The talk was politics, duty, disaster and “setting history right” when Karl Rove stepped before a microphone Thursday evening at the Annenberg Presidential Conference Center of the George Bush Presidential Library in Bryan, Texas.

Rove, who served as former President George W. Bush’s senior adviser for seven years, and deputy chief of staff for four years, came to Aggieland to promote his newly published memoir, “Courage and Consequence.”

Among those in attendance was former First Lady Barbara Bush, who introduced Rove as an accomplished politician and long-time family friend.

“Few people have done more to help transform Texas politics to be sure, but Karl also did a masterful job helping President George W. Bush navigate his way all the way to the White House,” Bush said. “So suffice it to say, Karl’s place on the Bush family Christmas card list is firm.”

After thanking the First Lady for the introduction, Rove began his lecture by introducing his book and its controversial subject matter.

“I wanted to give people a sense of who it was laboring in the White House all those years,” Rove said. “I wanted to give them a sense of what actually happened there, because a lot of people have misconceptions about those things. A lot of people have misconceptions about the 43rd president of the United States.”

Rove spent much of the following hour discussing some of the details of his book. These included his beginnings as president of College Republicans, the attacks made by the media on his family in the 1990s and the “cynical attack on the credibility of the President of the United States in a time of war,” made by political opponents regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

As the evening progressed, Rove interspersed humorous stories among serious mattes, but there was no humor when he turned the attention to Sept. 11, 2001.

Throughout his address, Rove focused from time to time on what he observed of Bush while serving as the president’s chief advisor. Rove recalled his experience flying back to the White House on Marine One on that September day.

“We came over the very last ridge that separates Maryland from the Potomac River, and we made a hard right turn and at that moment the Pentagon came into view for the first time,” Rove said. “Nobody had said a word. And when the Pentagon came into view there was smoke coming out of the Pentagon and for the first time somebody spoke. It was the President. He said, ‘Take a look. You are looking at the face of war in the 21st century. ‘”

As Rove’s lecture drew to a close, the attention turned to current politics. Rove, who is a commentator for Fox News and a Wall Street Journal columnist, acknowledged he has disagreements with the current administration, but said he also has empathy for them “because they have to make tough decisions.”

“Sometimes it’s easy to say something … and then you get in there, and you have to deal with the consequences of that action and you try to figure out an alternative. It’s hard to do, so I have a great deal of empathy for them.” Rove said. “I’m a partisan, I admit it. But I also think its important to keep in mind that we have a more important obligation than just partisanship.”

Andy Black, Texas A&M U. freshman, said he was persuaded to purchase Rove’s book after getting a feel for Rove’s personality firsthand.
“He’s a genuine guy. I always thought he was sort of just all political and no realness to him,” Black said. “He’s a genuine guy and he has genuine concerns for what he does and genuinely wants to help the country.”

Summer comes early for college students and movies alike. Forget the solstice — the beginning of May means summer at the box office. With the season just around the corner, The Oklahoma Daily’s Dusty Somers scans the summer film landscape and finds something for just about everyone.

Release dates are subject to change.

For THE BLOCKBUSTER MAVEN

Summer is all about the big-budget movies — recession be damned! If your idea of a good time at the cineplex necessitates ’splosions and a healthy dose of CGI, you’ve got a lot to choose from. No Michael Bay films this year though. Sorry.

“Iron Man 2”

May 7

Director: Jon Favreau

2008’s “Iron Man” flexed its brains as well as its brawn, and its sequel ought to provide more of the same balanced entertainment.

“Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”

May 28

Director: Mike Newell

“Prince of Persia” looks dumb even by video game-adaptation standards, but might versatile director Newell (who’s done excellent work with “Enchanted April” and “Donnie Brasco”) have a few tricks up his sleeve?

“The Expendables”

Aug. 13

Director: Sylvester Stallone

It’s the perfect storm of an action movie — Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jet Li, Jason Statham, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and the incomparable Dolph Lundgren. Jean-Claude Van Damme is going to be bummed out he didn’t catch this ride.

For THE FORGETFUL

Ever get the feeling you’ve seen that movie you’re in the middle of before? With the usual rash of remakes appearing this summer, you might enjoy yourself more if your memory isn’t so sharp.

“Robin Hood”

May 14

Director: Ridley Scott

While not a direct remake per se, Scott’s attempt to take on the familiar tale looks to be mired in the same loose historicity and pervading dullness of his other epics.

