==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!
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
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?
[] 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.
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.
Monday, October 17, 2005
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.
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.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
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.
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.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
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 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.
Friday, October 14, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, October 10, 2005
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.
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.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
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!
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.
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.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Miers and the Roads of Government
0-0-0
I have learned, through experience, to look below the surface when considering the reasons and planning behind President Bush’s actions. Despite the mindless braying of insults about Dubya’s intellect, the fact is that he is a very shrewd politician and planner. Liberals constantly, as we have all heard before, ‘misunderestimate’ him. Recent events show that an embarrassingly large number of Conservatives buy into the same error.
Yesterday I noted that George W. Bush is the most Conservative President this nation has seen, even as a candidate, since Ronald Reagan. I noted that Bush has a long string of victories for the Right Side of Things, and has earned more than a little discretion in his judgment. I also noted that the anti-Miers crowd have not presented any opinions or writings from Miers to demonstrate cause for concern; it basically boils down to not trusting the President, even as they hotly deny the charge.
It still strikes me as strange, that so many people do not seem to have seriously addressed the fact that President Bush has considered all if the various candidates suggested before now, and there is a reason Dubya settled on Miers instead of Luttig. If Dubya were somebody with a record of bad appointments or poor judgment, one might reasonably challenge a pick which does not suit the conventional wisdom, but considering the number of times Bush has been right and his detractors wrong, the automatic rejection of Miers is, at best, poor consideration and an overly emotional focus on the part of the naysayers. George W. Bush was twice elected Governor of Texas, and now twice elected President of the United States; it is completely unreasonable to think he does not know what he is doing. Ultimately, like it or not you have to either stand with him or stand against him, and this has everything to do with the future of the GOP and Conservatism in the coming years.
There are six roads to power and influence in Washington, D.C., and far too often these roads are hidden from close inspection. They are quite real, however, and knowing which road a certain leader uses will tell you their motives, loyalty, and focus.
The first road is the House of Representatives. Do you want to know why, even as the media makes great noise about his indictments, that Tom DeLay is relaxed, even cheerful? OK, it’s partly the fact that Ronnie Earle is a corrupt git with a bitter grudge and nothing close to evidence, so that DeLay is in no serious danger of conviction. But it’s also because Tom DeLay does not really need to worry about what the media thinks of him, nor even the whole state of Texas. So long as his District supports him, he’s just fine, and he knows that fact quite well. There are over three hundred other Congressmen in exactly the same situation; they do not answer to the nation or their party, whatever their speeches say, but only to their district. For better or worse, there are always going to be members of Congress who don’t give a fig for anyone who doesn’t live within a walk of their zip code, because they don’t have to care.
The second road is the U.S. Senate. All the talk we saw this summer about the “dignity” and “stature” of the Senate should have warned folks that the U.S. Senate is more about privilege than ideals, more about personal influence than personal responsibility. Even the strongest Conservative in the Senate is going to be tempted by some of the perks and benefits set aside for the elitist section of the Congress. The fourteen Senators who took it upon themselves to decide what the whole Senate would or would not do, without any input from even the Senate Majority Leader, demonstrates the arrogance of such people. And it should be considered that these are the men and women who vote Bush’s nominees in or out, often according to their own measure of advantage or self-interest. Few people indeed, have considered whether the nature of the Senate head count is relevant to the sort of nominees to be submitted.
The third road is the Executive branch. Most visible in that line is the President of course, but also the people he appoints and who provide him with the information and support he needs for his decisions. A President is normally seen as a strong center of power and authority, but as we have seen in the past, the President really has firm limits of his power, and depends on the Courts and Congress to grant him what he requests, form the budget to his appointments to his executive orders. As for the people working under the President, they serve at his pleasure, which in real-world terms means they have no sure security at all.
The fourth road is Lobbying, that mercenary trade of influence and information, somewhat less honorable or direct than Prostitution, but a favorite career for former officials all the same. While these individuals are not elected, and so do not consider themselves answerable, they have increasingly found it expedient to be able to provide information for Congressmen and high-profile officials, in order to receive consideration at a later time.
The fifth road is, it seems, proof that God felt sorry for the Lobbyists, and created a class of creature even lower in ideals and standards. I write, of course, about the Media, which necessarily includes my own humble efforts. The Media can be callously reckless, like the CBS attempt to smear President Bush in the ‘Rathergate’ episode, or stupidly biased, as we see every time a network sees a chance to put emotion ahead of upright reporting; ‘sweeps week’ has become ‘sweeps life’, all about the ratings, or what the suits think will impress the viewers. Sad to say, we see the same thing even among the New Media, where increased stature and attention has led some sites and stations to think they personally matter more than the issues they cover. This week has shown that Conservatives are in no way immune to such thinking.
