Writing for Slate, Tim Noah nails exactly why the possible destruction of the Earth later this year when the Large Hadron Collider is switched on isn’t getting much attention in the press:

I can well understand why the Times doesn’t want to give sustained big play to the possibility that the world will end on or around Labor Day. In addition to the civic-minded concern that this might create worldwide panic, there are practical matters of self-interest. If the possibility weren’t realized, as most scientists seem to expect, then the Times would look foolish. If the possibility were realized, it would have no opportunity to collect a Pulitzer, because the Times, the Pulitzer board, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, which gives out the award, and every last Times reader would all be obliterated, along with the rest of the planet.

Makes sense to me.

Arthur Silber is, as am I, fascinated by the cult of personality surrounding Barack Obama.  He notes some anecdotal creepy gushing on a local radio show and then

Reactions of this kind to Obama are fairly common. No, they are not this extreme much of the time, but such statements are far from unusual. And many of Obama’s less obviously deluded supporters fall along the same continuum. Take a look at the woozily sentimental, intellectually reprehensible remarks collected at the beginning of “Obama’s Whitewash,” the third excerpt here, and the comments here. Moreover, this kind of reaction — an emotion-driven response utterly devoid of coherent ideational content, a response that leads far too many people to be enthusiastically willing to believe virtually anything that Obama might proclaim and to follow him anywhere — is one that Obama and his campaign explicitly seek to elicit.

People had better wake the hell up, and they had better study some history very damned fast. I have sometimes remarked, and I repeat the warning here, that the twentieth century was a nonstop train of horrors — yet in one sense, the most terrible and horrifying aspect of the twentieth century is that we learned absolutely nothing from it.

Among the horrors of the twentieth century were several notable leaders who initiated events that led to slaughter and destruction on an ungraspably monumental scale. These charismatic leaders evoked a response from their followers almost identical to that called forth by Obama. These leaders specialized in “personal stories of political conversion.” Doesn’t anyone see the connection? Doesn’t anyone remember any of this?

This, incidentally, from a man who can scarcely imagine voting for a Republican.

James Benjamin goes further:

Although I seriously doubt that Obama is the next Hitler, his followers are every bit as authoritarian as those who followed Bush (or Schwarzenegger, as I seem to recall) just a few years ago, and that’s something a despot, a strongman would want.

[...]

I would not be at all surprised if either Obama himself were revealed to be some sort of wild card authoritarian in his own right, and/or numerous of his followers were wild card authoritarians – i.e., those who can pose as “leftists” but once in a position of power begin to crack down on dissent much like the right-wingers we all know and loathe. Obama’s own embrace of warmongers, neoliberals, and of course of the awful FISA bill that is likely destined to pass does not bode well for those who wish to continue arguing that he is “progressive” (whatever that is supposed to mean any more). The behavior by groups of Obama fanatics on some of the community blogs (lots of bully tactics as I recall) and the apparent efforts by Obama partisans to shut down individually run anti-Obama blogs is a relatively mild expression of that authoritarianism; we should keep in mind that we’re still early in the game.

Jesse Taylor believes this line of reasoning has guano-level sanity and snarks, “While he lacks any political element of fascism in his platform, he makes up for it in some people liking him a lot, which is like 60% of fascism anyway.”

Obama is quite possibly the most charismatic politician of my lifetime.  Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both had superb oratorical skills and charismatic personalities but neither made crowds swoon to the extent Obama does.  John Kennedy was murdered before I was born and it’s hard for me to assess him apart from the strange fascination and conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination plot.  Perhaps Dwight Eisenhower and, certainly, Franklin Roosevelt had it.

Like Silber, it worries me when people get so emotionally involved in their leaders.  I’m not concerned that Obama is going to annex Canada and start the ethnic cleansing of white working class Appalachians and people named Larry;  Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were evil men, not good ones who went mad with too much power.

Then again, I don’t think that George Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger (or even Rudy Giuliani) are “authoritarians,” “despots,” or “strongmen,” either.  Executives naturally believe in the rightness of their cause and seek to push the envelope of their power when they’re being thwarted by inconvenient institutions.  Some do so more than others.

