Joe Scott 3: The Body Politic

Bush: A Halloween Treat

31 October 2005 |permalink | email article

Much to the joy of social conservatives and the Christian right, President Bush today nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court, four days after Harriet E. Miers withdrew her nomination under pressure.

On Sunday TV interview shows, conservatives responded warmly when Alitoís name was mentioned among a gaggle of possible candidates. Presumably, Bush cleared his choice with Dr. James Dobson, the nationís most influential evangelical leader and a staunch defender of Miers.

But many Democrats, left out of the consultative process, will now come off the sidelines in an effort to block the nomination, or filibuster it.

Liberals view the choice as extreme, a ìtrick or treatî response by Bush to appease the right ñ and change the political music from the most disastrous week of his presidency ñ the Miers debacle and the indictment of neocon Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheneyís alter ego.

Alito, 55, nicknamed ìScalitoî by some conservatives who compare him with their hero, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, has built a record as an incisive critic of liberal constitutional theory.

The nominee reminisced today about his first time arguing a case before the Supreme Court in 1982, when Justice Sandra Day OíConnor, whom he would replace, sensed he was a ìrookieî and made sure that the first question he was asked was a kind one.

If confirmed, Alito is not likely to be a swing vote on the court like O’Connor, a position that drove conservatives into a frenzy.

Arnold: Zero Political Muscle

30 October 2005 |permalink | email article

Ten days before an unpopular special election called by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former world champion body builder and Hollywood action hero is discovering that winning in politics is more complicated than just schmoozing with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.

None of his four ìyear of reformî initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot enjoy a majority among voters. Two measures ñ a state spending cap (Proposition 76), and redistricting (Proposition 77) - are furthest behind, a Public Policy Institute of California poll found.

The survey also found the governorís once staggering popularity has also tanked. His favorability rating, 69% in August 2004, is now 35%. Conversely, his negatives, 28% in 2004, have risen to 56%. Such data makes it difficult to explain how he can surge from behind before election day with a two-minute drill.

Part of the plunge is attributable to Schwarzeneggerís self-proclaimed warrior image combined with an abrasive talent for alienating not only swing voters but also opponents including nurses, teachers, firefighter and police unions with his rhetoric. I mean, rough and tumble is one thing, but you donít tell nurses youíll ìkick their butts,î call Democrats ìgirlie menî and expect to escape without serious political consequences, as he has painfuly discovered.

The governorís most recent comments are a study in contradictions: 1) stating ìreformîgoals are more important than offending corporate interests and Republican loyalists; 2) flaying Democrats and unions for blocking his reform package; and 3) appearing humble, almost apologetic, in a new commercial saying ìIíve got a lot to learn.î

Arnold Steinberg, a respected Los Angeles conservative political strategist and analyst, wrote a prescient piece, ìTerminated Propositions,î for the National Review Online (Oct. 28), about the lack of a coherent strategy by the governor and misplaced bravado.  Key excerpts:

ìHis (poll) numbers were awful, well before the campaign started. The problem is that his advisers have encouraged the governor to believe heís starring in a movie about the recall. Thatís a movie that has been out for a long time, and we donít need to see it again.

ìThe main reason for Schwarzeneggerís inevitable defeat is there never was any reason to have this special election. The governor began that threat, as a negotiating tool with legislators, long ago, when his popularity was higher. But he gave in to Democrats last year, so the ëstickí was gone.

ìProposition 77, a reapportionment measure that, even if it passed, likely could not affect 2006 and could probably not apply to 2008, due to old population data.

ìProposition 75, which promises paycheck protection, was supposed to be a sure winner, Now itís in doubt and could lose, because the governor and his team, desperate for a single victory, slated their ballot measures with it. Predictably, doing so has not brought 75, 76 and 77 up, but rather is bringing 75 down. All this was foreseeable.î

Scooter Takes a Great Fall

28 October 2005 |permalink | email article

It’s a Humpty Dumpty kind of sordid political tale, a violation of the public trust unmatched by a sitting White House official in 130 years. 

The indictment of Vice President Cheneyís chief of staff, I. Lewis ìScooterî Libby on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information about the role of CIA agent Valerie Wilson raises many questions with very few answers. A leak has morphed into a cover-up.

Libby, a smart lawyer and one-time anti-war activist, has long been associated with Cheney. A neoconservative convert and his national security adviser, Libby was part of the elite White House Iraq Group (WHIG), including the vice president, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld that made the case for war fiercely resisted by the State Department and CIA which was far from certain about WMD.

As The New York Times reported, Libby first learned about the CIA wife of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson (who ran afoul of the neocon crowd with his NYT op-ed piece criticizing administration policy), from Cheney, not reporters, as he’d originally suggested. It was a leak designed to undermine anyone who got in the administrationís way.

Why did Libby do it? Was he operating on his own, or was he covering up to protect the shadowy Cheney and Bush to justify a war now opposed by a majority of Americans?

Will Libby now try to make a deal and implicate Cheney or, like a loyal neocon, fight on? A trial, which could put Cheney and other major government figures on the witness stand, is not what a shattered administration wants with nervous Republican incumbents on the 2006 ballot. 

The grand jury did not return an indictment against a relieved Karl Rove, Bushís indispensable mastermind, but he will be twisting in the wind for a period of time. His lawyer, more adroit than Libby’s counsel by having Rove provide last minute new information to clarify his conflicting testimony, said Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made no decision about whether to bring charges and that Roveís status had not changed.

The Jesuit-educated Fitzgeraldís hour-long statement was terse, eloquent and minus prosecutorial legal jargon - a subtle suggestion that the nonpartisan prosecutor’s investigation, ironically using journalists to make his case that Libby lied, is not yet a wrap. Who will soon forget his aside that Libbyís actions did ìdamage to all of us?î

The scandal will now escalate in the media. CBSís ì60 Minutesî may weigh in with a must-view on Sunday.