Harriet Miers is:

Unqualified.
Another Mike Brown.
A wolf in sheep's clothing.
Against women's rights the way Clarence Thomas is against civil rights.
Another Bush cronie in over her head.
Did I mention Unqualified?

If Ms. Miers had distinguished herself in any way other than the Student-Council mode of getting elected head of local and state Bar associations, the President would have mentioned it. There is almost no lawyer who helps head a large urban law firm who HASN'T done a fair amount of pro bono work, so that's NBD.

On the face of it - and I can't WAIT to find out what the blogosphere digs up - she is simply:

NOT.
GOOD.
ENOUGH.

Listening to C-Span and the callers, being asked if Meirs is a good choice, I am amazed at the people making a decision one way or the other!

How can anyone possibly guess at how she will vote when faced with a case, when she never did in her whole life.

I think the fact that Bush chose her, is suspect in itself! He does not choose anyone, who is not going to lock step with his ideas of changing this country to a Far Right Wing and Religious led philosophy. Anyone who thinks this woman is going to be an independent thinker and judge, is naive .............

Eric,

Specifically, cite your evidence that she is "unqualified".

Thanks.

Just what I thought: Bush picks an ex-Democrat who has shown no right-wing agenda and Bush gets blasted....Bush picks a right-wing idealogue, he gets blasted. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. You guys are awesome!

"Heck of a job Georgie, another Brownie." Enough is ENOUGH!!!

"Heck of a job Georgie, another Brownie." Enough is ENOUGH!!!

I'm going to wait to decide on Harriet Miers. I am unsure where she stands on anything. We have to be impartial. I'm undecided on her and am Going to listen to everything she has to say.

Not that Eric can't jump to his own defense, but I'll take care of this. First of all, I think Eric was merely quoting from a variety of conservative sources, much like the beginning of this post and comments. Indeed, at the beginning of this post is a quote from a conservative source that says Ms. Miers is unqualified. However, to continue, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and should be reserved to those who have proven themselves to have the temperment and wisdom to sit on the bench and decide cases in a fair and forthright manner. Ms. Miers has had zero experience deciding cases. Not once has she put on a robe in any manner that I am aware of as a judge. In short, President Bush has nominated a woman to the highest court in the land and she has never sat in judgment of a case in her life. If that isn't unqualified, I don't know what is.

JSCram,

Don't let the facts get in the way, eh?

35 Supreme Court Justices were nominated with no judicial experience, including Rehnquist.

Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter if she'd judged a zillion cases..The Bush Haters are going to demonize Bush regardless. This just adds to that proof.

What scares me beyond all else is Bush is allowed to continue to appoint extremely unproven and unqualified individuals into extremely vital roles in this country. If Ms. Miers is confirmed we will be stuck for her lifetime with someone whose claim to fame is doing Bush's taxes and bailing him out of failed business after failed business.

Posted by Dash on October 3, 2005 at 12:12 PM

so how do you then explain how all the most loyal Bush nutcases are against this woman. At what point do you take off the blinders and realize this man as no clue except on how to surround himself with folks that tell him his garbage doesn't stink?

We once again get an unqualified candidate from the most inept unqualified President of our history...seems to be par for the course.

according to an AP report Harry Reid apparently recommended Miers...what kind of leadership is that from the Demcorats?!?

Guess what...when she is confirmed and the Court quietly tilts to the right, and begins to rule on the contentious cases before it (limits on choice)...the Dem base is going to fall apart...

thanks harry

according to an AP report Harry Reid apparently recommended Miers...what kind of leadership is that from the Demcorats?!?

Guess what...when she is confirmed and the Court quietly tilts to the right, and begins to rule on the contentious cases before it (limits on choice)...the Dem base is going to fall apart...

thanks harry

What I cannot believe, is Roberts and Miers--these are the best two folks for the job in this country? And I don't care about who was previously nominated without judicial experience--my personal belief is that to serve on the highest court in this land--you should have experience on the bench (regardless of your ideology)...and Roberts is qualified to be Chief Justice with two years on a federal bench? I dont know enough about either to say yes or no to them myself...but I just cannot believe there are not more qualified people with more judicial experience who could have been nominated. Nothing against either Roberts or Miers on a personal level--just on a professional one I am positive the president could have made better choices. But then, when you look at the cronyism that is rampant in this administration (and I'm not denying it never happened before)--but this administration has made a track record of appointing/nominating the unqualified, haven't they?

What I cannot believe, is Roberts and Miers--these are the best two folks for the job in this country? And I don't care about who was previously nominated without judicial experience--my personal belief is that to serve on the highest court in this land--you should have experience on the bench (regardless of your ideology)...and Roberts is qualified to be Chief Justice with two years on a federal bench? I dont know enough about either to say yes or no to them myself...but I just cannot believe there are not more qualified people with more judicial experience who could have been nominated. Nothing against either Roberts or Miers on a personal level--just on a professional one I am positive the president could have made better choices. But then, when you look at the cronyism that is rampant in this administration (and I'm not denying it never happened before)--but this administration has made a track record of appointing/nominating the unqualified, haven't they?

What I cannot believe, is Roberts and Miers--these are the best two folks for the job in this country? And I don't care about who was previously nominated without judicial experience--my personal belief is that to serve on the highest court in this land--you should have experience on the bench (regardless of your ideology)...and Roberts is qualified to be Chief Justice with two years on a federal bench? I dont know enough about either to say yes or no to them myself...but I just cannot believe there are not more qualified people with more judicial experience who could have been nominated. Nothing against either Roberts or Miers on a personal level--just on a professional one I am positive the president could have made better choices. But then, when you look at the cronyism that is rampant in this administration (and I'm not denying it never happened before)--but this administration has made a track record of appointing/nominating the unqualified, haven't they?

Does ANYONE think Dumbya would nominate someone of whom he hadn't sat down and gotten to promise to rid the U.S. of women's reproductive rights in return for becoming a SC justice?

Or get rid of those pesky Civil Rights?

Or make there can be religious takeover of government and schools?

Or make sure corporations can get rid of all worker's rights?

Or make sure environmental laws are all struck down, cuz oil companies, mining companies and timber companies need their bottom lines engorged like a huge fat tick?

Or get rid of gay rights?

Or that there is no such thing as "SO-CALLED privacy rights"?

BUT then again, why bother even thinking about this? Our cowardly dems will pass her with huge numbers just so no hate radio or TV or repugs will say anything that might make them wet their panties.

Our dems have no courage, no spine and no balls. They KNEW Roberts would be against everything we have fought for but refused to stop him. Or even vote in unison against him.

They know Meirs has NO judicial record. IS A Bush crony. Is involved in scandals in Texas. I mean why not just appoint Jenna Bush to head up the office of ALCOHOL, tobacco and firearms?

Is anyone stupid enough to think he would actually pick a NON partisan, moderate person to be a SUPREME COURT JUDGE???

Just another version of Dumbya's cronyism run amuck.

Hey DASHedbrainsagainstarock,

Go away. Go to your precious little RNC and tell them you ain't getting paid enough to spout such BS and that a tiny brain such as yours can't even figure out what it's saying. AND while you're over there ask them why they refuse to allow ANY dissent at their blog? Or why they insist you drink The Red Koolaid?

Oh I forgot,...that would be asking questions of your Reichmarshalls and that ain't gonna happen is it moron?

Does ANYONE think Dumbya would nominate someone of whom he hadn't sat down and gotten to promise to rid the U.S. of women's reproductive rights in return for becoming a SC justice?

Or get rid of those pesky Civil Rights?

Or make there can be religious takeover of government and schools?

Or make sure corporations can get rid of all worker's rights?

Or make sure environmental laws are all struck down, cuz oil companies, mining companies and timber companies need their bottom lines engorged like a huge fat tick?

Or get rid of gay rights?

Or that there is no such thing as "SO-CALLED privacy rights"?

BUT then again, why bother even thinking about this? Our cowardly dems will pass her with huge numbers just so no hate radio or TV or repugs will say anything that might make them wet their panties.

Our dems have no courage, no spine and no balls. They KNEW Roberts would be against everything we have fought for but refused to stop him. Or even vote in unison against him.

They know Meirs has NO judicial record. IS A Bush crony. Is involved in scandals in Texas. I mean why not just appoint Jenna Bush to head up the office of ALCOHOL, tobacco and firearms?

Is anyone stupid enough to think he would actually pick a NON partisan, moderate person to be a SUPREME COURT JUDGE???

Just another version of Dumbya's cronyism run amuck.

Hey DASHedbrainsagainstarock,

Go away. Go to your precious little RNC and tell them you ain't getting paid enough to spout such BS and that a tiny brain such as yours can't even figure out what it's saying. AND while you're over there ask them why they refuse to allow ANY dissent at their blog? Or why they insist you drink The Red Koolaid?

Oh I forgot,...that would be asking questions of your Reichmarshalls and that ain't gonna happen is it moron?

Okay, they need to FIX the posting on this site. We are obviously all getting the same ERROR message making us post two, three or more times the same post. OR at least give us a way to delete our own double, triple post.

Clearly the shortest route to power in this country is to be given the job of advising Doody on an appointment. I think he probably gets "tah-red" after a few hours of looking over boring details that he'd never understand anyway, and then, exhausted, says "This is "hah-rd work. Hey - You seem smart. Want the job? I want to go bikey."

I suspect that Gonzales was lined up to get the job, and when the court order came out on releasing the Abu Ghraib pix, the thinkers in the WH said "Whoa - can't put Gonzo out there just yet. All we'll be talking about is his damned torture memo." That would explain why they were set to announce a nomination on Friday and then pulled back of a sudden.

So, they throw out a meatball like this. If they lose, no sweat - then they can put up a hardliner. If they win they have a dope on the bench who was once quoted as saying Bush was the "smartest person she'd ever met." (Whew - what does THAT say about HER intellect?).

After being his lawyer in Texas, do you really think she'd be "soft" on abortion? C'mon, kiddies. Get real.

I think this may be a replay of the Hainesworth/Carswell scam the Nicon adminstration tried.

But once again - show of hands from all of you who thought the cloture rule capitulation was a "victory". Keep em up there.

Clearly the shortest route to power in this country is to be given the job of advising Doody on an appointment. I think he probably gets "tah-red" after a few hours of looking over boring details that he'd never understand anyway, and then, exhausted, says "This is "hah-rd work. Hey - You seem smart. Want the job? I want to go bikey."

I suspect that Gonzales was lined up to get the job, and when the court order came out on releasing the Abu Ghraib pix, the thinkers in the WH said "Whoa - can't put Gonzo out there just yet. All we'll be talking about is his damned torture memo." That would explain why they were set to announce a nomination on Friday and then pulled back of a sudden.

So, they throw out a meatball like this. If they lose, no sweat - then they can put up a hardliner. If they win they have a dope on the bench who was once quoted as saying Bush was the "smartest person she'd ever met." (Whew - what does THAT say about HER intellect?).

After being his lawyer in Texas, do you really think she'd be "soft" on abortion? C'mon, kiddies. Get real.

I think this may be a replay of the Hainesworth/Carswell scam the Nicon adminstration tried.

But once again - show of hands from all of you who thought the cloture rule capitulation was a "victory". Keep em up there.

There is one little bit of leverage that's going to become a battle ground. She's White house council, and prior to that was Bush's attorney. She doesn't have to surrender documents during her confirmation hearings because she can always site Attorney/client privilege and make it stick. I think they'll base their refusal to confirm her on that alone.

Then Bush's adminstration will put forward their real nominee and try to rush things forward by accusing Democrats of holding up confirmation and dragging their feet if they give any guff to the second nominee.

I'm glad O'Connor said she'd stay on the bench in the meantime. At least that way they can't accuse Democrats of leaving a seat on the bench empty.

Fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy night.

Please, Democrats, block the nomination of Bush lapdog Harriet Miers. Her obsessive loyalty to Bush will seriously endanger the separation of powers. She's a crony without any experience as a judge. For my detailed comments, see Deaniacs.org.

We need a stronger rebuttal on this site than just that the right-wing bloggers don't liker her!

There is one little bit of leverage that's going to become a battle ground. She's White house council, and prior to that was Bush's attorney. She doesn't have to surrender documents during her confirmation hearings because she can always site Attorney/client privilege and make it stick. I think they'll base their refusal to confirm her on that alone.

Then Bush's adminstration will put forward their real nominee and try to rush things forward by accusing Democrats of holding up confirmation and dragging their feet if they give any guff to the second nominee.

I'm glad O'Connor said she'd stay on the bench in the meantime. At least that way they can't accuse Democrats of leaving a seat on the bench empty.

Fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy night.

There is one little bit of leverage that's going to become a battle ground. She's White house council, and prior to that was Bush's attorney. She doesn't have to surrender documents during her confirmation hearings because she can always site Attorney/client privilege and make it stick. I think they'll base their refusal to confirm her on that alone.

Then Bush's adminstration will put forward their real nominee and try to rush things forward by accusing Democrats of holding up confirmation and dragging their feet if they give any guff to the second nominee.

I'm glad O'Connor said she'd stay on the bench in the meantime. At least that way they can't accuse Democrats of leaving a seat on the bench empty.

Fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy night.

JSCram,

Don't let the facts get in the way, eh?

35 Supreme Court Justices were nominated with no judicial experience, including Rehnquist.

Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter if she'd judged a zillion cases..The Bush Haters are going to demonize Bush regardless. This just adds to that proof.

Posted by Dash on October 3, 2005 at 12:12 PM

-----------------------------------

Dash,

Since your all keen in asking questions again, why not answer those I asked you the other day? I've asked you these questions several times, each time the GOP has you to come over here and try to stir trouble on a hot topic. I want facts just like you asked for now so let's here it. Why wont you answer?

Name one republican president who has passed any bill for the poor, handicapped, retired, minority, or for the workers of the US which wasn't politically motivated or forced upon them by the people who are voters? I want facts here now like you asked for once before.

What has any republican supreme court judge done by rulings for the poor, handicapped, workers rights, or the minorities while in their position? I want facts now since your back on here asking dumb questions again. We all wan't to know.

I would ask that any Democrat not reply to another post by dash until he answers these questions.

There is one little bit of leverage that's going to become a battle ground. She's White house council, and prior to that was Bush's attorney. She doesn't have to surrender documents during her confirmation hearings because she can always site Attorney/client privilege and make it stick. I think they'll base their refusal to confirm her on that alone.

Then Bush's adminstration will put forward their real nominee and try to rush things forward by accusing Democrats of holding up confirmation and dragging their feet if they give any guff to the second nominee.

I'm glad O'Connor said she'd stay on the bench in the meantime. At least that way they can't accuse Democrats of leaving a seat on the bench empty.

Fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy night.

There is one little bit of leverage that's going to become a battle ground. She's White house council, and prior to that was Bush's attorney. She doesn't have to surrender documents during her confirmation hearings because she can always site Attorney/client privilege and make it stick. I think they'll base their refusal to confirm her on that alone.

Then Bush's adminstration will put forward their real nominee and try to rush things forward by accusing Democrats of holding up confirmation and dragging their feet if they give any guff to the second nominee.

I'm glad O'Connor said she'd stay on the bench in the meantime. At least that way they can't accuse Democrats of leaving a seat on the bench empty.

Fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy night.

Will, this will be my only response to Dash, and only because my honor has been attacked. I totally understand where you're coming from and I agree that he (or she) needs to be more forthright and willing to engage in an open debate. That being said, Dash, not once did I say that she was the first unqualified nominee to be put forward for Supreme Court Justice. We have had many, such as Justice and former President Taft. I said she was unqualified not because I was dodging the facts, but because I have read them. My belief that she is unqualified is based on the fact that she has no judicial experience. The Supreme Court is too important to leave to people who have never judged a case in their lives. Sometimes you get lucky, but we can't leave the Supreme Court to chance and hope we get a good justice. As she used to be in charge of the Texas Lottery, I'm sure Harriet Miers knows that.

You all must be aware that this was decided on the first tuesday after the first monday of November, 2004. It does little good to complain about it now. Sen. Reid has already given his blessing and he will look really foolish to change his mind now.

The Dems have taken some heat about being "the party of "no" and this may be a way of minimizing the obstructionist label. It could be more of a strategy, knowing they have no way of stopping it anyway. The party is being hurt by its affiliation with the extreme left wing of the party and this might be a good thing.

Brady

You all must be aware that this was decided on the first tuesday after the first monday of November, 2004. It does little good to complain about it now. Sen. Reid has already given his blessing and he will look really foolish to change his mind now.

The Dems have taken some heat about being "the party of "no" and this may be a way of minimizing the obstructionist label. It could be more of a strategy, knowing they have no way of stopping it anyway. The party is being hurt by its affiliation with the extreme left wing of the party and this might be a good thing.

Brady

You all must be aware that this was decided on the first tuesday after the first monday of November, 2004. It does little good to complain about it now. Sen. Reid has already given his blessing and he will look really foolish to change his mind now.

The Dems have taken some heat about being "the party of "no" and this may be a way of minimizing the obstructionist label. It could be more of a strategy, knowing they have no way of stopping it anyway. The party is being hurt by its affiliation with the extreme left wing of the party and this might be a good thing.

Brady

You all must be aware that this was decided on the first tuesday after the first monday of November, 2004. It does little good to complain about it now. Sen. Reid has already given his blessing and he will look really foolish to change his mind now.

The Dems have taken some heat about being "the party of "no" and this may be a way of minimizing the obstructionist label. It could be more of a strategy, knowing they have no way of stopping it anyway. The party is being hurt by its affiliation with the extreme left wing of the party and this might be a good thing.

Brady

You all must be aware that this was decided on the first tuesday after the first monday of November, 2004. It does little good to complain about it now. Sen. Reid has already given his blessing and he will look really foolish to change his mind now.

The Dems have taken some heat about being "the party of "no" and this may be a way of minimizing the obstructionist label. It could be more of a strategy, knowing they have no way of stopping it anyway. The party is being hurt by its affiliation with the extreme left wing of the party and this might be a good thing.

Brady

Clearly the shortest route to power in this country is to be given the job of advising Doody on an appointment. I think he probably gets "tah-red" after a few hours of looking over boring details that he'd never understand anyway, and then, exhausted, says "This is "hah-rd work. Hey - You seem smart. Want the job? I want to go bikey."

I suspect that Gonzales was lined up to get the job, and when the court order came out on releasing the Abu Ghraib pix, the thinkers in the WH said "Whoa - can't put Gonzo out there just yet. All we'll be talking about is his damned torture memo." That would explain why they were set to announce a nomination on Friday and then pulled back of a sudden.

So, they throw out a meatball like this. If they lose, no sweat - then they can put up a hardliner. If they win they have a dope on the bench who was once quoted as saying Bush was the "smartest person she'd ever met." (Whew - what does THAT say about HER intellect?).

After being his lawyer in Texas, do you really think she'd be "soft" on abortion? C'mon, kiddies. Get real.

I think this may be a replay of the Hainesworth/Carswell scam the Nicon adminstration tried.

But once again - show of hands from all of you who thought the cloture rule capitulation was a "victory". Keep em up there.

Brady,

Hunh? Ever heard of a concept called democracy? By left wing of the party you must mean the people that think counting votes is important. Don't you miss the republic too?

Dash,

You have convinced me! I see the light. Why could no one put it so clearly before?
NOT!

Cicero

Dash/Dijhilli -

I agree with you. In our history we have had many USSC justices, appointed and confirmed, who had had no prior judicial experience, and some turned out to be very fine jurists.

I just wonder why we wouldn't at least pause to consider, if even for a moment, whoever is sneaking coke into the White House for our Preztel Snorter in Chief. Seems to me that person has a superb familiarity with the workings of the law, and ought to be given some thought before we just hand the job over to Georgie's...well, who is she again...his seamstress?

Dash - she is unqualfied because this bar is the highest in the land and she shows nothing, from even a few hours' surfing, that gives any indication whatsoever that she's anything other than a partner from a medium-sized firm who happens to be friendly with the President. And the President gave us nothing beyond that other than a few good-citizen type distinctions. If she had been the "first women president of the state bar" of any state other than Texas we wouldn't be having this discussion.

NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH.

If a nominee is a not a judge - which most Americans are certainly open to - than that person would need to display excellence, experience and distinction in one field or the other. Earl Warren was a very experienced nominee, it was instantly obvious from a ten-second description of his qualifications, a major figure in the country and no one had any doubts about his ability to play at the highest level - because he already had.

