Not Since Nixon

More than three decades have passed since a President nominated someone without judicial experience to serve on the US Supreme Court.

The last such nominations--those of William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell Jr.--were announced on the same day, October 20, 1971, by then President Richard Nixon. Nixon had run into problems getting sitting federal judges placed on the high court. His nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth Jr., chief judge of the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals, to fill the seat left vacant by the resignation of Abe Fortas, was rejected by the Senate in 1969. A year later, the Senate turned down Nixon's nomination of G. Harrold Carswell, a judge on the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals, to fill the same vacancy.

In the fall of 1971, with vacancies created by the resignations of Justices John Marshall Harlan II and Hugo Black, Nixon opted for Rehnquist, an Arizona lawyer with close ties to conservative icon Barry Goldwater, and Powell, a former president of the American Bar Association. And, while the Rehnquist nomination created a bit of a stir, both men were confirmed before the year was out--giving Nixon a pair of "wins" in his long wrestling match with an overwhelmingly Democratic and ideologically muscular Senate.

On the surface, it would not seem that George W. Bush would have any reason to imitate Nixon's approach. Bush's first pick for the high court, John Roberts, a member of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia when he was selected, was easily confirmed to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice--winning the support of every Republican and half the Democrats in the Senate. And the Senate that Bush is working with has a solid Republican majority and a soft Democratic opposition that is far more pliable than the one Nixon confronted.

Indeed, if Bush faced a challenge as he selected a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it came from the Republican right. Supportive but unexcited by Roberts, social conservatives made it clear that they wanted to see an abortion-opposing, gay rights-rejecting judicial activist as the next nominee from the President who repeatedly told Republican rallies that his favorite members of the court were right-wing Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a conservative firebrand who entertains notions of seeking the Republican nomination for President in 2008, recently went so far as to suggest that he would vote against a Supreme Court nominee who lacked a "solid and known" record of opposition to reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and the wall of separation between church and state.

Brownback did not get his "solid and known" nominee. Bush just wasn't up for the fight.

Suffering from dismal approval ratings and unsettled by the burgeoning legal scandals involving the Republican leaders of the Congress, Bush went for the judicial-selection equivalent of a bunt. With his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers, the President has selected a non-judge so obscure--and so free of the burdens imposed by a judicial "paper trail"--that the Associated Press headlined a profile of her: "Bush's Court Pick Tends to Avoid Limelight."

In an interview earlier this year, Miers told the Dallas Morning News that it was her job to "stay out of the headlines."

She has done so with considerable success during a public career that, aside from brief tenure as president of the Texas State Bar Association, has pretty much been defined by her friendship with George W. Bush--who counted on her to help him sort out lingering controversies arising from his avoidance of the draft during the Vietnam War, and who then rewarded her with appointments to various positions during his gubernatorial and presidential terms. Now comes the ultimate appointment: nomination to a lifetime job on the nation's most powerful court.

That's quite a token of their friendship. But Miers has given Bush something, as well: a "stealth nominee" who ought to be able to sail through the toothless confirmation process with little trouble. Yes, of course, there will be grumbling from liberal interest groups--and even some conservative ones. But the precedent set by Roberts and other recent nominees--refusing to answer direct questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and stonewalling requests for paperwork produced while serving in appointive positions--should serve her well.

The only hope that Americans will get a sense of where Miers is coming from before she puts on the judicial robes–-and it is a faint one indeed--is that members of the Senate will consult the Constitution and historical precedents before this confirmation process is done. They might look back to a page from the Nixon days.

The former President once complained that, by rejecting some of his nominees and subjecting the rest to tough scrutiny, the Senate was usurping his authority. Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield, a Western Democrat whose love of the Senate was exceeded only by his distrust of the executive branch, responded by explaining that the "advise and consent" clause in the Constitution meant that the Senate shared the president's powers when it came to filling court vacancies.

Nixon's slogan in his re-election campaign of 1972 was "Nixon--Now More Than Ever."

Faced with a stealth nominee for one of the most important positions in the land, and the rapid degeneration of Congressional checks and balances on the executive, we could use some Mike Mansfields in the Senate--now more than ever.

Comments (114)

1. I believe that as long as the climate on the hill remains ugly we can expect similar appointments from all future Presidents. After Bork and Thomas, presidents have learned that the consent process in the Senate can become very nasty. It is almost impossible now to appoint a person to the Supreme Court that has a long history of actual decisons. Those decisions will be held against them by one side or the other. Why do you think that Scalia was not appointed Chief Justice? He would have had to come back to the Senate Judiciary Committee where everyone of his votes would have been put through the ringer. It was easier for everyone to just appoint John Roberts CJ. Special Interest on both sides of the political spectrum have created the system that we now have. Both sides now have litmus test, more than one, that must be met or they spend millions of dollars opposing a nominee. Gone are the days when we consider the judicial philosophy, temperment, and qualifications. We have done this to ourselves.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 10/03/2005 @ 5:06pm

2. By the way "little Johnny" I think that this article is the best and fairest you have written---of course it didn't have much competition. However, I am not getting too excited, I am sure that you will return to your small minded, agenda at all cost self.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 10/03/2005 @ 5:33pm

3. Wow Len, that compliment must have really hurt, considering all the insults you had to cough up to get it out.

   Posted by Guiles at 10/03/2005 @ 7:25pm

4. It was hard to say something nice about the writing of "little johnny". After all this is the same guy who wants to impeach and remove Supreme Court Justices who in his opinion make a decision that somehow contradicts their Senate testimony. His small mindedness, short sightedness, and agenda at all cost thinking would destroy the balance of power that we depend upon.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 10/03/2005 @ 7:35pm

5. Zero---I agree it is hard to discern her judicial philosophy at this time, but in reference to my previous post, we have no one to blame but ourselves. It has become difficult to appoint a judge who has a long paper trail. This will be the trend of the future as long as Special Interest groups hold Senators captive on one particular litmus test or another. This is a problem that has been caused by both sides of the political spectrum.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 10/03/2005 @ 7:52pm

6. This appointment could be a political move to show how much power the republicans have and that the democrats can't do a thing about it. If a fillibuster is used, they'll that invoke the nuclear option and force a vote. This new conservative court will come in handy during the 06 election when the republicans dirty tricks and paperless voting machines go to court. I believe they will try to get a super majority and rewrite the Constitution. Too far fetched even for this administration, right?

   Posted by BillE at 10/03/2005 @ 8:27pm

7. And she seems like such a sweet lady, and all. Who's going to sling the first mud pie, what with her prim politeness and all? It'd be like attacking Aunt Bea or June Cleaver.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2005 @ 8:55pm

8. The soft bigotry of low expectations.

   Posted by Michael Murry at 10/03/2005 @ 9:05pm

9. Simple question....

   How can Harry Reid do a turnabout from glowing praise....to "I want her filibustered"?

   he can't....so it's a "done deal"...move on.

   Posted by Mask at 10/03/2005 @ 10:05pm

10. Well, even Pat couldn't stand the new Bush choice for the Court.

    Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent' by Patrick J. Buchanan Oct 3, 2005

    Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.

    In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.

    This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush's lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 10/03/2005 @ 10:21pm

11. It seems a bit strange that more than a few conservatives in office are not happy about this nomination. Is it true Meirs headed the Texas lottery commision during the "scandel period" and the thought of letting the big business owners of the Texas legislature move into an ownership of a SC justice is waaaay to spooky.

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/04/2005 @ 12:10am

12. I am totally blanked by Bush pick. As a conservative I have no idea what he means with this pick.

    I imagine neither do the Dems which Iam sure figured into his calculations. Maybe he wins again. Still, I am stunned.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2005 @ 12:12am

13. Has it ever occurred to anyone that George Bush is just a classic historical villain (surrounded by Rasputins and Svengalis) who for whatever reason wants to destroy the U.S.? I'm not a conspiracist but no one person can simultaneously be that clueless, mean spirited, calculating, evil, arrogant and elitist without an agenda. I am beginning to believe that he has an agenda, that it's evil and has as its goal the installation of Fascism in the U.S. Read the definition. We're well on our way. The total merger of the government with corporations. A single party system (hard right Republicans called Republicans and centrist Republicans called Democrats) and through his control of both the Supreme Court and the Congress the total absence of checks and balances. Sounds like 1930s Germany or Mussolini's Italy. The man is not just a danger to this country; he's a danger to the world.

    Posted by billsheasf at 10/04/2005 @ 01:00am

14. Len Mosse -

    You're smart enough, but you should cut the "little Johnny" crap. It says nothing, it's not even clever, and it shows you to be an individual not yet above ad hominem attacks. The trick in having your own opinions honored (if you care about such things) is to honor those of others. Believe it or not, it's something we can all do. It just takes an attitude shift.

    Blink

    Posted by Blinky at 10/04/2005 @ 02:02am

15. A Blinky Prediction: X numbers of years from now, Liberals (of which I am one) will be quite relieved, and essentially pleased, by the Meirs appointment. They will recall how she was appointed while Bush was on the ropes, after slogging through some tough rounds with Iraq and Katrina. And they will think about how bad it might have been; had he been less scuffed-up in battle, and in more of a Bolton-appointin' state of mind.

    Blink

    Posted by Blinky at 10/04/2005 @ 02:33am

16. This isn't some fascist conspiracy, this is a simple minded approach by a President who has no other criteria for judgement of character and ability than loyalty and friendship. Add to that a staff of people afraid to speak-out for fear of being labeled "traitor". Mix in a few ideological operatives with hidden agenda's (I and many others think this is the advancement of corporate interest over people's rights) These nominees are not evil people, but do they understand we are a nation of people that are to be treated as equal individuals? We don't need people who, in some twisted sense, think they are protecting us from ourselves. Also, is it me or do some of the other posters here think the President speaks in a condescending fasion when explaining his actions?

    Posted by zhong at 10/04/2005 @ 02:38am

17. John,

    Oh, it's good to be back. I missed reading the latest in "schtoopid" Conservatism as posted by some of the wing nuts that lurk at this Blog.

    Once again the great Liberal Center of America has to witness the dismantling of the land of the free by evangelic conservatism. The evil angel church finely gets its wish, an evangelic Supreme Court nominee. And like all cowardly evangelics, the truth about her is hidden in darkness. But, there can be no doubt that her judicial philosophy is the same as all other government of the people hating, evangelic conservatives: the enslavement of the American Soul. But we should not despair. Unlike their lord Lucipher, the butt boys of Beelzebub are mortal. They will live out their natural existence in this life and then spend the rest of eternity continously incarnated as feeder rats. Yes, Born Again on the receiving end of a snake. What poetic justice. Someone has to do it. May as well be them.

    Of course when the children of god win back the Congress in 2006, it really won't matter who President "Condi, can I pee now?" appointed to the Supreme Court. Equilibrium will return to the country. Time heals all wounds.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/04/2005 @ 02:49am

18. My feeling is the GOP will post more gains in the House, Senate and retain the White House. I also think Bush may yet appointment 1 maybe 2 more to the big bench(Stevens 81 and Ginsburg who is ill).

