31 October 2005

Go, Go, Alito

Okay, so Judge Alito it is. If Mark Levin knows him and likes him that's good enough for me. Hopefully, the President and (congressional Republicans) have learned a valuable lesson here. That is their base will not let them get away with straying from the path the way the Democrats base will. The President would do well to be cognizant of this should he have another opportunity to appoint another justice to the SCOTUS.

Whether the democrats and the left like it or not Alito is about to be confirmed and the balance of the court is about to shift; to the right.

John Fund has a great op-ed in the WSJ about the speed, fury and effectiveness with which the internet (blogosphere) sank the poorly considered nomination of Harriet Miers.

" . . . the growth of new media such as talk radio and blogs sank Ms. Miers's chances even before the megabuck special-interest groups could unload their first TV ad. Ms. Miers herself has told friends that she was astonished at how the Internet became a conveyor belt for skeptical mainstream media reports on her in addition to helping drive the debate . . . "

Well, yeah. Where was she a year ago when we had our way with Dan Rather and company.

The Democratic party routinely ignores their base, they routinely pretend to be something other than the socialist-wannabe's that they are. We on the right are conservative. We are proud of it and we seek to enhance that situation. We don't hide behind labels like "New-Left", or "Progressive". We are conservative, and proud to admit it. Nobody on the political left in this country, running for any kind of national office, has dared to admit being a "Liberal" since Mike Dukakis went down in flames in 1988.

If the left wants a fight they are going to get it. And they are going to lose. Alito was confirmed unanimously by the Democratically held Senate, for the third circuit and now he is unfit?

I think not.

I sincerely hope the democrats do come out from under the rocks of euphemisms they hide under, and show their colors for all the country to see. That is why I would love to see Janice Brown nominated for the next seat that should come open. The more the American electorate sees of the lefts true colors, the more they will reject them.

If you're a conservative reader of this blog write your Senator here and let them know the power of the conservative base. -SpinDaddy

20 October 2005

Takin' It To The Barn(es)

I love Fred Barnes. I love his always well reasoned analysis. Heck, I'm even a regular viewer of the Beltway Boys. Therefore, it pains me to have to part with him here. In his op-ed piece from his Weekly Standard entitled The Conservative Revolt I believe he misses the significance of the current upheaval on the right, and the splendid opportunities it presents.

Barnes lists some very important deviations by the Bush administartion from conservative ideals, such as ". . . He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration . . ."

Conspicious by it's absence from this litany is the absolutely stunning failure of Bush to veto McCain-Feingold. I remember the punditicracy on the right giving us a wink and nod telling me, the conservative base, not to worry that it would never pass muster with the SCOTUS! Ouch. Fool me once....now the punditocracy on the right who remain in Bushes camp tell me trust Bush on Miers. I don't think so.

"... He deviates on the role of the federal government..." That line alone may qualify for understatement of the year. The Cato Institute has a new bulletin out that shows Bush outspending LBJ the bane of conservatives by almost a 2 to 1 ratio! For this we worked our tails off to keep Gore and Kerry out of office?! How much more of this is the conservative base supposed to ignore? How much longer are to hold our nose and vote for Republicans when all it gets us is big right wing government?

This one line is significant because it glosses over the fundmental problem Bush has with his conservative base that is sine qua non to his tenure. To depart from conservatives on the role of the federal government is to deny all that is the conservative philosophy of limited government.

Barnes goes on to defend the President by highlighting some of his noteworthy achievements for which I am sincerely appreciative.

". . . Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an 'ownership society.' . . ." This last point is telling of the problem that all Republican officeholders (not just the President) have with their base. That is, the attempt to substitute "good-intentions" for results. "Advocated" is significantly different from "Achieved" or "Accomplished".

The base of the Democratic party has demonstrated for decades they are willing to accept such bait and switch foolishness from their party, (go back to LBJ's dismally failed "war on poverty" for example) where good intention is quite enough and actual results matter not a wit.

Conservatives are a bit more shrewd, and actually expect results. While Clinton was in office after the GOP takeover in 1994, the GOP at least held the headlong rush toward socialism and a complete surrender of our sovereignty to a fast walk, under Bush it has become a full gallop, to wit the recent transportation boondoggle, and throwing shiploads of money at the Gulf Coast, prescription drug benefits, etc.