White House counsel? All that means is that the person is a lawyer the President trusts and has (most often) known for a long time. Important for that job, but nearly irrelevant for this one. The last time a President tried that it was Johnson with Abe Fortas and we all know how THAT turned out.

It is the President's burden to show that he has nominated a superior intellect and legal thinker, someone whose perspective will be valued on the Court. No one - no one - doubted that Roberts was a first-class legal mind.

I simply find no evidence that Ms. Miers, from a legal distinction or experience standpoint, is qualified to carry Chief Justice Roberts' hat, let alone serve on the highest court in the land with him. If it's there, the President neglected to mention it this morning. At such time as someone demonstrates such distinction - and sorry, most people insist that the person be distinguished, not merely well-connected and well-liked in Washington - then I'm certainly open to reconsidering this evaluation.

But it ain't there at first blush. Bush stumbled. Again.

First,
To say that someone is or isn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court simply because they "have no judicial experience" is naive and simplistic. There is no doubt in my mind that if Bill Clinton was Bush's nominee, we wouldn't be having his discussion.

Fact #1: She is qualified and highly respected in the legal field. Get over it.

Fact #2: Bush won the election and that means he gets to appoint conservative judges. That is how our system works.

With respect to Will's challenge to Dash, gimmee a break!! Will, you and I have had several good discussions here before but to ask Dash those questions is meaningless. There are always two sides to every issue and there is no doubt in my mind that Dash can cite to you hundreds of laws which, in his mind, help the poor. You may disagree about whether they acutally help the poor but that is another matter.

With respect to the Supreme Court, I can give you one example right off the top of my head -- all four conservative justices fought to protect minority property rights in Connecticut while the liberal wing of the court said that it was ok to take a poor person's property and give it to a large corporation. It that isn't protecting the poor, I don't know what is.

Frostie

First,
To say that someone is or isn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court simply because they "have no judicial experience" is naive and simplistic. There is no doubt in my mind that if Bill Clinton was Bush's nominee, we wouldn't be having his discussion.

Fact #1: She is qualified and highly respected in the legal field. Get over it.

Fact #2: Bush won the election and that means he gets to appoint conservative judges. That is how our system works.

With respect to Will's challenge to Dash, gimmee a break!! Will, you and I have had several good discussions here before but to ask Dash those questions is meaningless. There are always two sides to every issue and there is no doubt in my mind that Dash can cite to you hundreds of laws which, in his mind, help the poor. You may disagree about whether they acutally help the poor but that is another matter.

With respect to the Supreme Court, I can give you one example right off the top of my head -- all four conservative justices fought to protect minority property rights in Connecticut while the liberal wing of the court said that it was ok to take a poor person's property and give it to a large corporation. It that isn't protecting the poor, I don't know what is.

Frostie

First,
To say that someone is or isn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court simply because they "have no judicial experience" is naive and simplistic. There is no doubt in my mind that if Bill Clinton was Bush's nominee, we wouldn't be having his discussion.

Fact #1: She is qualified and highly respected in the legal field. Get over it.

Fact #2: Bush won the election and that means he gets to appoint conservative judges. That is how our system works.

With respect to Will's challenge to Dash, gimmee a break!! Will, you and I have had several good discussions here before but to ask Dash those questions is meaningless. There are always two sides to every issue and there is no doubt in my mind that Dash can cite to you hundreds of laws which, in his mind, help the poor. You may disagree about whether they acutally help the poor but that is another matter.

With respect to the Supreme Court, I can give you one example right off the top of my head -- all four conservative justices fought to protect minority property rights in Connecticut while the liberal wing of the court said that it was ok to take a poor person's property and give it to a large corporation. It that isn't protecting the poor, I don't know what is.

Frostie

First,
To say that someone is or isn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court simply because they "have no judicial experience" is naive and simplistic. There is no doubt in my mind that if Bill Clinton was Bush's nominee, we wouldn't be having his discussion.

Fact #1: She is qualified and highly respected in the legal field. Get over it.

Fact #2: Bush won the election and that means he gets to appoint conservative judges. That is how our system works.

With respect to Will's challenge to Dash, gimmee a break!! Will, you and I have had several good discussions here before but to ask Dash those questions is meaningless. There are always two sides to every issue and there is no doubt in my mind that Dash can cite to you hundreds of laws which, in his mind, help the poor. You may disagree about whether they acutally help the poor but that is another matter.

With respect to the Supreme Court, I can give you one example right off the top of my head -- all four conservative justices fought to protect minority property rights in Connecticut while the liberal wing of the court said that it was ok to take a poor person's property and give it to a large corporation. It that isn't protecting the poor, I don't know what is.

Frostie

Sorry for the multiple posts--this sites server sucks!!!!

Frostie

Frostie,

Judging by your triple submission you have a patience problem, have some faith... that being said I think you seriously need to look at the Conyers report if you think the current administration has any kind of mandate. Don't you miss the Republic? Don't you long for the days of a democratically elected government? If anyone needs to "get over" anything it is people such as yourself who would silence dissent and roll over to accept getting in line as a substitute for what our founding fathers laid out in the constitution.

Cicero

Frostie - we forgive the quadruple posts. The error message is misleading. I did it myself and so have several others.

But "Fact #1: She is qualified and highly respected in the legal field. Get over it."

Fact - not.

I'm definitely not saying that only a liberal judge could or would protect the rights of all Americans. But sorry, but "She can do the job" isn't good enough. Sure, she can read and she can write, and she can edit what her clerks would (God forbid) come up with, but if she's qualified then well over a million other lawyers are, too.

The United States Supreme Court wrestles with the weightiest issues in the land. The issues of rights, equity, fairness and just jurisprudence they consider are simply without equal anywhere. We have not only the right but the responsibility to insist upon the best.

Not. Good. Enough.

As far as talk of strategy and the like goes... Here is a winning strategy on this nomination. It is wrong for America. Point two, "It's wrong" We shape the debate not them, have some self respect people and start acting like Democrats and democrats. Besides, like Pres. Clinton said, we are borrowing money from other countries every day to finance this administration's failed policies. Reframe the debate.

Well her confirmation IS IN THE BAG!!

Harry Reid just came out and endorsed her!

So this thread is basically useless as will be any discussion in the Congress. Reid proposed her nomination and God only knows what he was blackmailed with in order to stand next to her and say she is a great choice.

The interesting argument made by the reichwing trolls here about the Rethugs standing up for the property owners is NOT that the liberals voted to allow a city to snatch private property to give it to richer private parties but the Liberals DID EXACTLY WHAT NEO CONS ARE ALWAYS SCREAMING ABOUT!

The didn't make it ILLEGAL for property owners to try and keep their property...the put the ball into the STATE'S RIGHTS ADVOCATES, and in effect saying, the SCOTUS thinks that under current law it is permissable to landgrab for higher tax brackets, BUT we are also saying the STATES CAN ENACT LAWS TO STOP IT AND WE WON'T DISALLOW THAT!

So here are the reichwing trolls going on about the Neo Cons on the bench trying to protect the little guy and the Liberals were saying, "you morons in the staes, if you wan't to protect property rights, then pass the laws yourselves"

So guess what? NOT ONE SINGLE STATE HAS ENACTED A LAW TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Now what Neo Nazis?

We know how fast a legislature can act if they want to. We've all seen it happen in a matter of weeks. In several states RICH CORPORATE (read greedy repuglican supporters) have fought HARD to keep any legislature from passing property protection laws.

So now Neo Nazis,...what's your excuse now? You're always screaming "STATE'S RIGHTS, STATE'S RIGHTS!" So now that you've got them....what's the hold up?

Typical rightwing hypocrisy. Sream the courts are legislating law from the bench and when the courts DON'T legislate and the states WON'T legislate, you blame liberals.

God you reichwing trolls are pathetic.

Praise For Miers Nomination To Supreme Court:

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, The American Center For Law And Justice: "We Look Forward To A Speedy Confirmation Process And Will Work Aggressively To Ensure That Harriet Miers Gets Full And Fair Consideration Before The Senate. We Call On Members Of The Senate To Reject The Partisan Political Rhetoric And Focus On The Judicial Philosophy Of This Conservative Mainstream Nominee." (American Center For Law And Justice, "CLJ Calls Harriet Miers - President Bush's Supreme Court Nominee - An 'Excellent' Choice Who Embraces The Constitution And The Rule Of Law," Press Release, 10/3/05)

Leonard Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society (On Leave): "In Nominating Harriet Miers, The President Has Once Again Kept His Commitment To Select Supreme Court Justices Who Are Very Well Qualified And Share His Philosophy Of Interpreting The Law, Not Legislating From The Bench." (Leonard Leo, Memo To Interested Parties Re: Nomination Of Harriet E. Miers, 10/3/05)

*
Leo: "She Has Also On A Number Of Occasions Demonstrated Her Commitment To Conservative Legal Principles And The Principles Of Judicial Restraint In Fairly Applying The Law, And Not Making Public Policy From The Bench." (Leonard Leo, Memo To Interested Parties Re: Nomination Of Harriet E. Miers, 10/3/05)

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "I Like Harriet Miers, As White House Counsel She Has Worked With Me In A Courteous And Professional Manner." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)

*
Reid: "I Am Also Impressed With The Fact That [Meirs] Was A Trailblazer For Woman As A Managing Partner Of Major Dallas Law Firm And The First Women President Of The Texas Bar Association." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)

*
Reid: "In My View, The Supreme Court Would Benefit From The Addition Of A Justice Who Has Real Experience As A Practicing Lawyer. The Current Justices Have All Been Chosen From Lower Federal Courts, A Nominee With Relevant Non-Judicial Experience Would Bring A Different And Useful Prospective To The Court." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)

President Of The Dallas Bar Association, Tim Mountz: "I Think Harriet Miers Would Make An Excellent Judge And For A Number Of Reasons. One Is, Although Harriet Was A Very Good Advocate For Her Clients, She Also Tended To Try To Operate By Consensus Whenever Possible. So I Think That She Would Be A Good Supreme Court Justice For That Reason." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)

NBC's Tim Russert: "Harry Reid, The Leader Of The Democrats In The Senate Has Said Favorable Things About Ms. Miers In The Past." (NBC's "Today," 10/3/05)

*
Russert: "It Is Also Interesting, Historically ... Of The 110 People Who Have Sat On The Supreme Court, Only Half Have Been Sitting Judges When Selected ... History Is Filled With People With Backgrounds Similar To Harriet Miers." (NBC's "Today," 10/3/05)

ABC's Manuel Madrano: "[N]ot Only The First Female To Lead A Major Dallas Texas Law Firm But The First Female To Lead The Texas Bar Association. Overall, A Very Interesting Pick." (ABC's "GoodMorning America," 10/3/05)

CNN's Jeff Toobin: "[Miers] Had Been A Top Corporate Lawyer In Texas. She Was -- Was Head Of The Dallas Bar, Head Of The Texas Bar. Those Are Impressive Positions ..." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/3/05)

CNN's Dana Bash: "We're Told By A Senior Official That A Part Of The Reason They Say That Mr. Bush Felt Comfortable At This Point Nominating Harriet Miers Is Because She Was Recommended To Him Not Just By Republicans But Also By Democrats." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/3/05)

*
Bash: "A Senior Official Said That The President Took Seriously An Admonition By The Chairman Of The Judiciary Committee And The Senate And The Top Democrat He Should Think Outside Of The Appeals Court, Think Outside The Monastery As Senator Pat Leahy Of Vermont Has Put It ..." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/3/05)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "[W]hen I Choose Judges In New York, I Look For Practical Experience. And So The Fact That She Hasn't Been A Judge Before, To Me Is Actually A Positive, Not A Negative." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Press Conference, 10/3/05)

CBS' John Roberts: "The President Conducts A Nationwide Extensive Search For The Best Person For The Job To Be The Nominee To Be Associate Justice To Replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor And Finds Her Down The Hall." (CBS' "The Early Show," 10/3/05)

The Washington Post's Fred Barbash: "[Harriet Miers] Has More Experience, I Think, Than People Are Crediting Her With." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)

Praise For Miers Nomination To Supreme Court:

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, The American Center For Law And Justice: "We Look Forward To A Speedy Confirmation Process And Will Work Aggressively To Ensure That Harriet Miers Gets Full And Fair Consideration Before The Senate. We Call On Members Of The Senate To Reject The Partisan Political Rhetoric And Focus On The Judicial Philosophy Of This Conservative Mainstream Nominee." (American Center For Law And Justice, "CLJ Calls Harriet Miers - President Bush's Supreme Court Nominee - An 'Excellent' Choice Who Embraces The Constitution And The Rule Of Law," Press Release, 10/3/05)

Leonard Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society (On Leave): "In Nominating Harriet Miers, The President Has Once Again Kept His Commitment To Select Supreme Court Justices Who Are Very Well Qualified And Share His Philosophy Of Interpreting The Law, Not Legislating From The Bench." (Leonard Leo, Memo To Interested Parties Re: Nomination Of Harriet E. Miers, 10/3/05)

*
Leo: "She Has Also On A Number Of Occasions Demonstrated Her Commitment To Conservative Legal Principles And The Principles Of Judicial Restraint In Fairly Applying The Law, And Not Making Public Policy From The Bench." (Leonard Leo, Memo To Interested Parties Re: Nomination Of Harriet E. Miers, 10/3/05)

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "I Like Harriet Miers, As White House Counsel She Has Worked With Me In A Courteous And Professional Manner." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)

*
Reid: "I Am Also Impressed With The Fact That [Meirs] Was A Trailblazer For Woman As A Managing Partner Of Major Dallas Law Firm And The First Women President Of The Texas Bar Association." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)

*
Reid: "In My View, The Supreme Court Would Benefit From The Addition Of A Justice Who Has Real Experience As A Practicing Lawyer. The Current Justices Have All Been Chosen From Lower Federal Courts, A Nominee With Relevant Non-Judicial Experience Would Bring A Different And Useful Prospective To The Court." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)

President Of The Dallas Bar Association, Tim Mountz: "I Think Harriet Miers Would Make An Excellent Judge And For A Number Of Reasons. One Is, Although Harriet Was A Very Good Advocate For Her Clients, She Also Tended To Try To Operate By Consensus Whenever Possible. So I Think That She Would Be A Good Supreme Court Justice For That Reason." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)

NBC's Tim Russert: "Harry Reid, The Leader Of The Democrats In The Senate Has Said Favorable Things About Ms. Miers In The Past." (NBC's "Today," 10/3/05)

*
Russert: "It Is Also Interesting, Historically ... Of The 110 People Who Have Sat On The Supreme Court, Only Half Have Been Sitting Judges When Selected ... History Is Filled With People With Backgrounds Similar To Harriet Miers." (NBC's "Today," 10/3/05)

ABC's Manuel Madrano: "[N]ot Only The First Female To Lead A Major Dallas Texas Law Firm But The First Female To Lead The Texas Bar Association. Overall, A Very Interesting Pick." (ABC's "GoodMorning America," 10/3/05)

CNN's Jeff Toobin: "[Miers] Had Been A Top Corporate Lawyer In Texas. She Was -- Was Head Of The Dallas Bar, Head Of The Texas Bar. Those Are Impressive Positions ..." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/3/05)

CNN's Dana Bash: "We're Told By A Senior Official That A Part Of The Reason They Say That Mr. Bush Felt Comfortable At This Point Nominating Harriet Miers Is Because She Was Recommended To Him Not Just By Republicans But Also By Democrats." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/3/05)

*
Bash: "A Senior Official Said That The President Took Seriously An Admonition By The Chairman Of The Judiciary Committee And The Senate And The Top Democrat He Should Think Outside Of The Appeals Court, Think Outside The Monastery As Senator Pat Leahy Of Vermont Has Put It ..." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/3/05)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "[W]hen I Choose Judges In New York, I Look For Practical Experience. And So The Fact That She Hasn't Been A Judge Before, To Me Is Actually A Positive, Not A Negative." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Press Conference, 10/3/05)

CBS' John Roberts: "The President Conducts A Nationwide Extensive Search For The Best Person For The Job To Be The Nominee To Be Associate Justice To Replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor And Finds Her Down The Hall." (CBS' "The Early Show," 10/3/05)

The Washington Post's Fred Barbash: "[Harriet Miers] Has More Experience, I Think, Than People Are Crediting Her With." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)

Who'da thunk this was possible. Bush pissed of both the radical left AND the radical right in a single nomination. I don't think the centrists from either party like the choice much either, but we never get to hear from them.

Whoa, nice error message:

An error occurred:

Rebuild failed: Writing to '/var/www/html/a/2005/10/liberals_r.php.new' failed: Opening local file '/var/www/html/a/2005/10/liberals_r.php.new' failed: Permission denied

Its easy to see what's happened...The Democrats have been waiting for this battle to fight the "Evil Boogeyman" nominees for a long time. It ain't happen and the Bush Haters are pissed.

I'm looking forward to Howard Dean's comments (solely intended to spark fundraising). They should be hilarious.

Have a good day, folks.

We may not know enough about Miers to decide if she would be extremely conservative (though it's a good guess that she would), but we know cronyism when we see it. We are left to wonder what it is Bush fears so much that he needs to pack the court with Bush-clan loyalists.

This brings up a continuing theme for me in contemplating the difference between what's legal and what's ethical in the Bush Administration. Bush (perhaps) skirts the legal, but he entirely avoids the ethical. Once again I find myself thinking, this may be legal choice, but it surely isn't an ethical choice.

We may not know enough about Miers to decide if she would be extremely conservative (though it's a good guess that she would), but we know cronyism when we see it. We are left to wonder what it is Bush fears so much that he needs to pack the court with Bush-clan loyalists.

This brings up a continuing theme for me in contemplating the difference between what's legal and what's ethical in the Bush Administration. Bush (perhaps) skirts the legal, but he entirely avoids the ethical. Once again I find myself thinking, this may be legal choice, but it surely isn't an ethical choice.

I am very much against her? She evidently advised The Presdident that he could run ads about his policies on Social Security, Prescription Drugs, war on Iraq, giving cronies positions and contracts without bids, appointing buddies for Fema,Energy Bill, you name it there is so much crime taking place and she surely told him he has the law on his side with spending my tax monies to cut my Social Security income with his awful Social Security plan. She couldn't be for the poor and underprivileged and ok such crimes against those that depend on Social Security after a long time in the common labor force. I am writing everyone of our Senators to hold fast against her for us?

Oops!

I am very much against her? She evidently advised The Presdident that he could run ads about his policies on Social Security, Prescription Drugs, war on Iraq, giving cronies positions and contracts without bids, appointing buddies for Fema,Energy Bill, you name it there is so much crime taking place and she surely told him he has the law on his side with spending my tax monies to cut my Social Security income with his awful Social Security plan. She couldn't be for the poor and underprivileged and ok such crimes against those that depend on Social Security after a long time in the common labor force. I am writing everyone of our Senators to hold fast against her for us?

I am very much against her? She evidently advised The Presdident that he could run ads about his policies on Social Security, Prescription Drugs, war on Iraq, giving cronies positions and contracts without bids, appointing buddies for Fema,Energy Bill, you name it there is so much crime taking place and she surely told him he has the law on his side with spending my tax monies to cut my Social Security income with his awful Social Security plan. She couldn't be for the poor and underprivileged and ok such crimes against those that depend on Social Security after a long time in the common labor force. I am writing everyone of our Senators to hold fast against her for us?

I am very much against her? She evidently advised The Presdident that he could run ads about his policies on Social Security, Prescription Drugs, war on Iraq, giving cronies positions and contracts without bids, appointing buddies for Fema,Energy Bill, you name it there is so much crime taking place and she surely told him he has the law on his side with spending my tax monies to cut my Social Security income with his awful Social Security plan. She couldn't be for the poor and underprivileged and ok such crimes against those that depend on Social Security after a long time in the common labor force. I am writing everyone of our Senators to hold fast against her for us?

"Win. An. Election. Then you get to choose - till then - shut up!~"

Posted by distraughtdemocrat on October 3, 2005 at 01:41 PM"

No, as with Dash above, your "facts" are wrong.

See, there's this thing called the Advice and Consent clause in the Constitution. Article II, Section 2. It's intent is to provide a forum for views not consistent with the Executive.

The confirmation of Roberts confirmed that Democrats, as a party, cannot fairly be called obstructionist with Supreme Court nominations. Also, in nominating Roberts, President Bush confirmed that he can indeed find people who are both highly qualified and Republican at the same time.

