Saturday, October 29, 2005
Belated Fitzmas
Posted by on 10.29.05 @ 11:42PM
We keep hearing from people who should know that some Republicans outside of the White House -- and some inside -- are being much too dismissive of the indictment of Lewis Libby and its potential repercussions on others down the road.
"This investigation is not over," says an adviser to the White House. "The indictment was meant to send a very clear message, and if people haven't figured it out yet, and they are breathing a sigh of relief, then they are in for a very bitter surprise."
Camp David
Posted by on 10.29.05 @ 11:35PM
As long as Miers doesn't return from Camp David with a renomination in hand, and Card doesn't return having been nominated for the Treasury Secretaryship he covets, what's the problem? If what the White House told us about Miers' role in the Roberts nomination process is accurate, and everything we've heard seems to bear that out, then she did a good job for the President and for conservatives. There is nothing to suspect they won't give the President strong advice.
White House insiders say that while President Bush has not yet had a "Come to Jesus" moment, the past ten days have come pretty close. He understands that this pick can either put his agenda back on track, or it can put his Presidency back into a sink hole of no return.
Right now, the biggest names in play are Alito, Luttig and Corrigan from Michigan. Any three would be more than satisfactory.
Time for a Transplantagenet
Posted by on 10.29.05 @ 7:18PM
Prince Charles, whose recent marriage to good old whatshername is a sedative for Americans, is coming to preach to us. According to the Daily Telegraph reports, Charles, "...will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11...The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths."
Please, Charlie. Spare us your plea for America to join Britian in pursuit of dhimmitude. As Mark Steyn has chronicled brilliantly (and hilariously), the UK's slide away from freedom in fear of its Muslim minority passes through farce after farce, its individual freedoms slipping away. (One small blow was struck for freedom this last week when public banks, having decided to give up piggy banks because Muslims might be offended, were given permission to continue by a prominent Muslim who shook his head in dismay at the sheer dumbness of the proposed action.
A month after the two hundredth anniversary of Trafalgar, we have the un-Nelson coming to visit. Britain is no longer the nation that gave the world Wellington, Nelson and Churchill. Instead of a stiff upper lip and set Churchillian jaw, we get a limp Windsor with a wan smile. Somewhere, here or in Britain, the seed of Richard must live. Surely an American genetecist could find it and perform a Transplantagenet on Charles whilst he is here. 'Tis devoutly to be wisht.
From Posted Comments
Posted by on 10.29.05 @ 4:21PM
Someone going by the numerical code of "0701" pushes back on our reporting that Joe Wilson was talking himself up and his Niger trip in green rooms all over town: "Which is all hearsay on your part unless you have a verifiable source."
Well yes, we do. Beyond having heard it directly, NBC's Andrea Mitchell has reported several times about Wilson's activities and loose tongue prior to the publication of his NY Times op-ed.
Blood Lust
Posted by on 10.29.05 @ 1:57AM
If much of Washington is celebrating the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the most famous vice-presidential chief of staff since Bill Kristol under Dan Quayle, the Washington Post's op-ed page hasn't joined in, at least not on slow Saturday. A joint op-ed by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey blows Patrick Fitzgerald into space:
Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be the final proof that the system of "special prosecutors" is bankrupt and ought to be abandoned.Fitzgerald, a highly respected federal prosecutor from Chicago, was given the task of investigating whether Bush administration officials had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by "leaking" the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame.
It is clear that, at least by sometime in January 2004 -- and probably much earlier -- Fitzgerald knew this law had not been violated. Plame was not a "covert" agent but a bureaucrat working at CIA headquarters. Instead of closing shop, however, Fitzgerald sought an expansion of his mandate and has now charged offenses that grew entirely out of the investigation itself. In other words, there was no crime when the investigation started, only, allegedly, after it finished. Unfortunately, for special counsels, as under the code of the samurai, once the sword is drawn it must taste blood.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Camp David Thoughts
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 10:16PM
The president reportedly left for Camp David to contemplate the next Supreme Court nomination over the weekend. To my consternation, Miers and Andy Card both went with him. (This, presumably, does not mean that Card is the next nominee).
He surely had this letter from Sens. Leahy and Reid with him. In it, after tut-tutting Miers's implosion, they come right out and say that the prez shouldn't nominate anyone conservatives might accept, especially no candidate with a Y chromosome:
"As before, we strongly urge you to refrain from nominating to the Supreme Court any of the handful of judicial nominees who were filibustered during the past four years, or any other similarly divisive candidate. Instead, we urge you to pick one of the many qualified mainstream women and minority candidates who can win widespread bipartisan support in the Senate and among the American people. We have privately offered you some thoughts in this regard, and remain willing to meet with you again to achieve consensus." This is no time for a consensus nominee who would replace Justice O'Conner with another Justice O'Connor. Or worse.
There are four names that top my list: Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig and Priscilla Owen. There are others, but the president shouldn't even consider anyone who isn't as expert in constitutional jurisprudence as Associate Justice Scalia, and who doesn't have a sufficiently proven conservative judicial philosophy. Conservatives have been working too hard for too long to settle for anyone of lesser proven value.
If the president does what he should, it will bring about the fight of our political lives. It would have been good to have won without going through that fight. The Miers nomination precluded that by tossing away the momentum created by the Roberts confirmation. Now, the chance of having another justice confirmed this year is very slim. And the fight will be harder next year as soft Republicans head to the tall grass thinking of their own reelections.
This fight, as I've written before, will be liberalism's last stand. And it is the chance for us to reinvent and reinvogorate the conservative movement in this country. It's going to be very hard, but we can't forget that it's a perfectly winnable fight. Like the man said, bring it on.
Spinning Webs
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 8:00PM
In speaking with people who would know far better than us about the Fitzgerald indictment, what on the face appears to be thin gruel may be a remarkably complex and dangerous document for the Bush Administration and its defenders, as well as Democrats.
Don't expect a lot of commentary or pushback from White House or Administration types, particularly given that so many colleagues have testified under oath or provided interviews to the FBI. The wrong comment or conflicting piece of information could create further troubles for others already in jeapardy.
More interesting is the time line that Fitzgerald lays out related to the defense the White House began to erect agains the leaking and prevaricating of Joe Wilson. Remember, all of this got started because word reached the White House from reporters and friends of the Administration that Wilson was talking himself up and his Niger trip in green rooms all over town. The White House had several weeks at least to begin mapping out a pushback plan, and this appears to be the time when many of the problems took shape. There appears to be much in this timeline for others to mine.
Your Weekend Reading List
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 6:17PM
Some notable books passed through our hands at TAS this week and here are some highlights:
Michelle Malkin puts in book form that which she does best: chronicling liberal madness in Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. She flips through their odd conspiracy theories, the racist slurs of which she's a frequent target, and their fantasy of seeing President Bush assassinated. It looks like great red meat nightstand reading.
To burn or not to burn? That question is closely related to conserve or use? The venue: our national parks. The national parks are the area where the federal government got it right. There are certain parts of this country that ought to be conserved especially well. So when we favor development and access over conservation, the parks become a glorified
And I cannot recommend this last book warmly enough. It's sat on my desk for months, begging for the full attention of a review, but the timelier articles and projects pushed it off to manana. No more. Matthew Lickona, a writer for the
Underlying Thread
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 5:59PM
Let's not get carried away with the Scooter vs. the Reporters issue on the Libby indictment. If we read this carefully, and think about what Fitzgerald said in his endless presscon, there's another thread that seems to be the one that sewed up the indictment.
There's a pattern they're alleging in Libby's attempts to characterize the source of the information about Plame's identity. The indictment doesn't charge Libby with lying to reporters, but to the grand jury. Libby -- if he did as the indictment alleged -- told the grand jury that reporters (Russert, et al.) were the source of the Plame identity and that he repeated it to other reporters without knowing its truth or falsity. Libby is charged because he said those same things to the grand jury knowing that his source of the information wasn't the reporters but a White House official.
Outing Plame isn't charged, but Fitzgerald seems to be convinced that leaking her name was a violation of law. If she wasn't covert (and apparently she wasn't) it's hard to see what law was broken in leaking her CIA employment.