The President and congress have but a year or so to realign with their base. Results, not excuses. Less burdensome goverment, not spin. The clock is running. -SpinDaddy

Funny Thxs

Sent to SpinDaddy in email by one of my best friends, sorry I cannot credit the original author but this one is sooo worth sharing, anybody who has an email knows what I mean. -SpinDaddy

Spin, I know you can appreciate this type of email...

Thanks For Looking Out For Me!! Want to thank all of you who have taken the time and trouble to send me your stupid chain letters over the past two years

Thank you for making me feel safe, secure, blessed, and wealthy. Because of your concern... I no longer can drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains.

I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists, who refuse to put "Under God" on their cans.

I no longer drink anything out of a can because I will get sick from the rat feces and urine.

I no longer use Saran wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer.

I no longer check the coin return on pay phones because I could be pricked with a needle infected with AIDS.

I no longer use cancer-causing deodorants, even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day.

I no longer go to shopping malls because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and rob me.

I no longer shop at Target since they are French and don't support our American troops.

I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a stupid number, for which I will get the phone bill from hell with calls to Jamaica, Uganda, Singapore, and Uzbekistan.

I no longer eat pre-packaged foods because the estrogens they contain will turn me gay.

I no longer eat KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers.

I no longer date the opposite sex because they will take my kidneys and leave me taking a nap in a bathtub full of ice.

I no longer have any sneakers -- but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair from Nike.

I no longer buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe.

I no longer worry about my soul because I have 363,214 angels looking out for me and St Theresa's novena has granted my every wish.

Thanks to you, I have learned God only answers my prayers if I forward an email to seven of my friends and make a wish within five minutes. (Jesus, nor any inspired writer in the BIBLE mentioned it works that way!) I no longer have any savings because I gave it to a sick girl who is about to die in the hospital (for the 1,387,258th time).

I no longer have any money at all, but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special e-mail program.

Yes, I want to thank all of you soooooooo much for looking out for me! I will now return the favor.

If you don't send this e-mail to at least 1200 people in the next 60 seconds, a large bird with diarrhea will drop it's bomb on your head at 5:00 pm today and the fleas of a thousand camels will infest your armpits. I know this will occur because it actually happened to a friend of a friend of a friend's neighbor's cousin twice removed.

Severely Lacking Shrewdness

In what has to be the dumbest move ever, this guy "surrendered" to North Korea. Perhaps he deserves a break after forty years in N Korea, we should prosecute him for desertion and send him to Levenworth.

17 October 2005

Left Despises Miers Nomination Too

With Miers nomination mired in a storm of controversy from the political right, the lefties have been content to sit back and chuckle while the right tries to tear itself apart. That may be about to change if the report in the WSJ by John Fund is correct. If news of this reported conference call complete with assurances by longtime legal acquaintences that Miers would indeed vote to overturn Roe v Wade, gets traction, the laughing on the left might be over as they erupt into a firestorm of their own over her nomination. Read the whole thing.

". . .What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur . . . "

If Bush should press this and not get her through because of thin support from both the right and now the left; then what?

Was the calculation that Bush could count on the left to make up for thin support on the right?? If John Funds report bears out; count on the left to burn down her nomination, publicly and with great glee.

If the Miers nomination is lost does Bush then try to limp back with somebody at least his base will support like Janice Brown?

Will they?


Why should they, after so much political capital has been squandered for naught? The damage brought about by all this smoke and fury over a candidate that is perhaps too stealthy by half, could make it that much harder to get a Brown or a Luttig through.

It seems to me that it would have been easier to square up to this fight in the first place, and get it on while your troops are solidly behind you rather than giving them cause to question your leadership and then try to rally them!? You don't scatter your troops by pouring hot tar all over them, then ask you to come back for the next fight!!?!

It has been widely pronounced by the punditocracy of the right that conservatives were scrapping for a fight over this slot to change the balance of power on the SCOTUS. I think that is right. So, there was going to be a fight whether it was conservatives v the left or conservcatives v the Bush administration, there was gonna' be knock down drag out. Bush is from Texas and should know better than this. He knows that if one group is aiming to have a brawl with another group on Saturday night, you don't go out and pick a fight with the first group yourself on Friday afternoon. Especially if they are your clan.

This is all very frustrating because, we have seen much more politically keen judgement from this President and his team before. Perhaps the Flame-Plame-Blame-Game has Rove and company seriously distracted, let's hope for some resolution to this issue once and for all this week, either way. If there are to be indictments let's have them and get on with the political recovery of this administration. -SpinDaddy

Ironic Kennedy Blurb

Well this almost rates as a Man-Bites-Dog story. It seems that some fisherman were in trouble; on the water mind you. That is possibly at risk of drowning, and 'ol Kennedy lends a helping help. Read the whole thing.

Gee, maybe we had the whole Chappaquiddick thing wrong....Naahhh. -SpinDaddy

16 October 2005

High Noonan

The always, always brilliant Peggy Noonan has a fantatsic op-ed in the WSJ on how the W administration and Harriet Miers could extract themselves from this political tarbaby that is her nomination. Noonan has the situation dialed in almost perfectly I believe and the White House minions that monitor these things for the administration should be taking notes, and screaming to be heard at the next White House strategy session on this topic.

Pushing through such a fractious choice over the screams of your already somewhat tired and strained base is not the kind of mistake the President needs right now. The President is suffering in the polls (congressional GOP too) because the base has just about had it with what are perceived continual appeasements of the left. As I have blogged before, the President may yet face something far more perilous in the war on terror and he should not expect the left to rally to his side should he find himself in need of support, and lacking same from what should be his base. This could well turn out to be a matter of politically driven national-insecurity. Noonan seems to concur with the notion I posited in the post linked above, that a President weakened in this manner is dangerous for America.

". . .The White House can think of this--and should think of it--as an unanticipated gift. A good fight can clear the air; a great battle can result in resolution and recommitment. No one wants George W. Bush turned into Jimmy Carter, or nobody should. The world is a dangerous place, and someone has to lead America..."

Noonan offers some sober points that the aforemnetioned minions should be screaming about in that strategy session. Especially about the base and what is due them.

". . .[Ed Gillespie] who has perhaps forgotten that conservatives are not merely a bloc, a part of the base, a group that must be handled, but individuals who are and have been in it for serious reasons, for the long haul, and often at considerable sacrifice. They don't deserve to be patronized by people they've long strained to defend. . ."

Indeed, we are in it for serious reasons, and Ms Noonan is absolutely right; we deserve better than to be patronized by those who are where they are and enjoy the postions they enjoy due to our hard work. That includes the President. At the risk of sounding patriarchal; this is the equivalentof a father reigning in the son with the smart mouth who has forgotten his place. Patriiarchal or not; this is the design of our Republic, and this revolt on the right is probably too long overdue.

It is somewhat amusing to hear administration spin doctors tell us to just wait until the hearings, when our fears will be put to rest. This is amusing, because the goal for Miers during the confirmation hearings will be to say as little as possible.

As I have said before; I sincerely hope the President is right in his choice, if not the conservative base has an obligation to hold the line, even if their President won't. In the op-ed piece Noonan goes on to suggest some ways ways to finesse a Miers withdrawal, and still save face. I'm not sure that is in the offing. It is more proof of the rights ardent desire to have the President take a mullligan here, I'm not holding my breath though. Read the whole thing. -SpinDaddy

13 October 2005

GOP Heat

Right Wing News offers some interesting quotes from the Hill that the GOP congressional caucus is beginning to feel the heat from their base. I hope that is right, but as John Hawkins points out, talking the talk is one thing walking the walk is quite another. Hat Tip to Dummocrats.

Republicans have, right now; a year and change to turn this around. In spite of congressional redistricting, gerrymandering, and McCain-Feingold the GOP majority in congress can be lost. It is precisely because of these things that the majority would be that much harder to regain should it be lost. Perhaps the surest way to do so, is to perform exactly as they have, which is to abandon the conservative GOP base who sent them there.

The reason the GOP prevailed so convicingly in 1994 was because the democrats were sooo out of touch with the electorate. They still are; and at this point that is the biggest thing going for Republicans, the Democratic parties institutionalized obtuseness.

Relying on your opponents weakness is not a good game plan. -SpinDaddy

11 October 2005

The Lefts Exit Strategy

Despite trying to pry one out of JOhnKErry for three debates (remember the Global Test? I do, hee-heh), and an entire Presidential election press cycle; not until recently has a serious alternative strategy in Iraq been forthcoming from the political left. I have been concerned for some time that indeed there were no grownups left at all in the democratic party. That it was doomed to fester in the hands of PeterPan types like Michael Moore and Howard Dean who refuse to grow up and understand that life is hard, and sometimes requires hard choices be made.

Now, two prominent democrats are putting forth remarkably similar proposals. That is to use the threat of troop withdrawal to motivate various actors on the world stage to take on a larger share in the battle for Iraq in the war on terror. One of them is even being remarkably civil about it. Downright respectful of the President even. More respect than he is getting from within the ranks of his own party these days. The most recent of these proposals is from former NYC mayor Ed Koch.

