so you admit that Rove knows more than you

ok good, leave the thread

10/3/2005 11:42:52 AM

I'll admit that any day of the week.

However, I happen to know more then you and half the people in this thread combined.

So by the skewed logical relations you always like to throw out:

After you.

10/3/2005 11:45:39 AM

i'm really surprised you're not working in the govt, advising bush considering how you know more than half the people in this thread combined...you're really wasting your talents on this messageboard when you're clearly bureacratic matrial

10/3/2005 11:47:06 AM

Quote :

"However, I happen to know more then you and half the people in this thread combined."

Chuckled out Loud

10/3/2005 11:50:58 AM

Let me use my "foreign" english to help you out:

Quote :

"i'm really surprised you're not working in the govt advising bush considering how you know more than half the people in this thread combined. You really are wasting your talents on this messageboard message board when you're clearly bureacratic bureaucratic martial material"

10/3/2005 11:53:07 AM

good job avoiding the questions SandSanta...you're a regular George Bush

10/3/2005 12:00:54 PM

Oh I'm sorry, was there a question in there?

You know, noted by "?"

Wait, no there wasn't.

10/3/2005 12:13:12 PM

show me again how you know more than half this thread combined

10/3/2005 12:18:26 PM

I'll point out that I can destroy any feeble argument you make and the only reply you can give me is something along the lines of "Show me how you have more knowledge," as if knowledge were a physical substance that I could just point to; "yea man, look at my big case of Knowledge. Takes up the entire room?"

10/3/2005 12:25:06 PM

Quote :

"I think she'll go down pretty fast. Here's my take on the whole deal: IMO Bush & Co. don't want her to be approved. "

...

10/3/2005 12:51:49 PM

Thinking about this more, I think she's going to be shot down. She doesn't have the academic pedigree to make up for the lack of judical experience. Has she even argued before the Supreme Court before? I'm really surprised at this pick. Bush isn't exactly swimming in political capital right now to fight an ugly court nomination that is seems shaky in support from the old guard Republicans. I figured Gonzales if he was going to go big.

My fallback position is the same as always. Never, ever elect/select ANYONE from Tejas for any job requiring any more responsibiliy or compitence than a leaf blower. From LBJ on, Texans have always fucked things up.

A simple, clean, and efficient rule. Works for me anyways.

Carry on.

10/3/2005 1:05:52 PM

she was in charge of picking the next justice

interesting....very interesting...

10/3/2005 1:17:09 PM

Again, I don't know shit about her. Not much to go on.

One thing's for sure - Bush is turning out to be a uniter vs. a divider. Both the cons and libs are scratching their heads about this nomination.

Either he's already got the votes in his pocket or he's a dumbass.

Either way, she and bush are both from Tejas so give them the boot.

10/3/2005 1:25:51 PM

Oh, fuck all.

Would it kill that blithering tit to just once do something that wasn't incredibly stupid? An incredible Presidential opportunity, and he clusterfucks it. Right in the middle of all the talk about cronyism, he picks a crony. I mean, what the fucking fuck. Does he not have semi-competent advisors floating around there somewhere? I thought Karl Rove was supposed to be some kind of evil genius, shouldn't he have known this was a bad idea?

I mean, fuck, fuck, FUCK!!!1

10/3/2005 2:49:14 PM

what he HAS, grumpy, is exactly what we keep trying to tell you people he has: a bunch of cronies running the country, possibly with his consent, or possibly without his even realizing it.

he's either an idiot or a greedmonger or a bit of both. Either way, I didn't vote for him :0

10/3/2005 2:51:36 PM

^

I hear you. I think this was a HUGE clusterfuck on his part. The biblethumpers are getting restless. The old-guard Pubs are already tired of his bullshit but are dying off. The dems have no vision. We're all fucked.

10/3/2005 2:52:28 PM

The more I hear about Harriet Miers the more pleased I become... I think it may not end up being such a disaster after all. If she was in fact suggested by Democratic Senators also, then it greatly increases her chance of a relatively speedy confirmation. And speedy confirmation is good - the last thing that any conservative wants is Sandra Day O Fucking Connor sitting on the bench when the Court hears the abortion cases this term. She will stay on until her replacement is confirmed. If Bush had nominated somebody outstanding like Jones or Cantero, it would have been a delayed confirmation which would keep O Fucking Connor on the bench longer.

10/3/2005 2:58:02 PM

I still find it highly suspect to appoint someone to the highest court in the land who has never been a judge.

Thats like taking a T-ball player and having them pitch at the World Series

10/3/2005 3:03:15 PM

There have been lots of people appointed to the Court who have never been judges. Rehnquist for one.