    Many are upset with Bush as he is not a true conservative, but it would be foolish to think the country is running to the left. One look at the Dem party and all the angry at Bush crowd may thin out a bit. If Dems put up another lefty from the Northeast they are in for another loss.

    Despite your hopes, this is not a leeft on center nation and the flow is in the other direction. ANYONE who runs as a liberal get slaughtered at the ballot box. None of your(liberal ideas) win at the polls. Why do you think Hillary is hawk all of a sudden? Which direction is she moving and what do you think she really wants? New York?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2005 @ 03:00am

19. John,

    What is more telling of the arrogance of our domestic enemy, then when a wing nut poster named JOHN MAASCH believes that when I begin a post with ( John, ), I am speaking to someone other than John Nichols. Our young friend obviously isn't schooled in the proper etiquette of letter writing. Perhaps he is a high school dropout. That would be sad. Or perhaps he simply spends his day gazing at his reflection in the mirror. Oh, the tragedy. Like all narcissistic evangelic conservatives, it's all about him.

    But regardless of the reasons behind the depravity, one thing is clear. Their time on this world is over. All that's left is counting the minutes.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/04/2005 @ 03:19am

20. First with Roberts I decided not to be partial and see that he could be a good Justice, but nominating him as Chief Justice, without having the necessary track record made me uneasy on my own unpartial view, now with Miers, it is difficult for me to understand how her profile can match that one of a Justice. Regardless of law ideology (right or left), I am sure we have lots of Judges who could perfectly match these opennings. Our administration has done a low key selection procedure, Our Congress and Senate have done worse. Our politicians (left or right) do not serve anymore our needs as a community, they follow partisan agendas , they are economic interest groupings

    Posted by areyouok at 10/04/2005 @ 03:20am

21. I will trust the President on this one, as a conservative I wish he would have picked a solid conservative with a proven record one that would have told the Dems to bring it on, but sinc ehse has worked with him for so long, I hope she wont surprise us. She seems to be competent and will make a good justice.

    Posted by CPT at 10/04/2005 @ 08:58am

22. CPT - I am glad to see that even you are agitated by stealth appointees. Well, only because you're not sure they hold the religiously fanatical views you need to prop up the many contradictions the right-wing stands for.

    But, if you don't believe in open discussion and honesty of one's views, why hold public debates at all, my good friend? In fact, all the rhetoric in the Constitution about free speech, 3 branches of government to act as checks and balances, etc, is just that, rhetoric, if not out-and-out dangerous to America, correct?

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 09:13am

23. I have explained many times why I call John Nichols "little johnny nichols". I will not bore the regular readers of this board with another explanation. I would like to point out that I have never called posters on this board any derogatory name (I think that the most that I have said is that their opinion is crazy). I do reserve the right however, to give my opinion on little johnnys agenda driven drivel. Also the term "little johnny" is not particularly derogatory--at least not as derogatory as some of the names I see conservatives called on this board.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/04/2005 @ 09:18am

24. CPT underlines the hot point of the issue, he states that as Miers worked so long for the President, she will not surprise the conservatives. CPT confirms that the administration nominates to public service posts using the friends network criteria and not the qualifications criteria. Note that in the past, Democrat administrations at least used both criterias at the same time. Besides, seen the performance of the Senate, during last nomination, I feel we can already call the Democrats missing in action. At least people like CPT are happy.

    Posted by areyouok at 10/04/2005 @ 09:23am

25. LEN - I appreciate, sincerely, that there are conservatives on this blog to set the liberals (though, I prefer the label progressive) "straight". Obviously, "little johnny" is very derogatory, but never let it be said that conservatives aren't hypocritical - that's precisely how they thump a bible with one hand, and buy casinos or torture prisoners with the other.

    But, like your icon Coulter, conservatives sure are funny while contradicting themselves. I love sarcastic and dim witted humor, so keep up the right-wing struggle!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 09:29am

26. I will trust the President on this one, as a conservative I wish he would have picked a solid conservative with a proven record one that would have told the Dems to bring it on, but sinc ehse has worked with him for so long, I hope she wont surprise us. She seems to be competent and will make a good justice. Posted by CPT

    There it is, folks! The Republican's base in a nutshell - FAITH! It's all about faith - not reason, not consideration, not logic, just pure, unadulterated faith. This is so scary on so many levels, for the Democrats, the country and the world because you can't argue with people who base all their decisions on faith and nothing else.

    The only silver lining is that those so-called Christians will have so much to answer for on Judgement Day

    Jesus - "You supported the death penalty? Bush - "But just for really baaad people..."

    Jesus - "You supported a war?" Bush - "See, there was this baaaad guy, and somebody told me he had baaaaad weapons..."

    Jesus - "You promoted hatred of whole groups of people - homosexuals, Muslims, New Englanders?" Bush - "But they were different from all my friends and its haaaard to make new friends..."

    Jesus - "You eliminated programs for the week and helpless and gave money to the already sinfully rich?" Bush - "But the poor didn't like me and didn't vote for me..."

    Jesus - "And you had the cojones to do all of that in MY NAME? Are you freakin' kidding me?!!!!!" Bush - But, but, ya' see, Dick told me...and then Condi said..."

    Jesus - "Oh, don't worry, they're next..."

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/04/2005 @ 09:35am

27. Oh yes, I went off topic again, sorry. This particualar blog is about the insider lawyer turned Supreme Court Judge. You know, I rather appreciate that the right-wing is imploding with it's crony appointees. Heck, if a crony FEMA appointee only led to a thousand deaths in a two day period after Katrina; once Roe v Wade is overturned, I wonder how many thousands of young women will die in back alley abortions over the next several decades? The right-wing bloodlust, not content with killing 2000 American soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis must be salivating and licking their chops on that one!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 09:35am

28. RIO - As you wrote: Jay's credentials are impeccable as a constitutional lawyer and his ACLJ has the unreserved support of evangelical christians being a Jewish Christian himself, why wasn't he nominated? You see, the hide-and-seek political agenda is quite common now, and not fooling anyone. As I mentioned before, I will deal with those spineless Dems that continue to cave to the Evangelical Special Interest machine. Meanwhile, answer me, why wasn't Jay nominated?