". . . I urge the President to consider my proposal. But he should also know that I stand with him and extol his courage and willingness to stand up for the U.S. and all peaceful nations . . ."

Wow! That makes Koch a class-act in my book.

Koch's suggestion is aimed squarely at the Europeans who have blossomed economically over the last 50 years, the beneficiaries of decades and untold Billions of US treasure spent to see to it that the youth of France and Germany in particular have ample time to sit around, smoke, and complain simultaneously about US imperialism, and cultural inferiority.

". . . I propose that we put the UN Security Council on notice that we will leave Iraq by the end of this year. My belief is that the UN, particularly France, Germany and Russia, knowing we will leave, will have a greater interest in maintaining peace in Iraq than we have, either a regional interest, e.g., Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan; or a commercial interest -- oil and vendor contracts with Iraq -- e.g., Germany and France. They will then understand that it is in their interest to have us remain with them proportionately providing troops and sharing the costs of war. . ."

Well, we'll see. I think the French and Germans probably prefer to continue to sit around smoking and complaining. It really is funny to hear elitist-snob-French-surrender-monkeys in particular sniff how the French language and culture is dying out before their eyes. The French and Germans are both in a demographic crisis that is the result of low birthrates and a wide open immigration policy (sound familiar?) designed to prop up their failing socialist welfare states. If the French language and culture is worth saving from extinction, I suggest some French speaking patriots do something about it. Now. And I'm not talking about Quebec.

A nuclear Iran or a lost Iraq is not in the best interest of France or the rest of Europe for that matter. As Koch points out in his op-ed, al-queda has plans for Europe, to wit.

". . .The terrorists want to reestablish the Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia and impose militant aggressive Islam on the world. . ."

Imagine my surprise at finding myself agreeing with Carl Levin D of MI. He offered a similar proposal a day earlier, using the threatened withdrawal of our troops as leverage to get various Iraqi factions to unite and put down their own insurgency, which is killing and maiming far more Iraqis than American troops. Levin offers the same strategy but targeted at a different group, Iraqi stakeholders in Iraq.

". . . We must use that leverage -- the possibility of an American withdrawal -- to achieve the broad-based political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency. . ."

With both Koch and Levin suggesting it in such close proximity, it smells to me like it is some sort of backdoor democratic policy proposal. A trial balloon is being floated. It might be worth pursuing through diplomatic backchannels, but I believe we should continue to keep the insurgents guessing as to our timetable. We fight, win, and leave on our terms not those of the insurgents or European surrender monkeys.

This crafty proposal might yield similar benefits in other theatres with other maniacs, perhaps the protest monkeys a.k.a. South Korean college students would like to pick up a rifle and do their part, so our boys could come home and secure our border rather than theirs. They want US troops out; we should grant their wish.

Of course this is as ridiculous a suggestion as having them drop out of collge enlist in the South Korean army and face deployment in Texas or Montana to come secure our borders for us. They probably prefer to sit around smoking and complaining about US Imperialism and cultural inferiority.

Post WWII the diplomatic/political consensus was that defending other theatres was worth the effort as there was a certain quid pro quo or at least a feigned support of US policy in exchange for our huge outlays for their defense. This calculation seems to have worn thin in the new cntury and perhaps should be re-examined as SecDef Rumsfeld has suggested.

If such a proposal coming from their friends in the American left does not roust the Europeans from their slumber then perhaps they should go get a prayer rug and start growing out their beards.

And oh yeah, european fashion prediction; next seasons rage: the Burqua.

HT to RealClearPolitics -SpinDaddy

Bright Idea

The AlphaPatriot has this excellent post on Mayor Bright of Montgomery, Alabamas all too serious suggestion that the good people of Montgomery arm themselves, educate themselves, and defend themselves with GUNS!!

Of course, the usual suspects are up in a hissy about such a suggestion. Mayor Bright is absolutely right from the point of view of a city manager. Given limited resources, the city cannot protect everyone all the time. As we learned during the recent unrest following Katrina, not to mention Andrew before, the Rodney King riots in LA, the police can usually only fill out the paperwork as your body assumes room temperature. I have a good friend who is a detective, and he likes to tell me that he likes being a detective because the shooting is almost always over by the time he makes the scene.

This is not meant to diminish in any way the hardworking beat cop, but if you get one to be absolutely candid with you they will tell you the same thing Mayor Bright is. They cannot be everywhere at once.

