Incipiency

? ! ? ! ? !

(The following article is not presented as a fait accompli, nor as an attempt to provoke outrage among Conservatives, but as an analysis of the forces at work on each side of the decision, as well as the statements made by key participants.)

Harriet Miers will be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. This is the conclusion I have reached, after reviewing the salient conditions of the relevant factors, which is to say, there is going to be a great deal of noise and gnashing of high-priced dental work over the next few weeks.

The reason this will happen can best be understood by examining the history of judicial nominations in recent years, as well as SCOTUS nominations, and of course by separating the people with real influence in the decision, from people who are simply working on the outside.

For starters, the process can be divided into five stages: The nomination and initial response; the discovery prior to the hearings and the coalescing of camps; the initial hearing questions and public statements by Judiciary Committee members; public opinion and communication to the Senators; and the Senate Committee and full Senate votes. It’s very important to know where we are on the road, to understand what effective actions may be taken.

According to a timeline of Bush judicial nominations as prepared by Confirm Them, Bush nominees average 39 days from nomination to hearing, with 5 days of hearings, 10 days from hearings to markup, and 13 days from markup to confirmation, for a process time averaging 72 days. Nominated October 3rd , Harriet Miers should begin hearings in the Senate November 7th, or 37 days after her nomination, right in line with the average for Bush nominees. It remains to be seen, of course, whether the rest of the process follows that course, but for now, despite all the noise, the Miers nomination is proceeding as others before have done.

The next point to consider is whether President Bush might withdraw Mier’s nomination. This is extremely unlikely. President Bush, for good or ill, is extremely firm on his judicial picks. Despite heavy antagonism from Democrats on such picks as Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown, President Bush never retracted a single one of them, but pressed until they were confirmed. Ideologues will find it galling no doubt to consider that Bush places Miers in the same company as the “known” Conservative judges, but Bush’s statements make it plain that he does. Also, Republican friction in the past couple years concerning John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney demonstrates that President Bush is not one to give in to pressure from his own party, much less from unelected criticism, and especially when it is emotional wailing, unsupported by the facts. While it may amuse Ideologues to insult Miers with the “crony” tag, the most likely effect, by far, that this will have on the President is to solidify his support for her. In addition, the President understands far better than most that a withdrawal would do very serious damage to future nominations and his influence in the Senate, who already have far too high an opinion of themselves. As a consequence, not only will President Bush not withdraw Harriet Miers’ nomination, but if she herself suggested it, President Bush would talk her out of it. Observers should expect Harriet Miers to march into the Senate hearings as scheduled.

One strategic mistake the Anti-Miers contingent has made, is that they have applied their fire on the targets least likely to be affected by the noise. President Bush is no more likely to withdraw Miers than he was the day he nominated her. And the public in general has not joined the revolt against her. After all the rumors and gossip against Miers, more Americans approve of Miers than disapprove of her. This is important, because if only 26% of the public disapproves of Miers, there is not likely to be any sort of public outcry to their Senators. And frankly, it’s pretty much too late for the Anti-Miers crowd to start over on that project. A shrewder move would have been to key on the leading Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, pressing not for Miers’ removal but for specific questions to be asked and pressed. This is still possible, but the Senate is wary of appearing to be pliable by pressure from a clear minority.

Almost two-thirds of people queried say they expect Miers to be confirmed, and of those with a strong opinion, more Americans support Miers than oppose her. That makes opposing Miers the unpopular thing to do in the Senate, which is not the road Senators historically take. As for the so-called “centrists” in the Senate, they are not only not unhappy with Miers, but have already indicated a filibuster is “extremely unlikely”, and they are leaning towards confirmation. As a result, the actual information known about Miers has not significantly increased, due to an absurd focus on rumors and guesswork by the Anti-Miers forces, instead of seeking a consensus on what should be asked and pursued. The ideologues have painted themselves as extremists, so that even Senators who approve of their position on Miers will be wary of publicly standing with them.

So here’s the trip so far: Bush nominated Miers on October 3rd, and the immediate response was in two colors – wait and see from most Senators and the public, but a strong emotional rejection from certain individuals. The emotion could have ignited public opinion against Miers, but the methods chosen to express opposition to Miers chose unsavory courses, such as selective quotes from her writing, out-of-context attribution of opinions, and a large number of personal insults, using such perjorative terms as “crony”, “battiness”, or a “disaster”, collectively showing a dismal lack of both civility and objectivity, and in some cases deliberately spreading lies about the woman, which were quoted by like-minded sites extensively until other blogs caught the lies and called down the cavilists pressing them. Bloggers supporting Miers are told they are “kool-aid” drinkers or are supporting a “crook”, they are called “Bushbots”, and even well-respected commentors are denounced as “shill[s] for the Administration”. The President himself is sullied with rumors and insults by bloggers unhappy with his choice. George Will sniffs that President Bush “has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments”, that he has “forfeited his right” as President. Apparently Will would have you believe that the endless sophistry of John “Subtlety” Kerry was, in retrospect, what Conservatives really want.

Annoying, this piling-on of hate by the ideologues, but it is very poor strategy as well. If nothing else, the average American tends to favor someone perceived as an underdog or an innocent victim, and all this vitriol is making people ask the reasonable question, ‘why not just let the lady have her hearings?’ It seems to me that not only are the ideologues embarrassing themselves with such comments, they are driving the undecideds to the pro-Miers side. Also, as Strata-Sphere observed succinctly, “the anti-Miers crowd are losing other conservative factions because they called for a civil war with nothing but scary fairytales to back up their claims.”

So, it’s pretty clear that Miers should be expected to appear at her Senate hearings. This the next battleground the ideologues are already preparing, to tear her down in front of the cameras. If it were so, I would actually applaud that. The whole idea as we practice nominations to the High Court, is that questions are asked at the hearings; ambushing the nominee on the way to the court is simply unacceptable. The ideologues, however, have reason to fear that their position weakens if Miers is allowed the review all nominees are supposed to receive. It comes from knowledge of how the Senate acts, and from early statements by certain key Senators. Arlen Specter is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, and he’s pretty pro-Miers. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says of Miers; "She has demonstrated her leadership, her character, her integrity". Frankly, while some Senators have asked questions and stated they would like more information, the mood on the Hill, even among conservative Senators, is generally pro-Miers. Thus, the ideologues are fighting against the tide once the hearings begin.

Charles Pickering is not a Senator, but he is accepted as a “known” Conservative judge, and he also approves of Miers. In an interview with John Gibson of Fox News, Pickering said:

“She has a very impressive resume. And one of the strengths that I think she has is that she has real-world experience. I think it's unfortunate that we think someone has to come from the bench or someone has to come from academia to sit on the Supreme Court. During the history of our nation, half of the judges that served on the Supreme Court did not have previous judicial experience, so this is not a new phenomenon, this is not a new situation. And the fact that she has had real-world experience, she was an experienced litigator. She served in local government, state government, and federal government. I think that's to her advantage. I think that's a perspective that the Supreme Court by and large misses."

In the end, it comes down to momentum. The ideologues have created a noisy rally against Miers, but not where it counts, in the Senate or in nationwide opinion. For all the noise, the opinion of the majority of Ideological blogs will have no more bearing on the confirmation decision, than Michael Moore. That is, there is every reason to believe Miers will remain the nominee when her hearings begin, and in the absence of significant evidence indicating she is unfit (sorry, rumors won’t help the Anti-Miers movement in the Senate), she will be recommended by the Judiciary Committee and confirmed by the Senate. After all, in 1993 Republicans did have significant reason to believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg would push the Supreme Court in a wrong and dangerous direction, yet all but 3 of them voted to confirm her. The plain fact from history is, that unless Miers completely implodes at her hearings, she will be confirmed and take her place on the Supreme Court of the United States. The wisest strategy, I contend, would therefore be (whatever your opinion of the woman) to suggest crucial questions to your Senator to ask at the hearings, and to let her answer as she will. At this point, the decision belongs to Harriet Miers, and essentially no one else.

Amerigance, Part 2

USA! USA! USA!


Let’s face it; Americans are weird. To start with, the nation began with a revolution, which is not all that unusual, except that the revolutionary government has continued in something not unlike its original form, to such a point that the Constitution enacted shortly after the government was put into place, is the same one we are using today. While most of the world boasts peoples, cultures, and nations which are older than America, our extant form of government has endured longer than anything else in place, and has thrived under the notion that government is derived by the consent of the governed, and that people have rights which cannot be denied.

But if that is not strange enough, there is the little matter of American cultural dominance. A wallet full of American money is likely to be accepted, and cheerfully so, at most businesses around the world; even in Communist China and Vietnam, U.S. dollars are valid for many transactions. You can find a McDonalds of Burger King in virtually every city on the planet, to the horror of the French. You can absolutely find a Coca-Cola machine in every city. You can watch an American movie in every city which has movie theaters, and you can hear American music on radio stations around the globe. And that’s not touching the impact of American clothes fashion or jargon. There is not a language in the Industrialized world which does not include American phrases in it.

And then there’s the politics. It shows my age I suppose, but I can remember when the councils and juntas would simply present the single available candidate, whose “election” would be announced before the votes were counted, if indeed they ever were. Now, how different are things, where Iraq and Afghanistan have not only held free elections, but millions of people in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, even in Iran, have publicly demonstrated for the right to hold what they themselves call “American-style” free elections, with multiple political parties and candidates. Even the worst totalitarian regimes put up the pretense of a free election, as the last go-round in China shows. Of course, that all began with Ronald Reagan, and found new strength in George W. Bush.

I Support Harriet Miers

+ + + + + + +

N.Z. Bear is asking for bloggers to state where they stand. Here's where you can find out how to be heard, and here's my stand:

I support the Miers nomination, now more than ever.

When rumors, slander, and deliberate misrepresentation of a nominee are so prevalent, the nominee is almost always a real conservative.

