It would be a grand thing indeed if you folks got your noggins around what constitutes the differences between a "smear" and a relevant indication of political bias or questionable connections.
For example, should I go back and find what you two have written about Ronnie Earl?
And then we could research to find out whether he has "labored as a (dem) fundraiser, organizer and activist".
If so, it would be clearly relevant, would it not?
thankee, JW...there it is on TownHall. What a surprise.
thankee, JW...there it is on TownHall. What a surprise.
blatham wrote:It would be a grand thing indeed if you folks got your noggins around what constitutes the differences between a "smear" and a relevant indication of political bias or questionable connections.
Oh, I understand the difference: If we do it it's a "smear," but if you do it it's "a relevant indication of political bias or questionable connections."
Quote:For example, should I go back and find what you two have written about Ronnie Earl?
Please do.
Quote:And then we could research to find out whether he has "labored as a (dem) fundraiser, organizer and activist".
As a matter of fact, he did fundraising for the Democrats. Using his DeLay prosecution to sell the tickets, too.
Quote:If so, it would be clearly relevant, would it not?
To me, it was relevant because he was stumping for the democrats and talking about how he was going to take down DeLay. What was most relevant about Earle was his conduct and the things he said, not his past political affiliations.
blatham wrote:thankee, JW...there it is on TownHall. What a surprise.
Tell you what. When salon.com decides to examine the Clinton administration's covering up a coverup (and the politicalization of the IRS, no less), I'll be sure to use them as a source.
How's that for a deal?
In the meantime, I'm writing to my congressman that we just may need a "leak" of those redacted pages. Inquiring minds want to know...even if Congress does not.
In a different context or under other circumstances, I'm quite sure I'd like you guys and would enjoy spending time with you and tossing ideas back and forth - on faith, on governance, on compassion and suffering, on football. That's sincere, not a rhetorical deception. But I don't like you now. I am deeply angry and dismayed at the moral and intellectual positions your partisan or nationalist loyalties have led you to.
You accept, with almost no reflection, nearly anything and everything this adminstration you support tells you from the small details to the large "mottos".
Abramoff was an "equal money dispenser", said Bush. It was a lie. You bought it, or at least excused it. How many more such inaccuracies and deceptions have I seen you swallow and parrot?
"They want to destroy our way of life and Western Civilization", says Cheney. You guys suck that in and it gives you meaning and purpose even while that consequence from that cause is so nearly impossible as to be laughable. There are how many of these guys on camels with rifles? The combination of Germany, Italy and Japan - highly technically and militarily advanced nations with millions of trained soldiers and huge military machines didn't pose the threat described above, though they posed something real but much smaller. In fact, it is our modern culture and militarism which poses that threat to the cultures of the desert arabs. Perhaps it ought to, but at least you should get the whole picture right side up in your thinking.
You argue that the media doesn't tell the good news about the war. But the media has been almost completely sterile and devoid of the realities of this war. Have any of you seen even a single picture of a blown apart innocent Iraqi child? Have any of you heard them screaming for the two days it took for their burned bodies to expire? I don't want to witness this either, but we should be forced to witness exactly this.
You justify and excuse torture, though you define what has happened as something else even when if your parents of siblings suffered these acts, you would consider it nothing other than inhuman. Or you justify it as necessary and think "turn the other cheeck" and "let him who has no sin throw the first stone" are notions as quaint as the international rules on torture. Do you imagine Christ committing such acts? Do you imagine Christ condoning such acts? Do you imagine Christ dropping a cluster bomb?
Quote:
And then we could research to find out whether he has "labored as a (dem) fundraiser, organizer and activist".
As a matter of fact, he did fundraising for the Democrats. Using his DeLay prosecution to sell the tickets, too.
Quote:
If so, it would be clearly relevant, would it not?
To me, it was relevant because he was stumping for the democrats and talking about how he was going to take down DeLay. What was most relevant about Earle was his conduct and the things he said, not his past political affiliations.
In a different context or under other circumstances, I'm quite sure I'd like you guys and would enjoy spending time with you and tossing ideas back and forth - on faith, on governance, on compassion and suffering, on football. That's sincere, not a rhetorical deception. But I don't like you now. I am deeply angry and dismayed at the moral and intellectual positions your partisan or nationalist loyalties have led you to.
Quote:Quote:
And then we could research to find out whether he has "labored as a (dem) fundraiser, organizer and activist".
As a matter of fact, he did fundraising for the Democrats. Using his DeLay prosecution to sell the tickets, too.
Quote:
If so, it would be clearly relevant, would it not?
To me, it was relevant because he was stumping for the democrats and talking about how he was going to take down DeLay. What was most relevant about Earle was his conduct and the things he said, not his past political affiliations.
Where you have the facts right here, it would be relevant. Where are your facts noted or documented?
blatham wrote:thankee, JW...there it is on TownHall. What a surprise.
Tell you what. When salon.com decides to examine the Clinton administration's covering up a coverup (and the politicalization of the IRS, no less), I'll be sure to use them as a source.
How's that for a deal?
In the meantime, I'm writing to my congressman that we just may need a "leak" of those redacted pages. Inquiring minds want to know...even if Congress does not.
Well I like you, Bernie. I like you even though you are a granola-eating liberal with illusions of grandeur, who -- although obviously wrong -- is convinced of his own moral superiority. I like you even after all the many times you -- with your usual flair for the dramatic -- have posted a harsh critique of my position that is quite obviously fueled by your own partisan opinions and closely-held beliefs. I like you even though you cannot see that much of what you complain about me are characteristics and things which you yourself have or do. I like you because I believe you are a good person and I don't hold all of your shortcomings against you.
No, the fact that there are terrorists in the world who would like nothing better than to kill you, and your entire family, does make me want to rid the world of these terrorists
You remain a member of the "blame America first," crowd. In your view, the problem is with us, not with them. I reject that.
I do not believe that our "culture" poses a threat to the "desert arabs,"
they hate us for who we are.
Nothing about our culture is causing wanton death and destruction to them.
You would prefer we ignore the terrorists, or appease them. What you advocate translates into weakness in the terrorist's culture.
The US demonstrated weakness in response to the hostages being taken in Iran. They saw weakness in our responses to the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, to the first WTC bombing, to the embassy bombings, and the bombing of the Cole. They believed the US was weak and that it would not defend itself. The weakness shown by President Clinton in Somalia was particularly identified by OBL. In any event, they have declared war on us, and now the battle has been joined.
Isn't it great? When Novak is featured on CNN or in the NY Times criticizing a Republican, Bernie thinks he is just wonderful. But let something of his show up on Townhall and he's scum.
Quote:Well I like you, Bernie. I like you even though you are a granola-eating liberal with illusions of grandeur, who -- although obviously wrong -- is convinced of his own moral superiority. I like you even after all the many times you -- with your usual flair for the dramatic -- have posted a harsh critique of my position that is quite obviously fueled by your own partisan opinions and closely-held beliefs. I like you even though you cannot see that much of what you complain about me are characteristics and things which you yourself have or do. I like you because I believe you are a good person and I don't hold all of your shortcomings against you.
Hippy peace sign.
Quote:...No, the fact that there are terrorists in the world who would like nothing better than to kill you, and your entire family, does make me want to rid the world of these terrorists
I have absolutely no reason to think your thesis here has any merit whatsoever. Your apparent thesis: there are some people (we will call them 'terrorists') and the thing they want most of all is the death of a family (all families) from Vancouver (or Adelaide or Bonn or Dublin or Prague or Portland or Brussels or Phnom Penh or Copenhagen or Stockholm - in your thesis, all those cities). That is not even moderately comprehensible or sane. How could you come to believe anything remotely like this might be so?
Quote:You remain a member of the "blame America first," crowd. In your view, the problem is with us, not with them. I reject that.
So do I. I never said it. The "problem" is with both of you. To the degree that you don't get right what role "you" play in this equation (and by "you" here I mean not just the US but more generally the modern western world) then you are going to keep setting yourself up for further attacks, just as the Brits did in Israel and India. If, for example, the US were to launch an attack now on Iran, the number of new anti-West/anti-US recruits for terrorism in the broad Muslim world would increase by god-knows what factor. This is all partly a clash of cultures (lots of historical examples of this) but it is also more than that. To the degree that US and other industrial states use the middle east for purposes related to self-interest while at the same time ignoring negative consequences to local populations (see the continued support of the Saudi government or the Egyptian government, with all attendent negatives for the oppressed people there) to that degree you/we are setting ourselves up to be hated. And that is an understandable hatred.
Quote:I do not believe that our "culture" poses a threat to the "desert arabs,"
Attend now. My reference there was to the specific notion or claim that "they wish to destroy our way of life". "They" are probably less numerous (or little more so) than the membership of the Hell's Angels in your country and mine. They are absolutely incapable of getting anywhere near achieving such a goal, even if they had that goal. The degree of threat claimed or promoted is in the realm of insanity. Aside from the earlier example of WW2, consider Japan which suffered two nuclear bombs (not some piddly three-block radius 'dirty suitcase bomb' event) and which still remains Japan. But to ignore the "threat" to small and impoverished and unsophisticated cultures from the steamroller of western culture is to have the blindness to damage of an elephant in a cage with mice. Why wouldn't they bite the elephant's ankles? You may not conceive there is any real threat by us to them, but that is a cultural prejudice - our culture is better and they should jump at the chance to get in on it. When the brain-eating, dog-fukking, oxygen-mining folks from Tau Ceti arrive here on earth, we can discuss this further.
Quote:they hate us for who we are.
That is an absolutely meaningless and thoughtless cliche. Do they hate the Hutterites for who they are? How would you know this, tico? Your studies of Muslim culture (in all its manifestations in all the regions where it exists) is how deep? Would they hate at all were the US and western nations operating only in their home countries? If you got serious about these questions and said "They hate us for what we DO", then you'd maybe makes some moves into understanding what is going on.
Quote:Nothing about our culture is causing wanton death and destruction to them.
Like the Aegis film of mercenaries in Iraq wantonly shooting out the back of their SUV arbitrarily at cars behind as Elvis boomed loud? Like all the dead innocent people in Iraq? Like the support for truly malicious tyrants in the middle east (for their oil) who tortured the political and religious dissidents who later would become the crazed extremists who turned people like Osama toward what we now know?
Quote:This "perceived" threat is what they make of it. The real threat is the islamic fundamentalist philosophy that has spawned all of the terrorists who perceive our culture as this threat, and have mapped their course of action.
They ARE a threat. Now. But they didn't drop from the sky.
Quote:You would prefer we ignore the terrorists, or appease them. What you advocate translates into weakness in the terrorist's culture.
Another swallowed cliche. What analyses of that culture supports your claim about perception of "weakness", the indicators of it and the proper response to it? What analyses are available that argue something else? I've been reading Bernard Lewis for two decades. You? I don't "prefer you ignore the terrorists". Ignoring the circumstances (and our part in that) which bred them got you/us into this mess. I don't prefer we "appease" them. Unless appease means acknowledging that they are not vermin to be extinguished along with their children for being vermin.
Quote:The US demonstrated weakness in response to the hostages being taken in Iran. They saw weakness in our responses to the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, to the first WTC bombing, to the embassy bombings, and the bombing of the Cole. They believed the US was weak and that it would not defend itself. The weakness shown by President Clinton in Somalia was particularly identified by OBL. In any event, they have declared war on us, and now the battle has been joined.
That they (some small band of extremists, now much larger in number due to US actions) considered the west (mainly America) as the enemy is entirely understandable, if certainly partly twisted. If you come to gain an increasing sense of insecurity, it will surely be in part because the US has been as stupid as has Israel or Egypt or Saudi Arabia etc before. Each of those states has been complicit in their own situations through the arrogance of power and the desire to manipulate large populations for the gain of those in power and to the detriment of many others.
As I've mentioned before, Abe Lincoln's wisdom led him to the certainty that America would not fall due to any external source but rather from what she herself got up to and did to herself. That's the point.
And that same point leads me to point to how much you guys excuse regarding your own nation's actions. You are in danger of becoming something very ugly, if not nearly so ugly as the other.

January 06, 2006, 8:04 a.m.
A Letter to the Europeans
Cry the beloved continent.
Despite the bitter recrimination and growing rift between you and us, most Americans have not forgotten that a strong, confident Europe is still critical to the material and spiritual well being of the United States.
It is not just that as Westerners you have withstood ?- often later at our side ?- all prior challenges to the shared liberal civilization you created, whether the specter of an Ottoman global suzerainty, Bonapartism, Prussian militarism, Nazism, fascism, Japanese militarism, or Soviet Communism.
Nor is our allegiance a mere matter of history. Europe is the repository of the Western tradition, most manifestly in shrines like the Acropolis, the Pantheon, the Uffizi, or the Vatican. We concede that the Great Books ?- we as yet have not produced a Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, or Locke, much less a Da Vinci, Mozart, or Newton ?- and the Great Ideas of the West from democracy to capitalism to human rights originated on your continent alone. And if Americans believe our Constitution and the visions of our Founding Fathers were historic improvements on Europe of the 18th-century, then at least we acknowledge in our humility that they were also inconceivable without it.
No, there is a greater oneness between us, an unspoken familiarity even now in the age of global sameness, that makes an American feel at home in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, or Athens in a way that is not true of Istanbul, Cairo, or Bangkok.
In the multiracial society of the United States, an American black, Asian, or Latino finds natural affinity in London and Brussels in a way not true in Lagos, Ho Chi Min City, or Lima. For millions of Americans "Eurocentric" is no slur ?- for it is an appellation of shared values and ideas not of race.
Even in this debased era of multiculturalism that misleads our youth into thinking no culture can be worse than the West, we all know in our hearts the truth that we live by and the lie that we profess ?- that the critic of the West would rather have his heart repaired in Berlin than in Guatemala or be a Muslim in Paris rather than a Christian in Riyadh, or a woman or homosexual in Amsterdam than in Iran, or run a newspaper in Stockholm rather than in Havana, or drink the water in Luxembourg rather than in Uganda, or object to his government in Italy rather than in China or North Korea. Radical Muslims damn Europe and praise Allah ?- but whenever possible from Europe rather than inside Libya, Syria, or Iran.
Although we Americans think the European Union is a flawed notion and will not survive to fulfill its present aspirations, we hope in some strange way that it does ?- for both our sakes of having a proud partner in a more dangerous world to come rather than an angry and envious inferior, nursing past glories while blaming others for self-inflicted wounds of the present.
Even in this era of crisis, we cling to the notion that in the eleventh hour you, Europe, will yet reawake, rediscover your heritage, and join with us in defending the idea of the West from this latest illiberal scourge of Islamic fascism. For just once, if only for the purpose of theatrics, we would like to urge calm and restraint to a Europe angry, volatile, and threatening, in the face of blackmail and taunts from a third-rate theocracy in Tehran ?- or a two-bit fascist thug fomenting hate and violence from a state-subsidized mosque in a European suburb.
Alas, recently, Europeans have been taken hostage on the West Bank, Yemen, and Iraq. All have been released. There are two constants in the stories: Some sort of blackmail was no doubt involved (either cash payments or the release of terrorist killers in European jails?), and the captives often seem to praise the moderation of their captors. Is this an aberration or indicative of a deeper continental malady? Few, in either a private or public fashion, suggested that such bribery only perpetuates the kidnapping of innocents and provides cash infusions to terrorists to further their mayhem.
