Comment by tripleneck

I would be nice if she had at least spent a couple of years on the federal bench first.

And First.

Comment by LC & IB Random Numbers

Triple,

Does that mean you would have opposed Thomas, too? His stint on the bench was about 6 months befor his SCOTUS nomination.

Hows about we actually look at what she says in hearings and look at her own words in law journals before we tie her in the arena for the brick-throwing party, huh?

I will not say she’s the most qualified out there, but she is clearly qualified and I like her attitude.

I’m not basing my support on any trust in Bush. I trust Harriet. My experiences with her, albiet the latest being almost a decade ago, gives me cause, I think.

One thing that does piss me off in this whole thing are people I like spewing absolute BULLSIT about someone I know.

Comment by LC & IB Random Numbers

BTW, Misha, Your kool-aid arguement is as big a pile of shit as the elitism arguments you rightly attack.

Comment by The Dread Pundit Bluto

The brief for the Supreme Court is the US Constitution. It doesn’t take a lawyer wearing a robe (judge) to interpret it.

That doesn’t mean I’m supporting Harriet. I’ll have to see what she has to say during confirmation hearings, and what comes out about her in the press.

Comment by Tuning Spork

Or, as Dread Pundit Bluto just posted while I was typing, let’s see how the hearings go. Heh.

Comment by Tuning Spork

RhiGirl,
What we “conservatives” want is a judge who understands that the people’s Law means what it says, not what the judge wants it to say. It’s a democracy thang. For that, yes, we are activists.

Comment by Ubu

RhiGirl, way, way back in the dim mists of time (pre-Earl Warren), the Supreme Court was occasionally known to refuse to decide on an issue for a very, very odd reason: It was a political issue, and the court had no business deciding political issues. They’d even go so far as to decide to override an appeals court if they thought one had gotten out of line.

Contrast that today, where nothing is off limits, and anything can be done by judges. If you want a further explanation of why we want strict constructionists on the court, even if it takes activists to undo the damage of the last 40 years, I recommend you check out last night’s post on my blog. Scroll down to the seventh paragraph, just below the solo line “On that point, I will now rest my case about Miers.”

What’s your take?

Comment by Ubu

Sorry George, I don’t buy that argument. Are SCOTUS judges who are parents supposed to recuse themselves about cases involving the rights of children?

Now lets get even more pointed:

What about a female justice that had an abortion 30 years ago ruling on an anti-abortion law? Ok, now what if she had refused to have an abortion, and raised the child instead?

When it comes to their private lives, we get what we get. Short of truly bad things, I don’t think it’s our business. Though a sharp lawyer arguing a case before such a judge will take their predjudices into account.

Comment by Ubu

Sorry, George, you missed something: I’m one who is also NOT asking for a conservative on the court, but a constructionist. No matter where the decision leads. If it leads in a “liberal” direction on some issue, well, that’s where it leads. Time to get a new amendment started.

I am not one who wants to twist the constitution into a pretzel just to get the result I want.

Comment by RhiGirl

Ubu, you said this in your post:

Second, the Democratic leader of the senate likes her. That’s definately a big minus. Reagan appointed people that the Dems would confirm after the Bork fiasco, and look what we got: Breyer and Ginsburg. The orignal Court Commies.

Bush said he talked with about 80 of the Senators about his nominee, and since there are only 55 Republicans in the Senate, well, he must have had to talk to some of the Democrats, too. What a shock!

Seriously, though, why is that a big deal? We Republicans/conservatives seem to like Zell Miller even though he calls himself a Democrat. And Joe Lieberman - what about him?

Do you get my point here? It’s unfair to tar the Democrat Senators just because they like Miers. Why is that news? We’re very quick to jump on Republican Senators when they “betray” us in some way. I don’t think the Democrats approving of Miers is relevant, if you ask me. And since you did ask, there you go.

Comment by Ubu

That’s a good point, and normally I’d agree with you. The reason I don’t is that since Bork, Senate confirmation hearings have been an opportunity for both sides to devolve into political name calling and generally bad behavior. The fact that the Dems are suddenly agreeing with a pick fills me with terror that we’re about to end up with another Breyer or Ginsburg. I want a pick with ironclad constructionist credentials, and I want Bush to go to the mat to get that person on the SCOTUS.

Getting along for the sake of getting along is no longer an option after Kelo v. New London.

Comment by Ubu

Hm…. #23 was in response to #21. And I missed your last remark in that. I’m not tarring the Dems… I’m tarring Miers! Anyway,in #22, you go again with the same argument. I thought I dealt with that replying to Sir George. If the decision goes “against” me, then it means the law was crafted incorrectly (IMHO, YMMV). Time to go back to the political sphere, and duke it out there.

