mattp Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 She's worked for him forever. He says he knows Harriet Miers' soul and she shares his values. But in this morning's press conference, I think I heard Bush say he has not discussed her views on abortion with her. Say what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Hey, when you know someones soul, you need not muck around with all of the terrestrial stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mec Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Actually Bush is a moron, so he just blabs out whatever sounds good to himself, which usually does not make sense to anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 - Pogo the clown for supreme court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roboboy Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 the problem with Bush is that he DOESN'T think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Is the movie Billy Madison really about Bush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 She's worked for him forever. He says he knows Harriet Miers' soul and she shares his values. But in this morning's press conference, I think I heard Bush say he has not discussed her views on abortion with her. Say what? It will be interesting to see what happens to a nominee who lacks enthusiastic support from either party. I am just wondering whether or not the senate republicans will try work behind the scenes to get him to retract this nomination or if they'll just just deal. It seemed like while Robert's ideology was something that Congress would take exception to, the grounds for doubting his legal qualifications were considerably less solid. It seems that both this nominee's ideology and qualifications are grounds for objection, so it will be interesting to see where this goes. This nomination ranks right up there with the 1st nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security. Very bad vetting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 She's worked for him forever. He says he knows Harriet Miers' soul and she shares his values. But in this morning's press conference, I think I heard Bush say he has not discussed her views on abortion with her. Say what? It will be interesting to see what happens to a nominee who lacks enthusiastic support from either party. I am just wondering whether or not the senate republicans will try work behind the scenes to get him to retract this nomination or if they'll just just deal. It seemed like while Robert's ideology was something that Congress would take exception to, the grounds for doubting his legal qualifications were considerably less solid. It seems that both this nominee's ideology and qualifications are grounds for objection, so it will be interesting to see where this goes. This nomination ranks right up there with the 1st nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security. Very bad vetting. Something is rotten in Denmark. My first thought was that this was part of some back-room deal, perhaps originating with the "filibuster/nuclear option" resolution. Now I'm thinking this may be purely about putting in a stealth candidate w/ no paper trail. If so, we can thank the Dems just as much as Bush for this, since this is where all the litmus-test, badgering, and obstructionism has led us. The president should be nominating very qualified candidates, and they should be evaluated on qualifications, not litmus tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 It seemed like while Robert's ideology was something that Congress would take exception to, the grounds for doubting his legal qualifications were considerably less solid. It seems that both this nominee's ideology and qualifications are grounds for objection, so it will be interesting to see where this goes. To my mind Roberts is a Scalia; someone with a keen judicial mind, but whose ideology I disagree with. Miers seems like a Thomas; chosen to fulfill demographic desires and partisan loyalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 It seemed like while Robert's ideology was something that Congress would take exception to, the grounds for doubting his legal qualifications were considerably less solid. It seems that both this nominee's ideology and qualifications are grounds for objection, so it will be interesting to see where this goes. To my mind Roberts is a Scalia; someone with a keen judicial mind, but whose ideology I disagree with. Miers seems like a Thomas; chosen to fulfill demographic desires and partisan loyalty. It's more than that. They seem to be trying to avoid a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 When Miers worked for Bush in Texas, she was quoted as saying GWB was "The most brilliant man I've ever met." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 They seem to be trying to avoid a fight. Of course they are. They know the Democrats arguments are correct and they'll ultimately fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 linky YOu guys are the freakin morons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 YOu guys are the freakin morons More insults from the master of internet masturbation. Say hi to the blogosphere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 linky YOu guys are the freakin morons Peter Puget, you really are "one of us", aren't you. I like that article. Especially that part where it says "in Miers junior high book report on Little House in the Prairie, we can really get a good idea about her stance on abortion". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 YOu guys are the freakin morons More insults from the master of internet masturbation. Say hi to the blogosphere Oh yea Time is the blogosphere! Sharp as always! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Oh yea Time is the blogosphere! Sharp as always! I didn't think you wasted your time with the MSM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkemp Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Does Bush think we're morons? Yes. And we (the USA) have proven him correct over and over again. You realize he actually won the last election? It boggles the mind. mo·ron n. 1. A stupid person; a dolt. 2. Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 I am not 100% convinced he actually DID win the last election but that is another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkemp Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 Meanwhile, I find it totally absurd that he would say he never discussed her position on abortion with her. I would think it stupid even to try and say it was not discussed during his selection process, but I suppose that might be possible. However, a quick look at some of the press reporting makes it appear that he will not be able to try such a fall-back. He said he did not discuss it with any of the candidates during this selection process but he also said he did not remember "ever" discussing her views on abortion with her. This is obviously a lie and I think he's probably going to have trouble splitting hairs about how he didn't mean to say what it sounded like he was saying -- assuming somebody in politics or in the press thinks that it is an "issue" when our president lies to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 "Now I'm thinking this may be purely about putting in a stealth candidate w/ no paper trail. If so, we can thank the Dems just as much as Bush for this, since this is where all the litmus-test, badgering, and obstructionism has led us. The president should be nominating very qualified candidates, and they should be evaluated on qualifications, not litmus tests. " That's more or less what I thought. The strategy on both sides seems to have become one in which the primary goal is to disqualify the candidate on ideological grounds during the hearing, before the vote in the Senate even occurs. Perhaps that's as it should be. A sitting administration is going to nominate a candidate who they think will rule in a manner that's consistent with the party's principles, and if the opposition party will attempt to prevent their appointment. The unfortunate outgrowth of this process is that it the emerging strategy for insuring nomination seems to be to nominate someone with little or no judicial record to oppose. IMO, in an ideal world the nomination process would force any nominee to defend their published views on controversial topics, rather than evade them by means of having no published opinions to discuss. Anyhow - it's definitely an interesting situation when you've got the WSJ editorial page saying that "for now, Mr. Bush is asking his supporters to accept his judgement about his personal lawyer as an act of faith, " and William Kristol describing himself as "dissapointed," "depressed," and "demoralized about the pick, and Harry Reid and Charles Schumer making positive comments about her.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I am not 100% convinced he actually DID win the last election but that is another matter. Oh man.. "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant." Richard Hofstadter in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," 1965. Recommended reading for 9/10th of this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 The real question is how much does she know about Arabian horses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 She is reeeaaalllly ugly. I am surprised nobody has pointed this out yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.