“The Karate Kid”

June 11

Director: Harald Zwart

I’m not so worried about the desecration of a (very) minor classic as I am that the impossibly obnoxious Jaden Smith looks to be well on his way to an acting career.

“The A-Team”

June 11

Director: Joe Carnahan

The ’80s TV series-to-film adaptation has been a long time coming, but it appears the camp factor has been jettisoned almost entirely. Mr. T reportedly turned down a cameo appearance — I think that tells us all we need to know.

For THE INDEPENDENT

Summer isn’t the most fruitful time of year to travel off the cinematic beaten path, but those looking to stray a little from the mainstream should find a few morsels to tide them over. But good luck finding them in Oklahoma.

“Micmacs”

May 28 (limited)

Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet

“Amelie” director Jeunet returns with his first film in more than five years, employing more whimsy alongside a little violence.

“Cyrus”

July 9 (limited)

Directors: Jay and Mark Duplass

Mumblecore vets the Duplass Brothers land their highest profile project yet, with this Sundance hit about a battle between a mama’s boy (Jonah Hill) and the guy who likes his mom (John C. Reilly).

“I Love You Phillip Morris”

July 30 (Limited)

Directors: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa

“Phillip Morris” has been languishing without distribution for a while, a fate that can even happen to a Jim Carrey film when Carrey plays a gay conman.

For THE 3-D ADDICT

Just think: If you had born just a few decades earlier, you’d be forced to watch movies that were flat. Gross. Good thing Hollywood has wised up. In the down time while its retrofitting “Casablanca” and “The Third Man” for 3-D, feast your eyes on these.

“Shrek Forever After”

May 21

Director: Mike Mitchell

We’re told this is “The Final Chapter.” I’ll believe it when I see it. Or don’t, in this case.

“Step Up 3-D”

Aug. 6

Director: Jon Chu

Dancing in 3-D just might provide a decent exploitation of the medium, but don’t expect it to expand the series’ wafer-thin plot any.

“Piranha 3-D”

Aug. 27

Director: Alexandre Aja

Richard Dreyfuss must still be pretty peeved 25 years later that he wasn’t in “Jaws 3-D.” Consider this a small first step at atoning for that error.

For THE MASOCHIST

Got a thing for terrible movies? Meet summer, your cinematic soulmate.

“Sex and the City 2”

May 27

Director: Michael Patrick King

Fans and haters alike: Can we at least all agree that Miley Cyrus’ role in the film and her revelation that she wants to be like Samantha is utterly terrifying?

“Grown Ups”

June 25

Director: Dennis Dugan

Who doesn’t love the previous collaborations between Dugan and Adam Sandler? And “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” and “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” didn’t even have David Spade.

“The Twilight Saga: Eclipse”

June 30

Director: David Slade

Will three films be enough to convince anyone how utterly misogynistic this series is?

For THE FILM FAN

You know your taste in movies is unimpeachable, but good luck convincing your non-cinephile friends to watch anything by Bergman, Ozu or Godard. Here are a few selections everyone might just agree on.

“Toy Story 3”

June 18

Director: Lee Unkrich

Pixar is better off blazing new trails than revisiting its old ones, but the “Toy Story” films remain some of the studio’s greatest achievements, and you don’t need to be a kid to be excited about seeing the gang again.

“Inception”

July 16

Director: Christopher Nolan

Nolan is too much of a gimmicky director to be considered a truly great filmmaker, but he’s got plenty of strengths, which one can only guess will be displayed in this still hazily defined thriller.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”

Aug. 13

Director: Edgar Wright

The man behind two of the best comedies of the past decade adapts the popular graphic novel, and it looks like it has attitude and charm to spare. The reuniting of erstwhile “Arrested Development” couple George-Michael (Michael Cera) and Egg, er, Ann (Mae Whitman), however briefly, is enough to sell me.

Last week, Sen. Tom Coburn made headlines by calling the Speaker of the House “a nice lady.”

The nationwide reaction that followed made me wonder: What does it say about our society that one legislator calling another “nice” goes viral?

The notion of civility in politics seems completely lost on Americans today. A billboard in Wheat Ridge, Colo., displays a picture of President Obama and reads, “President or Jihad?”

Fox News anchor E.D. Hill teased a segment covering a fist bump between the president and first lady with, “A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist jab?”

Wendy Doniger of the Washington Post said of former Gov. Sarah Palin, “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she’s a woman.” And prominent feminist/comedian Margaret Cho described her as “evil.”

Americans have been desensitized to these types of attacks over the last two decades, and even seem to take pleasure in them.

We claim not to, but television ratings and book sales tell a different story.
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher and the like seem to be giving the public what they want. Books such as “How to Talk To a Liberal (If You Must)” hit #1.

We criticize radical governments, but remain glued to TV coverage of protestors chanting, “Bush lied, thousands died!” or funeral crashers holding “God Hates Gays” signs.

Nothing gets a movement more free press than coronary-inducing rants and carelessly shouted ad hominem attacks, and nothing is off-limits anymore, including babies with Down syndrome.

Why is our political discourse so plagued by indecency and personal attacks, and what effect is it having on our society?

P.M. Forni, cofounder of the Civility Project at Johns Hopkins University, said civility “determines the strength of our society.” To explain the widespread decline in civility we suffer from, Forni points to children raised with lots of self-esteem but no self-control, beginning with the Boomer generation.

“People today are so self-absorbed they don’t know the value of restraint, and yet you cannot have a healthy society without it,” Forni says.

Americans’ self-absorption is likely a main culprit in our inability as a people to deal with exposure to opinions that differ from our own.
Another facilitator of incivility is technology.

“The internet has depersonalized our relationships. We e-mail, instant message and make anonymous comments online. We react quickly and don’t censor ourselves,” Forni notes.

The internet, and specifically its gift of anonymity, is a huge contributing factor to this problem.

Without it, I doubt Oklahoma State U. student newspaper columnist Scott D’Amico would have been called a racist homophobe plotting against minorities by those who disagreed with his column on hate speech legislation, or that I would have been called an ignorant, subservient woman hell-bent on oppressing my gender, following a column on modern feminism.

Whatever the true cause of the nasty nature of political (and really any other kind of) discussion today, likely a combination of culture and technology, the situation continues to deteriorate.

Forni said, “Studies prove we are at an all-time low when it comes to being civil,” and if we cannot be civil, “democracy is weakened.”

Incivility in its extreme forms leads to violence and even anarchy, and even in its mildest form doesn’t promote the kind of dialogue and cooperation America needs its leaders to engage in.

It’s important that we as a country take a step back and think about how we interact with each other.

Hundreds of civility projects now exist across the country, and government programs like NASA have begun holding events to raise employees’ awareness of civility. Manners and civility, once taught at home, are now incorporated into curriculum by school districts.

These attempts are important, but can only go so far.

As individuals, we need to start taking responsibility for our actions.

Think about what you say before you say it.

For example, I might be tempted to say, “Joe Biden is a ******,” but I hope I’d take a minute and think, “Now, Ashley, you haven’t even met him…”

Sen. Coburn offered an important lesson to us all: “Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they aren’t a good person.”

What a novel thought.

Ashley Reynolds is a political science senior.

Disclaimer: Offensive words have been censored to protect the delicate eyes and minds of those unequipped to handle sight of these foul words.

Too often, I’ve heard the saying “Don’t swear: it’s a sign of a limited vocabulary.” But in my experience, this is patently ridiculous. I’ve met people from all levels of education and backgrounds who take part in the rich tradition of profane words.

In college, some of my most intelligent and thought-provoking professors have skillfully used words like f— and s— to emphasize an idea that in no other way could be otherwise conveyed appropriately.

Recently, Vice President Joe Biden made headlines for describing the passage of health care reform as “a big f—ing deal,” but honestly, who on the left or right would say that it wasn’t?

In a recent article on Slate, John Dickerson documents the long and storied history of presidential cursing. George W. Bush said he was tired of Hezbollah’s “S—,” JFK reportedly learned to swear fluently in the Navy during World War II. Surely, if profanity can be the most effective means of communication for the “leaders of the free world,” it’s good enough for everyone else to use without ridicule.

Nevertheless, profanity and swearing remain a thorn in the craw of many mild-mannered Americans. Whether for the sake of not offending others, religious reasons or just a lack of desire to expand their vocabulary, cursing isn’t for everyone. That’s fine.

But in Mississippi, there are laws on the books that prohibit, “vulgar language.” Does it make sense that SEC. 97-29-47 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 states: “If any person shall profanely swear or curse, or use vulgar and indecent language” in the presence of more than two people they can be fined up to $100 and spend up to 30 days in jail? Are those words so abhorrent that the offender should go to jail? Even the most prudish and conservative amongst us would probably agree that’s too harsh.