I’m guessing here, but I think you’ve become so accustomed to the “living constitution” that you have little to no concept of how it could be different. A perfect example of what I am talking about is the Dred Scott decision in the 19th century. It was a horrible, horrible decision involving slavery, but decided correctly.

Comment by Ubu

Hell they’re both Clinton. Sigh. Goddamn memory playing tricks on me. it was Kennedy and Souter. From my own post “Why a Non-Democratic Majority is Crucial”

William H. Rehnquist, Ariz. 1986–
John Paul Stevens, Ill. 1975–
Sandra Day O’Connor, Ariz. 1981–
Antonin Scalia, DC 1986–
Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif. 1988–
David H. Souter, N.H. 1990–
Clarence Thomas, DC 1991–
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC 1993– {ACLU/Communist
Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 1994–

Pingback by houblog.com » Blog Archive » Miers… And Then Some Other Thoughts

[…] Edit: ARGH. Tuning Spork, over at the Rottie, pointed out I had the judges wrong, both were Clinton appointees (and Dem Senate confirmations, as I pointed out in Why a Non-Democratic Majority is Crucial.) The correct names were Souter and Kennedy. […]

Comment by Ubu

*blinks*
*scratches head*

…um, so do you? You keep saying we don’t care if the decision is constructionist, as long as it’s conservative. I think Sir George has pretty much expressed sentiments along those lines (whether he’d admit it or not [Grin], but as I and Tuning Spork have pointed out, we don’t believe so. Yet you keep saying we do.

Comment by Political Pulpit, ITW

There never has been a requirement that a person must have sat on a bench previously to be installed to the Supreme Court — but it does help to have at least some experience in Constitutional law.

I don’t think there are many people on either side of the political spectrum who are enthusiastic about this particular nomination — and for different reasons. But let’s just take away the political ideology argument and look at what this really is: whether it is true or not, it smacks of cronyism.

I have no doubt that Harriet Miers is a “good person”. I might even go out on a limb and accept that she is a “wonderful person”. But is she qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge? What sets her apart from any other possible candidate? Are we to believe that out of at least a million people in this country trained in the law profession, that she is the best that Bush can come up with?

Even though I wouldn’t approve of Pricilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, I would say that at least both appear to be far more qualified than Harriet Miers. Even Robert Bork has more credentials than Ms Miers.

I agree with purrfect_mamma in the sense that Democrats knew that you couldn’t trust Bush for anything and now it appears you are seeing it also — finally.

The man is no Conservative, at least in the traditional sense. He is a Corporatist, and this is his true concern. Roberts, and now Mier, are both corporate attorneys and THIS is what he is truly attempting to pack the court with.

Comment by Sir George Turner

Actually, Corporatism is a form of syndicalism, a close relative of Italian fascism, and practiced today in countries like Sweden.

Comment by Tuning Spork

I think that the biggest stickler between Libertarian and Republican comes down to the whole “religion” thang.

I am an athiest/agnostic “conservative” who believes in the Rule of Law. Where does then belief in Law come from? Us? God? Common Sense? I dunno, but I just know that government derives it’s just powers through the consent of the Governed.

Call me old-fashioned, but, rule of the People, I think, is still a good way to go about figuring these things out — black robes be damned…

Comment by Ubu

Youre welcome Rhigirl!

But… I blew it with the Dred Scott example. I totally misremebered the basis of the challenge.

Dred Scott’s case holds a unique place in American constitutional history as an example of the Supreme Court trying to impose a judicial solution on a political problem.

It wasn’t a constructionist decision, it was a poster child for judicial activism! Read this brief summary.

Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar

Okay, I haven’t looked at many of the comments, but, from the few I’ve read, I really need to make a couple of points about Harriet Meir.

For one, her lack of judicial experience is irrelevant, ESPECIALLY from Constitutional standpoint. The MAJORITY of US Supreme Court justices in history had NO judicial experience before getting there. Judicial experience had NEVER been considered a criteria for nomination to the US Supreme Court until recently. Most of the previous SCOTUS justices who had judicial experience had it more by coincidence than design. Good enough for the Founding Fathers, good enough for me.

Secondly, I think I’m seeing a “Liberal in conservative clothing” mentality from a lot of Meir’s critics. Including here. Many of the complaints about Meir are based on the arguement that we don’t know how she is going to rule on our pet issues….just like we whine and moan about the Democrats doing. To me, it’s real simple. If I want a conservative judge on SCOTUS, then, I want a judge who will rule on the law before them, and compare it to the (rather limited) scope of the US Constitution. If the law is Constitutional, NO MATTER HOW DISTASTEFUL TO ME, then, the law is Constitutional. What many conservatives are arguing for is a SCOTUS judge who will legislate from the bench in OUR favor…which the type of thinking that got us Justice Souter. If they’ll legislated from the bench, they’ll legislate from the bench, which is bad, no matter which side they are legislating for. Simple as that.

Thirdly, the arguement that “we know nothing about her” is rather stupid. Actually, it’s a lot stupid. Aggravatingly stupid. Sorry, guys. We don’t know anything about ANYONE we haven’t actually met, other than their public personae. Truthfully, John Kerry could be a warm, sweet man with staunch Christian values in his personal life. The odds are against it, because of how much we’ve seen of his public life, but, it still is possible. The biggest complaint about Harriet Meirs is that she hasn’t been such a fucking publicity whore that we know every last detail about her, including when her period starts! Think about that for a fucking second, people. How much do you know about anyone else here, yet, you think so-and-so is a good conservative, and so-and-so is a barking Moonbat, based on less evidence than we have about Harriet Meir. Face it, we aren’t going to find out enough about her to satisfy us, because WE DON’T KNOW HER! EVERYONE has something in their past or their beliefs that will make them “unacceptable” to others, even others that agree with them on bigger issues. It is only on the liberal side that the followers are demanded to be non-thinking automatons. (Yes, PP, I’m including you in that. You haven’t had an original thought here in the two years I’ve been reading this site. Sorry. Don’t like it? Try having an original thought.) The biggest complaint about Harriet Meir is that we don’t know enough about her beliefs to know how she feels about OUR beliefs. Sorry, guys, but, tough shit. You never will. I’ll bet Justice Scalia likes some things that y’all don’t. I’ll bet money on it.

In summation, give Harriet Meir a chance. I’m not saying to jump on the bandwagon and support her, but, give her a chance. We don’t know if she’ll end up being a Scalia with tits, or, if she’ll be a Ginsberg with balls. We just don’t know. BUT, based on some arguements from conservatives who actually KNOW her, I’m wiling to give her the chance.

A chance, people. Just one. For you Christians out there, isn’t that what she deserves? You were given a chance, shouldn’t she?

Comment by RhiGirl

Sometimes it seems like we’re trying to say the same thing in two different languages. Welcome to the Rott!

Don’t I know it, Tuning Spork!

Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar

Mr. Brown,

Jay Sekulow, of the ACLJ, used to work with her as well, and he has nothing but glowing praise for her. Kinda makes my point for me.

Good comment, though.

Comment by Ubu

*shudder*
What a thought. “Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, George Turner”

heh.

Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar

Misha,

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that we should just go merrily along with her nomination. I’m just saying that we should cut down the rhetoric a bit, until she’s had a chance to PUBLICALLY answer a lot of these questions. Which, she will, during the Senate hearings.

I guess I’m all for not getting my undies in a bundle until she has answered some rather pointed questions from the Senate. The actual answers aren’t as important to me as how she answers them, because how she answers them will tell me far more about what she believes than what the answers are.

Remember, Klintoon always said what his audience wanted to hear, but, in a slimy, used-car-salesman sort of way. And THAT is why conservatives hated him. We KNEW he was lying, because he was acting like a liar. Liberals loved him for that, because he was lying in exactly the same way they would lie.

I’m not actually saying that we should endorse her, or push for her to be on SCOTUS. I’m saying we should give her enough rope, and see what she does with it. If she asks for a scaffold to go with her rope, we know she’s the wrong one….

Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel

I think RhiGirl nailed it a few comments back when she was talking about the difference between a constitutionalist justice and a conservative justice. Most of Harriet Miers’ defenders are trying to reassure conservatives that there is no reason to worry about her performance on the bench by emphasizing her devotion to conservative principles and her evangelical Christianity. For example, James Dobson is out there telling conservatives not to worry, because Miers is devoutly pro-life; Laura Ingraham quoted Dobson extensively on her radio show tonight.

If Miers were campaigning for political office, a political-type campaign would be acceptable. However, haven’t we conservatives spent the last couple of decades - ever since Robert Bork’s SCOTUS confirmation hearings - demanding that only judicial temprament be our guide in determining whether or not someone is qualified to sit on the federal bench, rather than one’s personal politics or philosophy? Haven’t we been outraged by the Democrats’ constant attacks on the personal beliefs - especially Christian beliefs - of our judicial nominees, while hypocritically demanding that criticism of even the most politically extreme judges they nominate - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance - be limited to their courtroom demeanor? Aren’t you sick of their incessant attempts to equate conservatism with extremism, and liberalism with the mainstream of American thought?

We conservatives have been demanding an end to the double standards for years. And now our leaders tell us we’re supposed to accept Harriet Miers’ selection for the O’Connor SCOTUS vacancy on faith: that is, her faith in God and our faith that she will turn out to be a conservative who will vote the conservative line. They also tell us that opposition to Miers comes not from concerns about her competence and experience, but rather “elitism” and “sexism.”

I’m sorry, but that is absolutely wrong. It goes totally against everything we conservatives have been demanding for decades. We’ve been wanting learned, principled judges who uphold the Constitution and the concept of federalism, and will refrain from legislating from the bench. So what do we get with the Miers pick?

In Harriet Miers, we get a woman whose resume primarily extolls how much of a “trailblazer” she was for women, rather than her qualifications for the highest court in the land. Instead of learned discourse on the meaning of the Second Amendment or the dubious constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, they tell us that Miers would be the first Supreme Court Justice with a CCW permit and assure us that she’s “on our side” when it comes to voting against abortion. In lieu of anything resembling a political philosophy, they tell us that she cleaned up the Texas Lottery Commission back when. This sounds like a resume for a political candidate…for a statewide office, not the highest court in the land. And when Miers and her supporters are running her nomination for the Supreme Court as a political campaign, what does that tell you about her position about “legislating from the bench?”

The bottom line for me is that Harriet Miers, even if she is truly a conservative judge with a conservative philosophy, acts more like the sort of nominee a Democrat would come up with. And the Bush Administration is waging the same sort of nakedly political campaign to put her on the Supreme Court -by emphasizing her personal political and religious beliefs - that we have rightly condemned Democrats for doing. If the Republican Party supports the Miers nomination under these circumstances, it will have forfeited any right to criticize Democrats for making an issue of a judge’s personal beliefs or wanting to put people on the bench who support “their” political agenda. We’ve been telling the Democrats that they can’t have it both ways; why should we?

For my part, this conservative wants a Supreme Court staffed with constitutionalists, and let the political chips fall where they may.

Comment by juandos

Anyway, I hate to say this because it sounds like I told you so and I know you’re all tired of hearing about Mr. Bush’s less than stellar military record. But he showed his character when he made a commitment and didn’t keep it. While I certainly don’t know enough about his life and career to say that he has never truly been called to account for his miss-steps, can you really cite an instance where he has? He gets away with stuff. He expects to

Yes, there are still undeniably stupid people who still believe in Al Gore and Dan Rather out there…

Comment by purrfect_mamma

To Juandos,

Did I say a word about Al Gore or Dan Rather? And it took you 52 posts to issue a moonbat alert when my post was number 2 and I identified myself as a moonbat? You’re really sharp!! Let’s put you in charge of emergency evacuations.

Just like we liberals ignored Gennifer Flowers because we didn’t want to hear about it, you all ignored what is blindingly obvious about Bush’s military record because you needed to. Don’t blame you, what were going to do, vote for Kerry? But at least Clinton only cheated on his wife. When a soldier doesn’t show up for duty, he cheats his fellow-soldiers. Fortunately, he just didn’t show up for practice. If it had been war, someone might have been killed. (Note, I hope this comment is allowed since we’re talking about his trustworthiness. Please forgive if it’s not, I’m still learning the rules.)

Mr. Cabrone, thank you for the welcome. I realize I am entering a fray and I am willing to be trained.

Comment by maxxdog

“But at least Clinton only cheated on his wife”
Wrong!!!
He looked the American people in the eye and lied to them!!!
Many young people think blowjobs are not “sexual relations” because of that man.

You seem to think the Rather document, though forged, is accurate.

Comment by purrfect_mamma

To maxxdog,

Actually, I never watch TV news. I’m a print media gal. The document had already been discredited before I paid much attention to it. I base my belief that his military career was less than stellar on the preponderance of different voices that seem to me to lead one way. They tended to be vague and there is no hard proof, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. He would never be convicted in a court of law. Nor should he. But I wouldn’t choose him for a friend, because I wouldn’t trust him. In evaluating his character from the evidence available, I found him wanting. The evidence was thin, but often we are forced to make character determinations on thin evidence and gut feelings. I’ll be honest. Based on policy differences, I wasn’t going to vote for him any more than were going to vote for Kerry, eve if you did believe he was AWOL. But I could have disagreed with him and found him to be an honest and likeable guy. My dislike of him personally was and is based on my conviction that he has no character. Let’s just say I looked into his heart (from afar) and found it wanting.

