Sez the man who's throwing Molotov cocktails.

This never would have happened if Dick Cheney were still alive.

Interesting...did Bush cause the bad blood, or did the reaction of one side cause the bad blood, or did the action of the other side cause the bad blood?

Bush took an action. We kept saying all throught he Rogers hearing that he was "entitled to his nominee." So he put out a nominee. There was, from some, an instantaneous uproar and indignation. From others there was a "wait and see."

One of the things I have learned as a grown up is that no one can "make" something happen. We "make" things happen by how we respond to events. And respond is the word....when one REACTS, one us usually not thinking. When one RESPONDS, one usually is.

In the beginning there was "reaction." There has been some "responding" but most folks are stuck on "reacting."

If we're grown ups, we have to look at our own culpabilities in this split. All Bush did was put up his nominee.

oops - many typos there, sorry, I'm rushing. Roberts, not Rogers, etc.

For the sake of blog comprehensiveness, I ain' t that thrilled with her either.

The fact is she's a cipher, much like I think Roberts was and remains (ok, maybe she's a little worse - but how much more?) We don't have any idea as to her constitutional interpretative philosophy and doubt we'll have any insight into it before she ascends to the court (certainly no assured insight.)

The nice thing about nominating those with judicial experience is both that they have a paper trail we can examine and, if a 'conservative,' we can see if their professed 'restraint' has held up when they were given enormous power previously - whether they're prone to 'growth' spurts in real world situations.

I do think, however, the talk about how smart she is, or whether her career is 'undistinguished' is pretty much meaningless. Decent decisions aren't a matter of being able to understand the issues in a case (anyone with a 90th and above IQ percentile probably realizes the issues at bar) but a matter of judical philosphy.

Breyer is scary smart. Scalia is scary smart. They don't disagree because one of them is unable, consistently, to grasp the legal nuance of the matter before them.

I don't want her on the Court. I don't know how she'll act when she's got that power - not only what her philosophy really is, but whether she'll remain true to it. Bush may think he knows the former, but he has no idea as to the latter.

It's really simple to a conservative mook like me. The President made a promise and he didn't deliver.

The Anchoress (love your blog, BTW):

The real problem is that many conservatives, especially those toward the center, have been unhappy with many of Bush's policies for some time. This discontent has been pent up for some time, suppressed so as not to undermine support for the war.

Conservative participants in the blogosphere have carried this resentment while doing battle with the left, confident that the administration they were defending would do the right thing on the big issues. Now they feel betrayed, and the repressed resentment is welling up.

They may be "reacting" to Mier's nomination, but they're "responding" to several years of betrayed trust.

This is a good thing. Much better then being like the dems- refusing to fight amongst ourselves to the point where the party gets hijacked by the most stubborn (and usually wackiest) faction.

Also, success breeds this kind of a fight. If Clinton were president we'd all be united in our hatred of him.

Also, this is pretty good timing. Get the fights over now, show the republicans are not a unified block but a big umbrella now, so that our next President is a republican.

Cheer up.

Dear Anchoress,

Perhaps we Miers opponents would be in more of a mood to listen to you if you hadn't called us tools of Satan the other day.

Go home, take your shredded credibility, and grow up.

Last comment mine.

Give us the link, someone.

Sez the man who's throwing Molotov cocktails.

It's sorta sexy, too, in a kind of Ed-against-the-bar-room-full-of-zombies way.

Allah, I would, but Ace's spamfilter keeps eating it.

Try this...

http://theanch*ress*nline.c*m/2005/10/10/supernatural-perhaps-baloney-perhaps-not/

replace the stars in the URL with "o"s

Anchoress brings the reasonableness, and is promptly decried for it. Go figure.

They may be "reacting" to Mier's nomination, but they're "responding" to several years of betrayed trust.

OMFG! I think you're full of sh*t, but on the off chance you're right this is a sad commentary on the conservative blogosphere. You're saying that conservative bloggers are so uneducated and misinformed about politics they've allowed themselves to become personally invested in expectations which are beyond the realities of Washington D.C.

Ace this is getting ridiculous. If you're really concerned with how this is dividing the party then stop throwing gasoline on the fire.

This notion that the gazillion individual negative reactions among Bush's allies in response to his nomination are the REAL cause of dissention here is scary. Can this man EVER make a mistake in some people's book?

Sorry, this nomination is a fiasco because he botched it. This has nothing to do with what you think of Miers herself. It's about how wise it was to pick her over others. Very few choices available to him could have possibly split his supporters like this. He made the choice. He's responsible for the consequence of it.

Hey someone, why don't you use the same nic you used to use around here a few months ago?

Having established my opposing position to hers above, kindly stop pissing on The Anchoress. I disagree with her about this issue, but she's good people.

someone -- Good call. Here's the nut graf from the Anchoress link:

I asked this morning, who was being served by all of this? In Christ there is nothing negative, so I must assume that much of this divisive and ruinous hectoring is actually in service to the Father of Negativity, who is also the Author of Confusion, who is also the Author of Discord. The Wily Magician.

So there you go. Turns out you, me, and Ace are tools of the devil.

Can't say I'm surprised, frankly.

Uh, BrewFan, I've been around here as me for over a year -- longer, it seems, than you.

Maybe you should look at your buddies who are making insinuations about Frum.

BrewFan, I don't think that analysis is very far from the target.

If you're really concerned with how this is dividing the party then stop throwing gasoline on the fire.

I don't think Ace is concerned about it, Brew, I think he's pointing out what a stupid decision the Miers nomination was. And he's right, it was.

I don't know if I'm a servant of the Devil, as the Wily One has many names.

The guy I serve is named "Karl." And he says this is all the fault of the fucking piece-of-shit homonculous Andy Card.

You're saying that conservative bloggers are so uneducated and misinformed about politics they've allowed themselves to become personally invested in expectations which are beyond the realities of Washington D.C.

Nah, I'm saying that every time I stepped up to the plate and told some moonbat that he was full of hooey when he talked about the cronyism of the Halliburton contract awards, now I'm not so sure. When I defended the actions of FEMA against the left's claims that Bush had appointed an inexperienced incompetent to run it, now I'm not so sure.

Does it make me feel like a chump? It's sure starting to. Does it piss me off enough to make me consider voting alternatives? You betcha.

Bah! We need a good smack in the head as a party every once in a while, lest we become of the sort which just buys into the whole package because it has the right 'name'. Arnold was right, if we become the party that cannot tolorate dissent in it's own ranks, we give up exactly what makes us the party we turned to in the first place.

There is plenty of time for kiss and make up.

So there you go. Turns out you, me, and Ace are tools of the devil.

Damn.

Can I put that on my resume?

Turns out you, me, and Ace are tools of the devil.

Me too!

Let's settle this once and for all -- with a dance off.

**cue the cowbell**

How many more Miers threads will Ace post?
As many as he can until he runs out of ideas for titles.

How many lawyers does it take to kill a blog?

Oh, and Ace, given how many times I had to repeat myself in that other thread (mostly because of you), you have no right to complain.

NO I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MIERS NOMINATION AT LEAST NOT DIRECTLY AND NO I'M NOT PRO-MIERS I WANTED JANICE ROGERS BROWN YOU DEAF MOTHERFUCKER SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

grrrr...

Can I put that on my resume?

It's only a plus if you hope to get a job with Donald Trump.

Well, who doesn't?

Qualifier: as something other than "wife" since that position is term-limited.

Bashing people for having personal reactions to Bush is pretty silly when his main -- perhaps only appeal has been personal: "trust me".

Not just here, but elsewhere. Hell, that was pretty much the extent of his campaign.

Uh, BrewFan, I've been around here as me for over a year

I know that. That's why I asked why you're not using the same name. Its OT so get off the Frum thing. I'm just curious because it seems odd you'd post under one name, go away for a while, and then start posting under another name. If you don't want to answer, thats fine.

I don't think Ace is concerned about it, Brew

I'd say he's very concerned about it given the number of posts.

Nah, I'm saying that every time I stepped up to the plate and told some moonbat that he was full of hooey when he talked about the cronyism of the Halliburton contract awards, now I'm not so sure.

Then you're very fickle.

Re: the Anchoress' Satan post...

I can see the headline now:

SHOCKING 'REVELATION': CHRISTIAN BELIEVES IN OWN RELIGION

Noooo....!

Next thing you know we'll hear that Jews think all Jewish males should be circumcised. What a world, what a world...

I'll repeat this very slowly so you'll get it:

I - have - commented - as - "someone" - here - for - over - a - year. Never - used - another - name.

Now piss off.

Hey Brew, y'all still around?

Then you're very fickle.

Just continuing to re-evaluate the ever-accumulating evidence.

And don't forget: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Turns out you, me, and Ace are tools of the devil.

Nope, just tools.

Hey Brew, y'all still around?

I'm getting ready to perform an exorcism here :)

Check your email

I - have - commented - as - "someone" - here - for - over - a - year. Never - used - another - name.

Now piss off.

My, aren't we touchy!

[I was going to say "So sue me!" but thought better of it]

[I was going to say "So sue me!" but thought better of it]

Good call.

This place is crawling with lawyers.

If you're really concerned with how this is dividing the party then stop throwing gasoline on the fire.

Shut up. The visual makes bbeck hot.

My, aren't we touchy!

I sort of thought he was hinting "someone" was Hobgoblin. (Where did Hob go?)

Shut up. The visual makes bbeck hot.

Yeah, like you guys really HATE that when it happens.

OT: shouldn't Ace have a link about this (via Redstate)?

Yeah, like you guys really HATE that when it happens.

It distracts from our " . . . righteous squirrely wrath! We squirrels do have wrath you know. It's one of those nature things." - Foamy the Squirrel, "Just One Minute"

Yeah, like you guys really HATE that when it happens.

It distracts from our " . . . righteous squirrely wrath! We squirrels do have wrath you know. It's one of those nature things." - Foamy the Squirrel in "Five More Minutes"

Chewbacca: (from someone's link at 11:25pm)

"I am feeling very happy about it," Mayhew said. "Whatever people say about America, it is still one of the most wonderful countries in the world, despite the politics, religion and everything else that goes on."

Ray: Huh. What did happen to Hobgoblin?

If that's whom you meant BrewFan, sorry for taking your head off.

It distracts from our " . . . righteous squirrely wrath! We squirrels do have wrath you know. It's one of those nature things." - Foamy the Squirrel in "Five More Minutes"

Great, I have the ability to affect squirrels in two ways: sexually and by hitting them with cars.

It's nuts.

I was Ray.

someone, I wasn't trying to id a commenter who didn't want to be that's why I was being obtuse.

Can't we all just get along?

Jeesh,

What's with the histrionics? All the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread reminds me of a certain Teutonic eunuch. I could name names, but my personal ethics prohibit me from doing so, but everyone knows I mean Gerhard The Blowhard.

