Birds of a Feather

The best Japanese monster movies pitted colossal beasts against each other in a climatic battle. Godzilla (especially the Japanese original--sans Raymond Burr) was enjoyable. But King Kong vs. Godzilla was better. Ditto Destroy All Monsters. And though an unwieldy title, Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack is epic. For the most part, the monsters were the good guys.

Not so in reality. When the world's monstrous men embrace, evil spreads and death follows, says Miguel Octavio:

Chavez hugs, cavorts with and embraces bloody Dicator and murderer Mugabe in Rome. Chávez praised Mugabe’s policies, saying the African leader had been “demonized” and that Venezuela was enacting similar reforms to undo “the unfair structures of colonialism.”. This picture and Chavez words are extremely offensive to me and represent the opposite of everything I believe in.. I guess it takes one to know one. Very obscene. (source: Miguel Octavio)

It gets worse. The two met at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome on its 60th anniversary where they were invited to celebrate . . . well, here's Investor's Business Daily's description:

The world body this week invited Zimbabwe's dictator, who starves his own people for political purposes, to its World Food Day — where he compared President Bush to Hitler. We kid you not.

Most of the civilized world recognizes Robert Mugabe as a brutal tyrant responsible for transforming what was once the breadbasket of the African continent into a place of destitution, and dependence on the West. . .

This is a country where government-sanctioned theft of land from white farmers has led to black starvation, and where information about the regime's grain reserves are guarded from the U.N. and the Zimbabwean people in the way terrorist states keep secret their weapons of mass destruction programs.

Someone naive to the U.N.'s ways might expect to see sanctions imposed on Mugabe's regime. Instead, Mugabe was invited to speak to the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome — in spite of a European Union ban on Mugabe's travel.

So the world was treated to the spectacle of a thug — who rules over a country where half the population is undernourished — blaming Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the "two unholy men of our millennium," for the Third World's woes.

In his speech extolling Zimbabwe's land-confiscation policy, Mugabe compared Bush and Blair's partnership in the war against terrorism to that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in World War II. . .

Also on hand at the celebration was Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, who used the occasion to accuse the U.S. and our allies of threatening "all life on the planet." Chavez praised Mugabe's policies, and said Venezuela was enacting similar "reforms." Mugabe and Chavez were photographed embracing happily, like the two birds of a feather they are.

On his UN-provided platform, Mugabe also:

gestured to his fellow African, FAO Director General Jacques Diouf of Senegal, saying: "I thank you for defying him. You have gone against the grain of some of Zimbabwe's enemies." . . .

At this point, Mugabe began beating his chest. "I say, small as I am, I have a soul. I have a heart. I have a conscience. And I will not allow anything that is untoward to happen to my people.

Except, of course, evicting white farmers, seizing their land, destroying the economy (70 percent unemployment), defaulting on loans, rigging elections and the constitution via bribery, demolishing city housing and businesses with bulldozers to scatter potential political opponents, and, oh yeah, rape, torture and starvation until death. The good news: Bashing Bush and Blair is a step forward--previously, Mugabe blamed the Jews.

But wait, says IBD:

There's still more to this surreal gallows humor, with black Africans the victims: the U.N.'s World Food Programme soon plans to provide rations to a third of the population of Zimbabwe, perhaps as many as 4 million in need of food. . .

The United States alone has donated nearly $300 million worth of food to Zimbabwe since 2002, and it's hard to see how a single penny of that aid did not go to waste.

Neither the UN nor the West nor Africans will intervene to stop the genocide.

Hugo Chavez also spoke and:

praised Mugabe's land reform, saying the African leader had been "demonized" and that similar reforms were being enacted in his own country.

The Venezuelan leader used his speech to rail against woes that he blamed on rich countries -- including climate change, agricultural trade barriers and debt interest payments by developing nations. He called for wealthy nations to cancel debt, or give poor countries a grace period of at least a year on the interest payments.

In July, Chavez began nationalizing private sector businesses, "136 [firms] were being examined for possible expropriation and a small number were already in the process of being taken over." Last month, Chavez started changing the language:

Broadcasting his weekly Sunday TV programme from a recently-seized farm, Mr Chavez called on ranch owners to negotiate with the government. "We are not carrying out expropriation, this belongs to the nation, to the state," he said at the Marquesena farm.

This gobbledygook fools anti-American leftists, the MSM and racial pimps. Meanwhile, ordinary Venezuelans lose their rights, their money, their property, their incentives, and their safety net. Ignored by the press, the people either suffer in poverty or, if possible, emigrate.

So what's the punch line? According to the BBC, AFP and CNN, at the UN meeting in Rome, "The verbal attacks by Chavez and Mugabe drew cheers and applause from many of the delegates." Unlike the movies, reality features dozens of monsters--all villains.

(via Publius Pundit, twice, LGF and Light Seeking Light, twice)

Leftists Don't Listen

Lefties don't know Iraqis--who are far more optimistic about their country than anti-Bush Democrats and media, says Middle East Quarterly editor Michael Rubin in today's WSJ:

The referendum capped a constitutional drafting process over which Western commentators and diplomats had been quick to panic. They misunderstand that with freedom comes politics. . .

Many U.S. policy makers worry that disgruntled Sunnis may turn to violence if their demands aren't met. But there is no evidence to support the conventional wisdom that insurgent violence is tied to the political process. Insurgents have not put forward any platform. By denying the legitimacy of the state, pan-Islamic rhetoric is a greater affront to Iraqi nationalism than the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil. . .

[T]he constitution represents the type of social and political compromise lacking through the Arab world. Members of the Constitutional Drafting Commission and Iraqi power brokers spent months debating and canvassing constituents. . . These Iraqi petitioners voiced interests and demands diametrically opposed to each other. Consensus was not always possible, but compromise was. As with the constitution, the nature of compromise is a result ideal to none but fair to all.

The referendum result again demonstrates that American policy- and opinion-makers are more pessimistic than are Iraqis. Part of the problem is that Pentagon officials and journalists alike chart Iraq's success through misguided metrics. Counting car bombs does not demonstrate progress or lack thereof in Iraq. Objective indicators show that Iraqis have confidence that did not exist prior to liberation.

According to Rubin, the Islamic Iraqi Diaspora is returning home and the Iraqi Dinar -- which floats freely on international currency markets -- has been stable (at around 1470 Dinars to the Dollar) since the January 30th interim elections. Put differently, Iraq is anything but a "failed state."

Publius Pundit's Robert Mayer is hopeful:

It’s tough building a free and democratic nation, and we all know that. But we’re keen on making it succeed and helping the Iraqis make it succeed. With preliminary results looking in favor of a YES vote, I’m ready to breathe my sigh of relief, wipe the sweat of my forehead, and get ready for the next big day. Whether the Iraqis voted YES or NO this time around, December 15 is the next election for either a new temporary National Assembly or a full four year parliament. These next few months will be ones to marvel at.

Also at Publius Pundit, Daniel Holt deconstructs the dour disconnect:

[W]hat motivates those Western individuals who are palpably hoping for a “No” vote? I assume they’re making the same mistake as the Sunni and foreign terrorists, believing that this would further the division of Iraq and demonstrate some mistake or other of the Bush administration. On this view, a refusal of the constitution would be a seemingly desirable thing to them, although in the end it would lead to a great deal of bloodshed. If I’m correct, that doesn’t say a lot for the current “anti-war” movement, aligning itself with a bunch of nutjob murderers, and regardless of intent promoting a view that’s hopeful for an extremely violent outcome.

