Friday,
September 5 2003
"NO REGRETS": So says Chuck
Schumer about the way the Dems treated Miguel
Estrada's nomination in the United States Senate.
Ted
Kennedy called Estrada's withdrawal "a
victory for the Constitution, for the nation's judicial system
and for the American people." He should re-read the document.
Pat
Leahy called
Estrada's nomination “a casualty of the White House’s
insistence on dividing instead of uniting the American people
over the president’s decisions for the federal courts.”
Terry
McAuliffe said Estrada's withdrawal was
timed to embarrass the Dems in front of Latino voters right
before the big debate last night in Albuquerque. I hope it's true,
because the Dems should be embarrassed.
And then
there's the pack of left-wing special interest groups, reveling
in the fact they've succeeded in slapping an ideologically-tinted
glass ceiling on one of the Hispanic-American community's brightest
stars.
Planned
Parenthood "welcomed" Estrada's withdrawal and called
on President Bush to nominate more "mainstream"
judges who hold their view that abortion on demand is a "fundamental
civil right."
Ralph
Neas, President of People for the American Way, issued a
statement that read:
"Estrada’s
withdrawal will shift the focus to these and other Bush nominees
who have extremely troubling records of ideological extremism
and right-wing judicial activism. These nominees reflect the
Bush administration’s intention to pack the federal appeals
courts with judges who would turn back the clock on civil rights,
privacy and reproductive rights, environmental protection, religious
liberty, and much more."
In other
words, "one down and more to go." At this point there's
no reason to believe the Dems can't defeat any or all of the Bush
nominees they're currently filibustering.
WAIT,
THERE'S MORE: Byron
York gives a little more detail on why Estrada called it quits.
President
Bush responded to the withdrawal via
statement yesterday:
"Mr.
Estrada received disgraceful treatment at the hands of 45 United
States Senators during the more than two years his nomination
was pending. Despite his superb qualifications and the wide
bipartisan support for his nomination, these Democrat Senators
repeatedly blocked an up-or-down vote that would have led to
Mr. Estrada's confirmation. The treatment of this fine man is
an unfortunate chapter in the Senate's history."
Tom
Delay called it "a
political hate crime."
Orrin
Hatch said the Senate "ought
to be ashamed of its unfair treatment of Miguel Estrada."
Lastly, I
think Roger
Pilon from the Cato Institute put it best:
"But
the deeper problem, is that Democrats are poisoning the confirmation
process by insisting that nominees declare their views on highly
charged political issues of the day as a condition of being
confirmed. That politicizes and corrupts the rule of law by
breaking down the fundamental distinction between politics and
law. It undermines the civility that is essential to the confirmation
process. And it discourages those with any regard for their
integrity from accepting nominations to high office. The time
has come for Senate Republicans to revisit the filibuster rule.
It has no place in the Constitution's confirmation process."
MILLER
KNOWS BEST: Here's
a story that nicely complements the post above. Zell Miller
has written a book titled "A National Party No More: The
Conscience of a Conservative Democrat" which talks about
why he feels his party has drifted so far out of touch with mainstream
America.
Miller writes:
"Once
upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all,
FDR, looked south and said, 'I see one-third of a nation ill-housed,
ill clad, ill nourished. Today our National Democratic leaders
look south and say, 'I see one third of a nation and it can
go to hell.' "
There's no
better example of this than yesterday when a way-left liberal
like Teddy Kennedy stands up after spiking the nomination of a
well qualified Hispanic judicial nominee and gloats that it is
somehow a "victory for the American people."
Which people
would that be exactly? The 35.3
million Latinos now living America? The 62%
of Americans who -unlike Ted Kennedy - think partial birth
abortion isn't such a good thing? Or maybe the 73%
of Americans who believe the Constitution guarantees the rights
of individuals to own guns? You get the point.
Zell Miller
is absolutely right: Kennedy, along with a growing number of Democrats
in the House and the Senate increasingly represent less and less
of mainstream America's values. It's a consequence of decades
spent tending to the needs of narrow special interest groups and
not trying to forge and promote a vision for a united America.
- T. Bevan 9:51
am
Thursday,
September 4 2003
DOWN THE TUBES: Estrada has pulled
his nomination. The $64,000 question is why. This is obviously
a big loss for President Bush and the GOP and a huge victory for
Senate Dems.
Estrada is
well aware of the significance of the struggle over his nomination
and the ramifications of giving up this fight. We don't have many
details at the moment, but don't be surprised if we learn Estrada
was frustrated and fed up - not with the Democrats' historic obstruction
- but with the lack of support from the White House and Senate
Republicans.
