At Least the Horse Jokes Were Funny…
Posted by: Emperor Darth Misha I in Blogs and Blogging, Politics, Pres. Milquetoast5:58 pm
Looks like Dubya has now decided to draft the First Lady to his lost cause, trotting her out to bleat the “you’re all sexists for opposing Miers” meme so carefully thought up by one of the Milquetoast’s septic think tanks.
There used to be a time when you could rely upon the spin doctors on the right to come up with believable arguments and NOT sound suspiciously much like the Loony Left but, granted, they don’t have a lot to work with in the case of Harriet “whodafuck?” Miers. They can’t even scream “But She’s Not Kerry!™”, since nobody really knows who the hell she is in the first place. Well, other than her affectionate attitude towards affirmative action, which you can’t really blame her for, seeing as how she seems to be a big time beneficiary of it.
Oh, and repeated claims from Bush about how we ought to “trust his judgment”. Just like we trusted him back in 2000 when he swore upon his mother’s grave that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and that it would be the duty of the President to veto it if it passed.
We guess he voted against it before he voted for it.
But back to you, Mrs. Bush.
Yes, I admit it. I’m a sexist. That’s why I’ve been so supportive of Janice Rogers Brown and have been dreaming of her on the Supreme Court ever since I first learned about her. I suppose that shows that I’m a racist too?
Stick to the horse jokes, lady.
Entries (RSS)
FIRST
October 11th, 2005 at 6:01 pmUsing Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP
You don’t think…nah, couldn’t be. I mean, Harriet doesn’t have pictures of, nah.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:06 pmUsing Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP
You know first it was elitist. When I pointed out I was a cargo kicker who went to night school, it became whiner. Now that I’ve pointed out Ms. Miers’ positions on affirmative action, it’s sexist.
My, my, her resume, and her defenders, grow stronger by the day.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:23 pmUsing Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
They could say the same about you guys, you know. Does that make us even?
October 11th, 2005 at 6:54 pmUsing Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 on Mac OS X
RhiGirl,
October 11th, 2005 at 8:11 pmAs I’ve told you before. . . time for Andy Card to come up with at least two more talking points.
Using Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
Janice Rogers Brown? Eh, she wasn’t my favorite. Too libertarian with the Patriot Act type of stuff, IMHO. I like having GITMO and that stuff around.
For the record, though, what really happened with Laura Bush is that Mattie Lauer asked her if she thought sexism was part of the reason why some people were opposing her. Basically all she said was, “It’s possible.” I think Malkin is completely overreacting. The video of it is at the Political Teen, if you want to see for yourself.
Here’s what Ian says in his post:
“Possible” doesn’t mean “is fact.” And you have to admit, it IS possible that some criticizing her are sexist about it. Hell, I’ve even read comments at ConfirmThem and RedState that said they’d rather have a man in the job. I know it’s just comments and not anyone in the media, but still.
October 11th, 2005 at 8:21 pmUsing Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
I think this is something the Liberals have been trying to tell you for a very long time, but because it was the Liberals telling you this, you didn’t want to believe it.
For George Bush, loyalty only runs one direction — loyalty to him. He will never reciprocate, unless it serves his needs.
Think about this for a moment.
What is it about this man that you can really call him a Conservative? Has he shrunk the federal government? Has he cut spending? Has anything he’s done actually worked to your benefit?
Then think about who it is he is really working for. Unless you are one of the top one percent in this country, or a multi-national corporation, he hasn’t really done squat for you, but maybe give you a few crumbs to string you along.
Do you really think he cares about the abortion issue? Do you think that is why he picked two corporate attorneys to the Supreme Court? His goal is to cut regulations for corporations, and transfer wealth from the government to those corporations. Your desires are parallel to his: he wants to privatize and create a corporate monopoly, not foster “healthy competition through the private sector. His goal is to consolidate power into the hands of the few.
And he might just get away with it.
October 11th, 2005 at 8:49 pmUsing Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP
Gee, Misha, you’ve just got no gratitude.
Bush just wants to thank you for supporting him:
“Republicans close to the White House said on Thursday that the choice of Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general was part of a political strategy to bolster Mr. Gonzales’s credentials with conservatives and position him for a possible Supreme Court appointment.
These Republicans said Mr. Gonzales had been widely viewed as one of President Bush’s top choices for the court. But by first sending him to the Justice Department, they said, Mr. Bush could then nominate a conservative favored by his political base to fill the first vacancy that arises.
For Mr. Gonzales, tenure as attorney general would allow him to demonstrate his reliability to conservative leaders, many of whom say they are unsure of his views on issues like abortion and affirmative action, Republicans said.
The strategy, which Republicans said was in large part the work of Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, would clear the way for Mr. Bush to make his first nomination to the Supreme Court a trusted conservative, thus showing gratitude to his political base for the large role they played in giving him a second term.
“It’s a thank you to the right for the election,’’ said one Republican adviser to the White House.”
October 11th, 2005 at 9:25 pmUsing Internet Explorer 5.0 on Windows 98
You mean Scott McClellan, right?
October 11th, 2005 at 11:31 pmUsing Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
She reads us! She reads us!
Maybe she was just a little peeved when she read that Miers was a
but who cares? She reads us!
October 12th, 2005 at 12:51 amUsing Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP
Nice try, PP, but it ain’t working.
He’s a weasel, alright, but he doesn’t care more about corporations than he cares about the people who got him elected. He cares only about himself. If he’d been a corporatist, he’d be defending the original intent tooth and nail. It wasn’t just a strange coincidence that a former colony evolved to be the strongest and most prosperous nation the Earth ever saw.
All he cares about is the fact that there’s a term limit and that he has to make a living once his is up, and building a legacy is the way to go. Book deals, speaking tours, you name it. In this respect, he’s no different from his predecessor, he just wants the money to keep flowing. So he tries pleasing all sides, oblivious to the fact that he’ll end up pleasing nobody.
I had high hopes for him, I actually thought that he’d be different from the rest of the incumbent overpaid leeches, but I was wrong.
There are no sinister conspiracies involved, however, just a tiny little man’s devotion to himself.
Oh, and Sir George: I’d have called a male unqualified nomination along the lines of Harriet a “busboy”, so I hardly think that there’s anything even remotely sexist in there. I just don’t like cronyism, and I like supporters of racism even less, no matter what they choose to call it. Being insulting is just another of my lovable little character traits.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:20 amUsing Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
Um, Misha
Bush is rich. He doesn’t need to become a book peddler like Clinton. His dad’s legacy is one of “be quiet and stay out of the limelight.”
Sure, there are a few stupid males. But many people have gone overboard. They are essentially asserting that a woman who has risen to the top of her profession, hired by the most powerful man on earth for head legal counsel to the executive branch of the government of the United States, a job that centers around nothing but Constitutional issues, doesn’t have a clue about the content of the Constitution. They even assert that she’s an inept secretary after she had been hired by the richest capitalist on earth (Bill Gates) and the most established entertainment corporation on earth to defend their primary, take-no-prisoners interests.
In their eyes, she doesn’t possess a tiny fraction of a man’s intellect, and I quote:
You see, a man’s intellect is on a whole nother plane from a woman’s. An average man is hundreds or thousands of times smarter than any woman can hope to be.
Luttig and McConnell are bright, but “genius” isn’t a term that would come to mind.
In essence, the “secretarial” Miers must have an IQ of not 170, nor 150, nor 130, nor 100, but about 60 or 70 to rate this type of comparison.
October 12th, 2005 at 4:17 amUsing Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP