Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Exactly the wrong thing at the perfect time.

For someone who enjoys brisk competition and thrives on conflict, I'm disappointed in the Democrats. It has now become clear that as it applies to playing the political game, they will do exactly the wrong thing at the perfect time. It's much like watching a nervous adolescent folly his pimpled way through a courtship. Just when he should be going in for a kiss, he steps on her toes and pokes her in the eye with his nose.

While Harry Reid is trying to court the remainder of the country who isn't insane, he made clear with whom he's already in bed:
In announcing his decision in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, Mr. Reid questioned Judge Roberts's commitment to civil rights and said he was "very swayed" by the civil rights and women's rights leaders who testified Thursday in opposition to the nomination - and with whom Mr. Reid met privately that same day. Liberal advocacy groups, who raise millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates and who have been putting intense pressure on Democrats to oppose the nomination, were elated.

With the White House considering how to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy, Mr. Reid could be using his vote on Judge Roberts to send a message to President Bush to fill that position with a moderate, in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote, who is retiring. Along with three other senior senators, Mr. Reid is expected to meet Mr. Bush for breakfast Wednesday to discuss the vacancy.
These obviously compelling and highly credible "civil rights" and "women's rights" leaders should get into the intelligence business. When a dozen countries' intelligence agencies and the UN have intel that indicates that a mass murderer may be hiding and producing chemical weapons isn't compelling, but a couple partisan interest groups' lack of evidence is compelling, we need to get NARAL and NOW to present future intelligence we need the Democrats to take seriously.

How entirely patriotic of Harry Reid to expect the best of a mass murderer and expect the worst of a model American.

The Washington Post is even blushing:
IN ANNOUNCING his opposition yesterday to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made a remarkable statement: "The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary." Leave aside the merits of the Roberts nomination, which we support; if Mr. Reid regards Judge Roberts as unworthy, he is duty-bound to vote against him. But these are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret.

This country has only one president at a time. That president, right now President Bush, is tasked with naming judges. The Senate has the role of providing advice and consent on the president's choices, which is a significant constitutional task. But if the presidential election means anything in this arena, it must mean that the president's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation. That is the way the system works. Why else would Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have received only a handful of no-votes among them? During the Clinton administration, we deplored the way that the Senate treated the president's judicial nominees during six years of Republican control over the Senate. Yet during those six years, the Senate confirmed 245 of President Bill Clinton's judges. If Republicans had been applying Mr. Reid's standard, they would have been within their rights to reject them all.
Republicans understand that elections have consequences, and so won't lower their standards of civil behavior to do to future Democrat-appointed judges what the Dems are doing to Bush's nominee.

However, my theory will never be proven in my lifetime. At this rate, the next Democratic President won't be until 2128.

free web counters
Blue Nile Diamonds