On the home front, a single, though bloody, attack in Madrid changed an entire Spanish election, and prompted the withdrawal of troops from Iraq ?- although the terrorists nevertheless continued, despite their promises to the contrary, to plant bombs and plan assassinations of Spanish judicial officials. Cry the beloved continent.
The entire legal system of the Netherlands is under review due to the gruesome murder of Theo van Gogh and politicians there who speak out about the fascistic tendencies of radical Islam often either face threats or go into hiding. Cry the beloved continent.
Unemployment, postcolonial prejudice, and de facto apartheid may have led to the fiery rioting in the French suburbs, but it was also energized by a radical Islamic culture of hate. In response followed de facto French martial law. All that remains certain is that the rioting will return either to grow or to warp liberal French society. Indeed, so far has global culture devolved in caving to Islamism that we fear that only two places in the world are now safe for a Jew to live in safety ?- and Europe, the graveyard of 20th-century Jewry, is tragically not among them. Cry the beloved continent.
Your idealistic approach to health care, transportation, global warming, and entitlements have won over much of coastal and blue America, who, if given their way, would replicate here what you have there. Yet the worry grows that none of this vision of your anointed is sustainable ?- given an aging and shrinking population, growing and unassimilated minority populations, flat growth rates, increasing statism, and high unemployment.
If America, the former British commonwealth, India, and China, embraced globalization, while the Arab Middle East rejected it, you sought a third way of insulating yourselves from it ?- and now are beginning to pay for trying to legislate and control what is well beyond your ability to do either.
Abroad you face even worse challenges. In the post-Cold War you dismantled your armed forces, and chose to enhance entitlements at the expense of military readiness. I fear you counted only on a tried and simple principle: That the United States would continue to subsidize European defense while ignoring your growing secular religion of anti-Americanism.
But in the last 15 years, and especially after 9/11, heaven did not come to earth, that instead became a more dangerous place than ever before. Worse, in the meantime you lost the goodwill of the United States, which you demonized, I think, on the understanding that there would never be real repercussions to your flamboyant venom.
Your courts indict American soldiers, often a few miles from the very military garrisons that alone protect you. Your media and public castigate the country whose fashion, music, entertainment, and popular culture you so slavishly embrace.
The Balkan massacres proved that a mass murderer like Slobodan Milosevic could operate with impunity in Europe until removed by the intervention of the United States. And yet from that gruesome lesson, in retrospect we over here have learned only two things: The Holocaust would have gone on unabated hours from Paris and Berlin without the leadership of United States, and in this era of the Chirac/Schroeder ingratitude the American public would never sanction such help to you again. If you believe that an American-led NATO should not serve larger Western interests outside of Europe, we concede that it cannot even do that inside it.
We wish you well in your faith that war has become obsolete and that outlaw nations will comply with international jurisprudence that was born and is nurtured in Europe. Yet your own intelligence suggests that the Iran theocracy is both acquiring nuclear weaponry and seeking to craft missile technology to put an Islamic bomb within reach of European cities ?- oblivious to the reasoned appeals of European Union diplomats, who themselves operate as Greek philosophers in the agora only on the condition that Americans will once more play the role of Roman legionaries in the shadows.
Russia may no longer be the mass-murdering Soviet Union, but it remains a proud nationalist and increasingly autocratic power of the 19th-century stripe, nuclear and angry at the loss of its empire, emboldened by the ease that it can starve energy supplies to Western Europe, and tired of humanitarian lectures from Westerners who have no real military to match their condescending sermons. Old Europe has neither the will nor the power to protect the ascending democracies of Eastern Europe, much less the republics of the former Soviet Union from present Russian bullying ?- and perhaps worse to come.
