wellstone_democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:40 PM
Original message |
Dear DU Pollyanna: on Miers |
|
Maybe its my view from Texas and my complete lack of optimism about the Bush* group but all the "hope for the best!" "wait and see!" "maybe she's a moderate and has fooled them!" talk on DU this morning is sweet but let's get a grip shall we?
These people always know EXACTLY who they are dealing with in these decisions. They are people who have been watched and tried over decades for loyalty. You do not have to know anything beyond the fact that Bush* believes she loves him more than the law and more than the nation. You also have to remember that Rove vets every decision.
She is exactly what he and his people want: she is conservative in their mold. She will see the world through "pro executive" "pro religion" and "pro corporate" lenses. It is what she has done her whole working adult life. She has already been involved with underhanded business with Bush* and has vocally spoken of her dedication to HIM. Not to the country. Not to the Constitution. She is loyal to the man and to the culture that nurtured them both which is Texas big business, big religion, big politics.
She's not a "stealth" candidate. She's exactly what he wants---she'll take care of him (as will Roberts, btw). They don't make mistakes in THIS White House on this sort of issue.
|
mtnester
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:42 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I agree...she will do EXACTLY what they tell her to do. |
|
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 01:45 PM by mtnester
As soon as a case is over (as in hearing closed, arguments presented), Gonzales will actually be writing the assent, and she will double time over to that office to pick it up.
On edit:
There is no WAY this administration would appoint anything other than a suck up..especially a woman. Take a good look at the ass kissing that is so prevalent from Condoleeza...this woman will be EXACTLY the same.
|
DemsUnited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Agree. Meirs is integral part of the corruption and cronyism that Dems |
|
say they are against. This is not good.
|
asjr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Totally agree! This administration has become master of |
|
pulling the wool over our eyes. Why should we believe them now?
|
texpatriot2004
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Yeah, I'm in Texas too and I NEVER TRUST THE SON OF A |
|
BUSH or anyone who works with them. Especially those that help him lose his National Gaurd paperwork and say that he's the "most brilliant man she's ever known."
OH NO! She's totally devoted to him.
|
Radio_Lady
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. Seems to be in the pattern of Condi Rice -- unmarried, no children, |
|
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 01:48 PM by Radio_Lady
pro-Bush, nothing else for her to do except get to the office at 4:30 AM. At least Sandra Day O'C. had some other things in her life.
What do we get from her? Just another woman on the bench.
Shit. I'm disgusted. But then I would have found stuff with ANYONE that Bush appointed. This takes the cake.
Soft-shoe another patsy into the Supreme Court.
I'm outta here.
|
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:45 PM
Response to Original message |
5. i guess my problem is, so... what do you expect. this is what the |
|
president gets to do. this is why we didnt want him to win. i dont expect anything out of bush, nor who he picks, lets look at the past. a single good choice? no. not this time either. this is why i didnt want asshole to re elect
people pissed at the dem is what bothers me. they didnt vote for bush, i am pretty sure
|
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. You're being pragmatic! |
|
There will be no capitulation here. We all know what's going to happen in the future - didn't you get your degree in clairvoyance yet?
|
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
22. i was called pragmatic by my father the other day |
|
like it is a bad thing. wink
|
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
25. LOL - it's becoming my favorite word lately... |
|
Nobody on either side seems to understand the meaning of the word. Bush is down - let's be pragmatic and get some mileage out of this. Most are probably wondering why anyone would want to do that!! :rofl:
|
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
cry baby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:45 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Just like his M.O. to find someone that is good for HIM, not the US. |
|
He just doesn't care about the country.
But will the conservatives that seem unhappy with her nomination vote against her? Will she be confirmed?
|
cynatnite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I'll still reserve judgment... |
|
I'm not a judge a book by it's cover kind of person.
|
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. You must make snap decisions and stick to them!! |
|
What kind of Democrat are you anyway!! :sarcasm:
|
cynatnite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
18. wishy washy and spineless |
jsamuel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Apparently she spearheaded a movement to get some lawyers to oppose pro-ch |
|
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 01:53 PM by jsamuel
pro-choice and go no-choice.
|
cynatnite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
17. I thought it was to make the ABA go neutral on their abortion position... |
|
Was it something else?
If not, that doesn't really tell me a lot at this point.
|
wellstone_democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:50 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I predict the conservatives will be back in line soon |
|
They'll get back on the bus, guaranteed. They always do.
BTW, my colleague who was *horrified* a while ago (major Repub) is now happy. Someone told him something over lunch. He's now doing the "not my first choice but I hear good things about her. Church going. Reliable"
which translated means: "she goes to my wacky denomination's church which means she's "safe" on anti-abortion and someone I know says she's good on the military and business"
Its Texas, what can I say?
|
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
14. Hmmm, church going - a sure sign of instability |
|
Well, at least the republican church goers anyway :D
|
wellstone_democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
20. When this man says "church going" |
|
in this part of Texas he means one and only one thing: fundamentalist/literalist
this is a man who thinks that Presbyterians and Roman Catholics and all inbetween are NOT church goers. You will note that I specified that he had to have heard she was from the correct denomination to be reassured. He was very upset about Roberts for being Catholic until he heard what the wife does for volunteer work.
Church going in some areas is a very specific statement---like in West Texas....
|
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. Yeah, I think I caught the drift |
|
I was aware what this means - that's why I said the "Republican" kind of church goer - which is the sort you describe. I personally think of them as evil.
|
wellstone_democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
26. sorry, its that sort of day... |
|
Around me, the "conservatives" (who are anything but in reality) are over their initial shock and starting to get "happier" with the nomination.
Sorry I jumped the gun
|
nonconformist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:52 PM
Response to Original message |
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Rove vets every decision? What about Kerik, then |
wellstone_democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
21. and they thought they could force him through didn't they? |
|
This woman is a very old member of the inner circle. They are not making a mistake here from their point of view.
|
catmandu57
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
19. You're doing a heckova job there mierie |
|
Is something I never want to hear, but if they don't tell this idiot* NO, I'm afraid it's something I will.
|
incapsulated
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message |
23. She's a Bush Crony, and Robert's was a wolf in sheep's clothing |
|
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 02:40 PM by incapsulated
Anyone who will be surprised by what this court does in the future was hopelessly naive to begin with.
(edit for sp)
|
mountebank
(755 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-03-05 02:56 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Maybe she's simply the best pick they could muster right now.... |
|
Bush and Co. are not infinitely powerful and perhaps they decided that they simply *could not* put up the candidate that they really would want - that doing so would submarine whatever hopes they might still have for a 2nd term agenda and the Republican Party in the future. Therefore, they had to make compromises and Miers was selected based on a trade-off between what they wanted and what they thought they could get through. According them infinite powers of deviousness is understandable, but it probably doesn't reflect the reality. When the curtain falls (usually 20+ years after the Presidency ends), the picture is usually the same. A bunch of chumps who were vastly more stupid and incompetent and *normal* (I mean that as in without superhuman powers of strategy) than they were ever thought to be.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 18th 2024, 08:13 PM
Response to Original message |