YAHTZEE!

With all the Washington goings-on right now, I figured I'd weigh in with a little summarization and witty jab-ation, maybe give those of you who don't pay attention to politics a little heads up. Golly, what would y'all do without me? Oh, I dunno, maybe.... read about this stuff in the NY Times or Newsweek, by people who actually remotely know what the hell they're talking about? Might be a good idea. But since you're here, here ya go.

Politics & I have a love-hate relationship -- I love to hate it. Although I know it's a never-ending cycle of utter bullshit that's been going on since cavemen, I still find it endlessly fascinating and amusing. Kind of like porn, with less morals. When you get down to brass tacks, it's really just a big revolving chess game, with no winner or loser. Actually, it's not that complicated -- more like checkers. Or maybe Connect Four. Or perhaps Yahtzee. Regardless, politics is all a big ol' goofy game.

For now I'll focus on the whole Supreme Court nominee thing. President Bush is a person who thinks in cliches, if his speeches and policies are any indication. So, he's going with a "three strikes" approach, or maybe call it a "three-pronged attack", or maybe he's "triangulating the enemy". Pick your cliche or metaphor, just about any will do. His plan is to make three tries at it, the "real" nominee (the one he really wants and has the best chance at confirmation) being the third to "step up to the plate".

1) Harriet Miers -- a crazy, off-the-wall pick who he knew had about as much chance of being confirmed as one of his daughters. She's never been a judge, never written a legal opinion, and her highest official responsibility was as chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission. And although she was technically a "fundamentalist Christian", her nomination really pissed off the far-right-wing nutjobs that make up the Republican base, mostly because she wasn't a proven, staunch "Republican conservative" -- not to mention a woman. She was Bush's personal legal counsel, a longtime pal, and all-around swell gal -- she once actually wrote him a note that said "you're the best governer ever!" I wonder if she signed her name with a little heart over the "i" in Harriet? Anyhow, he only nominated her as a favor to her, so in the future she can have the title "former Supreme Court nominee" announced when she does speaking engagements, probably when she's out promoting her inevitable tell-all book. She withdrew her nomination last week. Nice try.

2) Samuel Alito -- This guy had to come next, to appease the far-right-wing conservative Christians that the Republicans hold so near and dear. Alito is a highly educated, heavily experienced, inarguably qualified crazy person. He was just nominated yesterday, so I've only heard bits and pieces of his rulings and opinions as a justice on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. But I do know he's a hard-core pro-lifer, who is frothing at the mouth to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is also uber-conservative when it comes to workers' rights, minority rights (including gay marriage), and just about any conservative Christian litmus test you can think of. No matter what side you fall on in your beliefs, nobody with public opinions and views that lopsided to one extreme should ever become a Supreme Court justice, whether they're conservative or liberal. But Bush had to nominate somebody like him, to "galvanize his base", and get them off his back. He also realizes that this nominee is also probably not going to be confirmed, but he figures there is a chance it could happen, if the Democrats really screw up, so why not? If Alito did get confirmed, Bush would be deitized by conservatives forever -- as if he's not God-like to them enough as it is. And it is possible, but not likely. The Democrats are going to go crazy, and will filibuster, and Alito will be de-nied. For those of you that don't know exactly what a filibuster is (and I don't really either), I do know that's when one party or the other uses their one-time ace-in-the-hole, which is just a big congressional "I don't think so!" They evoke some rule where nobody is allowed to leave the Senate floor, and everybody brings in cots and bag lunches for the cameras, and the filibustering party always gets its way. Parties usually have to save this for big deals like Supreme Court nominees, because it pisses everybody off so much. So, the Democrats will use it on this nominee, because allowing an off-kilter like this to the Supreme Court is about the worst thing that could possibly happen to liberalism, not to mention American rights.

3) ??? I do pay attention to all this junk, but I'm not so into it that I know the names of all the potential nominees. Although I'd say Alberto Gonzales (current U.S. Attorney General, former Texas Attorney General) is on the very short list. He's a Bush crony, a conservative, and a minority. He would both please and irritate both sides a little bit, because he's a conservative but not too conservative, a Latino but not "too Latino" -- basically a centerist, a perfect political appointee. If not Gonzales, then Bush will nominate another center-leaning conservative with similar political upside. The catch phrase about this nominee will be "Hey, at least he/she's not Alito". He/she won't have any public opinions regarding Roe v. Wade, but will be publicly conservative enough to be a conservative replacement for outgoing liberal swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor. Everbody will get their way -- the Republican Christian conservatives will have their right-wing Supreme Court justice, liberal Democrats will have somebody that's maybe not a total knucklehead, a conservative that they can deal with, that might not set American rights back 50 years with every stroke of the pen. Besides, the Democrats will have already used their filibuster on Alito, so they'll have no choice but to begrudgingly approve the third nominee. "Hey, at least it's not Alito!"

So, the game goes on. Pretty smart political strategy, actually -- you give a little to get a lot, and back 'em into a corner if you can. Just like checkers. In fact, the Dems have already made their next move, to show their displeasure at the Alito nomination -- this morning, they evoked rule "Blah-Blah-Blah 420", which allows one party to effectively shut down the Senate for a day, so they can all meet in a private session, closed to the public. In a nutshell, the Democrats grabbed the Republicans by the shorties and said, "You. In here. Now." The purpose was to "clarify" some things on 1) the Bush administration's justification for the Iraq war, and 2) the Lewis "Scooter" Libby situation. Since Bush had the stones to nominate a hard-core conservative, the Democrats decided to call them out on their weakest points. The point of doing this was to make a "congressional parry" to Bush's "Alito thrust". Man, I did the "Alito thrust" once -- threw out my back for a month! But it was worth it, believe you me.....

Again, it's all a big game. All these "political people" you see on TV -- politicians, reporters, talk show hosts, pundits, writers, activists -- all pounding their fists and wringing their hands, calling people names and generally acting a fool.... in reality, "what's best for the American people" is waaay down their list of priorities. What they want is to get re-elected, or for the country to think the way they do, or to get TV ratings -- all in a race for money and power. Yahtzee!!

Hope I helped clarify some of what's going on, without you having to listen to Fox News or read the Times. Maybe my next installment on the politics game will be about why you should never -- ever -- trust a grown man named "Scooter".

Roger