Acknowledge Some Bad Things, Ignore Others

June 7 Editorial

This past week, The People's Republic of China celebrated the 20th anniversary of brutally suppressing a movement of the people by purchasing Hummer.

Danny Schechter ran an interesting letter from an individual by the name of Ann Lau a few days ago on the Tiananmen Square anniversary topic, and I think it is interesting:

The blood of Tiananmen became a salvation for the people in Eastern Europe. For on July 7, 1989, in the Romanian capital of Bucharest, Gorbachev signaled to the Eastern bloc leaders that the Soviet Union would not use force to interfere with reform. Aware of worldwide condemnation of the PRC, Gorbachev did not want another Tiananmen massacre.

Just as the Tiananmen students began by asking for an end to corruption, the demonstrators in East Germany asked for the freedom to travel. The Tiananmen students showed the world the power of peaceful demonstration and the citizens of the Eastern bloc took notice. By November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.

We remember the dream, we remember the hope, we remember that time in the Spring of 1989 when the Chinese people, led by the students gave each other a gift, the gift of freedom, the freedom from fear.

May the memories of Tiananmen Spring live and will one day flourish.

- - -

Would The Oklahoman ever concede that it was anything beyond Ronald Reagan blinking an eyelash that could have been a factor in something like this? I doubt it quite sincerely.

So anyway, today the lovers of human rights also known as The Editorial Staff of The Oklahoman are talking about how "...Pretending Tiananmen Square didn’t occur is a reminder that true freedom — the freedom for people to disagree with their government — still is withheld from billions of Chinese by leaders accountable only to themselves."

As I wrote yesterday, people in Israel are standing up to Avigdor Lieberman and the other small handful of radicals in Israel proposing laws to criminalize people who commemorate the Nakba. It is serious business, and exactly the kind of thing the Editorial staff discusses in this piece. However to this date they haven't mentioned this subject. I can only assume that either they agree with the racist Lieberman and his small circle of friends, or that they are too stupid to even know this is going on over there.

There are other things like this, for example Turkey's refusal to admit to the genocide of the Armenian's in WWI. They pretend it didn't happen which is certainly ironic in that the man who coined the term "Genocide", Raphael Lemkin initially took interest in these things and became an amazing lifetime activist because of what Turkey did (read Samantha Power's excellent book "Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" for more). The Oklahoman Editorial staff from a quick search does not talk about that either.

The Editors also write, ignoring things they've supported in recent years (The invasion and occupation of Iraq, the re-writing of their perfectly servicable constitution so their industries could be handed over to multi-nationals comes immediatley to mind) "...The (PRC) government says the violence was necessary to maintain social order, which paved the way for market-oriented policies that turned China into an economic dynamo." When we do it, it's no big deal. When they do, big problems.

But it shouldn't surprise anyone that they are willing to discuss China's disgraceful response to their crimes while ignoring many others. Remember, this is a paper that wont publish anyone left of Sally Kern's letter to the editor all the while publishing hundreds from Ronald Bouwman.

Today's Cartoon

Media Matters has a good commentary on the
Fox-manufactured Obama "apology tour"

Can The Oklahoman write or run anything that is an original idea, even if it is a bunch of crap?

What Wouldn't Brandon Dutcher Do?

June 5 Commentary

I have discussed this chap Brandon Dutcher a few times in previous blogs. He is a nice fellow who works at the local Heritage Foundation spin-off "The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs". He is always ranting and raving about school's here being overly-funded and teachers being paid too much, all the while for drawing a $82,500 salary (more than Amy Goodman makes at DemocracyNow!) for doing little more than "tweeting" and attending a few elegant dinner parties.

The Oklahoman turns to him frequently, when they need to prove that schools here need to be handed over to Wal-Mart and Jerry Falwell, as every opinion he gives is so fantastic and while not backed by facts, well, we all know what his hero said about those things... "Facts are stupid....I mean...stubborn things.."

I have been known to rant and rave about the "Paid to think by the makers of tanks" 501c(3) crowd, and to be honest I probably am a bit jealous of them . It must be nice to get paid to get paid big bucks to do this stuff that really is about 1/100th as hard as working at the store, fixing cars, waiting tables and so on, positions that are paid a fraction and with no benefits. And although the not for profit industrial complex (critiuqed quite nicely in the book "The Revolution Will Not Be Funded") is way too large and in many ways is there to preserve the status-quo, some good things are being done.

