Confirm Alito Coalition

Blogs4Bush has begun the Confirm Alito Coalition which I'm happy to endorse. Why should Alito be confirmed? Check out these quotes from some of our favorite lefties (from FoxNews):

"Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not strength." --Senator Ted Kennedy

"The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."--Senator Harry Reid

"President Bush put the demands of his far-right political base above Americans' constitutional rights and legal protections by nominating federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor." — Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way.

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us. This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people." — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Now the gauntlet has been, I think, thrown down. It was humiliating, it was degrading and it's a profound and distributing view of Judge Alito that he would uphold spousal notification as he did in the Pennsylvania case, and it raises concerns about his views of women." — Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL-Pro Choice America.

"Judge Alito is exactly the far-right nominee that the Republican Party's reactionary wing demanded after it 'Borked' Harriet Miers. Judge Alito is to the right of the existing Supreme Court on abortion, and he's to the right of all nine justices, even Scalia and Thomas, in advocating an extremely high burden of proof for employment discrimination cases." — Scott Moss, Marquette University Law School professor.

And now for some of the conservatives:

"Judge Alito's reputation has only grown over the span of his service. He has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. This record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal matter — marriage carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people." — President Bush.

"Judge Alito is unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. And on the bench, he has displayed a judicial philosophy marked by judicial restraint and respect for the limited role of the judiciary to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

"Judge Alito is the best there is. The Democrat-controlled Senate recognized these qualities in Judge Alito when it unanimously confirmed him to the court of appeals." — Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network.

"The president has made an excellent choice today which reflects his commitment to appoint judges in the mold of (Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas. Sam Alito, a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals judge, has consistently embraced the original intent of the Constitution." — Kay Daly, president of the conservative Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

"The president has repeatedly said that he is looking for someone with strong intellect, temperament and reverence for the Constitution to replace Justice O'Connor. Judge Alito is a triple play." — Adam Ciongoli, a former law clerk for Judge Alito and former counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"Of course, he's against abortion," 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic (HT Powerline).

It looks like this time the president has picked a fight with his political enemies instead of his friends. Judge Alito is someone we conservatives can and should get behind.

Hugh Hewitt has a poll up on the nomination, which as you can expect from his readers, is overwhelmingly positive about the nomination. You can cast you vote here.


Samuel Alito; Alito; SCOTUS; Supreme Court

Dems Apoplectic; It's a Good Thing

President Bush learned a thing or two from the Miers debacle and has nominated a solid conservative judge for the Supreme Court:

President Bush on Monday nominated Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

He is filling the spot that opened when Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination last week after facing strong criticism from the president's conservative base. While many Republicans praised the new nominee, Democrats wasted no time in publicly blasting him as "too radical."

"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges of America and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of judicial experience," Bush said in making the announcement in the White House.

"He's scholarly, fair-minded and principled and these qualities will serve him well on the highest court in the land."

This is a good pick for those of us who did not approve of Harriet Miers for the court. It's neither a "buddy" pick, nor a "diversity" pick, but a pick which came from the best qualified candidates for the job. Based on early Dem reaction, this guy will be a winner since the usual suspects are all screaming like stuck pigs.

I heard the Roberts hearings described today as "man among boys", and these hearings promise much of the same. Chuckie and Teddy won't be able to lay a glove on him.

He has had some controversial opinions, including a dissent in the Casey case in which he stated that the constitution did not prohibit a state from requiring that the husband be notified prior to his wife's abortion. Given that abortion is the only issue that really matters to the Dems, that will be a big fight and there is a strong likelihood that many more Senators will vote against him. However, I do not expect that a filibuster attempt will work. I don't think the Dems will want to see the nuclear option exploded in their faces over this guy.

Well done, Mr. President. Let the games begin.


Samuel Alito; Alito; SCOTUS; Supreme Court

Swiftly Flow The Years

On Oct. 29, 1988, Mrs. HolyCoast and I attended a concert at Rose Drive Friends Church in Yorba Linda, CA, featuring a well-known Christian pianist. The concert was painfully loud, so at the intermission we slipped out and headed to the Marie Calendar's restaurant in Tustin for a late dinner. During dinner my wife suddenly got a stricken look on her face, and I knew our lives were about to change forever, for it was at that instant her water broke. Yes, it looked like our first born had decided the time was right to make an entrance into the world, and she didn't mind announcing her plans in a very public place.

We spent a sleepless night at Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach (labor didn't kick in on its own), and at 7am they started inducing her with a Pitocin drip. For those of you who haven't gone through something like that, instead of labor gradually building up, Pitocin takes you from zero to 60 in about 2 seconds flat. The war was on.

An epidural later in the morning made everything right with the world, and at 3:12 Miss Emily took her first bow. It's been quite a ride since then.

Seventeen years later she's now a high school junior and a very accomplished musician, playing flute and piccolo in the marching band, wind ensemble, various chamber groups, and the South County Youth Symphony Orchestra. She's got quite an artistic flair, and has designed some of the coolest looking bead flower jewelry you'd ever want to see. She's a busy kid, and a real blessing to her family.

Tonight she and several friends, along with her brother and some of his friends, will celebrate her birthday at Knott's Halloween Haunt (we're belatedly celebrating his too). Some big changes will be here before you know it - college, and who knows what else. It seems like only yesterday that a two-year old Emily came walking down the stairs on Halloween night wearing a sparkly white tutu and shaking her bottom so she should see the sparkles. Where did the time go?

Happy birthday, sweetie! Your mom and dad love you very much.

Band Aide

Yesterday I spent pretty much all day working at the Mission Viejo High School Marching Band Competition. Our band (which includes the two HolyCoast siblings) hosts this event each year, and this year we had 22 bands competing in 5 classifications; everything from "A" bands with small marching units, to the massive "AAAAA" bands like Mission Viejo, who may have 200 or more kids on the field at once.

My job again this year was working in staging, which involved making sure the bands are in position to perform at their appointed times. This is a timed and judged competition, so getting folks on and off the field on time is important to their scores.

My assigned position in the whole process was interesting as I had the chance to interact with each of the bands as they approached the field, and was able to watch the shows from my location in the end zone. My hat's off to everyone who works with the marching band programs - these kids really work their butt off. It takes a significant amount of skill to be able to learn the music, as well as the massively complicated drill maneuvers that are part of each 7 minute program. Once they start, the kids are pretty much going non-stop for the entire program, and the precision and mastery they show is very impressive.

In addition to the musicians, each performing group includes a color guard unit, made up mostly of girls, who have a whole range of activities they do, including flinging various lethal weapons around within feet of the band members. It's a wonder we don't a few people during each of these events.

Another positive aspect of the band programs is that they seem to attract really good kids. The discipline which comes with the program is a plus, but kids who have been in band for several years are usually already ahead of most others when it comes to discipline and concentration.

The day went off pretty much without a hitch. The directors and their support staffs were easy to work with, and the even though we had over 2,100 performers on the field that day, there weren't any significant problems. We had a couple of minor injuries and one kid fainted during the awards ceremony, but after all the sabres, rifles and other paraphernalia that had been flung around all day, I think we made out pretty well.

If you ever get a chance to go to one of these, it's worth the $8. You'll hear some great music, and see some amazing marching.

Who Knew a '75 Ford Escort Could Be This Valuable?

The 1970's were not good years for American automakers. A lot of crap with American names was produced during that decade, and as much as anything, paved the way for the Japanese car invasion.

However, in 1975 a lowly Ford Escort was built which has gone on to fame and fortune:

A light-blue 1975 Ford Escort GL once owned by Pope John Paul II sold at auction here Saturday for $690,000 to a Houston multimillionaire who said he plans to put it in a museum he wants to build in his hometown.
[...]
Built 30 years ago at a Ford plant in Cologne, Germany, the car sold Saturday in what auctioneer Dean Kruse said was original papal condition — no hubcaps, no air conditioning, no radio, but with several nicks and dents.