As far as approving of adultery, I don’t approve and didn’t say I did. But if my neighbor cheats on her/his spouse that’s between them and it affects their whole family. To borrow Misha’s analogy, if a doctor cheated to graduate medical school, that’s a whole different level of betrayal and has much greater implications.

Clinton lied. No question. I am extremely angry with him for the affair and for the lies. HIs “apology” was the most insincere speech I believe I have ever heard. He brought shame on himself, on the presidency and he betrayed his supporters. We had warnings (Gennifer Flowers and other vague hints) and we ignored them. As a result, he was unable to achieve what many people elected him to do. So, maxxdog, I think I have talked myself into seeing your point on this. Would I have voted for Dole first time around knowing then what I know how? Don’t know, probably not. But I do believe Bob Dole is an honest and upright person with good character. I certainly would have given it a lot of thought.

You may not believe as I do that George Bush lied about his military record. You may evaluate the thinness of the evidence differently. But he has betrayed you with other lies and betrayals since then, casting doubt on his honesty. Are you as willing to give him the benefit of that doubt as you were before?

A question I raised in my original comment was whether he has ever truly been called to account. Do you all have any instances you can offer?

Thanks Humble Devildog for the pointers. Will try to survive. Might learn something. Might teach something. Who knows?

Comment by Ron

and his conduct while still in the United States Navy would have had him lined up against a wall and shot if he hadn’t been a budding politician.

Yep, Winter Soldier and Dewey Canyon III loom much larger than not showing up at a few drills for the ANG by far.

Comment by Elephant Man

But I wouldn’t choose him for a friend, because I wouldn’t trust him. In evaluating his character from the evidence available, I found him wanting. The evidence was thin, but often we are forced to make character determinations on thin evidence and gut feelings.

And whatever pap is spewed out DNC.

Let’s just say I looked into his heart (from afar) and found it wanting.

TRANSLATION: Bush is evil!

Clinton lied. No question. I am extremely angry with him for the affair and for the lies. HIs “apology” was the most insincere speech I believe I have ever heard. He brought shame on himself, on the presidency and he betrayed his supporters. We had warnings (Gennifer Flowers and other vague hints) and we ignored them.

Let me get this straight.

You’re “extremely angry” that he committed adultry, you ignored warnings about his lack of character, yet you have no problem with him being convicted of perjury and being disbarred.

Would I have voted for Dole first time around knowing then what I know how? Don’t know, probably not.

Despite the fact that you had warnings about Clinton (Gennifer Flowers and other vague hints)?

But I do believe Bob Dole is an honest and upright person with good character.

Yet you voted for Clinton.

You really aren’t helping your credibility of your analysis of “Dubya’s” character with your self-admitted track record.

You may not believe as I do that George Bush lied about his military record.

I don’t believe he lied about his military record because there’s no evidence that he did.

If you’re hung up on “people who lied about their military record”, take a look at John Kerry.

(I suppose you voted for him too)

You may evaluate the thinness of the evidence differently.

Thinness of evidence? Try no evidence.

Turned out that Kerry’s military service was a lot more questionable than Bush’s….

But he has betrayed you with other lies and betrayals since then, casting doubt on his honesty. Are you as willing to give him the benefit of that doubt as you were before?

Like what?

(Remember, you lose credibility points with each debunked meme/conspiracy theory so think carefully.)

A question I raised in my original comment was whether he has ever truly been called to account. Do you all have any instances you can offer?

The answers is yes. He’s “called to account” every waking moment by the MSM, the alternative media, the liberal moonbats etc. etc.

Of course, if your definition of “being called to account” is being destroyed by “thin”, false, and/or non-existent evidence, I’d have to say no.

I hate to disillusion you, but if you think that the conservatives irritation with Bush’s judicial nominees means that they’re going to let the democrat moonbats destroy his presidency, you’re sadly mistaken.

We don’t view Bush with the irrational, bitter, psychotic hatred like those on “the left”.

Unlike liberals, we don’t slavishly follow “our guy”.

We’ll critcize Bush when we feel he screws up, sometimes with a lot of hyperbole and bombast.

However, he’ll get praise from us when he gets it right.

Will try to survive. Might learn something. Might teach something. Who knows?

Time will tell…

Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar

purrfect mamma,

Again, you are operating under a false premise. President Bush is our president, just as he is YOUR president, because HE WON BOTH ELECTIONS! Whether or not we agree with him, or like him, is irrelevant. Completely, totally, 100% irrelevant. He is the President of the United States, so, he gets to call the shots. We are dealing with it. You should try it, as well.

I didn’t vote for Bush, nor did I vote against Kerry. I don’t actually have much of a dog in this fight, because, truthfully, I can’t vote. (a youthful indiscretion). BUT, I do have a bit of a say in how the presidency is viewed, because his policies affect me, as well.

President Bush is no more “our” guy than Josef Stalin is “your” guy. Do we disagree with President Bush on a lot of things? You bet. Is he better than Kerry or Gore would have been? Without question. So, while we aren’t thrilled with him, we do know that he is better than the alternative. You will also find that we don’t like the choices available much better than you do. We just draw the line at voting for delusional candidates (Gore) or treasonous candidates (Kerry). Until the Constitutional Party actually is relevant, most of us will have to hold our noses, and vote for whatever idiot the Republicans trot out, because the Republican candidate, at the very least, isn’t actively hoping for the US’s demise, like the Dhimmicrats.

Don’t like your candidates? Stop voting for them. If you keep finding yourself disagreeing with your entire party’s platform, you should give a lot of thought to leaving that party. That’s how the Republican Party has been making such growth recently. REAL Americans keep looking at the Dhimmicrat Party, and finding them lacking in every category, so, they are fleeing to the (admittedly barely better) Republican Party. You won’t be leaving your party. Your party has already left you. In the ’30s, to be honest. Once the Dhimmicrat Party adopted Communism as its semi-official platform, it doomed itself to irrelevance. It has just taken the past 70 years for it to be felt.

Comment by purrfect_mamma

To Humble Devildog,

I agree my party left me. But at the moment, for me, it’s still the less bad choice than the Republican party. You obviously don’t understand or agree. You may think that makes me a moonbat, a dingbat or a wombat. But I am still a REAL American and I have the right to be any of those or all three.

Comment by purrfect_mamma

To Humble Devildog:

One thing liberals seem to have a hard time with is seperating the statement from the stater. If one of us says “that’s an idiotic idea”, please note, we didn’t say “You are such an idiot!”. The two sentences use different words, quite simply because they mean different things.

Once we know that you are a liberal, we know that you are delusional, and, now, just have to find out what delusions you have.

Gee thanks for clarifying that for me. I actually believed the first statment. My mistake.

Comment by purrfect_mamma

Ah, but when you’re delusional, you don’t know you’re delusional. So you could still be delusional and not know it. Maybe this is the Matrix and we’re all delusional.

I think I’ll retreat into my padded cell for today and lick my wounds. Maybe if I’m good, they’ll let me out on pass another day.

Cheers.

Comment by Ron

Purrfect Mama, it’s a great time to be a liberal. I’d enjoy it, we’d do the same. We enjoyed it when we shocked the shit out of you in ‘04 when you all thought everyone knew George Bush was the Antichrist, but realized you were all talking to yourselves. We watched with glee when you began eating your own trying to figure out what went wrong. It’s your turn for the time being, as we eat our own and go off half cocked trying to figure out what is going wrong. You are seeing a schism in the party, the same kind of infighting that destroyed the Democratic party during the Bush years. I hate watching it.

But it’s happening. You’re seeing it right here. We’re going to help you take back Congress, don’t you worry. Grab your popcorn and enjoy. I know I would if it was happening to your side.

Comment by Ron

Yes. Would you like John Kerry to run the war on terror, you know the guy who called for a timetable and wanted to offer the Iranians nuclear material?

Comment by Ernest Brown

Here is a fairly balanced account of Bush’s last years in the Guard:

George W. Bush: military pilot (part 2)

In 1972, the 111th FIS transitioned to a new aircraft, the McDonnell-Douglas F-101B Voodoo fighter. According to Colonel William Campenni, then a lieutenant in the squadron: “”The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit’s mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.

“The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn’t room for all of them anymore.”

Lt. Bush logged his last flight in a F-102A in April 1972. (The 336 hours he had logged after graduating from flight training averaged out to about 12 hours a month, more than enough to stay sharp for flying, even at the intensity expected of a jet fighter pilot.) Then, on May 15, 1972, he “cleared” from Ellington to work on a senatorial campaign in Alabama. He expected to transfer to an inactive reserve squadron in Montgomery, but was turned down because an “obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only.” The “absent without leave” and “deserter” charges leveled at Bush by political opponents involve this, his fifth year of service in the Air Guard.

