I’m just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that the politics of having two Supreme Court vacancies almost necessitates that Bush nominate two very conservative judges. Why? Consider his three options:

(1) Nominate two moderates. Signs a death warrant for Republican senatorial candidates on 2006. No way.

(2) Nominate a moderate and a conservative. This virtually assures that the conservative nominee will be filibustered, no matter how qualified he or she is. Democrats can point to the squishy nominee they’re letting through and then solemnly intone that they aren’t obstructionists, it’s just that they can’t in good conscience vote for the Neanderthal/fascist the president has nominated for the other seat. It’s a win-win proposition for Democrats and a sure loser for Bush.

(3) Nominate two staunch conservatives. If Bush nominates two judges whose conservative views are almost indistinguishable, Democrats won’t be able to oppose one without opposing both. And if they’re opposing two of the president’s nominees, they’ll have an awfully hard time not looking like knee-jerk partisan obstructionists.

Even if the president wanted to nominate a moderate like Alberto Gonzales, having two vacancies makes it very difficult for him to do so. My guess is, having the second seat open turns the Court from being a sticky wicket into a huge winner for Republicans (provided Bush picks smart, clean people).

Is anti-Thetanism the last socially acceptable bigotry? There’s no other explanation as to why the normally docile–nay, subservient–entertainment press has simply killed Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes for their upcoming sham marriage. They’ve let a thousand bigger contrivances slide, but they seem unwilling to let this go until one part of the happy couple says, “Xenu be damned, you’re right: It was all a stunt!”

The latest broadside comes from W magazine, with a story so mean it could have appeared in Spy or the New York Observer. Read it in toto; it’s hard to believe. So mean, in fact, that it even makes me a little uneasy.

Well, not really.

Props go out to the Old Man, George H.W. Bush, who, along with wife Barbara, was seen dining the other night at Morton’s Steakhouse in downtown Washington. According to the Washington Post, about ten groups, consisting of children and adults, went up to get their picture with the former first couple, who happily obliged. But where credit is due is in what exactly the 81-year-old skydiver ate: oysters on the half shell, a Porterhouse steak, and chocolate cake. (No bottle of Ensure for this guy!)

David Ansen has an interesting piece in Newsweek asking if today’s famous stars are making movies which will last. Ansen looks at the “batting averages” of today’s leading men and ladies and stacks them up against the likes of Cary Grant. Pretty good stuff.

The only problem is that Ansen ignores Tom Hanks, who is about as close a thing as we have to a throw-back star, and who’s batting average of wheat-to-chaff is probably the best of any working A-list actor.

(Also, God bless him, Ansen exposes Brad Pitt for the fraud that he is. His drawing power is about on par with Jessica Alba’s, but yet everyone insists he’s “Hollywood royalty.” Why is that? Adam Sandler movies open twice as big as Pitt vehicles, but no one gives him the recognition he deserves.)

Just some of what I’m reading this afternoon. Andrew Sullivan is without equal today as one would expect. For pics, I’ve visited The Guardian. For angry liberal brits, I’ve visited
Life’s Rich Pageant and, shades of the Nick Hornby character in How to Be Good the Yorkshire Ranter. For a sip of Brit Stoicism, Tim Worstall might be your cup of tea.

A new pet peeve of mine is the use of the phrase “first person” by editors looking for a new name for profiles and interviews. The Washington Post magazine has a “first person” feature, in which the first person, the subject of the article, does not actually write the piece. Yes, “first person” written by someone else. And now the phoney new lifestyle magazine Washington D.C. Style calls its short profile of 16-year-old soccer phenom Freddy Adu a “first person” piece, though it is written by one Robert Strauss. I would like to read a history of decorative type in which words and punctuation and intentional misspelling are used for the sake of their debatable visual appeal as opposed to their actual functions. One would think that professional writers and editors would be the last to go along with this patent insult to the very knowledge they’ve presumably spent years and years acquiring.

Republicans looking for political gains in the Hispanic vote with a Gonzalez nomination may want to consider an even more popular Hispanic who was also sworn to uphold the law. I’m talking about Erik Estrada, aka Officer Francis Llewellyn ‘Ponch’ Poncherello, . Thanks to the Volokh conspiracy for dragging out an important 2003 Washington Times story.

I’m with Erasmus, who has an excellent quote from the Last Lion.