"The car will never be driven," said O'Quinn, who said that at least temporarily it will be warehoused with his other cars. "But hopefully, in my life, I'll be able to go back and touch this car and feel the pope's spirit."

The buyer, Mr. O'Quinn, made his fortune as a personal injury lawyer who got rich off the tobacco settlement. I'm not sure even owning the Pope's car can get a personal injury lawyer out of purgatory.

Fall Back/Spring Forward

For any of you who may occasionally wonder why we have Daylight Savings Time (which of course doesn't actually save any daylight), John Miller wrote a piece in National Review last Spring which tells us why we go through this semi-annual silliness.

Gay Church Attempts to Rip-off Dobson

I guess if you can't beat 'em, steal their name. The Metropolitan Church, a gay oriented organization, thought they'd be cute and rip-off a famous evangelical organization's name. Didn't work:

The installation of a new leader of the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Church, held at the Washington Cathedral yesterday, was to be accompanied by the announcement of a new program called "Focus on the Human Family," but attorney's for Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" intervened to protect the Christian ministry's trademarked name.

The Reverend Nancy Wilson was installed as the Presiding Bishop as scheduled, but not before MCC committed to removing the "Focus on the Human Family" name from its website. The service's program followed the original theme of "Unfinished World, Unfinished Calling," but references to the disputed name were not to be found.

Wilson, who in 1976 became the youngest person ever elected to the MCC Board of Elders and has served as an Elder since that time, takes over the denomination from Troy Perry, who founded it in 1968. Wilson lives with her partner of 27 years, Dr. Paula Schoenwether.

"It's a bit puzzling," said Wilson. "The ministry of Metropolitan Community Churches is so different from that of James Dobson. His group tends to focus on one kind of family, what they often mistakenly call the "traditional family." In Metropolitan Community Churches, we believe that God's people find many ways to create family, and that includes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families."

Looks like a straight beats a pair of queens.

Prince of Appeasement

Apparently Prince Charles thinks Americans have a thing or two to learn about Muslims, so he's coming to America to educate us. In the fine tradition of appeasement, he thinks we need to learn to cave in to their every whim much as the British have done:

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.

The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The Duchess of Cornwall will accompany her husband
The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational," the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.

I'm sure since the Prince is coming to educate us, we can look to Britain as a source of good ideas on how to get along with Muslims. Let's just look at one of the cutting edge British policies that have made England such a welcome spot for Muslim radicals:

• British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims.
  Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take serious advise from some guy in his 50's who still lives with his mother and has never had a real job in his life.

The Myth of Denying Miers a Vote

There's a myth being circulated by Miers supporters, and especially by Hugh Hewitt, that I think needs to be shot down. That myth, as expressed in his New York Times piece, is that the Miers critics denied her an up-or-down vote in the Senate, something which conservatives have demanded of Democrats in the last several elections. Hugh expresses it this way:

OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.

I like Hugh, and I had a chance to meet him at the recent GodBlogCon, but I'm always going to be wary of any Republican who shows up on the pages of the NY Times since it's a general rule that the Times is not interested in conservative opinion unless it criticizes other conservatives. Putting that aside, however, the notion that Miers critics resorted to Dem tactics is not completely accurate.

Criticism from the right cannot be confused with the obstructionist parlimentary tactics of the left (although Hugh has pretty much done that). There's absolutely nothing that Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham, David Frum, George Will, the entire gang at The Corner, or me for that matter, could have done to deny Miers an up-or-down vote. Only Miers and the president had they power in the early stage of the nomination process, and they are the ones who exercised it. If it was an up-or-down vote that she and the president wanted, all she had to do was stay in the game. A vote would have been guaranteed since no filibuster was likely. It would have been a terrible mistake, but there was nothing preventing them from continuing.

I will grant that some of the Miers critics went way overboard by buying radio and TV ads and the such, but I don't understand at what point criticism of an unworthy candidate became a prohibited activity? I'm not going to blindly rally around any political leader if I think they've made a bad mistake, and as I stated previously, it's possible to be a strong Constitutionalist and still desire that a nominee withdraw before the hearings begin. The president just may have saved his second term by pulling back on this one.

Let's hope the next nominee is someone that won't be endorsed by Harry Reid, and that the only ones fighting the president will be the Dems.


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS; Miers Withdraws; Supreme Court

What Didn't Happen Yesterday

Charles Krauthammer, who has suddenly become quite the sage in Washington after pretty much scripting the Miers withdrawal, had a few comments on Special Report yesterday concerning what didn't happen in the CIA leak indictments:

"What’s most interesting about the case is what really didn’t happen today,” Krauthammer told Fox News.

"You did not hear about [Karl] Rove, you did not hear about the [CIA Leak] outing,” he said. "That is significant.”

Krauthammer was quick to assert that he does consider the Libby indictment "a very big deal,” a position consistent with past political scandals.

"Perjury is a serious crime,” Krauthammer said. "I thought the same when President Clinton committed perjury before his impeachment.”
He said it seemed odd that the special prosecutor would spend two years of investigation in this case that led only to Libby’s indictment – with no mention of the one topic everyone was talking, writing and reading about: the identity leak of a supposedly covert CIA official.

"What we have now is the usual Washington story – one that seeks to make a crime about denying a crime.”

Krauthammer said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s claim Friday that the investigation into Rove’s involvement in the case "isn’t over” seems strange.

"You would think that either the prosecutor has something on Rove, or he doesn’t,” he said. "Either review it or not. Don’t keep a cloud hanging over the White House gratuitously on the belief that something might be out there.”

Once again a prosecutor was unable to justify a charge in the underlying criminal allegation, but instead found crimes which supposedly occurred during the investigative process. Lying to the grand jury is a very gad idea, and if Libby did it, he'll have to pay. But doesn't it seem to be a very imperfect world when no charges can be brought regarding the reason for the investigation, but a flurry of charges arise from actions during the investigation?

Along with many others, I worry that this case and others (such as the Tom DeLay travesty in Texas) are criminalizing the political process. And those who are rejoicing today over these cases should be very careful - misuse of the law can just as easily ensnare their side as well.

Basically Supporting The Troops

The Dems have big plans for '06, and they are formulating their strategies as we speak. Their sloganeering may need a little work, though (h/t LittleGreenFootballs):

Separately, Clinton administration secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright delivered a report to top Democratic congressional leaders calling for a 50 percent increase in federal spending on homeland security, the creation of a domestic intelligence agency, and a Cabinet-level ranking for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“We are all looking at the Iraq issue, how to make America safe and not leave the situation in complete chaos,” Albright added, echoing many of Kerry’s themes. “The Democrats are basically supportive of the troops.”

I'm sure the troops are feeling the love.

Constitutionalist Yes, Sadist No

I've been reading some of the post mortem writings of the pro-Miers crowd and am struck by the fact that so many of them thought it a good idea to proceed with the process and put this poor woman on the stand in front of the judiciary committee. With all the information that had come out during her brief period in the spotlight, it was pretty clear that she wasn't up to the task, and you'd have to be a sadist to think that allowing her to be shredded by the committee on national TV would have been an appropriate course of action.

This process certainly damaged the president, but how much more damage would have been done had she performed poorly in front of the committee and then been unceremoniously voted down by the Dems and many members of her own party? Even if she'd survived the judiciary committee (which in my view is doubtful), I don't think she could possibly have been confirmed by the entire Senate. There were too many strikes against her.

I've read that if I was a true Constitutionalist, I should have wanted the process to continue to its eventual crushing defeat, as though that would be preferable to withdrawing a bad nomination before things got any worse. That's nonsense. Being a constitutionalist does not mean you're required to follow a stupid path just because the "process" demands it. You don't allow a tumor to continue to grow just because that's the "process"...you cut it out.