I note how much of the anti-Miers venom originates not from regular people, but from well-paid and large-ego celebrities. If we find it presumptuous for Sean Penn and Martin Sheen to tell us what we must think about our President, it is no more reasonable for newspaper columnists and radio hosts to demand Harriet Miers be denied her hearings, or to demand that President Bush kowtow to their demands.

President Bush has not been perfect, but in judicial picks he's right on the mark. Somehow, I find it a great deal easier to believe him than Coulter, Frum, or any of the 'let's knife Miers now'crowd. It seems to me rank cowardice that these overfed egos think it is proper to deny the President's nominee even a moment in front of the Senate, lest they discover that their assumptions prove as false and foul as their arrogance that an unelected figurehead should control the appointments by the elected President.

At the moment, I am willing to withdraw my support if I see conclusive evidence that Miers will not prove conservative. But rumors, whisper campaigns, and haughty demands by people who do not answer to anyone will never sway me.

Empire To Free Market - The China Case

*******

In my lifetime, I have heard over and over again, how the days of the West, and the United States in particular, are fading and should be demoted in favor of the Orient, seen as a relentless tide of innovation, population, and fate. I have read countless essays warning about the inevitable dominance by Asia, and by countless countries like Japan, Vietnam, and China, or by Supercompanies like Sony or Mitsubishi, or the front companies set up bythe PRC to claim market share in high-tech industries. While such companies have enjoyed success, and some Asian countires have enjoyed better-than-average GDP gains and improved market positioning, the long-term results remain clearly advantageous to the West, and to the United States. There are many reasons for this, but for this article I will pretty much focus on the largest and most populous country in Asia as a representative focus; the People’s Republic of China.

Just after Mao Tse Tung assumed control over Communist China, and the Communists chased the Nationalists off the mainland in 1949, the United States was full of outraged Senators demanding to know “Who Lost China?” The arrogance implicit in such a statement helps display the nature of U.S. myopia at the time, believing that any U.S. action was by definition legitimate and authorative. The very notion that we possessed China, even notionally, so that it could be “lost”, goes a way towards explaining the decision by regional powers to support Mao. Also, the Nationalist Party under Chiang Kai Shek not only was tied to organized crime (Mao’s Communists were also heavily involved with Triads, but kept this quiet), but also played up ties to the United States which not only failed to reap the benefits of Chinese appreciation for American support in World War 2, but implied that the U.S. controlled Chiang’s decisions and position, which brought up unpleasant memories of domination by Europe a century before. Anyone familiar with the Boxer Rebellion should have understood that any campaign to claim the support of the Chinese people begins on the three pillars of Chinese Racial Pride, a promise by the government to leave people alone for the most part, and as always happens in politics, the promise of a better life for the next generation.

While Mao’s Communists were unquestionably heavy-handed and brutal in various places and times, they always stayed on key with the three main pillars, and so have enjoyed if not support, at least an absence of antipathy. When the CIA began to measure and project discontent in Communist countries as a key indicator of potential instability, they discovered that by 1970, even after the “Cultural Revolution” which abused so many Chinese, discontent in China was well below any potential threshold to support revolt, compared to rising discontent in the Soviet Union which later played into Reagan’s policies and showed up in such movements as the Polish Solidarity union. This relative stability of the PRC was one reason Nixon chose to play up the Chinese condition in an alliance against the Soviets in his trip to Beijing, and represents a long-term condition of the Asian environment. American response to Chinese dissidents, therefore, must balance the attractive demand for civil liberties and individual rights with the knowledge that we cannot be seen as trying to coerce a sovereign nation and proud people.

This is not to say, at all, that there is no desire for true economic and political freedom in China, but that it must be perceived as the United States supporting a popular Chinese initiative, and not as the United States attempting to overthrow a native and legitimate government. A good scenario for the United States might be like Poland, where initial attempts to unionize industry met not only with government crackdowns, but disapproval by the citizens. Gradually, the Solidarity union and similar actions won over enough of the people to take momentum past a tipping point, where it was clear that Polish people were demanding their own course, and the Communist committes were seen as the oppressors. This gained sufficient support that even Soviet occupation failed to quell the movement, and unlike revolts in Chechnya and Kazakhstan, was almost completely non-violent. The Polish movement combined economic logic with individual rights, and while it suffered many setbacks, in the long-term it was not only successful in forcing a Soviet pullback, but helped establish a stable and constructive government of its own.

The China model is similar. As galling as it is to see Beijing crush dissent is such forms as praying in public, or even silent meditation as a group, it should be understood that this offends the Chinese sensibility at a deeper level, and the resentment will naturally flow against the Communists, unless the United States makes statements or actions which distract attention and emotion against the West. Take the Falun Gong, as an example. While many Falun Gong teachers have taken refuge in the United States, the movement is clearly home-grown and native in spirit to China. Therefore, the oppression by the Communists is not only seen as unreasonably harsh against non-violent and non-offensive actions, but also as anti-Chinese, creating and increasing resentment against the Communists as an anti-Chinese force, which they can suppress in the short term, but which weakens Communism in the long term.

At the risk of sounding like a Grand Strategist (I can get away with that, as I am only a pretentious individual, and have no place in the government where someone might be able to claim that I represent official policy), this is how the United States has sustained an economic and cultural preeminence in Asia. Japan was supposed to have passed the United States in most comparable factors a generation ago, yet the United States has not only made gains where Japan has failed to, they have caught up in areas where Japan initially appeared to be running away (such as the nanotechnology innovations), and on most economic fronts, including even the stock market, a comparison over the past 40 years between the United States and Japan favors the Americans. But this economic advantage is nothing matched to the cultural advantage; American music, movies, fashion, and language completely dominate Japan. And the Japan situation is very representative of the rest of Asia; even in Vietnam, American money is readily accepted and American business investment is highly sought. The same is true in places like Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and across the Pacific coast.

The United States did not achieve this dominance through subversion or manipulation, but by simplying offering attractive products and reasonable opportunities. The overall condition of American business, has been to create a network of generally trustworthy partners who keep their commitments for mutual gain. Synergy is a common element in American Business agreements. In the case of China, this not only allows the United States to attract investment opportunities, but also forces the Communist Party into a dilemma; in the past, the Communists simply broke agreements where they pleased, but in order to grow in the long-term, they must accept terms which force them to comply with commitments, to accept losses in individual cases where they miscalculated or failed to anticipate critical events or conditions. In other words, despite the long practice of acting autocratically in their contract negotiations, the Chinese government is coming to understand that economic success comes only through the review of independent auditors, the diligent compliance with contract terms, and essentially the embracing of truly democratic practices in trade practices. If they refuse to take on these attributes, Chinese businesses will suffer the stigma of being unreliable, and China will lose contracts to those countries whose businesses accept such conditions. If they accept those attributes, then the economic success of China will begin to influence cultural expectations. As is the case already with Hong Kong and Macau and Shang Hai, China is learning that corporate success, which brings in the coveted tax revenues, also creates an environment of expectation, where individuals demand their own standing and rights. One can hardly imagine what will happen when a Chinese Trump or Forbes comes onto the scene, but it is almost certain to happen in the next two decades. A Free-Market China will be good for their Economy but even better, is a foundation for a Free China in general.

Politics and Sports - Keep The Goal In Mind

2005 2005 2005

With the Houston Astros in the World Series at last, I have been thinking about sports a bit, and so found my way to MLB.com to catch the buzz from fans. To my surprise, while I expected a shift away from politics into sports, I discovered that a number of fans cheering against the Astros were not doing so because they were White Sox fans, or because they were disgruntled Cardinals or Braves fans, but because George W. Bush is from Texas. That, and because Enron was headquartered in Houston, and once paid for the naming rights to the new baseball park where the Astros play, now named Minutemaid, or the JuiceBox. And because Houston is known for oil and high-technology companies, which are regularly associated with capitalism and other hated forces. Strange. I tried to discuss batting and pitching statistics with a couple of these guys, but no joy. I brought up how so many of the Astros have played only for that one team their whole careers, a loyalty difficult to find in professional sports, but again they just fixated on the politics. Here we were, on a site devoted to baseball, and these guys were making a sports choice based solely on politics.

I bring that up here, because it reminded me about something we Conservatives are going to have to remember, now that we are growing into a majority. There’s different flavors of Conservative, and there are all kinds of reasons why one person will vote Conservative, and we can’t presume that one reason will be sufficient for everyone. In the 2004 election, National Security was the obvious first choice, but millions of voters made their choice because of the Economy, because of Taxes, because of Social Security reform, and other reasons important to that individual. There was no monolithic control or one-dimensional message, and we should remember that.

Republicans own the majority of Congress, hold the White House, and could move the Supreme Court back into the sanity of Judicial Restraint. To do that, however, the factionist infighting must be set aside, and priorities must be remembered. Once the Liberals began to lose influence and power, they held control by uniting on the most important issues, and so lasted as an effective political threat to the end of the 20th Century, even as the ideals they held proved largely false and illusory. Conservatives must mark which battles matter most, and whenever a smaller issue threatens to undo gains, or even where a major issue threatens to match a key issue with high cost to the movement, we should consider a better approach and resolution. That is, everything can be had with work and perseverence, but always at a cost, and we must be careful not to win battles which cost more than they gain. While it may appear that the support for Conservatism is permanent, in fact any momentum can be lost, and any gains forfeited, if we appear to be no better than the ideal we replace.

I still visit MLB.com, of course. They have a great site with a lot of baseball information, and there are a lot of great fans who know their sports. I have learned to just ignore the ones who can’t figure out their priorities.

Global Pandemic, or Chicken Little 2005

+*+*+*+*+*+*+

One of Alfred Hitchcock’s scarier offerings was a film in 1963 titled “The Birds”. One of the things which made the film both scary and comforting, was the knowledge that birds simply do not act in real life as they did in the film. That’s fine for entertainment, but it should not be used as a device to discuss more serious issues. That point seems lost on a number of people ready to jump to hysteria on the possible spread of Avian Flu, or H5N1.

TechCentral has set up a helpful site on the issue, although I still think the tone misses a proper sense of context. I should also note that some of the links posted do not appear to work, specifically the top site.

