Dressed for Success, Primed for Failure

Red State Rant has a, well, rant on the Libby indictment:

"Which is worse? Stuffing secret documents down your pants or having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert? . . .

"Just as Caspar Weinberger's bogus indictment five days before the 1992 election was an attempt to criminalize political differences over the Reagan administration's anti-communist policies in Central America, it's reasonable to suggest the Libby indictment is a similar attempt to criminalize differences over Iraq."

Anonymous Liberal has a rather different take:

"Libby's behavior throughout this investigation has bordered on the inexplicable. And he now appears set on going to trial against the best prosecutor in the country with what appears to be an incredibly weak defense. It certainly seems plausible that Libby is relying on the president's pardon power as a backstop. Bush, after all, is in his second term and would have very little to lose politically by granting such a pardon on his way out the door."

Liberal blogger John Scalzi : "I can't imagine that the Bush approval rating could possibly get any lower than it is at the moment, but then again, that's what I thought when it hit 39% a few weeks ago. Considering that there's probably 33% of Americans who would rather chew on jagged glass than to show disloyalty to a sitting Republican president, a 35% approval rating basically means that no one outside the ranks of the ideologically paralyzed right-wing approves of our president. No one. The rating couldn't possibly go lower. Could it?

"What do I think about the Bush's approval rating? Well, I think it's exactly what he deserves. He's a terrible president with an incompetent administration, and it's gratifying to see the large majority of the American people coming around to this fact. Would that they would have come around to this conclusion a year ago, when the vote was on.

"You'll note, however, that I did not say that I was happy that Bush has such a God-awful rating. I'm not. Having a weak and deeply unpopular president makes us vulnerable as a nation, particularly when we are engaged in a war."

On the Alito nomination, HuffPoster R.J. Eskow rips the NYT over this piece :

"The New York Times profile of Samuel Alito reads more like a popstar profile from 'Teen Beat!' or one of the other teenage fanzines - 'win a dream date with Sam!' He's got 'common sense' and a 'straightforward style!' Learn about his 'surprising choice!' He's 'courageous,' but even his 'flourishes' are 'extremely practical.' Sure, he blew his biggest case (against the Mob) and he's the guy who brought us Michael Chertoff, but never mind: Writer Daniel Wakin sez 'I heart Alito - and you will too!' . . . Not quoted in this profile is Alito's Mom, who said in her now-famous quote, 'Of course he's against abortion.' Nor are there any ruminations on what personality characteristics might allow someone to rule in favor of strip-searching a 10-year-old girl when you only have a warrant for her father, or limiting Congress' right to control machine guns (not an 'activist judge,' eh?) Wakin wasn't curious about Alito's ruling that schools can't prohibit harrassive speech based on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation, despite the opportunities for continued childhood misery that it created.

"There was no mention of the fact that Alito's consistently right-wing views - extreme and 'activist' - have served his career well under Presidents like Reagan and Bush. Is it 'common sense' to rule against Congress on machine guns, and against schools trying to control hate speech?"

Here's my problem with this kind of criticism. The Times has run a number of pieces on Alito's legal record and what kind of justice he might make. This was a feature on the person, the sort of story that relies heavily on friends and colleagues. To then go through a litany of what it didn't mention, when those issues are dealt with in other stories, seems really loaded.