You know, I thought we shouldn't care about a SC nominee's positions.

[pattim]

I could swear that during the last time we did one of these things--oh, it was so long ago, I can hardly remember--you know, with that guy (Robbies? Bert Robsjohn? What was his name again?) that had a good heart and a good mind and the president said so and that was all we should know about? You know, when we learned that we weren't supposed to care what a nominee thought about the issues? That we were only supposed to care about what the President thought of their judicial philosophy?

Interesting how we apply that to Miers, huh?

Now we're finding out that we need to know her opinions on the issues or she should be withdrawn, we're looking for specific proof of her qualifications, for specific proof of her philosophy, for specific proof of how she would vote on certain issues. Suddenly the President's word isn't good enough. Suddenly it isn't that the President knows the candidate well and thus he should get his choice, it's cronyism. Suddenly a blank slate isn't a consensus candidate, it's caving in to the Democrats.

Man, I try to be a good citizen. I try to understand exactly what my good, honest Right Wing pundits tell me, and try to think the way they tell me to. But damn, I just can't get my head around this. I wonder what to do? Oh, I might have to start thinking for myself soon, if this keeps up.

[crispini]

1. Heh. Nice parody!

:thumbsup: