Judge David Hamilton confirmed to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

by: BrianK

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 17:04:26 PM EST

Just two days after 70 Senators voted to break the deadlock and move forward with his nomination, Hoosier Judge David Hamilton was confirmed by the full Senate this afternoon by a vote of 59-39. Senator Lugar was the only Republican to vote for confirmation.

Judge Hamilton, a Bloomington native, has served on the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana since 1994. Hamilton also served as counsel to then-Governor Bayh from 1989-1991. He was President Obama's first nominee to the federal bench in March, but his nomination has been held up by Republican Senators since the Judiciary Committee endorsed him in June.

Judge Hamilton is the nephew of former Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, and the brother-in-law of Obama's stalled nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, IU Professor Dawn Johnsen.

Lugar Praises Obama's Cairo Speech

by: BrianK

Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 22:54:06 PM EDT

However, during an interview with Bloomberg News this past weekend, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member of Foreign Relations Committee, broke ranks with his party's criticism of Obama. Lugar called it an "important speech," adding that he "thought" it "struck the right tone." Asked if Obama was "tough enough" on Iran, Lugar responded, "Oh I suspect so for that particular purpose."

Lugar's comments include an explicit rejection of Boehner's comments, and a general dismissal of the comments of fellow Hoosier Republican Mike Pence, who claimed that Obama drew a "moral equivalency" between those who want a Palestinian state and Israel. Lugar appeared on Bloomberg, while his colleagues were talking on CNN and Fox News, but this still seems like a fairly major split from the official "Party of No" talking points.

Transcript (from ThinkProgress):

   LUGAR: I'm prepared to congratulate the president for really a signal achievement that doesn't really change materially things on the ground and when he attempted to talk about things on the ground - the Palestinian-Israeli situation - both sides felt that after all he was equating their plight with a great deal of equality and as they see it, history has not been that way. If you were looking at it from the Israeli standpoint, that the suffering and holocaust and other occasions as well beyond what would seem to be found in equivalence here and likewise the Muslim and Arab world feels clearly that the Israelis are still intruders. So you're back to square one. The president is asking people to forget the past.

   HUNT: But you've seen the speech, do you think there was a moral equivalence message in the speech?

   LUGAR: I think there was some attempt to find a balanced nuanced situation. And that always runs the danger, that whichever group feels more aggrieved will feel the president or whoever is giving the speech is less acute in his observations.

   HUNT: How about the charge of some critics like Republican leader John Boehner that it was too apologetic, too weak and almost groveling?

   LUGAR: I do not agree with that. I believe that the president understands that American popularity in most of the countries, whether it is the pew poll or others - indicates a lack of sympathy for our country. We always rationalize and say it is not the American people; it's the leader whomever it happens to be. And so some would say after all this is a new leader and to some extent, because Senator [sic] Obama has attempted to strike some of the right notes rhetorically. There is something going for him there. But I would say that for the moment, we probably as Americans need to give a lot of speeches in the Arab world.

   HUNT: Was he tough enough on Iran?

   LUGAR: Oh I suspect so for that particular purpose. He is attempting to guide Arab nations at a time when they feel fearful of Iranian breaking out into nuclear weapons. They understand the problems that would have with all of this. They also understand the sensitivities of many people in the streets, literally, in countries where there still are authoritarian leaders.

Futility Revisited - Richard Lugar's Speech

by: Charlotte A. Weybright

Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 20:42:48 PM EDT

While Richard Lugar's position on Iraq is being hailed as a sign that the formerly solid Republican ranks are breaking with the President, I have to wonder what possible impact will it have on the strategic goals of this administration? I say absolutely none. Bush may, for a split second, try to understand why Lugar is breaking ranks. But, ultimately, Bush will disregard Senator Lugar's speech just as he has done to so many other influential people who have raised legitimate concerns over the course of this war. He will either ignore it completely or downplay the importance of it. He will opt for his own misguided interpretation of success and his destiny to remake the Middle East in a democratic image.

President Bush has shown time and time again that he has no intention of listening to anyone else other than the voices in his own head that keep telling him to "stay the course" because, as Bush himself says, "at the end of the day when I look in the mirror I have made a decision based on principle not politics." He will simply look at the loss of Lugar's support as one more stalwart gone. It will not make one whit's worth of difference in guiding his Iraqi policy.

Senator Lugar's lengthy speech before the Senate establishes only that he disagrees with the direction in which the President's Iraqi policy is heading. Lugar says on one hand that:

  "the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda."

On the other hand he states:

  "A total withdrawal from Iraq also fails to meet our security interests."

What does Lugar want to see? Apparently, a sustainable military posture. Lugar believes that U.S. security interests call for a downsizing and re-deployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. Isn't this what Democrats have been saying for quite some time? And why on earth wait so long to take the critical step of speaking out?

The Warner-Lugar Amendment #2208 to H.R. 1585 (The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) does nothing more than provide a recitation in paragraph form of the ongoing struggle in Iraq and suggestions for resolving the quagmire in which we now find ourselves. Warner and Lugar urge the president to adopt the findings of the Iraq Study Group headed by Lee Hamilton and James Baker - something that many others have urged as well.

And, because it now comes from Senator Lugar it somehow takes on a grandiose status? Sorry, I don't buy it. Bush determined long ago what his policy would be in the Middle East. Senator Lugar may very well be a respected Senator who has now joined the growing ranks of those who have seen the folly of the ongoing war in Iraq, but his stature will have no impact on Bush's Iraqi policy. Bush rushed headlong into a war for which he had no plan other than to dazzle the world with the "brilliant" shock and awe spectacle. Bush has never listened to the voice of reason during this entire fiasco, why would he begin do so now?

Because the voice of reason is now Richard Lugar? I think not.