Still, I
want to retch over the press' fawning coverage of the compromise,
and of John McCain's leading role in particular (Exhibit A is
David
Broder worshipping at the altar of McCain in this morning's
Washington Post). All of this "we saved the republic"
stuff is too much to take.
I don't question
McCain's motives or his belief that he was doing what he thought
was right. What bothers me is the combination of high-handed arrogance,
naked ambition and all-consuming egocentricity with which he comports
himself. You'll find these qualities in most Senators, it's true,
but it's hard to think of anyone in which they're more pronounced.
Here's another
small yet telling example: yesterday McCain
introduced legislation that would require stricter steroid
testing in professional sports by saying:
"Despite
my clear warning and the significant attention that I and others
in Congress have given to this stain on professional sports,
baseball and other professional leagues have refused to do the
right thing."
God forbid
someone should dare ignore John McCain's warning. There is a sense
of imperiousness in McCain's language here - as well as on the
judicial compromise and other issues- that is tremendously off-putting.
It seems
clear, as Hugh
Hewitt notes this morning in a quote taken from this week's
New Yorker magazine, that McCain has once again fallen
prey to the narcissistic no-no of reading one's own press clippings.
One last
observation. The compromise we witnessed on Monday is a good example
of why Senators don't get elected President. Inevitably they are
put in tough spots that bring into conflict personal views, party
loyalty, electoral ambitions and the obligation to represent their
constituents. The compromise damaged the presidential hopes of
Frist and McCain. George Allen is the only potential candidate
who seemed to have escape unscathed (if not strengthened) by the
ordeal so far. - T. Bevan 10:35pm Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Monday May 23, 2005
THE JUDICIAL COMPROMISE BUS: Will the Senate reach a
compromise over judicial nominations? Nobody knows for sure. One
thing we do know, however, is that if an accord does come to pass
it will involve throwing one or more of Bush's judicial picks
under the bus. Senator Graham confirmed as much yesterday on CNN's
Late Edition, telling Wolf Blitzer that "of the eight
[nominees], I think at least one would be rejected in a bipartisan
way."
One of the
leading candidates to be sacrificed by Senate moderates is William
Myers. The
Denver Post catalogues the demonization of Myers by the
environmental lobby:
Environmental
organizations have tirelessly assembled and categorized every
error, slight or intemperate remark Myers has ever made in his
years of opposing them. And his writings do reveal a strong
skepticism of environmental protection law. In one 1995 article,
for example, Myers scorned "the fallacious belief that
centralized government can promote environmentalism."
Another nominee
whose fate hangs in the balance is Henry Saad. As the Detroit
Free Press points out this morning, Saad is "an unlikely
target for Democrats" and the blocking of his nomination
is, to a large degree, based on simple partisan revenge:
Appointed
to the Court of Appeals by former Gov. John Engler in 1994,
Saad has been endorsed for that position in the past by the
very Democratic UAW. He has Detroit working-class roots, has
counted former UAW President Stephen Yokich as a friend, and
his cousin is married to Democratic Lt. Gov. John Cherry.
Saad
also can't be described as a prototypical darling of Christian
conservatives, the most ardent interest group on the right pushing
for confirmation of Bush's nominees. Although active in Republican
politics and a member of the tradition-minded legal association,
the Federalist Society, Saad has never been identified with
the party's social conservative wing...
Nevertheless,
like all of the disputed nominees, Saad has been regularly described
as a right-wing extremist.
Sens.
Levin and Stabenow have based most of their opposition to the
U.S. 6th Circuit nominees on the Senate's failure to approve
two of President Bill Clinton's nominations to the court before
he left office in January 2001. One of the Clinton nominees,
Appeals Judge Helene White, is married to Levin's cousin and
is believed to have spent more time waiting for a hearing in
the Senate Judiciary Committee than any nominee ever.
Levin
and Stabenow have insisted that Republicans should not be rewarded
with appointments to vacancies that would not exist if Democratic
nominees had not been mistreated earlier. The Michigan senators
have indicated they might agree to allow confirmation votes
on McKeague, Griffin and Neilson if Saad is dumped.
Finally,
there is the case of Priscilla Owen. The
Dallas Morning News reports on how she's been demonized
and her positions terribly mischaracterized by the left:
"She
totally bears no resemblance to this fire-breathing, ideological
judicial activist," said Mr. Black, who calls himself a
fairly liberal Democrat.
"I
would say she is a conservative Republican person, but she has
an extremely healthy sense of boundaries and a sense of what
belongs in the realm of her own faith ... and what belongs in
the realm of public policy," he said....
Linda
Eads, a former Texas deputy attorney general who favors abortion
rights, said the Owen opinions in the abortion cases have been
mischaracterized.
"I
don't know how anybody who knows anything about her judicial
record could do anything but support her for this nomination,"
said Ms. Eads, who now teaches law at SMU.
I'd like
to see "comity" in the Senate just like everybody else.
But does anyone truly believe that sacrificing one or more of
Bush's judicial nominations arbitrarily is going to do anything
other than increase partisan enmity and kick the battle down the
road?
If William
Myers, Henry Saad, Priscilla Owen and the rest are really the
horrible, unqualified partisans that the Democrats say they are,
then Harry Reid should have no problem convincing enough Republicans
to vote them down the old fashioned way.
PAGING
JOHN CONYERS: On
Friday a judge threw out Ohio Atty. Gen. Jim Petro's attempt
to have the lawyers who challenged Bush's victory in Ohio sanctioned
for filing a "meritless claim." Lest you think this
was a victory for John Conyers and the rest of the "Ohio-was-stolen"
crowd, in his ruling the judge characterized the allegations in
the lawsuit as "at best, highly improbable and potentially
defamatory, inflammatory and devoid of logic." Sounds just
about right.
FRANKEN'S
BOMB: Here's
an account of Al Franken at the Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press on May 19:
Then
he [Franken] turned toward The New York Times table in the front
of the room, where sat Judith Miller, best known these days
for two things: her articles on weapons of mass destruction
that didn't quite pan out and the possibility she will go to
jail for not revealing sources in the Valerie Plame case. "Judy,"
Franken said, "maybe you can find some WMD in your cell."
Silence. "OK, I shouldn't have told that joke."
Class act,
that Al Franken. - T. Bevan 12:35pm Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
