Supreme court pick Harriet Miers gave money to Al Gore and that has the hardcore cons like Mike Krempasky perturbed.
Like Mike Brown, and other inept and corrupt members of this administration, Miers seems to have been picked because she’s done a good job of sucking up to El Presidente.
This pick also shows that the White House is quite weak right now. Their internal polling must be even worse than the majors.
Related
Fred Thompson Abortion Timeline
Multiple Choice Mitt Romney Gets Desperate
Ben Sten’s “Expelled” Is Denier’s Paradise
If he makes a pick you don’t like, he’s fascist, racist , sexist or a “du jour” o-phobe. If Democrats like the pick, he’s weak.
Dugger
I can’t believe it doesn’t bother at least some of our right-wing brothers and sisters that with dozens of experienced justices of all stripes available and with huge spotlights on the problem of cronyism in the Bush White House, bush has picked…
an inexperienced crony.
Dugger;
Here’s a news flash.
He’s always been weak. He just had some shallow Rethuglican assistance to convince him that he’s strong. There is nothing like a hollow ego with no substance that suddenly has an epiphany. It may be the end of Bush’s 40-year love affair with adolescence. We can only hope, because we may have him another three years.
Well, at least he’s a uniter…everyone will hate the pick.
You forgot idiot, dugger. That applies in all situations.
Shorter Dugger: (dones standard issue apologist kneepads) Mmuuurffp…..Slurp…slurp….*moan*….Mmmmm…
Shorter Bush: “Duggie, you’re doing a heckuva’ job!”
I get the distinct impression that you wouldn’t say so much as an unkind word about the Boy Blunder, even if he nominated Barney the Presidential Dog for SCOTUS. Is it even possible for you to address the issues rather than defend the indefensible? Is there a ranking system in the apologist’s army? Are you a General yet?
Semant,
“He s always been weak. ” Perhaps you meant this snidely, but I actually agree in a lot of respects. He is a weak R (spends a lot, not sure he’s right in Iraq) , a weak candidate, poor speaker. However, he beat the Dems twice, primarily I think because many Dems became Bush/R haters first and serious, thoughtful politicians second. As witness your shallow follow on criticism:
You have no idea of his ego, and he clearly has substance. Thats just more Bush hate. I wonder what it is about this somewhat humble, average man that drives so many leftists to hate-obsession.
Wilbur,
Thats the way it looked, but my bet is he feels he got his guy with Roberts and is reaching out to pick a candidate the Dems will ‘like’. I’ve heard that Harry Reid recommended her (i guess that would be a contextual recommendation). Of course, when Bush does something like this, the haters never acknowledge his reaching out.
Dugger
somewhat humble, average man that drives so many leftists to hate-obsession.
I can’t speak for others but here is my take..
Bush is the archtypal representative of hypocrisy within Christendom. Nothing drives me crazier than someone who publicly parades the Christian mantle but ignores the ‘golden rule’.
BTW–I don’t hate Bush..I hate the sin.
Danny, maybe you’re right about the right side of the blogosphere (don’t have time to go trolling right now), but do they hate the pick because she’s an inexperienced crony or because they think she’s too “liberal”? Just asking. If the former I’ll gladly withdraw my observation.
Dugger: if Bush is finally going to start being a “uniter not a divider” I’ll give him credit for it, but that doesn’t mean we can just forget about the five years of rank divisiveness that preceded. Fool me once…
Wilbur,
What are you talking about? This pick is very unpopular with the right side of the blogosphere. The left will hate anyone Bush picks who’s to the right of John Paul Stevens
Well, here’s Malkin’s comment:
Say goodbye to your civil rights.
continuing with Powerline:
Wilbur,
Bush = uniter/divider. How could he have and act on his own core beliefs and not be a divider in your/the opposition’s eyes. He’s one of the biggest spending Republicans in history and much of that spending has been domestic. He has worked with bitter, mean opponents like Ted Kennedy on education. I just don’t see it. Bush has always, to me, been a moderate Republican and an essentially moderate, likeable individual. A weak leader domestically and politically, poor speaker, but with certain strong character elements that i think people like. He’s just not this big bogey man he’s made out to be.
Semant,
I don’t see Bush “parading” his faith. He has faith. I can think of lots of religious photo ops by past pres’s D and R. Bush worse? Don’t think so. And how has be been hypocritical – considering he’s “born again” which recognizes a past life of sin (as I understand it)?
Dugger
Choosing the White House lawyer is a bad idea. But, She is not the first person selected as SCJ without Judicial experience. I believe Rehnquist never a Judge either. He did work in the State Department though.
JD, if you’re angry about people not supporting Miers, go troll on a conservative blog, where they all feel betrayed for not getting Pat Robertson on the bench. But clearly you’re one of those conservatives whose only principle is to support the president.
The simple fact is that O-Dub and the rest of the folks around here were going to criticize ANYBODY that President Bush nominated. Are there people with judicial experience he could have picked? Sure. Are there people that had no connection to him whatsoever that he could have picked? Sure. Let’s not kid ourselves that you would have approved of them.
