SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sunny who wrote (15401)11/6/2003 10:57:38 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793884
 
Is the filibustering of Judicial Candidates helping win elections? The Republicans think so. Conclusion to Sean Rushton's article in NRO.
___________________________________________

Judge Pickering’s Revenge
The judicial-confirmation battle has already hurt Democrats.

By Sean Rushton

.......The GOP strategy of raising the judicial issue succeeded unambiguously. Senate Republican polling indicates that the 2002 fight over Pickering brought judicial nominations into the top three factors in the Democrats negatives, helping drive those negatives to historical highs. The judicial debate has remained among the top three negatives every month since, except for the month of the Iraq War, when Democrat war opposition bumped it to fourth. The same polling indicates that in close-fought Senate contests in November 2002 in Georgia (Saxby Chambliss), Missouri (Jim talent), and Minnesota (Norm Coleman), the "Pickering factor" helped motivate Republican base voters as well as swing moderates into the GOP column, thereby returning the Senate majority to Republicans.

Coleman, an extremely savvy campaigner who beat a former Democratic vice president in a generally liberal state, knew what he was doing when he focused voters' attention during his one televised debate opposite Walter Mondale:

"And let me just finish on the judicial appointment's question, and I'll use Judge Pickering, one of the president's nominees, who is supported by the Democratic Attorney General Moore of his state, who is supported by the Democratic-elected officials of his state, who is supported by the local NAACP of the city in which he lived. But because of the same tone that the vice president is expressing here, and is defending here, and the characterizations of right and left, in the end, you had a man supported by those who knew him, who were Democrats in a bipartisan way, supported by the Bar Association, and it didn't get through. And we've got to change that tone in Washington. It's not good for America, and it's certainly not good for Minnesota."

Coleman readily asserts that judicial confirmations in general, and the treatment of Pickering in particular, helped him win his seat.

Even in states where Pickering's nomination was not the explicit issue, the battle over his nomination helped set off a wave of outrage over Democratic attacks on judicial nominations. Sen. Wayne Allard (R., Col.) says that when he reached out to Hispanics in his state, he talked about just two issues: tax cuts and the blockage of court nominee Miguel Estrada. On Election Day his percentage among Latinos had improved by 25 percent, contributing significantly to the tight margin of victory.

Similarly, in Texas John Cornyn faced an uphill battle against a charismatic African-American, Ron Kirk. It wasn't until Cornyn began running ads pointing out that Kirk would side with national Democrats to block nominee Priscilla Owen that Cornyn took the lead.

After the 2002 elections, with a new GOP majority in the Senate, the President resubmitted Charles Pickering's nomination to the Senate for reconsideration. After months awaiting consideration, he was finally voted out of the Judiciary Committee on October 2, 2003 and went to the Senate floor last Thursday. There Democrats decided rather than give him a fair floor vote, they would block him by filibuster.

Running for governor in Mississippi, Republican gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour, no political novice, immediately seized the Pickering issue to bash his opponent, incumbent Ronnie Musgrove. Though Musgrove — like all state-wide elected Democrats — endorsed Pickering and called for his confirmation, Barbour was quick to jump on the issue and link his opponent to national Democrats:

"They [Senate Democrats] have one thing against Charles Pickering, and this is the story of the Democratic Party today," Barbour said. "Charles Pickering is being filibustered because he is a conservative, pro-life, Republican, Christian. . . . We need a governor who has influence with his national party. . . . His support for Judge Pickering didn't sway any of their votes." Barbour won, even while the state of Kentucky elected its first Republican governor in 53 years.

Now, with new gubernatorial victories in southern states over long-time entrenched Democrats — to say nothing of Sen. Zell Miller's (D., Ga.) scathing new book, A National Party No More — Democrats should be wondering why rural voters, especially in the south, are turning them out of power. With open or vulnerable seats next November in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, Nevada, and South Dakota, Senate Democrats may end up regretting their treatment of Charles Pickering after all.
nationalreview.com



To: Sunny who wrote (15401)11/6/2003 2:18:21 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793884
 
You just don't propose this kind of thing if you are on the Intel committee.

Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat, said yesterday that the memo comes close to a treasonous act against the United States. "If this is not treasonous, it's the first cousin of treason,"
________________________________________________

Memo infuriates senators
By James G. Lakely
Washington Times

Senate Republicans expressed outrage yesterday over a memo that plotted a Democratic strategy for taking maximum political advantage of an investigation into U.S. intelligence before the war in Iraq.
The memo, written by a staffer for Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat and co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested Democrats "pull the majority along as far as we can."
The Democrats then should change tactics and call for an independent investigation next year, when President Bush will be running for re-election, the memo said.
Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and chairman of the intelligence panel, said he was "stunned" when he read the memo, and called it a "purely partisan document that appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence."
Mr. Rockefeller released a statement saying that he had not approved the memo,"nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anyone else."
"Having said that," Mr. Rockefeller added, "the memo clearly reflects staff frustration with the conduct of the ... investigation and the difficulties of obtaining information from the administration."
Former chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee, from both parties, have often expressed pride about the panel's nonpartisan approach to its oversight of sensitive national-security issues.
Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat, said yesterday that the memo comes close to a treasonous act against the United States.
"If this is not treasonous, it's the first cousin of treason," Mr. Miller said. "This is one of those committees that you should never, ever have anything politicized because you're dealing with the lives of our soldiers and our citizens."
"Heads ought to roll," he said.
How the memo was made public is still not clear. Conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity broke the story by reading the memo to his national radio audience on Tuesday afternoon.
Mr. Rockefeller suggested that Republicans leaked the memo, saying it "was likely taken from a wastebasket or through unauthorized computer access."
Sen. Jon Corzine, New Jersey Democrat, said too much was being made over "some concept memo that wasn't seen by anybody else in the committee."
"The whole discussion of this leaked memo ... only reinforces my own view that we need an independent, bipartisan commission" to investigate the collection and use of intelligence before the war, Mr. Corzine said.
The document said Democrats have had "some success" in getting Mr. Roberts to go along with their goals of having the committee "look into the activities" of senior Bush administration officials.
"The fact that the chairman supports our investigations ... is helpful and potentially crucial," the memo says.
But the author adds that such cooperation is not enough and suggests that Democrats "take full advantage" of committee rules to "among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry."
Once Democrats have "exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority," the memo says, "we can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time — but we can only do so once."
"The best time to do so will probably be next year," when Mr. Bush will be campaigning for re-election.
"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq," the memo says in its conclusion. "Yet, we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading — if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives — of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, pre-emptive war.
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."
Mr. Roberts said he was most disturbed by the Democratic plan to "discredit the committee's work and undermine its conclusions ... before those conclusions are even reached."
"I have worked to ensure the minority's voice has been heard at all times," Mr. Roberts said. "There should be no legitimate question as to our approach or our dedication to following the information no matter where it leads."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that he hasn't seen the memo and that the White House has been focused on helping the committee review the intelligence regarding Iraq.
"That's what we will continue to do," Mr. McClellan said. "I certainly hope that people are not trying to use this important issue for political gain."
Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican and former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said the writing of such a memo is unprecedented and "shows a sinister motive" on the part of Democrats.
"At no time did anybody to my knowledge put out a memo to undermine the committee" when he was chairman, Mr. Shelby said. "If they did, we would have fired them."
Sen. Gordon H. Smith, Oregon Republican, said he is "shocked and appalled" at the memo because it was drafted by a staffer with knowledge of "our nation's most sensitive secrets" and looked to exploit Mr. Roberts' attempts to work with Democrats in good faith.
"Chairman Roberts is clearly trying to cooperate in a bipartisan way, and that is clearly being taken advantage of," Mr. Smith said.
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and former chairman of the committee, said that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle should conduct an inquiry to determine who wrote the memo and whether there were any senators who might have collaborated with it or approved it.
"If any senator is involved in this, it brings into question their competence to serve" on the intelligence committee, Mr. Specter said, alluding to the removal of Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, from the intelligence committee in 1987 over charges that he leaked sensitive information to the press.
washingtontimes.com