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 09:50am

29. BECAUSEISAYSO:

    I agree. The comments have gone off message. Ms. Miers' appointment really reflects President Bush's cronyism. The relevant question is most readily answered "no": Is Ms. Miers qualified for the job absent her relationship with President Bush? Even staunch conservatives -- such as many of the commentators here -- must agree with me.

    The most astonishing thing I have learned about the Miers selection is President Bush's arrogance and complete isolation from reality. Only someone arrogant and removed from the "reality based" world would make such a pick, given all the trouble Mr. Bush is in over his other cronies "Brownie" and "DeLay".

    Now time to speak heresy at the Nation: I thought Chief Justice Roberts was a decent pick (and said so in comments I made on the Nation website) and his confirmation was not a mistake. While I do not share his conservative views, who can argue that Mr. Roberts is unqualified? The same cannot be said about Ms. Miers, by any stretch of the imagination. She deserves to be voted down.

    Posted by trabaris at 10/04/2005 @ 10:01am

30. When Bush's personal friends on the Supreme court overturn Roe V Wade how will Bill Bennet's utopia of aborting all black babies be realized?

    Come on Repug's are you really thinking this stuff through?

    Perhaps you are.....perhaps you'll rework the constitution so that Blacks are once again sub citizens (like in the original constitution) then we can ban abortion for the white women and enforce mandatory abortion for the black women.

    OK I'm in a bad and silly mood today!

    Posted by colmes at 10/04/2005 @ 10:12am

31. TURK

    You make the common mistake of all enlightened idealistic liberals when you confuse nation-state poltics with personal religous ethics.

    REPS seem to have learned this, not surprising you have not.

    So if you REALLY take the time to THINK about it. The REP position is the MOST REASONED.

    Why? We are able to separate the two distinguishable concepts of nation state poltics and discern the noted differencese with religous ethics. Religous ethics serve to save the soul of a man, nation state poltics serve to preserve the state, which has no soul. Hence it must be preserved for the here and now and we must act accordingly.

    And you foolishly think we want to mix Chruch and state....tisk, tisk, tisk....silly liberals

    Posted by CPT at 10/04/2005 @ 10:23am

32. BECAUSE

    You guys love to exxagerate the Iraqi body count, its nowwhwere close to 100,000

    Posted by CPT at 10/04/2005 @ 10:25am

33. CPT - You're kidding, I get it. Joke's on me. How silly of me to confuse the right's obsession with evangelical causes with their true "nation state politics." But you'll have to forgive my ignorance, since every decision made by the Republicans "seems" based on Evangelical doctrine: stem cell research, Middle east politics, appropriate judicial appointments, same-sex marriages... So you can see the basis for my "ignorance," right? Give me a break! Your response doesn't make sense when measured against REALITY. And we are not the ones confusing nation-state poltics with personal religous ethics. That would be the Republicans, and for you to even pretend to believe the horseshit that you claim to be your opinion is just amazing in its scope of hilarity. You have a right to your "opinion" and I'm sure there are a lot of koolaid drinkers who subscribe to the same level of ignorance/faith, but that doesn't make it right or even intelligible. Which was the point of my post that you seemed to fail to grasp (big surprise there!).

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/04/2005 @ 10:51am

34. Turk,

    The intellectual titan CPT who can't even understand that the policy goals of this administration are so far away from anything Jesus would have advocated is at least right about the Iraqi death count. As of today the death toll of Iraqi's is "only" 26,323-29,653 (somewhere in that range).

    What good work we've done in liberating those 26+ thousand from the cruelties of Saddam huh?

    But never mind we at least disarmed the rougue state of those WMD's which they were about to give to terrorists?.....huh what they didn't have any WMD's?

    Ok, at least we got revenge on the country responsible for 911 right? What, huh Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 911?

    OK then at least we're fighting terrorists on Iraqi soil instead of here in the USA. What? You're telling me that the number of active terrorists in Iraq is vastly greater now than before the invasion?

    But we are killing them now right and in a few years we'll have extinguished them all? What? You mean our tactics and policies are creating more terrorists every day than we are able to kill?

    Ok then at least we got Osama Bin Laden right?

    Posted by colmes at 10/04/2005 @ 11:10am

35. Colmes LOL!!!

    I think the number"100,000" is actually the number of casualties, which I believe includes dead and wounded. So, again conservatives are ignoring the mesage and hammering the one inconsistency.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/04/2005 @ 11:16am

36. To Len -

    Thanks for your reply. I'm an occasional - not regular - reader of these blogs. If you have made it clear to Mr. Nichols and others that you mean no disrespect by that phrase (in other words, that it's more in the vein of good-natured teasing); then I'll withdraw my criticism.

    Best - Blink

    PS - I'm less sanguine this morning - after a good night's sleep - about the Meirs appointment. While she may be a nice lady (which is important), I suspect she's really in over her head, and will be pushed around by the stronger conservative judges.

    Posted by Blinky at 10/04/2005 @ 11:18am

37. King George has decided to grace his minions with his regal presence.

    First press conference since May! What an absolute disgrace. Last time I checked we the tax payers pay this bums salary and he can't even be bothered to personally answer a few questions more frequently than once every four or five months!?