The problem with cults of personality in the American experience is it that it furthers our tendency to trust government to take care of us.  FDR was well meaning in constructing the New Deal and the vast machinery of government bureaucracy needed to support it to combat the unique challenges of the Great Depression; unfortunately, the solution long outlasted the crisis.  Similarly, I believe torture, rendition, habeus corpus suspension, the Department of Homeland Security, and the other over-reactions to the 9/11 attacks were well intentioned measures to make us safer.

Both Obama and his opponent, John McCain, have a streak of crusading righteousness in them that leads to a dismissiveness to criticism.  Some of our best and some of our worst presidents have had it.   Fortunately, we have a set of institutions — separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism — and a political culture that make realizing authoritarian ideals difficult.

via memeorandum

Yesterday, John McCain announced that he was “honored” to receive the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, a Texas-based preacher who can probably be most charitably described as “pro-Apocalypse”. McCain lavished praise on him for being “pro-Israel”, but as Sarah Posner (via Matthew Yglesias) points out, what he actually stands for is the destruction of Israel in order to facilitate the End Times.

Comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler, Hagee argues that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons must be stopped to protect America and Israel from a nuclear attack. Preying on legitimate worries about terrorism, and invoking 9-11, he vividly describes a supposed Iranian-led plan to simultaneously explode nuclear suitcase bombs in seven American cities, or to use an electromagnetic pulse device to create “an American Hiroshima.”

When addressing audiences receptive to Scriptural prophecy, however, Hagee welcomes the coming confrontation. He argues that a strike against Iran will cause Arab nations to unite under Russia’s leadership, as outlined in chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekiel, leading to an “inferno [that] will explode across the Middle East, plunging the world toward Armageddon.” During his appearance on Hinn’s program at the end of last March, for example, the host enthused, “We are living in the last days. These are the most exciting days in church history,” but then went on to add, “We are facing now [the] most dangerous moment for America.” At one point, Hinn clapped his hands in delight and shouted, “Yes! Glory!” and then urged his viewers to donate money faster because he is running out of time to preach the gospel.

Paging Tim Russert: How about asking McCain if he supports uniting the Arab nations against Israel under the control of Moscow?

In addition to Hagee’s pro-Apocalypse views (and, for the record, let me state that I am anti-Apocalypse), he also has a long, long record of bigotry.

For example, John Hagee is on record as stating that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish New Orleans for hosting a gay pride parade:

All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.

So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans. (link via Glenn Greenwald)

In addition to his antiquated views on meterology and homosexuality, Hagee also has a long history of anti-Catholic bigotry, to the point where he blames the Holocaust on Hitler’s education in Catholic schools. Seriously.

Of course, I suppose that according to Hagee, Hitler was merely doing God’s will:

In “Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude To war” Hagee has stated that Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves by rebelling against God and that the Holocaust was God’s way of forcing Jews to move to Israel where, Hagee predicts according to his interpretation of Biblical scripture, they will be mostly killed in the apocalyptic Mideast conflict Hagee’s new lobbying group seems to be working to provoke and which John Hagee believes to be a necessary precondition for the “Rapture” that will lift Christians, but not Jews, bodily into Heaven to enjoy physical immortality amidst paradise.

You heard that right, folks. John Hagee, the man that John McCain is “honored” to have the support of, believes that God is reponsible for the Holocaust.

Look, I understand that a candidate cannot necessarily be held responsible for the thoughts and opinions of their supporters. I am on record as saying that. Nor do I believe that a political candidate has any kind of obligation to repudiate every bad idea of every supporter–that’s mostly a waste of time.

But when a political candidate makes a plane trip to accept the endorsement of a prominent person, in public, and states that they accept that endorsement and are “honored” to do so, I think that speaks volumes about the candidate. I think that John McCain has a lot of explaining to do about what, exactly, is “honorable” about having the support of a pro-Apocalypse, homophobic, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, pro-Holocaust bigot.

The Smell Our Dairy Air Edition OTB Caption Contest^TM is now over.

