Waiting for Fitzgerald

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Well, if Reid already okeyed her, then the people most likely to knock her down are the Republicans. It doesn't make that much sense to me that is a likely scenario.

Reid looks like he's about to take a beating a la DeLay, so his approval may not mean much.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I disagree. Who better to fall on a sword than a long-time political friend and ally (see Webb Hubbell)

It still seems too roundabout though.

But who is going to object? Does Bush not have as much influence on his own party?

[nononono]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Last time I checked, "thumping" is not a synonym with "reading." The moniker is not arbitrary.

The moniker is also not self-chosen; it is deliberately denigrating. Most Bible thumpers (of which I am not one, nor do I approve of the true "thumping") and those who are often lumped in with them do regularly read and contemplate the Bible.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I am very glad that he is not on the Supreme Court, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that Bork did anything wrong in 1973, particularly not that "tarnished the [Executive] Branch of government."

S_A_M

FWIW, both of his fired/resigned superiors, Eliot Richardson and [the other one] counseled/urged Bork to keep his position for the good of DOJ -- and thus to fire the IC. Only so many of the top leaders can fall on their swords over a principle without it severely damaging the operations of the Department.

As symbolic gestures of protest which appropriately damaged the Nixon presidency, the first two resignations were enough.

Sometimes I don't know you at all.

I understand that it had to stop. But the person who had to be the stop should have recognized, and others (i.e. Reagan, or at least his advisors) should have recognized, that he was taking one for the team and was effectively ending his political career advancement. No way he was getting on the Court, regardless of the wackiness of his writings.

I don't blame Bork (too much) for his role in Watergate and much as I blame Reagan for nominating him. This should surprise no one.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm really sick of hearing the moral relativist charge. You do realize that if it wasn't for us relativists, nothing would ever get done, don't you? There is nothing morally deficient in compromising. But there is something intellectually - and from a common sense and logical perspective - quite lacking in refusing to compromise.

My guiding principle is trying to get somewhere - trying to overcome differences to reach consensus. Thats a quaint notion in the age of Rove, but I think its coming back. I think people are crying for centrism. And I think you'll find moral relativist will be a compliment in the next ten years. I'll be happy to say I was one all along.

I think moral relativism to the point where obvious right and wrong are muted into a dull shade of gray is wrong and deplorable. The dimwits under Clinton and their allies in the PC armies of the leftist loonies from Hollyweird, Bezerkely and Seattle have succeeded in this blurring, somewhat. I welcomed W's moral clarity, albeit more moralistic than my personal leanings, as a counterweight to these unwashed doofi.

I pray to the babyjesuschristsuperstar that W's clarity, however faux it may have been continues to guide in our crusades against the Islamofacists, the homocide bombers, the big government tax and spenders and the culture of death. Here and abroad.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I am very glad that he is not on the Supreme Court, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that Bork did anything wrong in 1973, particularly not that "tarnished the [Executive] Branch of government."

S_A_M

FWIW, both of his fired/resigned superiors, Eliot Richardson and [the other one] counseled/urged Bork to keep his position for the good of DOJ -- and thus to fire the IC. Only so many of the top leaders can fall on their swords over a principle without it severely damaging the operations of the Department.

As symbolic gestures of protest which appropriately damaged the Nixon presidency, the first two resignations were enough.

2. And while I supported him at the time and think his nomination was prejudicially shortchanged, I am glad he is not on the court today, although I wish it could have been accomplished differently, like he was approved but then died from the excitement of the swearing in.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Reid looks like he's about to take a beating a la DeLay, so his approval may not mean much.

I've not heard that. What's he done?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by nononono
The moniker is also not self-chosen; it is deliberately denigrating. Most Bible thumpers (of which I am not one, nor do I approve of the true "thumping") and those who are often lumped in with them do regularly read and contemplate the Bible.

I disagree. Many who are lumped in with them do regualraly read and contemplate the bible, but I have known too many bible thumpers to agree with your assertion that they actually read the book they use to beat people up with. Note that reading the same 30 passages that support your world view over and over again do not really count.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I agree it should not fiddle with the markets, but if it must fiddle, the interest deduction is damn sensible fiddling. If there's one thing the past decade has shown us its that Americans don't know how to invest. At least real estate is a (in comparison to others) low volatility market. The last thing we need is people out there betting their savings on what they read in Derivatives for Dummies.

I'm not sure that I would say
Home ownership is really "investment."
If you need to tap your savings,
It's hard to sell and live in Ma's basement.

It's not that I think home ownership
I just another form of spending:
But it's not stocks, bonds or deposits,
And is worryingly mired in lending.

If you want a better target
For income tax deduction,
I'd deduct tuition, to broadly
Stimulate economic production.



ed to improve meter

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
reading the same 30 passages that support your world view over and over again do not really count.

Would that you and the other libs here took this advice to heart, I mean beyond the bible reading.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Sometimes I don't know you at all.

I understand that it had to stop. But the person who had to be the stop should have recognized, and others (i.e. Reagan, or at least his advisors) should have recognized, that he was taking one for the team and was effectively ending his political career advancement. No way he was getting on the Court, regardless of the wackiness of his writings.

I don't blame Bork (too much) for his role in Watergate and much as I blame Reagan for nominating him. This should surprise no one.

I may be forgetting the confirmation hearings give the passage of time, but I don't remember this as the main issue that all the rhetorical posturing was about. Maybe I wasn't tuned into the process enough at the time. When NOW and NARAL and TK talked about a land of back alley abortions and no civil rights it was all code for Watergate?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
The moniker is also not self-chosen; it is deliberately denigrating. Most Bible thumpers (of which I am not one, nor do I approve of the true "thumping") and those who are often lumped in with them do regularly read and contemplate the Bible.

My experience is that committed born again christians (like the one W. claims to be) know their bible. I have studied the bible a great deal and often impressed with the "thumpers" knowledge.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I disagree. Many who are lumped in with them do regualraly read and contemplate the bible, but I have known too many bible thumpers to agree with your assertion that they actually read the book they use to beat people up with. Note that reading the same 30 passages that support your world view over and over again do not really count.

I support the babyjesuschristsuperstar unreservedly and do righteous battle with the culture of death and moral relativists in his name, but I don't read the bible. Except when its excerpted in the Wall Street Journal or the Sunday NYTimes.

eta: does "A Child's First Bible Story Book" count?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think Bush lied, but I don't disagree what happened had foreign policy ramifications. All I am saying is that it has nothing to do with whether or not it was the right thing to go to war. If you believe the only strategic interest the US had in going to war was getting rid of WMDs then you think Bush messed up big time (or lied).

I don't agree. If I think that the US had a strategic interest in going to war to spread democracy in the middle east or whatever else, I can still think that Bush messed up by misrepresenting the evidence on WMDs and claiming that WMDs was the main reason for war.

Why? Because I don't have the hubris to think that, just because I might think that a war is otherwise justified, that the rest of the country would agree with me. YMMV.

But Bush's lies have nothing to do with whether or not going to war was the right move. Either it was a good move or it was not.

Bush's lies, or as you put it "what happened", had policy ramifications -- as you said. In my view, they made the costs higher. If we are looking at this as a cost-benefits question (including economic, strategic, and moral costs and benefits), rather than as a moral absolute ("war is bad"), then anything that had policy ramifications necessarily has something to do with whether going to war, in the fashion in which we went to war, was a good move.

As far as not being prepared for the occupation, I don't think that was related to the WMD talk. I think the WMD talke was all about proganda and no one in the pentagon thought we were going to pull out once we "Secured them".

If that's the case, then you cannot possibly think that Bush and the Admin didn't lie. Shit, Rumsfeld said we'd be gone in less than six months.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Earl Warren had no judicial experience when he became Chief Justice.

Nor did O'Connor or Rehnquist.