Republican Senate

I've Moved!

2006-01-10T09:27:00.000-05:00

Check out the new site at republicansenate.org, where I'll be liveblogging today's hearings.

Apologies

2005-12-29T18:47:00.000-05:00

My apologies for the delay. There have been unforeseen complications with the upgrade. Blogging will resume once the upgrade is complete.

Update

2005-11-29T13:00:00.000-05:00

Blogging will be suspended until next week, as RS undergoes an upgrade.

Quinn Makes His Mark

2005-11-27T00:46:00.000-05:00

Quarterbacking at Notre Dame is not about records. (Brady Quinn set 17 school records this year.) It is not about yardage or touchdown passes. (Quinn's new records include several in both categories.) Quarterbacking at Notre Dame is about winning, and tonight Brady Quinn made his biggest mark yet in the annals of Notre Dame football.

After starting the game with an 80 yard pass to WR Jeff Samardzija, Quinn struggled, throwing two first half interceptions. He was off his game throughout the night, leaving the Irish to rely heavily on Darius Walker's 191 yards on 37 carries. In part due to Quinn's struggles, Stanford stayed in the game and took its first lead, 31-30, with 1:46 to go. Then, Quinn took the ball with his best chance yet to prove his mettle as an Irish quarterback.

The Irish offense started on the 20 with 1:37 to go and two timeouts. On the drive, Quinn went 3/3 for 68 yards, including a 21 yard pass to Maurice Stovall with less than a minute to go, setting up a Darius Walker six yard touchdown run. Walker added two points with a three yard run on a direct snap, walking through a wide hole left by the Irish offensive line.

The win makes the Irish eligible for a BCS bowl for only the second time. The Irish win in the bowl game will be the team's first since Jan. 1, 1994.

Codey Balks

2005-11-24T00:04:00.000-05:00

Acting New Jersey Governor Dick Codey has taken himself out of consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Governor-elect Jon Corzine. The departure leaves Corzine a bunch of options who run close races against the sole Republican (INO) declared candidate Tom Kean. Kean and his potential opponents seem to create a typical New Jersey statewide race minus the GOP Primary fight. While Kean has fared reasonably well in recent polls, New Jersey remains extremely difficult to win for the GOP, even when the candidate is hardly a Republican by national standards. Expect a fairly typical race in which conservatives are turned off, the Republican establishment shows public optimism, and, in the end, the Democrat nominee wins fairly handily.

Happy Thanksgiving

2005-11-24T00:01:00.000-05:00

Here's hoping Pitt pulls off the upset in the backyard brawl!

New Frontrunner in Michigan

2005-11-22T23:40:00.000-05:00

for the GOP, that is. According to a Strategic Vision poll released today, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard is within 14 points of Sen. Debbie Stabenow. His primary opponents, Keith Butler and Jerry Zandstra, who have been campaigning for the better party of a year, trail Stabenow by 19 and 25 points respectively. Perhaps most encouraging, though, is the fact that Bouchard holds Stabenow to 45 points.

The poll gives additional causes for optimism. Stabenow's net approval rating is just +8 and 51% of Michiganders approve of the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. On the flip side, the President's net approval rating is an abysmal -28%, suggesting that, outside of fundraising, he will be a liability for the eventual nominee.

Michigan is not exactly ripe for the picking, but there is an opportunity. A spirited Republican primary between two conservatives could attract some free media and battle-test the eventual nominee. Unfortunately, though, there are three Republican candidates, and three is a crowd. Republicans would do well to squeeze the weakest candidate, Jerry Zandstra out of the race, without dividing the Party. This could be done fairly easily if the GOP establishment and grassroots back either Butler or Bouchard rather than remaining neutral. Once the field narrows to two, both must fire away at Debbie Stabenow, making the battle for the nomination a fight over who could launch the most effective attacks.

Other states, such as Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Ohio, remain more competitive, but Bouchard's standing after missing out on months of campaigning suggest that Michigan is the sleeper race of the 2006 cycle.

Orange Crushed

2005-11-20T02:22:00.000-05:00

Senior Day at Notre Dame Stadium was, for the first time in several years, what it is supposed to be, a celebration of a strong season, including a big win that day. The pre-game hype for the occasion tightened up the Irish offense, which was held scoreless in the first quarter for the first time this year. The defense, however, played lights out from kickoff. The anemic Syracuse offense scored just three points before Charlie Weis emptied the bench. After a slow start, the Irish offense came to life, opening up a 14-3 halftime lead. All doubt about the outcome was erased by sophomore nickleback Leo Ferrine's pick-6 on the first play from scrimmage in the second half. During the game, Brady Quinn became the first quarterback in Irish history to throw for more than 3000 yards in a season, adding to the several new marks he has set throughout the year. A win over Stanford next week would all but assure the Irish a spot in a BCS bowl.

Frist & Co.: Forget the Founders

2005-11-19T01:30:00.000-05:00

Since the country's early years, the Congress has done a 180, separating itself as much as possible from the rest of the country. As a result, a separate culture has developed inside District of Columbia. It is a culture that ignores the Constitution because it might be inconvenient. It is a culture that takes action based on political expediency rather than good policy. It is a culture that takes from the rich, middle class, and poor and gives to pork barrel projects. It is a culture that considers all things are okay provided that they help someone get reelected. This cultural shift was completed during the days of the New Deal and has gotten progressively worse since then.

Enter Sen. Trainwreck. During his time in the House, Coburn earned the nickname Congressman Trainwreck by derailing pork barrel spending. In some cases, he opposed spending because it was unconstitutional. In others, he opposed the spending because he deemed it immoral to take money from hardworking families and turn it into what amounts to multi-million dollar campaign contributions. He also spoke out about other issues, such as abortion, when Party "leaders" wanted nothing more than to avoid such subjects altogether.

When Dr. Tom Coburn announced that he planned to run for Senate, he pledged to the people of Oklahoma that he would continue to practice medicine while serving as a Senator. He made the argument of the Founding Fathers that Congress was meant to be made up of citizen-legislators, people who are fully a part of society rather than separate from it. They argued that the closer the legislators were to the people, the better they would be able to understand the issues facing ordinary Americans. How right they were.

Senate ethics rules prohibit Senators from receiving compensation for work in certain fields, including medicine. They can, however, earn money by writing books and collecting farm subsidies (no conflict of interest there, right?). These rules themselves are a perfect example of the convoluted culture of Washington, in which not growing food is prized over saving lives. To reach a compromise, Dr. Coburn asked that the Senate permit him to continue to receive just enough compensation to cover his operating expenses. On Thursday, the Senate denied that request.

To their credit, 51 Senators voted in favor of allowing the good doctor to live up to the vision of the Founders. This included most Republicans, along with Democrats Tom Carper (DE), Mark Dayton (MN), Mary Landrieu (LA), and Barak Obama (IL). It pains me to say anything good about them, along with some of the RINOs who voted for the resolution, such as Collins (ME), Snowe (ME) and Chafee, but they should be applauded for casting principled votes on this issue. On the other hand, the rest of the Democrats, along with Republicans Jim Bunning (KY), Bill Frist (TN), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Pat Roberts (KS), Richard Shelby (AL), Craig Thomas (WY), George Voinovich (OH), and John Warner (VA), ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is bad enough that the Congress as a whole has departed so much from the Founders' vision. This, however, is not a slow evolution. Instead, it is a direct contradiction of the wisdom of those who wrote the Constitution with a vision of the United States government being dramatically different from the British House of Lords. Please take a minute to thank your Senators if they did the right thing and, more importantly, to let those who have forgotten what makes American government unique know that you are paying attention.

Circling the Ring

2005-11-17T22:58:00.000-05:00

Like two heavyweights sizing each other up after the bell, both sides released their first ads in the fight over the Alito Confirmation. As the Post article said, none of the ads are intended to deal a knockout blow. Instead, they are intended to assess weaknesses, opportunities, and the responsiveness of the targeted Senators.

Among the targeted Senators are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (RINOs-ME). Both were also targeted during the original battle over the constitutional option earlier this year. At the time, they said that outside groups made no difference to them. With the extremely popular Sen. Snowe facing what looks to be an easy reelection next year, it will be interesting to see whether she decides to be loyal to her Party by nixing the filibuster, if necessary, or decides that keeping her popularity ratings in the seventies is more important than ensuring that the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty to provide advise and consent on judicial nominees.

It currently appears that the left will focus on a variety of civil rights issues, such as Alito's ruling that the strip-search of a ten-year-old girl was permitted by a search warrant and affidavit. Regardless of the substance of the case, this is indicative of a much larger problem that we have in national discussions of the judiciary. The left never mentions the constitutionality of the search, or other, similar issues. They refuse to engage in a legal discussion. Instead, they just say, "Isn't that ruling outrageous?" because of its result. Some on the right have made a similar mistake by criticizing the recent Ninth Circuit ruling that parents do not have a constitutional veto power over their sexually explicit material in the classroom. While the survey was absolutely uncalled for and has no place in elementary school, there is no constitutional right that applies.

Conservatives need to elevate the debate by showing consistency in these matters. Issues not addressed in the Constitution belong in state governments. If the federal government wishes to exercise more power over these matters, then it is up to Congress to pass a constitutional amendment. The federal courts have no authority to usurp such power, either with respect to search and seizure or parental rights. Judge Alito's rulings should all be evaluated in this light, and anyone who attempts to apply a different standard fails to live up to the standards set by the Founding Fathers.

With regard to the potentiality of a filibuster itself in light of the unprincipled G-14 agreement, anyone arguing that this nomination constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" had better have more to go by than the information currently available. Whether Senators should vote in favor of confirmation is an issue entirely distinct from whether the nomination warrants a filibuster. Conservatives have reason to be extremely optimistic about this nomination. By all appearances, Judge Alito would make an ideal Supreme Court Justice. As I have said earlier, I am not yet prepared to say that he should be confirmed because I continue to have questions about how he would deal with the principle of stare decisis. Even so, it is abundantly clear that Judge Alito's resume and intellect are worthy of the high Court.

Senators Collins and Snowe now have a decision to make. It was no surprise that they participated in the joke of an agreement to avoid the filibuster vote. Now, they will have no choice but to take sides. Neither one of them can be considered a "good Republican" by any standard, but failing to support for an up-or-down vote on this nomination would destroy any illusion that they belong in the Party. Hopefully, it will not come to that. If it does, however, expect that even many of those who have spoken about the need for a "big tent" will turn on Snowe and Collins if they side with Kennedy & Co. If there are no consequences for failing to support an up-or-down vote on Alito, then the Republican Party is utterly meaningless.

Bryant Lands Major Endorsement

2005-11-16T23:07:00.000-05:00

B4b has the goods. The Tennessee Senate race pits two conservatives, former Rep. Ed Bryant and former Rep. Van Hilleary, against flip-flopper Bob Corker. Both Bryant and Hilleary have bonifed conservative credentials, but it was Bryant who served as a pro-life leader during his time in the House. While both have lost statewide races, Bryant lost a primary to now-Senator Lamar Alexander while Hilleary lost a general election to now-Gov. Phil Bredesen. Hilleary ran a less-than-stellar campaign and now appears to be running for whatever he can get.

Tennessee Right to Life is a major player in state politics, but is, of course, not the only major player. The best case scenario for either of the conservatives would be for the other to drop out, resulting in a 1-on-1 match-up against Corker. The best way for this to happen is for conservatives to fall in line behind one of the two, leaving the other in a position where it remains difficult to justify remaining in the race. The endorsement is not enough in and of itself to force Hilleary out of the race, but it creates an environment in which conservative organizations looking for either of the candidates who are not Bob Corker to make decisions about their endorsements knowing that, regardless of what they do, Bryant will have significant conservative backing. Thus, a Hilleary endorsement by one or more of those groups would ensure a divided base and create the most likely scenario for Corker's nomination.

As I have said before, Ed Bryant offers conservatives our best chance of keeping the seat, and would make for a more reliably conservative Senator than Hilleary. This endorsement is welcome news and, hopefully, will begin to plant the seeds of doubt in Hilleary's head as to whether he really belongs in the race.

Senate Vertebra Count: 14

2005-11-16T01:01:00.000-05:00

Today, Senate Democrats proposed a resolution calling for transition in Iraq to native control and the withdrawal of US troops. The proposal could be best described as "silly", as it demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of what is entailed in bringing about stability in the reborn nation. The President has rightly and repeatedly said that we will be there as long as it takes and no longer. The transition continues, but so do the terrorist attacks, and it is ridiculous to impose an arbitrary withdrawal of troops on the Commander in Chief. While he has bungled one domestic policy after another, the President is among the few who has shown an understanding that things are going about as one could have expected, and that it is far more dangerous to allow terrorists to dictate the timeframe for withdrawal than to see the mission through and ensure stability in the new and free Iraq.

While the defeat of the resolution was a plus, the Senate GOP, "led" by Bill Frist, immediately proposed another resolution that said, "2006 'should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq'." This is the Senate GOP's version of the Bewitched plan for Iraq: blink twice, nod your head, and it can all be over. The Administration wants to get out of Iraq as badly as any Senator. Fortunately, for all his faults, this President understands that finishing the job is more important than responding to MoveOn.org's plan for world happiness and warm fuzzies. The non-binding resolution is a political ploy, an attempt to create daylight between Senate Republicans and the White House. Rather than showing unity, Frist & Co. are cowtowing to the defeated left and doing serious damage to the Party and, more importantly, the country.

Fortunately, fourteen members of the Senate, including one Democrat, care more about winning the war than playing politics. These fourteen members voted against both resolutions, recognizing them for what they are, and instead are standing with the President in these difficult times. Perhaps the only cause for encouragement in this sad development is that six o the seven Republican freshmen were among the 14, a good sign for the future. Those with backbone are newly elected Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Kent Conrad (D-ND) Jim DeMint (R-SC), Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD), and David Vitter (R-LA). Sen. Jon Kyl deserves special credit for being the only one in the bunch facing a tough reelection next year. To be sure, some of these Senators are frequent problems on several issues. Even so, they all deserve credit for standing behind the President and against a Bewitched foreign policy.

Unhelpful Chatter

2005-11-15T01:02:00.000-05:00

After apparently ending discussion of a possible Senate bid in August, Florida House Speaker Allan Bense has once again drawn attention to himself by refusing to say "No" to a bid against incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson. This is just the latest in the continuing saga that is the Florida Senate race.

At the beginning of the cycle, Nelson looked to all the world like one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the Senate. A popular Republican Governor had been reelected easily and enjoyed extremely high popularity. The President had improved on a razor thin margin to win with some wiggle room. Mel Martinez captured the open Senate seat after a late entry. Even if the GOP were faced with a spirited primary, it seemed as though unity thereafter could send Nelson into retirement.

Enter Rep. Katherine Harris. Exit GOP establishment.

Harris announced her candidacy in July, and the Republican establishment immediately set about undermining her candidacy. It is fair enough for a party to attempt to put forward its best candidate, but it is quite another thing to eat your own. Harris is so far the only Republican to show any interest in the seat of her own volition. The Bush's and Sen. Dole have been working since to find somebody -- anybody -- else to challenge Harris in the primary. In the meantime, several establishment figures, most notably Brian Nick of the NRSC, have publicly complained, criticized, and undermined her candidacy. All of this has led to a weakened frontrunner and no challenger.

Katherin Harris managed to clear her own field for one simple reason: she is popular with the people who win elections. She had demonstrated exceptional fundraising ability, both for herself and for others in the Party. She had proved an effective campaigner, winning her initial campaign as an underdog and then, in spite of reports to the contrary, has closely mirrored the President's performance in her Congressional district. Finally, she motivates the base, the people who actually determine elections, especially mid-term elections.

In the beginning, there could have been plenty of discussion as to who would have been the best Republican nominee. Now, it is clear that any other Republican would have been dragged into the race kicking and screaming. The current division is extremely destructive to the Party. This is unfortunately reflective of the larger, even more disturbing picture, where the conservative base is shunned and Republican liberalism is prized. Those involved in candidate recruitment continue to attempt to please those whom they will never please at the expense of motivating those with whom they should be fighting arm-in-arm. Perhaps Rep. Harris would be faring better in polls if the NRSC had spent more money attacking Sen. Bill Nelson than Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey.

It is time for these games to end. The election is less than a year away, and every day that we go without uniting behind a candidate is money, time, and effort lost. Once we unite behind Harris, she will have several fundraising doors opened and she will be able to mount a credible campaign. Will she win? That remains to be seen, but it is abundantly clear that any primary challenger emerging now will severely, perhaps permanently, divide the Florida Republican Party and cost us any chance of defeating the vulnerable incumbent.

Death v. Byrd

2005-11-13T18:13:00.000-05:00

In the latest failure by NRSC head Elizabeth Dole, former West Virginia University basketball coach Gale Catlett announced on Friday that he will not challenge Sen. Robert KKK Byrd next year. The announcement leaves the 88 year old Senator just one remaining viable foe in his eighth reelection bid, death. Those who have seen him recently report that Byrd has seemed increasingly frail. It surely comes as a relief to the DSCC that he will not be forced to campaign at all and that he can instead focus on maintaining a pulse until Election Day. The death v. Byrd race against death could be among the most interesting of 2006.

42 and Counting

2005-11-13T00:17:00.000-05:00

Early in the game, it looked like it could be one of those Navy-Notre Dame games, the kind that made Lou Holtz say at every opportunity, "That Navy game scares the hell out of me." The Irish opened up with a 68 yard touchdown drive, but Navy responded. They drove 69 yards in 7:38, tying the game at 7. While the Irish offense had no trouble, there was some question as to whether the Irish defense could handle Navy's unorthodox offense. The game remained close until late in the second quarter when Cory Mays recovered a Lamar Owens fumble and the Irish offense capitalized. From that point, it was never close. Brady Quinn again posted Heisman-worthy numbers, completing 22/31 for 284 yards, 4 touchdowns and a pick. The win was Notre Dame's 42nd consecutive victory over the Naval Academy, a streak that extends back to the year Roger Staubach won the Heisman Trophy. After the game, Charlie Weis had his team stand behind the Midshipmen as they sang their alma mater, showing uncommon class and respect for the rival that once kept the University open when it faced the possibility of closing. This week, the two schools extended their contract to play through 2015. Fortunately, it is doubtful that the contract will ever expire.

Primary Challengers Bail

2005-11-12T01:37:00.000-05:00

This week, two primary challengers, one potential one actual, ended any talk of their candidacies. In Utah, state Rep. Steve Urquhart abandoned his short-lived bid to take out Sen. Orrin Hatch, a frequent thorn in the side of conservatives. Urquhart planned to run a different type of campaign, focusing on volunteer efforts to get his message across. Unfortunately, though, political reality set in as he failed to meet the low expectations he set for his fundraising. The need for cash is simply a reality, and Urquhart simply did not have a realistic plan for raising what he would have needed for this uphill battle. Urquhart's departure ensures Hatch's reelection.

In New Jersey, state Assemblyman Joe Pennacchio has opted against a primary challenge to Tom Kean, Jr. Pennacchio had entertained a bid, but had not formally pursued one. Unlike Urquhart's departure, this does not let the frontrunner off the hook. State Assemblyman Michael Doherty and Bill Spadea are both considering bids. This would be just the latest in a series of contentious and divisive GOP primaries in New Jersey.

Unlike previous primaries, it appears as though the conservative wing of the Party would be united behind one of the two, meaning that there would be a heads-up match-up between a conservative and a liberal. Such a match-up would bode well for the Party in the state. It would be an opportunity for primary voters and rank-and-file activists to recapture the GOP from the unprincipled, corrupt establishment. This year, over sixty percent of primary voters voted for someone more conservative than Doug Forrester. This week, many of those voters stayed home, and over the past several months, many of the activists focused on other, more local races. A conservative candidacy would motivate the base. Even if the candidacy itself failed, which I do not grant it would, it would reinvigorate a dead Party and pave the way for progress in the future.

In the short-term the Republican establishment will be relieved by the departures. There is no question that the Urquhart defeat is a victory for the status quo. Pennacchio's decision, though, could end up working out well if it clears the way for another principled conservative to capture and build the GOP in a state where the entire party establishment could be considered RINO.

Delusional Democrats

2005-11-11T12:46:00.000-05:00

In light of the Kaine win in the Virginia gubernatorial election, Sen. Chuck Schumer is now saying that he will "look 'very carefully'"at a challenge to Sen. George Allen. Unfortunately for Schumer, the only Democrat who had any chance of defeating Allen already declined to run, rightly recognizing the fact that, even for him, it would be a major risk. Kilgore was not Allen, and the potential Democrat candidates are not Tim Kaine.

Democrats invested as much time and energy trying to recruit Warner as any candidate but Junior Casey, and for good reason. The Governor, and only the Governor, could have given Allen a run for his money. Neutral and partisan polls clearly showed that the Democrats have less of a chance in Virginia than Democrats have in Hell. Unless it freezes over, any and all time and money they spend in the Old Dominion will be a waste.

For all those who are laughing at the prospect of the Democrats taking this seat, just remember that the Democrats have the same reaction when we talk about winning New Jersey. Not all seats are potentially, nevermind actually, competitive.

Outlook 2006

2005-11-10T12:49:00.000-05:00

Over at NRO, John Miller summarizes the competitive 2006 Senate races. So I'll take the opportunity to do likewise.

