I know it's fashionable to bash the Winter Olympics. Not real sports. Not real athletes. Whatever.
I always enjoy them. Skating. Skiing. Hockey. Heck, even I'll even sit and watch curling!
There's something about the Olympic spirit that's inspiring, and we all need to be inspired every now and then.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Eavesdropping: Po-tat-o or Po-tay-toe?
The facts, as we know them from the NY Times whistleblowing story and the White House's response to it, are as follows:
- in the days after 9/11, President Bush acted on the advice of the National Security Agency (NSA) to authorize eavesdropping (phone, email, etc) on certain categories of individuals within the domestic United States. He did so without obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, claiming executive constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence in war time.
- the individuals involved may or may not be citizens - we don't know yet
- the individuals involved were suspected of having some level of contact with Al Qaida. This suspicion was based on information collected in intelligence operations overseas. I.E. their phone number was found in captured cell phones of laptops.
- Approximately 500 people fell into this program
- The details of the program are top-secret, and involve elements that caused the Administration to believe that it would not be practical, or would compromise the secrecy and success of the program, to go through the established FISA court warrant procedure. A court procedure that the 9/11 commission report indicated was insufficient for combatting terrorism.
Those are the facts. How are they portrayed by the opposing sides in this media conflict?
Domestic Spying - say the Democrats, the mainstream old-school media, and the Hollywood politicos like George Clooney. They use this loaded phrase to cast the program in the widest possible worst case scenario to imply that the President is "spying" on every American - or at least his political opponents.
Terrorist Surveillance - says the President in his State of the Union speech. Limiting the scope of the program to those with connections to terrorists. Not you. Not me. Not the kindly old lady who lives down the block. Only people who have "reached out and touched" Al Qaida.
So, Domestic Spying vs. Terrorist Surveillance.
Which is right? More descriptive? More credible? More honest? More hysterical. It makes a difference.
So, let me ask you:
If U.S. military or intelligence personnel come into the possession of battlefield intel in the form of captured cell phones or computers that have contact information for someone within the borders of the U.S.A., who may be members of a terrorist cell waited for instructions, who may or may not be U.S. citizens - do you want that person monitored or not?
Are we really serious about "connecting the dots" regarding individuals within our borders who are in contact with the people who aim to kill us, or not?
Is said person, who is in contact with Al Qaida, having his civil rights violated by being monitored, or not?
And are the Democrats and the media advocating that we not monitor those people, and leave ourselves open to the next attack?
Democrats are playing a dangerous and losing game by asserting, without evidence, that President Bush has "broken a law" and/or committed an impeachable offense. Surveilling terrorists on our soil is a winning argument for the President.
- in the days after 9/11, President Bush acted on the advice of the National Security Agency (NSA) to authorize eavesdropping (phone, email, etc) on certain categories of individuals within the domestic United States. He did so without obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, claiming executive constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence in war time.
- the individuals involved may or may not be citizens - we don't know yet
- the individuals involved were suspected of having some level of contact with Al Qaida. This suspicion was based on information collected in intelligence operations overseas. I.E. their phone number was found in captured cell phones of laptops.
- Approximately 500 people fell into this program
- The details of the program are top-secret, and involve elements that caused the Administration to believe that it would not be practical, or would compromise the secrecy and success of the program, to go through the established FISA court warrant procedure. A court procedure that the 9/11 commission report indicated was insufficient for combatting terrorism.
Those are the facts. How are they portrayed by the opposing sides in this media conflict?
Domestic Spying - say the Democrats, the mainstream old-school media, and the Hollywood politicos like George Clooney. They use this loaded phrase to cast the program in the widest possible worst case scenario to imply that the President is "spying" on every American - or at least his political opponents.
Terrorist Surveillance - says the President in his State of the Union speech. Limiting the scope of the program to those with connections to terrorists. Not you. Not me. Not the kindly old lady who lives down the block. Only people who have "reached out and touched" Al Qaida.
So, Domestic Spying vs. Terrorist Surveillance.
Which is right? More descriptive? More credible? More honest? More hysterical. It makes a difference.
So, let me ask you:
If U.S. military or intelligence personnel come into the possession of battlefield intel in the form of captured cell phones or computers that have contact information for someone within the borders of the U.S.A., who may be members of a terrorist cell waited for instructions, who may or may not be U.S. citizens - do you want that person monitored or not?
Are we really serious about "connecting the dots" regarding individuals within our borders who are in contact with the people who aim to kill us, or not?
Is said person, who is in contact with Al Qaida, having his civil rights violated by being monitored, or not?
And are the Democrats and the media advocating that we not monitor those people, and leave ourselves open to the next attack?
Democrats are playing a dangerous and losing game by asserting, without evidence, that President Bush has "broken a law" and/or committed an impeachable offense. Surveilling terrorists on our soil is a winning argument for the President.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
WMD's Take Flight
The most underreported story at the moment is Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges, which details how the WMD's were shipped out of Iraq to Syria in the days before the war started. Go read it.
I hope this report is taken seriously and investigated. Not just to prove the Democrats wrong in their continued, and irresponsible, litany that "Bush lied" us into war about WMD's. Because, if they are still around in Syria as this report alleges and as I believe they are, they are still a threat to us.
Let's investigate this seriously.
I hope this report is taken seriously and investigated. Not just to prove the Democrats wrong in their continued, and irresponsible, litany that "Bush lied" us into war about WMD's. Because, if they are still around in Syria as this report alleges and as I believe they are, they are still a threat to us.
Let's investigate this seriously.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Democrats Vote Themselves out of "Mainstream"
As the votes occur in the U.S. Senate this week to confirm Judge Sam Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are apparently preparing to take their party over the cliff and out of the "mainstream".
Consistent among their arguments in their opposition to Judge Alito is that he is out of the "judicial mainstream".
It's not enough that he has sterling levels of experience, written opinions, and judicial temperament. No, all of that was attested by the American Bar Association (ABA) in their report to the Judiciary Committee that found him to be well qualified. No, that's not enough. Consider Sen. Chuck Schumer's only question to them in response, where he asked them if they measured whether or not the judge was within the "judicial mainstream"? The ABA's response - "We don't do politics".
Well the Democrats do politics. And they have decided that is in their interest to appease their radical left wing base and attack, oppose, and possibly filibuster the nomination of this fine man.
So I ask you - who is outside of the judicial mainstream?
Judge Alito, who the ABA found through interviews with 2000 people who knew him - judges who served with him, lawyers who clerked for him, lawyers that argued in front of him, etc - was an honest and fair man of utmost integrity and judicial temperament?
Or partisan Democratic Senators who threw every unfounded, mean, and illogical argument at him in the hearings and weren't able to lay a glove on him? You want to take Teddy Kennedy's word ethics? Or Hillary Clinton's on the "mainstream"?
It's inevitable. The Senate Democrats will choose disgrace over integrity this week in their votes to oppose the judge. They will publicly line up and exit the mainstream. And Judge Alito will be confirmed anyway. That's justice.
Consistent among their arguments in their opposition to Judge Alito is that he is out of the "judicial mainstream".
It's not enough that he has sterling levels of experience, written opinions, and judicial temperament. No, all of that was attested by the American Bar Association (ABA) in their report to the Judiciary Committee that found him to be well qualified. No, that's not enough. Consider Sen. Chuck Schumer's only question to them in response, where he asked them if they measured whether or not the judge was within the "judicial mainstream"? The ABA's response - "We don't do politics".
Well the Democrats do politics. And they have decided that is in their interest to appease their radical left wing base and attack, oppose, and possibly filibuster the nomination of this fine man.
So I ask you - who is outside of the judicial mainstream?
Judge Alito, who the ABA found through interviews with 2000 people who knew him - judges who served with him, lawyers who clerked for him, lawyers that argued in front of him, etc - was an honest and fair man of utmost integrity and judicial temperament?
Or partisan Democratic Senators who threw every unfounded, mean, and illogical argument at him in the hearings and weren't able to lay a glove on him? You want to take Teddy Kennedy's word ethics? Or Hillary Clinton's on the "mainstream"?
It's inevitable. The Senate Democrats will choose disgrace over integrity this week in their votes to oppose the judge. They will publicly line up and exit the mainstream. And Judge Alito will be confirmed anyway. That's justice.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
My ill-spent Morning in Traffic Court
There is an old saying that a "conservative" is a liberal who has been mugged. (As my twelve year old would say.."Get it, they now believe in law and order, get it?)
I would modify that to say that a conservative should be anyone who has spent time in the paragon of beauracratic efficiency know as traffic court, as I had the privilege of doing this morning.
It should certainly cure liberals of a belief that government should be delivering most services to "the people".
Yes, I know. I wasn't one of the people today. I was a perp. A violator. Who am I to comment on the wonders of the "Law and Justice Center"? Just shut up and put up with the two and a half hour excercise in civics and learn a lesson already.
Two and a half hours? To pay a traffic ticket? What's up with that?
Was I protesting the charges? Um, no. You got me, officer. Fair and square. Speeding? Guilty. 88 mph in a 65 zone. Not a close call. No seatbelt? Guilty. I didn't even try to drag it surreptitiously across my stomach as the officer approached the car. Nope. Guilty.
I've got $150 buring a hole in my pocket. Let me pay it and give me the prize - my Driver's License back - already.
But, it's not going to be that easy. The wheels of justice have to grind me down a while. Stand here. Sit there. Court appearance required. That's right - the courtroom where 50 people are all scheduled for the same 9:00am hearing. We'll call your name - eventually. Say hi to the pretty State's Attorney. What? No, I don't want to protest it. I'm guilty. Who can I pay already?
You just want to pay? Sign this. Plead that. Go down and stand in that long line in the hallway. Never mind that there are several computer stations unmanned. These two plodding bored people will help you - eventually.
What? Don't mind that doctor who's trapped in line behind you on his cell phone talking his nurse through how to perform a diagnostic test to decide whether a patient needs to go to the emergency room or not! The line will eventually move it's two feet per ten minutes and free him up too.
If my liberal friends get to experience this encounter with your local government some day, ask yourself this as you observe the proceedings: if this was a business, would they treat you this way? I mean, after all, they generate huge amounts of cash for your city to operate on. No one gets out of there for less than $100, I noted as I watched them staple stacks of cash to thick permanent files on us.
I know you guys hate Walmart. But wouldn't you really want them to run the traffic court? Do you think they would have hesitated to open another register to clear out that line?
