COMPROMISE

     They called it a compromise, but as I see it the Democrats won. When an adversary is in a defensive position, the best sucecess short of capitulation by the other side is to buy time. And buying time is exactly what the Dems did. At the small price of coughing up 3 judicial nominees, they kept the filibuster  — which amounts to a veto right over proposals and nominations from the President. The three Circuit Court Judges don't amount to a hill of beans, but the coming battle over the next Supreme Court Justice is the real ball game. All you had to see was the smirk on the face to NY Senator Schumer to know how the game turned out.

     Majority Leader Bill Frist was clearly sandbagged by a half dozen spineless Republican colleagues. Assuredly, he was abandoned at the last hour and simply didn't have the votes. That is a sad commentary on a “majority” party (55 Rs) that simply doesn't know how to use its political muscle. When the battle lines are drawn next time, it will be the Republicans who are on defense  — and the attack dog Democrats won't budge an inch.  Justice Rhenquist will step down soon due to ill health, and the razor thin 5-4 balance on the Supreme Court will then hang in the balance. After the 5/24 surrender, where is the backbone to face down the Dems and confirm a conservative nominee?

     The Democrats are celebrating tonite, and well they might. The Republicans picked their issue at their time on their home court, and lost. Disgusting.

THE BATTLE

     Earlier today, the Senatorial debates over Federal udicial nominees began. Majority Leader Bill Frist put the ball in motion and the speeches began. In many ways, the exchanges between Rs and Ds were like many other debates over controversial issues. The two nominees, Judges Brown and Owens, were both praised and dissected. Prior to the beginning of the Senate session, the Senate Democrats had a publicity meeting on the steps of the Senate Office Building and invited some of their House associates to attend, including Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House.It was Ms Pelosi who labelled the 2 nominees as being outside the “mainstream” of American life. Considering her far left posture, I think Ms Pelosi knows about as much about “mainstream USA” as a pig knows about Sunday.

     The pattern was set early on. The Repuiblicans presented George Bush's nominees is the most favorable light, stressing educational accomplishments, judicial credentials, exemplary records, civic involvement, etc etc etc. No surprise. On the other hand, the Democrats nit-picked into their judicial decisions to find fault on all sorts of issues. Again, no surprise. To the impartial observer, it was hard to tell if they were talking about the same persons. As an aside, I really dislike watching 2 well educated and accomplished people being bad mouthed as they were. If it were me, I'm not sure I would want to go thru all of that pain and anguish, and I am sure the many potential nominees would withdraw before subjecting themselves to such treatment.

     In all fairness, Sen. Murray of Washington and Sen Durkin of Illinois made very good cases why neither nominee should be confirmed. And of course, they basked in the idea of open debate on the merits, or lack thereof,  of Judges Brown and Owens and they seemed to relish the chance to bad mouth both of them. But considering the real issue involved, the detailed trashing of the 2 Judges by the Democrats misses the point. The issue at this stage really isn't whether the nominees should be confirmed; rather, it is whether the 100 members of the Senate should be allowed to vote on the nominees. Murray and Durkin made good cases why Senators should cast a ”no” vote, just as Sen Hatch and others made fine cases for voting “yes”. And so what is the result of all of this debating?  Like virtually all forms of debate, it comes down to a decision or a vote. But the Democrats are saying. “Oh, no! We don't like these judicial nominees. Therefore, we will NOT ALLOW A VOTE  — by the entire US Senate”. That's right, no vote! So what is the purpose of debate when there will be no vote on the issues or persons?? Just keep on debating forever??

      There will be more and more jousting and manuevering over the next several days, but the bottom line decision is whether the full Senate will be able to vote — up or down  — on the nominees. If the Democrats adamantly refuse to end debate and allow a vote under current Senate rules, then the the Senate rules will have to be changed. Not much middle ground here.

     Hang in there, Bill! 

WORTHLESS

     It is not without good reason that Barbara Boxer has been dubbed Senator Worthless of California. Her latest stunt has been to put a “hold” on John Bolton's nomination as US Ambassador to the United Nations. That means that by this sneaky little ploy, Bolton's nomination cannot be debated or voted upon by the US Senate.

