Ding Dong, the bitch is dead
Okay, so that's an overstatement. I never had any personal animus toward Miers, and I am sure that she is a bright lady who is kind to strangers and small woodland creatures. But I am provisionally glad that she is no longer in the race for a seat at the big kid's table. Provisionally, because I am deeply afeared that Bush, being the stubborn guy he is, will nominate Gonzales just as a personal dry-pop to the uppity conservatives who dissed his first choice. If Bush does the sensible and right thing, he will appoint someone from the long list of highly qualified and respected conservative jurists everyone thought he'd dip into the first time 'round.
What cracked me up was this quote:
Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."
Oh really? First off, it's truly ridiculous to refer to a wing of a conservative party as "radical." Second, the reason Bush picked this chick in the first place was that he thought she'd do exactly everything the Democrats are most afraid a Republican nominee would do on the court. Like overturn Roe v Wade or immantize the eschaton.
It looks like the White House is using Krauthammer's strategy for face saving, claiming that the Senate's desire for at least some documentation on Miers conflicted with executive privilege. Well and good, but we all know why she's ducking out the back door. Let us hope that the next pick will not be Gonzales or Larry Thompson, or we'll go through this mess all over again, and probably worse.
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Worse, if it's Alberto the
Worse, if it's Alberto the Gun Grabber (shudder).
Wait a minute . . . it's
Wait a minute . . . it's suddenly a matter of controversy to refer to a "radical wing of the Republican Party?" Since when?
Here is the current Republican candidate for governor in Maryland, just a year ago:
"What do I want to do [to bring these people back to the GOP]? I want to bring out the essential radicalism of our party. I want to bring back the radical side of Republicanism. Think about what our party is and the role it’s played. Freeing the slaves was a radical act. The XIII, XIV and XV Amendments were radical acts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Republicans made the difference passing, was a radical act. Today, I’m looking forward to being radical again. People believe and trust in these ideas."
Or, to take another tack, since when is the Dobson wing of the party not "radical" by any reasonable definition of the term?
Phil:
Phil:
I think, particularly relative to the Dobson reference, that you're confusing "radical" with "asshole".
But your point's valid. When the left refers to "radicals" on the right, they really mean extremists. And assholes like Dobson who don't speak for me, even when they might claim to.