The World Health Organization is not helping, predicting “a death toll of up to 7.4 million”, on no more empirical evidence than Mayor Nagin used in predicting Katrina deaths. In the same article, not to be outdone in exaggeration, Dr. David Nabarro announced that the “range of deaths could be anything between 5 and 150 million”. Again, on no evidence of any kind; it appears that the speculation comes from computer models, which themselves are driven by parameters based on assumed conditions rather than any demonstrable performance by the virus. Even as the WHO pretends they are avoiding scare tactics, they employ just such false pretenses in trying to grab influence and resources. For good or ill intentions, they are choosing a foul tactic.

Henry Miller, a doctor pressing the case for immediate panic, or at least a flood of tax money thrown at the issue, claims “we'll need a Flu-Pandemic Czar -- someone analogous to Army General Leslie Groves, who headed the Manhattan Project: a plenipotentiary with broad powers and discretion.” Leaving aside the obvious flaws in that analogy, the only clear effect such a move would have, is to add yet another bureaucratic office which will suck money and influence without a single guaranteed return. Dare I wonder whether Dr. Miller sees himself applying for the job?

I found it amusing, how the Tech Central site noted what they called “the Andromeda Strategy”, taking the name from the Michael Crichton bio-scare novel, “The Andromeda Strain”. The writers failed to note that in the book, the mutating virus never killed all the people it was supposed to hurt, and ended up mutating into a harmless organism. And just in case you are thinking about the very scary 1918 Influenza Pandemic, the one which is tagged for killing some 18 million people just at the end of World War 1, do bear in mind that this was in Europe after about a half-decade of all-out war; the general condition in Europe at that time was to be underfed, dirty, and weak, so that resistance to viruses in general were very low. For all the talk now, it needs to be remembered that a virus requires certain conditions to exist, to grow, and to attack people. The very same things which protect you from the flu you already know, protect you against the Avian Flu.

At this time, here is what we know for sure. H5N1 is a virus known to afflict poultry animals, and it has killed 65 people in Asia, 40 in just Vietnam. The virus mutates, which is how a bird flu has come to infect people. The bad news is, in the whole history of Mankind, there has never yet been a cure developed for any virus. Not one. The way you get better from a virus, is that you just plain outlast it. All the medicines in the world do no more than treat the symptoms, which is fine in most cases, but in a serious case of influenza it really comes down to your immune system versus the virus. And even with “common” flus, the CDC considered 2003 an “epidemic” year, because at one point just before the end of the year, more than 10% of the flu victims died from it. These were usually the very young and the very old, which is the regular behavior of flus. So there is a risk, but that has always been the case.

On the other hand, we can take quite a bit of comfort in the known behavior of viruses. Viruses are transmitted easily through liquid and air transmission, but also die quickly in open air, or when outside the required environmental range for growth or sustainability. Also, it is a plain fact that while new viruses are a special threat because humans do not have immunity to them, it is also true that humans invariably develop resistance to diseases, even viruses. If this were not true, we should as a species have long ago died from the multitudes of extant pathogens. At this time, the H5N1 strain would be a virulent and contagious threat, but there is no compelling evidence to show that the virus would necessarily become the pandemic threat so direly predicted. The WHO and other money/influence-hungry groups are playing Chicken Little at the cost of proportion and sound judgment.

Balance is a vital quality in this matter. On the one hand, the threat from a new viral strain is certainly worth watching, and appropriate efforts should be made to address a possible pandemic. But on the other hand, viruses act and grow in known parameters, and exaggerating a scenario in order to grab more resources can often cost other valid efforts vital materials. Laboratories and organizations like the Center for Disease Control, literally hundreds of major university and hospital research facilities are already in place and examining the virus, and for all the noise about insufficient vaccine being available, this comes from the fact that with a mutating virus, a series of vaccines will need to be developed, and they cannot be created until a sufficient sample of the virus is available for the process. In other words, no one is sitting on their hands ignoring the virus, but some people are trying to drum up a panic by hiding relevant facts.

Like all flu seasons, get lots of liquids and rest when you can, and make sure you get the facts. And eat chickens, don’t listen to them.

The Few, The Proud, The Officials

XOXOXOXOX

I have been watching the Divisional and League Championship Series in Baseball with great interest, as always. And as always, I am half-annoyed, half- amused to see the reaction to game situations and official calls from people with a poor notion at best of what really happened.

This year seems to have had more controversy than most seasons. In Game 2 of the ALCS, A.J. Pierzynski of the White Sox swung through a low pitch on a two-strike count, for strike three. However, Josh Paul did not catch the ball cleanly, and while Plate Umpire Doug Eddings correctly rang up the third strike, he did not call “out”, because he understood the ball remained in play. Pierzynski picked up on that and ran for first, but Paul made the poor assumption that the inning was over and rolled the ball out to the mound, which pitcher Kelvim Escobar also had left, seeing his catcher head for the dugout and so thinking the inning was done. While replays were disputed about whether Paul actually caught the ball before it hit the ground, the stupidity of so many fans forgot the basic fact; that unless and until the Umpire calls the play over, it is still in play.

Then, in Game 4 of the NLCS, Phil Cuzzi called from behind the plate what looked to me to be a large but consistent strike zone, which worked well for both starting pitchers, but which reliever Jason Marquis found difficult to find. LaRussa, who had been moaning about the zone all game long, came out of the dugout to protest a walk issued to Lance Berkman on four straight pitches, which replay ironically showed were nowhere close to being strikes. LaRussa, not always able to accept reality, appeared to me to be trying to get thrown out of the game, as a spark to charge up his team, a tactic desperate managers use from time to time. In the actual event, it only inspired Jim Edmonds to get himself thrown out for the same stunt a half-inning later. All in all, not smart game management by LaRussa.

And then there was Game 6 of the NLCS. In the bottom of the fifth inning, with Houston leading 3-0 but the Cardinals threatening with nobody out, Adam Everett made a sweeping tag of Yadier Molina at second, who was called out. Cardainals fans and the less-than-balanced TV crew claimed the tag was missed, ignoring the fact that the umpire was closer and in position to make the call.. With one out and two on, John Rodriguez hit a sacrifice fly which allowed the Cards to score and close the margin to 3-1 Astros, but that was as close as they got, so the call never factored into the game.

The fans and more than a few chattering hairpieces have been demanding Instant Replay be used in MLB, or new umpires be brought in, or both, for some time now. The umpires and the league office have resisted, and with good reason. In the first place, devotion to video misses the fact that the camera can and does miss perspective. A good example is the way camera shots claim to spot whether or not a pitch is a ball or strike. The problem is that camera shots are only two-dimensional, and when the frame is frozen at any one spot, it misses the motion of the ball, and the fact that the window used by the umpire for the strike zone is actually a three-dimensional box, and where the ball finishes, or where it is any one point in time does not determine whether it is a ball or strike. Thus, even with replay footage of the pitch, almost every commentator fails to understand the nature of the ball/strike call, and so cannot speak with authority on the umpire’s opinion. The same thing happened in the Everett/Molina tag; the two camera angles used to show the play did not, if you pay attention, show a clean miss by Everett, but a close play which may or may not have been a tag. The plain fact missed by the chattering critics of the call, is that the umpire made the call, from a better position and with better preparation than anyone else.

I am hardly claiming that umpires never make mistakes. Yet they are an unalterable fact of the game, like weather and field conditions. If people demand an absolutely consistent, unchanging official standard on every pitch call, on every catch call, on every tag call, they must reasonably demand that every field in baseball be built to exactly the same size and dimensions; no more “Green Monster” or “Tal’s Hill”, no more roofs of any kind, or else everyone gets them. Same crowd capacity, no matter the size of the city, and oh yes, same starting times and weather conditions, or the games don’t count. If this sounds ludicrous, it should. It’s equally ludicrous to remove the human element of the umpires. While umpires work awfully long and hard to get every call perfectly right, they are human, and baseball is a sport which requires many judgment calls, and it’s a tough-skinned individual indeed, who can make so many high-pressure calls with all the attention thrust on them. Athletes, when they are honest about it, often admit that professional officials do a job which they themselves could not do, and meet a very, very high standard. Unfortunately, just as fans far too often take the hard work, preparation, and dedicated effort of an athlete for granted, they also fail to understand what it takes to work a plate or a bag in such conditions.

NLCS 2005 Game Six

==o==

Forty-Five years and two days ago, the Houston Colt Forty-Fives baseball club was awarded a franchise by Major League Baseball. Monday, October 17, 2005 was the 45th anniversary of that franchise award to the Colt 45’s, so the day seemed oh so appropriate for the Houston Astros to finally claim a berth in the World Series.

Then the 9th inning changed all that.

Tonight, the Astros will play Game Six of the 2005 National League Championship Series against the St. Louis Cardinals, the game moved back to St. Louis for the sixth (and if necessary, the seventh) game of the series. The press has been abuzz, with good reason, about the grand story of the Cardinals comeback from being down three games to one and having to come through repeatedly from a 9th inning, down two runs, two out, two strike situation. Pujols is pumped, as is LaRussa, as indeed is the rest of the Cardinals team. They earned the best regular-season record in baseball this year, and they are confident that this will help them return to the World Series, to face the Chicago White Sox. I hope, and believe, that the Cardinals are wrong. While the Cardinals are indeed a fine and formidable opponent, the Houston Astros will find the way to claim that long-denied Series berth.

Granted, winning in St. Louis should be harder than it was in Houston. Then again, if you look at the NLCS results so far, we have seen only one game which was decided by a margin greater than two runs. Game one was won by the Cards by 2 runs, Game 2 by the Astros with a 3-run margin, Games 3, 4, and 5 each by one run. The two clubs play even, and it all comes down to who can play well here and now. The Cards lost three in a row before winning Game 5, but the Astros have not lost two back-to-back games in the playoffs. If the Cards win tonight, the two teams play again to see who moves on to face the White Sox, but if the Astros win they clinch now. And while the Cards fans will remember how much they enjoyed the game after Pujols hit that home run, I recall how dismayed they looked just a little while before he did it. I really do not think the same situation will come around again, and even if it does, the Astros won’t repeat the same mistake.