The only good news in this is that it's pretty thin gruel for anyone such as the MSM to build a case that "Bush lied us into war" based on anything in this indictment. There may be other indictments coming. But let's not go after Fitzgerald yet. He - unlike the Lawrence Walshes of the world - seems to be playing it straight, if perhaps overly aggressive.
Fitzgerald's Four-Corner Offense
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 4:20PM
Patrick Fitzgerald said that he wasn't going to speak outside the "four corners" of the indictment, yet he did repeatedly. Isn't it irresponsible for a prosecutor to say Libby compromised national security when he hasn't charged him with that? Fitzgerald's little speech on protecting the identities of CIA agents was ancillary BS to give his underwhelming findings a little gravitas. Either charge Libby with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection act, Mr. Fitzgerald, or shut up.
Re: Plame Known as CIA Operative Before 7/14/03
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 3:54PM
I noticed that, too. It's a major reason why Libby's claim of hearing about Plame from Russert might seem more plausible than the indictment allows. If the case goes to trial (a big if), Libby's lawyer may use this to raise questions about Russert's credibility, which could make for some rather awkward episodes of Meet the Press.
The Indictment
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 3:05PM
I've now read it. Here's the breakdown, with the charges rearranged into logical groupings.
First, the Russert charges: Libby told the grand jury that Tim Russert asked him, "did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA?" and that Russert added that "all the reporters knew it." Russert told the grand jury that he and Libby did not discuss Wilson at all. The grand jury believes Russert, and this is the basis for one count of perjury and one count of making a false statement. By itself, not very strong -- it's Libby's word against Russert's.
Second, the Cooper charges. Libby told the grand jury that he said to Matthew Cooper of Time that reporters were telling the administration that that Wilson's wife was CIA, but that he didn't know if that was true. Cooper told the grand jury that he asked about Wilson's wife being CIA, and Libby said "I heard that too," without elaboration. This is the basis of the other perjury charge and the other false statement charge. The grand jury believes Cooper, and once again it's Libby's word against the reporter.
Third, the big enchilada: The obstruction charge. The Cooper and Russert charges mentioned above are part of the obstruction charge. So is another similar charge: Libby told the jury that he told Judy Miller that he'd heard other reporters saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but that he didn't know if that was true. Miller contradicted this story. Apparently, Fitzgerald didn't think Miller was credible enough to bring another set of perjury and false statement charges, but did think that her story, taken together with the other conflicts between Libby's accounts of conversations and reporters', would bolster the obstruction charge. The other part of the obstruction charge appears to be the most damning: Libby told the grand jury that he was surprised to hear from Russert that Wilson's wife was CIA. But the indictment alleges that Libby had discussed the topic nine times prior to the conversation with Russert -- with the Vice President, with the Undersecretary of State, with a CIA briefer, with Judy Miller, with the White House Press Secretary, with the Assistant to the Vice President, with Judy Miller again, and with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President.
Looking Past the Fog
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 2:24PM
Of the Fitzgerald indictments over at Postmodern Conservative.
Plame Known as CIA Operative Before July 14, 2003
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 2:07PM
I'm not sure how this impacts the charges against Scooter Libby, but one of Fitzgerald's claims in the indictment press release doesn't hold up:
Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. (pg. 2)
This contradicts much of what we have known for years about this case: Valerie Plame/Wilson's identity was a rather open secret in Washington. Fitzgerald's right if by intelligence community, he means the Beltway community. I believe it was David Frum who said a while back that if she's driving over Chain Bridge everyday from her D.C. home she can't be that undercover.
Anyway, Bob Novak detailed his experience with this in an Oct. 1, 2003 column:
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it."
Novak also cites Cliff May, who wrote in 2003 that he'd been told about Plame's identity before July 14 as an offhand insidery sort of fact.
If Fitzgerald's working from these flawed assumptions, it calls into doubt the rest of his case.
Paul Begala, Perjury Expert
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 1:44PM
Paul Begala is higher than a kite on CNN. The Libby indictment has triggered his surprisingly sensitive conscience, inspiring a newfound distaste for perjury in the course of answering questions about a noncrime. He declares that Libby's indictment "will consume the rest of the Bush presidency." When Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey pointed out that the underlying matter here is substanceless political nonsense, Begala shushed him, saying that "perjury" is the issue.
OSC Website
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 1:38PM
Here is where you'll find the indictment and press release.
Feeding Frenzy
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 1:26PM
The networks all broke into daytime TV to announce the Libby indictment. Thousands of soap opera fans just shouted "What? Who?"
Quick Take
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 1:20PM
This is a terrible day for Lewis Libby and his family. Given the financial cost and emotional toll these kinds of things take, we wouldn't wish this on anyone but a Democrat.
But the MSM take right now that this is an indictment that is going to rock the White House and shake this President is spinning what three weeks ago was a rumored18, five to ten count indictments story that turned out to be something far less than that (Libby aside).
For weeks senior Democrats on Capitol Hill and along K Street lawyers sympathetic to Democrats have been feeding reporters - and people like us - "sourcing" on the Fitzgerald investigation. Left-wing bloggers like Raw Story, Daily Kos and Steve Clemons have been eating it up and putting it out there for all to read and hear.
The White House will get past this fairly quickly. The notion that somehow this President is boxed in is ridiculous, and will proven so within a month, when, with a strong Supreme Court nominee and a solid spending cut bill moving through Congress, the media is talking about how Bush once again is the great political escape artist.
Libby Indicted
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 12:59PM
One count of obstruction of justice, 2 counts of making false statments, and 2 count of perjury. More info to come...
UPDATE: Charges corrected from earlier.
Re: Tinseltown
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 11:10AM
My favorite line about hypocrisy (another idea that gets a bum rap) is by La Rouchefoucauld, "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue." In The De-moralization of Society, Gertrude Himmelfarb skillfully employed this notion to show the moral advantage that Victorian morals had on modern culture -- they may not have behaved, but at least they acknowledged how they ought to behave.
With Friends Like NOW...
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 10:57AM
The National Organization of Women wants Sandra Day O'Connor to stay on the court in the wake of Miers' withdrawal. Let's hope for conservative jurists not in the mold of O'Connor.
Attention, Tinseltown-Watchers
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 10:57AM
Former TAS assitant managing editor/assitant web editor Jeremy Lott is writing a book about hypocrisy (defending it), and needs help with the chapter on Hollywood.
Fitzgerald Press Conference at 2 PM
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 9:59AM
Libby to be indicted, everyone seems to assume. Come back here for instant analysis, of course. I'm off to brush up on the difference between false statements and perjury, which seems like it might be relevant. UPDATE: The paperwork in the case is going to be relased at noon.
Hankerin' For a Brawl
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 9:20AM
The second biggest disappointment with the Miers nomination was the missed opportunity for a brawl in the Senate. Conservatives wanted badly to pull the nuclear/constitutional/whatever-word's-in-vogue-this-week option, and choosing a cipher with Harry Reid's support effectively ruled that out. So you can bet many folks are of the same mind as the Wall Street Journal today:
The best way Mr. Bush can counter the "capitulation" charges is to show that he's not afraid of a political fight. He said yesterday that he will act quickly to name a new nominee, and we hope he'll select someone who can't be challenged on grounds of credentials--even if it means a Senate battle over judicial philosophy.
Let's have it out. Be unafraid, Mr. President.
Last Night
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 8:57AM
Dave: Not just a conspiracy. The conspiracy my dear chap. Last night was proof that the VRWC is not only alive and well, but thriving. And, after last night, reinvigorated.
Which is good timing, considering the likely events of today. Two, maybe three indictments from Fitzgerald, possibly including a senior White House official not before mentioned in this context. Stay tuned.
A Conspiracy Dines
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 12:58AM
"Conspiracy" really gets a bad rap. I mean, really, let's go to its root words. Literally, it means "to breath together." And what better company for conspiring than American Spectator writers and editors, current and former, and assorted "hangers on," an Justice Scalia put it. Best of all was a tribute to the man who makes this website possible everyday, who is at the heart of TAS, and mentored so many young writers, Wlady Pleszczynski. Bill McGurn had affectionate words for Wlady, remembering his early days in Bloomington. Bob Tyrrell warmly thanked Wlady for his 25 years of 12 hour days and fighting the good fight "through all these thins and downs, these thicks and these ups."
