Saturday, November 5, 2005
Democrats on Ethiopia
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 7:08PM
There's a caucus in Congress for everything -- even a Congressional Ethiopia Caucus. It's composed entirely of Democrats and led by Rep. Mike Honda (15-Calif.), who supported Cindy Sheehan's ramblings this summer.
The Caucus has issued a statement on the violence in Ethiopia. Though not listed on Honda's website, the Sudan Tribune has a copy. It's not substantially different from the State Department position, calling for dialogue, "an independent commission to investigate the violence," and government restraint. The Democrats' statement also seems to equate the moral positions of the protesters and the government: "The use of violence, or attempts to incite violence are strongly condemned..."
Re: Great Fictional Names
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 5:18PM
Dave: Sir Harry is one of the greatest characters in all fiction, but in creating the character -- name and all -- Fraser just took little Harry from Tom Brown's School Days of early Victoriana and grew him up into the most thoroughly engaging rotter in history who didn't actually serve in elective office. But, dear sir, Dirk Pitt? He's not even in the same league as Sir Harry. I'd consign him to the depths with Mike Hammer. (Not that there's anything wrong with Mike, or Sam Spade or Lew Archer or...)
I wouldn't grant Sir Harry the title of best ever fictional name. There's simply too much competition, and though we love our rascal, we must and can climb, like Sisyphus, from Flashman to Chuzzlewitt and Twist, and, again like Mr. S., tumble back down into the company of Finn McCool, Rowdy Yates and Professor Moriarty. This question, in fact, not susceptible of solution without descent into violence.
Ethiopia Erupting
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 5:07PM
There's troubling violence elsewhere in the world -- and it appears tyranny is the cause. Ethiopia has erupted in violence following an apparently rigged election. After the main opposition group, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, peacefully protested Monday, police clashed with protesters Tuesday. They have killed over 40 protesters and jailed over 3000, many of whom are political prisoners. The government claims that the protesters were violent, but international observers in the country counter these claims.
As the government cracks down, the State Department urges calm and dialogue:
The United States continues to urge both the government and political opposition in Ethiopia "to resolve whatever differences they may have through peaceful means," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters November 4.
Speaking at the department's daily press briefing, McCormack said: "It furthers no one's cause to try to manipulate situations in order to provoke a violent reaction. We think that peaceful dialogue is the way to resolve what is in fact a political issue."
Is the U.S. blaming CUD? Peaceful dialogue will be challenging when the government is roughing up and jailing peaceful protesters. The U.S. is calling for Ethiopia to release all political prisoners, but the call for an independent inquiry to sort out the events of the protests seems to be abdicating any judgment and avoiding the application of any pressure.
Great Fictional Names
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 4:51PM
Jed, while I haven't read any Flashman novels, I must say the character's full name, Sir Harry Flashman, is second only to the greatest pulp name of all time, Dirk Pitt. Clive Cussler's title is secure.
Selfish Imperialism
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 2:32PM
Those are the last two words in the last footnote on the last page of Flashman on the March. I know this only because I have, to my utter dismay, already finished the book. I will tell you nothing else about it. Buy it, read it, enjoy it. And then join me in the misery of waiting -- how long? -- until the next one is published.
Colbert King's Values
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 12:46PM
Colbert King, one of the WaPo editorial page editors, is up in arms today about the values baggage a Supreme Court nominee may carry. In his column, though, he points out a distressing problem with one of the Dems' only two issues.
Writing about constitutional lawyer John Davis's argument in favor of the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in the Brown v. Board of Education case, King says:
This constitutional giant and lawyer of enormous analytical powers stood before the Supreme Court in December 1953 and argued that racial segregation was not only constitutional but also better for blacks. Defending the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, Davis proclaimed to the justices: "Somewhere, some time, to every principle there comes a moment of repose when it has been so often pronounced, so confidently relied upon, so long continued, that it passes the limits of judicial discretion and disturbance." Fortunately, the Warren Court, examining the Constitution, saw otherwise and in 1954 outlawed segregation -- Davis's legal brilliance notwithstanding.
Hmm. I wonder if King will say the same on some future day if the Roberts court, with soon-to-be Justice Alito aboard, overturns or limits Roe. When Sen. Specter starts talking about "super duper precedents," can someone -- maybe Joe Biden or Chuckie Schumer -- please hand him King's column?
Re: There They Go Again
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 10:15AM
Here's a good primer on the battle to control the Internet by Kenneth Neil Cukier in Foreign Affairs. And here's the U.S. policy that Cukier calls "a sort of Monroe Doctrine for our times."
There They Go Again
Posted by on 11.5.05 @ 8:12AM
Anyone reading this blog appreciates the freedom of speech and of the press the Internet facilitates. Without it, we'd be the rapid exchange of news and views that now propel American politics would be slowed considerably. And, of course, the Turtle Bay crime family wants a nose under the tent, eyeing the means to limit that freedom.
In today's WaPo, Ol' Kofi tells us just why we shouldn't be concerned about the UN's efforts to take control of the Internet. That's the farthest thing from their minds, sayeth he. But the money quote is:
"Governance of matters related to the Internet, such as spam and cybercrime, is being dealt with in a dispersed and fragmented manner, while the Internet's infrastructure has been managed in an informal but effective collaboration among private businesses, civil society and the academic and technical communities. But developing countries find it difficult to follow all these processes and feel left out of Internet governance structures." (NB: the vast majority of "developing countries" are governed by dictators and despots who have every interest in reducing freedom.)
"The United States deserves our thanks for having developed the Internet and made it available to the world. For historical reasons, the United States has the ultimate authority over some of the Internet's core resources. It is an authority that many say should be shared with the international community. The United States, which has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly and honorably, recognizes that other governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns, and that efforts to make the governance arrangements more international should continue." In UN parlance, that's about the same as the theme song to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" -- "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Sure, paragons of free speech, religion and the press such as Communist China have legitimate public policy concerns, such as how best to restrict the free flow of information to and among its people. Any part of the governance of the Internet we surrender to the UN is surrendered to nations such as China, who have every reason to undermine the freedom it gives us. Just say no to any UN meddling in the Internet, Mr. President. Maybe something stronger than "no" is in order this time.
Friday, November 4, 2005
Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Demagogue
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 6:03PM
Quick: what do former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Richard Myers and former heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali have in common? Hint: it's not patriotism. But both men will be given the nation's highest civilian honor, the presidential medal of freedom, at a White House ceremony next week.
That the same ceremony will honor not only Myers but a giant like Robert Conquest, a man who labored a lifetime to illuminate the darkness inhabited by fools like Ali, is breathtaking, but not terribly surprising.
The uber-narcissist of a narcissistic generation, Ali has been transformed by his infirmities into a benevolent missionary of peace and wisdom. If Ali had remained healthy, who knows what searching reevaluations he might have become subjected to over the last 20 years. Instead, we get Ali as suffering prophet and wise man, a pugilisitic Gandhi who labored to make us all better people. But of course Ali did not make us better, kinder, or wiser. He only made us louder, fed our already swelling addiction to talking without listening.
Outside of the lonely voice of Mark Kram, whose 2001 book Ghosts of Manila shed harsh light on the real Ali, the culture has given Ali a free pass on his racial fanaticism; ruinous effect on sportsmanship; and scorning of his country when it called on him for service. Is it merely because Ali has become ill that so few critics are willing to go back and examine the outrages he perpetrated on men like Joe Frazier and Floyd Patterson ("C'mon Christian!" he hissed while fighting the latter) - or is it something deeper, something having to do with one generation's ruinous thirst for an outlaw hero? A hero who, against all odds, would age along with them and finally become benign and grandfatherly, and prove that he had suffered at last, just like the generations he dishonored when he was young?
French Fried
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 4:18PM
One of the storylines of the fires in Paris is: Muslim youths aren't listening to the authorities. And why is that? One reason is that the Imams who might be telling them to knock it off are seen by them as stooges of the French government. Young Muslims aren't fooled by "French Islam," and reject the "French Council for the Muslim Religion" as a joke. They realize that Frenchifying Islam means removing Islam from Islam. Consequently, as this secularizing campaign has accelerated, French Muslims have been looking abroad for the real thing, turning to global Islam for money to finance private schools. Nicolas Sarkozy "reaped jeers and whistles," according to a Time story from 2003, when he "used a speech before more than 10,000 Muslims...to vow that women must remove their veils for the photographs on their French identity cards." Malek Chebel, a Muslim anthropologist, said to Time prophetically that the popular militant Muslim leaders in France have "endless money, great numbers on their side, and they have time...The fundamentalists are working toward a shock, one that is dangerous for the equilibrium of the state."
Joe's In For It Now
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 3:23PM
This story popped up today on American Thinker.
Apparently, Wilson outed his wife far before Novak ever did, and the site which normally carries the program and the speech is down. Does anyone have the mp3 in which Wilson gives his speech? Please, please, please email us at editor@spectator.org if so.
Update: Kaine Fined For Misleading Mailer
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 3:14PM
To follow up on last week's item on Tim Kaine's mailing that appeared to be sent from the Virginia Club for Growth, Kaine has been fined by the Board of Elections for violating the "Stand by Your Ad" law. The ad disguised the campaign disclaimer as a photo credit.
Confirmed: Bush Will Rally for Kilgore
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 3:07PM
The Kilgore campaign has confirmed that President Bush will join the candidate at a Richmond airport hanger rally Monday night. Press secretary Tim Murtaugh said in a statement,
We are thrilled to have the support of the Leader of the Free World. The best way to fire up our voters is to have the President come into Virginia less than twelve hours before the polls open. George Bush knows how to win elections, and in a close race, this is the greatest boost we could have asked for.
A Great Migration
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 2:57PM
While France is under siege from immigrants from North Africa who've settled into dingy unemployment and no future prospects, Britain is attracting thousands monthly from eastern Europe who immediately find work and help keep the local economy humming. Surprise, surprise, they don't riot. Just don't let them become local soccer fans.
Kaus Files
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 2:28PM
If you take the finest mental qualities of, say, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Patrick Fitzgerald, just to cite three recent examples of sharp, commanding professionalism and competence, and mix them into a single brain, you'll begin to understand what makes Mickey Kaus so irresistibly engaging and smart. Read how he takes New York Timesman Nicholas Kristof apart today on the Joseph Wilson matter, in "The Art of Weaselly Semi-Corrections." (You'll have to scroll down a bit.)
Kilgore Scheduling With Bush Monday
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 1:51PM
The Kilgore campaign just sent an interesting email to reporters:
There will be changes to Jerry Kilgore's Monday schedule.For further information, you must contact the White House Office of Media Affairs at...
It looks like President Bush will be campaigning for Jerry
Kilgore after all Monday. With the chattering class assuming that a
Kilgore loss is a Bush loss and that Bush is dragging down local
Republican races, this is a bold move by the White House. Before
this change, the White House and the Kilgore campaign could
plausibly argue that the two men's fates were separate. If Bush
makes a large show of support for Kilgore Monday, and there's every
indication he will, that argument will become much, much more
difficult to make.
UPDATE: Mike Shear had this hours ago...
CIA Follies Continue
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 1:47PM
China's military thinkers are turning to capitalism to supplement their small incomes. (And good on 'em for it. As Churchill said, the old adage that one should read an old book before buying a new one finds little support among authors.) Two Chinese People's Liberation Army senior Cols. Qiao Liang and Wang Xangsui wrote a book called "Unrestricted Warfare" in 1999 that was published in English here in 2002. Pentagon analysts say that while much of it is theoretical, it is a very useful tool for those who are examining the meaning of the enormous Chinese miliary buildup.
