E. J. Dionne, Jr.: The New MoDo?
Well, without the brilliance of Maureen Dowd to inspire my fisking nature, I shall have to turn somewhere else for regular doses of ridicule. E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, seems a prime candidate. E. J. has an editorial today entitled ‘The Case for a ‘No’ Vote on Roberts”, which, I am sure, makes a cogent argument of some sort; it takes a brain far more powerful than mine to determine just what that argument might be:
How senators vote on Roberts — and in particular how Democrats and moderate Republicans vote — depends on where they believe the burden of proof lies. The accepted Washington view is that deference should be paid to a manifestly qualified presidential nominee.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that some of Roberts’s potential opponents seemed to be saying that “the only way you can have a good heart is adopt my value system.” That, Graham insisted, does “a great disservice to the judiciary.”
But the doubts about Roberts have nothing to do with his good heart. The issue is the power about to be put in his hands and into the hands of President Bush’s next appointee — power both will enjoy for life. The Senate and the public have a right to far more assurance about how Roberts would use that power than they have been given in these hearings. The Senate is under no obligation to give the president or Roberts the benefit of the doubt.
If I may paraphrase Ned Flanders, “Well, sir, as headscratchers go, that’s a dilly of a pickle”. What in the world can Dionne possibly mean? Because the Chief Justice wields a lot of power, a no vote is in order? There is no argument here, just empty words sitting on the page.
By the end, the baseball metaphors of the early hearing had given way to gambling analogies. Schumer one-upped Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who had declared that senators were “rolling the dice with you, Judge.” Schumer said Thursday: “This isn’t just rolling the dice. It’s betting the whole house.”
That’s right, and it’s why as many senators as possible should vote no on Roberts — by way of saying no to this charade. A majority of “no’s,” very unlikely to be sure, need not mean the end of his nomination. It would constitute a just demand for Roberts (and whoever Bush names next) to answer more questions in a more forthcoming way and for the administration to provide information that the public, and not just the Senate, deserves.
How many senators will have the guts to make that statement?
The answer to that, I suppose, depends on how many senators can determine what, exactly, is the statement E. J. wants them to make.
I think Dionne has a tendancy to write his headline or thesis first, before he’s laid out his argument. He also has a tendancy to get sidetracked and not notice that what he’s writing has nothing to do with his original thesis.
A few years ago, I made the mistake of buying one of Dionne’s books — “Why Americans Hate Politics.” In it, Dionne attempted to explain the rise of the new left, and the religious/ antitax/ libertarian alliance. The one thing he forgot to mention was how ANY of it had ANYTHING to do with why Americans hate politics. Sounds like Dionne’s writing hasn’t improved one iota.
Funny, I stopped by the used bookstore on Friday, and actually ran across that same Dionne book. Guess the owner of that copy didn’t care for it either…
Mark, I read the first excerpt and got all wound up, then you took the words out of my mouth (so to speak): There is, as you say, no argument because the sentence is a non sequitur. How can this guy get paid for this stuff?
This point about opposing Roberts only because he won’t pledge to morph into a liberal is similar to the whine that “Bush is not a unifier”. In light of the evident fact that the Democratic party is content with spokespeople like Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Cindy Sheehan, the only way GWB could possibly be a “unifier” is to turn into Ted Kennedy. The whole statement is a logical non-starter.
I sort of lost my focus on the rest of the article when he hit “the doubts about Roberts have nothing to do with his good heart.” Given that several Democrats on the committee directly questioned exactly that — and that the Chairman of the D.N.C. just released an op-ed for distribution in which he states quite clearly over and over that the reason to reject Roberts is that he has no compassion and no mercy… Exactly whose doubts is Dionne talking about?
Clint, indeed, E. J. forgot to read the talking points this morning.
Something odd about the technorati search, the results of which are displayed next to the op-ed on the Washington Post’s web site — your post doesn’t show up, though it does appear if you search on a snippet of text from your post.
It’s a conspiracy, I tells you! They’re censoring me…
I didn’t mean that — just curious how the technorati search engine works… I don’t use it often.
Clint, I’m telling you, it IS a conspiracy…or are you in on it too? Et tu, Clint? Et tu?…