Once again, who did you guys think Bush was going to pick for SCOTUS?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I can't believe we have to play this game again, but here we go...

For all your collective hand wringing about the fact that Harry Reid urged Bush to pick Miers, please, answer the simple question:

Who did you really think Bush was going to nominate? Was there ANYONE that you could've reasonably expected him to pick that you would've loved? Did you really think he might pick Howard Dean for Chief Justice?

Here, let me answer that one for you, because it's a rhetorical question: OF FUCKING COURSE NOT!

So why would Harry Reid urge for Miers? Because there's at least a chance that she's not the second coming of Antonin Scalia. If you're truly that pissed at Reid over this, ask yourselves how much you'd have loved to hear the words "Janice Rogers Brown (or Samuel Alito) confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice". Reid was at least part of making sure those words didn't happen. And if you don't think THAT is a good thing, you're fucking insane. Straight up - there is no other way to put that.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I actually had my money on Alberto Gonzales -- literally.

I lost $20 this morning.

Not that I think Gonzales would have been a good choice, of course. But as a gambling man, I liked the action.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I might've taken that bet.

I thought if it was going to be a known candidate, it'd probably have been him. But I had a feeling all along it'd be someone we'd barely heard of.

[SteppingRazor]

7. I had it at 5-1 odds...

So I could've pulled $100. It seemed like a good bet at the time. :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I don't blame you one bit with the odds!

5-1 ain't bad at all for that action!

[onenote]

15. gonzales has too much baggage at this point in time

chimpy and the repugs are taking a beating over the war, economy, hurricane fiasco, gas prices...they wanted to stop the bleeding by an appointment that, at least on its face, looks moderate compared to torture memo guy Gonzalex or crazy constitutional theory girl Brown. This was a purely political move. I'm sure in their heart of hearts they would've preferred someone younger than 58, someone with known views.

onenote

[I Have A Dream]

22. For most people, I would say that the "taking a beating" would...

influence their decision. However, B* is so arrogant that I never thought that he'd do anything other than what he wanted to do regardless of the consequences.

[I Have A Dream]

20. I agree. n/t

[tinfoilinfor2005]

60. Yes me too.

Remember last week when bush looked over at gonzalez and made some kind of a comment about the person who will be his next pick and they both grinned at each other. Gonzalez sort of hung his head like he was a little embarrassed? I was certain then that bush wouldn't have done that unless he was going to pick him...to do otherwise would just be kind of cruel. Of course I forgot who I was talking about.

[funflower]

170. I thought Gonzales was a good possibility at one point, but I think

the WH decided to blind-side the fundies by appointing someone with no record whatsoever who will be just as loyal to * as Alberto would have been. I also think he was under more pressure to appoint a woman than to appoint a person of color.

[Bluesplayer]

173. when the dems didn't like Gonzales,

it was because we didn't like Hispanics. That's so obviously *'s reason for not picking him.

[Jon8503]

2. A Poll I threw out her the other day.

Which one of these do you think Bush will nominate for the Supreme Court or an unknown?


Poll result (24 votes)
Priscilla Owen (3 votes, 13%) Vote
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (7 votes, 29%) Vote
Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson (2 votes, 8%) Vote
White House Counsel Harriet Miers (1 votes, 4%) Vote
US Court Of Appeals Fifth District Edith Jones (3 votes, 13%) Vote
Someone Else (8 votes, 33%) Vote

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Did people actually name a "someone else"?

[sam sarrha]

8. you should have put in the Janitor that cleans the Toilets in the White H

i hear he is pretty loyal, and could learn some english before being sworn in...

[onenote]

16. damn, I missed tha poll, but did predict it would be her

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1810042#1810063

[belle]

57. Luttig and Janice whosis Brown were in the running, too. On the whole,

this may well have been the least worst option. Which is not to say that it won't still suck royally. what can you do.

[Rowdyboy]

5. There's not a single name that was mentioned that would be any better

What's positive?

1. She's nearly 60. Hell, I might even outlive her. The next Dem president might even get to replace her. At least she's not 40ish.

2. Shes not Garza, Luttig, Rogers-Brown, Owen, Clement, Alito or any of the known nutcases I expected Dub to pick

and, most important

3. She splits the Republican base 7 ways from hell

They're furious. If they're angry, I'm inclined to be a little less aprehensive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. I agree.

Again, how in the world could anyone here expect us to be thrilled with a Bush nominee? How is this not the best we could've hoped for?

[belle]

58. Maybe Edith Clement Brown (not the wingnut Edith, the other Edith)

read like the closest thing to O'Connor on paper. still it's not like we were going to get another Thurgood Marshall here.

[Rowdyboy]

69. No one he could POSSIBLY have nominated would have pleased me

so I'm really not that upset. When you don't expect much, there's no reason to be disappointed when you get junk.

[Jon8503]

144. Agree Rowdy-N/T

[JoshDem]

6. The role of Reid

It seems to me that the role of Reid should be to marshall the troops to fight whoever it is that Bush nominates....not to bless the least objectionable.

This is a close crony of Bush and almost certainly will vote with Scalia over 90% of the time.

Supreme Court Justices are long lasting appts--it is disgraceful how many dems rolled over for nthe new Chief Justice--they should not do so again for Miers!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. That makes no sense.

When you fight something, you MUST have an answer to the question "Okay, well if you're so much against _______, what would YOU do?" And that's exactly what Reid was asked to do. He had to have an answer for that. Realize that Miers was on Reid's list of acceptable candidates before the choice was made. Realize he HAD to have a list.

[JoshDem]

48. Reids list should be dems--like Lawrence Tribe.

Sorry but I think Supreme Court appts are so important that Reid should not give in to a likely conservative vote on every major issue confronting the court. If Reid had her on his list he shouldn't of.

[davepc]

62. Uhm, hello...we're the minority party at the moment.

So next time there is a Democratic president, and Democratic majority in congress, and a SCOTUS seat opens up the Democratic president should pick a Republican?

Expecting a Republican administration who has a friendly Republican congress to pick a Democrat is just silly.

Fighting pointless battles that you lose time and time again is no way to govern. If you expect all or nothing then more often then not, nothing is what you wind up with.

A happy compromise is much more desirable. The fact that the right wing base HATES her, is more then enough evidence I need to know that Bush compromised -- was FORCED to compromise -- much more then he though he would of had to back in January.

He's a weak president, with a weak administration. Don't lose sight of the forest through the trees.

[MrBenchley]

85. That would be the Lawrence Tribe who argues FOR torture...

Good thing we wouldn't get a conservative voice with him (snicker)....

[MN ChimpH8R]

179. You are confusing Alan Dershowitz with Larry Tribe

Dersh has argued that in some instances torture might be permissible. Tribe has not AFAIK.

[belle]

59. Yeah. It's not like we could actually stall for another 3 years...

[theboss]

17. Then we are nothing more than obstructionists

The minority leader's job is not to try to stop everything that comes through. First of all, that's impossible. Secondly, it just lends credence to the argument that the Dems no longer have anything to offer.

If this pick is the least objectionable person Bush could have reasonably nominated, Reid did his job.

[maxsolomon]

9. someone with experience as a judge.

at 60, at least she won't serve past noelle's 2 terms.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Okay, name that someone.

And yes, you MUST have a name and it has to be someone Bush would actually nominate. Then you have to be able to tell me why they're better than Miers.

It's not that simple when you actually get down to business, is it?

[maxsolomon]

35. since i can't name a single judge at any level, you win

in no way do i expect anything progressive or surprising from the supreme court. i expect bush v. gore at every opportunity. i expect them to dodge michael newdow at any cost.

so miers is just about what i expected, but given that there must be dozens of female federal judges or state supreme court judges with years on the bench, one of them must be more qualified than her.

i just want my senators, Murray & Cantwell, both supposedly democrats, to vote like members of the opposition party.

[renie408]

38. What GOOD would that do?

Then he lets Miers go and tries Gonzales? Or Janice Rogers Brown?

Vash is right, sometimes the lesser of a multitude of evils is the best you can do. We are the MINORITY party, not just the OPPOSITION party. Reality has to come in here somewhere.

[MrBenchley]

47. SOME people wish there were headlines

saying "Democrats Oppose Woman for Supreme Court"...why, I have no fucking idea.

[Benhurst]

12. Some corrupt, dumb person, just like Miers. We've got to

face it, banana republics don't have good persons sitting on their highest judicial bodies.

Yes, we've got no bananas; but we're a banana republic if there ever was one.

And the Court will be sufficiently stuffed with Bush partisans and cronies to thwart any legal actions taken against the Bush Crime Family.

[belle]

63. I figured it'd be a conservative-leaning white woman with no track record,

and whaddya know, I was right.

[Inland]

18. More soft bigotry of low expectations for Bush.

take the senate to the wall on some true nutbags, so a person who MIGHT be a nutbag brings sighs of relief.

And when budgeting, demand ten trillion in tax cuts for the rich and settle for nine trillion.

Wrong is wrong is wrong. She's wrong, even if Bush could go more (obviously) wrong.

[depakid]

19. Spare me the apology for Reid

The man's a disgrace who's compiled the worst record of any minority leader since the post civil war period.

Under his leadership, the Dems have denied the far right NOTHING and if he continues in that position, the Dems are going to lose big in 2006, despite the Republican implosion.

And you know what, the way they've been acting (or not acting) lately- they'll deserve to).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Is that right?

Please, tell me something any Minority Leader in a government completely and totally run by the other party has accomplished. Since you think you have such a vast knowledge of the Senate post-civil war, you should be able to come up with quite a few good examples.

