Finishing up my series of posts highlighting the weird stuff found in archives at Reflections Photography, here’s a few of those sick, immoral Hollywood elites that the Republicans hate so much (the GOP loves their money though). For instance, here’s the President posing with Frasier :

Here’s Bushie with the worst comedian in the world :



And here he is a third time with the guy who played Lt. Dan in Forrest Gump :



Cinephiles may also remember Gary Sinise from his role in a Harry Truman biopic a few years ago. The buck stops where, again?

Since these are Republican fundraisers, you can count on the occasional appearance by double-murderer Don King, seen here with some douchebags in borrowed hats :

I saved the best for last. Here’s the ultimate photo from the listing titled (I swear I’m not making this up) “Evening with Senator Lindsey Graham and James Brown”.



I think we’ve finally found the one thing weirder than seeing Mr Miyagi sing the national anthem at the 2000 Democratic Convention.

John Dickerson has a good article in Slate about the importance of photos taken with the President :

Understanding the Abramoff pictures requires investigating the absurd Washington phenomenon known as the “glory wall.” Also called the “wall of fame,” “me wall,” and “ego wall,” the glory wall is where members of the establishment flaunt their connections by displaying photos of themselves with more famous people. Lobbyists have glory walls in the office to impress clients. Staffers have them to impress other staffers. Socialites have their glory walls on the piano. Forty years ago in his novel Washington, D.C., Gore Vidal wrote: “[T]he piano’s essential function was to serve as an altar on which to display in silver frames the household gods: photographs of famous people known to the family.” For aspiring Washingtonians, the glory wall allows you to brag about conversations you never really had with the chief justice and intimacies you never really shared with the president.

With that in mind, let’s take another look behind the scenes to see how the President pimps himself out. The archives at Reflections Photography have a few of these photo ops captured and give us a good glimpse at how staged these little appearances are. My favorite of these little “intimacies that you never really shared with the president” goes like this :

“Okay, Mr President. I want the two of you to take this blank sheet of paper and act like you’re both reading it.”

“That’s great. Now I’d like you two to look up and pretend you’re having a conversation about what’s on that sheet of paper.”



“Good, good. Let’s just pose with the blank sheet of paper this time.”



“And we’ll end this by taking it outside for one last photo.”



That’s right folks, the most powerful man in the world is a mannequin. Doesn’t he have more important things to be doing?

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall just posted the link to my new favorite website, the Reflections Photography online catalog. As the unofficial photographer for Republican events, they had photos of Jack Abramoff and Bushie that have since been scrubbed, but there’s a lot more fun to be had (especially if you’re good at looking under the cracks). For example, there’s this one-on-one tour of the White House that the President gave Rep. Jean “cowards cut and run” Schmidt a month before she was elected to Congress.

By the way Jean, dressing like a toddler doesn’t make you look younger, it makes you look crazier.

Then there’s this interesting look behind the scenes, with the photo-op they want you to see…

..and the pulled back shot showing the puppet master at work.



Like I said, there’s lots of fun and informative stuff to be found. I’ll post more later…

I’ve been wondering about this “created by a teacher” crap :

Packages of Airborne, found in the cough-and-cold aisle of major chains like CVS, Rite Aid and Wal-Mart, proudly proclaim that the product was “Created by a School Teacher!” This seems a little odd. Don’t we want to fight our seasonal ailments with things created by, for instance, doctors and scientists? Apparently not all of us do: Airborne is extremely successful, and its creation by someone without the slightest medical expertise or qualification is almost certainly a factor in its success.
. . .
People also must use Airborne because it works, or rather because they believe it works. Technically, Airborne is a dietary supplement (you’re supposed to take it “at the first sign of a cold symptom or before entering crowded environments”), meaning that it does not require Food and Drug Administration testing and approval. As the package disclaimer notes, it is “not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” As with many supplements, there is no independent scientific evidence of Airborne’s medicinal value. But many people continue to buy the herbal supplement echinacea, despite many studies (including one in The New England Journal of Medicine) saying it does nothing to ward off or treat colds.

Apart from the power of the placebo effect, this consumer indifference to scientific proof brings up the critical issue of trust and, perhaps more important, distrust. The medical establishments of the 18th and 19th centuries sparred with folk remedies, too; of course, establishment methods of the time included bleeding and phrenology. Some consumers, then as now, clearly distrust official, orthodox methods. And let’s face it, the current reputation of the people who do have expertise in the concoction of remedies is not so great. The astonishing onslaught of consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals in recent years has more recently been followed by an onslaught of safety concerns and lawsuits. Merck, a heroic company just a few years ago, now calls to mind Vioxx lawsuits and trials. Consumer groups paint the pharma giants as shameless profiteers. “We’re losing the battle for consumer trust,” a top Bayer executive confessed to The Wall Street Journal last year.

Where are the courts in cases like this? It’s obvious that the words “”not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” on the package are a lie used to avoid FDA approval. Check out this ad from AirborneHealth.com :

Since Airborne does such a great job boosting the immune system, would the second grade teacher recommend her product for AIDS patients on a three-drug cocktail? Obviously the FDA has a well-deserved credibility problem, but is it safe or fair for this remedy to avoid the government scrutiny we demand of other medicines? And for those of you who thinks it’s okay for “natural”, “herbal”, “folk”, or “alternative” medicines to skate through regulatory oversight, how long will it be before the big pharma companies (and their well-paid shills in Congress) demand a piece of the action? Would Merck be allowed to avoid government scrutiny the way Airborne has by re-releasing Vioxx as a “supplement” that isn’t “intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”?

Atrios makes a great point that I hinted at in a previous post :

Jane has more on the latest nonsense from the Post. The problem really is that no matter how many times we try to kill right wing horseshit (or as Media Matters delicately calls it, “conservative misinformation”) it keeps coming back to haunt us. It infects the media bloodstream. We politely ask for corrections. They don’t happen. We start screaming for corrections. They still don’t happen. Eventually some half-assed weaselly blame-the-uncivil-critics statement is released. We scream louder. And, then, the horeshit pops up again on CNN.
. . .
Major newspaper has big megaphone. Readers generally have no megaphone. Journalists have responsibilities and these ethics I keep hearing about, including the responsibility not to be as factfree as they keep claiming blogs are. When you explain, calmly and repeatedly, that 2+2=4 and they keep denying it you get a little mad. Civil behavior isn’t about restraining from insults or obscenities, it’s about behaving like a fucking decent human being.

And since I’ve been bashing the establishment Democrats all day, lemme just follow through by asking where the hell are you in all of this?

The whole reason lefty-bloggers have been pointing out this media misinformation over and over again is to defend you guys. Since you beltway chickenshits have proven yourselves unwilling to defend your own views, we’ve put ourselves in the unenviable position of going up against media giants whose primary concern is avoiding the ire of conservative watchdog groups. And now that the inevitable pushback is occurring, the conventional wisdom is coalescing around the lie that bloggers and their readers are ignorant, vindictive trolls who add nothing to polite discourse. Here we are trying to pick up the slack for your ineffective war rooms and this is the thanks we get? We’ve got your back, why can’t you get ours?

I’m really, really tired of getting jerked around by Democrats. Last week, Harry Reid wrote a great op-ed that justifiably compared the Republican bribery scandal to organized crime, but yesterday he apologized to the mob (via TPM) :

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled “Republican Abuse of Power.”

“The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets,” Reid said in a letter.

“I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it.”

This seems to be the endless cycle for the Democratic elites. First they say something tough to get the base all riled up, but then they turn into shrinking violets at the first appearance of GOP dissent. Is this how you took down organized crime in Vegas, Harry? By sending little apology notes to mob bosses when you hurt their feelings? Real tough guys don’t apologize for being right.