Aah. General moronic wackiness waxing, spleen-venting bile-spewing vitriol waning. 'Tis a balm to my soul brethren. I can feel the love. Can't you? (don't answer)
Peace out.

*sighs* I love reading the Anchoress, but that's really disappointing. A little too condescending and chiding. We're not recalcitrant children to be spoken down to.

Geoff's first post in this thread reflects my sentiments perfectly.

Turns out you, me, and Ace are tools of the devil

Hey, shut up. I'm just the freaking gardener.

I do have to drive the limo on weekends.

ACE: O.K. buddy--you need a little help here with your Meirs SCOTUS obsession. First try cutting back your Meirs posting to once a day. After you do that for a week, try to reduce it to Meirs posting once every other day. If you start having a relapse, Don't worry, I'll send over BREWFAN, SLUBLOG, Michael, Megan, Andrea and PUSSY DAVE to do an exocism. If that doesn't work, the next step is to lock you in a room blindfolded where you will be forced to listen to the recorded speeches from Al Gore and Howard Dean. Every four hours the blind fold will be removed and you will be forced to view a picture of Hillary naked. This aversion therapy is necessary for your recovery from MOS (Meir obsession syndrom), but an unfortunate side effect is permanent impotence so we're suggesting this therapy only as a last resort. Your concerned buddy, John.

meh.

ace; I was looking through you previous post comments on "the Miers gamble". HELL, HALF OF THE COMMENTS WERE YOURS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have some really serious personal issues here. Forget the previous recommendations for solving your MOS (Miers obsession syndome). You'll be doing well just refraining from posting most of the comments on your Miers posts. I think we're now down to getting you seriously laid for 18 hours out of every 24 hours and a bottle of brandy every two hours as needed until your system has been totally drained of MOS. It's goin to be hard work, but I know you can get through this ace.

This is almost as fun as when we were all tearing each other apart over the Terri Schiavo issue.

I think the Meirs pick was a major screwup from the word go.

Like many, I was practically salivating with the anticipation of a knockdown, dragout, showdown with the senate dems on an actual proud and unapologetic contructionist nominee. I relished the thought of the "party of the people" having to show their hysteria and unfairness for the whole world to see. I'm probably the most conservative, strict constitutionalist gay man you will ever see. I'm just as disappointed as everyone else. Let's see if Harriet the stealthy really is what Bush promises she is.

Can we just get over it now?

This childish, Bush-betrayed-us, I'm-leaving-the-GOP, bullshit is getting really tiresome now.

This childish, Bush-betrayed-us, I'm-leaving-the-GOP, bullshit is getting really tiresome now.

Just as the "it'll be all right - just trust Bush" defense is.

heh- I didn’t say liberals (or Miers-hating conservatives) were the tool of the devil. I said the tools of the devil were obfuscation, chaos, blurring of meanings, etc. I wouldn’t say liberals are tools of the devil…too many of them are my friends. What I do think though is that embracing fuzzy concepts is a liberal habit that allows them to be fooled. Just as embracing other things allow conservatives to be fooled.‘

Don’t misunderstand me. In a very broad manner of explaining: Evil is not out to kill me and leave you. It wants to kill you, too!

But you can read the thing yourself at my site...scroll down to the "supernatural perhaps, baloney, perhaps not" post.

Btw...in my family we have a rule that we have enforced ever since my sons were little. The rule is this: Before engaging anyone in debate, you must first be able to state their argument back to them, to their satisfaction.

Instead of mischaracterizing what someone says, try it sometime. If more of us played by that rule, the world would be a much less contentious place.

Hey, Doug - I DO think Bush has made mistakes. Steel Tariffs, McCain-Feingold, Putin, Manetta...but my sense has always been, and shall remain, that last month we said he was entitled to his nominee, and the nominee was entitled to his day in court. Either we MEANT that or we did not.

And thanks for covering my back - I 'ppreciate it! :-)

I'm repeating my post on the previous Miers thread because I just posted it and it seems this is a continuation of that. I hope y'all don't mind.

MY GOODNESS!! All this fighting among friends!! And look how worked up
Ace and Megan are???

You think someone was arguing to take porn off the internet or something!....;-)

Now I might have missed this in the thread, but I did hear today on Rush that Bush did ask others first and they said no because of how the Demcrats have turned the nomination process into a personal witch hunt and who could blame them?? It seems he only wanted a woman and that shortened the list quite a bit.

I think I would be more angry that he succumbed to some poltically correct affirmative action program for this nomination than anything else. If a man is the right one for this job then let it be a freakin man!!

I'm serious when I say that I think Laura Bush had a lot to do with this. And that saddens me a bit.

But, on the other hand, make no mistake about it, the Democrats are loving this. They get rid of a pro-lifer without having to raise a finger. All because you lawyers think she didn't graduate from the right law school.

Now Ace, don't go off on me like you did Megan and Andrea. I'm not tough like them.

You could make me cry.....

Dear Anchoress,

You would, it seems, make a very poor Supreme Court Justice. Words don't, pace Humpty Dumpty, mean whatever the sayer want. They mean what a reasonable listener would understand them to mean... So here we have some words.

Ego and vanity. Pride and Wrath. Envy. Lust. It’s all here, if you look around, in this one SCOTUS nomination and all of its attendent uproar.

Whose ego? Well…President Bush is clearly NOT ego driven. Were he, he’d be doing whatever he could to placate the noisy, restless people and win their praise.

You know…just like President Clinton, in his neediness, did.

Now I might have missed this in the thread, but I did hear today on Rush that Bush did ask others first and they said no because of how the Demcrats have turned the nomination process into a personal witch hunt and who could blame them?? It seems he only wanted a woman and that shortened the list quite a bit.

Hmmm...I don't recall every wanting to be a SCOTUS nominee, thanks, but I stand by what I wrote, and my attendent clarification.

The white house denied it? Hmmm....interesting.

I mean...feel free to pick and choose what I say, but it reads more sensibly, and rightly, in context. I'm heading to bed. Have fun.

No, the white house confirmed it

someone:

I re-read The Anchoresses post, and it seems clear that her point is that the devil is using his traditional tools (obfuscation, etcl.) to play upon our weaknesses (ego, etc.) to cause dissension within the party. We are not the tools, we are the workpieces. To rise above his tawdry manipulations we need to take a step back and regain calm, objective minds.

At least that's how I read it. I think a lot of people were enjoying being called tools of the devil, though.

The WH confirmed that there were dropouts (although the main suspects -- Owen and Karen Williams -- have both explicitly denied it), but denied that Miers was the backup choice.

The woman part seems to be true, though. Yay, a quota pick.

The "only women" part seems to be true, though. Hooray, quota pick!

Sorry for the double post.

The previous Miers thread, incidentally, seems to have gotten so long that you can't post comments to it any more!

What, we can't have lgf-style 300+ comment discussions here?

Hey someone,

Why don't you just fuck off. The Anchoress might be too polite to tell you you're a fucking dumbass, but I'm not.

Obviously, you don't read her enough OR READ WELL AT ALL, otherwise you would have understood her post. What an oversensitive bitch you are. I also note that you're pretty free with the mudslinging yourself, so stuff a fucking sock in it, jackass.

I hope you're happy that your anti-Miers (and now, anti-Anchoress? WTF?) rantings are saving the REAL enemy (NARAL, Pussies for the American Way, etc.) major advertising bucks thanks to your doing the dirty work for them. Why not just save time, lower your hyperemotionally-aggravated blood pressure, and send them a donation?

You want to bust someone's chops? Bust mine. I don't take too kindly to my friends and/or allies being misinterpreted and abused for it. (It's called "loyalty," obviously something you know nothing about. See also: GWB.) You shouldn't have too much trouble misinterpreting my commentary, though. That is, unless you really ARE that stupid.

"Go fuck yourself." --Dick Cheney

Nice argument Beth, did you stop and consider that maybe those groups you named aren't running ads because GASP! they're HAPPY with 'ol Harriet?

Like...DUH!

And it's not DISLOYALTY to DISAGREE with the President, or, would you like to entertain us with your views on the current status of illegal immigration and how it affects our efforts in the GWOT? Can you do that without being *ahem* disloyal?

Loco, I wasn't talking to you, so stuff it.

And if you think NARAL & PAW are pro-Miers, well, I can't help you with your delusions. "DUH!" If it helps you sleep at night to think so, then good for you.

And it's not DISLOYALTY to DISAGREE with the President

No, but it is STUPID to parrot the left's arguments, which is what you just did.
I hate to break it to you, but shrieking in blog comments isn't going to change the world--or Bush's mind.
Thanks for the laugh, though!

Nice argument Beth, did you stop and consider that maybe those groups you named aren't running ads because GASP! they're HAPPY with 'ol Harriet?

*Who, among other things, was with the majority in Roe.

Have you guys considered just cutting to the chase and demanding impeachment? What's the holdup here? Shortage of giant puppets? I believe International ANSWER might be able to lend you some surplus puppetage if you ask nicely....

OK, that's a cheap shot, I admit. But can't you people see how... *unhinged* you look to the non-committed? Does it bother you not at all that Democrats are sitting back happily watching their enemies destroy each other for no good reason? Oh, but none of that's *your* side's fault, I guess - it's all that evil chimp in the White House?

It just looks so nuts to me. I was out of town on business last week (and mostly away from the blogs), and it's like some sort of insidious computer virus that induces mass hysteria among bloggers has been released during that time. Or everybody's taking Andrew Sullivan's "filled with heart-ache at such gobsmacking vileness" pills. It's incredibly depressing, but all I can do now is hope that the fever might pass eventually.

Oh, excellent, David C. Walking into a roomful of angry people and condescending to them really hard is such an insightful approach to conflict resolution, I'm sure we'll all come 'round to the wisdom of your position now.

That, or invite you to go fuck yourself.

Hm, let me think...

Hm, let me think...

Don't hurt yourself ...

Look everyone who is personally attacking everyone who dares to question this nominee. I, and many other conservatives, pretty much supported Bush ONLY becuase he promised conservative SUPREME COURT justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We put up with his very liberal domestic policies (aside from tax cuts, but those are hardly permanent), ONLY because we felt conservative Scalia-like Supreme Court justices were the most important thing (and not only because of abortion). We have kept fairly mum about our distaste for most of Bush's domestic policies, and vocally supported him most of the time. When it came his turn to do the right thing and repay the conservative base, he gave us a wink and said "trust me."

He has done nothing to earn that trust when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee, and we've been burned on the "trust me" tactic for supreme court nominees in the past. Even if Miers turns out to vote like Scalia (something I seriously doubt - I don't believe she will even be as conservative as O'Conner based on everything I've read about her), Bush has still given the big finger to conservatives with this pick.

Bush knew what the conservative base wanted, he knew why we supported him, he knew why we worked for him and defended him, and he still failed to deliver. He did not have to give us a nominee like Janice Rogers Brown who would have been very controversial. Luttig would have basically sailed through like Roberts and would have made conservatives very happy. But, Bush decided he did not care what conservatives thought, or what work they did for him, he was going to nominate his friend. That is a betrayal of the base, and asking us to just "take it" for the team is too much. This is all the conservative base has worked for for Republicans for 20 or 30 years - and they know it. Asking for Supreme Court nominees that we have confidence in is not too much to ask - particularly when it is all we have asked for. So now, we know where conservatives stand.

Our choice now is whether to simply blindly pull the lever for republicans from here on out, even though they consistently screw us, or do something to force them to move to the right. Yes, in the short term democrats are likely to win some elections if the conservative base punishes republicans, but ultimately it will force the republicans to stop screwing the conservative base and over time will move this country to the right. You have to look at the big picture. Are we interested in keeping republicans in power no matter what, or are we interested in pushing conservative ideas and principals forward?

Damn it, Beth, stop stealing my "irascible mother hen" schtick.

Are we interested in keeping republicans in power no matter what, or are we interested in pushing conservative ideas and principals forward?

What you're going to get is eight more years of Clinton co-presidency.

There seems to be a lot of people requesting that others have sex with themselves. Is this really necessary? *looks at Beth* (you know I love you though!) We need to calm down here. Good grief. We haven't even had hearings yet.

I can understand everyone being upset about it. It worries me as well, but let's give Miers a chance. There isn't much we can do about it. It isn't like Bush is going to change his mind because of THE POWERFUL AND OUTSPOKEN BLOGGERS.

Yelling at each other isn't going to accomplish anything.

My God. I have become my mother....;-)

"What you're going to get is eight more years of Clinton co-presidency."

So, we never hold a republican accountable for their policies, no matter how liberal they get? No matter how much they disappoint? We are republicans first and only? There is no conservative principal worth fighting for?

That may work for some, but I don't think the base as a whole will agree. I, for one, am someone who tends to vote republican, but I have a conservative philosophy and beliefs. If the republican party fails me repeatedly, I will not continue to support it. Sometimes people need to be held accountable for their decisions.

We haven't even had hearings yet.

And then it will be too late - it looks like the deal has already been cut with the Dems. John Funds' article today (Opinion Journal) tells us that the administration has put the word out that opposing Miers is opposing Bush, so they're squelching dissent on the conservative side.

The political process and its participants are going to shrug off our objections just as the Porkbusting project has been shrugged off.

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?

I seen you 'round for a long long time
I really 'membered you when you drink my wine

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?

I seen you walkin' down in Chinatown
I called you but you could not look around

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?

I bring my money to the welfare line
I see you standing in it every time

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?

TO MICHAEL

re: former thread.

Geeze dude! I was kidding about the crying thing. Of course I wouldn't never cry! I am woman, hear me ROAR!

The simple woman thing is tongue in cheek as well.

Perhaps I should use more smiley faces????

TO GEOFF

Too late for what? What do you think we can do? Get out the pitchforks and torches and head for the white house?

I just don't see us crying over this as changing anything. If we wait until the hearings and our worst fears are realized, then we have a reason to cry.

Either way, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it except be mad at Bush.

What you're going to get is eight more years of Clinton co-presidency.

So, we never hold a republican accountable for their policies, no matter how liberal they get?

Funny you should mention porkbusters. Think there's any chance all this rancor over Miers has more to do with the DC attitude we're having shoved up our butts?

It's plain that our representatives care less what we think about spending. It's obvious the President doesn't care what we think about Miers. I'd bet my left one she's as conservative as anybody on that Court, but does that come from principle or theology or expedience? Who knows? So why not the best? And on and on...

Getting popped in the snoot and then snickered at by those you fund and help elect is infuriating. I suspect if we'd made any headway on spending we'd be more patient with this pick.

And Sparkle, I bet your Mom was a doll. Don't fight it.

Great Banana --- Agreed. Sometimes, it takes the sight of the noose to focus the mind. Let's hope it is so with our wayward Republican elected officials.

FWIW, I don't think Bush intended the Miers nom as a slap in the face to the base. I think he thought she was the lowest common denominator between what would satisfy the base and what he could get confirmed without a fight. He miscalculated.

Boris,

Interesting that all my conservative principals are "petty ideological frustrations." I take it from your snark that you have no principals and are purely a party man. Othewise, your ad hominem attack is asinine. Oh wait, it is asinine either way.

GB

Opinion Journal has some great articles today. John Fund says the vetting process sucked, and Peggy Noonan says, basically, that the White House should pull the nomination and criticises the administration for their response to critics:

An essential White House mistake--really a key and historic one--was in turning on its critics with such idiotic ferocity. "My way or the highway" is getting old. "Please listen to us and try to see it our way or we'll have to kill you," is getting old. Sending Laura Bush out to make her first mistake as first lady, agreeing with Matt Lauer that sexism is probably part of the reason for opposition to Ms. Miers, was embarrassingly inept and only served to dim some of the power of this extraordinary resource. As for Ed Gillespie and his famous charge of sexism and elitism, I don't think serious conservatives believe Ed is up nights pondering whiffs and emanations of class tension and gender bias in modern America. It was the ignorant verbal lurch of a K Street behemoth who has perhaps forgotten that conservatives are not merely a bloc, a part of the base, a group that must be handled, but individuals who are and have been in it for serious reasons, for the long haul, and often at considerable sacrifice. They don't deserve to be patronized by people they've long strained to defend.

I predict 5 Miers threads for today.

sight of the noose

Funny you should mention that ...

"Either we hang together or we'll hang separately"

all my conservative principals are "petty ideological frustrations."

Conservatives value prudence.

Imprudence in the name of conservatism is for kooks.

Great Banana,

Nice try. Insinuate yourself into the disagreement as a "fellow conservative" to try do turn us into disgusted and unwilling Democrat voters. Yes we are angry, but we are not stupid. We will simply look deeper into our Republican candidates and search for much firmer Conservative candidates. Bush may have passed himself as a RINO, but that has just made us wiser-not Democrats. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Incidently, I was hoping that Someone was Atomic Amish.

I like the idea that's been floating that he should nominate Miers to a lower court position. Maybe he could open up a spot on the DC Circuit by nominating Janice Rogers Brown, or on the Fifth Circuit by nominating Priscilla Owen.

Have I mentioned that a close friend of my family is one of the judges the Democrats were blocking in the Senate? Susan Bieke-Neilson would have been a great choice, if not for the health problems.

Let's come to grips with a central point: the right is a coalition.

For instance, let's say someone was pitching Guiliani pretty hard. The first thing they would do is explain why he can win and how that gives the party 80% of what it wants rather than 0% in the the attempt for 100%.

So far Bush is only giving us about 65% of what we want and that gives us perfectly good cause to bitch for awhile. But, at some point we have to read the tea leaves, realize that the evangelicals are getting their little time in the sun and further realize that is just how it goes with majority coalitions. If this is too much to handle we can simply increase our idealogical purity by becoming a minority party. Only winners have to deal with coalitional compromises, even poor ones such as this.

The level of acrimony hasn't done any disservice to the cause thus far but at some point it will and everyone should be cognizant of that. Let's all remember that at the end of the day we rally around more than we disagree on.

I don't know that this is really the "8 years of Clinton" scenario. It would be if Dick Cheney ran in 08 and got the nomination.

Offered with all the ifs regarding Harriett that apply.

Peggy Noonan is my goddess.

That said, two things.

One, the loyalty to party sentiment is a little worrisome. If Republicans are going to behave like Democrats, why not go whole hog and actually vote for Democrats? This Supreme Court nomination was one of the last bastions of Republican conservatism expected of this administration. We can't get them to behave conservatively on spending, we can't get them to behave conservatively on immigration, we can't get them to behave conservatively on smaller government. What on earth is the use of voting for the Republican party if they abjectly refuse to do what we put them in office for?

Two, I don't want to wait for the hearings. By the time this reaches hearings, it will be a fait accompli. Hearings have become a meaningless, rhetorically masturbative circus - especially if Democrats are on board. Bush won't change his mind. Miers won't change her mind. Fine. What we must do then is shout and shout and shout until enough Republican senators are nervous enough to second guess this and hopefully put a halt on it.

I'm sorry, but the Clintonian boogeyman doesn't work for me. If Republcans will not behave like Republicans, they deserve to lose. This isn't Eastern Europe circa 1980. I'm not going to bow down to any political party if they are not a party looking after my interests.

Hey Robbie:

1. Are the Republicans still more in alignment with your core issues than the Democrats?

2. That 3rd party route a viable option yet?

3. Learn to deal with it. Strange bedfellows, etc, etc. Welcome to the entirely unsatisfactory arrangement known as Adultland.

Since one brings up party loyalty and the Clinton 'boogeyman,' would it be too far afield to question why a McCain presidency would be in any way preferable to a Hillary presidency?

they deserve to lose

Republicans who act like you want them too are a very small minority.

If you can't bother yourself to join in protecting the planet from Islamofascism and socialism, and you don't want to listen to the names you deserve to be called from those who do, then maybe you should just fade out.

Yeah, Adultland. Where you get nothing and like it.

I'll pass.

then maybe you should just fade out

Genius.

Spongeworthy, are you actually getting nothing? If so you don't like the fact that Bush is acting much more aggressively than any Democrat would in the area of defense. If so, you believe that a Democrat is going to go out and cut your taxes.

I don't think you believe either of those things. So you're just pissed off about Miers. Well, shit, so am I. Deal with it.

Former Speechwriters. Is there any thing they don't know?

Ad Hominen attack ripped off from Homer Simpson.

Where you get nothing and like it.

Yeah ok ... get nothing.

Roberts = nothing
Afghanistan = nothing
Iraq = nothing
Tax cuts = nothing
ABM = nothing
Lybia nukes = nothing

From the Fund piece:

The skepticism is not abating. Back home, the Liberty Legal Institute, the only conservative legal foundation in Texas, has so far declined to endorse her. Several large GOP donors in Texas have met to discuss spending large sums to run ads calling on Ms. Miers to withdraw. "They include both male and female friends of hers who don't think the confirmation process will be good for her or the country," one told me. "They're not sexists, they're realists."

It may be a forlorn hope, but as long as there's a chance of doing better, "shut up and like it" is not on my agenda. One of the things I like about "our" side is that we hold our own accountable. If the president nominates a personal friend who doesn't appear to be very qualified for an important position with lifetime tenure, then resorts to personal attacks when questioned -- that smells. I don't care if he's my guy or not, it's wrong and I'm not putting up with it quietly.

One of the things I like about "our" side is that we hold our own accountable.

Yeah, thanks for the first 8 years of Clinton co-presidency.

I'm not taking my football and going home. I'm asking those I support politically to be accountable on serious issues.

Different from some critics, but wanted to make that clear.

Those of you making the point about WoT, yes, message received.

We could fight a little harder. We could make the case more forcefully than has been made.

I'm tired of hearing people say that this arguing is destroying our party. It's not a fight between conservative and liberal sides of the Republican party, it's a fight between the gutsy and the timid. All those arguing want the same thing, but some don't think we deserve or can win what we want.

