Conservative intransigence means that, if the Democrats don't take up the fight, no one will, and the country will remain frighteningly vulnerable. The irony, of course, is that Bush's reelection can be attributed to the American people's trust in him to keep them safe--a trust based largely on his belief that the character of states matters. After all, his emphasis on democratization covered up the evaporation of the administration's original casus belli in Iraq, and it provided an optimistic vision of the future in which the war on terrorism will be won by virtue of our virtue. Most important, his description of the war on terrorism as a battle between freedom and tyranny--a battle, in effect, between good and evil--appealed to the public's need for narrative in politics. ...
And they must explain that, in contrast to Bush's fantasy, in which the earth is cleansed of evil, theirs is a story--all the more optimistic because of its realism--in which the concrete goal of securing and destroying fissile material can be accomplished through concrete steps.
-- J. Peter Scoblic
The rest of the article explains this "fantasy," how the neo-con worldview just does not work too well in fighting the international nuclear threat.
Randi Rhodes on Air America underlines how the Bush Administration is full with a bunch of crooks (in some cases quite literally: these include some old Iran Contra hands who were convicted and at best got off on appeal on immunity grounds). There are also the Negropontes and Roves who are in effect crooks on account of past and present activities. But, the administration sells the other side as the illegitimate ones. The immoral ones. Alanis Morissette had less ironic things in her song of that name.
Roberts comes across as nothing if not conservative in the thousands of pages of documents he wrote as a Reagan-era legal adviser. Roberts favored a highly restrictive interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. He concluded that Congress had the authority to pass so-called court-stripping legislation in order to prevent courts from imposing busing as a remedy for segregation. He took a dim view of a Justice Department decision granting restitution to people discouraged from applying to jobs for reasons related to race. He argued against an affirmative action program on the grounds that it led to the hiring of unqualified candidates.
So says Noam Scheiber in his latest New Republic piece on John Roberts. But, that was then, this is now, right? The fact is, however, that this administration has a bunch of retreads in key policy decisions for the specific reason that their policies are still thought of as quite valid. You know, from Dick Cheney on down. Why should Roberts be different? Something to ask him about in his hearings. Listening Leahy et. al.?
I leave one last tidbit, on the principle that Roberts just was an advocate for his client (somehow he was not an "advocate" for Democrats*) for the end. This is simply amusing:
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham argued that Roberts was merely advising a "client": "I've represented rapists, murder[er]s. ... You shouldn't hold it against me the thoughts of my client."
Lindsey Graham ... Democrat? On the subject of southern senators, John Edwards is out there again, full of energy as usual. I like the guy, though his stance on the war was naive if not simply wrong. He now is taking the "I was tricked" route, which suggests he was not fit to be President (all things being equal) in 2004. I can be cynical, but many out there, not all sleazeballs, were fooled too. It's a learning experience. Still don't buy Clinton. He might have potential in 2008.
---
* But, some might say, the next Supreme Court justice defended homosexuals!! Unlike certain senators from Pennsylvania, this does not quite mean he is singlemindedly supportive of one overall worldview. Anyway, he is just an advocate, right? He doesn't have base principles.