Mickey

I am not taking either to task for having a litmus test, I am just tired of the right pretending that they don't. Clearly they do. What part of Roe is bad law and why? How do you feel the constitution should be interpreted?

Here is a link to the actual indictment against Libby which contains 5 counts, two for perjury, two for false statements and one for obstruction. Libby Indictment Essentially, it looks to me like it will be Cooper and Russert vs. Libby. Libby testified that he told them that he didn't know himself about Wilson's wife that he had just heard that from other reporters. He also testified that Russert asked him about Wilson, told him she worked at the CIA and that all reporters knew that. The problem for Libby is that Cooper and Russert testified and their recollections are totally different. Cooper said that Libby told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA without any qualification. None of that crap about hearing it from other reporters. Russert testified that they didn't talk about Wilson's wife at all. Not a word. Soooo, if a jury believes Russert and/or Cooper, Libby could be in trouble. The indictment mentions "Official A" as the person who spoke to Novak about Wilson's wife, I wonder who the heck that is? Also, who was the Under Secretary of State in June 2003? The anatomy of how you start a smear campaign when some of your info might be classifed is illustrated here quite nicely. You leak it to just a trusted few and when another reporter calls you to ask about it looking for confirmation, you say something like "...that is what we are hearing..." From that point on, as you starte getting all sorts of calls from reporters, you can tell them all that you are hearing this info from other reporters. Then you just watch the snowball roll down hill.

Alas, all such parties eventually suffer the same fate as the now legendary IBP. The only thing we agree on is that we don't agree with the platforms of either major party. We failed to reach consensus as to any other issue however, in fairness, we were poorly led. A party can only handle so many scandals involving farm aminals at a time.

Totally disagree. Religious conservatives want a justice who can be relied upon to overturn Roe. That is why they went after Specter and freaked out over Gonzalez and Miers. If your point is that religious conservatives are not driving the bus for the Republican party, again, I disagree and the fate of the Miers nomination confirms that.

Maybe she would have, maybe not. I have no idea. I am sure though that religious conservatives will not, if they can help it, permit a Justice to be confirmed who they have any serious doubts over when it comes to Roe. No way. And that is a litmus test. Both sides are pretending otherwise but that is the bottom line. They have to play it that way but we don't have to play along.

I made no claims other than that Bush's poll numbers stink, bad enough to at least question the idea that his VP would be running from a position of "national power". You said I made them up, I gave you the references. There are lots of polls saying lots of things. I was not seeking to begin a lengthy discussion of the "whole story" of this administration. On the whole, his number are lousier than they have been in a long, long time. I'm not going to debate claims I haven't made, I have enough to do with the ones I have made.

I didn't mean his approval rating which is why I used the generic reference to "poll numbers" and no, I didn't make them up: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 6-10, 2005. N=1,500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). "In the long run, do you think George W. Bush will be a successful or unsuccessful president, or do you think it is too early to tell?" Successful: 26% (10/5) "All in all, what effect has George W. Bush had on politics and the way government works in Washington? Has he made things better, made things worse, or hasn't he had much of an effect?" Form 2 (N=742 adults, MoE ± 4) Made Better: 21% (10/5) For a second term incumbent, those numbers are lousy.

The right would have swiftboated whoever they ran until that candidate was just as bad as Kerry. It might have been harder with others but the result would likely have been the same. The thing that got me about Kerry is that every once in awhile he would say something so politically stupid that I couldn't help but scratch my head and wonder. Kind of like Hillary and the "baking cookies" comment she made so long ago. Apart from right or left, democrat or republican, just from the standpoint of strategy, you just can't say stuff like that.

...and this from Dobson himself: "I believe the president has made a wise decision in accepting Harriet Miers' withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court. In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes, and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders. When the president announced this nominee, I expressed my tentative support, based on what I was able to discover about her. But I also said I would await the hearings to learn more about her judicial philosophy. Based on what we now know about Miss Miers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy. Thankfully, that difficult evaluation is no longer necessary." No litmus test? Suuurrre.

Fig leaf. Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece last week suggesting using executive p. as a face saving exit strategy for the Miers nomination and the administration clearly followed the advice. First Arlen Specter was castrated in the town square by religious conservatives, then Gonzalez and now Miers and even the President.

Do I really have to troll through all the conservative web sites calling into question the nomination precisely because she might not overturn Roe? Really, these conservatives make no bones about it, they want a nominee who will overturn Roe, it is the sine qua non of judicial nominations with them ala "Justice Sunday". How you can pretend that they have no litmus test is beyond reason. The storm erupted immediately over her nomination with conservatives because she had no established record that would assure them of what she would do on Roe. In response, the administration tried to assure religious conservatives that she would dump Roe which is why we heard all that stuff about her being an evangelical. That didn't come out right away, it came out after the reaction from the right. Some were eventually convinced by this, like Dobson, but some were not. Then we started getting all these revelations about how she took this or that moderate position on abortion or someother issue and lo and behold, her nomination sunk with religious conservatives. Here is a typical example, From Right Faith: President Bush has not pandered to the wishes of his conservative base and the result has been the erosion of his staunchest supporters. While the centrists have been dissatisfied for several months with his performance in Iraq and plan for Social Security, traditional conservatives stood by the President and trusted him. With moderate support eroding for several months, conservatives stood with the President...until now. The nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court has stressed the loyalty of conservatives to the President. No longer convinced that he has their values in mind, conservatives are leary about supporting this nomination. Consider the result. Regardless of whether you support Miers or not, let's not miss the lesson. In 2008, centrists will emerge to capture the Republican nomination for President. If, like the Miers appointment, Republicans nominate a candidate without a clear conservative record, conservatives will stay home. In like manner to this appointment, the network of traditional conservative leaders that has opposed this nomination will oppose in a vigorous manner a centrist Presidential nomination. Conservative commentators that have come out against Meirs will come out in like manner toward a nominee without conservative credentials. Grassroot support for the agenda of moderate nominee will wither if the support of traditional values is not secure. When nominees ran for president without the support of traditional 'values-voters', they lost. 1992 and 1996 were mandates, not for Clinton, but for the conservative voters who felt abandoned by the Republican Party. Republican leaders must heed the lessons of the Miers nomination or their nominee will suffer the same fate." Not much there complaining about her qualifications but plenty of criticism for the President because he didn't pander to his base and for offering up a nominee with no "clear conservative record", ie, someone with a long record of wanting to overturn Roe. These conservatives and many others who opposed this nomination did so for the same reasons. They wanted him to pander, to litmus test and he didn't. This, from Right Wing News even before the nomination: "...(I)f anything, the base is looking for a sure thing this time around and the level of discontent on the right will certainly rise if they don't get it....Up to this point in his 2nd term, for whatever reason, George Bush's political instincts seem to have largely failed him. But, this is one area where Bush cannot afford to make a mistake. Nominating Alberto Gonzales or for that matter any of the other nominees with questionable conservative credentials -- like Edith Brown Clement, Larry Thompson, J. Harvie Wilkinson, or Harriet Miers -- would be a calamitous error." Let me ask, if there is no right side litmus test and all that is of concern are qualifications, why did religious conservatives publicly castrate Arlen Specter when he expressed the slightest degree of independence and go into a national seizure over even the smallest chance that Gonzalez might be nominated? "questionable conservative credentials" Hmmmm...I suppose you think they are talking about their scores on the LSAT's and not Roe?

I think he nominated her because Laura told him it would be a long time before he ever had his pebble nozzled again if he didn't. That plus he likes getting his butt kissed and surrounding himself with sycophants like Karen Hughes. She is no more qualified to improve our image in the Arab world than Miers was for the Supreme Court. Both however are Texas buds of the Prez going way back. Remember what he said when the right went after Gonzalez? Something along the lines of "I don't like it when people pick on my friends" or words to that effect. Then he goes and nominates Miers. Not surprising is it? The question is whether he has the stones to flip the bird at the faaaaar right again by nominating another friend. Gonzalez himself maybe. I don't think he does. Here is an interesting thought: The next person he nominates will be what must have been his third choice, a person he decided to pass over not once but twice.

Qualifications? I think that if they knew for sure that the nominee would overturn Roe, religious conservatives would back the nomination of an ear of corn. I think the Miers nomination, its ultimate fate and the confirmation of Thomas pretty much demonstrates the point quite nicely.

"...position of national power..." Yes, the awesome power of being a VP to a President with poll numbers hovering somewhere in the high twenties, victory would be assured.....for the other side.

Well, since Miers didn't pass the litmus test of religious conservatives, I imagine he will find someone who will. When the democrats threaten a filibuster, I am sure those same conservatives will then excoriate the democrats for imposing their own litmust test. Two monkeys fighting over the same piece of s..t. Gee, I can't wait.

The practice is actually illegal in most red states. Free the Pebble Nozzlers!

Why so grouchy? Just having fun with that "weapons elimenation" phrase. Now you're throwing Hillary at me? Low blow dude. Nozzle that pebble or I'll nozzle it for you.

Actually, we are missing Pat and Takeo. Adams is another year older. Our schedule is tougher. Add all that up and it isn't hard to see why this defense is struggling so much. We had a weak pass rush last year which we made up for by bringing lots and lots of blitzes, even bringing DB's in on a regular basis. We got away with it against SF, Miami and Cleveland. That Pitt. game at the end of the season really laid bare the vulnerability of this defense. The teams that can pick up blitzes fairly well have killed us, those who can't have struggled with our defense. Since we can't play SF every week this year, we need better defensive personnel. This isn't an anomaly anymore, this is our defense.

Well that narrows it down to something between pulling the dull knives from the kitchen drawer to targeting missile silos from Mars. I'm thinking the truth is closer to the silo thing than the knife thing but I'm bufala so what do I know?

You need incredibly precisely machined aluminum tubes if you really want to nozzle the pebble right.

I think its something she did with the House White Woman. Perhaps it is zitto or maybe even a bit bufala. Maybe they mean that she has been a shill for Rove and Libby, rather than "stroking their stones" she nozzled their pebbles?

Okay, okay, don't get your rooster up. Chickens need their sleep.

Bib, I am going to PM you with a phone number I want you to call. There are people there, nice people. People that want to help.

In the Grand Tradition of SUW: I tried to use IE's translation function to read an ariticle in La Repubblica, an Italian news magazine all about the Yellowcake Caper. The translations are terrible but funny: "Why the director of our intelligence agency meets a political authority of the House White woman?" "This Hadley is not man from third row, to the House White woman. Today he is the councilman for the National Emergency." "Legitimate to ask itself that what knows Pollari, the 9 september of 2002, of the uranio nigerino. As same it admits, he knows all." "To say to the vice ones of the Rice that, for the House White woman, is better to leave to fall that history of the uranio, because it is a bufala, because those two, Martino and Nucera, are two impostori." "Even with a shrewed one Hush." "The day after, Pollari is seated of forehead to Hadley. Which thing tells to it? Pollari is zitto." "The judgment is sonorous as one gunshot." "8 september 2002, Judith Miller nozzle the pebble."

You must have just fallen off the turnip lorry.