The very Bar Association(s) that Ms. Miers headed themelves have levels of "qualified." In most states where judges are elected, when the various Bar Associations review candidates for judgeships most have the option of something akin to "Not Qualified", "Qualified" and "Highly Qualified."

The Advice and Consent clause gives Democrats, indeed all Americans, to insist upon the latter and, once again, other than having lots of friends in DC and Texas with access to the media who say she's a good person, I have not seen it as yet.

EricD,

Here's a challenge: Please cite any fact I have given that is wrong.

Thanks.

oneforall,

You should be pleased with Miers wanting Bush to run ads on Social Security. According to you Democrats, Social Security has dramatically improved since Bush took over in 2001. At least send Bush a thank-you note.

Eric,
I had a long response to you but this damn server and its errors killed it. Sorry, I don't feel like re-typing it. In a nut shell, there is no way of knowing what kind of judge she will be. Her resume is impressive with a lot of "firsts." Just because she was never a judge doesn't mean she is unqualified. Judges need to be fair, honest and open minded. So far, there is nothing in her record to show that she isn't.

Cicero,
Bush won the election. He won it fair and square. We got beat at the grass roots level and paid the ultimate price. As a result, Bush gets to appoint conservative judges like Roberts and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. The job of the Senate is to confirm qualified jurists. Just because a nominee is a conservative or liberal should have no bearing on that person's confirmation. As you know, the Justice Ginsburg was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans even though she was a known liberal jurist.

Buzz,
When you learn to write in complete sentences without making snide comments about conservatives, I might respond to one of your posts.

Frostie

Dash,

Maybe you'd be happier on a message board where people actually AGREE with what you have to say?

Because we don't, and won't.

Thanks,
boof

Dash,

Maybe you'd be happier on a message board where people actually AGREE with what you have to say?

Because we don't, and won't.

Thanks,
boof

She's not the person we want but are WE without objective here? It's clear that the neo-cons are in a drawn-out process of implements Structural Adjustments Programs(SAP) here in the U.S., and have been doing so for years;Reaganomics ring a bell? This program has 'worked' in 3rd world countries, now its time to fully 'embrace' them here. 1)Massive Salary Cutbacks; 2)Liquidation of State Enterprises; next 3) Devaluation of the Dollar...this is the plan. To remove the state from 'enterprise' is key for them(i.e. Northern Marianas Islands). The neo-con can institutionalize stagnation but only if we let it happen. This is a great opportunity-a great moment, for the Democratic party-lets not stumble.

She's not the person we want but are WE without objective here? It's clear that the neo-cons are in a drawn-out process of implements Structural Adjustments Programs(SAP) here in the U.S., and have been doing so for years;Reaganomics ring a bell? This program has 'worked' in 3rd world countries, now its time to fully 'embrace' them here. 1)Massive Salary Cutbacks; 2)Liquidation of State Enterprises; next 3) Devaluation of the Dollar...this is the plan. To remove the state from 'enterprise' is key for them(i.e. Northern Marianas Islands). The neo-con can institutionalize stagnation but only if we let it happen. This is a great opportunity-a great moment, for the Democratic party-lets not stumble.

Why are we suprised that this president wants his personal attorney on the Supreme Court when all his friends are in legal trouble?

Frostie,

Your understanding of "fair and square" leave much to be desired. What do you do for a living?
Do you work or have a clue what it is to stand in line for 4 hours to vote while trying to take time off of work and pick up the kids. It was systematic-nay- is systematic election rigging and the sooner people like you get on board with reality the better off all of us are going to be. One person one vote, you Moron!

Why are we suprised that this president wants his personal attorney on the Supreme Court when all his friends are in legal trouble?

Distraughtdem - I have said nothing about ideology. I am, rather, insisting upon the highest standards of distinction for someone to receive a lifetime appointment to the Court of Last Resort. Your Ginsburg analogy proves my point (and I know her son, so you hit kinda close to home with that one). I probably disagree with many things that now-Chief-Justice Roberts may assert on the bench but it was clear to me from the get-go that Bush had chosen an exceptional legal mind. I have seen nothing that says that Ms. Miers is in his league but I also see no reason to settle for less in that regard and I will express my desire to my Senators, one of whom (Durbin) is on Judiciary, that they insist upon it.

and I await your opinion on what Advice and Consent means if it doesn't mean that the Senate, in aggregate which includes Democrats, gets its say.

Frostie - I never said she had to be a judge, but rather if he/she wasn't they needed to be exceptionally distinguished in some other way, and since each state and city bar has had a "first woman president" it just in my opinion doesn't rise to that level.

Dash - your facts weren't wrong, that was distraught's in the insistence that Dems have no voice since we didn't elect the President.

Eric,

Thanks for the clarification. I must have misunderstood when you said "No, as with Dash above, your "facts" are wrong."

No big deal, thanks.

Cicero

For the record, I am a lawyer in WV. I spent five years working for Senator Rockefeller. I dont need a partisan hack like you questioning my credentials. I am a card carrying Democrat who happens to be a tad bit more conservative than our leadership. There are millions of us, so get used to it. And for the record, I have forgotten more about politics than you will ever know.

With respect to standing in line to vote...its called early voting and every state has it. You write your state leaders a letter. They send you a ballot. You vote. You mail your ballot in. It is not hard. I have been voting early for years now.

Yes there were voting irregularities last election, but they happend in favor of both parties. There was no vast Republican conspiracy to keep Democrats, especially minority democrats, from voting. To the victor go the spoils and in this case, that means at least two Court vacancies.

Eric,

I respectfully disagree. We have no way of knowing whether she is qualified or not. Her resume is impressive. There is no way she could have accomplished all of that without being a smart lawyer. My only concern is whether she is honest, fair and open minded. If she is, and the hearings should fish that out if nothing else, than she should be confirmed. Besides, why do you think she isn't qualified and what is your definition of qualified?

Does that mean that she is the most qualified person in the country? Probably not. But she is qualified.

Another question, should ideology matter? Or, should someone's confirmation be based solely on their qualifications?

Frostie

I am concerned Harriet Miers would vote to overturn privacy rights. Clearly there are unenumerated rights in our Constitution. The Ninth Amendment states that there are unenumerated rights our Constitution. But historically we've had difficulty deciding exactly what those rights are. We know little with regards to Harriet Miers views as to these unenumerated rights. What does she mean when she says she will strictly interpret the Constitution? Conservatives suggest that to strictly interpret our Constitution means no unenumerated rights. But such an interpretation contradicts the text of the Ninth Amendment. Conservatives, I urge you to read the Ninth Amendment and see for yourselves. The enumerated Bill of Rights was not intended to be all-inclusive.

Harriet Miers was an effective enough lawyer to become president of a major firm. I think this shows she is intelligent. John Roberts is extremely intelligent. Intelligence alone is not sufficient to conclude an individual is "qualified" to serve on the highest court in our nation. My concern is that our party leaders have already lended thier tepid support to her nomination without knowing her stance on important issues. I hope our party leaders understand that if they vote for Harriet Miers and she votes to overturn or chip away at Roe and other privacy rights, this will lead women, gays, African-Americans, and other members of groups that have been historically discriminated against to think we have abandoned them.

The Democratic Party must show it is distinct from the Republican party and that the act of voting matters. If the nominee is unwilling to state her opinion as to Lawrence, Roe v. Wade. or Casey, I ask our leaders to allow a vote, but to vote 'no.' She supported Bush's stance on Embryonic Stem Cell research, I think conservatives' apprehension that she is pro-choice is misplaced. She may be even more conservative than Scalia or Thomas. I think we should be apprehensive. Many members of the public who would vote for Democrats if they only knew and understood how different we are from Republicans, may decide not to vote because of this issue. If we merely rubber-stamp the President's nominee, many members of our base will be incredibly disappointed.

Perhaps a filibuster is unwarranted. In any case, a filibuster is politically impracticable due to the current political climate in this country. A filibuster would draw attention away from the flaws/corruption in the GOP, make the Democrats look bad,and would probably fail anyway. i ask our leaders to allow her to get an "up or down vote," but vote "no."

We need to show that we have a clear agenda and we're brave enough to implement it (even at the expense of alienating some voters), but voters need to know we must have a majority in order to implement that agenda.

We need clear positions, and, above all, we need to have the courage of our convictions. Let's talk about education, let's talk about fixing the deficit, let's talk about investing in alternative energy to solve the current energy crunch. Let's talk about healthcare. We need to be brave enough to talk about these issues and making unpopular decisions (such as rolling back the Bush tax cuts) even though we will alienate conservatives. I have news for you, the conservatives won't vote for us anyway. Let's be brave enough to vote NO on this unknown woman who supports Bush's quasi-prolife stance on embryonic stem cell research. We're a pro-rights party. Let's act like it.

And we believe the conservative spin why?

The GOP has become the PRS

Public Relations Scam

Frostie

Partisan political hack? Man I wish. I guess that would mean that I would be in a higher tax bracket... There is nothing parrtisan or political about facts. The facts are that there were voting machines held back in Franklin county-fact- Precincts were combined and reassigned without adding new voting machines but only in heavily urban areas-fact-. The Ohio Board of Elections does not provide for early voting as you call it. I question if you can read or if you are the real partisan hack. You may have worked for Rockefeller, I don't care really, because you can get back in line and take your handout and live your institutional and ruling elite lifestyle and ignore the truth, ignore the facts and ignore reality. The realities of poverty, the realities of inadequate public education, and the pay for health system that keeps so many americans in a third world health care state. So your tone combative, will continue to be answered with facts and integrity until you get onboard or leave.
There is nothing conservative or liberal about facts you moron!

Ideology matters when justices are appointed. The President appointed her due to her ideology. He appointed John Roberts due to his ideology. Reagan appointed Scalia due to his ideology. If it is a criteria presidents consider during the appointment process, it is a criteria that should be considered during the confirmation hearing. We want to know why an individual is being appointed because it helps us understand how they might behave once put in an enormous position of power. Given the broad maleable text of our Constitution, ideology matters when one is interpreting our Constitution. Ideology should be relevant to the confirmation process. Ideology, more than anything else, will dictate the manner in which she votes on most hot-button cases. Ideology helps determine whether or not she's qualified. Conservatives are saying she's not qualified because they're worried she doesn't have a track record. They aren't worried she won't be able to handle the workload. Clearly she can read and write opinions. They're saying she's not qualified because they are angry Roe might be affirmed. They're worried her ideology, rather than loyalty, will dictate how she behaves once she is on the bench. Ideology matters. It matters for both sides. Some of us are simply more candid about that than others...

As a result, Bush gets to appoint conservative judges like Roberts and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. The job of the Senate is to confirm qualified jurists.

I believe it is in the Constitution, that the President should consult with the Senate before sending up a nominee! This is no god-given right that comes along with the Presidency! This is probably the most important issue a President faces in his years, naming someone who will decide law for this country for us and our future generations. How many of Clinton's nominees were Rejected? MANY!!!

Now, my immediate reaction was, Another Crony of bush who will see he is protected should Impeachment come to the court, but as I visited freerepublic and other conservative blogs today, and saw their Total Devastation, I am starting to wonder if maybe we might be on the winning side of this one!!!! There must be something good about her, if the Right Wing Fanatics are so against her!!

"President Bush's nominee to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court, White House Counsel Harriet Miers, does not have the legal credentials that John Roberts brought to his nomination for chief justice. Indeed, were it not for her close relationship with President Bush, it is unlikely that she would have been considered for the Supreme Court. She is a member of the small band of loyalists who followed the President from Texas, and there are serious concerns about whether she has the qualifications or the independence to serve on the Supreme Court.

Even former White House speechwriter, David Frum, questioned Miers' suitability for the post: "In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." "She would be a reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her… But US Supreme Court [justice]?"
http://frum.nationalreview.com/

As the New York Times reports, this "Longtime Confidante of Bush has Never Been a Judge." While a partner of a Dallas law firm, Miers first worked for Bush as his personal attorney in 1993. She subsequently served as counsel to his gubernatorial campaigns, and was involved in the litigation effort in Bush vs. Gore . Before being named White House counsel earlier this year, she served as the President's staff secretary, reviewing every piece of paper that crossed his desk.
http://www.nytimes.com

Miers is one of the least well-known White House insiders, and there is little information available about her views on critical constitutional and legal issues, her approach to the law, or her temperament. After years of receiving her counsel on a host of issues that could come before the Supreme Court, President Bush must know a great deal about her legal views. Senators and the American people have a right to know what the President knows about her judicial philosophy. The burden is on the nominee and the White House to be completely forthcoming.

We know that Miers has been loyal to President Bush. Will she be loyal to our rights and liberties? Tell your senators what you think.
http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/who_is_miers

Cicero,

First, learn to write in complete sentences. I had to reread your post multiple times to find your point -- that I am a moron who likes to take government handouts.

In the future, if you want people to respond to you, I suggest you take some pointers from Eric and Kev. While I may not agree with everything they say, they at least make plausible arguments. You on the other hand have a hard time writing a complete sentence and resort to name calling.

You like to quote facts (or so called facts). Facts are important when making any argument. However, that does not mean that you can make up your own facts or rely on unreliable sources.

Frostie

"This morning, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers is a long-time political appointee, campaign counsel, personal lawyer and Bush loyalist who has never served as a judge.

Ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown taught us that vital national positions must be filled with qualified candidates, not political friends with limited experience. With such a thin public record, how can Americans know Harriet Miers' approach to critical issues like corporate power, privacy and civil rights?

Right now we urgently need more information, and we need your help to get it. In the next few hours the Internet will fill with facts, anecdotes and rumors about Harriet Miers. We need your help to sort through it all, select the relevant and important details, and let us know what you find—decentralized, grassroots research.

We've set up a simple web form where you can post facts and sources that will fill out the picture on what kind of Supreme Court justice Miers would be. We'll get your research to the media, the Senate and our partner groups. This info will also be crucial in setting MoveOn's course for this nomination. Even if you just have a few minutes to spare, it could help a lot at this crucial time.

You can post facts right now at:

http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-3347291-247rRvQY1r4E1qfPpLwwLg&t=3

Here is a quick chronology of Harriet Miers' career, courtesy of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, to help jump start your research.

1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004—Selected as White House Counsel

There are many important questions that need to be addressed, including:

What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council?
What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?
What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?
What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the "commerce clause" or equal protection
As White House councel Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America's stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role?
Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush?
It's important that we move quickly in answering these questions. The Bush spin machine has been prepared for this nomination for some time and is already cranking at full speed. The strategy is to move Miers through as an enigma. We need to make sure the facts about her views are known.

This kind of decentralized research may never have been tried before at this scale. But a Supreme Court nominee with a record only the president really knows is a new national challenge. If we act quickly, we can meet that challenge together.

Please pitch in by taking some time to research today, and post what you find at:

http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-3347291-247rRvQY1r4E1qfPpLwwLg&t=4

Pam,
That was a great post.

Cicero,
Read Pam's post to see how it is done.

Frostie
Are you calling the Conyers report unreliable?
Grammatically correct enough for you?
The point is that I lived through what happened I was on the ground in Franklin county and I am sick and tired of people like you telling me what "really happened".
Another point for you to consider respectively as the great "I worked for a Senator once" from the great and distinguished state of West Virginia.
This seat should sit open until after the 2006 congressional selections.
Why not?

Humbly yours, Cicero

One would wonder WHY a simple little single gal in Texas, would find it SO important to give $5000 to the Bush Recount Fund in 2000 !!!

"In 2000, Miers contributed to the campaign of Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who was running against Gore that year. When the votes were still being counted in Florida and the outcome was in doubt, she gave $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inc. Recount Fund, according to the non- partisan Political MoneyLine.

Link

So you don't have to have experience as a judge to sit on the court, hmm, cool!
At least according to our fearless Machiavellian tactitian in the Senate Harry Reid.
So great! As Democrats lets put forth an alternative. Let's find a teacher!
That's right I think a teacher should be on the supreme court. Preferably a public school teacher and one that belongs to the teachers union. How about that?

Cicero

Was Harriet Miers the one who scoured and scrubbed the President's National Guard record?

Bush Aides Possibly Altered
National Guard Records
To Conceal Grounding and Missed Duty

They paid "hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers" $19,000 to review the records. According to Newsweek, one result of her work was to deflect charges that former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes helped Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard despite low qualifications and a long waiting list. Barnes was later forced to testify under oath that he helped Bush.

Link

Bush's Stay out of Jail Card

In the high stakes game of Supreme Court Hold 'Em, Dubya has made a decisive and bold, yet defensive move. Has has gone "all in" and nominated his former personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. What better way to avoid jail for war crimes, profiteering and conspiracy. Appoint your own lawyer to the bench. A truly brilliant maneouver even if Alberto's really disappointed. Bush's cronies can stop sweating now.

Link

Even The Conservative National Review Thinks Bush Crony Miers is An Awful Pick for Supreme Court

News from NRO's web site, September 29, 2005:

ANOTHER REASON FOR BUSH NOT TO PICK... [John Podhoretz]
...Gonzales or Miers is this: One of the Democratic talking points that is getting some traction is the Crony Talking Point -- the idea that this presidency is made up of friends and friends of friends who all do business together and whose qualifications matter less than their connections to GWB. Since nobody on earth aside from Bush would actually consider Gonzales or Miers a suitable Supreme Court nominee, the appointment of either would smack precisely of the cronyism with which he is (in my view) being unfairly tarred. Bush would be giving his critics some very serious ammunition to use against him at a time when he can't afford to do such a thing.

Link

Frostie-
I will write short and complete sentaces to make it as simple as possible for you. I have been reading what both you and cicero have been writing. Let me know if this is too much for you to follow and I will slow it down for you. The point that cicero is trying to make, and that you seem to feel comfortable ignoring, is that FACTS are facts. I know people, poor and middle class alike, who had to wait for 8 HOURS to vote in the last election. I myself saw it first hand. I suppose you will take a moment to tell me that I am making this up ofcourse, because your facts are relative. If a person does not cross their t's and dot their i's, that does not invalidate their remarks or comments. I hope that you realize that most of the media is BOGUS! and information is not a free and readily available commodity in this country. We shoulld always and forever continue to lift up our fellow man. And it you want to criticize grammer and punctuation, take a moment to our fearless leader in action.

Frostie-
I will write short and complete sentaces to make it as simple as possible for you. I have been reading what both you and cicero have been writing. Let me know if this is too much for you to follow and I will slow it down for you. The point that cicero is trying to make, and that you seem to feel comfortable ignoring, is that FACTS are facts. I know people, poor and middle class alike, who had to wait for 8 HOURS to vote in the last election. I myself saw it first hand. I suppose you will take a moment to tell me that I am making this up ofcourse, because your facts are relative. If a person does not cross their t's and dot their i's, that does not invalidate their remarks or comments. I hope that you realize that most of the media is BOGUS! and information is not a free and readily available commodity in this country. We shoulld always and forever continue to lift up our fellow man. And it you want to criticize grammer and punctuation, take a moment to our fearless leader in action.

Hey Brady,

You're an idiot. I have no idea why Harry Reid reccomended this nominee knowing she was chief white house counsel. This could be just what tries to get Cheney off on his crimes.

This is a ridiculous travesty and a mistake. Reid needs to look up her history and Dean needs to start riding the airwaves to filibuster. Unbelievable, its like these people got fooled into playing the repubs game.

QUIT PLAYING GAMES WITH COURT NOMINESS, DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!

nick

Frostie,
I can't understand a lot of what you have said today, especially with your rebutalls with Cicero.
Just because your a lawyer, and worked under Sen. Rockefeller, don't mean your better than any person on here and their political thoughts. Each state has it's own problems and each are affected in different ways than others. So being a lawyer don't make one hill of beans, nor does working for Rockefeller, and you put your britches on one leg at a time like the rest of us. Matter of fact, making the brag you did does shows you are closer to being a conservative. Also, by taking up for Dash above, shows me you prefer the GOP party over the Democrats by the way you said it. By the way, you didn't see Dash answer any questions either. Plus your comment about the court ruling on land was politically motivated. You can tell this by the comments from the judges who voted yea after the vote. Why the more liberal judges voted nay I'm not sure as I've not heard a reason from them but there had to be something that they thought was unconstitutional about it. The conservatives just flat dont care if it is against the constitution or not, that I can guarantee you. I have one question for you, did you vote for Kerry, or did you vote for Bush? Even though your state is 2:1 more Democratic, it carried Bush so I'm wondering as some Democrats had to vote for him.

Now you may think Harriet Miers is qualified but that is your view. Personally, I absolutely do not as she has no court room experience. I don't see how anyone would select someone to be a supreme court judge without at least being a judge in a federal court. That would be the same as Bush putting you there (unless you've been a judge). All of her accomplishments shown above are trumped by not ever being a judge, of any kind mind you, in my opinion. Now, are you going to tell all of us here she is qualified to be a supreme court judge? I just hope she gets in there and f*cks up enough that we all get a laugh about it if they send her on through. I think she'll be another Brown to tell you the truth. Last, I can about say she'll be against the unions and workes rights where she had been a corporate lawyer. I've never seen one that wasn't!

Hey FrostedFlakes and DASHedbrainsagsainstrocks,

WHAT on Earth makes you think I could give a flying Horse's Butt about having a conversation or debate with people who only advocate the destruction of the Constitution and freedoms in America?

What makes you think YOU can come over here and make your own snide remarks WHEREAS you cannot do the same at your blog?

What makes you think anyone here actually gives a damn what you rightwing paid for trolls think?

Some may answer you in an attempt at dialog, but it is without a doubt a complete waste of time.

So tell ya morons, you get the RNC blog to allow dissent and just maybe a real debate can be had, but as long as morons like you come over here and keep spouting that same old tired crap about "You lost we get our way", then you have no credibility.

Were you as well all over your fellow Repugs for obstructing around ONE HUNDRED of Clinton's nominees?

OR constantly slamming Clinton for his policies?

Hey we won the presidency so you have no voice? Is that what you are saying? That when you lose you are not allowed opinions, filibusters or a say in how our country is run?

Typical reichwing paid trolls.

Go back under your bridge and keep saying to yourself,"We won, we get to break our precious if we want to".

Deal?

Bush's Stay out of Jail Card

In the high stakes game of Supreme Court Hold 'Em, Dubya has made a decisive and bold, yet defensive move. Has has gone "all in" and nominated his former personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. What better way to avoid jail for war crimes, profiteering and conspiracy. Appoint your own lawyer to the bench. A truly brilliant maneouver even if Alberto's really disappointed. Bush's cronies can stop sweating now.

Link

Posted by PamB on October 3, 2005 at 05:24 PM

----------------------------------

Pam,

I thought the exact same thing myself. With the court loaded with republicans, you can bet Bush could get away with anything. He did in the first election! If it hadn't been for the republican supreme court judges, Al Gore would have been president, and most likely won a re-election being there today. I seen Al a while back on Leno and he had none of that robot or stiffness act that they all claimed about him then. He was very loose and in fact funny as hell with some of the jokes he pulled off. That is the very kind of guy I want in the Whitehouse, one that's not too serious about every little thing, and can laugh it off, but has enough backbone to run the country properly.

Buzz,

Frostie sounds awful conservative to me, don't he you? I tried to have a decent conversation with him a while back then seen him trash about everyone on here today. Me being a true Democrat, I wouldn't do that to a fellow member of my party at all, would you?

Yes there have been other none judges nominated, no big deal. But are we forgetting here Bush's last crony? The one that did just a great job at FEMA? If you are too blind to question ANY of his appointments then you dont deserve to vote, lol

It seems apparent to me that he doesnt know ANYONE that is qualified for any job in government. Or at the very least they should be questioned at length.

The folks at ConfirmThem.com are having an apoplectic fit. I love it.

It's as if somehow the Pod People managed to replace President Bush with a politically-suicidal jar of Folgers Crystals. Let's see if they notice...

Justice4All,

With no court experience, I can see it now. I can see her elbowing a fellow judge, and whispering in their ear, what do we do next? Can you imagine how much that will hold work up where she wont know what to do? Even though others have been in there like that don't mean we have to support it if we feel she's not qualified which I personally do not. I don't like the idea of her being a corporate attorney and possibly handling labor related cases.

Hey I'm sorry but Senator Schumer and Senator Reid, wake up or ship out!!!!!!!

You guys have tried to compromise on the stupidest of issues repeatedly, and none of us are pleased now with you being bamboozled to PICK a nominee who is the White House official "lawyer".

What is WRONG with you Senator Reid!?!???

Howard Dean, I want you to get to the bottom of this and ensure a new nominee gets picked or this one is voted down at least.

Senator Reid, this is your final WARNING. After the travesty of Bankruptcy bill, and Senator Schumer's speech DENOUNCING liberals and progressives I will vote to put you both out of office permanently!!!!

This is totally unacceptable. Meanwhile to find out why he voted for this, I'm thinking of going over to Reid's blog.

Truly one of the worst "compromises"

Meanwhile Tom Delay has been indicted again, can we get a front page yet?
Tom Delay indicted again

nick
nick

A stealth in sheep's clothing. Why her? Because she's been W's lackey since the Texas lottery scandal. A workaholic from 5AM to 10PM; how will she tolerate underachievers, no matter what the reason? Some of our members preliminary support is unwarranted until we get a good hard look at her. 60, single, no kids, how can she relate to the common person? We just don't know.

MORE ON MIERS & ABORTION. Amazing what a little Nexis research can turn up. According to a 1994 New York Law Journal article, "Harriet Miers of Dallas... as head of the State Bar of Texas last year led the charge for a referendum on abortion," seeking to change the ABA's pro-choice position.
A 1993 San Francisco Chronicle story has more on the charge led by Miers:

Link

Miers Headed Law Firm Repeatedly Forced to Pay Damages For DefraudingInvestors

In case anyone thought Harriet Miers wasn't a
corporate-shill-in-White-House-clothing, take a gander at how Miers
did her best Ken Lay impression while heading a major Texas corporate
law firm. That's right, according to the 5/1/00 newsletter Class
Action Reporter, Miers headed Locke, Liddell & Sapp at the time the
firm was forced to pay $22 million to settle a suit asserting that
"it aided a client in defrauding investors."

The details of the case are both nauseating and highly troubling,
considering President Bush is considering putting Miers at the top of
America's legal system. Under Miers' leadership, the firm represented
the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly
a Ponzi scheme." The law firm admitted that it "knew in March 1998
that $8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to
investors" but didn't tell regulators.

This wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Austin
American-Statesman reported in 2001 that Miers' law firm was forced
to pay another $8 million for a similar scheme to defraud investors.
The suit, which dealt with actions the firm took under Miers in the
late 1990s, was again quite troubling. As the 9/20/00 Texas Lawyer
reported, Miers' firm helped a now-convicted con man "defraud
investors and allowed the firm's [bank] account to be used as a
'conduit.'" The suit said "money from investors that went into the
firm's trust account was deposited into [the con man's] bank accounts
and was used to pay for his 'expensive toys.'"

If you think Miers wasn't involved in any of this - think again.
Miers wasn't just any old lawyer at the firm. She was the Managing
Partner - the big cheese. True, she could claim she had no idea this
was going on. But that would be as laughable/pathetic/transparent as
the Enron executives who made the same ones after they ripped off
investors.

I wrote earlier today that Democrats must focus on the fact that
Miers' defining career experience up until her nomination was being a
Bush crony. These new details about her career only enhance that case,
in that it shows she is just like the other corrupt corporate cronies
like Enron's Ken ("Kenny Boy") Lay that Bush has surrounded himself
with over the years. There is no room on the Supreme Court for people
like Miers who are clearly entirely compromised by partisan/corporate
loyalties - loyalties that might make her an attractive candidate to
the a corrupt elitists who run today's Republican Party, but a danger
to the interests of ordinary Americans.

Miers Nomination. We know that the Bush Administration runs like a Fraternity, where they support each other no matter what the circumstance, fall-out or reaction. The crony appointment of Miers will provide a Frat recruit into the Supreme Court who presumably has previously guaranteed her allegiance to Bush over anything else, including the Constitution.

Will,

First off, I didnt' trash everyone here today. I trashed several stupid posts (including Buzz's and Cicero's).

As I have been saying for weeks now, I am conservative but so what. I first registered to vote as a democrat when you were still fantasizing about the JC Penny Catalog. Just because I am conservative doesn't mean that there is no place in our party for me. What I cant stand for is members of our partying towing the party line when there are no facts to support it.

I would also like to point out that I singled you out as someone Cicero should look up to. Yes, I complimented you. Go back and read my posts. I take that back.

You are right on one point, being a lawyer doesn't mean that my opinions are better than yours. I was simply responding to criticism that I am a republican hack trying to stir up trouble at this site. With respect to siding with the GOP, unlike you, when I see a good idea, I support it, regardless which party initiated it.

The problem with you and a lot of the other members of this forum is that you hate Bush and the GOP so badly that you are blinded by your hate. For years, I watched the GOP do the same thing with Clinton. Their hatred got their party nowhere. You are doing the same thing. There is no, and I mean, NO, doubt in my mind that if a Democrat was in the White House and had appointed a democratic female with Ms. Mier's credentials, you would be all in favor of her nomination.

I am sorry that I am not a hypocrite. I apply the same rules to our party as I apply to the GOP. I don't cut their party any breaks and I certainly don't cut our party any breaks either.

Finally, to assume that Ms. Mier wouldn't know what to do in the court room is stupid. Only a legal neophyte would make that assumption. You do not have to be a judge in order to be qualified for a position on the Supreme Court. There are hundreds of unqualified judges in this country (look at the 9th Circuit). I would rather have a smart lawyer on the bench who is fair and honest than a judge who legislates from the bench.

I also take issue with your comment that you hope she f^%$s up. Why would you say. We all should be praying that she will be a good jurist. I am not a big fan of W but at least I dont hope that he f&^%S up just so our party can make political hay. When Bush, or the Congress, or the SC f#$%s up, the entire country loses. To pray for that is asanine.

Finally, the notion that the SC stole the election is absurd. Court after court ruled against Gore. Florida's SC ignored state law and legislated from the bench. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida SC couldn't do that because of the Equal Protection Clause, which protects all Americans. Never mind the fact that after the election, every major newspaper recounted the ballots, using Gore's method, and Bush still won.

Frostie

Frostie,

You're dead on accurate. Al Gore's proclamation "Every Vote Must Count" was hilariou since he only sued to have 4 predominantly Democratic counties to be recounted.

The Media Consortium, hired by several major media outlets, said President Bush won the election.

And another thing: Miers will be confirmed just like Roberts was. That means Bush wins twice, Dean loses twice.

Thanks.

Hey Frostie,

That's bullshit. And you still haven't answered all my questions on the voting reform issue. If there isn't a fair vote, there isn't a real election. EVER.

By the way I have alot more conservative views than you do and am a progressive, while I have to say Harriet Miers is the most unqualified for the position there is.

And why not? She's never BEEN a judge before, she has NOTHING going for her. No record at all except doing crony book-keeping for Bush.

And she's a private white house attorney. So why in the world should she be the Supreme Court Judge?

Go on and outline the reasons, this I got to see. She's probably the most underqualified candidate for the past 10 years and if you like that shit, you should have already joined the republican party. Stop mucking up everyone else's rap, how about that?

nick

Why is Harry Reid supporting another Bush crony? I am so disappointed in the Democratic leadership I could just scream. Why in God's name has Ried turned to the dark side? Why do we put up with this crap?

Is anyone else sick and tired of the Dems rolling over and exposing their genitals? And you wonder why this Republican nightmare goes on and on! Stop it! Grow a spine! Stand up for something!

Ried is a shameful embarassment. Why do I bother sending money to you people?

From RedState.org (couldn't have said it better myself):

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/3/141016/031

"From what we know, Harriet Miers is unqualified for the position. She had an impressive career of “firsts” as a female attorney in Texas, but those are not enough. Miers did not graduate from a top tier law school. She has no string of impressive legal writings. She has never served as a judge (let alone clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or Circuit Court Judge). She has never had a practice focusing on issues relevant to the United States Supreme Court. She has had nothing in her career that indicates she is something other than just a great lawyer — and being more than just a great lawyer should be a key qualification for one of the final arbiters of American jurisprudence."

Oh, and Frostie - the Equal Protection argument from Bush v. Gore was ludicrous on the face. Read Bugliosi's and Dershowitz's outstanding unwrappings of it. And no, the canard about "every paper did a recount and Bush still won" has been debunked so many times it's...what I would expect from you at this point.

But yes, trollish Dash, Gore's decision (pushed by his Crack Legal Advisor), to only push for a four-county recount, was a phenomomenal blunder. If he'd asked for all of the counties we'd be having a very different conversation right now. See - I CAN agree with you!

But the RedState.org

EricD,

Ummm, no we wouldn't. We'd be having the same identical conversation.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

I'd like to see your response to that. And be sure to include all of the colorful insults since the facts will sting you again.

Thanks

Dash, you moron. You've permanently lost this jaunt:

Jimmy Carter admits Gore won the presidency

All the facts have already come out, aside from all the spoiled ballots and so on Gore still won the election and the recount proved it in 2001.(As it would have after, when Carter finally admitted)

nick

Every Democratic Senator and Representative should be saying the following about the Miers nomination:

"I have some real concerns about the President's ability to evaluate the qualifications of the candidates that he nominates. First he gave us a nominee for Emergency Management Director with no emergency management experience, now he presents us with a nominee for Supreme Court Justice with no judiciary experience."

Let's not forget Bernie Kerik. And the Myers nominee for ICE...don't recall her first name, but she's Richard Myers's niece.

So what if,

Miers, like so many others, became a republican for the money. She was a democrat then changed when she started working for the other side.

Who knows how she really votes. She is a colossal kiss ass and she proves it by saying Bush is smart. I mean pleeessssseee. Even most of my repug friends dont say that. They say he's powerful and decisive but smart, not really.
So, this lawyer, looking for a big payday plays the game and now she is going to the supreme court where she cant be fired. She can quit kissing all these asses.

Didnt the repugs think Sandra Day OConner was a conservative and now we look at her as the only thing protecting women's rights.

Maybe we have the best person we can expect from this idiot. I wouldnt, however, expect her to ever rule that Bush has to give any papers to anybody. She would, like Scalia, refuse to recuse herself so she can protect Bush (and to a smaller degree, herself).

It will be interesting how these repugs play this. There conservative bases want her out but they probably dont want to go against their president so close to the mid terms.

I see this as a very dangerous choice, not so much because of her previous contributions to anti-abortion groups in Texas, nor because of her close affiliation with Bush's 2000 campaign (OK, that IS scary), but because this is the 2nd nominee whom we know absolutely nothing about. Roberts had little experience as a judge, Miers has none. We don't know what either one stands for, nor do we know what they'll do when they're on the Supreme Court, a position they'll have for life.

I hope we won't take this one lying down. Bush shouldn't be allowed to continue filling up vacancies with his buddies. It means a precarious future for all of us, and an unbalanced government for years to come.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a clique or a fraternity! This has got to stop.

We should understand why Bush chose his personal lawyer as a supreme court judge. Her only qualification is loyalty to Bush.

With Fitzgerald's investigation coming to a head, there may be a conspiracy charge put against the president and vice president. If that happens, even the repbulican congress would be hard put to avoid drawing up impeachment charges. should that happen, who will preside over the hearing in the Senate? None other than John Roberts.

This country needs someone on the U.S. Supreme Court whose loyalty if first and foremost to Americans. Miers' vaunted loyalty to Bush, who has never held the well-being of Americans with any regard, is an irreparable flaw, qualified or not.

If Miers has been the legal counsel to Bush while he broke and withdrew from treaties; removed us from the World Court; used his two-bit majority power to flaunt international and domestic law whenever his administration felt like it; if Miers has been counsel and witness to some of the most corrupt practices by any presidency in my lifetime; what does that say about Miers' sense of right and wrong? her legal knowledge and skills? and her ability to persuade an out-of-control administration from trashing laws that stand in their way?

If the question of impeachment comes up; or resignations of top Bush people for indictments that are just now unfolding; or the issue of intentional deception of Congress and Americans regarding Iraq and other ventures; where will she stuff that loyalty to Bush and cohorts? I can't see anyone dropping such a close relationship and finding any independence to view these issues impartially, especially if personally involved in these issues as the White House attorney.

Life and death issues come before the U.S. Supreme Court. We don't want any more dead bodies floating down American streets or from America's courts because Bush decided to appoint more campaign workers to critical decision- making positions.

Kathleen,

All I can say is I'm so pleased to see you being a voice for the Democratic Party. The reason the GOP keeps winning elections and gaining seats in the House and Senate is because of the irrational thinking from you haters.

Promise me you will always be a Democrat.

veritas,

You can be assured that like Roberts, Miers will be confirmed. Bush wins twice, Dean loses twice.

Good luck.

Hope somebody updates the "work" of her law-firm in counseling how to "bust" union drives and deal with picky OSHA regulations.

Looks to me like Harriet is a distraction, a bone to the dems to keep them busy.

Posted by Dash on October 3, 2005 at 12:12 PM

Renquist is not a recommendation to appoint someone without judicial experience.

About Miers, Things keep changing and Mr. President, keep surprising the public now to his own party.

The people at this point feels and realize at this point the Mr. President he will do what he please when he please. Texan style.

What ever his motivations are, he is the President. The people of this Great Nation also give power to Congress to do and changes laws to represent the nation, to protect that Constitution, and to make sure that the President makes that correct choices. But what we see big problems in Congress too.

Mr. President must represent the people in his agenda when electing a functionary. By picking his personal lawyer and a friend, it is not a very smart decision. But the people choice it might be also his choice; in the other hand his personal agenda or political beliefs might be wrong.

He thinks I am sure the moral and must important for him is the people he represents. But he might be wrong too the way he is trying to represent us the little people, he never live in poverty, neither he was a ever been a middle class worker. How he really will know, how the people feel, in this time where every body is struggling and jiggle trying to make it. He just is implementing his belief one- way or the other, for us the little people it taken away, with his new laws, regulations and implementations.

If you do a little search around you will find how much this changes affecting the Social and Economical of this country it is incredible, that nothing really is done about only just talk.

He was elected for a second term, also again our President, not matter what we think or said. Sometimes I feel the Republican will hunt me down and make my life miserable for the opinions that I have been writing. That means that for some reason of another, I as well the Hispanic are very afraid to talk, we come here to the new world for a better future for our family and to work. When your afraid to talk about the governments agenda is not a Democracy, I belief this Freedom, as longer you live in personal content and laws orders, religious and political views could be compromise and work around for a peaceful life.

It will have to be a way to make him understand a change of direction in his political agenda is crucial. If not this country will continuing had been divide Socially, Financially, Economically

NEWPOST

Hang on a minute...

"To say that someone is or isn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court simply because they "have no judicial experience" is naive and simplistic. There is no doubt in my mind that if Bill Clinton was Bush's nominee, we wouldn't be having his discussion.

Fact #1: She is qualified and highly respected in the legal field. Get over it.

Fact #2: Bush won the election and that means he gets to appoint conservative judges. That is how our system works."

First of all, if Bill Clinton were Bush's nominee, I know a lot of us would be asking the same questions. I supported him as President, but I wouldn't support him in such a nomination. Why is it you Bush supporters believe so sincerely that this is about partisanship? I knew since the first time Bush stole the Presidency that he would nominate a Republican if he had the chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. The issue is qualification. The issue is, as someone (sorry, I can't recall who just at the moment) here said is that there must be SOMEONE in this country more qualified for the post. Is Bush trying to say that of all the Judges in this country--many of whom would be Republicans and would therefore support his agenda--that Miers is the most qualified person and the best choice? She cannot be. Simple logic should tell us that. She has limited experience. She hasn't even taught law. She has no track record. If she is so "qualified and highly respected in the legal field" why are there so many people disgusted at this appointment? There are a great many Republicans (Conservatives) not at all happy about this. Maybe Bush should worry about getting his own party behind him.

Also, if this were just a matter of appointing conservative judges it would be a different battle. This is about appointing qualified judges. There isn't a person on the planet who didn't expect him to appoint a conservative judge. We all know "how it works", but that does not mean that we should expect someone with no experience to get the job.

Cheney's remark that "the idea that Harriet (was) selected on the basis of cronyism makes no sense. ... She'd been a very successful private attorney before she joined the administration."

Makes me wonder if he understands what cronyism is. No one's saying she wasn't a successful private attorney. We're saying she got the job because she was BUSH's successful private attorney. Her qualifications as an attorney are one thing, but her qualifications as a judge are what many Americans are calling into question.

