« CAFTA Blog: Addition to Von's Blogroll | Main | Chutzpah »

May 26, 2005

Comments

I thought the right-wing line on Korematsu was that internment was a good thing. Something tells me that deep down inside, Hewitt hates America.

No, he seems to have fallen off his rocker.

And I don't see the argument that the filibuster is somehow unconstitutional. As has, I think, been pointed out here before, the President gets to nominate judges subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate gets to set the rules by which it operates. If the Senate says it takes 60 votes to end debate on an issue, it takes 60 votes, unless they vote to change the rule.

The only wrinkle that comes in here is that it requires 67 votes to change a rule. That, IMO, will only hold up as long as the Senate has a gentleman's agreement to abide by it; but if 51 senators decide to change the rule, they can.

"What needs to happen is a bipartisan agreement, formalized in a new rule, on how all nominations should be handled --with no blue slips, no "holds," no endless delays, no last minute witnesses appearing with conjured up tales of harassment, no filibusters. Perhaps more nominees without majority support will lose --and on simple ideological grounds-- but at least we can start to drain the swamp." ...Hewitt

Sure looks to me like Hewitt "knows" ....like the President "knew" he was going to win in 2004...that the Republicans will never be the minority in the Senate again.

I can't read minds, and it appears the powers-that-be aren't letting von in on the Plan, but I presume this is about SCOTUS, and Bush having the freedom to appoint a Gonzalez, Starr, or Rogers-Brown.

And obviously part of the plan, as evidenced in the resubmission of previously rejected candidates, is to increase the rancor and division in the country until something breaks, intended something being the Democratic Party and liberalism. What did Paul Cella say? "Liberalism must be destroyed?" Eliminationism not pursued with faint heart.

Would someone please point me to the reasoning, if any

I think "if any" captures it.

Here's a question for you, von:

Why do you think Hewitt is capable of careful reasoning?

Hewitt has always been a loon and a blowhard and a liar.

praktike beat me to it, and in the active voice at that!

ad hominem dismissals of the intensity and passion with which much of the Republican party met "the compromise" based on the looniness of Hugh Hewitt are not completely relevant.

I would doubt that von simply posted a "bash Hewitt open thread" and would guess he is asking the above more general question. Please, those who can explain this intensity, do so.

AHHHH!!! Stop it mcmanus!

"and in the active voice at that!"

How would you do a clause built around a 'to be' verb in the passive voice? 'a loon and a blowhard and a liar has always been'. . 'has always been Hewitt'. . not sure. Very Yoda.

"Please, those who can explain this intensity, do so."

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Base tribalism results in identification of allies and enemies. Individual events or decisions are re-interpreted as 'battles' against the enemy. Increasingly, rational evaluations go completely out the window and all that remains is the thirst for victory over the enemy.

I think the part of the Hewitt link made perfect sense

How refreshing it would be if, say, Barbara Boxer would stand up in the Senate and say "I oppose Justice Owen because she's a center-right Republican and I'm a liberal." Fine. Boxer won the election in California. She can do whatever she wants with her vote. But to try and turn William Meyer or Janice Rogers Brown or Miguel Estrada or all the others into ogres is disgusting.

Now we see the Democrats routinely sliming excellent public servants, some of whom get confirmed after their ordeals, and others of whom are just chewed up. This is the part of the process about which people shouldn’t chill even if they like the filibuster. The MSM voices demanding "moderation" and a "return to civility," have got to track the collapse of the confirmation process which got started under Reagan. and ask how rancor can be expected to ebb as the political body count keeps going higher and higher.

What needs to happen is a bipartisan agreement, formalized in a new rule, on how all nominations should be handled --with no blue slips, no "holds," no endless delays, no last minute witnesses appearing with conjured up tales of harassment, no filibusters. Perhaps more nominees without majority support will lose --and on simple ideological grounds-- but at least we can start to drain the swamp.

Not that Republicans have not done their own bit of sliming over the years as well.

"AHHHH!!! Stop it mcmanus!"

Okay. I am a bit intense myself this week. Yesterday I avoided commenting altogether. I think. There is a bit of humour even in my most portentous comments, tho not necessarily good humour.

