If nothing else, the recently concluded Senate confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts proved two things. 1) Roberts is perhaps the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court in its history and 2) liberals are at their most entertaining when they are frustrated.
For the most part, the hearings consisted of Senators preening for the cameras (and the activists watching back home) and asking questions they knew Roberts, or any other judicial nominee, wouldn’t, couldn’t or shouldn’t answer. For them, this was their occasional “fifteen minutes” – with guaranteed TV exposure.
The old Senate liberal war-horse, Ted Kennedy was fairly lackluster compared to his performance in the 1986 Robert Bork hearings. In fact, he was so “into” these hearings that he left his seat a good part of the time to go on camera with various news networks to give “analysis”. Sort of like a confirmation hearing “play-by-play”, with Teddy giving the liberal color commentary.
On the other hand, Senator Chuck Schumer couldn’t wait to take the stage. So much so that in his opening statement, Schumer referred to himself forty-nine times.
Throughout his questioning Schumer claimed that he only wanted to know if Roberts was a “mainstream conservative” instead of an “ideologue”, insincerely implying that there was a chance he might vote to confirm him. The record shows differently. This is the same Schumer who has opposed every contested Bush nominee to the federal bench and who held confirmation hearing “practice sessions”, using a Harvard lawyer to play the part of Judge Roberts and submit to his inquisition rehearsal.
Since joining the committee, Schumer has been on a mission to re-define the standards for judicial confirmations by attempting to force nominees to endorse a broad menu of policy positions, all liberal of course. In other words, further politicize the judiciary.
Article comments
1 - Fred
Now really, is it fair to call big government a "liberalism" when the only president to downsize the government since WW2 was Bill Clinton? Or considering that the size of the government DOUBLED under Ronnie "Government is the problem" Reagan?
Although to be fair Reagan might not have bloated the goverment during the 9 days a month when he remembered where he was.
2 - practical joe
"Now really, is it fair to call big government a "liberalism" when the only president to downsize the government since WW2 was Bill Clinton?"
Well, yes - considering the fact that Clinton got in right after the Soviet Union collapsed.
"Or considering that the size of the government DOUBLED under Ronnie Reagan?"
Well, yes -- considering the fact that Reagan got in right when it was time to bring down the Soviet Union and that took more than a few dollars. Remember how "Star Wars" rattled the Soviet cage enough to all but make it fall apart.
3 - Fred
Yeah, Practical Joe, all your points are true, but they still don't justifhy calling big government a "liberalism."
Besides, Reagan's whole 1980 campaign was based on the idea that government was too big. That "government is the problem" quote was from his first inaugural address. So are you saying he became a hardcore liberal by the end of his office? Or just pointing out that from the very beginning he had know idea what the fuck he was doing?
4 - practical joe
"So are you saying he became a hardcore liberal by the end of his office? "
No. Reagan's tax cuts caused a budget shortfall, but they also resulted in a business expansion.
I, for one, started a business at that time and was able to get venture capital and put together a successful business which, in a very short time was able to create over two dozen jobs.
5 - Fred
But that still doesnt explain how big government is a liberalism.
And it doesn't explain how, if it IS a liberalism, President Vegetable wasn't a liberal.
6 - practical joe
Having to call Reagan -- President Vegetable -- shows how shallow your posts are.
7 - Silas Kain
We never had a President Vegetable. Must be talking about Slovakia or some Third World Country. We had a President Reagan, who was a good man. This is where I break with many of my liberal friends. I'd take another Ron Reagan for President any day over what we have had since January 2001. At least with Reagan there was civility in Congress and consistency from the White House. And I'll bet my last dollar that he would have responded to the disaster in the Gulf in such a masterful way that it would have brought the nation together.
8 - Natalie Davis
He would have brought your nation together? However good some of you think Ronnie Raygun was (and of course I think his presidency was poisonous), he wasn't that good.
9 - Silas Kain
I know, Ms. Davis, that's one of the only things we differ on. When I think of how he reacted to times of crisis, i.e. the Challenger disaster or greeting bodies of dead soldiers, I can just imagine how he would have handled Katrina. Many differed sharply with his policies but liked him as a person. That says something in my book because these days we can't seem to distinguish between all that fluff.
10 - Michael J. West
Reagan may indeed have brought us together, by virtue of his one true gift: he was the Great Communicator. He would have known exactly what to say and how to say it, and he would have known which photo ops would have the most effect. Reagan, in short, was the greatest PR man who ever inhabited the Oval Office.
That said, he was not a good President. Even his own aides and political allies have said that he did not really understand foreign policy or budget reports, no matter how many ways they tried to explain them to him. Even the Chicago Tribune, one of the most conservative newspapers in the country, said in 1984 that his foreign policy was "an embarrassment to the U.S. and a danger to world peace."
Practical Joe: Fred's posts were needlessly nasty, but the basic idea wasn't really shallow. In fact it was a good point: the evidence pretty much demonstrates that either (a) big government was a conservative philosophy, not a liberal one, or (b) Reagan was a liberal. Which is it?
11 - Fred
Ronnie and Nancy go to a restaurant.
Waiter comes up and says, "what'll it be?"
Nancy says, "I'd like the filet mignon with baked potato."
Waiter says, "Excellent choice ma'am. And what about the vegetable?"
Nancy says, "He'll have the same thing."
12 - Natalie Davis
Mr. West, he had the gift of gab. He was an *actor*, after all. But did he bring everyone together? Absolutely not. I will say, though, that he was more of a uniter than the Shrub purports to be. And I bet Raygun could pronounce "nuclear" properly.
13 - JR
Reagan was actually a pretty lousy speaker.
...although he sounds brilliant by today's standards.
And I'm pretty sure the Soviets knew just as well as we did that S.D.I. wasn't workable. The real build up of armaments started when Carter became disillusioned by the invasion of Afghanistan. Between the disaster of that quagmire and the embarrassment of the Solidarity movement, the Soviets were on the way out regardless of what the acting president did.
14 - Michael J. West
I would actually say that Gorbachev had at least as much hand in ending the Cold War as Reagan did. He was the first Soviet leader to really open up that society, the only real reformer that the USSR ever had (and a pretty radical one at that), and the first Soviet premier who really had a genuine interest in diplomacy and open channels of communication with the U.S.
Reagan's fans usually credit him with ending the Cold War, because they say his policies led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But it was Gorbachev who instituted free and multi-party elections in the USSR, which is what directly led to the weakening of the Communist Party. And that weakening effectively loosened the Communists' grip on all of Eastern Europe, and that's what REALLY ended the Cold War.
I think when history looks back on it a century from now, Gorbachev will be thought of as the man who ended Soviet power in Eastern Europe.