FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is raking in the political contributions, Schwarzenegger Still Getting Big Donations.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may be slumping in the polls and beset by conflict-of-interest charges, but the governor’s fund-raising team continues to bring in sizable donations, including a $1 million contribution this month.

Schwarzenegger said in January that he would need to raise at least $50 million to support his ballot initiatives in the upcoming Nov. 8 special election. The governor’s top money manager said Wednesday the team is more than halfway to that goal.

“We are on track with what we said publicly we would do,” said Marty Wilson, a senior Schwarzenegger campaign consultant who oversees fund-raising.

I remember Marty when he was an aide with former California Governor Pete Wilson.

The Governor will raise the money and make the Democrats WORK for every vote this November.

The largest of the contributions so far in July was $1 million given to Schwarzenegger’s California Recovery Team by B. Wayne Hughes, chairman of Glendale-based Public Storage Inc., which owns 1,400 storage facilities in 37 states.

Hughes is a major GOP donor, having contributed more than $600,000 to Republican political organizations in 2004.

The Governor will BE BACK.

Technorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Recovery Team, California Special Election, Bear Flag League

Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

So, if they cannot attack Judge Roberts they will go after his wife, Jane. The Boston Globe has Judge Roberts’ Wife Ran Pro-life Group.

Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts has made conflicting statements over the years on Roe v Wade - calling it “settled law” during his 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings but “wrongly decided” while he served as deputy solicitor general.

There’s no doubt, however, where his wife comes down on the hotbutton issue of abortion.

“The role of his lawyer wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, in Feminists for Life, a group dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade, is . . . certain to raise liberal eyebrows,” reports today’s Boston Globe.

In fact, Mrs. Roberts once served as executive vice president for the pro-life group.

On the Feminists for Life web site, the group’s mission statement explains:

“Feminists for Life recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic woman-centered solutions.

“Women deserve better than abortion,” the mission statement continues.

“Feminists for Life continues the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, who opposed abortion.”

The Borkinization of Judge John Roberts has started.

What class!

Attack his wife for her political beliefs and activism.

And here is a blog from the LEFT, And Now for More Political Back-scratching.

Technorati Tags: John Roberts, Jane Sullivan Roberts, Feminists for Life, abortion, pro-life

Daily Pundit has That Didn’t Take Long, Did It?

A filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts is extremely unlikely. The ASSociated press has Democratic Filibuster of Roberts Unlikely.

The possibility of a Democratic filibuster against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in the Republican-controlled Senate seemed to all but disappear Wednesday.

One influential Democrat said Roberts was “in the ballpark” of being a nonconfrontational selection. A Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on Roberts’ nomination, said she did not think the appeals court judge was “filibuster-able.”

“Do I believe this is a filibuster-able nominee? The answer would be no, not at this time I don’t,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a strong abortion-rights supporter and a committee member.

Several of the seven Republicans among the 14 senators who brokered a deal over judicial filibusters indicated they thought a filibuster against Roberts would be unwarranted. Most have already praised Roberts. Their support would make it almost impossible for Democrats to carry out a filibuster.

The President has hit a homerun with this nomination.

This is not to say that the confirmation process will not be contentious, but unless something extremely damaging comes out Judge Roberts will be confirmed.

Captain Ed over at Captains Quarters agrees, Democrats Signal Filibuster Unlikely.

Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll, left, announces his retirement to news staff. Managing Editor Dean P. Baquet, center, will succeed him on Aug. 15. Publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson, right, praised Carroll’s leadership, saying, “We are indebted to him for his extraordinary legacy of journalistic excellence and wish him every happiness in the future.”

The Los Angeles Times has announced that Editor John Carroll is retiring, Baquet Named Times Editor as Carroll Retires.

Editor John S. Carroll, who led the Los Angeles Times to 13 Pulitzer Prizes in five years as the newspaper struggled with declining circulation, retired today and will be succeeded by Managing Editor Dean P. Baquet.

Publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson announced changes this morning in the newsroom, where a festive mood prevailed. Carroll was greeted with 45 seconds of sustained applause.

