Tom Carter's Notes

Courageous Democrats

2005-09-24T10:59:00.000-05:00

An excellent Washington Post editorial today discussed the need for Democrats to do the right thing and vote for the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice. As I discussed in Yes on Roberts, this would go a long way toward restoring a much-needed sense of integrity and seriousness in the Senate. The Washington Post said:

Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court used to be the norm, not an act of courage. Yet, set against the general opposition from Democrats to the nomination, and truly intense pressure from interest groups, the votes cast by ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Wisconsin's Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold took guts. Their votes ensure that Judge Roberts will not take the helm of the judiciary perceived as the representative of only one party, and they guarantee that at least some Democrats -- albeit sadly few -- will have the moral authority to demand Republican support for qualified liberal nominees in the future.

The larger Democratic opposition to Judge Roberts represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice. ... In refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats send a message that there is a strongly partisan component of the task of judging -- something those who believe in independent, apolitical courts must reject.

The three senators who voted yes are taking a beating from liberal groups for it. ... The liberal groups have made clear that they will oppose any nominee from this administration, regardless of qualifications.... Never mind waiting to find out who the nominee is or what he or she happens to believe.... In opposing Judge Roberts, some Democrats are following these groups off a cliff. The Judiciary Committee Democrats who refused to jump deserve credit for showing backbone.

No doubt there are diehard partisans in the Senate who can't bring themselves to act in the best interests of the country. For them, ideology is the absolute first priority. But I don't think many of them are that extreme. If Roberts is confirmed by at least 80 votes, it will mean that the majority of Democrats in the Senate had the courage to do the right thing, despite intense pressure from the far left. We'll see.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-24T10:01:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day, an oldie but a goodie, is in comments.

No on Whomever

2005-09-23T11:34:00.000-05:00

I found an odd paragraph in an AP report on fractured leadership in the Democratic Party as it tries to exploit political gains in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The paragraph said:

Katrina has overshadowed the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice. Though his confirmation is virtually assured, liberal interest groups have put the squeeze on Senate Democrats to oppose Roberts and Bush's yet-to-be-named pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Hold on a minute. Liberal interest groups are determined to oppose an unknown nominee? What if President Bush goes crazy and nominates someone they like, such as Ramsey Clark, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Jane Fonda, George Soros, or Ted Kennedy? (No, you don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.)

Maybe they ought to find out who the nominee is before they oppose him or her. It would make them look a little more rational, and who knows, they might be surprised.

Hunting Gay Priests

2005-09-22T23:04:00.000-05:00

It's being reported in the media that the Vatican is on the hunt for gay priests and plans to exclude them from the priesthood. Newsweek reported in its "Periscope" section that:

The Roman Catholic Church has embarked on a vast investigation that could push men with homosexual inclinations out of the already dwindling ranks of seminarians.

Newsweek also quotes one scholar who says, "23 to 58 percent of Catholic clerics have homosexual orientations." Strange numbers. It has also been reported that more than 80 percent of the people sexually abused by Catholic priests were young males.

All this leaves me a little confused. Since priests take a vow of celibacy, what difference does it make whether they prefer boys or girls--or for that matter, cows or sheep? Seems to me their sin, and the offense that would merit de-frocking, would be breaking that sacred vow of celibacy, regardless of the sex, species, or age of their sexual partners.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Yes on Roberts

2005-09-21T12:22:00.000-05:00

After the confirmation hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it's impossible to understand how any Senator can vote against John Roberts. However, it seems Democrats in the Senate are again taking careful aim at their own feet and wondering whether to pull the trigger. The Los Angeles Times agrees:

It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.

Beyond his sterling qualifications, John Roberts is the most moderate judicial nominee Democrats could ever expect to get from a Republican president. If they're waiting on another very liberal, ACLU-credentialed nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they would do better to focus on the 2008 presidential election and hope a Democrat wins.

In the meantime, Democrats voting in large numbers to confirm Roberts will perhaps restore some sense of integrity and seriousness to the Senate. Voting against him will not only be a wasted vote, it will reinforce the Democrats' current image of being little more than partisan hacks.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-21T12:01:00.000-05:00

If you're hunting for the Joke of the Day, it's in comments.