I would modify that to say that a conservative should be anyone who has spent time in the paragon of beauracratic efficiency know as traffic court, as I had the privilege of doing this morning.
It should certainly cure liberals of a belief that government should be delivering most services to "the people".
Yes, I know. I wasn't one of the people today. I was a perp. A violator. Who am I to comment on the wonders of the "Law and Justice Center"? Just shut up and put up with the two and a half hour excercise in civics and learn a lesson already.
Two and a half hours? To pay a traffic ticket? What's up with that?
Was I protesting the charges? Um, no. You got me, officer. Fair and square. Speeding? Guilty. 88 mph in a 65 zone. Not a close call. No seatbelt? Guilty. I didn't even try to drag it surreptitiously across my stomach as the officer approached the car. Nope. Guilty.
I've got $150 buring a hole in my pocket. Let me pay it and give me the prize - my Driver's License back - already.
But, it's not going to be that easy. The wheels of justice have to grind me down a while. Stand here. Sit there. Court appearance required. That's right - the courtroom where 50 people are all scheduled for the same 9:00am hearing. We'll call your name - eventually. Say hi to the pretty State's Attorney. What? No, I don't want to protest it. I'm guilty. Who can I pay already?
You just want to pay? Sign this. Plead that. Go down and stand in that long line in the hallway. Never mind that there are several computer stations unmanned. These two plodding bored people will help you - eventually.
What? Don't mind that doctor who's trapped in line behind you on his cell phone talking his nurse through how to perform a diagnostic test to decide whether a patient needs to go to the emergency room or not! The line will eventually move it's two feet per ten minutes and free him up too.
If my liberal friends get to experience this encounter with your local government some day, ask yourself this as you observe the proceedings: if this was a business, would they treat you this way? I mean, after all, they generate huge amounts of cash for your city to operate on. No one gets out of there for less than $100, I noted as I watched them staple stacks of cash to thick permanent files on us.
I know you guys hate Walmart. But wouldn't you really want them to run the traffic court? Do you think they would have hesitated to open another register to clear out that line?
Friday, January 13, 2006
The Party of Unfinished Sentences
The continued drumbeat from the Democrat leadership this week about President Bush's "illegal warrantless spying on Americans" shows that the Party of Unfinished Sentences is at again.
Of course, their main ritual of the unfinished sentence was on display as well in the Alito hearings. The being "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, of course they don't want to finish the sentence and say "a woman's right to choose whether or not to hire an abortionist to take the life of the unborn child developing within her." Let's just shortcut that at the right to choose.
Back to the NSA eavesdropping story. Just because Democrats keep repeating all day, every day, that the President broke the law by "spying on Americans" doesn't make it true.
As to the unfinished sentence - what Americans? Me? You? My preacher? The little old lady next door? Bill Clinton? Ted Koppel? The Red Hat Society?
Let me finish the sentence for them. The President authorized the NSA to monitor, by eavesdropping, the conversations of people on American soil - citizens or not - who they had probable cause to believe were in contact with Al Qaeda leaders.
When I say it that way, and I do say it that way, it's a different story. We would expect the President to be taking aggressive action to monitor those people to protect the security of our homeland. Except Democrat leaders, or course, who just want the issue to bash the President with - not the truth.
I could make the whole argument here, but Jonah Goldberg has already done it extremely well in his column "so what if you are". Go read it.
And always ask - what's the rest of the sentence?
Of course, their main ritual of the unfinished sentence was on display as well in the Alito hearings. The being "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, of course they don't want to finish the sentence and say "a woman's right to choose whether or not to hire an abortionist to take the life of the unborn child developing within her." Let's just shortcut that at the right to choose.
Back to the NSA eavesdropping story. Just because Democrats keep repeating all day, every day, that the President broke the law by "spying on Americans" doesn't make it true.
As to the unfinished sentence - what Americans? Me? You? My preacher? The little old lady next door? Bill Clinton? Ted Koppel? The Red Hat Society?
Let me finish the sentence for them. The President authorized the NSA to monitor, by eavesdropping, the conversations of people on American soil - citizens or not - who they had probable cause to believe were in contact with Al Qaeda leaders.
When I say it that way, and I do say it that way, it's a different story. We would expect the President to be taking aggressive action to monitor those people to protect the security of our homeland. Except Democrat leaders, or course, who just want the issue to bash the President with - not the truth.
I could make the whole argument here, but Jonah Goldberg has already done it extremely well in his column "so what if you are". Go read it.
And always ask - what's the rest of the sentence?
Senators Behaving Badly
"Senators, have you no shame?" would have been a good question for someone to direct to the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee in this week's hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Desperate to defeat Alito - yet unable to do so on the merits of his experience, capability, or judicial temperament - the Democrats loaded up the smear arsenal.
Thank heavens for C-Span! Staying up late to watch Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy etc. thunder imperiously at Alito, all but calling him a bigoted unethical women-hating stooge of an illegal President, until his wife retreated from the room in tears: Priceless! Nice, Democrats. Real nice.
Watching Chucky Schumer haughtily conclude that he was troubled by the nominee's unresponsiveness and would have a hard time voting for him, like there was any chance in the world that he might even consider voting for him: Priceless!
At least I got to prove my "News Junkie" bona fides this week by taping C-Span in order to watch Committee hearings into the wee hours of the morning.
Desperate to defeat Alito - yet unable to do so on the merits of his experience, capability, or judicial temperament - the Democrats loaded up the smear arsenal.
Thank heavens for C-Span! Staying up late to watch Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy etc. thunder imperiously at Alito, all but calling him a bigoted unethical women-hating stooge of an illegal President, until his wife retreated from the room in tears: Priceless! Nice, Democrats. Real nice.
Watching Chucky Schumer haughtily conclude that he was troubled by the nominee's unresponsiveness and would have a hard time voting for him, like there was any chance in the world that he might even consider voting for him: Priceless!
At least I got to prove my "News Junkie" bona fides this week by taping C-Span in order to watch Committee hearings into the wee hours of the morning.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
You Can't Just Give Back the Money
The most important story on the front page of yesterday's USA Today was not the shockingly out-of-date "Dewey defeats Truman" kind of headline proclaiming that the trapped miners in West Virginia were found alive - when in fact they were dead.
No, that was a tragic story with an important side lesson about the ability of the print media to compete with the 24 hour news cycle on a deadline, but it was not the most important story for the nation.
That would be the 2nd story, below the fold, about super lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to lobbying fraud and giving up evidence to take down a lot of Congressmen with him. This is the story with long term national ramifications.
Why? Because this story will damage the nation long term for two reasons:
1. It will directly take down a lot of powerful Congressmen if it plays out to the extent that is possible. Key figures like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) are potentially on the hook for taking bribes.
2. It will further undermine American's faith in government if a large group of nationally known politicians are indicted for accepting bribes.
Hastert, as was noted, immediately "gave back" about $69,000. Sorry guys. You can't just give the money back. If you took bribes, you are going down.
This has enormous implications for the 2006 elections. Stay tuned.
No, that was a tragic story with an important side lesson about the ability of the print media to compete with the 24 hour news cycle on a deadline, but it was not the most important story for the nation.
That would be the 2nd story, below the fold, about super lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to lobbying fraud and giving up evidence to take down a lot of Congressmen with him. This is the story with long term national ramifications.
Why? Because this story will damage the nation long term for two reasons:
1. It will directly take down a lot of powerful Congressmen if it plays out to the extent that is possible. Key figures like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) are potentially on the hook for taking bribes.
2. It will further undermine American's faith in government if a large group of nationally known politicians are indicted for accepting bribes.
Hastert, as was noted, immediately "gave back" about $69,000. Sorry guys. You can't just give the money back. If you took bribes, you are going down.
This has enormous implications for the 2006 elections. Stay tuned.
Spy, President Bush, Spy
In case you had any doubt, President Bush has my full approval for his policy authorizing the NSA to conduct eavesdropping operations domestically on people who have been linked to terror suspects overseas. With a warrant or without, I applaud the full tilt war on terrorism that the President is waging.
If you've ever heard the folks in the silly apathetic middle argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, this one story should put that argument to rest.
The facts are straightforward, only the spin is arguable. In the wake of 9/11, and in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, intelligence assets such as phones, address books, and computer contact lists were captured. The NSA, with the approval of the President, began eavesdropping activities on domestic contacts that were identified with these methods. The President had the authorization of the Attorney General, and he briefed relevant members of Congress on the program.
So, what is the different spin:
Democrats are outraged that the President would authorize domestic spying without proper court warrants. They fume about civil liberty violations. They shout abuse of power and hint at impeachment.
Republicans support the notion that in wartime all means of intelligence should be aggressively pursued to protect the nation. Also, that we learned post 9/11 that our laws and policies were antiquated tools when it came to dealing with non-state terrorists.
Clearly, one party is serious about the fact that we are at war, and is aggressively waging it with everything in the arsenal. Clearly, one party is not serious at war and thinks nothing of handcuffing the President for partisan advantage.
I know which side I'm on. I applaud the President and his reliable determination to prosecute this war with every tool he has available. I disdain the Democrats who would block efforts to monitor terrorist contacts operating in this country because the correct paperwork wasn't obtained.
If Democrats want to take on President Bush for monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell contacts within the U.S., I say bring it on. This is absolutely a winning issue for the President.
If you've ever heard the folks in the silly apathetic middle argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, this one story should put that argument to rest.
The facts are straightforward, only the spin is arguable. In the wake of 9/11, and in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, intelligence assets such as phones, address books, and computer contact lists were captured. The NSA, with the approval of the President, began eavesdropping activities on domestic contacts that were identified with these methods. The President had the authorization of the Attorney General, and he briefed relevant members of Congress on the program.
So, what is the different spin:
Democrats are outraged that the President would authorize domestic spying without proper court warrants. They fume about civil liberty violations. They shout abuse of power and hint at impeachment.
Republicans support the notion that in wartime all means of intelligence should be aggressively pursued to protect the nation. Also, that we learned post 9/11 that our laws and policies were antiquated tools when it came to dealing with non-state terrorists.
Clearly, one party is serious about the fact that we are at war, and is aggressively waging it with everything in the arsenal. Clearly, one party is not serious at war and thinks nothing of handcuffing the President for partisan advantage.
I know which side I'm on. I applaud the President and his reliable determination to prosecute this war with every tool he has available. I disdain the Democrats who would block efforts to monitor terrorist contacts operating in this country because the correct paperwork wasn't obtained.