The European strategy of selling weapons to Arab autocracies, triangulating against the United States for oil and influence, and providing cash to dubious terrorists like Hamas has backfired. Polls in the West Bank suggest Palestinians hate you, the generous and accommodating, as much as they do us, the staunch ally of Israel.
So, terrorists of the Middle East seem to have even less respect for you than for the United States, given they harbor a certain contempt for your weakness as relish to the generic hatred of our shared Western traditions.
You will, of course, answer that in your postwar wisdom you have transcended the internecine killing of the earlier 20th century when nationalism and militarism ruined your continent ?- and that you have lent your insight to the world at large that should follow your therapeutic creed rather than the tragic vision of the United States.
But the choices are not so starkly bipolar between either chauvinistic saber rattling or studied pacifism. There is a third way, the promise of muscular democratic government that does not apologize for 2,500 years of civilization and is willing to defend it from the enemies of liberalism, who would undo all that we wrought.
A European Union that facilitates trade, finance, and commerce can enrich and ennoble your continent, but it need not suppress the unique language, character, and customs of European nationhood itself, much less abdicate a heritage that once not merely moralized about, but took action to end, evil.
The world is becoming a more dangerous place, despite your new protocols of childlessness, pacifism, socialism, and hedonism. Islamic radicalism, an ascendant Communist China, a growing new collectivism in Latin America, perhaps a neo-czarist Russia as well, in addition to the famine and savagery in Africa, all that and more threaten the promise of the West.
So criticize us for our sins; lend us your advice; impart to America the wealth of your greater experience ?- but as a partner and an equal in a war, not as an inferior or envious neutral on the sidelines. History is unforgiving. None of us receives exemption simply by reason of the fumes of past glory.
Either your economy will reform, your populace multiply, and your citizenry defend itself, or not. And if not, then Europe as we have known it will pass away ?- to the great joy of the Islamists but to the terrible sorrow of America.
-- Victor Davis Hanson
blatham wrote:Quote:Quote:
And then we could research to find out whether he has "labored as a (dem) fundraiser, organizer and activist".
As a matter of fact, he did fundraising for the Democrats. Using his DeLay prosecution to sell the tickets, too.
Quote:
If so, it would be clearly relevant, would it not?
To me, it was relevant because he was stumping for the democrats and talking about how he was going to take down DeLay. What was most relevant about Earle was his conduct and the things he said, not his past political affiliations.
Where you have the facts right here, it would be relevant. Where are your facts noted or documented?
Which facts do you dispute? You don't think Ronnie Earle attended one or more partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official?
Most of my commentary on Earle/DeLay have been on these two threads: why 3 grand juries ... and ... Should DeLay resign
Here are two posts in particular:
LINK 1
LINK 2
The cause of terrorism is terrorists.
Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:Quote:
And then we could research to find out whether he has "labored as a (dem) fundraiser, organizer and activist".
As a matter of fact, he did fundraising for the Democrats. Using his DeLay prosecution to sell the tickets, too.
Quote:
If so, it would be clearly relevant, would it not?
To me, it was relevant because he was stumping for the democrats and talking about how he was going to take down DeLay. What was most relevant about Earle was his conduct and the things he said, not his past political affiliations.
Where you have the facts right here, it would be relevant. Where are your facts noted or documented?
Which facts do you dispute? You don't think Ronnie Earle attended one or more partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official?
Most of my commentary on Earle/DeLay have been on these two threads: why 3 grand juries ... and ... Should DeLay resign
Here are two posts in particular:
LINK 1
LINK 2
He spoke, seems to be the charge, at a dem fundraiser and some aspects of the DeLay case formed part of the content. If that is it (noting that Earle wasn't removed for any ethical or judicial violation, merely criticised by Byron and others) doesn't appear to make these two cases comparable, given the accuracy of the WP data.
Quote:The cause of terrorism is terrorists.
You are a believer, tico. Nothing I or anyone else might say will alter your viewpoint. But the sentence above is completely meaningless and you ought to have the sense to recognize at least that.
