Breaking News: President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.
Last week, we looked at a troubling episode in Miers' past -- we're reposting for anyone who missed it:
White House counsel Harriet Miers has never served as a judge before, and while this career "hard-nosed lawyer" (as she is invariably described) from Texas certainly deserves some kudos for a trailblazing career as a female lawyer, she's not a legal scholar, either.
But she does know better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried (relax, it's a just a metaphor...we hope) in President Bush's National Guard scandal. In fact, Bush's Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission -- while chaired by Bush appointee Miers -- played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal.
Whatever Miers knows about the president's troubled past, she may soon be keeping that information underneath the black robe of an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Miers, who not long ago succeeded Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as White House counsel, is now Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:
Miers is a skilled lawyer -- mainly on behalf of big business, including Microsoft and Disney -- and the first woman elected Texas State Bar President. But her main qualifications for the highest court in the land appear to be the same as most of Bush's recent appointments: She is unfailingly loyal to George W. Bush.
Here's how Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, on July 17, 2000, described her initial foray in the morass of Bush's Guard service:
The Bushies' concern began while he was running for a second term as governor. A hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers was retained to investigate the issue; state records show Miers was paid $19,000 by the Bush gubernatorial campaign. She and other aides quickly identified a problem--rumors that Bush had help from his father in getting into the National Guard back in 1968. Ben Barnes, a prominent Texas Democrat and a former speaker of the House in the state legislature, told friends he used his influence to get George W a guard slot after receiving a request from Houston oilman Sid Adger. Barnes said Adger told him he was calling on behalf of the elder George Bush, then a Texas congressman. Both Bushes deny seeking any help from Barnes or Adger, who has since passed away. Concerned that Barnes might go public with his allegations, the Bush campaign sent Don Evans, a friend of W's, to hear Barnes's story. Barnes acknowledged that he hadn't actually spoken directly to Bush Sr. and had no documents to back up his story. As the Bush campaign saw it, that let both Bushes off the hook. And the National Guard question seemed under control.
So far, intriguing...but it gets better, and more complicated. At roughly the same time all of this was happening, Miers was also the Bush-named chair of the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery Commission. The biggest issue before Miers and the commission was whether to retain lottery operator Gtech, which had been implicated in a bribery scandal. Gtech's main lobbyist in Texas in the mid-1990s? None other than that same Ben Barnes who had the goods on how Bush got into the Guard and avoided Vietnam.
In 1997, Barnes was abruptly fired by Gtech. That's a bad thing, right? Well, on the other hand, they also gave him a $23 million severance payment. A short time later, Gtech -- despite the ongoing scandals -- got its contract renewed over two lower bidders. A former executive director thought the whole thing stunk:
The suit involving Barnes was brought by former Texas lottery director Lawrence Littwin, who was fired by the state lottery commission, headed by Bush appointee Harriet Miers, in October 1997 after five months on the job. It contends that Gtech Corp., which runs the state lottery and until February 1997 employed Barnes as a lobbyist for more than $3 million a year, was responsible for Littwin's dismissal.
Littwin's lawyers have suggested in court filings that Gtech was allowed to keep the lottery contract, which Littwin wanted to open up to competitive bidding, in return for Barnes's silence about Bush's entry into the Guard.
Barnes and his lawyers have denounced this "favor-repaid" theory in court pleadings as "preposterous . . . fantastic [and] fanciful." Littwin was fired after ordering a review of the campaign finance reports of various Texas politicians for any links to Gtech or other lottery contractors. But Littwin wasn't hired, or fired, until months after Barnes had severed his relationship with Gtech.
Littwin reportedly settled with Gtech for $300,000. This all could be interesting fodder for a Miers confirmation hearing this fall. But Bush apparently went for Miers' top two credentials:
Loyalty...and a little inside information.
Oh, who's suprised at ANY of this crap from this administration? Only an IDIOT believes that Bush wasn't criminally absent from his service obligations. And if this gal was instrumental in burying the truth, then by God OF COURSE Bush is rewarding her. Thats how things work in Bushworld.
BTW, they just INDICTED that slimey greasy Bushlicker Tom Delay. Anyone still supporting these criminals has no right to call themselves an American. The whole lot of them belong in prison, but I doubt the Dem ledership has the balls to follow through and put them there. Besides, the same crooks behind the Bush slime are the same crooks behind the Kerry kissers. It STARTS with AIPAC's influence on Washington, and just gets greasier the deeper ya dig. There ain't enough tar and feathers in the Western Hemisphere to completely clean out Washington.
Posted by: Pissed Off American at September 28, 2005 01:09 PMWill,
I know that in your old media role, you have to be a little less advocate like, but, when the DN is struggling to put more than 7 or 8 pages of original news in the paper everyday, is there any reason this type of investigative journalism cannot be "cross posted" in the paper, as well? These are certainly powerful articles, and, the DN is really at its strongest when it is pushng issues (like when Paul Davies and the editorial board they essentially made the City's Predatory Lending bill happen). And, it would be a big jump for the DN to have some real, national-level pieces.
Posted by: danielua at September 28, 2005 01:39 PMYesterday's item was:
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/12759738.htm
Annnnnnd, I suppose I should have checked the paper in the last few days to see.
Can I use law school as an excuse?
Either way, good to see.
Posted by: danielua at September 28, 2005 01:48 PMIt will be interesting to see if such a nomination would raise more questions for Bush. Or whether the media has reached a high righteous tide and now recedes.
Posted by: The Heretik at September 28, 2005 05:38 PMWhat's a "mulri-million dollar cover-up"?
Spell check Wilbur. Spell check.
Posted by: Your worst nightmare at September 28, 2005 09:15 PMAhh, Miers is just a trial balloon to intice opponents to spend time and resources chasing false leads. Watch out, cause here comes the right hook!
Posted by: wynooska at September 28, 2005 10:33 PMWhat's a "mulri-million dollar cover-up"?
Spell check Wilbur. Spell check.
Posted by Your worst nightmare at September 28, 2005 09:15 PM
==================================================
No, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, and what it is doing to our nation, is our "worst nightmare". You're just some buffoon whose only defense of Bush's cronyism seems to be "spell check".
These are PEOPLE OF GOD. They are BORN AGAIN. How dare any of us pagans question their motives or credentials.
I hope GOD finishes DESTROYING EVERYTHING THAT'S LEFT THAT'S GOOD IN OUR COUNTRY SOON. It's a sad sight to behold and I'm tired watching the slow burn.
Posted by: Nikki at September 29, 2005 08:37 AMLet me try to understand you. You are acusing her of covering up a scandal which you can't prove happened in the first place, no?
Posted by: Geoff at September 29, 2005 01:06 PMMemo to Pissed Off American:
You are one miserable puppy. It's not your politics that bothers me; it's the way you express yourself. What went wrong in your life that causes you to be so vile?
Were you born really ugly? Did someone do something really bad to you? Are you three feet tall? Give us some insight into your psyche.
Posted by: Lara at September 29, 2005 02:42 PMWho cares about this stuff anymore, the balless dems didn't do anything w/ this when they had this info at election, the neo cons are too smart for any hope of any one we on the left have, the problem is when we do get someone to speak up nobody backs him or her up. the swift boats vet made mincemeat out of kerry and made him look like the traitor. ohh how they laugh behind our backs, and anyone who still believes these guys are, just a bunch of good ol boy, jesus lovin good time charlies are sadly mistaken, these are very dangerous people. dangerous to the constitution and to the future of our country.T here have been so many impeachable offences, that these guys know by now that they are bulletproof, they have been caught lying to invade another country and they got away w/ it, which if someone told you would have been possible 5 yrs ago, you would have thought impossible, yet there isn't even a whisper of impeachment, they said kerry hated the troops, then went and cut pay and benefits for soldiers and didn't even spend the money on proper equipment that would have saved lives.meanwhile, dick cheyney'S STOCK OPTIONS JUST SHOWED A 20 MILLON DOLLAR INCREASE since the invasion of iraq. still think these are true patriots? bush fiddled while new orleans drowned, now big oil is taking advantage of the situation by price gouging, and guess who big oil is? isn't this great, these bunch of do gooders. g w b takes good care of his friends (brownie's doing a fine job) too bad americans aren't his friends.but guess who is? that model of democracy saudi arabians and osama bin ladens family members, of course not osama himself, who doesen't even have to hide anymore. are there really still people who believe that this bunch is not the real evildoers, that maybe they don't hate america, but they just don't give a damn, if they can't make money off it. AND wheres the outrage over ss, the deficiet, the refusal to take responsibility, the never ending war in iraq, where by the way everyone else will be gone by may of next year except, that paragon of decency g w b. oops i'm sorry, he won't be there but a lot of poor peoples sons and daughters of americans will still be suffering,while the halliburton dough rolls in and one more thing that you good american jesus lovin sunshine out your ass bush lovers can be proud of. That no good m f ing, slimy bastard had the nerve to desicrate the memory of a soldier who had a million times more courage than he did, who died for his country. I sorry he does have nerve. TO SMEAR THE MOTHER WHO WANTED TO ASK HIM WHY SHE HAD TO LOSE HER SON. How DARE THEY, how dare YOU,still have any respect at all for this axis of evil that runs this country. If you can still look me in the eye and say he was right to smear the mother who gave the ultimate sacrifice for this country. while this weasle didn't bother to show up for his nat guard duty while poor people where getting shot in the jungles of Viet nan. I'll spit right in your face, bad spelling and all
Posted by: G SAVAGE at September 29, 2005 06:37 PMWho cares about this stuff anymore, the balless dems didn't do anything w/ this when they had this info at election, the neo cons are too smart for any hope of any one we on the left have, the problem is when we do get someone to speak up nobody backs him or her up. the swift boats vet made mincemeat out of kerry and made him look like the traitor. ohh how they laugh behind our backs, and anyone who still believes these guys are, just a bunch of good ol boy, jesus lovin good time charlies are sadly mistaken, these are very dangerous people. dangerous to the constitution and to the future of our country.T here have been so many impeachable offences, that these guys know by now that they are bulletproof, they have been caught lying to invade another country and they got away w/ it, which if someone told you would have been possible 5 yrs ago, you would have thought impossible, yet there isn't even a whisper of impeachment, they said kerry hated the troops, then went and cut pay and benefits for soldiers and didn't even spend the money on proper equipment that would have saved lives.meanwhile, dick cheyney'S STOCK OPTIONS JUST SHOWED A 20 MILLON DOLLAR INCREASE since the invasion of iraq. still think these are true patriots? bush fiddled while new orleans drowned, now big oil is taking advantage of the situation by price gouging, and guess who big oil is? isn't this great, these bunch of do gooders. g w b takes good care of his friends (brownie's doing a fine job) too bad americans aren't his friends.but guess who is? that model of democracy saudi arabians and osama bin ladens family members, of course not osama himself, who doesen't even have to hide anymore. are there really still people who believe that this bunch is not the real evildoers, that maybe they don't hate america, but they just don't give a damn, if they can't make money off it. AND wheres the outrage over ss, the deficiet, the refusal to take responsibility, the never ending war in iraq, where by the way everyone else will be gone by may of next year except, that paragon of decency g w b. oops i'm sorry, he won't be there but a lot of poor peoples sons and daughters of americans will still be suffering,while the halliburton dough rolls in and one more thing that you good american jesus lovin sunshine out your ass bush lovers can be proud of. That no good m f ing, slimy bastard had the nerve to desicrate the memory of a soldier who had a million times more courage than he did, who died for his country. I sorry he does have nerve. TO SMEAR THE MOTHER WHO WANTED TO ASK HIM WHY SHE HAD TO LOSE HER SON. How DARE THEY, how dare YOU,still have any respect at all for this axis of evil that runs this country. If you can still look me in the eye and say he was right to smear the mother who gave the ultimate sacrifice for this country. while this weasle didn't bother to show up for his nat guard duty while poor people where getting shot in the jungles of Viet nan. I'll spit right in your face, bad spelling and all
Posted by G SAVAGE at September 29, 2005 06:37 PM
==================================================
RIGHT ON!! You can watch my back ANYTIME, brother.
Posted by: Bushwacker at September 29, 2005 09:17 PM
What?
Your wrote of Harriet Miers: "recent appointments: He is unfailingly loyal to George W. Bush."
Harriet is a "she", unless you are breaking news we need to hear more about.
Posted by: Justin at October 3, 2005 08:10 AMI don't get it.
The story is that Miers saw to it that Barnes was paid hush money to keep quiet about the Guard story. But we all know Barnes did not keep quiet. Is the theory that he backed out of his deal?
It's a little shaky...
Posted by: TedL at October 3, 2005 09:40 AMPersonally, I've had about enough of this shit.
In another country the citizens would have been in the streets years ago over Dear Leaders atrocities. Here? Here we watch television in air conditioned houses while we eat snacks animals won't put in their mouths.
The reason for Bush is us, whether we want to admit it or not. We're lazy suckers who honor con men and reject truth-tellers. Other nations have every right to hate us because we hate ourselves. Imagine The US of S&M.;
Enjoy your Cheetos, America. I hope they taste better than the freedoms we've lost
Tom
Posted by: tom at October 3, 2005 09:53 AMI know her. I went to Undergraduate School and Law School with her. She is a typical lapdog attorney who did fairly well in Law School becasue she was one of a very few females in our class and knew how to manipulate the Male Law Professor's to achieve her ends. I'm not sure that her haido has changed since the 60's.
Posted by: Bill at October 3, 2005 09:58 AMGreat stuff on Ms. Miers! She could be the best token 'female' on the Supreme Court that money can buy! Just how many corporate flacks have made their way up there? Typical Bush reflex: When given the chance to do right by average Americans, put more muscle on the bench for the rich. Does cronyism pay? You bet!!
Posted by: yque53 at October 3, 2005 10:02 AMHarriet Miers? OH MY GOD, I'm gonna PUKE!
Posted by: cowboyneok at October 3, 2005 10:04 AMActually, there are still some, maybe many of us, who never voted for Bushwa, never respected him or his gang of ultrarightwing radicals, and would love to see the Dems recapture the House and the Senate and impeach his ass and Cheney's too. So there!
Posted by: stevejoey1 at October 3, 2005 10:06 AMActually, there are still some, maybe many of us, who never voted for Bushwa, never respected him or his gang of ultrarightwing radicals, and would love to see the Dems recapture the House and the Senate and impeach his ass and Cheney's too. So there!
Posted by: stevejoey1 at October 3, 2005 10:07 AMDear Stevejoey1:
Got you pissed off with my hate Amerika because we're just Cheetos eaters rant, huh?
Good. In my mind I've just motivated you to take some action. DO IT!
Tom
PS -- Obviously I didn't vote for The Boy King either -- so there.
What if everyone posting here took action in the form of "freeway blogging." All it takes is cardboard, waterproof paint, and careful printing in very large bold block letters. IMPEACH BUSH.
Attach securely to a fence along the main highway in your area or freeway overpass, sometime in the wee hours of the morning before rush hour to catch people on the way to work. In metropolitan areas, several hundred thousand people will get the message before the DOT takes down the signs.
At which point one Repeats the process.
Now is the time to take action while the Busheviks are tanking. Use your imagination. For more examples visit: http://www.freewayblogger.com
Motto: Free speech. Use it or lose it.
Even The Conservative National Review Thinks Bush Crony Miers is An Awful Pick for Supreme Court
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
News from NRO's web site, September 29, 2005:
ANOTHER REASON FOR BUSH NOT TO PICK... [John Podhoretz]
...Gonzales or Miers is this: One of the Democratic talking points that is getting some traction is the Crony Talking Point -- the idea that this presidency is made up of friends and friends of friends who all do business together and whose qualifications matter less than their connections to GWB. Since nobody on earth aside from Bush would actually consider Gonzales or Miers a suitable Supreme Court nominee, the appointment of either would smack precisely of the cronyism with which he is (in my view) being unfairly tarred. Bush would be giving his critics some very serious ammunition to use against him at a time when he can't afford to do such a thing.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
Yeah but Clinton....(insert assinine rationale here)> _______________________________.
Posted by: Bushlicker at October 3, 2005 10:45 AMG Savage is totally correct on his read of the Bush Administration. Now what we need to do is come up with a way to get them the hell out and that to me seems like an imposibility, since they control everything . We can't expect help from the dem's either....their into slime with AIPAC up to their eyeballs. the old j. egard hoover game...blackmail rover has it down to a science. any suggestions? remember too, that the vote is rigged, so it can't be done that way either.
Posted by: Dr. Bob at October 3, 2005 10:47 AMHow Bush Got into the National Guard: Or, How It's Useful Having Friends in High Places
Lou Dubose, in LA Weekly (Feb. 13-19, 2004):
So President Bush went mano a mano with Tim Russert on Meet the Press and put to rest the claim that he went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. He was serving in the state of Alabama while working on a congressional campaign of one his father's buddies in 1972. Bush said he left the Guard eight months early because he was accepted into Harvard Business School's MBA program and “worked it out with the military.”
The AWOL claim had been resurrected when filmmaker-author Michael Moore called Bush a deserter. Then Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe started talking up a debate by suggesting that when war hero John Kerry stands next to George Bush, he is next “to a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard.” Bush issued a “bring 'em on” challenge, urging reporters to take a hard look at his service record. The records the White House hastily released Monday are still full of holes.
continues at ..... http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3606.html (Miers role is explained)
And for those of you still uninformed, or hopelessly ignorant, here is an internet address where you can look over the FACTS concerning Bush's CRIMINAL avoidance of his NationaL Guard duties. Anyone with more than two brain cells knows that the ignorant monkey shirked his service obligations....... http://bushwatch.org/awol.htm
Ahhh, the plot begins to thicken!
The outwardly decent Ms. Miers is maybe dirtier than we first thought?
Hmmm, this ought to be interesting.
Posted by: boilerman10 at October 3, 2005 11:10 AMDear Not4Bushwa:
I'm making the signs now. Hope Stevejoey1 is doing the same.
Tom
Posted by: tom at October 3, 2005 11:29 AMI'd like to know about the time period between 1989 and 1998. It looks like Harriet Miers was on the Dallas City Council while W made millions on the new stadium deal.
Posted by: Brian Power at October 3, 2005 11:44 AM"Ahhh, the plot begins to thicken!
The outwardly decent Ms. Miers is maybe dirtier than we first thought?
Hmmm, this ought to be interesting."
Posted by boilerman10 ........
Interesting??? Look, our Attotney General, Gonzales, IRREFUTABLY lied during his confirmation hearings about his role in getting Bush recused from jury duty. Gonzale's testimony, before congress, was refuted by three attorneys AND the judge that was involved in the manner. Yet, after committing UNABASHED and UNARGUABLE perjury during his confirmation hearings, the lying FELON, (it is a FELONY to lie to Congress under oath), was STILL confirmed to the highest post in our nation designed to UPHOLD AND PROTECT the letter of the law. A GOD DAMNED FELON!!!! And you say the process of confirming Miers will be interesting??? It will be a cake walk for her, because the Dem leadership is comprised of cowards and eunichs, and the Republican is leadership is comprised of liars and felonious traitors. Interesting? Hell, not the word I would choose, but what the heck, your blood pressure is probably in better shape than mine. Perhaps sacharin understatements, should I employ them, would add a year or two to my life. After all, I might live to see the day we can actuually admit, in public, that we live in a facist state.
Welcome to Bushworld.
Posted by: Comrad #3851-A4 at October 3, 2005 11:45 AMYes, this is a difficult one to puzzle - what Bush hopes to gain with the nomination, and what sorts of ammunition can be brought to bear on the appointment, from either side of the political spectrum. Anyway, should make for an interesting fall.
Posted by: truth4achange at October 3, 2005 11:51 AMThe Texas National Guard is the wrong place to be poking around.
Try the Texas Lottery Commission... She was appointed by then-governor Bush, and served four years - until 2000. I'm sorry: that should read: "the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission."
Wouldn't it be a sweet deal for the neocon war-chest, to rig the lottery to pay off all the cronies and corrupt Republican politicians, and get the poor buck-a-pop slobs to subsidize their graft?
Seems like if you could rig a national election using Diebold, a little thing like a state-wide lottery would be pretty easy...
JF
Posted by: Jaime Frontero at October 3, 2005 11:53 AM"I'd like to know about the time period between 1989 and 1998. It looks like Harriet Miers was on the Dallas City Council while W made millions on the new stadium deal."
Posted by Brian Power........
Here....start diggin', maybe you will get a scoop. This is link to...
"An Inventory of Executive Assistant's Office Subject Files (Administration [Division]-Growth Fund) at the Texas State Archives, 1944, 1947, 1960, 1962, 1967, 1977-1978, 1980-1981, 1983-1999, undated (bulk 1995-1999)"
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40087/40087-P.html
Posted by: Bushboozled at October 3, 2005 11:55 AMwill, congrats for being the headliner over on Buzzflash! Good work.
Posted by: Gloria at October 3, 2005 12:21 PMevery time i think i've witnessed the most egrigious behavior bush can muster, he manages to do something even more repugnant. miers track record as a bush "fixer" should be enough for the dems to fight this appointment w/ tooth and nail.
one need not scratch too deeply to find cause to eliminate miers as a viable candidate. according to david frum, "miers once told me the presidednt was the most brilliant man she had ever met..."
that level of shallow observation should prevent miers from even VISITING the USSC, much less serving as a justice.
the endless parade of cronyism continues. only in bush world is an absolute lack of experience considered an asset when placing people in positions that have direct impact on our everyday lives. this appointment is far from benign. it appears our "war" prez is itching for a fight....ANY fight to energize his base and pump up his approval polls. i hope the dems take this one to the mat...
let the games begin...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 3, 2005 12:27 PMThanks Gloria,
...but to the posters trying to imply a link between Miers and the new stadium for the Texas Rangers, did it occur to you that while Miers was on the CC in Dallas, the stadium is in Arlington, a completely different municipality. Even I know that, and I've never been to Dallas. There's enough fodder here without making up phony scandals.
Posted by: will at October 3, 2005 12:34 PMThe poster who said the votes won't be counted is correct. Clearly, if they were, the 2006 elections would see the spineless Democrats winning back both the Senate and House. The Repugs have been THAT ugly and criminal. However.........the votes won't be counted.
There is one solution: PAPER BALLOTS, HAND COUNTED. Cheap, easy, quick to implement, a boost for civic involvement of the People, AND impossible to steal. Consists of translucent lockable box with slot on top, paper ballots, indelible pens and visual screen booths. Very inexpensive compared to Diebold vote-stealing machines ($7,000 each).
Go to http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm for more info on the problem and potential solutions. A ground-swell movement to actually have the votes counted in 2006 could work, even considering the massive resistance no doubt to be put up by criminal, and/or stupid, Republicans (and some Repubs who are in the Democratic party). Many many people are SICK of this crap and want a change. We've seen Fascism once 60 years ago; do we really need to repeat the experiment?
Posted by: Patriot at October 3, 2005 12:40 PM"the endless parade of cronyism continues. only in bush world is an absolute lack of experience considered an asset when placing people in positions that have direct impact on our everyday lives".....
Posted by wtmoore ...........
Yes, being a crony is definitely a MUST on your resume if you wish to join Bushworld. But the true litmus test, the ABSOLUTE key to the kingdom, is your willingness to LIE to Congress, ergo, the American people.
Well Why not just talk about the Fact that She Has Never sat on a bench in her life.
See with republicans its not What you know its who you know.
The entire Idea of working hard and getting ahead based on merit is foreign to them.
They would rather support the Bush's who's american dream is generating wealth by trading with the enemy, Form nazis to the chinese when we weren't supposed to be trading with them, to even the bin laden family.
These people have sold the American dream to our enemies. they need to be impeached tried for treason and sent to guantanamo bay.
Posted by: PJ at October 3, 2005 01:04 PMAccording to G. Savage, Casey Sheehan died for his country. I don't think so. Atribute his death to Bush/Republican governing. Our country killed Casey. We failed him by putting Bush/Republicans in office. Our institutions failed. The media and especially religions and churches that claim to be pro life are in reality pro death. Supporting Bush/Republicans assures deaths by war, by lack of health care, by ignoring polution that kills humans, and the earth and its water. The preachers we hear talk of same sex marriage that harms no more than straight marriages. Their silence kills.
There are churches that fully respect all life, such as Riverside Church in New York and the Amish. Our controled media ignores all that threats their bottom line.
