Will Harriet Miers be confirmed?

[TOVisitor]

I've been saying for years that Bush isn't a conservative, since when is this news.

OTB

Oh, please ...

If he isn't a "conservative" in your words, then what is he? 'Cuz he sure is a Republican, and the fundies think that God sent him to earth to govern. Oops, make that the fundies AND truncador.

 

[Truncador]

Would you put Robert Bork in the category of malcontent and reactionary?

Judging by the quoted excerpts, yes.

We have presented in this thread AMPLE evidence of negative reaction to the Miers nomination from everyplace on the right, and yet you STILL persist in blaming the left for being against the Miers nomination.

No, I don't, since it is clearly an irresponsible and hysterical fraction of the Right that's making the trouble in this case. I have accordingly upgraded the category of Bush-haters to include various self-styled "intellectuals" of the Right (i.e. the National Review crowd- who have shown that they are, first and foremost, journalists, and as such can be expected to make trouble and get in the way no less than their estranged colleagues elsewhere in Big Media), and also the fiscal crackpots and grumpy old men who dream of reviving a (non-existent) golden age in which the State magically ran the country without spending any money or racking up any debt (a really foolish romanticism more befitting teenage hippies than grown men).

Between them, these two elements manage to display every vice that Conservatives traditionally attributed to their opponents on the Left: they are disloyal, short-sighted, elitist, dogmatic, absolutist, meddlesome, incredibly self-centred and egocentric, given to short-circuited reasoning and magical thinking as opposed to considered analysis, and prefer symbolism and social drama to sound policy and strategy. Unsurprisingly, most of them seem to be journalists, and imagine themselves to comprise exactly the same sort of secular clergy ("fourth Estate") their counterparts over at CBS and the New York Times used to be; their ostensible revolt against the hegemony of Big Media seems to be less an attempt at dismantling that hegemony than to usurp it for themselves (the Jonah Goldbergs evidently think they're going to take the place of the outgoing Dan Ratherses).

While hanging is too good for most of these people, a term of office or two under Billary (although unlikely) might prove to be a most fitting punishment and corrective for their childish temper-tantrums and womanish treachery. Once the Dem's get around to passing, for example, anti-media concentration legislation as part of the ceremonials of the Restoration, the scribblers will be lucky if the likes of National Review aren't prohibited altogether

 

[langeweile]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4966605

I voted yes that she will be confirmed, and yes i have changed my mind. i have no idea as to her legal qualifications and I have even less of an idea of her "political" leanings.
The story above is what tipped the scale for me.
If you get offered the highest legal position in the USA(or any other position for that matter), and you have the guts to fill out an incomplete questionaire? Maybe you are not that interested in the position, or you better have a good excuse not to do so.

I am not aware as to the content of the questionaire, but if both chairman of the comitee agree on this? Than I must assume that she really blew this one.

Ok..take your shots...

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Not a shot Lang but I have to laugh at this now.

Everyone tells me that faith/religion has nothing to do with being a Justice of the Supreme Court. I believe that to be true. But here is where I have a hard time not laughing.

It's the Republicans that are bringing the issue of religion to this debate. Not the Democrats! It's the Republicans that are trying to convince their grass roots that Miers is just like them at every corner. The Democrats are just sitting back watching the Republicans debate and argue amongst themselves.

My take on this is the Miers is probably a qualified person in most respects. It does bother me that she has never sat on the bench because I believe you can gain invaluable lessons and insight into case law. But that does not disqualify her for the position. No, if you ask me her qualifications are not going to be what will be her demise if it happens. What will kill her is her religion and it will be at the hands of the Republicans. The notion of qualifications is the excuse.

 

[TOVisitor]

No, I don't, since it is clearly an irresponsible and hysterical fraction of the Right that's making the trouble in this case. I have accordingly upgraded the category of Bush-haters to include various self-styled "intellectuals" of the Right (i.e. the National Review crowd- who have shown that they are, first and foremost, journalists, and as such can be expected to make trouble and get in the way no less than their estranged colleagues elsewhere in Big Media), and also the fiscal crackpots and grumpy old men who dream of reviving a (non-existent) golden age in which the State magically ran the country without spending any money or racking up any debt (a really foolish romanticism more befitting teenage hippies than grown men).

Between them, these two elements manage to display every vice that Conservatives traditionally attributed to their opponents on the Left: they are disloyal, short-sighted, elitist, dogmatic, absolutist, meddlesome, incredibly self-centred and egocentric, given to short-circuited reasoning and magical thinking as opposed to considered analysis, and prefer symbolism and social drama to sound policy and strategy. Unsurprisingly, most of them seem to be journalists, and imagine themselves to comprise exactly the same sort of secular clergy ("fourth Estate") their counterparts over at CBS and the New York Times used to be; their ostensible revolt against the hegemony of Big Media seems to be less an attempt at dismantling that hegemony than to usurp it for themselves (the Jonah Goldbergs evidently think they're going to take the place of the outgoing Dan Ratherses).

