I'm just the guy that can't stand cant. ___________

 
SOUTHERN STRATEGY REDUX: To the surprise of no one with a cynical view of the Bush administration (in other words, a view based on reality), President Bush is not letting his politically expedient denunciation of Senator Lott’s pro-segregationist sentiments stand in the way of his goal to pack the federal bench with right-wing judges.

On Tuesday, Bush renominated Judge Charles Pickering for an appellate court judgeship along with 30 other judicial nominees that were not considered last year by the full Senate when it was marginally controlled by the Democrats.

Readers curious about Judge Pickering’s record should read Michael Crowley’s New Republic article that was published shortly before Pickering was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. After presiding over the trial of a man that was eventually convicted of burning a cross on an interracial couple’s lawn, Judge Pickering aggressively lobbied Justice Department officials to withdraw their toughest charges so that Judge Pickering could give the defendant a lighter sentence than the seven to seven-and-a-half year minimum sentence mandated by federal sentencing laws. Judge Pickering succeeded in getting the federal prosecutors to drop their toughest charge, which resulted in the defendant being sentenced to just over two years.

If there is anything surprising about President Bush’s decision to renominate the civil-rights challenged Judge Pickering for an appellate court judgeship it’s that some observers may have thought that Bush’s tardy condemnation of Lott meant that he actually had sufficient concern for civil rights to cause him to rethink his approach to judicial nominations. For example, in editorializing against Judge Pickering’s renomination, The New York Times states:

The nation didn't have to wait long to find out if President Bush's impassioned denunciation of Trent Lott's racial views last month presaged a new approach to the selection of federal judges. It didn't. That became clear on Tuesday evening when the White House decided to renominate Charles Pickering, who failed to win confirmation from the Democratic-controlled Senate last year. Judge Pickering, a Mississippi trial judge and a protégé of Mr. Lott, was rejected largely because of his insensitive handling of civil rights cases. The Senate should once again refuse to confirm Judge Pickering, and should carefully scrutinize the 30 other nominees the administration is putting forth.

Similarly, as the Washington Post reports, Democrats expressed puzzlement that Bush would renominate Judge Pickering, whose record on racial matters is sure to keep revitalize the media focus on the Republican Party’s checkered past on civil rights:

Democrats were also still puzzled over why Bush, who skated safely through the Lott furor by criticizing the senator's remarks but stopping short of overtly pushing him out the door, invited another fight over civil rights. “I'm still scratching my head in amazement that they actually [re]nominated him,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

I must admit that I’m puzzled by all this puzzlement. If anything, it was entirely predictable that Bush would follow up his criticism of Lott's racial views with concrete actions that would signal to Southern whites that the Republicans are still the party of lax enforcement of civil rights laws. The Southern Strategy of Republican Presidents going back to Nixon has sought to combine actions that pandered to the worst instincts of Southern whites with rhetoric that did not unduly alarm voters in the rest of the country.

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were also willing to express support for equality in the abstract and then adopt policies that were racially insensitive or worse. Bush’s approach in mouthing platitudes in support of equal rights and then taking actions to undermine civil rights is a classic tactic of the Southern Strategy perfected by Republicans over the past 35 years.
posted by Gary at 12:09 PM

 
HAPPY NEW YEAR: The Self Made Pundit is back from vacation and wishes you all a happy new year (even my few masochistic Republican readers).

I hope to get back to regular posting next week. I had not planned to post today, but I could not resist commenting on President Bush's latest assault on rational discourse. According to The New York Times, Bush is attacking the Democrats for having the temerity to actually propose relief for the unemployed and other Americans hit hard by the Bush economy.

"Some would like to turn this into class warfare," he said after giving reporters a tour of his Crawford, Texas, ranch. "That's not how I think. I think about the overall economy and how best to help those folks who are looking for work."

So who are "those folks who are looking for work," that Bush would like to help?

While Bush refused to disclose any details of the plan he will unveil in a speech in Chicago next Tuesday, the plan is expected to have three major components -- an acceleration of tax relief already included in the massive 2001 tax act but not scheduled to take effect until later years, a reduction by possibly half in the current tax on corporate dividends paid to investors and an increase in tax breaks for businesses investing in new plants and equipment.

Well that makes sense. I'm sure that "those folks who are looking for work" are in the upper tax brackets that are currently scheduled for tax breaks in future years, are collecting corporate dividends and are considering investing in new factories while they look for work.

The Democrats are proposing a relief plan that is geared toward those who actually need relief and Bush has the gall to call it class warfare. On Bush's Bizarro World, however, his plan to aid those who are well off is in the public interest.

While I enjoy being one of the unofficial chroniclers of Bush administration mendacity, I had hoped to expand into new areas of punditry this year. But I question whether I'll be successful. Bush and his minions have this infuriating penchant for wrapping the most outrageous falsehoods in buzz words that have been stripped of any meaning. It's just too tempting a target. Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.
posted by Gary at 6:03 PM