Comment by TexanPatriot78

Is anyone else alarmed at the fact that the only opposers are the obvious Leftwing Lunatic Groups like People for The American Way and NARAL? I am more disturbed that DU and MoveOn.org aren’t sounding off alarms. Worse, we have Chuck Joooo-mer, and Dirty Harry Reid loving her, so far. Now, if Ted Kennedy is on board for her, we’re screwed. One can hope she’s playing stealth to get in and f-ck over the libs. Although, most of the LCs including myself are quite skeptical….

Can you blame us?

Comment by SoCalOilMan

Missed it by that much

Comment by TexanPatriot78

Here’s some nominees to keep in mind if WE don’t allow Bush to appoint this RINO Lady:

1. Zell Miller- he’s mad as hell and could whoop the libs into shape.
2. Robert Bork- you know he’s been waiting for vengeance for 20 years.
3. Janice Rogers Brown- experienced conservative judge.
4. Ted Olson- Solicitor General, high power lawyer.
5. Miguel Estrada- with a vengeance..

Comment by RhiGirl

I don’t understand the outrage, y’all. I also think you guys are jumping the gun here when it comes to Miers. What we DO know isn’t enough to incriminate her. Yeah, she gave money to Al Gore’s campaign, but that was in 1988 - and as I must remind former Communists and liberals and Democrats, people can “see the light” and renounce old political/ideological affiliations.

Bork and Miller are unrealistic candidates, by the way.

PS: Why aim the outrage at Hugh Hewitt? He can be wrong sometimes, but he’s not the only bigtime conservative who supports Miers’s nomination.

PPS: She’s from Texas.

PPPS: At least Bush knows his nominee better than his father knew Souter.

Comment by MCPO Airdale

RhiGirl,
I’m not jumping the gun. I was promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. I see nothing in these two that come close to that standard.

Well, the RNC can officially take me off their donation rolls, they’ll get not one more dime of my money.

As to Mr. Hewitt, Kiss my ass!

Comment by RhiGirl

I’m not jumping the gun. I was promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. I see nothing in these two that come close to that standard.

Not even Roberts?

Suffice it to say that I’m skeptical based on the lack of evidence provided. And charges of cronyism don’t count.

The jury’s still out, IMO.

Comment by hitnruni95

It is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.

…

I…

…

Words fail.

First of all, being a lackey does not qualify her for anything. Second, to even suggest that she is the most qualified woman available is either deliberate stupidity or an attempt to deceive Hugh’s readership.

Brown, Jones, Owens, Clement; without thinking about it for more than 10 seconds, I just named 4 women more qualified for the post than Miers and 3 of them are proven constitutionalists.

Comment by MCPO Airdale

Q: What is the difference between an ass kisser and a brown nose?
A: Depth Perception

Huge Hewitt has only one eye

Comment by Guido Cabrone

5. Miguel Estrada- with a vengeance..

NO! EXTREME anti-second amendment.

Advocated renewal of Bill’s Crime. (the 1994 “Assault Weapons” Ban)
Has stated publicly that the Second Amendment is “meaningless”.

(If you want, I can see if I can still find links, but IIRC fot the info through CalNRA.org.)

Comment by juandos

He’s the Sean Hannity of the blogosphere

Now this is funny and totally on target!

Comment by MCPO Airdale

Ron -
And political realities have what to do with promise of conservative justices? Afraid he won’t get the votes of Specter, McCain and other RINOS? So what.

The first responsibility should be to the one that brought you to the dance.

Comment by Ron

And political realities have what to do with promise of conservative justices? Afraid he won’t get the votes of Specter, McCain and other RINOS? So what.

I doubt it. The GOP at large is afraid that they won’t get the votes of VOTERS.

Comment by Ron

Our numbers are not what brought Dubya to the dance, people like us will vote Republican if he fellates a dildo shaped like Al Gore’s cock. Its the swingers and the don’t give a shits that suddenly pull a lever that get people elected, which is probably the majority of people.

Comment by useless

Well, at what point is it OK for me to say that I have about reached my limit with boosh? Why is it that the sole requirement this president has for his appointees is his Personal Loyalty Factor? As an American and as a republican that has supported this president through thick and thin, I deserve a better nominee to the SCOTUS whose qualifications are not only impressive, but singular, and above reproach of the common man. I deserve a nominee whose legal mind and personal comportment can be viewed as an example to all. I don’t see this in Miers. Granted, I don’t know her, and have never met her, but there is nothing on first blush that makes me believe in any way that she is of the judicial caliber that we deserve.