The Astros, whatever they said and did Monday night after the game, look like they got it out of their system and are ready for tonight. I hope so, because as subjective as I admit it is to say so, these guys are due for a trip to the World Series, and they have certainly paid for their tickets, in sweat, dreams, persistence, hope, and drama.

Go Astros!

Demosthenes Is A Lonely, Bitter Old Man

.I.

I knew this guy in college. None of the women in school were good enough for him. They were too lazy, or too arrogant, or too obsessed with looks, or too plain, or else otherwise lacking in some way which made them unacceptable to him as a mate, or even as a girlfriend. Subsequently, this guy had a lot of free time that he was expecting to spend with his perfect woman. The problem he overlooked is, his standard was such that no mortal woman could meet it, and so he was always disappointed. And naturally, he could never agree that the problem was his expectations. No, it was always that this woman was just not honest enough, and that one just didn’t look below a person’s surface.

At the time, I thought this guy was a bit strange, expecting perfection even after seeing the reality of the world. But I see in politics and ideology the same demand for perfection, the utter rejection of even the smallest flaw.

It just doesn’t seem like a good strategy to me. That guy I knew, never did get married, and by what I could see, he was not happy with his choice, not nearly so happy as the “fools” who settled for someone imperfect but human, and whose good qualities were appreciated.

Baseball Umpire Scenario

OK, imagine you're the plate umpire and here is the situation:

[] Runners at 1st and 3rd, 2 out

[] 2 ball, 2 strike count on the batter

[] Pitch comes in the strike zone

[] Batter steps towards the plate while swinging the bat

[] Ball misses the bat, hits the batter in the belly

[] Ball then bounces from the batter's belly to the catcher, who catches the ball cleanly.


Waddayagot?

Poll Points

.....

Long-time readers at Polipundit may recall that this time last year, I was in the regular practice of dissecting polls discussing the upcoming Presidential Election. They will have noticed, I am sure, that I have not paid particular attention to the more recent offerings.

While some on the Left may believe I am ignoring the polls because of President Bush’s low numbers there at present, it’s really for the same reason I don’t spend much time checking the instrument gauge on my car while I’m not driving; I don’t worry about things when they’re not relevant.

You see, whether or not the numbers from Gallup, AP/Ipsos, Pew, and the rest are good for Dubya or poor in their portrayal of the President, they are not an apples-to-apples comparison with last year’s polls. In the first place, there is a generally smaller respondent pool of respondents, who are queried less often, and who are usually not even asked whether or not they voted in the last election, or intend to vote in the next one, which strikes me as a big mistake. Also, the questions are, to be blunt, often phrased in a manner which a courtroom lawyer might well object to as ‘leading’.

But it’s even more significant to understand how the significance of polls has changed since last summer and fall. Last year, how well people thought of George W. Bush was very important, because Bush needed re-election. At this point in his Administration, however, Bush could really not care less whether his policies are a smash hit or not, so long as he is effective. While it could be argued that since Congress tends to pay attention to polls they would press the President to raise his numbers, it is a well-known fact that Congress generally gets approval ratings separate from the President, and in any case, while I would say that the White House is aware of public opinion, the W team is hardly about to approach the President and tell him that he has to change course, because CNN and CBS don’t agree with him.

Poll analysis is a growing field, and at the moment much more an art than a science. But in general, Bush knows that staying on course has worked for him, and in any case twiddling to wind flutters in a poll doesn’t sit well with his way of thinking. For better or worse, that means that the policies and nominees we get from the President’s office and staff are very unlikely to change. In addition to the President’s known stubborn streak, it is also a plain fact that Bush owes no markers to anyone in Congress; quite the opposite in fact. The GOP knows very well that whatever the present poll numbers, their chance for support in re-election depends on Presidential confidence in them, and more than a tepid photo op. That is, while George W. Bush has no more need of political ambition, he holds considerable political influence, and the Leadership of the GOP knows this. And since W. knows they know this, he knows he holds all the aces.

Yes, personally there are things I would like to see President Bush do and say differently than he has up to now. But it’s vital for folks to understand that he neither needs poll numbers, nor worries about them.

We Want A Pennant!

Go Astros!!!

Who Determines Credentials?

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

The Harriet Miers Battle between Conservatives rages on, and while the Liberals and MSM chortle at the scene of so many normally sane and respected leaders of the Conservative Movement descending to the depths normally reserved for Michael Moore’s rhetorical minions, and the hordes of the damned who sold their soul to Howard Dean and his lot. Whatever your position on Miers, it’s clear that things are not going as they ought.

The basic pivot turns on two points; whether Dubya is using crystal balls to make his pick, or relying as usual on his brass ones. The other question, and for me this is really the big one, is who decides what credentials are acceptable for a SCOTUS justice.

Put me down for the Constitutional style: The President picks a nominee according to his judgment, and the Senate holds hearings to Advise & Consent. Anything else wouldn’t really be kosher.

Amerigance, Ha!

***

When I was growing up, my parents were fairly representative of Democrats at the time. They approved of LBJ, in no small part because Walter Cronkite suggested they should approve of Lyndon. They disliked and mistrusted Barry Goldwater, because in addition to being a Conservative and supporting things like the Constitution as originally written, he was from California, which in the 1960s was not unlike being from Texas today. And of course, Walter Cronkite implied you could not trust Goldwater, and so it was ordained. Anyway, among other things my parents despaired of, was Americans ever being fully respected in the other nations, especially the ones which think of themselves as the wpitome of culture, and don’t you forget it. The “Ugly American” legend was in full swing; we were too powerful, but the Soviets were somehow restraining themselves. We were too rich, but somehow nations with higher per-capita wealth were never mentioned. And worst of all, we were cruelly imposing our culture, our morals, and our products on every nation unable to defend itself, never mind that the Communists were doing worse and using violence, and the Socialists were doing worse and using the monolith of oligarcic bureacrcacy (as if anyone remembers why, precisely, the Beatles moved to the United States, or why they wrote “The Tax Man”, but I digress). Nope, Uncle Walter solemnly assured us, that whatever was wrong with the world, it came from America.

Fast forward to 2005. Communism is dead in most of the world, and even worse, is not not fashionable. T-shirts of Che only sell when he is sold as a generic rebel; there just doesn’t seem to be the same cachet for sociopathic Communists anymore. Socialism is largely discredited, except in Europe where a losing plan always gets another look, especially where rich hypocrites make themselves feel better by insulting anyone who has accomplished something of merit. Even the newest model of anti-American strategy and grand politics, Global Terrorism, is failing to catch on. Seems the people most affected by Terrorism would prefer to run their own governments, and worst of all, are speaking with American Marines for the most part, instead of parroting the hate slogans from mullahs of questionable sanity. And the fact that countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon are either holding or demanding free elections shows the trend is only moving against the bombers, the Jihadists and the thugs.

Liberals continue to pretend George W. Bush is a failed President. Because pretense is all they have left in the bag.

The Test of Service

123 321

The following is from a letter I sent to the Head Office of Fry’s Electronics today: I am blogging in in a chronicle of the store’s response, and as a warning to anyone considering buying appliances from Fry’s, who has a national chain of stores.

“There are literally hundreds of stores in the Houston area which offer appliances for sale, all of them boasting about their prices and selection. In the end, the largest difference between them is determined by the service of their staff. I am writing to you to let you know about some very bad failures, as well as some very shining successes, in that area, along with the name of an employee who is doing extensive damage to your company name through her deceitful practices and offensive behavior.

My wife and I recently set out to purchased appliances; we took care in selecting appliances to avoid any complications in the quality of their performance, and so set out to get a Maytag washer and drier, and a Maytag refrigerator.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2005, my wife and I visited the Fry’s Electronics store at 11565 Southwest Freeway in Houston. During our visit, we met Josie Ames, a Fry employee in appliances who is a persuasive seller, but as we would learn, not an honest one.

Josie was unable to show us a Maytag washer and dryer we liked (I tend to mistrust the digital display machines, knowing how quickly those can wear out), but told us the Amana washer and dryer were basically the same thing, as they were made by the same company as the Maytag washers and dryers. Josie assured us that Fry’s offered prices as low as anyone else we would find, and since we were asking about delivery on Saturday October 1, Josie said she could “guarantee” we would get delivery between 10 AM and 2 PM that day, of the washer, dryer, and refrigerator if we purchased them on Tuesday night. On those two very specific promises, my wife and I purchased Amana washer and dryer, and a Maytag refrigerator on Tuesday, September 27 (Store #29, Invoice #466315, total $1,558.61 with tax).

On Thursday, September 29th, my wife and I began to move from our old place into our new. As I was leaving my old residence on the 30th, I did not need the refrigerator or washer/dryer until the Saturday promised, and so on the 30th I put our perishable food in some coolers with ice for overnight, and we got ready for the Saturday delivery. I called the store Friday to make sure they had the necessary information for the delivery, and was assured everything was good to go.

On Saturday October 1st, I called around 10 in the morning, to once again make sure the store had the correct instructions for finding our home, as Josie had not asked for directions when she wrote up our sale. At that time, Josie told me (for the first time), that there was a problem; the store could not deliver my refrigerator as promised on Saturday, and did not immediately know when they could deliver it. This created an immediate problem for me, as the ice in the coolers had pretty much melted overnight, and while I was comfortable keeping the perishable food in ice chests overnight, I would not be able to trust food left out of a refrigerator for more than 12 hours. This fact, in addition to her specific promise that the problem she had “guaranteed” would not happen, was happening anyway, did not concern Josie, who now expected either my wife or me to take an extra day off work to be home for the eventual delivery of our missing refrigerator. As for the promised washer and dryer, they did arrive on Saturday, though not in the promised ‘10 AM to 2 PM’ window that Josie “guaranteed”; the truck with those appliances did not arrive until 4:30 PM, further delaying other things we needed to do.

Because of the broken promise by Josie, we had to reschedule for a delivery on Tuesday, October 4th. When I called Tuesday morning to try to get an idea of when the delivery would occur, Josie again said they could not deliver as promised; they did not, in fact, even know where the refrigerator was, even though the day before, Josie had assured me it was on the dock, ready to go. I made a number of attempts to contact the Store Manager, during which time Josie deliberately hung up on me when I reminded her that she had specifically promised this problem would not happen, and therefore she should take responsibility to correct the problem. I eventually spoke with Demond Burfitt, the Department Manager for Appliances. We spoke at about 4:30 PM, and he promised to personally bring out the refrigerator, which he did, showing up at the house around 7:00 PM. I want to stop at this point and highlight the difference between Josie Ames, who does not mind lying to customers or treating them rudely, and who feels no sense of responsibility, and Demond Burfitt, who took up the challenge caused by Josie’s criminal behavior and worked to resolve the problem.

There were, however, two problems caused by the delivery of the refrigerator. First, while personally bringing in the refrigerator, Mr. Burfitt and Joseph Cupidor (whom I was led to believe was the Store Manager) banged the refrigerator into the dishwasher, leaving a dent and scratch in the face of it. Bear in mind please that the dishwasher is brand new. Also, they had trouble attaching the handle to the freezer door, and stripped the door threading while trying. Consequently, while they brought the refrigerator on October 4th, it was necessary to repair additional damage they caused. On Saturday, October 8th, Mr. Cupidor brought a freezer door for the same model, to replace the damaged one; this came from a floor demo model. At this writing, the damage to the dishwasher has not yet been addressed.

Mr. Burfitt, at the time the dishwasher was damaged, promised to get the face replaced. He made a show of getting the make and model information, but as the days passed nothing happened. On Tuesday, October 9th, I came home and found a phone message from Josie Ames (the salesperson who had repeatedly lied to us, and who had hung up on me deliberately when I said I needed to speak to the Store Manager), saying that they needed me to find the model number and call them back before 6 PM. Since I arrived home at 6:45, I could not get that information to them until Thursday morning, which I did. I spoke on Thursday and Friday with Mr. Burfitt and Mr. Cupidor about the matter, and in short, there seems to be a continuing problem getting the damage caused by the Fry’s employees repaired; at this writing I do not know, in specific, how Fry’s intends to repair my dishwasher. On Thursday, Mr. Burfitt said it would be necessary for Fry’s to send out people to take photos of the damage, which would then be addressed by Fry’s insurance company. How long this will take, and why I am required to wait while Fry’s decides what to do, was not answered. When I called Saturday morning to speak to Mr. Cupidor, Josie Ames answered the phone, and when she discovered it was me, immediately hung up on me again. The people scheduled to come take the photos were due between 9 AM and 1 PM, but failed to arrive in that window.

On Saturday, October 15th, I tried repeatedly to speak with either Demond Burfitt or Joseph Cupidor on the matter, without much success. I spoke with Mr. Burfitt by his cell phone, as he was not at the store that day, and he assured me the people coming to take the photos would be there, and that he would call them. I was unable to get through to Mr. Cupidor; despite six calls, I was either put on hold and forgotten until the phone disconnected ten minutes later, or else I was told he was unavailable and would call be back “in a few minutes”. When I called again at 12:30 PM, I discovered from the receptionist, for the first time, that Mr. Cupidor was not in fact the Store Manager but an employee in the Appliances Department. I spoke then with Daniel Torres, who was in charge of Store #29 at the time I called; Mr. Eddie Ashcroft turns out to be the actual Store Manager. He listened to my account of everything which has happened in the past eighteen days, and has promised to set things straight.

So, to sum up the matter: A Fry’s employee, Josie Ames, specifically and deliberately made false statements to me and to my wife regarding the price and delivery of our appliances. I say this, because at this moment Home Depot is running advertisements for a washer and dryer by Maytag which are, in almost every respect, the same as the Amana washer and dryer we purchased at Fry’s, except that Home Depot is offering them for a combined price more than a hundred-fifty dollars less than what Fry’s charged us, plus they offer a $150 Gift Card for any purchase of more than $299. The refrigerator we have is not really the new refrigerator we were promised, as it was damaged during installation and had to be repaired with parts from the demo unit. Damage was done to our kitchen by the installation of the refrigerator, which has not only not been repaired in the eleven days since it happened, but no date or time has been scheduled, even tentatively, for when it will be done. In addition, we have lost food which had to be thrown out because the refrigerator was not available until three days later than “guaranteed”, we have had to take additional time off from work to be home for the later delivery, we have had additional stress from waiting for people who have, in four tries, not yet arrived within the promised time window, I have made over thirty telephone calls trying to resolve these problems in the past two weeks, and have been deliberately hung up on twice, disconnected (possibly by accident) another four times, put on hold more than a dozen times only to be told someone would call me back, which usually has not happened, and still I am left with a situation which is much, much different than the smooth delivery and installation of competitively-priced appliances I was promised back on September 27th. While Mr. Torres has promised to take care of the matter, I still think it is important that your head office should be made aware of the Customer Service conditions and opportunities at your Southwest Freeway store in Houston.

I know from my own experience, that the success or failure of a business share of market segment often depends on the quality of your customer service. That’s more than just answering the phone and smiling a lot; it really comes down to the test of addressing problems and concerns. In short, a successful business has to train and motivate their staff to fix problems and pay attention to them while they are immediate and small; putting someone on hold, telling them to call back later or that someone will call them back at some later time, or worse, neglecting a problem or showing resentment to a customer with a problem, these all make things worse instead of better, and can cause serious damage and a bad reputation that never quite goes away. To be blunt, the Southwest Freeway store has a problem with integrity; one employee at least is lying to customers, the staff makes customers wait for delivery windows that they do not follow through on, and there is a clear sense of not caring when the store creates a problem or fails to keep a promise. That combination will inevitably prove deleterious to a store’s long-term success. How you address it is largely your own concern, but I am sure that you will want to take care of such a serious matter. Speaking for myself, my next actions will be decided by how well the local store’s management deals with their responsibilities.”


Buyer beware, indeed.

The Call

o======

Ahhhhhhhh, Baseball, the first true love of many a man, before he goes through puberty or discovers beer. A sport so truly American, that when the Soviets wanted to groom agents to pass for native Americans, they made them play baseball and learn about all the major league teams. And like so many sports, the tradition includes the obligation to second-guess the calls made by the umpires.

The game in specific I have in mind, is the American League Championship Series Game 2 between the Chicago White Sox and the Angels, whether of Los Angeles of Anaheim depending on your sense of tradition and propriety.

In case you missed it, I am writing about the ninth inning call by Plate Umpire Doug Eddings, when A.J. Pierzynski swung at a low pitch for the third strike with two out and the Angels leading 2-1. Sounds like out three, game over right? Especially since Eddings signaled the third strike and pumped his fist to the side. Knowing that the pitch was low and understanding the rulebook better than many people who would debate the call later, Pierzynski ran for first base, fully expecting the Angels catcher, Josh Paul, to simply throw to first base to confirm the out. But that is not what happened, and the debate begins there.

Paul gloved the ball as it either bounced off the ground at the lip of his glove, or else just as it was about to hit the ground; which it is depends on whom you ask, even with taped replay. Without a doubt, though, Paul’s glove was on the ground and that should have clued the catcher to throw to first and make sure. Instead, Paul believed the game was over and rolled the ball underhand in the general direction of the pitcher’s mound as the Angels began to leave the field. None of the umpires, however, moved from their positions, and none of the umpires called Pierzynski out. By the time the Angels realized that Pierzynski had not been called out, it was too late to make the play. Later in the inning, Joe Crede hit a double that ended up winning the game for the White Sox to even the series.

Angels manager Mike Scoscia, who should know better, claimed “He called him out … When he rings him up with a fist, he’s out.”

Actually, no Mike, that’s not correct. As Major League Baseball VP of umpiring Mike Port explained, “Doug Eddings, all things considered, did nothing wrong.” In explaining why Eddings did not make a call to indicate the ball was in play, Port said “There is no regulation or requirement that they say something”.

As an umpire myself, I think I can help to explain the call. Without getting too fancy, you have two basic types of umpires: The Plate Umpire and the Field Umpires. They have very different roles most of the time. As the years went by and Baseball evolved, umpires learned that yelling things at players tended to make them stop, which was sometimes a very bad thing. For instance, umpires will usually shout “Foul!” when a ball goes foul in addition to signaling the foul with their arms, but will not make a verbal call when the ball is fair, because yelling something like “In Play!” or “Fair!” will be hard to hear clearly, and both runners and fielders have a tendency to stop when they hear something shouted by an umpire; the assumption is that the ump is telling them to stop. That’s why “Balk!” is called out loud, but a delayed dead ball foul is not verbalized. So traditionally, no matter what level of ball you are playing, umpires do not generally make a verbal statement when the ball is in play. When’s the last time you heard the umpire declare that a base hit or a double is in play, after all?

Now, the exact reason why a dropped third-strike is not automatically an out would take a while to explain, but for here I will simply say that except in leagues for very young kids, and unless first base is occupied with less than two outs, if the catcher drops the ball on a third strike, swung at or called, he better plan on throwing to first base or tagging the runner. If the catcher is in any doubt, he’d better make sure he tags the runner or throws to first. This is not unique to the Majors, but is the rule throughout Baseball; that makes it Josh Paul’s job to make sure.

As for the fist? It is true that when a field umpire signals with his fist, the runner is out, but that’s because the field umpire principally makes safe/out calls – notice that if he is asked whether a batter swung, a fist does not mean the batter is out, but that he swung. When addressing strike/ball calls, a closed fist means only that the call is a strike; it is not made as an out call unless the umpire calls “out” verbally. Again, this is nothing unique to the Majors, nor is it a new rule, so Mike Scoscia should really know better than to claim the ump called him out. Eddings did not say anything, and what that means should have been very clear to Scoscia.

