post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9874588/ There is of course, nothing more Bushian to do once your own party rejects your woman nominee for the seat than to nominate a nerd with wholesome conservative values. MSNBC had a headline running today with the phrase "Supreme Pick". Seems to me they forgot an "r". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 There is of course, nothing more Bushian to do once your own party rejects your woman nominee for the seat than to nominate a nerd with wholesome conservative values. What exactly is that supposed to mean? It's Bush's fault that he tried to nominate a woman and it didn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Who the hell did you think he should nominate...tell us. Thanks for this post....youve managed to make ME look smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 What exactly is that supposed to mean? It's Bush's fault that he tried to nominate a woman and it didn't work? 491746[/snapback] It means there is nothing more typical of the Bush presidency and philosophy than to run your enitre election campaign blasting Kerry for being a flip-flopper, going out on a limb with a nomination, and then tucking his tail between his legs and going back to his teat when it fails. What happened to making progress? Staying the course? Etc, etc., etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 What exactly is that supposed to mean? It's Bush's fault that he tried to nominate a woman and it didn't work? 491746[/snapback] Or that a Republican nominated a Conservative. What the hell is THAT about. What an "idiot" Bush is! How "Bushian" can you get! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Who the hell did you think he should nominate...tell us. Thanks for this post....youve managed to make ME look smart. 491751[/snapback] No, I don't think I have actually. I don't think it's a valid arguement to imply that there was no one else in America qualified for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 It means there is nothing more typical of the Bush presidency and philosophy than to run your enitre election campaign blasting Kerry for being a flip-flopper, going out on a limb with a nomination, and then tucking his tail between his legs and going back to his teat when it fails. What happened to making progress? Staying the course? Etc, etc., etc? 491752[/snapback] Wow. Tom...Da...BiB.....someone want to take this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Or that a Republican nominated a Conservative. What the hell is THAT about. What an "idiot" Bush is! How "Bushian" can you get! 491753[/snapback] That's quite Bushian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Wow. Tom...Da...BiB.....someone want to take this? 491757[/snapback] Why don't you take a stab at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Wow. Tom...Da...BiB.....someone want to take this? 491757[/snapback] I suppose we'd have to begin about educating you on the difference between Republicans and Conservatives, as well as the difference between extreme social conservatism and moderate social conservatism. Of course you implied yourself that you're not that smart. So, hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 It means there is nothing more typical of the Bush presidency and philosophy than to run your enitre election campaign blasting Kerry for being a flip-flopper, going out on a limb with a nomination, and then tucking his tail between his legs and going back to his teat when it fails. What happened to making progress? Staying the course? Etc, etc., etc? 491752[/snapback] Oh wait...I get it! Your panties are in a wad because Bush didn't nominate another woman? Is that what 'staying the course' would require? Or maybe he just thought Alito would be a good Justice. Is there really nothing else you can hang your little BUSH BAD! hat on this morning? Are you really still this bitter over the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I suppose we'd have to begin about educating you on the difference between Republicans and Conservatives, as well as the difference between extreme social conservatism and moderate social conservatism. Of course you implied yourself that you're not that smart. So, hey. 491765[/snapback] Who should he have nomiated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Oh wait...I get it! Your panties are in a wad because Bush didn't nominate another woman? Is that what 'staying the course' would require? Or maybe he just thought Alito would be a good Justice. Is there really nothing else you can hang your little BUSH BAD! hat on this morning? Are you really still this bitter over the election? 491776[/snapback] I could not care less whether or not he nominated another woman, that is just a ironic little diddy. I'm sure that he had wholesome, honest and pure intentions in nominating Alito today. "Well, Dicky, I just thought he'd be a good justice," I'm sure he explained. I'm not a democrat. I'm not a liberal. I'm not anti-Republican. Here is what I am: Something with enough sense to understand that all this nomination was brought about when it was brought about, with who it was brought about, to take away attention from the CIA investigation that has consumed the media. Perhaps that's intelligent strategy by the Bush administration but it's also playing cadence on the future of the Supreme juidicial system of our nation. 'Staying the course' is a ridiculous and absurd idea. The fact that George W. Bush jusitifes Harriet Mier's nomination by saying he believes that she would believe in 20 years what she does today; treating that as a positive characteristic is !@#$ing unbelievable. If we are to determine that we would want our Judges to have the same frame of mind 20 years from now as in today than I might as well leave, because I don't love this country that much to watch it flush itself down the toilet. We are a nation of daily changes; daily changes whose base conservative value is "Stay the Course!! Stay the Course!! Stay the Course!!!" There was a similar result in this in the bloody Dark Ages. Do I think Bush is a bad president? Yes. Do I thin Bush is a bad president because I am angered by the fact that he does not follow a liberal agenda? No. I am with 60+% of the nation in believing that he is a bad president, and why? Because he's doing an awful job, and this is an awful selection, used to curb attention and to appease his profiteers. If Bush is that concerned in pleasing his stockholders, and treating America as though it is simply big business, then again, I have no regrets in saying that, this path continued, I will leave, and should. Because if this is the future of America, it's no place for people who don't wish to use circle-logic as the basis of their entire political philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Who should he have nomiated? 491785[/snapback] I would have much preferred the decision wait a few weeks while another John Roberts-esque nominee could have been found. And if you are to argue that John Roberts was the only worthy man in America of his kind left, then we have another considerable problem on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Here is what I am: Something with enough sense to understand that all this nomination was brought about when it was brought about, with who it was brought about, to take away attention from the CIA investigation that has consumed the media. Perhaps that's intelligent strategy by the Bush administration but it's also playing cadence on the future of the Supreme juidicial system of our nation. 491792[/snapback] So, he didn't nominate this person because there is an actual vacancy on the court. He did it to con the public and distract the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 So, he didn't nominate this person because there is an actual vacancy on the court. He did it to con the public and distract the media? 491797[/snapback] He took advantage of the opportunity to fill the vacancy quickly, by putting something on the public agenda that would distract attention from the CIA-Leak situation. That isn't that hard to understand, even if you disagree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Further to KRC's question, the fact that Bush used a process to decide whom to nominate not of your liking, it is "bad"? Double A common skill in managment is the ability to seperate your opinion of how you would choose to complete tasks when judging the final outcome of tasks you give others. You seem wrapped up not so much in the pick, but how it came to be...and because it wasnt done in a fashion YOU would have chosen, that automatically makes it "bad" in your mind. Thats dangerous ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 What I don't get is, Bush is in office, he was elected with a majority of the vote (first time in 4 presidential elections BTW). Who cares what people think now, he is done with public office and can do as he wants for the next 3 years. We elected him, hoping that he does what we the people wan. Me, I was unhappy with the Meiers nomination, because she was an unknown. I like the new one, as he is a Scalia conservative. This is why Bush got elected, not to give in to the whiney little bitches like you who have no moral fiber and don't want to have any of the constitutional requirements apply to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 He took advantage of the opportunity to fill the vacancy quickly, by putting something on the public agenda that would distract attention from the CIA-Leak situation. That isn't that hard to understand, even if you disagree with it. 491804[/snapback] Who cares, at least he isn't bombing foreign countries to take the medias attention off from sticking cigars up a fat interns ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Dangerous ground or not, that is entirely subjective, and really irrelevant. Whether or not Bush actually took advantage of a situation to curb negative media attention from the top of his administration is subjective and debatable. But if you want to argue with me on the ethics of doing something like that, I'll go to battle with you all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts