America in the Balance

ALITO: BUSH SNATCHES VICTORY FROM THE

JAWS OF DEFEAT

by

Ken Eliasberg

I cannot tell you how delighted I am—and how fortunate the country is (or will be, once the Democrats have finished with their temper tantrum, provide us with a little kabuki theatre, and been forced to yield to the inevitable)—with Bush’s recent nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. He is John Roberts with a paper trail, i.e he is not a “stealth candidate.” Alito comes with a a substantial record—one of great distinction—and one that clearly demonstrates that he is ideally suited to be on the Supreme Court. Regarding Alito’s sterling record, Wendy Long (in National Review online) had this to say:

The President has obviously chosen based on objective merit. Judge

Alito is the best, in terms of legal credentials, judicial experience,

intellectual ability, fairmindedness, and faithfulness to the

Constitution and the role of the Court as a neutral and nonpolitical

branch of government.

This statement pretty well reflects the consensus thinking of most reasonably objective observers of the current judicial situation.

Of course, the left will try to paint him as a right-wing extremist who is out of the “main stream” of America (as if Ruth Bader Ginsburg is some sort of centrist). But then the beauty of being a left-wing extremist is that there is no such thing; by their thinking, anyone right of Ted Kennedy (or Karl Marx, take your pick) is a member of the radical right. The left is going to howl, and I love it. What the right needs—and what they are forever running from—is a real fight. That’s what Bush was running away from, first with John Roberts and then a complete surrender to Harry Reid with Harriet Miers. I had 3 main problems with the Miers nomination (and, again, I repeat, I had no problem with Harriet Miers as either a person or an attorney; my problem with her concerned only her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court), and they are:

1. A Republican refusal to pick a constitutional conservative, and then throw down the gauntlet and tell the Dems to

bring it on,

2. This constant garbage about Bush being a uniter, not a

divider - a ridiculous position which he could never

achieve because the Dems were never really interested,

and which, while desirable, was certainly not essential to moving significant aspects of his agenda forward, and

3. A failure to make an honest and penetrating statement about

the importance of the Supreme Court and its role in shaping

or misshaping, if you will, the culture of our country over the last 40 years.

1. The right man and the right fight.- Over the years, subsequent to my moving across the aisle, my greatest frustration in being a Republican has been watching my Party shrink from a fight time and time again. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t think fighting for fighting’s sake is a good thing. But I do think that there are times when you have to fight for what you really believe in - and then let the chips fall where they may. Thus, in the case of the Supreme Court, Bush initially shied away from:

1. A fight that was worth fighting“ because the Supreme

Court is the most important domestic policy decision a

President has to make,

2. A fight that he could not lose. Even if his nominee

went down, he would be distinguished for having fought a

principled battle. Moreover, he would be consoled by the

fact that he would have no less than a dozen other prospective candidates; the conservative bench of constitutional jurists is, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, deeper than the New York

Yankees (perhaps this is a bad example, in view of the limited

success that the Yankees experienced this year), and

3. A fight which was exactly what the Republican Party needed to bring its base together in this time of trouble. The troops would have rallied around Bush in a heart beat, as they will now do with Alito.

Furthermore, if you won’t fight when your Party holds a majority in both the House and Senate, when will you fight? A fight is just what is needed, and, in my opinion, the Dems will fold like a cheap suit. They have neither the muscle nor manpower to engage in a real fight, and, in the past, these inadequacies haven’t been exposed because the Republicans were too busy running from away from any fight. I think the Republicans are ready now, and Alito is just the right guy to energize the base. So, my advice to the Dems is - BRING IT ON!!!

2. Bush has not been the Uniter he promised to be.- Well he didn’t promise to do any such thing, and it would have been a stupid promise if he had—unless you like exercises in futility. Bush has given the Dems—(1) prescription drugs (which will turn out to be another trillion dollar waste of money), (2) an education bill (a sop to Kennedy and some more meddling by the federal government in a matter which should be left to the States to address), (3) McCain-Feingold (the worst piece of legislation that ever came out of Washington and which was both counterproductive and in the process of being undermined by the Dems while it was still on the drafting board—more money was spent on the 2004 election than in any previous year—SOME REFORM!), and (4) Steel Tariffs (an ill-advised bone to organized labor). In addition he had Teddy (that bloated bloviating bundle of baloney) over to the White House to view the Cuban missile crisis movie about Teddy’s brother, and has Bill Clinton running around the country with his father. In addition, he is in to his 5^th year as president and has yet to veto a bill. This is a sign of either co-operation, timidity, or inattentiveness, depending on your perspective, but it certainly isn’t a sign of a mean spirited partisan president. What did he get from all this “uniting?” The Dems have labeled him the most partisan president in history. You don’t make deals with terrorists or the current leadership of the Democratic party (is there a difference between these 2 groups?).

The only thing Bush has to unite is his base; the rest will take

care of itself. Why just the base? Because (1) they’re the guys who

brought him to the dance, and (2) there’s more than enough of them to

carry the day (and you will never get the Dems to unite behind

anything a Republican president proposes—they’re putting all their

marbles on Hillary in 2008, and anything that helps a Republican

prior to that time—EVEN IF IT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA—will

have absolutely no Democratic support). The message then—UNITE

YOUR BASE, AND DON’T WORRY ABOUT PLEASING DEMOCRATS - THEY WON’T BE PLEASED!! If Bush

doesn’t heed this advice he’s going to be a very early lame duck president.

And, by the way, Alito’s confirmation (which I regard as a foregone conclusion, once all the Democratic huffing and puffing is over) won’t change the voting balance on the court. You will still have Ginsburg and Breyer as reliable left-wing votes, with Kennedy,

Souter, and Stevens (the squishy Republicans) moving over to join them on numerous occasions). The real fight will come if Stevens (who is over 85 years old) or Ginsburg (who has battled cancer) leaves the Bench. Then a Republican president, with a Republican Senate, could change the course of future decisions (in the right direction, I might add). At that time, should it come (and I certainly hope that it comes) the Dems will really go to the mat.

In my final column on this subject, I intend to deal with the criticism offered up by conservative pundits to demonstrate not only what they wanted and why they were displeased with Harriet Miers, but, more to the point, to clearly indicate just how right they were. Tune in.