- the cause of theism is theists
- the cause of nationalism is nationalists
- the cause of capitalism is capitalists
'Chocolate City' Sprinkled With Nuts
By Ann Coulter
Jan 18, 2006
So Hillary Clinton thinks the House of Representatives is being "run like a plantation." And, she added, "you know what I'm talking about."
First of all: Think about what a weird coincidence it is that Hillary would have made these remarks in a black church in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day. What are the odds? Did she even know it was a holiday? Bravely spoken, Senator. I haven't been this surprised since finding out Hollywood likes a movie about gay cowboys.
As Hillary explained, the House "has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
Yes, that's what was really missing on plantations during the slavery era: the opportunity to present a contrary view. Gosh, if only the slaves had been allowed to call for cloture votes. What a difference that would have made!
Madam Hillary also said the Bush administration "will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." While Hillary is certainly qualified to comment on what the all-time worst presidential administrations were, having had firsthand experience in one of them, I think she might want to avoid the phrase "go down in history."
All I can say is: It's a good thing we had a stealth candidate like Harriet Miers to tiptoe past these powerful, scary Democrats! Sorry if that sounds churlish, but after Judge Samuel Alito's magnificent performance last week, I think Republicans can stop being afraid of their shadows when it comes to our judicial nominees.
Ever since Bork, Republicans have been terrified of nominating candidates with something in their background that might possibly suggest the nominee did not get down on his knees (another phrase Hillary should avoid) and thank God for Roe v. Wade every night. That's how we ended up with mediocrities like David Hackett Souter and Anthony "Third Choice" Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
Besides being stunningly qualified, the characteristics of the current stellar Supreme Court nominee include these:
His mother immediately told the press, "Of course he's against abortion."
He had expressed support for the Reagan administration's positions on abortion in a 1985 memo.
He refused to accede to the Democrats' endless browbeating and tell them that Roe was "settled law."
And the Democrats couldn't lay a finger on him. Sam Alito marks the final purging of the Bork experience.
All the Democrats could do was scream about his inactive membership -- back in the '70s -- in CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which had a magazine called Prospect, which once ran an article, apparently satirical, complaining about Princeton admitting co-eds. In my mind, the only potentially disqualifying aspect of Alito's record was that he wasn't a more active member of CAP, a group opposed to quotas, set-asides and the lowering of academic standards at Princeton.
Then this week, we found out Sen. Teddy Kennedy still belongs to an organization that doesn't admit women. Oh -- also, he killed a girl.
I'm fairly certain I've mentioned that before -- I don't recall, Mr. Chairman -- but I don't understand why everyone doesn't mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how "troubled" and "concerned" he is about this or that nominee. I bet Mary Jo was "troubled" and "concerned" about the senator leaving her in trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.
It's not as if Democrats can say: OK, OK! The man paid a price! Let it go! He didn't pay a price. The Kopechne family paid a price. Kennedy weaved away scot-free.
But the Democrats are "troubled" about Sam Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton 30 years ago. If they're "concerned" about lifetime appointments for people with memberships in "troubling" organizations, wait until they hear about Bob Byrd! (Former Kleagle, Ku Klux Klan.)
They're a rotten bunch, these Democrats, and I'm happy to see an end to their reign of terror.
Now that Zell Miller is out of office, the only office-holding Democrat I like anymore is Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans. I had never heard of him until Hurricane Katrina, but after his "gaffe" this week, he's my favorite Democrat. I like a politician who casually spouts off insanely politically incorrect remarks in front of large audiences and TV cameras.
Nagin cheerfully told a crowd gathered for a Martin Luther King Day celebration that New Orleans would soon be "Chocolate City" again. I don't know who's supposed to be offended by that. I'm not. Perhaps all the white mayors who know they couldn't have said it. True, life's unfair. Oh well.
When it comes to choice-of-word crimes, I'd prefer detente to mutually assured destruction. Lead us off the chocolate plantation, Mayor Nagin!
