Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
2. School integration was really something that should have been left for the states to decide. The Seperate but Equal thing was working so well.

It's good to have you on board, boy. I'm sure our good President knows what he is doing. This here little lady he is putting on the court seems like a nice Texan girl, and I'm sure she'll stand up for all that is Right in the world.

I do worry, though, that she has never married. Now, she's not from "Austin", is she?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Spank, this is an awful example. It's like a conservative citing Souter an an example of why Stealth Nominees are a good thing.

I was just saying that there is a long history of nominating people to the bench who have no judicial experience. The Warren court came up with my most hated precedent "the exclusionary rule".

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
When W. was faced with spending the rest of his life being hated by the Ann Coulters and Pat Robertsons of the world, or by the people closest to him, I don't think there was ever any doubt which way he would go on these Supreme Court Nominees.

I was with you until that paragraph. I think Bush, like every R, has a hard-on for Annie and would do anything to get between her matchstick legs.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush went to Andover and Yale. He is as Eastern Establishment as they come. He has to spend the rest of his life hanging out with Country Club Republicans. I have worked with many of Bush's friends and they are all Country Club Republicans. I worked with one of his roomates from school and he told me that none of Bush's close friends are pro-life. When he goes to his Andover and Yale reunions there are no pro-life people in the room. If he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade his peer group would never forgive him.

I was wondering when he was going to make the "retirement" shift. Start sucking up to the people that matter most to him.

In addition, W. is intensly loyal to his father. The conservative pundits have been praising W. but lambasting his father. They made the mistake of thinking that Bush wouldn't mind people critisizing daddy. I was wondering when the chickens were going to come home to roost.

Bush sucked up to the conservatives to get reelected (and not make the same mistake his father made). He followed Rove's strategy of appealing to the base to win, and all his recent decisions about family planning etc. have been all about courting the base.

But when it came to the big issue, Roe v. Wade, upon reflection, W was never going to let it be overturned. His wife is pro-choice, his mother is pro-choice and his father changed to being pro-life when he was vice president to a pro-life president (how sincere do you think that was). The problem with ideologues (like Religious believers) is that they are so sure in their convictions that it doesn't occur to them that someone could fake it. They are convinced once someone really understands their arguments they have to take their side. W. understand's their arguments so it does not occure to them that he is faking it.

When W. was faced with spending the rest of his life being hated by the Ann Coulters and Pat Robertsons of the world, or by the people closest to him, I don't think there was ever any doubt which way he would go on these Supreme Court Nominees.

I am not a member of the religious right, but his professions of faith and born again schtick seemed fairly convincing to me. Assuming you are correct and I give your insight the highest deference based on your personal endeavours in this area, all I can say is that if this is true then this is my worst fear going back to 2000 and then my break is complete. I couldn't stand his dad when he was Reagan's VP, begrudgingly supported him in 88 after Dole went down and stopped supporting him after the tax increase. I can't think of a worse President in the last 75 years except for LBJ. Bush seemed more genuine and less of a political phoney than his dad. Even in critical pieces in the NYTimes et al. this seemed to be true. But if the above is correct, this is truly a sad epiphany for me.

I may vote dimwit next time in protest.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
2. School integration was really something that should have been left for the states to decide. The Seperate but Equal thing was working so well.

Refresh my recollection, what was Souter's vote on that one?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm with you up to here, even though we disagree. I don't think attacking Iraq was "immoral". I think it was stupid -- a waste of resources that should have gone to fighting the enemies who can hurt us, a poorly planned and poorly executed adventure, and a huge blow to our standing in the world -- which matters because the fight against our real enemies is not one we can win without enthusiastic allies.




Here, I disagree. The problem with Bush lying -- which I, in fact, believe he did -- is multifold:

First, it damages US credibility, making it that much harder to get international support for real efforts. Further cries from the US about enemies getting WMD are going to be less effective and less convincing. Also, it makes those who say that the war was really about bringing democracy and getting rid of a bad, bad man look equally dishonest -- as if WMD and al Qaeda connections were merely a footnote in the quest for using might for right.

Second, it is part of why the war has been such a failure. If the focus had been on eliminating a dictator and building democracy, then maybe -- maybe -- the time and resources needed for that task would have been considered more seriously and carefully. When the war was just about going in, knocking out Saddam and taking his WMD, well, we thought it would be easy as pie. And we planned accordingly, and poorly.

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).

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.

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".

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


STP. I said Spector too. Spector is a republican.

Clever. A seeming concession. However, Sen. Specter is a "liberal Republican."

So, you are in fact blaming it on the liberals. Well played, sir!

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush went to Andover and Yale. He is as Eastern Establishment as they come. He has to spend the rest of his life hanging out with Country Club Republicans. I have worked with many of Bush's friends and they are all Country Club Republicans. I worked with one of his roomates from school and he told me that none of Bush's close friends are pro-life. When he goes to his Andover and Yale reunions there are no pro-life people in the room. If he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade his peer group would never forgive him.

I was wondering when he was going to make the "retirement" shift. Start sucking up to the people that matter most to him.

In addition, W. is intensly loyal to his father. The conservative pundits have been praising W. but lambasting his father. They made the mistake of thinking that Bush wouldn't mind people critisizing daddy. I was wondering when the chickens were going to come home to roost.

Bush sucked up to the conservatives to get reelected (and not make the same mistake his father made). He followed Rove's strategy of appealing to the base to win, and all his recent decisions about family planning etc. have been all about courting the base.

But when it came to the big issue, Roe v. Wade, upon reflection, W was never going to let it be overturned. His wife is pro-choice, his mother is pro-choice and his father changed to being pro-life when he was vice president to a pro-life president (how sincere do you think that was). The problem with ideologues (like Religious believers) is that they are so sure in their convictions that it doesn't occur to them that someone could fake it. They are convinced once someone really understands their arguments they have to take their side. W. understand's their arguments so it does not occure to them that he is faking it.

When W. was faced with spending the rest of his life being hated by the Ann Coulters and Pat Robertsons of the world, or by the people closest to him, I don't think there was ever any doubt which way he would go on these Supreme Court Nominees.

I often disagree with you, but I think this is insightful. I voted for Bush in 2000 under the belief that he'd be a good fiscal conservative and social moderate. Looks like he was just waiting till he knew he could get away with it to dump the Jesus Freaks. It only took him 5 years to finally show a glimmer of what I expected him to be back in 2001.

But what the fuck happened with the spending? I never voted for that back in 2000. He's all but paved the White House Driveway in platinum. I don't get where that came from... I guess it was initially pump priming, but the drug entitlement? The Homeland Security dept? Iraq?

I'm glad for George that he remembered his roots. I'm just sad I wasn't one of his friends who made bucckets of money on his coattails, because I'm sure going to need a lot when the next Dem president invoices me my share of the bill for 2000-2008 and gives the farm back to the "entitlement" crowd.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm all for putting lawyers and accountants out of business. I agree with you in principle, but I'm sick of hearing the GOP's battle call re the estate tax because its dishonest. The tax rarely, if ever, hurts anyone. If you've got a few million estate and you haven't consulted a lawyer, you're a fool for a lot more reasons than the estate tax liabilty you might be courting.

In the real world I agree with the last sentence, but I stand on my belief that the government should not be in the business of incentivizing spending/saving/investment/estate planning decisions via the tax code. I see it purely as marxist distortion. And keep in mind, my one big deduction is my mortgage and I am against the mortgage interest deduction. The government should not be incentivizing home ownership at the expense of the rental market. If it stopped, more people might ascertain that renting was moire advantageous and then sink the money from the down payment/equity into other investments that could provide greater benefits to society as a whole.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
who will be tagged unqualified by the ABA and get Borked in Committee ...

Wait, she had a pivotal role in the largest scandal ever to rock the executive branch, ensuring not only that any nomination of her is never going to succeed, but also creating an entirely unnecessary pretense and drawn out political battle for all judicial nominations going forward, thereby tarnishing not just one branch of govenment, as she had done 15 years prior, but actually getting the trifecta?

Or do you mean something else by being "Borked"?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was just saying that there is a long history of nominating people to the bench who have no judicial experience. The Warren court came up with my most hated precedent "the exclusionary rule".

And there was a long history of disenfranchising women and blacks, that doesn't mean its a good thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was with you until that paragraph. I think Bush, like every R, has a hard-on for Annie and would do anything to get between her matchstick legs.

Matchsticks indeed. As dry and brittle as what's between them.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not a member of the religious right, but his professions of faith and born again schtick seemed fairly convincing to me. Assuming you are correct and I give your insight the highest deference based on your personal endeavours in this area, all I can say is that if this is true then this is my worst fear going back to 2000 and then my break is complete. I couldn't stand his dad when he was Reagan's VP, begrudgingly supported him in 88 after Dole went down and stopped supporting him after the tax increase. I can't think of a worse President in the last 75 years except for LBJ. Bush seemed more genuine and less of a political phoney than his dad. Even in critical pieces in the NYTimes et al. this seemed to be true. But if the above is correct, this is truly a sad epiphany for me.

I may vote dimwit next time in protest.

W. worships his father. He worked in the 88 campaign and the 92 campaign and in both he was intensly loyal and protective. Any criticism of his father angered him immensely. They have the same friends, run in the same circles (went to all the same schools both were pilots) and don't understand why so many conservative thought the apple had moved so far from the tree. Especially, when it was obvious the mistakes his father made and that W. was learning from those mistakes.

I always had the inkling that W. was more moderate than me. He clearly is not as fiscally conservative as I am, and as Al Franken pointed out, his knowledge of the bible is limited. Usually the thumpers know their bible.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was with you until that paragraph. I think Bush, like every R, has a hard-on for Annie and would do anything to get between her matchstick legs.

You doth protest too much, I bet you take a roll with her, or at least a BJ, for nothing else if not irony's sake.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Clever. A seeming concession. However, Sen. Specter is a "liberal Republican."

So, you are in fact blaming it on the liberals. Well played, sir!

S_A_M

thanks.