Howard Kurtz, looking at this whole mess from a media perspective, has this to say about what went wrong:

But Miers's 24 days in the searing spotlight demonstrated many things. One, that the conservative punditocracy is a powerful force, and never more so than when it decides to break with a Republican president. Two, that the normally disciplined White House can look amateurish when it makes as many mistakes as it did on this nomination. Three, that a Supreme Court candidate may be able to survive a thin resume, but not also a bungled questionnaire, unimpressive meetings with senators, an attempt to sell her on religious grounds, gushing letters to her boss and no trace of ever trying to seriously address constitutional issues. Four, that nominating cronies is risky business. Five, that the party seems divided (former senator Jack Danforth told CNN that the activists' attacks were "mean" and "outrageous," though they simply used the power of their words to undermine a shaky nominee). Six, that presidents really do seem snakebitten in their second terms (see Watergate, Iran-contra, Lewinsky).

Kurtz also addresses some of the conservative media figures who played prominent roles in the collapse of the Miers nomination:

Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham and their conservative colleagues didn't sink the Harriet Miers nomination on their own. But in the blink of a news cycle, they turned against their president, framed the debate and provided the passion that undermined her case.

It was Krauthammer who offered the White House last Friday what he called "the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum" by using a refusal to turn over Miers's internal memos as a fig leaf for withdrawing her Supreme Court bid -- which is precisely what she did.

"I guess she reads my column," the Washington Post and Fox News commentator said yesterday. "All that was missing was the footnote."

I will admit that in the beginning I was fairly agnostic about this nomination, and wasn't really sure just what the president was up to. On Oct. 6th I predicted the failure of the nomination based on my own political radar, but the real tipping point for me was when Charles Krauthammer made the following statement in an Oct. 7th column:

If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

I think that pretty well sums it up, and I'm glad it came to an end before the hearings. Putting an ill-prepared nominee in the spotlight would not only have damaged the nominee, but would have done lasting damage to the president who nominated her. At least now Bush has a chance to redeem himself with those of us who didn't like this nomination, and knew there were better candidates that should have gotten the nod.

My recommendations to the president are found here. I hope you'll make your voice heard as well.


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS; Miers Withdraws; Supreme Court

Iranians Continue Tempting Fate

After calling for the annihilation of Israel in a speech the other day, the Iranian Kook-in-Chief defended his remarks and continued throwing gasoline on the fire:

Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity."

Last Wednesday's comment provoked world outrage. Israel has called for Iran's expulsion from the United Nations.

Egypt said they showed "the weakness of the Iranian government". A Palestinian official also rejected the remarks.

The Iranian people are also getting into the act, as prompted by their president:

Tens of thousands of Iranians took part in the rally in Tehran which Iran organises every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan to show solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire.

Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," chief negotiator Saeb Erekat

Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

Joining the protest, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "My words were the Iranian nation's words.

"Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid," Mr Ahmadinejad told the official Irna news agency.

I wonder how long Israel's patience will hold out with this guy? My guess is they're war-gaming this whole thing out right now. And if Jimmy Carter hadn't been such a wimp, we might have rid Iran of the mad mullahs in 1979 and wouldn't be having this problem today.

Star Trek Actor Comes Out of the Transporter

Admit it, when you saw that headline, you thought it was Shatner. Not this time...or at least not yet.

George Takei, better known as Mr. Sulu on Star Trek, is going where no Star Trek actor has gone before. He's come out of the transporter....er, the closet.

George Takei, best known for his role as Mr. Sulu in "Star Trek," came out as homosexual in the current issue of a magazine covering the Los Angeles gay and lesbian community.

Takei told The Associated Press on Thursday that his new onstage role as psychologist Martin Dysart in "Equus," helped inspire him to publicly discuss his sexuality.

Beam me up Scotty, and set phasers to "fabulous"! Sulu apparently had a warped drive.


Star Trek

Sorry Dems, Rove Lives to Fight Another Day

According to the NY Times (meaning we can't be sure this is true), Karl Rove will not be indicted, but Scooter Libby will be. After the Miers withdrawal, it's more bad news for the Dems. I understand there will be a suicide watch on the Schumer, Reid, Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein.....

UPDATE: From Mark Levin at The Corner:

From the New York Times piece: "Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said."

If this is accurate, and I say if, it bothers me a great deal. To continue to hang this investigation over the president's top aide seems highly inappropriate to me. If they couldn't find something on Rove by now, then move on. If they couldn't find or convince witnesses to contradict Rove by now, then move on. It appears they took another run at his assistant the other day, but may have come up empty. This is clearly disruptive to the president. And at some point you would think this would be relevant to investigators.

Scooter Libby; Karl Rove; Rove

Jimmy W. Carter Follow-up

Awhile back I told you of Jimmy the younger's political plans in Nevada. Today James Taranto points out some of Jimmy Junior's "accomplishments" during his adult lifetime:

"President Carter's eldest son, Jack, is fueling hopes that Democrats can knock off first-termer Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) next year," reports the Hill. Among the young Carter's qualifications:

- He was discharged from the Navy in 1970 for drug use.

- He used to run a grain elevator business, which, according to columnist Jane Ann Morrison, "closed."

- He spent seven years trading commodities in the tax haven of Bermuda.

We're tempted to scoff, but we'll resist the urge. After all, underachieving sons of one-term presidents have been known to accomplish great things in American politics.

I'm guessing this Senate seat will stay in the "R" column.

If This Is A Bad Day for Bush, Why Are The Dems So Depressed?

The GOP has been pretty split over the Miers nomination, and the reaction today to her withdrawal is equally split. Some are fuming and some are all but ecstatic. Most are inbetween somewhere.

Many pundits are trying to spin this as a terrible day for President Bush, but if that's so, why are the Democrats so upset? The fact is, they are now panicked that Bush just might do what many in his party wants him to do - appoint a judicial conservative. All you have to do is listen to the Dems as they trot out to the microphones today to know that they thought they had someone they could mold in their own image with Miers, and they're afraid they won't get that next time. Just listen to Harry Reid (h/t Just a Woman):

“The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.

“In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.”

Earlier today, Sen. Durbin said the withdrawal was "not about documents, but about Dobson". The left is scared to death about the next nominee. Durbin is threatening a fight, and I say let's give it to him.

Chuckie Schumer looks like someone just shot his dog. Would he be acting that way if he'd just experienced a great victory? Of course not.

Teddy Kennedy got so upset he reportedly stopped drinking (not really, I made that one up - he'll never stop drinking.)

Republicans who are moaning about losing Miers should buck up. This will be a victory in the long run...provided that the President has learned something from this whole episode. If you didn't see it, here's my open letter to the President regarding the next nominee.


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS; Miers Withdraws; Supreme Court

An Open Letter To President Bush

Dear Mr. President:

I have been a big fan of yours since the 2000 elections, and have worked through various sources to secure your election and reelection, and to promote the elections of GOP candidates who share our vision for America. Although we have agreed far more than we have disagreed, I did vigorously oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

I'm sorry that the White House and Ms. Miers were put through such a bruising battle, but it was a fight we needed to have. The Supreme Court is the last hope for sanity in our legal system, and it's vitally important that the right individual be given that huge responsibility.

Mr. President, without question there will be a fight over this next nomination. The question for you, sir, is with whom do you wish to fight? Do you wish to have another battle with the conservative base, risk losing their support in the 2006 midterm elections and possibly cripple your presidency for the remaining three years? Or would you rather fight with the liberal left who have spared no effort to call you stupid, Hitler, a liar, and who knows what else? If you nominate another stealth candidate, or a moderate who's wishy-washy on issues important to conservatives, you will risk another war with your own base and will effectively side with your political enemies who have spent your entire term disrespecting you and your office. Mr. President, it's time to honor the wishes of those who have stood steadfastly beside you since the 2000 election.

