Americans for Rice Ready to Air First 2008 Ad

Americans for Rice has finished a fundraising swing that should give the group enough cash to begin airing their first “Rice 2008” ad.

As the group's co-chair Crystal Dueker tells the Buzz, Americans for Rice received a strong reception at the National Federation of Republican Women. Over 1,500 women attended, with 190 donating an average of $15 each to the group. You can view the ad at americansforrice.com. Dueker tells me:

“Our ‘Condi’ booth in Nashville caused a major buzz at the Republican Women's convention; discussions over lunch as women wore their ‘Condoleezza Rice for President’ stickers, buttons, and shirts. The ad played on a laptop inspiring the women to donate for its broadcast this month. The $2,500 raised helped us meet our goal for a $4000 ad buy.”

Last night I had the opportunity to sit down with New York Senate candidate Ed Cox. Mr. Cox is running a resurgent primary campaign for the Republican nomination to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2006. During my meeting with Mr. Cox I was impressed with his grasp of domestic and international issues. More than that, he has a real commitment to conservative principles that will give Republican and conservative voters in New York a candidate they can be proud to vote for.

I’ll have a more detailed report on Cox and his campaign next week. But his basic political strategy is sound: introduce himself to conservative voters in New York and earn their trust that he is one of their own. From there, Mr. Cox will attempt to sway New York voters who ordinarily vote for Democrats but have personal views on fiscal and social issues that are more aligned with Mr. Cox’s philosophy than Hillary Clinton’s.

Ed Cox has already met with prominent fiscally conservative organizations including the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform. Yesterday, Mr. Cox appeared at Grover Norquist’s weekly Wednesday meetings.

Most would consider Ed Cox’s campaign a tough hill to climb versus arguably the most popular Democrat in the country. But unlike many previous and current Republican candidates in New York, Ed Cox is establishing himself as a credible and genuinely conservative candidate.

All the Right Moves?

The Forward has an interesting piece on Rudy Giuliani. In what some would consider a surprising move, Giuliani endorsed Cincinnati mayoral candidate Charles Winburn. Winburn is a Christian conservative who previously wrote that only born-again candidates should be elected to office. In his 1989 book “Ruling and Reigning in the ‘90’s,” Winburn wrote:

"We Christians must clean up politics. It is our job to elect only born-again believers to public office. If office holders aren't Christian and refuse to obey the laws of God, we must work hard, under the law, to unseat them."

Winburn ended up placing third in the September 13th primary. The question is, were Giuliani’s intentions sincere or strictly political? The Forward writes:

“Political observers said that Giuliani was trying to curry favor with conservative voters in advance of an expected 2008 presidential bid. ‘He's trying to position himself as a social conservative around the country, to earn credentials to offset his history of being pro-abortion pro-immigration and pro-gay marriage,’ said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic political consultant. He added, ‘People in New York who supported him would not be happy.’"

John Roberts and Chuck Schumer just completed one of the more interesting exchanges in this week’s hearings. After Schumer listed a series of “pros” regarding Roberts, he moved on to his lengthier list of “cons.” Schumer’s main question for Roberts regarded whether or not Roberts is an ideologue. Basically, Schumer’s thinking was, “Are you Scalia or Thomas?” And Roberts answer seemed to be, “No, I am not.”

In answering Schumer’s ideologue question, Roberts said, “I am not an ideologue. And we both agree that we do not want ideologues on the Supreme Court.”

Senator Sessions just asked John Roberts if he’s aware of the salaries Court judges receive. Roberts answered that he’s aware of what his salary would be as Chief Justice. Sessions then asked, “You’re not going to be coming back here next week and asking for a raise are you?”

Roberts, “No, not next week.”

Closing out his questioning of John Roberts, Senator Mike DeWine said, “America has gotten to know John Roberts the man. And I’m fairly certain the U.S. Senate will confirm John Roberts.” On Roberts’ integrity, DeWine said, “When you go to the Court, please don’t check that at the door.”

Diane Feinstein is now questioning Roberts and opened her line by stating, “I subscribe to much of what Senator DeWine said. But aside from John Roberts the man, what about John Roberts the automaton?”

Feinstein also criticized Lindsey Graham’s point that the Senate confirmed Justice Antonin Scalia with other 90 votes, “I think about what a different place our nation is in than it was in 1986. There’s so much water under the dam since then. We are polarized as a nation. Pretty much 50-50.”

Basically Feinstein is engaging in a chicken vs. the egg argument. Are Democrats on the Judiciary Committee all but certain to vote against Roberts simply because the nation is supposedly divided on his nomination? Or is there increase polarization of all things political contributing to the national divide?

Feinstein then moved on to asking Roberts two straightforward questions:

Feinstein: “Did anyone caution you going into these hearings?”

Roberts: “No.”

Feinstein: “During your interview before this nomination, did anyone ask you for your opinion on Roe?”

Roberts: “No.”

Feinstein: “Well, that’s certainly good to hear.”

Unfortunately, I cannot take photos from within the hearing room while John Roberts is taking questions. This is unfortunate for obvious reasons. In particular, a weird moment just took place. Senators have returned from their lunch and are asking questions of Roberts. One senator who was absent from the first several minutes was Democrat Pat Leahy. I noticed a few Senate staff members pointing upward to the photo gallery and laughing. When I looked up, there was Leahy, hanging out with the photographers, looking a little lost.

Was Senator Leahy actually lost? Or maybe just chilling with the press corps and getting a point of view of the Roberts hearings from our perspective?

During the lunch recess, I had the chance to interview Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham expressed his frustration with the line of questioning coming from Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. Graham said Kennedy was using questions on civil rights precedent to make it appear John Roberts is opposed to civil rights. On Kennedy highlighting differences of opinion between himself as the Reagan White House, Graham said, “That doesn’t mean he’s against people having a fair chance to vote or run for elective office. The effect and intent clause is not code word for you are either for civil rights or against them.”

On whether or not Roberts has been transparent enough with the Judiciary Committee, Graham said, “He’s told us more than I think anyone else in the world could tell us about the law. I think he’s read every case even written, memorized every brief every submitted and is a walking encyclopedia of how the law works”

“The question is has politics dominated the 2005 confirmation politics the way it did not during the Clinton/Bush I confirmation hearings? I think Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden are trying to create the perception that his man is opposed to civil rights in an unfair way.”

I asked Senator Graham if he expects all Democrats on the committee to vote against Roberts. “You can make up whatever reason you want to vote no. You can use any reason you want to vote yes or no. If it becomes that [a 10-8 vote] I will be disappointed. It will be the best evidence yet that the standard has gone away from qualifications to political allegiance.”

John Roberts further addressed the question of whether or not it is appropriate for him to share his personal views on issues that could come before the Supreme Court in future cases. As Roberts noted, if he were to make his personal political philosophy known, he would not be able to judge the merits of specific cases but would instead have to rely on “the transcript of my confirmation hearings” when making legal decisions.

However, Roberts added his personal belief that, “I do think I’ve been more expansive than most nominees … while not doing anything that’s going to undermine the integrity of the court.”

Joe Biden attempted to compare John Roberts’ refusal to answer specific questions to that of a candidate for political office who refused to layout a specific electoral platform. After letting Biden exhaust his allocated time limit, Roberts clarified, “Judges don’t stand for elections. Judges decide and apply cases based on legal standing, not on promises.”

Joe Biden is pushing John Roberts to answer if he believes U.S. citizens have a “fundamental constitutional right” to assisted suicide. Roberts has repeatedly refused to answer how he would rule on such a case, but added, “They will not be based on my personal views but on my understanding of the law.”

Biden responded that because Roberts will not state his personal views on assisted suicide, “We’re rolling the dice on you … You’ve told me nothing judge. It’s kind of interesting this kabuki dance we’re doing here at these hearings.”

Orrin Hatch may have laid down the gauntlet politically this morning at the end of his questioning. Senator Hatch told John Roberts, “I have been through 10 of these hearings. … I’ve never seen anyone explain themselves better than you. If people can’t vote for you it shows they can’t vote for any Republican.”

If you’ve been watching the Roberts hearing this morning, you know the discussion between Roberts and Democratic senators has been more cordial than yesterday. But that could be about to change now that Joe Biden is in front of the cameras.

Sorry for the delay in posting. I am attending today’s hearing for John Roberts. I have been having Internet problems this morning, but the connection is now up and running. I’ll be live blogging the rest of today’s hearing from the hearing room itself.

Liberal news outlets and blogs have been relentless in their criticism of President Bush and fallout from Hurricane Katrina. But now with FEMA under new management and Bush taking responsibility for Katrina-related errors, how many on the left are today giving him credit? It's not a trick question.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter took questions from reporters during the lunch break at today’s hearing for John Roberts. As anyone watching this morning’s hearing knows, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy resorted to attacking Roberts without letting him answer specific questions. To this, Specter said:

“I have great respect for both Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden. But Senator Kennedy was repeatedly not permitting Judge Roberts to answer the question. And he asked one question which had about 14 assumptions in it and then he wouldn’t let him answer that question. Judge Roberts is entitled to answer the questions. Senator Biden did about the same thing. Let him answer.”

Specter also addressed questions about whether or not members of the committee should be expected to vote on Roberts without knowing his views on Roe v. Wade. Specter responded:

“That’s correct. He cannot be required to answer how he‘s going to decide a case that is going to come before the Court. That would undercut the very basics of judicial independence. If he’s trying to buy votes by articulating his position, he’s giving up judicial independence. Can’t do that. Can’t do it. Or at least he’s within his rights in declining to do it. He can do whatever he wants.”

I just spoke with Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director of the Traditional Values Coalition. Lafferty’s group has been demonstrating outside the John Roberts hearings expressing their support for Roberts.

Lafferty tells me her group’s objective is to “educate at the grassroots level” on the issue of abortion. “We’re very pleased with the hearings so far and with John Roberts. The people passing by us on the street have honked and waved in support.”

However, not everyone Lafferty has encountered has been so cordial, “Myself and two of our members were hit on the head by protesters from Planned Parenthood. They hit us with their signs. It’s all very junior high-school. They have their slogans and are trained on how to taunt us with name-calling. But they seemed very frustrated yesterday. They left an hour before they were scheduled to and only had 42 people show up rather than the hundreds they predicted.”

Lafferty noted that CBS News was on the scene yesterday and interviewed protesters from Planned Parenthood but didn’t speak to anyone from the Traditional Values Coalition.

Blogs for Bush is liveblogging the John Roberts hearing.

FEMA Director Mike Brown has resigned.

John McCormack of “Students for Roberts” was on the scene today for the John Roberts protests and counter protests this morning. McCormack writes in to the Buzz:

“I'm a student at George Washington University organizing Students for Roberts. We had about 30 GW students make signs over the past week, but less than ten were able to make it down from GW today. While I was a little disappointed, there were at most only 60 ‘pro-choicers’ at the supreme court this morning and 40 prolifers. I heard that the planned parenthood/naral/now sites said there would be thousands of protestors.”

I can only assume the John Roberts protesters did not get the kind of turnout they were hoping for based on this stack of pre-made, neglected signs left on the sidewalk.

In their release, Feminist Majority writes:

“As Chief Justice, Roberts would be in the nation’s top judicial leadership position and could lead the roll back of the gains made by women and people of color over the past 40 years. His record indicates he would greatly weaken anti-discrimination statutes in employment and education; ignore wage discrimination; gut Title IX; water down voting rights; cut back affirmative action; eliminate the right to privacy (which he has mocked); and reverse Roe v. Wade. The burden is on Roberts to prove otherwise.”

Not a whole lot going on today outside the Senate office buildings. Members of the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority turned up this morning for a vigil and protest leading up to the start of today’s hearing for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

When I stopped by there were about 25 protesters in attendance. Across the street about the same number had gathered in opposition to Roe v. Wade. There were a scattered number of pro-Roberts supporters on the scene as well.

Odds are the number of protesters will increase as the Roberts hearings carry on. Will MoveOn put their protest muscle behind the cause? They have been critical of John Roberts but have not fully entered the fray in opposition to his nomination. At least not to the level I’m accustomed to seeing from their organization.

I’m heading out to the Senate this morning to see what’s going on outside the opening day of hearings for John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts will be on the Buzz radar all this week. Keep checking back throughout the day – I’ll have pictures, reports and news from on the ground.