MatthewMaynard.net

No, the title isn’t my idea. I stole it from another blog listed on The Corner.
Transcript of the President’s and Alito’s Remarks
This is quite possibly the best thing possible when it comes to judges. It forces Democrats into defending an untenable position with a split down those who have to vote on the issue. The position is untenable because it is unprecedented in American history – Supreme Court justices do not get filibustered. Further, the Democrats are split because of the 2006 elections. The 7 Democrats of the Gang of 14 come from various states:

• Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut, running in 2006
• Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia, running in 2006
• E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska, running in 2006
• Mary Landrieu, Louisiana, running in 2008
• Daniel Inouye, Hawaii, running in 2010
• Mark Pryor, Arkansas, running in 2008
• Ken Salazar, Colorado, running in 2010

As you can see, I’ve colored them according to their home state’s vote in the 2004 election – 5 red state senators, 2 blue state senators. We have two senators who have strong inclinations to vote for Alito, as they will go back next year to voters who sent the President back in order to get judges like Alito on the bench. They will have a tough time justifying their opposition. Further, Salazar is in a tight spot, since the Judicial issue was a big one in his election campaign last year.

Lets look at the Republicans of the Gang of 14:

• John S. McCain III, Arizona, who can’t win the Republican Presidential nomination without supporting Alito
• Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina, in favor of Alito
• John Warner, Virginia, election in 2008
• Olympia Snowe, Maine, election in 2006
• Susan M. Collins, Maine, election in 2008
• R. Michael DeWine, Ohio, who announced on Hugh Hewitt’s show that this isn’t a filibuster situation
• Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island, election in 2006

I don’t see how the Democrats can obstruct Alito successfully. They have to pull 5 of their half of the gang in line, and at least two of them have a very strong incentive (their reelection next year) to vote for the nominee. Two more have 2008 in mind, and the more rabid the left wing of their left-wing party gets, the more attractive the center will look.

My early guess is that Samuel Alito will get nominated. Here’s to hoping we can get on to the box-o-docs phase (blogosphere review of his record) soon.

U.N. Security Council OKs Syria Resolution

This could be the first in a long chain of meaningless drivel from Turtle Bay, or it could be the first in a string of enforced resolutions. It partly depends on who wins the Presidency in 2008.

Previous thoughts on Syria:

• 1559 is the new 1441
• Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian Military Power

The text of the measure:

The text of United Nations Security Council resolution 1559 (2004) calls for foreign troops to leave Lebanon and for Lebanese sovereignty to be respected:

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its president on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally territorially recognised borders,

Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,

Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory,

Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,

1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;
2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;
4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;
5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;
6. Calls upon all parties concerned to co-operate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;
7. Requests that the secretary general report to the Security Council within 30 days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of this matter.

I’m going as a reformed nudist.

This is the last weekend before the close of the MM.net Service Rifle Postal Match. I’ve gotten an absolute flood of entries this past week.

Okay, I haven’t. I’ve not even received a single one. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Bingo.

That means that if you enter, you will almost certainly win. The prizes are a Gun control coffee mug and a bookmark of your choice.

Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby was indicted today for lying to a grand jury. That is inexcusable, if it actually happened. I have a gut feeling, completely unsupported, that he’s innocent. But the indictment is damning, and I’ve been wrong before. For his sake, I hope I’m not.

Of course, this does nothing to bolster the accusations Joe Wilson made, that someone in the White House directed his wife’s name & role in the CIA to be leaked to the press. If after two years the prosecution can’t find any evidence that indicates the Intelligence Identities Act was violated, the odds are very low that it was. What likely happened was that Robert Novak pieced the story together from various bits of information made available to him.

If that’s true, then Joe Wilson makes himself out as a fool every time he comes out in criticism of the White House. But that’s the nature of indictments in Washington – someone wants to make political hay out of someone else’s situation, so they make an accusation that ruins a reputation.

Oh, the aggravation.

I was intemperate yesterday when I called my fellow conservatives jerks. I am sorry.

Jeremy made a good point:

Does this seem like a political situation here? The Party was in disarray because there was disagreement around the nomination choice. If this WERE politics, the Republicans would have shut up and voted the nomination through. I applaud the discord!

I would rather have Senators disagree because of principle, than proceed because of politics.

Amen, brother. The amount of free discussion on the right stands in stark contrast to the lockstep imposed upon the left, by the left. At least the Republicans are free to disagree because of differing principles.

Which explains why the Republican party is so strong – it has a wide base. Parties with narrow bases do not have discussions like this, for the simple reason that they lack the political diversity necessary for differing views to come into conflict. The Republicans had a debate over this nominee partly because they had enough people to debate. The presence of this debate in our party indicates a broad coalition, one able to win (as evidenced by the past ten years of elections) and one able to discuss our principles in a fair, open way. Remember that the next time Chuck the Knife opens his mouth about the extreme right wing of the party having taken control.

This is a good development. Now as Hugh Hewitt said on his show yesterday, let’s put the band back together. Let’s find a Constitutionalist who can bring the party together and get on the court. Hewitt makes a compelling case for Mike McConnell, what do you think?

Almost true. To quote directly, “I’ll never read a blog,” says the former Senate Majority Leader. If this quote had come out after his loss of the majority leader position, it would not have been a surprise. Today, though, it is a big surprise, and it indicates a vulnerability. If he can’t get his act together before he goes to the voters again, he could be in real trouble. The left sees him as a big, slow moving bison, and his quote just painted a big target right over his political heart.

