Political Strategy and Perceptives: Recently, I discussed and took part in discussions about the appropriate winning strategy for the Democrats. First off, I responded to some conservative praise of Prime Minister Blair's speech to Congress. I think Blair put forth an eloquent speech with many Democratic themes, though the overall point of it all was really to support President Bush and his flawed Iraqi policy. This is why conservatives who in most cases don't think much of the Prime Minister's policies went out of their way to rave about his speech. A speech some demeaned as his "white man's burden" speech ... good intentions, but done so in an unsavory, almost colonialist way.

I added some two cents to a more general discussion on "values and arguments" here with some additional comments here (the response that took Dave Barry's quote seriously is amusing). An interesting article by Harmful To Minors author Judith Levine about the alternatives to marriage is found here. I support her general attempt to argue that in the current era there are many "marriage like" relationships that should not all be put into one box known as "marriage," but still receive some governmental sanction for various reasons, including care of children. I also talk about how the current administration is no fan of free trade in a somewhat amusing, though serious, case involving Vietnam and catfish.

While on the political theme, the NYT reports that the President has nominated two more for the DC Appeals Court, where Miguel Estrada is destined to go whenever the filibuster against him fails. There are various reasons why these nominees show yet again the I got to say slimy nature of the Bush judicial nomination process. One nominee is Janice R. Brown, a black conservative [who wrote a key anti-affirmative action decision] that has gotten some controversy, but though I'm not familiar with her record enough to make any conclusions, my tentative belief is she is likely just a conservative pick whose color helps smooth the way.

It is true that many Clinton picks were struck down for ideological reasons, so this is a factor, but it is the least of the problems in this case. First, the President is making three nominations to a key circuit court with openings largely because Republicans blocked Clinton nominees, and also argued there was no need for a full bench. Apparently, now they changed their mind.

Second, the other nominee is thirty-eight year old Brett M. Kavanaugh, an associate White House counsel, a key player in choosing other nominees to the federal bench. Thus, the Democrats in the Senate as well as others involved in the process would likely distrust him, not unjustly seeing him as an ideologue in a time when we need noncontroversial picks to the bench. His age is also a factor ... I do wonder if he is so qualified that it is justified to place someone so young on a federal appellate bench. Finally, guess what else he is known for? Yes! He was a key aide to Kenneth Starr, having a big role in the investigation of President Clinton and writing the infamous Starr Report. You [expletive deleted] got to be kidding me! How in the hell is this guy a good choice, especially to this court when Justice (in California) Brown alone is controversial for her views? It is this sort of thing that aggravates me to no end ... the arrogance, lack of desire to even try not to be divisive, and the lack of guts to even admit the fact half the time that makes by blood boil.

I am unsure who I support among those running for the Democratic nomination, but my basic belief is that many of them are acceptable choices because they share certain basic beliefs. All the same, perhaps my key requirement is someone who does not act like this. Someone with the moral integrity not only to cook evidence but also not have the gall to pervert the judicial nomination process, not willing to give an inch, but instead only inflaming the situation more. He has help, it is true ... the Republicans in the Senate cannot even resolve that a very controversial nominee such as William Pryor crosses some line ... can't throw that bone to the opposition, not even Sen. Spector, who has spoken of his misgivings, but voted with the rest to send his nomination out of the committee. The result? The Democrats might be forced to filibuster ... yes a whopping third of one for a hundred nominations ... thus inflaming things further. And, who is blamed? The Democrats, more often than not! Sigh.