I would like to point out this article in Ha'aretz today, and encourage you to read some of the responses from Israeli's and American Jews, which are almost all positive. I post this because The Oklahoman Editorial staff pretends to know things about Israel, yet I am quite convinced that is was people like them who led Israel into it's first defeat in a couple thousand years in '06 (read about the massive lobbies from radical-right "Christian groups" who demanded their reps support an Israeli attack on Lebanon...stuff from Hagee et al if you like).

The piece "Are teachers introducing Nakba to students against state's wishes?" By Or Kashti discusses the good work of "... Zochrot, a non-government organization, and is meant to serve the Jewish educational system for pupils aged 15 and above, and includes history plus literary and personal views on the Nakba, as well as discussion of the ways the issue has been sidelined in public discourse."

This is very important stuff. You might have heard of a bill proposed by the radical Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that bans commemorating the Nakba, and will jail those who participate in events commemorating it up to three years. It has passed the initial stages and will be decided quite soon, luckily though good people like Zochrot are fighting the good fight.

I don't think anyone here would argue that The Trail of Tears should not be discussed in American schools, and this is no different. These are the things a good paper should occasionally discuss. And these are the things monied, influential people like Dutcher should look into if they really care about Israel, and if they really care about good education. We need a good paper. Maybe some day we will have one.

You Can't Just Make This Stuff Up, Guys!

June 5 Editorial

In Today's editorial, "Obama opens the dialogue; Muslim world must answer" the typical "We hate this guy, and wouldn't mind if someone knocked him off..." (kind of like this guy I saw at the Tea Party at the Oklahoma State Capitol)

...attitude is presented. However, the writers do establish that Obama's speech (which they mentioned of course in yesterday's editorial "...was formatted for his teleprompter weeks ago". Important to note the teleprompter! Big points from the dear leaders on the far right that want you to reiterate that as often as possible!) was not really all that terrible.

One thing though that they point out was quite wrong for him to say was that "...Obama touted democracy but added 'no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other' — a straw-man argument since that was never U.S. policy."

Are you kidding me?

Whoever wrote this either does not know their history, or is giving us straight propaganda to try and make it appear if Obama is some kind of rotten liar. And there are countless examples out there of The U.S intervening in other countries, in numerous ways to try and impose systems of governance.

A recent example would no doubt be Iraq. Why did we force them to re-write their perfectly servicable constitution, especially at a time of war (We weren't even able to get ours out for ten years after we declared our independance)?

Naomi Klein points out on this issue:

The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq’s constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized ; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories ; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".

There are countless other examples (Russia, Chile', Iran etc...), and a good place to look to understand these things would be her excellent book "The Shock Doctrine". I don't expect the writers at The Oklahoman to look into the facts on this issue, but I think people who read this paper should.

We're a Big League City Finally! We've Made National News!

June 4 commentary

The running of the Sotomayor cartoon has gotten the editorial page folks some attention. Sadly, there are much more serious wrong-doings on their part that go unnoticed.

CNN

MSNBC

Update: Gawker has a feature Today: New York Falling Behind in Racist Cartoon Race

The Oklahoman, a newspaper in, we think, Wyoming, published this bizarre racist cartoon about Sonia Sotomayor. We can't believe they beat Sean Delonas!

The New York Post's resident bigot funnyman has not drawn even one amusing caricature of Sotomayor. She is Hispanic, Sean! This should be a no-brainer! Is he at his desk staring at one depiction of her serving Swine Flu-laden tacos and another of her in a maid's uniform, paralyzed with indecision? Is he unable to draw a sombrero? Is he just upset that Obama didn't pick a homosexual? Who knows! But we are disappointed.

Also, an AP article is out and appears on the NY Times website.
Dallas Morning News Blog
Hispanic Business Press
Washington Post
Daily Kos
Editor and Publisher
The Daily Voice
Celebrity News Examiner
The Huffington Post
etc...

Empathy In The Bush Years

June 3 Commentary

It should be obvious to the casual observer the past few days, regarding Sotomayor coverage, that The Oklahoman editorial staff has been paying attention to the dear leaders of the far right (Rove, Armey, Limbaugh et. al.) more than usual.

In a fine piece entitled "Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy", George Lakoff explains quite clearly why the individuals from whom The Oklahoman Editorial staff get "their ideas" are saying what they are saying, and doing the things they are doing.

Before I get into the things Lakoff discusses in the article, I would like to share a blurb from an Oklahoma Editorial written right after the Iowa Primaries, when Mike Huckabee and President Obama won.

See change: Obama, Huckabee ride possibility politics
Published: January 6, 2008

"...Huckabee also defeated a better-funded opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Huckabee's message of change was based on empathy for the concerns of real Americans — economic and cultural — which he communicated artfully. Voters liked Huck." and then the writers conclude, quite interestingly "Huckabee found a formula for big victories that others ignore at their own expense. They connected with voters on a different level, sensing something not satisfied by conventional themes or policy proposals."


Now to the Lakoff article. In the piece he states a number of things that make it quite clear why we are seeing this attack on the issue of "empathy" from the far right. Here are a few I will point out, and if you would like to read the whole article I have included a link up top.

"(the form of empathy Obama tries to embrace gives) ...a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works...Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of 'justice.' It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation."

Lakoff goes on to write, agreeing with what The Oklahoman editors claimed was the reasons Iowan's chose Mike Huckabee "...President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful?" It is interesting that the editors spoke of Huckabee and his empathy, and how those he defeated "...ignore at their own expense". Now they are treating Obama in a manner that placing importance on empathy should be something that will cost him.

Before I go on, I want to address something that is quite an issue to The Oklahoman. I have pointed out they quite often play the "We are a Republic! Not a Democracy!" card many times, and always when it favors them (however they point to popular polls when it is an issue they side with quite regularly). The CIA World Factbook notes that our type of Government is: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition. For those who might cringe when they read that Obama discusses things like the "basis of our democracy", they might consider whether or not they want to be like Pelosi and assume the CIA is giving us bad information.

Lakoff continues laying out his case that the far right is creating myths by portraying Obama's selection by reframing empathy to make it attackable by portraying it as "emotion and personal feeling" rather than his preferred "real empathy" which is the basis for what we should be as a functioning Republic (with a strong democratic tradition).

A case for empathy based on emotion and personal feeling, in my opinion, is one that the editors wanted France to embrace during the run-up to wars in Afghanastan and Iraq. War is a very serious thing, and not to be decided by people who rely on feelings. Pretty much anyone can tell you that, however, one would not know it by reading this December 17, 2001 piece:

Those Fickle French: Aid to Accused Terrorist Not Surprising
(article only available in archives)

In this editorial, the staff writes about "....France’s announcement that it would offer legal help to accused terrorist (French citizen of Moroccan birth) Zacarias Moussaoui (as we did with Timothy McVeigh)" and go on to explain how this action makes them feel how "... Frankly, we expect nothing less from France."

Continuing, the writers put themselves in a bind by saying "... Now, with the gesture toward Moussaoui and whispered concerns about the use of military tribunals in limited cases, France is showing once again that its empathy for America is somewhat fickle."

Now, we all know what has happened in the seven-plus years since this was written. Decisions to go into two wars (we will not win), and assuming that we will do well and others will back us based on emotion and personal feeling, is not a good thing. It is now perfectly clear that France made proper decisions, putting aside an immature form of empathy (the one the right so much wants to convince us Obama is after) and doing the right things.

Furthermore, an interesting article by William Pfaff entitled "As Smash-and-Grab Capitalism Collapses, the French Economy Shines" shows why the far right wants to make it appear as if Obama/Sotomayor are individuals who will make poor decisions, and bring about bad things for us:

“French household debt is half that in America, no bank has failed, none has been nationalized, executive pay is reasonable, and “the income gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent is far smaller than in Britain or America.” The country is crisscrossed by 230-mph TGV trains, 80 percent of the power is nuclear (and more is exported), its auto producers are in reasonably good shape, Air France is the most profitable airline in the world, and French-dominated Airbus sells more planes than Boeing.”


Lakoff makes an interesting statement regarding another reason the far-right is playing this game. He writes "...In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the 'liberal elite' as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need." He brings up how dear leaders like Newt Gingrich are playing the race card with Sotomayor and explains this is because the charge "...has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics. "

Politics are complex things, however if we embrace the reality that we are the freest country in the world, and that part of the freedom includes increadible access to facts and history, not just access to delicious taco salads 24/7, we can understand these things quite well. In a January 21, 2008 editorial, we read:

Public affair : 10 years later, Lewinsky scandal echoes

The writers confirm that things can be complicated by starting off their piece with "...The reverberations are still felt, a number of questions it raised (are) still unanswered." The piece is centered on Hillary and her campaign for the Presidency, and the write that she is where she is at that time due to the fact that "...The scandal arguably launched Hillary Clinton's solo political career, the wronged wife winning a Senate seat in 2000. Her fortunes can still see-saw on the Lewinsky scandal — empathy for the betrayal she suffered; suspicion that she, blaming the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' was an enabler."

Note how they believe the dear leaders of the far-right and their ways, parlayed with empathy were the foundation for her rise. For the first time they tell us irrational empathy is bad, but fail to explain that perhaps a real "vast right-wing conspiracy" did exist, one that kept Bill in office despite his heinous crime, lying under oath (obviously a crime worse than the brutal Iraq sanctions, doing away with Glass-Stegal, pardoning Rich without blinking an eyelash in the general direction of Peltier, etc...), for had they Gore would more than likely have an easier go at it in 2000. But that is just a side-note here, what is important to note that psuedo-empathy brought someone like Hillary to power. Someone The Oklahoman likes less than Huckabee and this fancy CEO:

Finding empathy the hard way, By Rick Hudson
Published August 27, 2004

In this piece written by The CEO of R.L. Hudson & Co., a Tulsa-based supplier of seals and molded goods, Hudson tells his story of how his company "..recently built our new headquarters in Broken Arrow..." and during the course of the building they "...learned that all of the restrooms in the building had to accommodate people with disabilities. The washbasins could not be installed in cabinets; they had to be open and wheelchair accessible. And there were other considerations, such as a required elevator if we added upper floors. It involved a lot of extra cost."

This is relevant because Hudson was once a man who was a "...conservative businessman, and normally like as little government interference in my life as possible. I was suspicious about the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), not because I’m against people with disabilities but because I’m afraid of the frivolous lawsuits and outright fraud that accompany far-reaching government programs."

He goes on to discuss having an accident, and seeing what it is like to be disabled for some time. Hudson essentially states that he is pleased the Supreme Court has shown sensible empathy to disabled folks (not irrational empathy that allows a man with a limp to bomb Afghani wedding parties to take out his anger at his plight), as is evident in the cases listed here. It is hard to imagine a piece like this being run in The Oklahoman at this time.


Concluding, Lakoff states that "...the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain." and continue "...They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country (Folks like Dick Armey who spent increadible amounts of money, and explained this by saying "to the victor goes the spoils"). Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again." and he states what people who think this is wrong should do about all of this.

I will conclude with one more Bush era, pro "emotion and personal feeling" empathy pieces. And it is one many of the readers The Oklahoman preys upon consider important, and that is our relationship with Israel.

Shoulder to Shoulder: A Wounded Israel Needs U.S. Help

(article only available in archives 12.17.01)

I have written a few things about The Oklahoman's foolish opinions regarding this topic. If we assess their self-proclaimed "Friend of Israel" status, and see what results have come from people like these guys having a voice, we can learn something. One of which is quite obvious that like the dear leaders on the far-right, the gospels are something they know very little about.

In the late '01 editorial, the typical things are stated. They mention 9-11 a few times and truly awful things like a "..new terrorist suicide bombing attacks that left at least 26 Israelis dead in Jerusalem and Haifa over the weekend..." and conclude with "...Yes, how well we understand now. With new empathy, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with its friend Israel against terrorism — while demanding that Yasser Arafat declare his final loyalty. "

The Editor's cheered for emotional based empathy in dealing with Israel and it's issues and they got it. For those of us who know our recent history, in 2004 we decided the UN was not such a bad thing, and authored Resolution 1559 that required the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon. Two years later this gave Israel strong encouragement to go into the only war they have lost in a couple thousand years. The emotional, feeling-based empathy embraced by the Bush Administration and nice guys like John Hagee, Joel "Shining a light on the thief in the night" Rosenberg and all of the dear leaders was no doubt something, if embraced by Obama and Sotomayor, that would not a good thing.

It would be good if The Oklahoman could present more evidence on the subject of their rants, however all we have is a game from these people that says Obama and Sotomayor possess a harmful type of empathy rather than the real type needed for good governance. The evidence is quite clear that everything they accuse Obama and Sotomeyer of possibly being, they embraced during the Bush years. I do not think that I need to point out to you that this is wrong.

Just When You Thought They Couldn't Get Any Worse

June 2 Editorial Cartoon

Amazing. The Oklahoman is such a lovely, Christian paper isn't it? I could make some pretty good cartoons about this slob, but I wont.

Oklahoman Editorial Writer J.E McReynolds (405) 475-3469 jmcreynolds@oklahoman.com

Surprise! The Oklahoman Is Not Being Fair/Balanced With Sotomayor!

June 1 Cartoon

The Oklahoman has started it's war on Sotomayor today with this infantile cartoon. It is no mystery that they are doing this, as it is no mystery that they will offer totally unbalanced coverage of the coming conformation.

For fun, lets look back at their coverage of Alito last go 'round. The paper ran five staff editorials during the run up, and all the typical elements of Oklahoman editorials are there. Hypocrisy, plagiarism, little detail to truth, etc.... :

1.8.06 Asking Alito : Qualifications should be hearings’ focus


WHEN U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, it will launch perhaps the most contentious confirmation battle on Capitol Hill since Robert Bork’s in 1987.
For those who don’t remember, the Bork confirmation became a donnybrook. Nominated by President Reagan, the former solicitor general’s outspoken conservatism was savaged by liberal special interest groups, and ultimately he was rejected by the Senate.
Conservatives have since been spoiling for a high-stakes showdown over judicial philosophy, and
they may get it with Sam Alito.
Since President Bush nominated Alito to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in October, much has been made of Alito’s rulings as a federal appellate court judge and his positions as a young member of the Reagan administration.
Unlike new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Alito has an extensive judicial paper trail from 15 years on the bench (compared with Roberts’ three). During the past two months, that record has been mined by some of the same groups that torpedoed Bork. Unlike the Roberts confirmation, opponents of judicial conservatism are planning a spirited fight against Alito.
Part of it is Alito’s length of judicial service, part of it is the politics of succeeding O’Connor. Whereas Roberts was seen as a conservative replacing another conservative (late Chief Justice William Rehnquist), Alito is seen as more conservative than O’Connor, who frequently was the high court’s swing vote in key cases. As a result, liberal groups have been saying that Alito would turn back the clock on women’s rights and civil rights. They’ve claimed he would endanger civil liberties because he has written about the need for a strong executive branch in our system of government.
Our sense is Judge Alito is a brilliant but careful jurist — in the sense he respects the Constitution’s original intent and is disinclined to turn it inside out looking for new rights. Last week he received the American Bar Association’s highest recommendation, “well-qualified,” the same as Chief Justice Roberts.
Alito has had a distinguished career and has demonstrated he would professionally interpret the law. Starting with Monday’s hearings, the Senate should examine his qualifications and judicial temperament, not positions on litmus-test issues.
That way the process, however tough, will remain fair.

1.12.06 Nothing personal : Alito displays deft touch in exchange

ASHORT exchange on the first day of questioning for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by the Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted a key philosophical divide over the proper role of judges in America.
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., tried Tuesday to shake the nominee from his position that judges should be neutral arbiters of the law. Kohl was present last fall during confirmation hearings for new Chief Justice John Roberts, when Roberts likened judges to baseball umpires calling balls and strikes.
Kohl suggested to Alito that judicial interpreters of the Constitution can’t always be as neutral or detached as Roberts said. He said a number of landmark decisions by the court to protect civil liberties resulted because judges would “look beyond rigid legal doctrines that prevailed at the times of those rulings.”
The senator said the cases wouldn’t have come out the way they did if judges remained neutral, and he asked Alito to agree with him that certain pivotal cases require judges who will apply a “more expansive, imaginative view of the Constitution.”
One reason we think Judge Alito will be a good Supreme Court justice is that he rejects the view judges may use their imaginations to divine one thing or another from the Constitution. That’s judicial activism, pure and simple, usually seen in judges acting as legislators at the state and federal level.
Alito politely batted away Kohl’s argument, saying judges must be wary of substituting their views and policy judgments for the Constitution’s. While judges may identify principles under the Constitution’s broader provisions, he said that’s not the same thing as judges injecting their personal opinions on the “direction in which society should be moving into the decisionmaking process.”
The task of legislating is the realm of elected representatives. Judges should stick to the job of measuring legislation against the Constitution. If confirmed, Alito would help keep the two branches of government working in their appropriate roles.