By having this fight, we are pulling the party toward conservatism, which, as Rush always says, wins every time it's tried.

It's like when your kids are fighting. It's irrelevant who "started it". All parties are behaving badly. I hate to say it but the result that would leave the least amount of long-term damage would be for Miers to withdraw herself. That's not what I would like to happen but it would mean that nobody wins. If there has to be a loser in this situation, it's best for the state of the party that it be Miers herself.

If you can't bother yourself to join in protecting the planet from Islamofascism and socialism, and you don't want to listen to the names you deserve to be called from those who do, then maybe you should just fade out.

See? I love this stuff. Demand a little domestic accountability from the Republican party and suddenly you might as well don a turban and join International A.N.S.W.E.R.

And you think this is way to convince people, do you? No, comrade, if that's the kind of loyalty you're selling, I don't think I'll buy.

Anonymous:

1. It's starting to look doubtful. I've never been a fan of the religious right, but I'm a live and let live type. As you say, politics make for strange bedfellows. However, they have always been offset by fiscal conservatism (non-existant), the possibility of constructionist judges (going, going . . .), and the war in Iraq (which the administration is just barely on the side of competence in). I'm a social liberal. If the Republicans won't be fiscal conservatives or clean up the high court, what else is there to recommend them? The war? Bush will be in office another 3 years. I think it's long enough to introduce a lil stability in Iraq. In the meantime, I have to re-consider my 2006 votes. Maybe an opposition will at least bring spending down. Might as well, if the court nominees are going to be crap anyway.

2. It will never be viable until a major party cracks up. I always thought it would be the Democrats who split first. Bush certainly seems to be doing his damnedest to keep the Republicans in the race though, doesn't he?

3. Thanks for the condescension. I also enjoy the occasional spanking should you feel up to it. Gimme a call. We'll meet for coffee first.

Funny, I thought being "adult" involved being willing to take short-term pain for long-term gain.

S. Weasel, no one is asking you to "shut up and like it". They're asking you to shut up after awhile if your argument doesn't carry the day. Because it's in your best interest to get some of what you want rather than none of it.

Christ, you'd think people were never dissappointed with political outcomes before. I got it, let's see if we can get Perot back, he won't ask you to shut up and like it.

Yeah, thanks for the first 8 years of Clinton co-presidency.

Bullshit, Boris.

Only the real fringe is arguing that we should stop voting for Republicans. I have in the past, and will continue doing so. Some of us believe the president could have, and should have, given us a better pick than Miers.

Yeah, thanks for the first 8 years of Clinton co-presidency.

I'm only responsible for the second four years. I didn't think "because it's his turn" was an adequate reason to vote for Bob Dole, so I stayed home.

But keep insulting me and my kind. That's bound to bring us back into the fold.

First it's

they deserve to lose

Next:

Demand a little domestic accountability

Losing is not what I call accountability so I call BS on your mischaracterization of YOUR OWN POST.

Funny, I thought being "adult" involved being willing to take short-term pain for long-term gain.

um, one of the reasons we're reacting strongly to this issue is a potential 20 to 25 year career on the bench isn't short term pain.

Look everyone who is personally attacking everyone who dares to question this nominee.

Actually, the most vitriolic attacks I've seen (apart from this thread, which seems to be pretty much equal opportunity bile) have been made by the opponents of Miers against those of us who aren't waving our pitchforks with sufficient gusto.

What's sad is not that we're arguing with each other -- hell, we're not Democrats, we actually tolerate dissenting opinions within the ranks. What's sad is that both sides in the debate have for the most part stopped assailing or defending Miers herself, and started getting personal.

Only the real fringe

Maybe that's who I refer to. Is your name "fringe"?

Welcome to the entirely unsatisfactory arrangement known as Adultland.

Translation: bend over and take it up the keester like a MAN...and don't you DARE complain, because you're not going to get better treatment from the likes of HILLARY!

If I wanted to trade principles for political expediency I'd be a Democrat. Trying to divide real conservatives from their values is like nuclear fission: the result can be harnessed and the leftovers is a mass of useless, harmful waste.

Maybe that's who I refer to. Is your name "fringe"?

And how many of us are on this board?

Argue with us, not the voices in your head.

Maybe that's who I refer to. Is your name "fringe"?

And how many of us on this board are arguing that particular viewpoint?

Argue with us, not the voices in your head.

Sorry, Boris, but I'm not buying that Bush's performance in the war in anyway obligates the base to STFD and STFU when he lets Harry Reid pick the next SCOTUS justice.

it's a fight between the gutsy and the timid

No it isn't. It's between the sideliners who want to see a fight and those would rather fight smart than lose.

The guy in the arena get to pick his battles.

Dave: I meant the short-term loss of elections, in exchange for later wins with a Republican party worth supporting.

Not sure I'm ready to advocate that, but it's certainly a defensible position.

I'm not buying that Bush's performance in the war in anyway obligates the base to STFD and STFU when he lets Harry Reid pick the next SCOTUS justice.

So ??? Say your piece and take your lumps. Only your side is talking about administering any punishment or retribution.

No it isn't. It's between the sideliners who want to see a fight and those would rather fight smart than lose.

No, it's not. We "sideliners" don't just want "a fight." We know that there will be a lot of fights in the future, many of them in the Supreme Court. Based on what little we know about Harriet Miers, we do not trust her to fight those battles and wish the president would pick someone else.

Mischaracterizing our arguments isn't going to make them go away.

Hey bbeck, you don't have to turn into a Democrat but if you get too into idealogical purity, then at least realize they get to run the country while we're busy fighting ourselves.

Maybe it's time to talk about something that we all agree on: Gateway Pundit has links to stories of Chechen terrorists (led by two Wahhabi's) attacking the town of Nalchik.

Sons of bitches must pay.

someone, ok, I misunderstood.

I'm not sure I advocate short-term loss of elections either (because I agree the stakes are high in the war on Islamofascism), but I think aside from closing the checkbook, I don't know how else do you get their attention.

Letting them know you don't like it seems reasonable to me. I suppose I could pencil it in on the next survey I get from Ed Gillespie or Dennis Hastert.

then at least realize they get to run the country while we're busy fighting ourselves.

Really? Did I miss the part when Harry Reid was named Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House?

but it's certainly a defensible position.

Hello ??? War on ???

If you really can't see the relative merits of the less than perfect Republicans compared to the seriously deranged modern Democrats ...

First it's
they deserve to lose
Next:
Demand a little domestic accountability
Losing is not what I call accountability so I call BS on your mischaracterization of YOUR OWN POST.

Good lord. I said "if they don't behave like Republicans," they deserve to lose. Right now, people are demanding that the party be accountable to the people who voted them into office. If they will not be accountable, if they will not be conservative, if they will not get the big things right after mucking up so many small and not so small things, then yes, they deserve to be ousted in 2006.

People say the war is the be all and end all of conservative voting. Conservatives have to suck it up and deal with anything the administration and Congress does because "there's a war on!"

You know what? We're going to be in Iraq for awhile. And I'm totally fine with that. I'm a neo-con when it comes to foreign policy. But we're going to have to take a good long, hard look at Iran in the near future. We're going to have to deal with Syria. And god knows what else the future holds in store. China might get a bug up their ass or North Korea might decide they're feelin a little froggy.

If we can't fund wars, we cannot win them.

Fiscal solvency and our foreign policy are inextricably linked.

Where's Hob?

Quick restatement here from the anonymous guy who's been hectoring everyone.

I hate the Miers pick too. And I can go on forever about other Bush missteps. Also, I'm happy that the right is giving Bush massive shit about it because the judiciary is a core fucking issue.

But... but... at some point we have to realize that our argument didn't win. Bush is going to be stubborn about this just as he's stubborn on all the other issues we're glad he's stubborn on.

I just want to put a damper on the "take my ball home if I don't win" talk because there is simply not a viable political alternative on WoT and a few other issues. No one is asking anyone to ENJOY the fucking we're getting on this particular issue. We're just asking that everyone remembers that nursing this as a bitter thorn after a certain amount of time acts against everyone's best interests.

We "sideliners" don't just want "a fight."

So clearly you DO want a fight. Yes ???

If you are going to admit what I write and then accuse me of specifically "mischaracterizing" you, you demolish any claim to reasonable discussion.

Listen ... I'm not talking about you. Taking my posts personally is just looking for and excuse to whine.

By the way, I look forward to everyone expending all of this energy on idealogical purity on the next rah-rah-Guiliani post that Ace puts up.

Me, I like Guiliani, I think he can win and that gives me more than the Dems are offering.

So clearly you DO want a fight. Yes ???

What the hell? Are we "parsing" again? I thought that went out with the Clinton years.

I'm saying that our position cannot be simply characterized as wanting "a fight." Perhaps I should have used the word "simply" instead of "just." In other words, you read too much into what I wrote.

I'm not taking your posts personally, I'm arguing against your position as someone who represents the other side.

Two years of a Dem-controlled Congress (either branch) won't lose the war.

Nor, I suspect, will 4 years of a non-moonbat Dem's presidency. That is, of course, iffier.

But what Bush has to know, if HE buys into this "war is most important" business, is that there are many social cons who don't much care about the war or are actually isolationist, and that HE's killing the party's chance of picking them up again in the future. Nice, eh?

Me, I like Guiliani

Way better than McCain, who would still be way better than 8 more years of Clinton co-presidency, who would be better than Gore or Kerry.

there is simply not a viable political alternative on WoT

There is not a current viable political alternative. The Miers nomination could fundamentally alter party alignments and refocus their agendas. If the Democrats are smart enough. Fortunately for the Republicans, with Dean at the helm, they are unlikely to take advantage of the disillusionment of the center-right.

I like that response, "You think you're getting nothing?"

Look, I got stuff during the Clinton Administration, too. I can make a list of things I'm pretty sure I would like about a Hillary! Administration. The woman isn't Stalin, for Christ's sake. We're not talking about the end of the Union here. She's not the threat you guys think she is, so stop holding that over our heads. It doesn't work as well as you think.

The list of things I don't like has gotten too long--Miers is a minor issue to me since I'm convinced she's not just conservative, but staunchly so. But on top of the spending you throw in the arrogance and Miers becomes the last straw. Small issue to me, but enough.

Frankly, I'd welcome her to the court with a pretty pony party if we had done one damn thing about the un-fucking-believable growth in Federal spending.

Not being an ideological purist, I'm a religous conservative who hopes Giuliani runs.

um, one of the reasons we're reacting strongly to this issue is a potential 20 to 25 year career on the bench isn't short term pain.

Which contradicts earlier anti-Miers complaints that she was too old.

Guess I oughta close my bold markups. Oops.

Two years of a Dem-controlled Congresswon't lose the war.

Nor, I suspect, will 4 years of a non-moonbat Dem's presidency.

This kind of thinking is what scares people away from Democrat politicians. It is so clearly imprudent that any claim to conservatism is just nutty.

Anonymous guy who's been hectoring everyone, I ain't reading what you're writing until you pick a name. Just stick anything in the "name" slot so I know if I'm trying to piece together one person's argument or six.

Hm. I bet there's a way to jemmy the software so if you leave name blank, it fills it in with your IP address. That would make people pay attention. Awwww, what am I thinking? They can't even jemmy it to remember info.

You don't make the Republicans more conservative by losing elections or punishing the president.

You do it by electing more conservative local representitives.

About as conservative as risking everything on a war for democracy in Iraq, yes. Or risking "angering" the Soviets with missiles in Germany. Or...

Conservatism isn't about risk-aversion disguised as wisdom. Not in America.

Which contradicts earlier anti-Miers complaints that she was too old.

I suppose. I didn't make that complaint.

aawww Spongeworthy, that was sweet. Did you get my e-mail a while back?

Hey bbeck, you don't have to turn into a Democrat but if you get too into idealogical purity, then at least realize they get to run the country while we're busy fighting ourselves.

Wrong, O Brave Anonymous, the people who end up running the country will be the ones who don't pu$$y out when the threat of push may come to shove...and yeah, that may be the Democrats since so many Republicans are 'nadless even while we're in the MAJORITY.

So thanks SO much for trying the "Get in line or a loss will be on your head" philosophy, but that BS, Idiot. The person responsible for the divisiveness is the one that CAUSED it, not the many who are REACTING to it. If the Crats take over, it will be Bush's fault, not ours.

You don't make the Republicans more conservative by losing elections or punishing the president.

You do it by electing more conservative local representitives.

As we see, promises are made to be broken.

You don't make the Republicans more conservative by losing elections or punishing the president.

You do it by electing more conservative local representitives.

That would be a ridiculously slow, unreliable, and ineffective way to modify the administration's stance. The traditional way you do it is by telling the powers that be that you're dissatisfied, and that your dissatisfaction is deep enough to change your vote.

Weasel, I'll go by 1234 from now on. Sorry to make it confusing with being anonymous but I'm not a big commenter. As to the ip address comment, I'll remind you that our host, Ace, isn't a big one on publicity either.

Don't read the other comments if you don't want to.

Btw, some people have referred to our arguments against "taking the ball home" as a strawman. Two or three people have now threatened exactly that. It isn't a strawman. And to those people, I'll say it again, it would only take a couple of months with the Dems in power to get you squarely back on the Repub reservation. Complain about the Miers nomination, Bush deserves it and it can have positive outcomes if she withdraws. This was his mistake, not ours. But if she doesn't withdraw, ask yourself if you want to politically damage Bush over something you can't stop.

You don't make the Republicans more conservative by losing elections or punishing the president.

Well, gall darn, you SURE don't make them more conservative by blindly supporting their lame-brained decisions, either!

Miller Lite tastes great.

Bbeck, I'm going by 1234 now so I don't confuse you. I assume, of course, that Bbeck is exactly how your name appears on your birth certificate and if I click your name it goes to your website or email address? Better yet, please print your home address so I can send you an apology. Idiot.

Flaming aside, granted, Bush caused it and we're right to complain. The question is, how long do we complain if we don't win? Or are you planning on leaving the right as well over the issue?

And to those people, I'll say it again, it would only take a couple of months with the Dems in power to get you squarely back on the Repub reservation.

Oh, what insight, it's breathlessly moving, that.

A couple of months with the Dems in power will put the Republican POLITICIANS back on the reservation.

And uh, WE aren't the ones who AREN'T on that reservation ATM. WE aren't the ones saying we need to COMPROMISE our Republican values for the sake of political unity.

1234 - thanks. It's hard to tell if it's one person making the arguments, or five people. This will make it easier to tell what's you and what's not you.

"A couple of months with the Dems in power will put the Republican POLITICIANS back on the reservation."

That makes another one who is threatening this. Hell of a lot of strawmen around here.

"Me, I like Guiliani, I think he can win and that gives me more than the Dems are offering."

I like Giuliani too, but if I was Giuliani and following this insanely overheated reaction to Miers, I'd be thinking "Sweet Jeebus, life's pretty good now, do I really want to subject myself to 4-8 years of *this*? And this is all directed against a traditional conservative Republican! Me, a lot of people constantly call a 'RINO' - how bad is it gonna get for me if I don't toe the line, if I can even figure out what line they want me to toe?"

Bbeck, I'm going by 1234 now so I don't confuse you. I assume, of course, that Bbeck is exactly how your name appears on your birth certificate and if I click your name it goes to your website or email address? Better yet, please print your home address so I can send you an apology. Idiot.

Oh, you couldn't confuse me unless you actually had an original thought. And B. Beck IS my name, but it's not on my birth certificate since I'm married. Leave it to a brain trust such as yourself not to take that into consideration. You can't even insult properly.

Flaming aside, granted, Bush caused it and we're right to complain. The question is, how long do we complain if we don't win? Or are you planning on leaving the right as well over the issue?

I'm not leaving the Right NOW, Zero. My principles are right where they've always been. You're the one crawling after politicians for whatever scraps you can get.

Bbeck, I'm going by 1234 now so I don't confuse you. I assume, of course, that Bbeck is exactly how your name appears on your birth certificate and if I click your name it goes to your website or email address? Better yet, please print your home address so I can send you an apology. Idiot.

That's a pretty moronic interpretation in itself. By "anonymous" bbeck meant "nameless" - she was obviously not asking for any more information than a simple moniker so that people can follow your arguments. Which is a simple courtesy that you should have observed originally.

That makes another one who is threatening this. Hell of a lot of strawmen around here.

Wrong again, Zero. YOU are the one threatening to have the Crats in power, you're just too dumb to realize what the actual repurcussions would be.

lauraw,

at 11:20am???????

Geoff, I can't figure out how this guy can keep his keyboard from shorting out from all his drool.

You're supposed to say 'Less filling!'

And it wouldn't matter if I was drunk today, business is slow as molasses. Nasssty, wet and cold it issss, my preciouss

I BLAME JEFF GANNON!

Miller Lite tastes great

You are so full of shit. That is so stunningly stupid I can't even understand you saying it.

whore.

On anonymity, whatever, I simply don't care. I'll concede I should have made up a random handle right off the bat.

Bbeck, you said "You're the one crawling after politicians for whatever scraps you can get." That's the crux of the issue. Overwraught verbiage aside, I tend to believe this is the normal state of politics. Please prove me wrong by naming all of the politicians you've voted for who exactly represented your entire worldview. If not, please defend being happy with "whatever scraps you can get".

No, no...I'm happy now, 1234. I just wanted a handle to grab you by.

As for the rest, I'm not inclined to "punish" the party if I don't prevail on this one issue. But I'm not happy with the general trend of the party, which doesn't seem to know how to be a majority. That, or it doesn't really believe what it always said it believed. And my 2006 dilemma will be particular and acute: support a less electable genuine conservative Republican in the primary over the ultimate squishy RINO, with the likely outcome of my next Senator being Democrat? I'm not looking forward to deciding.

But I'm not convinced we've lost on Miers yet. Though Bush himself won't back down -- it's not in his nature -- she might. Or she might not pass committee. And we've certainly taught Bush that we don't love everything he does just because it's him doing it. Everyone in power needs to hear that message from time to time, lest he forget.

How is that a strawman? It's a threat and a serious one. I'll risk four years of Hillary.

Ask yourself something: It's no secret DeLay is getting railroaded. Why isn't the base springing up and demanding that prosecutors head on a platter? Even if DeLay were just cruising along at his usual speed with high and vocal unfavorables and staunch but less numerous favorables, we'd defend the guy on principle.

But DeLay has thumbed his nose at us. I don't care what happens to him. That may look like abandoning the principle, but it's because of a more important one.

If these guys can't or won't fight, then let's get some new guys who will. If we have to sit on the sidelines for 2 or four years, I think it's worth it.

Sparkle, I did not, and was deeply deeply hurt. You get on that right now, woman. Hear?

(Use the work address. I don't check the home one much.)

Dave, that is the kind of response I would expect from an intellectual midget such as yourself.
You can't provide a successful counter-argument, so you lazily go right to ad hominem attacks.
Ever heard of a cite?
Ever heard of logic?

DISMISSED

One more thing, and then this horse is dead (to me. he's just dead to me),

there are a few Republicans who are getting ready to take their shot for the nomination.

I want them listening right now.. to conservatives in their party, about ther courts, about fiscal responsibility, about illegal immigration... I want them to know where their supporters are on these issues. McCain? Rudy? Allen?

listen up fellas...

Weasel, I can't disagree with a thing you just said.

It's hard to influence the party with the tools available to us. Personally, I think a positive move would be to work on forcing primaries for the encumbents who've lost touch. I'm very active at the state level and that's a pet issue for me.

Miller Lite tastes great

Sure, why not just hand the WH over to the Dem's? Say, here you go, c'mon in. Is that what you want? Cause that's what that means.

You can't provide a successful counter-argument, so you lazily go right to ad hominem attacks.

Clearly what is required are more vigorous ad hominem attacks.

Dateline 2010

There once was a Justice named Miers
Who said her opponents were liars.
She then let Roe stand
As the law of the land...
I can't wait until she retires.

Personally, I think a positive move would be to work on forcing primaries for the encumbents who've lost touch. I'm very active at the state level and that's a pet issue for me.

We've got one of those up here. Okay, both of them. I think Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and the frickin' "Gang of 14 Media Whores" is one of the main reasons Bush felt he had to go with a stealth nominee.

Olympia's up for re-election next year, but the party is not going to find anyone to run against her.

That would be a ridiculously slow, unreliable, and ineffective way to modify the administration's stance. The traditional way you do it is by telling the powers that be that you're dissatisfied, and that your dissatisfaction is deep enough to change your vote.

Exactly, Geoff.

What would people have us do? How do you make Republican politicians behave like Republicans and stick to conservative principles?

The only thing politicians understand are votes.

That's not threatening to take my ball and go home. That's threatening to go from shirts to skins in mid-game if it will force my team to play harder.

The idea that we have to sit here and take this from the politicians, and that someday they'll return to the fold out of the goodness of their hearts is too naive for words.

DISMISSED

Oh yeah, well how bout Juan Cole?

...the "great taste, less filling war is over, and the winner is... Iran".

suck it!

Spongeworthy, you didn't mention the strawman accusation. Someone else did and I was using you as one of the examples to show that people threatening us with Democrats isn't a strawman fallacy.

Miller Lite?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you even like beer?

Idiots.

tastes great - less filling

As long as it's an Ivy League graduate drinking it . . .

Reminds of a frisbee freestyle competition I watched some 15 year ago. One of the big stars led a "Tastes Great - Less Filling" chant to support the tournament sponsor. He did a great job getting the crowd going, with no one seeming to realize that the tournament sponsor was Budweiser.