While hanging is too good for most of these people, a term of office or two under Billary (although unlikely) might prove to be a most fitting punishment and corrective for their childish temper-tantrums and womanish treachery. Once the Dem's get around to passing, for example, anti-media concentration legislation as part of the ceremonials of the Restoration, the scribblers will be lucky if the likes of National Review aren't prohibited altogether

Gosh, truncy. There's hope for you yet.

Now you just have to get that fan poster of Benito Mussolini off of the wall above your bed.

 

[TOVisitor]

Not a shot Lang but I have to laugh at this now.

Everyone tells me that faith/religion has nothing to do with being a Justice of the Supreme Court. I believe that to be true. But here is where I have a hard time not laughing.

It's the Republicans that are bringing the issue of religion to this debate. Not the Democrats! It's the Republicans that are trying to convince their grass roots that Miers is just like them at every corner. The Democrats are just sitting back watching the Republicans debate and argue amongst themselves.

My take on this is the Miers is probably a qualified person in most respects. It does bother me that she has never sat on the bench because I believe you can gain invaluable lessons and insight into case law. But that does not disqualify her for the position. No, if you ask me her qualifications are not going to be what will be her demise if it happens. What will kill her is her religion and it will be at the hands of the Republicans. The notion of qualifications is the excuse.

It's a hoot to watch the Republicans eat one another.

What will be an especially fun time with the popcorn in front of the tube will be the grilling that James Dobson gets from Arlen Spector. Remember, Dobson didn't want Spector to be Judiciary Chair because he's not crazy enough. Now that Dr Spongebob has said that he knows things about the Church Lady that others don't, well, Spector is going to be asking the good Doctor to clue us in on his conversations with Karl and the Prez. So he either spills the beans or he looks like the fool that he is. Hubris is so special.

 

[langeweile]

The Eulogy

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200510201613.asp

It is fair to say that this is over!!!

 

[Cardinal Fang]

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200510201613.asp

It is fair to say that this is over!!!

[font=&quot]I wouldn't go that far Lang, but the "fat lady" is practicing back stage.[/font]

 

[Truncador]

Now you just have to get that fan poster of Benito Mussolini off of the wall above your bed.

No, I won't be doing that. Il Duce would know what to do with these impudent scribblers and professional gossips

On the other hand, so does the Party. In an ideal world, the best course of action would be for the Party to send some skins or bikers to visit these vermin for a quiet chat concerning the errors of their ways, but there are always alternatives. Evidently, Jonah Goldberg and some of the others have now been cut off of their professional lifeblood- access to White House insider info. This should learn that little punk and his colleagues to stop shooting off their mouths so carefree. Meanwhile, that ungodly warlock Bruce "Benedict Arnold" Bartlett just got his worthless ass fired from the think tank where he was employed for his treachery.

 

[TOVisitor]

No, I won't be doing that. Il Duce would know what to do with these impudent scribblers and professional gossips

On the other hand, so does the Party. In an ideal world, the best course of action would be for the Party to send some skins or bikers to visit these vermin for a quiet chat concerning the errors of their ways, but there are always alternatives. Evidently, Jonah Goldberg and some of the others have now been cut off of their professional lifeblood- access to White House insider info. This should learn that little punk and his colleagues to stop shooting off their mouths so carefree. Meanwhile, that ungodly warlock Bruce "Benedict Arnold" Bartlett just got his worthless ass fired from the think tank where he was employed for his treachery.

Hey truncy, I am serious here for a few moments.

I just picked up "Assasins Gate: America in Iraq," by George Packer. I've read the first 3 chapters on a plane and I am really enjoying the dissection of the neocons' involvement in the ideological justifications and rationales for the war.

Every so often, I read something, and I say to myself, "hey! truncy could have written that!"

Serious suggestioon. You might enjoy reading this, although you and I might have different views of its implications. Good luck.

 

[TOVisitor]

In an ideal world, the best course of action would be for the Party to send some skins or bikers to visit these vermin for a quiet chat concerning the errors of their ways, but there are always alternatives.

Having re-read this statement and then thinking of what the Nazis did to the Jews on Krystallnacht and subsequently, I couldn't help but see the parallels.

You really are a fascist, trunc.

 

[TOVisitor]

One of my very very favorite bloggers is Driftglass. Here he nails Buschco & Miers.

Knowing what one knows about the M.O. of the Potempkin Presidency, how to explain Harriet Miers?

In other words, what the fuck was Dubya actually thinking, and has he finally just flipped?

Less than a week ago, this was the best defense the world-killers at the White House could muster. The primary narrative delivered via the NYT...

Plenty of Praise for a Nominee, but Few Details
October 16, 2005
By TODD S. PURDUM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 - Ask any of Harriet E. Miers's typically press-shy White House colleagues what she has been like in her years as a top Bush administration staff member, and the praise pours out. She is intelligent. Meticulous. Selfless. Insightful.

But when it comes down to cases, they have a harder time.

"You know, she's a very gracious and funny person," said Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget whom Ms. Miers succeeded as deputy White House chief of staff in 2003. "I was racking my brain trying to think of something specific."