Now, Liang and Xiangsui have written another book entitled "The New Warring States Era," which, I'm told, is a lot more than an academic exercise. Yet the CIA -- which usually interprets such for the government -- is refusing to do so. Why? One prominent China hand told me CIA is refusing because the book refutes much of their theory on how American relations with China should be conducted.
Meanwhile, CIA sources yesterday refused to identify the person (or even the rank of the person) who authorized and approved Joe Wilson's mission to Niger. I think I know who it is. Stay tuned.
Eurabia
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 12:46PM
In most large American cities, the inner cities are dangerous and the suburbs safe. In Paris, the opposite is true: tourists are told to avoid the suburbs and enjoy the safety of the inner city.
But France's indulgence of Eurabia is catching up with it. The project to "Frenchify" Islam hasn't mollified anyone. Now the very liberal politicians who made such a great show of welcoming Muslim immigrants are taking a more Napoleonic line. Dominic de Villepin complains that accommodating Muslims will threaten "French" identity.
There is a certain pattern to French rationalism: it begins with a liberal attitude for which France's pols congratulate themselves before the world; time goes by and problems stemming from that unreal liberal attitude percolate; chaos erupts; then the "liberty and fraternity" crowd call for the most illiberal crackdowns. French rationalists create just enough mayhem to give birth to Napoleons who will save them from it.
Galloway's Coming Perp Walk?
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 11:33AM
George Galloway -- Saddam's bestest pal in the Brit parliament -- has always loudly (and, in the U.S. Senate, under oath) denied he's ever taken a dime from Saddam's regime. Unfortunately for Loud George, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has found a pile of paperwork that contradicts his testimony. They have documents which they believe prove that Galloway and his politics were bought by Saddam.
Last night, according to a London Times report, the Senate PSI -- headed up by Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Carl Levin (D-MI) -- has referred Galloway's statements to the Justice Department for a formal investigation. Galloway boasts long hard and continuously that he'd like to face such charges in the U.S. and use the forum to destroy any remaining support for the Iraq war. Let's hope this case isn't passed to another "special" prosecutor. The regular teams (especially the one in the Southern District of New York) have a lot of experience with the UN Oil-for-Food-for-Bribes-for-Weapons scam, for which Galloway may be the poster boy. Let's hope the indictment comes soon. Seeing Galloway doing the perp walk in Manahattan would, I'd guess, be as pleasant for us as for his weary opponents on the other side of the Pond.
Profiles in Courage
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 10:56AM
In a major public service, the N.Y. Times this morning gives Senator Leahy the first word:
He says he plans to assess Judge Alito on ideological grounds."This is not over competence," Mr. Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said. "He certainly is competent. This is the whole issue of ideology, and if the ideology is one that you go in with a predetermined agenda, then I don't care if they are a Democrat or a Republican. They don't belong on the Supreme Court."
It also gives Senator Kennedy pretty much the last word, which has him "urg[ing] his colleagues not to reject the nominee simply because they might not share his views":
"We are really interested in knowing whether the nominee has the background, experience, qualifications, temperament and integrity to handle this most sensitive, important and responsible job," Mr. Kennedy said.
Of course, he said that in 1967, apropos Thurgood Marshall.
Kaine for Abortion
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 10:56AM
Just in case you had any doubts about what sort of candidates (and Catholics) Tim Kaine and Leslie Byrne are, check out this email I just received from NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League:
Virginia elections are this Tuesday, November 8, and your vote is so important this year. Numerous restrictions on birth control and abortion access are introduced each year in the state legislature and pro-choice voters are key to helping turn our state around.
Please GET OUT YOUR VOTE on Tuesday!
In the governor's race, although NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia did not officially endorse, we see more hope for the women of Virginia in the candidacy of Tim Kaine. We did endorse Democrat Leslie Byrne for Lieutenant Governor and Democrat Creigh Deeds for Attorney General.
We urge you to vote Kaine, Byrne, and Deeds on Election Day!
Jersey, These Are Your Statesmen
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 10:43AM
From the Asbury Park Press:
[Sen. Jon] Corzine's campaign headed to Edison again, where the candidate spoke to senior citizens, then reversed north to Livingston at nightfall, where the candidate joined [former Sen. Bill] Bradley and [acting Gov. Richard] Codey in a laugh-punctuated shoot-around on an outdoor basketball court.
As Bradley and Codey took foul shots, competing like the old hardcourt players they are, Bradley stood next to the governor and berated his shooting style, but the governor swished his first shot.
"In your face, Bradley!" Codey shouted.
"Let's get it on," said Bradley, a former star with the New York Knicks and Princeton University.
Bummer: The Economy Adds Jobs
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 10:38AM
The economy added 56,000 jobs in October, and unemployment dipped to 5 percent. Good news, right? Nope.
CBSNews.com: "Tepid Payroll Growth in October."
CNN/Money: "Bonds Rise on Weak Jobs."
MSN Money: "Market Shrugs Off Tepid Job Growth."
UPI: "Weak Jobs Reports Strengthens U.S. Stocks."
New York Times: "Economy Adds Fewer Jobs Than Expected in October."
And the kicker... North Korea Times: "October Employment Growth Weak."
Re: Jimmy Rethinking
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 8:49AM
Dave, the Carter piece you linked to was interesting in other respects, too. Perhaps none more so than the man's invincible narcissism, as when he offered that "the best treatment he has received since leaving the Oval Office was from the first President Bush, and the second-best treatment he got was during the Reagan administration, especially from Secretary of State George P. Shultz. The worst treatment he's received, the former president said, was from President Clinton."
He does not seem to have ever considered that his successors in office were under no obligation to even return his phone calls. And it becomes more and more apparent that they should never have bothered.
Carter ran for president in 1976 quoting Bob Dylan's famous line, "He not busy being born is busy dying." Another Dylan line seems more appropriate now: "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
Jimmy Rethinking
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 8:27AM
Former President Jimmy Carter sort of has a problem with abortion, he told reporters yesterday:
"I think abortion is wrong and that the government ought never do anything to encourage abortion," he said during that campaign. "But I do not favor a constitutional amendment which would prohibit all abortions, nor one that would give states [a] local option to ban abortions."
Looks like his abortion problem is with his thinking: it's wrong, but let's avoid confronting it. Still, he also said Democrats overemphasize abortion and that "I never have felt any abortion should be committed."
Despite the headline, the tone doesn't differ greatly from the flawed thinking that plagues the liberal/Clinton position on abortion: it's a tragedy. Tragedies are unfortunate events. In literature it's difficult to pin down the responsible party -- and often events unfold in spite of the character's best efforts. So liberals choose a word essentially devoid of moral content. It's not a terrorist attack, but a tragedy. It's not murder, but a tragedy. That's why Carter isn't willing to see the state lift a finger. It's unfortunate, but hardly an affront to the basic right to life.
iTunes of the Book World
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 8:16AM
Call me a Luddite, but something about Amazon's plan to sell some books by the page bugs me. Cookbooks? Maps? Overprice textbooks? Great. Novels? I hope authors nix it.
Good News Is In
Posted by on 11.4.05 @ 8:09AM
Well, good news is "in" to the extent that it's reported on A15 of the Post. The road to Baghdad International Airport is secure, the Post's readers learn in a fine story. But astute TAS readers have known this for weeks -- weeks! -- since John Connly Walsh reported it here Oct. 17.
Thursday, November 3, 2005
French Riots Continue
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 8:53PM
French Interior Minister and Mr. Bean-lookalike Nicolas Sarkozy says that the riots in the Paris suburbs that have gone on for seven nights were not spontaneous but "well organized." Odd. We thought the only things well organized in France were the labor strikes.
Re: Not Blowing Up
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 4:56PM
Here's the key line in that USA Today report:
But two [Gang of 14] senators - Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio - already have said they will join with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to eliminate the filibuster for judges if Democrats launch this delaying tactic simply because of Alito's conservative record.That's 50 votes for the so-called nuclear option right there. If the Democrats filibuster, not only won't they stop Alito, they'll make it easier for future conservative nominees, too. Maybe they'll do it anyway, calculating that the fight will help them politically in 2006 (I can see the anti-nuclear option ads now: mushroom clouds, ominous overvoices, etc.). But DeWine, who's facing a potentially tough '06 re-election fight, probably has polling data that says his position is politically sound, at least in Ohio. That makes me think that the way to bet is against a filibuster.
UPDATE: Graham and DeWine made some comments today backing off their anti-filibuster talk, which obviously changes things.
MoDo Workin'
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 3:19PM
MoDo never seems to have forgotten the words of her mother, who she says wrote her on her 31st birthday that: "Women can stand on the Empire State Building and scream to the heavens that they are equal to men and liberated, but until they have the same anatomy, it's a lie." Until? MoDo's subsequent career (and that of many of her contemporaries) seems to have been played out against the intractability of this wish. You'd think that Mother MoDo would have worked out some of her agita by the time her daughter hit 31. One can only imagine what kinds of destructive bromides she was favoring little MoDo with at sweet 16.
Tutoring MoDo
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 2:54PM
Actually, Wlady, MoDo could learn a lot more from the Orlando Sentinel's Kathleen Parker. Her column yesterday is a masterpiece that explodes the hoax of uber-feminism. A couple of the money quotes:
"Dowd, herself unmarried and childless, wonders whether being smart and successful explains her status. She observes that men would rather marry women who are younger and more malleable, i.e. less successful and perhaps not so very bright.
"Men haven't turned away from smart, successful women because they're smart and successful. More likely they've turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.
"Whatever was wrong, men did it. During the past 30 years, they've been variously characterized as male chauvinist pigs, deadbeat dads or knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. At the same time women wanted men to be wage earners, they also wanted them to act like girlfriends: to time their contractions, feed and diaper the baby, and go antiquing.
"And then, when whatshisname inevitably lapsed into guy-ness, women wanted him to disappear. If children were involved, women got custody and men got an invoice. The eradication of men and fathers from children's lives has been feminism's most despicable accomplishment. Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live.
"Did we really think men wouldn't mind?"
Good on 'ya, Ms. Parker. Men understand that without women, we'd still be running around wearing bearskins and howling at the moon. What MoDo won't understand -- and will forever hate men for -- is that once in a while, a guy has to have some real guy-time or he'll shrivel up into Aldahood and never again feel good about himself or his family. Proper "guy time" by the way, doesn't mean sitting around watching sports on TV. "Guy time" encompasses many things, though, ranging from playing poker (with real cards and chips, not online) to waxing cars to hunting animals that hunt don't agree with the idea that the human isn't the prey. Every guy has his favorite. And every gal -- especially the smart and successful ones -- learns how to encourage it.
I, for one, plan to read MoDo's new book. It's bound to make for many a column.
Purposeless-Driven Life
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 2:52PM
Is Darwinism and belief in an omnipotent God compatible? For PR reasons, many evolutionists say yes. To gull believers into an atheistic account of nature, they've made this a chief talking point. But to see the dishonesty of this PR campaign, all one needs to do is read the writings of the Darwinists' celebrated lights. The scientists who understand the theory most purely insist on this incompatibility: no external cause accounts for nature, they argue; unguided material processes alone explain it.
Take a look at Edward O. Wilson's introduction to From So Simple A Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwin. He writes that "we must conclude that life has diversified on Earth autonomously without any kind of external guidance. Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next." And then this: "we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals, and we remain a member species of this planet's biosphere...humanity is not the center of creation, and not its purpose either."
The opportunistic evolutionists who appear on TV debates and glibly say to try and score a point and sooth gullible theists, "Sure, religion and Darwinism are compatible," should really be debating scientists on their own side. Do they think Edward Wilson is wrong? Do they think Richard Dawkins is wrong? They can't dismiss the incompatibility of religion and Darwinism as a straw-man argument when their own leaders are the ones who constructed it.
