website of the day

WithdawMiers.org check out the list of the supporters, a who's who of the conservative players, including 9 GOP senators.

Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Sam Brownback
Senator Trent Lott
Senator George Allen
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator Jeff Sessions
Senator Tom Coburn
Senator David Vitter
Senator John Ensign

Lets see, two of these are on the judicary committee 2+8 Democrats= 10-8 loss in committee. Ed Kilgore sees this as the place to watch any signs of a trend.

This could be Fitzmas eve.

no more distractions left

The bush folks are really off their game. I mean when you have one more distraction left, why spend it on a sleepy Monday when you could save it for two days to ruin Fitzmas? I guess that would be obviously crass, but these are the same folks that distracted us from other problems with John Roberts, a faked Q & A with soldiers, Harriet Miers, etc. Distract and dump are their two favorite political curealls for bad news.

I guess the idea is to have a weeks worth of praise of the new Fed Chair selection. But I think the fact that he is so uncontroversal is just another sign that Bush is weak and such unamimous support means there isn't much for the press to talk about. The press loves to gossip and ponder about what Fitzmas might bring? Rove's head on stick? Scotter's too? Even Cheney's? Oh and the press love to talk about staff shuffles, it is about the only thing they can over well...just ask any one of the 8 Democrats who ran for president.

"Look! Over there!" just isn't going to work anymore. And there aren't enough Fridays left to catch the press and public napping.

Photo of the week

This is the version most people haven't seen yet. via Slate

the Miers the merrier

It seems like Harriet can't do anything right these days. The questionniare she filled out pissed off a broad spectrum of Senate Judiciary Committee members. If that wasn't bad enough, election law scholars tore her up over the only mention of constitutional analysis in regards to the Voting Right Act. Then the Post piled on with a quote from Cass Sunstein.

With Turd Blossom and Scooter in the Fitz's crosshairs, it seems like the White House in incable of pulling itself out of this nosedive. I am trying to plan events at the law school about Harriet Miers, but it looks increasingly probable that she will never face the Judiciary Committee. It is sad when you try to distract people from bad news, and then you piss off your only supporters, while making you overall less popular with the people that didn't really like you that much anyway. Sadder still when you stage another phony event with the troops, but get caught. It is like Ameteur month a the White House.

I am going to make some popcorn, this is going to be fun to watch.

deport colbert report

Thanks to comcast's dvr, I can watch TV anytime I want and without commericals. So I was all excited last night to catch monday's premier of the Colbert Report, especially after hearing all the buzz from the NYTimes way back when and a snippet on Kos.

Boy was I dissipointed. Enough of the ernest, egomanicial, faux-Fox News man! The only time I laughed was when Colbert had a gravitas match against Stone Phillips...and it was more the words they said than anything else. Stephen Colbert was extremely funny on the Daily Show, and left you wanting more. This one left me wanting less, back to the good old days of his crazy commentary or funny interviews followed by "Jon?"

Give me Stephen vs. Stephen (Carrell v. Colbert), that was a fabulous segment. And ROb Cordry is doing an amazing job of stepping up his game in Colbert's absense. I just hope they don't ruin him too by giving Rob his own show. I know Comedy Central has nothing beyond these shows, talking puppets, and "the man show" (which is a shaddow of its former self now that the main attraction has his own late night show on ABC), but come on!

whither public financing?

I was talking yesterday to a GOPer who is a lawyer (amoung other things) at a firm in DC that prepresents McCain and Romney. He told me that his advice to those 2008 campaigns was not to take public financing in the primaries.

This tells us two things, first that McCain and Romney really are planning on running (not exactly a newsflash) but also that the public finacing system is falling apart. It is a real shame that serious candidates like George Bush, Howard Dean, and John Kerry opted out while joke candidates like LaRouche and Sharpton took our tax dollars. Well those of us who checked the box, and I always have.

Here is a simiple solution to patch it up: anyone who has been convicted or indicted of a felony cannot recieve public financing money. The point of the that money was to a) limit spending b) get candidates to focus on issues, not fundraising and c) give an equal chance for unknowns to win it on issues alone, and not have it be a money race.

