I mean it's pretty obvious from this, isn't it? I mean if they whole first paragraph is one long swipe at the Illinois senator that hasn't nothing whatsoever to do with what the column is ostensibly about, that he singles out Obama for attack when every single Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted against Southwick, when he seems to find a backhanded way of saying he's like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the Rovian mendacity that he uses to glide between shots at Obama specifically and the actions and words of unnamed Southwick opponents ... it's vintage Will, and perhaps a sign that the Republican establishment fears Obama.
Posted by armand at August 12, 2007 10:39 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsWell, the Republican establishment knows that they're gonna lose. They probably figure they can deal with Hillary, who is a known quantity and likely to govern somewhat like Bill did, but Obama is something else, and combined with a Dem Congress he could make quite a big mess (from their point of view) of things in a short period of time.
Posted by: jacflash at August 12, 2007 12:42 PM | PERMALINKi don't dispute the dicyness of the conflation of southwick's opponents, unspecified, and obama, which is a sort of sleazy move. and moreover there are several ways in which will betrays a familiar degree of ignorance of how courts work (i'm sure obama didn't jump to 7000 from 900 randomly; either there's another way of reviewing opinions that gets to the higher number (unlikely unless southwick's tenure is substantial), or someone, perhaps obama himself, misspoke). but i guess i don't see the potent subtext you do, so much as i see a lazy columnist once again phoning it in. surprise!
Posted by: moon at August 12, 2007 05:57 PM | PERMALINKJosh Marshall has a post referring to a Bazelon piece on the 7000 number - it refers to a question Sen. Durbin posed during the confirmation hearing.
I think it's much more deceptive than phoning it in, because of the gliding between topics and voices that happens throughout the piece, and because I think that after 25 years as one of the top "pundits" or whatever he is in DC, Will knows better than to make the vacuous arguments you refer to about how the courts work. I just don't by that he's that dumb. Perhaps he is, but the structure of the column to me says "mendacity" more than "laziness".
Posted by: Armand at August 12, 2007 06:44 PM | PERMALINK