Regular readers will be well aware that I am not exactly a big W fan. But I have to give him credit for his recent comments regarding the process of selecting and confirming Justice O’Connor’s successor on the Supreme Court. His remarks today, as reported by the NY Times, are particularly good:
"I hope the United States Senate conducts themselves in a way that brings dignity to the process," he said, "and that the senators don’t listen to the special interest groups, particularly those on the extremes that are trying to exploit this opportunity for not only their, what they might think is right, but also for their own fund-raising capabilities."
The remarkable thing about Bush’s comments over the last couple of days (see here for more) is how clearly they are directed at his "base" of Dobsonite religious conservatives, rather than at Godless atheist liberal activist groups. Notice how he disparages groups "on the extremes," clearly including both the "extreme" left and the "extreme" right. I don’t recall anything like this happening before. We cannot expect Bush to name names (though it would be nice), but it’s refreshing to see his ire for once directed at the wingnuts in his own party. It’s too bad it took personal attacks on someone Bush obviously likes a great deal (Alberto Gonzales) to get him to see how ruthless these "Christians" really are, but better late than never.
Does anyone else find it amusing that Robert Novak, in the National Ledger article cited by David, refers to the Bush White House as “normally leak-proof”?
Does anyone else find it amusing that Robert Novak, in the National Ledger article cited by David, refers to the Bush White House as “normally leak-proof”?
You obviously haven’t read the article on how Bush has been telling his American Taliban base to hush up about their radical agenda so he can sneak one through on us…
You obviously haven’t read the article on how Bush has been telling his American Taliban base to hush up about their radical agenda so he can sneak one through on us…http://tinyurl.com/7czrc
It seems that the Democratic opposition to President Bush already have the protest signs consrtructed, with a fill-in-the-blank name to villify. There is absolutely no chance that they won’t find fault and a reason to try and block any nomination, no matter what the qualifications, and are spring loaded to jump on the individual with both character assasination and what I’ve come to term “liberal fiction”, that is, the facts as they can create them off that now famous IBM selectric.
Hmmmm, I don’t know, David. Given the circumstances of the Senate this seems to me just a strategic move by Bush. “Toning down the rhetoric” helps the right more than it does the left. What it means is that a filibuster would be positively impolite, not that Bush won’t nominate a nutball ideologue.I read the Times article and the words coming out of his mouth do sound good. But they’re only words. This administration routinely uses calls for “moderation” and “bipartisanship” to warn Democrats into acquiescence.
If Miller gives in to pressure and testifies, whether or not the source has given consent, it sets a precedent which allows politically motivated judges to cut straight through the law that protects the sources of journalism. Basically this may determine the future of how journalism works in the United States. If the government waives the rights of journalists at this point, freedom of speech is in danger, our ability to receive information as a mass society is impaired, America suffers. That’s my interpretation at least.
If Miller gives in to pressure and testifies, whether or not the source has given consent, it sets a precedent which allows politically motivated judges to cut straight through the law that protects the sources of journalists. Basically this may determine the future of how journalism works in the United States. If the government waives the rights of journalists at this point, freedom of speech is in danger, our ability to receive information as a mass society is impaired, America suffers, and we get one step closer to a fascist police state. That’s my interpretation at least.
I have to say that I just don’t see how Miller and the NYT can compare this to “what if this had happened during Watergate?” This is not priest/penitant, and they outed a CIA agent whose life could have been in jeopardy as well as those of her colleagues. I don’t think the analogies are there. I know all my friends who went to J school will disagree, but I think that the “press” Daniel Schor included, have gone too far on this…
Ever pause to conider that the souce might be an embarassment? Maybe it’s NOT Karl Rove, maybe it’s her husband, or a liberal source….