Look Both Ways Before Crossing

This morning I awoke to news that Harriet Miers had withdrawn her nomination to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. The fact that this turn of events was expected does not detract from its proverbial statement about the condition American political system.

It is a sad day when a nominee not clinging to the extreme edge of the majority party has to withdraw her nomination. Was she too liberal for conservatives? Yes. She is most definitely a Republican, but too many questions remained unanswered in terms of her Litmus test ideology for hard-line conservatives. President Bush invoking executive privilege did not help matters.

How about too conservative for liberals? No, this is why they were so eager to pour on the praise the morning of her nomination. Harry Reid was the first person heard after the announcement praising Ms. Miers. Democrats knew that President Bush nominated a moderate conservative almost as an olive branch to them. Democrats are a minority by a fair margin, and this was the best it could get.

This situation makes me feel that no matter what President Bush did with his nomination, it would have been wrong. Nominating a hardliner would have caused a media uproar, especially in the context of Roe v. Wade. People across the political spectrum, save the fringe right, would have hated him more, if that were possible. So a moderate was nominated. A seemingly good choice at the time, but obliterated by the people who represent the farthest right.

A friend in high school used to tell me that you cannot be in the middle of the road politically or a truck will run you over. Seems fitting for this situation. Ms. Miers just got her clock cleaned by an 18-wheeler. I feel for her. It must be devastating and embarrassing and for no other reason than she was not an ideologue that would promote the GOP’s agenda. She would have at least been a competent Justice, but now we will never know.

Rhetorical Analysis II

Criminalizing Conservatives
The Weekly Standard
By Jeffrey Bell & William Kristol

First off, I know what The Weekly Standard is and what its purpose is. It is no secret that it is a right-leaning publication. They boast about it in their pages and in their advertisements. Knowing that, it covers angles rarely if ever seen by most media outlets. The article “Criminalizing Conservatives” is a prime example.

The most apparent thing about this article is its conversational tone. The first line reads: “THE MOST EFFECTIVE CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATOR of--oh--the last century or so, Congressman Tom DeLay…” demonstrates this. The interjected casual language makes the article more reader friendly and a tad tongue and cheek in approach. It is refreshing to read articles with this approach as opposed to statistic-laden text.

On top of the conversational tone, the article is well written. It has a clear thesis statement and supports it with numerous examples. The thesis statement of this article is, “What do these four men [Bill Frist, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby & Tom DeLay] have in common, other than their status as prosecutorial targets? Since 2001, they have been among the most prominent promoters of the conservative agenda of the Bush administration.” This theme drives the article.

Demonstrating the numerous inequalities of the situation is an effective way of building up their argument. The example with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is striking. In this example, not only do the authors build their argument, but also create ethos for themselves. It shows that they are the only one’s reporting this situation, but not because it is false.

Closing with an acknowledgment of unanswered questions is interesting. It shows that the authors recognize their limitations and are well-grounded individuals. More news reporting like this would be a welcome addition to the garbled, slanted Beltway jargon generally reported.

Heeere's Johnny!

Judge John Roberts is now officially Chief Justice John Roberts. The Senate voted 78-22 in favor of his nomination. Is this a surprise to anyone? Not really, with the Senate controlled by the GOP, everybody following even a tenth of the story could have predicted this.

Last week, I got readdicted to watching C-SPAN. Every free moment I had in the mornings before class, I flipped it on to watch John Roberts answer, dodge and out rightly refuse to answer questions by senators. What struck me most was how eloquent and simply brilliant Judge Roberts seemed. There was no question he knew the law, and beyond that, he smiled, laughed and demonstrated a genuine personality that seems excessively lacking in the rest of the political scene.

The other thing that struck me was how petty the extreme leftwing senators seemed while asking questions. Dianne Feinstein showed Americans once again her complete lack of... let's go with stability. Ted Kennedy was Ted Kennedy. It may have just been me, but continuing to ask a hypothetical, "what if," question to a man that will have to judge similar cases in the future and has already refused such questions is nothing short of idiotic. If I were in Roberts' shoes, I probably would have taken the Bork approach and fought for my ideas.

John Roberts is confirmed and the world can keep turning. On yeah, by the way, my name is Chad and I am a C-SPANaholic.

Rhetorical Analysis

"Senate Panel Strongly Backs Roberts"
The New York Times
By David Stout

This article comes off as unbiased. The language seems to focus strictly on the information and not on perpetuating a specific idea. Stout only writes from a perspective when he quotes or summarizes the Senators statements. For example, when discussing Arlen Specter's comments about John Roberts' ability to build a consensus, Stout summarizes the Senator by writing: "a gift that will serve him well as he takes his place on a court that has often been sharply split." This is a compliment to Roberts that he would only hear from supporters.

David Stout uses the word "heap" to describe how Republican Senators praised Judge Roberts. In this context, the word appears to show a lack of care shown by the Republican Senators on the committee for just blindly complimenting and praising Judge Roberts.

To describe the reaction of Democratic Senators to Judge Roberts Stout uses the word "restrained." This word seems to accurately describe their reaction as he uses many examples of their questioning support.

The most important way the author ensures that this article is unbiased is by getting comments from both sides of the issue. He directly quotes and paraphrases both the Democrats and the Republicans about the same. A great majority of the words he chooses are informative in nature and have weak if any connotations. It is hard to read into this article too deep, as David Stout seems determined to stay in the middle of the issue and cover it from an objective point of view.

Coercive Requirement to Affirm Liberalism

AUSTIN, TX (AP) – A major blow was struck in favor of the conservatives everywhere earlier today. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that extreme left-wing babble from teachers in a classroom is Unconstitutional. In their opinion, the Justices wrote that the liberal ideology being force-fed to students violates their right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm Liberalism."

This ruling comes just a day after the ruling in the Eastern District Court of California, which decided that the Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional with the words “under God” included. After celebrating their victory yesterday, it came as quite a shock to the liberal teachers that their jobs may be in jeopardy.

One teacher who wished to remain anonymous stated, “I don’t know what I am to do. If America’s students do not grow up with an ideal, this country will not survive.”

It is exactly this sentiment that has many conservative parents worried. One mother who could barely speak through her tears of joy moaned, “My daughter will finally get a decent education”

The lawyers that argued this case for conservatives left quietly without stopping to comment, while the lawyers for the liberals stopped to address the media. During the address one of the lawyers let out a large sigh and implied this case is not quite finished, “We will take this case all the way if we have to.”

If this case does get that far, the Supreme Court is expected to take this case as part of its docket this year. However, a ruling affirming this decision is unlikely at this point. It has been rumored around Washington that the Justices think this country needs more than a handful of teachers for grades K-12 and more than one for all of higher education.