"We've got one of those up here. Okay, both of them. I think Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and the frickin' "Gang of 14 Media Whores" is one of the main reasons Bush felt he had to go with a stealth nominee.

Olympia's up for re-election next year, but the party is not going to find anyone to run against her."

Agreed. Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, and McCain. Forcing tough primaries against them would really move the ball in our direction.

Is that your sturdy, unassailable foundation of reason? JUAN FRIGGIN COLE?
I weep for the educational system that turned out a vapid pinhead like you.
Juan Cole. Sigh.
I've heard better arguments on a beer commercial.

spongeworthy wrote:
I can make a list of things I'm pretty sure I would like about a Hillary! Administration. The woman isn't Stalin, for Christ's sake. We're not talking about the end of the Union here. She's not the threat you guys think she is, so stop holding that over our heads. It doesn't work as well as you think.

You seriously need to read up on her, and not any of that silly Ed Klein bullshit either.

While I may agree with Miers not being the optimum choice for SCOTUS, letting Hillary slip into the Oval Office because of squabbling will do a lot more harm than you think. It very well may be the end of our Republic once this happens.

Mark down these two predictions of mine for a Hillary Presidency. First, Billy Jeff isn't going to make it to Election Day 2008; he's too much of an obstacle while he's breathing and he's too valuable as a pittiable widow's husband. Second, once Hillary gets into office, the 22nd Amendment will probably follow Billy into the ground. Hillarius Pantsuita DICTATOR PERPETUO.

Bbeck, you said "You're the one crawling after politicians for whatever scraps you can get." That's the crux of the issue. Overwraught verbiage aside, I tend to believe this is the normal state of politics. Please prove me wrong by naming all of the politicians you've voted for who exactly represented your entire worldview. If not, please defend being happy with "whatever scraps you can get".

Gracious, for someone who whines so much about straw men you sure love to pull them out of your tail.

The two situations aren't even remotely comparable, and if you had two brain cells to rub together you'd know that...

...but actually, that wee man is just an attempt to distract from the fact that every statement made to point out the moronity of your argument is being conveniently ignored by you.

Regarding the theory that Bush refrained from nominating a possibly controversial conservative because of the spineless senate, he could have done us all a favor in forcing the senators to take a stand. Then, we could focus on defeating the cowards. With Miers, they can campaign on the fact that they "supported" Bush's nominees and make it that much more difficult to claim that they are, in fact, hurting our chances of reigning in the judiciary.

Bush should have done us all the favor of making them all show their hands. It wouldn't have hurt Bush at all... hell, he promised a strict conservative nominee. The fact that he backed down given the squishiness of the senate doesn't help us.

Whatever, bbeck. Go through the comments and check, you make ad hominems, I make points.

Grow up... and when you do, please vote Republican.

Snowe, Collins, and perhaps even Chafee may be as right as you can fairly expect from their states (though Laffey has a nonzero chance). It's McCain, DeWine, crybaby Voinovich, and especially Lindsey Graham who need to be taken out or taught a lesson.

Unfortunately, it looks like Graham may -- MAY -- be instrumental in getting us out of this mess. We'll see.

I can make a list of things I'm pretty sure I would like about a Hillary! Administration. The woman isn't Stalin, for Christ's sake. We're not talking about the end of the Union here. She's not the threat you guys think she is, so stop holding that over our heads. It doesn't work as well as you think.

Doesn't work on me, but I'm not afraid of a GIRL.

I got a call a couple months ago from the RNC asking for a donation, and the chick on the phone was using the Hillary Threat exclusively. I politely told her to shove it and that I donate to specific candidates, not to the party because I didn't want my money going to some candidates I didn't support, and all the Hillarymongering in the world won't change that.

American Football

Hallelullah!
It works.
We blew the shit out of them.

We blew the shit right back up their own ass
And out their fucking ears.

It works.
We blew the shit out of them.
They suffocated in their own shit!

Hallelullah.
Praise the Lord for all good things.

We blew them into fucking shit.
They are eating it.

Praise the Lord for all good things.

We blew their balls into shards of dust,
Into shards of fucking dust.

We did it.

Now I want you to come over here and kiss me on the mouth.

Is that the same Senator Graham who told critics of the Miers nomination to "shut up?"

Whatever, bbeck. Go through the comments and check, you make ad hominems, I make points.

I wasn't just referring to my arguments, and your false labels are sour grapes, loser.

Grow up... and when you do, please vote Republican.

More originality! Been there, done that, got the t-shirt that's not all dirty from groveling at politicians' feet...but that look is just FAB on you.

The same Senator Graham who was part of the "Gang of 14?"

Is that your sturdy, unassailable foundation of reason? JUAN FRIGGIN COLE?

Fine, fine, always attack the messenger, never the message.

Perhaps you'll accept the facts as presented by the brewing industry itself? Is that good enough for you?

You can see clearly that Anheuser-Busch is based in St. Louis.

open your eyes people!

Slublog: Yup. That's what's so bizarre about this.

Perhaps he smelled the winds shifting and wanted to get Karen Williams in there. Perhaps he's McCain's liason to the conservatives. Perhaps he's just trying to screw things up even more. Who the hell knows?

The same Senator Graham who said private investment accounts were being "oversold" as a solution to the Social Security problem?

Someone is right. Chaffee is my guy. I hate his politics, but I'm not sure I can fault his political instincts. He might be as staunch a Republican as he can afford to be. Laffey's chances are non-zero, but it's a big risk and the party is doing its best to wave him off. He might very well turn the state D.

I dutifully pull the levers most years, but it's a depressing exercise. In 2004, every single thing on the ballot I voted for lost, 25/75.

And to add insult to injury, Patches Kennedy is my Rep.

Whoops... partial confirmation of my speculation already! Good going, Erick.

Personally, someone, I think Graham realizes how badly he's hurt himself with his own constituents, who are among the most conservative Republican voters in the United States.

That guy is, I think, a perfect example of how the need for Washington popularity took precedence over personal integrity.

Bbeck, now I'm sure you're a fictional creation.

You say my ad hominem comment was a false label and end that very sentence with "loser".

You say I'm not original and then type "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt".

Wow, just wow. Whoever created Bbeck should stand up and take a bow. Well done, sir!

Putting quote marks around the words shut-up does not convince me what was actually said and the context in which it was said. I've seen alot of this type of reporting lately and frankly it pisses me off.

Slublog, I agree that Lindsey Graham is the lowest form of political life, and should be tossed out of office ASAP.

However, at this moment his basest instincts may be a key to turning this disaster into a win, or at least controlling the damage.

Revel in the irony.

Say want you want about bbeck, but she's real, and she's fabulous.

Bbeck, now I'm sure you're a fictional creation.

Aw, that means SO much from a poster who had to be brow-beaten into picking a posting name.

You say my ad hominem comment was a false label and end that very sentence with "loser".

Calling you a loser is technically accurate, so it's not ad hominem. But that's okay, you probably don't know what that means.

You say I'm not original and then type "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt".

...and you truncated the rest of it which wasn't a stolen line! Sorry, I thought I'd appeal to what you'd find famliar, which includes Bush's sphincter and standard one-liners...and your nose is blocking anyone's access to the former.

Wow, just wow. Whoever created Bbeck should stand up and take a bow. Well done, sir!

God says, "Thanks for the praise. Pity I crapped out on you."

It's pretty scary that someone bookmarked that picture.

However, at this moment his basest instincts may be a key to turning this disaster into a win, or at least controlling the damage. Revel in the irony.

It is pretty beautiful to watch.

Why do folks knock the 8 years of Clinton? They were the best thing in the world for the other side of the aisle. Well, the "ignoring terrorists" part was bad, but hey! a House majority, woo!

Also, during the 8 years of Clinton, Republicans acted like Republicans instead of power heady and money hungry fucktards.

Hooray for divided government!

"once-united republican party?"
puh-leez.
Terri's Law, ID in schools, Frist on ESCR...
ID in schools is at least as devisive as harriet. And there's at least three court cases on ID on their way up to the supremes.
Frist was called a traitorfor changing his position, just like the repubs that are questioning Mier's creds.

But these issues are cut from the same cloth-- thinkers can't be believers. GW wants a believer for the court, not a thinker. That is the schism that will cleave the republican coalition.
And right now Frist is quietly building a veto proof coalition to fund ESCR. just wait.

bbeck, fine, you win, I'm a giant loser and so on and so forth. I'm too old for this flamewar shit if it's not going to be funny.

someone, thanks for the links, interesting.

to everyone else, I think that Ace is going to keep denying us today's dose of the funny until this thread dies.

But these issues are cut from the same cloth-- thinkers can't be believers. GW wants a believer for the court, not a thinker. That is the schism that will cleave the republican coalition.

Hey, yeah...when in doubt, insult those damn religous right whackos.

Unity restored!

You can see clearly that Anheuser-Busch is based in St. Louis.
open your eyes people!

Oh, there you go again.
I knew it. I knew if I pushed you, you'd start pulling out your tired conspiracy theories.

Miller Lite DOES taste great. Insulting me and propping up your ideas with ridiculous flights of fancy cannot change that fact.

I can see now that this discussion is pointless.

Remember when people were puzzled over Bush elevating Roberts to take Rehnquist's seat.. and how we thought he was wasting an opportunity to solidify conservative gains on the Court?

Well, it may very well be that he did so in order to make room for Miers. Even Bush knew that she could never be confirmed as Chief Justice... so he moved Roberts up so he could nominate Miers to replace O'Connor...

More here at ThoughtOnline

I can see now that this discussion is pointless

The evidence is everywhere. You and your precious neocon pals are in it up to their necks.

More evidence.

Facts are inconvenient things, aren't they?

Spongeworthy,

I sent to both. Maybe it went to your junkmail file? Could you e-mail me again? rightwingsparkle@hotmail.com

I'd have to wade through my e-mails to find yours. The Cotillion sends a JILLION a day!

bbeck, fine, you win, I'm a giant loser and so on and so forth. I'm too old for this flamewar shit if it's not going to be funny.

Don't underestimate yourself, Zero, your politics are HILARIOUS. Other than that, I wasn't being funny, I was treating you like dirt...just like the politicians you're insisting we all suck up to. So you really don't have any room to complain.

i insult no one. everyone is entitled to their own faith. But i think it's fair to categorize Roberts as a thinker, and Miers as a believer. That is why there is such a dust-up about Miers credentials. Not because she is an evangelical, but because there surely are better qualified evangelicals out there.
My point is that the party is definitely not united on the issues i mentioned. ID is still dividing the blogverse. Frist was accused of treachery when he changed his position, just like bloggers who do not support Miers are being villified.

But these issues are cut from the same cloth-- thinkers can't be believers.

That's not an insult, just a statement of fact, huh?

bbeck,

Please! It's a picture with boobies in it! Of course they bookmarked it!!

;-) (your are fabulous, btw!)

Please! It's a picture with boobies in it! Of course they bookmarked it!!

What were we talking about?

Thanks, RWS. You're quite a beautiful lady yourself; I saw your pic at your site some time ago.

This thread has taken a very positive turn.

I agree.

Feel the love.

Slublog, i do not believe that myself, it is a colloquialism. But many do believe it, i think.

Since Mier's ideology (which GW has repeatedly described as identical to his, and immutable to boot) seems to be the sole criteria for her appointment, that suggests unswerving ideology bests scholarship or brilliance or experience.

Geoff is such a scamp.

To get back to this issue: conservatives have 2 different opinions on Miers, and it's not a problem that we disagree. The problem ultimately is HOW we end up disagreeing. If this causes a lasting rift in the party, which side should be the side to move?

Heh. I know the side that's currently steadfast and uncompromising isn't going to budge. That's sort of why they're not moving NOW, it's not in their nature.

boobies. is there anything they can't do?

boobies. is there anything they can't do?

Evidently they can't get people back to the political topic. :P

Geoff is such a scamp.

A scamp like a Viking, mind you.

Since Mier's ideology (which GW has repeatedly described as identical to his, and immutable to boot) seems to be the sole criteria for her appointment, that suggests unswerving ideology bests scholarship or brilliance or experience.

Ah. Good. Despite what Hugh Hewitt is saying, not all evangelicals are falling into line behind Miers. Many of us oppose her for the reasons you've stated here - she doesn't seem to have the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice.

bbeck, Frist is moving.

A scamp like a Viking, mind you.

Oh yeah, scampy Vikings, sigh....

HEY, back to topic, myself included.

bbeck, Frist is moving.

Haha, it's a start, chmeee.

conservatives have 2 different opinions on Miers

All right, all right, back to the mines.. I think it's actually 4 opinions:

The 'she's OK' crowd;

The 'she's underqualified and/or not vetted as a conservative, and we need to get rid of her' crowd;

The 'she's underqualified and/or not vetted as a conservative but we need to shut up and suck it up' crowd; and

The 'the jury's still out, let's wait and see how the hearings go' crowd.

It's very crowded.

Dave,

Yes, they soothe the savage soul.

Heh.

Yeah, but we don't know a damned thing about Harriet Miers' boobs. Once again, the arrogance of the Bush crowd is stunning.

boobies. is there anything they can't do?

Obviously not. Look at how calm, how serene this thread has gotten.

Makes me want to cry.

Geoff, I was thinking more along the lines of...

Camp 1: Her name needs to be withdrawn, because when she gets to the hearings it will be too late.

Camp 2: People need to wait till the hearings, because when she gets to the hearings it will be too late.

Unless Miers completely T-bones the hearings and ticks off both sides (VERY small chance of her cheesing off both sides), she's going to get confirmed...if not by a consensus of Republicans, then by enough Democrats to get her through.

The scariest thing to me is that GW didn't get a sense of the dust-up that this was going to cause. Is he that out of touch with his base?
He seems dense on this issue, and on the ASCR/ESCR debate. If you read the science journals, we've known since last spring that you can't do dediferentiation for ASCR without ESCR, and the blessed stem cell lines have gone unstable. Yet he goes on television and equivalences results for ASCR and ESCR.
He is getting some very bad advice from somewhere, or else his ideolgy is beginning to interfere with his ability to function.

Look at how calm, how serene this thread has gotten.

That wasn't the boobies, that was the disappearance of 1234's sucky histrionic argument.

bbeck:

Your categories are the more practical, since they are action-based, while mine are motivation-based. I agree with your assessment of her confirmation chances - who among the Republicans is actually opposing her?

I'm not sure, bbeck. By identifying her religion as one reason she was nominated, Bush has weakened her on that flank. If she's at all lame in the hearings, I could see all the Dems and two of the Repubs on the committee (and that's all it would take) voting her down.

I've adopted a new curse, I think. Arrrrrr! By Harriet Miers' boobs!

I have a question that I haven't seen addressed anywhere yet. Assuming, hypothetically, that at some point in his term Bush has taken an interest in one or more Supreme Court cases; and assuming that he had someone on his staff who would brief him on the relevant concerns, precedents, likely votes of the Justices, and likely repercussions... who would that person be? And would Miers have had any part in that briefing?

bbeck is correct, she'll be confirmed. And i really doubt she'll be withdrawn, GW is famous for his loyalty.
she could withdraw.

I'm not sure, but isn't that the Soliciters General role? Correct me if I'm wrong, which I likely am, since I'm not a lawyer.

As opposed to so many of the rest of you.

I'd guess that in the first term Ken Mehlman would have had a lot of input on SCOTUS cases.

Some of you may not agree with my politics. Fair enough, but how many of you speak fluent Arabic?

I was in Jordan not so long ago to meet with Iraqi intellectuals who came over for a conference. I spoke Arabic with them, and one was kind enough to listen to me for a while and to say of my Arabic:

"Eck-out-chay the ick-head-day" (which, I am told, means, "Your Arabic is quite good").

I gave a paper on Grand Ayatollah Sistani. One academic from that city came to me and congratulated me, saying:

"Ut-wat ucking-fay ool-tay" (which mean "It is as though you were from Najaf").

You can resume your petty squabbling, I'm off to report on what's happening in THE REAL WORLD.

Namaste, pendejos.

Geoff, mine's "more practical?" WOW, that's a first! :) I'm positively giddy! And yeah, your list was more detailed and I don't disagree with it.

Chmeee seems like a smart person, and if Frist does move, well, he's the majority leader. And I REALLY agree with this...

The scariest thing to me is that GW didn't get a sense of the dust-up that this was going to cause. Is he that out of touch with his base?

It'll be interesting to see if the non-influential, self-important, egotistical bloggers actually have an impact.

He [Bush]is getting some very bad advice from somewhere, or else his ideolgy is beginning to interfere with his ability to function.

I'd say both bad advice and ideology; this is not news to those of us on the left, but I'm glad to see some on the right finally noticing.

geoff, I'd add one more opinion, which is a combination of two of yours.

Take the "she sucks - get rid of her" and then if it looks like it won't work then switch to the "she sucks - now we have to shut up and suck it". There are worse things than messing up a Supreme pick and they include messing up a Supreme pick and then everyone wanting to teach our boys a lesson and hence losing big in 2006 and 2008.

Remember McCain touring with Bush when it was obvious that he still hated him. Even McCain, who doesn't exactly exude party loyalty, realizes that at the end of the day, you have to make nice with your coalition partners or you're only hurting yourself.

I don't think that anyone should pull their punches now, but I do think that at some point we're being unwise to spend too much time in a protracted internal fight.

You all might hate me at this point but everyone loves the Gipper right? "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican." Let's amend that to, "Let's not let the illin' go on too long.

Well, Juan. You may know Arabic, but you don't have the emotional stability to be a good blogger. You get far too emotionally involved in your arguments and that's not good for intellectual consistency.

Read my blog sometimes to see how a real writer keeps his emotions and his intellect separate.

You guys don't know a thing about Harriet Miers boobs and you seem to be okay with that. You're supporting her boobs on Bush's say-so.

Why don't you just bury your noses right up in Bush's stinky old starfish?

Take the "she sucks - get rid of her" and then if it looks like it won't work then switch to the "she sucks - now we have to shut up and suck it".

Still, you have to admit, that's no way to fire up the base that helps one win elections.

"GOP 2006! Grab the Vaseline!" just stinks as a campaign slogan, know what I mean?

You guys don't know a thing about Harriet Miers boobs and you seem to be okay with that. You're supporting her boobs on Bush's say-so.

I suppose it wouldn't be the first time we've supported boobs on Bush's say-so.

You're supporting her boobs on Bush's say-so.

You'd think she'd be able to by her own underwire bra, but whatever. [;-}

I couldn't agree more Slublog and I'd do a backflip if he asked her to withdraw.

But, it's still a long time to 2006 in political time. We could have 10 huge issue base-motivating issues come up by then. If Bush was smart, he'd look around for that veto pen and start picking some smart fights (with the Dems, rather than us this time).

Read my blog sometimes to see how a real writer keeps his emotions and his intellect separate.

So by 'real writer' you mean 'articulate white men,' don't you.? Racist.

we're not talkin

" I'm not sure, but isn't that the Soliciters General role? Correct me if I'm wrong, which I likely am, since I'm not a lawyer.

As opposed to so many of the rest of you."

Wow. Slublog, I never knew you could be so viscious and mean!!

You guys don't know a thing about Harriet Miers boobs and you seem to be okay with that. You're supporting her boobs on Bush's say-so.

Plus there are more qualified boobs right here on this blog. I'll bet some of them went to Ivy League schools.

So by 'real writer' you mean 'articulate white men,' don't you.? Racist.

I'm not the easiest guy to offend, but that's homophobic nonsense.

Actually, the most vitriolic attacks I've seen (apart from this thread, which seems to be pretty much equal opportunity bile) have been made by the opponents of Miers against those of us who aren't waving our pitchforks with sufficient gusto.

Wow. I just got around to reading this thread. Kind of a shock to see how the conversation has degenerated since I participated in the earlier thread yesterday. Normally good natured people are just getting nasty. Too bad.

*Michael makes weak attempt to wave pitchfork"

Wow. Slublog, I never knew you could be so viscious and mean!!

Well, someone needs to crack the whip.

But just yesterday I realized Michael and Allah were both lawyers.

They're everywhere.

And they're coming for us.

Read my blog sometimes to see how a real writer keeps his emotions and his intellect separate.

Sure, it's easy to keep your emotions in check when your blog consists of nothing but a transcription of BushCo's daily talking points.

Just so we're clear, I didn't mean to insinuate that only women can do transcription work.

I'm more of a Bass Ale woman myself. Though Samuel Adams will do in a pinch.

True story: Bass used to have beer coasters that said "tight, creamy head."

Slublog,

And the scary thing is that they look just like us!!!

Some writers like me manage to keep ourselves separated from our intellects.

"Ut-wat ucking-fay ool-tay" (which mean "It is as though you were from Najaf").

That should read "ut-way ucking-fay ool-tay"

Don't want anyone to think I don't know my Arabic.

BIGSTUPIDMORON AWARD NOMINEE - "Sure, it's easy to keep your emotions in check when your blog consists of nothing but a transcription of BushCo's daily talking points." - Daily Kos' Markos Moulitas, being a total jerk as always.

EMAIL OF THE DAY - Received this email earlier today:

Andrew, you are the greatest blogger evar! Your blog rulez and those theocrat American taliban bastards can go suck it!!! wOOt!!!

Wow. I just got around to reading this thread. Kind of a shock to see how the conversation has degenerated since I participated in the earlier thread yesterday. Normally good natured people are just getting nasty. Too bad.

You must have missed the "Bite me" and "You're being an idiot" exchange in yet another thread, Michael. :)

Some of us are just a little tired of the same positively braindead arguments being recycled overandoverandover. They were stupid the first time, redundant the second, and by now they're just fodder, which is kinda cool but it doesn't really contribute, does it?

