Three Way News: Empty Suit Thursday: Smilin' Norm's Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Empty Suit Thursday: Smilin' Norm's Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name

Boy, does Smilin' Norm Coleman, Minnesota's junior senator, love John Bolton. When the Washington Times criticizes Democrats for opposing a presidential nominee. Smilin' Norm says there's nothing wrong with Bolton that a little rebuttal won't fix:

"We sat silent. We made a tactical error. We let one side put on its case, and we didn't respond at all, because we thought we had the votes," said Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican and one of Mr. Bolton's staunchest defenders.

"I think Republicans should get together and go over every allegation and then walk through the responses. The next time we have a hearing, if one side makes the case there will be a rebuttal on the record," he said.

Translation: we need to find a way to spin this stuff before the next hearing.

Conservative writers agree with Norm. The Bolton nomination falling apart isn't falling apart because Bolton's an ill-suited, undiplomatic, mean-spirited prick. The "Democratic juggernaut" was just too powerful, according to Bob Novak. He goes on to blame the White House for not keeping Voinovich "safely on board". (Novak, by the way, is hilarious. He calls Christoper Dodd a "serial objector" because he objected to James Watt, Ed Meese, and C. Everett Coop (among a dozen or so others). I find it damn funny that Novak can't find enough examples from this millennium.) All the Republicans are pushovers, save for Smilin' Norm:

The only serious Republican defense of Bolton on Tuesday was by first-term Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota.

Frankly, I think an intellectual conservative should at least sound smart. But that's awfully hard when you're writing from the same page as Novak:

Even if Bolton should be confirmed by the Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar ought to resign as Chair. The more assertive Norm Coleman of Minnesota or George Allen of Virginia would have made sure GOP Senators were in line, especially given the vociferous opposition to Bolton by Democrats.

The halls of power are always open to to those willing to forgo conscience and wear blind loyalty as medal of honor.

He loves the nuclear option, too

Smilin' Norm gave mad props to the nuclear option this week:

There is a misnomer being thrown around. An attempt by the current Majority Leader to set a new precedent on the specific matter of confirmation of judicial nominees is being called the "nuclear option."

I think it is being applied to the wrong side of the argument.

It is the Minority that has exercised a "nuclear option" time and time again. We are supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. We discuss. We debate. We try to reach consensus and often we do. But in extreme cases Senators resort to the filibuster. But what the Minority has done is go "nuclear" - literally blowing up the process - in a way that's never been done in the history of the Senate.

They are filibustering qualified judges who have bipartisan support under the management and direction of their leadership. ...

We bend over backwards to protect minority views in this Senate, but eventually majority has to rule. A duly elected president and duly elected members of the Senate have a right and responsibility to do what they were elected to do.

I do love that last phrase. The Senate bends over backwards to protect minority views, right up until the majority decides it's time to go ahead and do whatever they want, anyway. The tyranny of the impatient.

Let's look more closely at Smilin' Norm's two big lies. First, that the two judges now under consideration are "qualified". The American Bar Association and the California bar don't think Janice Rogers Brown is particularly qualified:

The American Bar Association has given Justice Brown its lowest possible passing grade — a “qualified/not qualified” rating. When Brown was nominated to the California Supreme Court, three-fourths of the California State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees rated her “unqualified” for the position because of her lack of experience and her tendency to inject her own personal views into her judicial opinions.

Owen, conversely, received the highest ranking from the ABA.

Second, that the nominees have bipartisan support. No Democrats voted for either candidate in this week's committee meeting. I suppose some Democrats, somewhere might tepidly support one of these candidates, but winning the support of Zany Zell Miller doesn't qualify as bipartisan support. In fact, there's far more bipartisan opposition to the nomination of John Bolton, but Smilin' Norm sides with the administration against that rare display of bipartisanship.

As Steve Martin once joked, some people have a way with words, while others not have way. I disagree with Rogers Brown on policy and the role of government, but she does have a way with words. There's an undeniable artistry in describing Social Security recipients as people who "blithely cannibalize their grandchildren." Cannibalizing your grandchildren is okay, but to be blithe about it is beyond the pale.