[depakid]

36. How about Bob Dole?

How short our memories are. 1993-95.

He threatened to filibuster the fairness doctrine and scuttled it. He scuttled two of Clinton's nominees AND he defeated the healthcare proposal.

He did more than that- but that's what I recall at the moment.

Did anyome call him an obstructionist? Well, if they did- it must have been a GOOD THING since the Republicans took over the Senate in the next term's elections!

That was with a 59 to 41 minority, by the way.

Harry Reid's a pretender at best- and the point man for a huge loss in 2006 if he stays in place and the Dems can't change their tune.

[ieoeja]

26. You mean "we", don't you?

"(T)he Dems are going to lose big in 2006, despite the Republican implosion.

"And you know what, the way they've been acting (or not acting) lately- they'll deserve to)."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Very telling.

Like I've been saying lately - half of these "Democrats can do no right" people aren't even Democrats at all.

[depakid]

37. We're progressives- that's why we're on DU

And we're NOT losers- unlike the DLC and the apologists for the stand for nothing crowd.

Try- traditional Democratic principles for a change- and see where those will get you.

A lot further than selling out every time, I'd guess- at least if the last 5 or six elections are any indication.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

21. Let's not forget that....

--Chimpy actually picking Miers as Reid urged demonstrates weakness on Chimpy's part (you can hear right wingers moaning already)...

--Chimpy actually picking Miers as Reid urged puts his wartime desertion in the news AGAIN (virtually the only notable thing she did in her career was help cover it up)...

--Chimpy actually picking Miers as Reid urged puts the focus on Chimpy selecting unqualified cronies for key position...

--Chimpy actually picking Miers as Reid urged makes it seem as if he's rushing the nearest stooge before the cameras to try and deflect attention from Plamegate.

It's appalling that some people here can seize upon this as yet another opportunity to bash Democrats.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. The problem is that a lot of these people aren't Democrats at all.

They're either Green or Socialist party loyalists, or out right Republicans. Some of these people won't be happy with ANYTHING the Democrats do. Some, mind you, not all by any means. The others are simply too rabid for their own good.

[MrBenchley]

25. You've hit the nail right on the head...

And that's why they're busy singling out people like Frank Lautenberg and Harry Reid to bash...

[ieoeja]

28. And I thought my question was rhetorical.

I intended my subject line in post #26 as a rhetorical question to remind people that "they" are "we". I forgot for a moment there that the message boards at Democractic Underground have been taken over by opponents of the Democratic Party.

Which is why I don't post here much anymore.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. I've been edging closer and closer to that too.

It's pretty sad that this place has been taken over.

[seabeyond]

49. ok i am jumping here to just agree with you all. i often am amazed

on this board what we do to the democrats, and, i am not a democrat. f***

but yes, this is what happenes when you elect (stolen i know) a repug. he picks scj. he isnt going to get a liberal there. and no one else is going to satisfy so many on this board. why we worked so hard for kerry to win.

i appreciate how you explain it vash, i hope it is true. cause i really am concerned if this is indicitive of the dem party

[deadparrot]

27. Gotta agree with you here.

Though Miers sounds like far from my ideal pick for SCOTUS, if you consider the source, and look at what we COULD have gotten, we could have done a lot worse.

[MrBenchley]

29. If you look at the right wing blogs

they're nearly incoherent with rage over this appointment.

[deadparrot]

34. And really, that's the good part.

The Republicans NEED fundies to turn up at midterms. This isn't going to excite them any; it's certainly not going to get them fired up to go out and campaign for Republican candidates. Plus, this further splits them from the more moderate members of the Republican party.

Very interesting, for sure. I wonder what was the philosophy behind such a pick...

[MrBenchley]

40. I think the "philosophy" was "We gotta keep Plamegate out of the news!!"

And I think it looks more desperate than anything else...

And let's not forget that this appointment brings back LOUD echoes of unqualified Commissioner Horseflop getting shoved into FEMA...after all, not only has she never been a judge; she's never even argued a case before the Supreme Court!

[deadparrot]

41. But since there's really not much to say about Miers

after her personal background (no voting record, etc.), and little to no controversy on the surface, it seems like they'll get back to regularly scheduled programming within a day or so.

[MrBenchley]

44. But what little there is to say is choice...

--she helped cover-up Chimpy dodging the draft by getting into TANG without being qualified and then deserting during wartime...

--she's utterly unqualified in every way (not a judge, never even argued a case before the Supreme Court) except insomuch as she's a crony like Brownie.

In effect, she's two scandals in one.

[belle]

65. I think the philosophy was "play it safe." Which means of course that

he ends up not pleasing anybody. which is fine by me.

[deadparrot]

67. The thing that has me confused is...

why would they pick someone who's so...boring?