The Quirky Mayor

2005-09-18T23:17:00.000-05:00

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin isn't doing anything to mitigate his quirky image. And that's a very moderate way to put it. First the totally botched evacuation of his city, then his profanity-laced street-talk interviews, followed by his aborted order to evacuate the city by force, and finally his surprise announcement that he is re-opening parts of the city for up to 180,000 people to return immediately.

After Mayor Nagin made his surprise announcement, obviously without coordinating it with anyone, Vice Admiral Thad Allen, the head of federal relief efforts, spoke up and said that it's a bad idea--electricity problems, sewage problems, water problems, food problems, transportation problems, levees still weak, no evacuation plan in place, etc. VADM Allen may be worrying about another problem like the city had at the Superdome and the Convention Center.

Seems like the quirky mayor is miffed again. I just heard Mayor Nagin responding on Fox News to VADM Allen's comments. He said, "Maybe he's the new federally-crowned mayor of New Orleans, I don't know."

Remember, this is the same Mayor Nagin who was raving and cursing about the lack of federal presence. Now he's got it, but it seems he doesn't care about it.

Sounds like New Orleans could use some adult leadership.

Paying for Katrina

2005-09-17T09:21:00.000-05:00

As reported widely, President Bush plans to spend $200 billion on the federal effort to recover from Katrina. However, he plans to do that not by increasing taxes but by spending less on other things. I wonder exactly how he plans to do it?

I don't want to see taxes increased. We're already seeing the economic improvement and increase in government revenue that follow tax cuts, and increasing taxes now would be harmful. But considering that $200 billion is about 10 percent of annual government income, there are going to have to be serious spending cuts to come up with the money.

Thoughtful people have pointed out that Congress is certainly among the institutions that share blame for the slow response to the Katrina disaster. It will be interesting now to see if they can behave like adults in helping to find money to pay for it. How about, for example, the huge amount of pork now greasing the transportation bill? Will the corpulent worthies on Capitol Hill be willing to give up some of their pet projects? Or will they insist on keeping them, given that this is their principal way of buying votes?

And one more thing. Anyone who understands American politics knows that Louisiana in general and New Orleans in particular are famous for more than charm, Spanish moss, and jazz. It's one of the most corrupt political environments in the U.S. Who's going to be watching the money?

Joke of the Day

2005-09-17T08:29:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Occupied New Orleans

2005-09-16T23:23:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan, writing at MichaelMoore.com:

George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.

Occupied New Orleans?

Seems Mrs. Sheehan, beloved of the extreme left, makes a bigger fool of herself every day. No wonder most Democrats keep their distance from her.

I'm sure Republican strategists want to keep her talking as long as possible, though.

The Anthrax Investigation

2005-09-16T10:37:00.000-05:00

Many people, including me, have wondered why the person or persons behind the anthrax attacks of 2001 have never been caught. The Washington Post reported that the investigation seems to be slowing down to the point of becoming a cold case.

Apparently the investigation hasn't been stymied by a lack of effort. According to the report,

FBI agents and postal inspectors have pursued leads on four continents, conducted more than 8,000 interviews and carried out dozens of searches of houses, laboratories and other locations. They traveled to Afghanistan twice in the past 16 months to follow up on tips that proved fruitless, said law enforcement sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

The failure to find whoever committed these acts of terrorism is frustrating. The reality, however, is that law enforcement often doesn't work as smoothly and heroically as depicted in TV shows and movies. The hard-bitten, brilliant, and invariably good-looking cops don't always defeat the criminals. As The Post notes, the 18-year hunt for the Unabomber produced no results until he made a mistake and his brother turned him in.

As law enforcement statistics show, many crimes are never solved. All the criminal usually has to do is be smart enough to avoid leaving behind fingerprints and other forensic evidence, make sure there are no witnesses, and then keep his/her mouth shut. It also helps if there are no accomplices.

We can only hope that whoever the scumbag or scumbags are who perpetrated the anthrax attacks will make a mistake along the way. Otherwise, we may never know who did it.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-16T09:48:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Performance, Not Politics

2005-09-10T10:12:00.000-05:00

David Ignatius, in The Washington Post:

The immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has looked like politics as usual. The Democrats are in a paroxysm of righteous indignation -- much of it justified but in the long run counterproductive. When Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid proposes that the Senate investigate whether President's Bush's vacation contributed to the disaster, the public response is likely to be: Give me a break! When the Democrats focus all their criticism on the GOP-led federal government and ignore the appalling lapses of Democratic administrations in New Orleans and Louisiana, they lose credibility.