Thanks to Dean's use of the internet vis vis his competitors, he was able to emerge out of obscurity into the front runner in 2003 even without public money. But that won't repeat itself, especially when there are other internet savvy competitors like Clark (Edwards is trying out podcasts and blogging too). I think keeping the money out of the jokester's hands will go a long way to helping maintain the system. Because right now, "only losers take public financing."

By the way, it is Republicans in congress that are talking about getting rid of the presidential fund box altogether, but I think that will make things only worse, not better. As a Democrat, I don't want to have to pick a John Kerry just because he can self-finance via his wife. As a Republican, I wouldn't want to pick a Forbes or analogous person just because they are rich or friends of the rich. This way I could pick someone who better fits my values and where I stand on issues, without worrying if they will have enough cash to compete.

All the president's friends

Isn't it funny that two key choices in Bush's political life, he turned to the trusted person who was supposed to be vetting the candidates for him? Dick Cheney, remember, headed up the VP pick selection committee. For Miers, at least she was modest enough to not suggester herself like Cheney sorta did. Rather, it was Andy Card, according to the Journal. Card, that old GM lobbyist, pushed for Miers the whole time and got her underling--who had only been at the job for a short while--to vet her behind her (and everyone else's) back.

Sure enough, the results were self-interested and shoddy. Maybe the B team is indeed operating the White House these days, even that Karl and Scooter have themselves to worry about. If this is true, than it wasn't Laura that pushed this pick like I thought but Andy Card, who has taken a pretty low profile in the past 5 years until recently. Or maybe this is Rove's sliming of Card, who has been taking heat for all the bad things happening to Bush these days.

Maybe the White House is canibalizing itself and seting its own hounds on the "B-team." This is what happens when you don't listen to anyone outside the walls of the White House, the insiders becomes the only critic that can really destroy you.

Laura comes out swinging (with help)

Thought my conservatives-are-sexists charge was over the top? What if First Lady Laura Bush says it on the Today Show? Of course, she only said that it's "possible" not fact like I claimed. But how about Eddie Gillespie, once RNC chair and one of the President's top men on the Sumpreme Court vetting team? Ed "raised the sexism issue in a private meeting with conservatives last week, participants said, prompting hot denials that caused Gillespie to say he was speaking generally, not referring to anyone in the room. Since then, other Republican backers of the nominee have raised the possibility that Miers's sex is causing her to be judged by a harsher standard."

Of course, that didn't sit too well with conservatives, who don't like to be called out. "It is striking to me they are spending less time explaining the merits of Harriet Miers and more time . . . using liberal talking points to criticize the critics," William Kristol of the Weekly Standard said. "I think it is going to backfire." Did I just hear Kristol say that the White House is using Liberal talking points? The only worse epithet he could have used against Bush was to say he was acting Clintonian. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review's blog (another super conservative rag) echoed Kristol's sentiments, calling the sexism charge as "horribly disappointing and the sort of thing I normally expect from left-wingers."

This food fight just keeps getting better and better. Appearantly GOP Judiciary staffers are rebelling as well.

"Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact," a lawyer to a Republican committee member said.

It sounds like they don't want Bush's Senate henchmen to go after them, but Colburn and Brownback's staff are pissed.

"You could say there is pretty much uniform disappointment with the nomination at the staff level," another Republican on the committee staff said. "It is clear there is quite a bit of skepticism, and even some flashes of hostility." Another Republican aide close to the committee said, "I don't know a staffer who approves of this nomination, anywhere. Most of it is outright hostility throughout the Judiciary Committee staff." ...
"I think those staffers, like anybody else, have a right to their opinions and to express them," [Specter] said. "Senators will make independent judgments. You have some pretty strong staffers on the committee, but you have got some stronger senators."

Maybe it is Specter's staffers after all, as Ed Kilgore thinks. "Maybe the White House's well-known injunctions to Specter to get along better with conservatives are producing some unintended and ironic consequences." quoth Ed.

The plot thickens.

Merkle Christmas

Germans love to call their governing coalition by their colors: Red and Blue for SPD and CDU/CSU. Previously there was a Christmas coaliton: SPD and the Greens. Some were hoping for a stoplight coalition: SPD, Greens, and FDP (yellow liberals). But the FDP said no to that. Instead, it ended up being a Blue Red one. I don't know a color analogy for this grand coalition.

The whole thing was quite interesting to me as a German-speaker and fan of the country and the people. Personally, I think their social welfare net was almost too good. I met people that weren't in any hurry to get jobs since they were still earning most of the money they was before. Unemployment in the East has been stuck at high levels for about 15 years now and Schroeder clearly couldn't solve the problems.

Schroeder staged an amazing comeback for sure, but his claim that he got to be chancelor still was incredible and fell through. One wonders what will happen to him and why in the world he decieded to push for the election in the first place.

Miers than meets the eye

Today before I went to church, I had the chance to watch a bit of movement conservative Sen. Sam Brownback "vs." Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. Schumer said nothing that interesting or innovative, except adopting a blogger line that James Dobson should testify before the committee about what he knows about Miers. The real news was what Brownback said, since he and Sen. Tom Colburn could conceivably vote against Miers in the judiciary committee and seriously embarrass the president. Brownback and the social conservatives that he represents are pissed not just because they weren't consulted but because they wanted a fight over Abortion and Gay Marriage and other issues. They believe that America will be on their side. Personally, I would enjoy watching them go down in flames, especially Sen. Colburn who cried crocodile tears about the divisiveness that is tearing this country apart at Roberts' hearings (when he wasn't filling out his crossword puzzle).

But another thing that really gets the conservatives upset is that Laura Bush picked this nominee. They both went to SMU, I don't know if their times were contemporaneous. But Laura has always been distrusted despite coming from a true Southern family, and not a Yankee aristocratic one like Bush. In social circles, Miers knew Laura before she helped Dubya keep his duck blind. Miers has been loyal to the Bush family, but not to the movement of conservatism. Conservatives have been waiting for this moment, believing the country is ready to go backwards on every conceivable social progress of the 1960s and 1970s.

Interestingly, conservatism is not some generational thing like Gay marriage is. People of all ages firmly believe that abortion (and sometimes even the Pill) is murder.

But does the fact that Miers is Laura's pick say something about the sexism of the conservative movement? Most social conservatives come from male dominated religions. It was the sexual revolution more than the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s that conservatives still fight against. Maybe some don't like integration secretly, but they don't feel nearly as comfortable sharing it as they do condemning the sexual conduct or perceived conduct of women and gay men. Straight men can have as much sex as they want how they want it, although conservatives would prefer it be only with his wife. At least that is how it seems given the scandals of the televangelists.

There is more going on here than a fight over who gets consulted, it is about who gets to make the choice, and who really has the power. That is what irked them about the Clintons the most, that Bill was perfectly happy to let Hillary be his equal, or even superior.

Harriet Hearsay

My dad talked to a lawyer friend of his in Dallas about Ms. Miers. Appearantly this friend knows Miers quite well, having gone to high school with her and practiced law in the same town as her.

The word? Miers is VERY conservative, VERY smart, and she will charm the crap out of the judiciary committee.

If this is true, the whole line of "she is unqualified," or "she is Souter II" is just a lie. Conservatives are upset that they weren't consulted, and that an obviously religious right-winger wasn't chosen. But they forget that they are in the minority in America. Most Americans favor the right to privacy, including the ability to have control over their bodies. Most Americans favor Social Security, Medicare, rebuilding New Orleans, and environmental protection. Yet Harriet probabbly is against all of these things.

James Dobson, whose vote is more important to push than Sen. Sam Brownback's, got the inside peak on Miers and was pleased with the choice. Sounds like my Dad's friend in Dallas is right.

movement conservatives and Miers

Americablog is doing some of the best coverage out there on Harriet Miers. They were the first to release this questionnaire [I linked to TIME magazine because they can afford the bandwidth] and have been putting together the pieces of Miers' purposely vacant legal history.

It seems she supported increased AIDS funding and equal civil rights for gay and lesbains in 1989 in Dallas, TX, not exactly the most popular time and place to do so. [Note, she did support the criminalization of gay male sex, which was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas] Maybe Conservatives have a reason to freak out. Afterall, gay marriage and gay men especially are one of their biggest pet peeves. Is this questionniare genuine? I am sure some Senator will ask her about it now.

As the folks on Americablog point out, movement conservatives have been waiting for this moment--2 supreme court vacancies-- since Roe they want God "back" in the class room, evolution out our schools, gays out of society, Abortion criminalized, Death Penalty strengthened so that mental disabled and minors can be executed again, etc. And Bush's response was to put up a very highly qualified but mysteriously blank and vague chief justice John Roberts, and now a not so qualified and not so mysteriously blank and vague associate justice.

The only thing we know for sure about Meirs is that she, like Condi, will defend Bush to her death. I feel like if Condi had a law degree, he would have appointed her. After all, she is smart, African-American, a woman, and loyal to a pyschopathic extent.

Folks on the Dianne Reims show today were wondering if either liberals or conservatives were faking each other out with their initial reactions to Miers' nomination. After reading this questionnaire, I think there is no fake out here. Unless of course, this fax is as doctored as those Texas Air National Guard ones that cost Dan Rather his chair.

Fun fact, Miers handed Bush the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." memo and briefed him on it:


Funny, shouldn't the intelligence services have done that and not a staff secretary? I guess everyone was on vacation.

Killing her with Kindness?

have democrats stumbled (and the key word here is stumbled) onto a great strategy to defeat Miers? It seems that by having Senate Democrats come out and praise a woman whose only job qualifications are that Bush thought she did a great job on a duck hunting cabin case before he was governor of Texas has sent conservatives scrambling.

Maybe she is Souter II, or maybe she is Scalia II. We have no clue because she has never been a judge and her only policy driven legal writings were when she was Bush's WH counsel since 2004, when Alberto Gonzales left for the AG's office. But conservatives were expecting someone with a clear history of opposing Roes and a host of other conservative bugaboos (like ten commandments etc.) Bush knows he couldn't get such a nominee past the Senate without doing a Fillabuster showdown of epic purportions.

And it seems that the man whom Miers called the most brilliant man she knows realized that with his polling in the high-30s to low-40s, he had no capital to spend. However, the reaction from conservatives has been much more negative than liberals. Kos is hoping she is a Souter, while conservatives are crying cronyism. In my opinion, that ship sailed long, long ago fellows.

Instapundit, the leading conservative legal blogger has the round up:

UPDATE: More here. Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mark Daniels: "Another stealth nominee?"

GayPatriot has predictions.

Paul Deignan: "Harriet Miers is many things, but she is not a Constitutional scholar . . . She is an unknown and unproven functionary whose chief virtue is the one virtue that we must reject--a strong tie to a particular chief executive."

Baseball Crank: "Color me less than thrilled."

PoliPundit: "Miers is a cipher."

The ACLJ, however,loves her.

Rich Lowry: "After the Roberts pick conservatives swooned and said Bush doesn't care about 'diversity'; it's only high qualifications that matter to this bold, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may leader, etc., etc. Don't we have to take all that back now?"

David Frum: "An unforced error. . . . nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States."

MORE: GayPatriot's predictions are already coming true!

Meanwhile, Thomas Lifson thinks that this is a brilliant sucker-punch thrown at the Democrats. But even if that's true, that doesn't make Miers a good pick. In fact, if I really thought that this pick was motivated by such tactical concerns, I'd be appalled, but I think that Lifson is being a bit too clever here. [LATER: Further googling has convinced Lifson that he's wrong. Good!]

John Hawkins: "George Bush's decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing." Not that there's anything wrong with having supported Al Gore in 1988 . . . .

What troubles the social conservatives is the fear that Miers may not be a social conservative. That doesn't bother me, of course. But I don't see what she brings to the table. Granted, you could have said that about other Supreme Court picks who turned out to be great justices. But you could have said that about a lot of other Supreme Court picks who didn't turn out to be great justices, too.

Meanwhile, this won't comfort social conservatives, but it doesn't comfort me, either:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress.

