From The Loonatic Left

The Democrat Trap - How to Destroy a Political Party

How badly positioned are the Democrats right now?

What would happen if this cache proves to contain chemical or biological ordinance?  Is it far fetched?  I say not far fetched but maybe not likely.  What this did was start me thinking about the entire WMD issue again.  I like to think of myself as a thinking person who can separate opinions from facts.  When I do this on the WMD issue, I get a real disconnect between what I think is today's conventional wisdom and the conventional wisdom of the past...and I don't like it.

Why?  Because every intelligence agency in the world was convinced that Iraq had WMDs - all of them.  I still find it hard to believe that all of them were wrong.  I know that this is hardly the time to be taking this kind of stand, but the possibility that the CIA was wrong, I can accept, but the possibility that every intelligence service everywhere was wrong begins to look pretty remote.  In fact it begins to look just about impossibly remote.  Tenet's 'slam dunk' comment has been ridculed...even here...but my head is just not in this.  Truth be told...it never was.

Reason and rationality tells me that something is terribly wrong when conventional wisdom which is so widely believed and understood, is that much in error.  It is like the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - always in the way and always there but very carefully ignored by everyone.  "Which is more likely", I ask myself.  "That every intelligence agency was wrong, or that Saddam knew we were coming and found a way to hide the stuff he didn't want us to find."  My mind tells me that it is more likely that he hid it.  Of course after this period of time you would think that anything hidden would have been found...but that is obviously NOT the case.

The Iraqis just discovered a huge weapons cache in Tikrit...so far it has yielded 4,200 shells.  These shells have been removed from one mound in a field with hundreds of mounds.  How did they get in this field?  Obviously someone buried them there...but one would have to think that this type of volume would have to be buried before the war began.  To be finding this size of cache at this stage in the conflict is nothing short of astounding.

What would happen if WMDs were discovered at this late a date in Iraq?  I can't pretend to be surprised by the possibility since every intelligence agency had been predicting they were there.  What would happen politically?  What are the chances that this was all an elaborate Democrat trap?  The ultimate 'rope-a-dope'.  That Karl Rove again...

This is a HOOT!

My God!  Nothing I had read prepared me for this!

I nearly shorted out my keyboard by spitting coffee all over it.  This needed a spew warning.

Who is the genius?  Here is the source!  A brilliant web site called 'It Comes In Pints?'

This all started with Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit pointing out that there was nothing new about the Bush Administration's Iraq strategy and one of his readers commenting that someone should send the Democrats an 'Iraq Strategy for Dummies' book because the strategy just presented by the President has been his strategy right along. 

The truth is that nothing is new and nothing has changed - the primary difference being that it was finally written down in a 'See Spot Run' fashion and had the words 'Iraq Strategy' written on it.

I watched the 'Daily Show' on  Comedy Central and Nancy Pelosi was on the show.  I've notice that lately the only guests on the show tend to be either rabid liberals or maverick Republicans like McCain.  Jon Stewart does a poor job of hiding his personal bias and he could have really grilled Pelosi, who is as clueless as ever, but instead treated her very gently.  The fact that the President's Iraq Strategy document is really just a restatement of everything he has been doing would have made a great tool to poke at Pelosi with, but Stewart avoided this obvious tact.

I think the Democrats have a very serious problem building up here...it is becoming pretty obvious that they do not agree on much of anything regarding Iraq.  All of the 'serious' party leaders are saying pretty much the same thing as the Bush Administration regarding an exit strategy from Iraq.  I have to wonder why, since even Jon Stewart picked up on this, now that success appears to be possible (and maybe even visible) - why the huge push by Democrats to abandon the War.  This is designed to make them appear what?  Clueless...fickle...pick an adjective.

After the December 15th Iraqi vote, what exactly are the Democrats hoping to accomplish?  It seems rather lame to continue harping about how we got 'into a war' four years ago.  Also rather lame is the patently obvious wistful yerning for a return to the era of Vietnam protesters.  What is the plan?  What is the Democratic strategy?  I'm not just poking fun about it...I'd really like to know!

A Reverse Nigerian Scam?

Here is an interesting twist that arrived in one of my web-mail boxes:

Dear Nigerian:

Hello I have been referred to speak with you by our mutual acquaintenances and they assure me that you are a truly honorable and honest person of quality.  I have recently come into possession of a small fortune provided by investors and need to move it out of my country.  The sum of $7 million US was provided to me by investors who believe that my business will provide them a profitable investment.  I need to hide this money before they wake up and realize that it is gone.