The sixth road is the courts. While some judges run for office, at the Federal Appeals level and up, we see nominations to be confirmed by Congress, which is where the real circus begins. As a reader wrote me last night, “the absolute first rule of politicians is to get re-elected”, which means that a nominee is not confirmed by his or her qualifications, but by what Senator Hairpiece thinks his voters want. As my reader went on to say, “there are too many Republicans who cannot afford (at least in their own minds) to risk being labeled a "right wing extremist", which is the appellation that surely would follow from any nomination of a committed, vocal Conservative to the Supreme Court “. These are my own thoughts on the matter. The simple fact is, that the nomination of a judge or justice in no way guarantees their confirmation, especially after all we have seen during Dubya’s first term. Just this summer, we saw seven Republicans stick a knife in the back of Frist, rather than do their jobs properly. It is not the President’s fault that so many RINOs roam the halls of the Senate, or that so many politicians have sold their spines for TV time, but far too many analysts have forgotten the fact of that quavering character, demanding the President put everything on the table now, for a gamble they themselves can call reckless if it doesn’t pay off, even as they scream for it. The decision was made to present a qualified candidate, one who will advance the Conservative movement, but not give ammunition to hurt the work coming along in the next three years. Dubya knows Miers, and he has been looking for the best candidate for a long time. Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I wonder how much we really know about the “sure thing” picks we heard so much before. Not too many people seem to have considered that judges solicit support for the jobs they want, just like anyone else. Funny, that people would put the word of a newspaper columnist or talk show host, ahead of a man they say they trust with the welfare of the nation and the party. Huh, go figure.
And what about Miers? I have read comments from supposed Conservatives denouncing her as “unqualified”, or some who grudgingly admit she is qualified, but claim there are “dozens, even hundreds” of better choices. Seriously, does anybody who makes such insulting and ill-considered comments expect them to be taken seriously? Does anyone who throws out such emotional tripe think this advances the discussion? What exactly are you expecting? Do you think you can call up the White House and force the President to pull his choice in favor of yours? That, people, is not going to happen. If Miers is shot down, Bush will send out another nomination, but it’s still going to be someone he chooses, and you should certainly know by now, Dubya is not a man who settles for being bullied. You choose not to trust him, that’s your loss. You chose to screw around with his work, that just hurts the country.
I have learned, through experience, to look below the surface when considering the reasons and planning behind President Bush’s actions. Despite the mindless braying of insults about Dubya’s intellect, the fact is that he is a very shrewd politician and planner. Liberals constantly, as we have all heard before, ‘misunderestimate’ him. Recent events show that an embarrassingly large number of Conservatives buy into the same error.
Yesterday I noted that George W. Bush is the most Conservative President this nation has seen, even as a candidate, since Ronald Reagan. I noted that Bush has a long string of victories for the Right Side of Things, and has earned more than a little discretion in his judgment. I also noted that the anti-Miers crowd have not presented any opinions or writings from Miers to demonstrate cause for concern; it basically boils down to not trusting the President, even as they hotly deny the charge.
It still strikes me as strange, that so many people do not seem to have seriously addressed the fact that President Bush has considered all if the various candidates suggested before now, and there is a reason Dubya settled on Miers instead of Luttig. If Dubya were somebody with a record of bad appointments or poor judgment, one might reasonably challenge a pick which does not suit the conventional wisdom, but considering the number of times Bush has been right and his detractors wrong, the automatic rejection of Miers is, at best, poor consideration and an overly emotional focus on the part of the naysayers. George W. Bush was twice elected Governor of Texas, and now twice elected President of the United States; it is completely unreasonable to think he does not know what he is doing. Ultimately, like it or not you have to either stand with him or stand against him, and this has everything to do with the future of the GOP and Conservatism in the coming years.
There are six roads to power and influence in Washington, D.C., and far too often these roads are hidden from close inspection. They are quite real, however, and knowing which road a certain leader uses will tell you their motives, loyalty, and focus.
The first road is the House of Representatives. Do you want to know why, even as the media makes great noise about his indictments, that Tom DeLay is relaxed, even cheerful? OK, it’s partly the fact that Ronnie Earle is a corrupt git with a bitter grudge and nothing close to evidence, so that DeLay is in no serious danger of conviction. But it’s also because Tom DeLay does not really need to worry about what the media thinks of him, nor even the whole state of Texas. So long as his District supports him, he’s just fine, and he knows that fact quite well. There are over three hundred other Congressmen in exactly the same situation; they do not answer to the nation or their party, whatever their speeches say, but only to their district. For better or worse, there are always going to be members of Congress who don’t give a fig for anyone who doesn’t live within a walk of their zip code, because they don’t have to care.
The second road is the U.S. Senate. All the talk we saw this summer about the “dignity” and “stature” of the Senate should have warned folks that the U.S. Senate is more about privilege than ideals, more about personal influence than personal responsibility. Even the strongest Conservative in the Senate is going to be tempted by some of the perks and benefits set aside for the elitist section of the Congress. The fourteen Senators who took it upon themselves to decide what the whole Senate would or would not do, without any input from even the Senate Majority Leader, demonstrates the arrogance of such people. And it should be considered that these are the men and women who vote Bush’s nominees in or out, often according to their own measure of advantage or self-interest. Few people indeed, have considered whether the nature of the Senate head count is relevant to the sort of nominees to be submitted.
The third road is the Executive branch. Most visible in that line is the President of course, but also the people he appoints and who provide him with the information and support he needs for his decisions. A President is normally seen as a strong center of power and authority, but as we have seen in the past, the President really has firm limits of his power, and depends on the Courts and Congress to grant him what he requests, form the budget to his appointments to his executive orders. As for the people working under the President, they serve at his pleasure, which in real-world terms means they have no sure security at all.