Safe Dem (11)
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Massachusetts
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Vermont
West Virginia - If Gale Catlett enters and Byrd continues deteriorating publicly, this could get interesting. If not, KKK stays put.
Wisconsin

Likely Dem (4)
Florida - Rep. Harris's primary asset was supposed to be her fundraising ability. So far, she's not doing well. If the Party unites now, Harris could be competitive, but it will be difficult to undo the damage that has been done by the estbalishment's desperate public attempts to find somebody else. At this point, some in the GOP may be hoping that Harris loses the general election if only to maintain their credibility.
Michigan - Sen. Debbie Stabenow is among the Senate's leading fundraisers. GOP candidates Keith Butler and Jerry Zandstra have failed to catch fire. The reentry of Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard offers the GOP a chance, but with just a year left, he has a lot of catching up to do.
New Jersey - Tom Kean, Jr. is unlikely to unite a deeply divided GOP. A Pennacchio upset in the primary could energize the base, but so far he has yet to declare his candidacy. Either candidate would face a steep uphill fight.
Washington - Sen. Cantwell remains semi-vulnerable, but her strong fundraising has helped pad her lead in this rather blue state. Last year, it looked briefly as though Rep. Nethercutt had a shot at Sen. Murray. Then she blew him away. This race could well be very similar.

Lean Dem (3)
Maryland - If a recent poll is correct, Mfume could upset Cardin in the primary. If he does so, this is a toss-up. If not, this becomes "Likely Dem".
Nebraska - When GOP recruiting goes this badly, it usually means a loss. This may become competitive because of the state's GOP bent, but the situation is less than ideal.
Pennsylvania - Junior Casey is thumping Mudd, but it is difficult to overstate the advantages of incumbency.

Toss-up (3)
Minnesota - Rep. Mark Kennedy is the GOP's best challenger this cycle. The race will hinge on turnout, so it is critical that the President start acting like a conservative to motivate the base.
Ohio - Recent polls show DeWine to be second only to Santorum in terms of vulnerability. Luckily for him, he has two left-wing loons battling it out in the Dem primary. If he gets a primary challenge from former Rep. Bob McEwen, he may not survive. Even if he does, it will serve to widen the rift between him and conservatives.
Rhode Island - The missing Linc has two potential fights on his hands. This one will be fun to watch, as each of the four candidates fires away at the other three. Politics at its best? Worst? Either way, it'll be very entertaining.

Lean Rep (3)
Arizona - Sen. Kyl led easily in the last poll, but Jim Pederson held him to 50%. It's not panic time, and Kyl remains a solid favorite, but as Jon Corzine has shown, money can buy happiness.
Missouri - The Dems recruited a strong candidate, but the state is moving right. If Sen. Talent doesn't make the same mistake Gov. Blunt has in aggravating his base by endorsing embryonic stem-cell research, he should be able to keep the seat.
Tennessee - The Senate isn't the Governor's mansion. If former Rep. Ed Bryant gets the nod, "Senator Bryant" is all but a certainty. Van Hilleary would have an advantage as well. The only way Ford really has a chance is if Bryant and Hilleary split conservatives in the primary and give the nomination to the uninspiring Bob Corker.

Likely Rep (1)
Montana - Sen. Conrad Burns has the good fortune of facing an opponent who will emerge from a bitter primary. Democrats need unity to win national races here, and they don't have it.

Safe Rep (8)
Indiana
Maine
Mississippi
Nevada
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

Corzine Win Puts NJ in Play

2005-11-09T00:17:00.000-05:00

Sen. Jon Corzine's thumping of Doug Forrester has put the New Jersey Senate race in play. Corzine now has the opportunity to choose his successor, something that must not be taken lightly. Many think that Corzine has his eyes on the Presidency, and this opportunity will prove a double-edged sword. He can reach out to Hispanics by tapping Rep. Robert Menendez or, more likely, he will look to please the Democrat establishment by selecting the man whom he will be replacing, acting Gov. Dick Codey, whom the Democrats consider their strongest candidate.

So far the only announced Republican candidate is Tom Kean, Jr., a Whitman Republican. Forrester's underperformance shows that Republican losses in New Jersey are not a result of candidates being too conservative, but a result of a lack of principle in the Party as a whole. In fact, the small but essential Party base has had little to get excited about since 2001. Even then, though, the Party establishment was more interested in promoting a far left agenda than electing Bret Schundler, as evidenced by the fact that they attended a pro-choice Republican organization fundraiser instead of a Schundler fundraiser just a week before the election. It is time for the GOP establishment to stay out of the primary and do its job of helping to elect the chosen candidate of the rank-and-file.

State Assemblyman Joe Pennacchio, who was just reelected last night, could emerge as a conservative alternative to Kean. If Pennacchio emerges from a spirited primary that focuses on defeating the incumbent rather than a civil war, the GOP has a shot at pulling off the upset. A Kean candidacy, especially if it comes as a result of a cleared field, would likely result in yet another defeat for the fledgling New Jersey Republican Party. To be sure, New Jersey is not a conservative state waiting to be won by a Coburn-type candidate, but principled fiscal conservatism could be rewarded with a Senate seat regardless of the nominee's position on social issues.

New Jersey still falls between the "Likely Democrat" and "Lean Democrat" categories, but the decisions of Corzine and Pennacchio will go a long way toward determining whether it will stay there.

How'd I Do?

2005-11-08T23:59:00.000-05:00

Pretty well outside of the Buckeye state, though I did underestimate the support of third-party candidates:

New Jersey Governor
Prediction: 52-48 Corzine
Result: 53-43 Corzine

Virginia Governor
Prediction: 51-48 Kaine
Result: 52-46 Kaine

California
Prop 73 (Parental Notification)
Prediction: 54-46 Yes
Result: TBD

Ohio
Props 1-5
Prediction: All 5 pass
Result: 1 passed; 2-5 failed

New York City
Prediction: 54-46 Bloomberg
Result: 58-39 Bloomberg

Promise in Maryland

2005-11-08T00:26:00.000-05:00

There's good news for Maryland Lt. Gov Michael Steele. A Baltimore Sun poll shows Kweisi Mfume within 2 points of Rep. Ben Cardin in the Democrat Primary, trailing 30-28. The large number of undecideds is encouraging news for Mfume, whom some thought may have turned off too many voters with his racist tendencies. In spite of finishing the third quarter will less than $100,000 in the bank, Mfume has managed to remain competitive.

Mfume's ratings could encourage some contributions, which he will need as the cash on hand turns into ad buys. Mfume's main advantage lies in the fact that his voters are concentrated in a few, densely populated areas, meaning that he will be able to counter Cardin's more expensive GOTV operations with grassroots activity. Even so, he will need some base of support.

For now, contributions of time or money in other states would be better investments. Even so, if you are, for whatever reason, especially interested in the Maryland, here's where your time and money can be put to the best use. While you may feel dirty helping the left-wing loony, keep in mind that the only way that Steele wins the general is if Mfume wins the primary. Oh by the way, changing parties in time for the primary would also be a worthwhile endeavor. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and this is time for a one-race stand.

Election Day Predictions

2005-11-08T00:24:00.000-05:00

Obviously this blog is devoted primarily to the Senate, but since today is Election Day, some predictions are in order:

New Jersey
Corzine 52
Forrester 48

Virginia
Kaine 51
Kilgore 48

California
Proposition 73 (Parental Notification)
Yes 54
No 46

Proposition 77 (Election Reform)
Yes 42
No 58

Ohio
Propositions 1-5 pass

New York City
Bloomberg 54
Ferrer 46

Feel free to post your predictions in the Comments section.

DeWine Keeps Digging

2005-11-07T23:20:00.000-05:00

Having repeatedly aggravated his base, Sen. Mike DeWine has once again opened the Pandora's box he calls a mouth and backed off of his earlier statement that he would vote for the Byrd option should the Democrats mount a filibuster of Judge Alito. The most recent flip-flop comes after a Columbus Dispatch poll was taken late last month, showing DeWine polling in the low-30s against both of his potential opponents. DeWine has managed to collect more enemies than Imelda Markos collected shoes. It is only thanks to the corruption of Gov. Taft that he is not the least popular politician in the state.

Tomorrow's ballot initiatives will be a good indication of just how bad a shape he is in. If propositions 1-5 pass, DeWine will find himself the Democrats' #2 target after Sen. Mudd and ahead of Lincoln Chafee. If not, it suggests that the Ohio GOP still has a voter pull operation that will keep DeWine in the race.

Former Rep. Bob McEwen is still a potential primary challenger for DeWine, but his time is running out. The Ohio Primary takes place on May 1, meaning that McEwen would have less than six months to pull off the upset. Even so, the conservative establishment in the state would likely fall in lock-step behind a primary challenger, pitting conservatives against partisans in an ugly, but necessary, match-up. McEwen may well be waiting to see tomorrow's results to make a determination about whether he could mount a serious challenge. If GOP turnout fails to meet low expectations, expect McEwen to jump in the race within a week. The potential primary challenge could be the only way that the GOP could hold on to this seat.

Zbikowski Leads Irish Past Vols

2005-11-06T00:23:00.000-05:00

Notre Dame became bowl eligable today, dropping the Tennessee Volunteers 41-21. The game looked like it would be over almost as soon as it started, as the Irish jumped up by two touchdowns less than ten minutes in. Then the offence went into remission, not scoring again until early in the fourth quarter. While Brady Quinn had another stellar performace, completing 20/33 for 295 yards and 3 touchdowns, safety Tom Zbikowski's performance was worthy of player of the game honors. Five minutes into the second quarter, Zbikowski returned a punt 79 yards, weaving through the holes left by his blockers. Later, he put the nail in Tennessee's coffin, picking off an Eric Ainge pass and taking it back thirty-three yards. Look for the Irish to move up 3-4 spots in the BCS, as Virginia Tech, UCLA, Florida State, and Wisconsin all lost. Next week, the Irish sink Navy.

Thanks, Rick

2005-11-04T00:20:00.000-05:00

Snarlin' Arlen Specter, whom Sen. Samuel Mudd bailed out of political extinction, announced today that the Judiciary Committee's hearings on Judge Samuel Alito will not be held until January. History has taught that time is the enemy of Supreme Court nominations. The left now has the opportunity to exploit its monetary advantage by spending the next three months throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Alito. We know their tactics. We know their lack of any sense of fair play.

This is just the latest incident in a pattern of behavior by the disloyal Chairman. Shortly following last year's elections, the Chairman said that Supreme Court nominees who did not say that they would uphold Roe would be unlikely to be confirmed. He subsequently minced his words, but the threat remained. Then he refused to state a position on the constitutional option, leaving the Republicans with 49 votes to end the Democrats' unconstitutional filibusters and giving the seven dwarves an excuse to cut an unprincipled deal. At the beginning of the Roberts hearings, Specter spent 28:30 of his half hour talking about the "super de duper" precedent of Roe, sounding much like a Democrat imposing the type of litmus test that Republicans have decried for years. Now, he is giving the Democrats an opportunity to beat up on the nominee with unfair attacks.

The claim that this process could not have run its course by Christmas is ludicrous. Samuel Alito has been thought to be on the "short list" since President Bush was elected. He has a clear paper trail that has been analyzed ad nauseam by attorneys on both sides of the aisle. The judges who have worked with him are speaking publicly. His resume is beyond reproach.

Conservatives still have reason to be wary about Judge Alito, primarily because it is not yet known how he will treat bad precedent once on the Court. Hopefully, the hearings will shed some light on his approach to this important matter. Even so, there is no reason to delay the hearings other than to give the left more time to attack Alito's jurisprudence, attack his record, and make thinly veiled innuendo about his Catholic faith. As such, delaying the hearings will serve only to further erode the comity that Specter claimed to want to protect when he opted not to state a position on the constitutional option.

Arlen Specter is primarily responsible for this delay. Senator Mudd is primarily responsible for Arlen Specter. We deserve better from supposed conservatives.

Opportunity Knocks: Bouchard Back In

2005-11-02T12:33:00.000-05:00

After entering and leaving the Michigan Senate race earlier this year, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard has reentered the race, having dealt with the health issues that forced him out of the race earlier this year. This comes as good news, as reverends Keith Butler and Jerry Zandstra have struggled to catch fire. Recent polls show both trailing Stabenow by 20+ points.

Bouchard's candidacy will be an uphill battle. Butler and Zandstra have been campaigning for almost a year, and Butler in particular has a small but loyal following. More significantly, Stabenow has been raising money at a fierce pace, finishing the third quarter with over $4.7 million. Bouchard also has some name recognition problems as well, and getting in this late makes that problem difficult to solve.

On the positive side, Bouchard has political experience, having been elected to both houses of the state legislature before being elected county sheriff. With establishment backing and political connections, he should have better luck raising money than the other two Republicans. He has also established conservative credentials, with a voting record to back it up, that will serve him well if he is able to raise enough money to get that message out. Finally, having been elected in Oakland County he could perform well in an area that has been trending blue in recent elections.

Bouchard enters late and has a steep hill to climb. Even so, he likely offers us our best chance to take down the vulnerable Stabenow. This race is somewhere between "Lean Democrat" and "Likely Democrat". If Bouchard has a good fourth quarter fundraising, this one could get very interesting. If not, it could just as easily get very ugly.

Alito: Tempering the Optimism

2005-10-31T23:56:00.000-05:00

The nomination of Judge Samuel Alito has been met with unbridled enthusiasm in conservative circles. This is understandable in light of the Miers debacle. Clearly, Judge Alito's resume qualifies him for the Supreme Court. If he were on the Court for several of its disastrous decisions, such as Griswold, Roe, and Eisenstadt, he almost certainly would have shown proper restraint. Such are the makings for a good Justice. Sadly, though, those decisions have been made. The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution beyond the point of recognition, and many argue that judicial restraint requires judges to adhere to the rulings of the Court regardless of how much those rulings depart from the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers.

Fortunately, most indications are that Judge Alito will live up to his nickname, Scalito, and depart from precedent where precedent departs from the Constitution. The most promising indication that he would do so comes from his dissent in the Casey case in the Third Circuit. Chief Justice Rehnquist cited Alito in his dissent, in which he, like Alito, voted to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal consent provision. Alito has also shown himself to be a great friend of religious liberty, siding with practitioners of various faiths and arguing that the government could not discrimination against religious practice and viewpoints.

The question then becomes, "What does Judge Alito view as proper behavior for a judicial conservative on the Court, adherence to the Constitution or adherence to precedent?" Alito's track record gives no indication as to the answer. This is not a fault, nor is it evidence that he would side with previous decisions of the Court rather than the Constitution itself. Even so, until conservatives get an answer to that question, we should take a cautious, albeit optimistic, approach to this nomination. I would urge my good friends who have eagerly endorsed this nomination to take a deep breath and think about whether they might be getting a little ahead of themselves.

Judge Alito may well be the best that we can get. For that matter, he might be the best circuit judge in the country. He could well vote with Justice Scalia even more frequently than Justice Thomas. Before marching in lock-step on this nomination, though, we should be careful to make sure that a Justice Alito would be willing to undo the severe damage done to the Constitution by the Supreme Court. I am hopeful, even confident, that he will do so, but conservatives have been burned too many times to get behind this nomination without finding out how he will treat previous decisions that clearly depart from the Constitution.

Miers Winners and Losers: '06 Edition

2005-10-30T23:27:00.000-05:00

Winners

Rep. Tom Tancredo - No he's not in the Senate and no he would not have had to vote on the nomination, but Rep. Tom Tancredo is the biggest winner in this mess. As mentioned in the previous post, several Senators did the right thing, killing the nomination behind closed doors, but Rep. Tancredo was the only elected member of Congress to oppose the nomination outright.
Rep. Mark Kennedy - Rep. Kennedy was between a rock and a hard place. The President put him in the awkward position of having to rally conservatives by not endorsing the nomination and not hurt himself with the establishment by opposing it. Kennedy breathed a tremendous sigh of relief when the withdrawal was announced.
Sen. Jim Talent - The Missouri Senate race will be ground zero of the culture war next year. Gov. Blunt has already created a rift with Missouri Right to Life by supporting embryonic stem-cell research. The last thing Talent needed was a vote on the President's nominee. Vote for Miers and anger conservatives. Vote against Miers and be considered a traitor by Bush loyalists. Now, he need not choose.
Michael Bouchard - After entering and then exiting the race against Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), rumor has it that Bouchard will reenter the race this week. If he does so, it appears as though he will now be able to use the nomination of a strict constructionist as an issue against the incumbent.
Sen. Samuel Mudd, M.D. - With friends like the President, who needs enemies? Mudd angered the base by campaigning for Arlen Specter against a conservative challenger. As Toomey backers feared, Specter made statements that told the President in no uncertain terms to nominate someone who was more concerned with precedent than the Constitution. It now appears that Specter did not get his way, which will help Mudd - if it is still possible - to mend the rift with conservatives.

Losers

Sen. Lincoln Chafee - Speculation abounds that the President will select Judge Samuel Alito, nicknamed "Scalito", to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Alito is a conservative and, equally important from Chafee's perspective, an Italian. If Chafee votes to confirm Alito, he will be attacked in the general election as a "Bush Republican". If he votes against confirmation, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey can attack him for opposing the second-ever Italian Supreme Court nominee.
Sen. Mike DeWine - First, he participated in the Gang of 14 agreement. Then, he spoke highly of the ill-advised nominate. Now, he is lamenting the fact that the clearly unqualified Miers did not make it to her hearings. When he finds himself in a hole, DeWine never fails to keep on digging. The OH-2 special election had more to do with conservatives staying home than liberals turning out. If McEwen enters the primary, DeWine is toast. If not, he will have to work 25/8 to convince conservatives that he is worth voting for in the general election.

Profiles in Courage

2005-10-27T23:13:00.000-04:00

Readers of this blog know that I have called Republicans to task for their betrayals of conservatism. Such criticism, though, makes praise all the more meaningful. The members above, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Norm Coleman, Senator David Vitter, Senator George Allen, and Senator John Thune demonstrated tremendous strength during this process. Some of their statements were public. Others we will never hear about. As young Senators, they took a tremendous risk in standing up to the President and Party Leadership in favor of principle. In a body in which seniority is king, these men risked the very things that lead to reelection to ensure that only qualified Supreme Court nominees get confirmed.

Just over a decade ago, Republicans in the Senate were unwilling to fight President Clinton on Supreme Court nominees. When President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. His next selection, Stephen Breyer, was confirmed by a vote of 87-9. At the time, there was no evidence that either would feel restrained by the Constitution. Since then, no such evidence has emerged.

This is a new day. Almost every newly elected Republican Senator in the last few cycles has moved the caucus to the right. Today, they demonstrated that they are more committed to conservative principles than blind loyalty to any individual. The conservative movement has reached a new level, as it is now obvious that, while plenty of work remains, we can govern rather than simply have more seats. We have more work ahead of us than we have behind us, but the courage demonstrated by these men shows tremendous promise by demonstrating that we can expect higher standards from our elected conservatives. It is time to let the President know that we expect him to meet the same high standard set by these principled Senators. Please also let the Senators know how much you appreciate the courage that they have shown.

If you think that another Senator deserves to be on this list, by all means say so in the comments.

Ireland Out; Catlett Only Hope

2005-10-27T22:04:00.000-04:00

Elizabeth Dole's latest failure is her inability to convince West Virginia Secretary of State Betty Ireland to challenge Sen. Robert KKK Byrd. Though she would only have been in office for two years, Ireland proved her political metal when she defeated Ken Hechler by nearly 30,000 votes, making her the only victorious GOP candidate in any statewide race last year. She is a solid conservative but has an approach that makes her tough to demonize, especially running against a crotchety old man like KKK. The departure leaves former West Virginia University basketball coach Gale Catlett as the last remaining person with any real chance of defeating Byrd. Even he would be a long shot. This is just the latest in a series of Dole's failures. Hopefully the Republican Caucus will remember this the next time they choose an NRSC Chair and be more careful with their election.

Congratulations White Sox

2005-10-27T21:48:00.000-04:00

I was remiss not to post this last night. In spite of terrible umpiring throughout the post-season, the White Sox' sweep of the Houston Astros showed clearly that they are the best team in Major League Baseball. After a long wait, the south side finally has something to get excited about.

Harriet Miers: Worse than We Thought

2005-10-27T01:15:00.000-04:00

Wow.

Up until now,the primary complaint among conservatives has been than there was no evidence of Miss Miers being a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Supporters of Miers have shown exactly zero evidence that she would strictly apply the Constitution. Now we find out that she doesn't understand the difference between the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance.

In perhaps the dumbest comment in DC since Rep. Major Owens said that sharks were still dining on slaves thrown overboard in the 1700s, Harriet Miers, the best nominee the President could find while blindfolded in a private meeting with her, said in a 1993 speech, "We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance." Earth to Harriet: the Pledge of Allegiance is not in the Constitution. It provides words, albeit nice words. It has the same legal value as Grimm's fairy tales. Others have commented on the typos and ungrammatical comments by the supposedly meticulous nominee, but this takes the cake.

Thankfully, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has shown the courage that has yet to be seen in Senate Republicans. He has announced that he does not think that Miers is sufficiently intelligent to serve on the Supreme Court. This is not a personal insult to her, but not everybody is capable of everything. I'm not fast enough to win Olympic gold in the 100m, nor am I sufficiently informed to speak intelligently on US relations with Madagascar. This doesn't mean I can't do anything, but I am simply not cut out for everything. If you are so inclined, take a moment to thank Rep. Tancredo for his courage.

Equally troubling, and intriguing, is that the quote comes from a speech in which Miers confirmed the fears of conservatives that she does not share our philosophy. For example, she said, "where science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based on religious belief, then government should not act". As a Supreme Court justice, Miers would not be in a position to determine what the government should do. Instead, she must determine whether the government can do certain things. Her personal opinions about the right course of action should be irrelevant. Her apparent willingness to equate the Pledge of Allegiance with the Constitution strongly suggest an inability to distinguish between these two points. As if this were not enough, the White House has used her supposed personal beliefs, including her religion, as a primary means of supporting her nomination. This action in and of itself is entirely inappropriate for judicial nominees, but in this case, it has caused even more trouble. If Miers's personal beliefs indicate how she would rule, then we now have every reason to believe not only that she will not arrive at her conclusions through proper reasoning, but that even her conclusions will be wrong.

