Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Buchanan just spilled it on MTP-why they fear Meirs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:48 AM
Original message
Buchanan just spilled it on MTP-why they fear Meirs
The paleo cons are really up in arms about Harriett.

Buchanan actually doubts whether shrub wants to over turn Roe v Wade.
He said that pickles and Bar are for R vs W, and it's possible that shrub does not want it over turned.

Russert now just read an avalanche of neo con articles against Harriet from Krystal to Krauthammer to Noonan.

I am convinced that the radicalright does not want Harriett and they are in revolt against shrub.

Now, the question is: why did shrub pick her?
Why would Harry Reed endorse her?
Why would shurb alientate his base?

Why do pigs fly and satan ice skate today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. He picked her because
Rove is doubled over in the bathroom and can't be reached and he had to make his own decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Just like that cocky penguin in your post, Bush slapped the GOP
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 09:56 AM by Lastlaughin08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
39. Has KKKarl got those staghorns again?
GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sometimes Shrubya makes poorly calculated decisions.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. I think you are probably quite correct
I think Bush* did make this decision and did so all on his own. He is astounded by the revolt from the right. He pretty much thought he would get the same rubber stamp as he always has had. The big difference here is this was his own decision, and not Rove's or Cheney's, and Congress is starting to really actually fear for their jobs. Bush* is bringing them down they feel even though it was them that rubber stamped every thing the Administration wanted. America is beginning to stir (the giant is awakening) and the rats are about to abandon ship. The cronyism factor is just too blatant, even for the most dimwitted amongst them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
33. he's still God's Annointed in his own mind.

The delusion of God agreeing with his arbitrary decisions is pretty powerful.

This choice is really just Bush picking a person he likes, a person who is a kind of improved nicer version of himself. I feel it's truly that nearly unimaginably shallow and unconsciously narcissistic. And Rove gave it his okay, so it must be right.

Why Rove gave it his okay is of course the great unanswered political question at bottom of it all. My guess is that Rove saw they could only nominate a conservative-looking woman, and that the only question of importance to anyone at the moment was going to be her view on Roe v Wade.

If that's so, then Rove has imho made a well calculated decision, as with Roberts- but it reflects Republican interests in the long run and figuring an overturn of Roe is useless. He's watched the numbers (check at Survey USA) and knows that a Roe overturn would shatter his Party, yet still result in abortion being legal or getting legalized in ~40 states, including Texas and Florida.

But the Right is having a hard time getting over the implications. Miers represents a gentle halfway house to reality for them on the Court, an ambiguous figure full of references to Sixties and Seventies Texas but at the same time all suggestions that reestablishing pre-Sixties American society, which is their dream, is definitely not a priority of the Bush people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
4. So do we throw Br'er Rabbit into the briar patch, or not?
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 09:55 AM by htuttle
He *says* that's what he's afraid of....hmm....

On the issues I'd expect the neo-cons to really care about, like expanding corporate power and expanding the power of an Imperial Presidency, Meirs is right there on the same page. How often has a political neo-con like Krystal really spoken about abortion, outside of the obligatory 'stir the base' articles before elections?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. How did Krystalcon get so much power?
I guess his Weakly Standard rag is coming out today against harriett.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. When one has an extreme agenda and plays to groups of extremists, shit
happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
6. What Bush wants most is military power over the domestic US.
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 09:57 AM by Eric J in MN
He wants to be able to label any one of us an "enemy combatant" and lock us up without a trial (as he claim in the Jose Padilla case.)

A crony who has said Bush is the smartest man she's ever met would approve of that type of power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. The statement..
"the smartest man she's ever met"..harriet miers must have been living in a closet and doesn't care who knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Yep...either she's even MORE of an idiot that he is or else
she's obviously never known another person in her life, at least not for long.

That statement ALONE should disqualify her. Obviously, she's a bad judge of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. Time is running out for BushCo
and that is why they are so desperately flailing about, foaming at the mouth about all these 'new' terror treats.

They tried to implement military control over LA and fortunately their devious plan failed. Now they are scrambling but things just aren't going right anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. Buchanan is right they do not want to over turn it
Right to Lifers ---- single biggest single issue Repug voting block

Right to Lifers ---- Donate tons of money in small amounts to the Repugs.

Right to Lifers ---- Can be depended on for being Repug foot soldiers around election time.