MaxedOutMama correctly contends the left's Jihad wing doesn't value "the dignity and inherent rights of the individual human being." Dr. Sanity properly is dumbfounded by those who "blame [them]selves for [radical Islam's] barbaric and religiously-motivated behavior."¹ Pedro at the Quietist says Western radicals see Islamic radicals with "red" colored glasses:

For those without any sense of the importance of individual dignity and value, Marxism then becomes a panacea, the ultimate way to simplify the messy and crude 'capitalism' that is such a convenient and easy whipping boy.

It is absurd to witness leftist academics continue to insist that -- contrary to everything the Islamicist fundamentalists say about themselves, their goals, and their motives -- their REAL grievance has to do with economic injustice, defined (remarkably!) as exactly the kind of issues and concerns that leftist intellectuals discuss in faculty lounges. (What a coincidence!)

University of Western Ontario professor Salim Mansur concurs and reproaches ignorance of history, in Saturday's Toronto Sun:

[T]here are legions of Americans and Europeans, with supporters elsewhere in other continents, who are wilfully blind and deaf to the reality of radical Islam that Bush has sought to make plain in his public remarks.

They continue to insist that the violence of Muslim terrorists, despite being despicable, must yet be explained by reference to some "root causes" linked with the history of Western colonial imperialism.

Hence, these "useful idiots" (in Lenin's memorable phrase)² give pause to the vast majority of Muslims -- in particular those in North America and Europe -- whose silence in the face of evil feeds the bloodlust of Muslim terrorists.

Bush is right when he says the "murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century." It can only be met successfully, however, if we have learned sufficiently from 20th-century history.

Agreed.
________________________

¹ I recommend a Dr. Sanity post from July:

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ISLAM except insofar that people of that faith want to destroy me, my family, my country and my way of life. For more than 50 years of my life, Islam and I got along famously. I completely ignored it; and praise be to Allah, it completely ignored me.

After September 11th, I no longer had that option.

² Dr. Mansur's "useful idiots" bin includes "British MP George Galloway and Michael Moore, the duplicitous American filmmaker."

Edited 5:15pm

Bush Policies Are A Changing?

Could the Administration be moving away from amnesty and temporary workers?:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department aims without exception to expel all those who enter the United States illegally.

"Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions

"It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year," Chertoff told a Senate hearing.

America is a nation of immigrants, and better for it--but that doesn't mean open borders. The late Sonny Bono was asked about his position on illegal immigration. He paused, then replied: "What's to talk about? It's illegal."

Let's hope that sort of straight-talking is permanent.

More:

Bernard at A Certain Slant of Light -- my source on immigration issues -- dismisses the testimony as "just more of the same."

(via The Corner)

Brits Do Iraq

Supposedly, the Royal Dragoon Guards, based at Al Faw, were homesick for . . . Amarillo?

Frum-Raising

Anti-Miers efforts have moved from blogs to Op-Eds to a political campaign, according to influential magazine The Hill:

Influential conservatives who oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court are raising money to escalate their campaign to persuade her to withdraw from consideration.

The White House has sought to corral conservative support and has succeeded in forging alliances with prominent leaders such as Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

But many conservative intellectuals and the rank and file remain adamantly opposed to President Bush’s choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who helped coin the phrase “axis of evil,” is coordinating the anti-Miers fundraising effort.

The first phase of the campaign is estimated to cost between $50,000 and $100,000. Frum declined to comment on how or when the money might be spent, whether on newspaper, radio or Internet advertisements.

He said underwriters had expressed an interest in putting up the money and he had planned to go back to them when he and other strategists decided the best way to spend it.

Read the whole thing.

Reynolds to Bush: "Think About" Withdrawing

Ok, I lied--only bacause Instapundit moves closer to opposing Miers in Tuesday's WSJ (subscription only):

The Bush administration has made two kinds of mistakes with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. One kind is substantive, the other procedural.

The substantive mistakes have to do with Ms. Miers's qualifications, including her current position. It's entirely possible, of course, that if confirmed, Ms. Miers will become a stellar Supreme Court justice; history has produced surprises before. Earl Warren, after all, was a politician, and expected to be easily manipulated by the court's brighter intellects. William J. Brennan, Jr., was a state judge of no special reputation when Eisenhower nominated him, yet he so came to dominate the Court that some observers referred to the early Rehnquist Court as the "Brennan Court." Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove a similar surprise, though conservatives may not find the examples of Warren and Brennan entirely comforting.

Nonetheless, after the John Roberts nomination, people on both the left and right had high expectations for the next nominee, and President Bush has managed to dash those. Ms. Miers, while possessed of a respectable résumé, is not the kind of star that people expected. But the most serious problem with her can be found in the most recent line on her résumé, the one that reads "White House counsel." The path from the counsel's office to the Supreme Court is not well-trodden, and for good reason.

Despite charges of cronyism, Ms. Miers is not simply the president's crony, but his lawyer -- formerly his personal attorney, and now his presidential attorney. This has already given rise to paranoid theories from the left to the effect that Mr. Bush is trying to protect himself from prosecution growing out of the Plame affair or the Iraq war. These theories are unlikely, not least because Ms. Miers's current position would probably disqualify her from hearing precisely those kinds of cases. And even if she were not disqualified, there might be doubts about her objectivity that would undermine the court's reputation.

But that's only the half the trouble. The tendency in recent years to nominate judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court has led to a certain amount of politicking and positioning by appellate judges who think they have a shot. That's bad, but surely it would be far worse if future White House counsels started letting hopes of a court nomination distort advice they offer the president.

No More Blogging Tonite

They were one strike away. . .

QOTW

Best of the Web's James Taranto:

The reality is that President Bush's legacy will be judged on two things: whether America is successful in Iraq, and, if so, whether success in Iraq helps promote democracy and discourage terrorism elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

If the former happens, history will recognize Bush as a near-great president; if the latter, as a great one. That's why Bush's foes in politics and in the media, here in America and overseas, have, with unseemly eagerness and impatience, embraced the idea that America is destined to fail in Iraq. And it is why they have to be feeling pretty blue after Saturday's successful constitutional referendum in Iraq.

Bush is right. Next stop, greatness. Assuming, of course, Harriet fades away.

Consider the Source

Former NY Times reporter Alex Jones -- now head of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University -- about Times reporter Judy Miller; her mistakes on the Iraq beat got Miller assigned to cover the White House, making her a key figure in "Plame-gate":

If the New York Times does not trust Judy Miller to do stories in her area of expertise, what do they trust her to do, and why should we trust what she does? She's a great, energetic talent, but investigative reporters need to be managed very closely, and her characterization of herself as Miss Run Amok is something an institution like the New York Times can't afford.

Smiley Faces Are So "70s"

Paul Deignan at Info-Theory defends anti-Miers conservatives from "happy station" conservatives. Paul and I are pure ninth-circle. What circle are you?