    Wow someone that got that decadent about his power and position might start to abuse it by nominating his buddy to run FEMA or his personal lawyer to be a judge on the highest court in the land!!!

    Posted by colmes at 10/04/2005 @ 11:30am

38. Cpt, Rio, and other conservative bloggers:

    You are missing out on a wonderful opportunity to just sit back and watch the hysterical disentegration of the left that is taking place on the Nation website.

    We even have the return of Will C, who is so far out on the extreme that they don't even have an area code to his positions.

    I came back last night and read through the postings here and on Corn's blog. Nothing worth a response. I thought maybe this morning the dialogue would improve. Alas, it continues it's downward spiral (which is actually to the benefit of conservatives).

    Perhaps when people like Ilovephysics, Zero (although he is pretty upset right now), and hopefully Kevin Collins rejoin the fray, there will be some postings worthy of response. Even Woplock has been bemoaning the lack of substantive debate. Right now, it's just the Christian haters out on a small limb that is close to breaking, hurling them head first (probably their safest landing possibility) into the earth.

    Let's hope for Nichols, Corn, Katrina, and Peter Rothberg to get stirred up soon over something substantive.

    "Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid"

    Mark Twain

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 11:35am

39. Added comment: I was pleasantly startled to read some rather even tempered commentary by Blinky. Totally absent was her usual vitriol.

    Blinky, are you ok? I mean, it was a nice change, just a little unsettling.

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 11:38am

40. LL,

    Your rather transparent attempts to goad someone into a fight are pretty silly no?

    If you're looking for your intellectual equal I can introduce you to some green stuff that is growing on my shower curtain.

    Posted by colmes at 10/04/2005 @ 11:50am

41. I imagine neither do the Dems which Iam sure figured into his calculations. Maybe he wins again. Still, I am stunned.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/04/2005 @ 12:12am

    Actually, one of the Dems, Reid from Nevada, advised the president to nominate her.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 11:50am

42. CPT - Oh my, I exaggerated the body count!!! Wow - what a defense of your position. I understand, less than 100,000 died, meaning we have to make up the body count with more American dead here at home. I understand you perfectly. Thanks for clarifying it!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 11:51am

43. ILP,

    I had heard that fact yesterday which contributed to the stunning! I wouldn't take anythinhg Reid says seriously. His job is to be contary to anything the GOP promotes....and now this.

    Something big is up. I can smell it in the air. Maybe it is mendacity?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2005 @ 12:00pm

44. LL

    Where in my post (if in fact it was my post you are referring to) is there any evidence of Christian hating? As I am not a self-hater, you have either purposely or ignorantly tried to twist what I was saying, which is that the so-called "Christians" are in fact not Christians due to their support of very un-Christian doctrines and policies.

    If, however, you actually can see the difference between Christian haters and those true Christians who are saddened and enraged at the acts being done in the name of Christianity, then I apologize for any venom, real or perceived.

    "Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid" Mark Twain Thanks for a very appropriate description of the Republicans, especially the commando-in-chief who cackles frequently while spewing his lies and propaganda.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/04/2005 @ 12:00pm

45. How does one respond to someone like Colmes who has nary a clue about true intent?

    "He who would distinguish the true from the false must have an adequate idea of what is true and false"

    Benedict Spinoza Ethics

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 12:05pm

46. I think the number"100,000" is actually the number of casualties

    Colmes, Turk, CPT, and Because -

    The problem with body counts is no official source exists that tabulates civilian deaths from hostilities. However, depending upon whose numbers you want to rely on, Because might be correct. One source, the Iraq Body Count project (www.iraqbodycount.net) relies on press reports for their count of civilian dead. Currently, they indicate 7,350 deaths.

    However, Johns Hopkins University has been tracking civilian deaths in Iraq and they have completely different numbers. They are not just reading press reports; they have or had a survey team in Iraq. As of October of last year, they total the number of civilian deaths from Coalition activity at 84,000 excluding the battle for Falluja. They estimate 95% of these deaths, or 79,800, are from air strikes and artillery. (www.jhsph.edu).

    None of these sources estimate civilian dead from the pre-invasion bombing campaign that was not reported in the press but revealed in the Downing Street Memos.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/04/2005 @ 12:09pm

47. everyone:

    Do not take LL's bait. This is his MO. He comes out of the woodwork to pick a fight by disparaging the entire thread as non-substantative. It is very predictable. Nothing on this board ever rises to his intellectual capacities, yet he posts here every day.

    LL, if you have something to say on topic, just say it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/04/2005 @ 12:12pm

48. JOHN MAASCH, I cast my ballot in November and at this point there is nothing more to do but go along for the ride. In other words, wait and see how this plays out. Should be entertaining. When the time comes for the senate to vote, I may or may not contact my senators to voice my preference.

    LOVE LIBERTY, don't expect anything from me on this just yet. I haven't made up my mind on the nominee. I like to take my time on these things...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 1:17pm

49. HI SEATTLE - Thanks for the factoids. Of course, getting caught up in how many "really" died is precisely the type of smog the right-wing evangelical killing machine wants from progressives. As I have mentioned, LL, CPT et al haven't addressed directly any of the contradictions I have put forth since I started blogging here on Friday. Avoiding real answers is consistent with their approach of skirting the issue through subterfuge and obfuscation.

    Instead attempting to blow smoke up everyone's a** by attacking the accuracy of some estimates, they should attempt to answer the many real questions we all pose. But, making sense of their illogical and aggregious mistakes is not on the neo-con's agenda, now is it?