If you will send me contact and banking information so that this transfer can be arranged I will send you the money.  For you efforts you can keep 10% of the balance plus all the interest earned while the money is in your possession.

Please respond to this writing as soon as possible so that we can resolve this to our mutual satisfaction and benefit.

<Name Withheld> Pajama Media/OSM

The name was not withheld in the anonymous e-mail I received but I'm withholding it here. Of course this is purely ficticious (and nearly libelous).  I believe that someone has been having some fun at these folks expense.

There seems to be a great deal of energy being spent insulting and denegrating the Pajama Media plan by bloggers who chose not to participate.  I asked for and was sent a legal document to join the group but after reading it decided not to participate.  My reasoning was fairly simple, this is not my job, it is a hobby.  Signing that document would turn my hobby into something else.  I have the freedom to ignore this hobby when I feel like it.  Of course my other hobbies don't come with huge VC funding opportunities and maybe in the end I will believe that I was a victim of my own short-sightedness.  Part of the reasoning behind not joining was the feeling that I could not pin down what the product was.  How is this endeavor designed to make money?  Is it just seeking web-based advertising revenue or is it a web based version of the Associated Press?  Maybe it is actually just another 'group blog'?

The group has raised venture capital (reports vary...either $7 or $3.5 million) and the site appears to be active.  I still don't know what the business of the venture is or how it is going to make money.  If the critical response is any indication, it is either going to be wildly successful or a completely bomb. 

Even if it bombs, why does anyone feel compelled to denigrade the attempt?  Some successful bloggers appear to be taking themselves way to seriously.

Washington Post Misleads Readers Again

This is an excerpt from one of the Washington Post news reports...I should probably put that in quotes...'news reports':

"Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans rejected Murtha's position. (emphasis added)"

Republicans actually put it up for a vote...see here.  It was rejected.  That much is true.  Do you think the Washington Post is going to tell you the truth?  Oh simple reader...not on your life!

This was not a serious proposal...it was really just a Democratic Party publicity stunt.  It seems lately that this is the only thing the Democrats appear to do...engage in publicity stunts.  They are aided by the media who refuse to tell the truth about these silly childish stunts.  If the Democrats actually had a serious proposal for Iraq it deserves coverage and discussion...sadly they have none.  Not a single one.  Nada...nothing...at...all.

A party of spineless simpletons.  Where is the party leadership?

Why am I certain, you may ask, that this was just a publicity stunt?  Guess what the vote in the House of Representatives was?  Go ahead guess...

403 - 3  That is correct...403 members of the House of Representatives voted against the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.  Only three members voted in favor of this resolution.  The Democrats were actually mad that the Republican leadership said "OK...if you want to immediately withdraw U.S. troops...VOTE ON IT."  Thus caught in their own publicity stunt, Democratic lawmakers were angry that they had to either go on record as supporting such a horrendous violation of the public trust or they had to vote down their own publicity stunt.

Now how should that be characterized in a news report?  Was this a serious proposal?  Of course not!  The Washington Post could have written:

"The Democrats tried another variation of their regular anti-war publicity stunts and they got called out and had to publicly acknowledge that immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq is not such a swell idea.  It seems that more than just Republicans rejected Murtha's position, the measure failed 403 to 3.

But what of the Democratic Representative who proposed immediate troop withdrawal in his well televised publicity seeking news conference?  Surely he voted for this proposal...right?  Umm...No...Representative Murtha voted against this proposal.  No one really thinks immediate troop withdrawal is such a great idea...they just want to politically whine about it to their media toadies in news conferences.

Bush Approval Ratings

You would think that George W. Bush was going to run for office in 2006.  Of course he's term limited but his negative ratings are huge and there is much discussion about his potential impact on the Congressional mid-term elections.  The question that can not yet be answered is whether Bush's declining popularity will have any impact on Congressional races at all.  Since it can't be answered...let's try and prognosticate!

Some people have argued that at this point the Democrats are engaging in an identical mistake that Republicans engaged in with Clinton.  They are running against a candidate who is not running and doing it on a platform which is mere dislike for that unpopular candidate.  History shows that this is not the clear cut recipe for success that these partisans might think.  There are many reasons for this lack of success but the most common one cited is incumbency.