I don't care as much about whether Harriet's anti-Roe--what matters is her reasoning and her writing. Both of which are MIA.

Miers Oppositum Est.

Rockn' With Right

I've discovered a great new anthem: Bush Was Right, by the Right Brothers. A free 1 minute preview is here; the full MP3 can be downloaded for $0.99 here.

It's well worth it. I've looped it for two days, pausing only for sleep and sports. The lyrics, written by Frank Highland, follow:

Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban
Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama’s staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out
America won’t turn and run once the fighting has begun
Libya turns over nukes, Lebanese want freedom, too
Syria is forced to leave, don’t you know that all this means

Chorus
Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Democracy is on the way, hitting like a tidal wave
All over the middle east, dictators walk with shaky knees
Don’t know what they’re gonna do, their worst nightmare is coming true
They fear the domino effect, they’re all wondering who’s next

Repeat Chorus

Ted Kennedy – wrong!
Cindy Sheehan – wrong!
France – wrong!
Zell Miller – right!

Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive
Angry liberals can't believe it's cause of W's policies
Unemployment's staying down, Democrats are wondering how
Revenue is going up, can you say "Tax Cuts"

Repeat Chorus

Cheney was right, Condi was right, Rummy was right, Blair was right
You were right, we were right, “The Right” was right and

Bush was right
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Pay the man.

Conservative Mags on Miers

MORE: Condi drinks the Kool-Aid?

• The Weekly Standard: Editor William Kristol is anti Miers. So are two of his writers. First, London Times reporter and WS contributor Gerard Baker:

  It is not just that she is so obviously unfit to hold the office of associate justice of the Supreme Court, though she is certainly that. It is the simple, depressing lack of seriousness demonstrated by the White House in coming up with such a candidate, the sheer cramped and occluded smallness of the thinking that now seems to characterize the Bush administration's approach to governing.
  
  It is hard to overstate the mood of demoralization among conservatives in America. The rising tide of disillusionment is ready to break the dam of loyalty. . .
  
  The trouble with Harriet is that it's the conception that's all wrong. For decades conservatives in America have had to put up with a judiciary that clings obstinately to the verities of New Deal and Great Society liberalism; activist, interventionist judges repeatedly "finding" new constitutional rights that fit with their own political outlook. At last, President Bush had an opportunity to reverse that. Three months ago, he picked John Roberts to be first an associate of the nine member court, and then chief justice. It is hard to think of someone who better personifies the conservative's ideal of what a judge should be--brilliant, experienced, humble, wedded to the juridical principles of limited government.
  
  And then along comes Miers to fill the spot on the Court that could prove to be the pivotal one, the position that could change the direction of American jurisprudence for decades.

  Next, Jonathan Last in a Philadelphia Inquirer Op-Ed:

  [E]ven Republicans who support Miers can't but be embarrassed by the nominee. Last week, Arlen Specter told the New York Times that Miers "needs a crash course in constitutional law" - a subject the Supreme Court addresses from time to time - while Dan Coats, Miers' confirmation sherpa, skated up to the Hruska line by telling CNN that "if [being a] great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole." . . .
  
  The near unanimity of conservative thinkers against the Miers appointment shows that conservatives are willing to stand on principle. By and large, their opposition has been independent of politics. One could reasonably expect that Miers will vote roughly with Chief Justice John G. Roberts. But the worry from conservatives isn't that Miers is another David Souter. It's that they think the Supreme Court deserves better than a serial flatterer who earnestly tells people Bush was "the best governor ever" and "the most brilliant man" she's ever met, one who "votes right." . . .
  
  By standing up to Harriet Miers, conservatives have proven that they've still got life in them - and ensured that they'll still be relevant long after President Bush retires to Crawford.

  Finally, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff worries, in last week's Standard, what rejecting Harriet might wrought:

  [T]he politics of the confirmation process tell us that a standard under which conservative senators vote against nominees in, say, the Sandra Day O'Connor mold, is a standard that might well lead non-conservative senators (that is to say a majority) to vote against the next Antonin Scalia.

• The National Review: Like the Standard, NR's editors oppose Miers. Unlike the Standard, National Review's launched an on-line petition calling for Harriet's withdraw. NR's John Podhoretz scoffs:

  [T]here's absolutely no reason to think that Harriet Miers will withdraw her own name or that President Bush will withdraw it. If my dear friend David Frum's petition ends up with 50,000 names on it, that won't change things a whit.

  But NR's White House correspondent Byron York predicts a tough Senate battle:

  [T]here is no doubt that the Miers nomination has sewn discord and discontent among the groups that are nominally in favor of her confirmation. The groups hold a daily strategy conference call which, in the last ten days, has at times become contentious. "We've all had some fairly nasty exchanges," says one person familiar with the calls. In such an environment, name-calling is not terribly unusual. For example, one conservative said of Progress for America, "They are a bunch of political hacks and they do what the White House wants. You could nominate Humpty Dumpty for the Supreme Court, and they'd be out arguing for Humpty Dumpty." That's not the kind of thing one hears in a well organized, unified movement.

• American Spectator: Editor R. Emmett Tyrrell supports Miers, seemingly reluctantly:

  I do not mean to say that there are not potential high court nominees more qualified than Miers. Moreover, for two decades the conservative movement has developed a community of fine legal minds ready and able to do as well against the haranguers of the Senate Judiciary Committee as the suddenly exalted John Roberts. One need look no farther than the Federalist Society. Yet the intensity of this row has grown out of all proportion to the President's oversights. . .
  
  The criteria for a Supreme Court nominee have historically been: (A) proven facility with the law and (B) personal integrity. That is the argument most conservatives have made ever since liberals politicized the selection process starting with Judge Robert Bork. Surely Miers has shown facility with the law and if she lacks integrity it will be revealed very soon. We have all argued that a justice's personal beliefs are not relevant. All a justice does is apply the law -- as written by legislators -- to each case under consideration. Judge Roberts returned to this truth repeatedly during his torture before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If Miers is capable, she will hold to this fundamental truth and be nominated.
  
  Were the Republicans to overthrow the principles they solemnly defended during the Roberts hearing and sink Miers' nomination, the consequence would be anarchy in subsequent Senate hearings and a messy victory for partisan Democrats. The Republicans have claimed the principle that barring maleficent revelations a president should be granted his nominee for the federal judiciary. If they were to join the Democrats in contradicting their own sensible principle and thwarting the President, the partisan Democrats would be justified in voting down any future conservative nominee. That would mean raising to the Supreme Court only nominees of their choice or, as I say, anarchy.¹

  On the other hand, Andrew Cline, who runs the editorial page at the Manchester Union Leader wrote the best anti-Miers article I've read in the Spectator last week. And John Tabin's piece from Friday is pretty good:

  The more we learn about Harriet Miers, the less there is to like. David Brooks wrote yesterday that in her "President's Opinion" column that Miers wrote for the Texas Bar Journal, "the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian." . . . Okay, so Miers can't write. On the Supreme Court she'd have clerks to help her with that. . .
  
  When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, most Republican senators deferred to Bill Clinton on the principle that elections have consequences, and Clinton had won an election after pledging to nominate liberal judges. But George W. Bush pledged to nominate conservative judges. Don't Senators owe at least as much deference to Bush's constituents as they do to Bush himself?
  
  If Harriet Miers joins the Court and turns out, as I fear she will, to be weak on a number of constitutional issues and consistently strong only on abortion, it will create new and worrisome political rifts on the Right. When judicial conservatives can no longer be sure that an anti-Roe judge will be fairly strong across the board, they will begin to part ways with their social conservative allies. Before supporting Miers, conservative senators should think carefully about whether loyalty to the President is worth the potentially devastating results for the conservative movement.

I understand the concerns of Tyrrell, Hewitt and Mirengoff. I just think they're palpably misplaced and slyly misapplied: Scalia -- formerly a law professor at Virginia and Chicago, then a D.C. Circuit judge for four years -- plainly was more capable and suitable when nominated than Harriet is today. When applied to Democrats, nothing changes. Despite being a liberal former ACLU general counsel, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was qualified for the job. I supported her confirmation--but would have opposed David Kendall, had President Clinton been foolish enough to nominate his lawyer.

Pro-Miers conservatives deploy a scare-tactic straw-man unrelated to the principle involved. Opposing Miers will prevent future Kendalls--without obstructing future Ginsburgs or Scalias. What's wrong with that?

Miers Oppositum Est.

MORE:

Secretary of State Rice endorsed Harriet Miers. So National Review Online editor "K Lo" (Kathryn Jean Lopez) bailed on Condi in 2008.

STILL MORE:

Departing from his usual populist nonsense, Pat Buchanan gets it right:

The problem with Bush's selection process is this: He included so many extraneous disqualifiers that he eliminated all of the most qualified. In the hallowed name of "diversity," excellence was thrown out the window.

_____________

¹ Pro-Miers chieftain Hugh Hewitt makes the same point in the (Christian perspective) World Magazine:

[M]any so-called conservatives have eagerly embraced the weapons of borking, originally forged on anvils of the left, for use in their crusade against Harriet Miers, even though she is pro-life, pro-gun, and loyal to the president. Those tactics? Anonymous allegations of intellectual deficiency, rumors of scandals as yet unrevealed, hints of jurisprudential unreliability, and—of course—relentless personal attacks.

It will be difficult for conservatives to object in the future to the employ of such tactics against nominees they favor. Similarly, the demand laid down by some on the right for a "paper trail" and certainty on judicial philosophy will morph into a demand by Senate Democrats for the same, and the objections mounted in the past to various lines of questioning will certainly sound hollow coming from any pundit denouncing Ms. Miers now for her purported lack of an "overarching" judicial philosophy.

(via Right Wing News, Patterico, Hugh Hewitt, reader appell8 and Stan)

Constitutional

Iraq's draft Constitution apparently got a thumbs up this weekend. Iraqis are overjoyed--as are free peoples everywhere:

The polling went off without a hitch. Security was maintained. Sunni participation went up.

Indeed, as Strategy Page noted, the anti-democracy terrorists were unable to disrupt the process:

The government is getting better at running national elections under the threat of terrorist attacks. The legislative elections last January had fewer than ten million people voting (69 percent of those registered), and over 40 people killed by terrorists opposed to the elections. This vote, on the new constitution, brought out over ten million, and left fewer than ten dead.

So everybody's happy, right? Wrong--much of the MSM predicted otherwise; now they're grumpy:

• Sameer Yacoub, Associated Press Writer:

  Iraq's constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday, despite strong opposition from Sunni Arabs who voted in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it. The U.S. military announced that five American soldiers were killed by a bomb blast on referendum day. . .
  
  Now the question is whether Sunnis will accept the passage of a constitution despite a significant "no" vote from their community. While moderates could take a more active role in politics, hard-liners could turn to the insurgency, deciding that violence is the only hope for retaining influence.

• Dexter Filkins and John Burns in the NY Times:

  Turnout Is Mixed as Iraqis Cast Votes on Constitution
  BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 15 - Millions of Iraqis streamed to the polls Saturday to vote on a new constitution, joined by what appeared to be strong turnouts of Sunni voters in some parts of the country.
  
  But the Sunni turnout - high in some cities like Mosul, low in others like Ramadi - appeared to be insufficient to defeat the new charter, and Iraqi officials predicted that it would pass.

No wonder Blue-State liberals are so intractable: those who read only one paper (Sunday Washington Post headline: "On the Streets of Iraq, Scenes of Joy and Determination"), specifically the NY Times, and assume the Times still employs fact-checkers don't have an f-ing clue.

(via Instapundit and LGF)

R.I.P. Ed

After a long struggle with leukemia, Kobayashi Maru's brother Ed died Friday morning:

Last night we toasted to Ed's life, circled 'round the bed. His wife put a drop of his favorite single malt scotch (The Macallan) on his lips. At that, he raised the corner of his mouth in the way he always did when he grinned mischievously, then moved his tongue side-to-side to indicate he was there with us, enjoying the moment - and the whisky. That was a huge effort on his part, but there was no ambiguity. He was still there - a small, low pilot light. . .

He waited until I got up this morning to give him his regular meds, a little after 8:30AM... a third night of fitful sleep... waiting; 'til we lifted the window shades to let in the morning light; 'til our parents arrived. My mother touched his arm and his breathing simply... stopped. Free at last. His wife and my little niece (age five) were right there at his side in his own bed at home, all of us around him, reciting prayers together. Not bad. Not bad at all.

God be with Ed--and with Ed's brother.

Chris Muir on Certainty

Like me, he's pretty certain about it:



(source: Day by Day, Oct. 1)

Even Brits Are Suspicious

The Lexington column in the October 15th Economist :

[T]the real question about Mr Bush's appointment of Ms Miers is not whether it is cronyism, but whether he has stepped over the line that separates business-as-usual from offensive favouritism. A definitive answer to that question may not be clear for years. But the early signs are that he has overstepped, and done so in a clumsy way.

The reason for this is simple: a seat on the Supreme Court is a very different thing from even the most elevated job in the White House. The court is the summit of the third branch of government and its justices serve for life rather than just at the president's pleasure. Mr Bush is not the first president to nominate a close friend to the court—FDR nominated Felix Frankfurter, who turned out to be a good choice, and Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who resigned from the bench under a cloud—but both were defensible in terms of intellect and experience.

There is little evidence that Ms Miers passes this test. Conservatives such as George Will say she would not have made anybody's list of the top 100 conservative lawyers in the country. The implication is that even if she turns out to be a conservative fellow-traveller (which they doubt) she won't have the intellectual weight to shape the court. As for the White House's feeble defence of her qualifications, it brings to mind the infamous justification for Richard Nixon's nominee, Harold Carswell: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?”

Miers Oppositum Est.

WFB on Harriet

National Review's editors thought it over--and still don't like her:

Miers’s supporters argue that her conservatism is reflected in the judicial picking she allegedly did for President Bush. Most of this work was, however, done before she became counsel. They say that she is pro-life. . .They say that she has a strong evangelical faith. But neither being pro-life or an evangelical is a reliable guide to what kind of jurisprudence she would produce, even on Roe, let alone on other issues.

