HardWorkingDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 12:08 AM
Original message |
Anyone else starting to think the Roberts nomination is a red herring? |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 12:37 AM by HardWorkingDem
I'm almost wondering if this man was nominated to instead pave the way for a more controversial nomination. For example, at first look he seems to be a less worrisome Republican than some of Bush's other favorites and if his nomination is derailed, then the Bushies will be able to come back with, "Look at Roberts. He was the most non-ideological person we could find and the Democrats didn't even like him. If it's a Republican, they can't be satisfied."
Or, if Roberts was meant to take the fight out of a more controversial candidate.
Thoughts?
|
fearnobush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 12:11 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I think he is a shoe in because I believe the Dems know this and |
|
that the freeper types so call rally against him are also part of this red herring to get Dems to fight his nomination - won't work because at the end of the day he will get the nod.
|
punpirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 12:14 AM
Response to Original message |
|
... he's part of an overall plan which is comfortable for both the right wing and the traditional conservatives. In that sense, he's a good pick for Bush--highly pro-business and steathily anti-abortion.
Having another authoritarian who takes the Bush administration's side, and the side of business, reliably, is a sound pick for them, no matter how he is viewed on his public comments on abortion. The agenda is corporate control of the country. Any other inclinations on Roberts' part is just icing on the cake.
|
Old and In the Way
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 12:15 AM
Response to Original message |
3. The nominee no-one likes. |
|
I'm trying to figure out if the Right is bluffing on their unhappiness or not. I'd like to see the Democrats fight him....and every single nominee Bush puts up, because none will be balanced.
|
femrap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 12:16 AM
Response to Original message |
4. The only way there is a nomination more .... |
|
conservative is if W. nominates a member of the KKK....david duke?
I know the guy 'looks' harmless enough which is part of the problem....but please THINK....this man is extremely dangerous.
Geez. Now I start to get all paranoid about people on DU ..... W. has nominated a man who is called 'johnny bob TALIBAN'.....how much more conservative can we go???? Dobson loves him...Robertson, too. Family Research Council is enthralled over the nomination.....!!!!!!!
Pleeeez....what do you mean???? A red herring????
|
femrap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
that some of the real crazies led the way....Pryor, Owens and Rogers-Brown.
These loony bins make Roberts look 'logical.'
Please don't be taken in by the neocons....they have set a lovely stage.
My line in the sand has been drawn over johnny bob Taliban...if the Dems don't fight him (when have they fought yet since '04 Elections?), I will leave the Party...and work grassroots on THE ISSUES.
|
Trillo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 03:58 AM
Response to Original message |
6. I think the most important thing is to force FULL DISCLOSURE |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 04:12 AM by SimpleTrend
instead of partial disclosure of all his writings. It's what the corporatist has mandated for, and profited from, the rest of us plebes.
Is this another red herring?
Lots of edits.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Apr 20th 2024, 06:44 AM
Response to Original message |