harriet-ectomy

I’m sure you’ve heard by now that Dear Leader, caving in to pressure from the extreme right, yanked Harriet Miers’ nomination for the Supreme Court this morning… Yes, as much as he would have loved to have had his personal attorney on the high court (to be his eyes and ears during the now quite probable impeachment proceedings), it seems that he felt he needed the support of his rabid, lunatic base even more.

Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way, puts it this way:

It’s an astonishing spectacle. The unelected power-brokers of the far right have forced the withdrawal of President Bush’s own Supreme Court nominee, before a confirmation hearing has even been held. President Bush’s complete capitulation to the far-right interest groups is astounding. The ultra-right wing dominance of Republican Party politics is complete, and they have dealt a terrible blow to an already weakened President and his administration… Right-wingers are openly saying they elected Bush to put a battle-ready ultraconservative on the court to replace the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, and they’re demanding a new choice — bipartisanship, moderation and mainstream Americans be damned.”

Apparently the evangelicals didn’t believe Bush when he whispered to them by proxy, “Trust me, she’ll do whatever I say when it comes to mandating our beautiful culture of life,” and they let him know it. The little monsters that he and Rove created turned on him and he didn’t like it one bit. It didn’t matter what Rove told Dobson. No assurances, it seems, could overcome the fact that they wanted someone who they really knew they could count on when it came to overturning Roe v. Wade — someone — pardon me for being so blunt – without a pussy. (They’ll say it that it’s because she didn’t have a background in “constitutional law,” but that’s just code for “she doesn’t have a cock.”)

It’s just wasn’t enough that Miers made it this far in life without having children, or, probably, sex. There’s still too much danger that she might, once she’s sworn in, decide that it’s her job to protect the rights of women – Bush and Dobson be damned.

So, know it’s official, in case you had any doubt at all – our President is the bitch of the far right, and, in order to prove it, he isn’t going to hold anything back with his next nomination, which many feel could come as early as tomorrow. (The thought being that the administration might want to deflect some of the press that would otherwise be obsessing on the indictments of key White House personnel that are also expected tomorrow.)

Some, like our friends over at America Blog, are looking forward to the ensuing battle. They’re convinced that when Bush offers up a nomination that will appeal to the far right, that the majority of Americans will recoil in horror and then lash out like they’ve been unwilling to before. Essentially, they’re thinking that this is going to be the moment when the Republicans in power reveal who they really are, and send the moderates scurrying to the left. I’d like to think that’s the case, but I don’t know. Either way, it’s going to be war, and it’s going to be ugly.

Tomorrow, I get the feeling, might be one hell of a day.

This entry was posted in Observations. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

9 Comments

  1. chris
    Posted October 27, 2005 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Is that fruit I see ripenng on a tree? Or just another fucking mirage in this barren wasteland we call the USA.

    Maybe, just maybe…be still my beating heart.

    But yeah, thank you Mark. I kept saying…”why are they so pissed? I don’t get it? Cannot be so base that it is just because she’s a woman…cannot it be that lame?”. Well if Mark thinks so too than I guess it is true.

    Notice how the focus is Rove and not Cheney. I am never happy with what I get, I always want more.

  2. mark
    Posted October 27, 2005 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    Someone with a uterus cannot be trusted to make rational decisions about reproduction.

  3. Shanster
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 5:16 am | Permalink

    So, wait, now the left thinks Meiers was a good selection? With the apparent cronyism of the nomination and her lack of judicial experience, much of the right was already on the fence. The abortion question just gave one more reason to withhold support.

  4. mark
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    She wasn’t a good choice from the beginning. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that we’re going to be offered someone worse now, Shanster.

  5. chris
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Of course, had I my choice Meiers would not have been it. I just could not understand the right’s automatic rejection of her. Until now, they have been on board with his cronyism and unilateral “mandate”. So WTF is the problem here.

    Clinton nominated Cuomo, the former Governor of NY and he had never sat on the bench before either. Meiers would not have been Bush’s first wrong choice for an appointed position, there have been many. So again, what is their problem with Meiers. Shanster, since you are to the right of us please enlighten given the said considerations of the past.

  6. chris
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Oh, here are the two question marks lacking in the above post. I had misplaced them at the time of the posting and only now have just found them: ? ?

    My apologies????

    Damn, their breeding!????

  7. Shanster
    Posted October 29, 2005 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    Chris-
    I’m not sure you need any elightenment, and I’m hardly the right source. I thought Harriet was a weak choice from the start. I identified her as a neocon, which in my limited knowledge and vocabulary means a Republican power grabber, using conservative family values when they serve you well, but not every day (see hypocrisy).

    Obviously, it looks bad with the evangelicals if when you are called on to keep your implied promise to put a pro-life judge on the bench you can’t do it. To me, it makes the administration look like they don’t do their homework. They have had 5 years to think about this, and should have a solid list.

  8. Doug Skinner
    Posted October 29, 2005 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Chris — Miers gave a relatively pro-choice speech to a group of executive women in Houston, back in 1993. I think that’s why the right went after her — especially since she refused to clarify her views on anything. The fact that she neglected to pay dues, and was practicing law without a valid license, also didn’t help.

    Bush nominated one of his pals, and then insisted that her qualifications were secret. That’s the Bush approach to government in a nutshell. I hope our friends on the right realize this isn’t conservatism; it’s just corruption and contempt for democracy.

  9. chris
    Posted October 29, 2005 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    I’ll take that. All makes much more sense to me. Thank you!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Nanook