Mr. President, I am disappointed and regretful of my support of your administration and your adjenda. When billyzipperpants sent planes to bomb Yugoslavia during the Monica debate, I was willing to grant that the action was not exactly as it seemed to be-a diversion from his political problems, as I think the timing for that action was suspect, so is this nomination. She is too close to you, and frankly does little to impress anyone who would think that within this vast country, there isn’t ONE candidate more qualified than Miers. This is an insult to the many (whom I suspect) that are vastly better suited to this nomination than she. When you tapped Dick Chenney as your running mate, you had many of us on the right suspect then that you were not able to look at qualifications beyond the “Loyalty” they expressed to you. Your track record of appointments is dismal. Your ability to deliver to the American public and your supporters in general, the best government we deserve is to me, tottering on the edge of credibility.

I am saddened and feel even more shut out from the promise of your campaign and your ideals that you said you stood for. Your presidency is starting to reek of that of a Roman Ceasar and I feel that it will come to the same typical and disappointing end. Unfortunately for us, civilization it’s self rests upon the choices this nation makes, and like Rome, I feel that the barbarians are at our gates, we are busy destroying ourselves from within, and your only concern is a subjects “Loyalty” to you.

You have failed us Mr. President. Unfortunately, I doubt you will ever be made aware of this fact, and if you were, wouldn’t care.

Comment by useless

Ron,

I think we can divide our leaders into their domestic face and their international face. I recall that Gorbachev was hailed as a great leader and an upright guy by everyone BUT the Russian public. The end result is that his ability to continue his “vision” for mother russia was cut short because he was not fulfilling the needs of the Russian people. That will be booshes and the republicans fate here. I don’t think I’ll be voting for anyone come the next election if they are a boosh clone. I think we best get used to the Dems being back in full controll.

Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

I think we best get used to the Dems being back in full controll.

That’s just it. They already are. >:-(

Comment by Rey

My only hope is that Bush is doing what he said he would do, nominate strict constitutionalists. He never said submit well known higly controvertial give the left wing dildoes a reason to talk shit conservative. We did not know John Roberts when he was nominated, after the hearings I belive he is a conservative. We do not yet know Harriet Miers, lets give it a month. I will most likelly be disappointed in a month, but I’ll give it that long. I already quit giving the GOP money, and I will never vote Socialist ehrr…. democrat so that leaves only supporting strict conservatives, but I already do that.

Comment by Guido Cabrone

I already quit giving the GOP money, and I will never vote Socialist ehrr…. democrat so that leaves only supporting strict conservatives, but I already do that.

Yah, or Libertarians. ^shudder^ Neal Boortz for SCOTUS, anyone??? (although he IS the only one that doesn’t induce that ^shudder^ feeling…)

Comment by Don_Meaker

Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy (Volokh.com) note that she has written favorably about the right to keep and bear arms as rights that we will not give up. They note that one has to go back to Louis Brandeis to find a nominee that has spoken favorably about the RTKABA, and even he was not so favorable. It seems that she favors the “individual rights” approach.

Buying land in Canada is not an option for me. For me, the US is truly the last best hope.

Comment by LC Horrabin

Fuck you, GOP, and fuck every single lame-ass RINO horse you endorse in the future.

Geez, people!
Consider this when you are displeased with your duly elected W’s choices:
Imagine what kind of whackos we’d have been faced with had JOHN F*ING KERRY been the one doing the nominating!!! Or Al “Internet ” Gore.
Fear would have been struck in our hearts, to put it mildly. I would have fled to Greenland or somewhere, likely, to avoid who the hell knows what kind of weird “rights” they would find to make my life more miserable…
Either one could have (and might have) nominated Bin Laden and the donks wouldn’t have blinked an eye while voting “Yea”!

Comment by NewMexican

I wish I could believe that W has something up his sleeve. It’s theoretically possible that Miers could secretly be a strong conservative just waiting for a chance to slam something pointed into the liberals’ collective eyes.

Somehow, I’m not hopeful, though I hope to see my impression of Miers as a centrist proven wrong.

As for the claim that W had to nominate her because he’s low on political capital: Leftists hate Bush anyways, it’s not like this will make them think he’s a swell guy. What it will make them think is that he’s running scared and can be pushed around. And if he wants to regain political capital with the right, the way to do that would be to nominate a justice known to be from… get this… the right.