Ignatius quoted Newt Gingrich:

For the last week the federal government and its state and local counterparts have consistently been behind the curve. The American people overwhelmingly know that the current situation is totally unacceptable...it is a mistake to get trapped into defending the systems and processes which clearly failed.

They've got it right.

Overplaying Their Hand

2005-09-10T06:55:00.000-05:00

There are some whose intellectual life centers on intense, irrational hatred for George W. Bush and those associated with him. Expressions of their hatred are easy to find--it's in blogs, extremist pronouncements by some politicians, cockamamie statements by entertainers, and media "news" reports.

I've commented a number of times on the likelihood that these unrelenting attacks on the President, and by extension the Republican Party, could well create a backlash among fair-minded people. The Hurricane Katrina disaster has given the Bush-haters an unexpected opportunity to pour forth their venom, and they're overplaying their hand again.

As just one example, some Bush-haters almost immediately starting claiming that black people were allowed to die in New Orleans because President Bush is a racist. Kanye West, a hip-hop artist, proclaimed on TV that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." The media covered his statement extensively, of course, including numerous repeats on CNN.

According to a Boston Globe report, last Saturday at an NFL pre-game show in Boston Kanye West performed via video link:

...it was disconcerting to hear his name booed loudly by Patriots fans who evidently didn't appreciate his nationally televised comment the other night on a Hurricane Katrina benefit that President Bush "doesn't care about black people." The boos were thunderous and lasted for much of his number.

I searched without success for a report on this at The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the LA Times. I've heard nothing on CNN. The only thing I found was a brief item on The Drudge Report. Seems the same press that repeatedly showcased West's statement didn't think it was important enough to report the reaction of a large group of average Americans.

The political warfare being waged by some Bush-haters is way over the top. They've maneuvered themselves into the absurd position of dealing with tragedy and failure as victories for their side, whether it's natural disasters or set-backs in Iraq. All that matters to them is having an opportunity to attack the President.

They're overplaying their hand on every deal. As any poker player knows, that's a sure-fire prescription for losing.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-10T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Pointing the Finger

2005-09-09T08:01:00.000-05:00

Pointing the finger of blame for deficiencies in the response to Hurricane Katrina has become a full-time pursuit for some people. Who they blame, of course, depends largely on who they perceive to be their political enemies.

Charles Krauthammer addressed the issue in a way that will surprise many people. I realize that liberals rarely deign to read Krauthammer, but I hope they'll make an exception in this case. Much of the last half of the column will please them. Here's the beginning:

In less enlightened times there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews).

A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.

This kind of stupidity merits no attention whatsoever, but I'll give it a paragraph. There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period. The problem with the evacuation of New Orleans is not that National Guardsmen in Iraq could not get to New Orleans but that National Guardsmen in Louisiana did not get to New Orleans. As for the Bush tax cuts, administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed those of the five preceding Clinton years. The notion that the allegedly missing revenue would have been spent wisely by Congress, targeted precisely to the levees of New Orleans, and that the reconstruction would have been completed in time, is a threefold fallacy. The argument ends when you realize that, as The Post noted, "the levees that failed were already completed projects."

He continued, using the sparse amount of information now available to point the finger of blame at Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco, FEMA Director Brown, President Bush, Congress, and the American people. His logic is persuasive.

Dave on Gas Prices

2005-09-09T07:27:00.000-05:00

Dave Barry wrote about the high price of gasoline in April 2000, then went on to propose his own unique solutions. Note the prices he was talking about in the beginning of the column:

If you've been to a gas station lately, you have no doubt been shocked by the prices: $1.67, $1.78, even $1.92. And that's just for Hostess Twinkies. Gas prices are even worse.

Americans are ticked off about this, and with good reason: Our rights are being violated! The First Amendment clearly states: "In addition to freedom of speech, Americans shall always have low gasoline prices, so they can drive around in 'sport utility' vehicles the size of minor planets.''