Tess,

Partisanship? From you Democrats? ROFL

It wouldn't matter who Bush nominated...You and your party are going to demonize the nominee. You tried with Judge Roberts and failed miserably.

I particularly laughed when you said something about "partisanship" and then accused Bush of stealing the election. What a laugher.

There have been 35 Supreme Court Justices who didn't have prior experience as a Judge. Now, get out there and dig up all of the trash you can. In the end, it won't matter because she will be confirmed.

Some messages appear thoughtful........but when you end them with "you moron"..... you lose credibility. Interesting reading at this site.

The quote "Jimmy Carter Admits Gore Won The Presidency" is ridiculous. Here is news: "Dick Durbin ADMITS he is a liberal"

What a shock.

Undecided,

I laughed at that one too....

Will,

First off, I didnt' trash everyone here today. I trashed several stupid posts (including Buzz's and Cicero's).

As I have been saying for weeks now, I am conservative but so what. I first registered to vote as a democrat when you were still fantasizing about the JC Penny Catalog. Just because I am conservative doesn't mean that there is no place in our party for me. What I cant stand for is members of our partying towing the party line when there are no facts to support it.

I would also like to point out that I singled you out as someone Cicero should look up to. Yes, I complimented you. Go back and read my posts. I take that back.

You are right on one point, being a lawyer doesn't mean that my opinions are better than yours. I was simply responding to criticism that I am a republican hack trying to stir up trouble at this site. With respect to siding with the GOP, unlike you, when I see a good idea, I support it, regardless which party initiated it.

The problem with you and a lot of the other members of this forum is that you hate Bush and the GOP so badly that you are blinded by your hate. For years, I watched the GOP do the same thing with Clinton. Their hatred got their party nowhere. You are doing the same thing. There is no, and I mean, NO, doubt in my mind that if a Democrat was in the White House and had appointed a democratic female with Ms. Mier's credentials, you would be all in favor of her nomination.

I am sorry that I am not a hypocrite. I apply the same rules to our party as I apply to the GOP. I don't cut their party any breaks and I certainly don't cut our party any breaks either.

Finally, to assume that Ms. Mier wouldn't know what to do in the court room is stupid. Only a legal neophyte would make that assumption. You do not have to be a judge in order to be qualified for a position on the Supreme Court. There are hundreds of unqualified judges in this country (look at the 9th Circuit). I would rather have a smart lawyer on the bench who is fair and honest than a judge who legislates from the bench.

I also take issue with your comment that you hope she f^%$s up. Why would you say. We all should be praying that she will be a good jurist. I am not a big fan of W but at least I dont hope that he f&^%S up just so our party can make political hay. When Bush, or the Congress, or the SC f#$%s up, the entire country loses. To pray for that is asanine.

Finally, the notion that the SC stole the election is absurd. Court after court ruled against Gore. Florida's SC ignored state law and legislated from the bench. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida SC couldn't do that because of the Equal Protection Clause, which protects all Americans. Never mind the fact that after the election, every major newspaper recounted the ballots, using Gore's method, and Bush still won.

Frostie

Posted by Frostie94 on October 3, 2005 at 10:54 PM

-----------------------------

I rest my case!

Notice he didn't answer a certain question I put forth either. I'll tell who I voted for all the way back to Regan. Straight Democrat!

Also, he couldn't stand it again without belittling me now. "I first registered to vote as a democrat when you were still fantasizing about the JC Penny Catalog". Ehhhh, I don't shop at JC Pennys, I shop at Sears thank you. By the way, I'm 40, how old are you? In my 40 years I've seen what conservatism has done to hurt this country, My Father back to 1919, and my Grandfather back to 1897. Don't think I haven't been educated in great detail what the republicans have done to destroy this country while taking from the have-nots and giving to the haves.

When the supreme court swung the way it did towards right wing beliefs years back, that about ruined everything this nation stands for (freedom and liberty). Now Bush wants to load it up more with more right wing, or I should say far right wing republicans. It sounds to me that you uphold that? Do you actually think that if the supreme court hadn't been this way, they would have ruled for Bush when he plainly lost the election in Florida over voter fraud? Do you think that Gore and the DNC would have fought this if there wasn't any truth to it? Why did Gore win by 500,000 popular votes and the papers said after the election he had won after they recounted them? No, I'm for the one who would do the right thing as a judge, rule for the constitution and protect our libeties and freedom. Right now, where she had been a coporate lawyer says a lot to me, she's not fit to serve. If she wouldn't side with a company over workers rights, I'd kiss somebodys ass in public and give them time to draw a crowd. Then Pam uncovered what she thinks about abortion rights, I don't have to say no more on this, just read the post. I know one thing, you found a good friend on here who agrees with you, Dash, what a laugh, but I guees I'm as you say, "asanine".

Undecided and Dash,

Yawn.............

The quote "Jimmy Carter Admits Gore Won The Presidency" is ridiculous. Here is news: "Dick Durbin ADMITS he is a liberal"

What a shock.

Posted by Undecided on October 4, 2005 at 10:34 AM

-----------------------------------

Undecided,

Do you know that after the right wing leaning supreme court ruled against Gore, several newspapers started recounting the votes and found Gore won? Do you know that Gore had 500,000 popular votes? This is not me talking but history and fact...........

You don't appreciate humor Will? Maybe "Tom DeLay admits he is innocent" is more to your liking. "Jimmy Carter admits Bush won would be worth reading". So would "Bush Sr. admits Gore won".......but not Carter admits Gore won. Am I on the bad list since Dash sided with me on a non political issue?

Will_Matney,

Ummm, I hate to tell you, but the Media Consortium that was hired by several HUGE media organizations said Bush won the recount.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

I think I'm being misunderstood. I see Will posted again while I was writing. I'm not talking about the results at all. I'm just saying the word "admits" has a certain connotation, and since I know Carter wanted Gore to win he didn't "admit" to anything.

Dash, I hate to break it to you, but I got over the 2000 election result a long time ago. President Carter's analysis is enough for me - the papers, certainly Fox and more recently CNN are all compromised on this issue and the pass their reporters gave a President with no mandate (pre-2004) who insisted on acting like one proved it. Sorry. Go bait someone else on that one.

In the here and now, Miers is already a liability. Even the White House is struggling to find the second talking point beyond "trailblazer" - which people are realizing she isn't - because...there isn't one.

The R's for once are right, and the argument is simple enough that even other Republicans can understand it. I realize that the truth of this makes you want to re-fight 2000, etc., and yes some other D's here and elsewhere need to get over that, too. But Miers is another underqualified Bush choice to run an important piece of our government, just like Mike Brown at FEMA, and despite the R spin machine working overtime they can't flip this particular flapjack. Redstate.org said it best, as a reminder:

"From what we know, Harriet Miers is unqualified for the position. She had an impressive career of “firsts” as a female attorney in Texas, but those are not enough. Miers did not graduate from a top tier law school. She has no string of impressive legal writings. She has never served as a judge (let alone clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or Circuit Court Judge). She has never had a practice focusing on issues relevant to the United States Supreme Court. She has had nothing in her career that indicates she is something other than just a great lawyer — and being more than just a great lawyer should be a key qualification for one of the final arbiters of American jurisprudence."

And by the way - I'm glad you're here. It means we truly are the open party, unafraid of debate, disagreement and discussion. It also means you're not out organizing. Keep it up - and bring your friends!

Also - to the D's here. We learned a useful tactic during Chairman Dean's run for the nomination. When a troll shows up - head over to the democrats.org "Contribute" button and put down another $10. Then post your action here to let them know. After awhile, even the paleoconservatives who show up will figure it out.

Tess324,

I agree that she is qualified, but only as a lawyer. I also agree that Bush has the right to pick who he wants. However, three things stick out about Miers;

(1) No experience in trying cases as a judge.

(2) She had been a coporate attorney for a good while. Most coporate attornies I've seen are against any worker rights laws out there. In a position in the supreme court, she will most likely rule against any workers right cases.

(3) As Pam found above, she's strongly against abortion. When it comes to a woman about to die, and the only way to save her is an abortion, I'll bet she'll rule against it. No republican I've seen speak is for abortion, even for medical necessity.

(4) We have just started to investagate her, I'll bet more turns up.

In my book, she is not fit to be a supreme court judge. My opinion is not soley based on her not ever being a judge before, as one above tried to make it look.

Will,

To answer your question (I didn't read your previous post careful enough and failed to see your questions), I voted for Bush both times. I do not vote a straight ticket and base my votes on who the candidate is. I do not agree with W on a lot of issues but the idea of John Kerry (or Gore) in the White House scared me. I was afraid that, if elected, both would get the chance to appoint liberal jurists like Ginsburg who believe that quotas are ok (ie affirmative action), that the second amendment is a collective right (which it isn't) and that any time a government official mentions "God" that they are endorsing religion (bye bye pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust"). In a nut shell, I voted for Bush to get more conservative judges. Sorry if you disagree with that.

I am a pro gun, anti tax (nobody should pay a third of their income in taxes), anti affirmative action (at least based on race or gender/AA based on income level is fine with me), a tree hugging stop polluting our rivers, flag burning Democrat who will burn the American Flag just to piss of the radical right and then use my Glock to defend myself. I also think the war in Iraq was the right thing to do (now and 15 years ago). Saddam had WMDs but probably shipped them to Iran or Syria. I also believe in national health care and doubling the minimum wage.

With respect to abortion, I am pro choice but beieve that partial birth abortion is wrong and should be banned; that parental notifiction is constitutional (parents have the right to know if their kids are having surgery, which abortion is); and that Roe is the worst Supreme Court ruling ever.

With that said, I have voted for Rockerfeller and Byrd since I was 18. I also voted for Governor Wise (a democrat). I have never voted for Rahall (and never will). And I voted straight democratic at the county level.

WV is a conservative state. In my opinion, which is shared by a lot of democrats here, the national party has been taken hostage by the extreme liberal left, much the same way that the GOP has been taken hostage by the radical right.
I hope that sheds some light on who you are talking too.

Frostie

PS Dash is 100 percent correct when he states that Bush won the recount conducted by the press. Gore would have lost Florida with or without the SC's ruling.

Dash,

I know for a fact several newspapers said Gore won. They changed their tune to brown nose Bush! Why would he of had 500,000 more popular votes than Bush?

Quote from consortium news;

Now, the Miami Herald and USA Today have rewarded Bush again, by constructing their recount findings in curious ways to guarantee that the outcome isn't changed.

The Herald first did this with a story on Feb. 26 that only looked at the Miami-Dade recount, showing Bush clinging to a narrow victory. Then, on April 4, the two newspapers fashioned their lead paragraphs to focus not on the statewide recount findings, but on the outcome if three-plus counties were subtracted from the total.

It was as if the conclusion had to be "Bush Wins" no matter what the facts were.

The rest of the national press followed that lead, summarizing the April 4 stories as meaning that Bush won the statewide recount. That erroneous interpretation rapidly became the conventional wisdom, routinely repeated by journalists now as if it were fact.

The information on the actual statewide recount – buried in the 44th paragraph – virtually disappeared.

The recognition of Gore's likely victory if the recounts of Palm Beach and Broward were included was highlighted in the second-day story in the Miami Herald, but that article received almost no attention in the rest of the news media.

Like that second-day story, the evidence of Gore's additional gains in optical-scanner counties has been effectively ignored.

With Bush the national popular-vote loser by more than one-half million votes and almost certainly not the first choice of Florida's voters either, the national news media apparently feels that the American people just can't handle the truth.

In its odd handling of the unofficial Florida recounts, the press corps seems to want to make Bush's apparent defeat in Florida – and thus his illegitimacy – a kind of state secret, something that the American people just shouldn't know.

End Quote.

See here for the whole story;

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/040801a.html

Aint it funny how Gore was found to have WON, then they fiddled with the facts by not counting some they originally did, which were true votes for Gore. By the way, the Miami Herald was the one who dont the recount.

Nuff Said!

Will,

To answer your question (I didn't read your previous post careful enough and failed to see your questions), I voted for Bush both times. I do not vote a straight ticket and base my votes on who the candidate is. I do not agree with W on a lot of issues but the idea of John Kerry (or Gore) in the White House scared me. I was afraid that, if elected, both would get the chance to appoint liberal jurists like Ginsburg who believe that quotas are ok (ie affirmative action), that the second amendment is a collective right (which it isn't) and that any time a government official mentions "God" that they are endorsing religion (bye bye pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust"). In a nut shell, I voted for Bush to get more conservative judges. Sorry if you disagree with that.

I am a pro gun, anti tax (nobody should pay a third of their income in taxes), anti affirmative action (at least based on race or gender/AA based on income level is fine with me), a tree hugging stop polluting our rivers, flag burning Democrat who will burn the American Flag just to piss of the radical right and then use my Glock to defend myself. I also think the war in Iraq was the right thing to do (now and 15 years ago). Saddam had WMDs but probably shipped them to Iran or Syria. I also believe in national health care and doubling the minimum wage.

With respect to abortion, I am pro choice but beieve that partial birth abortion is wrong and should be banned; that parental notifiction is constitutional (parents have the right to know if their kids are having surgery, which abortion is); and that Roe is the worst Supreme Court ruling ever.

With that said, I have voted for Rockerfeller and Byrd since I was 18. I also voted for Governor Wise (a democrat). I have never voted for Rahall (and never will). And I voted straight democratic at the county level.

WV is a conservative state. In my opinion, which is shared by a lot of democrats here, the national party has been taken hostage by the extreme liberal left, much the same way that the GOP has been taken hostage by the radical right.
I hope that sheds some light on who you are talking too.

Frostie

PS Dash is 100 percent correct when he states that Bush won the recount conducted by the press. Gore would have lost Florida with or without the SC's ruling.

Posted by Frostie94 on October 4, 2005 at 11:28 AM

---------------------------------------------

I rest my case!

Undecided,

I thought your comment was directed at Gore not winning, when in fact the Miami Heralds recount said he did. They changed their tune in the end, published a lie in the paper saying Bush won. The evidence was against the paper where they should have stuck with facts and truth. This is why CNN and the others said what they said in the end.

No hard feelings by me at all, never was. I just wanted to tell the truth about what happened. I see now it was a joke but Carter would have been right about Gore winning.

Will,

how do you rest your case? Just because I am a conservative democrat doesnt mean that my opinion doesn't count.

Dash probably is a Republican, but so what? If he wants to post stuff here, against people who disagree with him, more power to him.

I would like to apologize for one comment. You are older than I am so I was probably the one oogling the JC Penny catalog when you first voted in 1980 -- hey, to an 8 year old, the JC Penny Catalog was quite possibly the greatest collection of soft porn available, that, and maybe National Geographic.

Frostie

Will_Matney,

You said "I know for a fact several newspapers said Gore won. They changed their tune to brown nose Bush!"

Do you say this stuff with a straight face?

Here's who conducted the recount:

"The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago study was commissioned by eight media companies -- The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which includes the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun, as well as other papers."

They said Bush won.

Sorry.

Will_Matney,

From the Media Consortium's findings:

"Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide. "

The facts are not your friends.

Dash,

Yawn...........

First, they only covered the Miami Heralds recount if you go read each. Miami was there where it happened and they knew the truth, same as you. However they twisted the truth around and made it seem Bush won. They were caught in this and it was proven. I guess Consortium News is a big liar huh? I'd quit peddling the lies if I were you as you get caught in them quickly.

With respect to abortion, I am pro choice but beieve that partial birth abortion is wrong and should be banned; that parental notifiction is constitutional (parents have the right to know if their kids are having surgery, which abortion is); and that Roe is the worst Supreme Court ruling ever.

Do you people even realize what the procedure , defined by Republicans as 'partial birth abortion' even is? This procedure is done rarely! It is done at the end of a pregnancy, ONLY when a mother's life is in jeopardy, OR the fetus is found to have something like encepholitis (sp?) which is watered brain, and the kid has no chance in life. this is not a Abortion on Demand issue, where the woman suddenly changes her mind!!! Gawd, I wish people would educate themselves before making judgements.

And for Teens needing permission. Does it occur to anybody, that for those teens who need to go and have an abortion who do not have permission, that their relationship with a parent is so bad, that they cannot ask for help, because they either will get thrown out or ostracized. Teens with a good relationship go first to the parent. It does NOT mean teens are just fooling around and using abortion as birth control. AGAIN, lack of education on this issue.

And Lastly. I will bet $100 that YOU find Roe v Wade a bad decision because you are a MALE! To any female, other than Fanatical Religious Zealots, this law was hard fought for, and gave women Rights over their own bodies. I was around a lot of years PRE-roevwade, and if we Ever have to go back to those days, there will be a revolution. Since the beginning of Time , Women have gotten rid of unwanted fetuses in their body. Problem was, it was not alway pretty in the attempt to do so. Women risked death, to try and get it aborted! What does that tell you?? They will continue this till the end of time!

In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a US correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.

But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy.

Link

If you remember correctly, the media recounts also were completed right after 9/11, and the media did not want to look unpatriotic or treasonous announcing that Gore really won !

Dash probably is a Republican, but so what? If he wants to post stuff here, against people who disagree with him, more power to him.

That was not the purpose of setting up this blog, two years ago. Just for a minute, think of what kind of nut case, would go in to an opposing view political blog, and post just to try and rattle cages!!! This blog is for unity and discussion of Liberal ideas. I do not go into RNC blog, trying to force My ideas onto them, I do not expect them to come in here and bother us and take up space.

this guy does not even back up his silly koolaid drinking rhethoric with any kind of links or back up. Just here to aggravate, guys. Nothing else.

and with that, I am out.

Dash,

The quote above was not on the page no where to be found. It was not on the Consortium News website! In fact, it was on CNN's website. Your trying to take what was printed out of context. The whole article was still by CNN and the consortium they were in! What you didn't add was, "The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios". Where consortium here is NOT the Consortium News! It means a group that CNN was in.

Your consortium (group) counted the votes like the Miami Herald last did leaving out votes that should have been counted. Thats what Consortium News said and I posted about.

Here's the CNN webpage you wouldn't post a link to trying to say your bullshit was from Consortium News;

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

To fnd more truth from Consortium News, go here;

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/campaign.html

Again, YAWN.......it's hard to be correct!

Will_Matney,

What the hell are you saying? LOLOL

Come on, Sparky...You're KILLING ME!

Its simple: 8 major news media organizations hired the NORC (National Opinion Research Center). They were clear on how the conducted the research. The showed President Bush winning.

Now, you want to spout that above post again? I STILL don't know what the hell you said.

Later

For any that thinks the right-wing leaning supreme court was right about Gore V Bush, heres a quote from Consortium News;

Lawyers Protest U.S. Supreme Court

By Mollie Dickenson

As George W. Bush and his backers descend on Washington for days of celebration and years of governing, other Americans insist on reminding the world of the unprecedented use of political and judicial power that got Bush here.

On Saturday, 554 law professors from 120 law schools signed a full-page New York Times ad protesting the Dec. 9 halting of a Florida recount that had threatened to reverse Bush's tiny lead.

"By stopping the vote count in Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court used its power to act as political partisans, not judges of a court of law," read the ad.

In an interview, one of the law professors deplored the fact that one of his primary teachings to his students over a 40-year career in constitutional law -- that the U.S. Supreme Court acts as a nonpartisan institution despite differing judicial philosophies -- had been rendered null and void by the actions of the five justices who stopped the count.

"Only Bush's political influence was threatened, and correcting that is not a function of the Supreme Court," said Terrance Sandalow, dean emeritus of the University of Michigan Law School.

Sandalow considers himself to be a moderate judicial conservative, having opposed the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling and having supported the appointment of conservative jurist Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

The newspaper ad also stressed the political diversity of signers. The ad stated:

"We are professors of law at 120 American law schools, from every part of our country, of different political beliefs. But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Florida law, the five justices were acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges.

"It is not the job of a federal court to stop votes from being counted. By stopping the recount in the middle, the five justices acted to suppress the facts. Justice [Antonin] Scalia argued that the justices had to interfere even before the Supreme Court heard the Bush team's arguments because the recount might 'cast a cloud upon what [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election.'

"In other words, the conservative justices moved to avoid the 'threat' that Americans might learn that in the recount, [Vice President Al] Gore got more votes than Bush. This is presumably 'irreparable' harm because if the recount proceeded and the truth once became known, it would never again be possible to completely obscure the facts.