The late-breaking good news is that there is no news on her overdue do-over questionnaire. It is bad enough that members of both parties returned the questionnaire like an angry college professor whose student did not address the topic on which he was supposed to write the paper. If questions about her intelligence and philosophy were not enough, this fuels the fire that she cannot function effectively as a Supreme Court Justice. The easiest part of the nomination process is the written questionnaire. Miers gets to use any cheat sheet she wants. It is effectively an open book test that can be pre-graded by some of the top legal scholars in the country. Scratch that. It can be pre-graded by people similar to Miers, which speaks volumes of the qualifications of the lawyers in the Bush administration. Even with plenty of time and all the help she could have wanted, Miers failed with flying colors.

Fortunately, this lateness suggests of a possible imminent withdrawal. Tomorrow afternoon could be the ideal time for the announcement, as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to announce indictments in the Plame leak investigation. While it would be a nightmarish day for the White House - substance of the indictments aside - a withdrawal timed to coincide with the announcement of the indictments would force the media to divide coverage, thus limiting the damage. It could also allow conservatives to reunite with the President at a time when his approval ratings among non-Republicans would be likely to drop. Here's hoping that my next post can be about the Miers withdrawal.

Fortuitous Failure

2005-10-26T23:50:00.000-04:00

Yet again, Sen. Dole has failed to recruit the best, nay, best remaining candidate for a Senate campaign. Vermont Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie has decided against a primary challenge to businessman James Tarrant. When Jumpin' Jim Jeffords announced his retirement, the GOP quickly turned its attention to Gov. Jim Douglas, a liberal Republican whom most thought offered the Party its only real shot. Like almost every other strong non-incumbent, Douglas opted against a bid.

After that, attention quickly turned to Dubie. Dubie is a fairly popular, fairly conservative Republican who could do well in Vermont politics for years to come. The race against popular Rep. Bernie Sanders would have been an extremely tough test for Dubie. Coming into the race, Sanders brings with him a decade and a half of experience working for the extreme left-win in the US House. This is not to suggest that Sanders is insincere, but Karl Marx would have been proud. Such a record serves him well in Vermont politics, and it gives him numbers in the mid-50s against any Republican challenger.

Having said this, Dubie's decision hands the nomination to James Tarrant, who is likely to finance his own campaign. Tarrant's bid is a long shot, but, as Jon Corzine has proven, it is possible to buy viability, and Vermont's size makes viability cheaper than it is in New Jersey. More importantly, though, his ability to self-finance makes it possible to force Democrats to spend precious resources in the state, thus taking money from their pick-up opportunities in the semi-vulnerable GOP seats in Arizona, Tennessee, and/or Mississippi. Especially in mid-term elections, these resources are critical for GOTV operations.

In short, Tarrant is unlikely to win the seat, but the departure of Dubie and subsequent Tarrant nomination increase the likelihood that Democrats will have to spend some time and money in Vermont that they would rather spend elsewhere.

Steele In; Cardin Leads

2005-10-26T12:49:00.000-04:00

As Serge points out in a comment to the previous post, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has entered the race to replace retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes. Dave Myers took issue with my last post on this one, and this expected development lends itself to offering some clarification on a few points. First, though, in case anyone missed it, a poll came out today confirming what I had said regarding Steele's chances against the Democrats. No, polls taken a year out are not the be all and end all, but with Steele's name recognition, they are a pretty good indicator of where things stand.

What Dave apparently missed is that I do, in word, support Steele. He's an excellent candidate and would make a great Senator. By all means, if you're in or near Maryland and have some extra time on your hands, or if you have unlimited funds to spent, put some into this race. A word of advice on doing so, though. Don't work for Steele until the primary. If you're dead set on trying to elect Steele, then you should be doing everything you possibly can to help Kweisi Mfume win the Democrat primary. He finished the third quarter with less than $100,000 on hand and needs all the help he can get. If and only if Mfume wins the primary, this race becomes top-tier.

That having been said, resources are not unlimited. Choices must be made. This is not a novel concept but an age old rule. When the campaign committees determine how to spend their resources, they do not give out money equally or tie it to the expense of the race. Instead, they put races into one of six categories: vulnerable own party, vulnerable opposition party, semi-vulnerable own party, semi-vulnerable opposition party, safe own party, safe opposition party. About half of all Senate races fall into the final two categories. Parties use this order of priorities, and races in the final two get nothing. The reason for this is that the limited resources must be put into races where they are most likely to change the outcome of the race.

Using this categorization, the Maryland Senate race would fall into the category of "semi-vulnerable opposition party". For those who have limited resources, my advice - make of it what you will - is to do what you can to help candidates in the first two or three categories. If you are, for whatever reason, only able to lend a hand with races in the fourth, by all means go ahead. You might get lucky. At the very least, you might not win that race but force the Democrats to spend money where they would rather not have to do so. All things being equal, though, it is essential to use resources where they can make a difference. You will not see the GOP pouring money into Jeanine Pirro's campaign because she can't win. The same can be said of several others. The prospect of unwinnable races is not a fun one to accept, but a quick glance at the Kos efforts from last year shows just how much can be wasted instead of being well spent.

New Nominee? '06 Republicans Hope So

2005-10-25T00:10:00.000-04:00

Yesterday morning, Erick posted over at ConfirmThem that the White House is asking outsiders to come up with a new list of nominees. Catholic lure says that the Pope isn't sick until he's dead. The same can be said of political candidates or nominees. When sources close to a candidate say that he is "reevaluating", it means he's dropping out. When sources close to a nominee say, "We're not going to yank her nomination, but if we did...", it's all over. It is no secret that I oppose the Miers nomination. What is less readily visible is that several Republican who have not said so publicly do as well.

No fewer than eleven Senate races could hinge on whether the White House withdraws Miers in favor of, oh, let's just say, someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Incumbents Conrad Burns, Mike DeWine, Jon Kyl, Samuel Mudd, and Jim Talent will all need strong turnout among a base that supports the GOP largely because of the judiciary. Ed Bryant, Gale Catlett/Betty Ireland, Rep. Katherine Harris, Rep. Mark Kennedy, Rep. Chip Pickering (?), and Pete Ricketts will all need rallying points. The second coming of Sandra Day O'Connor would, to the contrary, tell those very people that elections don't matter.

Sen. DeWine is especially interested in withdrawal, as he came under heavy fire for participating in the unprincipled Gang of 14 agreement. Should Miers be confirmed, which is now about as likely as Wyoming winning the Rose Bowl, DeWine would be singled out for his participation, which many, including me, would argue led to this terrible nomination. If conservatives were to stay home in droves, as they did with the House special election earlier this year, DeWine's career will be over. The Ohio seat is critical to the Democrats' attempts to take back the Senate.

So, the White House much choose: does it energize the base by withdrawing Miers, going to war with the Democrats over a good nominee and winning, thus entering the 2006 elections with momentum and a wedge issue on which the voters side with the GOP? Or does it instead push forward with the Miers nomination, go to war with its own Party, see Miers defeated in humiliating fashion, become a lame duck early, and potentially lose the Senate Majority next year? The decision is in the President's hands. Fortunately, it now appears that he has chosen the former.

Breaking News: White House Hires Baghdad Bob

2005-10-23T01:43:00.000-04:00

According to sources close to the situation, the White House is preparing to announce the hiring of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, aka Baghdad Bob, to handle public relations for the nomination of Harriet Miers. Al-Sahaf earned the respect of fellow public relations specialists for his service during the United States invasion of Iraq, faithfully serving his government by talking about the accomplishments of the Iraqi defense against the American infidels. His ability to replace evidence with propaganda without shedding a tear or cracking a smile is rivaled only by former infidel President William Jefferson Clinton.

The decision comes at a time when the White House is seeking to launch a Republican Guard-like defense of the Miers nomination. Although opposition forces have entered the White House, the administration continues to deny such reports. Some long-time allies have even turned their guns on their leader, feeling that he has abandoned them for his own selfish interest.

The White House decided that al-Sahaf's unique experience with a nearly identical situation makes him the best person to lead its press operation. Though he officially begins his work for the administration on Monday, most think that he played a role in crafting White House political director Sara Taylor's response to reports of conversations regarding a possible withdrawal. Taylor said that such reports are "absolutely not true". These words closely resemble al-Sahaf's words during the 2003 invasion: "They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie! They lie! It is a Hollywood movie. You do not believe them!"

Sources say that the assignment is only temporary and that the White House expects results similar to those of the last crisis in which al-Sahaf was involved.

Aerial Assault

2005-10-23T00:55:00.000-04:00

Facing BYU's unconventional 3-3-5 defense, Charlie Weis put together a game plan that, for the first time this year, did not include a ground game. Instead, he relied on junior quarterback Brady Quinn on nearly every play. Quinn put up Heisman-like numbers, going 32/41 for 467 yards and a school record 6 touchdown passes. He had some help from Maurice Stovall, who set two school records with 14 receptions and four receiving touchdowns, and Jeff Samardzija, who tacked on 152 yards receiving and two touchdowns. The Irish dominated the game from the beginning of the second quarter, outscoring the Cougars 42-13 after the first. The game was sealed by an 83 yard interception return for a touchdown by Tom Zbikowski as the Courgars were threatening. The win improves the Irish to 5-2. Weis & Co. now have two weeks to prepare for the Tennessee Volunteers, who lost 6-3 to unbeaten Alabama.

FEC Reports Wrap Up

2005-10-20T22:21:00.000-04:00

The Hotline reports on third quarter fundraising with a complete summary of the important numbers. These are the most significant stories.

Illinois' third Senator is definitely running for President. Surely this surprises no one. Even so, her incredible fundraising puts the record-breaking President to shame. Clinton has nearly $14M in the bank. With Jeanine Pirro's recent missteps, that could be enough to finance Clinton's Senate campaign even with the several media markets in the state. If her fundraising holds true, she could end up with a $60M jump on the rest of the Democrat Primary field in 2008. That could leave likely candidates such as Kerry and Edwards scratching their heads about whether their climb is just too steep.
Orrin Hatch is Safe. The big news here is not so much that the Democrats would jump at a snowball's chance in hell, but that what could have been an interesting primary won't be. Challenger Steve Urquhart finished the quarter with less than $4000 on hand and raised just over $8000. So anemic is his fundraising that had his parents maxed out on contributions, he'd have more money than he does now. His spin is that he has focused on the ground game and will now turn his attention to fundraising. The fact is that this "race" is over.
Florida is a missed opportunity. When Rep. Katherine Harris entered the race, the major advantage to her candidacy - the one major advantage - was that she would be able to raise funds easily. Or so we thought. Harris has less than half a million dollars in the back. Nelson has 13-times that much. He also outraised her by a better than 3:1 margin in the third quarter alone. For challengers, it's not about having as much money as the incumbent, but having enough money to get your message out. Harris doesn't have that.
It's about time to say "Sen. Cardin". One of the best GOP pick-up opportunities was missed as Democrats got smart and have effectively cleared the field for their strongest candidate. Cardin raised over $700,000 in the third quarter and has nearly $1.9M in the bank. The primary challenger most likely to give him trouble, Kweisi Mfume, finished the quarter with less than six figures in the bank. Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is a great candidate, but defeating Cardin in Maryland is an extremely tall order.
Lott is about to take up shuffle board. Sen. Trent Lott raised just $26,690 in the third quarter. It is possible that the destruction of his home was simply a distraction from his fundraising. More likely, though, he has made the determination that it's time to move on. Rep. Chip Pickering (R) is his likely successor.
Mudd's Done. Bob Casey, Jr. raised half a million dollars more that Sen. Mudd, bringing his coffers over the $3M mark. Without having done anything, Casey has built an advantage in the high teens and is polling over the 50% mark. The Miers nomination, which some argued was made to appease RINOs like Specter, reinforces the rift that Mudd created with conservatives when he campaigned for Specter. There are also reports that RNC money that had been earmarked for Mudd is now being spent in New Jersey. It's tough to count any incumbent out at this point, but this is about as close as any race to being over.
Conservatives can take a scalp. In Rhode Island, Sen. Lincoln Chafee actually finished fourth in third quarter fundraising. He raised less than half of what Steve Laffey raked in and, after a full term, has slightly less than double the funds of a candidate who has been in the race for just over a month. Help bury Chafee and show the NRSC, which is now running ads against Laffey, that we mean business by contributing whatever you can afford to the Senator-to-be.

There are other stories. As expected Ed Bryant and Rep. Mark Kennedy both turned in very strong quarters. Patty Wetterling's candidacy is hanging on by a thread. And Sen. Maria Cantwell has successfully climbed out of a deep financial hole to likely save her career. While significant, none of this is too surprising. If the fourth quarter is as good for conservatives as the third, the GOP caucus will likely move right whether Republicans gain seats or not.

Steele In: Does It Matter?

2005-10-19T22:46:00.000-04:00

Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, an excellent candidate by all accounts, will announce next week that he will seek the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD). Steele is an intelligent, black, fairly conservative politician whose opposition to the death penalty could help him reach out to voters who traditionally vote Democrat. If a conservative can win in Maryland, it's Michael Steele.

Unfortunately, though, his prospects are dim. By any account, the environment is not favorable for Republicans. Scandals, real and fabricated, have damaged Republican chances nationwide. Last year, the President carried the Catholic vote in Maryland thanks in no small part to the efforts of the Maryland Catholic Conference reminding Catholics to vote their values. Regardless of how good of a job the Conference does, that becomes a very tough sell after the Miers nomination. Maryland Catholics, by and large, are not economic conservatives, so if the Miers nomination makes values a wash, it is highly unlikely that Steele will be able to maintain that advantage.

Further, the third quarter fundraising reports show Rep. Ben Cardin, the Democrats' strongest candidate, leading the way with nearly $2M on hand. His chief rival, Kweisi Mfume, comes in well behind the second-tier candidates, reporting less than $100,000 on hand even though he was the first candidate to declare his candidacy. Mfume could've been a very strong primary candidate by driving up black turnout in Baltimore. At this rate, he'll be lucky if he can afford bus fare to get to the polls himself.

Had Steele faced the racist Mfume in the general election, he would have had an excellent chance of routing Mfume among whites while neutralizing the Democrat's advantage among blacks. While Steele may still do relatively well among blacks, there is nothing extraordinary about Cardin that would cause him to underperform among blacks. He also won't scare white voters as Mfume would have. If Steele were running in almost any other state, he would have an excellent chance of winning. Unfortunately, though, Maryland is Maryland. The President's approval rating in the state is an abysmal 33%, and Democrats will be extremely eager to nationalize the race. Maryland's proximity to Washington will make it easy for Cardin to attract Democrat allies to the state early and often. By contrast, Steele will want to avoid the GOP heavy-hitters at all costs, something that is not easy to do when much of the state is in the Washington, DC media market. This race is "Likely Democrat" verging on "Safe Democrat". Unless the national scene changes dramatically before next November, it is exceedingly difficult to see Steele pulling off the upset.

Scientist or Novelist?

2005-10-18T00:12:00.000-04:00

As the debate over Harriet Miers rages on, damning information continues to come out. Today, Arlen Specter reports that Ms. Miers is a supporter of Griswold, arguably the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made. Griswold is based on judicial creativity, not rigor. The seven Justices who constituted the majority were novelists who cast aside the solid information before them, the written Constitution, in favor of their own whims.

Supreme Court Justices are called to be scientists. There is a right answer in every case, and it is their job to sort through the dense details to ascertain the proper ruling. Miss Miers is clearly unable or unwilling to engage in such rigorous activity. Instead, she endorses the theory of substantive due process, which absolves the Supreme Court of its solemn duty to apply the Constitution as written and usurps the power of legislatures to determine the rights of individuals and legislatures through duly enacted laws, including the Constitution.

Once again, I repeat that President Bush pledged to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Both have rejected this theory in no uncertain terms, instead opting to be faithful to the text of the Constitution. Miers is not in that mold, and anyone who says otherwise is either dishonest or foolish. It is time for the President to withdraw this nomination. (Hat tip to Andrew at ConfirmThem, who has now come into the light.)

A Bad Omen

2005-10-16T20:54:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Robert Novak pointed out yet another problem with Dr. James Dobson's analysis of the Miers situation.

Starr's choice
In choosing Kenneth Starr to vouch for the social
conservative credentials of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Dr. James
Dobson picked a man who 24 years ago as a Justice Department official did the
same for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Former Whitewater prosecutor Starr, now law school dean of Pepperdine University, appeared on conservative activist Dobson's radio program Wednesday. Starr called Miers ''a very, very strong Christian [who] should be a source of great comfort and assistance to people in the households of faith around the country.'' In 1981, Starr advised President Ronald Reagan of O'Connor's pro-life stance and ignored her pro-choice record in the Arizona Senate.
The talk with Starr on Wednesday's program was overshadowed by a long segment in which Dobson denied receiving inside information from the White House about where Miers stands on Roe vs. Wade.

Yet again, there is another reason to worry. As the saying goes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Anthony Kennedy's priest told conservatives were told, "He's a good Catholic. You have nothing to worry about." With Sandra Day O'Connor, it was, "She's solidly pro-life." Sen. John Sununu vouched for now-Justice David Souter, telling a pro-life convention that she was one of us. Now, we have one of the very same people who offered assurances about previous nominees giving us the same line. If conservatives fail to ensure that Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement is a conservative, then we deserve whatever we get. Sign the National Review petition to tell POTUS it's time to get serious about the Supreme Court and withdraw Ms. Miers.

Robbed

2005-10-16T20:31:00.000-04:00

Thanks to an illegal push by USC running back Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart managed to save USC's 27/8 game winning streak, dropping the Irish 34-31. NCAA rules prohibit players from pushing a ball-carrier into the endzone, something Reggie Bush clearly did. Equally controversial was the fumble that led to the call. Sans a fortuitous bounce, the Trojans would have left the House that Rockne Built with a loss that would have surprised only themselves. Irish coach Charlie Weis called one of the greatest games in college football history, leaving the men of Troy to rely on a few big plays on offence. The Irish held the ball for nearly 40 minutes, thus limiting USC's opportunities. The sad fact is that the game was decided by bad officiating. Thankfully, though, observers realized that, and the Irish remain in the AP top 10 and drop only to #12 in the coaches' poll. Don't be too surprised if there is a rematch in Pasadena, as the teams separating the greatest rivals in all sports face tough schedules in the latter half of the season.

The Crux of the Problem

2005-10-13T00:24:00.000-04:00

The mantra of candidate Bush was "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas". The mantra of President Bush is, "Trust me". Today, though, we have further proof that the President must not be trusted.

Apparently, President Bush took Ms. Miers' religion into account in her selection.

“People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”

Article VI of the Constitution clearly states, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It appears as though the same man who wants conservatives to trust his judgment on the judicial philosophy of someone who has no track record on constitutional issues has not read the very document that he expects her to apply. To be sure, there is nothing wrong with choosing an evangelical to serve on the Court, but a potential nominee's religion should not appear on her resume. If the President thinks that Ms. Miers' religion qualifies her for service on the Court, then he himself clearly does not understand the Constitution.

What's more, character should be a given in Supreme Court nominees. Judges are permitted to serve during good behavior. If they cannot be expected to refrain from bad behavior, then the should not be nominated in the first place. Nobody, save perhaps Dr. Dobson, actually cares about the religion of Ms. Miers. The three central issues in determining whether a person belongs on the Court are intelligence, experience, and judicial philosophy. Ms. Miers religion tells us nothing about any of those three categories, and by all indications, she is lacking in each of them. The fact that the President is reduced to emphasizing her religion clearly illustrates that he has no better arguments on the other three points. It is time for him to reconsider. Perhaps he'll be able to find time to read the Constitution before selecting the next nominee.

Dobson's Fatal Mistake

2005-10-11T21:47:00.000-04:00

You heard it here first!

Dr. James Dobson has spent far too much time in the conservative movement to be considered one of the good ol'' boys. It could be said that, when the DC establishment does the right thing, Dobson speaks for it. When the DC establishment goes awry, Dobson speaks to it. But, as with the Pope, Dobson's dedication, honesty, and humility do not make him infallible in all matters.

As I speculated earlier, Dr. Dobson has based his views on hearsay and Miers' personal views. (Hat tip: Erick at Confirmthem.com)

First, because Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial philosophy which
was consistent with the promises that President Bush had made when he was
campaigning. Now he told the voters last year that he would select people to
be on the Court who would interpret the law rather than create it and judges
who would not make social policy from the bench. Most of all, the President promised to appoint people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their powers to advance their own political agenda. Now, Mr. Rove assured me
in that telephone conversation that Harriet Miers fit that description and
that the President knew her well enough to say so with complete
confidence...
Then he suggested that I might want to validate that opinion by talking to people in Texas who knew Miers personally and he gave me the names of some individuals that I could call. And I quickly followed up on that conversation and got glowing reports from a federal judge in Texas, Ed Kinkeade and a Texas Supreme Court justice, Nathan Hecht, who is highly respected and has known Harriet Miers for more than 25 years. And so, we talked to him and we talked to some others who are acquainted with Ms. Miers...
What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn'tÂt reveal? Well, itÂs what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life. In other words, there is a characterization of her that was given to me before the President had actually made this decision...

In fact, Dobson even said that he was not told anything that has not since been made public. Miers's supporters had hoped that when Dobson would speak out, he would tell us something that we did not already know. They hinged their hopes on Dr. Dobson, trusting his judgment. Now we see that in this case, his judgment is simply wrong. Their desperate, but understandable, attempts to believe that there must be something more that Dobson knows have now been obliterated.

The White House has nothing left. Their greatest ally, their great hope for convincing conservatives, has spoken, and the only thing that it changed is that the rest of the table now knows just how weak the White House's hand is. Conservative Senators now know that they will have nothing to hang their hats on, nothing to defend a Yea vote. It is time for Ms. Miers to do the right thing and withdraw herself.