And while I’m on the subject of weak-ass Democratic responses to Republican corruption, as much as I like Rep. Louise Slaughter, I’ve gotta take issue with her post over at DailyKos “Democrats Come Out Swinging for Honest Leadership in Washington”. I know a politician’s greatest skill is the ability to pat himself/herself on the back, but this is too much. When it came to proposing solutions to the Republican bribery scandal, you guys were beaten to the punch by Republicans! Do you have any idea how lame that looks? It sends the message that Republicans can do a better job policing themselves than the Democrats can. You guys didn’t come out swinging, you came out blocking.

When you get to the meat of the proposals, the Democratic plan is a slightly tougher laundry list of proposals that bears a striking resemblance to the GOP plan. When are you guys going to realize that “Me too!” isn’t a message that’s going to help you win elections? Sure, if you get into the meat of both proposals, the Democratic plan is much better, but who gives a shit at that point? Congratulations, you’ve won the confidence of a few hundred policy wonks. The rest of the country still thinks you’re wimps.

I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but you guys really need to stop worrying about policy and start worrying about politics. No matter how great the Democratic plan is, it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting through a GOP-run legislature. So instead of boring people with a wonkish list of “reforms”, why not counter with something bold and simple that actually has a chance of convincing people that the Democratic party represents a viable alternative to GOP leadership? It doesn’t have to be realistic, it just has to get attention.

For example, instead of a byzantine list of regulations on what lobbyists can and can’t do, you should just come out of the gate proposing a ban on all lobbying. Send a message that under Democrats, the rich and powerful don’t get more access to the halls of Congress than Joe and Jane Sixpack. You want to “petition the government”, then use the “Contact Us” form on a Senator’s webpage just like everyone else. Sure, the proposal is simple-minded and would never make it through committee, but that’s not the point. If you ever want to get into a position in which you can govern, you need to address the problems that voters are concerned about. Americans are sick and tired of the government working on behalf of professional ass-kissers.

It doesn’t help that those same Americans also think Democrats are a buch of weenies without moral compasses. When you’re alternately stuck in the GOP’s shadow and begging their forgiveness, that only adds to the misconception. So throw something out there to let everyone know that you’re not just a bunch of neutered shills that are afraid to defend your values. Offer big proposals that draw a stark difference between the GOP and Democratic agendas. With a track record as horrible as yours, the last thing you need to worry about is how you’re actually going to fulfill your promises. Besides, if you accidentally win an election, there’s nothing to stop you from taking a cue from the Contract with America crowd by watering down the proposals and later declaring victory. You’re politicians, remember?

For the reasons I outlined a couple of years ago here, I generally don’t support third parties. Like it or not, we’re stuck with a two-party system for the time being, so it makes more sense to choose sides and work towards electoral changes that would make third-parties viable than just sit on the sidelines or act as a spoiler. That said, I’ve pretty much had it with the Democratic establishment for pretty much the same reasons I bashed traditional journalists the other day.

Every once in a while I take a step back and ask myself what I hope to accomplish by blogging. Aside from being a creative outlet, my ultimate goal is to try to nudge the country in a better direction. I’m not one of those idiots who things blogging will replace the traditional media or anything goofy like that. I realize that I’m mostly preaching to the choir here, but I’d like to think that the things I write add enough to “the debate” that we might eventually see a flapping of a butterflies wings that started a hurricane sort of effect.

So it’s frustrating to see that the two power-brokers that we hope are listening (politicians and journalists) are actively ignoring the blogosphere. Peter Daou had a great piece on this last week :

Last September, I published an essay laying out what I saw as the scope of blog influence, with ‘influence’ defined as the capacity to alter or create conventional wisdom. I used a triangle construct to set out the relationship between the netroots, the media, and the political establishment: “Looking at the political landscape, one proposition seems unambiguous: blog power on both the right and left is a function of the relationship of the netroots to the media and the political establishment. Forming a triangle of blogs, media, and the political establishment is an essential step … Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom.”