7 days of high 90's in May, followed by 7 days of rain may have put me in a bad mood. Or the Maverick's loss. Or the survival of LA and Jack Bauer. Everything's going to hell in a handbasket.

Happy Memorial Day. Think on somebody who deserves thinking on.

How refreshing it would be if, say, Barbara Boxer would stand up in the Senate and say "I oppose Justice Owen because she's a center-right Republican and I'm a liberal."

All well and good until you realize that Hewitt is engaging in question-begging--and extremely dishonest question-begging at that. Owen isn't center-anything. Most of these nominess weren't opposed because they were conservative--they were opposed because they are either radical, hard-right loony conservatives, incredibly poor judges whose jurisprudence is subservient to their ideological agenda, or some combination of both.

If I were Lord of the Senate, a moderate lord I would be. I would require the nominee to get a majority of Senators if the nominee is recommended by at least two members of each party in the committee, 55 votes if only one from the minority accepts the nominee, 60 if only the majority approves, 67 if the nomination is not reported out with a recommendation.

re: Paul Cella's desire to see liberalism destroyed.

What I like about Cella, and Tacitus for that matter, is they say right out front (in their unctuous but eloquent way) what I believe today's Republican Party has as their primary goal, but which has been obscured behind the gauze of the Luntzian language corruption.

I do believe Bush and Delay and Gingrich and Bennett and Norquist, and many of the red and Red-Staters and the rest of the leading lights want to see liberalism and the Democratic Party destroyed, not just consigned to permanent minority status.

But what then? Do I march down to the voter registration joint like a zombie and register with the one remaining political party? Do they think maybe I (I won't bring other liberals into this) will be content to trade wisecracks with the nice conservatives here at Wings under the current posting rules, as if there will be any political oases left? After all, if there is no spectrum, then there will be no middle either. Just one way left.... or right.

If, in fact, liberalism and the Democratic Party are destroyed (and I don't regard some of those in the Democratic Party as blameless in this destruction), I think I'll become a very dangerous person.

Or, do they just want Scoop Jackson back? And maybe some old southern Democrats? I'll become only slightly less dangerous in that event.

Just saying. Talk of destruction always moves me to join the NRA. No doubt the bohunks who show up at the meetings will spit on me at first, but they'll learn to love the vicious liberal me.


Meyers is an ogre and it is not disgusting for me to say so. I grew up camping all over the West. I've backpacked in every Wilderness Area in in the Pacific Northwest. I have enough background in the life sciences to understand the issues involved in the multiple use of our public lands. I am sick of special interest groups, subsidized by our tax dollars, being allowed to trash for shortterm self-interest what belongs to all of us and future generations.
meyers says that the profits derived from the subsidized exploitation of our public lands are private property constitutionally prtected from govenment regulation. That is just plain wrong and no normal person agrees with him about it. You need to face the fact that he is not a conservative. He is an irresponsible shill for special interests groups. It is not Ok to support him just because Bush wants him. Your stance on this issue is partisan and not in the public interest.

Oops. Now that I have calmed down and reread DaveC's post I see that he was quoting someone else (but agreeing with the quote he provided). So the "you" in my post should be understood as Hewitt, not DaveC.

but if 51 senators decide to change the rule, they can
They can, just as when you're playing Monopoly with your brother and sister the two of them can make up new rules and force you to go along or stop playing. But that's normally referred to as "cheating" or "breaking the rules", not "changing" them.

Lily:

DaveC quoted it with approval, so you got it right the first time.

William Douglas, the last hard USSC leftie (nominated in 1939, for god's sake) was more centrist than the current loons.

DaveC quoted it with approval, so you got it right the first time

I didn't catch the last whack DaveC fest, but I jump in here to suggest that it's not particularly fair or appropriate to slam him in this instance. And I really don't want to go thru a round of entreaties to have him remain as it reminds me of almost the sum total of my romantic experiences.

Would someone please point me to the reasoning, if any, behind Hugh Hewitt's increasingly hysterical pronouncements of Constitutional doom in the wake of the fourteen-Senator deal on the filibuster?