Coalition of the Illin'

2005-10-11T12:33:00.000-04:00

I'm a bit behind the curve on this, but MachoNachos has formed the Coalition of the Illin' in response to Patrick Ruffini's Coalition of the Unprincipled, er, Chillin'. This works nicely as e-discontent mixes with Senate discontent. Countless other blogs have similarly come out against the disaster that is the Miers nomination. Most notably, the normally excessively partisan Polipundit has come around on the nomination.

The spewing of anger on the internet should send a clear message to the White House. Those of us who take time each day out of our busy schedules to engage in this sort of activism are typically not those calling the shots. Nor are we reflective of the public at large. We are, however, involved. Some of us work professionally in politics. Others make contributions to candidates. Still others are the ones who speak at events, stamp envelopes, make phone calls, make lit drops, etc. We are the ones who make the difference in close elections. We are also the ones who are not involved in politics, by and large, because of our egos. Our reaction to the nomination suggests that Ms. Miers is not an acceptable pick and that the Party had better take us seriously. If not, the GOP will be flying solo real soon, because we'd sooner spend time with our families and other pursuits thango to the mat for people who forget us once in office.

Responding to Dobson

2005-10-08T00:07:00.000-04:00

Dr. James Dobson is a distinguished conservative leader. He praises public officials when they do the right thing, and lets them hear from him when they veer off course. He has dedicated his life to conservative, Godly causes, and he does his homework.

Dobson spent last weekend speaking at length with people who know Ms. Miers. He spoke with her pastor, people in her Church, Karl Rove, other people at the White House, etc. It is quite understandable that he could have gained confidential information in those discussions. He could well have gained information about her policy views, her religious views, her personality, her strength, her ideology, and her reasoning. Based on what he has said publicly, it seems as though these were the areas covered in his discussions. Having researched as much as he could, Dobson reached the conclusion that Ms. Miers would make a good Supreme Court Justice. Fair enough.

Due to his history, Dobson has earned the right to have conservatives give heavy weight to his opinion. It is heartfelt and honest. He has even said that, if he is wrong, the blood of those who will lose their lives as a result will be in part on his hands. He is humble and cautious, but he thinks Ms. Miers would serve well.

Unfortunately, though, nothing that Dr. Dobson has said publicly says anything at all about her judicial philosophy. He has said nothing about her being an originalist or a textualist. He has said nothing about her views on stare decisis or the role of the Court. He has said nothing about her ability to engage in intellectual discussion with her Court colleagues. He has done nothing to refute claims that Ms. Miers is indecisive and highly subject to be swayed by pressure. He has done nothing to link her personal, and perhaps political, beliefs on abortion and whether she would overturn Roe, Griswold, and other unconstitutional decisions.

Any time a conservative finds out that he disagrees with Dobson, it is time for him to rethink his position. I have done so. I have looked a Dobson's statements, listened to him on the radio, thought carefully about his arguments, and have found nothing at all that gives me any comfort whatsoever. Dobson may well be right about Ms. Miers if she were running for political office, but the nature of the Court is very different. She is strictly bound by the laws enacted by others, and we have no way to determine how she would approach her job with that in mind. If a Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional, which governs new rulings? Does she believe in substantive due process? How expansive is her reading of the commerce clause? On these counts, Dobson offers nothing.

With all due respect to Dr. Dobson, his statements leave far too many questions to be convincing. I do not doubt that he believes that he is doing the right thing, and I cannot fault him for it. Even so, respecting Dobson does not require agreeing with him.

Connecting the Dots

2005-10-06T23:56:00.000-04:00

Sen. Elizabeth Dole has been a colossal failure in her position as the head of the NRSC. Perhaps part of the problem is her inability to complete simple children's games. Last week, we learned that Dole has been reduced to begging her colleagues to contribute more to the Committee. Her Senate colleagues are not the reason that fundraising is lagging. There are other, more important, factors.

Now, the NRSC has begun an ad campaign to defend the most liberal member of the Senate against a more conservative challenger. Among other things, Lincoln Chafee did not vote for President Bush, opposed the Bush tax cut, and, most importantly, participated in an unprincipled agreement that compromised the Constitution by tagging the constitutionality of filibusters to the whim of 14 Senators. He is the epitome of RINO. It is because of people like him that the President had an excuse to nominate the least qualified Supreme Court nominee since Abe Fortas. Now, for no other reason than the "R" after his name, the NRSC is running ridiculous negative ads in an attempt to make it seem that Steve Laffey is the liberal in the race.

The NRSC is losing the fund race because its "Leadership" simply does not understand that donors have principle even when politicians do not. We have an agenda, not a Party. Conservative support, financial and volunteer, comes from people who view the Republican Party as a vehicle to advance conservatism, not the other way around. Until Senator Dole and the rest of the Party "Leadership" can connect these dots, they will continue to trail in fundraising, deservedly so.

Justice Miers? Not So Fast!

2005-10-06T00:04:00.000-04:00

When John Roberts was nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, the nomination quickly became a juggernaut that could not be stopped. Republicans and Democrats realized that, while some questions remained unanswered, he had a distinguished legal career worthy of service on the Supreme Court. While my test is different, Judge Roberts clearly met the standard that Republicans have set out with their near-unanimous support of recent Supreme Court nominations by Presidents of both parties. Harriet Miers does not.

Ms. Miers can be confirmed if and only if simply being a lawyer is sufficient qualification for service on the Supreme Court. The White House has bragged about her term as head of the Texas Lottery Commission and head of the Texas Bar Association. That's all well and good, but is making sure that nobody tampers with a bunch of ping pong balls really a qualification for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? As to the Texas Bar Assocation, a staffer close to the situation put it well when he said, "They brag about the fact that she was the head of the Texas Bar association. That doesn't make me enthusiastic. That makes me nauseous."

Thankfully, several Republican Senators have either remained silent or have made statements that indicate that Ms. Miers has something to prove, especially with regard to judicial philosophy. Republican Senators Jeff Sessions, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn (Judiciary Committee members), Wayne Allard, George Allen, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, Jim DeMint, Elizabeth Dole, Pete Domenici, Mike Enzi, Chuck Hagel, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Trent Lott, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, John Thune, and George Voinovich have all indicated that they simply do not know enough about Ms. Miers to make a determination at this point. Still more have not yet made any statement regarding the nomination. The fact that this sixty year old woman does not have a paper trail itself speaks volumes of her level of qualification.

Republicans control the Senate, and the White House for that matter, in no small part because voters trusted them to ensure that the Supreme Court in the future would consist of highly qualified jurists with a clear judicial philosophy. The President has failed to live up to his end of this deal. Now, Senate Republicans must step up to fulfill their responsibilities to the voters and to the Constitution by rejecting this nomination.

Democrats Smell Blood

2005-10-05T23:34:00.000-04:00

Just two days after President Bush selected the least qualified person he could find to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Rep. Sherrod Brown has changed his mind on challenging Sen. Mike DeWine (RINO-OH). Rep. Brown is an extreme liberal, but unlike Paul Hackett, he's an establishment liberal. The left wing blogsphere is not happy about the announcement, but they apparently fail to realize that Brown offers them a much better opportunity to take the seat than Hackett. Unlike Hackett, Brown has experience winning and offers some political know-how. He will not surround himself by left-wing loonies that could inspire the conservative base to turnout in spite of their distaste for the incumbent and the rampant culture of corruption in state government.

Brown's personal situation has changed, but that is not the only reason that he entered the race. Midterm elections are, even moreso than this past election, centered on base turnout. The conservative base in Ohio will be, as William Kristol is, "disappointed, depressed and demoralized". This national sentiment of conservatives is exaggerated in Ohio because of the other problems particular to the race, some his fault, others not.

Democrats smell blood for good reason. The Republican base is fed up after having been betrayed because W selected a friend, an unqualified friend at that, for what is sadly one of the most powerful positions in the federal government. The President opened a door for the Democrats in Ohio, Missouri, Montana, and possibly Arizona with this terrible selection. If Republicans do not want to utter the words "Majority Leader Reid", then they had best fulfill their constitutional duty to reject this unqualified nominee.

The Senate's Role

2005-10-05T00:38:00.000-04:00

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they had the foresight to see that those put in positions of power would, like anyone else, be flawed. They further saw the potential for these flawed men to severely damage the Republic if their power was without limits. As such, they established a system of checks and balances that ensured that no one branch of the government could enjoy too much power over the other two. In this system, the President is empowered to nominate men and women to the Supreme Court. As such, he is entitled to a good deal of deference from the Senate. The Senate is not a co-nominator. Even so, the Senate has a role in ensuring that the President selects qualified nominees for service on the federal bench. In this case, the Senate must exercise its authority to reject an unqualified nominee.

The nomination of Harriet Miers is precisely the type of appointment that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they determined that the Senate should have to confirm the President's nominees. It is amazing to anybody who has been paying attention that the President managed to keep a straight face Tuesday morning when he said that Miers was the most qualified person for the position. Clearly, there were several more qualified nominees at the President's disposal: Judge Michael Luttig, Judge Samuel Alito, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Justice Maura Corrigan, and Sen. Jon Kyl to name a few. It is impossible and unnecessary to say who would be the "most qualified" nominee, but it is easy to say that it is not Ms. Miers. In fact, she is not qualified.

On what is this statement based? There are a few simple criteria that should be used to determine whether a person is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. While not an exhaustive list, this is a rough guide:

Has the person demonstrated superior legal intellect?
Does the person's record demonstrate a respect for the limitations placed on the Court by the Constitution?
Does the person's record demonstrate a respect for the limitations placed on the other branches of government by the Constitution?
Does the person's record demonstrate that he understands that the Constitution must be applied as written rather than as the person might want it to read?
Does the person's record demonstrate a proper understanding of judicial restraint, including the fact that any past decisions of the Supreme Court that departed from the Constitution exceed the Court's authority, are illegitimate, and are unworthy of respect?

For Ms. Miers, the answer each of these questions is clearly "no". Ms. Miers may well be a very nice woman. She may be highly intelligent. She may be a judicial conservative. She may be a strict constructionist. She may not be any of these things.

The federal government has only three branches and the Supreme Court has only nine members. It is far too risky to confirm a nominee who has shown none of the qualities mentioned above. Doing so would a) send a message that judicial conservatives need not apply, b) lower the bar for the Supreme Court, c) render the Senate irrelevant in the selection of Supreme Court nominees, and d) place someone who has not demonstrated the above qualities on the Court.

If you agree, please take a moment to contact the following conservatives on the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to oppose the confirmation of Harriet Miers: Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jon Kyl, and Sen. Jeff Sessions.

You Bet Your Life?

2005-10-04T23:36:00.000-04:00

For anyone whose support for the GOP depends largely on its opposition to abortion, or other social issues for that matter, that is the question to ask yourself. Are you willing to bet your life that Harriet Miers is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? If the answer to that question is no, then why are you willing to bet the lives of tens of millions not yet born? Why are you willing to bet marriage? Why are you willing to bet religious freedom? Why are you willing to bet continued domination of public policy by unelected tyrants in robes?

I am the first to say that it should not be that way. Laws should be presumed constitutional while judges determine whether the application thereof passes constitutional muster. Nobody should hear about what the Court does, much less care, because its rulings should apply only to the parties involved. We need judges willing to say that the emperor is buck naked, because the status quo is a far cry from what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Given the current situation, though, we must at least have Justices who respect some limits on the Court. They must understand that the Constitution is not a list of recommendations but a binding legal contract. Only two of the current justices understand this and act accordingly. A third may, but we do not yet know. As a result, the Court has unilaterally amended the Constitution, adding a "right to privacy", a "right to abortion", a "right to sodomy", "freedom from religion", and a "right to repossess private property" for any purpose. These are no small matters and go to the heart of who were are as a country. Sadly, there is no chance of the other two branches enforcing the limitations on the judiciary, so we must find justices whom we can trust to adhere strictly to the Constitution without the other branches exercising their checks and balances. So ask yourself, "Am I willing to bet my life on Harriet Miers?" I have my answer. What's yours?

Thanks George

2005-10-04T20:50:00.000-04:00

As conservatives - real conservatives, not President Bush - lament the selection of an unqualified, untested, (judicially) unknown White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Gary Miller over at KvM begins the discussion of just how much of a political disaster this is for the Republicans who will face voters next year. When people who were never involved in politics before started taking time out of their busy lives to drop leaflets, make phone calls, and stuff envelopes for Governor/President Bush, they did so based largely on his campaign promise to select Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. So the question is, which one is Harriet Miers, Scalia or Thomas?

Prior to this nomination, the Democrats has about as much chance of retaking the Senate as President Bush had of translating Aristotle's Metaphysics from the Greek. Now, though, the Democrats have gone from having zero chance to having about a 50% chance depending on just how badly things go on the Roberts Court.

Here's a broader look at the races that have changed as a result of the nomination:

Pennsylvania - Let there be no doubt that the blame for this selection rests squarely on the shoulders of "conservative hero" Rick Santorum. During the primary, Santorum cut ads for Specter and threatened Toomey backers, knowing full well that Sen. Specter would be the problem that he turned out to be. During the first round of questioning for Judge Roberts, Specter spent 28 of his 30 minutes promoting his pro-abortion litmus test. That is one of the reasons that the President felt the need to steer clear of well qualified, well established, well known judicial conservatives. Santorum was in trouble before this selection. Now? Stick a fork in him, he's done, and deservedly so. Lean Democrat to Safe Democrat.
Ohio - The President's selection shows just how damaging the G-14 agreement was. Rather than needing 50 votes + the Vice President, POTUS needed 60. Thanks Mike! Since the Democrats will likely nominate a far left Kos Kandidate, DeWine's not dead, but he's still very sick. Lean Republican to Lean Democrat.
Minnesota - Rep. Mark Kennedy sadly looks to be one of the innocent victims of this disaster. Western neighbor Sen. John Thune has been cautious in his comments, but he will not face the voters for another five years. Through no fault of his own, Kennedy's chances have been severely, if not fatally, damaged by the pick. In a state that's as purple as they come, every voter counts. In 2004, 24% of voters based their votes on "Moral Values". POTUS carried them 77-21. With the exception of terrorism, that was the most decisive issue in favor of the President. If the 24% drops to 20%, the Democrats will save a seat that should have been ours'. Toss-up to Likely Democrat.
Missouri - Sen. Jim Talent, a strong conservative, expressed trust in the President but did say that her record needs to be thoroughly vetted. Should he determine that she would not apply consistent jurisprudence, he may vote against her. State Auditor Claire McCaskill declared her candidacy in rural Houston, MO, an attempt to reach out to voters who vote Republican on values issues. With values issues neutralized, these voters are more likely to either stay home or, worse, vote on farm subsidies. Talent was a heavy favorite. That is no longer the case. Likely Republican to Lean Republican/Toss-up.
West Virginia - Sen. Dole had already blown this one, first by going after a candidate who could not capitalize on the very values issues that have shifted the state into the Republican column at the Presidential level, then by not getting her. Hopefully Gale Catlett will challenge Sen. Byrd. Even if he does, voters now see that the difference between the parties on social issues is not sufficient to give up on Senator Pork. Likely Democrat to Safe Democrat.
Montana - Sen. Conrad Burns is a good conservative, but it's not his social conservatism - save guns - that got him to Washington. The nomination hurts Burns on the margins, but in a state as small as his, any revolt is a bad thing. Likely Republican to Likely/Lean Republican.
Nebraska - Incumbents seldom lose. When they do, it's usually the perfect storm of red state/blue Senator or blue Senator/red state, a good candidate, and Presidential popularity/unpopularity. The first criterion is fine. Dole blew the second, making Nelson's reelection prospects better than they needed to be. Now the President has let down the voters who make Nebraska beat red. Republicans had a fair chance before the nomination. That is no longer the case. Lean Democrat to Likely Democrat.
Florida - Rep. Katherine Harris was in bad shape before Miers. Now she's done. The big split in the last Senate race was between those who attended church services weekly or more and those who did not. Martinez won a squeaker on the strength of those who attended weekly or more, 36% of voters, by a 2:1 margin. Will a Presidential capitulation on the most important issue to those voters reduce their proportion of voters by 10%? Count on it. Likely Democrat to Safe Democrat.
Michigan - Rev. Keith Butler is a third-tier candidate. If he was to have any chance against Sen. Stabenow, he had to win union members on social issues. With the Miers choice, that won't happen. Likely Democrat to Safe Democrat.
Arizona - Sen. Kyl won't likely lose. Even with a Democrat Governor, the state is deep red and not changing any time soon. With the issue of judicial tyranny on issues like abortion and gay marriage, though, this definitely hurts Kyl's ability to reach out to Hispanics on values issues. Kyl has a chance to save this opportunity by holding Miers' feet to the fire during the confirmation hearings and voting against her if she fails to convince conservatives that she is not in the mold of justices Scalia and Thomas.

James Carville often says, "If you see your opponent drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." Instead, the President threw Schumer & Co. a lifeline.

Bush's Court

2005-10-03T20:16:00.000-04:00

Shock and Awe

2005-10-02T01:01:00.000-04:00

The first three Irish wins of the season were due largely to the Irish ground game, but today belonged to Brady Quinn. Quinn went 29/36 for 440 yards with three touchdowns, picking the Purdue Boilermakers apart like a turkey on Thanksgiving. In doing so, he became only the third quarterback in Irish history to throw for 400+ yards in three career games. The hustle play of the game was made by Chinedum Ndukwe, who chased down running back Kory Sheets after a 38 yard gain, stopping him on the one yard line. On the following play, linebacker Brandon Hoyte caused a Jerod Void fumble, which was recovered by Irish cornerback Mike Richardson. The Irish then drove 98 yards for a touchdown, extending the lead to 14-0. That 14-point swing changed the game and from that point on, the outcome was never in doubt. The Irish now have two weeks to prepare for Southern California, to whom we have lost by 31 points in each of our last three meetings. Should USC drop Arizona as expected next week, that will be the game of the young century. Go Irish!

Dole Blows It Again

2005-09-30T23:23:00.000-04:00

This time the bad news comes from the northern Plains. North Dakota Governor John Hoeven has opted out of a Senate bid. For those of you keeping score, this is the tenth missed opportunity for Senator Dole and by far the biggest miss of the cycle. Had he challenged Senator Conrad, Hoeven would have offered the GOP its best chance to capture a Senate seat. That distinction now goes to Rep. Mark Kennedy.

Some have argued that Sen. Allen missed his share of opportunities as well. Let's compare:

Allen 2004 (6-3-2)

Arkansas - failed to get Tim Hutchinson
Colorado - failed to get Owens, partly thanks to his divorce; got behind Coors when he should've backed Schaffer
Florida - missed Jeb, got Martinez; won the seat
Georgia - got his first pick, Rep. Johnny Isakson; won the seat
Nevada - missed Rep. Jim Gibbons
North Carolina - got Burr; won the seat
North Dakota - okay, Allen blew this one too
Oklahoma - got a strong candidate, Humphreys who was defeated by my man in the primary; Coburn won the general
South Carolina - got his first pick, DeMint; won the seat
South Dakota - got his first pick, Thune; won the seat
Washington - missed Jennifer Dunn, but got Rep. Nethercutt

Dole 2006 (2-8-1)

Florida - failed to get Gov. Bush; failed to get a second-tier challenger; ended up with Rep. Katherine Harris, who has consistently trailed miserably against Sen. Nelson
Maryland - may have gotten Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who has an exploratory committee, but has not committed to the race
Michigan - missed Jane Abraham, Rep. Candice Miller, and Rep. Mike Rogers; Stabenow leads GOP front-runner Rev. Keith Butler by 20+
Minnesota - got Rep. Kennedy, who was running with or without NRSC recruitment
Nebraska - missed Reps. Fortenberry, Osborne, and Terry and acting Governor Dave Heineman; Nelson's now a heavy favorite against a motley crew of third-tier candidates
New Mexico - missed Reps. Pearce and Wilson; Bingaman will coast to reelection
New York - Rudy? No ; okay, perhaps this one's not on her
North Dakota - Hoeven passes; Conrad wins without trying
Tennessee - No shortage of candidates here, but Dole's done nothing by way of clearing the field for the strongest candidate
Washington - No Rossi, no Dunn, no chance, no way
West Virginia - still a shot at liberal Rep. Capito; should've recruited former WVU basketball coach Gale Catlett or rising star Secretary of State Betty Ireland from the start; if Capito had the stomach for it, she'd have gotten in already. Oh by the way, there's nothing like giving away the values issues, as Capito would do, in a state that is economically closer to Sen. KKK
Wisconsin - No Thompson, no Ryan, no chance

On fundraising, her other primary responsibility, Sen. Dole is now begging her colleagues to contribute more because she failed to deliver the message to Party "Leadership" that failure to deliver the votes on the constitutional option would be disastrous for fundraising.

The election of Sen. Dole was one of the worst things this Congress has done, and that says a lot considering just how inept the GOP "Leadership" has been. Perhaps, though, more candidates would be willing to make the runs if there was at least some promise of progress. Sadly, though, Republicans have failed repeatedly to do anything worthwhile.

The one promising thing about the 2006 races is that the challengers running and the incumbents who will lose offer the opportunity for conservatives to take control of the caucus. The best case scenario involves former Rep. Ed Bryant, Rep. Mark Kennedy, Mayor Steve Laffey, Rep. Chip Pickering, State Rep. Urquhart replacing Senators Chafee, Frist, Hatch, Lott, and Mudd. If that happens, the 2006 cycle will be a rousing success. Even so, one cannot help but wonder what could have been had Sen. Dole been half-way competent.

What is a Win?

2005-09-29T21:22:00.000-04:00

As we begin getting used to the words "Chief Justice Roberts", many are focusing on the next nominee, the size of the victory, or what Roberts' impact on the Court will be. Since that ground is well-covered over at RedState.org and ConfirmThem.com , Jayson at Polipundit looks at the confirmation from a different angle. (I have previously discussed this perspective here).

As I have said, I do not think that Judge John Roberts should have been confirmed. I consider it a loss. Not a single Senator shared my view. Essentially, I lost 100-0. Left wing groups who opposed Judge Roberts for other reasons also lost. Sure, it was closer - not close, but closer - 78-22. I would have considered "victory" the defeat of the nomination. They would have considered "victory" a majority of Democrats voting against confirmation. Well, that didn't work so well either. Now, as Jayson pointed out, the National Abortion Federation is claiming post facto that having more than twenty Senators vote against Roberts constitutes some sort of victory.

Far from an isolated incident, this is becoming the norm for the left. First, Sen. Schumer said Democrats will try to make progress in the Senate in '06, not take it back. Then, the lefty loonies said that it'd be a win for Hackett to come close in the OH-2 Special election. Now this.

So what does this mean? The left is defeated. They are done, finished, completed, finito. Unless...

Unless the Republicans become like them. Conservatives have beaten liberals left, right, and sideways since 1996. We are in a position to finish them off by taking back the Courts, the last remnant of those whose thirst for power supercedes their desire for the rule of law rather than the rule of men and whose childish desire to do anything any time supercedes any sence of values. Now is not the time to play not to lose.

Let's play for the win, not for overtime.

What do these men have in common?

2005-09-28T23:48:00.000-04:00

We'll soon find out. With his first selection, the President went with an uninspired choice. The business community hand-picked John Roberts. Social conservatives went along, most did so reluctantly. During his testimony, Roberts made it abundantly clear that he did not fulfill the President's promise that he would select Justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. In particular, he endorsed substantive due process, which, loosely translated, means, "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is." Most are convinced that John Roberts will not be willing to overturn Roe, and he went so far as to say that he supports the conclusion in Griswold, a decision that finds about as much support in the Constitution as Osama bin Laden finds in the Pentagon.

Let's review. In 1994, the Republicans took over both houses of Congress. In 2000, a Republican President was elected. For three of the last five years, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

Abortion - Partial-birth abortion ban, Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Mexico City Policy. Nice, but only one of the above has actually saved any lives, and none of them has saved a single American child.
Education - The Congress gutted the single most important part of the President's plan - school choice.
Immigration - Nothing has been done to stem the tide of illegal immigration. The President has promoted amnesty.
Marriage - States are increasingly recognizing gay marriages. The President has voiced support for an amendment to defend marriage, but has done nothing about it. Even many Republicans oppose a Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Size of Government - Since Republicans took over Congress, not a single government department or program has been shut down. Knowing this, erstwhile House Majority Leader Tom DeLay recently said that we have cut all the fat that can be cut from the federal budget.
Taxes - Some temporary cuts were enacted. No structural reform.
War on Terror - There has been major progress. Syria, Iran, and North Korea all have or are continuing to develop nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden is still at large. Neo-con themes have been substituted for legitimate national security reasons for invading Iraq.
Welfare - This is the only domestic area in which there actually has been progress, as limitations were put on the number of years and consecutive months that people could receive benefits. It was enacted nearly a decade ago.

Push has come to shove. Conservatives aren't happy about the first pick. Short of someone whose record will not require private investigators to discern their views of the role of judges and the Constitution, the President will have done to conservatives the exact same thing as his father. We have already learned from Roberts and Souter that the Bush family cannot be trusted. Now, it is time to see just how bad they are.

Mark Levin put it well when he said simply, "We win, we pick. You win, you pick." The President's first selection suggests that he is of the mind, "I win, I pick." If that is going to be the attitude of Republican Presidents, then they can win on their own. The rest of us can take up golf, or skiing, or whatever else we can think of with our newly found free time. And, oh by the way, the President can kiss the rest of his agenda goodbye when his base leaves. His approval numbers have consistently bottomed out at 40%. That's his base. If the President blows this pick, if we even need to discuss whether the President blew this pick, the bottom will fall out. His numbers will plummet and he will be the lame duck many expected him to be.

We want the Court, and we want it now. So, Mr. President, Senator Frist, make it happen! Twist arms. Break them if necessary! Cut off all funding to the states of any Republican Senator who opposes the nominee. Sen. Dole, don't give a dime to support any Republican who does anything but sing the praises of the new nominee. Conservatives, strip Arlen Specter of his chairmanship at first opportunity if he doesn't serve as a battering ram to get the nominee through the Senate. If you blow this, kiss your base, and your majorities, goodbye.

What if There Was an Election and Nobody Came?

2005-09-26T22:14:00.000-04:00

That just might happen in the Buckeye State next November. It now appears that Paul Hackett will challenge Sen. Mike DeWine (RINO-OH) in the Senate race. The Senate race will play second fiddle to a Gubernatorial race in which the GOP will have to find a way to convince voters to look past an administration that could take an ethics lesson from Chicago Mayor Daley. Making DeWine's life more difficult is the fact that the NRA will likely take a close look at his challenger, seeing an opportunity to punish the disobedient Republican by taking the rare step of endorsing a Democrat. DeWine has further aggravated his conservative base on gay marriage, abortion, and judicial filibusters.

For his part, Hackett will have a difficult time capitalizing on DeWine's weakness. If voters judge politicians by the friends they keep, making Hackett look like a modern version of Karl Marx should be an easy task for the GOP. Ohio is not Alabama, but it's not Vermont either, and seeing a candidate who doesn't even pretend to share their values might inspire as many people to come out to support DeWine as it does himself.

There are slim pickings for Ohio voters next year, unless former Rep. Bob McEwen launches a primary challenge. If he does so, he could inject some much needed enthusiasm to the vibrant conservative base in Ohio. If McEwen enters and wins the primary, there is a very good chance that Ohio will send a Republican back to Washington. If not, the Senate election will pretty much come down to which candidate has more relatives who are willing to vote for him in the state.

Gale Force Winds?

2005-09-25T22:21:00.000-04:00

Robert Novak reports that former West Virginia basketball coach Gale Catlett is considering a run against Sen. Robert KKK Byrd if Rep. Shelley Moore-Capito chickens out. For months, reports have shown Capito doing the hokey pokey. A recent poll showed Byrd widening his lead in a hypothetical match-up. Rather than take the risk of challenging Byrd, Capito is likely to opt out of the race, run for reelection, and seek Sen. Jay Rockefeller's seat should he retire, as many expect.

Catlett is the winningest coach in West Virginia basketball history and enjoys statewide name recognition. Rumors began last month about a possible bid, and Catlett has shown an interest in politics for some time. Last August, Catlett spoke at a rally for President Bush in which he said, "Thank God we have a President whose life is guided by Christian principles." While little is known of Catlett's policy positions, this suggests that he would be able to do at least one thing that Rep. Capito could not: rally the base. Conservatives going into 2006 will likely be disappointed by the President's Supreme Court picks, so it will require candidates willing to campaign on pro-life, pro-marriage platforms to turn out voters who could be less inclined to show up at the polls.

One of the most intriuging stories of Catlett involves his retirement. In 2002, Catlett resigned after his team's humiliating performance against Virginia Tech, saying, "It is obvious that our players did not play with any understanding of basketball. It is obvious that our players did not play with spirit and they did not care what shirt they wore. It is perplexing to me. There is no pride." Those words could easily be coming out of the mouthes of Senator Tom Coburn regarding his Republican colleagues. If Catlett's words are reflective of his character, then he would be a welcome addition to the Republican caucus.

KKK remains the odds-on favorite in the race, but Catlett could give him a run for his money. Byrd is slowly doing what Sen. Bunning did quickly last year, i.e. fall apart mentally before the voters. If Catlett manages to shine a spotlight on Byrd's decline without appearing to attack him while at the same time rallying the base, lightning just might strike in the Mountain state.

Irish Backs Go Marching By

2005-09-24T22:41:00.000-04:00

Today, the Fighting Irish returned to the form of the first two games. Led by Darius Walker, who has rushed for over 100 yards in all four games this year, the Irish backfield racked up 243 yards rushing in yet another dominant performance en route to a 36-17 route of former Irish coach Ty Willingham's Washington Huskies. The Irish defense, true to the form of the first two games, bent but did not break. Like last week, the Irish created two turnovers inside the 5 yard line and gave up only three points before ceding 14 points in garbage time. The one weak spot was the kicking game. Though DJ Fitzpatrick went 3/3 on field goals, two bad snaps led to a missed extra point and a turnover on downs because the holder couldn't put the ball down for a FG. Those problems will surely be fixed by coach Weis before next week's game against Purdue.

Senate Scandals

2005-09-24T22:36:00.000-04:00

This week, two members of the Senate Leadership, one in each party, found themselves at the center of serious investigations because of unethical, perhaps even illegal, activity. First, two staffers at the DSCC, run by Sen. Chuck Schumer, were found to have illegally obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. and potential Senate candidate Michael Steele. It is obvious that there were illegalities in the organization, but the question is whether Sen. Schumer had any knowledge of them. Since taking the helm at the DSCC, Schumer has had a take no prisoners/win at all costs approach that has even aggravated members of his own Party. Now, it appears that such an attitude has extended to the Senate Committee. The two staffers involved in the criminal act resigned. You can take it to the bank, though, that both will reap the benefits of their activities with perks given them by the Democrat establishment. Regardless of whether the credit reports themselves are used by the Democrats, they surely have already received whatever benefits they could have desired from the information simply by having seen them. The leads are all there. Expect to hear more about the probe in the coming weeks. If it is proven that Sen. Schumer was involved in any way - and there is as yet no evidence that he was - he will soon change careers and go into the license plate business.

Sen. Bill Frist, the Senate Majority "Leader", has also found himself at the center of a probe, but this one goes much more directly to the member. In 2002, Frist dumped stock in the family company HCA Inc., which was founded by his brother and father four decades ago. Just two weeks later, the stock dropped 9%. In January of 2003, Frist denied knowing that he held stock in the company, but he had been informed of this ownership several times prior to the sale. At the very least, there is sufficient evidence that there were improprieties in Frist's activity. At worst, Senator Frist engaged in insider trading, a federal crime for which he should not be exempt from prosecution simply because he is a United States Senator.

Frist has been an ineffective leader from the get-go. President Bush's social security reform plan has fallen flat. Frist failed to deliver the votes on the constitutional option, showing an incredible lack of influence over his Senate colleagues. Just before the August recess, Frist flopped on stem-cell research, abandoning the Party base because he felt threatened by StemPAC, who began running ads against him in New Hampshire. Now, the White House is talking about nominating a nominee without a track record for the second time because they cannot rely on Senator Frist to deliver the votes necessary to confirm a distinguished jurist like Judge Janice Rogers Brown. This scandal will not help.

RedState said it earlier in the week. I will say it now. Senator Frist needs to step aside from the "Leadership" because of his ineffectiveness. Depending on what actually transpired with the HCA stock, it may also be for the best that he resign from the Senate. Conservatives will stick by leaders who stick by us, including with regard to ethical conduct. That is why we have rallied for House Majority Leader DeLay. That is why there will be no such rallying around Bill Frist.

Written Answers Just As Bad

2005-09-23T20:53:00.000-04:00

Fortunately for all involved, one of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's attorneys is smarter than the clowns on the Senate Judiciary Committee. During the hearings, Senators inquired as to Judge Roberts' views on privacy. In particular, Roberts said that he agreed with the conclusion in Griswold but refused to answer questions on abortion. Sadly, not one of the best and brightest legal minds in the country picked up on the obvious opportunity to ask how Judge Roberts would reach such a conclusion without the help of "penumbras and emanations". One of the Senator's attorneys picked up on this and Sen. Feinstein included the question in her written questions. Not surprisingly, Judge Roberts justified his conclusion by adopting the theory of "substantive" due process. Now that he has articulated such a position, it is clearer than ever that he simply does not belong on the Supreme Court. (Pages 18 & 19)

As I argued last week, "penumbras and emanations" and substantive due process pose the same problem. In both cases, judges veer from the document by which they are supposed to be bound. There is simply no disciplined way to go from the Constitution to a general right to privacy, marital or otherwise. If the Founding Fathers wanted it in the Constitution, they would have put it there. If it is so non-controversial today, then supporters should propose adding it to the Constitution. The Supreme Court had no authority to do so when it ruled in Griswold and it has not since gained that authority.

Words matter, but actions matter more. Judge Roberts' support for the conclusion in Griswold illustrates the fact that he does not understand the humility that he so frequently mentions. Humility in the judiciary is first and foremost a personal principle. It is an understanding that he himself must adhere to the text of the Constitution. Beyond that, though, humility in the judiciary requires that judges understand that previous courts did not have the authority to depart from the Constitution either. This is to say that if a prior Supreme Court decision clearly departs from the Constitution, as Griswold does, judges must restore proper humility to the judiciary by ceding the authority that the Court usurped back to the entity or entities to which the Constitution gives that authority. Justices Scalia and Thomas understand this principle. President Bush broke his campaign promise by nominating a judge who does not. Hopefully Justice O'Connor's replacement will give this President the same .500 average that his father had. If not, there will be hell to pay in next year's elections.

Democrats Win 13-5

2005-09-22T23:28:00.000-04:00

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted John Roberts out by a vote of 13-5. Every Republican voted for him, along with liberal Democrats Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold. Since then, several other Democrats have announced their support for his confirmation.

Sadly, among the Republicans on the Committee who voted for Judge Roberts are conservative stallwarts Sen. Sam Brownback and Dr. Tom Coburn. These two Senators, along with some others, made errors in judgment. In spite of some suggestions that Sen. Schumer has said that they expect Roberts to uphold Roe, it is hard to believe that these two men who have staked their careers on the protection of the unborn would now do an about face on something as important as the confirmation of the Chief Justice of the United States. Ralph Neas and Barry Lynn are throwing a fit, but the two would do so with any person nominated by a Republican President. Their standard is Stenberg, and anyone who does not swear a blood oath to it would face their oppositon.

Looking at the Democrats, Russ Feingold's vote in particular is illuminating. He has been discussed as a possible Presidential candidate, so this vote is extremely risky. If Judge Roberts votes to uphold Casey, Feingold will be viewed as a hero for appearing reasonable while firing a shot across the bow of the administration regarding the possible nomination of the best judge on any list. If not, Sen. Feingold's political career is dead.

Conservatives have lowered the bar with Roberts. Hopefully it can be raised to a standard that only the best can meet. If not, the Supreme Court is gone for good.

President Specter?

2005-09-22T01:03:00.000-04:00

Last time I checked, Arlen Specter's 1995 run for the Presidency ended before the race began. Republicans rejected Specter nationally then, and Pennsylvania Republicans would've rejected Specter last year had the real President not given him CPR in the closing days of the primary campaign. Last November, conservatives once again attempted to limit the effects of the Specter poison to no avail.

Bafflingly, though, Sen. Specter has not learned his lesson. Rather than showing gratitude to the person who breathed life into him when there was none, he has picked up the nearest knife and used it to stab the President in the back. While one cannot help but appreciate Specter's willingness to go the extra mile by speaking with Injustice Sandra Day O'Connor about sticking around for another year, one can't help but wonder whether Specter understands the difference between being President and being Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Conservatives should forever remember that the actual President saved Specter rather than killing him. As expected, Senator Specter has been nothing but trouble since he entered the Senate, and all the more since becoming Chairman. His most recent comments are not welcome, are not helpful, and are unbecoming of a United States Senator. Even Senate Democrats have not gone so far as to suggest that O'Connor should remain on the Court for another year. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

So what's the lesson to be learned here? Simply put, individuals who do not share conservative priorities should not appear on the ballot as Republicans. Some are less trouble than others, but anyone who does not share our values will eventually cause more trouble than they are worth. Democrats attacking the conservative agenda are one thing. Per the old Irish prayer, we know them by their limp. Never again should a non-conservative be put in a position of leadership. It is time for us to reclaim our Party and let the chips fall where they may. As President Reagan demonstrated, running on principle will help us not hurt us. George HW Bush taught us that when we run from principles, as cowtowing to Specter in any way would be, we lose. It is time for the GOP to put up. For Arlen Specter, it's time to shut up.

Doran Departs

2005-09-22T00:57:00.000-04:00

Kelly Doran has departed the race for the Democrat nod for Senate and is running for Governor instead. I'd offer analysis, but Gary Miller has taken care of that.

Austin, We Have a Problem

2005-09-19T23:46:00.000-04:00

When Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, and Chuck Schumer agree on something, only one thing is certain: it's not liberals who are getting the short end of the stick. So when Arlen Specter and Chuck Schumer signal that they'll vote to confirm Judge Roberts, it means that conservatives are once again getting taken for a ride. When Roberts was first nominated, conservatives had every reason to think that the President had kept his promise.

Then came the hearings. Judge Roberts ran circles around the Judiciary Committee, correcting Senators on misquotes and showing a command of the law. In the process, he left himself outs. Hopeful conservatives, some better informed than others, continue to have hope. Careful listeners emphasize that he committed himself to little on the issues that are likely to come before him on the Court. Unfortunately, though fully capable of doing so, Roberts does not seem the type who would engage in Clintonesque word games that allow him to escape from his comments like Harry Houdini once on the Court.

Fortunately, conservatives got an escape clause too. Senators Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn got the last two Republican seats on the Judiciary Committee during the reorganization of the Chamber. Now is the time to use our trump card. While it is too late to stop the Roberts juggernaut, a second Supreme Court nomination is just around the corner.

There is talk of several judges who do and do not have clear track records, who do and do not have overarching judicial philosophies. Judge Roberts clearly has neither a clear track record nor an overarching judicial philosophy. He said during his hearings that he does not consider the Court a place for ideologues. To the contrary, every Justice on the Court should be an ideologue. The difference between ideologues and non-ideologues is that ideologues have a methodology for viewing the matters that come before them while non-ideologues do whatever is convenient at the time. It is those who have no such approach that have done the legalistic gymnastics that have given us the status quo, or, as President Reagan put it, "the mess we're in".

Please take this opportunity to tell Senators Brownback and Coburn that any judge who lacks a consistent, textualist/originalist approach and a track record to back it up should be denied confirmation. Three of the last five Republican nominations, excluding Roberts, have proven busts. Looking at their records on the Court, one could be forgiven for forgetting to which party the Presidents who nominated them belonged. That must end now.

I remain somewhat hopeful that conservative doubts about Judge Roberts will be proven wrong, but the guessing game must end now.

Sure, We'll Compromise

2005-09-18T12:43:00.000-04:00

According to Robert Novak, Senate Miority Leader Harry Reid has informed Senate Majority "Leader" Bill Frist that Senate Democrats are prepared to ignore the Constitution and filibuster the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen should President Bush choose to nominate her for the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Injustice Sandra Day O'Connor. While I am generally not a fan of negotiating with an unreasonable minority, I'd be willing to make an exception in this case. If Senate Democrats are so convinced that Judge Owen is wrong for the Court, fine. President Bush should select Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

At first glance, it appears that Judge Owen would make a fine Supreme Court Justice. In fact, she may well. Unfortunately, though, the Roberts example shows us that no matter how steller a potential nominee may seem, what he or she really needs is a track record. To be sure, what there is of an Owen track record is excellent. I have little doubt that, if nominated and confirmed, Owen would be closer to Justice Scalia than Roberts. But the President owes us. If he wants us on his side in the face of Reid's filibusters, then he had better give us someone we will go to war, nuclear war, over. While there are certainly several excellent judges out there, this blogger will be disappointed with anyone other than than the brilliant, highly qualified, forthright Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Let's take the Democrats' threat to filibuster Judge Owen as a sign that they agree.

Michigan State 44, Notre Dame 41

2005-09-17T22:58:00.000-04:00

It was a sad day in the house that Rockne built as the weakness in the Irish secondary was exposed for the first time this year. Michigan State QB Drew Stanton threw for 327 yards and three touchdowns on just 27 pass attempts. After falling behind by 21 in the third quarter, the Irish battled back to tie the game at 38 and send it into overtime. Charlie Weis' brilliant play calling and some help from Touchdown Jesus were enough for the Irish to dominate the last twenty minutes. Had freshman Asaph Schwapp not fumbled on the goalline (after scoring a touchdown, but the referee's blew the call), the Irish likely would have won in regulation. In the overtime, Michigan State brought the pressure that had caused problems for Brady Quinn all day, holding the Irish to a field goal. The final breakdown in the Irish defense allowed Jason Teague to scamper 19 yards for the game-ending touchdown. Brady Quinn's 487 passing yards and school-record five touchdown passes do not tell the tale of just how off he was. Opposing teams now know that he can be shaken by pressure. He repeatedly missed open receivers, and a pick-6 just after the half could have ended the game for all intents and purposes. Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is that the team has not yet been able to put together two good halves of football. While it might not be necessary next week, that will have to change as the schedule turns to Purdue, Southern California, and Tennessee. Fortunately, the tough Irish schedule means that the loss does not necessarily eliminate Irish hopes of going to the Rose Bowl. The strength of schedule means that running the table would likely be enough if there are not two undefeated teams at the end of the year. Weis woke up the echoes. Now, he must wake up the secondary.

A Conservative Alternative to Socialist Sanders?

2005-09-17T22:09:00.000-04:00

Vermont's conservative announced Friday the formation of an exploratory committee to examine a bid for the seat being vacated by Jumpin Jim Jeffords. Should he enter the race, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie will face IDX CEO James Tarrant in the Republican primary and, if he survives, socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders in the general election. Dubie won his reelection bid last year with 56% of the vote, as Vermont elects its Governor and Lt. Governor separately. Fairly popular within the state, Dubie has managed to build his reputation on issues of importance in Vermont, especially in the areas of education and healthcare.

