This diary on Daily Kos, I think, hits the nail right on the head. Check it out, report back here and leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| Bell Curve | The Law Talking Guy | Raised by Republicans | U.S. West | ||||||||||
| Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son." | |||||||||||||
The News
The Facts
- Iraq War Casualties from CNN
- Financial Cost of War in Iraq
- FactCheck.org
- On The Issues
- US Election Atlas
- CIA World Factbook
- The Geneva Convention
- Political Resources On the Net
- Election Results Archive
- The Federalist Papers
- The United States Constitution
The Polls
The Funny
- The Bugle
- Le Show
- Danziger Cartoons
- Doonesbury
- The Onion
- The Ironic Times
- Andy Borowitz
- The Simpsons Archive
- Last Exit to Springfield
The Pinkos
The Sellouts
The Fascists
- The Free Republic
- Fox News
- Front Page by David Horowitz
- The Christian Coalition
- European Parliament's group of Christian Democrats
7 comments:
Great post. But I fear it misses the point. It doesn't matter if Bush has annoyed his base. He's not up for reelection in 08. And from what I hear on the radio from Christian Conservaitve activists, they hate Democrats so much they'd vote for Bozo the Clown to keep a Democrat - any Democrat from office. Bush can take them for granted and he has.
The battle is over the independents - the social liberal/fiscal conservative types who think Democrats just want to raise taxes all the time. They will not like the "cronyism" stuff. But they would have disliked the kind of judge the wingnuts wanted too. Bush was caught between a rock and hard place. So I guess he figured he may as well do what he wants and appoint a loyal minion.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I wonder if what we'll see in the Senate is a series of questions about Con Law 101. Bush says she is as qualified as Rhenquist. Here is Rhenquist's bio . Notice that he clerked for the Supreme Court after Law School. I don't think you'll find anything of that stature in Meiers' bio.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I have read "What's the Matter With Kansas" and it turned lights on in my head. I think he is dead on accurate. And listening to anecdotal evidence, I get the impression that people simply voted the way their preacher instructed. And they really don't care to see the result. If you start telling them about Bush policies, they are amazed. "Really? He did that? He was an addict? He failed 3 businesses? I didn't know." But they sure could tell you how many times Bill and Moncia played in the Oval office.
The problem with this is that special interest groups then can dictate policy. The average person in Kansas doesn't care about Supreme Court Justices. I bet most people don't know how many justices there are or what they do all day. I bet they can't tell you one major decision outside of Roe v. Wade made by the court. So the only ones paying attention are the special interests. This is what happens when you get an ignorant public. You quickly move into Bananastan.
Until people wake up and pay attention, Bush and his cronies will do whatever he wants and then smirk. I hope that Katrina will start waking people up. But somehow, I doubt it.
// posted by USWest
Had Bush chosen to ram through the Senate a man like Scalia or Thomas, the Evangelicals would have succeeded in capturing the Supreme Court. Instead, in Miers they have been given candidate that will whet their appetites (more conservative than O'Connor) but will not sate them.
Oh, how they tantalizingly close the Evangelicals must feel to their goal! Thus, instead of feeling complacent, they will work very hard in 2008 for ultra-conservative Republican candidates like Sen. Frist.
Maybe that's what this was about. Keepin' 'em hungry.
You should go to RedState and read some of the comments. These people are severely ticked off. Several are talking about never voting Republican again (although it might be knee-jerk, I admit).
I don't think this nomination is anything but Bush nominating another crony. Is it good for Democrats? Republicans? Neither? Both? Who knows. But we do know that a lot of Republicans are pissed off and the diary provides good insight as to why.
// posted by Bell Curve
Don't buy into conservatives claiming to be ticked off. Really now. What better way to con liberals into voting for Miers than for Conservatives complain about her. Maybe they claim not to trust that GWB would nominate a total fascist. I do.
// posted by LTG
Bush did not appoint one of the favorites of the conservative elite. He appointed his own woman. But this is what George "Gravy Train" Bush has always done for his friends. That's why they are loyal. Harriet Miers' apotheosis sends a message to the rest of Bush's administration that could not be simpler: I may not have a big stick anymore, but I still have lots of carrots, so stick with me and you'll get some.
One note: the appointment of Miers would seem to be a statement that Bush is NOT particularly worried that anyone in the White House is likely to be indicted. Because surely Miers would have to recuse herself from such a case, right?
Post a Comment