It is not a particularly profound or originial insight to point out that Virginia's two U.S. Senators, John Warner and George Allen, are very different people. John Warner, as we have discussed before, is more of a traditional, moderate/conservative, pro-business, budget balancing, international treaty supporting, compromise making, tradition (and US constitution) respecting group. George Allen, in contrast, is a leading member of the anti-tax absolutist and religious extremist gang. In other words, Allen may seem like an amiable fellow but don't be fooled, he is part of the no-compromise, "my way or the highway," ?take no prisoners?/?from my cold dead hands? Taliban wing of the Republican party. The profound differences between John Warner's Traditional Moderate Republicanism and George Allen's Right-Wing Social and Religious Activist Conservatism could come to a major head in coming weeks and months over a successor to moderate/middle-of-the-road justice Sandra Day O'Connor. How seriously Warner and Allen clash here will provide an early reading as to whether, and how badly, the Republicans will self-destruct into an intra-party "Civil War" (while bitterly dividing the country even futher in the process) vs. whether they will settle on a consenus candidate like Sandra Day O'Connor herself.
The reactions by Warner and Allen yesterday were telling. First, John Warner, as reported by the Frederickburg Free Lance-Star:
Warner said the nomination is a "magnificent opportunity" for Bush to bring the nation together in time of war.The president, Warner said, "can step forward and be a uniter, not a divider, in this nomination by selecting someone that will gain the confidence of the majority of Americans; that will enable the two sides here to remove the center aisle, and that we can join [behind] in a bipartisan way and give strong ratification," according to a transcript provided by the senator's office.
George Allen, on the other hand, had little to say except that heurged President Bush to select someone who "who will apply the law not invent it." That, by the way, is code language -- an indirect slam at O'Connor and the whole concept of moderation on the court. Rhetoric about "interpresting the law not making" it notwithstanding, George Allen wants judicial activists, as long as they're right-wing judicial activists, on our courts. That could become absolutely crystal clear once a successor to Sandra Day O'Connor is chosen.
By the way, Tim Kaine appears to be firmly in the John Warner/centrist camp on this issue, saying:
As the president seeks a candidate to fill this new vacancy... I urge him to offer a nominee in the tradition of Justice O'Connor - a jurist with the courage to put the Constitution before ideology.
Jerry Kilgore, meanwhile, has said nothing publicly so far on the O'Connor retirement. However, his close ally Eric Cantor commented that he would like a "strict constructionist 'who won't legislate from the bench,'" while refusing to comment on whether or not he considered Roe v. Wade to be an example of legislating from the bench. Now, why am I not surprised that Jerry "The Duck' Kilgore has nothing to say on this critically important issue? And why am I not surprised that his close friend and political soulmate, Eric Cantor, is trying to waffle, hedge, and hide his extreme right-wing agenda? That's just the Kilgore/Cantor way, unfortunately.