While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, I can't help but think that Kerry knows full well that a filibuster won't happen and that he only announced this after the lack of support was a foregone conclusion. I'm afraid this is little more than a publicity stunt; he'll look good without really taking much risk.

I'm starting to wish the Democrat's would take the plunge and stand their ground, but it's clear that there are many who shun political risk and probably won't support Kerry. I haven't seen any mention of Hillary's stand, for example, but given her recent avoidance of anything and everything that might get in the way of a 2008 Presidential bid, I'd put money on one more vote against the filibuster.

In the end, Kerry and Kennedy will talk up their stand, tell us what a shame it is that they couldn't muster the votes, and then back down because the numbers aren't there.

Although the "but he promised" defense is sadly naive, I think Tim Johnson's reasons bother me the most. He admits extreme reservations and yet basically doesn't think the Senate has the right to hold high standards.

This reminds me too much of the Bolton appointment. It's pretty said when even Republicans were defending him with arguments like "well, he's not a jack-ass all the time". If an entry-level job candidate walked into my office with a resume bullet point that read "usually not a jack-ass", they'd find themselves on the sidewalk wondering what happened.

Sincerity is all well and good, assuming Alito even has that, but the highest offices in our nation ought to actually demand the best and the brightest, something we seem to have given up on a while ago.

Apparently, just seven minutes before you posted this, Tim, they were already swearing Alito in. Wasted no time with that one. Of course, I'm sure it was only in the interests of efficiency and "moving the nation forward", and there will be absolutely no mention of it, let alone gloating, in the State of the Union tonight.

If you go the other way around the globe, Pyongyang, North Korea is 6869 miles from Washington, DC. Maybe Bush just hates places that are roughly 7000 miles away.

Sometimes the administration's strategy baffles me. What did he expect from the "addicted to oil" comment? Clearly, that kind of talk is going to aggravate his base and it isn't necessary to introduce that kind of rhetoric for him to promote a new energy policy.

At the same time, can he remotely expect to win over Democrats or even moderates on the energy issue? Bush saying "we're addicted to oil" is like your heroin dealer saying "hey man, I think you need to get off the junk".

I'm racking my brain, but I can't think of another reason to do it. He must really believe that he can say anything he likes, flash that smug smile (the facial equivalent of a double thumbs up), and we'll just believe everything he says. After all, he is the President; why wouldn't we?

Forgive me for sounding suspicious, but even as an executive of a small company I could usually call a meeting with executives of other companies (even multiple companies) within about two weeks. These must be some really busy guys. I can't help but think that if Scooter Libby were a 19-year-old African-American (and I say this as a middle-aged white guy) his trial would begin next Monday. Don't let anyone tell you it isn't good to be rich, white, and powerful in America.

Unfortunately, this sort of subterfuge keeps working for Bush, and the American people will gleefully forget about Scooter Libby between now and the mid-terms. The only thing that seems to be sticking with "regular folk" is the Abramoff scandal, so let's just keep hoping those accusations have teeth.

My Spidey-sense just tingled and led me to look up this little tidbit from the not-so-distant past (Washington Post, Feb. 20, 1999):

"Starr argued in a letter that it was important to remove such an investigation from the Clinton administration's Justice Department in order to guarantee an impartial probe, according to sources familiar with the exchanges."

Ah, so, according to Republicans, a Justice Department appointed by a sitting President can't be expected to be impartial. Interesting. Of course, having heard the talk-show circuit yesterday, I already know the retort. The Clinton investigation was different because he broke the law, whereas Bush hasn't done anything illegal. Now, personally, I thought the whole legal/illegal distinction was what an investigation was all about finding out, but it's a lot more efficient if you just decide in advance.

Funny, but if I had to write a paper on the mindset of a monarch, I think the "belief in one's own infallibility" would be pretty high on the list. Throw in "belief in being the agent of a higher power", and George is two for two.

John Stuart Mill had a little something to say about the idea of infallibility, that worded a little more modernly, would fit well in Tim's posting:

"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still...Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."