Bush got Dobson's approval beforehand on Miers

[ClintonTyree]

"What those conservatives are missing is what Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice, see in Miers: a fifth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush even got Dobson's approval beforehand".

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=ajuZsQQbuwl4

This got buried in another thread and I wanted to make sure everyone saw that boooosh consulted with Dobson before he nominated her. So much for all the Conservative hand-wringing. If it looks like a red herring and smells like a red herring, chances are, it's a red herring.

[speedoo]

1. If Dobson likes her, she must be kept off the SCOTUS.

At all costs. Do whatever is necessary.

It's that simple.

[DanCa]

2. How the hell does dobson get to chose supreme court nominess

lets picket focus on the family.

[necso]

3. And who else has she been preapproved by? /nt

[ClintonTyree]

4. That's what I'm wondering.........

and why are some Cons making such a big stink about her when they KNOW how she's going to vote. Methinks they doth protest too much.

[necso]

5. I think that there are a

number of reasons that the RW seems unhappy. (Although some of it is likely bs -- these guys have been practicing mind-fuck techniques for decades -- while some on our side still refuse to even see it happening, much less use counter-practices. And just like it can (easily) be done with us (taken broadly to include most "left" groups), it is possible to "set off" some of their subgroups (subcults in their case) without these even knowing that they are being used. -- On our side, it happens here (and more widely among the "left", ie, including poseurs, nutcases, agents) all the time.)

(Returning to reasons.) For one thing, their personal favorites were overlooked. For another, I think that they wanted a candidate about whom there could be no doubt, so that every Senator would have to make a clear commitment as to what side of the line they were on. And I think that the RW wanted a open battle, with Dems breaking ranks -- or in any case taking a public beating -- and with their side openly, publicly triumphant, with open, public acknowledgment of them receiving their "prize". (Fundies in particular are generally not subtle.)

But why fight an open battle, when you can get what you want by stealth without a big fight? And how can one pin something on the pugs when many Dems (who supposedly believe the opposite, or at least something different) went along with it? Indeed, if the end of Roe slips through, I think it most likely that the Dems involved (and perhaps generally) will suffer more than the pugs, because the neocons largely control the pug primaries. And because the case will be murky (these nominee clowns sure aren't claiming that they'll take down Roe), this will make it hard to hold against those involved, unless it's something that you feel very strongly about -- which in the case of Roe would be those "on our side" -- who can probably be expected to fall on our own in their rage.

We are often unsophisticated thinkers, indeed, surpassing naive.