(AFP/Getty Images/File/Chip Somodevilla)

THE WINNERS

First: MikeM – Why, yes, we ARE glad to meet you. And that’s no bull!

Second: charles austin – No one was amused that Phil used three fake teats.

Third: radio free fred – “Mad Cow Disease Or Just Pissed Off?”

HONORABLE MENTION

yetanotherjohn – Democrats found that the larger than expected Iowa caucus turn out seemed to be from voters with a particular beef.

Bithead – Why that’s udderly ridicowlus.

chris – All the moo’s that’s fit to print

Deathlok – Man in back(not seen): Slow down on Clowning!! Stop The Clowning!! What?!? Damn! I got the wrong costume.

markm – “In what some believe is a possible sign of Armageddon…bipedal cloned cows mixed with Dell brand bipedal cows AND the bipedal cows from those California Milk Producers commercials..when asked about the intergrazing, one cow was herd to say “well, we’ll just have to let the chips fall where they may”"

John425 – Legal Defense Team of P.E.T.A. poses for group photo before marching to Supreme Court.

elliot – Cow with the ‘Got Milk?’ sign in front: “Hey you, I hope that’s a fake teat you’re poking me with back there.”

RODNEY’S BOTTOM OF THE BARREL

Looks we really stepped in it this time.

We demand 15%

Mad Cows picketing Crane, Poole, and Schmidt.

‘Teats not reTreats,’ was the conservative response to ‘Breasts not Bombs.’

The Thursday Contest is already anticipating a turnover in the polls.

Matthew Yglesias seeks to justify his “reputation in the blogosphere as a leading Michael Bay apologist” by providing a video of a Levis spot whereby readers might “truly glimpse the man’s skillz.” The commercial is rather entertaining.

Then again, I’m not sure where the near-consensus among movie critics that Michael Bay makes terrible moves comes from. For example, a profile in the most recent Details observes,

You most likely already have strong opinions about Bay, and not the good kind. People who care about culture and quality brand Bay and his oeuvre as shamefully, offensively hollow. It doesn’t matter that he owns a private jet, that he dates Playboy Playmates, that he lives bigger and badder than you ever will—he is Carrot Top with a megaphone.

Yet, of the handful of his movies I’ve seen, the only one I didn’t like at all was “Pearl Harbor.” I haven’t seen any of his various horror flicks, but then that’s not a genre I tend to enjoy. Nor have I seen “Playboy Video Centerfold: Kerri Kendall (One woman’s erotic, imaginative adventure)” but, really, how bad could it be?

“The Rock” was fun even if the plot was rather far-fetched. “Bad Boys” was funny; “Bad Boys II,” meanwhile, looked so obviously bad that I never bothered to see it. And I’m apparently the only one who liked “Armageddon,” which even star Bruce Willis routinely mocks.

Sure, none of them are exactly Shakespeare. And they’re not likely to have the long term cultural impact of “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones,” or “Rocky.” But so what?

Bay doesn’t pretend he’s making art; he’s just making entertaining movies people want to see. Judging by the results, he’s succeeding.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, argues that the phrase “war on terror” has “created a culture of fear in America” which is wasting billions of dollars, innumerable man hours, and aiding the terrorists.

The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own — and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.

This is a too-nostalgic view of the past and a bizarre view of the present.

We responded to the 9/11 attacks every bit as forcefully as we did Pearl Harbor.

FDR was responding to the Great Depression, not a series of assaults on the homeland, when he uttered the famous phrase about fear. Regardless, President Bush repeatedly told the public that we would persevere and that they should go on with their own lives. Indeed, he’s been repeatedly criticized for failing to call on the citizenry to make sacrifices. (See Joe Katzman’s essay “War As A Spectator Sport” from this morning for an updated take.)

We had all manner of ridiculous panic during the Cold War, including the nonsense bout a “missile gap” that caused us to race the Soviets to the moon, proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, people building bomb shelters in their back yards, and nonsensical drills where children were taught that they could survive nuclear Armageddon by cowering under their desks.

Conversely, most of us are incredibly cynical now about color coded terror alerts and the various silly security procedures enacted to protect us against them. Who among is panicking and worried about the next terror attack? I live in the Washington, D.C. metro area, the most obvious target of such an attack, and have no sense that we’re at war except when I enter an airport or certain buildings.

That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States.

Those countries suffered isolated attacks by domestic terrorist groups. None suffered anything like the scale of the 9/11 attacks, let alone repeated attacks by foreign terrorists. And, indeed, why is the idea that al Qaeda could attack on American soil “absurd.” They already have. Multiple times.

Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.

There’s not much doubt about this. Then again, acting as if the possibility of terrorist attacks doesn’t exist is hardly a viable option.

That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable.

The hell it isn’t. Indeed, if by “America” you mean its 300 million-odd citizens, the idea is laughably absurd. How many people do you know that are seriously worried about terror attacks on a day-to-day, let alone hour-by-hour or minute-by-minute basis?

I’ve flown in and out of Dulles airport, launching point for two of the 9/11 planes, dozens of times over the last five years. I’ve never had the sense that anyone was particularly worried about anything but missing their flight, too small seats, or screaming babies. Most view the security checks as, it best, an annoying inconvenience that one must endure.

A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival.

That ain’t fear, Zbig, it’s politics.

Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a journalistic office, I had to pass through one of the absurd “security checks” that have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings in this capital — and in New York City. A uniformed guard required me to fill out a form, show an I.D. and in this case explain in writing the purpose of my visit. Would a visiting terrorist indicate in writing that the purpose is “to blow up the building”? Would the guard be able to arrest such a self-confessing, would-be suicide bomber? To make matters more absurd, large department stores, with their crowds of shoppers, do not have any comparable procedures. Nor do concert halls or movie theaters. Yet such “security” procedures have become routine, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and further contributing to a siege mentality.

This is CYA at work, not a show that we’re genuinely scared. Is it kabuki? Yep. Should we stop it? Yup. But companies, let alone government agencies, that don’t adopt these procedures assume massive liability in the incredibly unlikely event a terrorist attack does happen.

Government at every level has stimulated the paranoia. Consider, for example, the electronic billboards over interstate highways urging motorists to “Report Suspicious Activity” (drivers in turbans?). Some mass media have made their own contribution. The cable channels and some print media have found that horror scenarios attract audiences, while terror “experts” as “consultants” provide authenticity for the apocalyptic visions fed to the American public. Hence the proliferation of programs with bearded “terrorists” as the central villains. Their general effect is to reinforce the sense of the unknown but lurking danger that is said to increasingly threaten the lives of all Americans.

Have you ever watched local television during tornado season? Hurricane coverage? Car chase coverage? The Anna Nicole Smith, Jean Benet Ramsey, O.J. Simpson, Natalie Holloway, and dozens of similar stories? That’s tabloidization and low culture, not paranoia.

The atmosphere generated by the “war on terror” has encouraged legal and political harassment of Arab Americans (generally loyal Americans) for conduct that has not been unique to them. A case in point is the reported harassment of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for its attempts to emulate, not very successfully, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Some House Republicans recently described CAIR members as “terrorist apologists” who should not be allowed to use a Capitol meeting room for a panel discussion.

Dude. I’m no fan of AIPAC but CAIR ain’t no AIPAC.

The record is even more troubling in the general area of civil rights. The culture of fear has bred intolerance, suspicion of foreigners and the adoption of legal procedures that undermine fundamental notions of justice. Innocent until proven guilty has been diluted if not undone, with some — even U.S. citizens — incarcerated for lengthy periods of time without effective and prompt access to due process. There is no known, hard evidence that such excess has prevented significant acts of terrorism, and convictions for would-be terrorists of any kind have been few and far between. Someday Americans will be as ashamed of this record as they now have become of the earlier instances in U.S. history of panic by the many prompting intolerance against the few.

Not much argument there. We’re fighting a stateless enemy and haven’t figured out how to do it. The existing rules of the game don’t work because this isn’t pure “war” nor is it simply “crime fighting.” The natural course of action for governments, let alone bureaucracies designated to ensure Homeland Security, is excess.