10/3/2005 3:03:48 PM

I'm glad Congress isnt as stupid as all of you guys or else Roberts wouldnt even have been approved yet

10/3/2005 3:05:25 PM

does anyone else think that maybe bush wants the dems to filibuster so as to look bad going into the 2006 elections.

eg: "The Democrats were holding up gov't while little Billy didn't get funding for his leukemia treatment because the fed. budget didn't go through."

10/3/2005 3:30:16 PM

Quote :

"Thats like taking a T-ball player and having them pitch at the World Series"

Worst analogy I think I have ever heard

10/3/2005 3:50:10 PM

she's a monster

10/3/2005 3:57:13 PM

10/3/2005 4:12:19 PM

Quote :

"No experience, no paper trail. Cronyism appointment"

I heard Ed Schultz say the same thing.

Literally, the same exact thing.

You get your talking points from him?

10/3/2005 5:07:41 PM

Quote :

"she was in charge of picking the next justice"

For real? Bush is a sucker for that. Cheney was in charge of picking Bush's VP.

10/3/2005 5:08:42 PM

Quote :

"does anyone else think that maybe bush wants the dems to filibuster so as to look bad going into the 2006 elections. eg: "The Democrats were holding up gov't while little Billy didn't get funding for his leukemia treatment because the fed. budget didn't go through.""

Nah. If he wanted to do that, he would have tried appointing someone who would all but wear a "WILL OVERTURN ROE V WADE" t-shirt to his confirmation. Yes, his. Because appointing a dude would have been that much better for some filibusterific nonsense.

It's just cronyism for the sake of it. Georgie is sending out the message that he doesn't give a shit about his poll numbers, because he can't get re-elected. Either that, or he knows he's going to be in some serious shit when his term is over and wants to have a buddy sitting in the highest court in the land.

10/3/2005 5:42:38 PM

Reid and Schumer have approved the pick.

10/3/2005 5:43:29 PM

Quote :

"I thought Karl Rove was supposed to be some kind of evil genius, shouldn't he have known this was a bad idea?"

He's on the injured reserve right now. I don't think Bush is going to be able to put him back in until the Super Bowl...

Edit 1: Holy shit. Even Limbaugh thinks this was a pick "made from weakness."

Edit 2: EVEN KRISTOL DOESN'T LIKE THIS PICK.

Quote :

"Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized William Kristol Mon Oct 3,11:11 AM ET Washington (The Daily Standard) - I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized. ADVERTISEMENT I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of. I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president. I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush? William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard [and chairman of the Project for a New American Century]."

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2005 5:51:43 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: Edit 1: Holy shit. Even Limbaugh thinks this was a pick "made from weakness." Edit 2: EVEN KRISTOL DOESN'T LIKE THIS PICK."

Are you seriously surprised by either of those? Both have been arguing against stealth nominees since before Roberts.

10/3/2005 6:39:11 PM

Everybody that I talk to about this (of varying political beliefs, to some extent) is absolutely dumbfounded by this move.

10/3/2005 6:46:24 PM

Quote :

"Being the prez's personal laywer smells funny "

10/3/2005 6:58:06 PM

we all know what happened

this chick convinced bush she was right for the job. he caved. didnt want to hurt her.

10/3/2005 8:08:26 PM

Quote :

"I heard Ed Schultz say the same thing. Literally, the same exact thing. You get your talking points from him?"

What time was Ed Schultz on? Check the time of my post. Have you ever considered it could be vice versa?

10/3/2005 8:14:53 PM

This is a slap in the face to conservativsm.

Every conservative with a shred of independent thought should be abandoning ship right now.

I was willing tolerate the spending, the pork, and all that shit because of the structure of our government but this appointing a crony instead of a real conservative scholar when there is a chance to change the balance of the supreme court with so many issues at stake is unacceptable.

Fuck, I wish I had just thrown my vote away on Badnarik now.

10/3/2005 10:01:50 PM

It might be too early to make a complete judgement on her. But just the fact that she is an unknown quantity is very disheartening.

The GOP faithful worked for years stuffing envelopes, contributing millions of dollars and winning back the gov't one election at a time ... all to get to this point: tipping the Supreme Court into their favor. And what pay-off do they get? Does Bush reward them with a clear-cut conservative? No...they get a mysterious personal lawyer for Bush who donated money to Gore.

Quite disturbing.

10/3/2005 11:05:42 PM

real republicans are FINALLY figuring this asshole out?

10/3/2005 11:07:32 PM

hahaha i voted libertarian bitches

i bet you guys wish you had too, now

10/3/2005 11:12:32 PM

^^

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 11:30 PM. Reason : tucker carlson is saying that this is the end for bush]

10/3/2005 11:29:21 PM

Quote :

"but this appointing a crony instead of a real conservative scholar when there is a chance to change the balance of the supreme court with so many issues at stake is unacceptable."

Maybe Republican Senator Santorum will filibuster the nomination, and the other Republicans drop the "nuclear option" on him.

10/3/2005 11:37:18 PM

nah this chick will get thru

theres nothing on her. thats the point. now we gotta live with her.

but seriuosly, would a chick with a family be that hard to find?

10/3/2005 11:39:41 PM

proof bush is drinking *** again

10/3/2005 11:41:05 PM

Maybe he nominated her because Bush and Cheney may have been involved in the Plame leak....?

10/3/2005 11:59:26 PM

Actually I think that Miers's nomination is very interesting in that it is wholly reflective of the Bush style of leadership; and what the conservative establishment (if such a thing exists) has accused him of, is quite disingenuous.

President Bush is the MBA President, and in Miers--a lawyer with a corporate background--we have the "MBA Justice" (to stretch the term "MBA" a bit).

I suspect that underneath the ideological debate and political atmosphere, President Bush believes that the problem with the Supreme Court is its homogeneity, and as such, he has taken steps in his usual fashion to correct that.

President Bush paid the conservative establishment his dues by nominating Roberts who is, by most accounts, a very solid and doctrinaire conservative. Now he is getting his day; this nomination is his legacy, and it is his background to do things differently. His notable bias against a government elite, in favor of people with a "private sector" background, was the basis for choosing his cabinet -- and now it should be no surprise that he has chosen Miers.

To Kristol, Frum, et al -- I say, why do you trust the President to wage a visionary and cavalier war in Iraq, but not to make a cavalier appointment to the judiciary?

For years we're heard that President Bush's faith is his strongest asset; now, it's not to be trusted. Only Machiavellian games will do. That is a very cynical viewpoint, and in my opinion, it is the very same which led to the state of the Supreme Court system today.

Give Miers a chance.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 12:00 AM. Reason : foo]

10/4/2005 12:00:19 AM

Good points, but I can't help but wonder if that purpose could have been better served by a candidate with a similar background but not all the ties.

10/4/2005 12:07:33 AM

Quote :

"this nomination is his legacy"

She is fucking 60 and hasnt aged well, legacy my ass. Crony is the only thing that explains this.

Quote :

"To Kristol, Frum, et al -- I say, why do you trust the President to wage a visionary and cavalier war in Iraq, but not to make a cavalier appointment to the judiciary?"

I dont trust his ass with that anymore either, he has done shit to try and boost the public opinion of this war since re-election and has just let it slide to hell like he doesnt give a damn.

I let a bunch of bullshit go by because I thought it was good for the war and would put the republicans into a position of power for this very moment.

This is a betrayel of trust to such an extent that it just shows how this asshole should have never been trusted to begin with.

And to top it all off this will severely damage republicans politically and make sure this president's entire tenure proves not only worthless but damaging for every single element of the conservative movement.




[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2005 12:17:08 AM

He should have appointed me to the Supreme Court.

"JONES, J., dissenting: WTF?
End of opinion.

Though in seriousness, I am leaning toward the position of giving Miers a chance. As I learn more I become more pleased. Certainly she is not the conservative gold-medalist that an Edith Jones or a Raoul Cantero would be, but she is an evangelical Christian and does have at least some history advocating for pro life positions. And she has been the head of the judicial nominating process, which means that she was largely responsible for such conservative powerhouses as Judge William Pryor, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, etc.

Quote :

"Good points, but I can't help but wonder if that purpose could have been better served by a candidate with a similar background but not all the ties."

Like who? A Jones or Rogers Brown would have set off a confirmation firestorm that would keep O'Connor on the bench longer. He had to pick someone who could go in under the radar. Now he could have picked Corrigan or some other candidate with not as much "crony" baggage, but then he couldn't be sure of their conservative credentials. I therefore deduce that he is sure of her conservative credentials.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 12:23 AM. Reason : add]

10/4/2005 12:17:14 AM

^^

Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. If you don't support the President -- as you plainly don't -- then it's no surprise that you don't support Miers.

But the simple fact is, the President is the Chief Executive of our national government. It is singularly his responsibility to choose, based on his judgement, a suitable nominee. He is not a political lapdog, and it would be disgraceful for him to behave as one.

10/4/2005 12:22:24 AM

Schumer does not support the President, but does support Miers. At least at this point - he'll probably flip flop later when she refuses to pre-judge cases.

10/4/2005 12:24:36 AM

Except his very point is that by nominating Miers he exactly behaved like a lapdog.

10/4/2005 12:24:42 AM