The Pendragon's Hall

Triumph at last. Just hours before President Bush is slated to deliver his annual message to Congress, his Supreme Court nominee is confirmed 58-42. Four Democrats and one Republican crossed the line. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) says Justice Alito's view of the Constitution worries him. I'm guessing he means by that the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land instead of Roe v. Wade. The issue seems to be the expansion of presidential power in times of war. The downright lack of substance in this argument is mind-boggling. The Constitution is amazingly vague on presidential power: article II declares, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States..." and then throws out a few particulars such as his being commander-in-chief and head diplomat. It fell largely to the first president, and his subsequent successors, to map out what this meant. From the beginning the President took some pretty bold steps. There was an excellent article in US News and World Report last week on the history of presidential power during wartime. It shies away, as well it should, of endorsing President Bush's interpretation of those powers but it does the entire country the favor of placing it in its proper historical context: as nothing unusual. Presidents from Washington to Madison to Lincoln to FDR have broadly taken presidential power, especially in times of national crisis and they are now considered our greatest presidents. This doesn't make Bush's actions right but it does give the lie to the unoriginal and frankly unintelligent idea that his policy is somehow a departure from traditional presidential power. He's in good company.

I'm listening right now to some woman's sob-story on CNN about how Enron ruined her "fairly comfortable" life. While she claims that her family no longer lives comfortably, the nice suburban home background to her interview seems to bely that. Don't get me wrong, if these high executives in Enron are really guilty of lying about profits which ended up liquidating their workers' retirement plans and salaries, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. Corporate greed is never excusable and the first priority of any business should be to look out for its employees, but do we have to make saints out of everyone to whom this happens? Lawyers line up for miles to make sure terrorists get a "fair trial" and then Martha Stewart is forced to drag around an electronic tracking device for months after a five month imprisonment. Why is it that murder of innocent civilians entitles one to the best lawyer in the country but make a corrupt business deal and no punishment is too great. How about a little balance here?

I'm still waiting to see how the injury of two ABC journalists over the weekend in Iraq is Bush's fault. No one has quite said that yet but I'm sure they will. My basic attitude is, "If the media insists it needs to be involved in every aspect of a military campaign, they have to be ready to take the consequences." But everyone loves a victim, unless they are actually innocent victims.

The Palestinian people this week renewed their commitment to worldwide terrorism by electing Hamas to an overwhelming majority of their "government." Well, you win some, you lose some. It really was too much to hope the leopard would change his spots. Unfortunately, a New York senator who really needs someone to beat her this Fall seems to think Hamas is going to suddenly hang up the grenade and pick up the lawbook. "It's an opportunity," Hillary says. It sure is. Israel better reach for the gun twice as quickly now. Fortunately the West, including the new Conservative government of Canada, is refusing even to acknowledge the election. This is the right way to go. The Palestinians have been given the excuse that it's their land and Israel is an imperialist long enough. If they want to be recognized as a civilized nation, it is time to start behaving like one and it's time civilized people started making this a prerequisite for recognition.

While domestic things are a mess, President Bush can be heartened by some news from abroad. Canadians have finally woken up to the fix they are in as a laboratory for social liberalism and voted their Prime Minister and his party out of power. Although the Conservatives will only be able to form a minority government, it is a big improvement. Personally I'm hoping that Bush might go to Ottawa to welcome the new government and I might just happen to be there too. The new Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not interested in getting involved in Iraq, but he has promised to beef up spending on the military, and involvement in Afghanistan. He has also vowed to cut taxes. Whether he can deliver on this with only a minority government is another question. But it is an exciting development. Congratulations, Canada, and welcome to the real world.

Now for Senate Democrats: I'm listening right now to Chuck Blowhard from downstate and he using the term "out of the mainstream" about a thousand times a minute. I'm not exactly sure what the deal is. Since when do judges have to be in the mainstream? I thought they were supposed to interpret the law. Of course the really unique thing is that the mainstream has suddenly become the far-left beliefs of a few people in Hollywood. The President who nominated Alito was recently re-elected with a majority of the largest turnout in American history. If his judicial nominee shares his political views, it sounds to me like perhaps that is the mainstream, if that even matters. What Schumer and others are doing is applying their own liberal litmus test to judicial nominees and it is about to time to kick them in the fanny.

You know things have gotten desperate when even CNN lets slip a Freudian truth. In today's article on the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, the writer actually said that Senate Democrats have decided to oppose Alito not on the basis of his position on abortion, which the article describes as a "linchpin" of Supreme Court nomination battles in the past, but rather on President Bush's use of executive authority to prosecute the war on terror. It's always fun when people say more than they mean. But it's true. For years all liberals cared about in accepting or rejecting a nominee for judge was whether he or she saw Roe v. Wade as the foundation of all American law. When conservatives thought that position should be reserved for the Constitution, we were accused of playing politics with the High Court. The source of all the fuss this time around is the President tapping the phonelines of immigrants and American citizens known to be in contact with terrorists around the world. Unfortunately, for liberals, the old accusation that he's out of the mainstream doesn't work. CNN/TIME's latest poll shows 68% of Americans support the President's use of spy technology. I wonder when the last time a Democratic president got over 60% support for anything. It may be fitting, then, that the only president in modern history to win more than 60% of the popular vote was Richard Nixon five months after Watergate.... Coincidence? I think not.

I don't want to be too partisan here but I was interested to read online this morning that Eli Manning, QB for my favorite football team, and his family have had to move to southern Mississippi because their home in New Orleans was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. It's no wonder of course that the media is hesitant to report it--they are, after all, well-off, white athletes, not black gutter dwellers and what's really more exciting? But life happens to everyone and even white football players suffer when disaster strikes. Yes, they can certainly afford it better than the street walkers, but the point is: Hurricane Katrina was not, as some seem to think, a fake storm conjured up by Republican magicians to get back at the blacks of Louisiana for not voting for them.

This weekend, the sports matchups are going to be tough. All four games are rematches of earlier contests in the season and most people will be pulling for the same outcome. My predictions, followed by my hopes in bold, are as follows:

Seahawks 24 Redskins 17 (Redskins).
Colts 34 Steelers 14 (Colts)
Broncos 23 Patriots 21 (Broncos)
Panthers 31 Bears 14 (Panthers).

Well, as a lifelong Giants fan I must say Sunday's game was painful to watch. With half of their all-Pro defense missing and Tiki Barber shut down so that the Giants had to rely entirely on Eli Manning's throwing which was sorely lacking, the Giants looked like a high school team. But there's always next year and really, for such a young team, the Giants played way better than we had any right to expect. They'll be back. Hopefully, during the offseason, they will concentrate on building up their offensive line. If this unit can open holes and protect Manning, the Giants' offense will improve immeasurably and with the defense back they will again be a playoff-team. Now, for this year I suspect that the NFC will be won by one of the wildcards--either Washington or Carolina--and the AFC will go to Denver. We shall see.

In other news, Newsmax is commenting that five congressional Democrats want Bush impeached for his "spying" program. There are five very good reasons Newsmax should ignore their tripe. It is as follows:

5. It only gives these blowhards a bully pulpit for their stupidity.
4. It only encourages them if they think people are listening.
3. It gives the impression that conservatives are running scared, desperate to keep their hold on power.
2. It makes it sound as if impeachment is a sure thing because a minority's minority want it. Remember the Clinton years!
1. It's pointless to worry because a Bush impeachment puts Dick Cheney in the president's seat. Not something to be seen as an improvement from a liberal point of view.