The fourth road is Lobbying, that mercenary trade of influence and information, somewhat less honorable or direct than Prostitution, but a favorite career for former officials all the same. While these individuals are not elected, and so do not consider themselves answerable, they have increasingly found it expedient to be able to provide information for Congressmen and high-profile officials, in order to receive consideration at a later time.
The fifth road is, it seems, proof that God felt sorry for the Lobbyists, and created a class of creature even lower in ideals and standards. I write, of course, about the Media, which necessarily includes my own humble efforts. The Media can be callously reckless, like the CBS attempt to smear President Bush in the ‘Rathergate’ episode, or stupidly biased, as we see every time a network sees a chance to put emotion ahead of upright reporting; ‘sweeps week’ has become ‘sweeps life’, all about the ratings, or what the suits think will impress the viewers. Sad to say, we see the same thing even among the New Media, where increased stature and attention has led some sites and stations to think they personally matter more than the issues they cover. This week has shown that Conservatives are in no way immune to such thinking.
The sixth road is the courts. While some judges run for office, at the Federal Appeals level and up, we see nominations to be confirmed by Congress, which is where the real circus begins. As a reader wrote me last night, “the absolute first rule of politicians is to get re-elected”, which means that a nominee is not confirmed by his or her qualifications, but by what Senator Hairpiece thinks his voters want. As my reader went on to say, “there are too many Republicans who cannot afford (at least in their own minds) to risk being labeled a "right wing extremist", which is the appellation that surely would follow from any nomination of a committed, vocal Conservative to the Supreme Court “. These are my own thoughts on the matter. The simple fact is, that the nomination of a judge or justice in no way guarantees their confirmation, especially after all we have seen during Dubya’s first term. Just this summer, we saw seven Republicans stick a knife in the back of Frist, rather than do their jobs properly. It is not the President’s fault that so many RINOs roam the halls of the Senate, or that so many politicians have sold their spines for TV time, but far too many analysts have forgotten the fact of that quavering character, demanding the President put everything on the table now, for a gamble they themselves can call reckless if it doesn’t pay off, even as they scream for it. The decision was made to present a qualified candidate, one who will advance the Conservative movement, but not give ammunition to hurt the work coming along in the next three years. Dubya knows Miers, and he has been looking for the best candidate for a long time. Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I wonder how much we really know about the “sure thing” picks we heard so much before. Not too many people seem to have considered that judges solicit support for the jobs they want, just like anyone else. Funny, that people would put the word of a newspaper columnist or talk show host, ahead of a man they say they trust with the welfare of the nation and the party. Huh, go figure.
And what about Miers? I have read comments from supposed Conservatives denouncing her as “unqualified”, or some who grudgingly admit she is qualified, but claim there are “dozens, even hundreds” of better choices. Seriously, does anybody who makes such insulting and ill-considered comments expect them to be taken seriously? Does anyone who throws out such emotional tripe think this advances the discussion? What exactly are you expecting? Do you think you can call up the White House and force the President to pull his choice in favor of yours? That, people, is not going to happen. If Miers is shot down, Bush will send out another nomination, but it’s still going to be someone he chooses, and you should certainly know by now, Dubya is not a man who settles for being bullied. You choose not to trust him, that’s your loss. You chose to screw around with his work, that just hurts the country.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The 11th Commandment - Broken Again
.<>.
The continuing rancor among Republicans and the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court displays an unfortunate lack of understanding amongst Conservatives about the condition and reality of modern American politics. Certainly the Democrats have demonstrated that they do not comprehend how much things have changed since the heyday of the New Deal and the Great Society, to such a degree that the long-term survival of the Democrats is in grave doubt. But the present inability of many Conservatives to understand the situation they face with the Miers selection also presents evidence that the Right is also going to have trouble making the most of their opportunity.
The most common complaint I hear regarding Miers, is that the SCOTUS is somehow not going to be Conservative “enough” to suit the Right. It has been said before, by Lorie and others, but it needs to be said again, quite clearly, that such talk is a wrongful insult to Judge Miers, and certainly is an unacceptable arrogance taken towards President Bush. It seems to me that Conservatives sometimes fail to keep their support firm for Dubya, even to the point that some groups and individuals act as if the President owes them the first call on his own nominations. This has certainly happened before, with Conservatives decrying the selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, or the recent selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, or his staunch defense of Donald Rumsfeld during any number of MSM attacks. The fact that Dubya makes decisions carefully, then sticks by them, should have long ago warned people that Bush is neither conventional nor a popularity lapdog.
But a lot of people continue to forget the deeper lessons as well. When George W. Bush decided to run for Governor of Texas, he knew Ann Richards was a well-established icon of the Democratic Party, who never expected the former “frat boy” to understand the game of politics better than she did. It’s a great irony that the rising star of the Democratic Party who hoped to become the first woman President of the United States and the next President to come from Texas, instead saw her little-known rival displace her first in the Governor’s mansion, then take the White House twice. The simple fact is, George W. Bush had done his homework, and put up a poker face when it counted. We saw the same thing happen over and over again, as many Democrats ended up voting for the same Iraq War they later tried to make an election issue, and in the 2002 Mid-Term elections, when instead of losing seats as expected, the GOP made gains, directly due to Bush’s personal involvement in a number of close races. It’s frankly amazing to me, how many times Dubya has played the Left with a ruse, and accomplished everything he meant to gain, yet the Lefrt never seems to remember the trick the next time they come up against him; the juke always works.
With all this in mind, we turn to the largest stakes in the present debate; the lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, being “more” Conservative than someone else in appearance does not mean that you will make better decisions on the high court, for a number of reasons. For one thing, a reputation for being a Conservative judge may not mean anything when that judge becomes a SCOTUS Justice; ask Nixon and Reagan if they were surprised by how some of their picks turned out. To know how a potential Justice is really going to think when presented with key decisions down the road a number of years, the President choosing the person must be able to see who they have worked with, how their mind has developed, and ideally should have some personal contact with them as well. In short, just what we see with Harriet Miers. It is not necessary for Miers to hold an NRA card to support 2nd Amendment rights. It is not necessary for her to oppose all abortions as a matter of principle, to agree that the Federal Government should not rule on the practice and deny States their own jurisdiction. It is not necessary for Miers to condemn homosexuality, for her to oppose the notion that sexual orientation deserves special rights or protections. I do not mean to say that Miers has any personal opinions which Conservatives should find objectionable, but rather that we should want a justice who rules on the basis of the Constitution, not how they feel about something. The problem with Souter, as an example, was that he seemed to approve personally of the same things the elder Bush liked, but when it came time to rule, Souter applied his preferences in exactly the same method as Ginsberg or Kennedy, and that is the reason we now see him as a threat to the Constitution, rather than its defender. The record available on Miers is that of a Constructionist, and that, when we get to the bottom of the decision, is what we need.
President Bush certainly has his limitations, and there are issues and topics where Conservatives may reasonably disagree with his position. But then, that was true even of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater; the simple fact is that George W. Bush is far better for Conservatives than most of the available choices we’ve seen in my lifetime, and yes, that does mean that Conservatives owe this guy a certain margin of deference. For that matter, most of the columnists and commenting hairpieces on the Right owe Harriet Miers and the President an apology for the manner in which they have portrayed his decisioning process, and their rather rude assumption that just because they didn’t get the Conservative they expected, that the one they got is somehow inferior. The only “damage” that has been done to the Conservative cause in this matter, did not come from the White House but from the brittle egos of malcontents who are unwilling to set aside pettiness in the interest of greater ideals. They demonstrated to Kos and Soros and every back-biting Leftist in the field, that unity on the Right can be shattered by a simple bruised ego here and there, or the notion that the President of the United States is not allowed to exercise his personal discretion, without the permission of selected newspaper columnists. Nice going, to broadcast an Achilles heel for them to use against us...
Harriet Miers is not the problem. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and every Conservative whose loyalty to the nation and party depends on their personal approval of every decision are the problem. The oh-so-quick assumption by many that a name or two that they have heard in conversation or essay, but whose actual judicial temperment they do not personally know, is superior to a jurist known by the President, whose mind and character he knows, is appalling on its face, all the worse that it should be given such ready currency simply out of pique. It is not common for the average person to give a great deal of thought to SCOTUS nominations; except for recent events, we seldom hear of the community of judges. But given the ages of the Justices on the extant Court, and the strategic and tactical measures necessary to get confirmation and establish the appropriate atmosphere, it is completely in character for President Bush to have developed his working list a long time ago, even as he held it close to his vest. In other words, President Bush not only knows his personal choice far better in detail than most commenters can say for their choice, he has been thinking about this decision far longer than most of the people barking about it now.
Why not Brown, or Luttig, or Owen? Since I am writing this from Houston and not Washington D.C., I would have to say there are points in that decision to which I am not privy but then, that same disadvantage is true for everyone else as well. Certainly we should understand and accept that the President knew these judges well, and has considered their qualifications. If we can do that, then we are forced to concede that there is something else to the decision, that the President has more information and a deeper comprehension of this issue than the general public - what a concept!
Moving ahead, as adults invariably have to do sooner or later, there are two takeaways from this debate. One, is that Conservatives will have to decide for themselves whether or not they are willing to accept the choice of the most Conservative President in memory, and if not, to understand that they would be giving unwarranted influence and power back to the Liberals they claim to oppose in principle. The other lesson, sad to say, is that a great many Conservative figureheads have proven themselves to be as fighty, venal, and narcisstist, as any Liberal they have countered in the past. We are not the party we pretend to be, not yet, and there is much work to be done to mature the leadership of the Republican Party to handle such decisions in better fashion.
Somewhere, Ronnie is not happy.
The continuing rancor among Republicans and the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court displays an unfortunate lack of understanding amongst Conservatives about the condition and reality of modern American politics. Certainly the Democrats have demonstrated that they do not comprehend how much things have changed since the heyday of the New Deal and the Great Society, to such a degree that the long-term survival of the Democrats is in grave doubt. But the present inability of many Conservatives to understand the situation they face with the Miers selection also presents evidence that the Right is also going to have trouble making the most of their opportunity.
The most common complaint I hear regarding Miers, is that the SCOTUS is somehow not going to be Conservative “enough” to suit the Right. It has been said before, by Lorie and others, but it needs to be said again, quite clearly, that such talk is a wrongful insult to Judge Miers, and certainly is an unacceptable arrogance taken towards President Bush. It seems to me that Conservatives sometimes fail to keep their support firm for Dubya, even to the point that some groups and individuals act as if the President owes them the first call on his own nominations. This has certainly happened before, with Conservatives decrying the selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, or the recent selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, or his staunch defense of Donald Rumsfeld during any number of MSM attacks. The fact that Dubya makes decisions carefully, then sticks by them, should have long ago warned people that Bush is neither conventional nor a popularity lapdog.
But a lot of people continue to forget the deeper lessons as well. When George W. Bush decided to run for Governor of Texas, he knew Ann Richards was a well-established icon of the Democratic Party, who never expected the former “frat boy” to understand the game of politics better than she did. It’s a great irony that the rising star of the Democratic Party who hoped to become the first woman President of the United States and the next President to come from Texas, instead saw her little-known rival displace her first in the Governor’s mansion, then take the White House twice. The simple fact is, George W. Bush had done his homework, and put up a poker face when it counted. We saw the same thing happen over and over again, as many Democrats ended up voting for the same Iraq War they later tried to make an election issue, and in the 2002 Mid-Term elections, when instead of losing seats as expected, the GOP made gains, directly due to Bush’s personal involvement in a number of close races. It’s frankly amazing to me, how many times Dubya has played the Left with a ruse, and accomplished everything he meant to gain, yet the Lefrt never seems to remember the trick the next time they come up against him; the juke always works.
With all this in mind, we turn to the largest stakes in the present debate; the lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, being “more” Conservative than someone else in appearance does not mean that you will make better decisions on the high court, for a number of reasons. For one thing, a reputation for being a Conservative judge may not mean anything when that judge becomes a SCOTUS Justice; ask Nixon and Reagan if they were surprised by how some of their picks turned out. To know how a potential Justice is really going to think when presented with key decisions down the road a number of years, the President choosing the person must be able to see who they have worked with, how their mind has developed, and ideally should have some personal contact with them as well. In short, just what we see with Harriet Miers. It is not necessary for Miers to hold an NRA card to support 2nd Amendment rights. It is not necessary for her to oppose all abortions as a matter of principle, to agree that the Federal Government should not rule on the practice and deny States their own jurisdiction. It is not necessary for Miers to condemn homosexuality, for her to oppose the notion that sexual orientation deserves special rights or protections. I do not mean to say that Miers has any personal opinions which Conservatives should find objectionable, but rather that we should want a justice who rules on the basis of the Constitution, not how they feel about something. The problem with Souter, as an example, was that he seemed to approve personally of the same things the elder Bush liked, but when it came time to rule, Souter applied his preferences in exactly the same method as Ginsberg or Kennedy, and that is the reason we now see him as a threat to the Constitution, rather than its defender. The record available on Miers is that of a Constructionist, and that, when we get to the bottom of the decision, is what we need.
President Bush certainly has his limitations, and there are issues and topics where Conservatives may reasonably disagree with his position. But then, that was true even of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater; the simple fact is that George W. Bush is far better for Conservatives than most of the available choices we’ve seen in my lifetime, and yes, that does mean that Conservatives owe this guy a certain margin of deference. For that matter, most of the columnists and commenting hairpieces on the Right owe Harriet Miers and the President an apology for the manner in which they have portrayed his decisioning process, and their rather rude assumption that just because they didn’t get the Conservative they expected, that the one they got is somehow inferior. The only “damage” that has been done to the Conservative cause in this matter, did not come from the White House but from the brittle egos of malcontents who are unwilling to set aside pettiness in the interest of greater ideals. They demonstrated to Kos and Soros and every back-biting Leftist in the field, that unity on the Right can be shattered by a simple bruised ego here and there, or the notion that the President of the United States is not allowed to exercise his personal discretion, without the permission of selected newspaper columnists. Nice going, to broadcast an Achilles heel for them to use against us...
Harriet Miers is not the problem. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and every Conservative whose loyalty to the nation and party depends on their personal approval of every decision are the problem. The oh-so-quick assumption by many that a name or two that they have heard in conversation or essay, but whose actual judicial temperment they do not personally know, is superior to a jurist known by the President, whose mind and character he knows, is appalling on its face, all the worse that it should be given such ready currency simply out of pique. It is not common for the average person to give a great deal of thought to SCOTUS nominations; except for recent events, we seldom hear of the community of judges. But given the ages of the Justices on the extant Court, and the strategic and tactical measures necessary to get confirmation and establish the appropriate atmosphere, it is completely in character for President Bush to have developed his working list a long time ago, even as he held it close to his vest. In other words, President Bush not only knows his personal choice far better in detail than most commenters can say for their choice, he has been thinking about this decision far longer than most of the people barking about it now.
Why not Brown, or Luttig, or Owen? Since I am writing this from Houston and not Washington D.C., I would have to say there are points in that decision to which I am not privy but then, that same disadvantage is true for everyone else as well. Certainly we should understand and accept that the President knew these judges well, and has considered their qualifications. If we can do that, then we are forced to concede that there is something else to the decision, that the President has more information and a deeper comprehension of this issue than the general public - what a concept!
Moving ahead, as adults invariably have to do sooner or later, there are two takeaways from this debate. One, is that Conservatives will have to decide for themselves whether or not they are willing to accept the choice of the most Conservative President in memory, and if not, to understand that they would be giving unwarranted influence and power back to the Liberals they claim to oppose in principle. The other lesson, sad to say, is that a great many Conservative figureheads have proven themselves to be as fighty, venal, and narcisstist, as any Liberal they have countered in the past. We are not the party we pretend to be, not yet, and there is much work to be done to mature the leadership of the Republican Party to handle such decisions in better fashion.
Somewhere, Ronnie is not happy.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Why Not Me?
XOXOXOX
The selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court has raised the hackles of an amazing number of right wing advocates for the predictable, demanding a “known” conservative for the high court. My initial reaction to this sentiment was the same as my considered opinion; people insisting that Harriet Miers is unacceptable because she is unexpected, have simply not thought this decision through with nearly the diligence that President Bush has applied, nor have they considered the tactical advantages.
There are, basically, five types of people paying attention to the SCOTUS picks. There are the activists in the Liberal and Conservative camps, demanding the court swing their way. There are a lot of people who don’t really care who the nominee is, except that they don’t want an “extremist”. There are people who have one really hot issue, where they demand the “right” sort of judge. And there are people who just want a qualified jurist, someone who does not rule by a litmus test but maintains a judicial philosophy based on the firm understanding of what the Constitution actually says and allows. Speaking for myself, I belong in that last group.
But while I am speaking for myself, it occurs to me that perhaps I should promote my credentials for the post. After all, I am a solid red-meat Republican, married to a woman from another race to please the Diversity crowd, and an energetic sprite of a 5-year-old daughter to add the requisite ‘cute’ factor. I am a Texan and have worked jobs for minimum wage before, giving me both a loose connection to Bush and the common touch. And I am quite disposed already to tell Senator Byrd or Senator Reid to suck a lemon if they get mad because I am not sufficiently ‘progressive’ for their taste. After reading and hearing the opinions of so many angry Conservatives, I think I may be just what they want.
Of course, some might prefer to have a Conservative justice known to the President personally, rather than rely on someone who just happens to be popular at the moment with the Right. Some might prefer someone whose mind and character are understood by the man appointing the justice. Some might prefer someone whose proven credentials not only suit the court, but also will be very difficult for Liberals to turn to their own political advantage, especially in the 2006 mid-term elections. Some might prefer someone who is focused not just on the issues of the moment, but the Constitutional foundation of American Law itself.
Those people should be happy, because George W. Bush made a choice that addressed those needs and ideals quite well, in Harriet Miers. But if an eminently-qualified jurist known to the President, and this President in particular, is not suitable, I am still willing to accept the responsibility, for the good of the nation, and for the chance to put a tack or three on the seats of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.
The selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court has raised the hackles of an amazing number of right wing advocates for the predictable, demanding a “known” conservative for the high court. My initial reaction to this sentiment was the same as my considered opinion; people insisting that Harriet Miers is unacceptable because she is unexpected, have simply not thought this decision through with nearly the diligence that President Bush has applied, nor have they considered the tactical advantages.
There are, basically, five types of people paying attention to the SCOTUS picks. There are the activists in the Liberal and Conservative camps, demanding the court swing their way. There are a lot of people who don’t really care who the nominee is, except that they don’t want an “extremist”. There are people who have one really hot issue, where they demand the “right” sort of judge. And there are people who just want a qualified jurist, someone who does not rule by a litmus test but maintains a judicial philosophy based on the firm understanding of what the Constitution actually says and allows. Speaking for myself, I belong in that last group.
But while I am speaking for myself, it occurs to me that perhaps I should promote my credentials for the post. After all, I am a solid red-meat Republican, married to a woman from another race to please the Diversity crowd, and an energetic sprite of a 5-year-old daughter to add the requisite ‘cute’ factor. I am a Texan and have worked jobs for minimum wage before, giving me both a loose connection to Bush and the common touch. And I am quite disposed already to tell Senator Byrd or Senator Reid to suck a lemon if they get mad because I am not sufficiently ‘progressive’ for their taste. After reading and hearing the opinions of so many angry Conservatives, I think I may be just what they want.
Of course, some might prefer to have a Conservative justice known to the President personally, rather than rely on someone who just happens to be popular at the moment with the Right. Some might prefer someone whose mind and character are understood by the man appointing the justice. Some might prefer someone whose proven credentials not only suit the court, but also will be very difficult for Liberals to turn to their own political advantage, especially in the 2006 mid-term elections. Some might prefer someone who is focused not just on the issues of the moment, but the Constitutional foundation of American Law itself.
Those people should be happy, because George W. Bush made a choice that addressed those needs and ideals quite well, in Harriet Miers. But if an eminently-qualified jurist known to the President, and this President in particular, is not suitable, I am still willing to accept the responsibility, for the good of the nation, and for the chance to put a tack or three on the seats of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Race Baiting
[{}]
Race continues to play an inordinate role in American politics, and influences politics to an unhealthy degree. In addition to normative definitions of racial demographic groups, there are also cultural demographic groups which play a role in national politics, and to my mind are perverting the proper voice of the nation’s citizens.
To start, I took a look around, and generally there seem to be two models of racial influence in national politics; either the dominant demographic simply asserts itself and largely ignores the minority voice, or else the various demographics operate as a coalition, roughly proportional to the representation in the population. Only in the United States are minority groups given a disproportionately large influence in modern politics.
According to results from the 2000 U.S. Census, out of a total population of 281.4 million people, Whites make up 67.6% of the population, Blacks 12.9% of the population, Hispanics 12.5% of the population, Asians 3.6% of the population, American Indians and Alaska Natives 0.9% of the population, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander 0.1% of the population. An additional 2.4% of the population is mixed-race. This tells us four things, right there.
First, while the ‘melting-pot’ nature of American heterogeny is a fine ideal, it has largely been limited to mixing Europeans together; other regional cultures have not been involved in this process, either through exclusion from the majority or by the choice of that group to remain apart.
Second, I notice that Jews and Arabs are not identified in the Census as a race; they appear to be included as a sub-set of Whites, but this may well be an invalid assignment, given the known distinction between most European races and Semitic races. That is, one would hardly expect someone with a genetic background developed through many years in the Middle East to be effectively the same as someone whose genetic characteristics were molded in Scandanavia or Europe’s North coast.
Third, the rising trend of mixed-race Americans (in 1990, the percentage was so low as to not be tracked) indicates that conventional racial identities may begin to lose functional meaning in years to come, diluted as different races intermarry and raise children who do not fit neatly into assumed categories.
And fourth, it becomes obvious that black American politicians enjoy a far greater share of the political spotlight than can be explained by their demographic representation. This, by itself, is in no way a bad thing, as any individual or group has a reasonable expectation to succeed by their efforts. But even a cursory look at the figureheads of black politics shows an alarming focus on negative and predatory tactics. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show the perversion of religion in the pursuit of political influence, and such hateful idealogues as Charley Rangel, John Conyers and Shelia Jackson Lee demonstrate the intention to use race as a tool for fomenting hatred, pursuing division and rancor, and to prevent the consideration by blacks of their true best interests. For these threat mongers, the ideals of common ideals for all Americans, and common assimilation of everything Americans can offer one another, is rejected and replaced by a vitriolic practice of race-baiting.
It’s not PC, but it seems to me that we need to set this matter straight. As things stand right now, Conservatives stand to gain politically from the Liberals’ dependence on hate-only demagoguery, but millions of Americans are not receiving the representation they deserve, and the vital need for the country as a whole is to drive discussions which involve racial issues to solution and cooperation.
Race continues to play an inordinate role in American politics, and influences politics to an unhealthy degree. In addition to normative definitions of racial demographic groups, there are also cultural demographic groups which play a role in national politics, and to my mind are perverting the proper voice of the nation’s citizens.
To start, I took a look around, and generally there seem to be two models of racial influence in national politics; either the dominant demographic simply asserts itself and largely ignores the minority voice, or else the various demographics operate as a coalition, roughly proportional to the representation in the population. Only in the United States are minority groups given a disproportionately large influence in modern politics.
According to results from the 2000 U.S. Census, out of a total population of 281.4 million people, Whites make up 67.6% of the population, Blacks 12.9% of the population, Hispanics 12.5% of the population, Asians 3.6% of the population, American Indians and Alaska Natives 0.9% of the population, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander 0.1% of the population. An additional 2.4% of the population is mixed-race. This tells us four things, right there.
First, while the ‘melting-pot’ nature of American heterogeny is a fine ideal, it has largely been limited to mixing Europeans together; other regional cultures have not been involved in this process, either through exclusion from the majority or by the choice of that group to remain apart.
Second, I notice that Jews and Arabs are not identified in the Census as a race; they appear to be included as a sub-set of Whites, but this may well be an invalid assignment, given the known distinction between most European races and Semitic races. That is, one would hardly expect someone with a genetic background developed through many years in the Middle East to be effectively the same as someone whose genetic characteristics were molded in Scandanavia or Europe’s North coast.
Third, the rising trend of mixed-race Americans (in 1990, the percentage was so low as to not be tracked) indicates that conventional racial identities may begin to lose functional meaning in years to come, diluted as different races intermarry and raise children who do not fit neatly into assumed categories.
And fourth, it becomes obvious that black American politicians enjoy a far greater share of the political spotlight than can be explained by their demographic representation. This, by itself, is in no way a bad thing, as any individual or group has a reasonable expectation to succeed by their efforts. But even a cursory look at the figureheads of black politics shows an alarming focus on negative and predatory tactics. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show the perversion of religion in the pursuit of political influence, and such hateful idealogues as Charley Rangel, John Conyers and Shelia Jackson Lee demonstrate the intention to use race as a tool for fomenting hatred, pursuing division and rancor, and to prevent the consideration by blacks of their true best interests. For these threat mongers, the ideals of common ideals for all Americans, and common assimilation of everything Americans can offer one another, is rejected and replaced by a vitriolic practice of race-baiting.
It’s not PC, but it seems to me that we need to set this matter straight. As things stand right now, Conservatives stand to gain politically from the Liberals’ dependence on hate-only demagoguery, but millions of Americans are not receiving the representation they deserve, and the vital need for the country as a whole is to drive discussions which involve racial issues to solution and cooperation.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Good News, Actually
...
Good Afternoon. Yes, I’ve been away for a few days, and no, I’m not going to explain why. But I have not been so far removed from things that I have not caught the news, especially the running gag (or should I said bound-and-gagged, as in ‘fit to be tied’?) we call the MSM. I’m speaking, in particular, about the attempted twisting of Dr. Bennett’s comments last week about Abortion.
For those who somehow managed to miss it, the Daily Show put up a clip of Dr. William Bennett, noted conservative talk show host, responding to a caller with a scenario with this statement:
Well, that by itself certainly sounds horrible. And as expected, every knee-jerk, head-jerk, and other-jerk in general Liberal website and broadcast team started in to demand Bennett’s firing/lynching/deportation to outer Mongolia. But if you simply look at the very next thing Dr. Bennett said, you begin to wonder if the quote was yanked out of context:
What happened was this – the caller was trying to claim that Abortion was responsible for lost revenue in the Social Security funds, and while that is statistically true, Dr. Bennett argued that this was a poor reason to argue against Abortion, to argue about finance and completely miss the moral imperative. To illustrate how ridiculous and offensive this example was, Dr. Bennett presented the argument in an equally statistical sense – there is significant evidence that not only are a disproportional number of criminal perpetrators in the United States black, but also a heavily disproportionate number of crime victims in the United States are also black. So Dr. Bennett’s example is exactly correct, especially when he reminded the caller that such a notion would be abhorrent on its face; you can not and must not separate the morality from the debate.
Taken in context, Dr. Bennett’s statement is not only clearly not racist, but an effective caution against forgetting the significance of a moral position. Small wonder that the Left ripped out the parts about morality; it’s increasingly hard to find a Liberal who thinks victims have equal rights to criminals, or that helpless infants enjoy the same rights as unwed female Kerry supporters. But it’s actually very good news, when you think about it.
Conservatives, while morally and (apparently) intellectually superior to Liberals, are still vulnerable to doing and saying incredibly stupid things. A smart Liberal would wait for just such a gaffe, test it out to make sure it’s what it looks like, then wreak havoc. After all, one clear lesson from the Presidency of George H.W. Bush is that Conservatives, even relatively mild ones, are held to a much higher standard than Liberals. However, another lesson the Liberals ought to have learned by now but somehow keep missing, is that folks have picked up on their bias (i.e. raving hatred) against Conservatives, and they tend to look for something to back up a claim. So, while Trent Lott mishandled his situation and it cost him a leadership slot, the lynchings of such notables as Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dubya himself all failed to happen, because the goods just weren’t there when people checked out the claim. The same thing happens in the case of Bennett; anyone who bothers to look finds out that basically, the good doctor never said what was claimed, but was actually presenting quite a different argument. In the end, this may annoy Dr. Bennett for a few days, but will inevitably just add to the mountain of evidence that the Liberals are unable and unwilling to defend their opinion with anything better than slander.
Slander monkeys, they just can’t learn.
Good Afternoon. Yes, I’ve been away for a few days, and no, I’m not going to explain why. But I have not been so far removed from things that I have not caught the news, especially the running gag (or should I said bound-and-gagged, as in ‘fit to be tied’?) we call the MSM. I’m speaking, in particular, about the attempted twisting of Dr. Bennett’s comments last week about Abortion.
For those who somehow managed to miss it, the Daily Show put up a clip of Dr. William Bennett, noted conservative talk show host, responding to a caller with a scenario with this statement:
“But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down”
Well, that by itself certainly sounds horrible. And as expected, every knee-jerk, head-jerk, and other-jerk in general Liberal website and broadcast team started in to demand Bennett’s firing/lynching/deportation to outer Mongolia. But if you simply look at the very next thing Dr. Bennett said, you begin to wonder if the quote was yanked out of context:
“That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”
What happened was this – the caller was trying to claim that Abortion was responsible for lost revenue in the Social Security funds, and while that is statistically true, Dr. Bennett argued that this was a poor reason to argue against Abortion, to argue about finance and completely miss the moral imperative. To illustrate how ridiculous and offensive this example was, Dr. Bennett presented the argument in an equally statistical sense – there is significant evidence that not only are a disproportional number of criminal perpetrators in the United States black, but also a heavily disproportionate number of crime victims in the United States are also black. So Dr. Bennett’s example is exactly correct, especially when he reminded the caller that such a notion would be abhorrent on its face; you can not and must not separate the morality from the debate.
Taken in context, Dr. Bennett’s statement is not only clearly not racist, but an effective caution against forgetting the significance of a moral position. Small wonder that the Left ripped out the parts about morality; it’s increasingly hard to find a Liberal who thinks victims have equal rights to criminals, or that helpless infants enjoy the same rights as unwed female Kerry supporters. But it’s actually very good news, when you think about it.
Conservatives, while morally and (apparently) intellectually superior to Liberals, are still vulnerable to doing and saying incredibly stupid things. A smart Liberal would wait for just such a gaffe, test it out to make sure it’s what it looks like, then wreak havoc. After all, one clear lesson from the Presidency of George H.W. Bush is that Conservatives, even relatively mild ones, are held to a much higher standard than Liberals. However, another lesson the Liberals ought to have learned by now but somehow keep missing, is that folks have picked up on their bias (i.e. raving hatred) against Conservatives, and they tend to look for something to back up a claim. So, while Trent Lott mishandled his situation and it cost him a leadership slot, the lynchings of such notables as Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dubya himself all failed to happen, because the goods just weren’t there when people checked out the claim. The same thing happens in the case of Bennett; anyone who bothers to look finds out that basically, the good doctor never said what was claimed, but was actually presenting quite a different argument. In the end, this may annoy Dr. Bennett for a few days, but will inevitably just add to the mountain of evidence that the Liberals are unable and unwilling to defend their opinion with anything better than slander.
Slander monkeys, they just can’t learn.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
