“We Close at 5″

This has to be one of the most disturbing things I have read in awhile.

Deep Thought

If only Henry Louis Gates had a gun…

Sotomayor

At long last, the hearings are finally upon us.  I have to confess that I’m following them mostly by reading headlines, but the attention-grabbing news from yesterday was Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham’s statement to the would-be Associate Supreme Court Justice, delivered in his typically folksy manner:

“Unless you have a complete meltdown, you are going to be confirmed”

He then proceeded to rip her a new one. The media has largely been going along with this spectacle… treating the hearings with high drama, yet acknowledging in a wink-wink sort of fashion that her nomination is a fait accompli, sort of as if everybody is playing their expected roles — i.e., the Republicans are being unnecessarily antagonistic, confrontational, and offensive in their lines of argument and questioning, but they are just catering to their base and she’s going to be confirmed, so what does it matter?

However, unless I’m missing out on something, I believe that for Sotomayor’s nomination to advance for a full Senate vote, she needs to be approved out of the Judiciary Committee by at least one Republican.  And with a line-up including a former prosecutor who failed to win confirmation to a federal judgeship on account of charges of alleged racism (Ranking Member Jeff Sessions), one far-right crazy guy (Coburn), three reflexive Republicans that are part of the GOP leadership (Senators Kyl and Cornyn), it’s hard to see where that one Republican vote comes from.  We’re left with Senator Grassley, who based on his opening statement is in the same corner as Kyl and Cornyn, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, and Graham. My best guess is that the best chance for a yes-vote comes from Hatch, but none of these Republicans were very gracious towards the nominee yesterday.  What do you all think?

Sensitive

One of my pet peeves about the liberal blogging community, which is no different from the conservative or any other blogging community, is the whole circle-the-wagons, follow-the-herd mentality that often comes into play, the latest example being the outrage (OUTRAGE!) being directed at David Broder for having the temerity to take an unfair swipe and soon-to-be-sworn-in Minnesota Senator Al Franken. 

Now I’m no fan of Broder, and I like Franken, but these are Broder’s offending words in his latest column that has Krugman outraged, which means that other liberal bloggers follow suit shortly thereafter.

[Al] Franken, the loud-mouthed former comedian, will be the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus — just enough for them to cut off any filibuster threat if they can muster all their members.

That’s right, Broder has the temerity to suggest that Franken was a former loudmouth comedian, which of course he was.  And he was quite good at it, too.

Palin

Ikes.  I am one to normally shy away from witnessing things that cause discomfit.  For example, couldn’t watch the Palin-Couric interview, the Sanford press conference, etc., but I had to tune into the Palin resignation press conference, and I’m sure I share the sentiment of all when I say my reaction was… “Wow.”

The pundits are predictably finding analytical nuggets from her speech that leave me scratching my head. The weirdest of all is the idea that her critics finally forced her from the stage. Nobody I know, who wasn’t a fan of hers, wanted to “force her from the stage,” indeed, they and I were hoping that she is the candidate.  From Reagan, Gingrich, to Bush 43, she is the natural result of Republicanism’s evolutionary arc over the last 30-something years.

In any case, the whole discussion is moot anyways, since I’m sure that we’ll still have Palin to kick around plenty more in the future.

Happy Independence Day!

Senator Franken?

Could it be? The StarTribune is reporting that Coleman won’t appeal the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in favor of Franken, which apparently sets the stage, 7 months after the fact…

UPDATE: Coleman concedes… Senator Franken!!

BREAKING!!

Halperin breathlessly reports:

 ”Rush Limbaugh warns of a third Obama term in 2016. ESSENTIAL READING: Find out what the talkmeister said here.”

I know, I know, I have an unhealthy visceral dislike of the man, but in my book that little weenie is the posterboy for everything that is wrong about the media and how it reports on politics.

When Interns* Write Op-eds

You get crap (yes, even by typical National Review standards) written by folks like Eli Lehrer offering up gem after gem in a piece entitled “Why the Madoff Sentence is Too Long.” Starting off with the premise that “Bernard Madoff is an evil con man,” Lehrer naturally postulates:

• He harmed people through the bloodless act of stealing their money.
• So long as he doesn’t start an investment firm — something that’s not going to happen — he’s no threat to society.
• His life expectancy is 13 years and the rigors of prison life — particularly for a man used to living at the height of luxury — hardly seem likely to extend that. [The rules are presumably different for men and women not used to living at the height of luxury…]
• He had strong ties to his community, a previously clean criminal record, and an apparently strong family life.