What about her resume makes you think that she is not qualified? Seems as though she has had a pretty successful career in the law. Didn’t Sen. Reid previously indicate that we should consider people that were not currently on the bench? Was she one of the people that he suggested?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t with the libs around here.
I am not angry at anybody, Tommy. Clearly I am one of those conservatives who believes that the President can nominate whomever he/she so chooses to the Supreme Court, subject to the appropriate Constitutional requirements. Had he selected somebody that made everybody happy, I would have been scared. Since both sides seem to be pissed, then I suspect it was a good middle of the road choice, and isn’t that what the left has been screaming for?
Bush is just trying to appoint someone who will vote to toss out his convictions for treason and war crimes… CYA politics
I just think it’s sweet that Republicans have found an ICC Court supporting trial lawyer they can get behind.
jd, what i hoped for, and apparently got, was a nomination which confirms the conventional wisdom forming from the aftermath of katrina. i.e. that this president’s first priority is to his political cronies, not to the security of the nation or to the wishes of his supporters. it further establishes the growing meme that bush is out of touch, arrogant and incompetent. it depresses his most fervent supporters, the right-to-life crowd, (that it appears bush made a deal with reid makes it more delicious too) because they finally finally finally get it. they’ve been had.
big time.
There are two separate, but inter-related issues here. First: why is she qualified for the job? Is it because of her personal relationship to him? She was, after all, the person tagged with the responsibility of selecting Supreme Court nominations and, um, she seems to have selected herself. That’s OK for the VP slot (Cheney) but for a Supreme Court pick that will serve well beyond Bush’s term? A little strange. She has no judicial experience, though that in itself doesn’t matter. The problem is: what experience does she really bring to the table other than as political sycophant and trailblazing woman lawyer in Texas. Maybe the latter qualification was all that mattered. If so, don’t expect the anti-affirmative action crowd to be impressed.
The second thing is what this means for conservatives. Think of how many social conservatives worked tirelessly in the fall of 2004 so that they could elected a President who promised to appoint another Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court. The first nominee is almost assuredly no more conservative than Rehnquist, and very possibly less conservative. And the second nominee may very well be Souter and Michael Brown in a skirt. This was a unique chance for social conservatives to shift the court dramatically to the right. With Bush’s poll numbers down, here was an opportunity to bolster his support in the base. They could all say, “Bush may be running into trouble in Iraq, he didn’t do such a great job with Katrina, and he spends too much. But at least he’s making the Supreme Court more conservative.” Now they can’t say that in good conscience.
Miers doesn’t “please” anybody. She probably gives Democrats a sigh of relief because of how much worse the nominee could have been. But surely no Democrat would have selected her. Still, the disappointment is much greater on the Right because they were the ones who won out in November. This was supposed to be the real prize. And all they got was a lousy crony.
Thanks, JWG, I have to amend my previous comment and say that I am happy that our right-wing brothers and sisters are upset about the cronyism and lack of experience of Bush’s new appointee.
One does wonder, however, if they would complaining as loudly if they had reason to believe that Miers was a rock-ribbed reactionary a la Thomas or Scalia.
Dugger, Bush partisans keep trotting out the Kennedy deal as evidence that Bush is a bipartisan moderate. But that was during his first months in office. Since then Bush’s idea of bipartisanship, whether he’s dealing with the dems in congress or the UN, has been “here, I’ll give you an opportunity to agree with me completely.”
I don’t hate Bush, I just think he’s a rigid thinker at a time when we need flexibility. He’s just an undistinguished, unaccomplished run of the mill son of privilege who’s idea of governing is doing favors for his friends. Just his misfortune that he fell into the presidency at a time when we need real leadership on a number of issues.
Wilbur,
Thanks for not calling me a Bush partisan – I’m not. Its funny reading your post, because as something of a strong conservative, I think Bush is not a rigid thinker at all. He’s too flexible at times in my book. Too naive and trusting of Democrats. He’s spent a lot domestically, put lots of money in AIDs and education programs and appointed/nominated moderate conservative justices. There are times when I dearly wish he would fight back as viciously as he is atatcked – but he never does. Mr Nice Guy. Take it and smile. I’m not saying he is liberal or maybe even overall moderate, but he is a moderate Republican and I can’t understand how one can have balanced view of the political spectrum if you put Bush any other place. And then if he is a moderate R, why do so many of your brethren hate him?
Dugger
Jeebus, Dugger’s been smokin’ dope again.
Shrub a moderate?
Moderates do not exist in today’s GOP.
Tell us what is moderate about invading countries on phony premises. Tell us what is moderate about endorsing ID and declaring war on science.
Here’s my contrarian take on Miers: it’s a masterstroke by Rove.
By elevating such a nobody to the SC–she’ll sail through confirmation hearings doing the old Robert’s softshoe. She has no record whatsoever so there’s nothing to pick on.
OTOH, her job on the SC will be to vote with the Roberts/Fat Tony Scalia/Clarence Uncle Thomas bloc. That’s her role–the Xerox vote.
Dugger;
“how has be been hypocritical – considering he s born again which recognizes a past life of sin (as I understand it)?”
