Say Anything Blog

How can the Christian Right, who, during the Roberts confirmation process, argued that the President has a right to nominate who he wants to, now pull a 180 and try to stop her confirmation?

There’s two problems with that:

1) The opposition to Miers hasn’t come from any specific faction within the “right.” A lot of the opposition that I’ve noticed has come from people like me who are among the more libertarian minded people on the right.

2) The president does have a right to nominate who he wants.  And the Senate has a right to reject or deny that nominee.  The problem (and it didn’t really have much to do with the Roberts nomination) was that the Democrats weren’t even letting the nominations come to a vote.  Clearly, that’s a problem.

What’s really amazing is that, for an adminstration that is nothing if not politically savvy, this is a colossal blunder, as it puts other members of the party in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.

I think you’re right, minus the Christian stuff (you’re really hung up on religion aren’t you...).  This was a collasal blunder.  The right’s base expected somebody better than Miers, which puts the Senate Republicans in a tough spot.

Personally, I think it would be best if the President withdrew the Miers nomination and picked somebody else.  He’s already taken the hit so it won’t matter much to him and it takes pressure off the Senate Republicans.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The only reason he mentioned it is to try to appease the Christian right.  Of course, it only further tarnishes his judgement for the rest of us who think that religion should be a solely personal matter.  Seems that he can’t get out of his own way on this one.

It’s also interesting that he brought it up, though, since she essentially converted from Catholicism 30 years ago or so, but he’s claiming that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person she is now.  So, here’s a person who has changed something as fundamental to their character as religion, but she’ll never change from this point on? 

The whole thing will be very interesting to watch.  How can the Christian Right, who, during the Roberts confirmation process, argued that the President has a right to nominate who he wants to, now pull a 180 and try to stop her confirmation?  What will the full Senate vote look like?  Will the Santorums and Brownbacks, who have relied so heavily on the Christian Right to get elected, vote against Miers to appease their base?  If they vote to confirm, they lose that support; if they vote against confirmation, the Dems can use it to their advantage ("He didn’t support the President in his choice, he didn’t keep his promise, etc.").  What’s really amazing is that, for an adminstration that is nothing if not politically savvy, this is a colossal blunder, as it puts other members of the party in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.

Regarding the post, Bush didn’t say that he would only nominate a Christian, so there is no test.  He was simply pointing out one of the most telling parts of her character.  When you say she is a “fundamentalist Christian”, you can get a pretty good idea of that person’s worldview, generally speaking.

Mr. Lead~

How can the Christian Right, who, during the Roberts confirmation process, argued that the President has a right to nominate who he wants to, now pull a 180 and try to stop her confirmation?

Generally speaking, I’ve seemed to notice that the “Christian Right” has been far more supportive of Ms. Miers than other factions within the GOP.

What will the full Senate vote look like?

I think she will, in the end, be overwhelmingly voted for.  I am making the prediction right now that if there is any significant “no” block in the Senate, it will be Democrats and hardly any Republicans.

This was a collasal blunder.

Agreed.

Bush also gave other reasons for choosing Miers, including her consistent rating as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States

The top 50?

Does anyone else get the impression that she was number 50? You know, kind of like the way I was one of the top 25 players on my high school baseball team.....

Really fun, funny and interesting to see these wack job right wingers back peddle. (a la “focus on the family” nut). Let me quote the Rhodes Scholar Harriet- “you are so cool Mr. President...” GAG, even Repukes can’t go for this. Busy and his cronies are anti-intellectual no matter what party they come from. This is an atrocity. Can you lower the bench any farther. Nominate a ham and cheese sandwich for an important cabinet level position...Are you seeking the Rapture or what? Let me tell you God isnt talking to Bush these days. (maybe its the booze)

Seems to me that we just had another fundamental christian call for the death of another countries leader. Things like this really scare me when I hear the words fundamental christian. OTOH it might be interesting to see her get in there and lay waste.

After spitting up on the keyboard you’re calling other people ‘anti-intellectual’. 

‘maybe its the booze’ or in your case just stupidity.

Frankly I did not hear a lot about him before Pat.

fundamental Christian call for the death of another countries leader.

A good sword rattle accomplishes a great deal.  Ever since Pat the hitman Robertson mumbled something Godfatheresce about Chavez and his favorite horse’s head we haven’t heard much from the nutcase department of Venezuela, HAVE WE?

Go Pat Go.

Now if we could just get Pat to make Osama an offer he can’t refuse.............

THE NEWS, it’s in the NEWS

Google back in time before Pat’s threats and see what you find.  Chavez deserves the deep 6.  Sooner is good.

The constituton say that there shall be no religious test or requirement for office.  There is nothing barring the President from appointing a religious person to an office - if the senate say that because she is a christian say can’t hold the office, that would be unconstitutional. 

Mier is loyal to the president and his principle.  I don’t think she have a public records of rolling back the mistake of Roosevelt, Johnson and all the other nanny state democrat legacy to be a sure thing as a conservative judge.  She is loyal to Bush, and Bush goal is to roll back the abuse of the liberal court --therefore by inference, unless proven otherwise she should be supported by Republican and Conservative(the Democrat and their people can go to hell).  My only misgiving about her, and by extension Bush is the false and unreasonable need to comprimise.  We could have the battle of the century and define the limit of the court with a nominee that stand clearly and unabashly for the conservative principle, but the need to compromise and make nice by the republicans in the senate make that unlikely.  Stop compromising with our enemies in congress.

Most of that Liberal court was appointed by the Republican party.

What is ultimately more creepy is the relationship (via the cards, and notes) exchanged between Bush and his office wife Harriet. How old are these people? Cutsie boopsie lovey muffin, you are the best? Is this the crap that all of those in the inner playpen ( I mean circle) relate to the President of the no so free world????No wonder he is an idiot. This has really got to bother actual legal scholars the most. Imagine working all your life to protect the constitution and having this kind of woman (or man) nominated to the Supreme Court!!!So will we get opinions coming from the high court for capitol punishment with hearts and unicorns on the stationary? This is a woman stuck in an adolescent relationship with an adolescent president. Too dysfunctional for treatment.

My only misgiving about her, and by extension Bush is the false and unreasonable need to comprimise. We could have the battle of the century and define the limit of the court with a nominee that stand clearly and unabashly for the conservative principle,

So much for “no activist judges”, huh?

Fanatical right wingers are no different from Osama Bin Laden-with no seperation of church and state we ARE IRAN. Get it.

Yes, Dave, the fanatical Christians here in America are nothing like fanatical Muslims.  The violence and rhetoric of over-the-top religious people in America is nothing like those freedom-hating Islamofascists. [/sarcasm]

PS: Linking to stories about Phelps (even good ones like the one Rob posted) makes me feel like Tom DeLay’s campaign finance manager… dirty, dirty, dirty.

Hmmmm, that’s getting to be tough-so we just fought a war for what? WMD, no that would be a lie, for human rights, No, thats a lie since Iraq is much worse off today than before the war, Terrorism? No the world is much worse off today and MUCH less safe that before Bushes debacle. I guess I can’t guess which one, Oh, yeah, its the one where they force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term so that they can treat them like sh-t. Unwanted babies dont turn out well, no big duh. That would be right here in the U.S. of A.

Fanatical right wingers are no different from Osama Bin Laden-with no seperation of church and state we ARE IRAN.

No. The fanatical right wingers in America are Christian; the fanatical right wingers in Iran are Islamic. In only one of those religions are women burned alive for showing too much forehead.

Can you guess which one?

Good, this is, after all, “Say Anything” and I think it is time for progressives to actually say what they think instead of constantly pandering to the Moderates. (isnt that “flip flopping"), I am sick of going to meetings to try to figure out what “they” want and what they are thinking. Predicting what a Republican is thinking is a trip to mental illness land. We still can’t get into Dubyas brain enough to actually figure out why we are in Iraq. Even Republicans dont know, yet we seem eager (?) to send young people to die there. I am sick of propaganda. What is amazing is that the right wing has nothing but slogans and one liners that STICK with no substance. They should be called what they are -facists.

Hmmmm, that’s getting to be tough-so we just fought a war for what?

Boy are you going to get it.

Good, this is, after all, “Say Anything” and I think it is time for progressives to actually say what they think

Go ahead we need the laughs.

who didn’t have the opportunity to live in Iraq under Saddam to experience how much better off they would have been, if they didn’t end up in a death pit or going thru a shredder.