SCOTUS Scuttlebutt
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 12:43AM
Word inside the White House late Thursday night was that Judge Samuel Alito was once again the leading candidate to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Recall that prior to the Miers nomination, Alito was considered the leading candidate.
Word is that the nomination could come as early as Friday morning. Judge Michael Luttig also appears to be in the running.
More From U. Chicago
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 12:42AM
For timely advanced political thinking from the University of Chicago, check out this announcement, sent out yesterday by the U.C. Dems -- who for some reason take their orders from the comrades at DePaul:
Bush Bash! The DePaul Dems are throwing a Bush Bash tomorrow night that will celebrate (hopefully) the indictment of some of our favorite Bush Administration personalities. Dress up as a Republican and party with Democrats uptown.Come dressed as Inmate #021051020624 otherwise known as Tom DeLay. Don a flight suit and pretend you too served in the National Guard,like our dear President. Or perhaps you could be what Harriet Meirs [sic] couldn't: an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
A whole troupe of us will be taking the 173 Northward at around 9 PM on Friday....
Don't miss that bus!
Dinner with Ben
Posted by on 10.28.05 @ 12:40AM
The American Spectator's Washington Club Dinner was a huge success. We won't belabor the play by play like other conservative websites and Chatty Kathies beyond saying the Ben Stein was great, Judge Scalia was a reminder of what a Supreme Court Justice should be, and Bob Tyrrell was in top form.
Honored was the Wall Street Journal's ageless wonder George Melloan, who was recipient of the Barbara Olson Award. The bigger news was the announcement of an annual dinner to honor the late WSJ editor Robert Bartley.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Fitzgerald Update
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 10:56PM
A Manhattan-based gossip rag called the New York Times provides more scuttlebutt: Libby to be indicted, Rove not (at least not tomorrow).
Senatorial Courtesy
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 3:29PM
Sen. Trent Lott, ever the Southern gentleman:
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"
Great M&A News
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 3:29PM
The Justice Department today approved the SBC-AT&T and Verizon-MCI mergers. This is wonderful news from a Justice Department with the most hostile antitrust shop since the Carter Administration.
Re: Re-Education
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 2:41PM
Dave: Cornell had a bad spin with "ghetto fabulous" parties too. See this Cornell Daily Sun article. My old residence hall director said that while it was okay for David Chapelle to make fun of ghetto lifestyle, the mostly white kids in the frat house were crossing the line:
[Chappelle] is coming from an informed perspective, so he is a cultural satirist. These party-goers are not. Really, they are not making fun of hip-hop, they are making fun of you and me. They are trying to cover it up by saying it is a hip-hop party.
Or, you know, they were planning a party, and they were brainstorming themes when a G-unit video came on the air.
Re-Education at U of Chicago
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 12:12PM
I received a perplexing email last night from the president of the University of Chicago (as an alum I still get some emails):
... On the evening of October 14th, in a student residence hall room, a private party was held with a theme that parodied racial stereotypes based on assumptions about economically disadvantaged members of society. The premise of this party caused substantial offense and has generated vigorous discussion among students, faculty and staff across campus. Members of the Office of Undergraduate Student Housing and the Office of Minority Student Affairs have been working closely with all students involved in the incident.
The issues at stake, however, are larger than this one distressing episode and raise questions about the campus climate for minority students, faculty, and staff. The University has already begun to focus on these concerns and remains fully committed to exposing and addressing the factors that negatively affect the quality of life for some members of our community.
We have scheduled an all-University open conversation on this topic to be held on November 8th at 5:30 p.m. in Hutchinson Commons on the first floor of the Reynolds Club....
What on earth did these code phrases -- "economically disadvantaged" -- means? They dressed up as poor people? The Maroon had more: it was a "ghetto" themed party. The horrors! From my days there I recall seeing posters for drag events on a regular basis (and a web search quickly turned up such announcements). You can be offensive or weird... just as long as it's the politically correct offensive or weird.
Backpeddling
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 11:33AM
White House surrogates who should be ashamed of their actions during the Miers nomination are now attempting to spin a fiction that somehow their service enabled them to help conservatives with the White House. This could not be further from the truth.
We have it on good authority that as late as Tuesday, those same surrogates were still on Capitol Hill desperately vouching for Miers' bona fides and claiming past, personal ties should be used by staff to sway their bosses on the Miers vote.
In the end, it was the Senate who impressed on the White House that the Miers nomination was failing. It was not the White House team speaking truth to power. When everything is said and done, a number of people will have a lot of explaining to do about their activities and behind the scenes comments in the past three weeks.
We Can Work It Out
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 11:29AM
Say what you will about Harriet Miers's haters, her withdrawal went exactly according to the exit strategy graciously proposed by Charles Krauthammer last week:
Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure.Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.
...But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.
That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives...
Right at the top of the AP dispatch on Miers's withdrawal we have the President in his statement practically reading from Krauthammer's column:
President Bush ... blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege."It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers...
File it under Great Minds Think Alike.
Wobbly on Free-Market Economics
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 10:56AM
The Journal editorial page gives Bush a merited scolding for reversing on Davis-Bacon (sub. req'd):
The move can only increase the cost and slow the pace of reconstruction. And as an act of unprincipled political calculation it ranks right up there with the decision to impose tariffs on imported steel during Mr. Bush's first term.
That Loud Pounding You Hear
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 10:53AM
Is opportunity knocking at the president's door. Now that Miers is gone, I expect that the president will nominate someone of such stellar credentials and proven conservative judicial philosophy that we can all unite behind him (or her). This is a recognition of the reality that conservatives have fought for three decades for this moment, when the court can be turned from judicial activism, from the trend to look to Europe for "enlightentment" and back to originalism.
The fight over a conservative nominee will be as tough as any we've faced. This is liberalism's last stand. They have to win or give up their last bastion of power in America, the out-of-control courts, and they will not spare any expense or fail to make any sacrifice to win. It may all come down to what McCain and his Gang of 14 do. The president will -- according to the MSM -- be enormously weakened by whatever indictments come tomorrow. But those indictments will not be a substantive weakness if conservatives dedicate themselves to this fight.
Face Saving
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 10:36AM
President Bush's full statement of the Miers withdrawal.
Fristed
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 10:26AM
Both White House and Senate sources now confirm that while the President did meet with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist yesterday, it was a call between Frist and the President last night that doomed the Miers nomination.
According to White House sources, Frist informed the President that the nomination simply was not holding up and that it was placing Republicans in a difficult position. The news was not taken well, but the speedy withdrawal is a sign that the White House understood the situation.
If You're Having Second Thoughts...
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 10:06AM
...Just keep in mind that Harry Reid is upset:
The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.
Early Guesses
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:59AM
One name already surfacing for the now-open Supreme Court slot is 6th Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who faced withering attacks during his confirmation hearing from Sen. Patrick Leahy. Barely 45, he has had a remarkable judicial career from a clerkship with Scalia, to state and federal court experience.
The usual names will be floated once again, Mahoney, Alito, Estrada and Jones.
Tonight, Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at The American Spectator's Washington Club dinner. It will be interesting to see what he has to say about the current environment in Washington leading into this next nomination.
'Should I alliterate?'
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:43AM
Bill Kristol ( Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized") just said on Fox News that he's "relieved, renewed, and revitalized." Me, too.
Document Hunt
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:40AM
It's not clear to us what documents the White House and Miers are claiming they would not release to the Judiciary Committee. On Tuesday, the White House sent clear indications to a number of Republican Senators that some policy documents prepared by Miers prior to her elevation to the Counsel to the President post would be released. Those were considered by Republicans to be far more important than her Counsel memos, because they would be dealt with policy development, and might have been more revealing on her overall philosophy.
Looking for a Hero
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:35AM
If there are two heroes in the withdrawl of the Harriet Miers nomination, they are Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist and Sen. Sam Brownback.