They've had
two years - and almost a full year in the majority - to put the
screws to the Democrats and make them pay over the Estrada nomination.
They simply did not do what needed to be done to get Estrada an
up-or-down vote. It's too bad. Now the opportunity is gone and
the country has lost the service (at least for the time being)
of one its most qualified and respected legal minds. - T.
Bevan 11:35 am
HOUSEKEEPING: Couple of items worth noting. First, regarding
advertising: as you can see we're running a promotion this week
from Foreign
Policy. They are offering a great deal on subscriptions to
the magazine (for a limited time only) so please click
over and check it out.
Also, you
may have noticed the Google ads we've been testing on the site
for the past week.We get paid by the click for these things so
if you want to help out, every time you visit the
blog, recall
page, news coverage page, polls
page, links page, or the political
races page please take an extra few seconds and click on an
ad or two. Much appreciated.
Regarding
email: due to the overwhelming amount of virus/spam/junk emails
we've been receiving during the past two months we've had to make
some changes to our email addresses. We've disabled the "webmaster@realclearpolitics"
and "info@realclearpolitics" addresses altogether, so
please make a mental note that you won't be able to reach us using
those addresses anymore. We are going to leave our personal email
addresses as is ("john-at-realclearpolitics.com" &
"tom-at-realclearpolitics.com") but we're going to try
and stay away from doing any direct linking to these email addresses
as it will just lead to more spam problems. We're still eager
to hear from you via email, it's just going to take a little more
work on your part. Thanks for understanding.
TERRIBLE
CRUZ: No, I'm not talking about
this. And I'm definitely not talking about this.
I'm referring, or course, to Cruz
Bustamante, Lt. Governor of the state of California and political
hack extraordinaire.
Aside from
having the distinction of being a member of the administration
responsible for sending California right into the toilet, Bustamante
started his campaign for governor by calling for an $8
billion tax increase on businesses and entrepreneurs. He followed
this with an even more asinine proposal: government
price controls for gasoline.
He's fought
to avoid
condemning the separatist notions of MEChA, publicly crucified
corporations that are critical to California's economy as
greedy and evil, and now he' also openly flouting the spirit -
if not the letter - of California campaign finance laws to take
a $2
million donation from the casino Indian tribes.
If you sat
a person down and said, "sketch out the profile of a political
candidate using all the things you dislike most about Democrats"
it would probably fall short of where Bustamante is right now.
In most places, running on this sort of platform would kill your
candidacy. Not in California. Bustamante continues to be in the
thick of this race, and God help the people of California if they
actually make him the new leader of the state and steward of the
world's 5th largest economy.
POWELL
1, RUMMY 0: Actually, there have been a number of State vs.
DoD battles over the last three years so the cumulative score
is much higher than this - and probably in Rumsfeld's favor. But
according to today's
Washington Post, it looks like Powell has won the latest round:
People
close to the administration said the Joint Chiefs and Powell
(a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs) did not win a bureaucratic
battle as much as Rumsfeld lost one. "Rumsfeld lost credibility
with the White House because he screwed up the postwar planning,"
said William Kristol, a conservative publisher with close ties
to the administration. "For five months they let Rumsfeld have
his way, and for five months Rumsfeld said everything's fine.
He wanted to do the postwar with fewer troops than a lot of
people advised, and it turned out to be a mistake."
This, I'm
afraid, is probably close to the truth. The Pentagon was phenomenal
on the front end of the war but it's becoming apparent that they
haven't been able to match that performance on the back end. And
our "allies" have sat on their hands and enjoyed watching
us struggle to do what they all know is right for the Iraqi people
and the world. - T.
Bevan 8:51 am
Wednesday,
September 3 2003
PK
SPEAKS:
Check out this interview
with Paul Krugman over at Liberal Oasis. I'm sure Donald
Luskin will give it a good fisking over at his blog soon,
so I'll just highlight a couple of quotes that caught my attention:
Quote One:
"The
key thing, in terms of the state of the world right now, is
that the United States has gone mad."
Believe it
or not, this was part of Krugman's response to a question about
globalization. Nevertheless, describing what America has done
over the past two years (i.e. responding to the attacks of September
11 and confronting a tyrant who stood for 12 years in defiance
of the international community) as "mad" gives you a
good indication of just how far out in left field he is.
Quote Two:
"My
dream for America would be to return to a situation in which
people of decency and good will can have vicious arguments of
globalization again. Right now, that seems to be a luxury we
can’t afford."