We have failed because we have not protected the right to vote. My vote does not equal the vote gotten by lobbyists and wealth. The alternative may be insurgency and suicide as we see now in Iraq. The essence of democracy is choice and will of self, free of brainwashing and propaganda.
I fully agree that most democrats are spineless, save a few you won't see much in the media. I voted for Dennis Kucinich. Kerry got my vote, now he's pathetic. He endured the fire on Nam, and the fire of politics consumed him. He is a wilted man.
Marvin, Indpls, IN
Posted by: Marvin Wagner at October 3, 2005 01:04 PMHow long before we start hearing, "Harriet, you're doing a heckuva job?"
Posted by: Art Hurt at October 3, 2005 01:09 PMWhenever Democrats loose any election they trot out the conspiracy-theory that the GOP supposedly committed voter-fraud. They 'didn't count all the votes', 'manipulated the voting machines', etc.,etc., and then point to examples like the Florida election vote for president in 2,000. Funny though, because all the supposed voter-fraud was done in heavily Democratic Party-CONTROLLED voting districts, where Republican poll-watchers where outnumbered by Democratic Party ones by probably a hundred to one. It's also odd that when Republicans try to promote the idea of Voter-ID cards, which would greatly reduce "voter fraud", it's the Democrats who are blocking this idea from being made the law. Although voter-fraud has been going on for hundreds of years in the USA on both sides, the Democrats are by far the most crooked and always have been, and that's why they are against anything that would stop, or reduce their vote-count totals that a Voter-ID card would accomplish.
Like the old saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
jerry, you're a way off topic here, but that's par for the wingnut course. I would have thought with smarts like yours you'd be cluing Fitzgerald in that he's wasted two years of his life investigating something that isn't a crime.
You pubbies hate investigations much like cockroaches hate light.
Posted by: Gloria at October 3, 2005 01:19 PM If we had a Democratic Administration in the White House pulling the crap that has went on since the 2000 election the Republicans would have fought tooth and nail for impeachment.
It saddens me to see the Democratic Party sink so low because they have no backbone and are afraid of their own shadows. I am a Democrat and thinking of throwing my hands up and saying, "to hell with it all."
The Republicans are getting away with crimes that should be brought before our courts, excuse me they aren't our courts any longer. A very sad time we live in.
Geoff: take a look at Bush's performance (especially around vacation time) and you tell me this sob wasn't awol in the nat. guard.
Posted by: weefs at October 3, 2005 01:39 PMI agree with Brian about the stadium deal, but I would also like to know what records Littwin was requesting.
Excellent article. This is the most criminally-minded administration I think I've ever seen, and I was around for Johnson (another Texas boy, but smarter) and Nixon (kissed up to the Mafia, but, unlike Reagan, did not actually appoint them to the Cabinet -- Sec. of Labor in Reagan 1 until 1985 -- at least that almost makes sense in the NJ neighborhood from which Ray Donovan came).
Posted by: caso at October 3, 2005 01:46 PMIt's time for a tea party style revolution. Who's thirsty?
Posted by: weefs at October 3, 2005 01:46 PMJust caught a couple of minutes of Rush. That was about all I could stomach. Some wacko rightwing woman called -- she sounded like a true believer of the first order -- and decried the Miers appointment as a cave-in.
She complained that the Republicans in Congress are all a bunch of wimps. She wanted a fight. She and Rush agreed they wanted the Dems to filibuster, "so we could put the last nail in the coffin" of the Democrats, according to Rush.
The Kool-Aid Republicans are not happy with this appointment. Which may mean it is not all bad. Clearly, Bush is disappointing the base, keeping the red meat in the fridge. He certainly is operating from a position of weakness.
Recent events, Delay and Frist and Abramson and the war and the Social Security issue going down-- it all suggests the Republicans are self destructing. Look at the bright side. All this may help limit the damage Bush can do.
Posted by: Newsguy at October 3, 2005 02:00 PMBush was AWOL, FACT ... This latest appointee is just another payback.
America is so screwed!!
For all those commenters like Lara, not everyone has had everything given to them by "daddy" like it appears that you have!!
Some people do have some trauma in their lives and have awoke to the bigger picture.
Since everything is going perfect for you (Lara!), your filters do not work, you believe all the spin right from the TV!!
BTW, if I spelled anything wrong, deal with it!!
Impeach this monkey now!!
Write your reps and tell them to oppose this poor choice as well.
Posted by: Tracy V at October 3, 2005 02:02 PMThe old saying actually goes:
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
Sorry -- it's just a pet peeve of mine, this constant misuse of this phrase, and I couldn't resist.
Posted by: Alice at October 3, 2005 02:09 PMAnyone notice the cross necklace she always wears, is that to keep dracula away? Is she a virgin?
Posted by: chuckbush at October 3, 2005 02:15 PMAnyone notice the cross necklace she always wears, is that to keep dracula away? Is she a virgin?
Posted by: chuck at October 3, 2005 02:18 PMOK, OK, even those of us on the fence have to put our hands up in the air but it makes me wonder.............................what ever happened to Janet Reno, hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Posted by: rich at October 3, 2005 02:19 PMNot Abramson, I meant Abramoff
Posted by: Newsguy at October 3, 2005 02:21 PMThis is dumbya's get out of jail free card when the ole' crap hits the fan.
Roberts helped him steal the election by stopping the florida recount in 2000 & assisted again in stopping a recound in 2004, thus receives for his undying loyalty a LIFETIME job with great pay.
Miers helps bury the truth about being AWOL and receives for her undying loyalty to der leader a LIFETIME job with great pay, the only stipulation: When needed, he and his cronies get a free pass from jail.
What I haven't been able to find is whether or not this is the same hard nosed lawyer dumbya hired after the downing street memo hit the papers in the U.K.. Anyone know for sure? After all it happened in 2002.
Like everything dumbya touches, (booze bottles or money or ethics) when he puts it down it is TOTALLY EMPTY.
Posted by: KJ Lovell at October 3, 2005 02:21 PMAny administration that believes that the best government is one that does not exist except to make war, is capable of anything that goes against democracy. How can we accept any of Bush's nominations when he and his ilk are guilty of treason? They want to destroy our government. In their words, they want to put our government "out of business" and to "drown it". To even suggest another crony supreme court justice is just another step towards destroying our country. Their allegiance is to the corporations, many of which are not even American. If Miers gets in, justice ends. The dark ages are upon us.
Posted by: Athena, GOW at October 3, 2005 02:22 PM2000 election fraud is not a conspiracy theory. It is indeed fact. If Gore had thrown the temper tantrum like dumbya did you would be singing a different tune.
By the way, as long as I am giving you real facts, Laura Welch Bush killed her boyfriend in the 1960's and has lied about it ever since.
In the 1930's and 1940's Prescott Bush and his cronies helped finance Hitler, managed companies for him and actually used slave labor to run them. In October 1942 their assets were frozen by the U.S. Government for violation of trading with the enemy acts. When Prescott came back to the U.S.A he made his son (dumbya the smarter) join the military to sanitize their name. He later became part of the CIA and you'll see his and Cheeney's smirking faces gathered around Johnson, Nixon(look closely you'll see Rove too), Ford and Ray-gun.
Boys and girls you are getting screwed around by many of the same people that have screwed you for years.
Posted by: KJ Lovell at October 3, 2005 02:32 PMThe waiting list was for the weekend warrior enlisted positions that let you keep your day job. There was no waiting list for pilot training because it had an active duty component.
Check Gore's early release to go to divinity school. Early releases were common as pilots returned from Vietnam and took the stateside flying slots.
I understand your disappointment - I wanted Bolton.
Posted by: Walter_E_Wallis at October 3, 2005 03:22 PMThe waiting list was for the weekend warrior enlisted positions that let you keep your day job. There was no waiting list for pilot training because it had an active duty component.
Check Gore's early release to go to divinity school. Early releases were common as pilots returned from Vietnam and took the stateside flying slots.
I understand your disappointment - I wanted Bolton.
Posted by: Walter_E_Wallis at October 3, 2005 03:39 PMYou democrats have become the worst kind of partisan crybabies. It's actually a pleasure to see a dim bulb like Bush set you wusses off on a daily basis. If you had ANYTHING to offer except your own brand of dishonesty you'd be absolute shoe-ins for all major offices. The fact that your party can't make ANY inroads from this Republican freakshow should demonstrate to you and your party the depths to which you have fallen.
You punks need to grow up NOW.
Posted by: Independant PLine Judge at October 3, 2005 03:46 PMOk, so let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Bush is trying to further coverup some scandal surrounding his National Guard Service by NOMINATING TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT a person with the most knowledge on such topic?
You think Bush is putting someone with the most intimate knowledge of an alleged scandal up for a PUBLIC confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate -- a hearing that's likely to be one of the most contentious (and most followed) in recent history -- so he can keep it all secret?
Yeah, that makes alot of sense. [/sarcasm]
Posted by: Jason Smith at October 3, 2005 04:12 PMhey indy_p_judge...
get after it...regail us w/ the merits of YOUR chosen "victims" of the system, the 3rd party candy_dates. are you an anarchist? green party? libertarian? whatever...it doesn't really matter, does it?
like it or not, we're a 2 party system. at this junture, the dems are the lesser of 2 evils. for christ's sake, it's impossible to argue w/ intellectual integrity that the GOP/bush cabal are the better choice to govern.
in fact, it is YOU who needs to grow up. pragmatistism is not a sign of weakness, and neither is compromise. we have advanced this far as a republic BECAUSE of compromise, not strident ideology.
bush can't survive w/out his cronies. the real possibility of legal problems lay on the administration's horizen. bush appoints his personal lawyer to the USSC??
i'm stunned, shocked i tell ya....
Posted by: wtmoore at October 3, 2005 04:21 PMJason, you have the IQ of a Bush supporter.
He is a second term president; any realization that he was less than honest during his campaign would be meaningless. He no longer has anything to gain.
So yes, he now gives nice fat kick backs to those that helped get him to where he is at the expense of the American people.
Besides, it would be counterintuitive to assert that a member of Bush regime would suddenly start telling the truth to congress or anyone else.
[ DELETED ]
Posted by: Bushbuggered at October 3, 2005 05:07 PMI just received an e-mail from MoveOn Org asking members to research info on Miers to be passed to the Dems, who seem to be clueless about this nominee. What say we do what we can to help out. It pretty obvious that very few Dems will make the effort to do the reseach for themselves.
(I assume many of you are MoveOn members)
Posted by: powdermonkey at October 3, 2005 05:50 PMthe main thing is... Harriet Miers is a born again evangelical.
Miers sound joouish to me. What's her maiden name?
powdermonkey...do tell. please post the text of the MoveOn email. i'd love to read this desperate plea for information.
BTW, i've visited moveon maybe 3 times. you assume way too much.
guess what? they just reported that delay has now been indicted for money laundering.
of course, i'm sure they'll hire a repug to do the research, because dems are just too lazy, right?
are you really this obtuse, oir did you stay at a holiday inn last night?
Posted by: wtmoore at October 3, 2005 06:06 PMWell gee, [ DELETED ]
Posted by: Bushbaffled at October 3, 2005 06:28 PMguess what? [ DELETED ]
Posted by: Bushboffed at October 3, 2005 06:56 PM[ DELETED ]
Posted by: Bushblasted at October 3, 2005 07:23 PM[ DELETED ]
Posted by: Bushblasted at October 3, 2005 07:27 PM[ DELETED ]
Posted by: Bushboiled at October 3, 2005 07:33 PMJustin: "Harriet is a 'she', unless you are breaking news we need to hear more about."
Well, judging from the picture posted above, she DOES kinda look like a drag queen with a lot of mileage ...
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii at October 3, 2005 07:53 PMmaybe he should have nominated mz code pinko
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/707/codepinko4dq.jpg
a complete stranger? perhaps a jew hating skinhead?
how about shrillary clinton....shes a LAWYER
Posted by: larrybagget at October 3, 2005 08:37 PMWARNING: The majority of posters on this site are Stuck on Stupid.
Posted by: Priapus at October 3, 2005 08:40 PMMiers is single, no children. Apparently a workaholic. Ambitious closet lesbian?
Posted by: joogie at October 3, 2005 09:09 PM"WARNING: The majority of posters on this site are Stuck on Stupid."
Posted by Priapus ,......
Please note the well researched, intelligent and constructive comment above, offered by an atypical Bushlicker. Note that all the words are spelled correctly, and the message is short and appropriately divisive and insulting. Surely, we have just been visited by one of the more intelligent varieties of the genus Bushlickinithicus. Note the capitalizations. I detect a subliminal plea for help, an "SOS". Perhaps this poor soul is an intelligent human being, trapped in the body of a Bushlicker.
Or....not.
Posted by: Damned tootin' at October 3, 2005 09:15 PM[ DELETED ]
Posted by: Oh no, not him again... at October 3, 2005 09:21 PMI must say. This site is inhabited by some of the most deranged lefties I've ever seen. The Daily Kos is practically right-wing compared to the moonbats who post here. Pure entertainment. The 60s ain't over - they're alive and well right here at Attytood. Except without the stench of old, unwashed, STD-infested hippies.
Posted by: Your worst nightmare at October 3, 2005 09:22 PMYou democrats have become the worst kind of partisan crybabies. It's actually a pleasure to see a dim bulb like Bush set you wusses off on a daily basis. If you had ANYTHING to offer except your own brand of dishonesty you'd be absolute shoe-ins for all major offices. The fact that your party can't make ANY inroads from this Republican freakshow should demonstrate to you and your party the depths to which you have fallen.
You punks need to grow up NOW.
Posted by: Independant PLine Judge at
You're wrong there ole independant pissline, we get amazed that people like you, say the dim bulbs can blindly follow dumbya around and sing his praises. It showes us that Hitler was a very common man too and his followers were as uptight, unread, uninformed and blind as you yourself. Now go dust off your brown shirt and do your duty.
Heil Dumbya
Posted by: KJ Lovell at October 3, 2005 11:25 PMhey wet dream,
Read Orwell, or at least find someone to read it to you.
I would rather you think me a moon bat than your friend.
Posted by: KJ Lovell at October 3, 2005 11:27 PMOh dear God, can Shrub be any more obvious? "Oh hey, let's appoint some dumb shit with NO court experience because she's been my personal maid for several years!"
Yeah. I'm sure heading a Bar Association and Lottery Commission will REALLY help shape her for the Supreme Court. Such wonderful places to achieve experience.
He was the most "brilliant man she's ever met". Do you REALLY want someone with THAT poor of judgment ruling your Supreme Court?!
What Shrub doesn't seem to understand is that the Supreme Court is meant to uphold the ideals of THE CONSTITUTION--Not his personal beliefs. I don't want an extreme conservative OR an extreme liberal on the Court. Appoint a moderate--That way, they won't be AS helplessly biased. If he's trying to leave some sort of "Great Conservative Legacy", then WOW--This is going to be a hell of a dumb country.
Posted by: x Raven at October 3, 2005 11:59 PMI'm just sitting here munching some Cheetos and wondering why everyone is so hysterical about this woman. Sheesh, people. Let's give her a chance to speak for herself. Then we can decide whether or not to start soiling our knickers. I mean, it's only fair ... and we're for fairness, right?
Posted by: Geezer O'Crabby at October 4, 2005 12:45 AMNew to blooging, er blogging. Great display of freedom of speech.
It might be too much power for one man in a "such a great democracy" to give one name to be on the Supreme Court. For the moment I can't think of more democratic way. Should the "other party" be allowed to nominate? After all we are a two party, yes or no (in voting) democracy.
What about the powers of the court? They somehow stopped vote counting in a democratic election but yet they can not rule on the "legality" of a war instigtated soley on the president's perogative. Our country is not at war, only our president is. I always thought the Supreme court should have say if the president can go to war since in the Constitution it says only Congress can declare war.
As long as the invectives are flying I can only hope the bush-huggers can for the next election find a true American hero to embrace. It was a sad day in political history when the American voters chose the war coward over the war hero. How can a nation so war like not vote according to the war records of the candidates?
Many in the world wonder how the "bringer of Democracy to the middle east" could loose the popular vote and still end up as president. Certainly he wouldn't want a democracy like this in Iraq. Other wise you know who might take power.
To one who posted about the safeness of paper ballots it was in 1788 the concern that ballots could indeed get lost on the way to a central counting place hundreds of miles away when horse back or stage coach was the fastest way of communication. We need to do away with the electorial college so that "one person one vote" is no longer a lie.
If it is so important who becomes Supreme court justice why can't both house vote, or the people even in a special election?
[ DELETED ]
No f-bombs, folks. You're only wasting time typing in a comment that will be deleted.
- admin
Posted by: farang at October 4, 2005 01:57 AMHer appointment is a political thank you for covering up the scandal about him being AWOL before he ran for Gov. of Texas.
Roberts appointment was a political thank you for stopping the 2000 Florida recount.
the major difference here is with two of them in the SC, he now rates a get out of jail free card as do his cronies assoicated with this illegal war.
His daddy did much of the same in the Iran Contra scandal. Their #1 scape goat was Ollie North... He how has a "news" show on FAUX tv. The major factor in the dumbing down of America.
Look closely people, many of the faces in the present scandal can be seen in pictures with LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Ray-Gun... The Very same folks screwing you now have been doing it for nearly 4 decades! (Look closely in pics of Nixon, you'll find a young intern named Carl Rove!)
Posted by: KJ Lovell at October 4, 2005 04:30 AMOk, so let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Bush is trying to further coverup some scandal surrounding his National Guard Service by NOMINATING TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT a person with the most knowledge on such topic?
You think Bush is putting someone with the most intimate knowledge of an alleged scandal up for a PUBLIC confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate -- a hearing that's likely to be one of the most contentious (and most followed) in recent history -- so he can keep it all secret?
Yeah, that makes alot of sense. [/sarcasm]
Posted by: Jason Smith at October 3, 2005 04:12 PM
__________
Actually it makes a lot of sense.
The hearings being public has no bearing on the issue. If Miers gets asked any questions about the National Guard 'fixing' during her confirmation hearings, all she has to do is cite attorney client privilege. That will probably result in Miers being praised for her "ethics". Once (if) she is appointed, what she says about the Nat Guard issue (if she ever says anything)will not matter, because SC justices are pretty much untouchable and they have a post with no time/term limit on it.
Posted by: JUICE at October 4, 2005 05:17 AMI mean AFTER ALL, Bolton was confirmed, wasn't he??
Posted by: Bushbaffled at October 3, 2005 06:28 PM
________
No he wasn't. Quagmire waited till congress was out of session, on break, then he used a recess appointment to give Bolton the UN job (even though recess appts are supposed to be to fill vacancies in crucial positions that may occur WHEN congress is out of session) and ignore the whole "congress has to approve nominees by a majority vote" speedbump that was keeping Bolton out of the UN position.
Posted by: JUICE at October 4, 2005 05:31 AMJust another Bush Crony. Was paid thousands to cover up a scandel and then rewarded for her guile.
Posted by: Jason Cotton at October 4, 2005 05:49 AM"Should the "other party" be allowed to nominate? "
Yeah, the "other party" gets to nominate when they win the presidential election.
But to do that, the Dems will have to start saying what they're for, not just what they are against.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 06:55 AMYou people are destroying the country, I hope yall see the errors of your ways and embrace the current office of presidency and SHUT UP he was elected and STOP making stuff or stretching the truth to fulfill your radical left wing liberal idiot agenda.
Posted by: J at October 4, 2005 08:57 AMSame sad old traitorous democrats crying about the same old wornout lies only they believe.
Democrats: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Posted by: Patty Lawrence at October 4, 2005 10:21 AMAny of you Dimocrats care to take a try at why Harry Truman was willing to kill 200,000 Japanese civilians to teach the Russians a lesson?
You still have about 198,000 before you are allowed to cry about Bush.
WHY DO DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA???
Posted by: Harry Truman's Ghost at October 4, 2005 10:25 AM[ DELETED ]
Posted by: Pattypiddlin' at October 4, 2005 10:46 AMHey, Pattypiddlin', how many screen names are you going to use on this forum?
And are you taking the place of POA in claiming that I somehow orchestrate responses here? The same POA who used multiple screen names himself, like you do?
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 10:58 AM"I mean, how in Gods's name can one argue against such wisdom, such concise rebuttal, and such deeply profound thought?"
This from someone who uses multiple screen names and fails to offer up anything remotely resembling thought himself.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 11:05 AMEnjoy your Cheetos, America. I hope they taste better than the freedoms we've lost,and the sons and daughters we have lost to ......"Big Business" a truly worthless time in America History.my favorite quote after reading all these blogs is The Proof is in the Pudding,and this Pudding forcefully fed tastes awful,the fleas on the dog's back are truly wagging this dogs tail...God Help us ALL...
Posted by: Bubba at October 4, 2005 11:42 AMI think GW is doing a fine job. I also have doubled my money with my Haliburton stock things are rockin in my world. 8-)
Posted by: Luckyme at October 4, 2005 11:46 AMunqualified for the appointment. lacking ANY experience that would move her to the head of the list. an unmarried career woman. hmm..
i guess george bush does believe in affirmative action after all. we've been approaching this from the wrong perspective. it's not cronyism...it's affirmative action for bush's hopelessly unqualified white upper class elitist entitlement class.
someone above speculated that her involvement in bush's shady past (nat guard, etc) would come out in the confirmation hearings. not a chance. roberts raised the bar of nondisclosure, being confirmed w/out really answering ANY of the supposed tough questions. miers will do likewise.
is there anyone who finds it curious that bush chose a 60yo for this nomination? why not look for a younger sycophant? wasn't his goal to change the USSC to reflect HIS ideology for the next 30+ years?
this appointment is CYA writ large. her past is littered w/ malfeasance before the bar. it will be an uphill battle to get the facts out via the MSM, and i don't look for the dems to break out the long knives. some of them are thankful she's not further to the right, thus they're willing to accept a stealth appointment. but make no mistake...miers is NOT a staunch supporter of the rule of law. in her view it's as malleable as delay's "ethics" and the ends always justifies the means. doubt me? read the link. it shows her indifference to the law, and like delay, her willingness to blur the lines...these people can't even spell ethics...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/miers-led-law-firm-repeat_b_8277.html
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 12:21 PMDumbya's idea of affirmative action means:
"i'll bring the rope"
Don't fool yourselves, our pRESIDENT is pure evil and surrounds itself with the same.
Dumbya and his handlers are playing a monumental game of CYA right now. They and all that support them are shaking in their boots. Dumbya is all hat no cattle. Crash Cart Cheeney has no heart, just a oil pump.
Posted by: KJ Lovell at October 4, 2005 12:31 PM"i guess george bush does believe in affirmative action after all. "
That's a hoot. Miers worked her way to managing partner of a 400 person law firm back when few women ever made partner.
She was the first female head of the Texas ABA.
In other words, she busted through the glass ceiling with smarts and hard work. But she's an affirmative action case? What a pathetic joke.
I'm waiting to see what Miers is about - we don't know much. But that kind of attack is just wrong, as are insinuations by some on the left AND the right that, because she never married, she must be a lesbian.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 12:33 PMlook db...if you have a problem w/ irony and parody, you really should avoid responding. conservatives have been wrenting their mantles and throwing dust in the air for decades over the issue of affirmative action. they lament the set aside, and argue that others more qualified are passed over for political reasons. hello? you mean like brownie? and now, miers?? ditto that equation w/ a long list of crony appoinments in FEMA, FDA, etc, etc, ad nauseum... my point was couched in the FACT that the GOP and specifically the bush cabal abhors "affirmative action", unless it benefits their agenda, and involves the advancement of white, upper class, elitists. they operate on the Peter Principal when deciding political appointments, blithly dismissing the fact that there are no benign appointments when someone is spending our tax dollars, or in this case, interpreting our constitution and applying the law. miers has done neither, period.
i love this quote...
"...And sure enough, William Kristol, editor of the conservative WeeklyStandard, said, "I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized" at Bush's choice. "Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of."
you applaud miers achievements as a lawyer. being a shill for corporate interests and having a client list dotted w/ "evil doers" is hardly a virtue.
and of course, it didn't take long for the RNC to start lying about the miers appoinment. ken doll mehlman had the smear qued and ready...
http://factcheck.org/article351.html
"look db...if you have a problem w/ irony and parody"
I don't. You, however, seem to confuse slurs with irony - and parody is supposed to be funny.
There have been plenty of SCOTUS nominees with no prior judicial experience (36, I believe).
I'll wait to see what comes out about Miers from a mix of sources. But I'm not going to play stupid word games like some people.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 01:11 PMA friend of mine remarked that if the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the Constitution against the Executive branch democracy ceases to function. Hmmm So that's what they are up to.
Posted by: Athena, GOW at October 4, 2005 01:13 PM"A friend of mine remarked that if the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the Constitution against the Executive branch democracy ceases to function."
Andrew Jackson said this of a Supreme Court decision that blocked something he wanted to do:
"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
And this country has survived such sentiments.
The Constitution is all about the three main branches of government working as a check against each other. If anything, the three branches of the federal government nowadays usurp power in unison, as witnessed by the majorities in Gonzales v. Raich.
Oh, and it was the conservatives who dissented in Gonzales. The liberals voted to uphold federal power. As it was the liberal justices who upheld Kelo.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 01:19 PMOh sure!!!!! Everyone is pissed!!! Now who among us in here are prepared to lead us all?
Posted by: dee at October 4, 2005 01:36 PMdb...but you see, i've been reading your crap for quite some time, and you absolutely LOVE to "play stupid word games". that's why you come here. to taunt, ridicule, spin, and dissemble. day in/day out...it's your idiom.
for your information, parody is not always funny...it's often used to ridicule, and the recipient of the parody is often not remotely amused...like you right now. talk about irony...
speaking of irony, "the usage of words to express something incongruous w/ the established usage", ie, my usage of "affirmative action" to explain crony appoinments.
considering your limitations indexed to word comprehension, i applaud you in avoiding "stupid" word games....
for the irony challenged, that was a slur...
BTW...36 prior nominees w/ no judicial experience is irrelevant to the issue at hand. we're discussing miers and her "qualifications", not rhenquist et al...
try paying attention and staying on topic...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 01:37 PM"BTW...36 prior nominees w/ no judicial experience is irrelevant to the issue at hand. we're discussing miers and her "qualifications", not rhenquist et al..."
Rehnquist had no prior judicial experience. So it's highly relevant to bring him and others such as Byron White.
White was a political crony of Kennedy's, using your loose definitions of such. He was a famous football player who backed Kennedy in 1960. Kennedy repaid the favor by naming him deputy attorney general in 1961, and then nominated him for SCOTUS in 1962.
So there is plenty of precedent for naming someone with political connections and no prior judicial experience. If there are other ethical issues, bring those out and we'll see how they hold up under cross-examination.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 01:58 PMdb...like i said, avoid, dissemble, spin...you're a real pip...
you operate from the false premise that i agreed w/ white or rhenquist's appoinments. a crony is a crony...no matter the party or ideology. a bad precedent is no excuse to continue such actions.
you haven't "cross examined" anything. you simply dismiss the point and move on, as do most of the right leaning boors that come to this forum. it's a favorite tactic from your camp. you accused me of confusion about irony and parody. i proved you to be absolutely wrong, so you shift gears and change the subject. then you pretend to be fair and open minded, awaiting the evidence, blah, blah, blah...
a lot of the "evidence" you seek is already out there...you just ignore it. did you read the link? have you googled ms. miers? did you wrap your mind around the statement from arch neo-con kristol? did you watch the press conference w/ the WH press actually asking tough questions about miers' appointment?
there's a myriad list of people (lib and con) waaayy smarter than I who are questioning this appoinment. it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking skills to start forming an opinion about her. but hey...that ain't yer forte' anyhow, is it?
why the reticience? i doubt you'd be waiting for the "facts" to come out if the appointment involved hillary, feinstein, pelosi, or any of a list of "equally qualified" prominent liberal females, who also overcame the so-called "glass ceiling".
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 02:28 PM"you operate from the false premise that i agreed w/ white or rhenquist's appoinments. a crony is a crony...no matter the party or ideology. a bad precedent is no excuse to continue such actions."
I disagree that Rehnquist was a crony. He was a respected jurist and justices from both sides of the political spectrum admired his sense of fairness as chief justice. White was a decent jurist as well.
Meanwhile, you have your highly qualified types on the left side of the court inflicting rulings such as Kelo on us. That crony rube Rehnquist voted against Kelo, as did that simpleton Thomas. Those rubes just apparently are too dumb to think that a taking for a public purpose can involved taking land from one private entity and giving it to another.
"you haven't "cross examined" anything."
The allegations posted were the first I saw of any ethical charges against Miers. I'll do my own research, see what pundits say across the political spectrum, and make my own decisions.
This appointment is in a series of failed leadership actions.
If all of you look closely, GWB has now developed a "Tic" when he speaks and lies...his "jaw" twitches every time he lies. Kind of like Pinocchio’s nose growing ever time he told a lie. I have even recorded this "twitch" of his jaw and it is a "sure-fire" way to tell he is lying. Also, a pre-lude to his lying is when he says "Ahhhhhhhhhh" and pauses to think up another lie. He did both of these as he spoke in appointing Ms. Miers as a nominee to the "Supremes."
I agree with those who posted that the Democrats or Independents don't attack this "worst President" we have ever had. Where are those with backbone and ability to challenge this onslaught of falsehoods, lies and deceit? An old phrase seems appropriate in that "the people get the kind of Government they deserve."
Oh my god! Don't you people know Miers is a space alien? Put on your foil hats...quick!
Posted by: Gurdy at October 4, 2005 02:37 PMthanx db...never change...i like you just like you are. predictable as weeds growing in an empty lot.
you seem fixated w/ the issue of emenate domain. the Kelo ruling was a travesty...an injustice w/ real ramifications for all property owners. i'm sure you also oppose cheney's suggestion to use ED to take private land and transfer it to utility companies. and i know w/out a doubt that you were more than a little upset about the application of ED to give george his new ballpark in arlington when he was at the helm w/ the texas rangers. but i digress...
do your research...and then promptly allow boortz to make up your mind for you. you do listen to him, don't you? sure sounds like it...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 02:55 PMFinally a few commenters who are ready for what I've been screaming for since the 2000 Selection!
In any other country democratic citizens would have taken to the streets is right! We need to stop typing now, though it's been great for venting and for locating others as frustrated as we are; WE NEED ACTION NOW--yes a 2005 version of the Boston Tea Party.SOMETHING THE MSM couldn't "ignore" or pretend isn't occuring? Let's GET CREATIVE...give them something they can't resist. How about a CARAVAN OF U-HAULS driven by "us", pulling up in front of OUR HOUSES and offering to help them all pack...move them ALL out. Of course we'd have to be ready to "OVER-HAUL" the entire Washington establishment OVERNIGHT, but perhaps "FED-EX" could help us DELIVER on that? I know...the gas prices won't permit it, but...hey...WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING HERE! ACTION, ACTION, ACTION!
"i'm sure you also oppose cheney's suggestion to use ED to take private land and transfer it to utility companies. and i know w/out a doubt that you were more than a little upset about the application of ED to give george his new ballpark in arlington when he was at the helm w/ the texas rangers. but i digress..."
I don't agree with either. And I especially disagree with tax dollars going for stadium projects.
But, once again, it was highly qualified liberal jurists such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg who voted for Kelo. And that crony Rehnquist voted against it. So tell me, then - what does being highly qualified like Ginsburg actually buy us Constitutionally? Maybe we need folks who look in the dictionary for the meaning of words instead of inventing meaning.
"do your research...and then promptly allow boortz to make up your mind for you. you do listen to him, don't you? sure sounds like it... "
Uh, no I don't. But you sure are good at trying to put words in my mouth.
Kelo was wrong, and no spinning can counter that. And it was the liberal and centrist members of the court that voted for it.
now we're getting somewhere db...the USSC hands down some bad judgements. but the ones that really get your goat are because of liberals and centrists, right? but i bet you agreed w/ Bush vs Gore, and the USSC's oblique application of the equal protection clause that turned state's rights on it's head, right?
BTW...if i could actually succeed in "putting words in your mouth", it would raise the level of your rhetoric immeasurably. ironic, ain't it?
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 03:17 PM"now we're getting somewhere db...the USSC hands down some bad judgements. but the ones that really get your goat are because of liberals and centrists, right?"
Nah, Scalia never met a search and seizure he didn't like. And he sided with the majority in Gonzales v Raich, finding new and novel interpretations of the Necessary and Proper Clause. So I don't worship at the church of Scalia.
"but i bet you agreed w/ Bush vs Gore, and the USSC's oblique application of the equal protection clause that turned state's rights on it's head, right?"
Nope. I thought the court should have stuck with McPherson and called it a day. The Floriduh Supreme Court was already split 4-3 because of McPherson, sending the ruling back would probably have ended the charade. As it was, Bush won anyway in subsequent recount analyses by newspapers.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 03:22 PM"BTW...if i could actually succeed in "putting words in your mouth", it would raise the level of your rhetoric immeasurably. ironic, ain't it?"
I'm citing actual history and cases. Why don't you trying raising the level of your game, dude, instead of just acting like you are backing up your arguments.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 03:25 PMcareful db...you'll spin right into the floor.
and i suppose me citing actual history and cases is, well, what exactly? where do the facts that point to miers' being a patronage appointment fit into your equation? apparently, not at all. so you don't "worship...scalia" got it. but the ultimate problem w/ the USSC is w/ "liberals and moderates". you sound conflicted. gee....could it be that both sides of the ideological spectrum, or what passes for one in DC, are flawed and in need of more consideration than blind partisan aquiesence to their party?? i think so... the foodfight that passes for governance in all branches has eroded any concept of cooperation. partisanship is paramount, and the other guy is an "enemy". ask yourself, and try to be honest. who is responsible for the coarsening of the debate? i used to love to hear alan simpson bebate w/ ted kennedy...best friends, but on opposite ends of the issues most of the time. a lot of the current atmoshpere can be traced back to newt and his tactics. the demonization of opponents...the daily talking points, etc. scorched earth smelled of victory to newt. and now we have the master of the smear tactic, karl rove, taking up the mantle and furthering the divide.
db, it's one thing to sit and cite legal precedent and pretend to be unbiased...research is easy. it's another entirely to play all ends against the middle. you present yourself as a conservative. that's fine...most of my friends are conservative republicans. seem incongruous? not really....you see, i don't see them as enemies; only misguided friends who haven't seen the light. i have a quote i use often. it drives them to distraction...
"...democrats make me ashamed to be an american....republicans make me ashamed to be a human being..."
btw, why choose a handle indexed to a dead failed hijacker/terrorist? not that it matters at all...it's irrelevant....i'm just curious.
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 04:45 PMoops db...i meant to help w/ your research on miers. hey, i'm all about helping others.
quoth david frum, former WH speach writer..
""Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is impossible to me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse - or resist the blandishments - that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.
Nor is it safe for the president's conservative supporters to defer to the president's judgment and say, "Well, he must know best." The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters."
ouch!! but wait, there's more endorsement...
"....She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush. I mentioned last week that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. To flatter on such a scale a person must either be an unscrupulous dissembler, which Miers most certainly is not, or a natural follower. And natural followers do not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States."
that's from his blog at national review. freakin' liberal....
like i said...she's a toady...a sycophant...a crony. but i'm with ya buddy. let's wait for the facts to come out, and the fat lady to sing...
i am having a very large time....thanx for watching me while my keepers clean my cage...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 04:56 PM"careful db...you'll spin right into the floor."
Spin? You asked questions. I answered them. Cleanly.
"and i suppose me citing actual history and cases is, well, what exactly? where do the facts that point to miers' being a patronage appointment fit into your equation? apparently, not at all."
I pointed out that Rehnquist and White had similar background and qualifications that Miers had, and they turned out just fine.
"so you don't "worship...scalia" got it. but the ultimate problem w/ the USSC is w/ "liberals and moderates". you sound conflicted. gee....could it be that both sides of the ideological spectrum, or what passes for one in DC, are flawed and in need of more consideration than blind partisan aquiesence to their party??"
Well, the main difference now between the Dems and the pubbies, with a few exceptions, are what sections of the Constitution they want to bang upon.
"i think so... the foodfight that passes for governance in all branches has eroded any concept of cooperation. partisanship is paramount, and the other guy is an "enemy." ask yourself, and try to be honest. who is responsible for the coarsening of the debate?"
If I saw you as an enemy, I wouldn't be polite in posting to you. About all you've done is make snarky comments towards me.
So who's more interested in a food fight here?
"i used to love to hear alan simpson bebate w/ ted kennedy...best friends, but on opposite ends of the issues most of the time. a lot of the current atmoshpere can be traced back to newt and his tactics. the demonization of opponents...the daily talking points, etc. scorched earth smelled of victory to newt. and now we have the master of the smear tactic, karl rove, taking up the mantle and furthering the divide."
And you don't think Teddy the K has gone snarky in his old age? The Clintons took the smash-mouth politics of earlier times and adapted them to the modern age. Rove in turn has driven the GOP to use GOTV activities to match those done by the Dems.
Both sides play to cable news, which thrives on snarkyness. A lot of the changes we've seen are driven by media changes.
"db, it's one thing to sit and cite legal precedent and pretend to be unbiased...research is easy. it's another entirely to play all ends against the middle."
I have an opinion. And I back it up with cites. You imply that I'm uninformed, yet can't be bothered to back up your positions with facts, and instead demand that relevant facts, such as the history of justices such as Rehnquist and White, be kept out of this discussion - when they are directly relevant to the discussion.
You don't like it that I am putting facts into your attempt to play the cronyism spin that's the latest rage in Dem circles. So who's spinning here?
"you present yourself as a conservative. that's fine...most of my friends are conservative republicans. seem incongruous? not really...."
you see, i don't see them as enemies; only misguided friends who haven't seen the light."
Oh, isn't that sweet of you. And so condescending as well.
And then Dems wonder why they can't win elections by talking down to people.
"i have a quote i use often. it drives them to distraction...
"...democrats make me ashamed to be an american....republicans make me ashamed to be a human being..."
Oh, that is soo profound. I am sooo driven to distraction.
Seriously, that's your money pitch? The one you throw for strikeouts?
You need to hang around a better grade of conservative if they get distracted by that one.
"btw, why choose a handle indexed to a dead failed hijacker/terrorist? not that it matters at all...it's irrelevant....i'm just curious."
Just for fun.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 05:04 PMYou're kidding, right?
"can endure the anger and abuse - or resist the blandishments - that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today."
So you think someone singing the praises of Anthony Kennedy is going to sway my opinion?
The dude who voted for both Kelo AND Gonzales?
Frum's a pinhead. Part of the chattering pundit class who needs to put out opinions whether or not they have any facts or much to say.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 05:08 PMthat's what i thought...db, you spin like crazy. i never said you saw me as your enemy...you applied my abstract indexed to DC as being about you. how vain.
you have avoided questions from the beginning of this exchange, and spin it to be that you "answered them...cleanly"
you never pointed out that "rhenquist and white had similiar backgrounds and experience" as miers. you only used them periferally to bolster your veiled support for the miers appointment.
db...anyone who reads this thread would disagree with your absurb "all you've done is make snarky comments" remark. you've been about as passive agressive as it get's. don't attempt to marginalize my postings w/ such tripe.
but your stipes really come out when it comes to the clintons. they mastered the smear, that rove has addopted. that's really rich. it's clinton's fault that rove is a dispicable bottom feeder. excellent!!
what's next?....my condescention...puh leeze. it drips from your chin.
nice job...i'm in the presence of an underwhelming spin meister.
as for me finding a better grade of conservative to hang with? i guess the ones i know actually have a moral compass, unlike the smug partisan you present yourselve to be. it's a game to you, isn't it. nothing more...nothing less.
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 05:35 PM"you have avoided questions from the beginning of this exchange, "
I answered your friggin' questions. About court conservatives. About Bush v. Gore.
And you say I have avoided questions?
I give up.
"but your stipes really come out when it comes to the clintons. they mastered the smear, that rove has addopted. that's really rich. "
Yes, they did. They were quite into smash-mouth politics, whether you care to acknowledge that or not. So was Lee Atwater, but Carville did him one better.
In this day and age, it appears you need such to win. Largely because folks like you, while decrying trash talk, spew it yourself.
"what's next?....my condescention...puh leeze. it drips from your chin. "
I'm not into that, thanks.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 06:13 PMpoor db...
the clinton's mastered smashmouth politics. really? you love to prove your point, okay, not really. but for the sake of this exchange, do tell. and do contrast it w/ rove. tell us how smearing mcain and clelland was just beginners luck. jump into the wayback machine and explain how rove was fired from the 1st bush campaign, before the clintons even emerged on the stage. tell us all how carville eclipsed lee atwater, a close associate of rove and dubyah. show me carville's willy horton.
you say i embrace trash talk, then make a smug aside remark about the drippage from your chin. i was talking about your own smug condescention. you made it into a homophobic joke. yet i'm the trash talker??
dude...you got worse problems than your overt partisanship....try to focus...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 06:41 PMBreaking News Forecast.
The Secretary for Defence has resigned - GW. Bush has appointed Joseph Dugh in his place - Joe has served as Chief Boom Guard at the Prairie Chapel Ranch for countless years having come up through the ranks. His most recent good work was to deny entry to some woan complaining about the loss of her son
if it has to be a Bushwack.. then recommend the former FEMA director for sc.
Mike Browne is by far the BEST wack that has ever served in a Bush admin.
Anyone who has witnessed the 3rd stage of a drunken stupor...
after the stage #1 “I luv ya man”, and the stage #2 “you don’t like me do ya?”, …
namely …
“Thems fightin wuds man!”
Knows Brown uttered the FIRST and ONLY words of a Bush administration that have EVER COME CLOSE to intersecting with either 1) intelligence or 2) truth …
The reason another quarter of the country has gone bye-bye WAS because of a hysterical pres.
half down half to go.
Posted by: dryice at October 4, 2005 07:10 PMif it has to be a Bushwack.. then recommend the former FEMA director for sc.
Mike Browne is by far the BEST wack that has ever served in a Bush admin.
Anyone who has witnessed the 3rd stage of a drunken stupor...
after the stage #1 “I luv ya man”, and the stage #2 “you don’t like me do ya?”, …
namely …
“Thems fightin wuds man!”
Knows Brown uttered the FIRST and ONLY words of a Bush administration that have EVER COME CLOSE to intersecting with either 1) intelligence or 2) truth …
The reason another quarter of the country has gone bye-bye WAS because of a hysterical pres.
half down half to go.
Posted by: dryice at October 4, 2005 07:12 PMif it has to be a Bushwack.. then recommend the former FEMA director for sc.
Mike Browne is by far the BEST wack that has ever served in a Bush admin.
Anyone who has witnessed the 3rd stage of a drunken stupor...
after the stage #1 “I luv ya man”, and the stage #2 “you don’t like me do ya?”, …
namely …
“Thems fightin wuds man!”
Knows Brown uttered the FIRST and ONLY words of a Bush administration that have EVER COME CLOSE to intersecting with either 1) intelligence or 2) truth …
The reason another quarter of the country has gone bye-bye WAS because of a hysterical pres.
half down half to go.
Posted by: dryice at October 4, 2005 07:13 PMDb,
In your non-partisan research to find cases to cite in backing up your viewpoint on USSC judges, I thought you might have some interest in reading this link - which points out hypocricy on the part of Rhenquist and Scalia (uh, well, and Stevens too), even as Scalia wrongly attacks O'Conner and Kennedy for being hypocritical.
Excerpted:
But there's nothing random or unpredictable in Kennedy's or O'Connor's views on the competence of minors in the two cases. They've held firm. The only justices who have "changed over the past 15 years" are the one who switched from O'Connor's side to Kennedy's—Justice John Paul Stevens—and the two who switched from Kennedy's side to O'Connor's: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and, you guessed it, Scalia. At least Rehnquist and Stevens have the sense to keep quiet about it. Not Scalia. He's too busy poking fun at the APA's flip-flop to notice that by taking the opposite side in both cases, he's flop-flipped.
When Scalia writes that "we have struck down abortion statutes that do not allow" judicial bypass, and that in so doing "we have recognized that at least some minors will be mature enough to make difficult decisions that involve moral considerations," what "we" is he thinking of? It can't include him. He had a chance in Hodgson to affirm that some minors were mature enough to make moral decisions. He voted no. And as the evolved Scalia observes 15 years later, it's hard to see why this context should be any different.
http://www.slate.com/id/2114219/
Posted by: Talking point detective at October 4, 2005 07:16 PMhmmm...thanx TPD. i'm not a wonk, but i did stay in a holiday inn express last night...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 4, 2005 07:42 PMThe key now is to take back control of Congress in 06, so that investigations can be implemented that would, on a level playing field, put many in this administration in jail for a long time, dumbya included. How sweet it could be.
Posted by: GOPHater at October 4, 2005 07:56 PMThanks for the link, TPD. I'll read up on that subject in detail. Like I said, Scalia is not my favorite conservative - his originalist principles desert him when it comes to his pet causes.I would need to research further to see what changes to law might have occurred in the intervening 15 years.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 4, 2005 08:18 PMwtmoore, I don't get the Holiday Inn Express reference.
Another interesting, although not exactly ground-breaking and pretty old, link to an article by the same author on partisanship and the Supreme Court.
http://www.slate.com/id/95513/
Also, db, it has some some material relevant to the discussion of bias in the media.
To wit:
One lesson of these partisan oversights is that hypocrisy is a two-way street. My liberal friends and colleagues are happy to point out that Bush, having advocated tight standards for counting ballots in Florida counties that lean Democratic, advocated loose standards for counting military ballots, which lean Republican. They're quick to note that the Supreme Court's conservative justices, having opposed federal intervention in other disputes over state law, intervened to stop the recount in Florida. But if Bush and the conservative justices have switched positions in one direction, then Gore and the liberal justices have switched positions in the opposite direction. The charge of hypocrisy, leveled reflexively by each side, is itself hypocritical.
The other lesson is what they teach you in driver education: Check your blind spot. Figure out which political angle you don't see well, whether it's to the left or the right, and make sure to turn your head in that direction before crossing into that lane. A judge or politician who neglects this precaution risks calamity. A writer who neglects it risks embarrassment. Every day, hundreds of readers post messages on Slate's bulletin board accusing us of prejudicial blindness. "Another biased liberal," they write, ignoring the content of whichever article they're responding to that day. In my case, I'm just liberal enough to hope that some of them, eventually, will get the joke.
Aww, wouldn't you know it? I'll betcha anything no one will have the guts to stand up against her. The staunchly ignorant Republicans won't care because it wouldn't matter. They KNOW she's going to be one of those judges who vote a certain way just because it's her "personal belief"--Which will no doubt be 100% conservative. The other Republicans MIGHT stand up against her, but what difference will a few make? They know they won't be elected again the next year if they do. The Democrats...Wow...I can't say they've had a backbone for these past years.
Who's ready for Bush's personal maid to fill in that empty seat?
Posted by: x Raven at October 4, 2005 11:53 PMhey TPD...
the holiday inn express deal? they run commercials where ordinary people are doing jobs they have no training in, ie, surgeon. whne they are asked about their skill set, it's their pat answer. "i'm not a doctor, but i did stay in a holiday inn express last night."
pop culture...go figure?
thanx for your links. btw...it has been suggested that the dustup on the right over miers is just another cynical ploy from rove designed to make miers appear to be a moderate, thus gaining acceptance from the dems. she's the perfect stealth nominee. fiercely loyal to bush...no paper trail. this is gonna get quite interesting as it shakes out.
Posted by: wtmoore at October 5, 2005 01:11 PMWhile all of you worried about Bush and Harriet Miers, the The Jihad muslims as sitting back watching America continue to get sidetracked by BS bickering, while they continue they slimy plans to inflict their jihad on the us. All I can say is, be prepared, they're lurking in the corners.
Posted by: Me at October 5, 2005 03:32 PMwtmoore,
Yeah, I thought about the possibility of that ploy. It is a little conspiracy theoryish, but things sure have that appearance. How could anyone actually believe that he didn't use her opinions on abortion, assisted suicide, etc., as a litmus test? For evangelicals to claim that they believe that he didn't seems incredibly disingenuous.
But in the end, I have no doubt that Bush is quite sure about her loyalty to his agenda: promotion of economic policies that favor big business; increased government intervention in certain civil liberties while, hypocritically, decreased government protection of other civil liberties; etc., etc., etc.
My take on Miers is she is one less vote on the Supreme Court for the upcoming impeachment attempt
in 2007.
She will have to recuse herself, so she can't vote against him/them.
And after that debacle, we will have Roe v. Wade
overturned, which will make RU-486 (or the PFE or MRK equivalent) the profitable drug of the 2010's.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes." - Mark Twain
"My take on Miers is she is one less vote on the Supreme Court for the upcoming impeachment attempt
in 2007."
Uh, dude, an associate justice on the Supreme Court has no vote on impeachment.
The only person on the Supreme Court with a role in an impeachment trial is the Chief Justice, who presides but does not vote. The House impeaches on a majority vote, the Senate tries the impeachment, and it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove. It's that simple.
Therefore, Miers' nomination has absolutely no bearing on any impeachment attempt of Bush, as unlikely as that is.
Nor would she have much bearing on any Posse Comitatus issues, given that Posse Comitatus is a law, not part of the Constitution, and any change to that law would not likely be a Constutional matter for review by SCOTUS unless such a change infringed upon some other Constitutional factor.
Please read up on the Constitution and come back later.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 7, 2005 12:49 PMDB...
the impeachment issue is probably gonna gain some steam when the "rumored" 11 indictments are handed down by fitzpatrick, but you're right, it's moot indexed to miers. but if you think george isn't trying to stack the deck, i've "misunderestimated" you.
robert parry has an excellent take on the miers appointment....
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/100605.html
".....But there is another theory that would fit the facts. It may be that Bush is less concerned about constitutional issues than he is about criminal and political disputes that might reach the court if the troubles surging around his administration get worse.
"....What if, for instance, a senior Bush aide is facing prosecution in connection with an untested law prohibiting unmasking covert CIA officers? It might be handy for Bush to have a trusted friend on the court of last resort to rule on some technical legal questions that could torpedo the whole case".
miers is a powderkeg of info. things are about to get very dicey...i predict she'll withdraw and be back in texas before she sits in front of a very curious senate.
I don't buy into the stacking the court to hinder investigations theory, either.
After all, a unanimous SCOTUS said that Clinton could be sued as a sitting president. And that included two sitting justices appointed by Clinton. And the decision was written by Breyer.
Plus, no matter who appoints a judge, once they are on the court, they are beholden to no one - not presidents nor Congress nor even the voters - to keep their position. So that tends to make them independent.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 7, 2005 03:04 PMokay DB...
well somewhere between "he's the most brillant man i've ever met" and "she's the best person i could find" lies the corpse of truth. if george isn't trying to stack the USSC w/ loyalists, why do this? why plow that field? it defies logic, or what passes for logic in bushworld.
this is the homer simpson appointment. the head slapping by the righties is good for comic relief, but come on, miers at this point doesn't even pass the giggle test. when george will goes "nucular", something's up.
pack yer bags harry....you're going back to dallas...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 7, 2005 03:28 PM"george isn't trying to stack the USSC w/ loyalists, why do this? "
Well, I think the reasons are a lot more arcane than what has been postulated.
Once the Gang of 14 formed in the Senate, the entire dynamic changed. Plus, GOP Senators, for the most part, are spineless types anyway.
So Bush wants a stealth nominee. A conservative, but without much of a cross-section to shoot at.
But he is haunted by the worst pick of his father's presidency - another stealth canidate by the name of Souter.
Bush the elder didn't know Souter. He was recommended by Sunnunu and Rudman. And Souter, once on the court, ran way to the left.
So Bush wants someone he knows well, instead of taking someone's recommendations. Which left Alberto Gonzales and Miers.
But several senators, including Snowe and Collins, stated that they wanted a woman to replace O'Conner once Roberts was moved into Rehnquist's position.
So that left Miers.
I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 7, 2005 04:21 PMEnjoying the banter; however, I think you both miss the point. Miers is a corporate laywer. Need I say more?
Posted by: Talking point detective at October 7, 2005 04:23 PM"Enjoying the banter; however, I think you both miss the point. Miers is a corporate laywer. Need I say more?"
Well, we were discussing why Miers was nominated.
IMO, the type of lawyer was secondary to the factors I mentioned.
Although I do imagine that Bush sees her corporate laywer background as a plus for the position.
Posted by: db_cooper at October 7, 2005 04:32 PMI think the fact that she is/was a corporate lawyer is a signficant factor behind her nomination -- and an answer to the question posed about why she was nominated.
The smokescreen about her views on abortion doesn't make any sense to me. I simply don't believe that Bush wasn't totally committed on that issue. The statements that he never asked about her views on abortion is a joke.
I don't see any way that Bush is serously concerned about impeachment, or needing Supreme Court support to protect his minions.
Issues related to corporate power underlie a very significant proportion of cases that will be coming up before the SC. And neither Dems nor Republicans will vote against her appointment because of her approach to those issues. Classic case of Win Win (if you don't put the American public at the table).
Posted by: Talking point detective at October 7, 2005 04:46 PMShe won't legislate from the bench!! That is, except when she is legislating from the bench:
WASHINGTON - President Bush praises Harriet Miers as an opponent of legislating from the judicial bench, but as a corporate lawyer she lobbied then-Gov. Bush to let the Texas high court rather than the Legislature decide if attorney fees should be limited.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9623557/
Damned liberal biased press!! They keep reporting stuff Bush doesn't want them to!!! The fact that it amounts to the little information the American public has about a nominee to the Supreme Court is totally irrelevant!!
Posted by: Talking point detective at October 7, 2005 08:25 PMTPD...
there was a curious conference call involving the WH and a myriad list of right wing supporters urging the confirmation of miers. not that unusual, excepty that jay sekulow participated in the call, and noted that he had 3 important cases pending before the USSC. he openly stated he wanted miers seated so she could rule on his cases. WTF? he has business pending w/ the USSC and he becomes a cheerleader for miers?? does he know something the rest of us should know??
ehtics?? not so much...
but my favorite remarks came from the pres. of the southern baptist convention. he pointed out that miers is a texan, just like george, and she understands the great disappoinment that would descend from on high if she didn't rule like george expected her to. ah yes...she's an evangelican christian...just like george. she's a texan...just like george...she's a toady...just like george. nice....
hey DB...you took umbrage when i said miers appoinment was tantamount to "affirmative action for the unqualified". turns out i'm not the only one. arlen spector made the same observation yesterday. and yes, i know you'll attack spector as a liberal...don't bother. my point? my observation wasn't as obtuse as you tried to spin it to be.
both of those reports are at dailyKos...
Posted by: wtmoore at October 8, 2005 01:14 PM
My god you guys are a bunch of conspiracy theory believing loons! If we were as evil and caniving as you make us out to be we'd have you kissin' out butts to control the country. Face it guys, we ar ent the 'evil empire' and you certainly are not 'Luke Skywalker'. Come back to reality folks!
No wonder Philly is in such a sad state!
Posted by: Clifra.Jones at October 12, 2005 12:31 PMWhy do Democrats hate Bush, America, and the sweet baby Jesus?
Treasonous devils they are.
Posted by: Pistol Pete at October 12, 2005 02:35 PMProblem with today's democratic party is that they chase poor leads. The party needs to get more information before crying wolf. Its made them suffer up to this point. The Democratic party needs to revamp if they are going to do well in the future. I think this article was not written well and facts needed to be checked further. After all this is the web, and we can manipulate information for our ends.
Posted by: Chuck M at October 13, 2005 04:45 AMSo, according to this article, in 1998, when Ms. Miers was appointed to investigate the National Guard, issue she went back in time to 1997 so she could fire Littwin and bribe Barnes/Gtech. Niiiiiiiiice.
Posted by: VIPERsssss at October 16, 2005 12:09 PMShes 60,shel die soon! :P
Posted by: ImSmart at October 18, 2005 11:15 PMIn Canada we watch in amazement as you poor Yanks get screwed daily by that arrogant prick Bush and his merry men. You haven't clicked to the simple tools the jerk-offs are using to keep you in line. Too much tension over the NO fiasco-whoa, here comes a new terror alert. 'Help us, the NYC subway is about to be bombed.' And your pathetic media just follows along. They need to start digging into the real stories and you all need to duck from the maelstrom coming-why do you think Bushes and Haliburton etc etc etc are accumulating as much dough as any Third World dicktator you chumps?.
Posted by: neil at October 20, 2005 12:28 PMHey DB - this is a bit off topic, but shouldn't take much of your time...
I'm still waiting for you to support your charge that Clinton was " ...quite into smash-mouth politics, whether you care to acknowledge that or not. So was Lee Atwater, but Carville did him one better."
Please cite examples of this. Really, I don't recall them (even Carville) being in the same league as Atwater, much less Rove, in terms of dirty tricks... but a few facts from you could clear things up for me.
And then, tell me how it makes Rove's tactics OK in your mind. Personally, I would not applaud my own party stooping to the dirt of the opposition, and then say it's ok because "they did it first".
Thanks
Questions and Concerns
in response to your memo "Who is Harriet Miers?" 10/24/2005
Submitted
To: Kristin Koch
Assistant Director Communications - Online Advocacy
NARAL Pro-Choice America
From:
Bruce Boyle newlogic@together.net
Abstract: This commentary looks at Harriet Mier’s nomination for Supreme Court Justice from a distance of a single step beyond the conventional field and away from the narrow criteria used by Congress, and the corporate-media, to help citizens evaluate the candidate by addressing sociopolitical realities, and warns of the profound fascist danger of Bush cronyism, the danger of his "loyalty" criteria, with the author unequivocally advocating indictment instead.
Nomination a Cover for Treason: My Take on Nomination of Harriet Miers:
500 words is not enough!
Nor is it enough to look at Harriet Miers' resume. We must look at who she is, and "why" George Bush put loyalty above all other qualities in his nomination of Miers?
Harriet Miers is a known toady and uncritical loyalist to Bush Crime Family, a loyalist to the Bush gang, and to Chaney, and to the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) war criminals. She is currently this administration's legal-pimp and their legal mouthpiece, and --as witnessed by her record-- unqualified for dog catcher let alone the highest court. As a religious fundamentalist and as a "good German” expect that she will be assigned, and will carry out, the task of protecting George Bush from:
(A) Prosecution for his war crimes against the people of Iraq and from being called to account for his war crimes against the people of the United States. (Or being convicted for the needless death of 1,972 Americans and counting.)
(B) So she can use that office on the Court to protect Bush from the just charge of TREASON. * (see summary note about the George Bush--Osama bin Laden--Khalid bin Mahfouz--financial nexus below.)
(C) To Protect Bush from a citizen based lawsuit against his regime for lying to the American people (with criminal intent) and in a direct violation of his oath of office, of lying for the purpose of warmongering. (The evidence being the Downing Street Memos, and Bush & company’s numerous public statements about “weapons of mass destruction” etc.).
(D) To PROTECT Dick Cheney from prosecution for his obvious conflict of interest, and for criminal corruption of the office of the Vice-President, and for his secret "energy plan" (to plunder and loot on behalf of the oil corporations and Enron) and for his role in no-bid contracts on behalf of Halliburton.
(E) For Miers to use a position on the Supreme Court to protect Homeland Security (especially Director Chertoff) from criminal prosecution, and from a needed legal conviction for his role, and for his responsibility, for intentionally withholding FEMA aid from the victims of Katrina (and Rita) --a delayed of six days on the first storm-- in order to help create chaos for the purpose of launching martial law against the victims of these storms -- and for the purpose of practicing martial law as a dry-run exercise to be imposed in future natural and government created disasters. And thus, for Miers to use a position on the Supreme Court of the United States to protect these Nazi-type politicians from legal accountability by United States citizens.
(F) To use her nomination to the Supreme Court to PROTECT the Republican Party from prosecution, especially for their crime of anti-democratic theft of two national elections, (1) for the Court to assist them in their Republican Party fraud, (2) for Miers to help them from being called to account for the miss-use of electronic voting technology in order to steal the election of 2004, to protect them from needed legal prosecution, and (3) to thus protect members of the Supreme Court from going to prison for their role in stealing the election of 2000 by means of unconstitutional intervention and for their criminal activities of illegal handing the Federal government over to neonazicons and to the Bush gang's control.
(G) To Prevent industrial and financial corporations from legal accountability and from being held legally accountable for numerous violations of environmental law and for their insane practice and multitude of crimes against the living Earth.
(H) To help the Supreme Court brake the back of labor unions and to use that office to help drive real-wages down even further than their current pitiful levels.
(I) To help the neonazicons destroy the Civil Rights of the American People by the extra-judicial practices of the Bush régime.
(J) To use that office on the Supreme Court to help cover-up the Bush gang's violation of the Nuremberg code and for their miss-treatment and on-going torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And to prevent Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, and General Miller, from going to prison for their part in these violations of human rights and for violations of international treaties and military agreements as signed by the United States government.
(K) To use the position on the Supreme Court to help conceal the direct financial connection of George Bush to Khalid Bin Mahfouz and his financial association and his nexus connection to Osama Bin Laden that was one cause of 9/11. **
[ * Note: Khalid bin Mahfouz is one of the largest clients of 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean's law firm.
** Note: Khalid bin Mahfouz was raised by the Bin Laden family in Yemen in the same village as Osama. He is about the same age and is a life long friend and major financial backer of Al Qaeda (as the Saudi government admits).
Khalid bin Mahfouz is a banker who manages the multibillion dollar fortune of the bin Laden family and he also handles accounts for members of the royal family itself. The Saudi government admitted that Khalid bin Mahfouz transferred two billion dollars to Osama and his organizations. Since then, the Saudi government has keep the banker beyond the the reach of the FBI and CIA (no doubt at George Bush’s behest). At one point, Khalid was under palace arrest but, with a wink of the eye, encouraged to continue managing his investment and banking empire.
Khalid bin Mahfouz is a major financial backer of the Bush family and of their business enterprises (Sr., Jr., Neil, and Jeb). Khalid bin Mahfouz is one of the kingpins behind Carlyle Investments. In this case, he uses surrogates and runners from the Saudi royal family -the same Carlyle Corporation that has George H.W. Bush (a former US President) on its board of directors- and with Carlyle a major investor in the US defense industries.
In the past, Khalid Bin Mahfouz played a key role in the BCCI savings and loans swindle in which US citizens had billions of dollars disappear and these moneys are still unaccounted for. Khalid bin Mahfouz is the same Saudi banker that invested in George W. Bush business enterprises ( Arbusto) and when this failed Mahfouz absorbed the debt. He help George get a management position at Harkin Energy by purchasing a large block of stock and Mahfouz also once paid "twice the market price" for downtown Dallas real estate with the difference funneled by mutual friends into George's bid to become governor of Texas.
Khalid bin Mahfouz is a major investor in Bechtel, and to lesser degree, in Halliburton, both of which make a direct profit from US government contracts along-side the billions of dollars from unaccounted transactions and cost over-runs, and thus, the Saudi banker directly profits off the war in Iraq since Bechtel and the regional subsidiaries of bin Laden Construction get US government contracts. One of his petroleum companies has a contract for shipping oil from Iraq to Europe and Asia.
(A good place to start investigating the Osama-Khalid-Bush gang's financial nexus is Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud (NY etc.: Scribner, 2004)
The American people still do not know the spectrum players in the disaster of 9/11. Nor do they know what went down, how it unfolded, or why it happened? other than uncritical explanations provided by a pro-Bush press.
Further, the 9/11 commission report was a cover-up.
Governor Thomas Kean, it's chairman, and his law firm profit from Khalid's largess.
You can find a report in the San Francisco Chronicle (August 7, 2005) about the current withholding of documents from members of the 9/11 Commission by the Bush administration --alongside their earlier blanked-out pages handed to Congress- - and the withholding of documents from the US Congress (with all of these documents illegally withheld from the American public) by the Bush administration: and this, essentially, for the sake of providing legs for the 9/11 Commission's and members of Congress to use the excuse of "plausible deniability." ]
~ Bruce Boyle
newlogic@together.net
Some sources for one of the charges made above:
[See video Treason Inc @ www.hillsenatenow.org. ]
and *Craig' Hill's speech at the Vermont State House http://www.hillsenatenow.org/speech.html
along with other prelimiminary information about some of the others charges above at:
http://www.accuracy.org/newsreleases.php
______________________________________________________________________________
On Political Strategy:
Two Communiqués to Associates-
1.) Andrew, Brian, Craig, Jim: last night I forwarded my comment about the nomination of Harriet Miers to Senators Leahy and Jeffords. (I have no direct e-mail address for Sanders and his web site restricts subjects to topics of his choice.) And, I also sent a copy to George Galloway at the House of Commons and to the press office of the Respect Coalition in England. This coalition is a good model for progressive organizing in our own state and in the nation –especially around the relevant subtitle placed on its’ lead banner and on its’ web page. “The Unity Coalition: Respect Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism.” (I will not personally participate in political coalition that does not openly proclaim these same political ideals -with the addition of Participatory Democracy.) You can check out other aspects at their web page:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?sec=1
My latest version, with edits and with draft changes, are found in the verification copy from the House of Commons and is the same as that draft forwarded to a select group of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, and also forwarded to a wide range of progressive media outlets.
I believe that a bold condemnation of the Bush agenda is required. There must also be, in addition, a clear progressive agenda placed to the fore in order for American citizens to dislodge the neonazicons, with this effort at political change along lines similar to those used by the Respect Coalition.
Andrew, I attached the article that you found at Kellogg Hubbard and Ben Brandzel’s summary in my mailings.
My effort is to expand the debate on Miers nomination beyond the narrowness used in traditional evaluation and to address sociopolitical realities.
Craig, I included a link to your speech as a reference. I hope that a future unity coalition politics can both gain support from the Green Party and provide support for candidacies such as yours. And I would certainly support candidates such as Galloway and other independents on this side of the pond that are willing to stand up against Bushist fascism. United front political coalitions are the best hope, perhaps the last hope, for the survival of American democracy.
My multileveled indictment of Bushism (in the current draft) is linked directly above.
~Bruce
2.) Andrew: A cronies list sound like a good supplement to my across the board indictment of Bush, and to launching a Respect type Unity Coalition locally, and nationally. It is probable, at least I suspect, that Miers will slip through and will be on a future Supreme Court. And I also expect that we will see the usual within Congress with the Democrats making noise and the splitting of their votes. So, while addressing her nomination, and hoping for the unexpected, I think Miers appointment presents itself as an opportunity to raise many of the other serious indictments against the Bush administration and against Bushism. I think public opinion is currently moving against the Bush gang, so progressives should unload, knowing that nothing but a knock out of the Bush administration and its exit from office will do. And this as part of people's mobilization against the corporate-state (“the military-industrial-complex”) and dictating elite's Empire-war in Iraq.
About the torture issue raised by Senator Kennedy: I think it a disgrace that the U.S. Military and the U.S. Government continue in the use of torture and murder to achieve some wild Imperial Goals as put forward by the Bush gang and as advocated by the Neonazicons.
It is a violation of Humanitarian Ethical Norms, and is completely disgusting that any member of Congress would use their office to help cover-up the Bush gang's violation of the Nuremberg code, their disregard of the Geneva Conventions, and the Bush administration’s miss-treatment --and on-going practice-- of torture and murder of prisoners that they illegally hold in Guantanamo Concentration Camp and at Abu Ghraib Prison, as well as at other places that the Bush gang keeps secret from the American People.
It is time for our Congress to denounce these criminals in the White House and to remove their accomplices in the Pentagon.
Mark my words: the Bush administration will one day face a just indictment, and hopefully, legal prosecution for these crimes. In fact, given the “loyalty” criteria recently advanced by George Bush in his nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court Justice it is clear that his purpose is to “pack the court” and thus to prevent Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, and General Miller, from going to prison for their part in these despicable violations of human rights and for their “torture guidelines” as used to “justify” the abuse and murder of prisoners.
The Bush gang should be called to account before our national courts and before international courts of justice for their sadistic practices and for their overt instigation of torture: and brought to justice for their obvious violation of international treaties and their violations of military and United Nation agreements as previously signed by our United States government.
It is time to end this national disgrace of torture and to drive the Bush administration out of office to a place they really belong!
~Bruce
-------------------------------------------------
Supplementary information:
From Ben Brandzel at Move-On
Here is a quick chronology of Harriet Miers' career, courtesy of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, to help jump start your research.
1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004—Selected as White House Counsel
There are many important questions that need to be addressed, including:
What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council?
What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?
What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?
What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the "commerce clause" or equal protection
As White House councel Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America's stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role?
Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush?
-------------------------------------------------
Supplementary information:
-----Original Message-----
From: andy@oldbarnvt.com [mailto:cowsfly@adelphia.net]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:02 PM
To: newlogic@together.net
Subject: RE: Who's Harriet Miers? Help find out.
Hi Bruce,
I don't know if you found anything specific about Miers, but I found this online in the Kellogg-HUbbard library database:
VOL - Kellogg-Hubbard
InfoTrac Custom Newspapers
-----Article 8 of 47 ——
Mark The Houston Chronicle (Houston, TX), Nov 18, 2004 p01
Texan named counsel to Bush; Miers, longtime aide to president, is ex-chairwoman of the state lottery. R.G. Ratcliffe.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2004 Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspapers Partnership, LP
Byline: R.G. RATCLIFFE
President Bush continued his trend of relying on confidants from Texas to help his presidency by naming his one-time personal lawyer Harriet Miers as White House general counsel Wednesday.
Bush - who once described Miers as a "pit bull in size 6 shoes" - has relied on her advice for years.
As his personal attorney, Miers conducted a background check on Bush before he ran for Texas governor in 1994 to look for potentially embarrassing information. And Miers headed the Texas Lottery Commission under his direction during the agency's most controversial period.
Most recently, she has been Bush's deputy White House chief of staff.
"Harriet has the keen judgment and discerning intellect necessary to be an outstanding counsel," Bush said in making the announcement.
MIERS
Miers replaces another Texan, Alberto Gonzales, whom Bush has nominated as attorney general. Bush this week also nominated another of his Texas confidants, Margaret Spellings, as education secretary to replace Rod Paige, a former Houston schools superintendent.
A native of Dallas, Miers had a long string of civic activities before becoming the first woman president of the State Bar of Texas in 1992.
She was the managing partner of the Dallas law firm of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell and then the co-managing partner of the merged statewide law firm of Locke, Liddel & Sapp before Bush appointed her as White House staff secretary in 2001.
"She's a very, very strong lawyer," said former Texas Supreme Court Justice John Hill, who served on the Texas Lottery Commission with Miers.
"She'll be very careful and very conscientious in her preparation of material for the president."
Hill also described Miers as a tireless worker.
She faced some criticism
Though Miers' legal experience has been widely praised, her time in high-profile politics has not always gone smoothly.
Miers served one term on the Dallas City Council from 1989-91. Dallas city politics were in turmoil at the time, and Miers was criticized as uncommunicative and uncooperative on the body, according to Texas Lawyer magazine.
During Miers' tenure as Bush's chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, state lottery ticket sales fell from first in the nation to fourth. But what marked her term the most was the so-called GTech scandal.
Federal prosecutors were raising questions about large payments the Texas lottery operator was making to its lobbyists, in particular former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes. There also were questions about the company's hiring of subcontractors and consultants who were Democrats with ties to former Gov. Ann Richards.
Miers led the commission to fire two of its executive directors and sought to rebid the GTech contract. After a year with the agency in a morass, the commission gave up when GTech threatened to sue the state and shut the lottery down if it lost the contract.
Problem for Bush
Both of the fired lottery directors sued GTech and won settlements.
But the case of Lawrence Littwin became a political problem for Bush, because Littwin alleged that GTech had paid Barnes a $23 million severance package to keep him quiet about how Bush got into the Air National Guard in 1969 during the Vietnam War.
Last year, during Bush's re-election campaign, Barnes went public with his claim that a Bush family friend asked him to use his influence as a legislative leader to get Bush into the Guard. His interview with CBS-TV's 60 Minutes became part of a controversial story the network ran on Bush.
Contacted Wednesday about Miers' appointment, Barnes had little comment: "My idea is to see how history plays out."
CAPTION(S):
Mug: Harriet Miers (p. 10)
Article CJ124880593
-------------------------------------------------