Ergo… “something close to 12-year sentence his defense attorney recommended is pretty reasonable.” Thankfully, the judge deciding the matter disagreed and gave him 150 years.  Madoff is still likely to spend his remaining years in something closer to a minimum security facility, whereas I think he should spend some time with the rest of the law-breaking riff-raff. That white, er, i mean white-collar criminals get such disparate treatment compared to petty drug thieves and burglars sounds to me quite discriminatory, but something tells me that John Roberts would disagree with me.

*or interns masquerading as Senior Fellows at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Shocker

“Court rules for white firefighters over promotions.” Of course it did, and by the predictable 5-4 margin. And nothing will change when Sotomayor takes over for Souter in the fall, although we can expect to hear much about this case between now and then.

Clown

Meet the Press’s David Gregory, interviewing White House advisor David Axelrod — Mark Sanford, “coordinated” press conference question on Iran, Michael Jackson… simply unwatchable.

UPDATE: Also unwatchable, Mitt Romney, being interviewed by Gregory, hitting all his talking points.

Farrah Fawcett, 1947-2009

Farrah Fawcett has died. If you are of a certain age, as I am, you’ll always remember this poster, which is one for the ages.  RIP.

BREAKING: Reaction to Obama’s Iran Comments

Scoop-meister Mark Halperin — informing us as always on the critical angles of the most important issues of the day — reports to us, apparently from turning on the tube this morning, that former Massachussetts governor and failed unsuccessful presidential primary candidate Mitt Romney approves of Obama’s most recent response on Iran.

The brave people of Iran, and indeed the world, can breathe a little easier now.

More Sanford

Re: the curious tale of Mark Sanford, like Dillon, I suspect that we haven’t quite scratched the surface of what the South Carolina governor has actually been doing these last few days, and by that, I mean he was doing something a little more embarrassing than hiking in his birthday suit. Somebody perceptive out there, I can’t remember where, wrote that there is something just a little bit off about a Republican, family-values loving politician skipping out on his kids without telling them where he is going… over FATHER’S DAY, of all days. Oh, the humanity — the guy was AWOL on Father’s Day!

UPDATE: From a TPM reader, maybe Sanford deserves some credit…

I’ve been thinking about it, and I believe Sanford may be the first politician to use the “I’m leaving to spend some time AWAY FROM my family” excuse. Most of them go with the far less credible with-the-family thing. So give the man his due, please, for he is a pioneer.

Blood on Their Hand$?

One of the more disheartening stories I’ve read in awhile was an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “Iran’s Web Spying Aided by Western Technology,” which documents how a joint venture of mega-corporations Siemens and Nokia has helped the Ahmadinejad-Khamanei regime control, monitor, and censor electronic-based communications (i.e., internet, text-messaging, etc), all in search of the all-mighty dollar euro.

Interviews with technology experts in Iran and outside the country say Iranian efforts at monitoring Internet information go well beyond blocking access to Web sites or severing Internet connections. Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts.

I’m not a fan of Congress’s tendencies (especially among our friends on the other side of the aisle) towards impulsive and jingoistic nationalism when it comes to issues of national security and foreign policy (e.g., “Freedom Fries“), but I hope in this case that Republicans and Democrats can come together on an appropriate punitive response — hearings and investigations of these allegations and, depending on their findings, an appropriate sanction such as the barring of any federal contracts with Siemens or Nokia, or perhaps something even more grave.  Grave, that is, in a financial sense, since these are the only terms that these firms seem to understand.

We see something analagous going on in Beijing, which recently mandated that any PCs sold in China be equipped by internet monitoring devices.  And no doubt, many western firms, including US firms, have played a crucial role in helping the Beijing government construct perhaps the most elaborate and effective communications monitoring capability outside of Fort Meade. If and when there is unrest in China, you can be sure these capabilities will be deployed to their maximum effect. And these companies must be sent a message that if and when that happens, they will pay a price, both to their bottom line and to their reputation. Companies like to talk a lot about corporate social responsibility these day, mostly about their impact on the environment, but I would like to see this seedier side of business conduct added to the CSR equation.

UPDATE: For the record, Nokia Siemens is saying that it provided “lawful intercept capability” to the Iranian government, raising the question of lawful according to…. Iranian law? They are actually clarifying that they did not provide the highly-intrusive deep packet inspection capability.  Whatever the case, all the more reason for a “deep packet inspection”-quality investigation of Nokia Siemens’ activities in Iran, the extent to which it aided and abetted the authorities, as well as the larger conversation of the ethics of setting up sophisticated IT networks for authoritarian regimes.  And for the record, I don’t presume to know the answer to this last question.

Soccer Team Goes Green

Iran’s national soccer team, competing in World Cup qualifiers today in Seoul, wore green wristbands.  But what does it all mean??  As CNN reports, (1) “the team does not normally wear green bands,” (2) “green is the campaign color of Moussavi and has been widely worn by his supporters who have staged massive rallies in Tehran before and after last week’s presidential election,” and yet (3) though many are viewing the team’s bands as a sign of support for Moussavi, that has not been confirmed.

Of course it can’t be confirmed. We can’t say for sure the players were trying to send a message, but if they were, based on the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei regime’s response thus far, they would be putting themselves and their families at risk. For the people of Iran and the global audience of millions, though, the message was heard loud and clear.

Brotherly Love

South Korean news sources are reporting that aides of Kim Jong-un (left in the picture), the 26-year old son of Dear Leader Kim Jong-il and reported heir apparent to the North Korean “throne, last week attempted to assassinate his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam (right), who lives in semi-exile in Macao.  The son appears to have inherited the father’s renown paranoia — the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree — as by all accounts the elder Kim Jong-nam was disinherited by the father when he was caught trying to enter Japan to visit Disneyland Tokyo on a falsified passport.

More on North Korea later.

Anonymous Blogging

As an anonymous (or “pseudonynymous?”) blogger, I’ve found myself somewhat drawn to the story of the “outing” of liberal blogger who writes under the pseudonym of Publius (more here and here).  Have you all heard of it?  Long story short, the National Review’s Ed Whelan and Publius go back-and-forth on the Sotomayor nomination, Whelan loses his sh*t and outs him.  Recriminations ensue, some of it mind-bogglingly stupid, and Whelan, amazingly considering the source, reconsiders and apologizes.

This whole episode gives me the opportunity to print Andy Sullivan’s takedown of Jonah Goldberg, opining on the outing of his colleague Whelan, takedown of Jonah Goldberg, which captures the essense of conservatism in a nutshell:

Actually, I think one can discern the likely endurance of Jonah Goldberg’s professional work, as opposed to the “amateur” commentary of Publius. And it has gained prominence not because it pierces through the discourse despite anonymity, but because a ready frattish sense of humor, a dash of nepotism, a right-wing welfare state, and a team-player’s mentality allow such a writer to prosper. All Jonah needed to know was that Whelan was on his “team”. An argument in defense of him was thereby necessary, even if it is transparently stupid. What Publius does is much harder and far deeper. Anonymity and all.

“This has been another episode of He’s Not George W. Bush”

Too funny, and too true…

Jeff Sessions

Today’s  laugh-out-loud line regards this commentary by Matthew Yglesias about Jeff Sessions, who as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee is the Republican’s point man on the Sotomayor nomination:

Watching the Senator from Alabama’s press conference, I’m comforted by the fact that whatever our ideological disagreements this is a man who’s made it in life without any preferential treatment. One hundred percent meritocracy in action. America is a beautiful place.

Touche.

About those Activist Supreme Court Liberals…

Uh, not so much. Cass Sunnstein addresses the “myth of the balanced court,” which is a point I was sort of trying to make the other day:

Here is another way to demonstrate the point. In 1980 Stevens often operated as the Court’s median member; in many cases he (along with Powell) was the Justice Kennedy of that era. But Stevens is frequently described as the most liberal member of the current Court. If he qualifies for that position, it is not because of any significant change in his own approach, but because of a massive shift in the Court’s center of gravity. [. . .] A widely unknown fact: Between 1984 and 2000, the Court overruled more than 40 precedents, specifically rejecting the law as it was understood in 1980. And on many more occasions, the Court significantly reoriented the law without overruling particular decisions.