To judge by recently released pay records, he did no military service in the summer of 1972, and on August 1, 1972, he was grounded for missing his annual flight physical. Then, in September, he was assigned to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing in Montgomery. This outfit too was transitioning to a new airplane, and may have had none on strength at the time. Bush’s pay records credit him with 6 days’ service in October and November, presumably in Montgomery. In the recent hoo-hah about his Guard record, several officers have come forward to say that they remember seeing or working with Bush at Dannelly airbase outside Montgomery. In his annual fitness report, his home-field rating officer noted that “He cleared this base [Ellington AFB] on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187th Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.” And he was certainly at Dannelly on January 6, 1973, when he had a signed and dated dental exam.

He spent most of that winter in Houston, working as a counselor with black youngsters. (Among the other web-log canards about Bush is that he rented a Cessna and took some of his youngsters flying. As the story is told, his handling of the aircraft was so erratic as to cast doubt that he’d ever qualified as a pilot. This rather overlooks the fact that it’s impossible to rent an aircraft for a solo flight without at least having a student certicate and current medical, and rare to rent one without actually being checked out in person by a flight instructor.)

In any event, he was paid for 6 days in January, 2 in April, and 14 in May, for a total of 28 days’ service during his fifth year–actually better than his fourth-year record. (There are no entries on Bush’s 201 file of any time served during his fifth and sixth years in the Air Guard, giving web-loggers an opportunity to allege that he was AWOL for these two years. Some claim to have documents proving this allegation, but when I try to retrieve them, I get a “404″ error or else the document says something else entirely. In any event, he indisputably did serve additional days beyond what is shown in the 201 file.)

In March I got this email comment from Stephen Prestwood: “Contrary to popular belief, Guard units do not necessarily drill one weekend every month, but rather average 2 Inactive Duty [training] days per month…. If a unit drills 4 days in one month, it probably would not drill the following month. Having been assigned in mid September it is reasonable to assume that Bush’s first Drill in Alabama would be in October. The ARF Statement of Points Earned shows that Bush was credited with 2 Inactive Duty days in October and 4 Inactive Duty days in November. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that his unit did not drill in December. Bush is credited with 6 Inactive Duty days in January. Again, one would expect that his unit probably did not to drill again until April when Bush is again credited with 2 Inactive Duty days…. Looks like perfect drill attendance to me.”

Updated: Here’s a summary of the points Bush earned for each year of his National Guard service. He exceeded the minimum requirement each year, and over six years he earned three times as many points as was required of him:

May-68 to May-69
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 253

May-69 to May-70
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 340

May-70 to May-71
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 137

May-71 to May-72
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush -112

May-72 to May-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

Jun -73 to Jul-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

In May 1973, Bush took his last physical, which identified him as a “crew member on flight status,” so he evidently wasn’t grounded during his final year in the Guard. The pay records credit him with 5 days’ service in June and 19 in July, for a sixth-year total of 24 days. According to another account, his last day in uniform was July 30, 1973.

Meanwhile, Bush was accepted at Harvard Business School, to begin classes in September. On October 2, 1973, he was transferred to an inactive unit in Colorado, and on November 21, 1974 he was formally discharged from the military. By my calculations had served the equivalent of 25 months on active duty, over a period of six and one-half years. (Perhaps the penalty for beging released from the Air Guard six months early was to serve an additional six months in the inactive reserve.)

The FAA records show that Bush doesn’t have a current medical certificate, hence can no longer act as pilot-in-command. Whether he ever flew an aircraft after leaving the Air Guard isn’t certain, though there’s an unsubstantiated story that Karl Rove recalled flying with Bush when he first campaigned for governor of Texas. If so, that would have been in 1994. (Possibly Bush merely took the controls on that occasion, as he did when he landed on the Abraham Lincoln in 2003.)

If I were judging Bush on his career as a military officer, I would be inclined grade him much as his Yale professors did–with a “gentleman’s C,” which in this era of grade inflation would probably translate to a B-plus. His first three years seem exemplary; the last three, minimal, though far more distinguished than his opponents allege. I can’t of course judge him as a pilot, except to doff my hat to anyone who handle a 16-ton warplane at 800 mph. By the time Bush left the Guard, 70 pilots had been killed flying the F-102. As fighter pilot Ed Rasimus points out: “Every time you kick the tires and light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it can kill you–all by itself without help from an enemy.”

Please send email if you can shed any further light on this subject. Thanks! — Dan Ford

Comment by purrfect_mamma

Mr. Brown. Thank you. Your explanation seems reasonable and does cast serious doubt on the allegations that he was AWOL. Will consider revision of opinion on that topic.

Ron, I actually believe that the process of legislating works best (or least bad) when the three legs (Senate-House-Executive) are split between the parties. Having them all controlled by one party leads to even more excess than usual. When they’re fighting among themselves, they reduce their ability to inflict damage. It is the nature of politics.

And I would be happy to enjoy the show if I believed the Democratic party were about to get a clue. But I don’t think they are. So don’t lose heart. Besides, if Miers is voted down, you all might get your knock-down drag-out yet. But I think she will be confirmed with the Democrats help. And then we will find out who had the most to fear.

Anyway, back to my cell before they discover I’m gone.

Comment by Elephant Man

To Elephant Man.

Like What? Here’s from a conservative blog:

Simple - we are asked to “trust me,” once again. In fact, we’ve believed too many times. We believed in school vouchers; we got the Kennedy education bill. We believed in tax cuts, now under permanent threat of going back up again. We believed “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists;” Iran and Syria continue their silent invasion of Iraq. We believed in WMD; they’re still buried somewhere in Syria. We believed in limited government; we got outrageous farm subsidies, steel tariffs, an unneeded prescription drug benefit, and a bloated transportation bill. We believed his commitment to homeland security; we got ever more porous borders. We trusted his appointments; we got George Tenet, Norm Mineta and Michael Brown. Come on; are we stupid?

Hoisting me on my own “conservative petard” was a good response. I was actually trying to goad you into spewing some crackpot democrat memes but you didn’t fall for it.

My “reading his heart” comment was tongue-in-cheek. That’s how you’re supposed to know that the Miers nomination is good. If it’s good enough for George…

We’ll convert you to “The Dark Side” yet…:wink:

Are you telling me that there is any way on this earth that you would vote Democratic? That even if you believed Bush had gone AWOL you would have voted for Kerry? I vote for Democrats because their policy proposals are more in line with what I believe than Republicans. Though I’m getting close to not wanting to vote for either. I wouldn’t describe my dislike of Bush as psychotic hatred. How would you describe your dislike of Clinton?

I vote for Republicans for the same reason you vote for democrats and like you, I’m a bit disillusioned but I’m trying to be pragmatic about it.

You must admit that democrat moonbats have a psychotic hatred of Bush. However, I’m not saying all democrats are moonbats.

As far as describing my dislike for Clinton, I’d describe it more as disgust and contempt.
He’s the very embodiment of a “political whore”, totally unprincipled and willing to sell out to anyone and anything for campaign cash and popularity.

However, I didn’t think he was “Satan incarnate” out to “set up a police state and conquer the world”.

But is it too much to ask that you get to know me from more than one conversation before you start hurling things like “unlike liberals, we don’t slavishly follow our guy?” Didn’t you just tell me you blast your guy when he’s wrong and support him when he’s right? Didn’t I just blast my guy in a previous post? Is this slavish devotion? Did I suggest that you allow Democrats to destroy Bush’s presidency?

Now wait a minute. Didn’t you start off by proclaiming yourself “a moonbat”? You labeled yourself, I didn’t label you.

When I said “unlike liberals, we don’t slavishly follow our guy?”, I was making a general statement.

If I was painting you with that particular brush, I would have said, “unlike purrfect_mama, we don’t slavishly follow our guy.”

Trust me, if my intention was to start blasting you directly, I’d just go ahead and do it.

If I start hurling blanket accusations, please call me on the carpet. But I humbly request that you limit your accusations to me directly and don’t assume you know me because of what you believe about liberals in general.

See above.

We don’t know each other yet. There’s still time to learn to dislike each other. We don’t have to do it all at once.

Let’s not get off on the wrong foot. You’re obviously not a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat and I don’t “dislike” you.

While my sarcasm and sneering may have seemed to have been directed at you, it actually was directed towards the shrieking moonbat wing of the democrat party.

I have a tendency to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever I see something that smacks of “left-wing lunacy”. (That’s why I taped a foam pad to the underside of my desk. :lol:)

It’s not personal.

Comment by Elephant Man

purrfect_mama,

Don’t be a stranger! There’s nothing wrong with being “left of center”.

My contempt is reserved for those way out in “left field” who see conspiracies and Rove’s flying monkeys everywhere and make regular use of tinfoil headgear.

If rational “leftists” such as yourself were still in charge of the democrat party instead of the shrieking moonbat crowd, we’d all be a lot better off.