Chess is a game where you are sometimes forced into making moves you don’t want to. George Bush wanted to get a stealthy candidate onto the court who could get past the Senate without rancor and put a conservative philosophy on the bench. He trusted Harriet Miers to be that conservative. Its too bad he hasn’t apparently built enough trust in his base to do so, as it was the fear in his base that has led to her withdrawal.

Now that Miers has written a letter and withdrawn her nomination, the country will never get to know her judicial philosophy. We’ll never get to hear how she feels about the various issues. We’ll never hear her perspective on Executive privilege, a key issue in how the War on Terror is fought.

This is exactly how I didn’t want it to end. Of the three possibilities – confirmation, rejection, or withdrawal – this was the least desirable. It makes the President look weak. It makes the Republicans look like a bunch of bullies and cowards. It makes the Democrats look respectable, when they’re not.

To all you people who opposed her from the get-go without hearing a word of how she viewed the court, <sarcasm>thanks a lot</sarcasm>. Your fear (there’s no other word for it) was absolutely inexcusable. It should have at least gone to committee before you rejected her. But don’t bother with the apologies, the damage is done.

This makes the next nominee even harder to get through the Senate. With the only apparently acceptable nominee being someone whose judicial experience is well known and acceptable to the Right Wing of the punditry, a filibuster is almost guaranteed. Of course, the Democrats will be unable to control themselves if someone like Priscilla Owen (who may not even want the job, if some reports are to be believed) gets nominated. You can kiss civility goodbye.

But I guess I could have said that when Republicans became fearful at the start of this mess. Both parties are to blame for a lack of politeness, I guess, but its expected of the Democrats. For the Republicans, though, I expected a little more backbone.

You can’t make bricks without clay. You can’t make judgments without data. We had no data, and now, thanks to fear, we won’t have any.

Jerks.

There’s an election coming up in Tucson, on Nov. 8th. As usual, I am going to make my choices before I go to the voting booth, and since I have a blog, I’m going to tell you Why I Vote The Way I Do. There are two ballot propositions and three City Council seats to be voted on. I’ll discuss the propositions first, then revisit the issue after I’ve examined the candidates for City Council Wards.

Proposition 100 – Compensation for mayor and board members
The mayor’s current salary is $42,000 per year. The current salary of council members is $24,000. This proposition asks for a raise; the new mayor salary will be $52,080 per year, the new council member salary will be $29,760.

I find it a bit hard to argue against this raise, as I would find it a bit difficult to live on the council member’s salary. The mayor’s salary is closer to what I make, but I fail to see how you will attract qualified people to the office if they have to take a major hit in pay. It seems that unless they are extremely wealthy or have income from sources outside their salaries, people would not feel like they could run for the positions. This would discourage democratic participation in government, the opposite of what we want. I’m inclined to vote for this proposition, especially since the council & mayor have done well these past few years. Streets have improved and the local economy hasn’t tanked. There has been a rise in violent crime (if the sensational stories in the paper are to be believed), but overall I think the council has earned the raise.

Proposition 400 – Budget limits and the Home Rule option
The Arizona Constitution places spending limits on municipalities. Since these limits may not be the best fit for a given city, the state Constitution allows for the limits to be overridden for a period of 4 fiscal years, pending approval by the voters. This overruling is known as Home Rule. It amounts to a spending authorization, but because of the balanced budget requirements Tucson must obey, it does not come with a built-in tax increase.

The issue comes up because Tucson is growing. This growth will result in $9 million dollars more being taken in without being spent. Of course, this begs the question ‘why not lower taxes and fees?’, but we’ll come back to that later. Here’s the breakdown of the increase:

Note the large increase in spending in years 2, 3, and 4. The ballot summary book does not explain why this increase is needed – it only shows where the money is planned to be spent. Most of the money will go to Neighborhood Services (Police, Fire, Parks) and Environment & Development, things we can all agree are good for the neighborhood.

But an increase of not just $9 million, but $25-36 million? This strikes me as odd & suspicious, though not necessarily nefarious. It seems to me that because the mayor & city council are doing a good job managing the city with what they have, they should lower taxes in order to let us have back some of that $9 million dollars. Especially since there is an estimated $30 million surplus just three years down the line. I’m voting against this.

So there you have it, the propositions on the local ballot for this year. I’ll research the candidates for City Council & post on those later.

There wasn’t much coverage of it in the Big Media, but Brazil had an important question put to its voters. They were to decide if guns & ammunition were to be banned in their country, and they said no – vehemently. I first heard of it on an NPR newsbreak about a week ago (I know, I know, what was I doing listening to National Proletariat Radio. I swear, there was nothing else on the radio. Just ask Jeremy). This Sunday they didn’t mention it, and I wondered why. After I do a little sniffing (i.e. checking Instapundit) I find there was a 60% vote against the ban.

Why is this important? There are two major gun manufacturers in Brazil, Taurus & Rossi. If locals aren’t allowed to buy their products, the companies lose a major market, to say nothing of facing a hostile government. They would be forced to move. This would make their product lines much more expensive, to say nothing of ruining supply chains for a while. The defeat of this proposition is good for these gun makers, good for Americans who like their products, and good for Brazilians.