And don't let any so-called ''economists'' try to tell you that foreigners pay more for gas than we do. Foreigners use metric gasoline, which is sold in foreign units called ''kilometers,'' plus they are paying for it with foreign currencies such as the ''franc,'' the ''lira'' and the ''doubloon.'' So in fact there is no mathematical way to tell WHAT they are paying.

But here in the U.S., we are definitely getting messed over, and the question is: What are we going to do about it? Step one, of course, is to file a class-action lawsuit against the cigarette companies. They have nothing to do with gasoline, but juries really hate them, so we'd probably win several hundred billion dollars.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-09T07:14:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Media Ignorance

2005-09-08T11:14:00.000-05:00

Karl Penhaul, a CNN correspondent, just reported from New Orleans on the mayor's order that everyone must be evacuated from the city, by force if necessary. He noted, with a slightly ominous tone, that the Army has said that it will not participate in evacuating people by force. The implication was that this is one more indication of disarray and dissension among American authorities.

His final, grave statement to the anchorman was, "We'll have to keep an eye on this, Jim."

This has been reported by a number of media sources, some of whom explained the situation and some of whom didn't. The fact is, the U.S. Army and other regular military forces, not including the National Guard, are forbidden by federal law to engage in law enforcement activities on U.S. territory except under very limited circumstances.

Penhaul, judging by his accent, is probably British. Not only is he ignorant of this basic fact, he wasn't corrected by the anchorman, Jim Clancy. Clancy, an American, is one of the most biased people on CNN, and he can be counted on to criticize the U.S. at every opportunity. He is either as ignorant as Penhaul, or he just liked the tone of the report.

And the beat goes on.

The Gathering Storm

2005-09-08T08:33:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some politicians and much of the media continue to vigorously criticize their favorite political enemies, while real American heroes attend to the exhausting and dangerous work of trying to save and succor victims. Democrats are attacking Republicans, and Republicans are attacking Democrats. Who was at fault seems to be based entirely on what side of the political spectrum the critic sits on. It's disgusting.

There will be all kinds of commissions and committees investigating this for years. Politicians and activists of all stripes are already trying to form them, even before all the corpses have been collected. Anywhere there's a TV camera, you see some leading political figure elbowing his or her way to the front, expressing outrage at whomever and demanding an investigation. Often, the face you see on TV spreading condemnation has neither the responsibility nor, in most cases, the talent to actually do anything. As I said, it's disgusting.

I propose a People's Commission, to be formed not less than 90 days after the last body has been recovered. Just normal people. No politicians, no presidential hopefuls, no extremist activists, no Jesse Jacksons, no Pat Robertsons, no ideologues of any kind. Just folks, with subpoena power and free rein to investigate anyone and everything.

I know it ain't possible, but it sure feels right. And I believe one of the major findings of a People's Commission would be that most of the media performed abysmally. Through gross misrepresentation and bias, intensified by ignorance, much of their reporting has painted the most negative possible picture. As a result, they've seriously misled the American people and further damaged the image of the U.S. abroad.

Jon Ham wrote an article on August 6 that captured this reality. It's worth reading in full, no matter what opinion you may have already formed. Ham said,

There is a fetid stink in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and it’s not coming just from the fouled waters flooding New Orleans. It also wafts from the putrid reporting of the disaster by the mainstream media.

From the moment Katrina made landfall the media focused on anything that could redound to the detriment of President Bush or inflame race and class tensions. Reporters and commentators ignored the dismal performance of New Orleans’ Democratic mayor and Louisiana’s Democratic governor, blaming every problem that arose on the Bush administration.

Racial demagogues accused Bush and his administration of reacting slowly because most of the victims were black. Environmental activists said Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty caused Katrina’s severity. Democratic operatives said the administration’s decision to cut funding for a long-term study of flood control caused the levees to breach.

All of this is stuff and nonsense. The tragedy is that the media know it too, but they still printed it.

I think most reasonable people understand the broad outlines of the truth. A just-released CNN/Gallup poll showed that 13 percent of Americans think President Bush is at fault in the way the disaster has been handled, 18 percent think it was other federal officials, 25 percent fault state and local officials, and 38 percent believe that officials at all levels are doing their best to cope with an unprecedented natural disaster. Furthermore, 63 percent do not believe that any federal official responsible for emergencies should be fired.

The poll also showed that the constant drumbeat of criticism directed at the President from the media and some Democratic politicians has had the intended result. Forty-two percent considered the President's performance in the disaster to be bad or terrible, and 35 percent thought it was good or great. This, before the facts are known, based on little more than media reporting and attacks from Democrats.

After the investigations, it will be clear that many reporters and editors performed in a grossly irresponsible and unprofessional manner. As Ham said,

Polls show that, unlike the media, the public does not blame Bush for the hurricane, the rioting, the looting, the stranded pets, the drowning deaths or the levee breaks. That means that the public doesn’t believe what the media are reporting. That’s the real gathering storm.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-08T07:29:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Global Warming and Hurricanes

2005-09-07T06:30:00.000-05:00

Perhaps one of the silliest criticisms leveled against President Bush and his Administration has to do with global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. Now we see some of the usual suspects using Hurricane Katrina as a further basis for that criticism.

The UN-based Kyoto Protocol, signed by Vice President Gore in 1998, was not submitted to the Senate because the Clinton Administration knew it would never be ratified. This was obvious because a resolution against it, sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), passed the Senate 95-0.

The reason the Senate opposed it, and would do so again if it was sent up for ratification, is because it's disadvantageous to the U.S. and would damage the U.S. economy. The Clinton-Gore Administration earned credit with their environmentalist constituency by signing it, even though they knew it would never go anywhere. It has served a purpose, though, as a weapon some use to bash Bush, illustrating their wacky view that he hates the environment.

It's gotten to the point that some extremists now blame just about everything bad that happens in the world, including Hurricane Katrina, at least partly on global warming. And, of course, President Bush is responsible for global warming because he (like his predecessor) hasn't submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate.

While there's scientific debate about global warming, it undoubtedly exists and is a problem. However, the extent of the problem, its effects, its causes, and practical policy responses are less clear. Even The New York Times published an article stating:

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

However, information like this won't be enough to defuse attacks against President Bush regarding the Kyoto Protocol and global warming in terms of the causes of hurricanes. After all, for some people ideology trumps facts every time.

The New York Times also published an interesting article comparing the severity and cost of past hurricanes that have hit the U.S.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Roberts and Religion

2005-09-05T11:02:00.000-05:00

I wrote in a comment to Catholics and Abortion that in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, his Catholic faith

...may be handled gently by some, but the issue of his Catholicism and his stance on abortion will be the single most important issue in his confirmation hearings.

The Washington Post published an article today that stated,

The degree to which Roberts' religious beliefs may inform his judicial philosophy could be a significant line of questioning....

The issue for both sides is not so much what Roberts believes is right or wrong. Rather, it is the degree to which he believes religious morality may be permitted to influence public policy. Liberals believe in a firewall between church and state, but as Christian conservatives see it, the Supreme Court should allow elected officials to restrict abortions or permit a Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on public property, if those actions have voter support. ...

Democrats who push too hard could deepen a growing impression that they are secular elitists. According to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 29 percent believe the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion, and 44 percent believe secular liberals have too much sway in the party.

I can't think of a single credible case in which a Catholic public official has been accused of permitting the dictates of Rome to override the national interest on public policy issues. Aside from my philosophical interest in the conflicts that bedevil Catholics who try to reconcile Church authority with contrary personal beliefs, I have no concern that any public official would compromise his/her duty because of his/her religious beliefs.

No nominee or candidate should be examined on personal religious convictions. That's a very slippery slope that verges on violating the Constitution, which says "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI, Clause 3). Politicians of both parties, and particularly Democrats, would be well-advised to steer clear of the issue of religion when examining Roberts.

The President has just announced that John Roberts is now his nominee to be Chief Justice, following the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. That's not likely to make much difference in the confirmation process for Roberts. However, the President must now nominate someone else for the Supreme Court, creating a rare circumstance in which two nominations are under consideration at the same time. I'm sure political junkies are ecstatic.

On a final note, the Washington Post article linked above is labeled as "analysis," and it has a decided slant. That's fine, as long as it isn't presented as "news." However, I couldn't help reflecting on the somewhat disparaging comment that "Christian conservatives" believe that in matters of public policy "the Supreme Court should allow elected officials" to act in areas of public policy "if those actions have voter support." That line speaks volumes about the anti-democratic strain in leftist thinking, not to mention regrettable ignorance about how our constitutional system of government is supposed to function.