Joe Scott 3: The Body Politic

Senate Rule 21

02 November 2005 |permalink | email article

The Democrats finally got their act together yesterday and administered a surprise spanking to hubris-crazed Republicans and a White House in disarray. It took a bold move by Harry Reid of Nevada, the normally soft-spoken Senate minority leader.

Reid aroused long somnolent Democrat colleagues on a festering subject which has roiled the country and forced the Republican majority to address the Bush administrationís use of intelligence to justify the Iraq war and jump start the Senateís willingness to examine it.

The successful Democratic maneuver, condemned by the Republicans, was the first time in 25 years that one party invoked little used Senate Rule 21, a closed session without consulting the other party.

Majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, initially outraged after losing control of the chamber of two hours, agreed to a six-senator bipartisan task force to report by Nov. 14 on the ìintelligence committeeís progress of the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion.î

Partisan fireworks aside, the closed session was a mini-exorcism for liberals and many Democratic lawmakers who in 2003 were lured into support for the war: allegations that President Bush and his aides exaggerated Iraqís intelligence capacities and terrorism connections with Al Qaeda and then resisted inquiries into intelligence failures.

The Democrats have clearly been emboldened by Fridayís indictment of I. Lewis ìScooterî Libby, an architect of the war and alter ego of Vice President Dick Cheney, on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Karl Rove, still twisting in the wind, masterminded President Bushís decision to nominate Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court just four days after the Harriet Miers debacle. It was a clever attempt to divert attention from 2000 dead American soldiers and quickly change the subject.

But Reidís adroit maneuver checkmated the White House and put the Democrats back in the game on Iraq, a major issue in the 2006 mid-term elections.

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