The Art of Purring
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 1:12PM
Maureen Dowd is making a career of complaining of how she can't attract, let hold on to, a man of the male persuasion. Rather than savage Judith Miller for an alleged "tropism toward powerful men," she should study at the foot of Tina Brown and her ever-readiness to bow and scrape before powerful men.
What an unreliable anti-Bushie Brown turns out to be. Instead of piling on against the president for all the latest sins, today she allows herself to be diverted by the sudden sexiness of the new Prince Charles. His visit to America -- she joined the groupies at his New York appearances -- confirms that at age 56 he's come into his own and has "finally caught up with the zeitgeist." How so? "He's turned out to be a surprisingly good businessman in a way that's not just harmless but almost cool because it's socially responsible." Apparently he's into organic farming, a remarkable fete indeed, considering the royal families own no property in northern California. She kisses Mrs. Charles's hand as well: "She's smaller, prettier, more delicate than all those cruel horseface snaps would have you believe."
"'Now everyone can see how wonderful she is,' the prince told me quietly," Brown, with all her famous subtlety and implied intimacy, lets on. See how it's done, Maureen? Very quietly.
Repealing the Pay Raise?
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 1:09PM
Pennsylvania's fat cat state legislators are certainly thinking about it. Republican leaders are realizing that their unconstitutional pay hike isn't sitting well with their voters: Senate Majority Leader Chip Brightbill has found a 17% approval rating in his district, and Senate President Bob Jubelirer has sunk into the 20s in his district, the Lancaster New Era reports.
Their solution? Repeal the unvouchered expenses, still well short of a complete repeal. Apparently they still don't understand the problem.
Check out my article on these legislators' threats against conservatives organizing against them.
Not Blowing Up
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 12:28PM
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) says the Gang of 14 was "not going to blow up" over the Alito nomination. So does that mean their phones won't ring? Surely they teach the chirrun in Colorado how to speak more articulately than that.
Language skills aside, Salazar's remarks came after the Gang of 14 met for breakfast this morning (no word on the menu). Press reports contain few other tea leaves. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-White House Guest) said that it's too early to decide whether Alito triggers "extraordinary circumstances."
Corzine Dunking?
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 10:21AM
From ABC News' The Note,
Sen. Corzine (D-NJ), former Sen. Bill Bradley, and Gov. Codey "shoot hoops" at 4:30 pm ET outside Livingston High School in Livingston, NJ.
Oh, for the love of Pete, can we please get a camera crew there? What I would pay to see that...
Endorsement, Sans Ringing
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 10:17AM
Former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder endorsed Democrat Tim Kaine yesterday in Richmond, but not without the feeling of party duty. That's been the Kilgore campaign's talking point on the event, but reports of the event confirm it. One of Kaine's hallmark positions in the campaign is his support for the 2004 "budget reform" (read: enormous tax increase). As governor, Wilder closed a large deficit without raising taxes (we call it "cutting spending") and he still disagrees with last year's hike.
Oddly, the Richmond Times-Dispatch article (linked above) explains Wilder's delay in endorsing Kaine as a tactical choice: "he 'wanted to show that it wasn't the usual partisan endorsement.'"
The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star has a different story: "Asked why he waited so late..., Wilder said he was seriously weighing the candidates."
Seriously weighing the candidates until the last week in the race? Sounds like a tough choice: buck the party (again), endorse a Republican, and cause an uproar, or endorse a mediocre, tax-raising Democrat.
Best News of the Week
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 10:16AM
It's here! It's here, I tell you! Bwahahahahahahah. I shall covet it, devour it, and place it above all things (well, above almost all things) while I do. It's the best news of the week, nay, of the year. Not the Alito nom, the coming defeat of Hillary, or even the demise of the UN that could bestir me to such joy. It's Flashman on the March, the new novel by George MacDonald Fraser, the novelist of all novelists.
For those of you who are not already Flashmaniacs, suffice it to say that the Flashman novels are the adventures of the most cowardly rogue to ever take the king's shilling (in this case Queen Victoria's). Flashy is the man for whom the term "womanizer" was invented, a faux-hero to beat all such, who always does his level best to flee and despite everything he can do to duck and cover, ends up in the most horrific battles and covered with undeserved glory. He's the protagonist of the most readable and enjoyable of all historical novels. So if I'm not terribly communicative this weekend, rest easy. Flashy is taking me into 1868 Abyssinia, and there's no time to waste. Walk march, trot. Gallop!
Churls in Cheeseland?
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 9:13AM
If you listen to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the rioters who have set Paris suburbs ablaze for a week are "thugs," but the ever-poetic PM Dominique de Villepin cautions against "stigmatizing" vast areas. Last night was the seventh in a row in which disaffected North African immigrant youth -- Muslims -- protested violently, throwing molotov cocktails, besieging a police station and shooting at police. The proximate cause of the riots was the accidental electrocution of two boys (possibly chased by police) in an electrical substation.
The French riots, which have been almost ignored here, are very significant because they illustrate a problem Spectator has been writing about for years. In America, we work hard to help immigrants of all kinds assimilate, and in large part we are successful at it. For those immigrants who don't want to assimilate, we should be much more wary of allowing them to become citizens under any circumstances. In France, and other parts of Old Europe, Muslims are isolated. Their usual reluctance to assimilate is encouraged, and the result is huge sections of the suburbs of many French cities that are jammed with unemployed, uneducated, and disaffected people who resent their government. When the French pass laws such as the one that prevents Muslim girls from wearing head scarves to school, they create religious hostility. This is a recipe for violence.
The French have been the most persistent friend of the Arab states in the UN and elsewhere, and they have been rewarded -- by Saddam and others -- with considerable wealth. But this wealth is not nearly as beneficial as the disaffected and violent immigrant population is dangerous. They have been feeding the crocodile, hoping it eats them last. In truth, they can probably get away with it for another decade or two. After that, France may no longer be French. And, surprisingly, that may not be good news.
Democrats on Iraq Intelligence
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 8:48AM
Democrats are probably wishing Google and Lexis Nexus weren't so prevalent this week as they beat the "Bush lied" drum. As RET noted earlier this year, "Search machines make it easy to retrieve a public person's errors." The WSJ editorial board went search machine happy in today's editorial on the Democrats' records on Iraq intel. You're familiar with the record, but don't miss some choice highlights.
High Hopes for Prop. 73
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 8:38AM
California's parental notification initiative will narrowly pass by 51-39 percent if today's L.A. Times poll is correct.
No Speech Is Safe
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 8:34AM
The House of Representatives defeated a bill exempting all internet communications from campaign finance laws last night. The free speech killing, incumbency protecting ethos (a.k.a campaign finance) strikes again.
Ganging Against the Filibuster
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 8:30AM
Red State Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, is at a "comfort level" with Judge Alito. Toss in two other Gang of 14 members, Graham and DeWine, and the Gang's going to have difficulty staying together in a Democratic filibuster against the nominee. If the GOP's liberal three oppose the filibuster, the vote count's up to 56 -- more than enough to go nuclear.
Si, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus
Posted by on 11.3.05 @ 2:13AM
Late last night I checked out the Lakers-Nuggets game on ESPN. During a break in the action, suddenly a political ad was played for my Cox Cable area's viewers -- in Spanish. Makes sense, no? The Lakers after all represent Los Angeles, a large Spanish-speaking market.
But wait. I live in Northern Virginia. The ad had nothing to do with California's coming propositions. It was for Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Tim Kaine. There are enough registered Hispanic voters in this area to reach out to? That's not something you hear much about.
Instead, the impression is always that most Hispanics here are presumed to be undocumented and thus not citizens, which is probably unfair to many thousands who have become naturalized. Regardless, Democrats must consider them all their own, no questions asked. Otherwise, why not attract them in English?
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 7:10PM
Courtesy of Drudge:
"GUEST HIGHLIGHTS AT WHITE HOUSE DINNER FOR PRINCE CHARLES AND DUTCHESS: Miss Jenna Bush/ Mr. Henry Hager (Guest); Tom Brokaw; Michael Beschloss, Historian; Mary Cheney, Ms. Heather Poe (Guest); Kelsey Grammer; Nancy Reagan, Mr. Merv Griffin (Guest); Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Gene A. Washington, Director of Football Operations, National Football League (Guest); R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., Editor in Chief, The American Spectator...Medallions of Buffalo Tenderloin, Roasted Corn, Wild Rice Pancakes, Glazed Parsnips and Young Carrots; Mint Romaine Lettuce with Blood Orange Vinaigrette, Vermont Camembert Cheese and Spiced Walnuts; Petits Fours Cake, Chartreuse Ice Cream, Red and Green Grape Sauce... "
Quick Quiz
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 4:46PM
OK, all you media watchers. See if you can guess which big daily newspaper ran this as the ultimate paragraph in their principal editorial today:
"The key issue of course is that once again the rigged evidence with which Bush tried first to persuade the UN to invade Iraq and then used anyway with Britain's Tony Blair to justify their independent attack on Saddam, is back center stage. Americans did not seem to care back in 2003. They still didn't care last November when they re-elected Bush -- this time with a legitimate majority. But they care now. In the selfsame week of the White House humiliation over Harriet Miers and the indictment of Lewis Libby and the continued implication of Karl Rove, the number of the U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq crossed the 2,000 mark. People are wanting to know how much longer American dollars and American blood are going to be poured out. They might not have worried had Saddam's overthrow been quick and created a stable Iraq or the death had been on the Iraq side alone. Instead now they see the rising price of failure based on lies and their view is changing to anger. Could the Bush second term perhaps end like Richard Nixon's?"
New York Times? L.A. Times? Washington Post? Boston Globe? No. You can be forgiven if they all sound the same to you, because they all sound the same to everyone who reads them. No, the issue is who they sound the same as? Ready?
Check out the full editorial, entitled, "Price of Lies." It's in the Saudi government-sponsored daily, "Arab News." The contrast between the Saudi government and the libs here is that in Saudi Arabia the politicians lead the media, not the other way around.
Peanut Watch
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 4:17PM
What a surprise. The worst
The magnitude of Jimmy Carter’s disaster as president is exceeded only by his messianic moralizing; in fact, the two phenomena are inseparable. Many have interpreted his activities since leaving office as a quest for redemption, but Carter has never felt the need to redeem himself, only the rest of humanity. If anything, his failure seems to have convinced him of his own absolute moral authority, the very same kind he accuses conservatives of wielding. It's remarkable how the sin of pride visits even those who have no business with it.
In a less forgiving country, Carter would have been disqualified from offering his views on foreign policy the moment he left office on January 20, 1981, which, considering who took his place, should be remembered as one of the truly great days in American history.
Slate in a State
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 3:38PM
Their Supreme Court analysis has never been great, but Slate's offerings on Samuel Alito are especially hysterical (definition 1, and sometimes 3). One example: Richard Schragger writes, regarding Alito's abortion jurisprudence: "Seeking to cloud this issue by pointing out that Alito authored opinions on both sides of the issue is nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth." To make his case, Scragger discusses Casey and Farmer, emphasizing the distance in the latter case between the majority opinion Alito's precedent-based concurrence. But he totally ignores Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women v. Knoll, the Medicaid abortion-funding case which I described here. Knoll was a split 2-1 decision, so it's not as if Alito's deference to Clinton admininstration policy was inevitable. As Ed Whelan has pointed out, Knoll was really about administrative law, not abortion, but it does illustrate that Alito's jurisprudence isn't guided by pro-life policy preferences.
On the other hand, it's hard to stay mad at a website that sics Christopher Hitchens on Brent "Fifty Years of Peace" Scowcroft. (I do not endorse Hitchens's anti-Mormon aside, but that's an incurable tic. The one time I've met him, Hitchens responded to a well-wisher who said "I read your columns religiously" by saying "that's not the way you're supposed to read them." I got the impression that he'd used that line before.)
