pun."
Specter is not only angry about the questionaire that Miers and her handlers submitted. He is angry at the reports he is getting back from his fellow Senators coming out of their private meetings with Miers. "They are universally negative," says Republican staffer for a Senator who has met with the nominee. The bad reports are making Specter feel put upon.
New Thinking
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 5:08PM
For fresh insight into the Miers mess, take a look at something I've just received:
One beyond the Beltway friend has sent a tortured but hopeful explanation of the recent nomination events.He contends that after John Roberts, any nominee was going to be portrayed as "under qualified" by comparison. Accordingly, perhaps the White House felt it was necessary to run someone through the process to "lower the bar" again. Of course, the goal of nominating this person was NOT actually to get the person confirmed; in fact, it was just the opposite -- have this person NOT be confirmed but simply make things easier for the NEXT nominee to be confirmed (by comparison with THIS person, not with John Roberts).
However, he does admit that whoever was put up for this role would, obviously, take a rather severe beating and have to endure humiliation that most people wouldn't/shouldn't have to endure. Thus, that person would have to be someone tremendously loyal to the administration, someone who, when the whole thing was over, didn't really care about having a future role in the public eye, and someone who could be properly taken care of/rewarded for doing this after his/her nomination went down in flames. Then, after that person withdrew/got rejected, and after a suitable pundit feeding frenzy, the REAL nominee -- say someone qualified -- would be put forward.
He concluded with -- "Far fetched? Maybe...nevertheless, it makes a whole lot more sense than the explanations coming from the White House."
Syria Sweating?
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 4:51PM
For several weeks now -- ever since President Bush's latest "big, stay the course" anti-terrorism speech -- there has been heightened interest in what may or may not be happening between the U.S. and Syria.
Word this morning about this takedown, which will give Saddam yet another distant relative to hunker down with in prison, will further raise questions about just what is going on behind the scenes over at State and DOD.
We were at a dinner party several days ago where several European ambassadors or senior counselors to said embassies were in attendance, and each expressed separately a certainty that the U.S. was going to invade Syria sooner rather than later. On the face of it, such a plan seems absurd given the current political and strategic problems the Bush Administration is facing right now.
The Syrians in the past have several times done just enough to relieve themselves of a degree of pressure they were feeling from America. This may be one of those moments, but if in the coming weeks, as the constitutional vote takes hold, the violence does let up a bit, and Iraqi military and police forces show some capacity to face off against insurgents, we may look back at this arrest as yet another turning point in a story with a lot of turning points.
Sen. Coburn on Hugh Hewitt
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 4:27PM
Today's Hugh Hewitt show will start with a bang. Our first guest is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok) whose amendment to take the money from the Alaska bridge to nowhere (about $220 million) and use it to rebuild a bridge destroyed by hurricane Katrina is being considered in the Senate this afternoon.
Coburn's amendment is being fought tooth and nail by all the pork addicts. We all should be weighing in to support Coburn. Listen in. This is gonna be hot. 6 pm on the Salem Radio Network.
Hear the Guilt
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 12:39PM
George, yes, a certain silence pervades columns such as Cohen's today. But it's a very loud silence, the sort you hear whenever anyone is carrying huge guilt (in his opening paragraph Cohen openly confesses to having callously arranged an abortion for a friend). I don't think it was mere rethinking that drove Cohen to write, "I no longer see abortion as directly related to sexual freedom or feminism, and I no longer see it strictly as a matter of personal privacy, either. It entails questions about life..." Put two and two together and you know he also meant that it entails questions about death.
Re: Cohen
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 12:12PM
It is becoming almost commonplace for liberals who write about abortion to offer a personal story, often told rather breezily, about procuring/cooperating in/undergoing an abortion. These op-eds have become a form of confession. New York Times editor Bill Keller, some time back, wrote a second-thoughts column about abortion similar to Cohen's. But what jumps out in these columns, which invariably stress that the author is still "pro-choice," is the absence of any direct mention of the victim of the injustice, the unborn child. Hillary Clinton, or Cohen, or any other liberal reworking their position, will speak of abortion as a tragedy. But for whom? The child? No, they can't quite say that, otherwise their pro-choice position crumbles. The victim, normally so prominent when liberals allow people to feel their moral agony, is left hidden.
Cui Bono?
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 11:22AM
It was the prominently-placed "George Clooney on Keeping America Free" on the masthead of a glossy magazine that arrived in my mailbox recently which drove me to sigh and promptly insert said glossy into the wastebasket. For Keeping America Free is not a subject that I have any interest in hearing from George Clooney about.
But it is refreshing to come across a celebrity who uses his position responsibly and takes the time to study and think about issues that matter. Someone who uses his immense platform not to throw random, knee-jerk barbs and insults at world leaders and institutions or to demand policies that are completely untenable (sometimes outright asinine).
We have a modern example of this sort in Bono, who, aside from his duties as front man for the Irish supergroup U2, has campaigned in a thoughtful and tireless way to focus the world's attention and resources on seeking real, workable solutions to the increasingly desperate situation in Africa. He's spent an enormous amount of time there -- sans cameras and entourage -- started his own DC-based think tank, and traveled the globe to meet and talk with world leaders of all political stripes without prejudice. And as a result, they're listening. President Bush yesterday spent nearly two hours with him in private conversation over lunch at the White House, as a follow-up to meetings between Bush, Bono, and British PM Tony Blair during this summer's G-8 meeting in Scotland. The relationship that Bono forged with retired Senator Jesse Helms resulted in real progress (and, as the Senator writes in his newly released memoir, a friendship that endures to this day).
I do not agree Bono's agenda in its entirety…that is not the point of this post. But you must admire him for the dignified manner in which he is pursuing that agenda and for investing real time, energy, resources and most importantly, thought into it. He's made himself into a credible authority on the subject, changed some important hearts and minds, and the poorest of the poor are benefiting.
Last evening U2 took to the stage before a sold-out crowd at Washington DC's MCI Center. The crowd didn't hear comparisons of Republicans to Nazis, nor songs about "American Idiots" coming from the stage….these guys know better -- and are better -- than that.
Joe Wilson, Great American
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 11:07AM
Joe Wilson, that rock-ribbed patriot, declaimed himself yesterday to the San Francisco crowd as uninterested in running for public office. In remarks published by "InsideBayArea.com," Wilson is quoted as saying he was too much a true child of the 1960s to be elected and had "too many wives and taken too many drugs. And, yes, I did inhale." This, from the man chosen by the CIA -- not the White House -- to go to Niger on a secret mission to investigate intelligence on WMD. Were the Plame Name Blame Game not so serious, it would be hilarious. If anyone still working at the CIA was responsible for hiring Wilson for the Niger mission, and in that I'd include le femme Valerie, they should be fired forthwith.
More on Cohen and Roe
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 10:55AM
Richard Cohen (gasp) has summed up the conservative argument against Wroe better than most conservatives. What the mainstream media and leftist elites have never understood is that conservatives, first and foremost, oppose Wroe on constitutional grounds -- its specious findings of rights that clearly do not exist in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and its trampling of rights and prerogatives reserved to the states that cleary do exist. That many conservatives oppose abortion based on deeply held religious beliefs is a separate matter. If a condescending liberal (excuse the redundancy) like Mr. Cohen has begun to grasp this not so subtle nuance after 30 years, it is cause for hope.
A Man of American Faith
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 2:08AM
Even if you didn't know Penn Kemble -- I knew him only slightly, but invariably found him solid, quiet, politely friendly, possessing a unique brand of "cool" -- you will doubtless be moved by Bob Tyrrell's tribute today to his longtime friend and handball rival, who died last Saturday. Kemble, you see, remained the best sort of Democrat, in contrast, say, to the likes of Sidney Blumenthal.
As it happens, Penn reviewed Blumenthal's snippy book on the Reagan right for us in the September 1986 TAS. He found The Rise of the Counter-Establishment "badly compromised by Blumenthal's inability to resist catty, ad hominem thrusts which overwhelm his intellectual and journalistic judgment." He noted that Blumenthal's "scornful style works against his effort to make the reader take his subject seriously." Blumenthal's biggest problem, however, was his inability to "turn a critical eye on the [New Left] movements that transformed the Democratic party during the McGovern era." Thus Blumenthal couldn't see that "Reagan reflects the dominant values of American civilization, while many of his most ardent opponents do not."
Kemble's final observations penned two decades ago remain no less valid today:
...Only mainstream Democrats, working within their own party, can overcome the leftist provocations that so divided the country, and that stirred the New Right toward its surprising victories.But whether Democrats or Republicans lead, it is inconceivable that our popular democracy will ever renounce the American faith -- the faith that has so profited Ronald Reagan, and that Blumenthal finds so dangerous and so contemptible. The future of American politics still lies with the most persuasive champions of that faith.
Cohen Overturns Roe
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 1:21AM
What has come over Richard Cohen? Just when Democrats are ready to knee cap Harriet Miers regarding Roe v. Wade he announces Roe is does not deserve constitutional standing and though he says he remains pro-choice it's clear from the context that he regrets very much having been so callously pro-abortion in the past. He even cites Princeton conservative Robert George respectfully. Roe, Cohen concludes, is "a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up."
The Saints Go Marching Out
Posted by on 10.20.05 @ 1:04AM
Mayor Ray Nagin is in trouble now. The owner of the New Orleans Saints is reportedly working to move his post-Katrina refugee team permanently to San Antonio. Nagin is threatening to do everything to keep it tied to New Orleans. Who will bother to listen?