If Democrats want to take on President Bush for monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell contacts within the U.S., I say bring it on. This is absolutely a winning issue for the President.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Intelligent Design Expelled from Dover
There are important stories in the news this week, to be sure. And I am following them. The Iraqi elections. Sadaam's trial. Bush's NSA eavesdropping revelations. All important.
But the story that interests me most is the story of the Federal Judge in Pennsylvania issuing a ruling that the Intelligent Design policy instituted by the Dover School Board was unconstitutional and must be ceased.
The story was interesting to me on two levels.
First, it taps into my longstanding interest in the creation vs. evolution debate.
Second, the decision is a milestone in that debate and deserves a great deal of study and scrutiny. I'd advise everyone that is proffering an opinion on the ruling to actually read the thing.
I read the entire ruling - an ambitious excercise for a non-lawyer - including all 139 pages plus the footnotes. I read it all in one sitting.
After reading the Dover decision, I made a decision. That is, to start a new blog focused on this one topic only - separate from Partisan Newsjunkie.
Politics here.
Creation vs. Evolution over at my new home: http://onorigins.blogspot.com
Stop in and check it out.
But the story that interests me most is the story of the Federal Judge in Pennsylvania issuing a ruling that the Intelligent Design policy instituted by the Dover School Board was unconstitutional and must be ceased.
The story was interesting to me on two levels.
First, it taps into my longstanding interest in the creation vs. evolution debate.
Second, the decision is a milestone in that debate and deserves a great deal of study and scrutiny. I'd advise everyone that is proffering an opinion on the ruling to actually read the thing.
I read the entire ruling - an ambitious excercise for a non-lawyer - including all 139 pages plus the footnotes. I read it all in one sitting.
After reading the Dover decision, I made a decision. That is, to start a new blog focused on this one topic only - separate from Partisan Newsjunkie.
Politics here.
Creation vs. Evolution over at my new home: http://onorigins.blogspot.com
Stop in and check it out.
This is News?
In the "this is news?" category tonight, I submit the lead story on all the network and cable networks tonight. Let's review it as reported by CBS:
Bob Schieffer introduced Wednesday's CBS Evening News by using loaded language as he pointed out how, “to protest the President's decision to continue spying on American citizens, a federal judge took the unprecedented step of resigning from the court that issues warrants in such cases,”
Really now. This is the state of mainstream journalism today?
First of all, it is of course loaded language. According to the totality of news reports on the topic the judge did not officially announce a reason for his resignation. Would you get that from Scheiffer's phrasing "to protest the President's decision..."? Of course not. That phrasing was loaded and agenda driven.
So, if the judge did not announce an official reason, how did Schieffer know the reason. Again, from reading multiple sources I learned that this was deduced from remarks that the judge made in private conversations. Really now! Is that the standard of reporting a lead story on network news now? CBS News is reporting rumors about private remarks as factual news now?
Finally, why is this news? Is it news that one Clinton appointee has a philosophical difference of opinion with President Bush? One judge out of 11 resigns and that is news? No, it is not.
If it were news, the accurate headline would be "10 out of 11 judges are not offended by the President's actions."
Bob Schieffer introduced Wednesday's CBS Evening News by using loaded language as he pointed out how, “to protest the President's decision to continue spying on American citizens, a federal judge took the unprecedented step of resigning from the court that issues warrants in such cases,”
Really now. This is the state of mainstream journalism today?
First of all, it is of course loaded language. According to the totality of news reports on the topic the judge did not officially announce a reason for his resignation. Would you get that from Scheiffer's phrasing "to protest the President's decision..."? Of course not. That phrasing was loaded and agenda driven.
So, if the judge did not announce an official reason, how did Schieffer know the reason. Again, from reading multiple sources I learned that this was deduced from remarks that the judge made in private conversations. Really now! Is that the standard of reporting a lead story on network news now? CBS News is reporting rumors about private remarks as factual news now?
Finally, why is this news? Is it news that one Clinton appointee has a philosophical difference of opinion with President Bush? One judge out of 11 resigns and that is news? No, it is not.
If it were news, the accurate headline would be "10 out of 11 judges are not offended by the President's actions."
Monday, December 19, 2005
Run, Forrest, Run
So, I was flipping through the channels last night and landed on a movie that is in my Top Ten best movies of all time list - Forrest Gump.
Interesting scene in the middle. Forrest has served in Vietnam and is in Washington D.C. to receive a Medal of Honor from the President. As he's walking through Washington, he accidentally gets caught up in a line going to a war protest on the mall.
Before he knows it, he's mistaken for a member of a group of veterans protesting the war and is thrust up on stage to speak - in the midst of a gathering of radicals and hippies. SDS types. Black panthers. etc.
Forrest, looking completely honorable and completely out of place in his military dress uniform and medals, steps up to the microphone to speak.
Behind Forrest is a huge banner, which reads:
Support the troops. Bring them home.
Wow. Things never change. Was Cindy Sheehan out there somewhere? Howard Dean? George Soros?
Probably not. John Kerry probably was, though.
Get off the stage, Forrest. Run, Forrest, run.
Interesting scene in the middle. Forrest has served in Vietnam and is in Washington D.C. to receive a Medal of Honor from the President. As he's walking through Washington, he accidentally gets caught up in a line going to a war protest on the mall.
Before he knows it, he's mistaken for a member of a group of veterans protesting the war and is thrust up on stage to speak - in the midst of a gathering of radicals and hippies. SDS types. Black panthers. etc.
Forrest, looking completely honorable and completely out of place in his military dress uniform and medals, steps up to the microphone to speak.
Behind Forrest is a huge banner, which reads:
Support the troops. Bring them home.
Wow. Things never change. Was Cindy Sheehan out there somewhere? Howard Dean? George Soros?
Probably not. John Kerry probably was, though.
Get off the stage, Forrest. Run, Forrest, run.
Bush Fighting Back
Finally, after a long summer of press and opposition drubbings, President Bush is going on offense to defend his record on Iraq and terror. Finally, an effective and sustained response to the outrageous yammerings of the Defeatocrats.
So, a recap of recent boos and kudos is in order:
Kudos - to the President in his address and press conference, for a needed and compelling recap of the terrorist threat we still face and of his job requirement to protect the country as his first priority.
Boos - to the New York Times for attempting to dupe the country with a scandal story the day after the most significant news story of the year - the Iraqi elections. The non-story about the President authorizing domestic wire taps to track terrorist with foreign connections was held for a year and then dumped with a timing designed both to minimize the success story of the elections and to take down the Patriot act. As the President said today:
Boo - to the leaker within the NSA or the Congress who leaked this to the New York Times. Note to Democrats: this is a real secret, worthy of keeping. Not like this made up Valerie Plame outing that you've had your knickers in a twist over for the last two years.
Boos - to the Democrat leadership (Pelosi and Reid) who were briefed on the wiretaps, but ran for cover yesterday when the news story broke. Chickens.
Kudos - to the President for the courage to say that he ordered the wiretaps many times and would do so again as often as needed. This story says that we have a Commander in Chief who is serious about fighting the War on Terror with everything in his arsenal.
Boos - to the rest of the media for dropping the incredible story of the succesful Iraqi elections to chase like lemmings the wiretap story. One day. That's all the coverage that the MSM gave to perhaps the most significant news story of the year.
Kudos - to the U.S. Government and the Iraqi people for pulling off the election.
Boos - to the mainstream media who have kept alive on the front pages the story about the CIA running secret prisons for terrorists overseas. If we are, good. Shame on this leaker as well. Again, it shows that we're serious about fighting a war.
Boos - to the leftist party leaders who continue to make outrageous defamations day after day and continue to call for retreat in Iraq.
Boos - to the Senate Democrats who successfully killed, for now anyway, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Is there any position that the Senate Democrats have taken in the last two years that Osama bin Laden wouldn't have voted the same way on?
Boos - finally, to the Islamic Army of Iraq who, not content to wait entirely for the Democrats and the media to win this war for them, put a bullet in the head of an American captive this week. Barbarians.
So, a recap of recent boos and kudos is in order:
Kudos - to the President in his address and press conference, for a needed and compelling recap of the terrorist threat we still face and of his job requirement to protect the country as his first priority.
Boos - to the New York Times for attempting to dupe the country with a scandal story the day after the most significant news story of the year - the Iraqi elections. The non-story about the President authorizing domestic wire taps to track terrorist with foreign connections was held for a year and then dumped with a timing designed both to minimize the success story of the elections and to take down the Patriot act. As the President said today:
My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.
Boo - to the leaker within the NSA or the Congress who leaked this to the New York Times. Note to Democrats: this is a real secret, worthy of keeping. Not like this made up Valerie Plame outing that you've had your knickers in a twist over for the last two years.
Boos - to the Democrat leadership (Pelosi and Reid) who were briefed on the wiretaps, but ran for cover yesterday when the news story broke. Chickens.
Kudos - to the President for the courage to say that he ordered the wiretaps many times and would do so again as often as needed. This story says that we have a Commander in Chief who is serious about fighting the War on Terror with everything in his arsenal.
Boos - to the rest of the media for dropping the incredible story of the succesful Iraqi elections to chase like lemmings the wiretap story. One day. That's all the coverage that the MSM gave to perhaps the most significant news story of the year.
Kudos - to the U.S. Government and the Iraqi people for pulling off the election.
Boos - to the mainstream media who have kept alive on the front pages the story about the CIA running secret prisons for terrorists overseas. If we are, good. Shame on this leaker as well. Again, it shows that we're serious about fighting a war.
Boos - to the leftist party leaders who continue to make outrageous defamations day after day and continue to call for retreat in Iraq.
Boos - to the Senate Democrats who successfully killed, for now anyway, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Is there any position that the Senate Democrats have taken in the last two years that Osama bin Laden wouldn't have voted the same way on?
Boos - finally, to the Islamic Army of Iraq who, not content to wait entirely for the Democrats and the media to win this war for them, put a bullet in the head of an American captive this week. Barbarians.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
All Seeing?
We noticed last week that our local psychic is going out of business. Her building is up for sale and everything.
The obvious question: Why didn't she see that coming?
The obvious question: Why didn't she see that coming?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Saving Lives in Iraq
There are a lot of ways to tell a story with statistics. Pro or Con. Favorable or unfavorable. In a way the enlightens or that obscures the truth.
For months now, critics of the War in Iraq have thrown around statistics about how many civilian casualties are directly related to the American invasion to depose the murderous tyrant Sadaam Hussein and his thug regime.
How many? 100,000 thousand was the oft repeated, though unsubstantiated claim. 100,000 dead civilian Iraqi's caught in the crossfire.
Lately that number is being revised down by proponents who have challenged the wilder claims. How many? 30,000 appears to be the new number, used now by both more reasonable critics and by the Bush administration. That was the number used by President Bush even today.
30,000. Dead Iraqi civilians.
Is that possible? Certainly. It's a war, in case you didn't get the memo.
Is it unheard of? Not compared to most conflicts. Vietnam, according to a radio report I listened to today, produced 1 million or more civilian casualties. World Wars resulted in considerably more.
Is it to the shame of the U.S. that there have been 30,000 civilian dead?
No, it is not. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that our actions have saved lives in Iraq.
There are of course the thousands of Iraqis found in mass graves, killed at the hands of the Hussein regime. That's not a threat anymore.
There are, of course, the untold number of Iraqis killed directly by, or ordered killed by, Sadaam's thug sons - Uday and Qusay. Thugs who reportedly took after dinner strolls at night over to the prisons to select prisoners for execution purely for enjoyment. Those thugs are in the ground, and Iraqis are now safe from them.
More telling: take as my only case the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War.
Sanctions that prohibited Iraq from selling oil. Sanctions that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. (A case often shouted from the rooftops by Bush critics who claimed that the sanctions killed 500,000).
To alleviate the suffering, the U.S. and the U.N. modified the sanctions to allow Iraq to sell Oil - for - Food. Did it end the dying? Of course not. Sadaam promptly stole the money and used it to build many many palaces to his glory and to bribe French, German, and Russian diplomats to oppose any action against him in the U.N.
Children and adults died of starvation in Iraq under the U.N. sanctions, each and every year.
How many. Estimates that I heard were 5,000 per month. That's 60,000 / year dead. Every year for 12 years. That's 720,000 dead from the sanctions.
So, given 60,000 / year dying just from the sanctions - and Sadaam's refusal to comply with the requirements that would have lifted the sanctions, what were the options?
Bush opponents exclaim that the correct option for dealing with Iraq was to leave the sanctions in place. How many times did you hear Kerry, Dean, Clinton, and company argue that we shouldn't have invaded because "the sanctions were working".
60,000 dead per year is working? Were they willing to not invade and accept 60,000 dead in 2003, again in 2004, and again in 2005? They must have been, because none of them advocated withdrawing the sanctions and walking away.
On the other hand, President Bush rightly concluded that the sanctions were not working. And we couldn't just lift the sanctions and walk away. Not only would you still have mass graves filling up, the terror threat after 9/11 dictated that we take down a state sponsor of terror.
So. It costs 30,000 lives over 3 years to do the right thing. To invade Iraq and depose the regime.
That's deeply regrettable. But it doesn't tell the whole story.
The rest of the story is that by ending the sanctions and ending the regime, we likely saved lives. Yes, that's what I said - saved lives. What's the math?
Not invading - leaving the sanctions as the anti-war crowd advocated?
2003 - 60,000 dead
2004 - 60,000 dead
2005 - 60,000 dead
Total - 180,000 dead
War in Iraq
2003 - 28,000 dead
2004 - 1000 dead
2005 - 1000 dead
Total - 30,000 dead
That's the math of war. A regrettable war, but a just war.
Do the math. Tell the whole story.
That's my take on it.
For months now, critics of the War in Iraq have thrown around statistics about how many civilian casualties are directly related to the American invasion to depose the murderous tyrant Sadaam Hussein and his thug regime.
How many? 100,000 thousand was the oft repeated, though unsubstantiated claim. 100,000 dead civilian Iraqi's caught in the crossfire.
Lately that number is being revised down by proponents who have challenged the wilder claims. How many? 30,000 appears to be the new number, used now by both more reasonable critics and by the Bush administration. That was the number used by President Bush even today.
30,000. Dead Iraqi civilians.
Is that possible? Certainly. It's a war, in case you didn't get the memo.
Is it unheard of? Not compared to most conflicts. Vietnam, according to a radio report I listened to today, produced 1 million or more civilian casualties. World Wars resulted in considerably more.
Is it to the shame of the U.S. that there have been 30,000 civilian dead?
No, it is not. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that our actions have saved lives in Iraq.
There are of course the thousands of Iraqis found in mass graves, killed at the hands of the Hussein regime. That's not a threat anymore.
There are, of course, the untold number of Iraqis killed directly by, or ordered killed by, Sadaam's thug sons - Uday and Qusay. Thugs who reportedly took after dinner strolls at night over to the prisons to select prisoners for execution purely for enjoyment. Those thugs are in the ground, and Iraqis are now safe from them.
More telling: take as my only case the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War.
Sanctions that prohibited Iraq from selling oil. Sanctions that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. (A case often shouted from the rooftops by Bush critics who claimed that the sanctions killed 500,000).
To alleviate the suffering, the U.S. and the U.N. modified the sanctions to allow Iraq to sell Oil - for - Food. Did it end the dying? Of course not. Sadaam promptly stole the money and used it to build many many palaces to his glory and to bribe French, German, and Russian diplomats to oppose any action against him in the U.N.
Children and adults died of starvation in Iraq under the U.N. sanctions, each and every year.
How many. Estimates that I heard were 5,000 per month. That's 60,000 / year dead. Every year for 12 years. That's 720,000 dead from the sanctions.
So, given 60,000 / year dying just from the sanctions - and Sadaam's refusal to comply with the requirements that would have lifted the sanctions, what were the options?
Bush opponents exclaim that the correct option for dealing with Iraq was to leave the sanctions in place. How many times did you hear Kerry, Dean, Clinton, and company argue that we shouldn't have invaded because "the sanctions were working".
60,000 dead per year is working? Were they willing to not invade and accept 60,000 dead in 2003, again in 2004, and again in 2005? They must have been, because none of them advocated withdrawing the sanctions and walking away.
On the other hand, President Bush rightly concluded that the sanctions were not working. And we couldn't just lift the sanctions and walk away. Not only would you still have mass graves filling up, the terror threat after 9/11 dictated that we take down a state sponsor of terror.
So. It costs 30,000 lives over 3 years to do the right thing. To invade Iraq and depose the regime.
That's deeply regrettable. But it doesn't tell the whole story.
The rest of the story is that by ending the sanctions and ending the regime, we likely saved lives. Yes, that's what I said - saved lives. What's the math?
Not invading - leaving the sanctions as the anti-war crowd advocated?
2003 - 60,000 dead
2004 - 60,000 dead
2005 - 60,000 dead
Total - 180,000 dead
War in Iraq
2003 - 28,000 dead
2004 - 1000 dead
2005 - 1000 dead
Total - 30,000 dead
That's the math of war. A regrettable war, but a just war.
Do the math. Tell the whole story.
That's my take on it.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Disgrace(s) of the Week
It's a good thing that I don't write a regular column identifying the "Disgrace of the Week". There are just too many lately to choose from. The increasingly outrageous, left-wing, anti-war Democrat party is serving up example after example at a pace too fast to document well. Here are some recent candidates:
1. Let's start at the top:
Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee - who made this outrageous comment this week in a radio interview, while our troops are in harm's way on a war mission authorized by the President and the Congress:
Unbelievable, that a chair of a major party would declare defeat and hoplessness less than 10 days from the major milestone that the troops have been fighting toward - the December 15th election in Iraq.
It goes without saying that he should resign. But I'll say it. He should resign. He has disgraced his party, and the rank and file of his party should call for his resignation.
2. Or maybe we should go with the man the Democrats thought should be President - Sen. John Kerry. A man who stumbles to a new position, all of them defeatist, on the war every day and who this week arrived at this disgraceful comment:
Excuse me? "...young American soldiers..." "...terrorizing kids and children...". Are you kidding me? Does he not understand how loaded the word "terrorizing" is in the current climate of the War on Terror? Of course he does, and he meant to use it. The man who made outrageous claims against our military in Vietnam is at it again. He can't help it. It's deep in his psyche to allege the most heinous behavior by our troops in the field. And a lot of you wanted him to lead our country?
John Kerry should, as well, resign. He has disgraced his party, and the rank and file of the Democrat party should call for his resignation.
3. How about the most under-reported outrage of the week. I'm talking about Ramsey Clark going to Baghdad to lead Sadaam Hussein's defense team in his war crimes trial.
Ramsey Clark, Democrat. Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States under the Democrat administration of President Lyndon Johnson. Ramsey Clark, anti-war protestor for 30 years and hero of the unhinged anti-war left. In Baghdad to defend the butcher and terror threat that we launched a war to depose.
Ramsey Clark cannot, of course, resign. Nobody elected him to anything. He should instead, be denied re-entry into the U.S. and/or tried for treason.
The shocking fact is that, in two of these three disgraceful acts, we're not talking about fringe players. Granted that Ramsey Clark falls into the Cindy Sheehan fringe left category. But Howard Dean and John Kerry are leaders of their party. The logical question is - how much more extreme and disgraceful are these leaders going to allow their hatred of George W. Bush to take them?
1. Let's start at the top:
Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee - who made this outrageous comment this week in a radio interview, while our troops are in harm's way on a war mission authorized by the President and the Congress:
"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong,"
Unbelievable, that a chair of a major party would declare defeat and hoplessness less than 10 days from the major milestone that the troops have been fighting toward - the December 15th election in Iraq.
It goes without saying that he should resign. But I'll say it. He should resign. He has disgraced his party, and the rank and file of his party should call for his resignation.
2. Or maybe we should go with the man the Democrats thought should be President - Sen. John Kerry. A man who stumbles to a new position, all of them defeatist, on the war every day and who this week arrived at this disgraceful comment:
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," Kerry said Sunday. "Whether you like it or not ... Iraqis should be doing that."
Excuse me? "...young American soldiers..." "...terrorizing kids and children...". Are you kidding me? Does he not understand how loaded the word "terrorizing" is in the current climate of the War on Terror? Of course he does, and he meant to use it. The man who made outrageous claims against our military in Vietnam is at it again. He can't help it. It's deep in his psyche to allege the most heinous behavior by our troops in the field. And a lot of you wanted him to lead our country?
John Kerry should, as well, resign. He has disgraced his party, and the rank and file of the Democrat party should call for his resignation.
3. How about the most under-reported outrage of the week. I'm talking about Ramsey Clark going to Baghdad to lead Sadaam Hussein's defense team in his war crimes trial.
Ramsey Clark, Democrat. Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States under the Democrat administration of President Lyndon Johnson. Ramsey Clark, anti-war protestor for 30 years and hero of the unhinged anti-war left. In Baghdad to defend the butcher and terror threat that we launched a war to depose.
Ramsey Clark cannot, of course, resign. Nobody elected him to anything. He should instead, be denied re-entry into the U.S. and/or tried for treason.
The shocking fact is that, in two of these three disgraceful acts, we're not talking about fringe players. Granted that Ramsey Clark falls into the Cindy Sheehan fringe left category. But Howard Dean and John Kerry are leaders of their party. The logical question is - how much more extreme and disgraceful are these leaders going to allow their hatred of George W. Bush to take them?
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Democrat's Dishonorable Hindsight
If one more Democrat leader steps up to a microphone and advocates the position that we should immediately withdraw from Iraq (as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did this week), or that they were wrong to vote for the War there and would not have voted that way if they knew what they know now (as Sen. Hillary Clinton did), I'm gonna puke.
Both are dishonorable positions from elected leaders while we have troops in harm's way working to achieve victory in the task layed out by their Commander in Chief, and authorized by these revisionist cowards.
For the record, I do not support their assertion that the war was a mistake, is a disaster, or was entered into through lies and manipulation of intelligence. I support both the troops and their mission, Democrat claptrap notwithstanding.
Both are dishonorable positions from elected leaders while we have troops in harm's way working to achieve victory in the task layed out by their Commander in Chief, and authorized by these revisionist cowards.
For the record, I do not support their assertion that the war was a mistake, is a disaster, or was entered into through lies and manipulation of intelligence. I support both the troops and their mission, Democrat claptrap notwithstanding.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Democrats Line Up to Surrender
The best sentence that I read in an editorial this week was this one, from Mona Charen's excellent column entitled "One Marine's Words":
That quote explains a lot. It especially explains why Democrats are falling over each other lately to get to a microphone to call for either complete surrender (Rep. Murtha calling for immediate withdrawal) or surrender on a payment plan (Sen. Barrack Obama calling for troop drawdown.)
Why the hurry to surrender? What's the rush?
The simple answer is that they have to do it now, because "Bush's War", as they call it, is about to experience a significant success and they have to undermine it before that can happen.
We've already seen three historically significant milestones in the War on Terror front in Iraq, as detailed in Ann Coulter's excellent column this week, where we are transforming a dangerous dictatorship that was a threat to the world into one of the sole democracies in the Mid East:
- deposing the tyrant Sadaam Hussein
- electing a constitutional assembly to draft a Constitution
- approving that Constituiton by a ration of 79% to 21%
Now we are within 20 days of the most crucial milestone in the War - a milestone that our troops have struggled for in harm's way - the democratic election of a government governed by their Constitution scheduled for December 15th in Iraq.
20 days from success, and Democrats are rushing to microphones to declare their new paradigm: that the Iraq mission was a tragic mistake (Sen. John Edwards), that the President lied them into voting for the war (Howard Dean), and that we should pull out troops and "admit our mistake" - a euphemism for surrender.
Unbelievable. But that's the state of Democratic leadership in our country today. These people cannot be trusted with power.
Liberals seem always to believe that America will lose its wars, and when it doesn't, that it should.
That quote explains a lot. It especially explains why Democrats are falling over each other lately to get to a microphone to call for either complete surrender (Rep. Murtha calling for immediate withdrawal) or surrender on a payment plan (Sen. Barrack Obama calling for troop drawdown.)
Why the hurry to surrender? What's the rush?
The simple answer is that they have to do it now, because "Bush's War", as they call it, is about to experience a significant success and they have to undermine it before that can happen.
We've already seen three historically significant milestones in the War on Terror front in Iraq, as detailed in Ann Coulter's excellent column this week, where we are transforming a dangerous dictatorship that was a threat to the world into one of the sole democracies in the Mid East:
- deposing the tyrant Sadaam Hussein
- electing a constitutional assembly to draft a Constitution
- approving that Constituiton by a ration of 79% to 21%
Now we are within 20 days of the most crucial milestone in the War - a milestone that our troops have struggled for in harm's way - the democratic election of a government governed by their Constitution scheduled for December 15th in Iraq.
20 days from success, and Democrats are rushing to microphones to declare their new paradigm: that the Iraq mission was a tragic mistake (Sen. John Edwards), that the President lied them into voting for the war (Howard Dean), and that we should pull out troops and "admit our mistake" - a euphemism for surrender.
Unbelievable. But that's the state of Democratic leadership in our country today. These people cannot be trusted with power.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Depravity for Rent
It's not often that I walk into a video rental store and am saddened to see a video for rent. It happened to me this week, though.
The video in question is "The Devil's Rejects" by Rob Zombie. My local video chain had a whole shelf section stocked with copies.
I was first tipped off to this movie by film critic and conservative talk show host Michael Medved, whose take on the movie was that it was so depraved that it should never have been made. Depraved. That's a word you don't hear used in our society. After listening to his hour long segment on the movie I would have to guess that he's probably right.
I don't know if you've ever sat through a movie and then wondered why you paid to see that level of sickness. I have. It was "Silence of the Lambs". Despite it winning a best picture Oscar, I regretted seeing it. It has a level of sickness in it that I can't wipe from my brain.
Is "The Devil's Rejects" depraved? Let's see. Let's here from a different film critic that I normally respect, Roger Ebert, who recommended the movie with 3 stars:
What's the movie about? According to Ebert:
"...it's about a depraved family of mass murderers" who slaughter their way through some revenge plot.
So, if it's a gaudy, nauseating, "vomitorium" why would he recommend it? Says Ebert:
Ahhh. I see. If you can "step back from the material" you can appreciate the mastery of the craft. That in itself is a depraved argument.
I was saddened enough to see it play at my local cineplex, where teens could - with some work - see it and have to live with it in their mind. Now, it's right there on the video rental shelf. How far are we exactly from the Roman collisieum?
Will I rent it? Of course not. But the eager teen who was dragging his clueless mom straight to that shelf will. God help him.
The video in question is "The Devil's Rejects" by Rob Zombie. My local video chain had a whole shelf section stocked with copies.
I was first tipped off to this movie by film critic and conservative talk show host Michael Medved, whose take on the movie was that it was so depraved that it should never have been made. Depraved. That's a word you don't hear used in our society. After listening to his hour long segment on the movie I would have to guess that he's probably right.
I don't know if you've ever sat through a movie and then wondered why you paid to see that level of sickness. I have. It was "Silence of the Lambs". Despite it winning a best picture Oscar, I regretted seeing it. It has a level of sickness in it that I can't wipe from my brain.
Is "The Devil's Rejects" depraved? Let's see. Let's here from a different film critic that I normally respect, Roger Ebert, who recommended the movie with 3 stars:
Here is a gaudy vomitorium of a movie, violent, nauseating and really a pretty good example of its genre. If you are a hardened horror movie fan capable of appreciating skill and wit in the service of the deliberately disgusting, "The Devil's Rejects" may exercise a certain strange charm. If on the other hand you close your eyes if a scene gets icky, here is a movie to see with blinders on, because it starts at icky and descends relentlessly through depraved and nauseating to the embrace of road kill.
What's the movie about? According to Ebert:
"...it's about a depraved family of mass murderers" who slaughter their way through some revenge plot.
So, if it's a gaudy, nauseating, "vomitorium" why would he recommend it? Says Ebert:
There is actually some good writing and acting going on here, if you can step back from the material enough to see it.
Ahhh. I see. If you can "step back from the material" you can appreciate the mastery of the craft. That in itself is a depraved argument.
I was saddened enough to see it play at my local cineplex, where teens could - with some work - see it and have to live with it in their mind. Now, it's right there on the video rental shelf. How far are we exactly from the Roman collisieum?
Will I rent it? Of course not. But the eager teen who was dragging his clueless mom straight to that shelf will. God help him.
Monday, November 07, 2005
France on Fire
I watched, intrigued, a commercial on the History Channel advertising their 2 part series on "The Crusades". "It began", said the commentator, "with a faith".
Wrong faith, it turns out. The faith the producers wanted to start with was Christianity, and the time they wanted to start with was around 1095 when Europe mounted up some troops.
Wrong, I thought. The crusades did not begin in 1095. They began in 623 when the Prophet Muhammed died and the faith that he birthed began to expand violently at the point of a sword. By the 700's, Islam had occupied not only Jerusalem but large parts of Europe as well - including France. For the Europeans to wait another few hundred years to armor up and fight back is a testament to their patience.
To say that the Crusades started in 1095 is like saying that our War on Terror started on 9/11. Maybe it did from our side, but not from the terrorist's side. I would date it back to the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. Certainly the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Or the Khobar Towers bombing. Or the embassy bombings. Or the attack on the U.S.S Cole. My point being, it did not start on 9/11.
Radical Islam is at War with the west, again. A point that should be obvious, but that keeps evading the left. Maybe seeing France in flames this week, to the tune of 300 cities as of today, will cause some rethinking in liberal elite circles. Doubtful, as most media still will not label the arsonists as Muslim, but perhaps.
For a rational European take on the topic, check out Mark Steyn's column "Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands". If you haven't yet had the privilege of reading one of his brilliant columns, this is a good place to start.
So, for this week at least, we're left to ask the obvious question about the unrest in Paris: How long until France surrenders?
Wrong faith, it turns out. The faith the producers wanted to start with was Christianity, and the time they wanted to start with was around 1095 when Europe mounted up some troops.
Wrong, I thought. The crusades did not begin in 1095. They began in 623 when the Prophet Muhammed died and the faith that he birthed began to expand violently at the point of a sword. By the 700's, Islam had occupied not only Jerusalem but large parts of Europe as well - including France. For the Europeans to wait another few hundred years to armor up and fight back is a testament to their patience.
To say that the Crusades started in 1095 is like saying that our War on Terror started on 9/11. Maybe it did from our side, but not from the terrorist's side. I would date it back to the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. Certainly the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Or the Khobar Towers bombing. Or the embassy bombings. Or the attack on the U.S.S Cole. My point being, it did not start on 9/11.
Radical Islam is at War with the west, again. A point that should be obvious, but that keeps evading the left. Maybe seeing France in flames this week, to the tune of 300 cities as of today, will cause some rethinking in liberal elite circles. Doubtful, as most media still will not label the arsonists as Muslim, but perhaps.
For a rational European take on the topic, check out Mark Steyn's column "Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands". If you haven't yet had the privilege of reading one of his brilliant columns, this is a good place to start.
So, for this week at least, we're left to ask the obvious question about the unrest in Paris: How long until France surrenders?
Liberal "Tolerance"
So, I'm riding in my new vehicle. Traveling down the road in style. Enjoying one of the perks - Satellite radio: Sirius to be exact. Checking out the talk radio stations. Patriot. Right. And, hey why not, Left.
I've done it before. Air America. Whatever. It's healthy to check out the opposite point of view. I can hack it. Give me what you've got. Give me your best shot.
It was about noon. Not sure who which whacked out liberal will be spouting, but I'll listen in. As soon as I hear her New York accent, I recognize that it's Lynn Samuels that I read about on the Sirius program guide.
It only takes a couple of sentences to tune me in to her topic - tomorrow's election for New York City mayor. And it only takes a minute for me to hear her evaluation of the candidates. I quote:
Ahhhh, the vaunted liberal tolerance. Champions of diversity. Pathetic.
I have to say, I've listened to conservative talk radio for more than a decade and have never heard anything approaching that kind of racist talk. Unbelievable. And they wonder why conservatives dominate talk radio.
I've done it before. Air America. Whatever. It's healthy to check out the opposite point of view. I can hack it. Give me what you've got. Give me your best shot.
It was about noon. Not sure who which whacked out liberal will be spouting, but I'll listen in. As soon as I hear her New York accent, I recognize that it's Lynn Samuels that I read about on the Sirius program guide.
It only takes a couple of sentences to tune me in to her topic - tomorrow's election for New York City mayor. And it only takes a minute for me to hear her evaluation of the candidates. I quote:
"...we got a little wimp Jew, and a little wimp Spic...".Click. I'm out.
Ahhhh, the vaunted liberal tolerance. Champions of diversity. Pathetic.
I have to say, I've listened to conservative talk radio for more than a decade and have never heard anything approaching that kind of racist talk. Unbelievable. And they wonder why conservatives dominate talk radio.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
A moment more important than politics
I put politics on hold today for a more important moment:
I got to take my 12-year old son out for our first round together of real golf on a real golf course. The same course where I played my first round of golf more than 31 years ago.
Priceless.
I got to take my 12-year old son out for our first round together of real golf on a real golf course. The same course where I played my first round of golf more than 31 years ago.
Priceless.
Slandering the President
Regrettably, we are at the point in history where no slanderous allegation is too outrageous for the Democrat Party leadership to hurl at the President of the United States for partisan political gain.
It's clear from watching the antics of leaders like Reid, Durbin, Shumer, Boxer, Kennedy, et al that they have settled on a strategy of trying to take down the President by alleging at full voice that the President and his administration manipulated or manufactured intelligence during the "run-up to the war" (their preferred and parroted phrase) in order to "lie us into war" for their nefarious and illegal purposes.
It's a scandalous allegation. It's an unfounded allegation.
The facts of the situation, though irrelevant to the Democrat leaders, are that Democrats made the same case for removing Sadaam Hussein when Clinton was in office in 1998 as has George Bush. President Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. All of the Democrat leaders are on record supporting that. See Jonah Goldberg's excellent column "We said that?" and others for the pertinent quotes.
The fact is that most of the Democrats are on record supporting the President's request for Congress to authorize a war with Iraq.
The Democrats, who have now changed their minds because they have read their own press clippings alleging that the war is going badly, now want to revise history. Given the inconvienient fact that they are all on record supporting the President, they now have to allege that the President lied to them and hope you won't reread their quotes.
It's outrageous. What's more it's slanderous. What's even more is that it is hurting our reputation overseas - again for the sole purpose of partisan political gain on the part of the Democrats.
I'm outraged. You should be too.
It's clear from watching the antics of leaders like Reid, Durbin, Shumer, Boxer, Kennedy, et al that they have settled on a strategy of trying to take down the President by alleging at full voice that the President and his administration manipulated or manufactured intelligence during the "run-up to the war" (their preferred and parroted phrase) in order to "lie us into war" for their nefarious and illegal purposes.
It's a scandalous allegation. It's an unfounded allegation.
The facts of the situation, though irrelevant to the Democrat leaders, are that Democrats made the same case for removing Sadaam Hussein when Clinton was in office in 1998 as has George Bush. President Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. All of the Democrat leaders are on record supporting that. See Jonah Goldberg's excellent column "We said that?" and others for the pertinent quotes.
The fact is that most of the Democrats are on record supporting the President's request for Congress to authorize a war with Iraq.
The Democrats, who have now changed their minds because they have read their own press clippings alleging that the war is going badly, now want to revise history. Given the inconvienient fact that they are all on record supporting the President, they now have to allege that the President lied to them and hope you won't reread their quotes.
It's outrageous. What's more it's slanderous. What's even more is that it is hurting our reputation overseas - again for the sole purpose of partisan political gain on the part of the Democrats.
I'm outraged. You should be too.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Kudos on Alito
We're back! In one stroke, nominting Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, President Bush has rallied us conservatives back into his camp.
3 things seem clear to me:
1. Alito is excellently qualified for the position. He will turn in a brilliant performance in his Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, frustrating Democrats in the process.
2. Republicans will eagerly jump into the fray, based on his qualifications and originalist philosophy, to support and defend his confirmation.
3. Democrats, despite Alito's evident qualifications, will reflexively oppose Alito with everything they have in a blindly partisan manner that will not resonate with the public.
Game on.
3 things seem clear to me:
1. Alito is excellently qualified for the position. He will turn in a brilliant performance in his Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, frustrating Democrats in the process.
2. Republicans will eagerly jump into the fray, based on his qualifications and originalist philosophy, to support and defend his confirmation.
3. Democrats, despite Alito's evident qualifications, will reflexively oppose Alito with everything they have in a blindly partisan manner that will not resonate with the public.
Game on.
Scooter's no-crime Indictment
My choice for the self-fulfilling prophecy of the week goes to the Mainstream Media (MSM) based on a poll reported on Fox News Sunday by Britt Hume this week. According to the poll, a "majority of Americans believe that the CIA leak investigation has taken a toll of President Bush's popularity".
Well, no kidding. That's a shocker.
After a two year Special Counsel investigation accompanied by a relentless drumbeat of irresponsible accusations from the left and outrageous unsubstantiated speculation from the press itself, would you guess that would take a toll on the President?
The speculation from the press reached a hysterical zenith in the last month. The talking points from the left moved far beyond the basic storyline: that the White House power players, led and coordinated in an abuse of power conspiracy by Karl Rove, intentionally outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame in an orchestrated effort to discredit her whistle-blower husband Joe Wilson. That, in itself, is quite a story made more devious by constant repetition. In the two weeks before the grand jury hearing the evidence expired the speculation grew wilder, including:
- an indictment of Bush's principal advisor Karl Rove, who would be "frog-marched" in handcuffs out of the White House
- possible indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney himself as one of the sources of "the leak"
- an expansion of the Special Counsel's focus to include impeaching President Bush for lying us into war
All speculation, and all false.
It's important to pause to remember the assignment the Special Prosecutor was given: to investigate whether or not the law protecting covert CIA agents from exposure (which may risk their lives). The law has specific requirements, including one that the agent have been officially overseas undercover within the last five years, and that the "leaker" did so intentionally with the purpose of exposing the agent to risk.
So, did Patrick Fitzgerald find that the law had been violated? No, not based on his indictments. He did not indict anyone for violating that law?
Did he find evidence of a abuse of power conspiracy in the White House to punish Wilson by outing his wife? No, not based on his indictments. He did not indict anyone for a conspiracy. He did not indict more than one person.
So. The original focus of the investigation - did someone "leak" the identity of a covert CIA agent in violation of the law - produced no indictments for that crime.
We can effectively say at this point that Karl Rove did not violate the law, per the indictments. The burden of proof to say otherwise lies with his critics, who have no proof.
The only indictments involve a bit player for indirect crimes - perjury and obstruction. No underlying crime. Only he-said she-said contradictions about who said Valerie Plame's name first. Which leads me to two questions:
1. If Valerie Plame does not fit the definition of a covert CIA agent, and she doesn't having not been in the field for more than 6 years, and if her name is not classified, which it is not, then how can saying her name in any context constitute a "leak"? For that matter, how does it matter who said her name and when? I could say it. You could say it. President Bush could have stood on the White House steps and yelled VALERIE PLAME. It's not illegal. And the lack of indictments for violating that law validates that. So why do we keep talking about a "leak"?
2. Who in the press or on the left is going to apologize to Karl Rove for dragging his name through the mud for the last two years? Not any of the Democratic leaders who, despite the lack of an indictment, are out today on TV calling for Rove's firing still. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, was even on TV tonight still calling for Cheney's indictment. Outrageous.
Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, called today for President Bush to apologize for Plamegate. I say Reid and all of the left should apologize for trashing Rove and Cheney for so long. Back off. You lost.
Well, no kidding. That's a shocker.
After a two year Special Counsel investigation accompanied by a relentless drumbeat of irresponsible accusations from the left and outrageous unsubstantiated speculation from the press itself, would you guess that would take a toll on the President?
The speculation from the press reached a hysterical zenith in the last month. The talking points from the left moved far beyond the basic storyline: that the White House power players, led and coordinated in an abuse of power conspiracy by Karl Rove, intentionally outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame in an orchestrated effort to discredit her whistle-blower husband Joe Wilson. That, in itself, is quite a story made more devious by constant repetition. In the two weeks before the grand jury hearing the evidence expired the speculation grew wilder, including:
- an indictment of Bush's principal advisor Karl Rove, who would be "frog-marched" in handcuffs out of the White House
- possible indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney himself as one of the sources of "the leak"
- an expansion of the Special Counsel's focus to include impeaching President Bush for lying us into war
All speculation, and all false.
It's important to pause to remember the assignment the Special Prosecutor was given: to investigate whether or not the law protecting covert CIA agents from exposure (which may risk their lives). The law has specific requirements, including one that the agent have been officially overseas undercover within the last five years, and that the "leaker" did so intentionally with the purpose of exposing the agent to risk.
So, did Patrick Fitzgerald find that the law had been violated? No, not based on his indictments. He did not indict anyone for violating that law?
Did he find evidence of a abuse of power conspiracy in the White House to punish Wilson by outing his wife? No, not based on his indictments. He did not indict anyone for a conspiracy. He did not indict more than one person.
So. The original focus of the investigation - did someone "leak" the identity of a covert CIA agent in violation of the law - produced no indictments for that crime.
We can effectively say at this point that Karl Rove did not violate the law, per the indictments. The burden of proof to say otherwise lies with his critics, who have no proof.
The only indictments involve a bit player for indirect crimes - perjury and obstruction. No underlying crime. Only he-said she-said contradictions about who said Valerie Plame's name first. Which leads me to two questions:
1. If Valerie Plame does not fit the definition of a covert CIA agent, and she doesn't having not been in the field for more than 6 years, and if her name is not classified, which it is not, then how can saying her name in any context constitute a "leak"? For that matter, how does it matter who said her name and when? I could say it. You could say it. President Bush could have stood on the White House steps and yelled VALERIE PLAME. It's not illegal. And the lack of indictments for violating that law validates that. So why do we keep talking about a "leak"?
2. Who in the press or on the left is going to apologize to Karl Rove for dragging his name through the mud for the last two years? Not any of the Democratic leaders who, despite the lack of an indictment, are out today on TV calling for Rove's firing still. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, was even on TV tonight still calling for Cheney's indictment. Outrageous.
Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, called today for President Bush to apologize for Plamegate. I say Reid and all of the left should apologize for trashing Rove and Cheney for so long. Back off. You lost.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Predictions
For what it's worth, I predict:
- Harriet Miers' nomination will be withdrawn before or shortly after the pending committee hearings. She's toast.
- Special Counsel Fitzgerald will not indict anyone for the original crime in Plamegate - violating the law protecting covert CIA agents.
He may indict for perjury or obstruction, which would be unfortunate and a giant waste of time. There's no crime here.
- White Sox in 6 games
- Harriet Miers' nomination will be withdrawn before or shortly after the pending committee hearings. She's toast.
- Special Counsel Fitzgerald will not indict anyone for the original crime in Plamegate - violating the law protecting covert CIA agents.
He may indict for perjury or obstruction, which would be unfortunate and a giant waste of time. There's no crime here.
- White Sox in 6 games
Penalty Declined on Miers Post
My friend Julie left a thoughtful comment on my last post, regarding Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court, that I wanted to explore in more depth than a comment. She said, in part:
A flag on the play? Ouch. 15 yard penalty?
Hold on - after a review of the slow motion tape by the referee in the skybox, the penalty is declined.
I think that the root of our different perceptions lies in our thoughts on what "judicial activism" is. I have 4 quick thoughts on that:
1. Voting my way and activism are not the same thing, to me anyway.
Getting to choose someone who "shares your judicial philosophy", i.e. votes your way, is one of the perks of winning an election. It's the expectation. It's not activism.
2. Umpiring what's Constitutional or not - as conservatives prefer- is not activism. Treating the Constitution as a living document - as liberals prefer - is activism.
Activism usually aims to achieve social change. I would argue that where social change has happened in our society by legislation (Voting Rights Act) or Constitutional amendment (suffrage?) it has been accepted and normalizes out. But when social change happens by activist judicial fiat by less than 9 people (Roe v. Wade) it has been divisive.
3. Evangelical Christians are, in my opinion, less likely to pursue social change by judicial fiat than secularists. We have other outlets for that pursuit. Church. Charities. etc. Liberals, especially secularists, expect government to play this role and are more willing and likely to try to use the courts for these ends.
4. Religious fundamentalists, who are prone to interpreting scripture by the plain written word - as Miss Miers appears to be - are also less likely to be activists who "discover" new rights in an old document. The are more likely to read the plain text of the document and vote.
All of that explains me being "encouraged" by comments about her Evangelical faith.
However, I know think that her nomination will be withdrawn or defeated, so it may be all moot.
Whoa, whoa, whao - flag on the play!!! "I am certainly encouraged by the dicussion of her faith life as an evangelical Christian, and what that likely portends for her votes on the court." 'Scuse me, but that sounds an awful lot like what an "activist judge", to use a term that is usually blurted from the mouths of die-hard neo-Cons when faced with the idea of a Liberal justice, might do. Are we using the Constitution as our benchmark, or the Bible? If she uses anything but the Constitution then how can that not be "legislating from the bench".
This is one thing that irks the crap out of me from Conservatives - the idea that "activist judges" are only Liberals. If you put someone on the bench because you hope they will vote one way or another on any issue, then it doesn't matter if you are Conservative or Liberal - you are engaging in the very activity that the other side is frequently blamed for.
A flag on the play? Ouch. 15 yard penalty?
Hold on - after a review of the slow motion tape by the referee in the skybox, the penalty is declined.
I think that the root of our different perceptions lies in our thoughts on what "judicial activism" is. I have 4 quick thoughts on that:
1. Voting my way and activism are not the same thing, to me anyway.
Getting to choose someone who "shares your judicial philosophy", i.e. votes your way, is one of the perks of winning an election. It's the expectation. It's not activism.
2. Umpiring what's Constitutional or not - as conservatives prefer- is not activism. Treating the Constitution as a living document - as liberals prefer - is activism.
Activism usually aims to achieve social change. I would argue that where social change has happened in our society by legislation (Voting Rights Act) or Constitutional amendment (suffrage?) it has been accepted and normalizes out. But when social change happens by activist judicial fiat by less than 9 people (Roe v. Wade) it has been divisive.
3. Evangelical Christians are, in my opinion, less likely to pursue social change by judicial fiat than secularists. We have other outlets for that pursuit. Church. Charities. etc. Liberals, especially secularists, expect government to play this role and are more willing and likely to try to use the courts for these ends.
4. Religious fundamentalists, who are prone to interpreting scripture by the plain written word - as Miss Miers appears to be - are also less likely to be activists who "discover" new rights in an old document. The are more likely to read the plain text of the document and vote.
All of that explains me being "encouraged" by comments about her Evangelical faith.
However, I know think that her nomination will be withdrawn or defeated, so it may be all moot.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
on Harriett Miers
After a week of study and reflection, here are my thoughts on President Bush's nomination of his personal lawyer, Harriett Miers, to the Supreme Court:
My initial reaction was clear and visceral. The nomination was deeply disappointing and demoralizing on several levels:
- qualifications: There were so many extremely qualified candidates on a national level with constitutional credentials. The best legal minds in the country with the blessing of the best conservative scholars. The only list in the group that Harriett Miers' name was on was the President's. As George Will eloquently argued in his opinion piece on the topic, this was not a serious nomination.
- squandering an opportunity: Conservatives have been toiling for in excess of thirty years just for this day. All of that work to elect a conservative President with a Republican House and a Republican Senate to lay the groundwork for this crucial appointment when Justice O'Connor would retire. Make no mistake, this seat is the swing vote that will change the judicial direction of the court for a long time. Filling this seat cannot be left up to chance, to an unknown. It's not enough for the President to say to his base "Trust me". Not by a long shot.
- diversity politics: President Bush bowed to identity politics that demanded that O'Connors seat be filled by a woman above all else. That's not conjecture, that's reported by the President's people. My objection is not that the seat will be filled by a woman, but that it could only be filled by a woman. There were plenty of conservative women as candidates that would have filled the bill and been considered legitimately as the "best qualified". Harriett Miers, not.
- cronyism: not in the sense of financially rewarding personal associates. In the sense of being so narrow and provencial that in lieu of selecting the best qualified for a position of critical national importance you select the best qualified that you personally know. We can't afford that, judicially speaking. We've had enough of that with failed appointments at federal agencies like FEMA and Immigration. We can't afford that on the Supreme Court.
- ducking a fight: Selecting bona fide conservative jurists with a track record would likely have brought a confirmation fight with the Democrats, which most conservatives would have relished. Pat Buchanan rightly points out that the President missed an opportunity to rally conservatives to his side at a time when he needs them by waging the fight that we wanted for the court. Most importantly, the lesson of the Roberts confirmation was that a brilliant nominee can beat the Judiciary Committee and win confirmation. The President chose not to follow up with such an impeccably credentialed conservative nominee and win the fight. Now he has an unintended fight with the conservatives that he betrayed.
That was my initial reaction - that President Bush made such an ill advised choice that he essentially betrayed the conservative base that worked hard to elect him and to promote and defend his policies. It was an unbelievably ill-advised decision.
I've heard two mitigating arguments in support of the President's decision this week. 1) His father's mistake, Justice Souter who went liberal on the court, was accepting recommendations for a judge he didn't personally know and 2) the Republican Senators who would be the President's army in a nomination fight are too squishy to count on. Given their sellout in the Clinton impeachment, and the deal struck by the Sen. McCain and the Gang of 14 to pre-empt fillibusters, that is a considerable argument. Despite having the majority, too many Republican Senators are squishy and cannot be counted on in a fight.
I'm sure Miss Miers is a fine and capable person. I am certainly encouraged by the discussion of her faith life as an evangelical Christian, and what that likely portends for her votes on the court. She probably will vote the conservative, originalist, position most of the time. But it is not a certainty. And that's the problem.
Do I know for sure that this former city councilwoman would have voted no in the horrible Kelo vs. New London case in the last court, which allows those councils to excercise eminent domain to seize property from private citizens and give it to private businesses on the basis that it will generate more sales tax? No, I don't. O'Connor voted for this abomination that invalidates private property rights in America. Who knows where Miers would have stood.
Do I know that Miss Miers would uphold bans on the abominal partial-birth abortion procedures that will come before the court? No, I don't.
And that's the problem. All of these type decisions end up being decided 5-4, and it can't be unclear with this nomination which side of the 5 that she will be in. That's not what we worked hard to elect a conservative President for. That's not what we worked hard to elect a Republican Senate for. Not for uncertainty.
Since the nomination, the President and his spinners - including Mrs. Bush - have demonstrated their cluelessness on the depth of disappointment that this careless nomination has caused in the base. Clueless. If he wants to come out and attack conservative critics of his unqualified nominee as "sexists" or other such nonsense, he will pay a price in support.
Here's what I think will happen.
Miss Miers will be confirmed to the court. President Bush will not withdraw her. Democrats don't have the votes to stop her. Republicans will suck it up and reluctantly vote for her.
Democrats will look bad in the Judiciary Committee when they start attacking her Christian faith, which they surely will. Most, but not all, will vote no.
Republicans will give her a hard time, and then vote for her. Then they will excercise their ire with President Bush. He has squandered his margin of error. No more automatic support from the conservative base. No more slack for President Bush:
- no more slack on failing to do anything serious on controlling our border after 9/11
- no more slack on reckless spending and failing to veto a single spending bill
- no more slack on crony appointments in federal agencies
- no more slack on dissing issues conservatives care about (i.e. dissing the Minutemen as "vigilantes", the Swift Boat Veterans, etc.)
The President could have shown leadership here. He could have selected one of the top 20 conservative jurists in the country and waged the fight for direction of the most important court in the land. He would have rallied his conservative base and energized his second term.
Instead, in one weak and inconsequential choice, he demonstrated his limitations and disillusioned his champions. A big mistake. Perhaps an unrecoverable mistake.
My initial reaction was clear and visceral. The nomination was deeply disappointing and demoralizing on several levels:
- qualifications: There were so many extremely qualified candidates on a national level with constitutional credentials. The best legal minds in the country with the blessing of the best conservative scholars. The only list in the group that Harriett Miers' name was on was the President's. As George Will eloquently argued in his opinion piece on the topic, this was not a serious nomination.
- squandering an opportunity: Conservatives have been toiling for in excess of thirty years just for this day. All of that work to elect a conservative President with a Republican House and a Republican Senate to lay the groundwork for this crucial appointment when Justice O'Connor would retire. Make no mistake, this seat is the swing vote that will change the judicial direction of the court for a long time. Filling this seat cannot be left up to chance, to an unknown. It's not enough for the President to say to his base "Trust me". Not by a long shot.
- diversity politics: President Bush bowed to identity politics that demanded that O'Connors seat be filled by a woman above all else. That's not conjecture, that's reported by the President's people. My objection is not that the seat will be filled by a woman, but that it could only be filled by a woman. There were plenty of conservative women as candidates that would have filled the bill and been considered legitimately as the "best qualified". Harriett Miers, not.
- cronyism: not in the sense of financially rewarding personal associates. In the sense of being so narrow and provencial that in lieu of selecting the best qualified for a position of critical national importance you select the best qualified that you personally know. We can't afford that, judicially speaking. We've had enough of that with failed appointments at federal agencies like FEMA and Immigration. We can't afford that on the Supreme Court.
- ducking a fight: Selecting bona fide conservative jurists with a track record would likely have brought a confirmation fight with the Democrats, which most conservatives would have relished. Pat Buchanan rightly points out that the President missed an opportunity to rally conservatives to his side at a time when he needs them by waging the fight that we wanted for the court. Most importantly, the lesson of the Roberts confirmation was that a brilliant nominee can beat the Judiciary Committee and win confirmation. The President chose not to follow up with such an impeccably credentialed conservative nominee and win the fight. Now he has an unintended fight with the conservatives that he betrayed.
That was my initial reaction - that President Bush made such an ill advised choice that he essentially betrayed the conservative base that worked hard to elect him and to promote and defend his policies. It was an unbelievably ill-advised decision.
I've heard two mitigating arguments in support of the President's decision this week. 1) His father's mistake, Justice Souter who went liberal on the court, was accepting recommendations for a judge he didn't personally know and 2) the Republican Senators who would be the President's army in a nomination fight are too squishy to count on. Given their sellout in the Clinton impeachment, and the deal struck by the Sen. McCain and the Gang of 14 to pre-empt fillibusters, that is a considerable argument. Despite having the majority, too many Republican Senators are squishy and cannot be counted on in a fight.
I'm sure Miss Miers is a fine and capable person. I am certainly encouraged by the discussion of her faith life as an evangelical Christian, and what that likely portends for her votes on the court. She probably will vote the conservative, originalist, position most of the time. But it is not a certainty. And that's the problem.
Do I know for sure that this former city councilwoman would have voted no in the horrible Kelo vs. New London case in the last court, which allows those councils to excercise eminent domain to seize property from private citizens and give it to private businesses on the basis that it will generate more sales tax? No, I don't. O'Connor voted for this abomination that invalidates private property rights in America. Who knows where Miers would have stood.
Do I know that Miss Miers would uphold bans on the abominal partial-birth abortion procedures that will come before the court? No, I don't.
And that's the problem. All of these type decisions end up being decided 5-4, and it can't be unclear with this nomination which side of the 5 that she will be in. That's not what we worked hard to elect a conservative President for. That's not what we worked hard to elect a Republican Senate for. Not for uncertainty.
Since the nomination, the President and his spinners - including Mrs. Bush - have demonstrated their cluelessness on the depth of disappointment that this careless nomination has caused in the base. Clueless. If he wants to come out and attack conservative critics of his unqualified nominee as "sexists" or other such nonsense, he will pay a price in support.
Here's what I think will happen.
Miss Miers will be confirmed to the court. President Bush will not withdraw her. Democrats don't have the votes to stop her. Republicans will suck it up and reluctantly vote for her.
Democrats will look bad in the Judiciary Committee when they start attacking her Christian faith, which they surely will. Most, but not all, will vote no.
Republicans will give her a hard time, and then vote for her. Then they will excercise their ire with President Bush. He has squandered his margin of error. No more automatic support from the conservative base. No more slack for President Bush:
- no more slack on failing to do anything serious on controlling our border after 9/11
- no more slack on reckless spending and failing to veto a single spending bill
- no more slack on crony appointments in federal agencies
- no more slack on dissing issues conservatives care about (i.e. dissing the Minutemen as "vigilantes", the Swift Boat Veterans, etc.)
The President could have shown leadership here. He could have selected one of the top 20 conservative jurists in the country and waged the fight for direction of the most important court in the land. He would have rallied his conservative base and energized his second term.
Instead, in one weak and inconsequential choice, he demonstrated his limitations and disillusioned his champions. A big mistake. Perhaps an unrecoverable mistake.
President Bush's Spinning Plates
The way I see it, President Bush's remaining term and legacy depend on the final outcome of several spinning plates:
- Vote on the Iraqi Constitution on October 15th. The vote is a major milestone in the War in Iraq and the measurement of success there.
- Confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers
- The independent council investigation of "Plamegate"
- Indictment of Congressman Tom Delay
- FEC investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
- a possible "Katrina commission"
The best case scenario, which allows Bush to regain some ground in the polls and go on to enact policy with some authority is:
- Iraq has a successful vote and approves a constitution
- Harriett Miers has a positive showing in the confirmation hearings and is confirmed by Thanksgiving
- Prosecutor Fitzgerald ends his investigation with a report that no crime was committed and Rove and company are off the hook
- Tom Delay's indictment is dismissed
- Bill Frist is cleared of wrongdoing
- no Katrina Commission. Instead, Bush takes lead in rebuilding New Orleans
The worst case scenario, which will doom Bush to early lame duck status is:
- Iraq votes down the constitution and descends into Civil War
- Miers nomination is defeated or withdrawn
- Fitzgerald indicts Karl Rove or Scooter Libby in "Plamegate"
- Tom Delay goes to trial. Conviction being worse.
- Bill Frist gets forced into resignation
- a partisan Katrina Commission shoots at the Administration's handling of the emergency for months.
There's a lot at stake for the President in the next few months, and the rest of his term hangs in the balance.
- Vote on the Iraqi Constitution on October 15th. The vote is a major milestone in the War in Iraq and the measurement of success there.
- Confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers
- The independent council investigation of "Plamegate"
- Indictment of Congressman Tom Delay
- FEC investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
- a possible "Katrina commission"
The best case scenario, which allows Bush to regain some ground in the polls and go on to enact policy with some authority is:
- Iraq has a successful vote and approves a constitution
- Harriett Miers has a positive showing in the confirmation hearings and is confirmed by Thanksgiving
- Prosecutor Fitzgerald ends his investigation with a report that no crime was committed and Rove and company are off the hook
- Tom Delay's indictment is dismissed
- Bill Frist is cleared of wrongdoing
- no Katrina Commission. Instead, Bush takes lead in rebuilding New Orleans
The worst case scenario, which will doom Bush to early lame duck status is:
- Iraq votes down the constitution and descends into Civil War
- Miers nomination is defeated or withdrawn
- Fitzgerald indicts Karl Rove or Scooter Libby in "Plamegate"
- Tom Delay goes to trial. Conviction being worse.
- Bill Frist gets forced into resignation
- a partisan Katrina Commission shoots at the Administration's handling of the emergency for months.
There's a lot at stake for the President in the next few months, and the rest of his term hangs in the balance.
If You're Going to Shoot at the King, Don't Miss
Democrats are beside themselves with glee that Tom "the hammer" Delay, Republican Majority Leader of the House of Representatives had to step down after being indicted on conspiracy / money laundering charges.
Glee, I tell you.
There's just two problems that they are not taking into account yet.
First, it's clear to me after following all of the news about the indictment that it won't hold up. The initial indictment was flawed, due to the minor technicality that the act alleged wasn't illegal at the time alleged, that it was dismissed. The second indictment, money laundering, was elicited from a grand jury that had only been impaneled for five hours. I think Delay will succeed on getting the indictment dismissed on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
Second, the Republican Leadership is not taking getting shot at by partisan enemies lightly. According to a radio interview that I heard with Delay himself last week, the leadership met privately and circled the wagons - agreeing to start agressively pursuing policy matters that have been idle such as spending cuts, energy policy including drilling in Alaska, border control, etc. It's full tilt for straight out conservative Republican policies in the next six weeks. Kind of an unintended consequence of indicting the leader, I would say.
Glee, I tell you.
There's just two problems that they are not taking into account yet.
First, it's clear to me after following all of the news about the indictment that it won't hold up. The initial indictment was flawed, due to the minor technicality that the act alleged wasn't illegal at the time alleged, that it was dismissed. The second indictment, money laundering, was elicited from a grand jury that had only been impaneled for five hours. I think Delay will succeed on getting the indictment dismissed on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
Second, the Republican Leadership is not taking getting shot at by partisan enemies lightly. According to a radio interview that I heard with Delay himself last week, the leadership met privately and circled the wagons - agreeing to start agressively pursuing policy matters that have been idle such as spending cuts, energy policy including drilling in Alaska, border control, etc. It's full tilt for straight out conservative Republican policies in the next six weeks. Kind of an unintended consequence of indicting the leader, I would say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)