Congressional campaigns are based upon local issues and initiatives.  They typically pit Congressional incumbents with controlling name recognition against virtual unknowns who must first solve the name recognition issue before they can even dent the issue debate.  This power of incumbancy coupled with the 'local' issue aspect of most Congressional races reduces the impact of national issues on mid-term elections.

There is an exception to that basic rule.  That exception occurred in the 1994 mid-term elections when an anti-incumbent mania swept through the country and we all threw the bums out.  Newt Gingrich led this movement with his now infamous Contract for America.

There is no such movement happening today and it does not seem that the splintered Democratic party is capable of putting together a contract for much of anything.  The lack of Democratic leadership is astonishing in the face of what everyone should recognize is an opportunity for a 1994-like anti-incumbancy movement.  Sadly the only agreement between the Democratic factions is a near reflexive hatred for Bush.  It was not enough during the prior election and it won't be enough to turn Congressional races.

While Republicans are far from united on everything, they definately appear to have a unified foreign policy and a unified domestic agenda.  Against this general uniformity Democratic congressional leadership has a problem.  With a pro-life head in the Senate and a militant pro-abortion head in the House, the party is trying to walk in both directions on a key social issue.  With pro-war leadership in the Senate and rabid anti-war leadership in the House, the party can't even articulate a consistent position on what promises to be the pivotal issue in the up-coming election.  The party is further hampered by staking out a position of fiscal restraint along with huge spending increases for various domestic issues.  When pressed, an income tax increase appears to be the probable stated direction.  Ask Walter Mondale how well that tends to work as a campaign strategy.

Even in the face of an unpopular President, an unpopular foreign policy and an attacking media, the Democratic party is unlikely to make any headway without a real leader to help steer the party policy toward practical and useful ends.  That person has not emerged from the scrum of Congressional wannabes and the dissonant cacophany of empty rhetoric is ripe for political lampooning.  Most of the Congressional leadership appear as either performing clowns or empty suits.  It is hard for conspiracy theorists not to see Rove's blue print on this result but this is really just an extension of the destruction of the Democratic party which began in 1968 and has continued steadily ever since.  The anti-war movement in 1968 destroyed the Democratic party by splintering labor and the blue collar voters from the peace movement.

Those two factions literally went to war against each other and have been fighting for control of the party ever since.  Since Karl Rove was just a child at the time, we must credit him with the most inspired performance of any political strategist in grade school.  How does he do it?

My prediction...Republicans control both the House and Senate with a few seats changing but party control remaining.  Keep your eye on Ohio, Louisiana and Virginia Senate races.  The local issues could decide those congressional races.  A potential for two Repulican losses and one Democratic loss.

I told you so...

To those who are shocked about France...and now Europe.  Please read this...and then this...please also note the dates.

Facts are facts, and the when the facts show such a serious employment, discrimination and segregation problem, the outcome is not just predictable it is patently obvious.  This will not end until France and 'old Europe' change.  And I mean REALLY change.

The decrepit financial pit of liberalized socialism is staggering to the same sorry conclusion that destroyed communism as a workable economic/social policy.  It is all over but the violence.  After two weeks of near constant rioting even the most stubbornly foolish of the 'old Europe' defenders must be cringing in shame.

The U.S. Democratic party, and yes even liberals in Canada, should look closely at Europe.  This is what you are building toward.  Only stubborness can excuse the defense of economic policies which produced this catastrophy, but stubborness we've got!  The Liberal economic professor and New York Times columnist, Dr. Paul Krugman wrote a column which encapsulates the liberal separation from reality (hat tip to WSJ Best of the Web):

"Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?

The answer is no..."

What?  Krugman wrote this in July...the guy is supposed to be a trained economist!  Can he predict any worse than this?  He goes on to claim that it is all just a difference in priorities...  Oh sure, the priority in the United States is that you have the freedom and hope to advance and live a better life regardless of where you start from or who you are, whereas in France and old Europe you are basically screwed if you aren't born into it.

"Let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart. The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out."

The French family also now has a burning car and looted streets as the 'have-nots' who are sick and tired of being frozen out of French society and sold a bill of goods are starting to exact revenge on a corrupt socialist system.

"But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills."

I am sure that all of these unemployed and hopeless people who are looting and fighting the repressive French socialist disaster are relieved that they have a decrepit health care system and good schools.  Whew.  If they get injured firebombing their good local school...what luck!  No medical bills!

I know this is socially unpopular to say but...I believe Canada would be 'enjoying' identical uprisings but for the natural resources (oil production - rapidly depleting) which has supported the current economic boomlet.  Canada has a 6.6% unemployment down from a recent high of over 10%.  Unemployment in Canada is historically similar to European countries and shares another characteristic...near twice the unemployment rate for ethnic minorities or 'visible minorities' as Canada calls them.  Even today in the oil fueled economic boomlet, unemployment is much higher (12.5%) for 'visible minorities'.  Remember, Canada has an almost identical social welfare program to that of Europe and almost identical immigrant problems.

Next up...minority rioters in Quebec?  Hey it's the 'France' of North America!

Scooter...lied

Well if that is it...if THAT is it...it would be hard for anyone to view this as anything but an extreme embarassment for the media and those who have been salivating for Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's scalp.  "They will be frog marching Rove out of the White House"...so said Ambassador Wilson...also known now as 'Ambassador Liar Liar Pants on Fire'.  Not even close...in fact it would be harder to get any further from the truth.

To recap what has actually happened...the media and the left have been embarassed again.  That's right the entire Valerie Plame 'leak' investigation has resulted in the indictment of the Vice President's chief of staff...not for the criminal act of exposing a top secret agent.  NO!  He has been indicted because his testimony disagrees with the testimony of several reporters.  He has been indicted for perjury.  He claimed that he didn't talk to reporters, the reporters said he did. 

In what has to be the most curious indictment ever issued...Scooter Libby has been indicted for telling reporters the truth about Ambassador Joe 'Liar Liar' Wilson's trip to Nigeria and then not admitting that he told them the truth in his testimony to the Grand Jury.

First off...this is not what the investigation was supposed to be about.  The investigation was about whether a crime was committed when reporters were leaked the identity of a secret agent.  It turns out that a crime was not committed or there would be an indictment for that crime.  So hold this thought in your head:  There was NO crime committed.  If there was no crime committed...let me point this out carefully...

WHY THE HELL DID WE JUST SPEND THREE YEARS INVESTIGATING IT!!!!????!!!!

If this is it...what an embarassment for the media.  What an indictment..not of the administration...of the administration's critics in the media and those politicians who tried to make this something it was not.

This indictment further identifies who was lying...it was not Bush or Cheney, Rove or Libby...it was Amabassdor Wilson.  Wilson lied to the media, in his Op Ed to the New York Times, in his book...in fact the only time that Wilson did not lie was apparently in his testimony to the Grand Jury OR he would have been indicted as well.  The report makes clear that Wilson was lying constantly in all of his public statements...just not when he was testifying under oath.  I hope he is proud of this 'achievement'.

How did the media allow this liar to fool them for three years?  How could competent media outlets publish lie after lie after lie for three years?  He has made an ass out almost every major media outlet.  The Washington Post may have to run a special edition just containing corrections about news reports they have run containing Wilson's lies and misrepresentations.  So how?

There is a simple answer...when something appeals to a media outlet's bias...no research is performed to verify facts.  When a reporter likes the 'facts' he or she is given...they run with it.  Look at Judy Miller on Iraq...and most of all look at EVERY MEDIA OUTLET on this Plame leak investigation.

What an awful embarassment.

For those who feel like we just relived the Clinton indictment's and scandals...THAT at least contained a germ of a criminal act.  Sexual harassment is, after all, a criminal act.  When the big boss is sexually harassing the staff, any other company would be engaging in disciplinary proceedings at a minimum but we hardly needed a 5 year investigation into every Clinton official to end up with a weak perjury indictment.

I am consistent...I thought the Starr Report and the investigation was an unnecessary embarassment and the impeachment proceedings were a sham.  For those who want to argue about this investigation...are YOU consistent?

Confirmation War

If you think that the Judge Bork hearings were a debacle, wait until the Miers hearings get rolling.  Bork was a tough minded thoroughly experienced jurist with years of practice arguing constitutional law issues.  Miers is a con law neophyte who as far as anyone can tell, has learned more constitutional law since her nomination than she ever knew before it.  But this is about more than just about her legal inexperience, the following explosive issues are sure to be a part of the hearings:

1. Bush's National Guard Service!  How?  Well guess who was involved in the Texas Lottery Commission Scandal?  None other than the infamous Bob Barnes.  You remember him.  He is the former Lieutenant Governor of Texas and Democratic fundraiser who remembers helping George W. Bush obtain a hard to get slot in the Texas Air National Guard.  It turns out he is also a guy who received a $23 million payoff when his consulting contract with the Lottery vendor in Texas ended.  What does this have to do with Miers?  She was the person who decided that a no-bid contract was just the ticket for the Texas Lottery Commission.  Barnes is going to be called as a character witness and you can bet that everything he has claimed regarding Bush's Guard service is going to get another public airing.
2. Abortion Rights - No surprise here.  What is surprising is that the one argument in favor of Miers - that is she is a stealth candidate - has been blown away by her answers on a 'right-to-life' questionaire and the stupid Administration media blitz to social conservatives.  There is nothing like publicly reassuring James Dobson and other social conservatives that Miers was opposed to Roe v. Wade to give away all claims to being an independent minded jurist.  What is Miers supposed to do now?  She will definately be asked about this and she can't very well answer that she doesn't know how she would rule when the White House has been telling any social conservative who would listen that she is anti-Roe.
3. Constitutional Law questions - This lady has zero experience and, as far as anyone can tell, zero knowledge of constitutional case law.  We can expect that Senators from BOTH parties are having their staff experts research obscure cases to frame trapping questions.  This lady is going to stagger from one embarassment to another in her confirmation hearings.  Usually a nominee can count on supportive Senators from one party providing softball questions.  That is not going to happen here for two reasons: (1) neither side is reliably pro-Miers; and (2) I doubt this nominee will have sufficient time to cram up on Constitutional Law to even recognize a softball question when she gets one.
4. Politics is similar to show business and in show business there is a well recognized saying that you never want to follow a great act.  No matter how you look at this, Miers is following Roberts who put on a great act.  She can not hope to be as conversant as Justice Roberts proved to be on Constitutional Law questions and will suffer in comparison.  I am certain that this will be a very unpleasant experience for Harriett Miers and that she will personally and professionally be damaged by this - even if she is ultimately confirmed.

The hearings are bound to be a sad spectacle, sort of a dark comedy.  When you compare this to what could have been, this pick is awfully hard to defend.

The New York Times and Judy Miller - A Potential Explanation

There are many people who are heaping derision on the New York Times for their silence on the Valerie Plame leak investigation.  The New York Times has been scooped on the 'partial' content of their own employee's testimony, the agreement to testify, the existence of additional notes and has been completely silent from both an editorial and reporting perspective on what has become a major, at least for the Washington beltway crowd, investigation into who leaked the name of Joseph Wilson's wife to members of the press.

Judy Miller went to prison to protect her source, believed to be 'Scooter' Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, even after Libby had signed a waiver releasing Miller.  This puzzling act was initially credited as an in-your-face response to the hardball tactics of Fitzpatrick, the special prosecutor investigating the leak.  Miller was credited by the New York Times as taking a principled stand to protect her sources and the first amendment.

As time had passed, the leak investigation ground on with Miller cooling her heals in prison, and the New York Times writing editorials about her courageous stand.  Then...something happened.  Suddenly the Times went silent, and Miller agreed to testify.  Initially we were told by the New York Times this was because Libby, her source, had provided specific assurance that his blanket release of confidentiality was voluntary.  Libby's attorney objected to that interpretation of events and backed it up with documentation, a letter and an e-mail which clearly stated that Libby was voluntarily waiving his right to confidentiality.  Further, both of these documents pre-date the prison sentence.  Another rather interesting fact is that Miller switched attorney's from a constitutional attorney to William Bennett, a well respected criminal attorney.

Clearly there is a story here and the New York Times and the employee of the New York Times is involved and surely both of them know what the story is.  Why then has the New York Times thus far failed to report on this story?

Some folks have said that there are only two possible explanations:

1. The story involves criminal liability for the New York Times employee and they are trying to protect the employee from that liability.
2. The story could create liability for the New York Times itself, and as long as the investigation is going on, the story will not be told by the New York Times.