Why would the leaders of the Repug pary want to overturn RvW.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. It might be more important to have a known "friend" on the court.
This is especially true if BushCo. knows they will probably in the very near future implode. It could be that they are so afraid of criminal investigations in the future that they would have nominated Ted Kennedy if they knew he would play ball and protect them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. The Neocon cartel doesn't want R v W overturned. Their goal is power and
money (if they aren't one and the same). They will do whatever it takes to get and retain power. They could care less about specific ideologies. They will use whatever, whomever they need to. They are using the right wing Christians and will toss them away when they don't need them. Kinda like Hitler using the brown shirts. If Roe v Wade is overturned, there most likely be a huge backlash. The Neocon Cartel can't risk that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. He doesn't give a rat's ass about Roe v Wade
He wants a loyal toadie on the court, one who'll vote to overturn the convictions of all the criminals in his admin, including his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dalloway Donating Member (744 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
27. EXACTLY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
13. Because Bush took "Trust Me" too far -- But he may still get his way
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 10:01 AM by Armstead
He also believed his own publicity, that stuff about being a "strong leader" and "personally liked" and "trustworthy."

he thought he could do anything and his "base" would go along. But the base wanted someone with stature, and they wanted to rub the noses of liberals in the dust by staging a fight that they knew they could win.

If Bush nominates some obviously divisive winger, like Janice Brown, the Democrats would piss and moan and the left would organize against an obvious enemy. But ultimately, the nominee would get confirmed anyway, just because of the current numerical equation of power in Washington....Thus the Right would get their nominee and also humiliate Democrats and liberals.

But Bush thought he could be cagey and nominate another "stealth candidate" who would make the same decisions as a Janice Brown, but who could avoid the obvious nomination fight because of a lack of a "paper trail."

Unfortunately for Bush, he denied the Right Wing the symbolic victory they wanted. Therefore they feel cheated out of their victory dance.

BUT, unfortunately for America, his strategy may ultimately succeed, because the GOP/right wing still has the numbers in Congress. So we could still end up with Meiers getting into the SC and becoming the ideological equivalent of Janice Rodgers Brown in terms of actual decisions she will make on the court.

It just shows how sucky the political situation is at the moment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
29. I'm sure * believes
this ..what krauthammer had to say about his chimpyness.

"For a man whose presidency is marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/charleskrauthammer/2005/10/07/159653.html

Ya gotta wonder about krauthammer, though..he sounds like he has harriet miers syndrome, himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. Repubs know there's no widespread majority support for vacating Roe
Miers is part of constructing a political machine to insure gop power - overturning Roe doesn't serve that purpose. If it *did*, then that's what bush would work to make happen.

So PB's right, I think. Bush strung 'em along.

Digby wrote eloquently about the part Miers plays...

The Machine Justice

snip (it's all good)>
Harriet Miers is the official machine justice, a made woman, the one whose only committment and loyalty will be to Karl Rove and George Bush. I'm sure they would have preferred Alberto Gonzales but he is too much of a known quantity to easily finesse the varying political requirements within the base. She will do just fine. She is their creature. Her purpose on the court is to assist the Republican party in any way necessary, not to advance conservatism.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_02_digbysblog_archive.html#112836485644404749
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. he picked her because they are a crime syndicate and she is a
'made' lady.
Insider, confidant, trustee, loyalist.
They must be pretty sure that she is one of theirs, Roberts too.
Its all about loyalty.
The BFEE used the rabid right and one day they might even figure it out.
Bushco doesnt give a hoot for anyone but their own and their power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
16. I think he picked Miers because he's so deep inside his own ass
that he can't imagine anyone would think there's a problem with choosing his own lawyer, a corporate attorney who's never even been a small claims court judge and who has exactly zero experience with constitutional law. Cronyism is normal; it's a way of life with the BFEE, so Boy George doesn't think there's anything wrong with it because that's what they've always done. I don't think there's a "plot" or KKKarl is playing games. He nominated Miers because he's an arrogant douche who picks cronies and assumes they're the best qualified *because* they're his cronies.

I could almost feel sorry for Miers on account of the pounding she's taking from her own party, except that she should have had the sense to tell Il Douche that she couldn't possibly accept the position because she's not the most qualified person. But she's been hanging around with that crowd for so long that she most likely thinks the same way they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
17. I think he picked her for one reason only...
to silence her. Or.Else. Maybe this lady knows something that Bushco doesn't want to get out. Ever notice how she runs around with that cocky half-smile plastered on her face all the time, like she's got the little fucker in her apron pocket?

It probably went something like this:

Harriet: George, we need to talk about it.

Bush: About what, Harriet?

Harriet: About that little promise your father made me for shutting up about the abortion years ago. This present job just doesn't do it for me now.

Bush: Oh, the abortion. Okay....how would you like to sit on the Supreme Court?

Harriet: That would do just fine.

Bush: So there will be no mention of the abortion?

Harriet: What abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. Maybe he HAD to pick her--maybe SHE'S doing the "silencing."
If the repub/fundie reaction is NOT a psy-op, what if she's threatening to spill the beans on the abortion, his TANG records, and who knows what else? It would certainly complain why Rove seems to be out of the loop on this one.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
47. Where are you guys getting this information?
Is there something to what you say???

Did I miss a thread or two??

Whassup??

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PlanetBev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
18. I think Meirs is a sure Fundie vote
She has said she is against abortion, her church is against it, her boyfriend, Nathan Hecht is the most anti-choice judge in Texas, etc.

Can you imagine if she voted to uphold Roe v. Wade? Besides displeasing all her anti-choice friends, her church would probably give her the Judge Greer treatment.

Judge George Greer was the judge who ruled against Terri Schiavo's parents. Even though he is a conservative Baptist, he was asked to leave his church because he didn't vote the way they wanted him to.

Meirs doesn't hit me as the type that would risk that. She will do what is expected of her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
19. A Faith-Based Nomination -Weakly Standard
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 10:19 AM by bluedawg12

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/188wrpwx.asp

A Faith-Based Nomination
The White House is emphasizing Harriet Miers's religious views.
by Terry Eastland
10/17/2005, Volume 011, Issue 05


snip >
Not every evangelical leader has decided so to trust--Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have expressed doubts about the nomination.

The problem for Bush a week after announcing his choice of Miers stems from the fact that it is entirely possible for someone to hold moral (or religious, for that matter) views that are deemed conservative, yet to approach judging in ways that are at odds with the judicial conservatism that the president himself says he wants in a jurist. That is why what people most need to know about Miers is how she thinks about the law and the role of the courts--a question not easy to answer given the nature of her legal career and the brevity of her encounters with federal constitutional law. The president is asking conservatives--including the evangelicals among them--to trust him as to Miers's fitness in all respects for the High Court.< snip

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
21. Who is Jay Sekulow and why is against Harriett?
Gosh, things get more and more weird as I read about the conservative movement.

Attorney Sekulow is a member of Jews for Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Sekulow

"Born into a Jewish family, Sekulow converted to Christianity when he was a college student at Atlanta Baptist College (now Mercer University) and became a member of Jews for Jesus...

In 1990, Sekulow became the director of The American Center for Law and Justice, a religious rights organization founded by Evangalist Pat Robertson as a counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Sekulow is also a member of the conservative Four Horsemen...read on..."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. if you think Sekulow's freaky

have a look at the bio and record of Marvin Olasky. Joan Didion wrote a great piece on him in the New York Review of Books in 2000 or 2001. Born Jewish, Southern Methodist evangelical wacko living in Texas now. Invented the 'compassionate conservatism' con and a lot of the rest of the freaky religiopolitical line and theological crap the Bush people took into the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Have a deeper look at Pat Robber-son
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson

snip >
In 1950, Robertson began service in the Korean War. Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Jr. asserted that Robertson served in Korea, but spent most of his time in an office in Japan. His time in the service was not in combat but as the "liquor officer" responsible for keeping the officers' clubs supplied with liquor, and that Robertson's father intervened to keep Robertson out of combat. Paul Brosman, Jr., another veteran who had served with Robertson testified in a deposition that Robertson had sexual relations with prostitutes and sexually harassed a cleaning girl. Robertson has called these allegations "an attack by liberals to discredit me."<

I'll go look up Olaskreep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. The father of comp-ass-ionate conartist-ism
Our sweet neo-connies and the think tank-full of cool-aide they have created.

Taking a crash course in understanding the political forces at work these days.