Phil Carter agrees with Brzezinski, at least at the high level:

It strains reason to include a Pork Festival on a list of high-value targets that Al Qaeda might hit within the U.S. But such are the decisions engendered by nearly six years of rudderless policy in this area. To paraphase Sen. Barack Obama, I’m not against all anti-terrorism measures — I’m against stupid ones. It’s been clear to me for some time that we were doing a great deal in the anti-terrorism arena, but not accomplishing very much. The reorganization of federal agencies into DHS, the passage of multiple omnibus legislative packages, the whole 9/11 Commission process — these were all acts of Kabuki theater, done more for symbolic value than operational reasons. The results have been telling.

I agree completely. I though creating DHS was nuts, federalizing airport security guards idiotic, and think subjecting citizens to invasive searches without probable cause not only pointless but unconstitutional (see Mark Kleiman on the latest outrages in that department).

Again, though, that’s the natural outgrowth of the political process. Politicians have a natural instinct to try to “do something” when there’s a big screw-up in order to appease the public. Assembling blue ribbon panels to investigate is virtually always a part of that as is bureaucratic reorganization. It’s annoying and sometimes even dangerous; it’s almost unavoidable, however.

Brzezinski closes:

Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, “Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia”? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.

Such a leader would be destroyed by demagogic TV spots and debate one-liners. A platform of “less security” isn’t going to sell.

A lengthy profile of Judge Samuel Alito in today’s NYT paints him as an uncommonly decent, modest man who, while very conservative is not an activist.

After a Career of Quiet Focus, Alito Is Leaving the Background

One weekend in 1986, two young lawyers working for Samuel A. Alito Jr., then a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, faced a looming deadline for a legal analysis and realized they would have to work all night to get it done. “In the legal world, most bosses would say, ‘This is what I want on my desk in the morning,’ ” said John F. Manning, one of the lawyers. “Sam stayed with us. He went out and got pizza and he pulled the all-nighter with us. I’ve never seen anything like that before or since.”

Throughout his life – ever since he resolved his high school indecision between his dream of a career in baseball or a life in law – the self-effacing Judge Alito, President Bush’s new choice for the Supreme Court, has made his mark with quiet dedication rather than showy display. He has cloaked his formidable intellect in modesty, an attribute both surprising and endearing to colleagues in high-octane legal circles.

While Judge Alito, 55, has built a reputation for decency, he has also compiled a conservative record that is coming under intense scrutiny from activists on the left and the right who understand his potential for shifting the balance on the bench. Larry Lustberg, a former federal prosecutor who has known Judge Alito for 22 years, called him “totally capable, brilliant and nice.” But Mr. Lustberg added, “Make no mistake: he will move the court to the right, and this confirmation process is really going to be a question about whether Congress and the country wants to move this court to the right.”

Theoretically, that’s what the 2004 election was about and these hearings are about whether Alito is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Practically, Lustberg is right.

Judge Alito’s jurisprudence has been methodical, cautious, respectful of precedent and solidly conservative, legal scholars said. In cases involving the great issues of the day – abortion, the death penalty and the separation of church and state – Judge Alito has typically taken the conservative side. Yet he has not flaunted his political views inside or outside the courthouse. Friends say Judge Alito seems to have inherited a distaste for shows of ideology from his father, an Italian immigrant who became research director for the New Jersey Legislature and had to rigorously avoid partisanship.

Judge Alito won prestigious academic prizes while at Princeton and Yale Law School, where he stood out for his conservative views, which were in the minority, as well as for his civility in engaging ideological opponents. “The notion that he’s an extreme conservative is wrong,” said Mark Dwyer, Judge Alito’s fellow student at Princeton and roommate at Yale. “Sam is conservative because he’s a straightforward believer in judicial restraint – that is, a judge’s personal views should not dictate the outcome of the case.” Even in the Reagan Justice Department, where a palpable sense of conservative triumph was in the air, “I never got the sense that he thought about legal issues in an ideological way,” said Mr. Manning, now a professor at Harvard Law School.

