SPANNING THE GLOBE
1) John Kerry – As some of you may remember, fate plucked the Commonwealth’s junior senator out of a well deserved obscurity and made him the Democratic Party’s 2004 nominee for president. After a bitter and hard fought campaign, I think it’s safe to say that Kerry endeared himself to nobody. Shortly after his defeat, the liberals who thought they loved him realized they only had those feelings because he wasn’t George W. Bush, a trait it turns out he had in common with roughly 300 million other Americans. It’s now clear that the prediction I made way back in August came true: Kerry did indeed become an elongated version of Michael Dukakis, respected by few, loved by fewer still. A recent Daily Kos straw poll showed a whopping 2% of the site’s readers favored Kerry in 2008.
And yet Kerry refuses to go away. In my lifetime, every presidential candidate who made it to the finals and then lost slinked away; at the very least, they didn’t harbor some fantasy that they remained important public figures, much less put that fantasy on public display on a recurring basis.
And yet John Kerry continues to act like he’s the “shadow president” pronouncing on what he would do if he were president (which pretty much consists of making wordy and portentous pronouncements, surprisingly enough). This is normally where I would supply a link to Kerry’s op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday. But I’m not going to do that. There’s no reason why you should indulge Kerry’s emotionally unhealthy habit of feeling like he’s important; actually, if you read his piece and the Times is reporting the numbers of readers of the piece to the Senator, you would be enabling him. Needless to say, I will take no role in such an unhealthy process.
As for the Times, their motives are transparent. For a few terrifying hours on Election Day, it looked like “President Kerry” was about to become a reality. This was a golden moment for the Times-people no doubt, much as the hours before Pickett’s Charge were a golden moment for members of the Confederacy. By indulging the fantasy that Senator Kerry actually matters, the Times harkens back to a golden hour when all looked right with the world. Can one truly blame them? After all, they are human beings first, bloodless pseudo-journalists second.
2) HARRY REID suggested a small slate of potential Supreme Court nominees that President Bush should consider. All four members of Reid’s slate are Republican Senators: Mike DeWine, Mel Martinez, Mike Crapo (who?) and Lindsey Graham (what, Hagel wasn’t interested?).
On a related note, over the past weekend I also suggested list of potential SCOTUS nominees to the White House. Among my “nominees” were Judge Judy, Joseph Wapner who I’m pretty sure is still alive, and Simon Cowell. While none of these three have had appellate court experience (like the Senators), all three of them have at least been judges (unlike some of the Senators) and their judicial temperaments have been viewed by a large swath of the American republic.
But what’s more important is the fact that I have more credibility to suggest such a list than does Harry Reid. Harry Reid is a major figure of a putatively major political party known as the Democrats; that party lost the last presidential election. That means they don’t get to choose the next Supreme Court Justice.
I know I’m being blunt as a spoon here, but it does seem like Senator Reid needs a little Civics lesson. The fact that his list excluded Texas Senator John Cornyn, the only member of the Senate with appellate court experience I’m pretty sure, shows what a purely craven political play this is. And the fact that he thinks that Supreme Court Justice is an entry level position as long as you’ve proven yourself smart enough to win election to the Senate (giggle) shows a stunning disregard for the Supreme Court and an even more stunning surfeit of regard for the Senate.
3) TED KENNEDY – Loyal readers of Soxblog know that I eschew the cheap laugh and the cheap shot. I tend not to make fun of Michael Moore’s weight, for instance, because to do so would be cruel, shallow and just too damn easy. Sure, every now and then a sucker punch sneaks through but that’s more because of blogging fatigue than by design. So take the following with that in mind.
Senator Kennedy has a piece on the Daily Kos today titled “Accountability on Iraq.” So Ted Kennedy is going to lecture on us accountability? You’ve got to be kidding me. Ted Kennedy holding forth on accountability is like…honestly, I can’t come up with a fitting simile.
Here, let me try again: Ted Kennedy holding fort on accountability is like Bruce Springsteen lecturing on the importance of articulation and pronunciation. It’s like George Steinbrenner discussing the importance of civility and class. It’s like John Williams speaking on the beauty of a minimalist approach to scoring films. It’s like Larry King holding a seminar on conducting hard-hitting interviews. It’s like…
Gosh, none of those really work, do they? None of them capture the absurdity of a Democratic Party that has been reduced to promoting Ted Kennedy to the forefront to lead little pep-talks on accountability. Ted Kennedy, a man who inarguably has spent much of his life dodging accountability in full public view.
It’s enough to make a blogger almost speechless.
Responses? Thoughts? Please email them to me at firstname.lastname@example.org