Then there is the related issue of qualification. She has had real accomplishments. But it speaks volumes that the president cited her service on a lottery commission as a reason to put her on the Supreme Court. Some of the president’s supporters have argued that excellence does not matter in a Supreme Court nominee — that really any one of 50,000 lawyers could adequately do the job. This is unconvincing on its face. But if a refutation is needed, consider the career of Harry Blackmun. Here was a judge described even by his admiring biographer Linda Greenhouse as intellectually insecure. Like Miers, he too was devoted to local establishments: the Mayo clinic in his case rather than the ABA. Sure he was a loyal Republican; but almost as soon as he arrived on the Court, he was transformed.

So, we have reason to fear, will be the case with Miers. And even if she does not become a Blackmun, her record strongly suggests she will be an O’Connor — a split-the-difference judge. As one of her former colleagues has said of her, Miers’s office was the “place where the action stopped and the hand-wringing began.” If she follows that course, we will be left with a Court that retains immense and inappropriate lawmaking power but refuses to make clear laws. The rule of law is based on the making of arguments and the giving of reasons, not on sentiment or group loyalty — which is the basis on which Miers’s defenders want us to support her.

Also, Right Side Redux assembled a table of Harriet arguments -- pro and con; strong and questionable -- packed with hyperlinks.

Recruiting in September

As I've noted before, the supposed "recruiting crisis" is a myth. Indeed, active duty recruiting increased for the third straight month:


(source: DOD News Release No. 1034-05 (Oct. 11, 2005))
Over the fiscal year ending in September, other than the Army (92 percent) all services met or exceeded their active duty recruiting targets. In total, "the services signed up 163,259 new active-duty enlisted members between Oct. 1, 2004, and Sept. 30, 2005."

Moreover, contrary to biased media reports, the Iraq war hasn't depressed morale. During the past 12 months:

[T]he Army, Marine Corps and Air Force all exceeded their annual retention goals for fiscal 2005, according to DoD statistics. The Navy achieved a 91 percent retention rate for its mid-career sailors.

As Christian Lowe observes in the Weekly Standard, "retention is at an all-time high. The soldiers and Marines fighting the war on terror at boot-level like their job and want to stay." In fact, "re-enlist rates are especially high among units that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Reserve forces recruiting also was good, led by the Air Force Reserve (178 percent of target), and four of the five remaining components between 94 and 109 percent of predictions. Only the Naval Reserve fell significantly short, at 70 percent. And National Guard recruiters are optimistic for FY06.

Surprisingly, the ultra-liberal Seattle Post-Intelligencer gets it about right. Elsewhere, readers see only MSM lies and leftist fairy tales. So much for journalistic ethics and reality-based liberals.

What He Said

I've argued the issue before, but Andrew Cline in the American Spectator says it best:

[R]ead conservative columnists, editors, and bloggers, and it becomes immediately clear what the principle objection is: She might or might not be politically conservative, but nobody knows if she is legally conservative.

There is a difference between being politically conservative and being legally conservative. A political conservative might believe in limiting government and maintaining social traditions, but few conservatives would argue that those beliefs qualify one for a seat on the Supreme Court. Unlike liberals, who want the court to be another branch of representative government, conservatives want the court to fulfill its traditional role as an applier -- not interpreter -- of the Constitution. Simply voting for Ronald Reagan does not qualify a person to become one of only nine Americans entrusted with the Constitution's care.

If conservatives thought as liberals do, they would not be so unhappy with the Miers nomination. But conservatives don't want a Supreme Court justice to "represent" them on the courts. They don't conceive of the judiciary that way. The Supreme Court's nine seats are not to be divided up according to political, racial, sexual or any other representative criteria. They are to be given to the nine Americans most capable of protecting the Constitution from political attack. Harriet Miers is not on that list. . .

What conservatives really want is a court made up of America's brightest legal minds. They have a different view than liberals do of what makes a bright legal mind, of course. But legal reasoning -- not political belief -- is the all-important criterion.

The President promised; he didn't deliver. What's wrong with saying so?

More:

Bernard at A Certain Slant of Light:

We're told such things as Harriet Miers is a deeply religious person, very detail-oriented, a bulldog litigator, and a staunch loyalist of the president, but how do these sorts of accolades translate into her being someone in the Scalia-Thomas mold and a strict constructionist/originalist?

(via GOP Bloggers)

Ephemerally Elected

I've surfed lightly lately, and didn't carefully read this, posted Tuesday. I love her dearly, but I'm concerned MaxedOutMama's flipped her wig:

I can't blame the president, because he is doing what the Constitution says he should. If I were stuck in his position, I would probably nominate someone like Carl, who I knew and trusted, but a person who came from a non-judicial background and was a stealth candidate - because there must be judges, and the Supreme Court bids fair to wreck our country if it continues in the same course it has been on.

Were I judicial philosopher-king, I'd reverse Grutter, Roper, Lawrence, Romer, McConnell, Rotary Club, Raich and Metro Broadcasting. Metro, Justice Brennan's last majority opinion, remains a poke in eye of the First Amendment (and some of my clients)--better vacate it too.

That's my first five minutes. In the next five, I'd be impeached and convicted. No soup for me. MaxedOutMama, the President and the Senate, would be better served by Janice Rogers Brown.

"I Know It When I See It"1

Pro-Miers lawyer/law professor/author/radio host/blogger Hugh Hewitt strolls down memory lane:

The first President Bush was, I think, close friends with Justice Potter Stewart, who rose to SCOTUS after four years as a federal judge, and who, notably, retired at the age of 66. Stewart's opinions were pointed, and usually correct in my view. His job was to get it right, not construct overarching theories. How will Harriet Miers turn out on the SCOTUS? My best guess is a lot like Potter Stewart, in temperment and tone, and in results.

Patterico's response (emphasis in original) is spot-on:

That’s exactly what I’m afraid of. In terms of results, Potter Stewart voted to uphold abortion rights and strike down the death penalty, to name two of his disappointing decisions. In terms of temperament, the way he went about making his decisions was often rooted in pure arrogance.

Nominated by President Eisenhower (a Republican), Justice Stewart was the O'Connor of the 60s and 70s; indeed, O'Connor succeeded to Stewart's chair in 1981. Like O'Connor, Stewart preferred narrow, fact-based rulings over wide-ranging precedent, famously exemplified by his definition of obscenity, quoted in the title.

Like O'Connor, Stewart also was a "political" justice. Noting that Stewart joined the majority in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),² Patterico quotes The Brethren's account of Stewart's judicial philosophy:

Abortion was a political issue. Women were coming into their own, as Stewart learned from his daughter Harriet, a strong, independent woman. . . The public was ready for abortion reform.

Still, these were issues of the very sort that made Stewart uncomfortable. Precisely because of their political nature, the Court should avoid them. But [you knew there was a “but” coming, didn’t you? — [Patterico]] the state legislatures were always so far behind. Few seemed likely to amend their abortion laws. Much as Stewart disliked the Court’s being involved in this kind of controversy, this was perhaps an instance where it had to be involved.

Yuk. For a half-century, conservatives dreamed of returning the Court to the founders' job description: interpreting law, not inventing policy. And like O'Connor, Stewart's policy-making decisions are poorly reasoned.

Hugh Hewitt is the best-known pro-Miers conservative. He was Assistant White House Counsel under President Reagan, and so knows the skills needed in Miers's present job. I admire and respect him. So it's revealing that Hewitt's "best guess" backing likens Miers to Potter Stewart.

Six years ago, Governor Bush explained how President Bush would vet judicial nominees:

[L]et me tell you what I'd like to know. I'd like to know are we compatible from a philosophical perspective on a wide range of issues. But the most important view I want to know is are you a strict constructionist, Mr. Jurist? Will you strictly interpret the Constitution or will you use your bench as a way to legislate?

As Patterico shows, Justice Stewart supported non-textual rights. And according to liberal lion Bob Woodward, Stewart embraced judicial legislation. If Harriet's the reincarnation of Potter, the President broke his promise. Hugh Hewitt's advocacy is the best evidence yet Hewitt's wrong.

Miers Oppositum Est.
____________

¹ Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring).

² Justice Stewart dissented when Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965), read "emanations" from "penumbras" to establish an unwritten privacy right. Eight years later, Stewart signed both Blackmun's Roe majority and issued a concurring opinion explicitly basing the abortion right on Lochner-type non-textual extensions of the 14th Amendment's due process clause: "Griswold stands as one in a long line of pre-Skrupa cases decided under the doctrine of substantive due process, and I now accept it as such." Roe, 410 U.S. at 168.

Note: minor edits 9:30pm

Polls

Both Instapundit and Professor Bainbridge are polling Harriet Miers. The results -- Harriet's losing -- are here and here.

More:

Results of a WSJ poll:




(source: Wall Street Journal)

Still More:

In addition to Frank at Common Sense Junction, Paul Deignan at Info-Theory is tracking blogs for/against the Miers confirmation. And don't miss John Hawkins's round-up of quotes about Miers.

(via A Certain Slant of Light)

Woke-Up-In-Middle-of-Night Round-Up

Ann Coulter:

Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school.

Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a woman?

I don't know when Republicans became the party that condescends to women, but I am not at all happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880. And by the way, even in 1880, Miers would not have been the "most qualified" of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which there were 75.

By 1950, there were more than 6,000 women lawyers, three female partners at major law firms and three female federal judges. She may be a nut who belonged to a subversive organization, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated first in her class from Columbia Law School — and that was before Harriet Miers was applying to law school.

Women have been graduating at the top of their classes at the best law schools for 50 years. Today, women make up about 45 percent of the students at the nation's top law schools (and more than 50 percent at all law schools).

Which brings us to the other enraging argument being made by the Bush administration and its few remaining defenders — the claim of "elitism." I also don't know when the Republican Party stopped being the party of merit and excellence and became the party of quotas and lying about test scores, but I don't like that development either.

The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a differential IQ experts routinely refer to as "big-ass" or "humongous." Whatever else you think of them, the average Harvard Law School student is very smart. I gather I have just committed a hate crime by saying so.

Peggy Noonan in Thursday's WSJ:

Can this marriage be saved? George W. Bush feels dissed and unappreciated: How could you not back me? Conservatives feel dissed and unappreciated: How could you attack me? Both sides are toe to toe. One senses that the critics will gain, as they've been gaining, and that the White House is on the losing side. If the administration had a compelling rationale for Harriet Miers's nomination, they would have made it. Simply going at their critics was not only destructive, it signaled an emptiness in their arsenal. If they had a case they'd have made it. "You're a sexist snob" isn't a case; it's an insult, one that manages in this case to be both startling and boring. . .

When George H.W. Bush chose Mr. Quayle to be his vice presidential candidate, the 41-year-old junior senator from Indiana should have said, "Thanks, but I'm not ready. Someday I will be, but I have more work to do in Congress and frankly more growing to do as a human being before I indulge any national ambitions." This would have been great because it was true. When his staff leaked what he'd said, a shocked Washington would have concurred, conceding his wisdom and marking him for better things. He'd probably have run for president in 2000. He could be president now.

The best way to do the modified Quayle comes from Mickey Kaus: "How about appointing Miers to a federal appeals court? She's qualified. Bush could say that while he knows Miers he understands others' doubts--and he knows she will prove over a couple of years what a first-rate judge she is. Then he hopes to be able to promote her. Semi-humilating, but less humiliating than the alternatives. And not a bad job to get. . . . Miers could puncture the tension with one smiling crack about being sent to the minors. The collective sigh of national relief would drown out the rest of her comments." That's thinking.

If Ms. Miers did what Mr. Quayle didn't do--heck, she could wind up on the Supreme Court.

John Fund in Thursday's WSJ:

The vetting of Harriet Miers leaves questions that demand answers, not more spin or allegations that critics are "sexist" or "elitist." It was so botched and riddled with conflicts of interest that it demands at a minimum an internal White House investigation to ensure it won't happen again.

Not only did the vetting fail to anticipate skepticism about her lack of experience in constitutional law or the firestorm of criticism from conservatives, but it left the White House scrambling to provide reporters with even the most basic information about the closed-mouthed nominee. Almost every news story seemed to catch the White House off guard and unprepared.

The skepticism is not abating. Back home, the Liberty Legal Institute, the only conservative legal foundation in Texas, has declined to endorse her. Several large GOP donors in Texas have met to discuss spending large sums to run ads calling on Ms. Miers to withdraw. "They include both male and female friends of hers who don't think the confirmation process will be good for her or the country," one told me. "They're not sexists, they're realists." This even though the White House has ominously put out the word in Texas: "If you oppose this nomination, you oppose the president." Everyone knows what the political ramifications of that can mean in the world of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

How could this have happened? In his Harvard Business School courses, Mr. Bush was taught the importance of fully vetting job candidates. In 2000, when he was preparing to name his running mate, he conducted a months-long vetting process that had a couple of dozen top political players copying tax records, speeches and medical files and filling out an exhaustive questionnaire. In the end, Dick Cheney, the man in charge of the vetting, got the job. To preserve the secrecy Mr. Bush loves, he wasn't replaced when he was asked to consider joining the ticket. So Mr. Bush relied upon his friend to evaluate his own shortcomings.

A real vetting process involves sitting down with potential nominees and grilling them with hard-charging and probing questions that go beyond the existing paper trail--or, in the case of Harriet Miers, the lack of a paper trail. . .

It is unlikely that the vetting fully explored issues surrounding Ms. Miers that are sure to figure in her confirmation hearings, such as her work as Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Another issue will involve Ms. Miers's tenure as head of the Texas Lottery Commission, where lottery director Nora Linares was fired in a scandal involving influence-peddling and lottery contracts. In a curious move, the White House announced this week that regarding the Linares matter, "Harriet Miers has never commented and will not now on what was a personnel matter." That is unlikely to remain a tenable position. . .

Indeed, even internal advice was shunned. Mr. Card is said to have shouted down objections to Ms. Miers at staff meetings. A senator attending the White House swearing-in of John Roberts four days before the Miers selection was announced was struck by how depressed White House staffers were during discussion of the next nominee. He says their reaction to him could have been characterized as, "Oh brother, you have no idea what's coming."

Well, we know now. And I devoutly wish Harriet would take this cup to her lips and bow out.

The alternative is six days a week tee times at Paradise Valley. That's the Arizona club where former Vice President Quayle spends his days--and, for all I know, works part-time as the local golf pro.