Earlier, Smilin' Norm gave us this deep thought:

"Elections have consequences, and the president won," said Sen. Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) (R-Minn.). "We have advise and consent, not advise and filibuster."

The Constitution says this:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Smilin' Norm seems to think that means the Senate shall -- as in must -- consent to the President's nominations. That's a unique reading, to be sure. The Constitution balances one branch's powers against the others. The President is required to win the consent of the Senate. So far Bush has been utterly unable to do so, because his nominees are more extreme than Pornograffitti.

He's anti-anti-free traders, but not necessarily pro-free trade

From The Hill:

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) recently called himself a "pro-trade guy" who generally favors deals to lower trade barriers around the globe. But last year, Coleman joined group of senators called the CAFTA Action Caucus whose expressed purpose is the defeat of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

The apparent mixed signals are causing problems for some of Coleman’s constituents. Last week, a group called the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition, which opposes CAFTA, bused in hundreds of people to protest outside Coleman’s office in St. Paul. But when the group’s state coordinator, Octavio Ruiz, learned of Coleman’s membership in the anti-CAFTA group, he wasn’t sure at first whether the group was protesting an ally or a foe. ...

In a March 30 "Dear Colleague" letter, Dorgan and Graham wrote, "We hope you will join our bipartisan ‘CAFTA Action Caucus’ -- which will head the opposition against a flawed and dangerous trade agreement." The letter says the agreement would "gut" the nation’s "successful sugar program."

But Coleman indicated that, by joining the group, he did not sign on to all of its objectives. "I don’t call it a caucus," Coleman said. "I support trade." Coleman had some harsh words for the activists outside his office. "They should protest," he said, "because I support trade, and they don’t, and I think they’re myopic."

"I’m a pro-trade guy," he continued. "I just have reservations. I want to see CAFTA passed. I want it to pass. But it’s got to be fixed."

According to a Coleman spokesman, when Dorgan invited Coleman to join the caucus he did not call it anti-CAFTA. "When we signed on, that’s not what it was called," he said. "The senator has not taken a position on whether or not he will vote for or against CAFTA."

So, let's see. Coleman is a pro-trade guy who is a member of a caucus that opposes a new free trade agreement. Except it's not a caucus. Or, if it is a caucus now, it wasn't then. Unless the March 30 invitation to join called it a caucus, which it did? Confused yet? Smilin' Norm has harsh words for people who protest a bill he doesn't know if he supports.

All this from the Republican's lead attack dog in the 2004 election. The guy who had the audacity to call Kerry a flip-flopper. It would boggle the mind, if we didn't know Smilin' Norm so well.

Smilin' Norm: Mildly opposed to tax traitors

Is something better than nothing? I dunno:

Now, a pioneer opponent of tax evasion through tax havens, Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, has joined with Sen. Norm Coleman (R) of Minnesota to sponsor the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act. It would enable the Treasury secretary to designate a tax haven as "uncooperative" with Internal Revenue Service investigations. Though not a panacea, the bill, soon to be reintroduced in the current Congress, would give tax investigators a weapon: Income from such designated tax havens would lose some tax advantages.

It's hard to say what the bill would actually do. I'm afraid that the bill will simply add legitimacy to tax traitors by defining cooperative havens. I've quoted everything the article has to say about the legislation, so I can't say whether Smilin' Norm is supporting legitimate reform or feathering his nest with the appearance of reform. You already know my guess.

Three Way News

Your Source. For everything. Really.

Contributors

Current Poll

Best comic strip?

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Recurring features

Hammer's Favorites

Jambo's Favories

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Empty Suit Thursday: Smilin' Norm's Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name

He loves the nuclear option, too

He's anti-anti-free traders, but not necessarily pro-free trade

Smilin' Norm: Mildly opposed to tax traitors

0 Comments:

Blogroll

Special Feeds

Fun with Google

Search Tools

Prior posts

Archives