October 27, 2005

Miers back to proofreading memos

Posted by Arcane Gazebo at October 27, 2005 2:17 PM

Just yesterday I told someone that Bush wouldn't withdraw the Harriet Miers nomination, due to his inability to admit mistakes. Well, so much for that (although it was done in a way so that Bush didn't have to admit a mistake). If that's the way it's going to work, I would also like to predict that Patrick Fitzgerald won't bring indictments against high-ranking Bush administration officials, and that our lab will fail to produce a working qubit next week. Go ahead, universe: prove me wrong.

It's a little sad to see Miers go, because I was really enjoying watching Republicans rend each other's flesh. Now Bush worship is back in style. According to a couple of sources, it's traditional at this point for the president to present a "fuck you" nomination. If he's blaming the social conservative wing for stopping Miers, this presumably means nominating Alberto Gonzales. That could certainly be an amusing fight, but a little more distressing in light of Gonzales' unusual legal theory that the president should have absolute power.

Or Bush might try to appease the James Dobsons and Ann Coulters, and nominate someone who would vote to overturn Roe and Griswold. (Side question: How long would the Republicans stay in power if they managed to overturn Griswold and started outlawing contraception? It seems to me that this position would be just slightly unpopular. Presumably the party strategists know this, and won't let it happen.)

Tags: Bush Administration, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court
Comments

dont even joke about griswold i can see it happening and i just bught i new house so i am stuck in the country for a while to come and cant flee to canada

Posted by: shellock | October 27, 2005 3:19 PM

Your parenthetical side question has been written about extensively these past few years. IIRC Slate had several articles about how the Republicans are required to be complete failures at their ostensible social agenda in order to keep the "red meat" abortion/gay/etc. issues in play. Frank's _What's the Matter With Kansas?_ makes the same point, I gather (never got around to reading it), arguing that the corporate wing of the party deliberately uses the religious wing for votes but has no intention of delivering on any social policy issues. Thus we got Roberts instead of Owen or Rogers Brown... As an aside, this structural requirement for failure would seem to rule out Rove's wet dream of generational dominance from the outset. Even fundies will eventually notice how little they get for their votes. May the FSM and IPU grant that that time be soon!

It'll be interesting to see who the new nominee is. Pretty sad when Abu Gonzalez is the most reasonable of the likely options... :P

Posted by: Justin | October 27, 2005 3:37 PM

Don't get me started on Ann Coulter!

Somebody should throw her into the water to see if she's a witch.

Posted by: Mason | October 27, 2005 4:58 PM

I'm ashamed to say that Coulter is from my adopted hometown of New Canaan, CT. She may even have gone to my high school but I don't know for sure about that.

Posted by: Arcane Gazebo | October 27, 2005 9:20 PM

At least you have an obvious place to protest her existence if/when she wins any awards. You also have an obvious place to hunt her down if she goes into hiding. :)

Posted by: Mason | October 27, 2005 11:25 PM

Ouch on the Coulter from NC. Good thing i moved to Wilton

Posted by: shellock | October 28, 2005 6:47 AM

And now Cheney's Chief of Staff has resigned!

Plus, George Takei just came out of the closet. A POWERFUL enemy on the gay rights issue, I do say.

This has not been a good week for Bush.

Posted by: Josh | October 28, 2005 12:54 PM

I did a brief google after the last comment and found the following line:

"The actor best known as Mr. Sulu from Star Trek has publicly come out in a new interview, adding to the short list of openly gay Asian American actors."

As opposed to the very long list of Asian American actors of any type?

Posted by: Mason | October 28, 2005 1:55 PM

"Presumably the party strategists know this, and won't let it happen."

Your batting average on this supreme court issue isn't looking too good! I think your problem is treating Bush as if he is a rational creature.

Posted by: Kyle | October 31, 2005 6:15 AM
Post a comment