Does Bush think we're morons?

[iain]

Okay, a poorly conceived lie then. It's unfortunate that he has not learned to avoid speaking in absolutes when answering the media. He also bristles and immediately takes a defensive posture whenever anyone questions what he has said. This makes him look like a liar (which is perhaps accurate more often than not).

[Fairweather]

OK, Fairweather, you'll admit you were only assuming what I thought of her. What about these "historionics from the left?" Where have we seen that today or yesterday?

 

Again, Matt, your reading comprehension seems to be lacking tonight. The "hysteria from the left" to which I alluded was a hypothetical involving the idea of Bush selecting a different candidate, or "known conservative quantity".

 

I think Miers is the wrong choice. Bush has many qualified conservatives from which to choose. He has a chance to put the brakes on the "progressive" agenda in a big way. The abortion issue notwithstanding, I would prefer a known conservative quantity - the hysterics from the left be damned.

[mattp]

Aha. I stand corrected. And you're right, of course, that there would be some "histrionoics" from the left if he selected someone who announced that they were going onto the Court with the hope to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

What about his "lie," then? An example of his complete disdain for the American public or simply a "misstatement" or something else?

[Fairweather]

I smell The Matt trap...where you ask and demand answers to a seemingly unending stream of rhetorical questions, all-the-while ignoring those asked of you.

 

My original question:

Of course you realize, Matt, that a justice can detest abortion and still rule it legal. You realize that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most, if not all states. You realize that Roe v Wade was as much about state's rights as it was abortion. Why do liberals insist on this litmus test above all others? I just don't understand.

 

[Fairweather]

Aha. I stand corrected. And you're right, of course, that there would be some "histrionoics" from the left if he selected someone who announced that they were going onto the Court with the hope to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

What about his "lie," then? An example of his complete disdain for the American public or simply a "misstatement" or something else?

 

I don't know if it was a lie, or not. And neither do you. I suspect that some winking and nodding took place, but who can really say? I'll often sit in my boss's office and hear him proclaim, "I don't really want to know what you did to make it happen, I'm just glad you did it". Perhaps Bush likes to play the plausible deniability game. Either way, I don't really care. Newsflash: All politicians lie.

 

Now, my question??

[sexual_chocolate]

Instead of arguing about whether or not one's concern about the validity of the two recent presidential elections constitutes paranoia, it would be more fruitful to actually look at the charges.

I'm not sure if the involved parties would actually wish to engage in a discussion of facts; rather, a continued blathering of theoreticals and the impossibility of "conspiracies" seems to be the preferred recipe for a safe harbor.

 

And Fairweather, are you still objecting to the validation by multiple organizations of Venezuela's elections?

 

How about those pesky Amnesty International charges against the US? (I didn't think I'd see the day you'd use that organization as support for an argument of yours! Next you'll join me as a card-carrying member of the ACLU.)

[cj001f]

Maybe it is true, the rumor that GWB has started drinking again.

I knew Carlyle group secretarys who whispered that in '00

[Fairweather]

I'm not involved in the election 2000/2004 debate here. That's Matt and JayB, I think.

 

I believe I have addressed your questions thoroughly ...and in the appropriate thread.

[Fairweather]

She is reeeaaalllly ugly. I am surprised nobody has pointed this out yet.

 

 

Spoken like a true angry liberal, Josh. WTF does your comment have to do with anything?

Even more telling is that your fellow 'open minded' folk here haven't bothered to call you on it.

[sexual_chocolate]

Of course you realize, Matt, that a justice can detest abortion and still rule it legal. You realize that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most, if not all states. You realize that Roe v Wade was as much about state's rights as it was abortion. Why do liberals insist on this litmus test above all others? I just don't understand.

 

No state can violate the Equal Protection Clause;

No state law can over-ride the 14th amendment.

 

Pretty simple really.

[Fairweather]

This is why the death penalty is applied differently in all 50 states? Different states - different laws.

[cj001f]

She is reeeaaalllly ugly. I am surprised nobody has pointed this out yet.

Spoken like a true angry liberal, Josh. WTF does your comment have to do with anything?

Even more telling is that your fellow 'open minded' folk here haven't bothered to call you on it.

Fairweather-

Given the constant chorus of "hillary is a dyke", "hillary is ugly", "no man would want hillary" from the right, does your side have a leg to stand on?

[Fairweather]

Broad brush. Thought "your side" didn't do that! So what do you think of Josh's comment?

[JayB]

Instead of arguing about whether or not one's concern about the validity of the two recent presidential elections constitutes paranoia, it would be more fruitful to actually look at the charges.

I'm not sure if the involved parties would actually wish to engage in a discussion of facts; rather, a continued blathering of theoreticals and the impossibility of "conspiracies" seems to be the preferred recipe for a safe harbor.

 

Yeah - I was hoping to carry-out this conversation under the radar, being terrified as I was that SC would read my musings and be forced to show his hand, disclose the truth, and bring down the entire administration with the facts that his clout and connections enabled him to uncover. Fact that, had they been known by anyone by him, would have promptly led to a grand-jury investigation and a scandal that made Watergate look like a hearing for a jaywalking ticket by comparison. Now it's too late, I've forced his hand...

.

[sexual_chocolate]

So fairweather, you said you responded in the "appropriate" thread, but I couldn't find it!

