It's all I can say about this. I've told people that I read the Maryland Democrats' website far more than the GOP's because it's more entertaining, although maybe I'm the kind that watches NASCAR for the 20 car pileups too.
Actually, I'm not really a NASCAR fan, which may surprise those like "crallspace" who associate me with the hayseed hicks who have the pickup with the full gun rack, the Confererate flag plate in the front, and the pinch between the cheek and gum - Wal-Mart shoppers all. (For the record, I have a Saturn sedan, the standard Maryland plate in front, and I don't smoke or chew tobacco. But I do shop at Wal-Mart weekly.)
Without further ado, here are my sources of entertainment and mirth for the day, both DNC press releases:
In the wake of last Friday's indictment of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, the Democratic National Committee unveiled a new web video to remind President Bush of the standard that he himself set for conduct in his administration. DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement calling on President Bush to apologize for his Administration's actions, fire Karl Rove, and adhere to the ethical standards he professed during his campaign:
"Given the serious nature of the charges against Scooter Libby, and the significant questions that remain regarding the actions of Karl Rove and the White House Iraq Group, President Bush should take responsibility for this lapse in conduct. He should start with an apology to the American people for those in his Administration who acted on his behalf to manipulate intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq, smear opponents of that war, and cover up that smear campaign. President Bush must also keep his promise to fire anyone involved in the outing of Valerie Wilson by terminating Karl Rove and anyone else in the White House Iraq Group who participated in this conspiracy.
"During his campaign for president, Bush promised to hold himself and his aides to the highest ethical standards, promising to 'put conscience above what the lawyers tell us.' But, in handling the most serious national security decisions, the Bush White House has dramatically failed to meet the standard they set. Despite hosting numerous White House photo-ops vowing to uphold the highest ethical standards, the Bush White House has blatantly compromised our moral code by placing its political agenda ahead of America's national security. America deserves better than empty rhetoric and meaningless photo-ops. The President must hold himself and his administration accountable."
Hey, it's not the nature of the evidence in the indictment, it's the seriousness of the charge!
I'd like to see President Bush fire Robert Novak, as well as Vanity Fair-posing Joseph Wilson, and the members of the partisan media who called it "common knowledge" that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA agent (but not a covert one.) Oh yeah, guess he's not a dictator. And it's really interesting how you in the Democrat party change your tune regarding the Iraqi threat from 1998 or even 2003 to now.
Finally, since Karl Rove has not been indicted or even shown to be an unindicted co-conspirator, where's the reason to fire him? The only indictment I see is Libby's, and he resigned. So, do you apologize to Libby if he's found innocent of all charges?
Tell me again, besides the indicted Libby (indictment not necessarily meaning guilt,) who in the Bush administration has resigned due to criminality? I know, there's 15 other indictments out there, right?
Finally, has anyone definitively disproven the British intelligence on yellowcake in Niger, or that there are NO (zip, zero, nada) WMD's in Iraq? And did anyone take back the UN resolutions that dealt with Saddam?
So many questions, so few answers, so much rhetoric. That brings me to part two:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:
"President Bush shouldn't try to use the nomination of an extreme conservative to distract from the ethical problems his White House is facing. Three days after a top White House official was indicted, President Bush continued his troubling pattern of playing to his right-wing political base in times of political trouble. In an indication of his weakened political position, Bush has nominated Samuel Alito, a conservative activist judge, to replace Justice O' Connor, who has been a voice of moderation on the Court for a generation.
"A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of short-term political gain. President Bush's nomination of Alito is not leadership, it is capitulation.
"Alito's record suggests an activist judicial philosophy bent on rolling back the rights and freedoms that all Americans value. Alito has sought to limit the rights of women and people with disabilities in discrimination cases, demonstrated an open hostility to women's privacy rights even in basic reproductive health matters, has a record of hostility toward immigrants, and tried to immunize employers from employment discrimination cases. It is particularly troubling that President Bush would nominate a judge who would reverse American progress and make the Supreme Court look less like America on the same day that most Americans are honoring the life and legacy of Rosa Parks.
"Now, as Alito goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he must demonstrate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice who uses his position on the highest court in the land to protect and advance the fundamental rights and personal freedoms of all Americans. Alito must prove that he is not a captive of the radical right-wing, and the White House must provide the Senate with all the information it needs to thoroughly evaluate Alito's nomination."
Well....since there weren't any aspirin factories handy, I guess Bush just had to nominate a constructionist to the Supreme Court to divert the public's attention from these so-called ethics problems that no one outside the Beltway cares about except extreme political junkies like myself. Now, that last president managed to invent a whole new word for oral sex, so I think that the nation may have been paying rapt attention to that one.
Hey Howard, Alito IS a voice of moderation. It's only a Democrat who can see someone who reads the Constitution as written as an extremist. The rest of us like the idea of a set of rules that doesn't change with the whim of a judge who may have woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided parents aren't the final authority on sex education.
The money phrase in all this comes at the end. It's up to the White House to provide the Senate with all the information it needs to evaluate Alito? I think all the Democrats need to do is get off their lazy asses and read his opinions. Do they use case law and relevant Constitutional precedent to state his reasoning for his rulings? Check. Then he should be confirmed forthwith before Justice O'Connor loses her husband - that was her reason for resigning.
She's already waited long enough. I don't understand why Alito has to wait for January, they could get him in by Thanksgiving if Arlen Specter showed any cajones. He was raring to go on Harriet Miers. Oh yeah, he's one of those RINO moderates, balls optional.
Interestingly enough, I got an e-mail back from Senator Sarbanes' office today regarding the Alito nomination. Thought I kept a copy of my original e-mail, but it's in the mist someplace. Basically, I noted that Alito was confirmed by Sen. Sarbanes as part of unanimous voice vote in 1990, so no reason not to now. His office wrote back:
Dear Mr. Swartz:
Thank you for contacting me to express your views about the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments regarding Judge Alito.
As I am sure you are aware, the Constitution grants the President the authority to nominate and, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," appoint Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stands at the head of the judiciary, the third independent and coequal branch of our Government. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution and protect our individual liberties guaranteed by, among other things, the Bill of Rights. The decisions made by the Supreme Court impact every American, and as a United States Senator I must carefully evaluate a nominee's experience, integrity, and intellectual responsibilities when the full Senate considers a judicial nomination.
President Bush announced the nomination of Judge Alito on October 31, 2005. The nomination has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which will hold public hearings on Judge Alito's nomination. Although I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind if Judge Alito's nomination comes before the full Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for taking the time to express your views to me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with regard to this or other matters that may be of concern to you.
In the future please visit my web site at http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than clicking reply.
With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator
Yeah, it was boilerplate. And if I thought you'd listen to me on other matters that would concern me, I'd write more often. I'll lay odds right now that he's a "no" vote.
Somehow I don't think I would have been a really welcome guest at your fundraiser/farewell dinner. But I did appreciate the fast reply.
I thought I sent a similar e-mail to Senator Mikulski as well but it may have gone into the vapors of cyberspace, or else she's going to ignore me.
And while I'm on the subject of ignorance, when are the Democrats going to come out with a vision of the future instead of rehashing the 2000 and 2004 elections? I thought Dean would be a little more forward-looking but all he seems to do is bash a President (and Vice-President) that are finished with their political careers after January 2009.
Meanwhile, they obstruct things that would be good for America like Social Security reform, spending cuts/tax relief, and thoughtful jurists who would enhance the courts and embrace the original intent of the Founders insofar as possible in this day and age of profligate government.