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Michael Steele to Announce MD Senate Bid Next Week
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 5:26PM
This went out on the Maryland Republican Party mailing list today:
A VERY SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTIt's no mystery what the announcement will be; it's been assumed for months that Steele would run for Senate.The time has come for Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele to make a special announcement regarding the future of his public service.
Please join your fellow Marylanders for live music and refreshments on Tuesday, October 25th at the Novak Field House at Prince George's Community College at 11:15 AM.
Back in March I called for Steele (or Gov. Robert Ehrlich) to run. Since then, Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume have emerged as the frontrunners on Democratic side, joined by several potential spoilers. In a July poll, Rasmussen showed Steele running behind Cardin but ahead of Mfume.
Reporting Without Raines
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 5:05PM
Reading Seth Mnookin's book Hard News, I came across this passage about Howell Raines' indulgence of Judith Miller: "Raines had treated Miller -- like Patrick Tyler and Rick Bragg -- like a star. At one point soon after September 11, he personally instructed her to go out and 'win a Pulitzer.' What's more, Raines had effectively chased investigative editor Stephen Engelberg out of the paper; Engelberg, who had co-authored a book on biological warfare with Miller, was known as the one editor who had the knowledge and background to rein Miller in when she became excitedly insistent about whatever latest supposed scoop had been leaked to her."
Hugh Hewitt Show Today
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 2:50PM
I'm subbing for Hugh again today on the Salem Radio network. We'll be talking about the Saddam trial, the latest on the quagMiers nom, and a whole lot more. I can't take seriously the rumors that Cheney is one of Fitzgerald's targets. But ya never know. We'll be talking about that, too.
Just saw WaPo's Walter Pincus on FNC. He was one of the reporters who testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury. Pincus is an old enough hand to remember the wisdom of Watergate. As he said, "it's not what you do in Washington that's important. It's what you do after you get caught." (So who at the CIA may be indicted?)
Iraq's Judiciary
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 2:02PM
Should it trouble us that all the judges sitting on Saddam's case were judges under his old regime? Of the five sitting on the case, none were involved in Saddam's "extra-judicial" (i.e., murder/torture) "courts." But all were, at one time or another, Ba'athists. According to my sources, the judges joined the Ba'athist party just to get along. Didn't Gen. Patton get in a lot of trouble for hiring former Nazis and saying they joined the Nazi party just like Americans signed up to be Democrats or Republicans? On a good note, the five who will preside when the trial gets going are ethnically mixed. Presumably there will be no Lance Itos among them.
It's thoughtful of the Iraqis to schedule Saddam's trial to begin on November 28. The Miers hearings will be over by then, and by the 28th, the Thanksgiving weekend football games will be over.
Cynicism Is In
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 1:31PM
I find it stunning that seemingly out of the blue the president came out and said yesterday, "We're going to get control of our borders....If somebody is here illegally, we've got to do everything we can to find them... [and have them] returned to their home countries as soon as possible." So who's going to get the contract to deport 11 million illegals to Latin America?
As Good As It Gets?
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 1:04PM
The good senator from Mississippi, Trent Lott, on the Harriet Miers nomination: "More than likely, at some point, I'll be satisfied." Glowing. Just glowing.
The Year of Magical Thinking
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 11:37AM
There is a new layer of nothingness to the Judy Miller story: she didn't even write her "first-person" account of the experience that appeared in the New York Times last weekend. One of her few remaining friendly colleagues at the paper helped carry the ball on that one, according to the New York Observer's story. It is fitting that she picked up her First Amendment award at the "Alladin" in Las Vegas. She's performed quite a magic trick: getting gobs of attention for a story not written, about a crime not committed, for protecting a source not known or not needing protection, all written up in a "first-person" account by another person.
Repent! The End of the World Is Nigh!
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 11:07AM
As Bush administration incompetence allows yet another hurricane to bear down on the U.S. territory, I was reminded of George Will's recent endorsement of Simon Winchester's enduring fascination with "humankind's insistent folly in living in places where they shouldn't." Earlier in the same column Will warned that "we should have quite precise worries about the incurably unstable ground on which scores of millions of Americans live." As if Al Gore were whispering in his ear, he then added, "This almost certainly will result in a huge calamity, probably in the lifetime of most people now living." He was writing about California and earthquakes, but it's the sort of doomsday logic that could be applied to any populated areas exposed to hurricanes, floods, drought, cold, heat, fire, rockslides, mudslides, avalanches, not to mention mosquitoes. George, isn't there some erupting volcano we should be fleeing?
Bush's New Immigration Push
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 8:20AM
President Bush renewed his guest worker program efforts yesterday, and even tossed some immigration bones to the base:
Seeking to mollify balky Republicans, Bush emphasized border-control measures, saying the bill he signed would help the deportation of illegal immigrants and would provide more border patrol agents, new technologies, and expanded detention centers.
Agitating conservatives get results, right? Sort of. If Bush were really serious about immigration reform and placating conservatives, he would begin by ordering the Border Patrol to enforce existing laws to the best of their ability.
Spinning Saddam's Trial
Posted by on 10.19.05 @ 6:36AM
The Associated Press "reports":
But in some ways, Iraq also will be on trial, with the world watching to see whether its new Shiite and Kurd-dominated ruling class can rise above politics and prejudice and give the former dictator a fair hearing.What do you suppose an unfair hearing for Saddam Hussein would look like?
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Miss Run Amok Doesn't Break A Sweat
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 6:02PM
Newsweek's Christopher Dickey weighs in on the Judith Miller story, at once running her down and rebuking her critics (focus on other media ills, he tells his colleagues, such as "persistent intimidation from right-wing ideologues"). He says she's great at getting "access" to powerful figures and taking copious notes; she just can't process them or label them properly. Once when he was traveling with her abroad he compared notes with her after they had both interviewed the same subject. He discovered that in her notes she had confused his questions for the subject of the interview's answers. But while Dickey basically says Miller can't think, he does credit her with a certain craftiness. She bragged to him on their travels that she never "breaks a sweat."
Sins of the Mother
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 5:19PM
You think Houston doesn't have enough problems? It's not clear it will ever recover from Albert Pujols' missile launch last night. Its NFL team may go winless this year. Then there's its NBA team's star basketball import, Yao Ming, all 7'6" of him, who it turns out is the son of a once gung-ho member of Mao's Red Guard during the murderous Cultural Revolution. It was all reported in Sports Illustrated's September 26 issue and confirmed by a letter to the editor in the October 17 SI. "Having spent part of her youth abusing others for perceived crimes involving Western 'decadence,' she quickly took control of her son's career and his millions of dollars. She now lives in America enjoying the fruits of her son's success," John J. Montone of Hoboken, N.J., wrote in.
According to the Sports Illustrated, Yao Ming himself isn't all too thrilled with this arrangment. "My mother is like a mosquito constantly buzzing around my ears," he once told a friend.
Re: Cheney
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 5:13PM
Has anyone explored the possibility that this rumor -- "that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" -- might have been started by Dick Morris's publisher?
Re: Bartlett
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 4:44PM
Says the Times: "The statement [from the National Center for Policy Analysis] said that the manuscript he showed Mr. Goodman was 'an evaluation of the motivations and competencies of politicians rather than an analysis of public policy.' The statement said the organization did not want to be associated with that kind of work."
But that makes no sense: NCPA had no problem with being associated with Bartlett's syndicated column. And since the book is just an expansion on what Bartlett has been writing for a while now, it can't be the content of his book that's the problem. Bartlett's fireable offense, then: a provocative title.
Cheney Rumors
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 3:34PM
It's completely unsubstantiated, but here it is: "Cheney resignation rumors fly." All that we know about possible indictments is rumors and speculation. There's nothing to substantiate any of this, and the headline overplays the actual content of the story. From all appearances, this is Washington parlor game, a "what if."
Today on the Hugh Hewitt Show
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 3:00PM
I'm subbing for Hugh all week. We'll be talking today about the Miers answers to the Judiciary Committee questionnaire, D'OHS Secretary Chertoff's statement that he's gonna expel all illegals (no word on Vicente Fox's reax) and lotsa other stuff including more on the Plame Name Blame Game. Tune in 6-9 EDT on the Salem Radio Network. See ya on the radio.
Miers Answers Committee Questionnaire
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 11:15AM
Our friends at Red State blog have posted the 63-page response of Harriett Miers to the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing questionnaire. Of greatest interest is her answer to the question about the nomination process.
Miers says she was asked, on the day O'Conner announced her retirement, if she wished her name to be put forward, and she said no. After Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away, she discovered that her name was being considered without her knowledge. She then met with her deputy, William Kelley, and with Andy Card and the president. She subsequently had four meetings with the president before her nomination was announced.
This appears to confirm, at least circumstantially, the Prowler's reports that White House chief of staff Card was the moving force behind the nomination.
Bartlett Dismissed
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 10:52AM
Bruce Bartlett has been dismissed from his position as senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis in advance of his forthcoming book. The title? The Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. It's gonna get worse before it gets better...
Sox Fans: There When They Need You
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 10:38AM
So the South Siders are in the World Series. Good for them. Really, I mean it. As a Cubs fan, I can wish them well. After all, a few friends and co-workers at the University of Chicago were Sox fans. My favorite priest in Chi-town is a South Sider, born and raised. Like last year, if the Sox win, I'll be happy to see a long draught finally ended -- it means there's hope for the Cubbies. And I'd rather see the Sox win than a NL Central rival.
This all may sound strange if you really think crosstown rivalries matter. They do. Cubs fans just don't care about the Sox in the way that Sox fans care about the Cubs. Despite 97 years of proudly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the Cubs have more of a following, more pride, and a more celebrated tradition. The town loves the team.
The White Sox had consecutive winning seasons from 1951 through 1967. And yet, walk the streets of fairly neutral territory -- the "Loop" area downtown -- and look for White Sox hats in February or even May. You'll find one for every five Cubs hats. The Cubs could be 20 games back and the White Sox first in the AL Central and you'd still be hard pressed to find the fans. And that's why the few Sox fans are so frustrated at the Cubs. They're jealous that the Cubs draw such a fervent following. Even in his team's moment of glory, Mayor Daley's whining about the Trib's coverage (the Tribune Co. owns the Cubs). The stories touting Sox fan "suffering" are a bit of a stretch. Sure, the true fans suffer. But when White Sox fans' so-called suffering requires a story in the USA Today reporting it, the suffering may not be so bad. And how many truly suffer when the team only draws 2.3 million fans (compared to the Cubs' 3.1 million this year) when it has the best record in baseball?
Members of the media, when you're looking for suffering fans in Chicago this month, head north to Wrigleyville. You'll find them huddled over beers at the Cubbie Bear.
Morning Business
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 10:35AM
Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. We've swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we've believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We've been there for him because we've considered ourselves part of his team.So says David Keene in The Hill this morning. One of the most thoughtful analyses I've seen yet on Miers and the bigger picture.No more.
Aborting the Disabled
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 10:30AM
Patricia Bauer, a former Washington Post reporter and the mother of a child with Down syndrome, writes on the Post's Op-Ed page today about the societal pressure to abort a disabled unborn child. People look at her child "curious, surprised, sometimes wary, occasionally disapproving or alarmed." At a recent dinner party, an Ivy League professor, specializing in ethics naturally, instructed the table that parents have a duty to undergo prenatal testing to ensure that disabled children don't enter the world. "When I started to pipe up about our family's experience," writes Bauer, "he smiled politely and turned to the lady on his left."Â
A pediatrician in Los Angeles, who used to see many children with disabilities, now sees none. He informed Bauer that on the west side of L.A. they are just not born anymore. Â
A Haymaker Home Run
Posted by on 10.18.05 @ 1:55AM
A friend's e-mail greets me as I open my computer:
I am glorying in Pujols' home run to extend the NLCS, though as the announcers pointed out, the real hero was David Eckstein for getting a two-out, two-strike, nobody on base single to keep the Cardinals' season alive. I didn't have much of a rooting interest other than, like you, a certain disgust at a 6-month season of dominance for the Cards going up in smoke due to the "wild card" format. Baseball is just not that kind of sport. It's a slow game that is all about the long haul, but we have footballized it, and football is best left for football.
I can't compete with his insights, especially his poetry about the slow game that is all about the long haul, but let me at least add my two-cents' worth. If Eckstein's a hero, which he is, so is Jim Edmonds and his ability to work the pitcher for a walk (after an unfortunate last at-bat the previous night -- proving these pros really do improve from day to day). But, my gosh, has there ever been a more smashing home run than Albert Pujols's? It KO'ed a team, a packed stadium, a city. One out away from the World Series! If Houston doesn't gets there now, it'll never forgive Hurricane Rita for sparing it in the first place.
I noticed that when Pujols came up that last time one of the announcers called him "one of the best hitters in baseball." The best hitter in baseball, I quickly corrected. There's never been a player with his thick statistics over his first five years. Anyway, I love it when I'm subsequently proved right.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Still QuagMiersed
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 11:05PM
There's an interesting dynamic that's overtaking the Miers nomination. In an interview I did with him on the Hugh Hewitt Show today our friend John Fund of the Wall Street Journal said that Miers's time on the Texas Lottery Commission will become the new Dem focus on the nomination, and that they now plan to use it -- and old CBS fave, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes -- to revive the whole Bush Air National Guard story. Even the CBS fake-but-accurate memos. The Dems would be nuts to revive that stuff. But the old scandals at the Lottery Commission could lead to something that would damage Miers (but not likely the president). Stay tuned. The needle on the Ugliometer is twitching.
Tobacco Outlaw
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 7:47PM
Whoa.
British American Tobacco, according to the Guardian, has been operating a secret plant in North Korea. British MP Ken Clarke, currently in a race to become leader of the Tories, may want to reconsider his ties to the company. Like, now.
This is a story to watch, for sure.
