Ms Meier will she be loyal to G.W. or the citizens of the USA

[Rodger Dodger]

The question for Ms Meier is: should I loyal to G. W., or the Citizens of the USA.

Can the 2,000 selected notes written by Harriett Meier’s to G. W., recently released from the Texas Archives, be trusted to really reflect her true feeling?

Ms Meier’s is some note writer, a sample in the New York Times printed them. They are short and to the point, as they should be. In those notes She thanked him and often mentioning his wife and family as well; many end with a personal complement to G.W.himself.

I’ve been taught,that the last words or sentiment said, in a note, letter, new clip etc., often is the most often remembered. By ending her notes to G.W. she seldom neglected to acknowledge her admiration of him. Her endings gave me the impression she was sucking up to G. W., appealing to his ego. Which begs the question?

Was she sucking up to Bush because she believed in his philosophy: or that she believed it would be in her interest to court his friendship: by hinting her desire to become one of his confidants? If that’s true, she sure did a job on him. It also seen odd, that she was compelled to renounce her Catholic faith to become an evangelical Christian.

Few will deny that in a Capitalistic Society: its money that matter. This fact is significant because, in America, money is the main source of social esteem one receives as a human being. Consequently, it is a measure of one’s own self esteem as a human being. Money (wealth) is the main determiner of which group you belong to and of how humanly or sub-humanly you’ll be treated by you’ll be treated by society. Remember, the capitalist system in which we live, have its locus of power in the ownership of property; generally purchased by money. Every form of organization must have its locus of economic power, this may be power over man or over resources, power over consumption, or power to organize, control or discipline.

On the other hand people practice those morals they perceive they can afford two. In short, everyone has their price. It'll be interesting which category Ms Harris, associates herself with,however. We'll not find that out until after she is on the bench.

Some twenty plus years ago a Mississippi candidate who lost an election sued the winner after he was in office for failing to keep his campaign promise. A Judge through out his lawsuit, with a backhand explanation that, “all politicians lie, its common knowledge. That’s not a joke it actually happened.

[purduejake]

1. GW.

You have to be sick to be able to stand the man, let alone suck up to him.

[me b zola]

2. Loyalty to boooosh is why she was nominated

Besides any of the obvious legal matters that may eventually end up in the SC re bush*inc, I learned something new tonight.

There was a case that Fitz was trying awhile back where he was going after a charity that had financial ties to terrorists organization ie the charity was a front for funneling $$ to the terrorist. That case was blown when none other than Judy Miller tipped of Chalibi--bush*inc's point man in Iraq. After Miller dropped a dime to tip off the bad guys, Fitz was denied a subpoena for Miller's phone records. Well, I just learned tonight via KO that Fitz is STILL APPEALING that decision. Hmmm.

I say that Roberts & Miers are there to do nothing but cover the collective ass of bush*inc.

[McKenzie]

3. "In short, everyone has their price"

I cannot agree with that statement. It is predicated on the assumption that we are all corruptible which dismisses the possiblity that some of us try our level best to maintain an ethical stance. Once we assume that ethics will be subordinated to personal interest every time, whether those interests are financial or otherwise, the whole system rots from the inside out.

The real question is how ethical people get into power within parameters that are already set by others whose ethics are not quite so high. Admittedly, some decent people do get there but, by god, they have a hard time fighting back against very powerful interests.

I suspect it's a case of those ethical people who do attain power doing what they can within constraints they cannot do much about. After all, politics is sometimes described as "the art of the possible".