And please, sir, remember that this is the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Diversity Court. Conservatives want to see a nominee who is the best judicial conservative available, not the best woman, minority, gay, Baptist, or any other qualification. Just the best. If the best person available fits one of those "protected classes", so much the better, but the only qualification you should be looking at besides a judicial conservative is that you've picked the very best. Remember the Hallmark motto: "When you care enough to send the very best..."

I don't have a specific recommendation for the position because I don't know who the best qualified judicial conservative is. However, there are lots of talented conservatives who know better than I and are just a phone call away. Please make use of their knowledge and skills and don't just rely on the folks who work for you. There are lots of good opinions outside those white walls.

I wish you the best of luck with the next nominee. Remember, sir, if you honor the wishes of your supporters, we will back you and your nominee with everything we've got and will stand beside you in the coming fight with the Democrats and their lefty special interest allies. We're here - please let us help.

Respectfully,

Rick Moore
HolyCoast.com


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS; Miers Withdraws; Supreme Court

Miers Withdraws

Sometimes I'm good, and sometimes I'm really good. My crystal ball must have been working on Oct. 6 when I predicted the following:

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and give you my prediction on the Miers' nomination right now. Based on what I'm seeing out in both the conservative and liberal media, Miers will not be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She will either withdraw (voluntarily or be asked to be the president), or will be rejected by the Senate.

This morning Miers took the Krauthammer option and withdrew her nomination, basically blaming the desire of the Senate to see White House documents. It's the easiest way out and the least embarrassing.

I'm glad that Miers and the White House came to the conclusion that this nomination was not going to work, and did so before the hearings. I think they could have been a disaster.

Now, let's get a nominee that conservatives can be proud of, and start fighting the Dems instead of other Republicans.

UPDATE: The Dems are running to the microphones. Sen. Dick Turbin, eh Durbin, just stated on Fox that the withdrawal was "not about documents, but about Dobson", a cheap shot at the GOP Right. I'll bet you hear that talking point all day from the Dems.

Of course, now all the Dems are demanding a "moderate" judge, just what the GOP right doesn't want to see, and that would certainly reignite the war with the White House.


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS; Miers Withdraws

1994 or 1998 Part Deux

As a follow-up to my previous post, here's a Weekly Standard piece by Fred Barnes who interviews pollster Frank Luntz about Republican chances in 2006:

IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN and already worried about your party's prospects in 2006, pollster Frank Luntz, a Republican himself, has a message for you: It's worse than you think.

Luntz, who worked with Republicans in 1994 to draft the Contract With America and win a realigning election, said political conditions are as bad or worse now--only this time for Republicans, not Democrats. Republicans won 52 House seats in 1994 and have held the House since then. In 2006, he said, Republican control of the House--currently 232 seats to 203 seats--is "in jeopardy." Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats to take over.

"Republicans have a whole year to get their act together," Luntz said, though they've shown no signs of doing so. "As angry and p-----off as we were about politics [in 1994], I think it's worse today," according to Luntz, who spoke yesterday at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "The saving grace for the Republican party is Nancy Pelosi." The House Democratic leader, he said, "is being handed the perfect political storm on a plate," but she's failing to take advantage.

Luntz said there were six components of the Republican triumph in 1994: change, economic anxiety, fear, anger, betrayal, and the prominence of national issues. All of these should be working today for Democrats, he said, and could fuel a Democratic landslide in 2006.
[...]

Luntz said the anger of voters is "palpable, emotional, intense." And Republican voters, the conservative ones anyway, feel betrayed by wasteful spending in Washington and Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.

There's still time to turn things around, and the GOP has to get its act together and fast. Luntz does offer a glimmer of hope:

The good news for Republicans goes beyond Pelosi, the mention of whose name prompts groans from focus groups. Democrats are too negative, don't have an agenda, and lack a national leader. "As pathetic as Republicans are, Democrats are worse," Luntz said.

Truer words were never spoken.

Getting Even in Aspen

The New York Times has a motto: "All the news that's fit to print". Of course, what they consider "all the news" and what others may think about that are often very different. Still, it's a catchy motto.

The Aspen Daily News has a motto too: "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen". That's actually pretty good advice.

I saw that motto while reading the following article about a dissatisfied car buyer who decided to take some constructive action, and is now being sued by the dealer:

Elk Mountain Motors has filed a lawsuit to slam the brakes on some bad publicity being spread by a vehicle the dealership sold.

The Glenwood Springs car lot is suing Seth J. Turok because of a customized sign the Aspen resident has posted on the Audi A6 he bought from the dealer in 2000. Filed in Pitkin County District Court, the suit seeks at least $100,000 in damages and a jury trial.

The custom-made sign is an attention grabber for sure, and Elk Mountain claims it's a repellent for the dealership's potential customers.

"Friends don't let friends shop at Elk Mtn Motors," reads the sign, which is displayed on the driver and passenger sides of the four-door sedan.

Elk Mountain's complaint claims that the sign is damaging its business and reputation, and that Turok is committing libel and slander, among other charges.

You have to like the guy's style. Although he's getting sued, he refuses to remove the sign, and in fact, he probably has a good defense since it will be very difficult for the dealership to prove their allegations. It may cost him some money, but so far he thinks it's worth it.

This is a classic example of the need for a loser-pays system of tort law. If there was a loser-pays system in force, the dealer probably would not have filed this suit in the first place and would have sought other, less expensive remedies with the complainant.

Oh well, we can always dream.

Breaking News: WNBA Player is Gay

Boy, I bet you didn't see this coming:

Houston Comets forward Sheryl Swoopes is opening up about being a lesbian, telling a magazine that she's "tired of having to hide my feelings about the person I care about."

Swoopes, honored last month as the WNBA's Most Valuable Player, told ESPN The Magazine for a story on newsstands Wednesday that she didn't always know she was gay and fears that coming out could jeopardize her status as a role model.

She strayed a little from the gay reservation with this comment:

"Do I think I was born this way? No," Swoopes said. "And that's probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are."

Looks like a little reeducation is in order. After all, if you're not born gay, then it must be caused by environmental influences. In other words, if you can catch it, you can cure it, and that just won't do for the gay activists.

Imagine that, a lesbian basketball player. Next thing you know they'll be coming out in golf and tennis too.

Chief Iranian Terrorist Vows to Wipe Israel of the Map

The chief Iranian terrorist, who also happens to be their president (convenient, isn't it?), is acting true to form as predicted after his election:

Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s fundamentalist president (Fundamentalist what? Christian, Jew, Hindu, Hari Krishna, or could he possibly be Muslim?-HC), on Wednesday declared that Israel should be “wiped off the map” and warned Arab countries against developing economic ties with Israel in response to its withdrawal from Gaza.

His remarks, delivered at a conference in Tehran entitled “A World without Zionism”, led to diplomatic protests by the UK, France and Spain, while Shimon Peres, Israel’s deputy prime minister, said Iran should be expelled from the United Nations.
[...]

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said, citing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

The president told an audience of students there was “no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world”.

“Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury,” he said, in remarks aimed at Arab states.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who took office in August, was departing from the moderate line of his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who argued Iran should be no more radical about Israel than the Palestinians themselves. Reformist figures in Iran have recently warned that Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s stern rhetoric endangers Iran’s national interest and could encourage the referral of Tehran’s nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. Iran denies its development of the nuclear fuel cycle is for military use.