Corporate Miers
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 6:22PM
Finally, an interesting perspective on Harriet Miers, who in the fight over her future has been described as either saintly or a dolt with few other qualities allowed to creep in. In yesterday's Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post Lorraine Woellert of Business Week argued that Miers, like John Roberts before her, is a welcome nominee from Corporate America's perspective:
Lost in the bitter brouhaha over abortion, gay marriage, God and the flag is another important facet of the Supreme Court debate: Miers has a blue-chip résumé that would wow Wall Street. Her record on constitutional issues is thin, but Miers's top-flight credentials in corporate law are attractive to the CEO-in-chief, who holds an MBA and was himself a businessman before being elected governor in Texas.Her decades as a high-powered corporate litigator are just the beginning. She also has served on the corporate boards of a securities fund and a mortgage company. She's tackled the entire spectrum of commercial issues firsthand, defending Texas car dealers against price-fixing charges, challenging claims that Microsoft sold defective software, protecting Walt Disney's trademarks, and taking on consumers who sued mortgage companies for violating debt collection laws.
But, for the boardroom set, it's her work outside the courtroom that sets her apart. For years, Miers was a driving force in Texas for reforms that would protect industry from lawsuits. She helped elect reform-minded judges to the state bench, including longtime friend Nathan Hecht, a Texas supreme court justice who is derided by trial lawyers as the father of Texas tort reform....
In this respect, Woellert sees Miers as the ideal successor to Sandra Day O'Connor:
...CEOs mourned the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. Legal scholars have scoffed at her philosophical inconsistency, but business execs lauded her practicality and her frequent acknowledgments of real-world situations in opinions that often made their 9-to-5 workday a little easier....Those who know Miers see her as having a similar bent. "Miers will be in the same class as Sandra Day O'Connor," says Ralph Wayne, president of the Texas Civil Justice League....
A few more pieces like this and maybe more than one puzzle may be solved. Though it's not clear if corporate America is doing any serious lobbying for Miers, we should not forget that the man who nominated her was known for his ties to it before he became president and indeed often that as a crony capitalist in his own career. That very fact could explain conservatives' ongoing frustration with, say, Bush's spending habits. Corporate America isn't necessarily small government America. We needed Miers to be reminded of this?
RINO's Are Funny
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 5:14PM
As a keen observer of the New York political scene and devoted fan of the state's Conservative Party and its Chairman Mike Long, I'm keeping a close eye on the gubernatorial and Senate races there, and watching with glee as Long stands up to the state Republican party which, after years adrift under the sad leadership of George Elmer Pataki, has probably never been further to the left. It's like the Rockefeller era all over again up there, but with more distasteful individuals around.
The great thing about Long and his party is that the Pataki people don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being successful in retaining the Governor's mansion nor defeating HRC if they cannot field consensus candidates for the two seats. Pataki clones just ain't gonna cut it this time around, as the Conservatives have been there, done that, and are not all that interested in doing it again.
To this end, the GOP has already screwed up the Senate race by anointing Jeanine Pirro over Long's reservations, and it may be on the verge of making the same mistake twice with regard to the governor's race.
I'll write more about the New York stuff in the weeks ahead, but I wanted to quickly weigh in on this piece by the New York Post's esteemed political reporter, Fred Dicker. Seems Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld and State GOP Chairman Steven Minarik are scheming to assuage conservatives by naming a conservative running mate for Weld. But the job "Lt. Governor of New York" might as well be a no-show job.
Months ago, Long made it abundantly clear that Weld would not be well-regarded by the Conservative Party of New York. He has since strongly hinted that there will be no Weld running on the Conservative line in the 2006 Governor's race. Again, despite Long's concerns, Minarik endorsed Weld over the summer, pretty much setting a course for collision with the Conservative Party.
Now it appears the hapless GOP Chairman is trying to get Weld to offer the Lt. Governor nod to former Assembly Republican Leader John Faso, the failed 2002 candidate for Comptroller on the Pataki ticket. Faso is a good guy, a good conservative, and would, I think, be quite acceptable to Long as a gubernatorial nominee. But if I know Mike Long, I do not think Minarik's Weld-Faso stunt will fly.
Re: Ending the Tobacco Extortion
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 2:32PM
This is good news, indeed, Dave. More than a year ago Spectator ran a large story detailing this travesty, an excerpt of which is available on the web here.
Flowers for the Prosecutor Perhaps?
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 1:12PM
George (Neumayr) -- you hit the nail on the head. One thing to add: The New York Times and Washington Post articles underline the irony in the whole sordid affair -- Judy Miller was already in the doghouse, and by many insider accounts, on her way out for her shoddy WMD reporting before the Plame story broke. Pat Fitzgerald put the NYT in the uncomfortable position of defending a reporter they would have rather seen leave before they were forced to giver her the "full Jason Blair." Instead, Judy gets martyr status. Now, with the full story coming out, Miss Run Amok seems less martyrish... Still, St. Judy should send the prosecutor a dozen roses and a thank you note for rescuing her career.
Ending the Tobacco Extortion
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 1:12PM
The Supreme Court today declined to hear the federal government's appreal in the lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Quite rightly, the courts found that the $280 billion award for past tobacco profits was ridiculous. Of course, this suit began under the Clinton Administration's Justice Department. But why has Bush's Justice continued to pursue it? In 2001, Justice maintained budget levels for the tobacco suit. Since the inquiry wasn't expanded, Democratic Senators asked then-AG Ashcroft if he supported the suit. He replied, "The Justice Department is proceeding with the case and I support the department's position." That's the reply of a man obeying the White House. For more on the lawsuit's affront to free speech, see Jacob Sullum in Reason earlier this year.
This isn't the only area in which Bush's Justice is off track. Steve Moore wrote in our June 2005 issue ("George Bush's Antitrust Tax") that Bush's aggressive antitrust policy prevents the market from adapting.
Miss Run Amok
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 11:47AM
The New York Times' own story on Judith Miller's absurd melodrama confirms that the episode, far from rehabilitating the paper after Howell Raines-era debacles, has deepened the paper's slide into self-important nonsense. The episode is a monument to nothingness: it revolves around a story not written, about a crime not committed, involving no source needing protection. It is no wonder Miller's colleagues felt like booing her after she returned to the newsroom.Â
Re: Anything for the Coalition?
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 10:31AM
Grover Norquist doesn't need my help defending himself in this dustup with the social conservatives over his decision to keynote the Log Cabin Republican dinner, but alas...
Anyone familiar with Grover's "Wednesday meeting" knows that it serves mainly as a forum for the broader center-right community -- not just for the more hardcore among us. (As a contrast, Paul Weyrich runs a similar weekly meeting where the focus is much more on social conservatism.) Anyway, Grover's focus as the host of these sessions has always been on identifying key issues on which most groups on the right can agree, and then working to move the ball forward on said issues. I neither find it unusual nor disturbing that he would appear at a Log Cabin event, as there are a host of issues that come up at his meetings which I am sure the LCRs support enthusiastically. Grover's "thing" is inclusion and consensus-building, it always has been, and everyone knows that. So to smack him around for being there for a group that's probably been there for him on some key fights is, I think, a little uncalled for.
Miers Latest
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 9:49AM
Word out of the White House this morning is that in prep sessions for her hearings, Miers has been working on outlining her arguments that Roe. v. Wade is "settled law."
This takes on greater significance given John Fund's report on the Arlington Group's conference call to discuss the Miers nomination. White House staff involved in the Miers nomination process knew this story was coming over the weekend, and have been attempting to construct some push back on it. "There really isn't any," says one outside consultant in the matter. "It's not like Roberts who had his own testimony to fall back on in his discussion of Roe during his Supreme Court hearings. Harriet has nothing." Roberts had testified two years ago that he believed Roe was settled law.
Similarly, with White House and former White House staff pushing back on the portrayal last week that Miers was deeply involved in the vetting of Bush judiciary nominees (internal counts show she would have been involved in no more than 3, and two of those may have been re-nominations), look for new information to come to light about Miers' true role in pressing the ABA to abandon a neutral position on Roe v. Wade and abortion cases.
This story was critical to the White House's efforts in the first days of the nomination to give conservative critics some indication of where Miers stood ideologically. "Her role was not what has been portrayed thus far," says the outside consultant. "The White House was ready to move in another direction message-wise this week, but now it appears facts are going to get in the way."
It's Monday
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 8:40AM
And the horses are fast out of the gate. First, our friend John Fund has a report in the Wall Street Journal that is sure to shiver a lot of liberal timbers. According to John's piece, two days after President Bush nominated Miers, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and Dallas US District Judge Ed Kinkeade --- sitting judges both -- assured a group of religious conservative activists that Miers would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Here's the money quote from Fund's piece:
"Dr. Dobson says he was surprised to learn that Messrs. Hecht and Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce them, which he considered awkward, given that he'd never spoken to the former and only once to the latter. He introduced them, nonetheless, by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."
"What followed was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he'd never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" "Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade. "I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."
NARAL, NOW and PFAW will, after all, get to spend all that tv ad money they raised to sink Chief Justice Roberts.
And it's not even 8:30 am yet. Stand by.
Luck of the Non-Irish
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 2:15AM
I was all set to pronounce here on the USC-Notre Dame game. But I ran long and out came a mini-column. So it's posted in the main page lineup, where you can boo it without being penalized.
I do agree it was a game for the ages. By the way, did you know that Justice Clarence Thomas was in attendance? I didn't either, until informed by top Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon. Apparently the game was such a draw that it attracted scores of celebrities. (Yes, Notre Dame has come to this.) "So many private jets descended on South Bend it looked like McCarron Airport in Las Vegas three hours before kickoff," Wilbon wrote. But I still can't figure out if Wilbon was ridiculing Thomas when he noted: "Every NFL team seemed to have at least one representative in the house, and they were B-list celebs when considering Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas attended." Somehow I suspect that that "they" was meant to be "there."
Myth of the Purple Finger?
Posted by on 10.17.05 @ 12:25AM
Over at Daily Kos, Armando seems unhappily resigned to the best case scenario with regard to Saturday's referendum in Iraq.
"Yes the Constitution will win the vote," he writes writes in a post that hinted at the same sectarian strife CNN's Christiane Amanpour did (see my post today on AmSpec's main page). "And then what? Will our troops come home now? Will the Iraqi government be able to govern? What is different now than yesterday?"
Well, first of all, the country will have a constitution. Sure, it is somewhat flawed and gives way too much weight to Islamic law, but, then again, the United States has amended our own constitution 27 times. Whatever one thought about the war, the high turnout among all Iraqi factions to vote on a constitution should be welcome news.
Further, it's difficult to see how demanding to know what will change in a single day adds any heft or validity to Armando's arguments against the war. If anything, the unwillingness to acknowledge there is a difference casts his legitimate gripes in a poorer light. The only people who are going to be persuasive outside of the solidly pro-war or anti-war camps are those who acknowledge reality, good or bad, rather than ignore it out of convenience.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Is it Monday Yet?
Posted by on 10.16.05 @ 9:25PM
Fortunately, no. But don't be impatient. Mondays always come, usually too soon. Before we finish our coffee, we'll be back in the quagMiers of Harriett's nomination. By mid-day, we'll be counting Iraqi votes on fingers and toes, and within another day or two wishing whatever Iraqi version of Lance Ito is presiding over Saddam's trial would restore order sufficiently for reporters to figure out just what in blazes the prosecutor said in his opening statement. But please don't mix the Saddam files with the Rove/ Libby/Miller/Wilson/Plame case or the transcript from today's Meet the Press. It wouldn't do at all to shuffle the Team Clinton stories trashing Louis Freeh with the NYT coverage trashing the Bush White House. Well, okay, maybe it would. This is Gypsy Curse Week: we live in interesting times. Get a good night's rest. You're gonna need it.
On Time
Posted by on 10.16.05 @ 7:50PM
Time is reporting what we were hearing -- and reporting -- from White House sources last week ... that the White House was shifting the Miers nomination fight away from her personality and focusing on her career.
Problem is, there isn't much the White House wants to discuss there. Word inside 1600 is that looking over court filings Miers was responsible in pulling together prior to her stint in public service -- and which clients and others were willing to release -- there isn't much the White House feels comfortable letting out into the public view. "It's pretty dim stuff," says one White House vetter. "There's some paper, but not a lot. It's frustrating."
There is now talk of sending Miers back up to Capitol Hill for more intensive, private conversations with conservative Republican Senators in hopes that they will at least issue statements indicating a more supportive position for the nominee. But there are others advising against it. "We don't want to give those guys more ammunition," says another White House adviser. "We've seen what happened when we tried to go out of our way to allay their concerns about ideology. It blew up in our faces. Best to just stick to procedure. If a Senator wants a meet, they can request it. We aren't doing anything out of the ordinary."
In fact, the White House may not release much of anything on its own. A great deal of paper is now with the Judiciary Committee, but the White House is leaving it up to the committee to either release or leak it.
Sunday in Baghdad (Updated: 6:08 p.m.)
Posted by on 10.16.05 @ 12:50PM
More from our man in the Iraqi capital, John Connly Walsh:
It is early Sunday morning in Baghdad. The Referendum took place yesterday and all the Iraqis I know are immensely proud of both the turnout, and the peaceful way it was conducted. My friend Ferras said to me this morning: "I hope George Bush is as proud of us as I am -- and I hope he TELLS us that!"It is still very peaceful here this Sunday morning. However, jets have been roaring overhead non-stop all morning. They are always so high that I can't see them and, for some reason, they rarely leave contrails here. The direction of the sound makes it clear the planes are headed west. That is not surprising since that is the location of Anbar province and the Syrian border....
UPDATE: (6:08 p.m.) And now, a Sunday afternoon entry from John Walsh:
I am home from the Blue Star and have learned nothing new except that they make a very nice chicken filet. There was very relaxed crowd there and they all seemed to enjoy the evening out under a full moon in weather that is starting to become pleasantly balmy. The silence all over Baghdad, however, is still deafening. It is as if all the terrorists had suddenly been whisked away on a flying saucer by spacemen. Everyone seems genuinely puzzled by the quiet and, without fail, everyone spoke of waiting for another shoe to drop....I spoke to a several strangers at the Blue Star. I asked if they had voted and most said they had. I asked them to guess the outcome. Without exception they all said the Constitution will pass....
Read it all here, already posted for Monday.
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Progressive Derangements
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
