Donations:
Weblogs of Note:
Straight News:
Commentary:
Liberty Related Sites:
Movies, Comics and Other Entertainment:
Referrals:
All material on this website is copyright (c) 2001-2003 by Alex Knapp unless otherwise indicated.
Just as John McCain compared Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to Al Sharpton in 2000, a true Democratic insurgent should compare Mr. Sharpton to Messrs. Robertson and Falwell. The outcry in the party would be deafening, just as it would be if a Democratic candidate truly challenged the near-pacifism that permeates the Democratic grassroots. And that candidate would almost certainly lose the nomination.An interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it would work. My read of the situtation is that the Democratic base is actually a little too cohesive for somebody to challenge it without destroying the party. Unlike the Republicans, for whom the religious right is just a part (not even a majority--but a strong minority) of their base, the dovish liberals (and I mean real, honest to god liberals) are the ones who really make up the grass roots organizing base of the Democratic party. I could be wrong, though. We'll see how the nominating process plays out, but I don't think that anyone in the current field could really challenge Bush.
But in so doing, he could provide a rallying cry for that large and quiet contingent of Democrats who don't want to surrender the party to race-baiters and ultra-doves. And when the Democrats lose the 2004 election--as they surely will if they pander to Mr. Sharpton and the antiwar base--it is that McCain-like insurgency that could inherit a party finally forced to recognize that it is deep in the wilderness.Before the Democrats can truly challenge the GOP, they have to challenge themselves.
Rebuilding havens of terrorism isn't an afterthought to be put off. It's an integral part of defeating terrorism. If we're just planning on shock 'n' aweing our way across the Muslim world, then putting off reconstruction for some hypothetical future when no one hates us anymore, it seems apparent to me that we'll never do any reconstruction.I agree with Ted that "Marshall plans" are essential after any conflict. However, while I think that such a plan is important in Afghanistan, it's equally important to remember that anything that occurs in Afghanistan isn't so much a "rebuilding" as it is simply a "building." Unlike Japan or Germany, Afghanistan didn't have a strong infrastructure or government before the war. It wasn't a strong world power. So it's no surprise that after only a year of effort, it has not become a utopia. Frankly, the progress seen so far is, to me, quite surprisingly good. It will take years of work before Afghanistan is stable and truly free. The job is far from done, but it's also far too early to proclaim that job a failure.Finally, it seems to me that the push to do a better job at reconstruction has to come from the right, because the Administration sure isn't listening to people like me. So when I see posts about how Afghanistan isn't so bad, I get a serious chill.
Schumer says Estrada would not cite "three Supreme Court cases in the past you disagree with." Actually, he was asked to cite three "from the last 40 years," a transparent attempt to force him to discuss Roe v. Wade. But because abortion-related cases still come before courts, Estrada could not discuss Roe without violating the American Bar Association's Code of Judicial Conduct, which says prospective judges "shall not . . . make statements that commit or appear to commit the nominee with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the courts." Which is why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, declining to answer certain questions at her confirmation hearing, said, "It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide" (emphasis added).There's more stuff in the column, too, although I've already talked a lot about what's in there in the past. This type of extreme partisanships when it comes to judicial nominations is coming dangerously close to undermining one of the principles of our government: the seperation of powers. For seperation of powers to work, the judiciary has to be independent. There is simply nothing in Estrada's record to suggest that he would be a bad jurist. And the decision by members of the Senate to not end the filibuster for a qualified judicial candidate is disgusting. And before the cry of "the Republicans did it, too!" sounds too loudly, please bear in mind that the Republicans, although they did shamefully block some nominees in Committee, never filibustered a nominee. And please also bear in mind the simple principle that just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't give you the right to do it, too. I have said this before and I will continue to say it: All judicial nominees deserve a full vote of the Senate. Every single one.When Boyden Gray was White House counsel for the first President Bush, Sens. Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden -- both now former chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, and both still on it -- warned him that any nominee would be rejected if the White House asked the nominee questions about specific cases. And a Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which every nominee must complete, sternly asks: "Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee discussed with you any specific case, legal issue, or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as asking or seeking a commitment as to how you would rule on such a case, issue or question?" (emphasis added).
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 76 that the Senate's role is to refuse nominations only for "special and strong reasons" having to do with "unfit characters." The American Bar Association unanimously gave Estrada its highest rating, and Estrada's supervisors in the solicitor general's office gave him the highest possible rating in every category, in every rating period.
Racism in America is far from dead. But it is dying. And Oprah's success is another nail in the coffin.