"But it is not the job of the courts to polish the image of legitimacy of the Bush presidency by preventing disturbing facts from being confirmed. Suppressing the facts to make the Bush government seem more legitimate is the job of propagandists, not judges.

"By taking power from the voters, the Supreme Court has tarnished its own legitimacy. As teachers whose lives have been dedicated to the rule of law, we protest."

End Quote.

Link;

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/011501a.html

Will_Matney,

What the hell are you saying? LOLOL

Come on, Sparky...You're KILLING ME!

Its simple: 8 major news media organizations hired the NORC (National Opinion Research Center). They were clear on how the conducted the research. The showed President Bush winning.

Now, you want to spout that above post again? I STILL don't know what the hell you said.

Later

Posted by Dash on October 4, 2005 at 12:42 PM

----------------------------------------

Dash, are you truly that ignorant and dumb not to know the difference between the consortium CNN was in and Consortium News?

From Consortium News;

The Consortium On-line is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc.

In other words, they are independant of your CNN, Fox, and others who went the path of the Miami Heralds last media coverage of the election. I proved everything I said with facts above. The Consortium News showed time and time again the lies the Miami Herald last told, plus the lies CNN and others told about it. They were caught at it red handed and there's no way you or anyone else can take up for them, period! The truth hurts don't it!!!!!!!!

Nuff Said!

And again from the Consortium News,

Quote;

So Bush Did Steal the White House

By Robert Parry
November 22, 2001

George W. Bush now appears to have claimed the most powerful office in the world by blocking a court-ordered recount of votes in Florida that likely would have elected Al Gore to be president of the United States.

A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called “overvotes” that heavily favored Gore.

If those “overvotes” were counted, as now it appears they would have been, Gore would have carried Florida regardless of what standard of chad – dimpled, hanging, punched-through – was used in counting the so-called “undervotes,” according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news organizations.

In other words, Bush lost not only the national popular vote by more than a half million ballots, but he would have lost the key state of Florida and thus the presidency, if Florida’s authorities had been allowed to count the votes that met the state’s legal requirement of demonstrating the clear intent of the voter.

The Newsweek disclosure – a memo that the presiding judge in the state recount sent to a county canvassing board – shows that the judge was instructing the county boards to collect “overvotes” that had been rejected for indicating two choices for president when, in reality, the voters had made clear their one choice.

“If you would segregate ‘overvotes’ as you describe and indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter,” wrote Judge Terry Lewis, who had been named by the Florida Supreme Court to oversee the statewide recount, “I will rule on the issue for all counties.”

Lewis’s memo to the chairman of the Charlotte County canvassing board was written on Dec. 9, 2000, just hours before Bush succeeded in getting five conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount.

Lewis has said in more recent interviews that he might well have expanded the recount to include those “overvotes.” Indeed, it would be hard to imagine that he wouldn’t count those legitimate votes once they were recovered by the counties and were submitted to Lewis.

The “overvotes” in which voters marked the name of their choice and also wrote in his name would be even more clearly legal votes than the so-called “undervotes” which were kicked out for failing to register a choice that could be read by voting machines.

Misguided Articles

This new information indicating that the wrong presidential candidate moved into the White House also makes a mockery of the Nov. 12 front-page stories of the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading news outlets, which stated that Bush would have won regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

Those stories were based on the hypothetical results if the state-ordered recount had looked only at “undervotes.” The news organizations assumed, incorrectly it now appears, that the “overvotes” would have been excluded from such a tally, leaving Bush with a tiny lead.

In going with the “Bush Wins” headlines, the news organizations downplayed their more dramatic finding that Gore would have won if a full statewide recount had been conducted in accordance with state law. Using the clear-intent-of-the-voter standard, Gore beat Bush by margins ranging from 60 to 171 votes, depending on what standard was used in judging the “undervotes.”

Beyond the big newspapers’ false assumptions about the state recount, the news stories showed a pro-Bush bias in their choice of language and the overall slant of the articles.

The New York Times, for instance, used the word “would” and even declarative statements when referring to Bush prevailing in hypothetical partial recounts. By contrast, the word “might” was used when mentioning that Gore topped Bush if all ballots were considered.

“A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots,” the Times wrote, “reveal that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United State Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.”

Two paragraphs later, the Times noted that the examination of all rejected ballots “found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount. … The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ‘count all the votes.’”

Left out of that formulation, which suggests that Gore was a hypocrite, is the fact that Bush rejected Gore’s early proposal for a full statewide recount. Bush also waged a relentless campaign of obstruction that left no time for the state courts to address the equal-protection-under-the-law concerns raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in its final ruling on Dec. 12, 2000.

Note also how the Times denigrates as misguided Gore “partisans” those American citizens who concluded, apparently correctly, that the U.S. Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush.

The headlines, too, favored Bush. The Times’ front-page headline on Nov. 12 read, “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.” The Washington Post’s headline read, “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush.”

Spreading Confusion

The pro-Bush themes in the headlines and stories were repeated over and over by television and other newspapers, creating a widespread belief among casual news consumers that Bush had prevailed in the full statewide recount, rather than only in truncated recounts based on dubious hypotheses.

Now, Judge Lewis’s memo undercuts both the tone and the content of those news reports. It is certainly not clear anymore that the state-ordered recount would have favored Bush. It also appears likely that the interference by the U.S. Supreme Court was decisive. Based on the new evidence, the major newspapers look to be wrong on both these high-profile points.

Beyond Gore’s narrow victory from the recoverable ballots, the news organizations concluded – but played down – that Gore lost thousands of unrecoverable ballots because of flawed ballot designs in several Democratic strongholds. Gore lost other votes because Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration disqualified hundreds of predominantly black voters who were falsely labeled felons.

The New York Times also reported that Bush achieved a net gain of about 290 votes by getting illegally cast absentee votes counted in Republican counties while enforcing the rules strictly in Democratic counties. Though the new recount tallies did not include any adjustments for these irregularities, the news organizations estimated that Gore lost tens of thousands of votes from these disparities, compared to Bush’s official victory margin of 537 votes.

For months, the leading news organizations have been bending over backwards to protect Bush’s fragile legitimacy, possibly out of concern for the nation’s image in a time of crisis. Yet, whatever the motivation for trying to make Bush look good, the evidence is now overwhelming that Bush strong-armed his way, illegitimately, to the presidency.

In the days immediately after the election, Bush obstructed a full-and-fair recount in Florida, even dispatching hooligans from outside the state to intimidate vote counters. When Gore pressed for recounts in the courts, Bush sent in lawyers to prevent the tallies. Then, after losing before the Florida Supreme Court and the federal appeals court, Bush ultimately got a friendly hearing from five political allies on the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Bush truly respected the precepts of democracy and what those principles mean to the world, he could have joined Gore in demanding as full and fair a Florida recount as possible. He could have accepted the results, win or lose.

Instead Bush opted for the opposite course, deciding that his getting the White House was more important than the voters having their judgment accepted, both nationally and in Florida. By refusing to hold Bush accountable for his key role in thwarting the voters’ will, the major news organizations are not doing the cause of democracy any service.

It turns out that the thousands of demonstrators who protested Bush’s Inauguration were closer to the truth when they shouted at his motorcade, “Hail to the Thief!”

End Quote.

Link;

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

Dash,

If I hire 8 media outlets to say that you are a moron does it make it so?

Frostie,

I hear that snowmen melt in Florida so how the heck would you know anything about that state,

Cicero

Maybe I should make this more clear. After I posted the first article from Consortium News, Dash posted;

"From the Media Consortium's findings:"

This making it sound like it was published by Consortium News when it wasn't. That would make it sound as Consortium News had flip flopped when in fact they didn't.

Pam,

This site wasn't created so liberals could share their beliefs. This site was created so all democrats, conservative and liberal, could discuss today's current issues. With that said, it will be a sad day for our party when we refuse to allow one lonely republican from participating in our forum. Just because you aren't brave enough to chat on the Republican sites doesn't mean that Dash can't post his thoughts here. I strongly suspect that Dash has probably voted for a democrat in the past and will do so in the future. Straight party voters are simplistic in their view of national politics.

With respect to partial abortion, I know that the procedure is. I spent one entire year of my life defending the procedure. Turns out our side was wrong and I had to eat crow. At first we argued that it never happens. That was disproven. We then said that it only happens a handful of times. That was disproven. Then we argued that it is medically necessary. That was overwhelmingly disproven. Finally, we resorted to our old standby argument, "they want to criminalize all abortions."

And so what if I am a male? That and about $3 bucks will get you a gallon of gas. With respect to Roe, gimme a break. There isn't one legal scholar in the world who agrees with your conclusion that Roe is a good case. Sure, people will agree that the outcome was just (I think it was) but the reasoning used to justify that outcome was insane. GAWD!!!

With respect to the giant conspiracy theory that Bush stole the Florida election and somehow managed to steal the election in Ohio, is stupid. To quote obscure news sites, or the Brits, or anything else for that matter, is a waste of time. Bush won.

In addition, who cares if several hundred law professors though the Supreme Court screwed up. Odds are there hundreds of law professors who thought they got it right.

You people can cite whatever news source you want but that doesn't mean Bush stole the election. Do you honestly believe that our party leaders would have given up so easily had the election been stolen. We are also forgetting the fact that there were voting irregularities that occurred all over the country that benefited democrats. Shit happens and we lost. Get over it.

There is more and stronger evidence that Vince Foster was murdered than evidence supporting the idea that Bush stole the election -- and both of these conspiracy theories have no credibility.

Frostie

Will_Mantney,

This is fun....

Please check out this from the CNN article I am referencing (please understand I NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT CONSORTIUM NEWS .COM)

"The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN."

That's the 2nd paragraph. Please note the 18th word - "consortium".

I know its typical for you Bush Haters to construct a "straw man" argument and attempt to take the topic there, but it ain't workin'. NOWHERE did I say ANYTHING about ConsortiumNews.com. I couldn't care less about that website. Its a Left Wing Rag. I gave you CNN, LA Times, NYT, AP, etc.

I can't make this stuff up. Sheesh!

Please answer: Are the NYT, AP, CNN, Washington Post, LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal lying when they say Bush won?

I love you folks.

It seems obvious to me that "Frostie" and "Dash" are the same person.

Frostie said;

"You people can cite whatever news source you want but that doesn't mean Bush stole the election.
Do you honestly believe that our party leaders would have given up so easily had the election been stolen. We are also forgetting the fact that there were voting irregularities that occurred all over the country that benefited democrats. Shit happens and we lost. Get over it".

End Quote.

I don't see how you can say Gore give up so easily when he took it as far as he could go, the highest court of our land, the supreme court? The same court who has leaned to the right for several, several years. It was won only by 5 of the judges saying they would stop a recount. Ask yourself a question, why was Bush afraid to have a recount? Plus, you said above they counted the votes the way Gore wanted them too. No, they didn't as they were caught in not counting votes that should have been counted. The original way Gore wanted them counted would have won FL. for him.

You also said;

"Then we argued that it is medically necessary. That was overwhelmingly disproven".

That's not true. There has been lots of cases that several firends who are doctors told me about where the woman would have died if she hadn't aborted the child. Women can comment on this more and I'd say Pam and others most likely will. There's also facts on the net available about this. I am not for a woman to be able to get one at will just over a one night stand, it should be born and adopted out. But, when it's a life or death scenario, yes do it as neither will live or the woman will die. What do you say to a woman with cancer who has to stop her chemo because she found she was pregnant? Most of the time, the woman dies if the cancer is aggresive, or her life is greatly shortened by it guaranteeing her a death sentance. If she had continued with her therapy, it could have went into remission, and eventually be pronounced cured as some are.

Thanks Josh, that was real insightful.

To be honest, we are different people. I have never met Dash or spoken to him directly. Besides, Dash likes arguing with everyone on this post more than I do. I dont like arguing with third grade conspiracy theorists. I am also not motivated enough to post links and news sites in support of my arguments.

Look, Dash isn't right on everything but his argument that Bush didn't steal the election is correct. I have no problem giving credit where credit is due and just because he is a repubican doesn't mean that I have to oppose him for the sake of opposition.

Frostie

Please answer: Are the NYT, AP, CNN, Washington Post, LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal lying when they say Bush won?

I love you folks.

Posted by Dash on October 4, 2005 at 02:01 PM

---------------------------------------

One word, Yes, and it was proven as fact they did.

By the way, if Consortium News is liberal, the Wall Street Journal surely is conservative! At least Consortium isn't bought off and an independant, non-profit news group.

There is absoltely no point in this senseless bickering over who won Florida. Bush won. The majority of Americans think he won. Most news agencies say he won. But you are right, if you count the votes of dead people, felons, people who voted twice on the same ballot, those who were confused by butterfly ballots (even though most second graders get it right), then Gore won. Happy now.

But why stop at Florida. We should have had a nationwide recount. I am sure Gore would have picked up even more votes.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus Christ himself posted a message on this site that Bush really did win, several of you would argue against that.

With respect to partial birth abortions, you are wrong. Most doctors say that it is never medically necessary. The argument that only women can comment or have an opinion on this subject is absurd. As I have said, I am pro choice but partial birth abortion is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that. Even if you ban this one barbaric procedure, abortion will still be legal.

Frostie

Frostie,

Here is what was listed at HGS who handle Medicare and Medicade for Pensylvania. They in fact cover more than I said above by paying for abortions over rape and incest. If this is so bad, and medical necessity is not correct, then why does Medicare say it is?

"Indications and Limitations of Coverage and/or Medical Necessity

An abortion is any act or procedure performed after conception which results in the termination of a pregnancy, other than for delivery of a viable fetus.

Indications
Payment may be made for non-elective abortion services (CPT codes 59812, 59820, 59821 and 59830).

Elective abortions (CPT codes 59840, 59841, 59850, 59851, 59852, 59855, 59856, 59857 and 59866) are not covered under the Medicare program except for instances where the pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest; or the woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by, or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Limitations
Elective abortions performed for any other reason other than those listed in the "Indications and Limitations of Coverage and/or Medical Necessity" section of this policy, will be denied.

End Quote.

Now I agree with the above, and this is what is termed as a medical necessity. Not elective abortions but non-elective.

Dang Dash, still beating them to death over here? Great entertainment. Keep it up.

Frostie, you are the clearest thinking Democrat I have come across in a while on any site such as this. Your party needs more like you. Our entire process needs more like you.

WillMat, Kathleen, Pam, cicero,Buzz,et al....maybe if you all would channel all of the wasted time and energy you spend on this website crying, hating, insulting, and blaming into figuring out how to make better lives for yourselves you wouldn't be the bitter bitter democrats you are today. Damn, WillMat, you may even have the potential to be the CEO of an evil empire (that's corporation to you Dems).

Crying about Bush and blaming all of us hardworking 'Neo-Nazi' conservatives out here for your apparently unsatisfying lives will get you nowhere. I don't know. Just trying to help ya'll out...the compassionate conservative that I am.

P.S. Bush really did win.

Looneyleft/ Dash/ Snowflake,

Y'all ever heard the term, "take you out behind the woodshed?"
Come to Ohio and I'll show you what it means. Until then, the ability to synthesize information is extremely important I hope you continue to work on your skills as they need improvement, perhaps you could find a teacher to help you with that? Or do you think they are all terrorists like Rod Page? Who is living in a fantasy land? I am sorry that somewhere in your lives you stopped reading the good book. I would emphasize the beatitudes. But then again that would mean you would have reading comprehension skills. I think that people like you are just sad, miserable people, and I really feel sorry for you. Please keep posting here and I am sure as a community we will help you as much as we can. Since Regan let you all out of your mental hospitals I understand how you might feel betrayed by government. Remember all you need is love. :)
By the way, as far as the thread goes... Miers is not a good choice. She wasn't a good choice yesterday and she isn't one today. It is wrong for America. Or do y'all hate America?

Cicero

cicero, your ranting posts are just all over the place. You reference the Bible just after making silly woodshed threats??? How Christian of you. We conservatives feel 'betrayed' by government?...yet every post you make is laced with lunatic conspiracy theories about how the government (Bush, etc.) is out to destroy you and America??? Who is feeling betrayed here? Jesus man, get it together.

There is no SC choice Bush could have made that would have been acceptable to you. Just come clean on that and save your hatred for another matter. This one is over. Miers is it for Sandra unless the Republicans nix it which won't happen.

Look on the bright side, as hard as that is for you in your dark bitter world of pessimism and paranoia....Bush has roughly 3 years left and Justice Kennedy is only 85 years young. Maybe you will get lucky and he will last until Bush is gone. Otherwise, hello SC nominee #3.

A correction, Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, is roughly 70 years old. Justice Stevens is 85. The conservatives have no reason to be upset with Mier's nomination. She used to be relatively moderate, but then made a drastic shift to the right. It appears she is extremely conservative. Bush's base should be pleased. I hope our leaders vote 'no' for her nomination. There are several reasons our leaders might vote 'no.' Her resume' is far less impressive than was Roberts' resume. She appears to be extraordinarily pro-life. I hope our leaders in the Senate allow a vote, but vote no. Unfortunately, the public elected Bush. It was their choice. The public knew that if they continually elected ultra-conservative leaders, those ultra-conservate leaders would nominate ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices. It was widely expected that the winner of the 2004 presidential election would nominate 2 or possibly 3 Supreme Court justices. The public elected Bush. If our country didn't realize this was the direction in which the Republicans were taking us, our country should have come to such a realization. But Bush and the GOP should also realize past mistakes made and learn from them. Judicial change on either side will be met with an electoral backlash.

I hope our leaders condemn the nomination as another example of cronyism in the GOP. As another example of the GOP placing a higher premium on personal loyalty than the good of the country, but if he wants to overturn Roe, let him. Let him overturn abortion rights and enable states to again ban gay sex and see what happens...

30 percent of the public would like Bush to nominate more liberal judges. The trend on gay rights issues especially, is in favor of gay rights. If he nominates ultra-conservative justices who are hostile toward gay rights, there may be a backlash.

29% would like to see the court maintain its current place on the ideological spectrum

33 percent, a substantial chunk, but a minority nonetheless, would like to see the court get even more conservative. (the remainder don't know what they want)

Bush can write-off the 30% who would like to see the court get more liberal. We won't be voting for him anyway. But he and the GOP cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, also writeoff that the 29% that would like little to no change and hope to long maintain their status as majority party.

Democratic leaders should show they're moderate. They're going to give the President his choice, but they're going to vote NO!! An emphatic NO!
No to overturning Griswald (right to birth control)
No to overturning Roe
(related to pro-life is Yes to stem cell research)
No to overturning Lawrence.

But allow a vote. The voters elected Bush. A lot of moderates also voted for Bush. If he wants to ignore them and cater to his conservative base, don't engage in an unprecedented filibuster - LET HIM ABANDON THE MODERATES. Let him show his true colors. Let him cut back our civil liberties. I'll tell you what, I fully expect that if he does, the GOP will lose its status. If I'm wrong and the GOP can maintain control of the Senate, House, Presidency, and the Judiciary after they've had their conservative revolution, then you know what? I guess I'm on the losing side. I don't think I am wrong though. I think the public will throw the GOP out of power if the GOP caters entirely to its conservative base.

looneyleft,

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Bill Clinton would be a fine nominee!
Was Delay indicted for conspiracy? I love life I think a culture of life is great! For example bring the troops home instead of sacrificing their lives any further and let them help rebuild New Orleans. :) You are a silly little man, but we love you anyway, keep on posting there is still time for you to become a person of substance!

Cicero

If our leaders voice their opposition, but allow a vote to take place, the American public will be better able to contrast our views with those of the GOP's and will be better able to choose between the two parties. We might have to endure a temporary reduction in our civil liberties. Once the Supreme Court starts behaving like a conservative activist court, the country will respond. If the country doesn't respond, that's democracy and we need to continue to voice our opposition and try to persuade Americans that the GOP is wrong. We should continue to voice our opposition and tell everyone what we would do differently, but ultimately, we have to allow the GOP to decide the direction in which the country is heading. Right now, we need to tell Republicans where to go, but we can't afford to filibuster. They're the majority party. If they want to ignore moderates, we'll voice our opposition, but allow a vote. We won't play games to prevent them from voting. It makes us looks like sore losers. We need to voice our opposition, accept the vote, and then see what happens in the next several elections. I suspect the trend will shift sooner than Republicans believe. Then we can appoint our own justices and judges. That's the way this works.