    Bolton is a controversial figure  — to be sure, and his nomination was voted out of the Senate Committee without approval. No quarrel. But now, Senator Worthless has taken it upon herself to say to the entire US Senate “I am not going to allow you either to debate or vote on John Bolton's nomination”  This notion of a “hold” is an archaic rule of the Senate that is not in any way related to the US Constitution or law. It is a so-called “privilege” extended to individual Senators.  It is nothing more than a Senate Rule. There may have been a time when such a courtesy (rule) was acceptable , but not in this day and age. Senators are voted into office to conduct the nation's business, and there is no valid reason why the entire Senate should be stymied by one Worthless Senator.

     A few years back, during a Senate hassle over a nomination, it was Senator Worthless who said, “Let the Senate vote”. Not now. Let's just shut down the Senate. Isn't that pathetic??

MEXIFORNIA

     The imigration issue is heating up on the airwaves and in Congress. It is hard for most people to accept that there are 12 million illegal aliens in this country, and some of our great minds (??) don't see anything wrong with that. Not only that, these “visitors” continue to stream across our southern borders by the thousands day after day.

     Generally speaking, I am a supporter of George Bush because he is not hesitant to accept major challenges and make major decisions. But I confess that we part company on the immigration issues. I just don't think that any country can be secure when we have 12 million illegals running around loose. Do I think we should have universal ID cards?? Yes, I do  — and I am not impressed by all of these privacy issues that form  the core of the ACLU opposition.  And photo ID Drivers Licenses?? You bet.  Why not? These minor impositions do not affect law abiding citizens  –  they only pose a problem for the illegals. Should we have severe penalties for employers who hire illegals? For sure  — and make it hurt. I simply do not buy the argument that illegals contribute more to our economy than they take from it. Baloney! 

     A critical point of vulnerability is often called the “Achilles Heel”. And in the USA we certainly have one  — stretching all the way from Brownsville Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Mexifornia? Fiction? Figment of someone's imagination? Not at all. Just look at the numbers. It would be nice to see light at the end of the tunnel, but it is not there. Do we REALLY think that they will stop coming when wages, schools, and medical care are so enticing? What kind of foolish reasoning is that??

VOTING

     The propaganda drums are beating over the filibuster issue in the US Senate, and time is running short for a decision. The Democrats are desperately trying to twist the argument around into a matter of principle — but the wrong principle. This is not a matter of issues, it is simply a matter of voting. In the USA we have a Republic in which we the citizens vote for representatives who cast votes in the House and Senate. These people may go to Washington DC with lots of credentials, degrees, money, experience, friends, supporters and connections; but in the last analysis, all they take with them is one vote. In the Senate, one vote out of 100. We may not always agree with how they cast that vote, but they vote — on the record. And that is as it should be .

     But now, the system has been bastardized. The Democrats are saying to the 100 person Senate, “SORRY, GUYS, WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO VOTE”. Oh, they couch the argument in different terms, but that is the main message — WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO VOTE. Or to paraphrase, as long as we do not like the issue, we will NOT ALLOW YOU TO VOTE At the moment, the burning issue is the Judicial appointments of President Bush, but it could be anything else. Say the Democrats, “if we don’t like it, you can’t vote”. And this is democracy? Out in front we have the Dem’s Senatorial thespian, Joe Biden whose political ambitions years ago were seriously damaged when he was found guilty of plagiarism, which is stealing someone else’s words. I don’t have any quarrel with the opposition of the Democrats, and they can make all the accusations they like. But to say to 100 Senators “YOU CAN”T EVEN VOTE” is a bit much. And as you might expect, not one of them has the guts, character or integrity to stand up in front of the full Senate and say “We will not let you vote”. They prefer to hide behind clever rhetoric.

     As citizens of the country, ask yourself this question : if we send Senators to Washington to cast votes, and they are denied the opportunity to vote, why are they there?? I guess the only answer is that they will have time for crucial matters like steroid use in baseball. Make no mistake, a filibuster is a way to prevent a vote by the Senators we elected to cast a vote. And you wonder why voters all over the country are turned off? .

     .