But Walter F. Murphy, an emeritus professor at Princeton who supervised Judge Alito’s undergraduate thesis on the Italian Constitutional Court and has kept up with him in the years since, said his former student believed in ruling according to an “original understanding” of the Constitution. The phrase is generally used to describe legal theorists, like Justice Antonin Scalia, who believe judges should try to figure out what the Constitution’s drafters would have ruled in contemporary cases. Friends say references to Judge Alito as “Scalito,” a name meant to suggest that he is a clone of Justice Scalia, the court’s most robust conservative, are off the mark and demeaning.

Indeed, Scalia scoffs at the notion that judges should try to decipher what the authors of relevent documents meant, prefering to see what they actually wrote.

At Yale Law School, where he was in the class behind Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge Alito was widely regarded as one of the smartest students, said Peter Goldberger, a classmate. Mr. Goldberger, who describes himself as a staunch liberal, said it was always enjoyable to get into a discussion with the young Mr. Alito. “We fundamentally disagreed over just about everything,” he said, “but it led to cheerful jousting.”

Mr. Goldberger, who has also argued dozens of criminal appeals before Judge Alito, said his style on the bench – as the member of a three-judge panel who talks the least but asks the most perceptive questions – recalled their Yale days. “At Yale, he wasn’t someone who spoke frequently in class,” Mr. Goldberger said, “but when he did it was something you wished you had said. It’s the same way on the bench. He’s always asking the right question.”

Anthony T. Kronman, a Yale classmate who went on to become dean of the law school from 1994 to 2004, said Judge Alito stood apart from many classmates who wanted to be social reformers and saw the law as an instrument of change. “He appreciated the traditions,” Mr. Kronman said. “He seemed to take real pleasure in the intricacies of the law.”‘ Then, as later, he said, Judge Alito did not wear his political leanings conspicuously. “If you asked me the day we graduated whether Sam was a Republican or Democrat,” he said, “I couldn’t have told you.”

Alito certainly comes across as exactly the kind of person one would want a Republican president to nominate to the Supreme Court. Yes, he will likely rule in a way that will favor conservative policy positions–although not always, as Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist often showed, since conservative jurisprudence and conservative governance are not the same. But he’ll approach cases with intellectual nuance and humility.

My guess is that, like John Roberts, most Americans will decide that Alito is a good nominee and that even a lot of Senate Demoocrats will agree.

Update (0646) : WaPo’s Charles Babbington argues that Republican moderates could derail Alito.

As Democrats Lead Opposition, GOP Moderates May Control Vote (p. A9)

Senate Democrats will lead the opposition to Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s Supreme Court nomination, but a handful of Republican moderates could ultimately decide its outcome, several analysts and lawmakers said yesterday. The roughly half-dozen GOP senators who support abortion rights are scrutinizing Alito’s dissent in a major 1991 abortion case. If they determine that his judicial record or his answers to questions signal a willingness to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, they will fall under heavy pressure to oppose him, said congressional scholars and analysts.

With Republicans holding 55 of the Senate’s 100 seats — and with Democrats raising the possibility of a filibuster, in which 41 senators could prevent a confirmation vote — Alito can withstand few Republican defections if Democrats solidly oppose him. That is by no means certain, experts note, but it is possible.

[...]

His first inquisitor will be Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a moderate who supports abortion rights and is viewed with deep suspicion by the far right. The nomination “certainly puts Specter in a very awkward position,” said Ross K. Baker, a congressional scholar at Rutgers University. “He has been so outspoken in being pro-choice, if he gets a hint that Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade , he would certainly be against his confirmation.” Yesterday, Specter met with Alito for more than an hour. He later told reporters the nominee signaled he would be reluctant to overturn any Supreme Court ruling that had been reaffirmed many times over many years, as Roe has been. “I think he went farther than [Chief Justice John G.] Roberts went” in agreeing that long-standing rulings deserve great respect, Specter said. “He used the term ’sliding scale,’ and said that when a case has been reaffirmed many times, it has extra — I think he said ‘weight’ — as a precedent.”

The Senate’s other best-known Republicans who support abortion rights — Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine, and Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island — issued cautious statements yesterday. Chafee said the Alito nomination “raises many concerns,” and that the dissent in Casey “showed a narrow view of a woman’s right to choose.” A few other Republican senators, including Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.), generally eschew the “pro-choice” label but say the right to legal abortions under some circumstances should remain.

The notion of even a few GOP defections could prove worrisome to the White House. All 55 Republicans, plus 22 of the 44 Democrats, voted to confirm Roberts as chief justice Sept. 29. Alito is virtually certain to draw more Democratic opposition than Roberts did, making every Republican vote more important.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that any of these Republicans will vote against Alito based on the abortion issue. Further, even some of the Gang of 14 are signaling their support:

Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), members of the bipartisan Gang of 14 that drafted a pact on judicial filibusters in May, said they almost certainly would oppose an effort to use endless debate to keep Alito’s confirmation from reaching a Senate vote.

John McCain, too, issued a supportive statement yesterday. My guess is that Alito will get fewer votes than John Roberts but will nonetheless be confirmed easily. Roberts got 78 votes, including all 55 Republicans, half the 44 Democrats and even “independent” James Jeffords.

Update (0843): More evidence that Alito is likely to pass muster with the moderates:

Specter goes to bat for high court nominee (MSNBC)

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., sent strong signals Monday that he would use all his clout to help federal appeals court judge Samuel Alito win confirmation to the Supreme Court. Time and again Specter used his Monday afternoon press conference to defend President Bush’s nominee to the high court and to justify some of his controversial rulings. “I think he’ll be an excellent witness,” Specter predicted. Drawing an implicit contrast with ex-nominee Harriet Miers, who withdrew last week after getting a tepid reception from the Senate, Specter said “he’s a real legal scholar beyond any question.”

This makes breathless pieces like this seem hyperbolic:

Both parties prepared for ‘Armageddon’ fight (WaTi)

Senate Democrats and Republicans — along with interest groups both for and against Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s Supreme Court nomination — fell into formation yesterday to begin the battle they’ve been expecting for more than a decade. “This one is going to be Armageddon,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, acknowledged that the fight will be tough, but predicted confirmation before the end of the year. “In 1990, a Democrat-controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Alito as a circuit judge,” Mr. Frist said in a statement dispatched 27 minutes before President Bush announced his selection. “I hope that my colleagues will give his nomination a fair opportunity this time as well.”

Moments later, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, took to the ramparts opposite Mr. Frist. “It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor, who would unify us,” he said. “This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people.” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking minority on the Judiciary Committee, called the nomination “needlessly provocative.”

The usual suspects are stoking up the fires. Ultimately, though, the GOP has the votes to pass this guy and the Democrats aren’t going to go to war over a guy the general public will almost certainly find within the mainstream. Since at least three Republican members of the Gang of 14 have indicated that they don’t think “unusual circumstances” are in play, it also strikes me as incredibly unlikely that the Democrats want to stake the fight over the “nuclear option” on this nominee.

Andrew Bacevich has an interesting op-ed in today’s NYT arguing that recent events demonstrate that Congress needs to take back more control of the war power.

War Powers in the Age of Terror

WHEN senators this month asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about possible military action against Syria or Iran, she recited the administration’s standard response: all options remain “on the table.” Pressed on whether any such action might require congressional authorization, Ms. Rice demurred. “I don’t want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers,” she said, adding that “the president retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war in Iraq.”

Although Ms. Rice’s evasion exhausted the committee’s attention span, the war powers issue cries out for attention. In a post-9/11 world, what limits – if any – exist on the president’s authority to use force?

The Constitution addresses the matter with apparent clarity. Article I, Section 8 assigns to Congress the authority “to declare war.” After 1945, however, the perceived imperatives of waging the cold war all but nullified this provision. When it came to using force, presidents exercised wide discretion, ordering American troops into action and notifying Congress after the fact. The legislative branch no longer “declared” war; at most, it issued blank checks that the White House cashed at its convenience. Occasional efforts to constrain presidential freedom of action, like the Vietnam-inspired War Powers Resolution of 1973, accomplished little.

After 9/11, the Bush administration wasted little time in expanding executive prerogatives even further. Acting in his capacity as commander in chief, President Bush committed the nation to open-ended war on a global scale. Concluding that eradicating terrorism meant going permanently on the offensive, he promulgated a doctrine of preventive war. Finding that Saddam Hussein posed a clear and present danger, he moved to put this Bush Doctrine into effect in Iraq.

[...]

In the interests of national security, earlier generations endowed whoever happened to occupy the Oval Office with the authority to unleash Armageddon. The perceived urgency of the Soviet threat took precedence over constitutional scruples. Deterring yesterday’s enemy meant being able to wage war in an instant, with one man issuing the orders.

But defeating today’s jihadists, who are unlikely to be impressed by the prospect of incineration, requires a different strategy. Victory will come when we have deprived violent radical Islam of its claim to legitimacy. Incorporating military power into that effort will require prudence – we have seen the consequences that rashness can produce. Hardly less important, sustaining military commitments once undertaken will demand a national consensus, which existed after 9/11 but which the present administration has since squandered.

In the interests of national security today, we should curb presidential war-making powers. A hitherto compliant Congress must reclaim the institutional authority conferred upon it by the Constitution. When it comes to wars, the first responsibility of the legislative branch is not to support the commander in chief. It is to exercise independent judgment, an obligation that transcends party. Members of Congress who lack the wit or the moral courage to fulfill this obligation ought to be held accountable by voters.

While I have some quibbles with Bacevich–notably the fact that Congress acted affirmatively in giving President Bush near carte blanche to prosecute the global war on terror and then again for military action in Iraq–I agree that the automatic deference to the executive branch in general and the president in particular is problematic. In repelling a foreign invasion or taking immediate, decisive action in a crisis, we can not afford the time it takes for a legislative body to act. In dealing with quasi-permanent problems like Islamist terrorism, the legislature should indeed be involved.

Interestingly, although likely coincidentally, the NYT has a page 1 story that buttresses the need for checks and balances in warfighting:

Doubts Cast On Vietnam Incident, But Secret Study Stays Classified

The National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that during the Tonkin Gulf episode, which helped precipitate the Vietnam War, N.S.A. officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence to cover up their mistakes, two people familiar with the historian’s work say.

The historian’s conclusion is the first serious accusation that communications intercepted by the N.S.A., the secretive eavesdropping and code-breaking agency, were falsified so that they made it look as if North Vietnam had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964, two days after a previous clash. President Lyndon B. Johnson cited the supposed attack to persuade Congress to authorize broad military action in Vietnam, but most historians have concluded in recent years that there was no second attack.

The N.S.A. historian, Robert J. Hanyok, found a pattern of translation mistakes that went uncorrected, altered intercept times and selective citation of intelligence that persuaded him that midlevel agency officers had deliberately skewed the evidence. Mr. Hanyok concluded that they had done it not out of any political motive but to cover up earlier errors, and that top N.S.A. and defense officials and Johnson neither knew about nor condoned the deception.

Mr. Hanyok’s findings were published nearly five years ago in a classified in-house journal, and starting in 2002 he and other government historians argued that it should be made public. But their effort was rebuffed by higher-level agency policymakers, who by the next year were fearful that it might prompt uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, according to an intelligence official familiar with some internal discussions of the matter.

[...]

Both men said Mr. Hanyok believed the initial misinterpretation of North Vietnamese intercepts was probably an honest mistake. But after months of detective work in N.S.A.’s archives, he concluded that midlevel agency officials discovered the error almost immediately but covered it up and doctored documents so that they appeared to provide evidence of an attack. “Rather than come clean about their mistake, they helped launch the United States into a bloody war that would last for 10 years,” Mr. Aid said.

It seems that, regardless of era or party, total power over the national security apparatus is too much to entrust to any branch of government. In most cases, this is not out of any corruption or malice but simply fervent belief in a public policy direction that the administration thinks best for the nation.