Reale Simple

The world is more than what they tell you. Listen up. It's not complex. It's Reale Simple.


Former USCHO writer, former writer at a Midwestern broadsheet, occassional CHN blogger.

Monday, October 31, 2005

Alito's Way

President Bush must be an early riser. Every single one of his last three Supreme Court announcements since September has come bright and early in the morning. When he did so first thing this morning, he nominated the type of judge that he was elected to nominate: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito.

The announcement of Judge Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was met with the bellyaching from individuals like New York Senator Charles Schumer and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy that conservatives have been waiting for since O'Connor first announced her retirement. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy said the nomination would "divide the country." Minority Leader Harry Reid decided to imply that Alito was "a radical."

Conservatives voted for Bush in 2000, and again in 2004, largely because of his promise to reign in judicial activism around the country, especially on the Supreme Court. Liberals breathed a sigh of relief as the first Bush term approached a conclusion with no Supreme Court vacancies having opened up, and believed they were in the clear with their golden boy, John Kerry, surely about to be elected. But then the unthinkable happened - the American people returned George Bush to the White House to get another chance to do what he was unable to do during his first term - nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. Even worse for liberals, they watched their slight minority in the Senate become even smaller, which meant a greater difficulty in fighting any potential nominees.

Along came John Roberts, who was at first pilloried by fringe liberals and media pundits for being neither a racial minority nor a woman, as if these qualities were more important than judicial philosophy and legal background. With every word they spoke, it was fairly apparent that liberals did not want to support Roberts at all. NARAL, the large pro-abortion group headed by Kate Michelman, managed to issue their opposition and anti-Roberts talking points within minutes of the announcement by the President. But the Democrat Senators used a considerable amount of tact. After all, Roberts had a fairly spotless record, and had nothing that they could use to "bork" him in the Judiciary Committee. Oh, they tried. They tried to make him out to be a hardass for rules, as displayed by the "french fry case." Then, when they couldn't find anything concrete for their own base to oppose him, they tried to entice conservative opposition by claiming that Roberts supported gay rights cases as a lawyer. Nothing would stick to him. Ultimately, only the most liberal Senators voted against his confirmation as Chief Justice, largely citing a "lack of answers" when they demanded to know, basically, how he would rule on specific cases, which court nominees have never had to answer.

Conservatives got their man on the court, but the fight they desired left them a little unfulfilled. Ultimately, Roberts replaced Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a move expected to keep the balance of the court generally at the status quo. Ardent conservatives awaited the sure sign that a nominee would be most to their liking - when Senate Democrats would fight tooth and nail to oppose the nominee. So when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to a general bit of applause from the Left, conservatives got flustered immediately.

Democrats, for their part, realized that Miers represented a good outcome for them - an unknown quantity not seen since the successful nomination of David Souter, who quickly became a liberal-leaning jurist. They realized that while Miers was not exactly who they wanted, it was likely the best they could hope to get from Bush. Conservatives, meanwhile, had a fit. Not only did Democrats seem nonplussed by her nomination, but strict constructionists pointed out that Miers herself, even if she did turn out to be conservative, would be more likely to become a conservative judicial activist on the court than to interpret the Constitution. While pro-life groups hailed her nomination, most conservatives were livid. Ultimately, if Miers had not withdrawn her nomination, Senate Republicans more than likely would have removed it themselves.

After Miers' departure, Democrats panicked. Immediately switching sides in a 1984ish method, they largely took credit for spiking one of the Bush nominees, and warned that the next nominee would have to be more "moderate" (read: liberal). Instead, Bush nominated Judge Alito, who appears to be ideologically more like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Left's two Darth Vaders of the court. Reid and his band of merry men surely saw a nomination like this coming as soon as Miers withdrew.

Reid blasted the nomination, saying, "President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club." I guess I missed the part of the Constitution which said that the Supreme Court had to look a certain way. Again, like Roberts, Alito is guilty of being a white man, which is an unforgivable crime in today's politically correct atmosphere in which Democrats live. According to their logic, since Roberts was a white male, the next nominee, therefore, is required to have either a different complexion, or a different gender, or both. Expect this to be the first method of attack, followed by attacks on his record, and, if necessary, attacks on his character. Judge Alito certainly must know that these attacks are forthcoming - which makes his acceptance of the nomination quite the courageous move.

The Left sees Alito for what he is - a man who will move the Supreme Court more towards the "strict constructionist" mold than the "legislate from the bench" court that we have seen for over a decade now. The Judiciary has been the last refuge for liberal power in America since 2000. Since that time, the Left has been losing elected power both in Washington and around the country. The Supreme Court, their last bastion of power, is sliding out of their grasp, and they won't go down without a fight. Unfortunately, it is a fight which they are doomed to lose, either in a Senate floor vote, or in the court of public opinion.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Involuntary Spasms

Today came the news that liberals across the country have been waiting on pins and needles for. Sort of.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, until recently Vice-President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, was indicted on five felony counts, supposedly all related to the so-called "Plame affair," the name for the year-long finger-pointing being done by Bush opponents trying to nail their enemies for "blowing the cover" of a CIA desk jockey. There's only one problem. None of the counts are related to the supposed leak itself. They're all related to the investigation into the leak.

Two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements (also known as "the Martha Stewart rule") and a count of obstruction of justice were handed up from the grand jury today. All of these counts relate to Libby's behavior before the grand jury, not related to whether or not he - or anyone else for that matter - leaked sensitive information to the press for any reason. So what, exactly, has this grand jury determined so far? They believe that someone has lied to them, and that's about it.

Still, the Left is unleashing ululations of joy at the news, despite the audible gnashing of teeth over the fact that their real target, Karl Rove, is still in the clear. Despite the incredible amount of media attention that would have you believe that this is the Story of the Decade, their questions to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald this afternoon revealed their true agenda - the number of times Rove was mentioned or alluded to in questions at Fitzgerald's press conference belied their disappointment that Public Enemy #1, the man who is really running things at the White House, King Karl, is still out of their grasp. So they did the next best thing. The Bush Presidency is doomed, you see, because a staffer for the Vice-President may have lied to a grand jury abuot something. Wheel out the Dom Perignon!

Libby, of course, while innocent until proven guilty, isn't exactly blameless in this. If in fact it is proved in court that he is guilty of perjury and obstruction charges, he deserves to do the time. But if we're being fair, should we not compare his case to that of another recent high-profile perjury case dealing with the Executive Branch? Perhaps you may have heard of it, it dealt with a fairly high ranking person in the White House. This individual was accused of being the target of nothing more than a partisan attack, that he didn't do anything wrong, and that the case was about something other than it really was. The special prosecutor in his case was savaged and personally impugned for years.

Comparitively, Patrick Fitzgerald has NOT been treated as a pariah, and has actually faced more savage remarks from those who want to see him indict Rove than from those who pooh-pooh this entire investigation. But once again, the Left sees the individual being charged with perjury as actually being charged with something else. Last time it was adultery, in order to make the accused seem like they've done nothing wrong. This time, it's treason that the supposed perjurer is guilty of, and one prominent liberal commentator is suggesting that he should hang for it, saying this before he's even charged with anything but perjury, before he's even convicted.

It's a day of celebration for the Left, and they can have it. Tomorrow, they'll wake up and realize that they have accomplished none of their goals, and the Bush Presidency will be humming along without being weakened in the slightest. Cheers!

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Are we there yet?

It's a scene that plays itself out in the family car every single day, somewhere in North America. The parent, who has geared themselves up for a long journey, is driving to a specific destination. He does this out of necessity, or perhaps just the love of his family.

Meanwhile, in the back seat, the family's young child is growing impatient. The child is bored, and wants to do something different than just sit in the back and wait until the family arrives at their destination. "Are we there yet?" whines the child. "No," the parent replies firmly. "We won't be there for a little while."

Time passes. The child is still bored. Sure enough, not five minutes later, the child again cries, "are we there yet?"

Sound familiar? It ought to. It's the same question the 24-hour news cycle has been asking over and over and over again with regards to Iraq. The so-called "Main Stream Media" has been that petulant child in the back seat, whining and whining and whining because they want the trip to be over. They're tired of it.

The parent, in this situation, is none other than the man who reluctantly committed the nation's resources to fighting the battle in Iraq: President George W. Bush. And just like the parent, he has rightly continued to inform the child that there is still a distance to be traveled to reach the destination, never becoming visibly upset at the constant nagging, but surely brimming with frustration. He refuses to pull the car to the side of the road - after all, any stopping would make it all the more longer until reaching that destination.

This week, the American media was able to count to 2,000, that is, the number of American deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the war. They breathlessly told the story of SSG George Alexander, a volunteer warrior who gave his life in the service of his country. Unfortunately, his name and date of death were largely all the media were willing to talk about. SSG Alexander, like the others before him, was simply a number to these macabre body counters. One more American soldier dead. One more reason to shout "Are we there yet?"

They ask the same droll questions. "What is the exit strategy? Why are we there?" They bay and moan, and the "peaceniks" demand a pullout. They would rather that those 2,000 soldiers died for no discernable progress. They admit that a premature withdrawal would plunge Iraq into chaos, but would rather dismiss it and then blame such inevitable chaos on President Bush.

A peaceful and democratic Iraq is the goal. That is why we are there. It is worth fighting for - the corruption and evil that was represented in the regime of Saddam Hussein was part of everything that is wrong in the Middle East. It is part of the cesspool from which international Islamist terrorism breeds. It's time we started draining those cesspools, and drain them we are.

Ask a "peacenik" what they would do to solve the terrorism issue. Usually, they don't have an answer, "but it isn't this." Ask what direction we should go in Iraq, and if they don't say "immediate pullout," they'll just complain that "we shouldn't have been there in the first place." There's no "this is where we are, and this is what we should do to achieve the best solution for our country."

One has to ask - what's happened to this country? The answer is simple - the 24-hour news cycle. It lets you know what is happening as soon as it happened. If the satellites had been live on the air at Normandy, would the American public still have a stomach for war? We lost more men during the D-Day operation than we have in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in four years. That's a testament to our troops, and the new ways we have found to fight our wars. We still have not found a way to fight a bloodless war, and it is highly doubtful that we ever will. Brave young men and women, some of the best young people our country has to offer, will fight and give their lives trying to achieve peace for others and ourselves.

We honor each fallen soldier. We honor their sacrifice and their families. But we honor them best by finishing the job they started. We make sure their sacrifice was not meaningless.

This trip, this mission, will end eventually. It won't be soon enough for a media which is tired of reporting from Iraq 24 hours a day. Perhaps then, when the objective is reached and a proud nation can welcome home its troops as a proud international community welcomes a newly free Iraq, the media will be placated, and will realize, just as the child inevitably does - it was worth the trip.