At a guess, I'd say it's the Rove strategy: whatever bad stuff you're doing, accuse your opponent of doing it: accuse them louder and accuse them first. That way, when they try to fight back, they may fall into the trap of saying "But you're doing it too!" (even if they're not doing it at all), and at least they will sound like whiny people with no more originality than to mimic their opponents. "You're another!"

Perhaps it's a kind of testimony to Hewitt's integrity (n.b. that I've never heard/read the man & have never seen any evidence that I would benefit from doing so).

The Bushies spent weeks indoctrinating themselves that the filibuster of judicial nominees is unconstitutional, etc., etc. All this was nonsense, but no matter, they bought it.

Then comes ... The Deal.

Bless their hearts, they CAN'T turn on a dime and say "oh good, a compromise, let's go on to the next issue." At least, not unless Bush himself endorses The Deal, at which point Order 66 goes around and their enemies become friends, black is white today, day is night today ...

So their indignation is in direct proportion to the sincerity of their indoctrination. As Duke Leto Atreides puts it, "one cannot blame them for this; one can only despise them."

"As Duke Leto Atreides puts it, "one cannot blame them for this; one can only despise them.""

I can do both, thank you.

The smartest compromise idea floated around was the Levin-Warner(? I think ?) plan of setting up a national panel of judges, politicians, academics etc., who would recommend candidates to the bench. Try to take politics out of it just a little (politicians, yes, other judges, not quite so much).

If it's set up like the base closing panels, it gives everyone some cover, and would be harder to challenge.

Anyone on the list would pretty much sail through confirmation.

Not that Bush would go for it....it would leave off the "unqualified" and nuttiest candidates.....

I've never heard/read the man & have never seen any evidence that I would benefit from doing so

Hugh Hewitt is an unabashed partisan Republican, although quite a pleasant listen on the radio, really much more fun than some of the other big syndicated shows.

I suspect people don't like him because he was roadie for Molly Hatchet as opposed to, say, Rage Against the Machine.

DaveC: that may be. But I dislike Hugh Hewitt because I spent years in LA when he was the right half of a local politics TV show. That being just one town, it was easy to know that most of the things he was saying in his pleasant, sort of vacant way were just not so, and the rest had been stripped of all context. A little of that went a long, long way. I was horrified when he went national.

I suspect people don't like him because he was roadie for Molly Hatchet as opposed to, say, Rage Against the Machine.

I suspect people who believe this have a deep, deep need to feel persecuted. I can't fathom it myself.

As for Hewitt, he's an internet version of the street corner shouter. I cross the street to avoid people like that IRL; I don't take them any more seriously because they can use a computer.

"As Duke Leto Atreides puts it, "one cannot blame them for this; one can only despise them.""

I can do both, thank you.

Take it to the Duke, man, take it to the Duke.


Sometime I will need to borrow again the Harvard Lampoon parody Doon, which managed to send up such flowery nonsense perfectly. My favorite went something like this:

We could even say his father was a highly evolved bicycle. We can say anything we want just by opening our mouths and vocalizing our thoughts.

Maybe I was wrong about Hewitt being incapable of logic.

One thing that seems clear is that there is big money in being a prominent loudmouth ideologue. There are radio shows, books, TV appearances, columns, etc. But you have to earn it. And you don't earn it by being a calm and judicious voice, weighing arguments on both sides and coming to a thoughtful conclusion. You earn it by yelling whatever your side wants you to yell.

This gets you support from your team - contact with party leaders, prominent guests and endorsements, maybe a fallback job if things don't work out. It also makes you attractive to TV producers, who seem mostly to want people who can yell talking points on cue and are reliably partisan.

So Hewitt has figured all this out and is making it pay.

I suspect people who believe this have a deep, deep need to feel persecuted. I can't fathom it myself.

I was just trying to inject a bit of humor. I often forget to add teh smileys. Oops! ;^) I'm more of a JJ Cale fan than a Molly Hatchet fan.

"I was just trying to inject a bit of humor."

I thought it was perfectly obvious that you were joking there. I think Hewitt is an ass, but I had no problem noting you're joking. (It's frequently hard to recognize jokes from the demon enemy incarnate, you know.)

Socrates’ discussion of this leads to the very interesting concept of daimonia, the “daimonic beings” which Meletus accuses Socrates of believing in and teaching about, instead of the Athenian gods.

I have spoken to my leaders about Gary, and we have decided to postpone serving him our special hemlock soup.

DaveC: we have decided to postpone serving him our special hemlock soup.

Recipe? ;-)

(I demand a DaveC Memorial Hemlock Soup Recipe Open Thread. It's Friday.)

Ick. Justice Jackson's Korematsu dissent is almost sacred in my worldview--as irritating as the actions of the Shivering Seven are to me, I wish Hewitt had refrained from invoking it for this.

"As Duke Leto Atreides puts it, "one cannot blame them for this; one can only despise them.""

Remember the tooth!

One thing that pops into my head when I think about these people is the term (from memory) 'amoklaufer'. It means 'somebody who runs amok' in german. The context was a german newspaper in August, 1939. The reference was to Poland, which was supposedly running amok (justifying those 'defensive measures' soon to be undertaken).

Basically, these propagandists are either flat-out liars who would be ashamed to use the truth if it helped them, or so deluded that they need keepers to keep from wandering off and not finding their way back
home before being eaten by pigeons.

It means 'somebody who runs amok' in german.

And interestingly, though tangentially, "amok" is one of the few English (and apparently German?) words taken from Malay. It roughly translates as "beserk".

Berserk. And here I'd thought "amok time" was Vulcan.

Amoklaufer. That is wonderful.

Checking in a a German dictionary yields an added bonus: there's an umlaut over the second a. (To pluralize, simply add an s.)

Berserk.

You know what the funny thing is? I've corrected that mistake so damn often that now I'm making it myself. Kind of how my algebra skills go to hell after I mark a problem set: too much exposure to error degrades the faculties. In all senses of the term.

Yes, the umlaut makes äu sound like "oy", so amokläufer is pronounced more or less like "amokloyfer".

Yes, "amok" is Malay. In the Philippines, running amok is much discussed. What begins as an insult can fester into a horrific personal wound, hidden beneath the very mild and polite Filipino exterior, for years.

Then one day the wounded one takes a bolo (a machete-type tool used to halve coconuts) and goes on what we shopping-loving Americans like to call a killing spree. Wee! Hacking everywhere. Many heads removed. Constabulary from all over with big weapons called in to do a Bonnie and Clyde on the guy.

It's like our nuclear option, except it's not a metaphor. Or is it?

Then one day the wounded one takes a bolo (a machete-type tool used to halve coconuts)...

My dad had a bolo given to him when he was living up in Bikol that I remember with great fondness. Damn it was cool; it was also the only thing we had that could routinely cut down the bamboo that was overgrowing our house. And once you've seen a bolo make kindling out of viciously entrenched bamboo that's quite literally destroying asphalt, concrete and anything else in its path... imagining it making mincemeat out of people is but a stone's throw away, especially if you're a kid. Yeah, running amok isn't something to laugh about.

"..especially if you're a kid".

I'm not a kid. But I am immature.

Yeah, running amok isn't something to laugh about.

Even reading about it gives me a sense of malaise.

too much exposure to error degrades the faculties

Man, oh man, is that ever true. I never had any trouble with apostrophes, couldn't even imagine having any trouble with apostrophes, until I started teaching Freshman Comp.

"Checking in a a German dictionary yields an added bonus: there's an umlaut over the second a. (To pluralize, simply add an s.)"

Posted by: Jackmormon


Thanks, Jackmormon. I was working off of incredibly rusty german skills for that, and wasn't sure that I had it right.

The point is that there are a number of people who will lie through their teeth at you, and pretend (or really feel) outrage if you point t out.

"Checking in a a German dictionary yields an added bonus: there's an umlaut over the second a. (To pluralize, simply add an s.)"

Posted by: Jackmormon


Thanks, Jackmormon. I was working off of incredibly rusty german skills for that, and wasn't sure that I had it right.

The point is that there are a number of people who will lie through their teeth at you, and pretend (or really feel) outrage if you point t out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad