Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Harriet Miers, pt 2(an undoubtedly short series)

If you want to read what some of the more august internet liberals have to say about our poor friend Harriet, there’s this At Salon, and this mind-numbingly snotty article at Slate, here*.

but if you go to the letters section responding to the Salon piece you’ll find someone who actually gets it:

The fact that Harriet Miers has never served as a judge nor worked on constitutional law at all during her career should automatically eliminate her from even being considered for the Supreme Court…
Hurricane Katrina taught us the dangers of cronyism. Let's see if we've learned our lesson. Democrats should have fought the Roberts nomination with a full-on, in-your-face,
take-no-prisoners filibuster.
Roberts was the one we didn't want on the court
He's the dangerous one. Miers is a pawn. The neocon and religious right is furious about her nomination, but I can't help thinking that they're in on the joke.

Bush nominates someone who is not qualified, both the right and some on the left do not confirm her, and then Bush brings in the big gun -- someone so extreme as to make Antonin Scalia look like a cuddly teddy bear. Democrats will be too scared to reject that candidate for fear of being called obstructionists by the ditto-heads. The neocons and the religious right have been waiting for this moment since the New Deal. They're playing hardball, and Bush has gleefully served as their lapdog. It is time for us all to be on guard, and hopefully Democrats have started sprouting spines.

-Sue Voelkel

For my part I think there’s a perfect strategy with dealing with the 1-2 punch to the solar plexus of the New Deal that the NeoCons are setting up: Barach Obama. He was more than happy to participate in gutting the bankruptcy laws that were there before his political ascendancy, so we really need to find something useful for him to do besides photo ops with Oprah that show how much he cares. (And as an aside-- which one of them spoke truth to power more meaningfully in New Orleans?)

In South Park, Chef was upset when the black troops were sent out as cannon fodder for the big showdown with Canada, and understandably so. So I say to you, O Democrats, send forth the junior senator from Illinois into the fray. Between him and Trent Lott, sundry GOP nonentities will know they’ve got bipartisan cover and smelling the blood in the water they’ll jump in too.

Meanwhile fancypants senior senators with an eye to 2008 can tut-tut the man from the land of Lincoln for his intemperance, and the goofballs who do whatever tells them to do will send volley after volley of fearsome electrons hurtling through cyberspace to the PCs of senate staffers who may get tired of ordering new keyboards because they keep wearing out the delete key.

Or, as Dave Chapelle, channeling John Wayne might say,

“Keep Your Powder Dry B**ch*s, Let the N*gr* take care of this one…”

(well-- I think he’d say that…)

reactions, please:

a. you shouldn't say stuff like that. Clearly you are intemperate.

b. I think Harriet Miers would make a capable supreme court justice. Fie on you.

c. According to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Dave Chapelle is
not allowed to channel JohnWayne until he's 116 years old, so you are in error.

d. What? No pictures?

*an addendum: I was specifically referring to Reed's 4 Oct grammar post, in which I think he misses the point, gliding right past the implications of a judge preoccupied by grammar, perhaps because he recognizes stating the point clearly would remind people of Clinton's famous comment about the nature of the word "is"...(?)

I actually agree with some of Reed's observations regarding Rahm Emmanuel. When I started working on this post, the 10-4-2005 Reed entry was the latest of which I was aware.