If I was trying to get a scandal out of the news, I'd pick someone with an actual record, or an interesting life story, that the networks can dissect for a while. There's just nothing to talk about with Miers. Back to regularly scheduled programming...:shrug:

[belle]

64. Good. maybe they'll finally explode.

Well, we can dream.

[mmonk]

32. I thought a stealth candidate

and I was correct.

[Dr Fate]

39. That and somthing about dry powder. GO DEMS!!!!

!!!!

[MrBenchley]

42. Let's also recall

that any initial opposition by someone like Reid would have been framed by parts of the media as "Democrats Oppose Woman for Supreme Court"...

[Dr Fate]

52. So if we keep the water off our powder, the media will be nice to us.

Exactly what I predicted when I was told to let DEMs support Roberts

I wanted DEMs to take a stand on Roberts- I was told to "Keep your powder dry for the next one."

My retort was "Yeah, but 'the next one' will be a woman , a minority or both, and then DEMs will cave on that one too, out of fear that Sean Hannity will call them racist or sexist."

Not hard to see that one coming up 5th Avenue, was it?

I recall that "parts of the media" called anyone who didnt support the Iraq War "unpatriotic" as well. It's a good thing we go along with the GOP/media- if we did not, they would say mean things about us.

Is the theory that if we do what Bush wants, the media will say GOOD things about us instead? When does that start working?

KEEP THAT MOISTURE OFF MY POWDER PUFFS!!!

[MrBenchley]

55. Way to miss the point....

"if we did not, they would say mean things about us. "
Good thing we've got "party loyalists" like you to step in if they falter.

[Dr Fate]

68. The media will reward us with praise if we go along with Bush.

Just like they always do.

If we oppose Bush, Sean Hannity will call us sexists.

That is why we must keep our powder dry!!!

ONWARD TO VICTORY!!!!

[MrBenchley]

72. Yup...nothing like a clueless dingbat ready for "battle"

to bore the crap out of grownups.

[Dr Fate]

77. Like when the "grownups" voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot act.

I'm glad they did not listen to all those Red-faced, Micheal Moore radicals with wet powders. Those left-wing dingbats NEVER get it right.

Here's to the grownups and dry powder!!!!!

[MrBenchley]

83. Yeah, the people slamming Democrats then were a shitload of help then....

Shame you've got wet powder....until then...

[Dr Fate]

88. Yes- we should have PRAISED them for voting for the war.

It's a powder drying method.

We should CONTINUE to praise DEMs for all the times they give Bush what he wants-anything else is "slamming Democrats."

Thank God those, calm, clear eyed adults know that giving Bush what he wants always helps us win in the end-we have many examples-like- er, ..well- you know. At least it keeps our powder dry.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

96. Which DEMS have I "slammed", and on what issues?

Or is saying this just a tactic?- to accuse disloyalty for anyone who thinks DEMs should listen to & represent the base.

Fooling people? So are you accusing me of being a troll or what? Please be more clear in your accusations- unless it gets your powder wet, that is.

[MrBenchley]

101. Put your powder in your wig

[Dr Fate]

121. Will do. It sure is dry enough. n/t

n/t

[MrBenchley]

123. Seems all wet to the rest of us....

[Dr Fate]

132. Just how I like it.

The last word is for you if you think it matters.

[MrBenchley]

136. Well, you're welcome to it....

[renie408]

84. What would have happened if Roberts had been blocked?

You are always ready for the big fight and sometimes that is what is needed. But sometimes, no matter how annoying it seems, what is needed is politics. And that is what all of this is.

Democrats could afford one big objection against a SCJ nominee and two nominees to worry about. If they had blocked Roberts, it would have opened the door for Bush to nominate whoever he wanted for this second seat. If we block Miers, once again, he will just nominate somebody that will REALLY make us want to puke. I don't think we can repeatedly block nominees and maintain public goodwill. And there is 2006 to think about. So maybe what we ended up with are two people who don't precisely make Bush all hot and excited and don't exactly do a whole lot for us, either. But would it have been better to block Roberts, have Bush put Gonzales up for that seat next and then Janice Rogers Brown for O'Conner's seat? I am thinking not.

[Dr Fate]

91. meme: We are keeping our powder dry for "the next one."

Say it over and over and over.

It also works for bills, issues and scandals that we ignore as well.

Example: "DEMS should have went after Bush over the DSM."

Response: "NOOOOOOOOOO- that's too negative- we must keep our powder dry for the 'next time'."

[springhill]

43. You know what.........

I am sick and tired of hearing how these nominees may not be as bad as we think. We fucking KNOW how bad they will be, because he wouldn't even fucking nominate them if "he" didn't know they would follow him around like little puppy. And that's exactly what she does. So please, spare me the you're so tired of hearing about it speech.

What, oh what in God's name has Bush ever done that does not benefit his administration directly? Name just one thing. Can't do it can you?

If we haven't learned this by now, we have learned nothing. They (Rove, Cheney, etc.) do not leave anything for chance.

[renie408]

45. Of the people who would likely be nominated...

who do you think would be a better choice than Miers? Not who YOU would like to see nominated, the other canidates that BUSH was likely to nominate? Gonzales? Rogers Brown?

I think Vash makes a good point.

[springhill]

50. No, he doesn't make a good point.........

The democrats need to oppose the nominee until we actually get one who is not right-wing wacko or a Bush groupie. I mean, after all, it is only the future of our country we're talking about. And if you think for one minute, they are not putting in the people that they KNOW will solidify their power, well, forget it, I am tired of arguing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. That will NOT HAPPEN though!

You're literally asking us to fight for an impossibility! That's probably the most transparent thing we could do.

[renie408]

74. HELLLLOOOOOOO...Where do you LIVE?? Here in the REAL WORLD

the Republicans are the majority party and will be for another year. If you think we can stall them for 13 months, I think you don't have them already running the "Give this candidate a fair up or down vote" ads in your state. They started running here this morning.

Christ, what is wrong with at least NOTICING reality occasionally?? Nobody is saying hand over the country to the Repukes, but all this grandstanding "Make them give us a nominee we want" bullshit is just STUPID. NO SHIT they are picking the people who will solidify their power...DUH. And that is what they will continue to do because they have them five deep waiting to be nominated.

And again, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER HIS QUESTION. Who else among the front runners would you have rather had? Bush is President. They usually get who they want, one way or another. Rattle your sabre if it makes you feel better, that's all it is.

[Dr Fate]

82. Exactly- we are keeping our powder dry for "the next one."

n/t

[renie408]

86. If you would possibly say something else,

I might be able to see your point. Beating that to death is not helping me any. So far, the only person who has articulated their point without bitterness and with logic is Vash. So I am seeing what he is saying.

Tell me what using our powder would have gotten us and maybe I can start feeling what you are trying to say.

[Dr Fate]

93. Why? This is what we were told over & over last week.

Those who wanted a unified stand against Roberts/Bush were all accused of "DEM bashing" and told to sit down, shut up and "keep our powder dry" for "the next one."

Well, now we have "the next one" and I'm hearing basically the same crap.

Now we have a new calming phrase all of a sudden? What is it?

[renie408]

And it is equally right for both situations

THINK!! Are you reading any of this? If I am wrong, then explain it to me. I am a relative newbie to all of this. I ask a bunch of questions and muddle through and try to figure things out for myself. What Vash is saying makes sense. Block Roberts...get Gonzales. Block Miers...get Rogers Brown. And without really firm ground to stand on for the block, earn the title of obstructionist babies.

[BootinUp]

115. Just a thought

It is early to say what will happen on this nominee. Personally I think she will be nominated. Now, I don't like the idea of an Evangelical fundamentalist on the court, but in fact she was raised a catholic, maybe she is not as bad as we fear.

[Dr Fate]

124. Good thing we kept our powder dry. /t

n/t

[BootinUp]

129. Doctor

...my eyes have seen the years
Through the slow parade of tears without crying
Now I want to understand
I have done all that I could
To see the evil and the good without hiding
You must help me if you can

Doctor my eyes
Tell me what is wrong
Was I unwise to leave them open for so long?

As I've wandered through this world
As each moment has unfurled
I've been waiting to awaken from this dream
People go just where they will
I never notice them until I've got this feeling
That it's later than it seems

Doctor my eyes
Tell me what is real
I hear their cries
Just saying "It's too late for me"

GUITAR SOLO

Doctor my eyes
Cannot be disguised
Is this the prize for having learned how not to cry?

--------------------------

Now, lighten up! we don't know whats gonna happen yet.

[Dr Fate]

131. I know exactly what will happen. But fair enough. n/t

n/t

[LittleClarkie]

135. What are you looking for exactly. A filibuster? nm.

I SAID, nm...

[Dr Fate]

138. 100% of DEMs voting against Roberts would have been nice.

I was told it did not happen because we were "saving our energy" and "keeping our powder dry" for "the next one."

Sadly, I knew it was just more excuses.

Now is the part where some one says "What good would DEM unity against Bush/Roberts had done..." Spare me.

[LittleClarkie]

142. Never mind. Having a better discussion down thread

this is just redundant.

[Dr Fate]

146. For one, we would not be having these arguments about "spine" and powder.

I admit it, I'm a sucker for DEMs who listen to the base and stand up on principle. The Democratic Iraq War and Patriot Act votes are what makes me not trust the PR strategy of going along with Bush- I've never seen it work.

[LittleClarkie]

149. Oops. You answered anyway. Energize the base

I figured we were having this discussion downthread already. But I appreciate your saying why you thought it was important to unify.

Sadly, I think the split we saw with Roberts is the Dem Party at war. Conservative vs Liberal. Do we know who will win yet? Might depend on who we can get into office.

[Dr Fate]

81. Keep your powder dry for "the next one." n/t

n/t

[TheFarseer]

51. I wanted to see Gonzalez

For one thing he is quoted as saying Rogers-Brown (or one of the other two we were filibustering) is a nutcase or handed down some of the worst decisions he's ever seen or something to that effect. I think he's not as nutty as most. And for another thing, we could pound the bush administration on the war during confirmation.

Although I think Miers might not be too crazy from what people are saying and with her we can pound them on cronyism, corruption and AWOL bush.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. That's fine.

Thank you for at least giving me a name of an acceptable alternative. I don't have any qualms with your choice there. I, personally, find his anti-civil rights views to be disturbing, but again, at least he's not JRB or Estrada.

[belle]

66. Gonzales is plenty evil, don't kid yourselves. Also, picking him would

mean the Shrub gets yet another pick, to replace him as AG, and who the hell knows who *that* would be.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

71. That's if you believe it matters who he picks for his cabinet.

Since they all serve at his whim, no one he picks is little more than a clone of himself.

[belle]

56. He's right you know

[LittleClarkie]

61. I don't suppose Reid is playing jujitsu or something

Act like you're happy to piss off the right? Certain folks were not going to be happy if the liberals were not frothing at the mouth.

[Dr Fate]

73. No- he is playing "rope a dope"- it's a powder drying method.

I'm trying to come up with some other calming phrases we can say too.

Once I come up with them, we can gear up and REALLY get those bastards when it is "the next one."

[LittleClarkie]

76. Blah, blah, blah

I was asking a question, not trying to come up with calming phrases.

[Dr Fate]

79. Just keep your powder dry- for "the next one"- and all will be well.

n/t

[renie408]

89. Ok, so you don't really HAVE anything else to say.

[Dr Fate]

94. Gosh- it was such a popular, calming phrase last week.

Now it just pisses everyone off. Go figure.

[renie408]

97. It wouldn't piss me off if you would offer an alternative

You act as if blocking Roberts was an end in itself. Ok, it keeps Roberts out...but who would have been waiting in the wings. Again....we probably had one good volley in us. If we had wasted it on Roberts, then this time around they would have nominated somebody we would REALLY hate. Same thing with Miers. Think about it. It sucks, I agree. But it is how the minority party has to play. We have to walk VERY softly because we don't really HAVE a big stick.

NO! Do not now make jokes about how big your stick is. I don't want to hear it.

[Dr Fate]

108. Our big stick is Bush's historic low approval & popularity.

But why spin my wheels- the dry powder wing wins out once again.

I'm sure that we all "look forward to working with her."

[renie408]

112. Goober, what the hell good does Bush's low numbers do for us

when it comes to blocking a SCJ nominee?? HE isn't running again and the damn truth is that 80% of the general population doesn't give a shit WHO is on the Supreme Court and only has a vague idea of what they do.

God, do you ONLY live on message boards?

[Dr Fate]

119. I agree-The public does not give a shit who Bush appoints.

Which is why I would have liked to have seen a unified stand against Bush on Roberts. I was told it would come "the next time."

I'm just having a little fun with all those who pissed down our neck with that BS last week- on this here message board that we all post on.

[renie408]

122. The point I am trying to make is that maybe, if you try to THINK

about it instead of reacting, you will realize that it wasn't BS. It was a calculated choice which actually pretty much worked out.

Now, you will be happy to hear that I have to go teach lessons. The youth of America are waiting to be enlightened about huntseat equitation.

[Dr Fate]

125. Good luck with that- you have a hard job. n/t

n/t

[Zodiak]

70. I was right...didn't want to be...but this is the way of a liberal

I said that Bush would use the terrible precedent set with Roberts to nominate another judge under practically the same conditions (Bush crony, no judicial experience, no record, appeals only because of how they "look" on paper, moderate by assurances only), and sure enough, this is what Bush did.

He did it because there is no way that you can filibuster this nominee considering that Roberts was allowed to sail through with 50% Democratic support. We saved the filibuster only to not use it....that is why you strike when you can because you may not have the chance later on. What kind of person assumes his opponent will expose th jugular twice?

And you know what? I was told that I was wrong about this.....I was told that we will filibuster the next one because Bush was sure to try to ram-rod an obvious Scalia on the court. I was also told that Bush didn't have another unknown crony to put on the court (apparently these DUers know a lot about unknowns).

No judicial records means one thing with the Bush crime family; it means that they are covering up how this judge will vote.

As for the OP, remember this is the same person who assured us that Bush would not go down this road again, so I wouldn't put much stock in the OP lecture on what we should accept and not accept.

Just judge this nomination for yourself and look at the Democratic strategy and decide if you are well-served. I've made up my mind.

[Dr Fate]

75. But at least our powder stayed dry- that has to count for somthing. n/t

n/t

[renie408]

78. If we don't accept it, is it going to happen anyway?

What does 'not accepting it' get us? Who is next in line? If we filibuster this one, who will they put up next? Is that the point of this nomination? If she gets on, fine, if she doesn't; even better. Then they CAN pick Gonzales or Attila the Hun or whoever they want and the Dems will look like obstructionist assholes if they try to block again. We were probably in the same boat with Roberts. If Dems had blocked Roberts, they would have just put up somebody worse. We only had a limited amount of play in this process, no matter how you look at it. "I told you so" might be self-satisfying, but it really doesn't mean a whole lot of anything. I think you were wrong last time. What if the Dems HAD blocked Roberts (a comparatively innocuous choice)? What then? We....were....not....ever....going....to....get....our....way.

[Dr Fate]

80. Meme: We are keeping our powder dry for "the next one."

n/t

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

92. Whoa- better keep your powder dry there buster.

The media might report negative stories about Democrats if they see that kind of aggression.

[renie408]

95. Jeez, man, really! Give it a rest...

It was mildly amusing the first 47 times you wrote it. Now it is just GRATING.

And you are avoiding the question.

[Dr Fate]

99. No, you are avoiding the point many of us made last week.

Those of us who knew we would all be told to roll over for "the next" one too.

I'd be less pissed if the pro-Roberts people on this board would have been more honest- instead of telling me to "keep dry" for "the next one"- you guys should have just said- "Shut up- give Bush what he wants- it's our permanent strategy- there is NO next time- ever."

Then again, I should not be angry, since I knew exactly what would happen.

[renie408]

102. No, I get the damn point. The point is moot. YOU are the one

who seems determined to ignore everything except the fact that you didn't get to use your powder!

[Dr Fate]

113. I'll get to use it "next time"- somewhere over the next rainbow.

Mabye the next fake war or the next scandal, or the next appointee- there is always "next time."

[MrBenchley]

105. "I knew exactly what would happen" (snicker)

[Dr Fate]

111. I did. I have many posts saying we would roll over for "the next one."

I never bought all that "dry powder" and "the next one" crap from all the pro-Roberts DUers- that is why I'm having a little fun with it now...

[MrBenchley]

120. Were they all as clueless and annoying as this bunch?

"I never bought all that "dry powder""
Good for you. I suggest you continue to sul;k and pout.

[Dr Fate]

128. I suggest you continue to come up with excuses.

You will need them for "the next time."

[MrBenchley]

133. Excuses for what? Not being a mindless fool?

Understanding how politics works?

[Dr Fate]

134. Last week it was excuses for not being unified against Roberts.

The meme was all about powders and keeping them dry. Catchy, huh?

Who knows what they will all be this week.

I remember when we used to make excuses for DEMs who voted for the War too- "nuance" was the phrase we used. It never ends.

Cheers to you- you may have the last word.

[MrBenchley]

137. "Catchy, huh?"

No, just childish and silly.

[Dr Fate]

148. I agree- that is why I'm poking fun at that dumb-ass talking point.

n/t

[MrBenchley]

153. By mindlessly repeating a dumbass phrase

Good job there (snicker)

[Dr Fate]

158. Hey, It's not my talking point- I was not one of the pro-Roberts DUers

I'll bet you did not have a problem when it is was mindlessly repeated last week- which is my point.

See you "next time."

[MrBenchley]

159. You seem to be one of the pro-idiocy DUers

and your point is both specious and mindless...

[Dr Fate]

161. Well, I'm just glad 22 brave Democrats voted against Roberts.

I hope that many or more vote against the this one. You know how us idiots are!!!

[MrBenchley]

164. Yeah, it shows (NOT!)

[LittleClarkie]

98. Will you PLEASE go call your Senator or Representative or something

WE DIDN'T NOMINATE HER, OKAY! STOP TAKING IT OUT ON US!

[Dr Fate]

100. My Senators both have wet powder. They must be DEM bashers too.

n/t

[LittleClarkie]

103. Uh huh. Have they seen a doctor for that?

Sounds like a personal problem to me...

[renie408]

107. ROFL!! It never even occurred to me to ask what kind of powder it was...

Gold Bond?

[Dr Fate]

126. Pancake mix. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

130. Kerry voted right too.

I and I hope he will on this one.

And yes, symbolic victories do count- or at least they could have.

[LittleClarkie]

140. You're not looking for a real victory then?

You don't think, wet or dry, it will make a difference?

And yes, Kerry did vote well. Thank you for noticing. Some don't.

[Dr Fate]

141. No- one victory would be DEMs giving us a reason to stop arguing.

It does not work the other way around- where we pretend to agree for the sake of unity- they have to give us things to agree on and build unity on- I honestly think Kerry may be slowly recognizing that. Or I could be cynical and assume he was pandering to the base.

[LittleClarkie]

145. You wouldn't be the first

Ah, I think you're beginning to answer the question I just asked. What purpose would it serve. Energize the base. That is indeed a positive result.

No matter what, some folks will think Kerry is pandering. I'm thinking no. But I wonder about Biden and Hillary still. Do you think THEY are turning?

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

106. We have become the enemy. Or at least the thing he's taking out his

frustrations on. Fun, isn't it.

[MrBenchley]

110. But remember, he knew what would happen (snicker)

[Dr Fate]

127. I did and do. n/t

n/t

[MrBenchley]

139. Yeah, it's like Kreskin, only with diaper rash

[Dr Fate]

143. Insults change nothing. Thanks and good luck.

n/t

[MrBenchley]

152. That's rich coming from you...

[Dr Fate]

157. See you "next time."

n/t

[MrBenchley]

160. For what?

Tedium?

[Dr Fate]

162. For someone who likes for others to keep their powder dry...

...you sure do like to argue.

Wouldn't it be something if the Democrats went after the Republicans with the same aggression & spunk as you and I have today?

Here is to tedium on message boards- we love it!!!

Doc

[MrBenchley]

163. I sure get sick of "Democrats"

who seem to live to spout rubbish and attack other Democrats mindlessly.

"Here is to tedium on message boards- we love it!!!"
You sure seem to.

[Dr Fate]

165. Then put me on ignore-after you remove those quotes per DU rules.

Or did Skinner make you the Gatekeeper of Democratic purity?

Please chief- lay off. I dont accept your pissing contest about who is the better Democrat- I agree with the 22 DEMs who stood up for the grass-roots base-and I want to see more. That was all I was saying.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

167. Not the message board tough guy.

I'll bet per my age I've put in more hours for the Democratic party than you- I'd bet a donation to the DNC in fact.

Please man- you are just angry at this point- chill.

[MrBenchley]

168. You've more than earned your quotes...

[Dr Fate]

169. What are ya- some kinda instigator? Woody Woodpecker over here.

I would press "alert" - but watching you melt down is kind of fascinating. Jeeze dude- we both need help. ;)

[MrBenchley]

171. Yeah, you've more than earned those quotes...

[Dr Fate]

172. Well, I don't even know who you are.

I cant recall you responding to any of my posts before-And I don't really remember any of your views or previous stances from other threads- but now you are an expert on Dr Fate's views & community activity- oh well, I guess there are stranger obsessions...

Chill out. You cant make me get mad at cha!!!

[Zodiak]

174. The time to filibuster

was when the option was on the table...BFORE Janice Rogers Brown and Judge Owen. The "Compromise of the 14" led to this, and the pukes won across the board. They got their three right wing judge freaks PLUS they got the Supremes and set a bad precedent.

Gonna tell me how I was wrong again?

[Dr Fate]

177. I've been accused of being a Republican on this thread for suggesting that

So watch out!!

The important thing is we kept our powder dry for this crucial moment of triumph!!! ;)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

109. I was hoping maybe YODA or

Obi Wan or Luke

:silly:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

116. I think Gandalf would've been a hell of a Chief Justice.

But I'd have settled for Galadriel.

[Zynx]

156. We could even reach down into the depths and have Gimli.

[renie408]

118. Well, in a certain light, I bet she looks like Yoda with tattooed eyeliner

[Zynx]

155. Bush wanted Palpatine, but settled for Grand Moff Tarkin.

lol

[AlienGirl]

114. Please, folks...

[BootinUp]

117. heh. n/t

[ReadTomPaine]

147. Won't that get the powder wet?

;)

[Avalux]

150. Uh oh

funny but...... :yoiks:

[Laelth]

151. I hear you.

But I see no difference between the bogeys you list (Janice Rogers Brown and Samuel Alito) and Miers. On the issues, it seems she's as bad or worse than any Bush could have picked. Bush could have picked a moderate (and there are hundreds of good, qualified moderates). Instead, he picked a rigid ideologue who has no experience on the bench.

This is unacceptable, and we must fight ... imho.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2130848

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--bad URL.

[Zynx]

154. Indeed. We were never going to get a liberal out of this.

Bush was not going to reach into the ninth circuit and pull out a judge that would vote to make the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional.

[enough already]

175. Miers argued for the ABA to remain "neutral" on Roe

It's clear she will tip the court the wrong way on abortion. Screw Reid for not knowing that or pretending he doesn't.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

178. "Forest through the trees"- yes. Catchy- has a nice ring to it.

Not as good as the powder thing last week, but it just might work.

Example:

"Democrats should be unified in their opposition to Anti-Roe Judges"

Response:

"Shut up you childish radical- you fake Democrats cant see the forest for the trees."

[TreasonousBastard]

180. Locking, because...

we're all having problems with Miers, but this thread has descended into the abyss.