Arguments Yard

The new Bush nominee is the man who should have been selected in the first place.

After all, this is the fight the president should want. He rolls out a guy who's qualified, and the left wants to play the politics of personal destruction. Some are already announcing they're against him.

Great, except they never said a bad word about Miers. She was completely unqualified (a do-over on the questionnaire? Please. No way this judge will need a do-over...) yet they couldn't rouse themselves to oppose her. This man is completely qualified, and they'll line up to vote "no."

Well, they're not all going to vote "no."

Let's name some Dems who will vote "yes": Nelson of Fla., Nelson of Nebraska, Baucus of Montana, Lincoln of Arkansas, possibly even Feingold and/or Kohl of Wisconsin. They're all Dems from Red states (or purple states) who need to appeal to conservative voters.

...a guy who's actually qualified! As the left-wing half of this blog, I have to say he's not my kinda judicial philosophy; however, like Roberts, the first glance suggests that he's qualified for the job. And no more of this screwing around with "stealth nominees"; this one shows a little ideological backbone and a history.

Again, I likely will not go for the decisions he's made or will make, but this is what Presidents should be doing - giving qualified nominees for our consideration. Not unknown quantities for the sake of slipping in a political agenda (or avoiding discussion of one), but people we can thoughfully consider for who they are and what they bring to the table.

"We're about an hour away from knowing what's going on..."

But that won't stop us from filling the air with talking heads discussing what we know about what we don't know we know about.

Meanwhile CNN broke away from a presidential speech to interview -- David Gergan. Sad.

They could at least break away more often for some Mercury car ads.

first of all, what a dumb cliche. Is there anybody who's ever used litmus paper? If I did, it was in 8th grade science and I don't remember it.

Anyway, the Miers case is interesting. Today on CNN, Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy claimed, "The right -- right wing has always said we shouldn't have a litmus test for a judge. Here, of course, they had litmus tests."

Well, we did have a test: The nominee had to be qualified. And however many good points Ms. Miers has, she wasn't qualified for this position. For some reason, Leahy's not sure about that. "I think we should have had the hearing and made up our mind after the hearing."

Why? What was going to change? She had no Con law background, little courtroom experience, she needed a do-over on her questionnaire ... what could hearings have shown us that we didn't already know?

"It was interesting that not a single Democrat raised a word of criticism about Harriet Miers," Leahy added. Interesting, and informative. Some 22 Dems voted against John Roberts, a man who was completely qualified for the position. None of them bothered to oppose Miers, who wasn't qualified. Doesn't that say something right there?

Please.

nominee for the Supreme Court? Probably wouldn't look good on a resume.

You may recall that, in the days after Harriet Miers was nominated, President Bush announced, "I picked the best person I could find," for the job.

Assuming that's true, the next person named would, by definition, be at best the "second best person" for the job.

On the bright side, Ann Coulter will have to find something else to write about.

The position's about to come open.

Allow me to name the 2006 Nobel Prize for Literature winner: "The Scorpion's Gate."

Yes, folks, Bush critic Richard Clarke has penned a novel.

At bookstores, it'll be a bomb, but that's fitting, since the Nobel prize was founded by the dude who invented dynamite...

even though they'll actually be gnashing their teeth -- again -- next fall.

You see, a new CNN poll claims that, "A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year."

Do I hear cheering from Howard Dean? If so, that cheering will eventually turn to screaming.

Begin with the fact that NO ELECTION WILL BE HELD THIS YEAR.

Asking who somebody would vote for in something that won't happen is as pointless as asking what you'd do if you won the lottery. You're not going to win the lottery, and President Bush will still be president until 2009.

What should frighten Dems is that the best their invisible candidate, someone with no positions to defend and no controversies to explain, is 55 percent. Once the mythical nobody in this poll becomes an actual somebody with a political past, that 55 percent will only go down.

Eyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

is reportedly set to name a new Federal Reserve Chairman.

Hopefully it won't be Michael Brown.

But, in light of another current nominee, you never know. And he has done "a heck of a job" in the recent past.

one of those red CNN rain slickers?

...it doesn't matter, because we'll all be dead.

But I'm not worried about global warming. I know, I'm supposed to be terrified. After all, this is already the hottest year on record, and more's sure to come.

Except, maybe, it's not. After all, as CNN reports, "Greenland's ice cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists said on Thursday."

The scientists, of course, are sticking to the script: "However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars."

But for most of us, this is the money quote: "Most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if warming continues."

So even if we assume those models are correct (I doubt it) we'll have a problem in thousands of years. Forgive me if I think that's not a big concern.

Back in February, I wrote, "Syria's not ready to let Lebanon go; it probably won't ever be. So it killed the man most likely to challenge the status quo."

Today, the U.N. agrees with me.

Better late than never.

Maybe you've heard about the pink locker room at the University of Iowa.

But for me, the big news is that, according to this dispatch, Iowa has a Human Rights Committee. Is it chaired by Libya? Are human rights violations a big problem in Iowa City? Have they addressed the fact that their school, their city and their state all have Indian names?

As an aside, my alma mater once took the field wearing pink uniforms. The way they're playing, maybe they ought to do so again this year...

UNICEF kills off the Smurfs.

Now we know where all the change collected in those orange Halloween boxes goes.

Today's Washington Post carries an odd story. It begins:

"Iraq's Sunni Arab minority made a violent reentry into politics Friday, bombing offices of a political party that urged support for a new U.S.-backed constitution while posting insurgents and tribal fighters at some polling places to ensure that Sunni voters could vote safely Saturday against the proposed charter."

Talk about getting it wrong.

"A violent reentry into politics?" The entire point of politics is that it's nonviolent. Politics is the art of settling disputes peacefully.

Look at Washington. Everyone here seems to agree we're a "closely divided nation" a 50-50 nation, whatever. There are extreme disagreements on dozens of issues. Because of those differences, people shout at each other, call each other names, etc. But we don't bomb each other's homes.

There was a time, of course, when congressmen hit each other with canes, but note that as our political process has evolved, such an act seems unthinkable today.

Iraq is moving, with surprising speed, toward a future where its people's differences will be settled through politics -- words -- instead of violence -- bombs. Remember that just three years ago, Saddam was in charge. There was no political process, only violent repression. Today Iraqis are lining up to vote for the third time this year.

The Sunni bombs yesterday are anything but a "reentry into politics." They're a flailing attempt to derail a political process that nevertheless moves forward, and will in days to come yield a political outcome that will make such bombings less and less likely in the months and years ahead.

The TV news networks are all worked up over the fact that yesterday's presidential chat with soldiers seems to have been scripted.

But, come on, was there anybody who didn't think it was? That much was obvious just in watching it.

The only unscripted moment was one of the most touching, when they handed the microphone to the Iraqi soldier and he announced, "Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for everything, sir. Thank you very much for everything. ... I like you."

deals with my reaction to the current media obsession with bird flu. And disasters in general.

Last year, as some of you may recall, the mainstream media marked the arrival of flu season by proclaiming a critical shortage of flu vaccine.

This accomplished very little beyond proving the MSM are still capable of stirring up a full-fledged "Media panic."

Oh, and it inspired me to write the following piece for my short-lived column in the Northern Virginia Journal (may the paper and my column rest in pieces).

Surviving the Epidemic of Fear
By Rich Tucker

(Chicago) – It can make your head spin. In fact, maybe you should just go back to bed, drink plenty of fluids and stay there until it passes.

No, we’re not talking about the flu -- we’re talking about the fear of getting the flu. Many Americans, having been told they can’t get a flu shot this year, are going into full panic mode.

For example, consider Barbara Zmoos. The Chicago Tribune caught up with her in a flu clinic in Vancouver. Zmoos says she traveled north at great expense because there’s no flu vaccine to be found near her home on Long Island. “It’s going to be a $1,400 insurance policy,” she told the Trib.

Well, there’s an easier way to get a flu shot: Become a world-class athlete. The NFL’s Chicago Bears made the front page after the team made shots available to all players, although fewer than half actually got them. The NBA’s Chicago Bulls also got flu shots as part of their preseason physicals.

All this is good news because it assures us that, while these teams have been making their fans sick for years, at least this year the players will remain healthy while doing so.

Or, maybe not.

After all, while the whole country is biting its nails about a lack of flu vaccine, let’s recall that flu shots aren’t always the answer.

Last December, an especially strong flu virus was said to be sweeping the country. Outbreaks were reported in almost every state. A mini-panic erupted.

In Alabama, a judge banned coughing, sneezing or wheezing in her court (although pleading was, presumably, still acceptable). “I don’t want the jury exposed,” Judge Gloria Gahakel said.

Elsewhere, a school in Minnesota closed its doors so maintenance people could scrub everything with bleach. Venerable radio newsman Paul Harvey urged his listeners to avoid shaking hands. Greet each other with a snappy salute, he advised.

Flu shots were little help against this scourge. “This year, the virus was a little bit different. So this particular strain was not in the flu vaccine this year,” Dr. Kevin Ferentz from the University of Maryland Medical School told CNN during the 2003 outbreak.

Somehow, we made it through. In fact, by Christmas the flu had burned itself out and didn’t make the news again.

So before we panic, let’s remember that very few of us really need a flu shot.

“We think there are 185,000 people who should be vaccinated,” Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control, told CNN last year, during the heat of the flu eruption.

Well, federal officials say they’re confident that some 20 million additional doses of vaccine will be delivered in the coming weeks. That’s enough to vaccinate everyone who needs a shot: The elderly, the very young, those with heart or lung conditions. Plus, there will still be plenty left over for people like Zmoos who merely want one.

Let’s not lose our heads over this. After all, there’s a war on. And when all is said and done, for most of us, flu shots are like NHL hockey games: We won’t be seeing them this year, and we won’t miss them, either.

that I oppose President Bush and American foreign policy as charted by both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

There. I should now be the front-runner for next year's Nobel Peace prize, since opposing the U.S. seems to be the main criteria.

As the Wash Post noted, "ElBaradei, whose ouster was sought by the Bush administration led by controversial United Nations appointee John Bolton, is a longstanding critic of the president's decision to go to war in Iraq. So was former President Jimmy Carter when he won the prize in 2002, an award widely interpreted as a shot at the Bush administration."

There was also the 1997 award to Jody Williams, because she opposed the Clinton administration's position on land mines.

Since it has little or no relation to promoting "peace," (remember that late terrorist Yasser Arafat was a 1994 Nobel laureate) maybe they should rename the award the "Nobel Prize for tweaking the United States."

...you've got stolen documents stuffed down your shirt.

Playoff picks:

Boston v. Chicago

Red Sox in 4

New York v. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim California in the United States of North America

Angels in 5

ALCS:

Angels over Red Sox in 6

Houston v. Atlanta

Braves in 4

San Diego v. Saint Louis

Cardinals in 3

NLCS:

Braves over Cardinals in 6

World's Series:

Braves over Angels in 7

...here's the difference between a Conservative and a Republican.

Sunday's NY Times reported that "More than a quarter of American children - and half of black children - belong to families too poor to fully qualify for the $1,000-a-year child tax credit."

Conservative reaction: "'This is completely and utterly predictable,' said Dan Mitchell, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington research group influential with Capitol Hill Republicans. 'People who don't pay taxes don't get a tax cut.'"

Republican reaction: "Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, expressed surprise at the racial gap. 'That's a stunning number,' he said, referring to the half of black children who fail to receive the full credit. 'I'd find a way to make sure those kids get the money' as part of a broader post-Hurricane Katrina plan, he said.

My friend Dr. Mitchell summed it up perfectly. "We [Conservatives] want less income redistribution, not more."

While too many Republicans want more redistribution, if it will allow them to appear compassionate.

"the Seminoles used 77 players in the game," as they beat Syracuse 38-14.

That's a whipping.