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 1:19pm

50. Also the term "little johnny" is not particularly derogatory--at least not as derogatory as some of the names I see conservatives called on this board.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 10/04/2005 @ 09:18am

    In case you didn't know, The Nation is a liberal mag. So liberals come to this website to exchange ideas and talk about issues. Rightwingers who come to this site to gloat, spew abusive rhetoric or make idiotic arguments with no factual or logical support, should expect to get the treatment they deserve.

    If you can't take it, you don't have to show up. In other words, "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 1:21pm

51. LL, ILOVE, etc - please don't confuse hating an evangelical right-to-crusade movement with an attack on true Judeo-Christian values. The problem with religous believers on the right and on the left is they too often suggest that man-kind's morality and compassion stems from a book (The Bible) - and not the heart and soul of man himself. To suggest a man or woman MUST believe in the Bible to be ethical and moral, sadly, relieves man-kind of his ethical and moral responsibilities that come with BIRTH - NOT RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 1:35pm

52. Thanks for the factoids. Of course, getting caught up in how many "really" died is precisely the type of smog the right-wing evangelical killing machine wants from progressives.

    Because

    I agree with you. On a different blog, I made this same point to an extremist on the right who thought he discovered virtue in the fact that fewer of our soldiers have died in Iraq than Vietnam, WWII and other wars. The right appears to be in denial about civilian deaths from this tragedy. They don't seem to want to discuss it. Although I haven't read a posting where they admit as much, I sense that many of them buy into the false notion that our precision guided munitions only kill the bad guys.

    The problem of overlooking innocent civilian casualties from Mr. Bush's war of choice is compounded by our lazy press – although there are some exceptions. As a life-long news junkie, I am totally disappointed in our reporters who seem to echo the pap from the Pentagon rather than dig for details

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/04/2005 @ 1:38pm

53. LOVE LIBERTY, don't expect anything from me on this just yet. I haven't made up my mind on the nominee. I like to take my time on these things...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/04/2005 @ 1:17pm

    Thanks ILP, once more I may have denigrated your status here by actually holding you in respect. My apologies if it raises a stir. Your response is quite apropo.

    I find myself waxing in the literary arts these past few days; most likely because of a mild heart attack I suffered on Friday. Nothing dramatic, but an event that does cause one pause and reflection. I came across the following among the many jewels of line and prose that may well stir both sides regarding the political debate in our little microcosm and the larger debate in the country as a whole:

    Now two punctilious envoys, Thine and Mine, embroil the earth about a fancified line; And dwelling much on right and much on wrong, Prove how the right is chiefly with the strong

    Nicolas Boileau-Despreaux

    In our microcosm, there is much debate about not only who is right and who is wrong; but also, who is strong.

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 1:41pm

54. I'm very happy to hear that your recent heart ailment has not slowed you down terribly. Your quote (awfully daring bringing a Frank into the discussion!) is quite apt for almost every discussion we have. I think it is especially melancholic for those of us on the left.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/04/2005 @ 1:49pm

55. HI LL - beautiful prose.... our problem remains: is strength measured by a high kill ratio in battle? Denying parole to someone in jail for selling a single vial of crack when it's their "third strike"? Or, is strength measured in patience, restraint and forgiveness? I think your answer defines whether you are progressive or conservative. If you answer all of the above - then you are not holding yourself accountable - and perhaps it's the lack of clarity on these issues that good intentioned Americans end up voting for a world menace like Bush.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 1:55pm

56. Do not take LL's bait. This is his MO. He comes out of the woodwork to pick a fight by disparaging the entire thread as non-substantative. It is very predictable. Nothing on this board ever rises to his intellectual capacities, yet he posts here every day.

    LL, if you have something to say on topic, just say it.

    Posted by HMAN23 10/04/2005 @ 12:12am

    Sorry Hman23, I guess I was mistaken about our extended dialogue over the Iraq war about a month ago.

    Furthermore, both you and Colmes are quite wrong, jumping to conclusions rather than the taking a statement at face value. I meant what I said in my earlier post regarding the quality and level of posting last evening and this morning. Once again, a liberal refuses to take a simple statement at it's face, but must look for an ulterior motive.

    I speak the truth, not my fill of it, but as much as I dare speak; and I dare to do so a little more as I grow old

    Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 1:55pm

57. I love physics---I was responding to a post that took offense to my use of the name "little johnny" when describing John Nichols. Apparently the person taking offense could not take the heat in the kitchen. I like the heat in the kitchen fine thank you. Also I would like to point out that to think that the other sides arguements are always "idiotic" is the height of arrogance.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/04/2005 @ 2:04pm

58. LL - I know you cannot answer my post, because to do so will unravel your already unravelling political landscape. But, for the edification of readers that actually care about their country, the correct answers are as follows:

    Strength is the ability to avoid the battle and negotiate a settlement.

    Strength is the ability to see the crime caused by self-preservation and addiction as a crime caused by society's inability to heal the weak and desperate.

    Strength is the ability to be patient, restrained and forgiving by accepting responsibility for your part in creating the situation, regardless of whether your enemy is human, natural or metaphysical.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 2:10pm

59. LL, ILOVE, etc - please don't confuse hating an evangelical right-to-crusade movement with an attack on true Judeo-Christian values. The problem with religous believers on the right and on the left is they too often suggest that man-kind's morality and compassion stems from a book (The Bible) - and not the heart and soul of man himself. To suggest a man or woman MUST believe in the Bible to be ethical and moral, sadly, relieves man-kind of his ethical and moral responsibilities that come with BIRTH - NOT RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 10/04/2005 @ 1:35pm

    Why is this post directed towards me? I don't know what you're referring to... I am not confused, either.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 2:11pm

60. Also I would like to point out that to think that the other sides arguements are always "idiotic" is the height of arrogance.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 10/04/2005 @ 2:04pm

    I don't "always" think that. Only when it is warranted.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 2:12pm

61. LL, Sorry to hear about your hear problem. Have you looked into aspirin therapy? Also, dare I suggest it to a conservative, red wine? (in moderation, of course). I am sure you have the sense to consult with your doctor before beginning either of these regimens.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 2:18pm

62. COLMES

    It is obvious that you have not grasped the concept either, but keep spewing nonsense, it works for you.

    Nothing would please those who post here. The visceral hatred for all things conservative is disturbingly funny to witness. What exactly would make you guys happy? social justice? world peace? swords into ploughshares? a great "world house"? nothing is defined? no standerds of conduct? no debt? a paycheck for all? universal healthcare for all? $100,000 homes for the poor? redistribution of wealth? no possessions? no religon? imagine all the people, living life in peace?

    I am just curious.

    Posted by CPT at 10/04/2005 @ 2:24pm

63. thanks TJB and Because for your comments:

    As I read through those postings from the past 24 hours, there seemed to be an emptiness of anything more than the usual right/left rantings. Sometimes, I long for real dialogue and substance (I know that seems oxymoronic coming from an evangelical conservative, but we are more than perhaps we are framed by many on the left).

    My recent heart attack and other events seemed to drive me to want to elevate the dialogue. I know there is much to discuss even in our differences. I happened to learn some real insights to Jayarjunyah through a pleasant exchange with him and his subsequent disclosure of his actual identity. I did take him up on his disclosure to Todd to find out more about him. I have a different perspective on him now (although it did reinforce some impressions I had).

    I know many come here for diversion, entertainment, and venting; but I do prefer the substantive engagements we sometimes actually rise up to (while still allowing for wit, sarcasm, and repartee). I don't harbor any illusions of changing anyone's views; but it is constructive to debate, and an opinion that won't be defended, is not worth holding.

    Truth is one forever absolute, but opinion is truth filtered through the moods, the blood, the disposition of the spectator

    Wendell Phillips

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 2:26pm

64. BECAUSE

    that is a nice world you live in, but the rest of us live in THIS world, nice sentiments do not replace that. Those dont work in nation state poltics all the time. The alternitive is often necessary

    Posted by CPT at 10/04/2005 @ 2:27pm

65. Freiheit,

    Sind Sie Deutsch?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2005 @ 2:33pm

66. LL, Sorry to hear about your hear problem. Have you looked into aspirin therapy? Also, dare I suggest it to a conservative, red wine? (in moderation, of course). I am sure you have the sense to consult with your doctor before beginning either of these regimens.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/04/2005 @ 2:18pm

    Thanks ILP for your concern. I have shared at other times that I am a real devotee of holistic/natural health together with my faith. As such, I never take prescription drugs and have seen a doctor only for some needed surgeries due mainly to my injuries.

    I do take the aspirin, along with fresh garlic, super green juices, grape seed extract, vitamin E, and yes, I drink a glass of red wine with my dinner (I am a historic Christian and not given to non Christian legalism that unfortunately permeates most of the American Christian body).

    My problem stems mainly from the effect of age. We all build up plaque in our system over time. The great risk to we seniors is that some plaque can break off and travel through the blood stream to a heart valve and thus, we have a coronary event.

    Thanks again for your concern and suggestions

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 2:34pm

67. ILOVE - sorry, it's LL and CPT who seem to rely on religion to give them the "basis" for morality. For me, it's just common sense and fairness. Your inability to decide whether the president's personal counsel should be elected to the Supreme court does strike me as confused, BUT CONFUSION WITH GOOD REASON! Bush's pick seems to be confusing everyone, right and left.

    I should encourage the right-wing fan club by letting it be said that Bush's personal counsel has told him EXACTLY how she plans to vote on a number of issues. Too bad the conservatives cannot trust their own leader. It's further proof that he's such a bumbling idiot, not even the neo-cons trust him anymore.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 2:34pm

68. I must be on LL's and CPT's ignore lists because I still haven't received a rational response from either one of them. Either that or they aren't capable of making a rational response.

    On a serious note, sorry to hear about your health problems, LL. I think most of us can agree that we disagree (even vehemently) but that none of the debaters truly dislike thoe we disagree with. I guess I can only speak for myself when I say that I truly don't dislike conservatives, I just really don't understand how they can attempt to justify some of the doctrines they support. I have several of my conservative friends and co-workers to explain some hot-button issues, and I can never get a truly concrete answer regarding their support of the current administration. It's ironic that the Republicans resort to a traditional "liberal, touchy-feely" defense - "Bush just makes me feel safer" or "He's the president so I'll just trust his decision" or "It's all about faith." Like they say, you just can't argue religion or politics, and the Republicans have done a splendid job to tie the two together to make their positions seemingly unassailable except by the "godless, faithless, un-Americans."

    Sorry for the rant. LL, hope you feel better.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/04/2005 @ 2:40pm

69. Love Liberty, our Liberty, trespassing on our blogs, with well-conceived insanities, our principles he flogs.

    And now he dares to blame his plight on curs'd arterial clogs! That same illustrious Liberty, who spikes our liberal fogs!

    Yet all the same I wish the man to quickly get thee well. Love Our Liberty, do stay strong: we like our LOL.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/04/2005 @ 2:41pm

70. As for Miers, like ILP and others, I have no opinion on her yet. However, I do think it is interesting that Bush picked one with such little qualifications, other than it seems that she was his personal lawyer. I know that history shows many non-judges are nominated (I saw the results of your Google search the other day), but it certainly bucks the recent trend. Given that there are undoubtedly many qualified judges (both state and federal), I would like to hear Bush's explanation as to why Miers is BETTER for the job than ALL of those people. Moreover, Miers's resume does little to counter the notion that Bush values loyalty over actual qualifications. Before you Google any other selections where there was some connection between president and nominee, don't bother. No matter who you find, I think it is wrong, absent any independent qualifications. We have a separation of powers. The president should not get to select his own personal lawyer for the job, absent any redeeming qualifications of here own.