Maybe you didn't really want to talk about it anymore, since the facts had been actually exposed?

 

 

And JayB, I'm certain that someone as astute as you would have become quite familiar with the common misgivings about the 2000 elections shared by many....

The Election Commissioner's scrubbing of the eligible voter polls is one example.

 

You seem to think that it takes a concerted effort headed by an Illuminati-type secret cabal to effect political change through means highly suspect; I think this type of thinking is naive, and reeks more of a paranoia that you accused MattP of possessing (who simply brought up legitimate concerns regarding the elections).

 

By the way, your passive/aggressive nature is coming out on display again. Camouflage quickly!

Edited October 5, 2005 by sexual_chocolate

[Mal_Con]

Both the NYT and the WP came out with articles showing she is a fundie who has let baby jesus guide her life.

[cj001f]

Broad brush. Thought "your side" didn't do that! So what do you think of Josh's comment?

Sarcasm

[marylou]

Probaly sarcasm.

 

If not, Josh's opinion on the relvance of her looks is his own anyway.

[sexual_chocolate]

This is why the death penalty is applied differently in all 50 states? Different states - different laws.

 

"This" has nothing to do with the death penalty.

 

"This" is simply an Equal Protection Clause issue under the 14th Amendment, trumping any state-attempted end-around. No state can be in violation of the Constitution, which they would be if they attempted to abridge a woman's right to an abortion.

 

The death penalty has, unfortunately, never been ruled unconstitutional (although it is beyond ripe for such a ruling). Because of this, states maintain the right to execute individuals (a barbarity shared by no other 1st world western nation).

[JoshK]

She is reeeaaalllly ugly. I am surprised nobody has pointed this out yet.

 

 

Spoken like a true angry liberal, Josh. WTF does your comment have to do with anything?

Even more telling is that your fellow 'open minded' folk here haven't bothered to call you on it.

 

Are you truly dumb enough to think I was in any way serious? Notice the smily for context.

[ChrisT]

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?

 

Of course you realize, Matt, that a justice can detest abortion and still rule it legal. You realize that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most, if not all states. You realize that Roe v Wade was as much about state's rights as it was abortion. Why do liberals insist on this litmus test above all others? I just don't understand.

 

FW makes some good points about abortion here. O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, is pro-Roe v. Wade...the Supreme Court has made some really UN-popular rulings in the past. Remember Brown v. Board of Education?

 

I've become convinced recently that overturning Roe v. Wade may not alter the nature of abortions in the US all that much. Technology has come along way in 35 years - no more coathangers, women are now using a prescription Ulcer drug to induce abortions. I don't know if I'm making sense here...just some musings on the whole abortion/supreme court thing...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

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?

 

Of course you realize, Matt, that a justice can detest abortion and still rule it legal. You realize that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most, if not all states. You realize that Roe v Wade was as much about state's rights as it was abortion. Why do liberals insist on this litmus test above all others? I just don't understand.

 

FW makes some good points about abortion here. O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, is pro-Roe v. Wade...the Supreme Court has made some really UN-popular rulings in the past. Remember Brown v. Board of Education?

 

I've become convinced recently that overturning Roe v. Wade may not alter the nature of abortions in the US all that much. Technology has come along way in 35 years - no more coathangers, women are now using a prescription Ulcer drug to induce abortions. I don't know if I'm making sense here...just some musings on the whole abortion/supreme court thing...

 

Roe v Wade will NOT be overturn. There may be restrictions put on abortions (partial-birth, parental notification), but that's a far cry from rolling back the clock 35 years.

[mattp]

Chris, I don't disagree with that or with Fairweather's statement that you refer to except that I think it is silly to assert that it is only the liberals who have applied a litmus test - as the last few days' news demonstrates. It seems to me that Roe v. Wade and the abortion debate in general are emblematic as much as anything else and BOTH sides are using it where they believe they can use a lightning rod issue to their advantage.

[ChrisT]

Yes - it's all about politics isn't it?

 

I respect the Supreme Court for acting independently and for being able to separate church and state. Justices don't always act as the puppets of the presidents who appoint them.

[Stonehead]

Roe v Wade will NOT be overturn. There may be restrictions put on abortions (partial-birth, parental notification), but that's a far cry from rolling back the clock 35 years.

 

I see on the news today that the high court is considering taking on the physician-assisted suicide law in Oregon. Remember all the brouhaha surrounding the Terri Schiavo issue? Regardless of where you stand on the controversy, this is another ‘sanctity of life’ issue, just as the abortion issue.

 

Bush’s new nominee is on record as stating that life begins at conception and therefore from that standpoint, abortion could be tantamount to homicide. As all of us understand, abortion is available for health reasons and for personal choice. It’s where you draw the line. For instance, if you found out your baby would be defective but otherwise healthy, would you abort it?

 

It seems that the conservative members of the court will let Roe v. Wade stand since it is the ‘law of the land’ and there have been repeated assertions of nominating candidates who would not use the bench to push activist agendas. However, ‘life’ is stranger than fiction. The underpinning of Roe v. Wade is the penumbra right to privacy, nowhere is this right specifically addressed in the Constitution. If Miers is correct in her reasoning, does one individual (the mother) have the right to deny the other individual (the child) his rights?