The campaign will be a tough one, though, as Tarrant's personal fortune and Sanders' popularity pose two very formidable obstacles. Vermont's liberalism is a third. With the state's at-large House seat open, it is somewhat surprising to see Dubie instead take on one of the most popular politicians in the state. Dubie must have good eyes, because it appears to all the world that there really is not an opening here. Sanders, the House's lone "independent" (read "socialist"), fits Vermont's left-wing loonacy quite well. If Dubie, or Tarrant for that matter, is to win the seat, he will have to succeed in two areas. First, he must convince Green Mountain Staters that he is not an "extremist", Vermont's word for "moderate", the media's word for "conservative". This is no easy task in the state that elected Screaming Deanie. Second, he must make the case that Vermont will be much better off with a member of the majority. Dubie can successfully make this argument if he cites Ellsworth in every speech. Hopefully he'll do so. Even if both of these work, it's still tough to see Vermont sending a good conservative to Washington. Then again, perhaps they will see it as the only way to get rid of him.

Mr. President, You Owe Us

2005-09-16T01:15:00.001-04:00

Few things are worse than being wrong. One of them is failing to correct the error. Hence, I will attempt to correct an error in judgment that I made when Judge Roberts was nominated and have reiterated since then. Judge Roberts has an excellent understanding of the "development" of constitutional law and various legal principles that have in the past been and are currently applied. He is a brilliant attorney and his integrity seems beyond reproach. (I say "seem" not because I have evidence to the contrary, but simply because I do not know him personally.) I have little doubt that he lives his life according to the teachings of the Church and that, if I knew him personally, I would hold him in the highest esteem.

Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that Judge Roberts is not the type of Justice who will serve to solve the most significant problem with the Court today, viz. the willingness of Justices to insert their personal views into their rulings regardless of whether those views are reflected in the Constitution. Earlier this week, I made the case that the conclusion of Griswold finds no grounding in the Constitution. Some have explained that Judge Roberts did not concur with the reasoning in the opinion and that he would instead reach the same conclusion by ruling the law unconstitutional according to the due process clause. Whether the decision is reached by the due process clause or "penumbras and emanations" is a distinction without a difference. In either case a Justice is injecting his own personal views into the Constitution when he creates a right or recognizes and authority that is not in the document. Regardless of how it is done, such an action crosses the line between applying the law and making policy.

Some have argued that he has left himself plenty of room to overturn Roe. Indeed he has. As important and destructive as the Roe decision was, there is a much larger issue in play here. The Court reached its decision in Roe using the same type of reasoning that it used to justify Casey and has subsequently used to create other rights that do not appear in the Constitution, such as the right not to have to have a moment of silence in a classroom for fear that somebody might use that moment to pray, and the right not to have students use the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court is out of control, and the lower courts have taken the ball and run with it to insert new rights into the Constitution by judicial fiat.

Judge Roberts may well rule with Justices Scalia and Thomas on several issues, but his unwillingness to recognize the fact that the Constitution is actually a short, concrete and limited document suggests that he will be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It is with tremendous disappointment that I must withdraw my earlier endorsement of Judge Roberts. While I continue to expect that he will be confirmed, I want to say now, for whatever it is worth, that I do not consider Judge Roberts worthy of the position of Chief Justice of the United States.

Taking this one step further, it seems that the President failed to keep his promise of nominating judges in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Judge Roberts is the "moderate" replacement for Justice O'Connor. While I reject the notion that there is something sacrosanct about the 'balance' of the Court, the President now owes conservatives big time. The next nominee must understand what Judge Roberts does not, and his or her record on this must be clear on this.

Mr. President, conservatives elected you. Without us, President Al Gore would be in his second term working with Majority Leader Daschle and Speaker Pelosi. If you fail to replace Justice O'Connor with someone who rejects not only Roe but also Griswold, then you should be prepared to lose several Senate seats next year and to live under yet another President Clinton. We elected you for a reason. You have disappointed us, in varying degrees, with your first Supreme Court nominee. Our dept is passed due. It is time to pay up with interest.

As a footnote, there are several leading conservative groups and individuals who have a different view of Judge Roberts. I respect their opinions and seriously considered them before withdrawing my endorsement of his confirmation. I do not doubt their integrity and look forward to working together with them to restore the principles of the authors of the Constitution. My difference with them on Judge Roberts is a difference in judgment, not principle. Further, I apologize for misleading you on Judge Roberts. I am humble enough to think and hope that in this case the opinions previously expressed on this blog were food for thought rather than determinative of your views. I hope that you will consider these thoughts as you have my previous musings on Judge Roberts and reach your own conclusion.

Lotts of Room for Improvement

2005-09-15T00:14:00.000-04:00

Roll Call is reporting that Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) is considering retirement, largely due to the fact that Hurricane Katrina destroyed his home. The circumstances surrounding Lott's consideration are sad, and I wish the Senator the best in rebuilding so that he can enjoy his waning years.

Having said that, Sen. Lott is far from a loyal Republican. He was forced out of the Leadership after an attempt to compliment Sen. Strom Thurmond. His attempt to flatter an old, great Senator were blown out of proportion. Republicans should have rallied behind him. Yet they should never have put him in the Leadership to begin with. After the 2000 election, Lott negotiated a power-sharing agreement with Sen. Tom Daschle with the Senate compromised of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. What Sen. Lott failed to realize is that the Vice President is the President of the Senate and casts the deciding vote when the Senate is split 50/50. Like Republicans now going along with the dog and pony show that is the Judiciary Committee hearings, Lott failed to use the power with which he was entrusted. Then, as now, Republicans were in the Majority and had every reason to use that power in full.

More recently, Lott released a book in which he criticized several of his colleagues. He is also thought to have been part of the Gang of 14 agreement even though he was not a signatory. Lott is the epitomy of the old guard who thinks that the Senate is supposed to be a chummy club of blue bloods who are willing to spend every dollar and sell out on every principle in order to get along rather than a legislative body. While the circumstances surrounding Lott's possible retirement are sad, there isn't a single conservative who will not be excited at the prospect of electing a more loyal, more conservative replacement.

I wish Senator Lott the best should he choose to retire, but I'd also suggest that he not let the door hit him in the rear end on his way out.

Answers Raise Questions

2005-09-15T00:11:00.000-04:00

At the beginning of the week, I was optimistic about the prospect of a Chief Justice Roberts. Now I'm not so sure.

In criticizing Judge Roberts, it is important to point out that my concerns are strictly limited to his judicial philosophy. I have no reason at all to doubt his integrity or his intelligence. Over the last three days, he has clearly demonstrated a full understanding of the law and the humility that is appropriate for a man of his position. Some of his general approaches are encouraging, such as the idea that he is supposed to be an umpire rather than a player. Even so, his responses to several questions posed by Committee members are troubling. Yesterday I mentioned his responses with regard to the so-called "right to privacy". Today, additional concerns arose.

Oddly enough, the new concerns about Judge Roberts stem from his responses to some of Dr. Tom Coburn's questions. Like Coburn, I am not an attorney. At the same time, I do not believe that the Founders intended that the Constitution be a document that could only be read - and manipulated - by lawyers. The Constitution is a basic document, short and precise. To be sure, there are controversies that arise under it, as there are with pretty much any legal document. In deciding any case, though, Supreme Court Justices should rely primarily, if not exclusively, on the actual text of the document. It is the job of the Court to decide cases in controversy, and the tombs full of dicta are little more than arrogant attempts by the Court to usurp the power of the other branches and establish broad national policies that were supposed to be left to elected officials.

As Dr. Coburn pointed out, "Here's what you should base your decisions on; it's the Constitution of the United States and the laws." When asked about this, Roberts replied, "...I wouldn't accuse judges or justices who disagree with that, though, of violating their oath. I'd accuse them of getting it wrong on that point and I'd hope to sit down with them and debate it and reason about it..." Following this logic, Roberts does not believe that there is anything that Congress can do about judges who ignore the limitations of American law in favor of laws that have no place in the American legal system. Judges will make bad decisions, some more so than others, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that Congress could take action every time a judge makes a bad decision. At the same time, though, judges who use foreign law in their rulings engage in bad behavior because they demonstrate a lack of respect for the limitations of their position. Even if Judge Roberts himself would respect those limitations, it is problematic that he does not see such a breech of trust as a problem worthy of correction, including by impeachment. Such a reading suggests that there is no real check on the judiciary.

Further, Judge Roberts seems to adhere to a broad interpretation of the general welfare and necessary and proper clauses. While he cites Justice Madison's reading, the fact remains that Congressional powers are enumerated. Many of the laws enacted by Congress call to mind my days in parliamentary debate in college. There was a category of debate known as "loose-link" in which teams were required to tie in a theme, however loosely, to a predetermined case that they were going to propose. For example, the theme given might have been "Loose lips sink ships", and that theme could have been used to introduce a topic in the following way: "Loose lips sink ships, and so does a well-funded Navy. That is why we propose that we increase funding for the Navy for fiscal year 2004." The fact is that the operational reading of these clauses has led to an expansion of the federal government that far exceeds the authority granted thereto in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. It was the early decisions of Madison that paved the way for the overexpansion of the federal government in much the same way that Roe paved the way for a series of subsequent decisions on the right to privacy that the authors of the Constitution never intended.

The point of these musings is not that Judge Roberts is a liberal by modern standards. Indeed, I remain hopeful that he will get many of the important cases that will come before him right. Instead, the nomination of Judge Roberts points to a much larger problem within the Republican Party and within modern jurisprudence on several issues. Republicans elected a President with more votes than any other candidate in history. Republicans have 55 Senate seats, albeit including many unreliable RINOs. There are several judges on federal appellate and state supreme courts who have a history of a more complete understanding of just how strict the restrictions placed upon the Court and the Congress are. I have already cited Judge Janice Rogers Brown as a primary example. It is time for the GOP, starting with the President, to say, "The emperor is buck naked," and end these games with the Democrats. President Bush and Majority "Leader" Frist must twist every arm necessary to bring real reform to the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary. If "Republicans" are unwilling to get in lock step on this central issue, then conservatives must work to defeat them in primaries. When they survive those primaries, their election should be of no consequence to conservatives.

If Republicans remain in power for the next half century - a big if, to be sure - and fail to restore the Constitution as written, that power will be futile. Now is the time that we must return to the letter of the Constitution. Failure to do so will mean that we have become a nation of men, not of laws, and the final death knell to the great experiment will sound.

A on Performance, B- on Law

2005-09-14T00:03:00.000-04:00

Today, Judge Roberts deftly answered questions on issues ranging from abortion to terrorism before eighteen people who obviously know less about constitutional law than he does. Democrats, especially Sen. Biden, responded angrily when Roberts refused to make himself a political candidate by severely limiting the types of questions he would answer. Throughout the hearing, Roberts demonstrated a complete understanding of the Court's precedent and ably discussed the important principles of judicial practice, such as stare decisis. In many ways, his performance mirrored the real testimony, as opposed to the witch-hunt/desperation portion, of Clarence Thomas. Until Sen. Kohl questioned him, Roberts gave conservatives no reason to fret.

Unfortunately, though, he then dropped the ball. Through much of the hearing, Judge Roberts used the language of privacy within its proper context. He enumerated the specific privacies protected in the text of the Constitution without expanding the term to include "rights" that do not appear. Then, Roberts responded to a question by Senator Kohl saying, "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that...." (To be fair to Judge Roberts, I am including the full text of the relevant part of the exchange below.)

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MARITAL PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION.

As I said, Judge Roberts had been answering the questions appropriately, if unwisely, by using the word "privacy" to describe many of the rights that are protected in the Constitution. The methodology used to go from the rights in the Constitution is the same type of "reasoning" that has been used to justify a federal government that far exceeds the enumerated powers in the Constitution. It's like saying, "Parents have a right to choose how their children are educated. Parents have a right to make decisions about their children's' health care. Thus, parents have rights. Since parents have rights, parents have the right to beat their children." It just doesn't work.

There is not now nor has there ever been a right to marital privacy in the Constitution. Whether it is wise for a state legislature to ban the use of contraception is a separate issue. The problem in Griswold is that the Supreme Court injected itself into an issue that, according to the Tenth Amendment, must be left to the states. Like many cases since, the decision in Griswold was an exercise in raw judicial power. It paved the way for the Court to usurp power that properly belongs to legislatures, from abortion to gay rights to affirmative action to environmental regulation. Judges are not supposed to be policy makers, and, the rest of his testimony not withstanding, it appears that Judge Roberts at worst fails to understand this principle and at best has a flawed understanding thereof.

The Supreme Court, according to the Constitution, is supposed to decide "cases in controversy". This means that its rulings are supposed to deal with particular applications of particular laws. Whether laws themselves are constitutional is a determination that must be left to elected officials who, like judges, are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. To be sure, Congress has far exceeded its enumerated powers. This is a serious problem for which the only solution is the election of officials who appreciate the restraints placed on the legislature by the Constitution better than those currently in power do. Even so, it is ludicrous to suggest that the Supreme Court has magical powers by which it has a much better ability to understand the Constitution than do the other branches. I hope that Republican Presidents, including this one, will start to nominate men and women who have a firmer understanding and appreciation for the limits of the authority of the Supreme Court.

KOHL: All right. Judge, do you believe that reasonable people can disagree on Roe v. Wade? Regardless of what you think of the decision, do you believe that there is an intellectually honest approach on the other side that is worth respecting?
ROBERTS: I certainly agree that reasonable people can disagree about that decision. Yes.
KOHL: And you do, obviously, respect people on the other side of the issue? ROBERTS: Yes.
KOHL: In Rust v. Sullivan, as deputy solicitor general, you signed brief in which you wrote, and I quote, The court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution, unquote.
So does this quote jibe with your statement that you understand that reasonable people can disagree?
ROBERTS: Well, I think so, Senator. The position that you're reading from there was the position of the administration. I was one of nine lawyers on the brief in that case. It was reflecting the position that had been advanced in four prior cases, up to that point, by the administration.
ROBERTS: And we were reiterating that position. This was before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Casey. That was the view of the administration and the conclusion.
I don't think there's anything in there that suggests we think or thought that anybody at that time who disagreed was unreasonable. That was our legal position. The other side's was obviously presented in those cases.
KOHL: So you are saying here that there is no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution for that position. That's pretty flat out, pretty straight, pretty black and white.
ROBERTS: And in those cases, the other side argued that there was. And I don't think there's anything in either of those views that suggests you don't think that reasonable people can take different positions on those questions.
KOHL: You have today suggested on numerous occasions that the things that you represented in writing or an opinion back in the '80s and into the '90's, working for the Reagan administration and working for the attorney general and then finally working as deputy solicitor attorney general, were, in many cases, the opinions of people for whom you worked, not necessarily your own.
I assume, therefore, there are -- those are opinions that you are prepared to disavow?
ROBERTS: My view in preparing all the memoranda that people have been talking about was as a staff lawyer. I was promoting the views of the people for whom I worked. And in some instances those are consistent with personal views. In other instances, they may not be. In most instances, no one cared terribly much what my personal views were. They were to advance the views of the administration for which I worked.
KOHL: I appreciate that. And now that we are talking about you in an entirely different situation, of course, our curiosity is: Which of those positions were you supportive of or are you still supportive of and which would you disavow?
ROBERTS: Well, at this point, of course, we're now 23, 24 years later. I would not -- I would have to address each of those positions anew. I wouldn't try to transport myself back 24 years and say: What did you think 24 years ago? And that would require me to look at and examine all those things.
And of course, it's not how I would look at the issue if I were a judge. If I were a staff lawyer advancing a particular view, it's one thing. And a judge, I would want to confront the issue with an open mind, to fully and fairly consider the briefs and arguments of all parties, to consider the record -- we've talked today about how important a record is in a particular case -- consider the law and the precedent.
But, of course, the law and the precedents have changed in many of these areas dramatically over the past 24 years.
ROBERTS: I'd have to consider all those before reaching a conclusion in any of those particular areas.
KOHL: It would be helpful to many of us to know which of those positions you took then no longer represent the position that you would take today. I think that would show a change as we grow and develop and experience life. That would be illuminating and enlightening, to many of us, to hear what some of those positions you took then no longer are represented in your thought process today.
Judge, as we all know, the Griswold v. Connecticut case guarantees that there is a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution as it applies to contraception.
Do you agree with that decision and that there is a fundamental right to privacy as it relates to contraception? In your opinion, is that settled law?
ROBERTS: I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause.
That is the approach that the court has taken in subsequent cases, rather than in the (inaudible) and emanations that were discussed in Justice Douglas' opinion.
And that view of the result is, I think, consistent with the subsequent development of the law which has focused on the due process clause and liberty, rather than Justice Douglas' approach.
KOHL: Well, I'm delighted to hear you say that because, as you know, many, many constitutional scholars believe that once you accept the reasoning of Griswold and find that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy and a right to contraception, that you've essentially accepted -- scholars have said this -- essentially accepted the basis for the court's reasoning and decision on Roe, that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to choose.
These scholars reason that it follows logically that, if a woman's right to privacy and her control of her body includes the right to contraception, that it also includes a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.
I am not sure whether you wish to comment on that. I just wanted to point out to you something that I'm sure you are familiar with, that there is, in constitutional thought, a follow from Griswold to Roe.
ROBERTS: Well, I feel comfortable commenting on Griswold and the result in Griswold because that does not appear to me to be an area that is going to come before the court again. It was surprising when it came before the court in 1965, I think, to many people.
The other area is an area that is, to quote Justice Ginsburg from her hearings, live with business. There are cases that arise there.
And so that's an area that I do not feel it appropriate for me to comment on.
KOHL: Sure. I appreciate that.

All Aboard!

2005-09-13T23:55:00.000-04:00

As if the Minnesota DFL field weren't crowded enough, word now is that Mike Ciresi has entered the race. I couldn't say anything that First Ringer hasn't already. He and his cohorts are doing an excellent job covering the race, but they might want to make their lives easier by starting to cover only Democrats who aren't running. Only trouble is, they might have trouble finding them.

Roberts Lying Already

2005-09-12T22:25:00.001-04:00

Yes, it was a great opening statement, especially with the baseball reference, but somehow I can't believe that Roberts is looking forward to the Committee's questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy and members of the committee. Let me begin by thanking Senators Lugar and Warner and Bayh for their warm and generous introductions. And let me reiterate my thanks to the president for nominating me. I'm humbled by his confidence and if confirmed I will do everything I can to be worthy of the high trust he has placed in me.

Let me also thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee, for the many courtesies you have extended to me and my family over the past eight weeks. I'm particularly grateful that members have been so accommodating in meeting with me personally. I have found those meetings very useful in better understanding the concerns of the committee as the committee undertakes its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

I know that I would not be here today were it not for the sacrifices and help over the years of my family, who you met earlier today, friends, mentors, teachers and colleagues, many of whom are here today.

Last week one of those mentors and friends, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was laid to rest. I talked last week with the nurses who helped care for him over the past year. And I was glad to hear from them that he was not a particularly good patient. He chafed at the limitations they tried to impose. His dedication to duty over the past year was an inspiration to me and I know to many others. I will miss him.

My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role. Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.
Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath. And judges have to have the modesty to be open to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.

Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the Department of Justice in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme Court. I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, "I speak for my country."

But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system. Here was the United States, the most powerful entity in the world, aligned against my client. And yet all I had to do was convince the court that I was right on the law and the government was wrong and all of that power and might would recede in deference to the rule of law.

That is a remarkable thing. It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world, because without the rule of law any rights are meaningless.

President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet Constitution. And he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights.

We do, because of the wisdom of our founders and the sacrifices of our heroes over the generations to make their vision a reality.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.

I have no agenda but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability.

And I'll remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not pitch or bat.

Senators Lugar and Bayh talked of my boyhood back home in Indiana. I think all of us retain from the days of our youth certain enduring images. For me those images are of the endless fields of Indiana stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or a barn.

And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land. Growing up I never imagined that I would be here in this historic room nominated to be the chief justice. But now that I am here I recall those endless fields with their promise of infinite possibilities.

And that memory inspires in me a very profound commitment. If I am confirmed I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court. And I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. I look forward to your questions.

Then and Now

2005-09-12T22:25:00.000-04:00

Some things need no commentary:

Biden Then
You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view, you should not answer"
-- Hearings for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993
http://judgeroberts.com/docs/videos/precedent.pdf

Biden Now
"For 70 years, there has been a consensus in our Supreme Court on these issues. And this consensus has been fully embraced by the American people.
But there are those who strongly disagree with this consensus – and they seek to unravel it. And, Judge, you have the unenviable position of being right in the middle of this fundamentally important debate.
And, quite frankly, we need to know on which side you stand. For whoever replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, as well as Justice O’Connor, will play pivotal roles in this debate."
-- Opening Statement at the hearing of Judge John Roberts 9/12/05
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=245583

Durbin Then
"My record of opposition to abortion on demand has been public for eight years. ... I worked closely with Springfield Right-to-Life and served as a master of ceremonies at the annual banquet... I oppose abortion on demans. I support the Hatch Federalism Amendment which has been endorsed by the National COnference of Catholic Bishops."
-- Letter to Supporters, 1982
http://nrlc.org/Judicial/Durbin/Durbin1982Letter.pdf

Durbin Now
Concerns have also been raised about some of the things you wrote relative to the right of privacy.
We've gone through Griswold. We know what that Supreme Court decision meant in 1965, 40 years ago, when the court struck down the Connecticut statute which made it a crime for married couples to buy and use birth control. They said there was a fundamental right of privacy in that Constitution, though you can search every word of it, and not find the word privacy. But it's far from settled law in the minds of many.
Forty years later, there have been new efforts to restrict the right of privacy, attempts to impose gag rules on doctors when they speak to their patients about family planning.
You saw it in the sad debate over the tragedy of Terri Schiavo, a debate that led some members of Congress to threaten judges who disagree with their point of view with impeachment.
And you can find it in the eagerness to authorize the government to pry into our financial records, medical records and library records.
Whether the court continues to recognize and protect America's right to privacy will have a profound impact on every American from birth to death.
In your early writings that we have to rely on here, you referred to this right of privacy as an abstraction. We need to know if that's what you believe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/politics/politicsspecial1/12text-roberts.html?pagewanted=47

Kennedy Drives off Another Bridge

2005-09-12T12:56:00.000-04:00

Sen. Ted Kennedy, as I type, is once again embarassing himself, his state, and the United States Senate. Among other things, he said, "No Branch of government is so powerful that it can avoid accountability." That is precisely what the Supreme Court has done and what Sen. Kennedy has aided and abetted.

Sen. Kennedy would have Americans believe that Supreme Court decisions are one in the same with the Constitution. The Supreme Court can, in Kennedyland, amend the Constitution unilaterally and can be held accountable only by constitutional amendment. Kennedy ignores the role of Congress and the President in determining constitutionality even though both are sworn to defend the Constitution. Instead, Kennedy believes that the Supreme Court has been given the divine right to do whatever it pleases with the Constitution and with matters of national policy that appear nowhere in the Constitution. The checks and balances that are supposed to be at work in these hearings are ignored by the Court, and some Senators.

Although these hearings will surely be unfair and be peppered with subtle attacks on Judge Roberts, his faith, his family, and his philosophy, it is an opportunity for the country to see just how much power the Supreme Court has accumulated. Those who have not followed the Supreme Court closely will begin to wonder just how it got so much power that is supposed to be in the hands of those who are elected. This is a national civics lesson that will expose many liberals for what they are: election losers who realize judicial fiat remains the sole means to implement their extremist agenda.

What is that agenda for Sen. Kennedy's America? Those partially born cannot be protected, but terrorists must be. Condoms can be distributed in schools, but Bibles cannot. And states must recognize gay marriage but need not protect property rights.

The culture war is alive and well, and these hearings will show that the Constitution is on our side. By week's end, most of the American people will be as well.

DeWine Challengers Back Down

2005-09-12T12:24:00.000-04:00

Last Thursday John Hritz, who recently announced that he would challenge Sen. Mike DeWine in a primary, announced that he is ending his bid, citing DeWine's opposition to indian casinos as a major reason. The Hritz campaign never really got started and the announcement is really an acknowledgement that he could not realistically have defeated DeWine. Now former Rep. Bob McEwen is the only possible primary challenger for DeWine. Likewise Rep. Tim Ryan sent an e-mail to supporters on Friday saying that he too would pass up the opportunity to run for the seat. Paul Hackett, for whom losing is winning, is the last man standing for the Democrats, but even he has not yet announced his candidacy.

Hritz's announcement sadly means that DeWine will likely - but not definitely - go unchallenged in the primary. His strong fundraising was surely a factor in the decisions of Hritz, Ryan, and Rep. Sherrod Brown. Now Hackett appears to be the only remaining stumbling block.

This election will be decided on turnout, and Sen. DeWine's transgressions, including his recent participation in the Gang of 14 agreement, suggest that he will have problems here. Many have used Hackett's performance in the recent special election in OH-2 as a barometer to measure the mood of the state. The most troublesome sign from the race, though, it not Hackett's performance but Republican turnout. Adding to the problems created by DeWine's trangressions are a corrupt Republican Governor who refuses to resign and a fellow "Republican" Senator who nearly cried on the floor of the Senate. GOP voters in Ohio will be less than motivated and many will be sufficiently turned off not to vote.

Fortunately for DeWine, though, it appears that Paul Hackett will be his only challenger. On everything but gun control, Hackett is a left-wing reactionary who is far too liberal for Ohio. Unlike in the special election, he will not be the sole "beneficiary" of liberal activists, but he will be forced to carry the baggage of the extremists who backed him in the special election. So far out is Hackett that he could be DeWine's greatest asset in the race, as keeping Hackett out of the Senate may give conservative voters the inspiration they need to turn out and send DeWine back to Washington. Hackett must strike a delicate balance between running hard left to motivate the base while not motivating conervatives at the same time. Chances are the left won't let him get away with this.

Here's hoping for a primary challenger, but unless he fails to hold the Democrats to their end of the G-14 agreement, he should be reelected if renominated and facing Hackett. For now, mark this down as "Lean Republican", but this can change depending on how Hackett handles the balancing act.

Notre Dame 17, Michigan 10

2005-09-11T12:13:00.000-04:00

Last week the story of the game was Notre Dame's offensive line. This week, it was the defense that dictated the game. While Michigan outgained the Irish by almost 100 yards, the defense came up with the big plays when we needed them. Most notably, the Irish had two take-aways inside the one yard line. Defensive lineman also knocked down five passes at the line of scrimmage. This is now two consecutive weeks that the Irish have shut down quarterbacks who entered the game considered among the best in college football. Offensively, Darius Walker had his second consecutive 100 yard game while Brady Quinn completed 19 of 30 for 141 yards and 2 touchdowns. Notre Dame confirmed what many chose not to believe after the Pittsburgh massacre: this team is a serious threat to go to Pasadena and win the Rose Bowl.

Wake up the echoes!

Replacing the Weakest Linc

2005-09-08T21:49:00.000-04:00

Every cycle has one election that defines a Party, perhaps even a movement. It is not always the election in the biggest state or the one with the best known candidates. Instead, the race stands out because of what is at stake. In this cycle, that race is in Rhode Island.

Today, the man who saved Cranston announced that he will challenge Sen. Lincoln Chafee in the Republican Primary. In 2000, Steve Laffey returned to the city where he grew up and found more problems than most thought could be fixed. The city was broken. Unions had taken over the city government and ensured that city employees were paid far more than the city could hope to afford. Bloated retirement programs and pay for hours not worked were just two of the many crippling financial problems that plagued the city.

Seeing this, Laffey decided to take action. He ran for Mayor as a reformer in a solidly Democrat city and won. When he became Mayor, Laffey started taking on one union after another. He went to bat for the taxpayers, fighting every union from the firefighters to crossing guards to reform bloated retirement programs and pay for hours that were not actually worked. With one success after another, Laffey restored the city to sound financial health, including making those same retirement plans solvent.

Now, Laffey wants to bring his brand of fiscal discipline to Washington. First among his plans, he wants to join Senator Tom Coburn and Rep. Ron Paul in eliminating the very pork barrel spending that Republicans said they would eliminate in 1994. He also wants to end corporate welfare and reform the tax code. Unlike many Republicans, one of his primary goals is to simplify the tax code, which in and of itself would help fuel the economy by reducing the outrageous money and time that goes into compliance thereto every year.

His opponent, on the other hand, has been nothing but a bane to Republicans, especially conservatives, since his election in 2000. Chafee was elected for one reason and one reason only in 2000: his name. The Chafees are one of the blue blooded five families that have dominated Rhode Island politics seemingly forever. Since joining the Senate, Chafee has frustrated conservatives at every opportunity. Last year, he often not to vote for the President, instead casting a protest vote for 41. He also managed to tie Sen. Voinovich with the worst voting record of any Republican according to Americans for Tax Reform. Most recently, Chafee betrayed the Party on judicial nominations, being the first Republican to say that he would not support a fair, up-or-down vote for every nominee, brokering an unacceptable deal with the other six dwarves, and finally applying the Boxer test on the nomination of Judge Owen. Near the end of last year, Chafee even flirted with the idea of changing parties. The defeat of Lincoln Chafee at the hands of Steve Laffey would send a clear message to Republicans throughout both the House and the Senate that it is not safe to stray from the Party's core principles.

Since nobody really likes Lincoln Chafee - nicknamed "the missing Linc" for his reputation as one of the Senate's dimmest bulbs - so many Republicans will make the case for Chafee by claiming that the Cranston Mayor is unelectable. Make no mistake that a Republican Majority of 51 seats including Lincoln Chafee is no Majority. One could make the argument that if Chafee were going to leave, he'd have done with with Sen. Jim Jeffords. This argument fails on two fronts. First, the Democrats did not need Lincoln Chafee. They gained the majority by luring Jeffords over with goodies for the change. Once in the Majority, they had no need to sacrifice leadership and pork for someone whose seat made little difference. Second, it was simple political calculus to see which party was on the rise for the long-term. As a Republican, Chafee is now able to fund pork barrel projects in Rhode Island. If being a Democrat would make that easier, Chafee would do it in a heartbeat.

More importantly, though, the argument that Laffey is not electable simply does not hold water. He was elected Mayor in a heavily Democrat city and remains popular. Since his election, Republican registration statewide has dropped, but the number of pachyderms in Cranston grew significantly. He has reached out to Democrats who are sick of business as usual, both in Rhode Island and in Washington, and can strike a cord with the significant population of pro-life Democrats who have long been ignored by both parties. Finally, Laffey will be able to make the case that Rhode Island needs a faithful member of the majority if it is to have any influence in Washington. With 55 Senate seats, Republicans could afford to ignore and lose a nominal member from Rhode Island, but Rhode Island could not. Though Laffey wants to cut waste from government, necessary government contracts go somewhere. If Rhode Island's congressional delegation consists of Patrick Kennedy, James Langevin, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse, the state will have exactly zero influence in the appropriations process. Such an argument will go over well with an electorate that enjoys little to no influence as it is.

Rhode Island needs Steve Laffey in the United States Senate. The rest of America would be better off with him there too. If you give to only one campaign this cycle, make it Steve Laffey's.

And Then There Were Three

2005-09-07T22:23:00.000-04:00

Today, State Rep. Beth Harwell (R-TN) announced that she is ending her Senate bid, saying that this was not the right race at the right time for her and her family. Harwell was not polling well - under 5% in most polls - but the departure is important because of the crowded primary field. Now that she has left, Bob Corker, 2002 Gubernatorial candidate Van Hilleary, and former Rep. Ed Bryant are left to fight it out. Harwell's supporters clearly took primarily from Bryant and Hilleary, so her departure bodes well for both of them. Corker, on the other hand, will have to work hard to convince Republicans to nominate someone who does not share their values. This is not an easy job in a state like Tennessee, where the argument that a conservative is unelectable is about as believable as a suggestion that Middle Tennessee State could run up the score against the Vols in Ole Rocky Top.

As Corker is not an option, conservatives must choose between Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary. While the two agree on most issues of import to the base, there are two major differences that make this choice clear. The first is that Ed Bryant has delivered for conservatives. During his time in the House, Bryant was a leader on pro-family issues, including pushing for pro-life legislation. In the Senate, he would add to his agenda the confirmation of conservative judges. Bryant's experience could even lead to a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the Republican wing of the Republican Party is sadly outnumbered. The fact that Bryant has received the endorsements of many of the strongest conservatives in the Senate - Dr. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jim DeMint, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Sen. John Ensign - speaks volumes for where he would be on the votes and issues that matter most.

In addition to being an outspoken conservative, Ed Bryant is also the strongest possible candidate. At a time when many conservatives are discouraged by the retiring Senator's flip-flop on stem-cell research and spineless "leadership" on the filibusters, Bryant will energize conservatives who would likely stay home if Corker were the nominee. With regard to Van Hilleary, he missed his chance to win statewide. The Governor's mansion in Tennessee should be safe Republican, but Hilleary managed not only to make the race interesting, but to actually lose, albeit to a strong candidate. While any Republican nominee would be favored against Rep. Harold Ford, Ed Bryant is the best man to show that Ford is out of step with Tennessee and at the same time motivate disgruntled conservatives.

A Missed Opportunity

2005-09-05T20:03:00.000-04:00

John Roberts is a good nominee for Chief Justice and should be confirmed.

Having said that, the President missed a golden opportunity to define a new direction for the Supreme Court. If the President had nominated Janice Rogers Brown, he could have made a statement that the government has far exceeded its constitutional authority and that the era of big government is, in fact, over. He would also have clearly rejected Sandra Day O'Connor's jurisprudential gymnastics and seated another Justice whose record shows a clear understanding of the fact that the Constitution says what it says, not what Gallup's latest poll says it says.

Politically, the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown would have been the play of the decade. Anybody could see the irony of Ted Kennedy complaining about the civil rights record of the fist ever black woman to be nominated for Chief Justice of the United States. Senators Nelson, Stabenow, Landrieu, and others would have been forced to either back a solid conservative or institute a glass ceiling on black women in America. The confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown would have made clear once and for all that judicial philosophy is not justification for filibustering judicial nominees. The hipocracy of the Democrat Party, no matter what it did, would have been bared for all to see.

As I said, Roberts is a solid nominee and deserves to be confirmed. This assessment is not a criticism of John Roberts, whom I had endorsed for confirmation to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I expect that Judge Roberts will serve well for decades to come. The documents released from his service in the administration of President Reagan suggest that he is a solid consrvative and point to a Scalia without the attitude approach. (I like the attitude.) I will be posting regularly throughout the rest of the process in support of the good Judge.

Notre Dame 42, Pittsburgh 21

2005-09-04T01:15:00.000-04:00

While this is a political blog, I can't help but post on my beloved Fighting Irish. I had the good fortune to be able to come to Pittsburgh for the game. I'm a Jet fan, and I've never seen a defense so confused. It seemed for a while as if Lou Holtz had returned, minus the option. The Irish could have won by something closer to a Miami-Central Montana type score, but Charlie Weis did not see the need to run up the score. It's a long season, but the Notre Dame offensive line has the ability to dictate a game against any team in the country. This team has the talent to compete for a National Championship now.

RIP William Rehnquist

2005-09-04T01:05:00.000-04:00

If you are a visitor of this blog, you know by know that Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died. I regret that I am on the road at the time of his death and am unable to post at length on his tenure. I wish him family well. He served faithfully and will be remembered fondly. My prayers are with Mr. Rehnquist and his family.

A Real Conservative for Utah

2005-09-01T23:37:00.000-04:00

Sadly, Sen. Orrin Hatch has a reputation for being one of the most conservative members of the Senate. The sad fact, though, is that Hatch is a wolf in sheep's clothing. While it is true that Hatch does have a pretty conservative voting record, he has been a real disappointment on some of the most important issues and has even put forward one of the dumbest ideas in recent political memory - and that's saying a lot. Hatch actually suggested that computers storing illegally downloaded music should be destroyed by computer viruses. While I would agree with the Senator that this is a real problem, destroying a $1000+ investment for the evasion of a $2 purchase is beyond silly.

More importantly, Hatch has let conservatives down on two top issues. When President Clinton called Hatch to ask what he thought of a possible nomination of former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, Hatch replied that a Cuomo confirmation would be contentious, but that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would sail through. Clinton took Hatch's advice and nominated an ACLU extremist who pays about as much attention to the Constitution as Ted Kennedy pays to his blood alcohol level. Upon the nomination, Republicans promplty followed Sen. Hatch's lead and rolled over, confirming Ginsburg 96-3. Since then, Ginsburg has bulldozed the Constitution to implement her left wing agenda at every opportunity. More recently, Hatch has become a cheerleader for unethical "scientific" research that requires the destruction of innocent human life. Someone who claims to be so ardently pro-life and then advocates such research either doesn't understand the pro-life position or is completely disingenous.

Now, Utahns have the opportunity to replace Hatch with a younger, saner, more consistent conservative. His name is Steve Urquhart and he is the Majority Whip in the Utah House of Representatives. It is testamony to his effectiveness as a legislator that he was elected to the position after just four years of service in the body. Urquhart is the real deal. At a time when Republicans have in many ways become carbon copies of Democrats, Urquhart is not afraid to speak out on the oft-forgotten hallmarks of conservatism, respect for life, smaller government, restrained courts, and national security - including illegal immigration. In particular, he is committed to reducing the control of the federal government over education. He will actively oppose the confused logic of liberals who have not yet realized the plain truth that federal control over education has hampered, rather than improved it, and that throwing federal dollars at the program is more important than giving states and localities control over their schools.

The election of Urquhart would not only serve to replace an old bull, don't rock the boat Republican with a true conservative, but it would have further reaching implications. For one thing, Sen. Hatch would likely be replaced on the Judiciary Committee by Ed Bryant, whom I can assure you would never recommend Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a seat on the Supreme Court. Along the same lines, Urquhart would be yet another vote in the conservative wing of the caucus. If you think that doesn't matter, consider this. Had Steve Urquhart been in the Senate at the beginning of this Congress instead of Orrin Hatch, Sen. Norm Coleman would be the Chair of the NRSC rather than Sen. Elizabeth Dole, who has proven herself totally inept in the position. It would also boost conservatives like Sen. Jon Kyl, Sen. Jim Talent, and this year's excellent freshman class in other important decisions that must be made within the caucus.

Now I know that the establishment types will make the case that Hatch is really a conservative and that it would be risky to have a candidate who would not be ensured of victory. In fact, Utah is as safe as it gets for Republicans. Conservatives won't lose, especially against liberal Pete Ashdown. Ashdown is a tech geek (how many candidates do you know who have eight issues that include "copyright", "patents & trademarks", and "technology"?) What's more, as of June 30, Ashdown had less than $2,000 on hand. The winner of the GOP primary will win the seat and there is no excuse for Utah not to replace Hatch with a true conservative.

Steve Urquhart belongs in the United States Senate. Orrin Hatch does not.

McCaskill Jumps Off...er...In

2005-08-30T23:23:00.000-04:00

Today, Missouri State Auditor Claire McCaskill (D) announced that she will challenge incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent next year. McCaskill enters the race having lost last year's Gubernatorial race 51-48 to Matt Blunt. McCaskill shouldn't be underestimated as a candidate, as she successfully unseated incumbent Gov. Bob Holden in the primary. Even so, Talent is in a good position as McCaskill enters, having already raised over $3 million and about where an incumbent should be at this point.

Talent entered the Senate when he took out the ingracious Jean Carnahan, who was appointed to the seat after an election tainted by shady deals and illegal late poll closings. Even after then-Sen. Ashcroft conceded rather than fight tooth and nail as he should have, Carnahan voted against his confirmation as Attorney General. Talent defeated her two years later in a special election.

Sen. Jim Talent's greatest claim to fame is that he came up with the majority approval plan for judicial confirmation. While the Republican Caucus let us down on actually implementing that option, we can thank Sen. Talent for the confirmation of Judges Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown. He is similarly conservative across the board, compiling a 94 ACU rating during his eight years in the House and two in the Senate. During his time in the House, Talent led the way on Welfare Reform, playing a leadership role in the passage of the greatest accomplishment of the Republican Congress under President Clinton. During a time in which the Republican Party has deviated from its one-time role of being the party of small government, Talent has continued to fight overtaxation and overregulation. The Republican Caucus and the conservative cause must return Jim Talent to the US Senate next November.

As for where the race stands, Missouri has been trending right in recent years. Though McCaskill fared relatively well in the Gubernatorial race, she still lost and both Kerry and Nancy Farmer faired poorly in federal races focused on federal issues. McCaskill will hope to divide Sen. Talent from Missouri voters on stem-cell research. Such a strategy would backfire as Sen. Talent would not only aquit himself perfectly, but he would also turn the issue of abortion on the Auditor and force her to respond to questions about why she has taken money from extremist pro-abortion groups. Last year, Democrat extremists were excited about Nancy Farmer, the challenger to Sen. Kit Bond. As the election neared, Bond put daylight between himself and Farmer and beat her by 13 points on Election Day. Look for Talent to do the same thing. While McCaskill should not be underestimated and could potentially make this race closer, for now Talent is the odds on favorite. For now, consider this "Likely Republican".

Another Safe Seat

2005-08-29T20:00:00.000-04:00

As expected, Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA) has decided not to challenge Sen. George Allen. Warner is widely rumored to be considering a 2008 Presidential bid, and though he had the lead in recent polls, Allen remains a fairly popular incumbent in a Republican state, making an unnecessary Senate bid extremely risky. Warner's decision clears the way for an Allen cake walk. The Democrats' bench is thin, and Warner was the only Democrat with a serious chance to challenge Allen. Sen. Chuck Schumer really Doled this seat. For those of you keeping score at home, this decision brings the total number of safe Republican seats to eight (including RINO Olympia Snowe) and the total number of overall safe seats to seventeen. The already small 2006 Senate map continues to shrink.

Ellsworth: The Real Story

2005-08-27T12:33:00.000-04:00

If you're one of the few regular visitors to this site, then you have probably heard by now that the BRAC voted 8-1 against closing Ellsworth Air Force base in western South Dakota. While other blogs have discussed the major implications for Sen. John Thune, who defeated then-Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle by making the case that he would be better positioned to save Ellsworth, they have missed the even larger implications for next year's Senate races.

It is a dirty not so little secret that politicians are like pigs at the trough when it comes to reelection/career oriented appropriations. Rather than aiming for sound policy, politicians of both parties are more interested in bringing money home to their districts from Washington than allowing people to keep more of the money we earn. They then use the fact that they brought these goodies home as a campaign issue. While some such programs - very, very few - are legitimate, the vast majority are just excuses to keep taxes rediculously high.

Whether Ellsworth was actually protected for legitimate reasons, though - a question on which I am agnostic since I simply do not know enough about military policies to speak intelligently about it - there is a larger story in this story. Republicans currently hold 55 Senate seats, including RINOs. Barring full scale nuclear war, and even then only if we're losing, Republicans will not lose the Senate next year. What that means is that every Republican in every state can make the argument in the general election that they will be better positioned than their Democrat counterpart to bring money into their state. This will be especially important for Republican candidates in blue states, such as Steve Laffey in Rhode Island, but will also be important for Republicans more generally.

It speaks volumes that members of the Party of smaller government will run next year on a platform of porkbarrel spending. No, the Democrats are not any better. Ideally the Republicans elected because they will be able to "bring home the bacon" will instead not kill the pigs that don't belong to them in the first place, i.e. enact tax cuts, cut federal spending, and allow the economy to grow faster. Unfortunately, such lofty goals are pipe dreams.

Though it is always disappointing to see Republicans campaign on bad policy, the fact is that we can make a tremendous amount of progress in other areas by exploiting this issue. Residents of every state should know that the best way to bring their money back into their states - fair enough if we're the ones paying the taxes in the first place - is to elect Republicans. In the RedState.org post linked above, the case is made that the decision was not political. Saving Ellsworth may in fact be good policy, but the decision was overtly political. The BRAC rewarded South Dakota for sending Daschle packing. Had he been reelected, the overwhelming likelihood is that the vote would have gone the other way. Painful though it may be, Republicans, even (gulp) conservatives, must exploit this issue for the next fourteen months to expand our majority. Once we do that, hopefully moving the caucus to the right in the process (plus Ed Bryant, Steve Laffey, Steve Urquhart, Mark Kennedy, John Hritz, and John Hoeven, minus Bill Frist, Lincoln Chafee, Orrin Hatch, and Mike DeWine), we will be in a much better position to reform government on any number of issues, including federal spending.

The Tent is Ripping

2005-08-24T22:52:00.000-04:00

Many Republicans have unfortunately taken the position that we need to artificially expand the Party by compromising on principle and allowing anybody to say anything so long as they keep an "R" next to their name. In 2001, Republicans learned the hard way what happens when precious Republican ballot slots are given to people who are unconcerned with the Party and its platform. In 2002, the National Party punished Sen. Bob Smith, arguably the most Republican Senator if the platform has anything to do with it, for committing the only sin that leaders considered unforgivable - changing that "R" if only temporarily. After last year's elections, many Republicans feared that Sen. Lincoln Chafee (RINO-RI) would switch parties.

It should come as no surprise, then, that dissent is becoming the rule rather than the exception. Earlier this year, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) nearly cried on the floor of the Senate objecting to the nomination of John Bolton. Just this week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) reprehensibly compared the situation in Iraq to Vietnam. Much like the Democrats redefining losses as victories as they did in the recent special election in OH-2, Hagel has changed the definition of victory for the terrorists. Women have voted. Iraqis are completing work on a constitution. Iraqi sports teams can now compete without fearing torture for losses. Saddam Hussein faces trial for war crimes. Yes, Senator Hagel, we are winning! Being charitable, one could say that Hagel's position is misguided but well-intentioned. No matter how you slice it, someone who cannot see that Iraq is better off now than it was three years ago does not understand international politics sufficiently to be President.

Now Hagel is not only marching to the beat of a different drummer, but apparently considering leaving the parade altogether, if H-Bomb at Ankle Biting Pundits is to be believed. (While I have no reason to doubt the report, I cannot independently confirm his scoop.) If this report is proven true, the RNC will be more angry with this than Hagel's comments on Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I would not be pleased with an independent run by Hagel - unless, of course, the Republican nominee is someone whose social values are indistinguishable from Chuck Schumer's - but the bigger problem of these two is that Senator Hagel is advocating a dangerous, artificial withdrawl of troops before Iraq is ready to maintain order on its own. As bad as the random acts of violence, including those against US troops, are, the situation would deteriorate quickly and completely were we to begin withdrawing our troops too early.

There are two lessons to be learned here. First, Republicans should nominate people who agree with the basic principles of the Party. Doing otherwise risks giving up valuable seats even after the fact. Don't think for a moment that Senators Collins, Snowe, and Chafee would bolt if they had anything to gain by doing so. Apparently the same can be said even for others. Second, Republicans must publicly rebuke members who vocally depart from the Party line. Fighting the Democrats and the terrorists at the same time is difficult enough. The last thing we need is the people next to us in the trenches turning their fire on us.

It is time to clean house. We can start doing so in 2006 in Rhode Island, Utah, and Ohio. (Endorsements to follow in the coming days for UT and OH, and when Laffey announces.)

Salazar Staying Put

2005-08-24T22:49:00.000-04:00

Ken Salazar's 2004 Senate bid was as disingenous as his campaign promise to support an up-or-down vote on the President's judicial nominees. Salazar clearly wanted to be Governor, not Senator. Even so, it comes as little surprise that he has decided against running for Governor just two years into his first Senate term. Even the voters who put him in the Senate would have been aghast at the prospect of him changing offices two years into his first six-year term.

Scarborough Out; Foley Still Thinking About It

2005-08-23T00:55:00.000-04:00

Former Rep. Joe Scarborough has passed on the chance to challenge Rep. Katherine Harris in the Republican Senate primary in Florida. Scarborough follows Florida House Speaker Allan Bense in being recruited only to decline the opportunity.

Rep. Mark Foley continues to consider a bid, but had for good reason initially been ignored by the establishment, especially the Bush brothers. Foley had just a rating of just 68 from the ACU in 2004, departing from the Party base on such issues as marriage, abortion, and gun control. A Foley candidacy would severely, perhaps permanently, damage an emerging Republican majority in Florida. Back-to-back Presidential wins and the election of Mel Martinez have been made possible by mammoth conservative turnout. A Foley candidacy could destroy the coalition that has made the GOP dominant in the state.

The effort first to dissuade Harris from the race and second to recruit a challenger were not without merit. Polls have consistently shown Harris trailing Nelson badly in trial runs, and she surely was not the best candidate at the beginning of the year, or even when she entered. Now, though, it is time to unify behind Harris.

There is a fine line between attempting to recruit the best candidate and fatally damaging the campaign of the likely nominee. Republicans have thus far taken two high-profile whiffs on possible challengers in Bense and Scarborough. The attempts were good faith efforts to find the best challengers (unlike in New York, where the NY GOP has made a good faith effort to find the most liberal challengers, even ones who can't speak without a script). Both would have been underdogs in the primary but would surely have been stronger general election candidates.

Having missed those opportunities, the Republican Party risks doing even more damage to Harris's candidacy with future attempts to recruit a different candidate. Any such candidate would clearly have been dragged into the race and could not be taken seriously by the voters. Instead, they would just demonstrate a lack of Party support for the only conservative who is currently viable. Rep. Harris has an uphill fight, but is viable. That viability, however, will erode, along with GOP hopes, if the Republican Party does not unify behind her candidacy now.

DeWine's Dolors

2005-08-18T22:27:00.000-04:00

It's been a bad month for Senator Mike DeWine. First, one of the most powerful interest groups in the country, the NRA, spoke openly about the possibility of backing potential Democrat challenger Rep. Tim Ryan over DeWine. Then, former AK Steel Corp. President John Hritz announced his intention to challenge DeWine from the right in a primary. Now, the Republican Governor in his state, who had an approval rating of 17% already, has been indicted and pled no contest to corruption charges. This, of course, comes just two months after the humiliating defeat of the Senator's son Pat in a primary for the special election in Ohio's second Congressional district.

DeWine's problems are not undeserved. He has long been disloyal on a number of fronts from hate crimes legislation to gun control. Most recently he participated in the unprincipled Gang of 14 agreement, a Republican capitulation that legitimized the unconstitutional Democrat filibusters of ten of President Bush's judicial nominees. Since the agreement, several conservative groups have attempted to recruit a primary challenger for the Senator, first former Rep. John Kasich then former Rep. Bob McEwen. Now, conservatives have their man.

Ohio presents conservatives an excellent opportunity to flex some muscle in a Republican primary. Though little is known of Hritz's policy positions, it appears that he will challenge DeWine on issues of concern to conservative activists. Hritz may be the Republicans' best hope of keeping the seat. DeWine's numbers are lagging in the 30's, and it will be easy for Democrats to tie him to the corrupt Gov. Taft. Republican corruption and displeasure with DeWine's participation in the Gang of 14 agreement could easily depress Republican turnout enough to make 2006 a banner year for Ohio Democrats. A vigorous primary upset by an conservative outsider calling DeWine to task for his betrayals of conservatives could be the only way to keep the Senate seat and give the eventual Republican Gubernatorial nominee a chance to retain the office.

Make no mistake that Senator DeWine is better on some issues than his potential challengers Rep. Tim Ryan and OH-2 Congressional nominee Paul Hackett. His transgressions are not acceptable, but he certainly doesn't go as far as some of the rest of the Republican left, such as Senators Chafee and Snowe. Conservatives should attempt to upgrade in the primary - assuming that Hritz is as conservative as he seems - but unless he fails to hold the Democrats to the "extraordinary circumstances" part of the Gang of 14 agreement, it would be prudent to get behind DeWine if he survives the primary.

Vacation

2005-08-05T23:22:00.000-04:00

I'll be away for the next week. Blogging will resume on or about Aug. 16.

New Job for Dole?

2005-08-03T19:22:00.000-04:00

How about Ambassador to Mongolia? Today Allan Bense and David Brandon announced that they will not challenge Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), respectively. These are just the latest in a long series of recruiting failures for NRSC Chair Elizabeth Dole. So far, Dole has blown the recruitment of Rep. Candice Miller and Jane Abraham (MI), Dino Rossi (WA) and former-Rep. Jennifer Dunn, and Rep. Heather Wilson and Rep. Steve Pearce (NM). Gov. Tommy Thompson (WI), Rudy Giuliani (NY), and Rep. Shelley Moore-Capito (WV) seem to be busts as well. To be sure, not all of these are good conservatives and not all are the best candidates, but if she wanted the job, she should have been able to deliver at least a few of them.

At present, Senators Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WI), Cantwell (WA), Kohl (WI), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), and Stabenow (MI) are without strong opposition. Gov. John Hoeven (ND) has not yet said whether he will challenge Sen. Conrad. While Allen's record wasn't perfect last year - he missed opportunities in Arkansas, Nevada, and North Dakota - he successfully recruited strong candidates in seven other states. Thus far, only two strong challengers have emerged, Rep. Mark Kennedy (MN) and Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (MD). Of those, at least one - Kennedy - was going to run with or without recruitment.

The heads of the two campaign committees have two jobs. One is raising money, something that isn't easy when your base has said in one voice that it will not contribute a dime until every judicial nominee receives a vote. The other is to make sure that the Party has strong candidates is as many races as possible. Sen. Dole has been a miserable failure both in terms of ensuring that the base is satisfyied and will continue to contribute, and even moreso as a recruitor. Here's hoping the Administration can find a job for her a few thousand miles away so that we can revert to the better choice, Sen. Norm Coleman (MN) to pick up the pieces.

Liberal "Victory"

2005-08-02T22:56:00.000-04:00

While not a Senate race, the special election in Ohio's second congressional district is worthy of some attention because of the dramatic shift that it shows in American politics. Liberals have actually redefined victory by claiming that every near-miss is a win. First it was the Scream, er, Dean campaign when People Powered Howard claimed victory by mobilizing a tremendous youth movement that just had one minor detail go wrong: they didn't show up at the polls. Then MoveOn.org called the last win a victory because of their grassroots mobilization. Now, over at Swing State, liberals are giddy over yet another near miss. Ohio 2 is a Republican stronghold. Last year's reelection of Rob Portman was a cake walk. Today's race was closer, but again, Democrats lost.

This is a dramatic shift in American politics. Just over a decade ago, Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress. Republicans were a permanent minority. Then came 1994 when the nation writ large rejected the leftwing extremism promoted by the establishment, including the first First Lady who actually thought that she was an elected official. While we have not yet completed our revolution, as Sen. Frist's betrayal illustrates, it is clear from the 2004 election that Americans want to continue to elect officials who believe in personal responsibility, family values, economic liberty, and a strong national defense. So dramatic is this shift that liberals no longer define "victory" as actually winning seats, but rather define it as not getting blown out. While Senator Frist's comments were discouraging, conservatives can take heart in just how dire the straights of modern day liberals are. With liberals willing to accept the election of conservatives as "victory", we can rest assured that we will be able to continue the restoration of values that brought about the revolution of 1994 in the first place.

A Bad Week for Catholics

2005-07-30T01:52:00.000-04:00

This week, two CINO (Catholic In Name Only) Democrats who disserve on the Judiciary Committee embarassed themselves, their country, and their (supposed) Church with statements relating to the nomination of Judge John Roberts.

Senator Durbin went first. According to Jonathan Turley in Monday's LA Times, Durbin asked Roberts what he would do if the law required a ruling that ran contrary to Roberts' faith. Since Roberts' response is unclear, attention can rightly be focused on the question. No Senator of either party or any faith would have dared to ask such a question of a member of ANY faith other than the Catholic faith. Roberts' impecable record is beyond reproach, so the Democrats must find ways to create doubt about him. What easier way than to play on outdated anti-Catholic biases?

The Senator Leahy followed suit, becoming the first Senator to state publicly that he will apply a pro-Roe litmus test to Judge Roberts. Leahy went so far as to say that Roe is on par with Brown v. Board of Ed. Priests for Life's statement addresses this quite well (full disclosure: I work for PFL). It is laughable that the "right" to an abortion, which scholars on both sides of the abortion debate say is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, should be considered on par with those rights that are explicitly protected therein. Regardless of one's views on abortion, constitutional scholars should be embarassed by such a suggestion.

The two Senators thought that they would get a pass because both claim to be Catholic. Their voting records, however, show that they are Catholic in the same way that if a cow is born in a tree, it's a bird. Both Senators have ignored Catholic teachings in their public life. While the job of a judge is to apply the law as it is written, the job of a legislator is to bring his values to the fore. As such, it is clear that Senators Durbin and Leahy have had every opportunity to bring Catholic values to the fore in our national discussions. At every opportunity, they have shown that the teachings of the Catholic Church did not factor into their conscience formation and continue to be absent from their decision-making.

Senators behaving like this should not get a pass even if they are practicing Catholics. Senators Durbin and Leahy most certainly are not. Ideally, the two would seek to inform their consciences and reach better conclusions in the future. Until then, though, they should at least have the decency to publicly state that they no longer consider themselves Catholic rather than continuing to bring scandal on the Church by proclaiming to be Catholic with the same mouthes they use to actively oppose the core values of that same Church.

Byrd Season Opens

2005-07-30T01:38:00.000-04:00

Today the NRSC unveiled its first ad of the 2006 cycle. (Remember, though, DO NOT CONTRIBUTE to the NRSC until every judge gets an up-or-down vote!!!) The ad attacks Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd for the dramatic changes in his positions from his early years in the Senate, including but not limited to his shift against the American military. Sen. Byrd is the poster boy for term limits. He has been in the Senate far too long while maintaining many of his biases from his days as a leader in the KKK.

Unfortunately, it appears that the only candidate the GOP will get behind is Rep. Shelley Moore-Capito. Capito has a lifetime ACU rating of just 74%. While some may seek to justify this by West Virginia's union bent, the fact is that she differs from her state on the very social issues that make KKK so vulnerable. She has supported funding for UNESCO and the National Endowment for the Arts, opposed reporting illegal immigrants, and backed abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. In fact, Capito is the only pro-abortion House member from West Virginia.

Currently, Hiram Lewis is challenging Senator Byrd. Lewis finished the first quarter with an embarrassingly low $82,653 in cash on hand. Lewis may have a future in politics, as I hope he does, but the future is not immediate.

A better option would be West Virginia Secretary of State Betty Ireland. Last year, Ireland was the only Republican to win statewide, pulling an upset over Democrat Ken Hechler. In an otherwise bad year for West Virginia Republicans, Ireland won by nearly 30,000 votes. Not only is she a proven winner in a tough environment, but she would also find it much easier to galvanize the social conservative coalition that anyone who hopes to unseat Byrd will need. In fact, energizing the conservative base could almost be enough by itself in a low-turnout, base turnout election. The only difficulty is that Ireland was just elected for the first time, which can often make it seem as though one office is just being used as a stepping stone to another. Even so, an Ireland candidacy could actually work better than a Capito candidacy. Republicans would not risk losing a safe House seat while conservatives could have the chance to elect another conservative Senator from a conservative state.

Bill Frist: Sellout

2005-07-28T23:53:00.000-04:00

According to the Drudge Report, Senator Bill Frist will announce in the morning his support for expanded funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Frist's change in position shows that either he is blindly ambitious and will say anything that he thinks is politically advantageous or he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of life. Either way, his position is not acceptable. This unfortunately fits into a pattern of the leftward shift of the Republican Party.

Over two millennia ago, Aristotle wrote about the importance of first principles. It is from these principles that all things flow and to which all things point. Chief among these principles must be a respect for life. M. Stanton Evans, whose book is advertised on this site, frequently gives a talk called "Why Liberals are Wrong About Everything". The case that he makes quite convincingly is that liberals are wrong about (almost) every issue because they start from the wrong place. Rather than focus on the root of any problem, liberals instead seek to treat the symptoms. For this reason, the problems just become worse and create even more symptoms, hence the out-of-control growth of the federal government.

While many will make the case that embryonic stem-cell research will only lead to a further demeaning of human life - rightly so - it is important too to address this problem itself. Embryonic stem-cell research comes down to this: persons cannot be used as objects. Respect for life must mean respect for life at every stage. It is never permissible to destroy human life for utilitarian purposes. If one accepts the scientific fact that life begins at conception, then this is the moral equivalent of killing ten year olds for scientific research.

So what's wrong with that? Science is supposed to serve man, not the other way around. Much could be learned if scientists decided to dissect you right now. In fact, the Germans learned plenty with their experimentation on Jews, but that does not justify it. Science is extremely important, and the goals of many of those promoting stem-cell research are noble. Indeed, finding cures for debilitating, perhaps fatal, diseases is extremely important. Having seen relatives who could potentially have benefited from the research that they seek to perform died before my eyes, I understand quite well how important research is. Unfortunately, though, promoters of embryonic stem-cell research have lost sight of the forest for the trees. The reason that research is important is that life must be valued above all else. Once research dehumanizes other persons, though, it ceases to live true to its own goal. The very lives of those whom they seek to treat are demeaned by the lack of respect shown for other life.

Some have argued that there is no difference between the two parties. To some extent, I concur. Even so, I maintain some hope that the Republican Party can continue to be a vehicle to pursue a conservative agenda. If, however, the Party loses sight of its most basic principles, it will destroy itself. There will be no difference. There will be no Republican Majority, in name or in fact.

This will likely be the only time I reference a frog on this website, but Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote, "America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Unfortunately, America is moving toward the day when we will no longer be good. Half of marriages end in divorce. A third of pregnancies end in abortion. "Heather has Two Mommies" is permitted in schools while the Ten Commandments are not. To be sure, there are still plenty of good people, but this is a dangerous step toward destroying what is left of a respect for life in American culture.

Here's hoping that the President keeps his promise to veto the legislation and does not allow our nation to take this perilous step.

Armstrong Humiliates French, Part VII

2005-07-24T12:35:00.000-04:00

Once again, Lance Armstrong, arguably the greatest athlete ever, has won the Tour de France. With all due respect to other great athletes, Michael Jordan, Eric Heiden, Wayne Gretzky, etc., no other athlete has been able to dominate a sport so convincingly over so long a time as Lance Armstrong. Today is a wonderful day, and a sad day as he wins the most grueling sporting event on earth for the seventh time and ends his career at the same time.

While he has won previous Tours by more time and with more stage wins, this year was arguably his most dominant. On two stages of the Tour, Lance was left alone to battle a number of his chief rivals. His teammates could not cover the attacks, but he did. Unlike in previous Tours, he did very little attacking. In Stage 9, Armstrong attacked on the slopes of Courchevel. He added to the time that he had put into his rivals in Stage 1 and solidified his lead. Even though the attacks came, there was never any serious doubt as to whether Armstrong would win. At various points throughout the Tour, it seemed as though other riders were attacking each other, but not Armstrong, convinced that he could not be broken.

Lance's seventh win extends France's dry streak in its own Tour. It has now been twenty years since Bernard Hinault won his home country's Tour, that time only because American Greg LeMond, his teammate, followed the team manager's instructions and surrendered his own likely Tour victory to help his teammate. After the Tour, Hinault said that he would ride for LeMond the following year. In fine French fashion, Hinault broke his promise and raced his teammate and was defeated. A curse?

Since Hinault's win, the French have become little more than a blip on the radar screen of the General Classification, the overall competition in the Tour. This year, Christoph Moreau, who finishied in 11th, was the highest placed French rider. Next year, the Tour is likely to come down to Lance's chief rivals from this year, Italian Ivan Basso and German Jan Ullrich. After that, Kazack Alexandre Vinokourov, Armstrong's Discovery teammate, appears poised to take the reigns. This year, the sole French stage win came on Bastille Day. Winning on Bastille Day has become the Tour for the French, as they are unable to seriously compete in the Tour's other competitions. If the French want to look for any source of pride, they must look into the distant past. Hopefully while looking back they will realize the many things that have led them down the path to insignficance.

For now, though, Vive le Lance and Vive le Tour!

Mudd, or Quicksand?

2005-07-22T23:32:00.000-04:00

RepublicanSenate's only endorsed Democrat now leads Senator Mudd by 11 points according to a Rasmussen poll out today. Bob Casey, Jr. Is amazingly running a Senate campaign based solely on his father's name. He has stated his positions on a number of important issues, but remains very low-key. On the other hand, the incumbent has been all over the news, most recently to promote the nomination of Judge Roberts. Mudd is outraising Casey by about $4 million, but Casey's fundraising has picked up and it now appears that he will have enough to compete.

At a convenient time for Casey, DNC Chair Howard Dean is now pitching a willingness to accept pro-life Democrats. If Democrats are willing to overlook Casey's pro-life position, it now appears that he will have a smooth road to the Senate. Even so, appearances can be deceiving. Mudd is a strong campaigner. It is still over 17 months out, and Mudd's money advantage will come into play eventually. He will need to rely heavily on the President getting a boost in the polls.

The wild card in the mix is what becomes of President Bush's judicial nominees. If all of his nominees prove themselves willing to pay more attention to the Constitution than to bad precedent, especially on the matter of Roe, conservatives may be willing to forgive Mudd for his transgressions and turn out to keep the Republican majority. If, on the other hand, any of President Bush's nominees act more like Souter than Scalia, conservatives will at the very least not vote for Mudd, but quite possibly actually turn out to back Casey, a candidate who is tailor-made for Reagan Democrats.

While I am hesitant to bet against an incumbent of either party in any race, Casey clearly has an advantage here. Put this race in the "Lean Democrat" category.