7 Oct 2005
Lack of seriousness
Was the nomination of Harriet Miers a bluff, or a ruse? “Movement” conservatives and wingnuts still aren’t on board. Ann Coulter says, “President Bush has no right to say, ‘Trust me,’” and even Krazy Krauthammer, declining for once the proffered flagon of Kool-Aid, says, “Withdraw This Nominee.”
It’s not just that Miers lacks the proper wingnut credentials; it’s the staggering lack of seriousness with which the decision to nominate her was made that’s got them up in arms. Seriously, the woman has worked as White House counsel, and she was once the commissioner of the Texas State Lottery. Does that qualify her to be a Supreme Court justice? Apparently it does if one “knows her heart,” as President Bush insists he does. Is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court just another reward for the President to bestow upon a favored crony? Apparently it is.
Will Bush really go ahead with this slap in the face to his Amen Corner? I’m having trouble believing it. I can’t picture President Bush continuing to defy the “movement” conservatives much longer. Miers will say “thanks, but no thanks” soon, and Bush’s next nominee will be someone more to their liking. They will get the modern-day Cotton Mather they’re clamoring for.
I think you’re right, even tho shrub maintains he’ll stick with his odd choice. I’m waiting for Miers to step up and decline, and then be replaced with someone who will make the right happy.
mokawanis
October 7th, 2005 at 17:27permalink
If I were her, I wouldn’t even want the job. She’s about as qualified to be a Supreme Court justice as I (a mid-level UNIX system administrator) am to be the Chief Information Officer of Sun Microsystems. Doesn’t she feel like, “Oh, shit, I’m in way over my head?” Does she actually think she could do the work?
Although, I guess if George W. Bush could be President…
dumpendebat
October 8th, 2005 at 14:50permalink
I really have to believe that this nomination is for one reason and one reason only: she will dissent (along with Roberts) in any case brought against Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, or any other White House entity pulling the strings for the G Dubwa puppet show.
You should remember from your time at the Pentagon that this is textbook behind-the-scenes ass covering. The real players are there year in and year out and they know how to protect themselves. At Ft. Meade the DIRNSA would come and go without so much as ripple. I used to believe the POTUS to be an actual thinking, policy making position but this current administration only confirms for me he is a figure head. Our current chief exec is only more obvious as a useful idiot for the real players.
Miers may not have the credentials as Roberts but when it comes down to it she’ll do her job just as effectively. For anyone willing to dig deeply, it is obvious that both nominees represent little threat to the concerns of abortion, separation of church and state, or gay rights (or any other hot button issue that makes good press).
The religious right won’t benefit from these appointments but Ike’s “military industrial complex” and the sort of big business associated with this presidency certainly will. Look out for decisions that hurt the environment, allow for large land grabs, and help all those who have benefited most from this president.
Nope, I don’t see any sort of retreat here. Too much money to be made is at stake.
I wish this group would go ahead and just list their buddies. At least then I would know what stock to buy.
RP
October 8th, 2005 at 19:30permalink
So is the left ‘for’ or ‘against’ this nominee?
It is hilarious to watch the left discuss something when they can’t just ‘be against’ something.
When Republicans are not happy with the president – liberals are just made irrelevant.
What to say? What to do?
Oh, back to the game plan, “Bush is stupid and is making his buddies rich.”
lycfyg-LQ
October 13th, 2005 at 06:29permalink
Honestly, is there really any doubt that George Bush is “stupid and is making his buddies rich” as you so succinctly put it?
And if you think watching “the left” (whatever that means for you) is hilarious you should know that watching “have not” red staters consistently vote contrary to their interests–as demonstrated by their disproportionately large share of taxpayer’s largess. That goes well beyond hilarious; it’s downright sublime in its irony.
Liberals–or at least those with less strident views contrary to your own ill formed opinions–may indeed be “irrelevant” as you say, but that is very different than having your head up your ass. Yours apparently is.
I registered as a Republican many years ago while serving in the Navy but I’ve always been an independent thinker and voter. When in doubt I usually vote for the candidate NOT endorsed by hate groups and idiots. I’m mostly safe in assuming that if the KKK, neo-Nazis, intellectually lazy religious fascists, and businesses that thrive on exploitation love the guy then I know I’ll hate him. Needless to say, I did not vote for our current president. He is a mockery and an embarrassment. Worst of all, he actively works against my interests. Unless you are in one of the groups mentioned above (or one similarly populating the far right side of the political spectrum) I feel duty bound to inform you that he is working against your interests as well.
Not to put too fine a point on it: I am against Miers as a Supreme Court justice. Why the hell aren’t you? Perhaps you just enjoy a good fisting.
RP
October 13th, 2005 at 22:01permalink