Mapes' 'Essential Truth'
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 12:26PM
The Vanity Fair excerpt from Mary Mapes' book is further proof of the Boccardi/Thornburgh whitewash of CBS's forgery-based National Guard story. While Mapes whines about having to answer questions from Boccardi about her baldly liberal bias -- "Wouldn't you describe yourself as a liberal?" he asked her at one point -- she neglects to mention that his report outrageously ruled bias out as a "factor" in the fiasco. Dick Thornburgh, whom Mapes calls an "empty suit" and delights in reminding readers was one of the first victims of an Ali G. prank, went along with the whitewash. Mapes should thank those guys for letting her off the hook on that. Boccardi knew that she was an axe-grinding liberal but omitted that from his account and declared that "haste" was the cause of the bungling -- a very novel explanation when both Rather and Mapes are standing by the forgery over a year later.
Mapes can't bring herself to question the documents even as she lectures the media on the journalistic virtue of skepticism. "Skepticism," she writes," is "largely forgotten." While she is still convinced that her crackpot source is a font of truth, she blasts bloggers for their "questionable recollections." She thinks it is unfair for anyone to label her a liberal -- she proudly relates how she grew up on a farm under the supervision of hearty parents (she neglects to mention that her father once phoned into a talk show and explained her forgery mess as the work of a feminist who lost her way) -- but she repeatedly labels bloggers "far-right."
This tell-all will be good for at least one thing -- showing that Rather's and Andrew Heyward's highly "professional" operation was a shoddy operation of comic proportions. When the bloggers had them all on the run, Heyward blurted out, "If the blogs are using people that are lousy analysts to make their case, then let's get some lousy analysts of our own." Meanwhile, Mapes was slowly climbing out of her cocoon of self-delusion. She assumed the report was impregnable. After all, her colleagues had given her "hugs and kisses and congratulations" after it aired. "We were on a roll," she writes.
Anonymous Tips
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 12:08PM
Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don't. The one we got a few days ago hasn't. According to two highly-placed DoD sources there isn't any new startling find to disprove current assumptions.
One aspect of this seems to be recycled news. There has been a lot of talk about yellowcake uranium -- the stuff produced as the first step in refining raw ore -- in Iraq. But we found tons of it in Iraq when our forces first entered at the al-Tuwaitha site, where Saddam's nuclear weapons program was underway. Whether it was from Niger or wherever, it's indisputable that Saddam's program to develop nukes was a priority of his government. The new Iraqi government has no capability -- or desire -- to build them. But then again, there's Iran.
Biden Disconnect
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 12:01PM
In an even bigger insult to the body politic than any attempted by Senate Democrat hoodlums yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden spoke in Manchester, New Hampshire last night. He appeared before 125 Granite Staters, which is more hostages than Reid's gang terrorized. The Union Leader reports that Biden delivered "a rousing, fist-clenching political speech," and promised to vote against Samuel Alito if the nominee fails to answer questions in his confirmation hearings. As if expecting Alito himself to pull the plug on Biden's presidential ambitions, Sen. Joe said, according to the U.L., that a "nominee should have to answer whether a medical patient hooked up to a life-sustaining machine has the ability to demand he be disconnected."
Before Acceptance...
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 11:36AM
...comes denial. David Broder briefly stops at denial today with the headline "President Pushover." Rebuked and even chastened from the Miers fiasco? Sure. "But the message that has been sent is that this president is surprisingly easy to roll"? If by surprisingly easy you mean it takes a month to convince him of a bad move. I wonder if Mr. Broder was walled up writing his column while the Dems stormed the Senate yesterday. That, my friends, is a stunt from the position of weakness.
First Impressions
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 10:59AM
For what it's worth (not a whole lot), Americans have a largely positive opinion of Judge Alito.
Crusher, RIP
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 10:53AM
Well, to take a brief moment out from the Senate hijacking story, I’d like to note the passing of Reggie “the Crusher” Lisowski, who died at 79 on October 22. His passing transports me back to my
Anyway, the Crusher was famous for his “bolo” punch, which I imagine he stole from Kid Gavilan, but never mind. As the Washington Post obit relates:
He had "thousands" of stitches in his head, countless concussions and a damaged eardrum. When he broke his right shoulder, he came home from a match, went to a pillar in the basement and yanked it back into place. He also had two hip replacements, a knee replacement and multiple heart bypass surgeries.Yet he was so strong that he could bend a tire in half, which is harder than it sounds.
It sounds pretty hard, actually. I don’t think we’ll see Lisowski lying in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, but the man did pack a wallop.
Brutalized
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 10:09AM
The thing to remember about yesterday's Senate Democrat coup is that the Republicans were routed. Senator Frist can fume and fulminate all he wants, but the gang of Reid, Durbin, and Schumer got what they wanted. It was Republicans who caved. "Republicans Bristle but Agree to Speed Probe Of Prewar Intelligence," the Washington Post subhead reads. Last night on the excellent John Batchelor radio program, Lawrence Kudlow lit into Frist. So much for conservative solidarity. To add insult to injury, the Post's Senate sketch writer Dana Milbank captures Frist saying, "I've got to go figure out what we need to do." The embarrassment and humiliation may all be short term. Just how short we'll find out today at 12:06 p.m., when Rush comes on.
Anglicans Against ANWR
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 9:48AM
In another sign that the Episcopal Church is just another branch of mainstream Protestantism (yes, some still think it can be saved for orthodoxy), the American church of the via media has co-sponsored a full page color ad in the Washington Post today (A9) bleating about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They join the Sierra Club, Friends of Animals, the National Resources Defense Council, and others. It's not that the Episcopalians don't take stands. It's that they only take stands for liberalism.
Reading Between the Lines
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 7:56AM
Major newspaper coverage of yesterday's Democratic fit in the Senate barely allows their readers a full picture.
The New York Times headline, "Partisan Quarrel Forces Senators to Bar the Doors," captures Democratic decorum, but the story provides little context.
The Post treats the stunt with undeserved dignity but squeezes in the bigger picture just after the jump:
Friday's indictment of top White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury and obstruction charges gave Democrats a new opening to demand that more light be shed on these issues, including administration efforts to discredit a key critic of the prewar claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Democrats were dismayed that President Bush made no apologies after the indictment and that his naming of a new Supreme Court nominee Monday knocked the Libby story off many front pages.
No urgency of a closed session, just a few days of bad news for the Democrats.
The Boston Globe wins the prize for thorough reporting on this one: calling it a "power play" in the first sentence and communicating the pettiness over the Iraq intelligence. Still, the writer possibly misreads the move:
The one political boost the Republicans received this week -- the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr., a highly regarded appellate judge -- was eclipsed yesterday by the Democrats' maneuver.
Eclipsed? If she means eclipsed for one day, sure. The whole nomination? Heck no. It moves it off the front pages, but what will be remembered here is a tantrum and not the substance of the session. That photo of Reid, Schumer, and Durbin? Those are hardly the faces of measured moderation.
Phase In
Posted by on 11.2.05 @ 1:33AM
One revealing facet of the Democrats' Senate shutdown Tuesday afternoon was the emergence of "Phase 2" (sometimes spelled "Phase II" or "Phase Two") as a key talking point, with Democrats complaining that Senate Republicans with Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts in the lead had failed to deliver on their promise upon completion of phase one in July 2004 to conduct and complete a follow-up inquiry after the fall elections into intelligence before the Iraq war. But who knew that was such a sore spot?
Surely if Democrats were unhappy with the pace of Phase II, there would have been stories about it in the press. But a Nexis search of the Washington Post and New York Times turns up next to nothing on that score. Last August 2, for instance, Intelligence Committee member Dianne Feinstein released her letter of July 31 to Chairman Roberts complaining about the committee's failure to complete Phase II, but her unhappiness failed to generate any coverage or Democratic momentum.
Several stories or columns in the Boston Globe did cover the "second phase" aspect in some detail last summer and fall. One of them discussed John Kerry's call for completion of "phase two" in a letter to the Intelligence Committee's chairman and vice-chairman. "But Kerry could only garner signatures from nine colleagues, despite circulating the letter to the entire Democratic caucus," the Globe added.
On October 13, the New York Times reported on the release of an earlier, non-congressional review of Iraq-related intelligence. In an aside, the story mentioned that Jay Rockefeller and other Democrats have complained about the Republican-led Intelligence Committee's failure to produce a second-phase report. But again, no sense of seething outrage. And that's it -- until a few days ago.
New York Times Hyde Park Corner columnist Frank Rich, who is always seething, last Sunday called the Intelligence Committee's investigation into prewar intelligence "a scandal" for failing to produce a "Phase 2." Joseph Wilson, who apparently hadn't discussed Phase II before, did so during the (scripted?) Q&A after his speech at the National Press Club on October 31. Now everyone has gotten with the program.
What a difference a single indictment -- and a single SCOTUS appointment -- can make. But that's better left for phase two of this investigation.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
Non-Vintage Stuff From Reid's Whinery
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 6:40PM
In the end, it is impossible to understate the importance of what went on in the Senate today. The fanfare, the rumors, and all the nonsensical puffery came down to this: the Dems are clinically depressed that Patrick Fitzgerald didn't deliver for them an indictment -- not only of Karl Rove -- but of the Iraq war itself.
If you watched Jay Rockefeller -- he being one of the three under criminal investigation for leaking details of a top-secret satellite program -- huffing and puffing about what the Senate Intelligence Committee wasn't doing but should, you heard every whine the liberals have about the war. Not only should they be investigating former DoD Undersecretary for Policy Doug Feith, but they should also be investigating: detainee abuse, interrogation methods, rendition of terrorist prisoners to other nations and -- yes -- the whole issue of whether intelligence was manipulated by the Bush administration to lie America into war.
The problem that Rockefeller, Reid, and the rest have is that Pat Roberts's committee is working hard on precisely what the Senate agreed to in February of 2004. And they were about to get the next stage next week when Reid, Rockefeller, and Durbin blew it all up today.
Now, after all that kerfuffle, all today's intense scrutiny on Senate process -- and all the intensely personal insults traded behind closed doors -- all the Dems managed to get was agreement that a group of six senators would look at what the Intelligence Committee is doing and report back on its schedule.
The best thing that comes out of today -- and it has everything to do with personalities and nothing to do with substance -- is that by this personal attack on Roberts and others today, the Dems have made it more difficult for RINOs to maneuver. McCain and his Gang of 14 will also find it a lot harder to stay together if, as seems almost certain, the Dems try to filibuster Judge Alito. Heavy-handedness by Reid helps Alito.
What You Think You Know is Wrong
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 6:16PM
The Heritage Foundation hosted a book forum today for Richard Miniter, author of Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror. You can watch it (or listen to it) here. At about 26 minutes in, you'll hear me ask a question that prompts Miniter to quip, "You guys at the Spectator really like to stir up trouble, don't you?"
Blah, blah, blah
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 4:46PM
Seems like there's a great deal less than met the eye in the Dems' closing the Senate to discuss classified information. According to Schumer, who just couldn't stay away from a TV camera any longer, and just spoke to the cameras, they're demanding a Senate investigation into their allegations that the intel data used to justify the war was manipulated. They say that Pat Roberts (R-Kans), chairman of the intel committee, promised an investigation last year and hasn't come through. So now the Dems are blocking any other action in the Senate to get their investigation.
Think about the Robb-Silberman report. Former Virginia Dem Senator Chuck Robb and Judge Lawrence Silberman -- neither shy guys nor Bush flaks -- did that same investigation over a year ago, and came to the conclusion that there was NO manipulation of the intel to justify the war. If that's all there is to this stunt, there's nothing to it at all. Schumer was optimistic that Republican leaders would cave and start another investigation.
If they do, consider this: the continuing Fitzgerald investigation will have a perfect outlet for leaks that can imply all sorts of misdeeds at the White House. If this investigation is authorized, watch out. Fitzmas will happen about once a month from now to November '06, or longer. We'll stay on this. Stay tuned.
Motivations
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 4:44PM
Chuck Schumer is now off the floor telling reporters that Democrats have "for the longest" time been attempting to get the Senate Intelligence to keep its promise to investigate the use of intelligence in going to war and liberating Iraq. He claims that ranking Democratic Jay Rockefeller had been attempting to get the committee as late as last Friday to take up the issue.
But according to Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, Rockefeller and committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts have been collegial about the issue.
A Senate Minority Leadership staffer says this plan to shut down the Senate was hatched last night, as staff and Democratic Senators looked over the wreckage of what they believed was going to be their finest few days in a long time: an indictment of a White House official, a struggling President, a conservative judicial nominee, a splintering conservative base.
"Alito's nomination and the press that followed just devastated them," says the leadership source. "They couldn't get their message out. They felt that things had pivoted on them, and that with the President presenting his plan for avian flu, with the Alito nomination going apparently well, with the tax panel recommendations, they were going to get ploughed under. This was a stunt. But it worked."
News From the Hill
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 4:06PM
NOVEMBER 1, 2005
SPEAKERS: U.S. SENATOR BILL FRIST (R-TN),
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT (R-MS)
U.S. SENATOR JON KYL (R-AZ)
U.S. SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA)
FRIST: About 10 minutes ago or so, the United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership. I say that because with absolutely no warning at the leadership level, no warning whatsoever, some time after 2 o'clock today, the Democratic leader appropriately took the floor -- took control of the floor of the United States Senate and put us in, according with the Senate rules, a private session, which is not a public session -- and we'll describe that in a little more detail -- which at least in recent history is unprecedented.
Once again, it shows the Democrats use scare tactics. They have not conviction. They have no principles. They have no ideas. But this is the ultimate. Since I've been majority leader, I'll have to say, not with the previous Democratic leader or the current Democratic leader have ever I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution.
Every other time -- and again, we'll have to go back and look at the history -- there has been at least consideration for the other side of the aisle before a stunt -- and this is a pure stunt that is being performed by Senator Reid, Senator Durbin and their leadership.
Yes, we've gone into closed session before but we have always -- and again, we'll go back and look at history -- I can tell you under the current majority leader and under the former majority leader that always, if we've gone into a closed session, which pushes you out, which pushes the American people out, where cameras come off, here our microphones are turned off -- every time in recent history it has been with mutual conversation between the majority leader and the Democratic leader, between the majority leadership and the democratic leadership.
Senate in Closed Session
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 3:31PM
FNC reported that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid invoked a little-used rule to put the Senate into closed session to talk about information on the intelligence used to justify the Iraq invasion of 2003. Both Bill Frist and Trent Lott were on, harrumphing that this was Reid's stunt and a great affront to them personally.
Reid is not likely to have done this without some new information. We have had an unconfirmed report -- I repeat, unconfirmed, not second-sourced or even explained -- that something has been found in Iraq that dispels previous misconceptions. Whatever that means. Stay tuned. Reid has chosen to go ugly early. And there may be lots to come. Stay tuned.
The Same Ol' Diversity
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 2:39PM
Ah, the diversity ruse. Cheap, easy, and oh-so-common. AmSpec's own James G. Poulos dismantles the argument: "Mere difference means nothing, accomplishes nothing, by itself."
MoveOn Panicking
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 2:22PM
The emails from MoveOn.org are fast and furious now. They smell defeat in the air. The latest version I just received asks me to contact Sen. John Warner:
Yesterday, President Bush bowed to pressure from the far-right and nominated Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, posing a serious threat to basic civil rights, women's rights and worker rights for decades to come.1
Now, just 24 hours later, Senate Republicans are threatening to bring back the "nuclear option"2-a parliamentary maneuver to seize absolute power in the Senate and force through extremist judicial nominees, (nominees exactly like Judge Alito).
Senator Warner is one of a handful of moderate Senators who helped kill the "nuclear option" last Spring.3 That same bi-partisan group of Senators is meeting this week to decide if they will continue to block the "nuclear option" in the future.4 It's critical that we weigh in before they make that fateful decision.
Please call Senator Warner right now and ask him to oppose Samuel Alito, and oppose the "nuclear option."
MoveOn's trying to head off any consensus building. If they don't act quickly, moderates and conservatives will realize what a reasonable jurist Sam Alito is.
Re: Shame on Us
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 2:12PM
Peter: Arguably, there would be a reporters' privilege under the First Amendment, but there isn't and the Supremes have held just that in the proceedings regarding the Fitzgerald investigation. I don't agree that there's only one problem. There are two. One is a reporter's privilege that could be clearly drawn to protect private conversations with sources but not the disclosure of classified information such as troop positions, etc.
You do raise the other good point from the Olson piece. There is no longer any excuse for unlimited, persecutorial discretion (and I use the term advisedly). Fitzgerald should have been required to report findings of whether there was a crime committed in the leak of Plame's name. Given its absence, he should also have been required to end his investigation.
Special prosecutors such as Fitzgerald (who may yet prove to be another Walsh, but so far has not been) are unlimited in their discretion because of what happened to Archibald Cox. By firing him, Nixon created the problem. The remaining problem is not in the Executive Branch. Congress -- if it weren't seeking pork and headlines as its primary goals -- could conduct in-depth investigations such as Fitzgerald's itself. If the Executive Branch can't be trusted (which, perforce, it cannot when Democrats are in power), the Congress can stand up on its hind legs and do for the Executive what Norm Coleman is doing for the UN. But they have neither the patience nor the intestinal fortitude to do so. We should end the era of special prosecutors, and get Congress to do its job.
I know, I know. Faint hope.
Re: Shame on Us
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 1:55PM
Jed wrote: "But a clear and limited federal privilege law protecting reporters and sources is now a must. Or we risk giving up the openness of government that is one of the foundation stones of our freedom."
Jed, you have infinitely more legal background than I do, but would this not already be covered by the 1st amendment? I've heard a lot of liberals arguing for such a law, but there's already a contradiction in terms -- "a clear and limited federal privilege law" would probably be like our other clear and limited laws. Given media behavior in war zones, I can imagine situations where they will claim it's perfectly okay to report deployment positions. But we needn't go so far as security threats -- I'm thinking of the way extortion and blackmail will come to a head in this regard, either through corporate whistleblowing or sexual harassment lawsuits. The accused, in these circumstances, should know the identity of their accuser.
But Olson's article actually circles around this point: It's not that journalists are inured to subpoenas, it's that the prosecutor is indicting Libby on shaky ground. Criminal intent hasn't been proven, and indeed, is hardly even touched:
If special prosecutors can be empowered to investigate allegations of conduct that isn't first established to be criminal, and to interrogate witnesses -- especially reporters -- about memories of distant conversations with sources regarding conduct that isn't plainly criminal, there is no politically motivated allegation that can't be turned into a criminal cover-up.
In short, Judith Miller does not need protection; Fitzgerald needs restraint.
Shame on Us
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 12:39PM
For being swept away by Alitophoria yesterday and missing a very important piece in the Monday Wall Street Journal by former solicitor general Ted Olson. (Subscription req'd). Olson, looking at the Fitzgerald indictment of Scooter Libby, comes to the compelling conclusion no one else has articulated: that the indictment may reduce press access to government officials -- in all those "on background" confidential conversations -- that actually benefit the public by getting out information that the public should know, and may never otherwise. Money quotes:
"As chief of staff to the vice president, Mr. Libby participated in countless meetings and phone conversations every day, seven days a week. Talking to reporters, mostly on background, is a big part of life in these jobs. At this level, important events occur daily, one after the other. The same can be said about journalists in Washington. So many phone calls every day -- some on record, some off. It is impossible to remember the details of who said what during which conversation on what day -- even a week, much less years, later. So if Mr. Libby's memory is wrong about what he said to or learned from reporters in June/July 2003, or if reporters do not recall accurately, or if phone conversations are juxtaposed, that is natural, not sinister."
I can -- having sat on both sides of that equation -- testify to that truth. The impact? According to Olson:
"Even more compelling is what the Fitzgerald charges will portend for public discourse on political subjects. Officials and journalists have thousands of conversations a day about controversial matters. That is how we learn what is going on. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Constitution intends that such speech be uninhibited, even vehement and caustic. Must officials now fear that they may be prosecuted if they do not accurately recall conversations years later? And that the journalists they talk to will be witnesses for the prosecution? Should journalists caution sources that if their memories of fleeting conversations are less than fully consistent, those memories will be fodder for prosecutors years later?"
One of the greatest strengths of our democracy is its openness. If Libby committed the crimes he is charged with, he should be punished. But a clear and limited federal privilege law protecting reporters and sources is now a must. Or we risk giving up the openness of government that is one of the foundation stones of our freedom.
Senate Gals From Maine: We're Not Sexist
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 11:05AM
Whew! The gals from Maine, Snowe and Collins, are willing to consider Supreme Court nominees of both sexes, reports the Morning Sentinel: "I'd obviously like to see more women [on the Court], ... but it is not an overriding consideration."
Re: No Liberal Brow More Fevered
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 11:04AM
Wlady: True enough, but I'm not sure any president can pardon himself for being a man, far less a white one. That would clearly take a woman president to accomplish. He must be thinking of Geena Davis.
Is Following the Law An Ideology?
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 10:59AM
Judging by all the mindless gabbing last night on TV about Alito, the left has very little to work with. One of MSNBC's pinheads, scrambling to find some angle, any angle, to raise questions about Alito's suitability for the Court, asked correspondent Pete Williams if the judge's stated "reverence" for the Supreme Court suggested that he would approach cases too religiously. Williams could only laugh at the stupidity of the question.
All the left can do is draw manifestly unfair inferences about Alito's fidelity to their nebulous criterion, "constitutional values," from his rulings. This requires turning every one of his rulings into a referendum on his heart. If he said that such and such a law is "constitutional," then he obviously supported that law. Hence we know he is a machine gun fanatic because he didn't rule a law involving them unconstitutional. But I notice from at least one poll that this willfully immature spin on his jurisprudence won't always cut in the Dems' favor. On the much-discussed Pennsylvania abortion case, the position they ascribe to Alito -- that spouses should be notified if their unborn child is about to be aborted -- receives overwhelming support from the American people. The Democrats are anti-spousal rights! How can they take such an extremist position?
Mack-Breaux Commission
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 10:55AM
Is delivering its report to Treasury Secretary John Snow today at 11:30.
Re: No Liberal Brow More Fevered
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 9:59AM
Jed: There's one more thing to note about egregious E.J., and it's actually a cause for cheer. He fears that no matter how many screws Fitzgerald puts to Libby, the ultimate trump lies with Bush: "If Libby, through nods and winks, knows that a the end of Bush's term, the president will issue an unconditional pardon..." Naturally, E.J. now wants Bush to promise he'll never ever pardon Libby. It's not clear if that promise is to be made before or after Bush apologizes for appointing yet another White Man to the Supreme Court, or indeed for being, at last check, a White Man himself.
The Right Is Informed, Healed
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 9:56AM
The rumors of the right's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Folks are falling in line, reports the Washington Times. Why? The stakes of this battle are greater than the gains of particular interest groups or even prideful grudges.
Catholics, 5 to 4
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 8:17AM
Via Mirror of Justice and Volokh Conspiracy, BenedictBlog works through the implications of five Catholics on the Supreme Court. My favorites:
10) Meat-less Fridays all year round in the Supreme Court cafeteria;
9) Oral arguments in Latin;
...
6) Supreme Court windows replaced with stained glass;
5) On close votes, the Justices will consult a statue of St. Thomas More. If the statue weeps, they affirm; if no tears, then they reverse.
4) Incense at the start of each session;
3) Supreme Court opinions will be deemed infallible and unreviewable by any earthly authority [Ed. - Sorry -
that does not appear to be a change at all]2) Catechism of the Catholic Church will now be "persuasive authority";
And, the number one change which a Catholic majority would make to the Supreme Court . . .
1) Wednesday night bingo!
No Liberal Brow More Fevered
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 8:00AM
Than that of WaPo columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. His Tuesday fulmination rages at the gifts he thought were his for Fitzmas. Not this one, the one he -- and apparently Joe Wilson -- thought would come out in October 2004 just in time to get Vichy John Kerry elected. Dionne accuses Scooter Libby of throwing sand in the eyes of prosecutors to delay any damage to President Bush past the November 04 election. And that's not all.
Because Dionne thinks we still don't know enough about what blame should be assigned in the Plame leak, he says, "That is why Senate Democrats...should insist that before Alito's nomination is voted on, Bush and Cheney have some work to do." The "work" he assigns is, natch, to confess their crimes against poor ol' Val Plame.
Let us pray that the Senate Dems follow Dionne's advice to the letter and try to hold Judge Alito's confirmation hostage to a White House confessional hosted by Joe Wilson. For them to do so would not merely be political suicide, it would be to do to themselves what the Romans finally did to Carthage. Go for it, boys and girls. Please.
All Saints Day
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 7:45AM
A day "instituted to honor all saints, known and unknown, and to supply any deficiencies in the faithful's celebration of saints' feasts during the year."
Methodists 2 for 2
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 7:39AM
The Judicial Council rules: Lesbian minister Beth Stroud is defrocked, and the Virginia pastor who denied church membership to a practicing homosexual was reinstated. These are positive steps for a church which has otherwise appeared uncertain.
MoDo Raging
Posted by on 11.1.05 @ 12:09AM
Even by Maureen Dowd's standards, her Sunday NY Times piece is remarkably bitter and joyless. At its heart, it reveals a befuddled rage at the mysteries of human nature that feminism was unable to expunge. Her despair that women, after all the sturm und drang of the feminist era, still want to attract men, and are even willing (some of them) to trade domesticity for career, is rendered with a subtle tone of incomprehension that says more about her than the phenomena she is purportedly analyzing. And that's what makes the piece so uncomfortable to read; it's about Dowd, not the state of women today. What else to conclude when the author's analysis includes pieces of pure fantasy like this:
Decades after the feminist movement promised equality with men, it was becoming increasingly apparent that many women would have to brush up on the venerable tricks of the trade: an absurdly charming little laugh, a pert toss of the head, an air of saucy triumph, dewy eyes and a full knowledge of music, drawing, elegant note writing and geography. It would once more be considered captivating to lie on a chaise longue, pass a lacy handkerchief across the eyelids and complain of a case of springtime giddiness.
I've never met any women who act like this, and I share a city with Dowd. But the worst parts are when she makes the connection between her social critique and her personal complaint explicit, as here:
It's funny. I come from a family of Irish domestics -- statuesque, 6-foot-tall women who cooked, kept house and acted as nannies for some of America's first families. I was always so proud of achieving more -- succeeding in a high-powered career that would have been closed to my great-aunts. How odd, then, to find out now that being a maid would have enhanced my chances with men.
Someone should tell her that she needn't bother slumming. Men don't fall in love with angry, sardonic maids, any more than they do with angry, sardonic columnists. Dowd wants it all to have to do with her smarts -- that's why men don't like me, I scare them! It's a nice cop-out, placing the responsibility for her unhappiness at the doorstep of men and their delicate egos, their need for power and dominance. Yet Dowd seems never to reckon with her own need to control everything, not least the nature of sex differences and the limitations of human beings.
Dowd is never able to mount any convincing evidence that women are in a bad way, but she makes it abundantly clear that she is. She's angry that women want certain kinds of men; angry that men want certain kinds of women; and angry that, apparently, men don't want her. Probably the reason they don't is because she's … angry.
It's hell, fighting human nature. I wish MoDo luck, and leave her with these lines from Robinson Jeffers:
Be angry at the sun for setting
If these things anger you.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Re: Rotunda Politics
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 11:35PM
When I was reading what you wrote, Paul, I was tempted to believe that the purpose of elevating Rosa Parks was to celebrate her particular brand of civil rights activism. But that would have required some thinking on the part of the elected officials who were probably a little more concerned about how bad their image would be otherwise. Dave, talk about turning people into objects, it didn't take long after Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination for the riots to start.
But here we have two national figures who have been exploited in this way for decades -- Rosa Parks showed up in at least one or two State of the Union cameos. It can be argued that national figures are the stuff of tokenage, and carping about it as bad form is just tut-tutting. Well, then, what about the plight of those affected by the Hurricanes? To no end did we hear about poor people specifically as though they were the only ones suffering. Yet where are those honest enough to aid them in their hour of need, after the media buzz is over?
Instead, I'm actually more curious about how few military heroes are on display, not in the rotunda, perhaps, but in the media in general. I would take a Rosa Parks any day over the violent agitators who sold out their own cause. But why not the people who fight for all of us today?
Re: Rotunda Politics
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:35PM
The historical perspective on the great honor of stopping in the Rotunda on the way to becoming dust is very helpful. Sen. Schumer seemed to confirm the crass political motives interpretation today.
His statement on the Alito nomination is remarkable for its narcissism. His first sentence would be about the demands of the law, the honor of the court, right? Right? Nope. "This morning I went and visited Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda to pay my respects." Schumer then goes on to invoke Parks' memory to score political points against Alito. Dead people can't object to being made objects.
Such use of the recently dead reads like a caricature. Astute history students know it happens, but much more subtly. Fiction captures the essence of Schumer's moment so well. In Fight Club, when a foot soldier in Tyler Durden's Project Mayhem is shot and killed by police, Jack objects to the group dumping the body in the garden without dignity. Jack insists that he wasn't a faceless soldier, but a person, Robert Paulson. Instead of the name or life meaning something, the mob turns his name into a chant. Chilling.
Rotunda Politics
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 8:18PM
Rosa Parks was a fine, brave woman who helped to push the levers of American history in a positive direction. Her death deserves to be marked with appropriate solemnity; but does it follow that she deserves to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda? And who gets to lie in the Rotunda, anyway? According to Wikipedia:
The first leader to receive this honor was statesman Henry Clay in 1852. Since then the honor has been extended to 10 U.S. presidents, including the four who were assassinated, but is not limited to them.…No law, written rule, or regulation specifies who may lie in state; use of the Rotunda is controlled by concurrent action of the House and Senate. Any person who has rendered distinguished service to the nation may lie in state if the family so wishes and Congress approve.... Because lying in state is considered by some in the U.S. to be reserved for former presidents and military officials, when the procedure is followed to honor a civilian, it is sometimes referred to as lying in honor.
There may be no formal rules governing the ritual, but since 1852, only 29 Americans have lain in the Rotunda. That number includes 10 presidents, the most recent being President Reagan in 2004. It also includes a few senators, Generals Pershing and MacArthur, J. Edgar Hoover, Hubert Humphrey, and two U.S. Capitol police officers killed in the line of duty in 1998. Parks is just the second non-governmental official, the first being Pierre L'Enfant in 1909.
You don't win new friends by quibbling with the honors accorded an old woman. Even so, it's difficult to escape the suspicion that mourning Parks in the Rotunda is a desperate gesture of overcompensation from a civil rights establishment that has been bankrupt of ideas and moral force for several decades. Over-elevating her now will only do a disservice when more eminent, and infinitely more accomplished, black Americans eventually pass from the scene. When they do, they will only be able to equal, not exceed, the honors accorded a woman whose act of refusal in 1955 had no greater aim than to allow them, eventually, to pass her by.
Alito's Fairness Doctrine
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 5:54PM
What makes Samuel Alito "one of the most impressive jurists in the country"? John Tabin explains in a Spectator.org column tomorrow -- available now.
Punk'd by a Priest
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 5:39PM
In the comments below, Fr. Martin Fox posts:
The document war has started. Senate Dems got wind of unreleased papers from early in Alito's career, and they want 'em -- no papers, no vote.I was genuinely concerned for a minute.
Talking to NOW
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 5:22PM
I just talked to the vice president for membership from NOW, Latifa Lyles. She said the turnout is "part of a mounting campaign." I stopped her there and asked about this protest and if NOW is the only group there. She acknowledged it is. They were calling on other organizations to join them, but the larger groups "are now strategizing. As for us, we just had to hit the streets to make our presence known."
I asked her about the prolifers lined up, who number about 30 (to NOW's 15 to 17 gals, one guy), and she said, "I think it's ironic. Over the last couple of months, they seemed to get their way in stacking the courts with anti-choice judges ... We're in a position to protest because we haven't been able to do so [getting their judges on the court]. We came out to urge for our core Constitutional rights."
Would you say that the spectrum your group covers is also for abortion on demand? "Yes, absolutely."
And at 5 p.m., they're clearing out. The prolifers are still here. No changing ships. Now they're praying together.
Court Correction- Prolifers
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 5:02PM
The people facing the Supreme Court with tape over their mouths are pro-life protesters, and the tape has "Life" printed on it. I just talked to one of them, Lou Engale, of Bound4Life.com, who said that they have been here for almost a year straight. Theirs is not a protest, but a prayer, he said, and it's not angry. "We're for mothers. We just believe there's a better way than abortion."
I asked him what he thought of the NOW protest, and he said, "It's a worldview issue. And I understand the need for women's rights, but not the right to murder the unborn. We believe it's better to have a culture of life."
Alito's Mom: He's Pro-life
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 4:55PM
Associated Press has tracked down Alito's mom. "Of course, he's against abortion," she says.
NOW Signs and Chants
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 4:51PM
Ah, the tired protest slogans:
"Right wing judges have got to go, hey hey, ho ho!"
"Racist, sexist, anti-gay, right wing judges, go away."
"What do we want? Justice. When do we want it? Now!"
Signs include: the ubiquitous NOW sign, "Keep Abortion Legal," "Scalito Say Arrivederci to Immigrants," and "Scalito: Wrong for Civil Rights."
Others: "Scalito is a trick, not a treat"; "Fight the radical right"; "Hell no, Alito"; "Support Civil Right, Reject Alito"; "If Alito's In, Reproductive Rights Are Out"; "Women Beware, Scalito Doesn't Care."
More at the Court
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 4:49PM
There's a line of people facing the Supreme Court, some have their fists up, some have tape over their mouths (thank heaven!).  Fifteen to 20 are walking in a circle chanting, among others, "Pro life that's a lie, you don't care if women die." The only guy in the procession has a sign reading, "Keep Abortion Legal." The gals giggled at his aggressive, forceful voice cracking point during that chant.
From the NOW Front
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 4:46PM
At the National Organization for
Women -- National Association of Gals -- protest: about 45
protesters and a couple spectators. Nine reporters, so the
proportion of protesters to media types is five to one. Freire
reports the men present are very sensitive, interested, and
compassionate. Unclear whether or not they're single.
Liberalism: Hostile to the Constitution
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 4:38PM
Democrats don't even bother to talk about the Constitution as a text anymore. They speak of "constitutional values." Every comment they've made so far about Alito sounds like criticism of a political candidiate not a judge. Since they can't find any inflammatory rhetoric in his record, they have to work doubly hard to twist his rulings into a statement on his "values." The fiend doesn't even support the Family Medical Leave act! But this comically convoluted propaganda won't work with the general public. Ordinary Americans understand that the job of a judge is to uphold the law, not update it. Alito's careful jurisprudence will look very reassuring next to the hysterical rhetorical lunges -- "Stop Anti-Choice Alito" -- of the left.Â
Re: 'Waiting on Some Polling Data'
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 3:41PM
Here's some: CBS asks, "When the Supreme Court decides an important constitutional case, should it only consider the legal issues, or should it also consider what the majority of the public thinks about that subject?"
September, 1987: Legal issues only- 32%; Public opinion, too-
60%
July/August, 2005: Legal issues only- 49%; Public opinion, too-
42%
The old borking playbook just isn't going to work like it used to.
Catch the NAGs Here Live
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 3:26PM
J. Peter Freire, the Spectator's journalism fellow, is headed over to the Supreme Court this afternoon to catch the antics of the National Association of Gals. Check back at the AmSpecBlog for running updates.
We Love ...
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 1:53PM
... the smell of a good political fight in the morning.... And this afternoon, if President Bush had any doubts about where he stood with conservatives, and where he needs to stand on policy issues to turn things around, he's seeing it unfold right now.
The energy up here on the Hill is amazing, and you can even sense among Democrats that they are unsure of what to do. Sure, the press releases have gone out and Sen. Chuck Schumer has done his morning quota of TV appearances, but coming out of lunch meetings, a number of Democrats are worrying that they may have already overplayed their hand.
"We're waiting on some polling data," says one Senate Democratic leadership staffer, when approached about where her boss thought he might go the Alito front. "[Alito] looks a little more difficult to pin down than we thought yesterday." Even Sen. Harry Reid is having some doubts about the strategy of setting up an early bogeyman. According to one DNC staffer, the office of Howard Dean was abuzz with gossip that Reid and Dean had spoken at about 10 am, with Reid asking Dean to tone down the rhetoric for a while. Apparently, Dean declined.
Principle Comes First
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 1:52PM
Sunday's Washington Post Style section had some fun with the bash we at The American Spectator hosted last Thursday night: "The luminaries of the right were all there at the Hotel Monaco in Chinatown. The drinks were flowing at the pre-meal reception, and regrets [about Harriet Miers's withdrawal earlier that day] were not to be found."
Why this absence of regret on a day of major Republican embarrassment? "For a lot of conservatives, our mind-set is we're not Republicans," AmSpec publisher Al Regnery explained to the Post. "We're swimming upstream, we're holding the party accountable, we're on the outside. Our job is always swimming upstream." What we saw in Miers's defeat was "principle ris[ing] above politics." Standing for principle, in other words, "is what we should be doing."
The nomination of Samuel Alito should make that a lot easier.
Gunning for Alito
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 12:39PM
The New Republic is reporting that Judge Alito wrote a dissent to a decision upholding the federal law prohibiting private ownership of machine guns. TNR's Michael Crowley writes, "Applying the logic of the Constitution in Exile for all it's worth, Alito insisted that the private possession of machine guns was not an economic activity, and there was no empirical evidence that private gun possession increased violent crime in a way that substantially affected commerce -- therefore, Congress has no right to regulate it. Alito's colleagues criticized him for requiring "Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute." His lack of deference to Congress is unsettling."
Two things. First, it's clear from this -- and from many of the questions asked Chief Justice Roberts in his confirmation -- that the libs now view the Court as a branch of government in competition with the other two, not an arbiter of the bounds of the Constitution. This, of course, is what conservatives have been complaining about for decades. With Roberts confirmed, and Alito likely to be, the libs are scared witless that their last reliable generator of policy -- the courts -- is about to slip from their grasp. Second, machine guns are really cool.
At Last...A Little Offense
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 12:30PM
Sam Alito is just the beginning of the Bush comeback. As Bill Kristol noted this morning on FOX, the economy is growing, gas prices (while still high) are coming down, and the President seems poised to fight to make the tax cuts permanent.
By choosing Judge Alito, the President has brought his foot soldiers back into the ranks, locked, loaded and ready to charge that hill. Was that a loud "Hooah!" I just heard emanating from every corner of the conservative movement?
The Post and the Catholic Church
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 12:12PM
What a weekend for inquisitive, thorough, and objective journalism. First we have 60 Minutes' coverage of Plamegate, and today we open the Washington Post to find a front page editorial/feature on the faith of Tim Kaine, VA Democratic candidate for governor. Usually when the mainstream media examines the position of the Catholic Church and how it impacts a politician's positions, it's with the distasteful tone of "how dare the Church insist its members listen on matters of faith and morals."
What a difference another party can make. The Post uncritically accepts John F. Kennedy's compromise on his faith in insisting it won't intrude upon his governing. Tim Kaine shares that same devotion to Catholic Church principles, at least when it comes to matters of life and death. He insists that his faith is a fair question, since it's part of who he is. But he won't bring that aspect of his character to the state house in Richmond.
The article only compounds Kaine's appalling stance. If Kaine is so adamantly pro-life, and that includes anti-death penalty, then why didn't Kaine protest abortion as much as he once protested the death penalty? Writer Caryle Murphy doesn't ask. What do conservative (non-Georgetown) Catholics think of Tim Kaine's position? Murphy doesn't ask. What do quality theologians say about the death penalty? Murphy doesn't ask.
Sadly, statements from the Church, including those by John Paul II, have contributed to the confusion in this area. The Catechism is vague on when it should be applied, but makes it very clear that states have a right to execute criminals, contra Murphy. Add the U.S. bishops into this mess, and it's entirely unclear what the Church teaches. Then it's too easy for a reporter to believe Kaine, common wisdom, and some errant professor of social thought. For the best recent theological review of this topic, see Avery Cardinal Dulles in the April 2001 First Things. Dulles takes on the abolitionists:
This abolitionist position has a tempting simplicity. But it is not really new. It has been held by sectarian Christians at least since the Middle Ages. Many pacifist groups, such as the Waldensians, the Quakers, the Hutterites, and the Mennonites, have shared this point of view. But, like pacifism itself, this absolutist interpretation of the right to life found no echo at the time among Catholic theologians, who accepted the death penalty as consonant with Scripture, tradition, and the natural law.
Dulles is unequivocal: the teachings that would justify abolition just don't exist:
The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases.
Opposition to the death penalty isn't Tim Kaine's faith. This is Tim Kaine's politics projected onto his faith.
The Evangelical Monolith
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 11:47AM
In his TAS article today, Paul Chesser suggests that because Harriet Miers' most visible backers were evangelicals and they "disengaged their minds in feeble attempts to justify her nomination," their conduct in that battle stained the whole movement. Chesser at first detaches specific intellectuals -- Hewitt, Dobson, Olasky, and Starr -- from the movement as a whole.
If the Miers nomination only diminishes their influence, Chesser's argument is sound. But evangelicals as a whole are only harmed to the extent that they are a monolith and these figures are the only leaders. Neither condition is true. In addition to the exceptional Miers opponents among evangelicals who Chesser notes, add Gary Bauer and the Family Research Council. And within the Senate, Sen. Sam Brownback (though a convert to the Catholic Church, is still a hero to "mere" conservative Christians) was the foremost doubter of Miers. Among the conservative ranks, evangelicals were hardly united. Many of my good friends are evangelicals, though highly political and intellectual ones, and they by and large opposed Miers.
The evangelicals are stained if they're a faceless hegemon without dissent. Folks who buy the mainstream media's outlook on evangelicals will readily accept this interpretation. Those who already know better... will know better.
How Thoughtful
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 11:20AM
After three hours of serious and patient consideration of Samuel A. Alito's qualifications and judicial temperament, the National Organization for Women (or National Association of Gals -- NAGs -- as Rush calls them) is taking to the streets. The gals (will there be guys too?) are protesting outside the Supreme Court building at 4 p.m. today. Isn't the Supreme Court the wrong building? Alito isn't there yet. Perhaps their choice of venue to vent reveals the NAGs resignation that Alito's confirmation is a fait accompli.
Alito's Way
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 11:03AM
Ok, troops. This is gonna be an in the trenches, hand-to-hand fight. Here's your homework: a quick guide to some of Alito's opinions. (With thanks to Hugh Hewitt for pointing it out on his blog.)
Duh!
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 10:47AM
You'd think the MSM would learn by now. Two years after the media did the Democrats' dirty work in getting an independent counsel appointed in the Joe Wilson scandal, it occurs to them here that maybe it wasn't in their interest to do so.
Democrats got their story, and the MSM got a story too, but it wasn't the one they wanted. In the end, they had to report that their own are either liars or duplicitous dunces. Nice.
Scalito's Way
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 10:42AM
People for the American Way doesn't lay a glove on Alito in its 24-page preliminary brief on his record. This will be a replay of the Roberts nomination: a serious student of the law vs. Democratic hacks whose interest in the Constitution is nil. Sounding disappointed, PFAW concludes its report by noting that Alito "does not have Scalia's penchant for sarcasm and divisive language."
Elite-o
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:58AM
Think we can make that nickname catch on? I'm already tired of "Scalito."
Suddenly Last Schumer
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:55AM
If Chuck Schumer were serious about opposing Sam Alito his website would already have posted his statement in response to the president's nomination of Alito. Maybe the senator should outsource its web postings to RealClearPolitics.com, which put it up immediately.
One interesting thing about Schumer's remarks -- the bit about this "controversial nominee...will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" (emphasis added). Cleary the Democrats hope that somehow public reaction will turn against Alito, much as conservatives did against Miers. But all Schumer can offer as to what makes Alito unqualified is that he's white, male, and conservative. Again, bigotry is the only Democratic weapon.
Joe Wants Normalcy
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:53AM
More on Joe Wilson's desire for a normal life: after normally appearing on the Today Show this morning, he's normally jetting down to D.C. for a routine appearance at the National Press Club at 1 p.m. Ah, just another day in the life of a lying partisan.
Lost a Step, Ralph?
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:45AM
Though they're still ahead of the others, it took more than an hour for Ralph Neas and the People for the American Way crowd to get out a release on their outrage at the Alito nom. Geez, guys. You slowing up in your old age? PFAW promises a massive national campaign to defeat Alito. Why?
Neas is quoted as saying, ""Justice O'Connor had a pivotal role at the center of the Court, often providing a crucial vote to protect privacy, civil rights, and so much more. All that would be at risk if she were replaced with Judge Alito, who has a record of ideological activism against privacy rights, civil rights, workers' rights, and more."
The only issue remaining today is whether the Dems take Neas's words as their talking points or wait for them to be scripted into better soundbites by the MSM.
Alito
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:36AM
He's heading up Capitol Hill, where the reception will be both warm and chilly. When those kinds of temps hit each other in the world of weather, you get lots of thunder. The expectation up on the Hill is that something similar will be developing over the next few weeks.
The Democrats are already mapping out their strategy. Several conference calls have already taken place this morning, coordinating surrogate and third-party campaigns against the nomination. "We're going to filibuster," a Democratic Senate Judiciary aide proclaimed on his ride into the office. "There is no doubt about that. We began talking about it on Friday when rumors first hit that it might be Alito or Luttig."
John points out in an earlier post what has the Democrats so riled up about Alito: their inability to pin him down judicially. The White House loved the abortion rulings, because they highlighted Alito's judicial fairness. Democrats will try to attack Alito, but they will find him an equal to Roberts in many regards. Look for Arlen Specter also to be generally pleased. He enjoys an intellectual tussle, and that is what the President has given him.
First Impressions
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:32AM
The selection of Samuel Alito underscores how bizarre the Miers interlude was. What could the president have been thinking? Luckily for him and the U.S. he was quickly able to summon a second coming of John Roberts. This leaves the minority Democrats back in familiar territory, tearing down, screeching, wildly demagoguing a candidate of genuine quality, depth, and achievement. They have nothing to offer, except new rounds of anti-Italian ethnic bigotry (in their own terms, how else can dismissive comments about "Scalito" be described?) -- while President Bush is set to go down as the man who gave his country Roberts I and II.
Mindless Katie
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:31AM
The internet was down at home this morning, so I had to glean my news from the Today Show. Now I remember why I don't turn the TV on in the morning. Katie Couric had "the first live interview" (breathless!) with Joe Wilson since Friday's indictments. Couric fawned over Wilson a la 60 Minutes and closed by asking poor Joe if he thinks he can get his and Vanity Fair Valerie's lives back to normal. Yes, that's what he wants the most as he shuttles from green room to green room and between studios in New York and D.C. What a trooper.
Alito and Abortion
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 9:06AM
Reporters are all over Alito's Casey dissent, where he argued for upholding a law requiring a woman to consult her husband before seeking an abortion. They're not mentioning Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, in which Alito voted to overturn New Jersey's partial birth abortion ban; he argued in his concurrence that the lower court was bound by the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart (though he did not endorse the reasoning of Stenberg). Nor are they mentioning Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women v. Knoll, in which Alito joined in striking down Pennsylvania's law requiring women who have been raped to report the crime when seeking state funding for abotion, on the basis that the law was invalidated by a Clinton administration policy that prohibited states from tacking on conditions to Medicaid abortion funding.
Take those cases into account, and the picture being painted of a crusading conservative activist falls apart. Alito is a guy who rules as the law requires, not as his policy preferences dictate.
Alito Details
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 8:27AM
From the official bio of SCOTUS-nominee Sam Alito, Jr.:
Ø Alito received his bachelor's degree from
Ø Alito clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit, who is now his colleague on that court.
Ø From 1977-1980, Alito served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the appellate division, where he argued cases before the circuit court to which he was later appointed.
Ø From 1981-1985, Alito served as Assistant to the Solicitor General. He has argued 12 cases on behalf of the federal government in the U.S. Supreme Court and he has argued numerous others before the federal courts of appeals.
Ø From 1985-1987, Alito served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General where he provided constitutional advice for the Executive Branch.
Ø From 1987-1989, Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey where he is best know for prosecuting white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights.
Ø Alito was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
Ø In 1990, President George H. Bush nominated Judge Alito to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Ø Alito was unanimously confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Ø Judge Alito has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions.
Ø Judge Alito has argued 12 Supreme Court cases and argued at least two dozen court of appeals cases and handled at least 50 others.
Ø Alito has participated in various professional associations including the New Jersey Federal Bar Association (member of advisory board); the New Jersey State Bar Association; the American Bar Association; and the Federalist Society.
Ø In 1985, Alito married Martha-Ann Bomgardner, with whom he has two children.
An Anti-Miers
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 8:20AM
Alito has more judicial experience than any SCOTUS nominee in 70 years, Bush just pointed out.
Scalito
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 8:14AM
Ok, so now that we know it's Judge Sam Alito, Jr. for SCOTUS, how long will it be before the hyperlibs start screaming? Apparently -- as of 0755 -- Little Miss Gun Control, Chuckie Schumer has already tut-tutted the choice as has Harry Reid. I guess they'll have to get their orders from CBS News and the NYT editorial page before they announce the filibuster.
Alito, Federalist
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 7:49AM
Alito doesn't have quite the track record on federalism of Michael Luttig, the other name that was in the rumor mill. But Alito played a role on the right side of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out in his chapter of A Year at the Supreme Court,
The legal conservatives who have cheered the Rehnquist Court's supposed federalism tend to put cases such as Casey in a different mental category from the federalism cases. But this is a mistake. Restrictions on moral federalism remove the political basis for any contemplated federalist "revolution." The reason for this is that moral federalism is the only kind of federalism that might have some robustness.Expect to hear a lot more about Casey.
Sam Alito to be Nominated for SCOTUS
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 7:27AM
The formal annoucement is coming at 8. A great pick.
Bradley in the Tank
Posted by on 10.31.05 @ 1:45AM
Our Jed Babbin is developing the idea that the real U.S. opposition party is the mainstream media. Anyone who saw 60 Minutes' segment last night on "the exposure of Valerie Plame" wouldn't disagree for moment. It was breathtakingly partisan, turning Mrs. Wilson into a heroic undercover agent of 18 years standing risking life and limb for country until exposed by a vile administration. It just so happened that this segment ran two days after Patrick Fitzgerald issued his first indictment. It gave no clue at all that Plame's husband remains a man of dubious credibility. It never explained how an undercover agent takes time off to have children and help women with postpartum depression.
Hosted by the confused Ed Bradley -- at one point the segment reports that Robert Novak mentioned Plame's front company by name on CNN; only to have Bradley later erroneously say that Novak "published" the name of the fictitious company -- the segment introduced two star witnesses of similar CIA background. From one we got this observation: "We're not being undermined by the North Koreans. We're not being undermined by the Russians. We're being undermined by officials in our own government." The other, asked "What has this done to [Plame]? How's she handling it?" replied: "Well, first of all, CIA people don't like cameras. We don't like publicity..." No one brought up Vanity Fair, not even the photo of Plame in sunglasses alongside her husband in his sports convertible.
The upshot of this program: Fitzgerald's indictment of Lewis Libby doesn't begin to describe the serious damage that was done by those who leaked Plame's name. Sounds like a permanent Democratic talking point from now on.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
SCOTUS
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 7:24PM
According to sources in both the White House and Senate leadership, the President is poised to nominate Federal Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito on Monday morning.
No official phone calls have been made to those Republicans who need to be in the know: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Deputy Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, but ongoing conversations among senior staff at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue lead our sources to believe Alito is it.
"Ever since the President returned from Camp David, the buzz has gotten clearer and more focused on Alito," says a Capitol Hill source. "What we have to remember, is that it was like this when we all thought it was Edith Clement, and that didn't work out the way we all expected."
The other major name in play is Judge Michael Luttig. He became more actively mentioned mid-day Friday, and has remained with Alito at the top of the list. Other potential nominees that the President looked over at Camp David read like the short lists of rumors past: Sykes, Williams, Corrigan and Jones.
According to White House sources, if Alito does beat out Luttig it will be based on the White House quest for what they are calling "consistency." Those who have evaluated the potential nominees believe Alito is more likely to remain a consistent, conservative judge on the Supreme Court bench than Luttig, who some inside the White House believe would have the potential to "grow" on the bench. As one White House staffer told us earlier in the weekend, "We're not talking about much of a difference. The President could go either way."
Flipping a Coin, Results Tomorrow
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 7:13PM
The press is abuzz with expectation of a Supreme Court nominee tomorrow. The Austin American-Statesman narrows it down to Luttig or Alito. I'm pulling for Alito. If it happens tomorrow, expect it early. Miers was announced at 8 a.m. and if I remember correctly Roberts' move to chief justice slot was quite early. Set your alarms.
Serious Jail Time
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 7:12PM
John: the question, then, is why does Fitzgerald want Libby to face serious jail time?
If you are a prosecutor, you stack an indictment like the one Fitzgerald structured with enough charges that add up to enough jail time and financial costs (Libby faces as much as $1.25 million in fines) to achieve one of two things: truly punish the individual, or use that person to go after bigger fish.
Fitzgerald is after bigger fish.
Can't Somebody Get Her a Date?
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 6:35PM
I know that Wlady has only failed to post this latest cri de coer from MoDo because he's picketing Joe Gibbs's house (which I may join if Mark Brunnell takes one more snap), but this is one we can't pass up. I make no pretense to understanding women. I've raised four boys, and the mere thought of trying to deal with a family member like MoDo in her formative years absolutely terrifies me. I can't tell if she's saying she hates men, hates other women, hates her mother or all of the above. The only thing we can be sure of is that with intellectual leaders like MoDo, the left is in worse shape than they think.
Compare and Contrast
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 5:23PM
"The truth is the engine of our judicial system, and if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.'' -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, last week, announcing the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, on two counts of making false statements to the FBI, two counts of perjury for lying to a grand jury, and one count of obstruction of justice.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." -- President Clinton, testifying before a grand jury in 1998, when asked whether he had previously lied under oath.
"Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation and ongoing legal proceedings are serious, and now the process moves into a new phase. In our system each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial." -- President Bush, commenting last week on the indictment of Scooter Libby.
"The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." -- Hillary Clinton, in January 1998, talking about the investigation by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr into whether Bill Clinton had lied under oath.
Re: Belated Fitzmas
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 5:19PM
I think I can reconcile nervousness at the White House with optimism that there will be no more indictments. Here's how:
Fitzgerald wants to put Scooter Libby in jail. Consider this detail from Michael Duffy (whose report absolutely drips with contempt for the Bush Administration): "a source close to the investigation told TIME that Fitzgerald and Libby's attorney Joseph Tate discussed possible plea options before the indictment was issued last week. But the deal was scotched because the prosecutor insisted that Libby do some 'serious' jail time." Fitzgerald would prefer to strike a deal that puts Libby away without a trial. Note this comment from Fitzgerald's press conference: "I can tell you that no one wants this thing to be over as quickly as I do, as quickly as Mr. Eckenrode does. I'd like to wake up in my bed in Chicago, he'd like to wake up in his bed in Philadelphia, and we recognize that we want to get this thing done."
So Fitzgerald is keeping the investigation open to put the squeeze on White House officials, leveraging the threat of more indictments into cooperation in the case against Libby. That case is already pretty strong, but the stronger Fitzgerald can make it, the more likely that Libby will bite the bullet and cop a plea. That there'd be lingering skittishness at 1600 Penn. Ave. under these circumstances is understandable, but it doesn't necessarily mean real trouble for anyone but Libby.
The CIA vs. The White House
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 4:11PM
Tom Maguire highlights evidence that Valerie Plame wasn't very covert, and that her outing apparently did no damage to CIA operations. But the CIA won't issue a damage assessment until legal proceedings are complete. Comments Maguire:
Is that how it works when our national security is threatened and lives are on the line - the CIA waits a few years until the trials are over, then assesses the damage?Come on, we see through this - if the CIA prepared a formal report, it would be subpoenaed as evidence, and the jury would laugh out loud at the "no damage" assessment. So the CIA filed a criminal referral in 2003, got the White House tied up in a two year investigation, and now they are laughing out loud. Well played, especially if you like a spy service that shrugs off executive oversight by inventing crimes and playing dirty tricks.
That said, Fitzgerald saw through their outing ploy, else, where are the indictments for the leaks to Novak and Pincus?
Don't Hire This Man
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 2:48PM
Byron York wrote the other day that his legal-eagle sources "are unanimously appalled by the performance of Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate." Apropos of that, check out Tate's public spin on the case. If your memory is foggy, that's something to say when you're testifying, not something to say after your sworn testimony fails to hold up. Doing so may well have saved Libby from the trouble he's in now.
Libby had better get a good criminal defense attorney to take the lead in his defense ASAP, if he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail.
Cocktail Talk
Posted by on 10.30.05 @ 11:47AM
Saturday night hitting the booze again, talking to people still only talking about Miers and Plame.
Sunday morning, the buzz was about the "analysis" coming out of the newspapers and the talk shows, that being that President Bush had been wounded badly by all of this trouble, and that he needed to rebuild trust with the American people.
Many Republican and conservative consultants and White House advisers tell us that this just goes to show that once again, the MSM doesn't get it: "The President only has to worry about, really about making his base happy. A happy base means that legislation is moving, businesses are making money, national defense is strong, courts are full of restraint and government is shrinking. All of those things make the base happy, and guess what? That makes a lot of other people happy, too. Not Democrats or liberals, but people who count on election day," says a Republican pollster.
"Unless election day happened a year early, no one should care whether Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi are happy," says another GOP consultant. "The formula is pretty simple, get a good nominee, get a good spending-cuts bill through Congress, and show you're back on top of your game in Iraq and things like this bird flu scare. The first three things are good for the base, the last thing is good for the liberal media to play with, like a kitten with a ball of string."
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Bowling Alone
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