Hmm. (Via Jon Henke, who rounds up lots of other interesting stuff). More on Reid and Miers here.

AnkleBitingPundits (formerly CrushKerry.com): "Ugh. This is what we fought for?"

Bush may have managed a Perfect Storm here. Democrats will still want to beat him on Miers, because they always want to beat him. Republicans may be happy to see her go down, too. So who, exactly, is going to get her confirmed? Harry Reid?

STILL MORE: Hugh Hewitt: "It is a solid, B+ pick.. . . The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him. So should his supporters."

The Anchoress thinks it's rope-a-dope.

Social conservative Professor Bainbridge is deeply unhappy with Miers. Does that mean I should be happy?

Ed Morrissey: "I find this pick mystifying."

Meanwhile, the GOP just sent out this collection of endorsements -- and number 3 is Harry Reid. I smell some sort of a deal.

Maybe Reid is a genius, maybe the keeping the powder dry strategy worked. I think the real strategy was just to sit back and hope that the GOP destroys itself. It only took 12 years, but it seems to be working.

Delay is under indictment and sounding biter that he got dropped by his collegues; Frist is under investigation for a Martha Stewart-like move; Bush and Cheney's top political advisors are the chief suspects in a criminal investigation; and then there is the Iraq debacle and the Katrina debacle. Someone in Biden's and Liberman's offices are working up a plan to snatch defeat from the jaws of almost assured victory, I am sure.

Bush heart Abramhoff

Think the White House has distanced themselves from Jack "indicted" Abrahoff? Think again, Casino Jack has struck again in the wake of Katrina, even when a Bush appointee, whom used to work for both Abrahoff and US Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT) was put in charge of post-Katrina procurement.

If that weren't enough added insult to injury, Bush's reconstruction plan will give tax credits to these same casinos that Jack used to work for (as he privately insulted his Native American bosses in a racist fashion). Even the casino's can't figure out why they have it so good. "We're actually scratching our heads. We can't ever remember an instance of being offered a tax credit -- ever." said Alberto Lopez, director of strategic communication at Harrah's Entertainment Inc., which lost two major casinos on the Mississippi coast. "But just because the casinos did not ask for the investment write-off doesn't mean they won't take it. "Anything that the federal government can provide, obviously we'll take advantage of it," the official said."

Everything that should be ecnomic development and rebuilding the Gulf coast is seen in as a possible handout to special interest, regardless of what is good policy. According to the Washington Post, Democrats and Republicans alike in congress are upset by "Federal Emergency Management Agency's $5 billion effort to purchase 300,000 trailers and mobile homes, despite record-low apartment occupancy rates in the states just beyond Katrina's reach."

Big government Conservatism

Faced with a humanitarian crisis mostly of his own making, last night President Bush offered the same solution he has given to every other problem: throw lots of money at it. The amazing thing is, Republicans used to be the party of fiscal conservatism, and Democrats the party of tax and spend.

Then Clinton ran on (thanks to Perot) fiscal conservatism, and balancing the budget. That was so early 1990s. Nowadays, Bush can't spend fast enough. Hundreds of Billions every month are spent on Iraq, and the security situation has hardly improved. I haven't heard much about the water supply or electricity or schools or oil, but if you can't go outside without worrying if you are going to be blown up, what's the use in all those things?

Bush has never vetoed a single bill let alone a spending bill. Spending has increased dramatically since the halyclon days of the Republican Revolution of 1994. Sure 9/11 greatly effected spending, but tax cuts and the Iraq war were both voluntary and a big chunk of that. Don't forget the massive farm and transportation bills, so stuffed with pork that it puts the gigante burrito I ate the other night to shame (but at least I got a free desert for finishing it, where is US's free desert). Same goes for the energy bill and the prescription drug bill, more corporate welfare for hundreds of billions.

And the Federal government under the GOP feels just fine in spending this money to tell people not to smoke medicinal mary jane, even if your state says it is ok, or to clothe Justice, or to keep emergency contraception behind the counter (despite its own medical panel saying otherwise), or trying to keep alive a brain dead woman, or to prevent research on human blastocysts to prevent diseases. In short, the GOP government is happy to step into your home, your bedroom and tell you what you can and cannot do.