Must read stuff, and follow the links. -SpinDaddy

10 October 2005

Consrvative Critical Mass

Arguing that a political critical mass has been reached with conservatives over the Presidents less than conservative fiscal and domestic policy conduct George Will is swinging hard again in his op-ed in Newsweek. He, and many other conservatives, are deciding that at some point merely having the control of government is not enough if we (republicans) are to govern as wealth-redistributionist-socialist-wannabe-democrats would.

Arguably, the democrats would be doing so at an even more dizzying pace, but that is of little comfort to erstwhile republicans who truly crave less government rather than more. As Will points out, we held our noses while the President allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill. From a true conservative point of view things have not improved much from there. We got the Medicare prescription drug atrocity that as Will points out is " . . . the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ—an entitlement with an unfunded liability l a r g e r than that of Social Security. . . "

Again to reiterate, it is a terrifying thought that democrats could blow even more money, even faster than the republicans are, but they would. If I understand this correctly; we are likely going to borrow huge sums of money from the Chinese through US debt issues so that the likes of Ross Perot, and Bill Gates don't have to pay out of their pocket for prescription drugs. Then when my 8 year old son is entering the workplace he can pay it back with interest?!

Further aggravating the limited government types such as myself are these stunnning numbers regarding the recently passed highway bill.

". . . The bill President Bush signed contained 6,371, costing $24 billion. The total cost of the bill—$286 billion—is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the c o m b i n e d costs of the Marshall Plan and the interstate highway system . . . "

While republicans in the congress continue to let us down with such foolishness, Bush has utterly failed to lift a finger to reign this in.

" . . . He is the first president in 176 years to serve a full term without vetoing a n y t h i n g. His father cast 44 vetoes. Ronald Reagan's eight-year total was 78. In 1987 Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks—pork—costing $1.4 billion . . . "

Reagan vetoed $1.4 billion in foolishness and W can't gut up enough to veto $24 billion!?

Come on!

This is not the reason conservative activists such as myself go to the trouble to get republicans in office. This is not the vision of Reagan or Goldwater. This must stop now or republicans will most assuredly lose power for want of a motivated base. Again, the even scarier proposition is the democrats taking power and presiding over the fall of the country as they have no creed other than Bush hatred.

Meanwhile the so-called majority leader Tom DeLay tells us that the costs of Katrina recovery cannot intrude on the finely crafted transportation bill containing $24 billion of transportation earmarks ". . . -because Republicans have cut all inessential spending . . . "

While acknowledging that it is probably political nothing more than political machinations, Will considers DeLays indidctment " . . . helpful to conservatives. DeLay, who neither knows nor cares any more about limited government than a camel knows or cares about calculus . . . " and goes on to opine that DeLay might even lose his seat in the US House.

It is time for conservatives to take the Republican Party power brokers to task. They are sorely in need of a good swift kick in the pants. If they wish to remain in power, they had better recall who put them there, and why. -SpinDaddy

06 October 2005

Loyalty Due From The President


Loyalty compelled Peggy Noonan to take a leave from her writing job about a year ago to help with the Presidents re-election campaign. After his victory, she went back to writing for the WSJ. She was not an unusual case amongst the loyal right in this country. All of us on the political right in this country took one look at at JOhnKErry and after the initial sniggering and chuckles subsided, concluded this was a must win for the good of the country. Peggy Noonan was no different from SpinDaddy, or Voice or any other person who looked seriously at the state of the union and the world and rightly concluded that the junior senator from Massachussets; while a fine fellow, was absolutely not the man for the job.

Aside from the terribly vexing challenges presented by the world with the war on terror, increasing economic challenges that were the main concerns that elevated President Bush above his competitor in the contest; the most compelling issue that brought intellectual conservatives, evangelical christians, and republicans together was the likely opportunity to finally reign in the problem of an increasingly noxious Supreme Court. A problem exacerbated by the likes of Justice Souter appointed by Bush the elder, who has "grown" in office, meaning he has become a reliable ally of the left.

Sensing this, and given Chief Justice Rehnquist's cancer diagnosis the right turned out, and turned out hard. Knowing what the base expected, we were told again, and again to expect the President would nominate justices in the mold of a Scalia and Thomas to the court, rather than in the mold of Ginsburg as we could expect from JOhnKErry. No offense meant to Chief Justice Roberts and nominee Miers but I haven't seen anything from either of them that indicates a Scalia or Thomas.