If you were Ariel Sharon, prime minister of Israel, what would you do? Israel has nukes and Iran is trying to build some. If I were you, I wouldn't be wagering on the long-term viability of the Iranian nuclear power program. Given that most of the airspace Israel would have to fly through to bomb Iran is contolled by the U.S., I think there's a good chance that U.S. air defenses in the region just might look the other way for a few hours while the more than capable Israeli Air Force puts an end to this threat.

And don't forget the Mossad - they can be pretty creative too. President Ahmadi-Nejad might want to go over any last minute corrections to his will.

Dumbest Poll of the Week

Apparently there's not much for Gallup to do these days, so they've taken to running stupid polls. However, Dems should take note because, as James Taranto points out in Best of the Web Today, this poll might show some hope for the Dem's future White House hopes:

A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

Finally, a formula for Democratic success! All they need to do is (1) refrain from nominating a candidate, (2) arrange for the GOP to nominate someone who is constitutionally ineligible to run, and (3) hold the election in an off year. What could be simpler?

As Scrappleface points out, either Bush would lose the election, or he'd be arrested for violating the 22nd amendment of the Constitution. He just can't win!

If a presidential election were held this year, George Bush would either lose to an anonymous Democrat or win and be jailed for violating the term-limit provision found in the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup/Nabisco/Toys R Us Poll released Tuesday.

In the hypothetical matchup between the increasingly-unpopular two-term president and an unnamed Democrat, 75 percent of respondents said they liked the views, character and personal hygiene habits of the unnamed opponent better than those of the illegally-incumbent president.

In related news, a hypothetical CNN poll shows that 95 percent of Americans would give a pollster misleading answers "just to jack up the results."

The make-believe phone survey of 832 Americans also revealed that 97 percent of respondents strongly agree with the statement: "I'm sorry we can't come to the phone right now, but if you leave a message, we'll get right back to you."

Will It Be 1994 or 1998?

There are storm clouds on the horizon for the Republicans in 2006, and the question now is which model will the storm follow - 1994 or 1998?

Democrats think '06 will be their 1994 when the voters will sweep them back into power in Congress. I don't see that happening. The GOP sweep in 1994 was driven by a couple of things. First of all, you had a visionary, Newt Gingrich, come along and develop a set of ideas and goals which the American public embraced. The "Contract With America" caught the voter's attention, and by nationalizing the election, Gingrich was able to generate a voter interest in the GOP plan and backlash against the Dem majority. The other issue, of course, was Bill and Hill's desire to take over the health care system in the country, not to mention their many other foibles.

Where is the Dem visionary capable of generating national interest in electing Democrats to Congress? There isn't one. So far the sum total of the Dem plan is "vote for us, we're not them". That won't win you too many elections.

I'm beginning to think that the '06 midterms are probably going to look like the '98 midterms. After four years of the Republican Revolution, the conservatives had seen the fresh faced GOP congressmen of 1994 turn into the same old high-spending types they'd thrown out in '94. Conservatives got mad at being taken for granted and stayed home in large numbers. The GOP retained their majorities but lost a bunch of seats. Newt Gingrich ended up stepping down from the Speaker's post.

Unless things change dramatically, I can easily see conservatives pulling a '98 all over again and staying home on election day. The results could be devastating to the GOP majorities - possibly even saddling Bush with a Dem majority in one house or the other...and maybe both. It won't be liberal turnout that wins a Dem majority, but conservatives not turning out.

Conservatives are sending a message to Bush and Congress right now - don't you dare take our support...or our votes for granted.

There is a third option - 2002. If the president and Congress get their act together and start acting the way they promised to act when elected, conservatives will get back on board, and a motivated base could generate mid-term gains as they did in '02. Right now it's up to the folks in Washington to see what kind of election night they want to have in 2006.

The Bridge To "More Stuff"

If you want a good idea of just how out-of-control spending has become in the Republican Congress, just look at the recent kerfuffle over the "bridge to nowhere". John Stossel documents what's going on in just one state - Alaska:

Big spender Ted Stevens responded to (Sen. Tom) Coburn's good suggestion to kill a "Bridge to Nowhere" with a tantrum on the Senate floor: He threatened to resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher."

Good! Sen. Stevens, please go. I'll even help carry the stretcher.

Unfortunately, Congress has an unwritten code: "Don't threaten the other congressmen's loot." The Senate reprimanded Coburn by voting 82 to 15 to save the Bridge to Nowhere.

The Ketchikan, Alaska, bridge is particularly egregious because it's a bridge to a nearly uninhabited island. Yet it will be monstrous -- higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and almost as long as the Golden Gate. Even some in Ketchikan laugh about it. One told us, "Short view is, I don't see a need for it. The long view ... I still don't see a need for it."

Last week, Alaska's other senator, Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "offensive" not to spend your money on her bridge. When she first became a senator, I asked her if Republicans believed in smaller government. She was unusually candid: "We want smaller government. But, boy, I sure want more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is."

I'll say. Alaska's pork projects spanned 67 pages. They get much more than other states. "Oh, you need to come up," she said. "You would realize it's not pork. It's all necessity ... People look at Alaska and say, 'Well, gee, they're getting all this money.' But we still have communities that are not tied in to sewer and water. There are certain basic things that you've got to have."

But my children shouldn't have to pay for them. If people want to live in remote areas of Alaska, why can't they pay for their own sewers and water, through state or local taxes, or better yet, through private businesses? Why should all Americans pay to run sewer lines through the vast, frozen spaces of Alaska? Because Alaska has no money?

Don't believe it. Alaska has so much money, it has no state income tax or sales tax. Instead, it gives its citizens money from something called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Stevens, Murkowski and Don Young, who once told critics of the Bridge to Nowhere that they could "kiss his ear," are not unique. Republican politicians talk about limited government, but the longer they are in power, the more they vote to spend.

Spending your money, they want "more stuff."

It's antics like the farce put on by Alaska's representatives that make you wonder whether Republicans deserve to be in control of Congress. There are many who favor a split government, with the White House and Congress controlled by different parties. I'm not sure I'm there yet, but there certainly was less government growth when the GOP Congress was battling the Clinton White House than there has been with the GOP running the whole show.

Either the GOP has to quit talking about smaller government and do something about it, or conservatives will not feel compelled to return them to power in '06.

UPDATE: The Bridge to Nowhere has been defunded.

Conservatives Feeling Betrayed

Rod Dreher writes a very tough piece in the Dallas News which expresses sentiments felt by many conservatives these days, and it's not good news for President Bush:

Where to start? With the LBJ-level spending? The signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, which candidate Bush had denounced as unconstitutional? The race-preferences sellout in the University of Michigan cases?

There was also the cynical use of the federal marriage amendment, which the administration dropped after turning out the social conservative vote in 2004. And grass-roots conservatives cite the president's intent to liberalize immigration policy with Mexico.

Then there is the Iraq quagmire, which, even if initially a worthy cause, has become a rolling disaster.

On top of this came the Katrina debacle, which further damaged conservatism's claim to competent governance.

Conservatives, consciously or not, looked the other way for far too long, mostly because we felt it important to back the president in wartime and because nothing was more important to the various tribes of Red State Nation than recapturing the Supreme Court. For the first time in a generation, a conservative Republican president and a Republican majority in the Senate made that dream a real possibility.

Whatever else Mr. Bush might fumble, we trusted him to get that right.

Instead, he gave us a crony pick of no extraordinary constitutional expertise or discernible vision, except for love of Our Lord and George W. Bush, and support for racial preferences. This is what we drank the Rovian Kool-Aid for? The Miers selection was no isolated incident, but the tipping point in a series of betrayals.

The highlighted section reminds me of something written by another pundit a few days ago (h/t me):

A lot of people seem surprised by the discord among conservatives and can't understand why the folks who have stood most solidly behind Bush are now quite upset with him. Do you want to know what I think? (Of course you do, or you wouldn't be reading this site.) I think conservatives have swallowed a lot of anger over various Administration policies which, at least in appearance, seemed to go against conservative values. Things like the education bill which was largely written by Teddy Kennedy, signing McCain-Feingold, the massive expansion of government entitlement programs like the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the lack of response of the Administration to the problems of border security. In each case conservatives shook their heads a bit, and then resignedly said "at least we'll get decent judges". That was true until Miers.

With the possibility of indictments coming down on major White House players, the President needs to recapture his base, and at this time, the only way to do that is dump Miers (as nicely as possible) and nominate someone the base can rally around. Otherwise I fear the Bush administration may come to an effective end three years before it has to.


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS

HolyCoast.com Temporarily Less Attractive

If you're a frequent visitor here and wonder where the graphics went (the flashing ad banner at the top, the church sign in the right sidebar, and the picture of your charming host), the servers which provide the hosting for those items are located in South Florida and got clobbered by Wilma. Verio, the hosting company, is working on the problem and hopefully they'll get their power problems sorted out soon and my smiling face will return to the profile box.

Until then, you can draw your own pictures in the box provided.

A Good Reason To Stay In

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette has a piece today on some of the comments coming from National Guard troops who are reenlisting or leaving the service. His favorite, and mine, is as follows (h/t Instapundit):

But the best quote of the piece comes from 1Lt Bruce Bishop, a Salt Lake County firefighter and Afghanistan veteran who's currently deployed to Louisiana. I can hear Dave Letterman introducing this one: The number one reason for staying in the Guard is:

..."because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."

Good for 1Lt Bishop! I wonder if he was thinking about Wacko Woodstock at the time.

Three Southern California Airports Closed by Threats

Today was a bad day to be an air traveler in Southern California. No less than three major airports were closed for a time due to bomb threats. John Wayne Orange County Airport and Long Beach Airport both had telephone threats, and apparently San Diego was shut down for even sillier reasons:

A terminal at San Diego International Airport was evacuated Tuesday after luggage screeners mistook a child's toy and a cookie for bomb- making components, officials said.

A screening machine at the Commuter Terminal detected what appeared to be bomb-making material in a carryon bag around 7:45 a.m., said Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Jennifer Peppin.

A bomb squad was called to the terminal, which serves regional flights, and investigators determined the bag did not contain any "IED," or improvised explosive devices, Peppin said.

[...]

The discovery followed bomb threats called in earlier Tuesday to airports in Long Beach and Orange County. The calls triggered massive searches of both facilities but no explosive devices were found.

As a result, flights were canceled or delayed, and hundreds, if not thousands, of air travelers were inconvenienced or possibly even stranded. With many flights running at capacity these days, one cancellation can leave a planeload of people with literally no place to go.

I know we have to be careful in light of the many threats that exist today, but it's not too comforting for frequent fliers to know that any idiot with a phone...or any mom with a toy and cookie parts...can shut down your travel plans anytime he or she wants.

The Left's Morality Stops at the Water's Edge

Richard Cohen is quickly becoming my favorite liberal columnist. A few days ago he gave a pretty good justification for overturning Roe v. Wade, and today he has a quote about the left which is right on the mark (h/t Political Diary):

"Both JFK and FDR were Democrats, of course, and the party has always been associated with internationalism -- everything from the League of Nations to the United Nations. Somehow, though, that moralism -- that urge to do good abroad -- has drifted over to the GOP. It is Republicans, particularly neocons, who talk the language of moralism in foreign policy and who, weapons of mass destruction aside, wanted to take out Saddam Hussein because he was a beast. It mattered to them that he killed and tortured his own people. It says something about the Democratic left that it cheered Michael Moore's infantile 'Fahrenheit 9/11' even though the film made no mention of Saddam's depredations, not even his gassing of Kurdish villages. Moore's morality stops at the water's edge"

If he's not careful, he might find himself coming over from the dark side.

Rosa Parks

I was going to write a piece on the passing of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, but then I read Mark Daniels' piece on the same subject, and his is so much better than anything I was going to come up with, I'm just going to refer you to Pastor Daniels. Read his excellent tribute to Mrs. Parks here.

Iraqis Have a Constitution (AP Not Happy)

The Iraqis have approved their new constitution, but the AP is not real happy about it. Look how quickly they go from good news to bad news in this report:

Draft Constitution Adopted by Iraq Voters

Iraq's constitution was adopted by a majority in a fair vote during the country's Oct. 15 referendum, as Sunni Arab opponents failed to muster enough support to defeat it, election officials said Tuesday. A prominent Sunni politician called the balloting "a farce."

The U.S. military also announced the deaths of two Marines in fighting with insurgents last week in Baghdad, bringing the number of American service members killed in the war to 1,999.

It's almost as though they used the news of the vote as an excuse to rerun the combat death numbers. By the way, was the vote close? You might think so reading those opening paragraphs. Here's what you find way down near the bottom of the article:

The vote on the constitution was 78.59 percent in favor of ratification and 21.41 percent against, the commission said.

That's a blowout any way you want to look at it. Had the constitution been defeated by those numbers, you can be assured they would have led the report and the headline would have been something like "Iraqis Overwhelmingly Defeat Bush-Approved Constitution".

The Democrats Who Stole Christmas

FoxNews anchor John Gibson has a new book which is sure to create much anger on the left - The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Of course, the thing that's really going to get the goat of the mainstream media is the fact that most of the folks bringing the anti-Christmas legal actions are Democrats. Don't look for Gibson on any of the major morning shows.

This book comes out at the same time as a report which says that the current political divisions in the country have neatly divided the religious from the secular:

The Republicans have had a bad few weeks. However, the Democrats have had a rough decade. A preacher who visited New York last week provides part of the answer.

Yes, top GOPers in Washington are in deep trouble, even as the White House braces for the negative impact of the 2,000th American fatality in Iraq. So that's one way of assessing the political situation.

But there's another way, which asks, Which party better shares the bedrock values of most Americans? That's a happier question for Republicans.

A new paper by Democratic thinkers William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, "The Politics of Polarization," argues that over the past three decades a "great sorting out" has occurred, leaving conservatives and religious believers mostly in the Republican Party, liberals and seculars mostly in the Democratic Party.

The problem for Democrats is that self-described conservatives outnumber self-described liberals 34-21. Furthermore, Galston and Kamarck - veterans of the Clinton White House - contend many moderates incline toward conservatism on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the public display of religion. A Pew Center poll asked, for example, if it was proper to display the Ten Commandments in a government building; 72 percent of Americans said "proper," 22 percent "improper."

As Galston and Kamarck observe, religion and the social-issue controversies it raises have been "the overriding factor" in the realignment of the parties - or, to put it more bluntly, the shrinkage of the Democratic Party. The authors regret this shrinking but don't see a reversal so long as their party is seen as anti-religious.

But is it unfair to say that Democrats are anti-faith? Maybe. Yet in politics, perception is reality. So, for as long as just 29 percent of Americans see the Democrats as friendly to religion, compared to 55 percent who see Republicans as religion-friendly, the authors see only bad news for donkeys.

Since many of the anti-Christmas initiatives of the left are also seen by many people as anti-American values, these crusades against the creche scenes and Christmas carols will only further damage the Dems.

The Anti-Miers Forces Are Becoming More Organized

I've stated previously my opposition to the Miers nomination, and I'm clearly not alone. Today WithdrawMiers.org was created (not by me) which documents the concerns of many conservatives (and probably many others), and if you're looking for commentary and information on the nomination, it's a good source, though clearly coming at the issue from one side.

For a different view, you can read Hugh Hewitt's long treatise on the pro-Miers arguments, written during a long flight home from Italy and probably fueled by too much heavy Italian food. Hugh has pretty much taken a George W. Bush Über Alles approach to this nomination, and that's where he and I differ. I'm also a big fan of the president, but I don't think his every act is perfect, and nor do I think the GOP can't survive an argument like this. I'm not sure all the sniping between Hugh and the folks at The Corner is advancing anyone's cause either.