In a 2004 Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans said they were offended by the profanity on television. That’s only 2 percent less than those offended by violence, and equal to the number of people offended by sexual content on TV. It’s remarkable that mere words are just as upsetting to American viewers as violent and explicit sex acts. Those viewers may have their priorities in the wrong place. Granted, some profanity is said in passion or aggression and could occur before, during or after a violent act. Yes, some words considered vulgar describe sexual acts, but that shouldn’t besmirch or condemn all profanity.

There are alternatives to using words deemed offensive, but their effect may not be the same.

You could use a euphemism that might capture the same idea, but it may never have the same impact. Saying ‘crap,’ doesn’t always equal saying ‘s—‘.

Nothing is gained by forcing swearing on anyone, but using profanity and making someone use it are completely different. When I hear someone talk about an idea I don’t agree with, I don’t run out of the room covering my ears, or ask to have that person’s mouth washed out with soap. Why is that reaction ridiculous for offensive ideas, but sometimes common practice in regards to swearing?

Again, swearing isn’t for everyone, but as a person who’s attended college to study language, studying English and communication I’ve learned that to get a message across, precise and effective word choice is vital.

I’ll concede there are times when nothing is gained by swearing, but sometimes using specific, emphatic and well-placed profanity can make something instantly damn good.

Kyle Wrather is a Mississippi State U. senior majoring in communications and English.

Recent research from Northwestern U. professor J. Michael Bailey raises new questions in the science behind sexual orientation, namely bisexuality and the prototypical “gay gene.”

In his studies on bisexuality, Bailey, a psychology professor, and a team of researchers look at sexual arousal patterns to objectively determine sexual orientation in men and women. Bailey tracks the subject’s brain activity while they are looking at erotic pictures to essentially determine “what turns them on,” he said.

One new finding is in the sexual orientation of women. Bailey said he found most of his female subjects to be scientifically bisexual, even if they subjectively thought otherwise.

“Women don’t work in the way we thought, based on a lot of research we did five to 10 years ago,” he said. “Women, at least in the laboratory, get aroused to both stimuli.”

This changes everything, Bailey said.

“Now I don’t even know if women have something like a sexual orientation,” he said.

About two-thirds of women are showing arousal patterns that differ from what they consider to be their orientation, said Adam Safron, a research consultant on the project.

“Women are not being driven in their arousal pattern in the same way as males,” he said.

Male arousal patterns were less flexible than female patterns, Bailey said. Men who believed themselves to be bisexual were aroused by both female and male stimuli but exhibited a stronger arousal to males than females. Bailey published a paper in 2005 suggesting bisexual men do not have bisexual arousal patterns. If sexual arousal patterns are the key to sexual orientation and his research is accurate, male bisexuality may not actually exist, Bailey said.

“I never meant to suggest bisexual men were lying about their sexuality,” he said. “But there has been some skepticism about if bisexual men are really bisexual in the same way gay men are gay or straight men straight.”

Safron said the science behind sexual orientation can get complicated.

“In terms of what people tell you they like, you can’t always trust what they tell you, especially with something as emotionally involved as sexuality,” he said.

Bailey is also researching the molecular genetic study of sexual orientation. In other words, he is looking for a “gay gene,” or a genetic marker that corresponds with homosexuality. To do this, Bailey is comparing the DNA of two brothers who are both gay.

“If there is a gene, they’re both likely to share it,” he said. “We’re looking for pieces of chromosomes that these gay brothers share far more than would be expected by chance.”

Bailey said if a “gay gene” is discovered, public reaction will be interesting.

“People are going to make a big deal out of this because people are obsessed with this topic,” he said. “We obviously find this topic very interesting, but people often make more than they should of these kinds of results. “

However, the term “gay gene” is somewhat misleading, because there are likely multiple genes involved, Safron said.

Northwestern freshman Tim Hughes said he is skeptical of research that aims to find a genetic link to homosexuality.

“As a gay man, I feel the research opens up doors to discrimination,” he said. “Especially in countries where homosexuality is illegal, if a test exists to prove homosexuality, it gives people more power to persecute gay people.”

Another issue raised by the potential discovery of a genetic marker for homosexuality is the eventual ability to abort fetuses based on their sexual orientation.

Bailey said he wants to emphasize this potential to abort fetuses based on sexual orientation is not eugenics, and researchers are “far away” from such a discovery.

“I have no interest in practicing eugenics in terms of changing society to make it more uniform,” he said. “It’s not about society mandating what everybody must do, it’s about parents being allowed to try to affect their child. We already let parents do that. We expect parents to do that.”

Many people in support of abortion rights strongly oppose this idea, Safron said. He said he himself is unsure of the right answer, and it is a complicated issue to figure out.

“It seems to me that if you support a woman’s right a choose, this is not a case where you can step aside from that belief,” he said. “You are going to have to take the good with the bad in terms of reasons for abortion.”

Both Safron and Bailey said the argument could be made for any aborted fetus, not just fetuses aborted because of sexual orientation.

“We have the option now of aborting fetuses because we woke up on the wrong side of the bed on Tuesday,” Bailey said. “We think parents who don’t value gay people are bad. But that doesn’t mean we don’t let those people abort that gay fetus. Making them have a gay child is a perverse limitation of freedom.”

Safron said the abortion issue should be put aside as research on sexual orientation continues.

“It’s the other assumptions people have that are the problem,” he said. “The idea that some people are more or less worthy of respect, freedom, kindness, based on personal lifestyle choices that don’t hurt anyone is the real issue here.”

Last decade, BBC and the Discovery Channel didn’t just raise the bar on nature documentaries, they pushed it through the atmosphere by cataloguing our entire planet on an unprecedented scale with “Planet Earth.”

The two master natural history production companies have teamed up again to deliver another ambitious project: “Life.” And for those hoping that it would feel like a sequel to its groundbreaking predecessor, “Planet Earth,” you’re in luck. “Life” not only matches the first act, it runs right past it into new and exciting territory.

As the title suggests, “Life” brings us up close and personal with a diverse abundance of living organisms and showcases all the fascinating behaviors that we are rarely, if ever, privy to witness.

“Life” focuses almost exclusively upon animals as they fight to survive; and the actions that promote that survival are almost always at the expense of another individual.

Whether it’s a baby ibex scaling a cliff to avoid a pursuing fox, or a pack of cheetahs brutally taking down an ostrich, nearly all the scenes in “Life” vividly remind us that life, for every organism on the planet (except us), is a constant, never-ending struggle to avoid death by any means necessary.

Therefore, “Life” is aptly titled, and is a potent depiction of the simultaneous beauty and cruelty of Earth’s many ecosystems.

I know that some of you might be wondering what sets “Life” apart from “Planet Earth.” The only difference, and that’s not to say it is substantial, is that the newcomer focuses on animals interacting with other animals, whereas the prevailing aspect of “Planet Earth” was depicting animals as they interacted with their geography and climate.

Differences aside, “Life”  will affect its audience just as “Planet Earth” did — it will completely envelop anyone who watches it, and those who immerse themselves deeper will hopefully develop a newfound or greater respect for the awesome power and beauty of nature.

Least I forget: HD is an absolute must for this show. The shots here are breathtakingly vivid and astonishingly detailed; anything less than 720 pixels will not do them justice.

Sadly, I do have one complaint with the U.S. edition of “Life,” and I normally wouldn’t point this out, but it’s a mistake that the Discovery Channel continues to make.

Once again they have chosen to take David Attenborough out of his role as narrator and replace him with a voice that U.S. audiences will be more familiar with; in “Planet Earth” it was Sigourney Weaver, and for “Life” they have chosen Oprah Winfrey.

I have nothing against these women, but it just makes no sense to remove such a seasoned and talented narrator. Attenborough has been narrating natural history documentaries since the early 1950s and is inarguably the voice that people have come to expect, admire and enjoy.

Overall, “Life” is a fantastic addition to the genre and undeniable proof that BBC and Discovery Channel absolutely own it.

You can catch new episodes of “Life” on the Discovery Channel on Sunday nights at 8 p.m.

Nearly a month after an allegation surfaced in early March that Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger sexually assaulted a 20-year-old Georgia College & State U. student at a Milledgeville bar, Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit District Attorney Fred Bright announced this past Monday that no charges will be filed.

The attorney for the student who accused Roethlisberger said the woman asked prosecutors not to pursue the case to avoid an intrusive trial. A letter from the student’s attorney, David Walbert, to Bright stated that his client was not recanting her accusation.

The letter was distributed to press conference ateendees. In the letter, Walbert directed the district attorney to “be aware” that the student “does not want to prosecute this matter further” but it should be known that she is not retracting her original statement. “… the media coverage to date, and the efforts of the media to access our client, have been unnerving, to say the least,” the letter reads.

An e-mail Dr. Bruce Harshbarger, GCSU’s vice president of student affairs, sent out March 8 asking students to respect the woman’s privacy by not sharing identifying information or spreading gossip to media representatives, has been taken to heart by most on campus.

National, regional, state and local media members attended Monday’s press conference and descended upon campus. Christian Boone, a reporter from The Atlanta Journal Constitution, has been covering the story of late.

“By the time I was down there, her sorority sisters had kind of figured out how the media operates,” Boone said. “They took down their Facebook pages within days.”

The “media circus,” as Boone referred to it, was not regarded with hostility, but “students were not engaged with (the incident).”

Student Government Association President Zach Mullins has observed the GCSU community and said he likes what he has seen.

“I’ve been impressed that students have respected her and the situation,” Mullins said. “It’s great that the campus community has reacted in this way.”

Following the recent retirement announcement of Justice John Paul Stevens, amateur political prognosticators have been reminiscing over the confirmation battles of recent memory. I have noticed one question persistently comes up: Remember, they inquire, when Bush tried to appoint that woman to the Court? What was her name, again?

Her name was Harriet Miers. She was the White House counsel, a close friend of President Bush and in 2005, became possibly the least qualified candidate for the Supreme Court in American history. Whenever I think of the Miers debacle, one quote in particular comes to mind.

“However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on ‘The West Wing,’ let alone to be a real one.”

I did not lift that zinger from one of Bill Maher’s polemical rants, a “Daily Show” clip, a Barney Frank interview or an Al Franken book. Rather, the words belong to Ann Coulter, who penned columns and crisscrossed the cable news circuit to take down Miers.

Coulter was not alone. Republican lawmakers and activists — furious that Bush would nominate someone without a record on major political and constitutional issues — effectively mobilized to defeat the Miers nomination. Within a month, they did just that.

Conservatives firmly grasp the significance of the opportunity to make an appointment to the Supreme Court and generally agree on the criteria that make for a model justice. Liberals, then, must take a page from the Republicans’ playbook.

In the wake of Stevens’ retirement announcement, a number of prominent progressive commentators have called for President Obama to appoint a stalwart of the liberal cause to the Court. But it is not yet clear if they really mean it. The Senate’s agenda is already packed with too many major bills promising too many divisive fights for one year, especially an election year. If a nomination spat eats up time and political capital while pushing a climate bill or immigration reform to the side, would liberal interest groups still embrace the challenge?

Really, they should. Of all the actions a president can take during his term in office, court appointments are generally the most enduring and momentous. This is especially true for a Democrat in the White House, as the party has retreated from several important planks of the liberal vision.

In the past several elections, Democrats have abandoned their once robust commitment to separation of church and state. Democrats now flee at the mention of gun control proposals. On gay rights, the party pursues a weak agenda at a tepid pace while most of its leaders still officially oppose gay marriage.

The Court, however, can and should stand as a just interpreter of the Constitution and defender of minority rights when and where Democrats cannot.

But before they can mobilize to achieve this vision, Democrats must decide how to evaluate potential nominees.

One approach that Beltway insiders seem to repeatedly advocate following Court openings is the notion of tapping a politician rather than a career jurist for the job. The strategy here is that this dream candidate will use the powers of persuasion she picked up in the political trenches to realign coalitions on the Court and convince moderates to join in liberal decisions. That vision, however, is a fantasy — justices will be impressed by cogent legal arguments, not backroom legislative deal making.

A characteristic that a nominee should have is boldness, or a willingness to take courageous stances without regard to its effect on future career prospects. In other words, a nominee should not appear to have prepared for the job by craftily avoiding taking positions on controversial issues.

Among the president’s reported short list of nominees, several fit the bill on this front. Seventh circuit judge Diane Wood indicated support for a ninth circuit decision to strip “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, despite a torrent of opposition to the Court’s decision from politicians across the country.

Former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court Leah Ward Sears stood up to the Court’s conservative bloc so many times that in 2004 for the first time in state history, Republicans waged a concerted re-election campaign against a sitting chief justice.

Over the past week, a growing number of liberals have come out against nominating U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagen due to her scant record and support for expansive executive power. This is an encouraging step, and more Democrats should join this effort. In addition, however, they need to be more proactive in the nomination debate. Rather than focusing solely on what they do not want in a nominee, it is time for Democrats to start emphasizing what they do.

Sam Harbourt is a Georgetown U. senior.