Now the opportunity to make a significant shift in the balance on the court is at hand and we are left to hope that we don't get "soutered". Again. It still remains to be seen how Chief Justice Roberts will conduct the court, so far so good. This is after years, no; decades of toil and sweat by loyal troops of activists on the right. From Goldwater supporters in the 1960's to the silent majority of the Nixon era. To Reagan supporters to Newt Gingrich in 1994. To people like me in 2000, and 2004. To people like Peggy Noonan last year. All striving feverishly to hold back the tide of socialism spilling over the land from the unfortunate FDR administration and quietly tolerated by leftist courts. Now the President has done the equivalent of Lucy; snatching the football away from Charlie Brown right before he kicks it. It is smelling an awful lot like the right is about to be "bushed". Again.

The President is said to cherish loyalty above all among his staff; indeed, Ms. Miers loyalty is one of the key points in the White House spin to mollify the Presidents base. Well, Mr. President, with all due respect sir; is it too much for us to expect at least some degree of reciprocity from you regarding the wishes of your base who put you there?


Peggy Noonan has an excellent WSJ op-ed that explains why so many on the right are profoundly disappointed with the Presidents choice.

" ... The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans...He didn't do that. Why didn't he? Old standard answer: In time of war he didn't want to pick a fight with Congress that he didn't have to pick. Obvious reply: So in time of war he picks a fight with his base? Also: The Supreme Court isn't the kind of fight you "don't have to pick." History picks it for you. You fight ..."

Absolutely right. You fight. Not only because a known quantity would be better to have on the court, (and there are plenty the President could have chosen) but such a fight would have served to unite the base and bring his numbers back up. The President can ill afford to squander the political capital bestowed on him by a loyal base, and to risk doing so is the acme of foolishness. He cannot expect to gain one iota of support from the left in this country, and God only knows what serious challenges lie ahead in the war on terror.


The President cannot afford to squander the support of his base, because it could have extremely dire consequences for the good of the republic if he is faced with something far more difficult in the war on terror and is forced to do so from a position of weakness becasue his base has rejected him. Noonan has it right; it looks as if he would rather pick a fight with his base than to continue to take the fight to the left. Has Karl Rove not figured out that we (the President and those of us who love and support him on the right) have to fight not only maniacal terrorists hellbent on our destruction, but the left in this country who shares their goal but not their urgency?

I have maintained recently that the reason the Presidents poll numbers are down is because his base feels betrayed, and is walking away in disgust. This most recent misstep certainly will not help. They feel betrayed because of his failure to exercise the veto in defense of their childrens pocketbook, and their free speech rights; with borrow and spend big government, and his passage of the atrocity known as McCain-Feingold to name but two. In a different time, our founders would probably have seen cause for impeachment proceedings against a president who failed so miserably in protecting the constitution he has sworn to uphold which, by definition, includes the first amendment. The spin from Washington based GOP insiders when the President signed this nonsense was "don't worry, it'll never get past the Supreme Court". Right.

It may yet be the case that the President will have another opportunity or two to name justices to this all too important position. He must demonstrate loyalty to those what brung him to the dance as the saying goes.

Mr President Sir; I sincerely hope that your pick of Ms Miers is the right choice, but again, with all due respect sir, your base is owed some considerable degree of your loyalty here. I think we have earned it.

Freeh Spills the Beans On Clinton

Drudge has a flash up regarding former FBI director Louis Freehs upcoming book. Apparently Freeh has a bombshell interview to air on 60 minutes Sunday. Watch the MSM ignore this one in favor of ankle biting the Bush administration over whatever inanity disturbs them next.

". . . In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.” . . . The most unsavory of those investigations was the one concerning Clinton and Lewinsky. The White House intern had kept a semen-stained dress as proof of her relationship and a Clinton blood sample was needed to match the DNA on the dress. “Well, it was like a bad movie and it was ridiculous that…Ken Starr and myself, the director of the FBI, find ourselves in that ridiculous position,” he tells Wallace. “But we did it…very carefully, very confidentially,” recalls Freeh. As he explains the plan in the book, Clinton was at a scheduled dinner and excused himself to go to the bathroom. Instead of the restroom, he entered another room where FBI medical technicians were waiting to take a blood sample . . . "

Like NBC sat on Juanita Brodericks interview with Lisa Meyers, wherein she accused the former President of rape. MSM reaction: a big tired yawn. -SpinDaddy

05 October 2005

Good News

I really like Michael Barones analysis, and he has an excellent op-ed here that points out there is good news out there. It is hard to tell that from watching the MSM. Read the Whole thing.


Will and Hewitt Differ Significantly

George Will

Wow!! George Will has come out swinging again in a hard hitting op-ed on the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra O'Connor on the court. Read the whole thing. Will makes some very, very compelling points regarding the proper role of the SCOTUS, and what the institution is NOT supposed to be.

"...The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation..."

Will is really going after the president more than he is Miers in the piece. He also points out the presidents signing into law of the scary McCain-Feingold atrocity.

"...In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech..."

I really want to trust the presidents judgement regarding Miers. I really do. But Will makes a very compelling point here that perhaps the president has abrogated his role as constitutional custodian.

Will also goes on to make the point that the Senate has no obligation to confrim Miers, I think that is probably wishful thinking, she will probably be confirmed.

Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt is still coming down on the trust-the-president side of the argument, and also adresses the constitutional abomination known as the McCain-Feingold law. Hewitts take is that Miers understands the "deep poison" it is injecting into the American body politic.

"... Then there is McCain-Feingold, and the Supreme Court's deference to the bizarre set of rules and restraints on speech that led to Soros being the most important man in American politics on the left, but restraints on television ads blasting incumbents by name in the closing days of an election. How the Court upheld these and other provisions in the face of near unity among legal scholars left and right is still a mystery, but conservatives rightly point to the president's signature on the bill. (They could just as rightly point to the "guarantees" of certain provisions unconstitutional status, but that's another debate.) Miers wasn't White House Counsel when the president signed this awful bit of law, but she's tainted by it. On the other hand, she has first-hand experience of the deep poison McCain-Feingold is spreading in American politics, an excellent perspective to bring to the court..."

Okay; she wasn't the White House Counsel when the president signed this nonsense into law, what is her position on it? It seems to me the question is: Does she have the spine necessary to stand this and other nonsense like the Kelo v New London decision recently upheld by the court, regardless of stare decisis?

In light of recent foolishness like Kelo, conservatives are rightly concerned that the Supreme Court has veered over the left edge of reason, and have abandoned their core charge; that is, to interpret the constitutionality of legislational issues before the court.

As such, conservatives wish to see the court brought back to it's correct purpose, and have fought long and hard to achieve just such an opportunity as we had, only to be told to trust the president. A hard pill to swallow after Bush the elder saddled the republic with Justice Souter, while Bush the younger has, among other things, failed to utilize his veto power to stop foolishness like McCain-Feingold.

As Will asks rhetorically "...For this we need a conservative president?..."

I hope the president is right, he has staked the future of the republic on this, not to mention his legacy and the future cohesiveness of the republican party. -SpinDaddy

Update 1240hrs 05OCT05: Reginald Brown over at The Volokh Conspiracy has a rebuttal to Wills column.

Stossels Good Idea

John Stossel, best known for producing conservative leaning specials for ABC news (I'm still not sure how he is able to get these on the air), has a really good op-ed piece here at Real Clear Politics wherein he suggests something I have said, throw off the usual Federal bureaucracy in the hurricane ravaged areas of the gulf coast.

"...President Bush wants to create a "Gulf Opportunity Zone" with reduced federal taxes across parts of three states. Now, if the president really wanted to get Washington out of the way, he might ask Congress to abolish personal and corporate income taxes there...Other proposals and administration decisions include waiving all Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the rebuilding, dropping affirmative-action rules for government contractors, setting aside restrictions on truck drivers' hours, and letting government money follow children displaced by the storm to any school they choose. What a radical idea! Government might actually let free people make their own choices..."

Yes, by all means let's conduct an experiment in letting freedom, and free market forces prevail unfettered, undistorted and see what happens. Newt Gingrich and the other Republicans who gained control of the Congress in 1994 talked about conducting such an experiment in Washington DC proper as the city falls under congressional responsibility. Nothing ever really came of it, perhaps because the bureaucracy is so entrenched there.

In the wake of this terrible tragedy let's rebuild the area in the way that made this country great. We built a great country long before the eruption of the nanny-state, I say we give it a try. -SpinDaddy

04 October 2005

More Miers Fallout

The fallout from President Bushes nomination of Harriet Miers continues.

Patrick Buchanan has a blistering op-ed at Real Clear Politics, and he isn't taking any prisoners. He makes an especially good point here that

"... Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives..."

That is a very important distinction to point out. Republicans and conservatives are not necessarily one in the same. And now it seems that Miers nomination is driving a wedge into one of the bedrock issues of the right.

I hope President Bush is right about her, but I am terribly frustrated at being forced to wait and see. I suppose we have to follow Ronald Reagan and trust, but verify. The problem is that we cannot do anything about it if we should find out once voting begins on the SCOTUS, and she starts talking about foreign law precedent, living documents, and various penumbra. Then it will be too late, we can't take it back at that point.

Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard is holding his fire still and advises conservatives to do the same.

Hugh Hewitt still offering the same counsel; that is , wait to be impressed.

Ugggh. -SpinDaddy

DeLays Real Problem

According to Kim Hume at FoxNews his real problem is that he exercises power transparently. A major faux pas in proper DC circles.

"...This is the deal: DeLay wields power. He uses that power to change the system to fit his conservative political principles. He is unapologetic about it. People hate that.
DeLay is an abomination to most of official Washington, including the mainstream media..."

It's a good read, read all of it. -SpinDaddy

03 October 2005

"In The Mold Of Scalia Or Thomas"...!!?

Okay. So, where are they?

Excellent post here at the excellent ConfirmThem blog be sure to read the comments too. Here is link to main page of ConfirmThem, good info here. They counsel to hold fire right now.

The AlphaPatriot characterizes the pick as a blown opportunity. Great links.

If Senate Domcratic Leader Harry Reid is fond of her; I am deeply concerned just on that evidence alone.

Ugggh. The more I read up on the Presidents uber-stealthy pick for SCOTUS, the more I grow concerned. Republicans GOP stealth picks have never "matured" on the court in the conservative direction. They always seem to have turned into mushy liberals/centrists once past the Senate and ensconced in the court.

I worked to help elect W because of the very situation we find ourselves in today; the opportunity to shift the court decisively to the right. Hugh Hewitt trusts the president here, but given the Presidents conservative track record during the second term, I'm not sure I do. William Kristol is openly disappointed and depressed. I think he might be onto something here. The lawyers over at Powerline are mixed. And over on the left Andrew Sullivan is beating the "cronyism" drum pretty good, as are all the other lefties.

The Democracy Project Blog made some excellent points the other day that are especially telling now with this nomination that smells of weakness. I hope I am wrong but it seems the President didn't get the ideas put forth here. I am praying that the President knows something here that the rest of us don't. BTW, I agree with the author, I would have loved to see Janice Brown. I am still at a loss. If the democrats wanted to filibuster her nomination let them!

David Frum at the National Review makes some excellent points that the pick is an unforced error.

"...This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades--two decades in which a generation of conservative legal intellects of the highest ability have moved to the most distinguished heights in the legal profession. On the nation's appellate courts, in legal academia, in private practice, there are dozens and dozens of principled conservative jurists in their 40s and 50s unassailably qualified for the nation's highest court. Yes, Democrats might have complained. But if Democrats had gone to war against a Michael Luttig or a Sam Alito or a Michael McConnell, they would have had to fight without weapons..."

Frum is absolutely right in this, when I look at Miers I am looking at a tabula rosa, when I should be seeing somebody that will make Schumer, Boxer, Leahy, Kennedy, et als blood boil. I hope the President knows something about her that we don't.

I am having a hard time understanding why we must endure yet another mystery pick. We won. Again, again, and again. SO now let's finish this thing with the left, let's crush them in their last refuge, the courts. Why, as Frum points out, were so many clearly understood quantities as regards judicial philosophy passed over to put up a nominee that may go the way of Souter and others??

"...There have just been too many instances of seeming conservatives being sent to the high Court, only to succumb to the prevailing vapors up there: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter. Given that record, it is simply reckless for any conservative president to take a hazard on anything other than a known quantity of the highest intellectual and personal excellence.
The pressures on a Supreme Court justice to shift leftward are intense. There is the negative pressure of the vicious, hostile press that legal conservatives must endure. And there are the sweet little inducements--the flattery, the invitations to conferences in Austria and Italy, the lectureships at Yale and Harvard--that come to judges who soften and crumble. Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is hard for me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse--or resist the blandishments--that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today..."

If I remember this correctly, we got justice Kennedy on the courts after Bork was "Borked". I am still holding my breath over the new Chief Justice, we don't have any idea yet how he will shape up yet and now this.


Perhaps most alarming; Miers gave money to Gore, and LloydBentsen!! Uggghh. -Holding my breath still...SpinDaddy