“It is the duty of every citizen according to his
best capacities to give validity to his
convictions in political affairs.”

- Albert Einstein

CNN reports: Roberts Documents Reveal a Conservative

I'm shocked! Shocked, I say...

Michelle Malkin noted this article from Robin Givhan at the Washington Post. It included this:

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were — John, Jane, Josie and Jack — standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers...

And this...

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. "John-John" Kennedy Jr.

Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.

OK, they're having trouble so far getting political traction against the nominee, they've tried "outing" his wife as a radical Catholic who volunteers in her church and for pro-life organizations, and now it's time to go after the kids by saying, "you're too perfect and your mother dresses you funny."

Look, the president didn't invite the family to drop by the White House for a cook-out. Perhaps the family's thought process went, "Hmmm, president, White House, cameras...flip-flops or church clothes?"

Here's another thought (which puts me at least two ahead of Ms. Givhan): how about Ozzy Osbourne for Chief Justice?

I received this story today in my e-mail:

Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it
has raised its terror alert level from 'Run' to 'Hide'. The only two higher levels in France are 'Surrender' and 'Collaborate'. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France's only white flag factory, effectively paralyzing their military.

I haven't been able to conclusively verify this story, but it could be true.

Here's another easy American History question that was somehow left off of Keegan's trivia quiz last Thursday (in which the Night Writer, Tiger Lilly, Policy Guy and Water Cooler Wisdom team was 25 for 25 in the main quiz and 2/3 in the tie-breaker).

Who made the following statement on October 8, 2002?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

A: George W. Bush
B: Kofi Annan
C: Hillary Clinton
D: Alfred E. Newman




This is one of the interesting tidbits you'll find over at John Hawkins' post "Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq". The post includes the facts and history behind commonly accepted and unchallenged statements such as: 1) George Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; 2) A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion; 3) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11; 4) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century; 5) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq; 6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism; 7) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and; 8) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

Check them out. (HT: Mitch Berg at Shot in the Dark.)

Jay Rosen is reading about and hearing from all the activists gearing up to spend big money on the upcoming battle over Supreme Court nominees and doesn't know what it is good for.

In the last election, 121 million votes were cast, and each one of those people could (in theory) be influenced by a media campaign. On the coming nomination, 100 United States Senators vote. Can they be influenced in the same way? The press is saying: yeah, they can. But it cannot be so.

It's a good point in so far as groups on both sides pouring money into television commercials and other events should have little direct effect on the votes of 100 senators. Of course, it's not about influencing voters but about rallying the faithful. This is going to be the Super Bowl of politics this year and what's a big game without cheerleaders and rowdy fans to inspire their team and intimidate the opposition? The back-and-forth is merely the political version of the old "We've got spirit, yes we do, we've got spirit how 'bout you?" chant. Even though the Dems and their fanatics will - like the old AFL in the pre-merger Super Bowls - be trying to show they're relevant, they have to feel encouraged that some Republicans have shown themselves to be easily intimidated.

Therefore the orchestrated cheering has already begun, and from the Left I hear chestnuts such as:

Here we go, Moonbats, here we go!

Babies don't vote! Babies don't vote!

2-4-6-8 - who's character do we assassinate?

Filibuster! Filibuster! Don't invoke cloture! We've got war, for the culture!

Ree, ree, ree, attack the nominee!
Ras, ras, ras, our thumb is in our ...

Even though President Bush has suggested that we all play nice, I wouldn't mind some New York-style hazing, ala the Daryl Strawberry era, when Chuck Schumer gets up to flap his gums. Can't you just hear the crowd sing-songing, "Schooo-merrr! Schooo-merrr!" Or how about these cheers and chants from the Right:

Hey-hey, ho-ho, reconstructionists got to go!

Teddy, Teddy, he's all wet!

Elections have consequences! Elections have consequences!

Give me another S! Give me another C! Give me another A! Give me another L! Give me another I! Give me another A! What's that spell!

And could it be any sweeter when it's all over than for the Righties to taunt the Left with "Here comes the judge! Here comes the judge!"?

Of course, the insiders refer to all of this as "activating the base," which really means "getting the base to cough up even more money." After all, what's a Super Bowl without commercials?