Now then, when I am dealing with PONY-age baseball players, I sometimes have to explain to them that if I don’t say anything about someone being out, they should recognize that means the ball is still in play – I can’t call anything until it happens, and they have to be careful not to assume anything. I recall one ridiculous High School JV game some years back, where a player came around third trying to score, and the throw came in to the catcher. Obviously, there was going to be a play at the plate, but as both the runner and catcher looked at me for the call, I had to say nothing for a few seconds. That was because while the catcher had tagged the runner with his glove before he got to the plate, the ball had fallen out of his glove before he tagged the runner. As for the runner, his slide came up short, and when both he and the catcher looked up at me, the ball was a foot or so away from them, and the runner was about 8 inches away from the plate. As seconds ticked away, I heard yelling at me from both dugouts, but I had to wait until the light clicked in the runner’s head, and he reached over and slapped home plate just as the catcher realized he did not have the ball. It took a while to explain it to the coaches, but I had to wait for the tag, either of the plate or with the ball. Josh Paul should have known by the no-out-call that he had to make sure. He made an assumption, and that cost him.

I am a bit bemused by one thing, however. When I worked the plate, I recognized the possibility that I might not see what happened in certain places. So I developed a signal with my first-base ump to tell me with a fist or point-down whether or not a third strike had been dropped. Major League Baseball does not use that signal, and I have to wonder why. A clear signal between the umpires is always a good thing, but that comes down to the umpiring crews, and there lies a whole different reality. But umpiring is a job with a special set of required skills, and when you have to make the call, you have to expect the noise and criticism that comes with it. A lot of people who don’t know what they are talking about will chop at you and gain support from their buddies, even some famous sportscasters will show their ignorance, albeit to general approval from their viewers. It’s a personal irritation of mine, actually. I agree that it makes sense to hire former professional athletes to explain how a player handles a certain situation, and to hire former coaches to explain how plays are developed and training done. But for some reason, when they discuss the calls made by officials, the television guys still to back to the ex-players and coaches, rather than asking former officials. But then, asking the guys who really know what’s going on, has not been the popular thing to do.

The President

POTUS

A lot has been said about Harriet Miers, and for the moment at least, no more can be said which builds the picture effectively. She either is or is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but she is the nominee, and that’s not going to change. If you know anything at all about Dubya, you know he sticks by his people, and from what I have learned about Harriet Miers, I do not expect her to quail in the face of idealogical rage, even from the very people who ordinarily would caution the nation to take their time and learn the facts before building gallows. So, it will come down to the Confirmation Hearings before the Senate, where, as fate and the writers of the Constitution would have it, the decision to approve or deny Harriet Miers will be made by the men and women whose elected office includes that duty. The sniping celebrities who deride Miers simply because they wanted someone else, will find themselves left on the sidelines, where in this case they belong.

The decision to approve a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court lies, as it always has, with the members of the Senate. Some take this responsibility seriously, some patently do not. Their voters will have to live with this, as this quality of person was in most cases apparent at the time of their election, and the self-adoration of American Senators is a well-known proclivity. And certainly everyone should know by now, the character and temperment of George W. Bush. Sixty-two million people made their statement in favor of Bush last November, and that vote they cannot withdraw now. Granted, the alternative of John “Hero” Kerry is enough to have driven quite a few to the Right side. But Dubs has not been anything but what he promised he would be, like it or not. So why are some Conservatives unhappy with him, albeit mainly the ones with large bank accounts and personalities to polish?

I’m 45, and so I have seen that same strange popularity quirk before with Presidents. The fact is, every President has a flaw in his policies and person somewhere, or rather I should say that he will fail to please everyone all the time, even in his own party. The myth of the monolithic GOP was always amusing to us on the Right, especially as more people from a variety of backgrounds shared the same party ID. The Democrats never seemed to grasp that Republicans were more than one or two points of view, even on some very important issues. We just happen to be, dare I say it, usually more mature in our discussions and debates than the Liberals/Democrats. Even in the midst of the Miers debate, most Republicans have been able to respect dissenting opinions, with the unfortunate exception of a few who take their right to criticize a decision, and have tried to coerce their own choice in place.

The President has a lot of power, but it comes with real limits. Some of those limits are Constitutional, but some are simply points of reality. In the case of the Miers nomination, that reality includes the fact that most Republicans in the Senate would not confirm to the President that they would stand for an all-out fight with the Democrats. So, submitting a Luttig or a Brown, assuming for the moment that they are as advertised, would risk an outright defeat in the Senate, killing momentum for a number of important initiatives, and hurting the chances for the next nominee as well. Further, strange as it may sound, the President has always shown a preference for the known over the unknown. He chose Cheney over many other VP candidates suggested (including, thank God, John McCain), and while that was controversial, it worked out fine in terms of actual job performance. He chose Rumsfeld for SecDef over many other expected possibilities, and this has also proven to be the smart choice. When Powell (who served in reasonable fashion in getting Democrats to vote for the Iraq War) stepped down, Dubya went with Condi Rice, whom he knew very well from her work as NSA. More than a few people complained at the time, but Rice has proven admirably competent. The assumption that Bush chose Harriet Miers simply because he knows her work and character, is an insult not only to Miers and Bush, but shows that some on the Right have bought into the 'Chimpy McHitler' caricature the Left has sold all these years; it’s simply foolhardy to ignore Bush’s record of picks. It’s simply laughable, to claim that President Bush made the choice without considering what was required for the job, without thinking in the long term, or that he refused to listen to anyone else. It wasn’t true in 2001, and it is still not true.

The problem in the party camps is this sense that “He owes us”. Ultimately, that seems to be the basis for some much of the griping, that Bush somehow made promises he is not keeping. The funny thing is, the Democrats said the same thing about Clinton, even when he was doing things the Right detested and the Left should have loved. Both Right and Left chewed George H.W. Bush, sometimes rightly but sometimes out of sheer political hatred. I remember in the late 1980s how many Conservatives complained Reagan was “selling out” in his second term. As the years went by, that view mellowed out on the Right but at the time, it was just as fashionable for a “good” Conservative to whine and moan about Reagan, as it is now to pick away at Bush.

At some point, the truth will sink in, and it won’t make the extremists and the big egos happy. President Bush will, short of going completely insane, never face serious opposition in the Congress. That isn’t to say he will get what he wants, even most of the time. I mean to say, that over the remaining three years of his term President Bush will either convince the leadership in Congress to go along with his proposals, or he will find Congress doing as it pleases while putting up the face of cooperation, as is a very common historical condition. Bush has nothing on the line in terms of his career; he’s going back to Crawford in 2009, so he couldn’t care less whether this guy or that approves of his decisions. As always, Dubya will meet the challenge as he sees fit, and we will receive the results as a party and nation. On the whole, the GOP and certainly the United States are well ahead of where they were in 2000, but that fact will only become apparent as time passes, and as eventually it will have to happen, another Democrat claims the White House. For now, it seems appropriate to observe the powers and limits of the Presidency, which are contained in the Constitution of the United States, and in within the limits of the Beltway around Washington D.C. The President is a man, in this case a dedicated and intelligent man, who often turns his opponents' own pride and arrogance against them, but just a man for all of that. Expecting him to solve all your problems is not realistic. And disrespecting him on the basis of a decision which value and consequence you have nothing but assumption, shows how thin the layer of consensus our party has built thus far, and so verifies the President’s own caution.

Make Good Decisions

[][][]

Over the past week, I have received a lot of mail on my posts concerning the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court. Some of them have used language I find regrettable from people who claim to be open-minded and rational, but others have asked legitimate questions and voiced reasonable concerns. A great many have asked if I could manage to answer in less than a thousand words, so here goes.

[] No, it's not just accepting "trust me" from President Bush, to say we should consider his nomination of Miers in the light of his past picks. We do the same thing when we consider our legal and medical advice, or when we consider the input from a co-worker. Bush has a good solid record, and it just makes sense to count it now.

[] EVERY source is biased; the only question is how to measure the extent of it and see whether it's overboard. The simple fact is, if we look long enough we can find flaws in any candidate, and it should be noted that while it is entirely reasonable to ask how Harriet Miers is qualified, it is unconscionable to spread rumors or assume she is unqualified, simply because she is not what you expected.

[] Republicans overwhelming supported President Clinton's right to present his own nominees. No reasonable person can now claim Bush deserves less.

[] For many years, Republicans fought to make sure candidates were qualified, not to measure them on the basis of idealogy. We will put a dagger into Liberal hands if we abandon that sound practice now.

[] There will be hearings for Miers. The very purpose of these hearings is for the Senate to decide where they will stand on her. Premature verdicts are foolish verdicts.


Choose wisely. This is about far more than one pick at one time.

Know Your Enemy

XOXOX

In all the noise of the past week, with various individuals and groups saying regrettable things in a unfortunate ways, there has been a misconception created, that Conservatives are just the same as Liberals when it comes to emotional instability. But I think there are still significant differences, and so it is appropriate to re-examine a major figurehead of the Liberal movement, a man who holds considerable sway among the Left, and whose total lack of either candor or consistent principles makes it a chilling thought indeed, to consider that he very nearly came to claim the White House.

The following comments were made in a prepared speech to The Media Center’s “We Media” conference last Wednesday in New York City. The speaker was Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, and present co-owner of a small independent television network, and celebrated speaker for both the Democratic Party and the “Progressive” political movement.


“Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people?”

Just in case you ever wondered whether Al Gore and Michael Moore have experimented with the Mind Meld, I present this exhibit in hysteria and rumor-mongering.

“In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was - at least for a short time - a quality of vividness and clarity of focus in our public discourse that reminded some Americans - including some journalists - that vividness and clarity used to be more common in the way we talk with one another about the problems and choices that we face. But then, like a passing summer storm, the moment faded.”