Oh and don't forget the tax cuts for the rich during an elective and non-elective war, gotta have those.

What happened to the Libertarian Republicans of old? Who didn't try to bribe various voting blocs into supporting them? Who wanted to make government as small and unobtrusive as possible? What happened to those Republicans that wanted to balance the budget and get rid of departments, instead of creating new ones?

They only surfaced when Katrina's price tag game in, and Rove decided the best way out of the political mess was to exponentially increase it. "They will for get our screwups when our political allies have contracts to clean the mess up," thought Karl. Cronyism abound, but that is not what spooked the GOP congressmen, it was the price tag. And not the amount, but that the largess wouldn't extend to their districts and states. They are fine with boondoggles that take money from blue states and redistribute it to red states, but heaven forbid that everyone pay for one ravaged area.

It seems they misunderstand the purpose of government. It is not a tool to give money and jobs to your cronies, or to reelect you, but rather, it is a system by which society demonstrates its values through actions. Americans have said that we value the hard work of our elders, and would be happy to make sure they have adequate health care and income in their later years. Americans have said that poor children shouldn't go hungry at school. Americans have said that children shouldn't go uninsured just because their parents can't afford it. Americans have said that discrimination, whether by race, religion, or physical impairment should go punished no matter if the offender is a person, corporation, or state. Americans have reached out with our blood dollars, clothes, food, and homes to those effected by Katrina. We all want to help. We don't want to segregate those who have survived, we don't want to slash their wages while they try to repair their homes. And we certainly don't want people to make profits off of all this suffering, especially when their only claim to this profit is that they were roommates of some guy who is a big donor to the President.

Photo of the day

courtesy of Wonkette



This is a note from President Bush, to Secretary Rice during a UN meeting. I hope he had to get one of those keys they give you at gas stations with a brick attached.

My question for Roberts if I was on the Committee

Senator Oldenburg: Judge Roberts, why am I here? Why are you here?

Roberts: Senator, I don't understand your question.

Oldenburg: Well, franking Judge Roberts, I don't understand your answers, or should I say non-answers. Why are we wasting our time here if you feel free to take the 5th and only answer questions that are politically safe?

Roberts: If you feel that this is a waste of time Senator, we should just have the vote now.

[chuckles in the room]

Oldenburg: You wrote the book on giving evasive answers and non-answers, yet your scant record contains lots of troubling issues. You dismiss them by pretending they aren't your opinions but then feel free to pretend your politically beneficial work does reflect your views, which is it? Why don't you feel compelled to explain if and how your views have changed in the last 20 years?

Roberts: Senator, I don't feel it is appropriate to comment on cases that might come before the court.

Oldenburg: And you are the arbitor of what might or might not come before the court? it seems like every "live" issue you fail to discuss with us happens to be one which are politically sensitive to say the least.

Roberts: My job here is to...

Oldenburg: and my job here is to advise the president on whether his nominee is proper for a lifetime appointment to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And you are being supremely unhelpful to put it kindly. Our job as Senators is not to rubber stamp this president's nominee, but to thoughfully consider you and give the president our advice on what to do with you. That's what President Washington did. That's what President Clinton did. Why is it so difficult for you answer our questions?

Roberts: I feel compelled to prevent what I say here from prejudicing the outcome of future cases.

Oldenburg: Assuming we confirm you. Look, I am tired of the this Kabuki theater. We all know what is going on here, you have the votes to be confirmed, but maybe not to get out of committee if Senator Spector here grows a conscience. I will tell you right now Judge Roberts, I intend not to vote for you. I don't need to pretend to ask you tough questions and you don't need to pretend to answer them any more. I give up.

NYC dems are a joke

How can you out number the other party somehwere approaching 75-25 and still repeatedly lose the mayoral race and the governorship? New York City Democratic Party will show you how. It is a mix of race-baiting by folks like Al Sharpton, late and divisive primaries, terrible candidates, and moderate to liberal NY Republicans.

The Congressmen from the city and environs are more concerned with lining their campaign coffers and their district than helping get a majority in the House. The local office holders are happy to be corrupt or to make a GOPer look good as long as it makes their primary rivals look bad.

Yesterday, the NYC dems had their primary for November's mayoral election (that's right, the second week of September) and the guy who was the losing nominee for past two or three times barely got 40% if at all. The local congressman who was running has been pressured to concede, even if he can't by law. So their might be a fake run off. Meanwhile billioniare Mike Bloomberg is willing to spend or do whatever it takes to win (after all, he used to be Democrat, but didn't want to go through the primary and kiss the rings of folks like Al Sharpton) re-election.

It looks like Democrats will finally recapture the Governor's office, seemingly the first time since Rockafeller. Of course, it takes a TIME magazine Man of the Year. If only the Utah Republican Party was so inept, Democrats would have the governor and maybe two congressional seats.

Questioning Roberts

I had the idea that the law school might be interested in watching the confrimation hearings of Judge Roberts, so I asked to reserve a room and broadcast CSPAN off the internet. Yesterday, I had 10-15 people. Now today, when there are actual questions by voting members of the committe, I only have 7. I think it is because of all the techical difficulties I had yesterday.

But still how can only 7 students care about the next potential chief justice of the sumpreme court, who will in all likelihood sit as chief for the next 30-40 years.

As sad as that is, even sadder is the softball questions of every republican save the chairman of the committee. I wish partisanship would not trump senators pursuit of their rights as members of the senate. Demanding that the burden be on the 8 democrats and not on Roberts, demanding that his resume and the appointment alone is enough to confirm him.

Roberts seems to be giving a Constitutional Law lecture for several hours now. He sounds like a conversative con law professor. He is wailing against Kennedy's use of foreign law in such cases like Rooper. He is obviously extremely smart, but I don't know if he is in the mainstream. But I am tired of the "questions" that really are compliments.

Utah, Katrina, and Racism

I am happy to report that my summer clerk friend and Tulane Law student Ethan will be in two classes with me as a visiting student at the law school here. It is good to hear that he is alright and will only be 3 weeks behind the rest of us.

Other evacuees in Utah are not stationed in as nice a place as their parents' house in Sugarhouse. A few hundred or dozen folks have been placed at Camp Williams, a desolate camp near point of the mountain. That's right, near the Utah state prison. Another fun fact is that as far as I can tell, they are all African-Americans. Is it a coincidence, I doubt it. If something like this hit Orange County, I fee the response would be totally different

For many, it was the first time seeing mountains and it will be the first time seeing snow if they are stuck here that long. Some will stay here, either because they are LDS and see it as a sign, or because they have nothing left and no where to go. I am sure they are greatful to be out of the flood waters and not stranded on a freeway overpass, or trapped in the Superdome or Astrodome or Convention Center. However, if I read one more feel good piece about how they all love it here in Utah, I am going to tear up the newspaper. Many don't know where their family members are. It seems officials have done a good job of late of finding hospitals and other places to take care of all these overwhelmingly poor, overwhelming Black survivors of Katrina, but they have done a piss-poor job of writing down WHERE they are sending WHOM.

People's family's will be separated for far too long because of incompetance. In this day and age of the Internet, how can it be that people can't find out where their grandmother is?

Of course, the media coverage has taken a turn for the worse, because now they just paste in whatever a "unnamed senior white house official" told them, regardless of facts and they can't even get into the city under Presidential order. This is pure damage control, shifting the blame onto state and local officials who were overwhelmed by the disaster from Federal officials who shouldn't have been.

The Bush White House is good at one thing and one thing only: campaigning. Everything else they do is squeezed into their campaign mindset. Every piece of legislation is a campaign platform, promise or spin. Every time the president speaks, every where he goes, it is a staged photo-op. Who cares that the national guardsmen are needed to save lives, the firemen to put out burning homes and businesses, the president has to look like he is in charge.

There is no accountibilty for these people except for elections, and in case you forgot, they won in 2004 and can't run again. So there is no incentive to do anything but cover their own butts with sham investigations and blame shifting. This is the second time in 4 years that people died because of their campaigning instead of governing. And this one had much, much more warning.