The obvious
implication of this statement is that Bush and his administration
are the opposite of "people of decency and good will."
They aren't people to be reasoned with but enemies to be attacked
and defeated.
Quote Three:
"In
some ways for me, the low point was those months after September
11, when everyone wanted to believe in the picture of a heroic
president and a noble, unified nation confronting the threat.
And
I was watching the actual policies. I was in touch with people
in Congress who knew what legislation was being pushed. And
that wasn’t what was happening. What you actually had was a
cynical power grab.
I felt
for a little while there like I was all alone, [that] they’re
all mad but me.
And
now, a large number of people understand what’s been going on.
It’s still, unfortunately, a minority. But it’s a large minority.
It’s not a handful of voices in the wilderness."
This response
combines two standard left/liberal themes: First, that nothing
Republicans do can be considered sincere. Everything is a conspiracy
based on lies, deception, greed, and a lust for power. What's
striking is how out of touch this is with public opinion. Of course
George W. Bush's response to the attacks of September 11 was sincere,
both on an emotional level and from a standpoint of political
leadership. Ninety-five percent of the country recognized this
and supported the Bush Administration's reactions.
The second
theme is that the masses are stupid, easily misled morons and
Krugman is the only one in the country smart enough to see what's
going on. Again, this is a canard based on some sort of genetically
encoded elitist arrogance which is one of the things most people
really dislike about those on the left. - T.
Bevan 8:00 am
Tuesday,
September 2 2003
MORE KERRY:
Here's the link to Kerry's
speech. And by the way, where's the outrage from the Dems
over Kerry's use of an aircraft carrier as a political prop? Let's
compare:
"I am
loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising
backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is
what I saw." - Senator
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
CRUNCH
TIME FOR JFK:
You know things are bad when the biggest
newspaper in your home state doesn't give front page coverage
to your official announcement to run for President of the United
States. Instead, they run a front page story on the draft
Wesley Clark movement and the hope that he will announce
for President soon. Ouch.
The Globe
snub is just the latest in a string of bad news for the Kerry
campaign: the Senator from Massachusetts has dropped
to just 5% in the latest national poll, is running
a distant third in Iowa, and is being routed
by 21 points in neighboring New Hampshire. It's no wonder
people are questioning whether
his campaign is in total free fall or joking that he should
really use today's big announcement to endorse Howard Dean and
try to get himself a shot on the ticket as VP.
Despite all
the recent setbacks and the lack of enthusiasm over his campaign
thus far, Kerry still has a chance to turn things around. He should
get a small bump from his announcement today and from his turn
on Meet
the Press this past Sunday where he struck very reasonable
notes on taxes and national defense - as well taking some very
pointed shots at Dean. It was the first time I think he's appeared
as a credible alternative to Dean's candidacy.
This
week's debate will be another critical test for Kerry. Even
though the public won't be paying much attention, the centrist
power brokers of the Democratic establishment will be. And they'll
be looking at Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman to see who can become
the most effective "stop Dean" candidate and the most
viable general election candidate. If Kerry wants to survive and
have a shot at winning the nomination, he's got to start closing
the deal before it's too late.
DRUDGE'S
VENDETTA: Is it just me or does anyone else get the sense
that Matt Drudge is
on the war path against Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Anyone who
visits Drudge knows that the Schwarzenegger's camp absolutely
burned him over the announcement back in early August. Drudge
was touting his "inside sources" that Arnold wouldn't
run right up until the very taping of the Tonight Show. It was
a big miss for Drudge and I'm sure he was furious at being used
(or being fed bad info) and not real inclined to forgive and forget.
Since then
it's been one unflattering headline about Arnold after another
blaring on Drudge's front page. I'm not saying the stories he's
plugging aren't news, but the manner and duration in which he's
presenting these stories - especially this
latest one about accusations from a fellow body builder about
racist comments Arnold made years ago - suggests a conscious effort
to do Schwarzenegger harm.
Drudge's
vendetta may or may not effect the outcome of the election, but
I will tell you this: I watched our local NBC broadcast last night
and toward the end of the show I saw three consecutive stories
that I'm almost certain were pulled straight off Drudge's site.
In other words, I think Drudge has an enormous influence on shaping
what's reported on radio and television stations all across the
country and you can bet anything he decides to profile on the
recall race will crackle through the mainstream media in California
like lightning. He's just not a guy you want to have as an enemy
when you're out trying to win votes, and I think Arnold is definitely
on his list. - T.
Bevan 10:18 am