I concluded that “if the netroots alone can’t change the political landscape without the participation of the media and Democratic establishment, then there’s no point wasting precious online space blasting away at Republicans while the other sides of the triangle stand idly by.”

The NSA scandal and the Alito confirmation hearings are just two more examples of the left’s broken triangle and of the isolation of the progressive netroots. A flurry of activity among bloggers, online activists, and advocacy groups is met with ponderously inept strategizing by the Democratic leadership and relentless – and insidious – repetition by the media of pro-GOP narratives and soundbites. It’s slow-motion-car-wreck painful, and most certainly NOT where the left’s triangle should be a half decade into the new millennium, as the Bush-propping machine hums and whirrs, poll numbers rise and fall, Iraq bleeds, scandal dissolves into scandal, terror speech blends into terror speech. The landscape is there for everyone to see, to analyze. Enough time has elapsed to make the system transparent. It is dismaying for netroots activists to see the same mistakes repeated despite the benefit of hindsight.

I don’t think for a second that bloggers would generally do a better job governing or reporting, but I do think the variety and enthusiasm of the commentary in the blogosphere can greatly enhance both fields. But that would require some humilty from the political and journalistic elites, so you can understand why it’s a lot easier for them to bash the entire medium than actually face some legitimate criticism.

Then again, sentences like the last one I just wrote probably just add to the cyclical nature of the problem. If I were a journalist who wrote the last sentence, my editor would tell me to stop being a dick and rewrite it. If I were a politician who wanted to sneak that into a speech, I’d have advisors telling me to be more diplomatic lest I offend a critical portion of the electorate. Since bloggers don’t answer to anyone, our criticisms tend to come off rough around the edges. This is made even worse by the fact that journalists tend to think of bloggers as little more than self-righteous little brats and politicians (if they even know what bloggers are) consider us sources of campaign contributions/labor and the targets of unsolicited press releases.

And that’s why I’m giving up. I don’t know what to do about the traditional media’s laziness and inability to fact-check, add context to debates, and call “bullshit” on partisan spin, but I do know that the Democratic party has been having a one-sided conversation with the blogosphere for the past few years that I no longer want to be a part of. As Daou mentioned above, the blogosphere and the Democratic establishment should be working together, but the beltway insiders seem unable or unwilling to take advantage of the opportunities the netroots can give them. Among the missed opportunities that Daou listed :

Weeks before the hearings, Dem leaders would have encouraged the netroots to build a buzz about one or two pivotal Alito issues. These issues would then have been hammered repeatedly during the hearings, reiterated by Dem surrogates, by outside groups, and blasted across blogs as the hearings progressed.
. . .
A list of mainstream reporters, GOP shills like Norah O’Donnell and Wolf Blitzer, would have been targeted by a Dem war room: their various Bush-propping tricks (like using polls to ‘prove’ that Americans are “divided” and don’t share liberal activists’ alarm over Alito, that the hearings are boring and Alito is a shoe-in, that Democrats are pre-judging Alito but Republicans aren’t, etc.) would have been laid out in a detailed memo before the hearings.

An army of bloggers and online activists would have been recruited to flood these reporters with complaints whenever those tricks were employed. Screen shots, video clips, caricatures, chain emails, Flash pieces, podcasts, any and all available technology would have been used to individually target reporters who peddled GOP storylines on Alito.

That would be nice, but the only way the Dems know how to talk to bloggers is to email speeches and hold the occasional blogger “conference call” which is really just a glorified invitiation-only press conference. I’m not saying bloggers are the answer to the Democrats’ problems, but if we’re not even part of the answer, then what are we really accomplishing here?

