ConfirmThem

Perhaps Trenga's nomination smooths the way for Conrad's confirmation to the 4th Circuit? This late in the game, with the 4th Circuit hanging in the balance, I think that's a deal you take (assuming this is part of a deal). After all, if Obama wins then he would get to fill both seats - half a loaf is better than no loaf, and all that.

Alternately, perhaps Webb got to pick Trenga pursuant to a deal between Warner & Webb. Something along the lines of the senator from the non-White House party gets to select 1 out of 4 district court nominees (similar deals have existed in other states, notably between Sen. D'Amato and Sen. Moynihan in NY during the 90's).

Just a couple of theories. Otherwise, it's hard pick to fathom.

Mose, you think quite logically. Unfortunately (well, fortunately for you, but unfortunately for the nation as a whole), you have much more sense than the White House. Ed Whelan at Bench Memos, who as a former administration official has good sources, reports that the Trenga pick is NOT part of a deal for either Conrad or for any other conservative. Second, the key thing here is that Webb and Warner STRONGLY ENDORSED all SEVEN of the nominees they forwarded, so even if Bush wanted to please Webb, he surely could have chosen any of the other six, at least several of whom appear to be no worse than center-to-center-right philosophically, whereas Trenga is anything but center-right. Nothing about this makes any sense, unfortunately.
Quin Hillyer

Well, maybe the WH thinks "Trenga" is a Hispanic sounding name, so this was an opportunity to show how much Republicans love diversity & empathy.

On a similar note, it looks like Sen. Gordon Smith is running ads in Oregon detailing all the times he worked with Kerry & Obama and opposed Bush.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Here's a little blurb I found on Marcelle, Bush's new nominee to the Northern District of NY:

Marcelle, counsel to Albany County GOP, in line for federal bench
August 1, 2008 at 10:33 am by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist, Staff writer, Albany Times-Union

Thomas Marcelle, who among other things serves as counsel to the Albany County Legislature’s Republican minority, has been nominated by the White House for a federal judgeship in the Northern District of New York.

According to the White House’s Web site, Marcelle’s nomination was sent to the U.S. Senate Thursday and read as follows: “Thomas Marcelle, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York, vice Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., retired.”

Marcelle was not immediately available for comment. But a Republican insider in Albany County confirmed that it was, in fact, the same Thomas Marcelle who, as recently as this week, was arguing on behalf of GOP Congressional candidate Jim Buhrmaster to get his primary opponent, Steven Vasquez, knocked off the ballot in the 21st Congressional District.

Ultimately, Vasquez prevailed and will remain on the ballot, but in declaring victory he called Marcelle “one of the best election lawyers in New York.”

You might recall that last week the U.S. Senate confirmed Glenn Suddaby, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, for a judgeship in Syracuse, which is also in the Northern District.

I have no problem with Smith doing whatever he needs to do to stay in office.

I think that he is about as good as we can expect out of Oregon and the truth is that he is very good on judges as well.

Yeah, I know. Just felt like grousin'...

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Seems like there is no enthusiasm whatsoever in the Republican Party anymore. Bush has thoroughly demoralized conservatives with his abysmal record in office. In many ways, he is a bigger liberal than LBJ. But thank God for Roberts & Alito.

www.angrywhitedude.com

Don't you think you are overstating things a bit? I supported another candidate in the GOP primary, but presented with a choice between Obama and McCain, I'm behind McCain now 100%. He isn't the perfect candidate, but we can't let the perfect the enemy of the good, now can we? I have contributed both time and money to the campaign, and there are tens of thousands of people who have done the same. Don't doubt that there are folks working very hard to put John McCain in the White House.

Also, while I recognize that hyperbole can be a useful rhetorical device, suggesting that President Bush is more liberal "in many ways" than LBJ is simply ridiculous. President Bush may have expanded Medidare, but LBJ's Great Society campaign not only created Medicare but also Medicaid and the bevy of programs that grew out of the War on Poverty (e.g. VISTA, Job Corps, Head Start, Legal Services, Community Action Programs, etc.). LBJ's Attorney General was Ramsey Clark - as radical a leftist as has served in the Cabinet in the past 50 years and one who has done much to embarass his country. Johnson's two nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Abe Fortas, would be considered well to the left of any justice on the current court, much less Roberts and Alito. There is certainly plenty to criticize in President Bush's record, but I think you weaken your point by overstating it.

I don't think i'm overstating anythying. I remember with great fondness the conservative revolution of '94 and all of the wonderful things they had planned - balanced budget first and foremost, rolling back the size and scope of government. The only thing in our way was Clinton, but lo and behold when Bush took over, we finally had full control, but bush was no where to be found. The pary of Gingrich was replaced with the party of Tom Delay and other Bush cronies that thought by spending more and more money they could buy votes. It's just sickening the opportunities that were squandered under this President in his quest to buy votes with a program for everyone. Want free prescriptions? No problem ! George Bush is here to fulfill your every desire ! Because he's a "compassionate conservative" ie: a liberal, big spender.

Look, I give bush big credit for his judicial appointments, and some other things, but overall his Presidency has been a major disappointment for conservatives. Nearly his whole Presidency he's seemed AWOL, in an isolated bubble. Never gives national speeches on tv, never uses his bully pulpit to push an agenda, always ready to antoganize the press and opponents, and even the public. Bush's biggest failure was his inability to use his office to connect with the people in the way Reagan did. And all he had to do was ask the networks for air time to explain directly to the public why he was taking the positions he did. And now he seems like he's already retired.

We could go on and on about Bush, but the fact remains that he has increased government spending more than any president since LBJ. And he has no excuse with a Republican Congress.

As for Mccain, i too have sent him money, and I too voted for someone else in the primary. An Obama presidency would mean a communist victory in America, i have no doubt about that. But why aren't conservatives out there pushing their conservative policies proudly? Where are they on judges? Out to lunch. It seems that they are all running scared from their conservatism. And the reason is that Bush has given "conservatism" a bad name by re-branding the name and making it something new. Let's pray for a Mccain victory and a vibrant, youthful VP that can carry on the party after Mccain.

What are people's reactions here to the news that Rep. Eric Cantor is being vetted? I'm curious.

True Con -- I hear what you are saying. I do sense some small movement with the fight over drilling and the victories of some conservative GOP congressmen over moderates (Broun in GA). It will be interesting to see if the Kansas GOP gives in to the moderates or sticks with the conservatives today in the election.

Damico -- I don't like it, but then I don't like anything about a congressman as a VP .. I just think its too thin of a resume. I'd prefer Palin, Pawlenty, Sanford or Romney at this point in time.

Agreed w/Oz about Cantor. If it's to be a young, thin resume it might as well be Jindal. Cantor seems like he could easily be caricatured as a sop to the base. Can't see him adding a thing to the ticket or swaying any 'swing' voters.

Palin now has troopergate as well Ted Stevens to deal with. Supposedly McCain & Sanford have "cooled" to each other.

I think in his heart McCain wants either Crist or Graham. I believe Graham has ruled it out, and Crist has those pesky rumors about his personal life.

I think Romney is the favorite at the moment.

As for our 43rd POTUS, if only the results of all his actions had been as good as the results of Roberts, Alito, JRB, Pryor and some others. He was actually pretty good on judges (leaving aside who he REALLY wanted for SCOTUS)....when he focused on them. When he didn't...we have what we currently have on the 4th Circuit.

The pathological spending binge, Congressional corruption, failure to secure Afghanistan before invading Iraq, and incompetence in post-Saddam planning are unconscionable. Great roadmap for what NOT to do for President Jindal in 2013.

Agreed W's great mistakes were surrounding himself with yes-men and never learning how to use the bully pulpit. How many times did we see the "cronyism or gut instinct-stubborness-threatening/demonizing-capitulation" cycle from this Admin? No sense of poker or chess at all.

Very sad. He could've fundamentally altered the great Nanny in DC. May well be too late now, or at a minimum require more 9/11's to jumpstart.

I actually think the McCain of 2000 wins this election handily. This is much tougher, although Obama may well have peaked too early. McCain simply must get his campaign staff focused on 3-4 top issues consistently, pick a sharp VP, and stop having senior moments like the birth control thing. The House & Senate races seem hopeless for this cycle.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

You say Jindal's resume is "young" and "thin" and then write he should be president in 2013. I'm just curious to how the first sentence begets the second? No trying to be flippant, just want to hear your rationale. Seems like we're all railing against a young, thin resume in this year's contest, no?

Jindal's resume might not be so young & thin in three years...let's see how he does as Gov. If he get Nawlins up & running, that'll be more than Barry ever dreamed of doing on the Chicago City Council. But I was mostly just gallows humoring it. I have no idea who the Repubs will run in '12 if McCain loses in Nov.

Mitt probably would be a better POTUS than anyone right now (inc. W & McCain), but what an awful campaign he ran. Rudy & Fred are finished, and I can't see a true Evangelical like Huck getting elected in this day & age. No current "non-Maverick" GOP senator or Rep has a chance because of all the corruption.

And Jeb was born too late. Just gonna be a bad couple cycles for Repubs; lot of the causes of which being uncontrollable.

Jindal and a couple other Gov's might be the only ones left standing by 2011. Look what's happening to Montana. But someone always emerges (Jeff Flake?), and predictions are always wrong. You could've gotten a drunk bookie in Vegas to give you 1000-1 against a McCain-Obama final on New Year's Eve.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

The great thing is that the Democratic convention comes first. No way should McCain pick a VP before Obama does. Once Obama does, then everyone will have a better idea of what kind of ticket the GOP will be running against, and what kind of VP is needed on the GOP side.

Romney or Portman would seem like the best bets.

I agree re Romney and Portman, though I have no issue going with Jindal or Palin. If youth and inexperience aren't issues for Obama, how could they be for Jindal or Palin, who after all would be running only for Veep, not Prez.

Jindal and Palin would be okay with me too, although they might undercut the inexperience argument against Obama (plus Jindal has pretty much ruled himself out, and Palin is being investigated).

I must say, though, that Jindal and Palin have a lot of plusses, and Palin may just make the cut.