2005/10/03

Who?

My future as a political prognosticator is obviously limited. Wow. Harriet Miers. Well, I guess she is almost completely a non-entity when it comes to constitutional interpretation. Is there anybody on the right side of the aisle who thinks this was an optimal choice? Or even a good one? The choice smells of cronyism.

I’m wondering how Bush and the RNC look to the small government wing of the party. I'm guessing not real good. That might be an issue come next fall. J, who pays attention to details, tells me the hard-core conservatives don't vote for non-conservative candidates even as a protest measure. They just stay home. I'm thinking getting out the vote is going to be a problem for the efenants here shortly.

1 Comments:

Blogger Larry Rasczak said...

Can't disagree less. Think you are right on target.

The Wall Street Journal has been quite miffed at Bush ever since he decided that the best way to solve the Katrina problem was to blindly throw money at it. (Yes, walk into Louisiana with a blank check book!! THAT'S A GOOD IDEA! NOBODY in Louisiana would EVER steal or misuse the taxpayers money!)

I'm pretty far to the right and this has totally undermined Bush's credibility with me. First he didn't elevate Thomas or Scalia to Chief Justice, but moved Roberts straight to the top spot. Then there is the whole issue of "the stealth candidate" Roberts, who for all we know could be David Souter with a good haircut. Now comes Meyers.

Meyers is probably an excellent lawyer and a fine person. The idea that she is the best qualified person in the nation for a job on the USSC is laugable. How people (even White House people) can pretend otherwise and still maintain a straight face, I simply do not know. She simply has NEVER been a judge, anywhere, anytime. To say this "smells of cronyisim" is like saying The TITANIC "has a wetness problem."

Worst of all, I don't trust Bush on this. She might be the next Clarance Thomas, but I see no evidence of that. What I do see Harry Reed and other Senate Democrats saying they like her. I'm sorry but I did not work that hard on all those campaigns for all those years so Bush could appoint someone that the DEMOCRATS like!!! For someone with such a long and colorful history of partying, this President seems not to grasp the concept of "dance with the one who brung you."

The last time I checked there was a REPUBLICAN majority in the Senate. There is (allegedly) a REPUBLICAN in the White House. Logically we should be appointing someone the REPUBLICANS want, NOT desperately trying to find someone the DEMOCRATS won't object to. If that means we have to have a knock down drag out with Congress over this then by all means do so. (Just tell "W" that Harry Reed is hiding WMD's, then he'll go for it.)

We have 55 Republicans in the Senate, all we need is 50 + Dick Cheny. If Bush can't get 50 GOP votes out of a GOP majority Senate, then I'm thinking maybe those folks on the left are right about him after all.

6:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home