| All
Things Reconsidered
March
3, 2003
by
Alexander Washburn
Miguel
Estrada must be stopped
Lost
in all the pro-war, anti-war, weapons-inspections and
whether we should boycott French wine or not chatter,
has been the Bush White House's attempt to sneak another
right-wing judge onto the Federal bench. This one comes
in the form of Miguel Estrada and the appointment
is to the Federal Court of Appeals in the District of
Columbia. Rightly, Democrats are currently filibustering
the nomination and they need to maintain this steadfast
opposition to Estrada. The Democratic Party and the people
that support and vote for them, must realize that Miguel
Estrada must never be given a lifetime appointment to
a Federal Court.
The best way to derail Estrada, who if appointed is on
the fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, is to continue
to show a united front. Those on the fence cannot be swayed
by the platitudes showered on Estrada by Democrats like
Ron Klain, the former chief of staff to Al Gore.
Plus, I'll take what Estrada's old boss has to say over
praises from his old college chum Klain any day. Paul
Bender, Estrada's former supervisor at the Solicitor General's
Office gave the right-turning Washington Post an
honest assessment saying that Estrada's personal views
"would spill into rulings if Mr. Estrada is asked
to decide matters involving defendants rights, affirmative
action and other controversial subjects." Also let
us not forget that the White House refuses to turn over
memos and legal briefs written by Estrada to Senate Democrats.
Despite years of precedent and cooperation, the White
House feels its best that we take their word that Estrada
is a moderate instead of showing us real proof that he
is. Boy, that sounds familiar.
Democrats should also not fear when White House officials
start running their mouth about how opposition to Estrada
is going affect in the polls. White House Counsel Alberto
Gonzalez appeared on 'Fox News Sunday' to plant this
little gem, saying: "If the Hispanic community believes
that Miguel Estrada is being treated to a different standard,
I think that may be harmful [to Democrats] in the future."
Yeah, If Bush weren't destroying affirmative action, ignoring
rising gas prices (now topping $2 dollars in Manhattan),
unemployment and a myriad of widening domestic problems
on top of sending thousands of poor Hispanics off to fight
an unjust war, Gonzalez might just have a point. But he
doesn't. Plus, someone should point out to Gonzalez that
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican-American
Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund all oppose Estrada.
This kind of gibberish is expected of Gonzalez, who has
zero creditability when it comes to being character witness.
This is the same man who ripped into another controversial
Bush nominee Priscilla Owen when they served together
on the Texas Supreme Court. Gonzalez referred to Owen's
extremist position in a reproductive rights case as an
"unconscionable act of judicial activism." Of
course now Gonzalez and Karl Rove are Owen's biggest
boosters and are working hard to secure this activist
judge another confirmation hearing.
The Lancet Kicks GQ's Ass
John
Edwards' presidential aspirations are in a free fall
and it's gotten so bad that the 'Senator from GQ' might
need to start thinking about getting re-elected in North
Carolina before he starts thinking about where to place
the putting green on the White House grounds. I happen
to hate it when I agree with Bob Novak (which happens
more than I'd like to admit) but his Sunday column on
was dead right about Edwards fallen star. Novak writes:
"Not only has Sen. John Edwards sagged as a 2004
Democratic presidential candidate, but his national party
operatives now worry about his chances for re-election
to a second Senate term in North Carolina next year."
This is far from a surprise to this space as Edwards'
candidacy to this point has been based on his youthful
good looks and a series of "what if's" proposed
by easily swayed inside the Beltway political writers.
What if Edwards is nominated then the South would be competitive?
What if Edwards is nominated and his self-made millions
could match Bush dollar for dollar? The right question
to ask with regards to Edwards is not "what if"
but "what has he done?" I have a hard time finding
any key legislation with his name on it. Or even any that
he is passionate or attached to. We know Senator John
McCain gets passionate about wasteful government spending
and campaign finance reform. Hillary is an expert on education.
Michigan's Carl Levin is your man on defense matters.
What's Edwards an expert on? Where to get the best manicure
on K Street?
We
can also start to write off recent entrant Ohio Rep. Dennis
Kucinich. He is pro-life and the power and influence
of the single-issue voter on choice cannot be underestimated
in a Democratic primary. And Kucinich is not just a little
pro-life. During his first three terms in Congress, Kucinich
racked up Henry Hyde type ratings from the National
Right to Life Committee averaging 95%. A flip-flopping
Kucinich tried to cover up his anti-choice record recently
in Iowa saying: "I do not believe that Roe. V. Wade
should be overturned." However, as the choice movement
find themselves under assault and seize from a hostile
President who promised to be compassionate and a uniter,
Kucinich is going to have to offer progressives a little
more than rhetoric.