More:

Bernard at A Certain Slant of Light:

Carl opposes her confirmation, as do I. Neither of us has any interest in, nor inclination towards being in the blogger fraternity known as "Coalition of the Chillin'." Miers' confirmation is to be resisted.

Still More:

Tommy's showing a new movie--The Vetting of Ms Harriet Miers. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Tangible Faith

Kobayashi Maru's vigil contunes, as does God's love:

The priest just left after a beautiful hour of prayer - silent and otherwise as the family stood and sat, all around his bed. Words flowed. Tears flowed. I felt the saints drawing near, beckoning gently, relaxing all tension in us as they all brush by in the room.

I cannot imagine another night. I fall asleep almost wherever I sit, only to wake to this nightmare from which we cannot really awake. This night, there is only one set of footprints in the sand. We are carried by Christ - forward ever forward. I have never felt so weak. I have never felt so strengthened by what I cannot see.

Miers Oppositum Est

MaxedOutMama doubts it will work. Having witnessed Miers speak some months ago, I'm convinced she's a terrible choice that must be resisted.¹ Fortunately, Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol argues conservatives will benefit from a full, and fully open, debate:

There is no need now to elaborate on Bush's error. He has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction. There is a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it.

But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics. . .

Would a withdrawal be an embarrassment to the president? Sure. But the embarrassment would fade. Linda Chavez at the beginning of the first term, and Bernard Kerik at the beginning of the second, withdrew their nominations for cabinet positions and there was no lasting effect. In this case, Miers could continue to serve the president as White House counsel. The president's aides would explain that he miscalculated out of loyalty and admiration for her personal qualities. And he could quickly nominate a serious, conservative, and well-qualified candidate for the court vacancy.

Failing that, we are headed towards hearings that will in no way resemble the recent triumph of John Roberts. These hearings will not be easy for Miers, as she will have to at once demonstrate a real knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence, reassure conservative constitutionalists, and presumably placate Democrats as well. Conservative senators will for the most part withhold judgment until the hearings are completed. Many have already said as much, leaving open the possibility of a no vote in the event things do not go well. It would be awkward, of course, if a combination of conservative and Democratic votes defeated Miers. But this is a moment where it is more important that conservatives stand for core principles than that they stand with the president.

The Tradesports electronic market rates Miers chances at just over 60 percent and falling. A Supreme Court vacancy is a terrible thing to waste--especially given the Republican track-record (see, e.g., Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy). We must not, we can not, squander this one.

I still support President Bush. But I won't sacrifice this core principle this time.
___________________

¹ After much soul-searching, I've concluded I'm unable to be more specific.

Weasels on Parade

I've been saying it for months, but now even France confessed: Saddam bribed the UN Security Council to veto the Iraq war resolution:

France's former U.N. ambassador has been taken into custody as part of an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing in the Iraq oil-for-food program, judicial officials said Tuesday.

Jean-Bernard Merimee, 68, who also was ambassador to Italy from 1995-98 and to Australia in the 1980s, is suspected of having received kickbacks in the form of oil allocations from the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He was also a special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 1999 to 2002.

Merimee was taken into custody on Monday, and is expected to be presented Wednesday to the judge leading the probe, the officials said on condition of anonymity because French law does not allow disclosure of information from judicial investigations.

Merimee was France's permanent representative to the U.N. from 1991-95. He was one of the world body's most prominent diplomats, in part because France occupies one of five permanent seats on the powerful U.N. Security Council. . .

Merimee worked as a special adviser to Annan from 1999 to 2002, helping to create a system by which the European Commission disbursed payments to the United Nations.

And to Frenchmen, I presume.

James Taranto's play-call: "If John Kerry were president, America would be subjecting itself to a "global test" administered by the likes of Merimee."

Strike Three! The Frogs are out.

Note From My Doctor

I planned heavy blogging tonight, but sprained my thumb switching between Fox and FX.

I've no stake in either game. Just this: oh, please, please, let next year's Nationals -- likely owned in part by my current boss -- hire local-boy-made-good Brian Cashman as GM.

Heh

Scrappleface:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-PA, announced today he will delay confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers until he can locate some Senators who are intellectually qualified to question her on the finer points of Constitutional law.

Read the whole thing.

Next Stop--Syria

Two weeks ahead of a crucial UN report on Lebanon, Baby Assad and cronies are running out of options. So Syria's on track as the next regime to collapse in favor of mid-East freedom:

Syria's interior minister, one of several top officials caught up in the U.N. investigation into the slaying of Lebanon's former prime minister, died Wednesday. The country's official news agency said he committed suicide in his office.

The death — just days before the final U.N. investigation report is due — was a new and startling sign of turmoil in Syria, whose authoritarian regime is girding for the chance that the U.N. report might implicate high-ranking officials in the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. He was killed by a bomb in February as his convoy drove through Beirut.

"Interior Minister Brig. Gen. Ghazi Kenaan committed suicide in his office before noon," the Syrian Arab News Agency reported. "Authorities are carrying out the necessary investigation into the incident."

The news agency did not mention the U.N. investigation, which is due to issue its report by Oct. 25.

Hours before he died, Kenaan contacted a Lebanese radio station and gave a statement, concluding with the words: "I believe this is the last statement that I could make." He asked the interviewer to pass his comments to other media.

The interior minister in Syria controls the police, but before he was promoted to this position in 2003, Kenaan was Syria's intelligence chief in Lebanon, presiding over Syria's control of its western neighbor. . .

The big question in Syria is how long President Bashar Assad can last if the probe indicates his government played a part in Hariri's death.

You'd think the left would understand that if anyone deserves shooting, it's criminal murders, not liberators.

(via reader Ken R.)

Leftists Lock on Hate Speech

Now we know why Jane Smiley wins all those awards for unreadable books: she's another loony lefty, sub-species hateful, as she casually affirms in a letter on Salon (emphasis mine):

Gary Kamiya writes, "In a just world, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings would be standing before a Senate committee investigating their catastrophic failures, and Packer's book would be Exhibit A." No. In a just world, these people would be taken out and shot. As for Packer, and his unwillingness to believe his own eyes, he may not realize or admit it, but there were plenty of antiwar lefties who knew before the war that the Bush team didn't have a chance. The fact is that the election of 2000 revealed the Bush team for anyone who was willing to look -- they were and are cheaters -- always willing to use illegality and dishonesty to try to get what they want, and what they want is something for themselves, not for the public interest, whether that public is the American public or the Iraqi public. To a man, they knew nothing about war. The "moral innocence" was theirs. They intended to visit suffering upon some people very far away for their own purposes.

To a man, leftists know nothing of honor, civility and courage.

(via LGF)

Break In the Action

My heart and prayers go out to the host of Kobayashi Maru and his dying brother.

QOTW

John Tierney in the New York Times (subscription only; quoted at TimesWatch):

A lot of young conservatives and libertarians have simply given up on the traditional media, either as a source of news or as a place to work. Instead, they post on conservative blogs and start careers at magazines like The Weekly Standard and Reason, knowing these credentials will hurt their chances of becoming reporters for 'mainstream' publications -- whereas a job at The New Republic or The Washington Monthly wouldn't be a disqualifying credential.

Walk-Out

Leaks, sure. This is Washington; happens all the time. But a staff sit-down strike? That's new:

As the White House seeks to rally senators behind the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, lawyers for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expressing dissatisfaction with the choice and pushing back against her, aides to 6 of the 10 Republican committee members said yesterday.

"Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact," a lawyer to a Republican committee member said.

All the Republican staff members insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation from their supervisors and from the Senate leaders.

At two stormy meetings on Friday - the first a planning meeting of the chief counsels to Republican committee members and the second a Republican staff meeting with Ed Gillespie, the former Republican Party chairman who is helping to lobby for the nomination - committee lawyers were unanimous in their dismay over Ms. Miers's qualifications and conservative credentials, several attendees said. . .

"You could say there is pretty much uniform disappointment with the nomination at the staff level," another Republican on the committee staff said. "It is clear there is quite a bit of skepticism, and even some flashes of hostility."

Another Republican aide close to the committee said, "I don't know a staffer who approves of this nomination, anywhere. Most of it is outright hostility throughout the Judiciary Committee staff."

I'm now convinced: Miers won't make it.

MORE:

Similar info at the Washington Times :

Republican staff lawyers on the committee -- normally the ones building the case to confirm a Republican nominee -- say they are despondent over Mr. Bush's choice and some are actively working to thwart her.

"I don't know anybody who is buying what the White House is selling here," said one Republican staffer.

"They're putting out a bunch of positive rhetoric, but they're not putting any substance behind it," said another

(via reader appell8)

My Reasons

Glenn Reynolds now sees a Miers Meltdown and, unusually for Instapundit, enabled comments. Till they quit. So I'm posting my objections to Miers here:

1. She isn't the most qualified candidate. She graduated from a third tier law school, clerked for a trial, not appellate court, practiced law with a scant appellate record, published little or no scholarly work, and thus only minimal exposure to constitutional issues, with serious questions about performance in her current job (a topic I'll address Tuesday). Contrary to the claims of Beldar and The Anchoress, objecting to an "0-in-6" record is neither elitist nor anti-Texas bias: it's the wisdom of experience. Especially with several better-qualified options available.



2. There's little evidence she'd become a reliable conservative vote on the Court, much less a Justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as the President promised.



3. Suspending judgment until Senate hearings isn't an option: "Having defended Roberts's right to be silent before the Senate, conservatives face an awkward conflict between blind faith and principle."



4. Even were Justice Miers reliably conservative, that's not enough. Constitutional conservatives look more to process than outcome. What matters is her reasoning, her writing, her persuasiveness, as David Limbaugh said:

   Most, if not all, of the liberal justices on the Court are intellectual heavyweights. When a vacancy on the Court occurs, the president has a solemn duty to nominate the best and the brightest. He should choose not only strict constructionists, but those who can hold their own against the liberal activist justices who are steadily rewriting the Constitution and removing, brick by brick, its foundation.

5. Miers's thin record suggests vulnerability to the "Greenhouse effect."



6. The Miers nomination reveals the President erring like a liberal: treating the Supreme Court as a law-making, political branch of government. Add the cronyism and the nomination could establish a horrible precedent for future Democrat Presidents.



7. Even were politics relevant, Bush compromised long before the necessity for compromise was established. The President made the classic CEO mistake--he negotiated with himself.



8. It's far from clear that compromise today brings electoral victory tomorrow:

   Let 'um reject Janice Rogers Brown--we'd nominate Owen. Let 'um reject Owen--we'd nominate Alito. Either would be higher ground on which to fight in '06.

Though it pains me to depart from the President, Miers should withdraw before the Senate votes.

More:

Right Wing News' John Hawkins says opposition isn't elitism. In fact, as Bernard at A Certain Slant of Light observes, pro-Miers lawyer/talk radio host/blogger Hugh Hewitt edges toward elitism by attacking Miers's opponents and branding them "knuckleheads." What explains Hewitt's uncompromising support? Also, Frank Laughter at Common Sense Junction posted links to bloggers opposing Miers.

Still More:

The WSJ's John Fund:

[T]he evidence of Ms. Miers's views on jurisprudence resemble a beach on which someone has walked without leaving any footprints: no court opinions, no law review articles, and no internal memos that President Bush is going to share with the Senate. . .

Harriet Miers is unquestionably a fine lawyer and a woman of great character. But her record on constitutional issues is nil, and it is therefore understandable that conservatives, having been burned at least seven times in the past 50 years, would be hesitant about supporting her nomination. . .

Indeed, in many ways, Ms. Miers resembles the early Sandra Day O'Connor, another elected official who backed some liberal positions during her time in the Arizona Legislature. As Justice O'Connor began drifting to the center she became the crucial swing vote on a host of cases. Legal scholars began referring to the "O'Connor Court." Now, with Ms. Miers slated to take the O'Connor seat it may become the "Miers Court."

"This is the most closely divided court in history," says Jay Sekulow, a conservative legal activist who backs Ms. Miers. "Everybody knows what is at stake here." With such high stakes, it should disappoint everyone that the Senate will now have to debate the confirmation of a nominee who, when it comes to Constitutional law, resembles a secret agent more than a scholar.

More x 3:

Tom McGuire, host of Just One Minute, links to Tradesports' electronic market on the Miers confirmation. On October 5th, the bidding opened at just over 92, but the probability has fallen below 70, with triple last week's daily volume:



(source: Tradesports)

More for the Bear:

NZ Bear of the Truth Laid Bear is tracking bloggers' views on the Miers nomination. I've not changed my view: I oppose the Miers nomination.

JOTD

Jonah Goldberg's found the Miers Smoking Gun--but cautions "don't tell Beldar."

History Lesson

Item: George W. Bush, debating Al Gore, October 3, 2000:

Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint.

Item: Ramesh Ponnuru, September 23, 2003:

Has Bush nominated conservative judges? Sure he has--just as he promised he would during the campaign. He said he wanted "strict constructionists" in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Anyone who was paying attention knew what that meant.

Item: Rick Scarborough, July 7, 2005:

Over the past five years, George W. Bush has promised time and again to nominate justices of the Scalia/Thomas mold - fearless individuals of principle who are willing to endure the establishment's scorn to uphold constitutional rights and oppose judicial tyranny.

Item: Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, in a July 20, 2005, Toronto Star article, quoted on Media Matters:

President Bush promised the American people that he would nominate Supreme Court justices who would not legislate from the bench and would be in the mould of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Item: Knight-Ridder newspapers, October 6, 2005:

Little in Miers' track record - mostly as a corporate attorney in Dallas and legal adviser to Bush - suggests that she would have developed a particular constitutional approach or outlook. . .

She also said during her sworn testimony that she would not join an organization like the Federalist Society, a group of conservative intellectuals that is a leading proponent of a strict - and some say narrow - interpretation of the Constitution.

"I just feel like it's better not to be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you," she said. . .

The Supreme Court confronts the role of race in policy-making decisions in a number of areas, including voting rights and affirmative action. Miers' 1990 views on the subject suggested contextual solutions that avoided rigid rules much like O'Connor's opinion in the landmark college admission case. That approach is not embraced by the court's more doctrinaire justices, such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Any questions?

(via The Corner)