A telling comment. The moment Gore seems to prize so highly, was when Mayor Nagin predicted 10,000 dead in New Orleans, and was screaming obscenities on a radio show at the President. It seems Gore is fondly reminiscing about the unbalanced Cindy Sheehan yelling about New Orleans being “occupied”. In those few days, the MSM picked up on that hysteria and began to parrot false rumors and harangue the President for not somehow foreseeing the disaster. Once it became obvious that the rescue and relief efforts were effective, and that casualties were far below predictions, and that local and state officials were far more culpable for the conditions creating the chaos and delay, then as Mr. Gore said, ”the moment faded”. Leave it to Al Gore to miss a mob frenzy.


“Our founders knew all about the Roman Forum and the Agora in ancient Athens. They also understood quite well that in America, our public forum would be an ongoing conversation about democracy in which individual citizens would participate not only by speaking directly in the presence of others -- but more commonly by communicating with their fellow citizens over great distances by means of the printed word. Thus they not only protected Freedom of Assembly as a basic right, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press.”

This is a great irony. Since newspapers and television networks broadcast to the public but do not allow for effective feedback and true communication from the public, this statement effectively proves that the Internet is the true great hope for democratic speech. Yet somehow Gore misses that obvious truth, and instead tries to build this statement into support for the chattering hairpieces of the television networks.


“Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers and, for the most part, resisting the temptation to inflate their circulation numbers. Reading itself is in sharp decline, not only in our country but in most of the world. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by television.”

Note that Gore makes no attempt to discover the reason why newspapers are losing readership. He simply assumes that the problem is with the public, rather than the bias of the newspapers. Note also that while Gore takes a distinct dislike to the syndicates and conglomerates of some cable and radio networks, he pays no attention at all to the growing monopoly of newspaper syndicates, who tightly control content and allowed opinion in their papers.


“Television first overtook newsprint to become the dominant source of information in America in 1963. But for the next two decades, the television networks mimicked the nation's leading newspapers by faithfully following the standards of the journalism profession. Indeed, men like Edward R. Murrow led the profession in raising the bar.”

Only a Liberal could possibly believe that the television news of the 1970s and later was, in any way, honorable or observant of a professional standard.


“It was universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where the people held the government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government.”

A distinctly ironic statement. That statement is completely true, and proves the need and virtue of the blogosphere. Yet Gore uses this statement not to support the New Media, but to try and defend the Old media oligarchy, as we saw for so many years under the Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw regimes.


“Instead of the easy and free access individuals had to participate in the national conversation by means of the printed word, the world of television makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation today.”

Again ironic. That statement, taken by itself, is very true, and would be a valuable caution to network executives and television managing editors. Instead, Mr. Gore misses the fact that the “world of television” which has so cut people off from the information and discourse they need is largely comprised of and controlled by the likes of CBS, CNN, and the Mainstream Media.


“Inexpensive metal printing presses were almost everywhere in America. They were easily accessible and operated by printers eager to typeset essays, pamphlets, books or flyers. Television stations and networks, by contrast, are almost completely inaccessible to individual citizens and almost always uninterested in ideas contributed by individual citizens. Ironically, television programming is actually more accessible to more people than any source of information has ever been in all of history. But here is the crucial distinction: it is accessible in only one direction; there is no true interactivity, and certainly no conversation.”

In that statement Mister Gore has, however accidentally, touched on the value and importance of blogs. Though the word “blog” never once escaped Gore’s lips, nor could the man who thought so much of himself that he implied he played a leading role in making the Internet a reality, bring himself to acknowledge the New Media and the effect of citizen journalists. So it is, that every salient point made by Mr. Gore is established by accident rather than intent.


“ Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.”

Personally, I find Rush Limbaugh a bit of a pompous sort, and more than once he has handled himself in a manner I found unhumorous. That said however, I have heard Limbaugh’s show enough times to know that the man takes pride in open debate on most days, even keeping Fridays open to the topic of the audience’s choice. His callers regularly include Liberals and opponents to Limbaugh’s position, who are invited (“head of the line”, promises Rush) to express themselves and who are never insulted, degraded, or cut off so long as they can remain civil. Comparing Rush’s show to others like Larry King or Al Franken, I maintain that it is a particularly false claim to say that Rush Limbaugh has ever been an advocate of Hate, nor tolerant of hate speech; Rush has always maintained an atmosphere of tolerance and open speech, and far more than any show on the Left with a comparable audience . While his opinions are strong and he will mock the Left for contradictions and hypocrisy, not once has Limbaugh been guilty of the kind of violence advocated by Alec Baldwin in 1999, nor the race baiting advocated by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, nor the outright lies promoted regularly by Moore and Sheehan. In no sense can Mr. Gore’s charge be said to stand up to inspection, nor has Gore properly acknowledged the extreme hatred voiced so often by the Left.

And for Talk Radio in general, it truly speaks volumes that where he ought to be praising the first truly interactive current-events forum in media, both for its commercial success, accessibility and even field for participation, Mr. Gore instead derides the entire venue. Note further that Gore does not dare to suggest what he would put in its place, knowing that the sheer idiocy of specifically advocating the return of the monolith of Big Media Networks would be too much for even him to pursue with a straight face.


“The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President”.

That statement right there, I submit, is prima facia evidence that Al Gore has indeed gone over the edge. Not only are the charges baseless and without evidence, the irony of complaining about the blogs’ style of commentary by comparing them to Nazis is priceless. Never mind that blogs have nothing of the sort of resources of the major networks or the political parties, or that there are easily hundreds of blogs, on both the Right and Left which regularly criticize the President, his policies and his nominations. Mr. Gore has managed to indict his own positions, even as he attempts to slander the myriad individuals who write their own blogs without direction or organized control. The blogs are the sole independent reporters and analysts in the modern media, and Mr. Gore tacitly admits as much by his attempt to slam them all with the same vitriolic tantrum.

“ As recently stated by Dan Rather - who was, of course, forced out of his anchor job after angering the White House - television news has been "dumbed down and tarted up."

Only a CBS executive or leading Democrat could now believe that Rather was anything but a criminal who got caught in his own fraud. Fascinating though, that in a speech about the responsibilities of the media, that Mr. Gore never once saw fit to acknowledge the multiple attempts by a major television network to influence a federal election.


“And it really matters because the subjugation of news by entertainment seriously harms our democracy: it leads to dysfunctional journalism that fails to inform the people. And when the people are not informed, they cannot hold government accountable when it is incompetent, corrupt, or both.”

Does anyone else here find it a strange thing that Al Gore, who once used a Buddhist Temple to launder his campaign funds from offshore contributors when he was Vice-President, and who was in all likelihood well aware of the goings-on at the Rose Law Firm and the various “special” arrangements made for the Clinton’s real estate deals, has the temerity to bring up the spectre of corrupt government? Does anyone else here, aware that the Clinton-Gore Administration was responsible for preventing the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden in 1997, and for creating the wall of bureaucracy between the CIA and FBI that prevented cooperation which could have allowed the Able Danger information to prevent the 9/11 attacks, find Mr. Gore’s statement just a bit disingenuous?


“We must ensure by all means possible that this medium of democracy's future develops in the mold of the open and free marketplace of ideas that our Founders knew was essential to the health and survival of freedom.”

In the end, people must choose for themselves what information they desire, and by what means they wish to acquire it. Al Gore is as arrogant as he ever was, to presume that a handful of elites should decide what the public will be allowed to choose, or to pronounce actual participation by the public in news analysis as unhealthy, even as he attempts to paint Dan Rather and similar frauds as courageous defenders of the First Amendment. Blogs and Talk Radio and Cable Television were not imposed on anyone, but thrive because there is a market, a hunger, for them. People like being able to express their own opinions, they prefer being able to sort through the information and make their own decisions. And I am merely exercising my own First Amendment rights to clearly state that Al Gore is very wrong in his assertion that our democracy is “hollow”; on the contrary, our democracy is very sound and growing, and it is vain, hollow men like Al Gore who fear its strength and vitality. But as long as men like Gore can find a ready audience in the Old Media, and sponsors to support their destructive agenda in a campaign against the rights of ordinary people, we must make sure we know the ways and mind of our enemies, and for the good of the nation we must stand together in defense of our common rights, for our common hope.

Too Stubborn

O-O

Some years back, I used to be a baseball umpire. If you love the game as I do, there is no better place to see a great game, than to work it as an official. While you must never let the game play distract you from your responsibilities on the field, later you can review the game in your memory, and truly savor the best plays made at close range. I have been able to see plays that those in the stands never see in detail, because I am as close as the players themselves.

Along the way of being an official, however, I have also encountered that breed of athlete who thinks that because he has a strong will, he is entitled to use whenever and however he likes. I recall a football player who punched a team-mate for what he considered a stupid play; I had to drag over a line coach and tell him what happened, explaining that I would prefer to not have to flag a player for fighting someone on his own side. I recall a team captain who cost his team even before the kickoff: During the hand-shake before the coin toss in a key district game, he looked his opponent in the eye and clearly said, “I'm gonna f--- you up”, and so set his team back 15 yards before they ever touched the ball. But far and away, the most common attitude problem I saw was with pitchers.

Being an umpire, I love catchers. They not only work (in my opinion) the toughest position on the field, they also keep us Blues from getting hit by wild pitches (mostly), and even have stopped foul balls from winging into our heads. An umpire will never deliberately give an edge to one team over another, but we do appreciate a smart catcher. And that means sometimes we tell the catcher where the pitch is, so he can signal the pitcher to correct his aim. Problem is, sometimes the pitcher doesn’t like the strike zone we set up, and expects us to change our zone to suit him. That does not happen, but some of the younger and brasher pitchers take a while to figure that out.

I recall an early game in Kingwood, where the Varsity was trying out a pretty young hand in a tournament game against Bay City. The pitcher was great at putting the ball where he wanted. The only thing was, he was consistently putting it 2 inches outside the plate. And I mean outside. None of the ball was catching the “black”, that rubber outline of the plate which most umps use to mark the outside edge of the strike zone, so I could not call them strikes, because as consistent as they were, they were not in the zone. I mentioned to the catcher, after the count reached 3-0 on the exact same pitch to the first batter, that the pitcher needed to bring them in just a bit, and the catcher sent a signal to the pitcher, but the pitcher made a face, and kept putting them in the same spot. After he walked the second batter on the eighth straight ball in the exact same place, the catcher set up inside to sway the pitcher to pitch closer to the plate, but no joy; before it was over, the pitcher had walked in two runs on six straight walks, and 24 balls out of 27 pitches (three times batters had swung at the pitches). The head coach called time finally, and before he could reach me, boiling at the situation, the catcher had jumped up and run over to explain what was going on. The coach shook his head, and had to actually tell the pitcher he had to choose between staying in the game and changing his aim to something in the zone, or sitting his butt down. The kid actually took a relatively long time making up his mind. In the end, the pitcher starting listening to his catcher and had a pretty good game after that, but the damage he did by his stubbornness sure dug a hole for his team. By the bottom of the first inning, they were down 4-0, just because he wouldn’t listen.

Politics can be a lot like Baseball, as the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court shows. The funny thing here is, there seems to be a lot of confusion about whom, in this situation, is the pitcher and just whom is the umpire.

Anything Is Possible

Eighteen Innings
Five hours, fifty minutes
Thirteen pitchers
Two Grand Slams

Astros 7, Braves 6

Astros 3 games, Braves 1 game, Astros take NL Division Series



Go 'Stros!

George W. Bush : No Supersuit, But No Kryptonite, Either

[W]

I will start by stating the obvious - we do not need or want Activist judges. I throw that out here, because it illustrates a frustrating difference between the Left and Right on the matter of judicial activism. Liberals see what they consider injustice, and want to use the Courts to remedy that injustice. They are quite willing to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution to support their actions. Constructionists, on the other hand, are compelled to obey the Constitution, and will not act outside the powers granted by it. So, when a Constructionist court comes to power, while they may wish to immediately undo the damage done by the Activist court before them, they cannot do so without support from the Constitution. These limits can be infuriating, but they are the rules by which Conservatives operate. People forget them sometimes, and demand things from their elected leaders which go outside the lines.

Hurricane Katrina was a particularly ludicrous example of how people often expect the absurd from the government. President Bush was expected to personally anticipate every twist in the course of the storm, hand-hold the local and state officials through all their responsibilities, and if necessary abrogate his responsibilities to get federal troops into New Orleans to take control. Naturally, if President Bush had actually done any of those excesses, we should hear how he was usurping his powers, but never mind. The point is, that millions of Americans act as if the President is a Superhero, who must rush to the need wherever it is, taking on the evil-doers with suitable sound effects and appropriate levels of cartoon violence.

And that crowd demanding that Dubya put on the Supersuit includes Conservatives. They see a potential fight between Liberals and Conservatives, frame it as the final battle between the Powers of Good and Donkey, and demand a political Armageddon, in large part because they are so sure they will win. When that comes to appointing Supreme Court justices, simply naming a competent and honorable person will not do; they demand a "known" Constructionist (even though History shows us that judges very often rule differently on the High Court than they did at the lower level), and eagerly anticipate a bloody and decisive battle, to the end of crushing the evil forces of Liberalism. The possibility that such conflicts may carry other costs they have not considered, or that they might lose by demanding such an all-out offensive, is rejected out of hand. And, having chosen an immature demand, they naturally pursue it with an immature rationale, insulting anyone who questions or criticizes their method, or who suggests that they might be overlooking other salient aspects to the matter.

President Bush is well aware of the "Six Roads" I noted earlier in the week. He understands that he must consider the needs of the House of Representatives, and even the needs of those vain puff pieces in the Senate. He understands that a necessary confrontation is one thing, but that going after a fight that risks long-term goals for small gains is simply unwise. He understands that there are likely more vacancies to fill soon on the High Court, but not if he appears to be looking only for extremist justices. Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter may all choose to retire soon, or they may hang on until after 2008, when they will see their seats filled by a different President. Dubya needs to convince them that he will be at least as reasonable as the person who will be elected in 2008. Dubya understands that if he appears to be catering to the Hard Right in his selections, this will hurt the Republican Party in states where they are still thought of as extremists, places like Florida and Pennsylvania and California, where high stakes remain for not only Senate and Congressional elections, but also for support for Conservatives in the 2008 election. This does not mean that Bush will not support true Conservatives, but he will not seek to display his choices in a way which will inspire useless conflict with Media or with the Lobbyists, who have no direct power but can still damage a careless President by wearing away support from his initiatives and programs. For all the talk about the President, Bush has done a very respectable job overall, not least because he keeps his priorities straight.

I never got into "Superman" much, because for all his strength and special powers, he was not very wise or inclined to consider his actions in terms of consequences ahead of time, or to weigh his options in a broad context of cumulative effect. Flashy yes, but not really effective for what he had to work with. President Bush, on the other hand, lacks the appearance of omnipotence, and so steps aside from the gunfighter scenario, but he still retains his full authority and every weapon at his disposal. No supersuit, but no kryptonite, either.

Will You Please Point The Gun AWAY From The Elephant?

[xx]

It used to be a mystery to me, why Republicans and Conservatives found it so difficult to make the most of their opportunities, or to show the unity that Liberals manage so often. It seems obvious to me now, that the differing factions of Conservatism are unwilling to share credit and gains with anyone who has even a slightly different perspective; a moral victory with no substance seems preferred to a solid victory resulting from consensus or cooperation with other groups. All or nothing, which too often produces nothing.

Sorting through the comments, I see the sort of thing reprehensible in anyone claiming to be mature and constructive in their position. I do, despite so many claims to the contrary, respect the right to think the Miers pick is not the best one, or even not a good choice. But far too many of the commenters have demanded the President give in to them, claimed Miers is unqualified on no basis other than that they wanted someone else. Many comments have been bitter, many more spiteful, and far too many more made no attempt to defend their position, but only attacked the people who supported the decision.

Comments from just yesterday’s post included claims about “Bush’s dereliction of duty”, denunciations of Bush supporters as “cheerleaders” and “kool-aid drinkers” and ”lapdogs”, as “pandering”, whining that somehow “debate is off limits” simply because I point out the venality of their tone and the total lack of evidence to support their claims - please note, by the way, that not a single comment has been deleted from these posts, although one comment Thursday was edited to remove gratuitous sexually offensive comments. Commenters have claimed that Miers was only nominated because she is Bush’s “confidante”, or that anyone supporting the President is “goose-stepping”. These comments are coming from Republicans, folks. Is that how you want to treat your own party? Really?

A surprising number of Conservatives are starting out with the assumption that Miers is not qualified. This betrays a serious misundertanding of the process, and a woeful tendency to jump ship when it’s not the style you want. Looking at the reaction, I generally see three groups - those who have worked with Miers approve of her selection, some of those who do not know her say they would have preferred someone else, and a growing number are saying they will wait until the hearings to see how they will respond. There are, of course, a relatively large number of high-profile people who have said some very unreasonable and negative things, but to be frank they have done this before, pretending they are better-qualified as popular celebrities than people who have been elected to make just these sorts of decisions.

Like it or not, the process will go pretty much as Hugh Hewitt described it yesterday on his radio show;

1. George W. Bush will not retract Miers’ nomination. If you doubt this, look at his track record on nominations.

2. That leaves two choices for the ‘Hate Miers’ crowd. You can give her a chance at the hearings, or you can try to tear her down by demanding your Senators vote against her before you have heard anything from her.

3. Because of the structure of the Senate, there are only two ways in which Miers will not be confirmed. Either she wil prove herself a complete idiot at the hearings, in which case reasonable Senators will remove their support for valid reasons, or Miers will prove herself to be so completely Hard-Right, as to strip support from the RINOs and every Democrat in the Senate. There is no reason, from her resume or her character, to believe Miers will make either of those mistakes. That means, in all likelihood, that Harriet Miers will be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. All the name-calling and spiteful feuding will do nothing to change that.

Far too many people on the right seem to have adopted the malicious caricatures the Left uses to think of Dubya. We are told that somehow Dubya “betrayed” the Right, as if he were an untrustworthy standard-bearer of the party. We are told that Dubya did not think this decision through, that he somehow must have forgotten about Luttig, Brown, or the more preferred choices. We are told that Bush prefers setting up his buddies, to doing what is best for the nation. When these sorts of inane comments come from Michael Moore or Al Gore, we chuckle and observe that they just don’t know the President. It’s now obvious that many Republicans don’t really know Bush, either, if they can trot out the very same lies and slander that the Donks have used for the last decade, so miserably and so falsely.

The Bush-haters, whether from Right or Left, continue to miss a few very important points. First, Bush is the President, and you are not. He was elected to make just these sorts of decisions. And before you get on your high horse to demand someone ‘better’, take a close look at the appointments made by Republicans over the years. Was Earl Warren, a “known” Conservative, such a great choice in retrospect? On the other hand, I recall Conservatives moaning about Clarence Thomas in very much the same way they are now about Miers. He wasn’t their first choice, so he must have been a poor choice. Funny how that opinion changed, when they saw Thomas do his job. I agree that there are other choices who appear to be more solidly Rightist, though that brings up another issue very few people seem to have considered - Judges can be just as guilty as anyone else, of putting Ambition ahead of better priorities, and of campaigning for the jobs they want. One thing about Miers, is that she does not appear to have sought out the SCOTUS job, which is something which puts her a notch above some of the other judges who have made sure their contacts and friends kept their name in the light of attention and discussion. After all, one thing we know about Activist judges, as that they tend to think more highly of their own minds than they do of the law they review; in that context a judge who campaigns to be selected to the SCOTUS is LESS qualified, from the Constructionist point of view, than one who has made no attempt to sell their name for the position. Miers is not only known to the President, which is true of very few other contenders, but she was sought by him for the post, rather than showing the ambition which could indicate a dangerous pride.

But to the main point, while honest Republicans and Conservatives may disagree on the Miers selection, there needs to be a better standard of behavior, or else all you do is damage the party, and the nation.