Progressives for Alito? Puh-leeze!
According to Dave's new column, progressives just love Samuel Alito, Dubya's nomination for Supreme Court who's confirmation hearings begin this week. That's right, you heard correctly. Progressives are just falling all over themselves in support of this corporatist, pro-unlimited executive power, pro-government prosecutorial power, anti-abortion and decidedly regressive judicial candidate. Yet, for some reason, Dave makes an attempt to convince us that progressives find Judge Alito's record favorable.
Before I go on to examine why Dave has this outlandish left-field perspective- which borders so much on the unbelievably bizarre its as if Dave's cribbing from the scripts for "Lost" rather than the National Review for this column- I want to digress for a moment. Did anyone catch this week's exchange between David letterman and Bill O'Reilly? A friend of mine described O'Reilly as coming across as "decent." Perhaps expectations were incredibly low (something akin to a frothing madman, most likely), but O'Reilly came across- in one person's opinion anyway- as "decent." My reply was that if one person exposes themselves to the harsh light of national attention in the field of politics, celebrity, punditry- and the judicial system- but doesn't illicit such a response, they should get out of the game, because they aren't playing it very well. Consider Dubya in the 2000 campaign. A plurality of respondents consistently picked him as the candidate they'd prefer to have a drink with rather than the so-called 'wooden' Al Gore. (And the results over the past five years couldn't be much different than having one of your actual drinking buddies run things.) If O'Reilly doesn't make himself widely appealing in his ten minutes of national exposure, he doesn't demand his hefty paycheck. And if Sam Alito can't make himself appealing to all sides of the political specrum, he has no business being a Supreme Court nominee.
That said, let's revisit the ludicrous claims Dave makes in his recent column. Upon first glance of the headline you expect him to detail a group of progressives that have united to show their support for Dubya's rabid ideologue of a nominee. "Something" like the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, perhaps. But, then you read the damn thing and realize by "progressives" Dave is referring to two of Alito's friends.
It doesn't pass the smell test. "I did not vote for George W. Bush, and am not supportive of his administration. Personally, I think it's a disaster for this country," Dave quotes San Francisco attorney Jim Goniea- a former Alito law clerk and long-time Alito buddy- to begin his column. So, let's get this straight. A progressive who is against Bush and find his policies damaging to our country support's Bush's judicial candidate who, in turn, would legally allow and condone said policies? Why, the only way that makes sense is if that progressive were to be friends with said candidate....
I am tired of Dave insulting my intelligence twice a week. We all want to see our friends succeed. Goniea's testimonial reads like a post you'd see on Alito's friendster.com profile: "Sammy would make a great SCOTUS judge! Totally! He's, like, process-driven!" Dave's case, if he had one, would be much stronger if he detailed the support of Alito by progressives that had no connections with the judge.
And therein is the rub: faster than you can say 'Hariet Miers", Judge Alito- the sure-fire candidate who was supposed to 'save' Bush and the sinking Republicans- has fizzled into a dud. His 'A' rating from the ABA not withstanding- that merely proves Alito can do his job competently, which raises questions as to how he got fingered by Dubya in the first place- let's remember that the strongest case conservatives had in support of Judge Alito a month ago was that Alito would 'save Christmas.' Now its devolved to the point where Alito's buddies make the rounds to second-rate conservative pundits, who attempt to pass off the praise to a readership they (obviously) hope would be too naive to know better.
Just in the prior page of The Oregonian's Sunday Commentary section, an unsigned editorial takes Alito to town. "In many areas of law, Alito's record is similar to other GOP-appointed judges," the editorial reads. "He's generally favorable toward busineses, prosecutors, and employers. But he's more restrictive on social issues, more favorable toward government sponsered religion and less sympathetic of immigrants than his GOP peers...." In a nutshell, every trait your average progressive would want in a judge protecting the Constitution- in Dave's Bizarro world, that is.
Dave laughably bemoans the fact that, using a quote from Goriea's wife Susan Sullivan, Alito's critics "cherry-pick cases" even though Dave does exactly that. Dave has harped about the same spousal notice abortion law- in which Alito wrtoe the lone dissenting opinion in the losing argument- for the past two months, except for when he discussed Alito's fascination with naked ten-year old girls. In his columns on Alito, Dave makes no mnetion of Alito's opinions in regards to corporate allowances, unchecked presidential power, and greater social restrictions. Tell me- who's doing the cherry-picking?
Dave ends with another Sullivan quote: "If Democrats succeed in filibustering Sam Alito, this administration will turn around and aapoint a real conservative ideologue....." What nonsense. There can't be more of a conservative ideologue than Sam Alito. And if the Democrats do block his nomination by means of a filibuster, while in the background Arlen Specter grows a pair and investigates Dubya's warrantless wire-tapping (and let's not forget the Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, and still-continuing Valerie Plame proceedings!), Bush's hand will be forced to nominate a true moderate candidate.
Someone who will appeal to all sides. Both conservatives. And actual progressives.
Before I go on to examine why Dave has this outlandish left-field perspective- which borders so much on the unbelievably bizarre its as if Dave's cribbing from the scripts for "Lost" rather than the National Review for this column- I want to digress for a moment. Did anyone catch this week's exchange between David letterman and Bill O'Reilly? A friend of mine described O'Reilly as coming across as "decent." Perhaps expectations were incredibly low (something akin to a frothing madman, most likely), but O'Reilly came across- in one person's opinion anyway- as "decent." My reply was that if one person exposes themselves to the harsh light of national attention in the field of politics, celebrity, punditry- and the judicial system- but doesn't illicit such a response, they should get out of the game, because they aren't playing it very well. Consider Dubya in the 2000 campaign. A plurality of respondents consistently picked him as the candidate they'd prefer to have a drink with rather than the so-called 'wooden' Al Gore. (And the results over the past five years couldn't be much different than having one of your actual drinking buddies run things.) If O'Reilly doesn't make himself widely appealing in his ten minutes of national exposure, he doesn't demand his hefty paycheck. And if Sam Alito can't make himself appealing to all sides of the political specrum, he has no business being a Supreme Court nominee.
That said, let's revisit the ludicrous claims Dave makes in his recent column. Upon first glance of the headline you expect him to detail a group of progressives that have united to show their support for Dubya's rabid ideologue of a nominee. "Something" like the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, perhaps. But, then you read the damn thing and realize by "progressives" Dave is referring to two of Alito's friends.
It doesn't pass the smell test. "I did not vote for George W. Bush, and am not supportive of his administration. Personally, I think it's a disaster for this country," Dave quotes San Francisco attorney Jim Goniea- a former Alito law clerk and long-time Alito buddy- to begin his column. So, let's get this straight. A progressive who is against Bush and find his policies damaging to our country support's Bush's judicial candidate who, in turn, would legally allow and condone said policies? Why, the only way that makes sense is if that progressive were to be friends with said candidate....
I am tired of Dave insulting my intelligence twice a week. We all want to see our friends succeed. Goniea's testimonial reads like a post you'd see on Alito's friendster.com profile: "Sammy would make a great SCOTUS judge! Totally! He's, like, process-driven!" Dave's case, if he had one, would be much stronger if he detailed the support of Alito by progressives that had no connections with the judge.
And therein is the rub: faster than you can say 'Hariet Miers", Judge Alito- the sure-fire candidate who was supposed to 'save' Bush and the sinking Republicans- has fizzled into a dud. His 'A' rating from the ABA not withstanding- that merely proves Alito can do his job competently, which raises questions as to how he got fingered by Dubya in the first place- let's remember that the strongest case conservatives had in support of Judge Alito a month ago was that Alito would 'save Christmas.' Now its devolved to the point where Alito's buddies make the rounds to second-rate conservative pundits, who attempt to pass off the praise to a readership they (obviously) hope would be too naive to know better.
Just in the prior page of The Oregonian's Sunday Commentary section, an unsigned editorial takes Alito to town. "In many areas of law, Alito's record is similar to other GOP-appointed judges," the editorial reads. "He's generally favorable toward busineses, prosecutors, and employers. But he's more restrictive on social issues, more favorable toward government sponsered religion and less sympathetic of immigrants than his GOP peers...." In a nutshell, every trait your average progressive would want in a judge protecting the Constitution- in Dave's Bizarro world, that is.
Dave laughably bemoans the fact that, using a quote from Goriea's wife Susan Sullivan, Alito's critics "cherry-pick cases" even though Dave does exactly that. Dave has harped about the same spousal notice abortion law- in which Alito wrtoe the lone dissenting opinion in the losing argument- for the past two months, except for when he discussed Alito's fascination with naked ten-year old girls. In his columns on Alito, Dave makes no mnetion of Alito's opinions in regards to corporate allowances, unchecked presidential power, and greater social restrictions. Tell me- who's doing the cherry-picking?
Dave ends with another Sullivan quote: "If Democrats succeed in filibustering Sam Alito, this administration will turn around and aapoint a real conservative ideologue....." What nonsense. There can't be more of a conservative ideologue than Sam Alito. And if the Democrats do block his nomination by means of a filibuster, while in the background Arlen Specter grows a pair and investigates Dubya's warrantless wire-tapping (and let's not forget the Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, and still-continuing Valerie Plame proceedings!), Bush's hand will be forced to nominate a true moderate candidate.
Someone who will appeal to all sides. Both conservatives. And actual progressives.
posted by true_slicky at 12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home