Comment by Ron

Sorry, Ron, but the “where else are you going to go if you’re unhappy with the Republicans?” argument is completely fallacious. Why? Because the Republican base won’t go anywhere, and especially not to the polls come Election 2006.

What I’m hearing here is that you’re willing to gamble letting Democrats take power rather than swallow a bit of bitter medicine, the kind that comes from the type of aggressive policies you do agree with(anti-tax, pro-American interventionism in the name of national security). George Bush put his neck out on those two big big issues and has suffered politically for them, quite badly if you believe half of what the polls are saying. That was courageous to me. He’s out of maneuver room. Why else would he do what he’s doing right now? You know who he is.

Wes, time will tell if what you are saying is true, that the base will sit out an election to teach Republicans a lesson. I think the past is on my side, though.

Comment by LC MVRWC Beth, G.L.O.R, Imperial Slacker™

Well, there’s my answer, I guess. I can’t do it. Libertarian/Constitution is not the answer. Staying home, can’t do it. Only thing to be done is keep making the conservative case within the Republican Party. But all of the decisions they make are not going to be for conservatives with a capital C.

Exactly right, Ron. Stay home, y’all, and you can be sure there won’t be any nominations confirmed that you like, when the Dhimmicrats take over in ‘06 and ‘08.

Anyone remember 1992? How’d you like Clinton’s appointment of Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3)? Or Breyer (confirmed 87-9)?

All I can say is I guess we’ll know who helped elect Dhimmicrats in 2006/2008 if it happens due to a lack of turnout or voters turning to a pathetically impotent third party (which they are, like it or not).

And it WILL happen, y’know. Our margin of victory hasn’t been big enough to sustain a majority if people bail out.

Why not work instead to help conservative Republicans get elected/re-elected, rather than abandoning the whole party? It’s simply not logical.

Comment by Ron

an increasing unwillingness to fight the War on Terror as ruthlessly as required

What does that entail? More troops, requiring a draft? Another front? Reducing what’s left of Iraq’s infrastructure to cinders? Indiscriminate bombing? Whacking a popluar cleric thus guaranteeing that the Shia population that still tolerates us will go apeshit on us? Mistakes have been made-so far, being too heavy handed isn’t one of them. I would love to leave the Middle East and rain hell and destruction on them from afar for fucking with us, as much as I liked the Iraqis I met. Better them than us. If only they didn’t have something we need, something the world needs. We now have a diplomatic mission folded into a military one. We are playing with the cards we have. All we can do is convince Iraq we have something they want-protection-stability, some freedom. Al-Sadass will fall back in line eventually, if he wants any power at all after the Iraqi government is settled. Otherwise, his stupidity will become, um, hazardous to his health. It isn’t politics in America forbidding more stringent measures-it’s politics in Iraq.

an unfortuante willingness to browbeat the Israelis into appeasing the fanatical Palestinians

You mean the withdrawal from Gaza? That’s Sharon’s and Weisglass’ idea, not Dubya’s. Rice was taken out of context. Notice how State didn’t tell Israel to heel after the missile attacks…the message was “yup, we understand. Whatever you gotta do.”

tolerating Iran’s pursuit of WMD

The Iranians are headed for sanctions in the Security Council before long, the IAEA is going to make the recommendation. They have pissed off Europe by blowing off their offers to oversee and coordinate their acquisition of nuclear energy. What else do you want? Iran is digging its own hole nicely. Israel has already pretty much said they’ll ‘handle’ it if it happens, no questions asked.

its selection of a former terrorist as its new president;

Unproven. That picture is flimsy evidence. Terror groups are disgusted with the idea that he was amongst their ranks, and captives cannot agree that it is him.

out-of-control federal spending

It’s true, discretionary spending is high, but let’s spread some of this blame to Congress, shall we? Besides, you think the Democrats are flaming the fuck out of him now for miniscule cuts, good lord, they’ll have citizens hanging him outside the Beltway after they get done smearing him for any hefty cutting. Social Security is the elephant in the room for discretinary spending, and Democrats demagogued the savings account plan to death.

lax border security and lax enforcement of immigration laws

This needs a big plan, and I agree, we should be working on this in the name of national security. No excuse not to work this one. Pandering to the latino vote? I don’t see any odds in that, I think only a negligible amount of them would say to themselves, “Well, if mi hermano Enrique cannot cross the river illegally, I no vote for that cabron.” I think legal latinos who vote would naturally resent the idea of illegal immigration, La Raza types excepted. This could potentially be Bush’s next big win-win victory. I should research some theories on why it isn’t moving forward, because I just can’t see anyone in the WH thinking that not doing anything is going to retain the latino vote. Maybe there have been incremental changes we don’t see getting covered in the media. It’s worth a look.

an inexplicable unwillingness to forcefully confront the hatred, malice, personal attacks and outright sedition of the Democrats

Shhhh! Why on earth would we want to take the crazy out of the opposition?Its why they’re our bitches right now.

and the biggest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Baines Johnson and his “Great Society” scheme

What do you mean? What programs, that is? Things like No Child Left Behind?

I don’t disagree with you completely, Wes, anyone else I’m incensing. But there are reasonable counterpoints to the Bush bashing I’m seeing here. Hopefully someone else does a better job than me in offering them :)I’m just thinking out loud.

I’m all for some cathartic venting, but actually helping put the dimwit Dems in office? Nuh-uh.

Comment by Elephant Man

What do you mean? What programs, that is? Things like No Child Left Behind?

Maybe The Emperor was referring to something like this:

Why push for more domestic oil drilling and building new refineries when all we have to do is slaughter The Energy Hogs?

As Neil Boortz said,”If George Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office wearing a sweater, you’ll know he’s really lost his mind.“

Comment by Dex

I already quit giving the GOP money, and I will never vote Socialist ehrr…. democrat so that leaves only supporting strict conservatives, but I already do that.

Yah, or Libertarians. ^shudder^ Neal Boortz for SCOTUS, anyone??? (although he IS the only one that doesn’t induce that ^shudder^ feeling…)

Now, I’m a Janice Rogers Brown fan. I’m not, however, a conservative. I’m one of those eeevil libertarians. By my standards, Bush is a big-government, tax-and-spend, gun-grabbing Socialist. For example, I’d just love to see Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court, taking a ClueBat to some Feds for abusing the Patriot Act. Bet she’d whup up on ‘em, if a case like that hit her docket.

Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel

I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on this, Ron, but nonetheless I’ll pick up the gauntlet once again…

You mean the withdrawal from Gaza? That was Sharon and Weisglass’ idea. Rice was taken out of context…

Yes, I know. If you search the Rott’s archives, you’ll find that when Misha posted a fulminating article on what Dr. Rice allegedly said about the Gaza withdrawal being “a first step,” I was the one who found proof elsewhere on the Web that the New York Times had Dowdified her quote and alerted my fellow LCs. I was actually talking about actions like the following example that have been taken by the Bush Administration.

From The Washington Time’s Diana West, via Michelle Malkin:

Whatever happened to George W. Bush’s raison d’etre — namely, that we oppose terror networks and the countries that support them? Maybe the answer lies in what passes for tea leaves these days — as in the fact that the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s right-hand man on Iraq, has “roots in the Arab world so deep,” reports the Washington Post, “that his beloved greyhound is named Kisa — for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, his first posting in the Arab world.” Explains Mr. Jones: “Maybe they wanted someone who could provide the Arab perspective, too.” Which is weird, at best. Of all countries, Israel certainly knows the Arab point of view, historically delivered at gunpoint. But why, oh why, is the American ambassador concerned with presenting the Arab point of view? Is the Arab point of view the American point of view? And where does that leave us in the so-called war on terror?

What kind of message are we sending to the Israelis by appointing an Arabophile like Jones to be our ambassador to them? I’d say that’s one example of “arm-twisting” right there. And it also underscores what I was talking about when I said that we aren’t fighting the War on Terror as ruthlessly as we ought to be. Of late, we don’t seem to be confronting the terrorists and their sponsors on all fronts, as the President promised us he would do - and did do - during his first term.

The Iranians are headed for sanctions in the Security Council before long, the IAEA is going to make the recommendation…

Yeah, UN sanctions and the threats of European “unhappiness” will sure scare ‘em. The thing, was, the President said repeatedly and unequivacally that a nuclear-armed Iran was absolutely unacceptable to the United States. Of late, our response has been…increasingly accepting. Yes, we sold the Israelis a batch of GBU-28 deep penatrator bombs before the election. But why should we make them do our dirty work? Especially since we’ve sent them an ambassador who thinks it’s his job to make Israel see the other side’s “point of view?”

(Yes, I’m aware Iran is not actually an Arab country. No doubt Mr. Jones is trying to illuminate the Persian point of view for his Israeli hosts, as well.)

It’s true, discretionary spending is high, but let’s spread some of this blame to Congress, shall we? Besides, you think the Democrats are flaming the fuck out of him now for miniscule cuts, good lord, they’ll have citizens hanging him outside the Beltway after they get done smearing him for any hefty cutting.

Ron, how can the Dems do that if, as you claimed a couple of paragaphs later in that post to me, the Donks are “our bitches now?” For that matter, if the Donks are in fact “our bitches,” then how can Harry Reid plausibly take credit for the Harriet Miers SCOTUS pick? For an example of what I’m talking about, go over to Michelle Malkin’s site and check out the picture she posted today of Reid and Miers.

Note the shit-eating grin on Reid’s face. Does that truly look like someone who’s “our bitch?” If that isn’t nauseating enough, check out the links accompanying that post of Michelle’s. Picking an anonymous “magic 8-ball” like Miers for the SCOTUS slot shows weakness on the part of the President and the “majority” Republicans in Congress, not strength. Especially when - as you rightly pointed out - the Donks are in full meltdown.

And yes, the Congress - dominated by Republicans! - does deserve quite a bit of blame for out-of-control spending as well. The fact remains that Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. Reagan, on the other hand, vetoed quite a few of them, and sent them back to Congress with stern instructions to remove chunks of pork.

No, not all the anger of the Republican base is directed at the President. The Republican Party leadership is getting its share of blame, too, for these fiascos. And it’s further demoralizing the party’s base, and fueling things like the “Not One Dime!” campaign. They’re not acting like winners, at this point.

What do you mean? What (expanded entitlement) programs, that is? Things like No Child Left Behind?

No, things like the massive expansion of Medicaid, including the prescription drug benefit, which is already expected to cost at least three times as much money as was projected before it was passed by Congress.

This (border security) needs a big plan, and I agree, we should be working on this in the name of national security. No excuse not to work this one.

Then why aren’t we, Ron? I’m sorry, but I don’t see a “win-win” situation here. What I do see, especially since he put a bureaucratic lightweight like Janice Myers in charge of immigration enforcement, is a President - and increasingly, a Republican Party leadership - that doesn’t take the issue seriously.

Bottom line? The Republican Party’s base doesn’t have a lot to be enthusiastic about, Ron. The President - and most of the party’s leadership, to be fair - have broken just about all the promises they have made to conservatives. Smaller government? Secure borders? Even the promise of appointing federalist judges to the Supreme Court now seems to be just about as believable as “The check is in the mail.”

The country was ready for a public confrontation over the issue of judges, and the President looks to have ducked it, despite having both the facts and the law on his side. And that is why I am saying that the base no longer has a strong reason to support him. The people and the Republican Party need a strong leader, and President Bush, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be acting like a leader at the moment.

We already know that the Dems won’t have any problems getting their base to the voting booth. If they had a coherent political agenda to go along with their hatred of the President and their resentment at his having won the last two elections, they’d be killing the Republicans in the polls right now. Since the Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be doing nothing but taking their own base for granted, what will they do to rally the troops next year? Trying to scare the base with images of “dimwit Dems” in control of the country doesn’t work all that well when the Republicans are doing a pretty good job of acting like dimwit Dems themselves.

No, Ron, I’m not “incensed” at your disagreement with me or some of the other LCs. I’m merely disgusted that, once again, the Republican Party has apparently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe Harriet Myers will turn out to be another Scalia. Perhaps John Roberts will turn out to be Rehnquist reborn. I hope so. I just don’t think that’s very likely, from what I’ve seen of them.

Comment by Ron

Thanks for your reply, Wes. You still go to PP’s site now and then? I remember seeing you there. Bit like beating yourself with a truncheon repeatedly. Anyway, it’s good that we can have this discussion, I know I haven’t incensed you- I think I just said that lest anyone think I’m trying to start a flame war with them. A few replies to your points.

Of late, we don’t seem to be confronting the terrorists and their sponsors on all fronts, as the President promised us he would do - and did do - during his first term.

I think it’s absurd to hold President Bush to the terms of a rhetorical flourish after a catastrophe. Liberals are famous for setting the bar to unreachable heights, not us.

Re:Iran-both the CFR and Heritage have come to the conclusion that the new president is sensitive to world opinion-Heritage feels the coming Security Council resolutions will embarrass Iran into new talks. My bottom line is that we are still in a diplomacy stage with Iran, and there are still options, and it’s still in Europe’s hands at the moment.We should support their sanctions and continue to call Iran out on human rights violations. I don’t think we’ve ruled anything out yet; we are hardly finding Iran’s stance increasingly acceptable. Once again, what would you have us do?

Note the shit-eating grin on Reid’s face. Does that truly look like someone who’s “our bitch?” If that isn’t nauseating enough, check out the links accompanying that post of Michelle’s. Picking an anonymous “magic 8-ball” like Miers for the SCOTUS slot shows weakness on the part of the President and the “majority” Republicans in Congress, not strength.

Wes, we only have a majority in the Senate, not the supermajority that we need to nominate Fred Phelps if we felt like it. As long as the Democrats have the filibuster, they will use it on another markedly conservative nominee. Answer? Meet you half way. Here’s some good points about Miers, if anyone still feels like being optimistic. A sample:

she has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration on a broad number of initiatives, including tax cuts, Social Security reforms, restrictions on federal spending on embryonic stem-cell research, national security, education reforms and fighting terrorism. While active in the American Bar Association in late 1990s, she was a leader of an unsuccessful movement to get the organization to rescind its pro-choice positions and support for taxpayer-funded abortion for poor women.

This does not sound like the marks of a raging liberal. I don’t deny the rarefied air on the SCOTUS might change her into something we regret-but I am definitely not ready to condemn her yet. Sometimes I get the feeling we are being set up by the media to eat our own by insinuating that this or that person is weak on this or that. Its a bad trend no matter what.

Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. Reagan, on the other hand, vetoed quite a few of them, and sent them back to Congress with stern instructions to remove chunks of pork.

One of four things are happening here:1) Bush is a lousy conservative who doesn’t give a fig about fiscal discipline, 2)Bush is fearful of political fallout on spending cuts, or 3)We are triangulating to allow no room for Democrats to complain about or improve policy, or 4)Bush believes in compassionate conservatism(which I translate as government helping people) and would have much rather improved Social Security AND cut discretionary spending in the future on that motherfucker, and not have to make any other cuts in popular or pet programs. Could be a bit of all of these, I dunno. I’m just saying there is more than one way to look at Bush’s fiscal approach, eschewing the dogma of spending cuts and take no prisoners doing it.

Then why aren’t we, Ron? I’m sorry, but I don’t see a “win-win” situation here. What I do see, especially since he put a bureaucratic lightweight like Janice Myers in charge of immigration enforcement,is a President - and increasingly, a Republican Party leadership - that doesn’t take the issue seriously.

Did she get confirmed? Really? Anyway,why is she a bureaucratic lightweight? Or are we just saying that because she hasn’t got any experience on the issue? I think a good manager should be able to jump into anything and lead it properly, it’s what our elites do. I have no reason to suspect she is a bureaucrat or a bad manager, and her relationship to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not proof of that.

If they had a coherent political agenda to go along with their hatred of the President and their resentment at his having won the last two elections, they’d be killing the Republicans in the polls right now.

This is the spirit in which I said that the Democrats are our bitches-they haven’t figured this out yet. They can’t get their plan out, its just “The President this, the president that” and they will be done with their safari of obsolescence when they start acting dignified.

Then again, maybe the President is out of ideas and out of conservative allies and all my apologies are for naught. I’m not 100% sure. I just think the guy needs a break. He does indeed need to be more forceful and forthcoming and more engaged with the public, but condemning him for not going balls to the wall uncompromising conservative fuck-everyone-who-opposes-me is unfair, asking more of a politician than can be expected, especially when things are as complicated as they are.

Comment by LC & IB Random Numbers

I used to go to Vally View Christian Church before it moved up the road. I remember Harriet from Bible study.
She used to interrupt in discussions by saying, “The Bible means what it says,” puncturing a metaphorical argument by one or another of us.

The bullshit being spewed about her is just that, BULLSHIT!

Oh, or how about some more of Miers’ credentials, courtesy of LC & IB Jeff G.: “Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.”

Bullshit! She was on a panel that recommended it, she did not do so herself. I’m willing to bet my left gonad she was outvoted.

PLEASE tell me, Magesty, when was the last time Bush made an APPELATE JUDICIAL appointment that did not measure up? He’s been pretty damned consistent so far.

Myers is “stealth” all right, just like Souter. The only difference is she’s a “stealth” originalist.