Like I said above, this isn’t some ideological evolution on my part. I’m still dedicated to progressive causes, but I really don’t think the Democrats in D.C. have the ability to win this fight. If the Democrats lose this year’s elections (which I’m starting to believe they will), it’ll be the political equivalent of Bush letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. You’ve got these guys cornered, why not go in for the kill?

A recent email from a wingnut mentioned me as part of “the cartoonists syndicate” because I write at This Modern World, which is linked to by Ted Rall, who wrote something that hurt his poor widdle feewlings (boo hoo). What’s odd about my inclusion in this syndicate is that (a) I’m not a cartoonist and (b) I couldn’t draw to save my life, but it gave me an idea nonetheless. Inspired by the trend of recaptioning Family Circus strips and the 1994 Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music which established that parody is a form of speech protected under the first amendment, here’s a few strips from my new comic, Gipper, the Talking Points Duck :

Maybe I should be careful. The real talking points duck is a thin-skinned baby whose readers are too stupid to tell the difference between a parody and the real thing. The last thing I want is to see another tort-reform conservative suddenly gain an interest in abusing the legal system.

At the end of the day, I don’t care much about where someone falls on the arbitrary liberal/conservative spectrum as long as they speak their heart, but Joe Lieberman is that rare breed of politician that’s so inept at governing that he sides with his supposed political opposition at the exact wrong times. It’s quite an accomplishment that in a party as insecure and lost in the woods as the Democrats, Lieberman stands out as the most politically tone-deaf person in Washington D.C. The latest evidence for Joe’s incompetence is this description he gave NPR’s Day to Day of the “lobbying reform” bill he co-sponsored with John McCain :

“This is a full disclosure bill. It requires the kind of disclosure that if Abramoff had been forced to do he might well have been indicted in the court of public opinion before he was indicted in a court of law and pled guilty.”

That’s right. Joementum is so damned stupid that his idea of tough reform is a law that would embarrass Jack Abramoff. Hey Joe, tell me exactly how the “court of public opinion” is supposed to matter to a guy who doesn’t answer to the general public?

Now, the two or three of you left who want to play devil’s advocate might point out that this public shame might have electoral consequences for anyone associated with someone found guilty in the “court of public opinion”, but that overlooks the fact that voters are incapable of connecting dots and have a hard time remembering anything that happened over a month ago. When Dick Cheney is giving exclusive interviews to racist talk show hosts and the President is getting pre-war counseling from the faux-Reverend who blamed 9/11 on gay people, it’s pretty obvious that this court of public opinion has a real problem with repeat offenders.

More importantly, however, is if you want to follow Joementum’s thinking to its logical conclusion, it just emphasizes the fact that this scandal isn’t the fault of lobbyists, but the criminal public servants who are selling their services to the highest bidder. I’m sure John McCain and Joe Lieberman like to pat themselves on the back for being mavericks who are willing to reach across the aisle to do the right thing, but if they can’t see a problem this obvious and have the guts to point the finger at their crooked colleagues, then they’re just as cowardly as the bribe-takers whose crimes they’re helping cover up.

I’ve got a long, pissy rant to unload at some point about my complete frustration with the traditional media, complacent Democratic dickheads in D.C., and the self-righteousness of the blogosphere, but I don’t have the energy or the time to write it all right now. In the meantime, one point that I wanna make, but probably wouldn’t be able to fit into the post that’s trying to assemble itself in my head is this : Is it just me or is journalism getting easier and easier? I don’t mean that as a partisan swipe, but a practical observation.

Fifty years ago, going through the public records or old newspapers would require a trip to the library or city hall, but now most information you need can be gathered online via government websites, Lexis-Nexis, and Google. With cell phones, journalists are no longer tied to a desk when they need to “work the phones” and their contacts are easier to reach than ever. With media consolidation, news bureaus have larger staffs and worldwide resources. And finally, blogger-triumphalism aside, the explosion of the blogosphere and alternative media sources provides dozens of interesting leads every day.

With that said, why does the media still fuck up all the time? Can it all be attributed to conservative bullying? Has technology made reporters so lazy that their spines have atrophied? Are they really so weak that they’ll repeat partisan spin verbatim without even a simple search on the internet? Fact checking doesn’t usually require a trip downtown these days, so what’s your excuse??

It’s no wonder the traditional media bashes blogs so much. It’s hard to have the humility to admit that you suck at your job.

Geraldo, did you realize that the name of your show is a phrase used almost exclusively to describe criminals running from the police? Just checking.

Also, you might want to splurge a little next time you have publicity photos taken. I know the guy from the Sears portrait studio works cheap, but “thumb in your pocket” approach to looking casual just doesn’t work. Ever.

Why did Fox even bother renewing Arrested Development if they didn’t want to air it regularly? For those of you curious about how the best seried on TV is going to end, click here (SPOILERS). The geniuses at Fox will be airing the final four episodes as a “two-hour season finale” on February 10th. Before you think that’s Fox’s way of letting the show end on a high point with a little dignity intact, keep in mind that it’s airing on the same night as the opening ceremony of the 2006 Olympics. They’re dumping this show faster than Bill Frist can dump stock.

You’ve probably already seen it on other blogs, but you’ve gotta read Harry Reid’s op-ed on Republican corruption today. The fact that he came out swinging and that it’s published in Tom DeLay’s hometown paper is priceless :

In 1977, I was appointed chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. It was a difficult time for the gaming industry and Las Vegas, which were being overrun by organized crime. To that point in my life, I had served in the Nevada Assembly and even as lieutenant governor, but nothing prepared me for my fight with the mob.

Over the next few years, there would be threats on my life, bribes, FBI stings and even a car bomb placed in my family’s station wagon. It was a terrifying experience, but at the end of the day, we cleaned up Las Vegas and ushered in a new era of responsibility.

My term on the gaming commission came to an end in 1981, and when it did, I thought I had seen such corruption for the last time. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. It is not quite the mafia of Las Vegas in the 1970s, but what is happening today in Washington is every bit as corrupt and the consequences for our country have been severe.

Our nation’s capital has been overrun by organized crime — Tom DeLay-style.

The gangsters are the lobbyists, cronies and lawmakers who have banded together and abused their power to serve their own self-interest. The casinos are the Capitol, which has had its doors thrown open for special interests to waltz in and help themselves, and the victims, of course, are the American people.

For those of you looking for a Democratic message for the midterms, this is it. We took down the mob, we can take down these scumbags too. Throw the bums out and put in some reformers. And for those who think Harry Reid might not be the right guy for the job, this bit from his Wikipedia entry wills set your mind at ease (via MyDD) :

Reid then served as Nevada state gaming commissioner from 1977 to 1981, a post which subjected him to death threats. Reid’s wife once found a bomb attached to one of their cars. A character in the film Casino played by Dick Smothers is based, in part, on Reid. An attempt was made by Jack Gordon (who would later manage and marry LaToya Jackson) to bribe Reid. Reid allowed the FBI to tape Gordon’s attempt to bribe Reid with $12,000, at which point Reid attempted to strangle Gordon, saying “You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.”

Which reminds me of my favorite line from Casino :

“I think in all fairness, I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. For instance tomorrow morning ill get up nice and early, take a walk down over to the bank and… walk in and see and uh… if you don’t have my money for me, I’ll… crack your fuckin’ head wide-open in front of everybody in the bank. And just about the time that I’m comin’ out of jail, hopefully, you’ll be coming out of your coma. And guess what? I’ll split your fuckin’ head open again. ‘Cause I’m fuckin’ stupid. I don’t give a fuck about jail. That’s my business. That’s what I do.”

It’s beginning to look like the only way we’re ever going to get the kind of corruption-free government that we deserve is to crack some fuckin’ heads wide-open. Figuratively, of course…

Just now on KPCC, Republican Congressman David Dreier actually defended lobbyists by comparing them to the authors of the Federalist Papers. Seriously. Since lobbists just “petition the government” he said, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (whose name he got wrong, btw) were “the ultimate lobbyists”. This is the same guy who House Speaker Dennis Hastert put in charge of lobbying reform, so that should tell you all you need to know about how seriously the GOP is taking this stuff. Since Dreier led the fight to change House ethics rules to protect Tom DeLay and is a huge fan of the Federalist Papers, I’m sure he’ll love this :

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.

From that same Federalist essay, comes this quote which may put a little context to Dreier’s “reform” effort and his support of the President’s NSA spying program :

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

I’m sure that Dreier agrees with these sentiments…as long as we’re only talking about the criminals who are bribing Republican politicians. And by “criminals”, I mean “patriots like Jack Abramoff who are continuing the proud tradition started by our founding fathers”.

The fact that Sam Alito spent all week stonewalling was to be expected, but I think some of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee deserve equal blame for treating this more like political theater than a job interview. I understand getting a soundbite is part of the shallow hell that our political climate has become, but a lot of the exchanges makes it clear that most of the Democrats think they’re a tough question away from getting Alito to blurt out some incriminating remark like “Abortion is worse than the holocaust” or “the President should be considered a monarch”. But I fear that the hunt for a smoking gun is coming at the expense of helping the American people figure out who the hell this Alito guy is.

Here’s the thing the American people (and most of the Senate) don’t seem to understand about confirmation hearings. It’s not about finding out what Alito thinks, but how he thinks. The conclusions that Alito has reached on a litany of issues are ultimately less important that the thought process that led to those conclusions. Since we can’t predict the future and it would be highly inappropriate to demand promises from a potential Supreme Court justice, the best we can do is try to figure out how this guy’s brain is wired. What sort of arguments is Alito open to? What roles to emotion, religious belief, or intellectual curiosity play in Alito’s judgment? Is he more motivated to side with experts or laymen? Interpreting the law isn’t a mechanical process, it’s an art. We just want to see what kind of artist Alito would be.

Of course, that just leads us back to the original problem, that Alito isn’t man enough to publicly stand by his own words. Even when we look at these hearings in the proper light and don’t just consider them a laundry list of litmus tests, the best way to get familiar with the way Alito evaluates arguments is to ask him about controversial issues. Not because it’s a cheap way to get him to pick sides, but because high-profile, controversial issues have a wealth of commentary on which to refer, are easier for the American people to understand than obscure constitutional provisions, and serve as a pretty good introduction to what sorts of things are likely to sway a Justice Alito.

For example, taking aside every potential court case, what sorts of conclusions could you draw from a revelation that Alito supports the teaching of intelligent design in science classes? For me, I’d conclude that he’s unable tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, that he’s willing to stretch the idea of presenting “all sides of an issue” to ridiculous extremes, that he’s willing to make broad decisions without being fully informed about the issue(s) involved, and that he might be the kind of judge who would let his religious beliefs get in the way of making logical decisions. Since these would be ample subjects for followup questions, I wouldn’t just settle on those impressions of Alito, but I’m only speaking hypothetically at this point. In reality, Alito would have avoided answered the first question completely through the sort of dissembling Alito’s biggest defenders used to call “Clintonian”.

That, to me, is the most paradoxical thing about this whole judicial confirmation kabuki dance. On the one hand, we’re supposed to believe that Alito is a top-notch intellectual giant, but he’s so uninformed about the most controversial issues of our time that he can’t be bothered to form an opinion. Alito’s a neutral “referee” who’s willing to listen to both sides before making up his mind, but he’s so weak-willed that taking any stand at all would limit his ability to be even-handed in future cases. I don’t know which is worse : Republicans insulting our intelligence by playing dumb, or taking them at their word that and accepting the notion that their best pick for the high court is a habitual liar who’s too stupid to remember things he did and said 20 years ago.