There's only been one man in the history of the planet who demanded - and deserved - unconditional devotion... and they hung him on a cross. A little arguing among Republicans is small potatoes.

I think both sides are digging in, and I'm beginning to doubt that parties on either side can be persuaded one way or the other...at least until the hearings (if the nomination isn't withdrawn prior). If we get as far as hearings, it's going to take an Oscar-winning performance to swing the folks who have already come out against her, and nothing short of a complete meltdown to swing the pro side. Either way, somebody's not going to be happy.

I'm still going with my October 6th prediction.


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS

I oppose the Miers nomination.

Wilma Turns Cancun Into New Orleans

See if any of this sounds familiar:

Dazed foreign tourists stranded in stinking shelters in this hurricane-hit Mexican beach resort demanded to be rescued Monday, and President Vicente Fox lost his cool at slow aid efforts.

Toilets overflowed and food was scarce at refuges in Cancun, where some 20,000 vacationers spent their fifth day sleeping on floors or in stuffy rooms without electricity or running water.

Hurricane Wilma, one of the strongest Atlantic storms recorded, wrecked Cancun at the weekend, gutting huge hotels before pounding Cuba and Florida.

Cancun is Mexico's main resort, a major source of jobs in the region and the jewel of a tourism industry that is the country's third-biggest earner of foreign currency.
Heavily armed federal police stood guard at supermarkets to prevent looting that broke out at the weekend, adding to the chaos. Authorities declared a night-time curfew.

Another 18,000 tourists were stuck in Playa del Carmen, down the coast from Cancun, and the Tourism Ministry said Wilma would cost Mexico's tourism industry $800 million.

A fist fight broke out overnight at the El Forito theater, which was holding some 300 mostly American and British package tourists evacuated from their lodgings, witnesses said.

"If some changes aren't made, it's going to get real nasty, because people's tempers are starting to get frazzled. You are living on rice and noodles and fruit," said Jim Pelinka, 54, a school administrator from Minnesota.

Tourists slept in two-hour shifts on the theater's wooden stage because there was not enough room in the building. It stank of overflowed toilets.

I'll never understand why people don't leave when they see these things coming.

Bush Nominates Qualified Person for Fed Chief

After all the hubbub about Miers, it's nice to see the President nominating someone for Fed Chief who seems to be highly qualified:

President Bush on Monday selected Ben Bernanke, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, to replace Alan Greenspan as Fed chairman, according to an administration official.

[...]

There had been widespread speculation that Bush might act as early as this month to give the Senate time to confirm the nomination before Greenspan's term expired.
However, announcing Greenspan's successor also provided a diversion for a White House reeling under congressional criticism of the Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination and a federal investigation into whether top officials leaked the name of a CIA operative for political purposes.

Wall Street reacted favorably to word that Bernanke was Bush's pick. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 60 points minutes after Bernanke's name leaked out and was up 110 points at midday.

Wall Street likes this guy, and so far the Senate seems to be pleased with this nomination. Both are good news, because Bush certainly doesn't need another controversial nomination right now.

The Blogosphere Gets Busy On Miers

I mentioned this in a previous post, but for those of you who are bloggers, or who want to see which direction the blogosphere is going on Miers, here are a couple of good resources from The Truth Laid Bear:

• The blog poll which gives each blog the opportunity to vote for, against, or neutral on Miers. In early voting the blogs are coming in overwhelmingly against Miers. That will change as more blogs find out about the poll and post their votes. I like the way he's structured this poll since it limits each blog to one vote, instead of the ballot box stuffing that goes on with most online polls.
• The TTLB Miers topic page. This page has the lastest posts on Miers, and the top linked posts. It also has an exhaustive list of bloggers posting on the subject.

The blog poll will be updated each evening, or as N.Z. Bear has time to do it. It will be interesting to see where the votes go.

Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS

Smoke Gets In Your Eyes

After I posted the report from the Las Vegas trip, I was reminded about something else about Vegas that I meant to tackle in that post. After finishing up my blogging duties, I opened my suitcase to empty it out and was immediately hit with the odor of stale cigarette smoke, a lasting reminder of the foul air that occupies every nook and cranny of that town. You just can't get away from it.

We Californians are very fortunate that the state and local authorities have taken a very strong anti-smoking approach, and for the most part, we are blessed with cigarette smoke-free air in public places. Although I'm pretty strong on individual freedoms, your freedom stops at my nose, and that's why I don't have any problem with restrictive smoking laws.

I can remember working in an office in the early 80's before smoking regulations came into effect, and every night I would go home reeking of cigarettes that my co-workers had smoked all day. It was disgusting, and certainly not healthy for any of us. The day Orange County banned smoking in workplaces was a magical day for me, because not only could I breathe freely in the office, but I got to watch all the smokers huddling in the cold, rainy weather outside the building as they got their fix. It was quite entertaining.

I can also remember flying in the days before smoking was banned. I always like to sit by the window, and on one flight, the only window seat was in the smoking section, so I took it. The lady next to me proceeded to chain smoke the entire 3 hour trip. Needless to say, I never sat back with the smokers again (though in airplanes it didn't really matter since the smoke quickly spread throughout the cabin).

If you've forgotten what it used to be like and don't have time to run to Vegas, just drop in at any Indian casino/hotel in California. Due to their "sovereign" status, they have the only public buildings in the state in which smoking is allowed. You're immediately hit with this wall of foul air the minute the door opens.

In Vegas your level of discomfort is pretty much determined by the design of the building. Some of the newer properties have high ceilings and ventilation systems which can completely change out the air in the building every 3 or 4 minutes. Those are not nearly as bad as the older properties which have low ceilings and poorer ventilation, and which seem to have a permanent blue cloud. You find that a lot in downtown Las Vegas.

And it's not just cigarettes. Everywhere we went this weekend we saw guys smoking what smelled like garbage wrapped in tobacco. I believe they call those cigars. I really don't understand the attraction of those things.

I was kind of surprised to see that the casino area in the new Wynn's resort has a fairly low ceiling, which apparently makes gamblers feel more comfortable, but doesn't help non-smokers. Clearly the comfort of the gamblers will always come first.

It's good to be back in relatively smoke-free California. The smog I can put up with.

A Couple of Weird News Items

While cruising the web after two days away, I came across a couple of rather weird news items (h/t Drudge):

• Twin girl singers from Bakersfield who look a lot the Olsen twins, but who sing racist songs extolling white pride. Don't look for them to star in their own sitcom or appear on the Today Show.

  Known as "Prussian Blue" — a nod to their German heritage and bright blue eyes — the girls from Bakersfield, Calif., have been performing songs about white nationalism before all-white crowds since they were nine.
  
  "We're proud of being white, we want to keep being white," said Lynx. (I'll go out on a limb here and predict that they'll probably stay white. I don't see them changing colors anytime soon-HC.) "We want our people to stay white … we don't want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race."

• Novelist Anne Rice, who normally writes novels full of vampires and other dark topics, has found Christ and vows to write only for Him. I hope it's true and not another short-term conversion ala Bob Dylan or Jane Fonda.

• Howard Dean said something stupid. (That's not really weird...it's to be expected. Howard, however, is weird.)
  

That's what I get for staying away from the internet for a couple of days.

Military Deaths Give the Left An Excuse For a Party

The media, and when it suits them, the left, love nice round numbers coming out of Iraq. We're about to hit the 2,000 death number, and apparently that's cause to celebrate (h/t Little Green Footballs):

The American Friends Service Committee is planning to hold a series of parties all across the country when the 2000th US soldier is killed in Iraq: Not One More Death. Not One More Dollar. (Hat tip: Politics and Religion.)
Here’s the current list of locations.

Nothing cheers up the left more than another dead American soldier.

UPDATE: Cindy Sheehan, still struggling to recoup her lost press coverage, is planning to join the festivities:

Cindy Sheehan, the military mother who made her son’s death in Iraq a rallying point for the anti-war movement, plans to tie herself to the White House fence to protest the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.

I have a suggestion for the White House cops: Don't arrest Sheehan when she ties herself to the fence. Just leave her there. What she really wants is the press coverage of the arrest, and if they just ignore her, we'll all be better off for it.

George Will Is Not Impressed

As I indicated Friday, George Will had a column this weekend that didn't beat around the Bush (pun intended) when it came to Harriet Miers. Here's the link, and it starts like this:

Defending The Indefensible

Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

With an opening like that, you kind of know where he's going to go next. At the end of the piece he does some math, and has something to say about the supporters and detractors:

Can Miers's confirmation be blocked? It is easy to get a senatorial majority to take a stand in defense of this or that concrete interest, but it is surpassingly difficult to get a majority anywhere to rise in defense of mere excellence.

Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue -- their right to criticize the administration's cronyism.

And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.

As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.

This morning on Fox Bill Kristol said he's not even sure the nomination will make it to the hearings, and may be withdrawn before it becomes even more embarrassing. I kind of doubt that, but right now there's no way she has the votes for confirmation (Chuckie Schumer agrees, which is a little scary since he and I rarely agree on anything). We'll see what happens.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg of National Review has come out against Miers. Hugh Hewitt is still valiantly defending the nomination, but I'm beginning to think he's trying to fight off incoming missiles with a flyswatter. Good luck with all that.

TTLB is running a blog poll on the nomination, and in keeping with that poll, at this point I oppose the Miers nomination.

Our Weekend In Sin City

We just came back from a weekend in Las Vegas, and let me see if I can give you a feel for what we spent most of our time doing:

• Monte Carlo Street of Dreams
• The Shops at Bellagio
• The Fine Arts Museum at Bellagio
• Desert Passage Shops at Aladdin
• The Forum Shops at Caeser's Palace
• The Shops at the new Wynn's Resort
• The M&Ms store on the strip
• Other shops at Excalibur, Luxor, Mandalay Bay and New York, New York
• The Fashion Square Mall
• The shops at Paris Las Vegas & Bally's
• The Canal Shops at the Venetian
• The Guggenheim Museum at the Venetian

Did I miss anything? Yes, as promised in my previous post, this weekend was largely spent shopping. As you can tell, I was not in charge.

We planned the trip for this weekend because both the kids were going to be gone on a marching band trip to Fresno and Magic Mountain. Rather than sit around the house, we headed over for a quick weekend trip. The last several times we've been there it was in the peak of summer when the temperatures, both day and night, never dropped below 100. This time it was in the low 80's and very comfortable.

Our flight out was delayed about 30 minutes thanks to Air Force One. Although we were at different airports, because they were scheduled to leave about the same time we were and were going in the same general direction, all traffic was groundstopped while Air Force One got out of the way.

We stayed this time at Excalibur, which means we've now completed the South strip trifecta, having previously stayed at Mandalay Bay and Luxor. Excalibur was fine for what we needed, but certainly not as plush as Mandalay Bay. Here's the Mrs. at our weekend castle

We walked up the street through New York, New York, had dinner at the Monte Carlo, and then took the tram over to Bellagio. The new tower has been built since we were last there, and they've added a bunch of new shops (oh joy!). They have a chocolate store which includes a very interesting chocolate fountain.
The Bellagio is also known for another fountain, and we caught this one in the middle of Elvis' Viva Las Vegas.
After crossing over and hitting all the stores at Aladdin, we walked back down the street and stopped at the M&M's store where I got a picture with the 38 M&M's Ford dressed up in Star Wars colors. This car is located on the 4th floor of the store. I'm not sure how they got it up the escalators.
It wasn't until fairly late that we limped back to the hotel (we always walk our legs off in that town). This was the view out of our 15th floor room overlooking Las Vegas Blvd. That's the Tropicana across the street, and the green hotel is the MGM Grand.
Saturday we were off again, this time hitting the new Wynn's resort, which was still under construction during our last visit. Stevie Wynn knows how to build 'em, and his newest venture is very, very nice. Here we are out by the waterfalls near the entrance to the resort.
For dinner we decided to eat "outdoors" in the faux St. Mark's Square at the Venetian. Behind us was a very talented trio consisting of a flautist, accordian player, and bass player. While they were playing Italian classics (including one which mysteriously transformed into "Roll Out the Barrel"), on the nearby bridge over the canal, a Jewish wedding was taking place. I'm not sure what they thought of "Roll Out the Barrel" being played for their wedding. We had a nice dinner at a great Italian restaurant in the square.

Sunday we hit the last few shops in town we hadn't hit yet, and had lunch at my wife's favorite little cafe at Paris Las Vegas. It's right in the middle of the "Parisian" street, and I always enjoy watching the people scurrying around.

Other than walking about 100 miles, we had a great time and it was nice to get away, albeit briefly. Now that I'm home, I don't have to shop if I don't want to.

The Pause That Refreshes

HolyCoast.com will be in a brief recess until Sunday night while the Mrs. and I travel to Las Vegas for a weekend of hedonism and debauchery^**. Check back here on Sunday night and hopefully by then I'll have some pictures up.

Here's a little homework while I'm gone. Rod Dreher at The Corner reports the following:

George F. Will's next column just moved on the wire. It's about the Miers nomination, of which Will does not approve in the same way that Sitting Bull did not approve of Custer, and let me tell you, it is a masterpiece. It's embargoed till Sunday, so I can't post any of it, but ... well, look, if I were a pro-Miers Republican, I would dread getting out of the bed and opening the paper on Sunday. It's that powerful.

Look for it - you'll probably be able to find it at RealClearPolitics.com on Sunday morning (sometimes they have a link by Saturday night). I'll post a link when I get back.


^**There won't actually be any hedonism and debauchery - I just wrote that because it sounded better than "shopping". That and I wanted to see how many weirdos showed up here because they were searching Google for "hedonism" or "debauchery".

Defense Lawyer in Saddam Case Murdered

It used to be dangerous in Iraq to oppose Saddam - now it's getting dangerous to defend him:

A defense lawyer in Saddam Hussein's mass murder trial has been found dead, his body dumped near a Baghdad mosque with two gunshots to the head, police and a top lawyers union official said Friday.

Saadoun Sughaiyer al-Janabi was abducted from his office Thursday evening, a day after he attended the first session of the trial, acting as the lawyer of one Saddam's seven co-defendants.

His body was found hours later on a sidewalk near Fardous Mosque in the eastern neighborhood of Ur, near the site of his office, said police Maj. Falah al-Mohammedawi. His identity was confirmed Friday, al-Mohammedawi said.

Some might consider this an improvement, but obviously you can't have this kind of stuff going on in a democracy. It's going to take awhile to week the blood sports out of Iraqi politics.

Terrorist Tips From Scotwise

My buddy John Brown at Scotwise, a great Christian site from the Land Down Under, had this photo on his site which I just had to "borrow" (h/t Blogotional):

As someone who will be flying at least 4 times between now and January, this is pretty good information. I'll be watching the parking lot carefully at John Wayne Airport as I leave for Las Vegas later today.

By the way, if you're looking for good Christian encouragement, you need to check in at Scotwise every day. John always has some good stuff there.

By the way, while I'm recommending other sites, SCBA buddy Bill Rice has reentered the fray after a few month absence following the birth of his beautiful little girl. Bill writes at By Dawn's Early Light and has an international relations emphasis. Very interesting reading for those who want to get the big picture.