Politics: September 2005 Archives

Michelle Malkin seems to have pretty much the ultimate rundown and roundup of the DeLay indictment. All kinds of useful information there. Note that although Malkin is a noted conservative, in my opinion she does paint a convincing factual picture of this as a political vendetta.



Daily Kosis not nearly so rational. They do note that the prosecutor has gone after Democrats, but fail to mention that until the last decade Texas was a Donkey party fiefdom going back to Reconstruction Era. When you run The Machine, you've got more apparent latitude for corruption. The Kossacks are practicing their usual bile on possible successors as well.



Oliver Willis at least manages to avoid foaming at the mouth, if barely. Oops, cancel that last sentence.



Talkleft seems partisan, but rational.



Powerline has some good comments and information on the politics involved in the indictment of Tom DeLay.



Captain's Quarters has more about the partisan nature of the district attorney who indicted him. We have to give him the latitude to do his job, but this appears to be an abuse of authority.



Michael Barone has more.



Random Fate seems to think there's enough smoke to justify a hypothesis of fire, but offers no evidence.



Justus for All thinks DeLay likely violated the spirit, but not the letter of the law, and will become more powerful as a martyr.



Pubcrawler is not impressed, agreeing that DeLay is likely guilty, but nonetheless a victim of a witchhunt as the laws are so byzantine it is impossible to comply in toto.



Liberty Corner has some worthwhile thoughts on his dislike of both DeLay and the law allegedly violated.



Dean's World points out the same thing Daily Kos does. Once again, this may be factually correct but misleading. The Donkeys owned Texas for a very long time as the result of the "Black Republicans" leading the "War of Northern Agression" from 1861 to 1865. There simply weren't any Elephant office-holders to prosecute until recently.



Me? I think DeLay is most likely guilty, albeit on a technicality, and in a perfect world should be convicted. On the other hand, given the fundraising shenanigans that were violations on a less technical and more substantive level of Al Gore among others, if there is any justice, DeLay will be acquitted or the charges dismissed. I agree with Liberty Corner that fundraising restrictions should be unconstitutional, and that the law should be repealed. I have yet to see ANY convincing argument that "getting the money out of politics" would be beneficial. On the other hand, DeLay will not emerge victorious and more powerful. Wounds of this nature persist, no matter their merit.



UPDATE: Politburo Diktat's post on this subject has been chosen as the Wateringhole topic for Thursday.

For those who missed it, Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died.



Go in peace, sir. Fare thee well where ever you may be. You will be missed.

**********



Tactically, the president now has to choose whether he wants two fights or three. As I have said before, I'm a big admirer of Justice Thomas, but I can't see anyone wanting to rehash the whole Anita Hill thing when it does him no good beyond prestige.



Scalia would be, if anything, a tougher fight than Thomas to elevate. Has a strong claim to being the foremost constitutional scholar, but he's written too many opinions, and too many Donkeys really have something personal against him. The whole hunting trip with Cheney would come up again and again ad nauseum, and everything he ever said against abortion or for personal responsibility or the intent of the framers. Nasty fight, nothing significant to gain.



The president could either re-nominate Roberts for the chief's seat, or nominate another justice direct to the chief's seat (Janice Rogers Brown springs to mind as appropriate for this).



Finally, the president might make a deal. He'll elevate one of Clinton's associates to chief in return for enough votes to confirm his favorite new associate justice. I think if the President made a deal to elevate Ginsburg in exchange for Luttig or some similar conservative, this might be his biggest gain for the least fight. Roberts is so squeaky clean there's nothing to fight, but he's only got two years on the bench, which would produce a certain prejudice against making him Chief Justice. Anyone else, particularly anyone attractive to conservatives, is going to have a fight on their hands UNLESS the president can short circuit it. This isn't the nomination that's likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade; the Chief was a steady vote to overturn. At most, the struggle to overturn breaks even.



This suggestion gets a woman Chief Justice, so the donkeys have something to feed their base. It doesn't make any real difference to the balance of the court, and the President gets easy confirmation for a judge of his choice.



I don't know that he'll do this of course. It's certainly harder with the excessive partisanship of late, which is the constraint the president is working against. In another era, this would have been a much easier deal to actually do. But if he can keep the Republican senators in line and get Joe Lieberman and a few others to sign off on the deal, this would be a win for everyone.



UPDATE: The President has renominated Roberts for Chief Justice. I can't fault his reasoning, but others will. With only two years on the Judiciary, naming him as the foremost judge in the nation raises a psychological bar, no matter how qualified. Never mind that a Chief Justice has no more real authority than an Associate Justice. There is a psychological difference between being one of the gang and being the titular leader. It is possible this will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on Roberts' confirmation. There is no vacancy (currently) in O'Connor's seat. Her resignation was effective upon confirmation of successor. Barring further developments, should Roberts be confirmed to Rehnquist's chair, we'll have a full court when it starts its term, whether or not O'Connor's replacement is there.

Pundit Review had Michael Yon on; they have a audio file of the interview. Go to about twenty minutes in. They talk about the terrorists who were released from Guantanamo Bay who go straight to Iraq and combat with our troops. Michael Yon says that some of them were released as a result of pay offs, some released for reasons unknown.



I WANT INVESTIGATIONS INTO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE INCIDENTS, DAMMIT! THESE TERRORISTS ARE BEING RELEASED TO KILL OUR PEOPLE! I DEMAND TO KNOW WHO DID IT, AND WHY! If there is any significant doubt, why are they being released? We didn't release Germans or Japanese during World War II. We didn't release Germans during WWI. We didn't release Confederates during the Civil War. WHY ARE WE RELEASING THESE SCUMBAGS? I want to know who is responsible, and why they made each and every one of these mistakes. If it is at the request of "allies", maybe we shouldn't honor these requests any more. If it at the request of "neutrals," they sure don't look neutral to me. If it is at the request of enemies, I want to know the quid pro quo and whether it was honored (I suspect not). If it is as the result of "guidelines," those guidelines need to be changed YESTERDAY and the people responsible disciplined.



I'm generally against back seat drivers and people trying to run a war from 8000 miles away, but this is one thing that people at home can do without one bullet coming their way, and that will actually hep without distracting our soldiers at the front: Find out why these bad guys were released to shoot at our soldiers. We can get some retired or wounded soldiers and marines on the case, who may not be up for combat but they can handle shuffling through a paperwork investigation just fine. They also have motivation to get to the bottom of things, and not to accept any Male Bovine Fecal Matter.



I know the president and Rumsfield have taken a lot of political heat about Guantanamo from useful idiots in our own Congress, press, etcetera. That doesn't mean we should let the terrorists write our policy manuals. What good is whacking a mole when your own side just lets him go again?



HT to Dean's World