Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/647232
GregStevens,Publisher Chip Thompson, Editor EDITORIALBOARD How to have your say: Letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and no more than two double-spaced pages or 500words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section will be published. Email: editor@ redbluffdailynews.com Fax: 530-527-9251 Mail to: P.O. Box 220, 545 Diamond Ave., Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facebook: Leave comments at FACEBOOK.COM/ RBDAILYNEWS Twitter: Follow and send tweets to @REDBLUFFNEWS The good news is that a prominent member of the cowed Republican establishment is finally speaking out against Donald Trump. The bad news is, it's Mitt Romney. Thisisthebesttheycando? The guy who lost the 2008 nomination and lost the 2012 election, the guy who passed on 2016 to clear the way for Jeb (insert joke here), has ap- parently decided that if no- body else is willing to fight the Batman villain who's been dropped in their midst, it might as well be him. I guess he's better than noth- ing. I guess it's better late than never. Mighty Mitt rolled into Fox News last week and trolled the mogul, "We really ought to see from [the GOP candidates] what their taxes look like to see if there's an issue there. I think in Donald Trump's case, it's likely to be a bombshell." Whoa. What kind of bomb- shell? Mitt said he was only speculating. "The reason I think that there's a bombshell in there is because every time he's asked about his taxes, he dodges and delays and says 'Well, we're working on it,'" Romney said. "Hey, we're not talking about the taxes that are coming due this year. Of course they're working on those. They won't be ready for months. We're talking about taxes already filed — back taxes." It's nice that Mitt is giv- ing it the old prep school try. Somebody in the party hierar- chy has to try. As a Washing- ton Post editorial put it, "His- tory will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do ev- erything in their power to pre- vent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard- bearer .... If Mr. Trump is to be stopped, now is the time for leaders of conscience to say they will not and cannot sup- port him and to do what they can to stop him .... Is the Re- publican Party truly not going to resist its own debasement?" So what the heck, Mitt might as well hit Trump on the tax return issue, because nothing else seems to be work- ing. Assailing Trump for his substance-free agenda isn't working. Rebuking Trump for his vile and racist insults isn't working. Fact-checking Trump's serial lies isn't work- ing. The problem, however, is that Mitt is not the best mes- senger. Those of you with long memories will recall that Mitt the multimillionaire was infa- mously reluctant to release his past tax returns. Before Mitt ever released anything, he complained about the demands that he do so. He whined, "I sort of feel like we are showing a lot of ex- posure." In the winter of 2012, he grudgingly released one year (2010) and one partial es- timate (2011), and said "that's all that's necessary." Even Republicans were dis- gusted. Ex-Bush pollster Mat- thew Dowd faulted him for "arrogance." Mitt stonewalled until autumn. Six weeks be- fore the election, he released a "summary" of the previous 20 years. Turned out, his tax rate was lower than the aver- age Joe's, because the tax code looks favorably on private eq- uity managers' investment in- come. So today, the notion that Mitt Romney can play the pop- ulist against plutocrat Trump ... the irony is so thick you need a carving knife to cut it. And Trump, of course, has retaliated in his inimitable way. He tweeted, "Mitt Rom- ney, who totally blew an elec- tion that should have been won and whose tax returns made him look like a fool, is now playing tough guy." An- other tweet ridiculed Mitt as "awkward and goofy." What fun for the junkyard dog! With Jeb gone, he was jonesing for a new chew toy. As a measure of the GOP's desperation, Mitt's fumbling foray is a perfect metaphor. Especially now, with the wolf at the door. DickPolmanisthenational political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia (newsworks. org/polman) and a "Writer in Residence" at the University of Philadelphia. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com. Dick Polman Mitt Romney isn't exactly Superman Cartoonist's take I explained last week why and how the judiciary, partic- ularly the U.S. Supreme Court, has become, over several decades, a crucial tool in the partisan ef- forts of both lib- erals and conser- vatives to secure legislative accom- plishments and cultural victo- ries. In the last 100 years or so, judges and the judiciary have never been beyond the realm of governing and politics. Un- der FDR, the legislation en- acted and the measures taken by the executive and regula- tory branches were unprece- dented for that time and, not unlike the current administra- tion, subject to litigation and judicial restraint. When the Supreme Court decided to rein in what was widely believed to be over- reach by Roosevelt, he tried increasing the number of jus- tices, or "court packing," for the crass purpose of creating a majority to rubber stamp his policies. Having gone too far, Roosevelt backed off that maneuver but continued to rely on the drawn-out legal process to forge ahead in the assurance that, by the time adverse rulings were handed down, his policies would be ingrained in the targeted sec- tors. Industries, forced to ac- cede to mandates, were re- luctant to shed the mandates when found unconstitutional, as they had internalized them in their practices. Collusion over prices, for instance, con- tinued; profitability was se- lectively secured; competition was squelched. In similar fashion, Obama's Energy Department expected to force states to comply with CO2 restrictions while the Clean Air Act provisions were litigated, forcing states and in- dustries to accept the status quo even after it was ruled il- legal by the court. He was shut down before Scalia died; that demonstrates the supremacy of the judiciary over Obama's policies. So, beyond the reasons for such entrenched fights over judges, particularly on the Su- preme Court, the whole ques- tion of boundaries for fairness in those fights is now front and center. Writers, commenters and politicians on the left assert something to the effect that the Senate's role is to be a respect- ful enabler for, and approver of, President Obama's choice of nominee. Funny how that is the opposite of what some of those same folks said when the pres- ident's name was Bush or Rea- gan. First, there are some perhaps intentionally confusing mis- statements on the issue. An extreme (extremely ig- norant, that is) comment was that the President "appoints Su- perior [sic] Court Justices, no matter what party they belong to. That is what the Constitu- tion says. Obama was voted in by the majority and the major- ity wants Obama to pick the next Judge." A columnist wist- fully asked "Would it not be re- freshing if (upon Obama ap- pointing a nominee) Congress replied 'Sure'…we will consider it…as you are rightly empow- ered to do so." Sometimes I think that if lib- erals didn't have double stan- dards, they'd have no standards at all. A cartoon on this page summed up a hypocritical, fal- lacious story line by the left. It inserted Donald Trump's "delay, delay, delay…until a new Presi- dent is elected" admonition into the "advise and consent" clause. The actual sentence, Arti- cle II, Section 2, second para- graph: "and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall ap- point…Judges of the supreme Court…" That probably translates to liberals, based on past and present words and deeds, as "Democrat Presidents get their nominees without de- lay or obstruction—advice is not needed and consent is presumed and expected." News media, with some ex- ceptions, act as stenographers and cheerleaders for Obama against those conniving, ob- structionist, manipulating Re- publicans. Or, when the pres- ident is a Republican, they provide cover for the loyal, sincere, principled opposition by Democrats who only want to protect the nation from cold-hearted fanatics being nominated by Republicans. Normal open-minded cit- izens will undoubtedly see through this to realize that there are big issues at stake, as I have pointed out, and that if the Senate, or its Judiciary committee, do nothing—hold no hearings or votes—that is part (or withholding) of the "consent" of the Senate. Republicans have every right to stonewall Obama's court ap- pointees in this election year. I know because the New York Times said so in a 1987 (not even an election year) edito- rial on why the Senate was cor- rect to reject Robert Bork: "The President's (Reagan's) support- ers insist vehemently that, hav- ing won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist." They said, "right to resist," Trump says "delay, delay, delay" and Hugh Hewitt has started a wildly popular twitter hashtag: #NoHearingsNoVotes. The other Republican candidates all insist the Scalia chair belongs to the next president—let Dems campaign on their vision for an anti-Scalia judge—and voters will decide. Obama filibustered Bush nominee Samuel Alito, not be- cause Alito was unqualified but simply to oppose a con- servative philosophy. Now he wants us to ignore the fact that he will only appoint a re- placement that he's sure will join the philosophically lib- eral Supreme Court wing. Democrat Senator Schumer (then): "…we should not con- firm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court accept in ex- traordinary circumstances" (Surprise—none occurred!). Democrat Harry Reid (then): "Nowhere in that document (U.S. Constitution) does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. (It says) with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote." I, for once, agree with Harry Reid. Don Polson has called Red Bluff home since 1988. He can be reached by e-mail at donplsn@ yahoo.com. The way I see it Whose ox or judge is gored? So what the heck, Mitt might as well hit Trump on the tax return issue, because nothing else seems to be working. Assailing Trump for his substance- free agenda isn't working. Rebuking Trump for his vile and racist insults isn't working. Fact- checking Trump's serial lies isn't working. In similar fashion, Obama's Energy Department expected to force states to comply with CO2 restrictions while the Clean Air Act provisions were litigated, forcing states and industries to accept the status quo even after it was ruled illegal by the court. Don Polson Contact your officials Assemblyman James Gallagher, 2060 Talbert Drive, Ste. 110, Chico 95928, 530 895-4217, htp://ad03.asmrc.org/ Senator Jim Nielsen, 2634 Forest Ave., Ste. 110, Chico 95928, 530 879-7424, senator.nielsen@senate.ca.gov Governor Jerry Brown, State Capital Building, Sacramento 95814, 916 445-2841, fax 916 558-3160, governor@governor.ca.gov U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa, 507 Cannon House Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515, 202 225-3076 U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, One Post St., Ste. 2450, San Fran- cisco 94104, 415 393-0707, fax 415 393-0710 U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, 1700 Montgomery St., San Fran- cisco 94111, 510 286-8537, fax 202 224-0454 Local Tehama County Supervisors, 527-4655 District 1, Steve Chamblin, Ext. 3015 District 2, Candy Carlson, Ext. 3014 District 3, Dennis Garton, Ext. 3017 District 4, Bob Williams, Ext. 3018 District 5, Burt Bundy, Ext. 3016 Red Bluff City Manager, Richard Crabtree, 527-2605, Ext. 3061 Corning City Manager, Kristina Miller, 824-7033 OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Tuesday, March 1, 2016 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A6