Klein’s Quips

It’s hard to know what to make of this. NYC officials and the feds completely contradict one another.

One the one hand, we’re told this:

“?We have never had before a specific threat to our subway system,” (Mayor Michael) Bloomberg said, adding that he still felt secure enough to take the subway home Thursday night. “?Its importance was enhanced above the normal level by the detail that was available to us from intelligence sources.”

A law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the threat was “?specific to place, time and method,” which was a bombing. The official said the information resulted from the arrest of al-Qaida operatives in Iraq.

Then we’re told this:

But in Washington, Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke said “?the intelligence community has concluded this information to be of doubtful credibility. We shared this information early on with state and local authorities in New York.” Knocke did not elaborate.

A counterterrorism official, who was briefed about the threat by Homeland Security authorities, said the intelligence was considered doubtful because it did not reflect “?on-the-ground, detailed” information. Rather, the official, who also insisted on anonymity, said the intelligence was similar to “?what can be found on the Internet and a map of New York City.”

It makes no sense that Bloomberg has confidence saying that it’s a “specific threat,” when the Department of Homeland Security, presumably the source of the information, says it’s of “doubtful credibility” and another counterterrorism official says it doesn’t reflect “on the ground, detailed” information. Somebody is wrong here, and it seems more likely that it would be Bloomberg, because the Dept. of Homeland Security would be more likely to know what a detainee in Iraq said than the NYPD would. This is a developing story, and I hope we learn more about why the threat was issued.

From comments:

Friends who have worked with her in the Counsel’s Office say she is “wicked smart” and “not getting enough credit from the media.” I think it was appropriate for Bush to replace O’Connor with a woman. And it’s not that unusual for a supreme court justice to come from outside the judiciary….seems that diversity of legal experience on the Court would even be a good thing. Anyway, I just wanted to offer a slight counterpoint, although I don’t have anything glowing to say.

Obviously, Miers is no dope–a person couldn’t rise to where she is without being very intelligent. I don’t think anybody is making her out to be Dan Quayle. But there are plenty of “wicked smart” lawyers. Not all of them belong on the Supreme Court. And I just have a hard time getting beyond the idea that the reason why Bush appointed her was that she was loyal, he knew and trusted her and thought she’d be easily confirmable. Were it not for her personal connection to the president, I don’t think that anybody would even be mentioning her as a potential nominee.

My friend Mingi passes on this article:

The women who flee North Korea believe nothing could be worse than

their dictatorship’s famine and labour camps.

But many change their minds after they cross the Tumen River into the

“safety” of China, smuggled by middlemen who promise safe passage.

“I was locked into a house and raped every night,” said Kim Chun-ae, a

matronly 51-year-old. “My teenage daughter was sold three times by

traffickers. She was ‘recycled’.”

In an editorial on the Miers nomination, the NY Times has the audacity to argue:

Ms. Miers’s nomination is a sign of just how politicized judicial selection has become. The normal model for a Supreme Court nominee is a judge, usually from a federal appeals court, who has served long enough to develop and demonstrate judicial excellence. But today, anyone who meets that standard runs into a political Catch-22. The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.

Yes, the same editorial page that tries to portray any judge who does have clear conservative credentials as an extremist, is now arguing that the process of judicial selection has become too politicized. It is also worth noting that it is precisely the view of the judiciary that the NY Times embraces–i.e. that judges should make laws based on evolving social trends–that causes a potential nominee’s political ideology to become so important.

Randy Barnett and George Will both make strong cases for the Senate to consider opposing the Miers nomination.

A president should generally be allowed to appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court, but I have reservations about this Miers selection. If it were just a matter of her stances on certain issues being a question mark, it would not justify opposing her confirmation. I supported the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, even though his ideology was unclear, because he was incredibly brilliant and well-prepared for the job. Don’t get me wrong–I’m not implying that Miers is a loser. Obviously, her success as a female lawyer in Texas speaks volumes for her character and perseverance. I just think that a Supreme Court Justice should meet a higher standard.

Furthermore, there is the concern of cronyism. I think the president should be cut some slack if he chooses to appoint loyal associates as ambassadors or cabinet secretaries, because these positions involve working closely with the president as well as communicating and implementing administration policy. But a justice on the Supreme Court has an obligation to the judiciary and is a check on presidential power. Therefore, personal loyalty to the president raises more questions.

Many conservatives have touted Mitt Romney as a potential Republican Presidential nominee in 2008. Earlier this year, the Massachusetts governor was the subject of glowing profiles in the National Review and the Weekly Standard. But for conservatives frustrated with the stupefying expansion of the federal government under President Bush, this type of talk can’t be very encouraging:

BOSTON, Sept. 29 – Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has a bold plan to improve public education in his state. It involves new laptops for students, new science and math teachers and, the most ambitious component of all, merit pay tied to classroom performance that could add $5,000 or more to a teacher’s annual salary.

“The ability to close the achievement gap is the civil rights issue of our generation,” Mr. Romney said in an interview, noting concern over test scores as well as the country’s lagging production of scientists and engineers. “This is the way to do it.”

He is betting large sums that his plan can work. The overhaul package he announced last week calls for $46 million in new spending for the 2006 fiscal year and $143 million for 2007.

Tying a teacher’s salary to performance makes sense to me (although I think measuring teacher performance is trickier than, say, giving bonuses to salespeople). But increasing spending, giving free laptops to students and talking of the achievement gap as the, “civil rights issue of our generation” is similar to the “compassionate conservative” tone that President Bush struck in the 2000 campaign. This attitude is what led to, among other things, the costly No Child Left Behind Act and perscription drug add on to Medicare.

What do Fredo Corleone and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have in common? Read my latest piece in the American Spectator to find out.

The Miers selection could bolster the chances of a strong social conservative getting nominated by Republicans in 2008. Now, obviously, a lot can change in the next two plus years. By Jan. 2008, her votes could end up making conservatives very happy. But if conservatives worst fears are realized and the Miers pick is still seen as a betrayal when the 2008 primary season rolls around, I think it’s much less likely that social conservatives would allow a Rudy Giuliani nomination.

As I have argued in the past, Giuliani’s capacity for leadership makes him uniquely suited for the battle we are facing against terrorism, and I firmly believe that all other issues take a back seat to this one. I thought the experience of Katrina clearly demonstrated why America needs to have a strong leader like Giuliani during a crisis.

But, with Bush possibly having missed an opportunity to shift the balance of the Supreme Court to the right, I think that social conservatives will demand more assurances than ever from any Republican candidate in 2008. And they may oppose a potential Giuliani nomination more vociferously than they would have otherwise, considering he has liberal views on abortion and gay rights. Again, a lot can change between now and 2008. But while Katrina may have been one data point that made a Giuliani nomination seem more plausible, the Miers pick is a data point that hurts Giuliani’s prospects.

The reaction from conservatives has been almost uniformly negative, with Bill Kristol speaking for many in describing himself as “disappointed, depressed and demoralized.” For conservatives that have stuck with Bush as he’s come under fire for Iraq, Katrina, etc. and to those who have sucked it up as Bush abandonded conservatism and engaged in the biggest expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, this may be the last straw. Meanwhile, on the flipside, there is a “trust Bush” crowd that wants to give the president the benefit of the doubt, out of hopes that Miers will turn out to be a reliable conservative vote.

But for me, it is not just an issue of votes. One of the things that impresses me about the Supreme Court is that it is the only institution of government that allows people to resolve issues in an intellegent manner through reasoned debate. I think conservatives should expect more than just a reliable vote, but hope for someone who is a brilliant thinker that can guide future generations of judges and lawyers.

As John Podhoretz put it:

She might vote with Scalia every time for all we know. The problem with the Miers nomination is that there are a dozen scholarly judges and thinkers, including women, who were unambiguously more qualified for the position, and Bush passed them over to throw a lifetime bone to his friend and deputy.

I look forward to learning more about Miers in the coming weeks and months. And perhaps her confirmation hearings will win me over. But right now, I have to concur with Kristol.

According to research I’ve been doing, in 1993, Miers led a failed effort to get the American Bar Association to change its position on abortion from pro-abortion rights to a neutral position. This doesn’t necessarily say anything about her opinion on abortion or suggest how she’s likely to vote, but in the absence of much of a paper trail, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Democrats make an issue of this. Stay tuned.