That's more like it

I am much more comfortable with this:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Sunday that he already has warned the White House that nominating Alito, who is often compared to Justice Antonin Scalia, would “create a lot of problems.”

And he declined to rule out the possibility that Democrats might try to block a nominee by staging a filibuster or refusing to close debate and vote.

than with Harry Reid walking around all smiles like he was at the beginning of the month.

So, you want to filibuster Harry? “Bring it on.”

Spirits of the Dead

by Edgar Allan Poe

Thy soul shall find itself alone
‘Mid dark thoughts of the grey tomb-stone;
Not one, of all the crowd, to pry
Into thine hour of secrecy.

Be silent in that solitude,
Which is not loneliness- for then
The spirits of the dead, who stood
In life before thee, are again
In death around thee, and their will
Shall overshadow thee; be still.

The night, though clear, shall frown,
And the stars shall not look down
From their high thrones in the Heaven
With light like hope to mortals given,
But their red orbs, without beam,
To thy weariness shall seem
As a burning and a fever
Which would cling to thee for ever.

Now are thoughts thou shalt not banish,
Now are visions ne’er to vanish;
From thy spirit shall they pass
No more, like dew-drop from the grass.

The breeze, the breath of God, is still,
And the mist upon the hill
Shadowy, shadowy, yet unbroken,
Is a symbol and a token.
How it hangs upon the trees,
A mystery of mysteries!

Division on the right?

Did the Harriet Miers nomination reveal division in the conservative movement or wishful thinking in the Democratic Party and it’s propaganda arm, the mainstream media? I’d say the latter.

In fact, the “extreme right” – that would be the philosophically informed conservatives at the base of the conservative movement – was largely united. From the so-called “religious right” to the Constitutionalist/Federalists to the libertarian purists, the views were pretty united. All across the conservative spectrum, the majority of commentators opposed the nomination, most very strongly. A few were disappointed enough to not muster much opinion one way or the other. A few chose loyalty and trust for the President, whose other nominations have for the most part earned it, and that position was understandable and largely understood. With the exception of a few online hotheads who forgot Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, there was no big split among conservatives. To the extent there was any split whatsoever, it wasn’t the long predicted civil war between libertarians and social conservatives,
but a battle between those two, united, camps and the reemergent country club, Rockefellerite Republicans. Only a serious misunderstanding of American and GOP history equates the country club wing of the Republican Party, the wing that abandoned Barry Goldwater in 1964, with the conservative movement.

The winner in the skirmish? Ultimately it will be George Bush when he realizes, as he is smart enough to do, the depth and intensity of support that is available to support him if he’ll just take on some of the tough battles domestically with the same determination and skill he’s shown in fighting Islamofascist terrorists.

The divisions on the right jeopardize Mr. Bush’s chances of leaving behind an unalloyed reputation, a positive “legacy,” when he leaves office and his party’s chances for maintaining majority control. Republicans won bicameral dominance in 1994 for the first time in 40 years because they expanded, united and excited the party’s conservative base.

A base enduring civil war is not what the president or Republicans in general want, conservatives say.

World Peace Herald

Libby, Libby, Libby on the Label, Label, Label

Scooter Who? Is he heir to the Libby’s food fortune? Is there a Libby’s food fortune? Is he related to “Skeeter” and is his wife named Tish? Did they frogmarch him out of the White House? Was his office even in the White House? What did he lie about repeatedly and to whom and for what reason? Lots of questions, serious and otherwise, but the most important only hinge on Scooter because he happens to be the latest case.

I understand the importance of not lying to grand juries. I understand slightly less the idea that it should be a crime to not lie to investigators when you aren’t under oath. I’d tend to think of that as actually being not merely not a crime, but a constitutionally protected activity (Amendments I and V).

I’m also concerned that if you have to tell an investigator or a grand jury that you were the one who gave information to a reporter “on background” that it kind of defeats the whole point of giving that information “on background” in the first place. How does the press system function if reporters know they will be forced to reveal their sources and sources know they will be prosecuted for not revealing themselves? Perhaps the whole idea of giving information when you aren’t willing to put your name on it is wrong in the first place, but if so that issue really ought to be dealt with head on and not through some backdoor method.

I could give a fig for anyone so steeped in East Coast Ivy as to be called “Scooter”, but this latest volley in the war on free expression is cause for concern far beyond the White House and New England country clubs.

He says Libby is trying to make it appear that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls. But Fitzgerald says Libby was, in fact, at the beginning of that chain — and that he repeatedly lied about it under oath. – National Politics: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald says Libby lied repeatedly