Obama the Cautious

I like the politics of the Sonia Sotomayor pick a lot — Republicans oppose the pick, as vshawnt has suggested, at great risk to their future political prospects — and I’m taking it as a given, without proof of course, that Obama has done his homework, vetted her, and verified that she is a reliable liberal voice. But aside from the fact that she would be the first Hispanic justice, and a woman to boot, Sotomayor is very much a conventional pick. She has not authored many, if any, controversial opinions in her distinguished career, unlike say a Kathleen Sullivan or Diane Wood, and there is nothing in her record that suggests she is a strong and impassioned defender (and I hate to delve into cliches here but I’m writing this as fast as I can) of the weak against the strong.

As it turns out, the US Chamber of Commerce, the uber-lobby which positions itself as a representative of the little guy even though it’s corporate America (i.e., the Fortune 500 multinationals) that pays the bills, is actively considering whether to endorse Sotomayor’s nomination. The Chamber, in fact, endorsed the man Sotomayor is succeeding — David Souter — and through Souter is frequently labeled a liberal, I’d argue without delving into the case history that the Chamber has been quite pleased with Souter. For what it’s worth, the Chamber also endorsed Clinton nominees Breyer and Ginsberg, and again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have been largely happy with what they’ve gotten.

Long story short, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to be endorsed by “business” or to be “business-friendly,” but it would be ironic that given all that’s been said — and again, it’s hard to dispute that Sotomayor will be a good justice –the one area in which Sotomayor might come up a little short is in the “empathy” column.

Upon further reflection, the Sotomayor pick really reminds me of Obama’s pick of Biden as VP.  Nothing substantively to get too excited about, but a safe, politically astute pick. A pick, rooted at its core, by caution. So, while I’ll nitpick this aspect of the Sotomayor choice, it’s hard to argue that Obama seems determined to establish a political movement with long-term viability — which the Sotomayor pick exemplifies — and though it’s still early, he seems to have the recipe down.  But though I like my desserts nice and sweet, I’ll have to settle for half a tablespoon of sugar instead of the full serving called for in the recipe, that is, if I want to have any desserts at all!

Prop 8

Count me among those that think that the California high court acted properly. If Prop 8 is to be overturned, as I think it should be, it should be done by the voters in a ballot referendum as early as next year or … in the off chance that a California constitutional convention abolishes or substantially reforms the ballot initiative process … by the state legislature.

Oh, Gag Me…

Re: Sotomayor, some conservatives are making the argument that Obama’s SCOTUS nominee is the new Harriet Meirs — the argument being that Bush’s White House Counsel Meirs was hopelessly under-qualified for the high court.  This is a mistaken reading of what doomed Meirs.  In the end, conservatives came to doubt Meirs’ right-wing cred — her views on Roe v. Wade, among other things, were not known with strong confidence –  and her alleged lack of experience (she got her undergrad and law degrees at, gasp, SMU!) was merely the convenient rope with which she was hanged. To make a long story short, this argument put forth by TNR about why Sotomayor is not Meirs just makes me want to barf:

The same just can’t be said about Sotomayor, who went to Princeton for undergrad and Yale for law school.

Ironically, the whole “Sotomayor-lacks-temperament” meme (and by inference, the intellectual gravitas needed to serve on the high court) began with a very controversial anonymously-sourced piece (or according to some, hit piece) on Judge Sotomayor written by the supposedly liberal TNR. The whole idea that interpreting the law is a task reserved for the elitest of the elites, I think, is one of the most corrosive and mistaken principles in a democracy. At the end of the day, with Harriet Meirs and her twin SMU degrees, we would have arrived at the same very outcomes as the dapper and charming John Roberts, Hah-vuhd degrees and all. Like Roberts as with Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, or Antonin Scalia (or Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for example), they start with their core beliefs and then work backwards as far as interpreting the laws are concerned.

“Torture”?

If Mancow says it is, then it must be so.

On a more serious note, Mancow’s experience may actually shape opinion — not the New York Times’ of course, that is, unless, a wave of Madcow listeners call into their Republican members of Congress…