In the next breath, Mr. Bolten recalled relaxing with her at Camp David. "She is a very good bowler," he said. "For someone her size, she actually gets a lot of action out of the pins."
...

"You might think anybody who was preparing something to go to the president would already have taken care to see that it was perfect," said David G. Leitch. "But Harriet always scrubbed them one more time, and managed to come up with things that people hadn't seen or thought of before, from the broad wording of an issue to errors in punctuation."
...

"She's very meticulous," Ms. Silverberg said. "She has a lot of humility in the way she approaches her job. It's never about Harriet. It's always about making sure that everything is perfect and that the president gets the best advice."
...



She’s meticulous and makes sure the spelling is good, so she could probably clerk for a Supreme Court Justice and do a bang-up job. Damn, come to think of it, maybe I could hire her to proofread this blog. Y’know, tap out the dents and lay on an extra coat of lacquer.

And that’s really it. No “there” there whatsoever.

She goes to the Right Church, kisses the Right Ass, and can iron those pesky pluperfect tense entanglements out of the personalized birthday messages the President sends out to his Pioneer Grade contributors.

She punctilious, and positively dotes on Dubya...placing her somewhere between Alice from “The Brady Bunch” and the ideal Miss Moneypenny for the White House Follies production of “Live and Let Die.”

And she bowls well, so...what...The Big Liebowski II?

This is getting comical; turning into an episode of M.A.S.H. where Hawkeye runs around the camp trying to write a eulogy for some dear, departed Nurse Redshirt, only to find that the only thing everyone knew about her was, “Hard worker. Kept to herself. Fucked like a bunny!”

So at the end of the day, what? Why this person?

Is it that her chief weapon is bowling?

Bowling and assiduousness?

Bowling and assiduousness...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Bush.

And nobody, but NOBODY, expected Harriet Miers.

And it was all going so farking well, until this week. This week, when we discovered that her one virtue (outside of her place at the Right Hand of James Dobson in the Kingdom of Heaven and her demonic powers on the lanes at Chucky’s Bowl-O-Rama ) – her positively pecksniffish attention to minutia – was just another White House lie.

That she couldn’t be bothered with keeping up the vig with the Bar Association, and had to get a do-over on the written exam portion of the Big SCOTUS Exam

And the nature of that failure at the One Thing she at which she was supposed to excel, has the Bush/Brownie stink all over it: The complete failure to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court seriously.

The failure to comprehend that the SCOTUS isn’t a test you cram for, it’s a life of excellence you prepare for and lead.

What it clear is the Dimwit Dauphin, left to his own devices, has jammed both paws in two monkey-traps at once and won’t let loose of either banana: He cannot mollify the Right – the only sorry souls left on the face of the Earth who do not believe he is an arrant liar and an abject failure -- without backing down. And he cannot back away from his declaration that Harriet is the best qualified person for the job without admitting error; and admitting error is something he is congenitally counterprogammed never, ever to do.

 

[The Mugger]

After watching the Sunday morning talk circuit, I say Meir's calls it quits before the hearings.

Who ever was handling this appointment for the White House should taken out back and shot - I have never seen something handled so badly in my life. On the political front this is nothing but bad news for the POTUS. First it shows weakness and two it shows moderate America that the religious right runs the show.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Which begs the question. Does "moderate America" care enough to do something about it in the next election?

 

[red]

Which begs the question. Does "moderate America" care enough to do something about it in the next election?

and does she do duos with condi?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

*Cockpunches red*

 

[red]

*Cockpunches red*

can't stand real political debates, huh?

 

[langeweile]

Which begs the question. Does "moderate America" care enough to do something about it in the next election?

My guess is yes..what was perceived a few years back as the USA going far to the left, had been corrected by moving to the right. Now it will swing back...
The only way the D's could loose this, is by overplaying the card they think they have.

 

[lenharper]

Maybe this should be a different thread, I dunno... but i ask the question -- what do you folks in the US consider to be "the Left".

Lange, you say the reason that Bush was elected was that people percieved the US as moving too far to the left. Ok, if I accept that analysis (as opposed to the cult of personality analysis -- most americans would rather have a beer with Bush than Gore -- that's why he won) as the reason for his victory what serious american presidential candidate would you call a leftist?

The only ones I can think of is maybe Jerry Brown or Ralph Nadar.

 

[langeweile]

Maybe this should be a different thread, I dunno... but i ask the question -- what do you folks in the US consider to be "the Left".

Lange, you say the reason that Bush was elected was that people percieved the US as moving too far to the left. Ok, if I accept that analysis (as opposed to the cult of personality analysis -- most americans would rather have a beer with Bush than Gore -- that's why he won) as the reason for his victory what serious american presidential candidate would you call a leftist?

The only ones I can think of is maybe Jerry Brown or Ralph Nadar.

I wasn't referring to Bush vs Gore.

I was going back to the early nineties when after a very long time of the democrats ruling the congress, the Republicans took over.