Libertarian Leanings

And the response from the Democrats - pathetic

The President's State of the Union address was an upbeat statement of his convictions and a promise of his determination to stay the course.  Of our progress in the war on terror he had this to say.

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come.

We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom. (Applause.)

Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine had the honor, or the misfortune, of responding to the President's address.  In his response, the Honorable Governor went straight to the second-guessing to offer criticism that sounded quite pathetic, really.

We now know that the American people were given inaccurate information about the reasons for invading Iraq. We now know that our troops in Iraq were not given the best body armor or the best intelligence. We now know that the Administration wants to cut tens of thousands of troops from the Army Reserves and National Guardat the very time America is facing new and dangerous threats. And we now knowthe Administration wants to further reduce military and veterans' benefits.

There's a better way.

He repeated that phrase, "there's a better way," throughout his speech as if he needed to convince himself.  Then he finished it off with a weak threat.

If we want to replace the division that grips our nation's capital, we need a change. Democrats are leading that reform effort, working to restore honesty and openness to our government, working to replace a culture of partisanship and cronyism with an ethic of service and results.

Our greatest need is for America to heal its partisan wounds and become one people.  You know, those are the words Thomas Jefferson wrote after being elected President. They ring as true today as they did in 1800. Tonight we pray, earnestly and humbly, for that healing, and for the day when service returns again as the better way to a new national politics.

Doesn't it sound almost like blackmail?  Is he promising that Democrats will continue their partisan attacks and their tantrums until the American people wise up and vote them back in power?  And when a Democrat resides in the White House we can "become one people" again?  Is that the message?

The President was inspiring while the Governor was pathetic.  The President expressed his confidence that the American people would, as always, rise to the occasion.  The Governor urged the American people to tally up their misfortunes and injuries and to demand a government that would take care of them.  Pathetic.

(Emphasis above in bold is mine.)

Cloture campaigning

Yesterday was a day for Democratic presidential hopefuls to burnish their credentials with the extreme left.  For Democrats, the popular formula for winning the presidency calls for seekers to campaign on the far left through the primary season.  That's where a candidate has to go for the money and the votes if there's any hope of capturing enough convention delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.  With the nomination in hand the presidential candidate will then tone down the rhetoric for the general election campaign, and fight his way back to the center.  Without support from the center there's no hope of getting the votes to win a general election.

Yesterday's vote on the Motion to Invoke Cloture and end the debate on Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, is a signal that Democratic primary campaign season is under way.  Among the Democrats voting against were the early front runners.  A vote for filibuster was a calculated bid for support from the extreme left.  Votes were counted.  Everybody knew a filibuster wouldn't stand.  Presidential hopefuls were free to vote their "consciences" without the fear that their votes might trigger the nuclear option.

Only Democrats voted against cloture, including several potential Democratic 2008 presidential hopefuls, such as Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).

“Many on my side oppose this nomination. They say they understand the threat [Alito] poses, but they argue that cloture is different. I don’t believe it is,” Kerry said in a floor statement. “It is the only way we can fully complete our constitutional duty of advice and consent. It is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage to our country.”

Only on the radical left can the confirmation of an accomplished mainstream jurist be considered certain to cause "irreversible damage to our country."  So the intrepid Democrats stood tall against fantasies of irreversible damage, stood tall with assurances from the Kos Kids, "...we'll their backs on the next one too."

And tomorrow, when the sting of today's disappointment has lost some of its edge, thank those who stood with us. We told them we'd have their backs. Let them know it, and let them know we'll have their backs on the next one, too. The list is below...

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D-DE)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Jeffords, James M. (I-VT)
Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA)
Kerry, John F. (D-MA)
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D-NJ)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Levin, Carl (D-MI)
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Obama, Barack (D-IL)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

Intrepid Democrats stood tall for political calculation.

Update:  The vote is in.  Alito is confirmed 58 to 42.  More commentary at JustOneMinute.

Update II:  Power Line sums up the result this way:

The vote changes the "rules" for confirming Supreme Court Justices. Under the Alito rule, Senators will vote against highly qualified nominee for no reason other than that they expect the nominee to rule contrary to their preference on major issues. Under the Alito rule, the president's party, in effect, must control the Senate in order for the president to have top-notch nominees of his choice confirmed. When the the president's party doesn't control the Senate, only compromise nominees acceptable to both parties can expect to be confirmed.

It was objectionable for the Democrats to have changed an understanding of the Senate's "advise and consent" role that has worked reasonably well for 200 years, or so. The new approach will probably produce more mediocre Justices, selected not for their intellect, fairness, or other judging skills...

Emphasis in bold is mine.

Alito confirmation vote expected tomorrow

The Kerry-Kennedy filibuster came up well short of the 41 votes needed to stall the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

On a 72-25 vote, senators succeeded in passing the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster and allow a simple majority vote Tuesday. Nineteen Democrats joined Republicans to end debate, though many of them oppose Alito's nomination. At least 57 senators have said publicly they will vote for the nominee.

Gee I wish I were smart

Paul Craig Roberts has it all figured out.  Americans are stupid.

And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer!

What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?

By "secular moderates" he means Yasser Afafat and Saddam Hussein.  Oh to be blessed with a mind like Paul Craig Roberts. 

Via Maggie's Farm.

Carnival of the Clueless #31

Rick Moran's weekly Carnival of the Clueless is up at Right Wing Nut House.

OK, where's the real BBC?

In a column shockingly uncharacteristic of BBC News, Justin Webb confesses to a favorable opinion of George W. Bush.

In a BBC radio programme a few weeks ago, I defended the Bush White House; pointing out that the president's Christian conservative base had successfully pressed for real engagement to combat the many tribulations of life in Africa.

I also said that, after the Asian tsunami, the Bush team had given aid more promptly and more generously than some other players on the world stage, including some much closer to the scene of the disaster.I also said that, after the Asian tsunami, the Bush team had given aid more promptly and more generously than some other players on the world stage, including some much closer to the scene of the disaster.

The response was furious and instructive. From all around the British Isles, Bush-haters wrote in.

I had crossed a line in the sand: it is acceptable to defend the US to snooty Europeans (well, almost) but never to show any sympathy for the "toxic Texan" and his sinister doings.

Yet as the world prepares to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions it seems to me that an unprejudiced view of where the president is coming from, of what he has in store, is more important than ever.

He says he loves us all and he says he loves freedom - believes in its power, its civilising influence.

Is he fooling us? Will he bin this boyish enthusiasm for free votes when the going gets tough?

I think not. This is a man capable of seizing new ideas. A man who knows what it is like to maintain a course in spite of temptations along the way.

Via Tim Blair.

Strategist Biden

Biden will vote for filibuster one time to continue the debate, he said on Sunday.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he, too, would support the filibuster attempt but agreed that it was not particularly wise.

"I think a filibuster make sense when you have a prospect of actually succeeding," Biden said on CNN's "Late Edition." "I will vote one time to say to continue the debate. but the truth of the matter" is that Alito will be confirmed, he said.

He'd like to deprive the President of Judge Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court until after the State of the Union address.  We should find out later today if the Biden bid is successful.  I suspect not, since it could trigger the nuclear option, and I doubt Biden would take that chance.  He won't vote for delay unless he is certain the vote will fall short. 

BOMS

Come see bloggers preen at The Best of Me Symphony.  It's at Owner's Manual.

The Democrat Exemption

CNN showed a clip of Senator Harry Reid from couple of days ago as he launched a pre-emptive strike on the Bush State of the Union speech scheduled for this Tuesday at 9:00pm.  He called for the President to come clean.

"In his 2000 campaign, George Bush promised to bring 'dignity' to the White House, but we've since found that he brought Jack Abramoff instead," said Reid, D-Nevada. He spoke at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, in remarks previewing Democratic criticism of the presidential speech on January 31.

"President Bush needs to quit stonewalling about his White House's connection to corruption, and finally tell us how he's going to reform Washington," Reid said.

Speaking of connections to corruption, AP reported back in November that several lawmakers went to bat for Abramoff's Native American clients, whose appreciation was expressed in material ways.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, that also was signed by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004...

Congressional ethics rules require lawmakers to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in performing their official duties and accepting political money.

There must be a Democrat exemption to those Congressional ethics rules.  How else would Reid be permitted to raise funds in this manner?  Or maybe he's convinced that Democrats are incapable of corruption, therefore the appearance of it is logically impossible in his case. 

This comes in a roundabout way from Daily Kos and A.J. Strata.

The Libby trial

Last week Clarice Feldman left a comment on American Thinker that sums up why the Scooter Libby trial is likely to turn out to be such fun.

As I have observed, the Special Prosecutor, constrained by the DoJ regulations on questioning reporters about their sources and by his felt need to do so, conducted a perfectly ridiculous inquiry in which reporters who quite obviously had prior independent knowledge of Valerie Plame’s identity were never asked about that knowledge of the source(s) of it, as Fitzgerald accused Libby of being the person who started the rumors of her employment.

Bob Woodward’s voluntary acknowledgement of independent knowledge well before any conversation by Libby cited in the indictment was further evidence of this fact.

Today Libby’s lawyers filed a motion which (a) will establish the half-baked nature of the investigation and (b) his right to independently question the media about matters which Fitzgerald should have, but failed to inquire, to make the investigation a fair one.

Lurking in the dim recesses of my mind is the suspicion that Fitzgerald knew exactly what he was doing.  What better way to put the press on trial.