So, ICall, if Iraq is so wonderful today, why don’t you volunteer to go over there?  Or your kids, or nephews, or whatever.  Hell, if you’ve already served in the military, sign up again!  The country needs your experience!  If the war on Iraq made it such a better place, you should be out encouraging all able-bodied and willing heterosexual under-42-years-old war-supporters to sign up.

’is a trip to mental illness land.’

A one way trip in your case.

‘They should be called what they are -facists. ‘

WTF is a facist? Someone with a face? Someone who believes in faces? Someone who makes faces?

Oh - someone who disagrees with your idiocy about right wingers = OBL? Someone who disagrees that we live in a theocracy and acknowledges that we live in a multifaith nation with constitutional protection for all religions? It’s really a shame that people who want to label others in this country fascists can’t have the opportunity to live in say NK, China or Cuba and see how dissidency is respected there or who didn’t have the opportunity to live in Iraq under Saddam to experience how much better off they would have been, if they didn’t end up in a death pit or going thru a shredder.

’So, ICall, if Iraq is so wonderful today,’

Who said it was and WTF does that have to do with this idiot not knowing what fascism is? I don’t think anyone should call this country fascist without experiencing life in a fascist state.

I Call thanks for illustrating my point-about the trip to mental illness land and you are qualified that that account, and that account only, what a moron=not worth my spittle.

I Call wrote:

I don’t think anyone should call this country fascist without experiencing life in a fascist state.

I don’t think anyone should support the war in Iraq without fighting in there.

Can you spot the fallacies in our statements, ICALL?

This is the old argument that you can’t imagine or comment on conditions that you haven’t personally experienced?  You mean then that you have no right to say anything about children, abortion, family planning...(because you aren’t a mother)

I know the characteristics of a facism and have actually lost family members as the result of a facism. (WWII) The characteristics of a facism that we can readily observe today (which seems much like pre WWII Nazi Germany) are-the death of civil liberties, no free media-media is manipulated and controlled by the party in control ( a la “talking points” given to FOX every morning by Bush regime), Wars perpetrated on others as part of a lie (WMD), labeling others as “evil” (jews for Bush are the “Terrorists” or “Insurgents” or whatever group he identifies today) For example his first speech after Katrina must have come from the canned rhetoric department where he said “we have to fight...” People are ignorant, apathetic and don’t care when their personal liberty is taken away. (Patriot ACT and many others) The true Americans are paying attention as Bush kills our constitution and the intent of the founders by blurring the lines between church and state. He has accomplished so much more in five years than Stalin or Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. As a recent poll in Europe indicated, he is the most dangerous person alive because he capitalizes on the inherent weaknesses of human beings-greed, corruption, selfishness and hate. Much like Hitler who specifically warned of “terrorist” who would come and take over the land. Sound Familiar??

[...] The story doesn’t mention that the most vitriolic and negative criticism has come from the right-wing. The Democrats have, far as I can tell, mostly wanted information. The criticism of John Roberts was mostly that nobody could tell what kind of judge he would be - he evaded questions and the White House refused to release thousands of documents directly related to Robert’s law career.The only other criticism is that Miers is a crony appointment. That’s legitimate, as far as I’m concerned, considering how Michael Brown did at FEMA and how Steve Johnson of the EPA has turned that government agency into a hollow industry-led shell, to give a couple examples. If Miers does as well as other Bush appointees, the Supreme Court is in for some dark days.There are other questions concerning Miers as well, such as James Dobson, a right-wing evangelical who enjoys playing power politics in the name of the Lord, claiming to have insider knowledge about how she’ll rule on certain issues, or her connections to PlameGate and even the infamous “Terrorists Determined to Strike Inside US” memo - she literally handed it to Bush.Of course, on the right-wing side, the usual rhetoric is present, but directed at a fellow Republican.Ann Coulter:Coulter, not too happy with the Bush choice, admitted that the GOP lie to liberals which surprises nobody. After saying “They’re treating us like liberals lying to us” she followed with “When they lie to Conservatives, we have a problem."John Fundresident Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a “superstealth” nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.For local flavor, we have Rob from SayAnything:If the President is so desperate for nice things to say about his nomination for the Supreme Court that he’s stooping to irrelevant comments about her faith perhaps its time to admit that a mistake has been made and move to correct it.Personally, I believe Harriet Miers will be one of those dirty, low-down activist judges, legislating from the bench - but since she’ll be ruling the way James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat “Kill Chavez” Robertson want, it will be a classic case of IOKIYAR. [...]