http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802763.html

That’s setting a really high bar.

What’s next?

“Obama meets middle class, suburban taxpayer. Reports they’re not as bad as he thought.”

?
 

First, let’s just revel in the competence, compared to Bush experience in the Gulf.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-asks/story?id=10731680

Europe drowns in a sea of red ink.

<<No link necessary>>

63% of voting public wants to repeal health care, figuring, among other things, that as goes Europe so goes the US

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_law

In a state with public servants retiring at age 55, the only thing Democrats can think of to reduce the deficit is to raise taxes.

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USN2427330520100524

The President of Mexico excoriates the United States; Congress cheers.

http://article.nationalreview.com/434722/the-house-divided/andrew-c-mccarthy

The administration tries to buy off Representative Sestak from opposing Arlen Specter.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Sestak-story-mutates-from-scandalous-to-depressing-94789164.html

The concern that the country is spinning out of control is growing so great that Rand Paul could call for the outright repeal of the Civil Rights Act and he’d still have a chance to win in November.

http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2010/05/24/rand_paul_another_high_tech_lynching

And I’m still mad the national press didn’t do a Nancy Reagan on Michelle Obama. (Yes, I know there is no justice on earth.)

http://article.nationalreview.com/350050/michelles-struggle/byron-york

Rasmussen has Obama back down to negative 18. Yes, I check this every morning. When it goes down I feel better.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

But there’s hope that speaking plainly is still admired in America.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/05/gov_chris_christie_moves_to_th.html

And that’s all I have to say about that.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_daze_of_the_weak_EiUUfDbjnfUa3SxyR0d24O/0

. . . and clear thinkng of Dan Quayle. . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/434712/one-of-those-moments/mark-steyn

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885.html

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-GOP_s-dilemma_-Fight-Kagan-or-go-along_-93985764.html

Last week my friends argued whether Republicans should change the historical approach to confirming justices as long as they’re reasonably qualified without reference to ideology.

Byron York argues Democrats (led by Charles Schumer) abandoned that nicety long ago. He calls Republicans giving in on Kagan unilateral disarmament.

Some facts (not from the article):

  • Recent Republican Supreme Court nominees Alito and Robert needed no votes from Democrats to be confirmed
  • Democrats mounted a failed filibuster to prevent Alito’s confirmation to come to a vote. A majority of Democrats voted no to end debate.
  • Democrats succeeded in scuttling the nomination of “wise Latino” Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit via a filibuster.

Oh and then there was Robert Bork.

None of the above surprises me. What does surprise me is that I couldn’t recall any of this for use in the discussion last week.

This is where I am well served by my reflexive view that when Democrats are complaining about Republicans. They’re usually saying something about themselves.

Anyway I’d say the evidence is fairly clear the Democrats long ago abandoned any idea the Senate should not judge the ideology of candidates. This doesn’t mean a filibuster of the Kagan nomination is good politics, but it certainly would not be without precedent.

Kagan

May 18, 2010

Money quote:

“She seems to be smart, impressive and honest — and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.”

If Bork can be disqualified for revealing so much of his mind, can Kagan be disqualified for revealing so little?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article7127574.ece

More on Kagan

May 12, 2010

“It is the one judgment that Kagan observers of all ideological backgrounds seem to share. Tom Goldstein, a Kagan supporter, admits, “I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade.” Carrie Severino, a Kagan critic from the right, concludes, “She’s been so careful for so long that no one seems to know exactly what she does think.” Glenn Greenwald, a Kagan critic from the left, contends that “her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051103192.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

So, I have a new “powerful” legal argument against confirming such a person. Someone who has so obviously avoided discussing important issues of the day in the hopes of facing a confirmation hearing to attain a post for which the issues of the day are paramount is far too calculating to be allowed to survive the confirmation process.

A potential judge who hasn’t talked about Constitutional issues for the past ten years? This is absurd, but it’s consistent with our President who thought it prudent to vote “Present” for precisely the same reason.

These are people who don’t want their souls to be known, and we are truly in dark times, because other than being a spy, I can’t think of any good reasons for an American to live a life of subterfuge.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/97089-democrats-poised-to-move-measures-with-high-price-tags

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/index.htm