1.13.6 Unruffled : Smear efforts don’t faze Alito

SENATE Judiciary Committee Democrats may yet manage to seriously rough up U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. But if the petty, smearing stuff they tried during his confirmation hearings is the worst they can do, then Alito is well on his way to joining the high court.
Alito proved himself intellectually sharp and personally humble while sparring with some of the committee’s Democrats during questioning, which ended Thursday. The nominee, rightfully so, consistently refused to be lured into discussing his views on key issues that might come before him as a justice, such as abortion.
On Wednesday this drew Democrats’ ire — even though Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by President Clinton, set the modern standard for unresponsiveness to questions about potential cases.
So some tried sliming Alito, suggesting his nominal membership in an oddball Princeton alumni group from 20 years ago makes him a racist and a misogynist. They accused Alito of always ruling against “the little guy” as an appellate court judge, even though several cases suggest otherwise.
The grilling and smearing eventually got to the judge’s wife, Martha. At one point she left the hearing room in tears — a vivid illustration of the toll the modern, no-holds-barred confirmation process can take on nominees and their families.
Alito remained unruffled. As apparently is his nature, the bookish judge calmly disavowed association with the Princeton group and its views and said he would keep an open mind.
Although the hearings were both nasty and dull, what emerged was that Samuel Alito has the brains, legal experience and judicial temperament to be a fine Supreme Court justice. That he can weather political assaults on his character is just more evidence he’s the right man for the court.

1.14.06 Foolish risk : Alito deserves up-or-down vote

IT’S GOOD to hear California Democrat Dianne Feinstein discounting the likelihood Samuel Alito’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination will be filibustered on the Senate floor. Still, after confirmation hearings last week established Alito’s intellect, legal expertise, judicial temperament and overall suitability for the highest court in the land, some Democrats weren’t ready to give up the fight.
Over the weekend New York’s Charles Schumer still talked as if there were more to learn about someone with a 15-year record as a federal appellate judge who’d just undergone a weeklong grilling. Schumer wouldn’t rule out a filibuster to block Alito’s nomination indefinitely.
We realize Schumer and others are being pressured by liberal interest groups to fight tooth and nail to defeat Alito. But enough is enough. Judge Alito’s mainstream conservatism isn’t cause for denying him an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
Democratic moderates sense this, as does Feinstein. Although she disagrees with Alito on a number of issues, Feinstein said Sunday such disagreement isn’t a reason to keep him off the court by any means available, including a filibuster.
Filibustering Alito would go well beyond the Senate’s constitutional role of advising and consenting on judicial nominations. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was right when he said a filibuster would be an attempt to hijack the last presidential election — won by President Bush after campaign promises to nominate conservatives to the judiciary.
If they filibuster a nominee with Alito’s credentials, Senate Democrats will trigger a backlash, with Americans seeing a well-qualified candidate blocked by a partisan gimmick. They also would invite Republicans to use the same tactics with the next Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president.
The message Sunday from Feinstein is that it would be foolish for Democrats to risk both by trying to block someone as qualified as Samuel Alito.

1.27.06 Bloc party : Alito deserves better from Democrats

THE WAY some Democrats have behaved toward U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, we suppose Alito should feel lucky his nomination probably won’t be filibustered on the Senate floor. Thank goodness for small favors!
Seriously, it’s to the Senate’s shame this well-qualified jurist and good man probably will be confirmed with not much better than a party-line vote.
There was a time when the Senate rose above a nominee’s perceived liberalism or conservatism and based its consent on his or her legal intellect, judicial temperament and general capacity to serve as a justice on the highest court in the land. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by President Clinton in 1993, won confirmation with 96 votes and no hint of a filibuster. Same thing the following year, when Clinton put forward Stephen Breyer and he was confirmed with 89 votes.
Alito’s thanks — for a distinguished career as a judge, federal prosecutor and government attorney — was a scrawny 10-8 party-line vote this week in the Judiciary Committee. Observers think he’ll be fortunate to get 60 votes from the full Senate. That’s more than enough for confirmation, but Alito deserves better.
The start of floor debate suggested party talking points and not clear, independent thinking are guiding too many senators. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Alito “has voted to narrow (abortion rights), to restrict the rights that Americans hold dear.” Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski said Alito favors big business and the executive branch of government more than everyday Americans.
How unfortunate that opponents smear and distort trying to turn an honorable man into a caricature they can attack.
Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Alito has a “respect for judicial restraint, an aversion to political agendas on the bench and a commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.” That used to be more than enough to win broad, bipartisan support from the Senate. Sadly, no more.