Let’s just start with his only claim to fame as Governor of Texas. His big deal has always been education
“Leave No Child Behind” is his signature acheivement.
What is the rhtoric? What demonstrates his conviction? Being ‘Born Again’ and having PAST sins wased away does not give the ticket bearer a free pass to commit transgressions in the future. (See Matthew 25:41-46)
Let’s look at;
RHETORIC;”We’re going to spend more on shools and we’re going to spend it more wisely” GWB 1/18/2002
Reality; Republican budget cuts (Please don’t say he had no control . When he wanted something, he got it. I.E. Prescription Drug Windfall.)
teacher quality by 4% ($90 million) eliminating high quality training for 18,000 teachers.
RHETORIC;” By working together the administration and Congress have succeeded in opening college opportunities for all americans”.8-5-2002
Reality: For the second year in a row the Bush Administration requested inadequate funds for the maximum Pell Grant. Also proposing that interest rates for student loans be increased and denying requests to forgive loans to teachers who take jobs in low-income schools.
Rhetoric on CHILD CARE; “We must make sure that every child enters school ready to learn–EVERY CHILD, NOT JUST ONE, OR A FEW. Anyone who is serious about eucational reform MUST BE SERIOUS ABOUT EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION!” GWB 4-2-2002
reality; Bush administration freezes child care and includes only token increases in Head Start even though millions of eligible low-income children cannot be served due to inadequate resources.
You can frame George Bush as a sincere man, out of his element, or as a hypocrite who expects others to carry water while requiring little from himself. It’s your choice which picture you wish to entertain. The fact is he has failed to deliver anything to anyone except the richerst 1% of the population and the radical conservative Christians on the right. He doesn’t seem to feel he needs to fulfill promises to anyone else.
Ha! Conservatives (and Libertarians) only wish this were true. Bush has increased federal spending on education by 50% since he’s been in office.
Head Start does nothing to improve students’ readiness. There have been many, many research studies, and they demonstrate that Head Start is ineffective. I am a middle school teacher and my wife teachers second grade. We would love a program to improve a student’s chances for success in school. Head Start doesn’t work.
I am in neither category, but I have done very well under the Bush administration. Many other people have as well, which helps explain why he received over 60 million votes. Unless you think there are that many wealthy and/or radicals in America?
JWG : Don’t go throwing facts at them, their heads might explode. They scream, wail, whine, moan, and complain about all of these phantom cuts, yet can never actually produce them, since they do not, in the reality based community, exist.
jadegold’s use of the phrase “Uncle Thomas” to describe Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is every bit as offensive as all of the recent perceived slights that have been railed on around here.
danelectro : I would respond, but that was such a rambling mess of tinfoil hat stuff that I cannot even figure out a starting point.
Wow – JD – woW you are piece of work…
It seems reasonable that what Jadegold states is possible and probable. There are many possibles – what we need is to find out what she stands for how she feels about specific rulings. We have a right to know how an appointee for life will vote on the SC. It would be a shame if the Senate did not politely and respectfuly ask her the tough questions in regards to this job for life.
Don’t forget Jandegold’s ethnic slur “Fat Tony Scalia,” since someone of Italian heritage must be linked to the mafia.
Semant, I took your rant against Christians and Bush wherein you talked about their hypocrisy to mean,as logically it should, that they are actually behaving in a non-Christian fashion. I can’t speak for Christians , but I don’t see failure to enacta liberal agenda as a sin or even to advertise and exaggerate your successes,as all politiicans do, to be a sin. Now if you were criticizing all politiicans – I could see it. but if restricted just to Bush or to Chrristians, makes no sense to me. BTW, I expect there are plenty of devout but hypocritical atheists, Jews, Muskims, Hindus. Marx worshippers etc.
Dugger
Yes, Leo, perhaps you’re in a position to explain something no liberal has yet explained: Why is it that all Christians are expected to be perfect, when everyone else, with or without a religious affiliation, is free to be “just human”?
Try and do it without attributing false attitudes or unprovable opinions to Christians.
s/out of/out of touch,/
jd, you can start your response with a rebuttal of how this pick does not emphasize the conventional wisdom that bush unwisely places cronies to important positions. then you can move on to the point about bush being perceived as out of arrogant and incompetent.
and i’ll make this easy on you. i’ll agree our sourcing will not use any explicitly left-leaning sources. i’ll be waiting here, adjusting my tinfoil for the best reception.
Still waiting, huh Dan?
*crickets*
Dugger;
Hopefully this is not too late a response.
Thanks for helping Frank to dislodge a coherent thought on this subject.
It’s like this. If Bush were a Hindu and he owned a slaughterhouse, I would
ciriticize him for being a hypocrite. I am not a hypocrite for eating meat or owning a slaughterhouse, because I am not a hindu.
If you want to throw the mantle of Christ over yourself, as though that declaration of faith made you a better person, then act accordingly. Others who have not chosen to subscribe to those beliefs, may or may not practice the ‘golden rule’, but they cannot be called hypocrites if they have not grafted themselves to the Theistic ideology. They can hold the beleiver to a higher standard because that individual has placed himself in that position, voluntarily.