I'm more of a Bass Ale woman myself.

Mmmm... Bass is a staple of my fridge. For a treat it's Fuller's ESB or Tetleys.

Beer and boobs - and Michael says this thread has degenerated.

And the scary thing is that they look just like us!!!

All too true. Except for the subpoenas.

overandoverandover

Glenn Reynolds will nitpick me for making a simple mistake (or two) in my translation of Arabic (which, I'm sure, he does not speak), but right-wing pundits get a pass on their bastardization of the English language (which I'm also fluent on).

Andrew Sullivan makes me smirk.

But just yesterday I realized Michael and Allah were both lawyers.

Slub:

Jeez, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Ace is a lawyer too. I don't know whether his is practicing, but he's definitely been through law school.

I suspected, but didn't have confirmation, so I didn't add his name. Because I was a journalist once. One who cared.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on television.

I think someone and at least one of the nameless posters are also lawyers.

OSCAR MEYER AWARD NOMINEE - "Andrew Sullivan makes me smirk." - Blogger Oliver Willis, showing his true colors. The left just can't get any more self-parodying, can it?

EMAIL OF THE DAY II - How much damage is Bush doing to the Repubican party. I got this email today from dnc4ever@dnc.org:

Hi, Andrew. I'm a Republican who's just so ashamed of his party right now. Bush has been a total disgrace as a president, and even conservatives like me are starting to get tired of him.

Uuunngggh. Andrew Sullivan is like kryptonite to smirkiness.

Glenn Reynolds will nitpick me for making a simple mistake (or two) in my translation of Arabic (which, I'm sure, he does not speak), but right-wing pundits get a pass on their bastardization of the English language (which I'm also fluent on).

You'd get away with it too if you had my rack.

And I nailed a lawyer once, so I'm assuming that counts.

YA I GUESS YOU WINGNUTS ARE GOING TO BE SIGNING UP TO JOIN THE SUPREME COURT RIGHT OTHERWISE YOURE NOTHING BUT CHICKENHAWKS! YOU WINGERS ALL THINK YOURE FUCKING JUDGE JUDY AKA JUDITH SHEINDLIN THE SMART SAVVY OPINIONATED AND IRREPRESSIBLE JUDGE WHO RETIRED FROM THE FUCKING BENCH IN 1996 AND SEGUED INTO TELEVISION TO HOST A WILDLY POPULAR SYNDICATED SERIES WHOSE NINTH SEASON PREMIERED LAST MONTH. CHECK YOU LOCAL LISTING FOR SHOWTIMES OR STFU ASSHOLES.

CORRECTION

And I nailed a lawyer once, so I'm assuming that counts.

You betcha that counts!

Any females wanting a quickie, erm, legal education should feel free to contact me.

As part of my continuing efforts to educate the unwashed masses, I will be posting my "Arabic Phrase Of The Week" here, since most of you are undoubtedly too intimidated by my intellectual prowess to visit my own we site (I think that's the case with most people).

Today's phrase is popular among the many Middle Eastern nationals who relocated to Mexico many years ago, and, loosely translated, means, "I wish you well in your future endeavors."

The phonetic pronunciation is:

"Cheen-gar too maw-dray", or:

"Chengar tu madre"

This is a phrase that one generally shouts from a car when passing large groups of Arab-Hispanics, and I've found that it provokes quite an enthusiatic response from crowds who are not accustomed to being greeted in their native tongue by Anglos.

Some folks just didn't get the memo...

Juan:

Yeah, as a former resident of San Antonio, I happen to know that phrase. It's amazing the respect and goodwill that you can earn by smiling and repeating this simple little greeting. :>)

Slublog,

well, its one thing to post on a thread with them, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one of course.

;-)

Thank you, Michael. You are a pendejo and a scholar.

Some of us are just a little tired of the same positively braindead arguments being recycled overandoverandover. They were stupid the first time, redundant the second, and by now they're just fodder, which is kinda cool but it doesn't really contribute, does it?

Amen to that! But I suspect we differ on the source :)

This is a phrase that one generally shouts from a car when passing large groups of Arab-Hispanics

There goes Juan Cole, ignoring the oppressed black minority again. Aren't blacks articulate enough to shout it out as well? Racist.

Is it just me, or is there a chill wind blowing in here?

You're very welcome, amigo. And I want you to know that I sincerely consider you a mucho grande pendejo as well.

Sorry, Oliver, I can't hear you over the drumbeat of violence in Iraq.

Amen to that! But I suspect we differ on the source :)

LOL. Nah Brew, your argument isn't the one that's been objectionable; you've just been talking about giving Miers a chance and I can get that.

And I know you're not an idiot or anything, which helps.

Michael,

did you see my comment to you way up on this thread?

RWS:

Yes. Sorry if I sounded testy. I'm just a simple man who looks at things in a simple way, so I guess your wry humor went over my head. :>)

Please, Michael, you flatter me. If you are ever in my neck of the woods, please stop by for a giant helping of prestame la coyoma, my treat.

I question the timing of this humor. I mean, who benefits from this convenient distraction?

Michael,

I understand. You just made me....cry.

Heh.

btw, wasn't you calling me the southern flower of womanhood or some such nonsense???

I just try to live up to those expectations...;-)

Holy crap, bbeck has some big....arms!

Really, tear your eyes away from the spectacular boobies and check out her arms.

Be very afraid--she can kick ass physically as well as verbally.

CORRECTIION!

"wasn't IT you.."

Geeze. That made me sound like a hick instead of just southern.

I'm sorry, what were you saying, Keith?

Yes -- the exact nickname is "Fair Flower of Southern Womanhood".

RWS, Michael's complete nickname for you is "Fair Flower of Southern Womanhood Whose Bloom I'd Like To Pluck But I'm A Damn Lawyer Dammit Dammit Dammit To Hell I Need Another Drink That Pool Boy Is Gonna Get It One Day"

RWS:

BTW, given your reputation as a proper Southern lady, please do not attempt to translate any of the Spanish that has appeared in this thread.

Sorry, Oliver, I can't hear you over the drumbeat of violence in Iraq.

You had me at drumstick, I mean drumbeat.

That Pool Boy Is Gonna Get It One Day

I thought the Pool Boy got it every day.

Holy crap, bbeck has some big....arms!

Really, tear your eyes away from the spectacular boobies and check out her arms.

Be very afraid--she can kick ass physically as well as verbally.

'Bout time somebody noticed that. :)

I can put on 50 pounds of armor, wield a shield and swing a SWORD, what kind of arms were you expecting?

I think he means the pool boy is gonna get sparkle too. It's hard to tell when he's been drinking.

Armor? What size is your breastplate bbeck?

Lipstick, are her arms bigger than your feet?

HUGGY BEAR AWARD NOMINEE - "I question the timing of this humor. I mean, who benefits from this convenient distraction?" Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, asking a very pertinent question. When will the Bush administration admit it has been paying humorists and pundits to distract us from its multitude of mistakes in Iraq?

P-TOWN UPDATE - The beagle and I went for a walk in chilly P-town this afternoon. As we were shopping, we saw a sign on a small newspaper store: "FUCK BUSH." See what Karl Rove has brought us to? The coarsening of our culture continues.

EMAIL OF THE DAY III - This long-time reader makes, what I think, is a good point:

Andrew, you are truly an independent thinker and I appreciate how you've managed to keep that voice despite the pressure you get from both parties. I agree that Bush is a terrible president and that Karl Rove should be tortured in Guantanamo for allowing torture. But answer me this: what time is best for lunch tomorrow? I'll be on my cell. Love, Mom.

Last I heard, the Bass brewery was up for sale. That gave me some serious lottery fantasies.

The Bass red triangle is the oldest marca registrada in the world.

Armor? What size is your breastplate bbeck?

Let's just say my armor had to be custom-made.

Last I heard, the Bass brewery was up for sale.

Nooooooooo!! You're killing me here!! My two primary forms of liquid are Bass and Tab and now both are teetering on extinction. Ah well, adapt or die.

'Bout time somebody noticed that. :)

Well, you know, men...

I can put on 50 pounds of armor, wield a shield and swing a SWORD, what kind of arms were you expecting?

You're like that guy in the book Timeline who time-traveled to the middle ages and felt so at home he stayed.

Had to go check on S. Weasel's Bass sale info. From Wikipedia:

The Bass Brewers company was bought by the Belgian brewer Interbrew (now InBev) in June 2000 — the beer is now produced under licence by Coors. The production licence comes to an end in 2005, and the licence to brew Draught Bass will be taken up by Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries PLC, who will start production at the Marston's Brewery, also in Burton.

Dave,

My feet are 10 inches long. (Yes, I just measured and yes, I'm avoiding work today)

If bbeck's arms are bigger than 10 inches around you have your answer.

Shoot, geoff. I guess that was five years ago, then.

I have so few effective fantasies anymore, I have to cling to the ones that work.

Let's just say my armor had to be custom-made

NONE shall pass!

"For instance, let's say someone was pitching Guiliani pretty hard. The first thing they would do is explain why he can win and how that gives the party 80% of what it wants rather than 0% in the the attempt for 100%."

Well, if someone were to pitch him, this is what they might say?

He can win because he has the skills Republicans need to win - a lack of pretention and an ability to communicate. He'd give us 80% (or more) of what we want, assuming the 5 categories of things we (most AoS posters) want are:

- Defense/Offense, he seems unmatched here
- Judiciary - he's unkown on this but hey, apparently so is Bush, so we'll have to see
- Rhetoric - no one likes to admit it, but style matters along with substance. Giuliani has demonstrated (at the convention, and elsewhere) the willingness and ability to make the case for America with no apologies.
- Real-world experience - not a senator, nor an armchair ideologue, Giuliani has a record of results. Sounds cliched, but in his case it has the advantae of being true.
- Dignity, gravitas, an X factor (again, G. might have a weak spot here).

Looks like appx. 80% to me. But others may calculate differently.

"Not being an ideological purist, I'm a religous conservative who hopes Giuliani runs"

Slublog, there are dozens of us - DOZENS!

"If the Crats take over, it will be Bush's fault, not ours."

Well, Bush won't even be running in 2008, so the fault for that will lay with whatever candidate is chosen - *and* the ability of the various factions of the coalition to play nice with others.

For 2006, Bush is more responsible.

"Syria (like Saddam's Iraq) is a secular state"

Okay, whoever posted the counterpunch thing, I went and read it.

This is gross, dude.

Ba'athism is an ideology at least, at bargain-basement LEAST as repulsive as Francoite clerical fascism, or Afrikaaner supremacy - I avoid the standard analogies of Nazism and Stalinism because that seems to have no resonance with you people.

This tool is calling for outright solidarity with it. Because it's "secular." Just like that nice young scholar Pol Pot. Oh wait.

Sheesh. Either these funbuns don't know the history and ideology of the Ba'ath, in which case they're useful idiots, or they do - and they're something much fouler.