HARVARD

      Larry Summers is the President of Harvard University. In academic circles, that is a big job. He has recently come under fire from much of the Harvard faculty, and particularly its feminist component. A month or so ago, Summers was speaking at a luncheon and at one point commented about the disparate male/female ratio in the Engineering and Science Schools where the males outnumber the females by about 3:1. He offered several explanations for the ratio, and even inferred that there might be a genetic difference between males and females that would account for the disparate numbers. Following this comment, one distraught feminist faculty member arose and left the meeting lest she become ill over such a suggestion. Then the storm broke. (At this point I might digress. It might serve Harvard well to install a rule requiring those who barf on the campus to clean up the mess themselves. It might do wonders for intellectual tolerance). The incensed Harvard faculty went after Summers’ scalp (failed) and sought a “no confidence” vote (succeeded). He is still in office. The haughty Harvard faculty is made up of ossified fossils (Deans) who are resistant to change. They glory in running their own little fiefdoms and insist that no changes be made without their individual consent. Summers on the other hand, was hired to undertake some major projects/challenges — i.e., to make waves. Classic standoff. My household is far from a male chauvinist sanctuary. With a lovely wife (college grad), three daughters (college grads) and a female dog I am only too aware of the female point of view on most matters. However I have very little use for feminist extremists — like, for instance, that poor soul at Harvard). Even so, I have not adopted Rush Limbaugh’s favorite term, “femi-nazi”, and I have generally abstained from using the term “broads” out of deference to female sensitivities. With all of this flap, since when is it out of bounds to debate issues where the data is not final or compelling? Isn’t that what academia is all about? Does mighty Harvard allow only one point of view to be expressed? Is Harvard in the business of supressing intellectual inquiry? I do not necessarily support any genetic explanation of male/female ratios, but is the issue beyond debate? Think about it this way. Much of academia has looked the other way while a dimwit like Ward Churchill (Colorado Univ) spouts his contemptible venom at campuses across the country. All we hear is “free speech”, and “first amendment”. But at Harvard? Ah, no. Let’s appease or pacify the feminists and muzzle debate. Larry Summers has abjectly apologized for his comments — unnecessarily in my book. Perhaps this is his way of being “broad-minded” (pun intended). The more I think about it, “broad” is a useful word — figuratively and physically. It is back in my vocabulary.

FRIST

                At first, I thought FRIST was a misspelling of FIRST. Wrong! FRIST is the correct spelling of the last name of Bill Frist who is a Republican US Senator from Tennessee and is also the Majority Leader in the Senate. Bill Frist is not a household name in the USA, but it might be after the next several weeks. There is a titanic issue boiling in the Senate, and Bill Frist is right in the middle of it. The issue is over the “filibuster”, which is a ploy used to prevent the Senate from voting on specific issues. The filibuster is not a creature of the US Constitution; rather, it is a Senate Rule, created by Senators, implemented by Senators, and used from time to time by Senators. Now it is being used by the Senate Democrats to prevent the full Senate from voting on judicial appointments submitted to the Senate for confirmation by President Bush.

                This is no trifling matter, and one of two things has to happen. Either the Democrats recant their threatened filibusters of the judicial appointments, or the Republican majority will have to change the Senate Rule on cutting off debate. Right now, it takes 60 votes to end debate (i.e., the filibuster), and Bill Frist can only corral 55 or so. But it only takes 51 votes to change the Senate rule on limiting debate. The Democrats describe this as the “nuclear option”. A bit melodramatic perhaps, but it looms as a big deal for sure. But, such is the price that will have to be paid short of acquiescing to the adamant minority of Democrat Senators.

                George Bush has made no secret about appointing “strict constructionists” to the bench. These are Judges who rule on what the Constitution says, and do not go on legalistic detours to create new law to reflect their own views. The liberal and secular Democrats on the other hand delight in “activist” Judges who have no compunction about distorting, twisting or creatively interpreting  the Constitution in order to “legislate” their causes. This has a huge bearing on issues such as homosexual marriage, abortion, gun possession, capital punishment, the Pledge of Allegiance, religion in public life, school prayer, and many others. The last thing in the world the secular Democrats would want is a popular election on these issues, or even an open vote in the House or Senate. Sure loser for them.  Their only hope of success for their agenda is friendly activist Judges. Hence their powerful opposition to the Bush nominees.

                Bill Frist is right in the middle of this major hassle, and if the Senate rules on debate (filibuster) are to be changed, he will have to lead the charge. High visibility is not all bad for him since he has aspirations for the White House in 2008. But tackling this rule change will take a lot of skill, courage and determination. No easy task.

                Bill FRIST. He’ll be making the talk shows and the evening news.

THE HAMMER

     Tom Delay is the Majority Leader in the US House of Representatives. A Texas Republican, he is a hard nosed legislator who is both Pro-Republican and Anti-Democrat. It is hard to tell which category motivates him the most. Right now he is in the gunsights of the Democrats over some Delay wheeling and dealing that are questionable  —  if not illegal or at least ethically suspect. That doesn't make him a whole lot different than many others of our elected Congressional representatives.

     Faily recently,  Delay engineered a congressional re-districting in Texas that resulted in 5 more Republican seats in the House. That success immediately placed a bullseye on Tom's chest. Personally, I think he has made some highly questional if not downright stupid decisions  — such as paying his wife and daughter over $500,000 for “work” done on his re-election campaign, and there are questions about the financing of some of his Congressional boondoggles. Dumb. Now the Democrats look like wolves attacking raw meat. Without a real legislative agenda or constructive issue on which to campaign, Delay is now the target. 

     But the Hammer is one tough customer. He will not go down without a bitter fight. Delay has a lot of House IOU's to cash in. Despite all the battering from the Democrats and the left wing press, the best bet is that Delay will weather the storm. If he does, his memory will be very long. His reputation is well earned.

ARNOLD BLINKED

     With much fanfare, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his intentions to take four issues directly to Cailfornia voters in the form of ballot initiatives. He did so since it was a forgone conclusion that he would win no support from the Democrat controlled State Assembly. The four issues were mandatory spending caps and controls, revised teacher tenure plus merit pay, re-districting of the State elective offices, and reform of the public employe pension system. Underlying all of this is the financial mess in which the State finds itself.

     Last week, Arnold blinked. He pulled the pension reform issue off the list. Could be that his close advisors urged that he do so since he may have bitten off more than he can chew. Better to back off and fight another day. Translated,  that means that he couldn't win against the powerful opposition of the well-funded labor unions and the Democrats. At least right now.

     Many believe that Arnold has a lot of good arguments going for him on the pension issue since the costs are clearly out of control and will continue to get worse. But he didn't make the case very well, and the Unions beat him to the punch with quick and dirty TV ads. Now is swimming upstream. If the big issue is restoring fiscal sanity to the State budget, the abandonment of pension reform is a huge step backwards. To put it another way, without pension reform, it is virtually impossible to achieve budgetary control of State spending.

     Maybe he will try again in 2006, but that is a long way off, and Arnold's popularity is waning. The brass ring doesn't come around very often. I hope he hasn't missed it.

FAIRWAYS

     Sports fans do not normally turn to the Wall Street Journal to get breaking news, but the WSJ recently carried a full story on golf. Most tried and true golfers know that the game has changed enormously in the past 10 years or so. The rules haven't changed much, and women still can't be members at Augusta National (home of the Masters tournament), but there have been major changes in golf equipment  –  the clubs and the golf balls. Net result?  Good players now can hit the ball much further than they could before. Much further. For example, a 550 yard par five generally took 3 shots to get on the green. Now, the long hitters can get on the green with a wood and a mid-iron. It is commonplace for a pro to get on a 580 yard par five in two strokes, and most are unhappy if they do not.  The athleticism of players plus strength training account for some of the length off the tee, but fundamentally it is the juiced up ball that makes the difference.  Ten years ago, no one would have thought about hitting a 7 iron 180 yards. Now it is ho-hum.

     To stay abreast of the big hitters and lively ball, some courses have been lenthened to 7000 – 7500 yards instead of the general standard of 6500-7000 yards. That change by itself makes golf a lot more difficult for ordinary players. But bigger and longer courses are more expensive to maintain and groom. Thus, costs rise all the way around. Recently, however, a solution  (remedy?) has been proposed. Golf ball manufacturers have been urged to develop a new golf ball that would be “dead-er” and wouldn't fly so far. Makes sense. Current golf courses would not have to be lengthened, and sheer distance would be sacrificed for a greater reliance on just plain skill. Some of the pros and others will no doubt complain, but it is about time that common sense takes over.

     Golf is a game based strongly on tradition, and in that sense it is self defeating for the game to altered significantly to serve technology and TV. There are lots of rules in golf that date back hundreds of years, and there are also rules about club length and golf balls right now. So what is wrong with applying another rule for golf ball design?  Golf is a game that should be enjoyed by the 25-30,000 men and women who play it. There is no reason to change its nature to satisfy the top 200-300 players in the world and the TV sponsors of the PGA events.

     Take a little bit of zip out of the ball and return to the days when a 430 yard par 4 requires a tough second shot, not just a wedge or 9 iron. Trust the good old Wall Street Journal. When something important comes along, they print it. None of the golf ball manufacturers has come up with a “dead-er” ball as yet, but the ball is rolling –  no pun intended. The WSJ will likely keep us informed.