Kev,

That strategy works for most bills and other legislation but this is a position on the supreme court. Dude! The way it's set up gives the Senate advise and consent duties. The strategy of not Filibustering is wrong, it was wrong yesterday it is wrong today and it will be wrong tomorrow. Don't you guys get tired of beng wrong. This so called moderate position you take, was wrong on Iraq, wrong on the 2000 and 2004 election results and subsequent investigations. The reason that these positions are wrong is because it is not a moderate position, it is a corporate position. Look, if it was the right thing I would let you know that is what people like me are good at, just getting by, paying the rent and trying to do the right thing. You are good at other things that is good for you. But, don't you get tired of being wrong I am getting tired of telling you I told you so.
A moderate position on this is to Filabuster, then they can talk about the "Nuclear option" and all of that nonsense about changing the rules to get rid of the filabuster. You want to paint a difference to the American people. Standing on the side of the filabuster vs the wackos talking about a nuclear option is a much more winable tactic than some parsing of an issue. Don't you think my brother for the struggle?

Cicero

Kev
One final thing because I think your heart is in the right place and we can win this "God willing and if the river don't rise". Just read "Master of the Senate" about Johnson's tenure there and you will understand the filabuster much better and the politics behind what is going on much better than listening to the news programs and the corporate pundits.

Daddy Bush nominated 2 supreme court justices; Souter and Thomas. Leaving ideology aside, Thomas maybe the least competent justice on the Supreme Court.

Fast forward to junior. I am not going to go out and make any predictions about how the new justice (Chief Justice) and the new nominee junior has has chosen. I am however, going to hold off on criticism!
Here are my reasons:
- The President could have chosen judges or others with a clear right wing track record and played to his base, like he has been doing for the other federal courts. Most likely, he would have gotten them through the process; there may have been a fight, the passage may have been close, but he would have gotten them nominated.
Instead, in both cases, he has chosen someone with no explicit track record.
- On Roberts. I heard him on CSpan. Without a question he is very very bright. During the brief time I watched one of his responses struck me as odd. The Republican senator from Florida tried to pin Roberts down on if he was in the mold of Renquist, he dodged the question. I came back with a feeling, this man has his eyes on the history books. A man who has had accolades from everyone who knows him, would such a man as a Chief Justice, dismantle the great progress in civil rights, privacy rights etc. since Brown? Something tells me not. Something tells, he may be the next Warren! "Earl Warren was an immensely popular Republican governor when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the Supreme Court. Ike later regretted his choice; he had hoped toappoint a moderate conservative; Warren proved to be an unabashed liberal." from Oyez. I do not expect Roberts to be an unabashed liberal. But he may exhibit judicial restraint in not eroding Roe, school prayer or other right wing hot button issues. And in the present climate, that is more than I can hope for.
- Bush could have easily appointed Scalia, quite clearly a right wing ideologue and not one who gets high grades on personal integrity. I am so very glad, it is not Scalia who is the Chief Justice. I anyday would take Roberts over Scalia or Thomas!
On Miers:
- There must be a reason the right wing of the party is up in arms. If the pompous drug addict is up in arms, that surely adds points in this person's favor! I am absolutely sure, the right wing is not up in arms because of cronyism! They surely must be having doubts about her commitment to their extreme right wing agenda. Do I think she is unqualified? I think it is too early to say. We need to see the confirmation process to make that judgement. I think there is a reason people like Ted Kennedy and Schummer haven't said anything negative about the nominee.
I think there is a real danger this person may not pass muster; not because the Democrats will vote against her but because the radical right wing senators may vote against her. Next year is an election year and Republican Senators cannot go against the religious right who controls the grass roots.
It is my opinion, we should hold our horses and see how this plays out in the next couple of weeks.
Time will be the judge, but I have this odd feeling both of Bush junior's nominees may do a "Souter" once on the court. The appointment court appointees maybe the only positive thing about this president and presidency.

Looney,

Thanks, I try to be clear headed and fair. I apply the same rules to my party as I do the GOP. Partisan hacks make me sick. As I mentioned earlier, there are several people here who would argue against Jesus Christ if his position mirrored the GOP's.

Kev,

I agree with you that we should not filibuster this nomination. With that said, you are better off not wasting your breath on that argument. Aside from me and a few Republicans who apparently have nothing better to do than post on this site, nobody is going to admit that you are right.

Frostie

Bush's Stay out of Jail Card

In the high stakes game of Supreme Court Hold 'Em, Dubya has made a decisive and bold, yet defensive move. Has has gone "all in" and nominated his former personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. What better way to avoid jail for war crimes, profiteering and conspiracy. Appoint your own lawyer to the bench. A truly brilliant maneouver even if Alberto's really disappointed. Bush's cronies can stop sweating now.
Posted by PamB on October 3, 2005 at 05:24 PM

That's exactly what Harriet is, Bush's ace in the hole. When Hot Tub Tom got his indictment handed to him and Stephanopoulos mentioned having a source that says the President and Vice President were involved in the Plame conspiracy, Junior knew then and there he needed someone on the court to overturn his conviction when he gets it. The Mafia in Sicily do the same thing. They put their own judges on the courts so whenever a prosecuter indictes them their judge will let them off. Junior knows what he did and he's out to make sure he "protects" himself.

there are several people here who would argue against Jesus Christ if his position mirrored the GOP's.

In what way does Jesus Christ's position mirror the GOP's?

The Appointing Power of the Executive

Whether a governor of this State avails himself of the ascendant he must necessarily have, in this delicate and important part of the administration, to prefer to offices men who are best qualified for them, or whether he prostitutes that advantage to the advancement of persons whose chief merit is their implicit devotion to his will, and to the support of a despicable and dangerous system of personal influence, are questions which, unfortunately for the community, can only be the subjects of speculation and conjecture.

Every mere council of appointment, however constituted, will be a conclave, in which cabal and intrigue will have their full scope. Their number, without an unwarrantable increase of expense, cannot be large enough to preclude a facility of combination. And as each member will have his friends and connections to provide for, the desire of mutual gratification will beget a scandalous bartering of votes and bargaining for places.

from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body.

Federalist Papers

That's what Harriet Miers is. His "ace in the whole" when he goes to the trial he knows is coming.

WD

I am not saying that Jesus agrees with the GOP. I am simply stating that several people on this site are so full of piss and vinegar, and hate repubicans so much, that they cant even admit when a republican makes a valid point -- hence, they would argue with JC himself if he said that somebody like Dash (a republican) was right.

Second, the consipracy theory that Bush appointed Mier to the Court so that he could get a get out of jail card doesn't deserve a reply other than no wonder our party cant win a national election or retake Congress.

Finally, I am truly amazed at the number of people here who bash Bush for appointing his croneys or lackeys to key positions. So what? Every president has done that. Hell, Clinton put his freaking wife in charge of health care reform in 93. Hell, even Bush hasn't put his done that. What about the Kennedy boys?

The bottom line is that both parties reward their supporters. There is nothing new about that. To bash Bush for something that our party is guilty of is hypocritical. I for one am not a hypocrite and refuse to play that stupid game.

Frostie

Repugs bash Clinton. So don't give me your "holier than thou" ruetine.

Frostie,
The only person smarter than Bill Clinton in politics today is Hillary Clinton. So let us not use that as an example of cronyism.
And about the Kennedy brothers, Robert Kennedy was no push-over. And he fully was qualified to be the Attorney General. He may have been a better President than JFK or any of the Presidents who followed JFK; Democrats or Republicans.
But Bush cronyism is unprecedented; incompetent people get important positions; Brownie is just the prime example!

Just another example of a totally out of touch and clueless president pusuing his passion for cronyism and to hell with the rest of us. The idea of nominating someone with NO bench experience for a seat on the highest court in the land is appalling. Just as you wouldn't want a general practitioner doing a bypass operation on you, do you really want someone with zero experience on the bench...ANY bench...helping to make Supreme Court decisions? For goodness' sake, didn't we learn anything from "Brownie" being appointed to head up FEMA?

Mfuent,

I suggest you go back and reread your history books but 35 supreme court justices never sat on the bench prior to being appointed (including Warren and Rehnquist). So, looking at the numbers, it is quite clear that you do not have to have any judicial experience to sit on the Court.

Sam,

You are dead wrong. Every administration appoints croneys ranging from the extremely smart to the inept. Hell, Clinton appointed Janet Reno who botched Waco and numerous other affairs.

With respect to "Brownie", he is the scapegoat in this entire affair. I am not going to rehash my prior posts from weeks gone by but needless to say, the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of LA are more to blame than "Brownie."

By the time Katrina hit, "Brownie" had presided over 150 declared disasters. He may have been inept when he started but after handling over 150 disasters, you and I could run FEMA.

Lets also not forget that FEMA has handled several other Hurricans/tropical storms this summer and did a wonderful job. FEMA also did a good job with Katrina outside of LA.

Yes, the federal government could have done more, but the real blame for this problem is LA and New Orleans. When you build your city in a fish bowl and then do nothing for 40 years to make sure that you are prepared for the big one, what do you expect will happen.

Frostie

Frostie, I don't usually waste my breath on what are strictly here for argumentative reasons. You think hammering your distortions and mistruths on abortion, etc will change any minds? You think arguing whether Bush won or did not win the last 2 elections mean you know more than the dozens and dozens of detailed reports out there that know far more than you?

And don't tell ME why this blog was set up. Here is the email sent on 9-18-2003, about it's creation. NO WHERE does it say it is set up so ANYONE can come in and drop a turd in the punch bowl (pardon the crudeness, but somehow that describes what many like to do!) Guys like Dash, have no life, sitting in their Mother's basement in their little room, getting their jollies trying to rattle cages. Sicko!

"Introducing Kicking Ass: Your Source for Daily Democratic News
What is a blog, anyway?

Blog is short for weblog. It's a frequently updated journal of news and events. Many blogs (including Kicking Ass) allow readers to post their comments on the stories featured in the blog. Learn more on our Frequently Asked Questions page.
Dear Pam

With the Bush administration deceiving the American people and committing new outrages every day, it's getting hard to keep up with the news. Add that to the California recall circus, and it's almost impossible to find the important stories in the midst of all the noise.

We want to help. So today we are launching the official blog of the Democratic National Committee: Kicking Ass.

Kicking Ass is your source for daily news about how Democrats are fighting for you -- and what the Bush administration is up to.

It's About the Community
But Kicking Ass is more than just a place to get news -- it's a place to talk back. You have a voice on the DNC blog. You can add your comments, give us suggestions, and discuss the issues of the day with your fellow Democrats.

We want to hear what you have to say. Come by the blog. Add it to your bookmarks. Tell your friends about it. And make sure to visit every day to get the latest, most important stories that Democrats need to know about.

Click here to read Kicking Ass."

Just because you aren't brave enough to chat on the Republican sites doesn't mean that Dash can't post his thoughts here.

and LOL, I have attempted MANY times to offer an opinion, on several Conservative sites, RNC, freerepublic, littlegreen hills, etc, and they are Rejected immediately! Trust me, I am plenty brave enough, THEY are not brave enough to leave a contridiction to some Distorted article up on the site. And the RNC, just like Bush's meetings, you must lockstep with him, or goodbye! Try it with some of your own ideas.

Pam,

You can cite any report you want but that doesn't mean you are correct. There are hundreds of reports out there on the election, some in favor of Bush, some in favor of Gore. The same is true for any issue we discuss here, you can always find a report to support your position. What really matters is the accuracy of the report and I am sorry that the reports you rely on are based on fiction.

As I have said on numerous occasions, I am a pro choice democrat who happens to think that partial birth abortion is wrong. In fact, my view is supported by the AMA which opposes the procedure and supported the ban. I have never said that women cannot have abortions or need permission to get an abortion. The simple fact is this procedure is never medically necessary and is barbaric.

You and I at least agree that this site was created for Democrats. Although I based on your posts, I strongly believe that you and several other bomb throwers would prefer that conservative democrats stop posting their views on this site.

With that said, I for one have never been afraid to confront opposing views and welcome people like Dash to this site. Even though I disagree with Dash on a wide variety of issues, Dash's comments make me stop and think about my own opinions and whether they are correct. In fact,I would argue that Dash's comments have made this site better. He forces all of us to reexamine our beliefs and that is a good thing. I suggest to you that if you don't like him posting stuff here, find yourself another site.

Frostie

Frostie,
Your views doesn't seem to be too much different than those of Dash. I read your post on FEMA and Katrina. You are towing the right wing propaganda line. Repeating a lie 1000 times (propaganda) doesn't make it a truth.
FEMA and Brownie were incompetent in Katrina. Brownie sure is the scapegoat; the pathetic handling of Katrina should have gone higher than Brownie.
This "crony" nomination is churning up the right wing base. The right wing is worried not so much about cronyism as they are worried about Miers doing a "Souter". The radical right is starting to come together against this nominee. Do you think the Senators, majority of whom depend on the radical right to get elected be far behind. It appears, Democrats can just watch the unfolding show of the destruction of this "crony".
FYI: Reno was a better Attorney General than Aschcroft or Gonzales.

Sam

If telling the truth makes me a repubican, so be it. The sad fact is that the Mayor of New Orleans is incompetent and inept. He knew for days that Katrina was coming and did nothing. Hundreds of buses were abandoned and not used. There was no civil action plan to cover this emergency.

The Governor also dropped the ball. She was so afraid of being labled a "weak female governor" that she refused to ask for help and then when she did ask for help, she stonewalled FEMA the entire way.

Ask yourself this, why is it that no other state affected by Katrina had these sorts of problems.

In the governors defense, she was in a tight position. There is no doubt in my mind that the GOP would have used her asking for help as ammunition next election. She was damned either way and chose inaction over action.

Yes, FEMA could have done more but Brownie is correct, FEMA was not designed to be a first responder to any emergency -- that role belongs to the states. Besides, do we really want a federal agency trumping states rights every time there is an emergency. I certainly dont.

With respect to Janet Reno, gimme a break. She botched just about everything she touched. She was a terrible Attorney General. The only reason she lasted both terms was because Clinton was afraid to fire her given the number of scandals affecting the administration. If Clinton hadn't been under investigation, she would have been gone at the end of his first term.

Of course, Ashcroft was also a nut. Anybody who would cover up the private parts on a greek statue should be committed. Although, Ashcroft did correctly interpret the Second Amendment by stating that it is an individual right opposed to a collective right -- something which I care very deeply about.

Frostie

Frostie,
For the first time, the radical right is waking up to Bush's cronyism; because this time it has a potential to impact them. The radical right is worried they may loose one chance to move the court irreversibly to the far right for a long time to come. Miers may be Bush's "Waterloo". Bush, on advice from Rove, has been so arrogant with everyone other than his vocal base; he has already lost the "silent majority". With Miers, he is in danger of upsetting his radical right wing base.
The fact is Bush's "cronyism" is becoming an undisputable fact and is unprecedented in recent history.
New Orleans is below sea level and therefore is and has been in a very different situation than the other states. The right wing media has just focused on New Orleans for their attack on state and local authorities because the Mayor had the courage and guts to call a spade a spade. Mississippi and Alabama were also hit hard and had a very poor response. If not, do you think Lott would have been one of the first to call Brownie "a private when we needed a general".
Brownie highlights the incompetence that results from cronyism. I agree, he surely is a scapegoat. The responsibility shouldn't have stopped there. People a lot higher than Brownie should have been held accountable!
I guess you are one of those "states rights" people when it suits you! Where are you when the President wants to give the domestic keys to military- definitely unprecendented, uncalled for and draconian! What is next Marshall Law and suspension of all rights?

I doubt if the senators who urged the Prez to considered a non-judge meant for him to appoint another one of his butt-kissing inner circle. The judicial branch is supposed to supply checks and balances to the Executive and Legislative branches. Right now Washington is so tilted the Government buildings are in danger of sliding into the Potomac. One of the ways we can do something is to go to www.senate.gov and tell our senators, Repub as well as Dem what we really think about all the con-games that are played with OUR government. Maybe we can get the Repub-lites in the Democrat party to come around, and we may even bring some moderate Republicans out of the closet. If your senator is already opposing all this mess, tell them they are great people and doing a fine job. Give them some encouragement to stand up to the DLC. Email is a fine thing and right now is our best tool to try to effect positive changes.

wheresthebeef,
Points well taken. But your focus should with the radical right wing blogs; that is where the threat for this nomination going down in flames is.
I am not suggesting Miers is not well qualified. But don't equate her to Earl Warren, Sandra Day O'Connor or Rehnquist. They had distinguished public and visible careers elsewhere. I don't think Miers has anywhere the qualification these Justices had/ have.
I am glad the President has chosen Miers instead of the list that the radical right is demanding. However, in my opinon, the jury is still out on her qualification! The process in the judiciary committee would give us an insight into her competence. I for one am going to hold my criticism of Miers till that. We definitely do not want another incompetent justice on the Supreme Court!

Frostie,

I feel so sorry for you. Have you been able to get the help you so desperately need here?
The Filabuster is the answer. Remember "All you need is love." Clear headed enough for you?

Sam,

I agree that Brownie is the scape goat but for weeks now I have criticized the mayor and governor. Yeah, Brownie and FEMA could have done more but the good mayor and governor did nothing.

With respect to Mier, we finally agree on something, that we dont know what kind of judge she will be. She is qualified. I also think it is way to early to know if she is as capable as Warren, Rehnquist or O'Conner. Only time will tell on that one.

You are also right that Bush pissed off a bunch of people when he didn't choose an openly pro life candidate. We should count our lucky stars he chose her.

With respect to Bush's croneyism, I disagree. Every administration, republican and democratic alike have appointed croneys. To say that Bush has appointed more or worse croneys is incorrect. There is no way we can ever know the answer to that question. Clinton appointed just as many croneys -- hell, he even rented out the Lincoln bedroom. Lets be fair here, both parties support their supporters with high level positions. Is that fair just. Who knows. But I refuse to criticize Bush for something we openly do. As I said, I am not a hypocrite.

Frostie

Cicero

I want to apologize to you for blasting your choppy, incomplete sentence, non-thought provoking, irrational posts.

I just reread my last post and discovered that it is impossible to eat a taco salad with one hand, while trying to type with the other hand. Of course it could have been the vodka I was drinking. Oh well...

Sam,
Sorry for the choppy post. I shall do better next time. If any of my points were lost because of my poor sentence structure, please let me know and I will try to clarify my thoughts.

Frostie

I tried to read all this difference opinions. Impeach the President is the correct word. No one in the mind should allow this woman to be elected. How we all parents could expect that this woman could make decision for our children Sure she will never change, she to old to change. In another world she will not be capable to function clear as he grows older that matter of life, to make decision of law for our children’s, laws that could affect our legal system and history. She could die soon; it will be tax money to get another person elected. Mr. Bush will have to found another person, this time, unless the sabotage, again. She is not qualifying in her views to make laws for our children’s, she is to experiences enough to to conservative in her P/R, He is not qualify period this cant change. I hope American people do not choose her for this position.

By the way, Christians and Evangelists use to say that the Pope was antichrist. I cried for the Pope the entire Odyssey the Pope was Gods' man a good man. I am Roman Catholic.

Now I heard, about the President Bush is e antichrist. Bush is not the antichrist, He just a President of United States from a cowboys land. He has to understand he can’t have his ways always. This just a game of power, Mr. President has to understand, not from our pockets we do not want to continue to fight his personal war with Iraq.

Now, where is Bin-laden. He is e antichrist, or his is near. Mr. President, Bush, where is Bin-laden. You have made enemies for the rest of the Arab World, they do not like you. Nobodies like you, your policies and way to conduct business and your International policies, really sucks. We will become another China, before you finish your term. We will have no choices than to be divided for the rest of the World. The Great Mural of china.

Mr. President the whole entire Arab world, do no like Americans because your arrogances, and bully practices. And that why you get boo, boo when you visit another countries, same reason too.

We want more Jobs, Education and Health Programs, for our tax money. War should end. Changes of direction is crucial.

GOOD FOR THE MARINE MAJOR!!!
AMERICA HAS HIS HEROES
NEW POST

Frostie,
I am not sure if you are "not a hypocrite" or a Bush apologist.
The Roberts nomination and the Miers nomination are possibly the only things this administration had done that I am prepared to give in to the benefit of doubt to wait and watch.
I do not agree with this President on ideological ground. But that is not my complaint against this administration. If I wanted my ideology to prevail, the Democrats have to do a better job at the polls. Better job not allowing to go to a close race that could be decided by manipulating the electoral roles or the electoral automated machines.
What I am so strongly opposed to this administration is their utter lack of competency. You may be right, Democrats and Republicans reward their supporters and sponsors. But, competency of such people have never been in question. Cronies of this President are incompetent. See Iraq, the most incompetent war this nation has fought. See Katrina and to an extent Rita. Now the President, instead of cleaning up the bureaucracy and making it effecient to deal with disasters, natural and man made, wants to hand over the domestic keys to the military.
Ronald Reagan waged an ideological battle worse than this President. But noone can complain about incompetency in his administration. Bush Senior was no great President. But competency of his administration was never in question. Clinton ran a very competent and effecient administration. One may question the competency of the Carter administration. But this administration has taken the cake on incompetency.
Now that the President has not chosen the candidate the radical right has been looking for, I am pretty sure the radical right will also jump onto the incompetency bandwagon pretty soon. Look for a groundswell of questioning this President's competency from the very organized radical right wing grass-roots and the right wing propaganda media such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal!

This "Frostie" is nothing but another lying Republican dirtbag. None of these stinking Repugs ever tell the truth, none. Even the ones that try to run their cons in here and 'claim' to be "moderate" Democrats while non-stop spewing the Republican line.

Sam,

Thanks for the response. To be honest, that was the best reponse I have read in a long time. Instead of partisan bomb throwing, you articulated your point and made counterpoints based on facts and reason. Most posts on this site fail to do that and merely recite conspiracy theories.

I do take issue with your assertion that Bush's cronies are, on the whole, incompetent. Besides, Brownie, who I do not believe is incompetent, or Mier, who I believe is not incompetent, who else in the Bush administration, croney wise, is incompetent?

I also dont want to get into whether the war in Iraq was just, or on how we are doing there -- that would be a waste of time because people who support the war and think we were right to go in will never change their views and those who oppose the war will not change theirs either.

Needless to say, I am not sure that you can blame the so called lack of success in Iraq on Bush's croneys. I think your best argument, not that I believe it, is to blame Bush for making a foreign policy blunder by invading Iraq. His croneys had nothing to do with it. Besides, who would you blame? Colin Powell? Condi Rice? They may be cronies but extremely smart and qualified cronies.

You may be right about the right wing caving in on Mier...only time will tell. I for one am not so sure. In the end I think it really wont matter what Bush does or who he appoints, the far right wing of the party will ultimately support him and the GOP simply because they despise us and our liberal agenda (or my partial liberal agenda).

Our Party's greatest fear (and rightly so) is that the Mier nomination will distract the American pubic from what is happening in Iraq, and in New Orleans, not to mention the high gas prices.

The idea that we should filibuster her nomination is a strategic blunder that must be avoided at all costs. We should speed up the process, let everybody vote, and then get back to business (focusing on high gas prices).

Frostie

Cronies of this President are incompetent. Posted by SamSarma

And they're all "Corporate Crooks". That's the part I don't like. Every person he knows is a thief, and they all want to rob the government for every dime they can steal from it. Look at Tom Delay. Look at Bill Frist.

WD

I guess you sorta missed the entire Whitewater scandal. Sure, Bill and Hillary escaped unscathed but what about 17 of their friends who either pleaded guilty or were found guilty.

How about the Tyson Chicken scandal. To make blanket assertions that all of Bush's cronies are corporate thieves is wrong.

Tom Delay is crooked but there is no doubt in my mind that he was the object of a partisan witch hunt. As for Mr. Frist, I think it is far too early to pass judgment on that transaction. You may be right about him, but at this point, there is no way any of us can possibly predict what happened or will happen in the future.

Frostie

As for Mr. Frist, I think it is far too early to pass judgment on that transaction.

I'm not passing judgment "on that transaction". I'm passing judgment on the fact that he and his family stole billions from medicaid and Junior called the investigation off for him. As governor of Texas, Junior also killed the investigation into the "Body Dumping" scandel of the company he sent to pick up the dead in New Orleans. And he lied under oath when he did it. Harriet Miers is just one more of his corporate crook cronies. Bill and Hillary Clinton may have known corporate crooks, but they never tried to stick them into all the nooks and cranies of power in our goverment. If you can't see that's wrong, I feel sorry for you. But of course all you Republicans are ethically challenged, so I guess it's natural for you to think the way you do.

W is becoming a distraction in the radical right wing march to dominating the american political scene. W's incompetency is shifting the anger of the people to W. The radical right wing knows this will distract the base they have been so meticulously expanding since '64 and lose them momentum.
The radical right doesn't need W. W needs the radical right. The incompetent Iraq war, mindless spending and bloating bureaucracy is causing disturbance in the "conservative" ranks. W is causing their slogan "tax and spend" liberals to lose bite. The Mier nomination may be the straw that broke the camel's back. W has been the most partisan President in a long time. He has been arrogant and uncompromising with every body other than the radical right. If the radical right start a revolt against him, he has nowhere to turn to.
Mier nomination may not go through; it may have nothing to do Democrats. Unless W uses his political capital and offers "bribes" to the radical right wing (e.g. initiating constitutional amendment to gay marriages, coming more strongly for school prayer and Creationism as science, making another very strong statement against stem cell research etc.); in short moving even further to the right than the radical right position he already is in.
He would be more isolated than Daddy was! Daddy was pretty isolated by the end of his term; the right didn't trust him, and the rest thought he was a wimp (including everyone in the Reagan administration)
The question about Iraq is not whether it has been just or not; that is a discussion for another day. The question is of competency in handling the war. This administration, to distract attention from all its problems may take a radical approach of preemptive nuclear strike; they have already mentioned it.
This administration cannot be trusted with the nuclear button; their sanity is now in question!
I agree Collin Powell is very smart and very competent. I am not sure Rice has the competency to be a Secretary of State. National Security Advisor, I agree. Secretary of State seems way above her head. Compare her to every Secretary of State before her for the last 30 years and you will know what I mean.

WD

I am a democrat so now what, am I ethically challenged too?

It looks like Roberts has jumped into the fray and starting to show his hands in the assisted suicide case presently in the supreme court. And it doesn't look very pretty.

At first blush, he doesn't seem to be any different than Scalia. The "conservatives" take the first opportunity to trumpet States Rights when it suits them and trample it when it goes against their right wing ideology.
Roberts, it looks like is a right wing ideologue. It looks "constructionist" and "depend on precedence" were mere rhetoric that Roberts used for the Senate confirmation process.

now what, am I ethically challenged too?

Of course you are, since every word that comes out of your mouth is a Republican lie. And I had to laugh about you going on and on last night about how people shouldn't "Bash Bush" on this blog, but when cornered like a traped rat your first instinct to save yourself was to bash the Clintons just like all Republicans do. You're as phony balony a liar as they come.

Unfit Commander: Texans for Truth Take On George W. Bush

The nomination of Harriet Miers, Bush's latest consigliore, is not only a testament to how the Busheviks are organized along the lines of the Mafia, which is to say that Omerta takes precedence over any claim to competence, or in this case even any prior experience as a judge.

What makes this book -- which was a belated counter-attempt to counter the lies of the Rove-orchestrated "Swift Boat Liars" in the last election -- so immediately relevant is that Miers was paid by the Bush campaign when he was Governor of Texas to "look over" his National Guard record for "trouble spots." Some claim that she was even party to "eliminating" troublesome portions of the record. But the biggest accusation was that she used a Texas state position to basically provide "hush money" to a man who could verify that George was given preference for a position in the Texas Air National Guard.

Miers has proven herself a total Bush loyalist and crony. She meets Bush's only requirement in a candidate for any position: complete and uncompromising loyalty to Bush and the ruling Republican junta.

more at...buzzflash.com/reviews/05/10/rev05098.html

WD

I would rather be a republican anyday than a moron like you. Just because I am conservative does not mean that I support the GOP or tell lies. Every argument you have posted to date has been devoid of facts and trustworthiness. Your conspiracy theories make you look like an unintelligent fool. If you want to call me ethically challenged or a liar, so be it. I am a big boy and can deal with it.

And for the record, I didn't Bash Clinton. I suggest you pull out your elementary school reading book and review several lessons. For the last couple of days I have been consistently making the point that we need to be fair and balanced (yes, I know I ripped off Fox) in our approach to politics. It is hypocritcial to criticize the GOP for things that we do as well. I personally hold our party to the same standards that I apply to the GOP. I am a firm believer that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Now, if you want to have a discussion on whether both parties are wrong when they appoint their supporters to high level opinions, fine. But I simply wont condone or accept partisan bullshit when we are guilty of doing the same thing.

In addition, you made a blanket accusation that all Bush appointees were corporate thieves. When I mentioned Clinton's white water legacy I was merely pointed out that the same sort of argument could be made about the Clinton administration. It was wrong for Republicans to make those phony arguments then, just as it is wrong for us to make them now.

Besides, as a Democrat (which I am), I can pick on Clinton if I want too. I spent five years in DC working in the Senate and personally watched Clinton shoot himself and his administration in the head. He lied to his staff and he lied to us. History is going to remember Clinton as an extremely popular president, who presided over a period of prosperity and economic growth, but who also couldn't keep his hands off the ladies. 100 years from now people aren't going to talk about the 90s economy, they are still going to be trying to figure out why the most powerful man in the world went from shagging super model Elizabeth Ward Gracen to Monica Lewinsky.

Frostie

Frostie,

Tisk, tisk. Such language. So as I was saying this Miers thing, it was wrong the day before yesterday, wrong yesterday, wrong today and it will be wrong tomorrow ad infinitum. Is there anything we can do to help you? You seem so angry so... oh I don't know... at least you have co-opted my use of the term moron, I am flattered but I think you need to be more selective in its use I will be happy to help you with contextualizing it for you or anything else you seem to have problems putting into a context.

Cicero

BTW-

You are the furthest thing from a Democrat and I am not afraid to say that. But you do have an unhealthy obsession with scandal so maybe you are a British tabloid writer?

Nudge,
Cicero

Cicero

Thank you for noticing that I used the word moron -- I was simply lowering my argument to your level so that you could understand it.

With respect to me being a democrat, odds are I was democrat long before you were. I spent five years working for Senator Rockefeller (a Democrat). I have worked on multiple campaigns for democrats. And I live in a county in WV that hasn't elected a Republican to office since the Great Depression.

I am sorry if you think that I am not liberal enough to be a democrat but I hate to break this to you, there are millions of democrats just like me. In fact, there are millions of democrats who are more conserative that I am. Very few WV Democrats are pro choice. In fact, most are screaming pro life. Most are pro gun and nearly all are anti-affirmative action based on race or gender. I strongly suspect that most of the south and rural america is the same way.

Just because I am a conservative doesn't mean that I am not a "true democrat." Just the oppostite. In my opinion, our party has been taken hostage by the far left wing of the party. Many democrats, myself included, feel alienated and betrayed. Outside major urban areas, most democrats are very skeptical about our glorious leaders, ie, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Kennedy, Hillary, and God Bless Him Chuckie Schumer himself. I have more in common with Dubya than I do with these folks and that is extremely sad.

Question for you, how many Repubicans do you know who support doubling the minimum wage; nationalized health care; stopping all pollution that is being dumped in our rivers and streams; who is pro choice (admittedly with some exceptions); who supports affirmative action based on income level, so people of all races or gender can get a helping hand; and who thinks that you should be able to burn the american flag whenever you want to. Odds are you wont find very many Republicans who fit that bill.

Frostie

Cicero

Thank you for noticing that I used the word moron. I was simply trying to dumb down my argument so that you could understand it. Nudge, Nudge.

And for the record, I am a democrat. Just because I do not subscribe to your flawed liberal point of view does not mean that I am any less of a democrat. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that most rural and southern democrats agree more with my views than yours.

The sad truth is that our party has been taken hostage by the liberal wing of our party. We are no longer the party of the average blue collar American worker, we are the party of minorty special interests.

Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary, and Chuckie Schumer have very little in common with the average rural democrat. In my state (as well as most rural states), most democrats are anti abortion, pro gun, anti affirmative action and think that gay marriage is wrong. Yet, they still consider themselves true blue democrats. If you have a problem with that, tough.

Frostie

Oops,

sorry for the double post. I originally typed my response and nothing posted. So, being the good sport that I am, retyped my message from memory.

Miers seems to be extremely conservative. Hopefully Senator Reid knows something I do not and is for that reason giving to her his support. I understand Reid is a tremendous leader and "pulled himself up by his own bootstraps." He graduated from George Washington University Law School and really had to struggle to finance his legal education. The legal profession is full of elitists and that is irritating. Having said that, that Miers isn't an elitist is NOT sufficient reason to support her nomination. Reid indicated his disdain for elitists when issuing a statement in support of her nomination. An open mind is essential to solid jurisprudence. She appears to be quite conservative. I'm sure she's highly intelligent, but I'm worried she is an ideologue. I don't want another closed-minded justice sitting on the Court. I hope Senator Reid knows what he is doing. It would look absolutely terrible if he voted "yes" and we later discover she is an ultra-conservative ideologue. I encourage the Democrats to vote 'no' at the conclusion of the confirmation hearings unless they are CONVINCED she is open-minded and even-handed. This will enable the Democrats to express their disapproval, but will allow the GOP to confirm her if they so choose. If she subsequently turns out to be ultra-conservative, the public will know that's what they get if they give Republicans complete control of both elected branches of government. 30% of the public would like to see the Court become more liberal and 29% would like to see the Court maintain its current ideological stance. 8% are unsure, and only 33% agree with the Bush that the Court should be more conservative. If Bush and the GOP make the Court far more conservative, it is likely they will soon discover power is transient. This is only true if our leaders, like Senator Reid, vote 'NO' and distinguish themselves from their Republican colleagues. I believe conservative apprehension with regards to the Miers nomination is misplaced or possibly disingenuous.

Frostie,

I'd like to respond to some of the comments you've made on this website. You make some good points. Most notably, we often criticize republicans, but for all of our criticisms, we often don't offer coherent solutions. I believe this it is for this reason we lost the 2004 elections. That being said, your assertion that this administration has been decent is faulty.

The Democratic Party has taken the first step. We have identified some problems. Republicans have yet to take that step. But things are looking promising (see the recent law passed by McCain limiting mistreatment of prisoners and the Amendment offered By Lyndsey Graham). For the most part, Republicans, the party with the power to implement solutions, has neglected to even realize some of the problems facing this nation.

1.) The deficit is enormous. The national debt is an astounding 8 trillion. This debt was accumulated largely because of the “cut taxes and spend more” policy Reagan (2.5 trillion), George Bush(1.5 trillion), and George W. Bush (2 trillion and counting) implemented. Proposed solution: roll back the tax cuts, eliminate pork, and cap discretionary spending. Nancy Pelosi offered to give up her pet projects if Republicans were also willing to give up their pet projects, but they neglected to do so. We need to spend money in New Orleans and Iraq, but steps could be taken to eliminate the deficit and stop the bleeding.

2.) We attacked Iraq when we knew Iraq was not an imminent threat. They were a threat, but they were not an imminent threat because they were contained by sanctions. Iraq’s military had deteriorated, and we knew this. Bush has said repeatedly, “I never said Iraq was an imminent threat.” Because Iraq was not an imminent threat, and he admittedly knew we could have waited and allowed the weapons inspectors time to complete their work. The administration and weapons inspectors gave Iraq a “B” in terms of cooperation. Folks in the military said Saddam would be unable to start up or continue weapons programs while the inspectors were present. We could have waited, but we didn’t. Instead, we attacked Iraq without planning an exit strategy. We easily toppled the regime, but since then, we have not implemented a clear strategy to win the peace. Some issues we need to think about: We need to train the Iraqi troops and tell them there will come a time when America will leave. If they think we will never leave, there is no incentive for them to be ready to fight and defend their own freedom. We need to make sure Sunni representatives have an adequate role in writing the Iraqi Constitution. Allowing the Shiites to dominate the process as they have thus far will only lead to more trouble. The Bush Administration cannot claim, once a civil war breaks out, that they were not warned of this. We need to provide our troops with body armor. It is disgusting some of our troops have had to purchase their own body armor. Also, Bush’s “shoot first and ask questions later” policy has hurt our reputation. We need to be more diplomatic and conciliatory when attempting to partner with other nations. As Mr. Bush is discovering, international problems often require international solutions. His mismanagement of the war has cost us additional lives and dollars, that would not have been incurred but for his mismanagement. Originally, we didn’t have enough boots on the ground. We weren’t training troops. We didn’t provide our troops clear guidelines as to the manner in which prisoners should be treated. We didn’t adequately equip our troops and that cost lives. Also 1.2 billion has been embezzled from the Iraqi Defense fund. That is nearly 100% of the funding! Evidently we’re not properly vetting the Iraqi folks to whom we’re entrusting American dollars. Those dollars were supposed to be used for equipment and training... Some of the issues are being addressed, some are not, but Bush needs to make clear that Iraq doesn’t have a blank check in terms of American dollars and Iraq doesn’t have a bottomless sea in terms of American blood. I have yet to hear Bush say these words.

3.) FEMA and Homeland Security Department. Frostie, 4 years after 9/11 the federal government should have more effectively handled the Katrina aftermath. Granted, state and local officials also dropped the ball, but the only agencies that possess the wherewithal to deal with a catastrophe of that magnitude lie in the federal government. In 2001 a memo was widely circulated noting that the three biggest threats to America were: 1) a terrorist attack in NYC, 2) a hurricane hitting New Orleans, 3) and an Earth Quake in California. The Homeland Security Department conducted a scenario of a category three hurricane hitting New Orleans The name of the hurricane was Hurricane Betsy. It was catastrophic. Thousands dead, the levies breached, and most of the city under several feet of water, it was one of the worst case scenarios. The Army Corp of Engineers said the levies could handle no more than a category three hurricane and that it would take 14 billion to prepare the levies to handle a category 5 hurricane. The money was not forthcoming. We knew that eventually a category 5 would hit New Orleans. It happened before, and we knew it was only a matter of time. Even after 9/11, we did nothing. Now it could take several hundred billion to rebuild New Orleans and nearly 1200 people are dead. The lesson to learn from all this is that when you can spend 14 billion to prevent one of the worst national disasters that could potentially befall the country, we should spend the money. We spend several hundred billion every year attempting to prevent terrorist attacks on this country. We should have spent the money necessary to protect New Orleans, one of our most important ports. Then, after the hurricane hit, the federal response was bumbled and disorganized. Our agencies have to be able to engage in a more orderly response. It took over a month for FEMA to even be present in some Mississippi communities.

4.) Energy. We have known for years the global oil supply was tight and getting tighter. We were worried about a hurricane hitting the gulf and disrupting the global oil supply for the last couple of years. Yet the Bush tax cuts SUBSIDIZE the purchase of Sports Utility Vehicles. These vehicles increase demand for oil and drain supply. This drives up the cost of energy. Higher fuel costs have been known to cause economic recessions. Bush has refused to quit subsidizing SUVs. Bush has refused to spend any significant portion of money on researching alternative energy fuels. Now, after the hurricanes, suddenly he’s a conservationist. Well, he should reform the tax code, quit subsidizing SUVs, and invest more money in researching alternative fuel sources. If we could rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil, this would greatly increase our national security in that we would provide the energy necessary to fuel our economy, and if necessary, the energy to fuel our armies.

5.) Outsourcing. Also, he should reform the tax code so as to no longer give our companies a tax incentive to move abroad. Right now, corporations can move abroad and, through joint ventures, shell corporations, etc, ship their products back to the United States free of tax. The tax code is subsidizing outsourcing and this should be stopped. All corporations need to do is move to the Cayman Islands or the Dominican Republic or another jurisdiction with no corporate tax, make sure they have an adequate footprint in a joint venture there, and ship their products to the United States. There are already incentives for certain industries to move abroad, but our current tax structure subsidizes this movement. That’s a disgrace and it could be fixed.

6.) Corruption. Delay, Frist, Rove, Libby, and Safavian. Frostie, you’re right that we’ve had some problems in the Democratic Party, but nothing like this. In literally every branch of government, Republicans are in trouble. That the Republicans have complete control of every branch in our government and STILL they are getting caught just goes to show how dirty the GOP leadership has become. Not to mention the manner in which FEMA contracts were originally rewarded (but the new FEMA leadership is fixing this problem).