Bill Krystalcon
Jay Sekulow
Marvin Olasky
Newt Gingrich
F.A. Hayek
Milton Friedman
Grover Nordquist
Darth R. Novak
Leo Strauss

So this is where shrubber gets the words he speaks at us from his teleprompter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Olasky

“Born in Boston, Massachusetts into a Russian Jewish family ...Olasky had become a born-again Christian, after questioning his atheism while reading Lenin and then the New Testament in Russian.”

"His initial writings gave him to opportunity to win funding from the Bradley Foundation in 1989, allowing Olasky to begin his most famous work, The Tragedy of American Compassion, which was first published in 1992. Coldly received at first, the book soon gained the endorsement of William Bennett and Newt Gingrich, who gave a copy to every incoming Republican freshman representative in the 1994 Congress. Critics called the book short on research and excessively reliant on anecdotal evidence, but supporters lauded it as a key work in defining "compassionate conservatism" as it relates to welfare and social policy. In it, Olasky argues that care for the poor must be the responsibility of private individuals and organizations, particularly the Christian church, instead of government programs like welfare. He suggests that government programs are ineffective because they are disconnected from the poor, while private charity has the power to change lives because it allows for a personal connection between the giver and the recipient."

This is a pretty good over view of the neo-connie movement for anyone wanting to read further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
22. * picked Miers because she supports the Corporatist agenda. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eaprez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
25. Why did the OTHER guy on MTP have Stars & Bars on his tie? Looked
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 10:45 AM by eaprez
like his tie was made from that symbol of racisim. Now either they are all supremely stupid in not recognizing that - or they DO recognize that and don't care that's how it looked - that it was by design. These "Godly" people scare the bejeezus outta me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
28. It's simple.
Bush is an idiot.

Greater and greater numbers of Ameicans are seeing him for the doofus he really is.

The GOP is out of control because all their leaders are incapacitated at the moment under indictment or the threat of indictment. They have no other leader except for GWB who really isn't the GOP leader--he never has been--just a loyal soldier with enough charisma to get elected when nobody else could.

He couldn't make a good decision about anything--he cannot tie his shoes without asking for help. Can't pour piss out of a boot without the instructions written on the heel.

But they got nobody else and it frightens the shit out of them that their "leader" actually has to lead and he screwed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
30. Radical Right wants their cake and eat it too. They think they can
overturn R v W and still retain power. The Neocon Cartel knows better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djg21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
32. Because it keeps a wede issue alive.
No pol in the Repuke party really wants
Roe overturned. If it is, the legislature will have to address the issue, and the individual repuke senators and congressmen will be in a pickel (not that pickle) because 70% of the elctorate favor some abortion rights. Roe was a gift from the Sup. Ct. to the Legislature!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nvliberal Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
34. Pat should know, having worked for Nixon,
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 12:41 PM by nvliberal
that abortion is the perfect wedge issue to manipulate "evangelicals" and Catholics into supporting the Republicans while they can screw them over economically time and time again.

Nixon didn't really believe in overturning the decision, Ronald Reagan didn't believe in overturning the decision (Nancy was also pro-abortion rights), Poppy didn't really believe in overturning the decision (he was more moderate than those extremists), and now little George has been dragging his feet.

All of them could have appointed judges to outlaw the procedure, but they made sure they didn't, all the while blathering on and on about the "sanctity of life" and using other code words and phrases.

You'd think after over 30 years of this con, the fundies would get a clue.

But clearly they haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
36. What does Dobson know and forgive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
37. could it be that shrub is battle fatigued and wanted an easy shoo-in
and expected that because of her faith background the cons would jump at her with out checking or caring about her lack of credentials?

And now the cons are throwing a tantrum because she doesn't have the brain power to defend the real issues that will come before the court- the R v W is a smoke screen. Do we really believe that con-rats give an ass wipe about poor women having babies or not?

Hells bells, Bennett let out that aborting black babies would solve crime- but that it's "tricky".

They don't care about poor women and their reproductive choices.

Where as, women of means and education I bet have better resources to health care and contraception and family planning.

Dang, it's like a light went on, they really don't give damn about this issue- anymore than they knew about or cared about Terry S., it's all about street politiks and drama- and rallying the dumb base who believes their propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
38. Why would shrub care about alienating his base at this point?
He's not running for office again.

I don't think he gives a flying fuck about his base anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
41. Epiphany! This is a war between neo and fundy cons!
Here’s what happened>

Shrub thought, and probably correctly, that nominating an attorney who is a twice born again evangelical X-tian would appeal to his fundy base. And it has.

