Send via SMS
Shots In The Dark
Monday, October 03, 2005
  The Next Justice
President Bush's next pick for the Supreme Court has been leaked: it's his White House counsel, Harriet Miers.

A curious choice. Miers has never been a judge. And she's oldish for a nominee—60—suggesting that she wouldn't be on the court for very long, by Supreme Court standards.

Hmmmm. I wonder if Bush's two recent choices haven't been:

a) a sign of his essential moderation; he's a conservative, but not a nutjob
b) a sign of his political weakness; he can't afford to rally the Democrats and piss off the country any more than he already has
c) a sneaking suspicion that both nominees are more conservative than they're letting on

My guess: the Democrats will find Miers tough to take on, but they will anyway...and not necessarily through ideology, but because of her relative lack of experience. With all the judges in the country, why pick someone who's never served on the bench?
 
Comments:
Seems like a desperate choice. Also one of those choices likely to create a lot of headlines seeing we don't know much about her. The press will jump on every little tidbit of info they uncover trying to create a story. Is that not the way these things work?
 
Did you see that Matt Drudge is reporting that Miers gave donations to Gore and Clinton. Interesting to see how the White House will spin this, if it is even true. There were some rumors circulating that she was active in a Christian organization that cured homosexuals? That doesn't sound like something a woman who gave money to dems would be involved in, but you never know. So much info to sift through on a monday lunch break.
 
If true, I'm sure the White House will spin that as evidence of her bipartisanship...while privately fuming. It seems hard to believe that Bush's White House counsel would have given money to Clinton and Gore, though.
 
Indeed, the second term is pulling back the curtain on a sensible, moderate man. Yes, you can believe in God and not follow Pat Robertson, America. Now if we can just convince them that Iraq is not about oil...I'm not saying you should hold your breath or anything.
 
I've never thought that Iraq was about oil. That doesn't mean the reasons for it were good...just that oil never made much sense. After all, it'd be cheaper to just buy it from Iraq than to spend a few hundred billion dollars in a war, then pay to pump it....
 
wrong. iraq's pools of oil are the most easily accessible, cheaply drilled, refined etc.... because of they way they pool so close to the surface. 1/4 of the price to drill in Iraq as opposed to other areas.
iraq nationalizing its oil industry meant same fate as saudi arabia. not to mention that due to sanctions u.s. and u.k. were not in business with iraq, where as germany, china and france were. tying up majority ownership once nationalized.
that just wouldn't do... uk and us wanted more than the tiny share that was left.
also, if this war wasn't about oil, then why were the oil fields so quickly commandeered by us forces?
please, this isn't ONLY about oil-- but it most certainly was one of the biggest reasons.
it's like trying to say that afganistan was really about the taliban and 9/11. yes and no.
halliburton had been in a standstill trying to lay a pipeline down in afganistan for YEARS.
numerous women's organizations were up in arms that Halliburton would consider negotiating with taliban. they were in a stand-off in washington over this for the longest time.
compromise.
who is laying a pipeline in afganistan right now?
 
Well, maybe. But it never seemed very practical to me, starting a war for cheaper access to oil. For one thing, after the cost of the war, the oil would probably be pretty expensive—far more so than just buying it in the first place. Secondly, how exactly would that work? We'd topple Hussein, install a friendly regime, and get cut-rate oil...all without pissing off Saudi Arabia, et al? I guess it's possible, but if someone really believed that, he was delusional....
 
Guys like this above, who believe that just because you've been given corporate donations you're eternally beholden to those corporations, serving up unpopular wars just so that a corporation can cash in (forget the fact that Halliburton doesn't even have any competition for many of the services they're "winning"), risking your name in history (why again? for kickbacks? a shot at the presidency?); you're just too jaded and--unfortunately for the democrats--you're going to continue failing to stir a majority following. You'll have to settle for your Michael Moore movie every few years, one that just PROVES how right you are...but little else.
 
Well, I agree—I think the argument that this war was about oil, in a strange way, doesn't give enough credit to those who advocated it in Washington. I do think they had more abstract ambitions: ousting a pain in the ass tyrant, reshaping the Middle East, extending American influence...if oil became cheaper, that'd be fine. But as I said, it's a hell of an expensive way to get cheap oil.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006 /


Powered by Blogger