As Edwards and Kucinich stumble and eventually fall, former
Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean continues to rise.
His recent speech to the Democratic National Committee
was bold and hopefully will serve as a wake-up call for
the lethargic Jack Ass
Party. Dean came right into the face of the DNC (the root
of many of the Party's problems) and rightly questioned
the leadership. Dean asked: "Why in the world is
the Democratic leadership supporting the President's unilateral
attack on Iraq?" Yes, he's speaking to you John Kerry.
Dean blasted Bush not only on Iraq
but on affirmative action as well, calling Bush "quota"
speech of three weeks ago, where the President used the
word seven times "one of the most despicable moments"
of his administration. Dean forcefully and factually stated
that: "The University of Michigan does not now have
quotas, has never had quotas and 'quota' is a race-influenced
word designed to appeal people's fear of losing their
jobs." Can you imagine Joe Lieberman being
that bold on affirmative action? Dean also went on to
beat up other weenie Democrats like Georgia Senator Zell
Millner for supporting tax cuts at a time when our nation
faces the largest deficit in its history. Plus, in a sound
bite world how can you beat "I am Howard Dean. And
I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party?"
For
Dean, being a former governor counts for something. You
think Dick Gephardt or Al Sharpton have ever balanced
a budget? Dean did repeatedly and he didn't poorly manage
Vermont's fiscal matters and leave his successor a pile
of debt. America's mayor Rudy Guiliani sure can't
say that. Unlike New York, Vermont isn't slashing education
and other valuable services like child-care, recycling,
and senior citizen meal programs. A Vermont under Howard
Dean made significant strides toward insuring every child
under 18 and Medicaid was extended to alleviate a squeezed
middle class. As Governor, he signed the Civil Unions
bill that said that marriage is between a man and a woman
but same-sex couples are entitled to the exact same legal
right as everyone. Unlike Edwards, this is a record and
it's more than the rhetoric Kucinich is serving up.
Like Bob Schieffer said on 'Face the Nation' "I'd
be keeping an eye on Howard Dean."
(Alexander Washburn is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine.)
>>RESPONSES
<<
Response
from: Franklin D. Roosevelt Jones,
Jr.
March 2003
Huzzah
to Mr. Joseph for his keen political analyses, and particularly
his points on Miguel Estrada.
However, I have to take issue with his coverage of the
Democratic presidential candidates. First, since no one
has voted yet, no one is actually in trouble. John Edwards
will have the support of the trial lawyers lobby, and
expect him to be in the race at least through the South
Carolina primary.
Second – Dennis Kucinich is the head of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus. How a pro-life person got there is
unbelievable. But his zeal for every other progressive
issue except abortion, makes him a viable candidate. Labor
loves Kucinich, and expect them to place him in the top
3 in Iowa. Yes, he's taking the politically expedient
route on abortion, but the guy actually wants to create
a Department of Peace. His left-wing zealotry (and I mean
that in the best way possible) will kill his candidacy
way before the abortion issue does.
Third – Although I LOVE the Democratic Party quote
from Howard Dean, please explain to me how someone who
has an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association
is the guy to watch? Last time I looked, being a budget
balancing, pro-gun, and pro-death penalty candidate didn't
exactly make you the most progressive candidate in the
race (or the guy most likely to win the nomination).
Mr. Joseph, the race is wide open. The only people who
can't win are Rev. Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun.
John Kerry is a war hero and he's rich, so he's in for
the long run. Lieberman is the moderate and has the name
recognition. And newly entered contestant Sen. Bob Graham
of Florida would be the candidate to watch if not for
his age and bad heart. He's been a governor, voted against
using force in Iraq, headed the Senate Intelligence Committee,
he's a southerner, and he's rich.
Keep up the great work Mr. Joseph, but please don't start
counting candidates out at least until we've reached Fall
2003.
PS
– Did anyone see the picture of George W. Bush posing
with Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor who was charged
with being an Islamic terrorist?
Check it out here - http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00207.htm.
Can you imagine if this were Bill Clinton instead of Bush?
The impeachment would already be over....
|