Frist and his leadership staff did yeoman's work in keeping the Miers process fair, but tough. Frist and his staff were realistic with White House surrogates, who were pressing them to come out strongly for the nominee at a point where such an appearance might have helped the nomination. Frist and his folks did not. Yesterday, Frist met with President Bush at the White House, we should have more on that later today.
Brownback may have been the one Senator to break the nomination wide open. According to White House sources, earlier this week, Brownback sent a letter to the White House asking not only for some policy documents Miers was involved with (documents, the White House announced on Tuesday, it would release), but also Miers' client list and billable hours records from her time as managing partner at her Texas law firm. According to White House sources, those billable hours records would not have been helpful to Miers' cause, and the White House did not want to release them. According to Judiciary Committee sources, some Republican staffers up there believe the records would have indicated that Miers was more focused on her state bar association work, undercutting the White House argument that she had been a high-powered corporate litigator.
"A Burden for the White House"
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:28AM
C-Span has the Harriet Miers withdrawal letter (pdf). She also takes the documents route.
The Documents Were the Thing
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:25AM
Word was if Miers were to withdraw, the cover would be the Senate's desire for access to executive documents from her tenure at the White House. President Bush cites that dispute in announcing her withdrawal:
It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel...
That barely passable as an explanation. That tug-o'-war hadn't come to a head yet. If it were, say, three weeks from now and the committee were holding up the nomination over the documents, then this explanation would have held water. Now, it's a thin cover.
Welcome to Political Chernobyl
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:23AM
Welcome to Political Chernobyl, comrades. We all here just glowing with good cheer. Well, all of us except those who are paying attention, such as Peggy Noonan. Her piece in today's WSJ (subscription required, I guess) strikes such a depressing note:
"It's beyond, "The president is overwhelmed." The presidency is overwhelmed. The whole government is. And people sense when an institution is overwhelmed. Citizens know. If we had a major terrorist event tomorrow half the country--more than half--would not trust the federal government to do what it has to do, would not trust it to tell the truth, would not trust it, period." Is it really that bad? Yes and no.
Miers (and, we pray, her replacement), Fitzgerald, the war, Social Security, and the Clintonian Sword of Damocles - Hillary - can, in combination, depress. But fear not, hearts of oak. Regardless of the presents we receive on Fitzmas Day, of Harriet's fate, and of hurricanes Beta through Zeta, we can always count on the liberals. The party of George McGovern is resurgent. Now it falls to us to ensure the same for the party of Ronald Reagan, from however many parts we may need to reassemble it.
One Withdrawal for Another
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:16AM
I won't claim this as my original thought, but I just can't remember where I saw it first: Nominate Douglas Ginsburg.
No Mo' Miers
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 9:13AM
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination, CNN reports. Stay tuned at AmSpec Blog for reactions throughout the day.
This should make Justice Scalia speech at the American Spectator Annual Dinner tonight all the more timely.
Dang Christians, Says Priest
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 8:44AM
John Danforth proclaims from on high once again.
Fat on the Mass. Hog
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 8:40AM
These Massachusetts legislators on a opulent trip to Portugal and Spain during the legislative session get awfully defensive. The best line? Lida Harkins, the assistant majority leader, explained that she needed a vacation because votes all summer kept her from her Maine retreat.
More Miers Opposition
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 8:19AM
The anti-Miers crowd picked up a key member of the conservative movement yesterday, the Concerned Women for America. The Washington Times also reports that Leonard Leo is no longer lobbying for Miers and that internal GOP polling shows 70 percent support for her among self-identified conservative Republicans. In other words, the D.C. crowd's support is eroding while the base doesn't seem to mind her. How does that affect those who really matter, the senators? That's a tough call, but it seems that those who knock on doors and write the checks number far fewer than 70 percent support.
Another Step from Conservative
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 7:45AM
In all the uproar over the Bush administration's conservative credentials in recent months -- from Katrina to Harriet -- there was one bright spot. No longer.
Following Hurricane Katrina, the White House suspended the rules of the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandates that local union shops set the "prevailing wage" for federal construction projects. This inflates the price of federal projects by up to 30% and puts labor unions in control of the projects' price. And its history is shady at best. David Bernstein wrote in Human Events that the 1927 law was intended to bar those from federal projects whose labor was cheaper than union members' -- in other words, blacks and other minorities. Rep. Robert Bacon worried about the "outfit of negro laborers."
Those same shades are apparent with a different target from current Davis-Bacon proponents. The Bush administration cancelled the Davis-Bacon suspension yesterday, "bowing to pressures from moderate House Republicans who argued that Gulf Coast residents were being left out of the recovery and that the region was becoming a magnet for illegal immigrants."
Blandly Rabbit On
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 2:41AM
Calling them a "shameless display" and "cake taker," Tina Brown becomes the lastest Clinton groupie and liberal admirer of Patrick Fitzgerald to blast Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for her comments on Meet the Press last Sunday. "Hutchison had the gall to blandly rabbit on about overzealous prosecutors and perjury just being an itsy-bitsy crime," Brown writes.
Of course, that's not what Hutchison said at all. Listen for yourself:
"...I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury....On behalf of all the Tina Browns out there, host Tim Russert followed up with this:
"But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.
Not one to be entrapped, Hutchison responded:
"Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are....I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country.
As it happens, Brown has some troubles of her own in the truth-telling department. She ends her column today with a clarification of how last week she characterized former New York Times managing editor Gerald Boyd's dealings with Judith Miller and her editors, whom Brown claimed Boyd had overruled on Miller's behalf. Before having to give an irate Boyd the last word, Brown now notes she "mistakenly did not speak to [him] in advance." Was it an itsy-bitsy mistake?
Sinking to the Occasion
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 1:37AM
George Neumayr begins his column today with this:
"I can't see this nomination going forward," says a Judiciary Committee staffer to TAS. "The hearings would be so ugly." What will sink Harriet Miers, he predicts, is the "evidence that she can't write and think."
As luck would have it, that last quality could end up having Joe Biden feeling a lot better about himself.
Re: Sox Win -- Venezuela Wins!
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 1:31AM
Castro won't be the only one upset by the White Sox' win. Manager Ozzie Guillen in his post-game comments repeated over and over that his is a huge win not just for Chicago but his native Venezuela too -- noting that the country could use some happiness now. Not exactly an endorsement of dictatorial Hugo Chavez. Fortunately for American baseball, Venezuela's baseballers don't yet have to defect to America the way the White Sox' Cuban pitchers had to.
Sox Win
Posted by on 10.27.05 @ 12:46AM
My father IMs to report that he can hear fireworks from home, even though my parents' North Shore suburb is ostensibly Cubs territory.
I don't actually care much about baseball, but I'm still happy: As Andrew Cline explained at NRO last week, this will annoy Castro.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
More Iranian Moderation
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 7:38PM
In case you missed it, the latest reasonableness from new Iranian moderate president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad is quoted in Financial Times to have said, "...on Wednesday declared that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' and warned Arab countries against developing economic ties with Israel in response to its withdrawal from Gaza."
The FT report goes on: "Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." I guess that means us. Look for the French to decide Israel is the next Taiwan. (And to get an inkling of how that works, take a look at the list of the world's nations on the website for the CIA World Fact Book. Taiwan ain't listed.)
Miers Miered
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 7:27PM
On another touchy matter, look for some movement on the Miers nomination front in the coming couple of days. There are whispers on Capitol Hill that some Republican Senators may be getting ready to make clear their positions on the Miers nomination ... and they are not supportive.
Joe Wilson Scandal Update
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 7:22PM
Not much to add beyond all the other heavy breathing going on here in Washington.
The latest we're hearing is that word of any indictments might come tomorrow, but perhaps not until Friday. Folks are being surprisingly mum about this.
One very palpable undercurrent is that any rifts that might have been created among conservatives and Republicans over spending bills or the latest SCOTUS nomination, will quickly be repaired once it is clear where the Wilson Scandal is going.
Republicans and conservatives understand that while Pat Fitzgerald is not politically motivated, the post-Operation Iraqi Freedom launch and the 2004 election cycle created the atmosphere that allowed what amounted to setting the record straight after widespread dissemination of half-truths and outright falsehoods to be turned into a two-year goose chase. Those who get ensnared in this mess will be strongly defended.