In either case the New York Times in their handling of the matter has not distinguished themselves...that is unless there is another explanation:

What if the prosecutor has missed something that would become obvious if the New York Times were to produce a complete report of everything they have uncovered?  What if the New York Times has in its possession information that could blow the entire case wide open and reveal once and for all who was orchestrating the entire leak?  So what...how would this affect the decision to publish?

What if that information revealed that the leak was coming from inside the CIA or from a source who has not been identified by the special prosecutor?

If this were the case it would completely explain the limited disclosure, the lack of detailed reporting and the silence taken by the New York Times.  If the New York Times were to reveal the information in their possession, the unidentified source could be exposed.

There is only one other explanation:

The New York Times could be in possession of information so damaging that the prosecutor needs to keep it quiet.  If this is the situation, it is likely that this could be a far larger and damaging case than we know of at this point.  It also might have very little to do with Libby, Rove and the existing administration folks who have been the only targets focused upon by the press.

Justice Harriett Miers

We have now entered the realm of farce.

This is such a comical mis-step that I am embarassed for the people whose job it is to defend it.  Here is a record of some of the arguments being repeated to support this nominee...

1. The President has asserted forcibly that he believes she is the best candidate for the vacancy.  Apparently he is hoping that no one notices that she has zero Constitutional Law experience.
2. Democratic Senator Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader) is 'pleased' with the nomination.  This reflects either one of two things: (1) Either Senator Reid has as poor a judgment as President Bush; or (2) Senator Reid is happily anticipating watching the self-destruction of the Republican Senators as they deal with this nominee and is looking forward to it's impact on the 2006 mid-term elections;
3. Miers used to bring coffee and donuts to church meetings preparing her for a similar role as the newest Associate Justice;
4. Miers attended an evangelical church in Texas and taught Sunday School, of course Jimmy Carter attends an evangelical church in Georgia where he teaches Sunday School as well but this does not make him a conservative legal scholar (actually Jimmy Carter is probably more of a legal scholar than Harriett Miers, at least if we evaluate that based upon a persons written record);
5. Miers was in charge of the Texas Lottery Commission and the Texas Bar Association which is relevant how?;
6. Miers is a born-again Christian which means that at some point she either changed her mind or decided that in Texas this was the way to get ahead (in fairness it could also be a genuine conversion) of course Jimmy Carter is a born again Christian as is Bill Clinton and Manuel Noriega...why this qualifies as a credential for the Supreme Court is lost on me;
7. Miers regularly returns to Texas to attend church with her mother and her pastor likes her (I'm sure she is nice to her cats too);
8. There have been other nominees with no judicial experience in the past who have turned out to be great justices, of course the two nominees who most closely resemble Harriett Miers are Abe Fortas (in as much as there were many charges of cronyism, not the charges of fraud) and "Justice Charles Whittaker, a detail-obsessive judge who imploded from the stress of life on the Supreme Court."

9. So what does a truly conservative justice think about the nomination?  I speculated last week about what Judge Bork would think of the nomination...we don't need to speculate any more, he is now on the record: 

TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC HOST: Are you impressed by the president’s choice of Harriet Miers?

JUDGE ROBERT BORK, FORMER SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Not a bit.  I think it’s a disaster on every level.

CARLSON: Why?  Explain the levels on which it’s a disaster.

BORK: Well, the first one is, that this is a woman who’s undoubtedly as wonderful a person as they say she is, but so far as anyone can tell she has no experience with constitutional law whatever.  Now it’s a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you’re on the court already.  So that—I’m afraid she’s likely to be influenced by factors, such as personal sympathies and so forth, that she shouldn’t be influenced by.  I don’t expect that she can be, as the president says, a great justice.

And Finally:      

All of these explanations make this nominee appear weak in the extreme but even they pale in comparison to this burst of stupidity by former senator Dan Coates 

''If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole.'' 

Who is he and why is he saying such a dumb thing?  He is former Senator Dan Coates and is the person selected by the Bush administration to assist Harriett Miers through the confirmation process...after appointing this ding-dong to 'help' his nominee...Bush says to "trust him" on the nominee selection.

Forgive me for being just slightly concerned about his judgment.

If there are any excellent arguments in favor of this nominee's qualifications I would be delighted to review them.  Thus far this is the best case which has been made for approving this nomination.  There is one other argument that has been floated:

Failure of his party to approve this nomination will damage Bush's credibility...

...as if making the nomination in the first place hasn't already achieved that result.