patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 10:55 AM
Original message |
Even though Bush is not "Pro-Life" per se, he wants |
|
Pro-Lifers off of his back, right?
This is one of the functions of the Miers nomination.
|
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 10:58 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Problem is that the pro-lifers aren't happy with Miers. |
|
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 11:00 AM by Zynx
Maybe the higher-ups are, but the rank and file are not.
|
patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Maybe they don't get it. |
|
Or maybe I don't.
Is there any way she can possibly fail Bush in this mission? - possibly due to the incongruence of her experience level compared to the SCOTUS justices she will have to go against on this issue?
|
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I don't think she has the intellectual clout to resist other opinions on |
|
the court. She will become a pawn of one side or the other.
|
patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. In the same mode as her patron, she won't have to deal |
|
with the intellectual environment of the court; she will simply have to vote "Pro-Life" without any intellectual effort.
|
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. That is, of course, if she is pro-life. She seems to adopt positions as |
|
they suit her rather than forming any true beliefs. Lord knows how she actually feels about anything.
|
librechik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. she's a rabid anti abortion activist. I don't get their objections |
|
there is something here that doesn't add up.
|
patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. There are more than just "Pro-Lifers" with legal skin in this game. |
|
Bush himself probably doesn't give a darn how Roe v. Wade turns out, except in as much as he has to make good for his party by paying off his debt to the so-called Christian RW.
Bush does care about his legacy, read that, his effect upon the War Powers Act.
So the question is who else around him has issues that outweigh Roe v. Wade and what will be her effect upon them.
Of course, we don't know the answers to any of this, because everything about this administration is Classified.
|
Ilsa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 11:24 AM
Response to Original message |
5. And the RW doesn't really want to "trust" Bush anymore. He isn't a |
|
fiscal conservative, and they are wondering on what other platforms they have been lied to.
|
patrice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Bush is establishing his own "Private Law" and Cheney established |
|
his own "Private Intelligence". The entire financial apparatus is under pressure, so it will do what it needs to survive. Now the other conservatives have to figure out just how essential they are to that $urvival. And it's beginning to take more than Rove's BuShit to be a participant in that particular game. Multi-national corporations do not say the, or any, Pledge of Allegiance.
|
pattim
(169 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message |
10. More and more pro-lifers think that he's only stringing them along. |
|
The duller ones think that he lacks the courage to appoint a pro-lifer. The sharper ones realize that he won't overturn Roe vs Wade, because then the pro-lifers would have no reason to hitch themselves to the Republican cart.
|
newyawker99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:35 PM
Response to Original message |