Who was the tubby guy on MTP today who is head of the Southern Baptist movement?
Well, that guy and his large group are pro-Harriett.
So is talibanfamilyvalues Dobsonofa...
Shrub was correct, the fundy’s accept her on faith- faith that Bush has screened her and she will be properly anti-Roe v Wade, anti-gay rights, and pro all of the radicalrightwing cultural issues.


So, who is having a snit-fit?

The neo cons mainly.

Krsytalcon, Krauthammecon, and a few Raygun-ites like Noonan and pompous Nixon apologist, paleo-con Buchanan ( but he is a wild card and simply put, he doesn’t like women in power, and he is an ivy league elitist snob).

I think we are seeing a war between conservatives who emphasize the theo-political
issues and the neoconnies- who want someone else, and are not satisfied that being a shrub picked fundy is good enough. They want brain power to rubber stamp their bigger plans for the future- who knows what this gang has in mind for the nation and the world.

But I am sure it will have to do with one world order, and world domination- at the very least.

Perhaps, the universe and beyond.

Thoughts? Is anyone else seeing a schism- and actually a very ugly fight, the neoconnivers are dumping shrub and all but calling him stupid- between fundycons and neoconnivers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Very interesting theory you're throwing out there....and it seems
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 08:07 PM by loudsue
to fit their mold, dunnit?

:freak: Gonna have to think on that some more! They REALLY like the Heritage Foundation Intellectual Elite at the top type folks (not just the bozos that do the grunt work at the Heritage Foundation, but the actual string-pullers). And that (and the other think-tanks like them) is the group that has all this "one world government" thing figured out to their liking.

They thought they had boosh in their back pocket...and actually, all the republicans, too! It's the right-wing think tank types that have co-opted the republican party in total, and the DLC branch that has infiltrated the Democratic party. THEY are the ones that are pulling the big strings around the world, and in many governments, doing their dirty little deals, buying people off, and controlling the money flow through the Fed.

:rofl: Then, bunnypants goes and nominates some bimbo for the Supreme Court! :rofl:

I'll bet they threw up their breakfast on that one!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddy Waters Guitar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
42. He picked Miers b/c she's a crony and big business advocate
She ran a corrupt law firm that siphoned off $30 million from its clients. She defended Microsoft in a case in which MS fouled up a part of their software and then charged customers for the fix!!! And she is against Roe-- she was talking to an assembly of pro-choice women and basically told them to kiss off.

Don't be lulled by the fireworks on the Right-- no Democrat should cast a vote for her. And Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, shame on you both for supporting her. She needs to be defeated. As an added bonus-- since there are apparently some Rethugs who are voting against her too-- we'll get to watch the spectacle of a massive embarrassment of George W. Bush. He won't be able to take it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
43. The segments I saw on the MSNBC website kinda skeeved me
1. You can always count on fundies like Dr. Land to be ANGUISHED over abortion; never a mention about children suffering in poverty, broken homes, polluted areas, etc.

2. I know I should be used to it by now but I STILL get crazy-go-nuts when DASCHLE and LEAHY are cited as run-amok Leftist OBSTACLES to the President.

3. Do anyone else find it a tad disturbing that James Dobson and Land have these close connections to the White House? "My sources in the White House," Land states. That's not right. Oh? Ah yes, I guess it IS "right."

4. I guess I'm a bit confused by Buchanan's objection to the nomination, going by what motivates him; he clearly wants abortion eradicated and, as Russert pointed out, Miers looks like someone who'd fight for that. Now, if Buchanan had said that he felt uneasy about an inner-circle loyalist (loyal to a quasi-fascist, mind you) being given one of the most powerful judicial positions in the country, then I could relate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. The fact the theo-fascists have access to the wh is so normal now
that all though we should all be appalled it's just godly business as usual between shrub and his unelected shadow government.

Let's see if Cindy, or Jesse Jackson, or gay rights activists, or any other citizen who has a divergent voice gets a hearing- never happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agincourt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
44. overturning Roe vs Wade,
is a feel good orgasmic issue with conserva-pigs. However they may lose their soft base, their "kook rightwingers keep us safe" constituency. Thats why dragging it out and chipping away at Roe makes it more politically safe. Executing pregnant women who had abortions,(which incidentally many pious conservatives recommend), might wake up even sheeple americans out of their happy Ronnie Reagen nap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC