ConfirmThem

Yes, Cox or Sanford is my pick for VP. I think they stand above the others mentioned, though Pawlenty and Portman are also impressive.

I would doubt Cox's health is such that he could handle or deal with a grueling campaign.

I would guess Pawlenty is the most likely pick, as of now.

Something tells me you had never heard of Chris Cox's back injury until it was mentioned in this column. JFK suffered terrible pains for much of his life and yet he was able to endure the grind of the 1960 election and the Cuban missile crisis. This injury is a STUPID reason not to choose him as a vice presidential nominee.

Chris Cox works for so many reasons that he should be a no-brainer. If he is chosen and the party still loses, then conservatives have their candidate for the 2012 election (sorry Romneybots). Of more immediate concern, the conservative purists would have someone around whom they could rally. McCain may not meet the 2008 standard of conservatism, but Cox sure does.

Alas, Chris Cox won't be chosen. It would be an out of the box selection. The party "establishment" will have a big say in this process and they will push for a boring governor like Pawlenty. In a party dominated by evangelicals, Pawlenty will will always have a the edge on a Catholic like Cox. I say that with deep regret.

Can someone tell me what qualifies Pawlenty to be a VP nominee and, therefore, a potential presidential candidate? Yes, he won Minnesota, but that doesn't mean he can deliver a state no Republican has won since 1972. Yes, he is evangelical, but I'm more concerned with other qualities, like actual positions. I haven't seen anything which jumps off the page and says Pawlenty is the best choice. None the less, I would earnestly support both McCain and him, but I think he is a very safe and boring choice. McCain will need a buzz.

McCain's VP will need to counteract the 'historic' angle that will be played up no matter whom the Dems nominate. JC Watts and Ann Coulter should battle it out to the death.

Here's a good article on Pawlenty at the Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8558.html

I think Pawlenty would be a good running mate: a conservative in a less than conservative state, and an atty who no doubt understands the issues we hold dear at this website. Also, the article says that Pawlenty is a gifted orator who is able to charm an audience. That is an important quality for the Republican ticket given 8 years of Bushspeak, McCain's lack of speaking talent, and Obama's abundance of it. It doesn't matter to me that he's an evangelical, but it does matter to much of the conservative base, and he would deflate the Huckabee phenomenon.

That being said, I still like Cox and Sanford considerably more.

Does anyone know how today's hearing (Haynes for the 5th Circuit, and two District Court nominees) went??

I don't know to much about Gov. Pawlenty, but I did hear a commercial on the radio on my way to work this morning of him and Gov. Napolitano (sp?) advocating "immediate action on global warming" and alluding to a cap and trade system. Such policy might be a good match for McCain's policies, but they make me a little suspicious.

Is there any word on when confirmation of the district judges who had hearings last week could be coming down the pipes? I realize some of them have a great deal of opposition from libs on the Judiciary, but what about the other two? Judge Miller is the appointee for the Eastern District of Arkansas where I live and we haven't heard much about it in the local news.

Here's the agenda:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=3163

None of the judicial nominees is listed for consideration.

I'm just not a big fan of Pawlenty. I've heard a lot about him since 2002, but nothing has ever really caught my eye. People like Hugh Hewitt push him due to his evangelicalism, but I don't think the party or the conservative movement should become mired in identity politics like this. I just don't see any there there. Or at least, I don't see him as anything other than a convential down the line conservative. That just doesn't play well right now.

It seems to me the only reason Pawlenty is mentioned is because he is the governor of Minnesota. If he were the governor of Alabama, I doubt he would get even a courtesy mention. He get's high marks, it seems to me, because he runs a state no Republican has won since 1972. I feel safe in saying that if Pawlenty is chosen, he will not be able to deliver that state, especially if Obama is the opposition. I also can't envision him as a top of the ticket candidate in 2012 or 2016.

I'm also dubious of some of his backers, namely Vin Weber. Weber has this reputation as a tried and true conservative, but I don't totally buy it. First, he backed Bush and, as we all learned, he was never a conservative in the mold of Reagan. Second, he backed Mitt Romney and claimed he was a conservative in the mold of Reagan. Mitt may be a lot of things, but he only recently claimed to be a Reagan conservative. Now, Weber popped up in Jonathan Martin's piece over the weekend, offering unsolicited advice I might add, that Pawlenty is the real deal. Hmmm.

I'm just very skeptical of Pawlenty. I don't think he adds anything to the ticket. As I wrote in a blog entry at RedState, he and the other governors mentioned seem to be very convential, even boring, picks. In a year stacked so heavily against Republicans, I think McCain needs to make an out of the political box pick.

http://washingtonbriefs.blogspot.com/2008/02/fifth-circuit-nominee-holds...

"A federal appellate court nominee criticized by liberal activists stood her ground when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

Catharina Haynes, of Texas, who President Bush has nominated for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stressed her commitment to diversity and equal access to the courts during the specially arranged hearing, held during a Senate recess.

Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. said that the 5th Circuit has "historically been at the vanguard of protecting civil rights" and asked Haynes if she could "demonstrate sensitivity to people of different backgrounds."

Haynes, a state trial court judge in Texas for eight years, responded by noting that both her parents are immigrants and that she has "bought that understanding of different backgrounds to my work as a lawyer and a judge."

She also described her role in an effort to improve legal services for the poor in the Vickery Meadow area of Dallas."

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=3130&wit_id=2629

It is interesting to note that not once does Leahy personally attack Haynes for either her "thin record"(the Alliance for Justice's main complaint against her) or "radical ultraconservatism" (the typical Dem mantra against Bush nominees and the one that is likely to be used in varying degrees against Pratter, Keisler, and the Fourth Circuit nominees).

Rather, he goes off on another crying jag about the awful way Clinton nominees were treated by the Republicans:

"Today, we consider a nominee to the Fifth Circuit, a court to which 12 of the 16 active judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents. Republican efforts to stack this court included stalling consideration of several of President Clinton’s outstanding nominees. Judge Jorge Rangel of Texas, Enrique Moreno of Texas, and Alston Johnson of Louisiana were never accorded the kind of hearing that Ms. Haynes is having today. Despite the fact that those on the other side of the aisle refused to proceed on any nominations to Fifth Circuit during President Clinton’s entire second term, we are proceeding today."

http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2008/02/texas-no-shows.html

"What if they held a hearing and (almost) no one showed up? That's what happened at today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of former Texas District Judge Catherina Haynes to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. No sign of either Texas home senators John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison to introduce the nominee. And Cornyn is a member of the committee! But, then again, it's the Presidents' Day recess for Congress, even if panel chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, decided to hold a hearing anyway. The Republicans couldn't even muster a committee member to represent their side -- it was up to Sen. John Warner of Virginia to sit in for the GOP."

I also think it is odd that neither Cornyn nor Hutchinson showed up for Haynes' hearing. I noticed a long time ago that they weren't listed on the hearing agenda, but I just assumed that their names would be added later as has happened several times in the past. It should also be noted that no one from either California or Tennessee showed to support the district court nominees either.

What is my take on these absences? That the Texas, California and Tennesee senators didn't show up despite committee custom because they knew full well that all three of these nominees will be passed out of committee and confirmed relatively easily and didn't need their presence.

I guess Warner was chosen to represent the GOP senators because he lives close to the capital and wouldn't have to travel far to get back to town during the Presidents' Day recess. That's why Webb was chosen by the Dems to do a lot of the pro forma sessions of the Senate during the December break.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/0222...

"Former Dallas District Court Judge Catharina Haynes faced few questions at a Senate hearing on her nomination to the federal bench.

Possibly prompted by Ms. Haynes' previous position as a judge elected on a Republican ticket, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked if she had any doubts as to whether she could leave political bias out of her rulings if confirmed to a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I can not only say I will be fair, I can point to eight years of a court in which there were never any Democrats or Republicans. There were only litigants seeking justice," Ms. Haynes said. "I have a very good reputation of being fair and impartial to all, whatever their background."

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., wondered at the lack of written opinions from Ms. Haynes' tenure in Dallas. Ms. Haynes cited a lack of resources as an explanation.

"We are not blessed with law clerks. We do all our own research, our own preparation of orders," Ms. Haynes said, adding that she had provided a number of other documents the committee could use to divine her legal philosophy. "I sent copies of my speeches and writings and so forth. ... If I remember correctly I sent five sets and it was a 30-pound box."

Ms. Haynes, 44, also outlined some of her philosophy on judicial restraint in response to another question by Mr. Leahy. She cited her ruling in 2001 that the Dallas Independent School District had violated state open-meetings laws.

"The judiciary has to give respect to the other two branches," she said. "At the same time, it is necessary for the judiciary to hold government accountable when those rules are not applied."

The committee has not scheduled a vote on Ms. Haynes' confirmation, which must happen before her nomination is put before the full Senate."

This article is almost a year old, but this is what this election is about:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20558

Although I think Elena Kagan is a probable SCOTUS nominee under a Dem president, Koh is not. Kagan has the support of some Republicans because she has been inclusive of conservatives at Harvard. Koh, however, has made many conservative enemies with his lack of respect while at Yale. He could be easily defeated with a filibuster.

I read Leahy's speech before coming over here to ConfirmThem, and found that as usual Bobo had analyzed the situation well and provided even more news articles to check out. The only bright spot in this (other than Haynes' sure confirmation) is that Nan Aron didn't get her way on this one. Of course, that's only because Leahy's already got his targets selected and knows who he's going to let through, and who he's not.

http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/02212008.html

"Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, noted, "Judge Haynes' lack of experience, combined with her failure to provide meaningful answers during today's hearing, makes this nomination too risky for the judiciary and the American people."

Translation:

"Although we have no proof, we are terrified that Judge Haynes will faithfully follow the Constitution. For decades to come, this could ruin our plans to short-circuit the legislative process. Please, someone, please, help us find a way to stop this woman before rule by judicial fiat is ended!"

Also, Aron is saying "Hey guys, please notice me - you used to do what I say - what happened? Hellooo?

http://www.examiner.com/a-1233055~Opposition_to_Rosenstein_remains_despi...

"Mikulski’s spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said the senator was well aware that Rosenstein was qualified.

'They have a good relationship,' she said of Mikulski and Rosenstein. 'It’s not about him. It’s about keeping our U.S. attorney in Maryland.'"

Well, thank heavens for letting us know it's not about credentials! The Republicans will have to remember that when Clinton/Obama nominates someone like Elena Kagan for a judgeship - I'm sorry, Elena, it's not about qualifications!

Didn't they make a comment saying that they didn't care who the nominee was to the 1st circuit?

Cox becomes McCain's vp. Cox is nominated and confirmed for first SCOTUS opening. McCain gets a second pick--Condi?, Graham (may it not be so), Lieberman (gag--maybe he could be SecDef or head of Homeland Security, thus allowing a GOP governor to pick a Republican replacement), or someone else (the NYT reporter?).

Homeland security for Liebermann.

BWT, I notice there are plenty of posts when it's a topic that tweaks enough folks.