Baquet, 48, told staffers in Los Angeles, and via telephone hookup to the newspaper’s national and foreign bureaus, he wants them “to do great stories.”

“I want the Los Angeles Times to be the best newspaper in America,” Baquet said.

You have a long way to go!

Another non-Los Angeles editor from the Tribune Company.

SIGH…… Can Riordan or some syndicate buy the Los Angeles Times and restore its California flavor?

Update #1

Editor and Publisher has ‘L.A. Times’ Editor John Carroll Steps Down, Baquet Chosen as Successor.

The company also announced on Wednesday that as part of the leadership transition, the editorial and opinion page editors will now report directly to the publisher.

The Times has cut positions and delayed editorial initiatives because of revenue shortfalls. In May, the paper reported that average daily circulation for the six-month period ending March 31 declined 6.5 percent, compared with the previous year.

Michael Kinsley, the opinion editor lives in Seattle and has done an abysmal job on editorial content. The new editor should choose a new editorial director and send Kinsley packing.

The LA Weekly has some more dirt on the LA Times.

Should California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and candidate for California Treasurer in 2006, remove Steven Pearcy’s painting of the United States sinking into a toilet from the California Department of Justice in Sacramento?

The Calfiornai Republican Party says YES.

“I don’t know why we need to tolerate the cheap artwork of a gadfly with a world view that is so offensive to a majority of the people,” said Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for the California Republican Party.

Flap says YES.

Flap says Bill Lockyer is DEAD MEAT in 2006.

Technorati Tag: Bill Lockyer

Check out Mark in Mexico’s, Bill Lockyear’s official artist.

Anne Coulter apparently says NO.

From Drudge:

FIGHT — FROM THE RIGHT: COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

“We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever… Oh, yeah…we know he’s argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.”

So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.’s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, “hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job.”

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, “Read our lips; Souter’s a reliable conservative.”

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I’m glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they’d better be pursuing the Miss America title.

But, Hugh Hewitt says YES:

John Roberts: A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.

Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideologues to oppose him. Here’s his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.

Full disclosure: Judge Roberts and I were colleagues in the White House Counsel’s Office in 1985/1986. A colleague of his from his Hogan & Hartson days, Dan Poneman, was a guest on the program earlier and a transcript of that conversation will be posted at Radioblogger.com. Poneman is a center-left specialist on national security issues, having served both the first President Bush and President Clinton on the NSC. Poneman’s enthusiasm for the Roberts nomination will be mirrored across official Washington which will have a very hard time summoning any energy to smear as well regarded and liked man as Judge Roberts.

For now, Flap will take Hugh’s recommendation. He knows and has worked with the man.

The President has made a fine choice for the Supreme Court.

Michelle Malkin has SCOTUS WATCH: ANN WEIGHS IN

Trust you’ve seen the Drudge flash on fearless Ann Coulter’s comments about John Roberts. Ann’s full piece is up at her website.

It’s titled “Souter in Roberts clothing,” and concludes:

He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be a game of Russian roulette.

Guess Manuel Miranda was wrong when he wrote last night for the WSJ: “Conservatives around the country went to sleep happy.” (Sentiment echoed by less-informed CNN’s John King.)

Things suddenly got very interesting.

***
Related:

Blogs for Bush rounds-up conservative blogger reax to Roberts here. Among those sharing the skeptical view:

GOPBloggers

Dan Flynn at Flynn Files, who writes:

Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That’s the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown–perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative–let’s face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade–why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate? While Roberts is neither the consensus candidate nor 2005’s David Souter, his views on Roe v. Wade, at least, are unknown. Is a crapshoot the best conservatives can do? On the other hand, the Democrats refused to confirm him when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the bench, and took two years to confirm him when George W. Bush nominated him to the DC Court of Appeals. Perhaps the Democrats know something that we don’t. Time will tell.

***
Previous:

SCOTUS Watch: Hyperventilation and sighs of relief
SCOTUS Watch: Roberts file

Technorati Tags: Anne Coulter, John Roberts, Supreme Court