Fan Antics
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 4:03PM
Reason enough to blitz the BetterJustice.com team of David Frum, Virginia Postrel, Mona Charen, Roger Clegg, and other players shouting for Harriet Miers to jump off the first available bridge. Among those joining the above names on the group's board of advisors is Ephraim Fry Wernick, who on its website is described thus:
Mr. Wernick is an attorney and concerned conservative citizen. In early January, you will find Mr. Wernick at the Rose Bowl watching Vince Young and the Texas Longhorns bring home their first national title since 1970.
Hasn't it dawned on these jocks that as a Texan Ms. Miers may also be a staunch Longhorns fan?
Chirac Broadcasting System Updates
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 3:32PM
According to a CBS News report, its news president Andrew Heyward is going, to be replaced by CBS Sports head Sean McManus. McManus, son of sportscaster Jim McKay, will slide into the spot in January.
One of the first tasks he'll face is deciding the replacement for Dan Rather. One idea that CBS has been batting around is a duo of godheads to co-host the evening news broadcast. It could prove an immense improvement. McManus has the opportunity to hire a solid, moderate journalist to replace the tired CBS hyperlibs. Oh, never mind. That's too much to ask of CBS. But maybe they can at least make it fun to watch, like some of their sports programs are. Dear Mr. McManus: If you would consider pairing Maureen Dowd with John Madden...
Edwards a Plagiarist?
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 2:22PM
"The justice system is under scrutiny for its very makeup because of the few minorities who serve in the judiciary. And if we are honest, we cannot deny that things go wrong, they cannot be explained away and changes need to be made. We still have all white juries trying cases which significantly impact the rights of minorities. We undeniably still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance. One justice for the rich, one justice for the poor. One justice sometimes for minorities, one for whites."
We don't know what is more troubling about these lines from Harriet Miers' speech in Dallas a decade ago: that she, a Supreme Court nominee, then appeared to be under the impression that the Pledge of Allegiance is part of our Constitution or some other legally binding utterance.
Or that her remarks read like a rough draft of the "Two America's" speech Sen. John Edwards used during last year's Democratic Presidential primary. Miers wasn't just a trailblazer for women, she was a trailblazer for Democratic populists.
All About John
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 2:03PM
John Kerry is giving a "major" address on the war in Iraq at Georgetown today, no doubt to capitalize on the milestone of our dying servicemen. This is part of his permanent campaign of giving speeches no one cares about.
But one man cares deeply about them. And that man is John Kerry. The real story about his speech is the subject of the majority of the sentences:
A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.
The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.
As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.
That's right -- foremost on John Kerry's mind during a John
Kerry speech is John Kerry. Undaunted by the presence of slain
servicemen and their families, he's numero uno in six out of eight
sentences.
UPDATE (3:31 p.m.): TAS contributer
James Poulos took a
closer look at Kerry's substance and found it just as
wanting.
Plame Forecast
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 2:02PM
Blogger Tom Maguire, who's followed the case as closely as anyone, lays out his predictions: indictments for John Hannah, David Wurmser, and Scooter Libby, but not for Karl Rove.
Marvin's Room
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 1:20PM
Bernie Kalb's brother and old media diehard Marvin Kalb hosted another of his Kalb Reports events at the National Press Club last night, the first since his conversation with Dan Rather on Sept. 27. His guest was Associated Press honcho Tom Curley, who to his credit resisted seconding Kalb in his renewed, clueless efforts to blast blogging as such. I only caught some of it on the radio, and haven't seen a transcript. But what came through loud and clear is that Kalb is incapable of understanding the market mechanics of blogging -- in which expert opinion and insight easily check, expose, or supplant inferior efforts, no matter how credentialed (and in which uninformed blogging quickly vanishes into the ether). Curley is not intimidated at all by newer forms of competition, nor does he share Kalb's view that the news business is in a crisis because of new, unfettered participants. If Kalb wants a sympathetic ear, he'll have to have Dan Rather back.
Priorities
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 11:31AM
The Iraqi constitution or the 2,000th US military death in Iraq -- which gets more prominent coverage? You guessed it.
Gen. Pete Pace, Gentleman
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 11:26AM
Set aside your political depression for a minute and read my interview with the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, from Monday's Hugh Hewitt show. Before we got to the heavy stuff, I asked a series of questions to help America get to know more about a guy we only see in the most serious of circumstances. The fun stuff, and the serious, show the new CJCS is someone we should have a lot of confidence in.
The Unoriginalist
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 11:25AM
"We gave up," said Harriet Miers in a speech to the Executive Women of Dallas, according to the Washington Post, "legislating religion or morality" a long time ago. It is hard to imagine that someone who thinks on such a lame level, accepting the tired fallacies of the left, could defend the original meaning of the Founding Fathers' words. This line from the speech should set off alarm bells too: "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion." O'Connor's replacement was supposed to end jurisprudence by liberal cliche; Miers will reinforce it.
FitzMas Wish List
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 10:05AM
Yep, that's what the hyperlibs -- here and abroad -- are calling the occasion they expect to receive political gifts from Patrick Fitzgerald: "Fitzmas." Their salivary glands are working overtime. The UK Guardian newspaper is typical in its view of the libs' most wished-for outcome. Today, speaking of Plamegate and comparing it to the case of suicided UK intel analyst David Kelly, columnist Jonathan Freedland writes:
"Now there is a chance to discredit not just Bush's presidency but the ideology which led to the disastrous adventure in Iraq. Plamegate itself may seem arcane, but that outcome is one in which we all have a stake."
We all do, indeed, Mr. Freedland. Whether we continue to fight the global war against terrorism is not something that should be decided by prosecutors or courts.
Perhaps the most worrisome event -- so far not something we should confuse with White House disarray on the the Plame Name Blame Game -- is the president's inexplicable continued reliance on the UN to deal with the matter of Syria. If Mr. Bush is to be criticized, it should be for failing to prosecute the war against Syria. That it is the source of terrorists, money, and weapons that are killing Americans in Iraq has not been in doubt for more than two years. Why are we not doing something -- decisively, conclusively and, yes, unilaterally -- about it is a criticism to which Mr. Bush has no defense.
Sox Sock
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 2:48AM
Okay, admit it, how many of you stayed with Game 3 to the bitter/sweet end? Fourteen innings used to equal a minor league Sunday double-header. Both teams had their chances; the team that finally got the ball over the fence won. A laser home run hit by a little known player in his first World Series at bat. That's why you stay up. It goes without saying this is a great country. Good night.
Drooool
Posted by on 10.26.05 @ 12:37AM
If you don't have the time or culinary skill to follow the recipe in Lawrence Henry's mouthwatering column, make a beeline to beignet-central, the Cafe Du Monde in New Orleans. They just reopened last week, and the Big Easy can really use your tourist dollars. Wear something you don't mind spilling powdered sugar on.
(And if you do want to make 'em at home but want to skip the measuring cups, order some mix.)
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Re: The Big Shot Right
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 11:28PM
I'm not sure I agree. The Miers debacle itself plays into the hands of the opposition. What the Withdraw Miers and Americans for Better Justice people are trying to do is end it as fast as possible. Their efforts do hurt the president as long as he resists them; maybe they can't succeed in pressuring a withdrawal before the hearings, and if so they shouldn't be trying. But judging from Bush's non-answer when asked if he was considering withdrawing Miers yesterday, they do have some chance of success.
How Much do We Cost?
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 8:14PM
Why would conservatives demand the payment of tribute by the president to gain our loyalty in his time of need? Rod Dreher suggests just that. "Show us some love," he demands, at a time when -- by Dreher's own formulation -- conservatism is in an unhappy place and a difficult time. It is true that Mr. Bush needs conservatives more than conservatives need him, especially at the tail end of his annus horribilis (or, perhaps, at the beginning of his next). But we must not put a price on our loyalty to principle, and spend it as deserved in support of the president.
We can -- and must -- continue to sound off long, loud, and continuously against the Miers nomination. But if, as appears likely, Patrick Fitzgerald comes out with politically tinged indictments, this is a time when conservatives must all hang together -- and with Mr. Bush -- or we can all hang back separately and fail to achieve what our country must before 2009. Sound corny? Sure. But show me where it's wrong.
Fitzgerald Ready to Move
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 6:12PM
From various sources, we're hearing that things are coming to a head on the Joe Wilson Scandal front.
We're hearing that U.S. Attorney Pat Fitzgerald will hold a press conference here in Washington no later than Thursday to announce indictments in the matter, those indictments will be sealed and filed no later than tomorrow afternoon.
At least three fairly senior people have received formal target letters within the past few days. Sources inside the White House are saying they expect between 3 to 5 indictments total. No names are being discussed. UPDATE: CBS News is reporting that Fitzgerald may make his announcement tomorrow, the same day sealed indictments would be filed. Either way, it looks like we have some degree of closure coming.
Celebrating 2000
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 4:53PM
MoveOn must have been waiting for this moment for weeks: the 2000th death of an American serviceman in Iraq. Sure, they call it "grim news" in the e-mail rushed out moments ago, but they must strike while the iron is hot with "vigils" nationwide. The coordination with Democracy for America and True Majority reveals the extent of the preparation involved.
VA Race: Club for Kaine Trick
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 3:20PM
Larry Sabato, UVa guru and perhaps the most quoted man in political journalism, writes in his new "Crystal Ball" today that the Virginia gubernatorial race is too tight to call: "Last-minute advertising, new issues, gaffes, controversies, and even dirty tricks could tilt this race."
We may have our first dirty trick. The Tim Kaine campaign has sent out a mailer (pdf) disguised as a Virginia Club for Growth mailer. Using language from a Club for Growth press release from earlier in the month, the mailer is likely intended to depict conservatives as wary on Kilgore and undermine his strong GOP support. While only the second page is on the VA Club for Growth site, I saw the front page of another copy this morning showing the GOP elephant logo with the Kaine campaign's address and no name. The only admission that it's a Kaine mailing is the credit on the Jerry Kilgore photo.
Not exactly forthright, is it? Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner confirmed to TAS that the mailing was indeed sent by her campaign and not another group. She defended it as verbatim use of a Club for Growth press release. VA Club for Growth has responded with their own new release, calling Kaine deceptive and foolish for criticizing Kilgore on taxes. "Given Kaine's unequivocal support of Mark Warner's huge 2004 tax increase, it's insulting to have a tax-and-spend liberal question anyone's credentials on taxes." The group still questions Kilgore's commitment to no tax increases though. Calls to the Kilgore campaign were not returned.
The Big Shot Right
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 11:47AM
File it under Pride Cometh Before the Fall. Today we read reports of conservative groups turning their opposition to Harriet Miers into permanent political operations, what with radio and TV ads in the works and websites activated to push for Miers' withdrawal. It doesn't take a political genius to recognize that such activities play right into the paws of the hyenas now encircling the White House. But what do they care...
Breyer's Living, Randomly Mutating Document
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 11:36AM
The New Yorker's profile of Justice Breyer underscores the need for another unflinching originalist on the court. Breyer, according to the piece, has written an ambitious manifesto designed to stamp out originalism. He asserts on the one hand that originalism is wrong because the justices couldn't possibly know what the Founding Fathers meant, then on the other hand that they would approve of his ad hoc free-wheeling. Breyer smugly grinned when informed by the New Yorker that a lower court judge had called his jurisprudence "utterly standardless." He is enjoying his unchecked power to call the shots, to make things up as he goes along.Â
But he stresses that he is a very reasonable, mellow judicial activist. For example, how did he decide to split his decision on this summer's Ten Commandments cases, ruling against them inside the court but approving them outside of it? He decided it by gauging the volume of complaints against the structures: since no one complained about the Texas marker, he ruled it constitutional. And who knows, maybe he consulted his oldest daughter, Chloe. "She's an Episcopal priest, of all things. And I'm Jewish," he tells the New Yorker.
Re: Attacking the Prosecutor
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 11:26AM
I'd be tempted to second Mark Corallo's strong words on behalf of Patrick Fitzgerald except for one little thing -- why has his office been leaking like a New Orleans levee? The result is a White House specifically and a political capital generally waiting for the guillotine to drop. The heads at stake are not Al Qaeda's, but an administration's that was re-elected to keep our nation safe from it. We'll know soon enough whether Fitzgerald is a heroic figure.
An 007 Only Schumer Could Love
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 11:02AM
The new 007 -- Brit actor Daniel Craig -- has declared himself opposed to guns in general and handguns in particular. He said, "I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other." The only remedy for Craig would be to cast Cindy Sheehan as his love interest in the forthcoming "Casino Royale."
Hewitt Holds Firm
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 10:04AM
Hugh Hewitt continues his admirable anti-anti-Miers campaign in the face of growing and more organized opposition to the President's SCOTUS nominee.
We say admirable because while we have strong doubts about the nomination, Hewitt is filling the necessary balance to what amounts to an ideological tussle among like minded ideologues. We just happen to be approaching this specific area of debate from different angles.
His most recent defense presents an interesting point, that perhaps the negative whispering campaign about Miers' performance in murder boards and private meetings is being fed in part by a White House and supporters trying to lower expectations to a point where the bar is barely above sea level.
There may be some truth there. For example, last night we received an anonymous tip that Sen. Tom Coburn had met with Ms. Miers yesterday, but had declined to take a photo with her. The intimation being that Coburn was giving her the big brush off. Nice tip. Thanks!
But in speaking with folks involved in the meeting, the lack of a photo release had little to nothing to do with politics or hidden messages, and there was no declination. There was also no word on how the meeting went, but given Dr. Coburn's bedside manner, we're sure he'll let American know soon enough during the hearings. But this is just one example of where a little bit of nothingness could turn into something larger.
Finally, one point on Hewitt's point about whispers coming out about the private meetings with Senators. These are private, and some of these Senators and their staff are trying to do what damage they can, or to get out in front of the story. But strategically, the Senators on the Judiciary Committee are helping the White House a bit in their preparations for the confirmation hearings.
Generally, these private meetings are nothing more than ceremonial. Sure, you have a stick in the mud like Schumer asking Roberts all kinds of questions, but generally, the chats are about the process, nonspecific judicial philosophy, etc. That almost all of the meetings have dealt with tougher private questioning is giving the White House a clear sense of where the hearings will be going, the kinds of questions each Senator will ask, and where Miers needs to focus her energies in getting up to speed. That may be one reason Miers is continuing the private meetings and keeping them just that: private.
Iraqi Constitution Ratified
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 9:40AM
Attacking the Prosecutor? Bad Idea
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 9:39AM
Message to Republicans: Whoever is generating the "Attack Pat Fitzgerald" talking points needs to cease and desist. This veteran (and some might say "victim") of the Impeachment in '98, finds it highly hypocritical to hear the same attacks that the left leveled at Ken Starr now being floated by the right to discredit Pat Fitzgerald -- Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison called perjury a "technicality." What has separated US from THEM is our adherence to intellectual honesty and principle even when it costs us politically. The Ds made excuse after excuse for Slick Willie while demonizing Ken Starr. If Fitzgerald indicts anyone, not for violating any of the statutes governing the handling of classified information, but for obstruction or perjury, Republicans must refrain from trivializing the charges or defending the indicted.
All should be thoroughly mindful of the FACT that Pat Fitzgerald is arguably the best prosecutor in the country. Nobody knows more about Al Qaeda, their methods and the way they finance their operations. America is safer from terrorism because of him.
The many recent profiles extolling his blue-collar upbringing, his brilliance, his record and his unrivaled work ethic neglect one of his core character traits: he is also eminently reasonable. This is not Javert, bent on getting his man no matter the consequences or the "triviality" of the crime. This is a servant of the law who has, to his credit, a thick vein of common sense and an understanding of what motivates usually law abiding people to violate the law. He is not out to get anyone.
I know Pat. Simply put, he is a really good guy.
If we are honest about the impeachment of Mr. Clinton, then we are acutely aware that he alone, by simply telling the truth from day one (or even day 20) could have saved the country from 2 years of insanity. While the Plame imbroglio does not rise to that level of seriousness, the same can be said (assuming there are charges for perjury or obstruction) of the indicted in this case. Pat Fitzgerald, like Ken Starr, was simply doing his job with honor, integrity and from the look of it, an inordinate amount of patience.
Washington Aplame?
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 9:34AM
In Reader Mail, Greg Richards says, "This entire thing arose from a query by Cheney to the CIA as to what they knew about reports from abroad that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa." Not quite, comrade. Mr. Cheney never asked the CIA to send anyone to Niger. It was a CIA affair from the beginning. Which raises a very important question. Or five or ten.
Who sent Joe Wilson to Niger? Who would have hired him to perform a sensitive intelligence task when: (a) he had no expertise in WMD and hadn't been in Niger for any length of time since the 1970s; (b) his personal history was so checkered he couldn't qualify for a security clearance; and (c) he wasn't trained in intelligence-gathering? Who was agreeable to Valerie Plame's suggestion that Wilson be sent, and why?
And while we're asking uncomfortable questions, let's ask why Wilson -- charged with an intelligence mission - wasn't required to sign a confidentiality agreement with the CIA. EVERYONE involved in intel -- or anything at the top secret level - has to do that. Why not Wilson? There are so many anomalies in the whole Wilson/Plame affair, they could comprise the syllabus of how not to conduct an intelligence op. Which brings us back to Square One:
Who at CIA was responsible for the operation?
"Bush Still President," News at 11
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 8:30AM
Speaking of "darkest days," the Washington Post adopts that phrase for its page one splash, breathlessly reporting that President Bush will go on governing despite the Miers/Plamegate troubles. C'mon. It looks bad if you're a Beltway news hound. But darkest days? A crisis? Eh.
Rooting for Death
Posted by on 10.25.05 @ 8:15AM
You'd think it was a football score or something worth celebrating. But it's the number of deaths of U.S. servicemen in Iraq. We knew the hard lefties would commemorate the number reaching 2000. Cindy Sheehan's been planning it as her comeback. So we get Post headlines like, "Iraq war foes ready for 2,000th military death." Now that one was a Reuters story on the WaPo website, but the paper and the press reveal themselves with this AP head: "U.S. Military Death Toll Hits 1,999." As the press and the left count 'em up to 2000, don't miss LGF's "grim milestone" watch.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Darkest Before the Dawn
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 5:41PM
Drudge has had a shot of the cover of today's N.Y. Daily News up all day. It features a photo of a maudlin looking President Bush, gazing downward, biting his lower lip. The headline blares 'DARKEST DAYS.' Very dramatic, indeed. You'd think he was about to board the chopper and wave the double "V" sign. I am curious, though…if one were to search the archives of NYDN, would one come across similar 'DARKEST DAYS' headlines and photos for every president who has served, consecutively, throughout the paper's history? Of course one would. This gets to why I posted the Newt transcript earlier. Are major corrections needed? Absolutely. Is it too late? Absolutely not. Not even close.
This Too Can Pass
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 3:44PM
"Ronald Reagan certainly went through a period in '86-'87 that was like this, and frankly, they bounced back out of it."
-- Newt Gingrich's comments on the current crises facing the president and the GOP on yesterday's Face the Nation make interesting reading…
Oy!
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 3:32PM
Quote of the day (from National Journal's "Hotline"):
"That's one of those things where you have to wait and see whether that would be a good idea."-- Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY) on whether she wants Pres. Bush to campaign with her in '06, NPR, 10/24.
This from a Republican. From Kentucky. Who wins re-election with 60% of the vote.
Today on the Hugh Hewitt Show
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 3:13PM
I'll be subbing for Hugh again today, 6-9 pm EDT on the Salem Radio Network. We'll come out of the blocks fast. First guest is Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You don't want to miss this one. (Hugh is back tomorrow. Rats. I was really getting used to this.)
Re: Inanimate Objects
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 2:29PM
The thing that makes that use of the word "chair" catchy is that it's easier to type than "chairman." I speak from experience.
Inanimate Objects in Battle
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 1:49PM
The Village Voice has a quick reaction to the Bernanke nomination. It's unremarkable, but not short of entertainment:
Bernanke
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 1:48PM
There will probably be some debate about the process, and history will confirm the wisdom of the pick, but no one can dispute that this was yet another superior pick by the President.
Bernanke is a bit of an unknown. Some more politically inclined -- and conservative -- economics types don't think he will be a strong supporter of tax cuts, but believe he will be a strong advocate, as Greenspan has been, of contained budgets and spending for government.
But you can't dispute the background and experience Bernanke brings to the table. This should be another day of solid high-fives in the White House for a good pick that surprised folks a month earlier than expected. Instead, it inevitably brings to mind another pick that went awry.
Come Nineveh...
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 1:29PM
Can we stop talking about Wilma and Harriett for a minute? In Iraq, as the Beeb reports, two Sunni provinces have voted down the Iraqi constitution. If the Nineveh province vote is the same, the referendum fails, and the Iraqi constitutional process is set back. Which may not be a bad thing. If the Sunni become convinced of their political power in the democratic process, the long-term gain should outweigh greatly the short-term loss.
A College Newspaper
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 12:43PM
With its writers and editors attacking each other within the same pages, the New York Times at this point looks like an unsupervised college newspaper. What I had hoped was an autobiograpical column, "A Woman of Mass Destruction," turned out to be another explosion of envy from Maureen Dowd. The sexism in the column -- Dowd charges Judith Miller with a "tropism toward powerful men" and this from Howell Raines' favorite employee -- is very disappointing. If only Judith Miller had protected a liberal source -- and cut corners on behalf of a story that would give the left a triumphant storyline -- she too could share column space with Dowd.
Reserved on Fed Pick
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 12:41PM
If Ben Bernanke is the nominee to replace Alan Greenspan, our guess is that reaction will be somewhat muted on the fiscal conservative side of things. In speaking with sources up on the Hill who know Berknanke, they say he is extremely bright and talented and more than capable to do the job, but they doubt his commitment to some of the core supply-side tenets, i.e., tax cuts.
As we reported earlier, there is little information about how much consultation was done on this pick with either the House or the Senate. As of 10:30 this morning, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas had not been notified of the pick, according to House sources.
"We've basically known who the three or four people were who were under consideration," says a Senate staffer. "If people wanted to consult, they've had plenty of time to give their two cents. I'm not sure there is an issue here."
The Word on Bernanke
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 12:30PM
Ben Bernanke's nomination as fed chairman is not unexpected -- his name had been circulating for the last few weeks. The New York Times offered reluctant praise in an editorial earlier this month:
Mr. Bernanke is deeply conservative, economists say, but respected for independent thinking and not inclined to wear that conservatism on his sleeve.
So surely they'll endorse Bernanke in tomorrow's editorials? And Daniel Gross regarded Bernanke as an enigmatic favorite in a nomination preview:
Bernanke doesn't have much of a public record when it comes to deficits, and he's a latecomer to the Bush White House.
The Times also featured Bernanke in June. The article isn't freely available on the Times website (blasted Times Select!), but bloggers have kept it alive. Bernanke has called for "inflation targeting," meaning the Fed would publicly declare what inflation level it is targeting with interest rate changes.
Fan Fiction
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 12:29PM
In today's Washington Post, Peter Slevin and Carol D. Leonig let on to being fans of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald in their profile. But it's fan fiction.
Three days later, Libby put fingers to keyboard and told New York Times reporter Judith Miller that she was freed from her promise to protect his identity. He praised her mightily and urged her to "come back to work -- and life." Satisfied, she quit jail after 85 days, testified to Fitzgerald's grand jury and surrendered details she had vowed never to reveal.
Either Slevin-Leonig are knowingly deceiving their readers or they have a serious reading problem, since earlier in the letter, Libby indicates that he had released Miller a full year earlier. In fact, his surprise that it was an issue at all was why he wrote the letter. This is also why the Times has begun to distance itself from her, and why her comments in the New York Post only smack of narcissism:
"I'm not mad, I'm sad," Judy told me from her home on Long Island. "Isn't it sad that, after going to jail for 85 days for a principle, it's come to this?"
So sad. Too bad.
Back to the Drawing Board
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 11:54AM
Some folks at the White House are going through potential Supreme Court nominees again, Red State reports.
Re: New Fed Chair
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 11:26AM
Ben Bernanke is currently the heavy favorite at TradeSports.
If I were choosing, by the way, it would be Robert McTeer.
UPDATE: CNBC is reporting that it is Bernanke.
In the Thick of It
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 11:24AM
NORTH MIAMI BEACH -- Being right in the middle of a hurricane is quite an experience, one that I would not dare to repeat.
Late-bloomer Wilma is buffeting Miami and points north with winds of 110 mph. If I look out my windows, I'd see a truly tropical tableau of sharply angled rain, and curling, curving trees.
The houses are thus far holding their own but many of mankind's lesser structures, such as utility sheds, have capitulated to the elements. Electricity is out but our water is running.
Two hours more to endure, say the forecasters. We pray for mercy.
New Fed Chief?
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 10:56AM
We're hearing the announcement will come at 1 p.m. today. Talk about shifting the story on a Monday.
We aren't hearing any names, but in speaking with sources on the Hill, it becomes apparent this is yet another nomination that will bear close watching. Word inside both House Ways and Means and in the Senate is that there was little if any consultation. House Ways and Means staff learned about the nomination from Web reports.
A "Peace" With a Body Count
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 10:40AM
Sounding rather embarrassingly like a swooning teenybopper fan of the latest mediocre boy-band, Steve Clemons breathlessly posts excerpts of a New Yorker profile by Jeffrey Goldberg featuring Brent Scowcroft's lastest batch of Deep Thoughts. The most telling bit (emphasis added):
The last time the two [Scowcroft and Condoleeza Rice] had dinner, nearly two years ago, it ended unhappily, Scowcroft acknowledged...That really is a remarkable statement. Take a look at this list of terror attacks against Americans; where do most of the perpetrators come from? Scowcroft's analytical framework is so totally inadequate to the problem of Islamist terrorism that he simply blots it out of his mind.They also argued about Iraq. "She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But we've had fifty years of peace."
A Very Merry UNbirthday
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 10:14AM
It's UN day. Let's celebrate the UN anniversary as it should be celebrated. I'm going to burn Dominique de Villepin in effigy.
Searching for Harriet Miers
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 9:59AM
John Fund's been doing just that: searching for the White House rationale, the vetting process, or anyone -- anyone -- who has ever spoken with Harriet Miers about politics or judicial philosophy.
Also, Andy Card is running for the hills on his role in the David Souter selection in the Bush 41 White House. Since he clearly played such a role as deputy to chief of staff John Sununu, his Souter denials cast into doubt his denial of his role in the Miers selection, as reported by the Prowler.
Fund is in the Tabin camp: Miers won't be on the court.
More Myth
Posted by on 10.24.05 @ 9:36AM
The L.A. Times this morning here really embarrasses itself in the coverage of the Joe Wilson Scandal, but by now, this is not news.
In attacking Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, the Times goes out of its way to make him appear paranoid and petty for wanting to hit back at former ambassador and Sen. John Kerry "adviser" Joe Wilson.
Three particular points left out of the L.A. Times piece indicate the reporter and the editors involved in this story are willfully deceiving their readers.
First, Wilson went public with an op-ed in the N.Y. Times that created the impression that the White House and Cheney's office had asked Wilson to make his ill-fated trip to Niger to investigate alleged purchases there of yellow cake uranium by Iraqi agents. That was not true, and the L.A. Times doesn't bother with these facts, and in fact reinforces the inaccurate impression.
Second, Wilson left out the little tidbit in his op-ed that it was his wife who suggested him for the trip. Again, the L.A. Times leaves that now-critical point out of the coverage.
Third, a Senate investigation into the intelligence lapses on WMD and Iraq deteremined that almost everything Wilson claimed publicly about his trip was false, when compared to what Wilson provided during his CIA debrief upon returning from Niger. Again, the L.A. Times never mentions this.
Given those three facts, who could blame Libby and Cheney's staff for wanting to set the record straight? And it is clearly that rhetorical question that the L.A. Times didn't want readers to come away with. We would say this is one of the most embarrassing pieces of journalism we've seen, but that wouldn't be accurate. In fact, it is par for the course in covering the Joe Wilson scandal.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Peacoholics FLY at Redskins?
Posted by on 10.23.05 @ 3:32PM
Well, we're ahead 42-7 in the third quarter, and it looks like not even the Redskins can blow this lead. Poor SF. But poor Redskins. According to the WaPo, two anti-gun crank groups -- Peacoholics and FLY -- whomever they may be, not that we care -- are bashing the Skins for cooperating with the NRA in a charity event that (shudder) involves guns. Tuesday, a few of the Skins are going to shoot sporting clays. Horrors, say the anti-gun crowd. At a time the NRA is lobbying to repeal the DC's gun laws (which do nothing other than ensure that law-abiding citizens are the only people who don't have guns) the Skins are collaborating with the evil NRA? I'm shocked, shocked. And disappointed I can't make it for the shoot. Lock and load, fellas.
Re: Will's Dud Nuke
Posted by on 10.23.05 @ 12:12PM
Jed is so right. I've read George Will's hotly hyped Sunday column several times now, and it's worse than a dud. Maybe it's the drippy, rainy weather we've had here, but I can't cut through the foggy posturing to figure out what his larger point really is. Let me get my towel out and dry his text off.
Two things are clear from the start: Will regards Miers' nomination as act of "perfect perversity." And he says that her defenders, in stark contrast to himself, lack "constitutional understanding." They cause people like him to "cringe" when he sees them trying to defend her. He thus has no use for the "incense defense" (I didn't know George has Know Nothing tendencies). Who cares, he says, if she's "pious" -- religion has nothing to do with, that term again, "constitutional understanding." Anyway, he finds these defenders "so crudely obsessed with abortion" that they apparently would overturn Roe v. Wade for the wrong reasons. Those less crudely obsessed with abortion he equates with "thoughtful conservatives," whose "highest aim" is to "replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning." (Your assignment for Monday, class, is to compare and contrast "constitutional reasoning" and "constitutional understanding.")
I could go on, but do I have to? It is interesting that at the end he says "any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion" and backs Miers will "never be considered presidential material." Reasoning and understanding have given way to bluster.
I was actually most struck by his attack on unsophisticated critics of Roe v. Wade, because it's a sobering reminder that some of Miers' most hostile attackers aren't particularly active pro-lifers. They have an intellectual agenda, but not a Right to Life one. David Frum, who has led the anti-Miers contingent, let it be known a few years ago that he is definitely pro-choice on first trimester abortions. And he told readers not to write to him about this because his mind is made up. Dahlia Lithwick, who writes on Supreme Court issues for Slate, has detetected a split on abortion in the Miers matter between the evangelical pro-lifers and the legal "process" right. The moral urgency the former display is clearly missing among the latter. To George Will and Co., Roe's sin apparently comes down to form, not content. That's the problem with snobs.
A Prediction
Posted by on 10.23.05 @ 11:03AM
Official Washington buzzes with the prediction Karl Rove will be indicted this week. Now is a good time to buck the buzz and predict he will not.
Just from reading the verbose news reports one can gather that the chances of an indictment for Rove are minimal. For one, though the press reports that lawyers (unnamed) say he has been told he is in "serious" danger, this loose language is insufficient to conclude indictment is near. I have yet to see it reported that Rove has been notified that he is a "target" of an investigation by the prosecutor, which according to the Justice Department guidelines is mandatory if he were in "serious" danger. Nor does it appear that he has even been notified that he falls into that far lesser category, namely, "subject" of an investigation. For another thing, the only problem with Rove's grand jury testimony that we are aware of is that during one of his grand jury appearances he neglected to mention a meeting with a reporter. It is unlikely that this omission could constitute grounds for an indictment. Innocent failure to recall when not asked a specific question is not a crime. When Rove was asked specifically about the meeting he apparently acknowledged it.
Thus my guess is Rove goes free. Karl, take the week off and clean up your garage or head for the beach.
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Bowling Alone
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