    So, I look forward to the hearings. Hopefully the Dems will ask some important and tough questions, and not grandstand and give 20 minute speeches solely on social issues. Though, I will not hold my breath.

    P.S. What happened to you the other night? Campaign finance reform not sexy enough of a topic for you? I know I was grasping at straws a little and it was a slow night for debate, but you were inviting topics to discuss.

    H Man

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/04/2005 @ 2:45pm

71. LL (sorry I did not post the beginning):

    You are correct, and that was not entirely a fair post by me. I am sorry. You certainly have been a part of some good dialogue here. However, now and again you will surface to make a post like yours - very general and, frankly, condensending. I guess I just do not see what you hope to accomplish by insulting everyone - maybe you are just trying to stir things up, I dunno. I enjoy your posts more when you are trying to make a point, even if I do not agree. Your recent post is a non-starter.

    As for Miers, like ILP and others, I have no opinion on her yet. However, I do think it is interesting that Bush picked one with such little qualifications, other than it seems that she was his personal lawyer. I know that history shows many non-judges are nominated (I saw the results of your Google search the other day), but it certainly bucks the recent trend. Given that there are undoubtedly many qualified judges (both state and federal), I would like to hear Bush's explanation as to why Miers is BETTER for the job than ALL of those people. Moreover, Miers's resume does little to counter the notion that Bush values loyalty over actual qualifications. Before you Google any other selections where there was some connection between president and nominee, don't bother. No matter who you find, I think it is wrong, absent any independent qualifications. We have a separation of powers. The president should not get to select his own personal lawyer for the job, absent any redeeming qualifications of here own.

    So, I look forward to the hearings. Hopefully the Dems will ask some important and tough questions, and not grandstand and give 20 minute speeches solely on social issues. Though, I will not hold my breath.

    P.S. What happened the other night? Campaign finance reform not sexy enough of a topic for you? I know I was grasping at straws a little but, you were inviting topics to discuss.

    H Man

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/04/2005 @ 2:51pm

72. LL:

    Also, I did not know you were having heart problems. Sorry to hear that, and I sincerely hope you feel better.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/04/2005 @ 2:54pm

73. I guess I should chime in and wish LL a full and speedy recovery. As TURK alludes to, but doesn't say: the need for diverse ideas is crucial to a functioning democracy. For me, faith based, feel safer and more trusting "gut instincts" are part of these diverse ideas. We all agree that democracy works, and needs to continue working for America to survive.

    Yet, the discussions to determine whether democracy is run for the people, or the corporations; the rights of the "already born", or the rights of the "unborn"; protecting democracy through domestic defense, or foreign attacks; America's "moral authority" stemming from compassion of man, or commandment from God; these arguments form the bulk of the hot-button issues, right now.

    I agree that conservatives love God, and America, too. I agree that conservatives might be able to run the country fairly and justly, though we haven't seen it yet. I strongly disagree that the conservatives have the right people in Congress, the Executive Branch or in their new judicial appointees, to guarantee our freedom, peace and prosperity - and to move the country in the direction all Americans want to go.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 2:58pm

74. thanks myparadigm...great stuff!

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 2:59pm

75. CPT,

    You are so predictable as to be laughable so thanks for the laugh.

    The old....you're not happy with the way America is so you must hate America routine.

    For the umpteenth time I / we do not hate America. I am a working stiff but neither do the so called "Northern elites" hate America either.

    Criticizing the direction our current leadership is taking us in is not an unpatriotic thing to do, no matter what some idiot on Fox news might tell you.

    If you really want to know what I (and I can only speak for myself in this reagrd) want I will tell you. I want accountability in my elected and tax paid for leadership.

    If as a tax paying citizen you are content with an administration that gets us into wars on false pretenses, forces our descendents to pay for it, loses $8.8B of my tax money and doesn't even care enough to look for it, has key tax salaried members of the Whitehouse spilling CIA info for narrow partisan political gain, nominate "pals" to key places like FEMA, the UN and the Supreme Court, actaually has a Q&A with the press every four or five months etc.

    AND NEVER APOLOGIZES.

    If, my friend, you consider this accountability then carry on drinking the Koolaid.

    You also do realize that prior to the Kerry / Bush debates our President had convened a panel of Phamacuetical industry members to "investigate" whether importing drugs from Canada was safe. He had convened this panel deliberately because Kerry was making strides by saying he would import drugs and Bush wasn't going to let him have that angle so in the debates Bush stood up and said "if the panel finds it's not unsafe I'll allow it". The panel, of course hated the idea but even in their report they couldn't actually say it's unsafe so today we're all enjoying cheap drugs from Canada.....NO WE ARE NOT BECAUSE THAT MAN IS A BOLD FACED LIAR.

    Some accountability would be nice.

    Posted by colmes at 10/04/2005 @ 3:04pm

76. prior to the Kerry / Bush debates our President had convened a panel of Phamacuetical industry members to "investigate" whether importing drugs from Canada was safe.

    Yea, and don't forget that during the debates, when asked how we would get enough flu vaccine with the plant in England shut-down, Bush said we would probably import it from - where? - Canada. Go figure.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/04/2005 @ 3:16pm

77. Turk and Because,

    Thanks also to you for your comments. I would like to say that it is rather ironic that both the right and the left make a point of accusing the other side of reliance on feelings. It reminds one of the dialogue in a meeting between an estranged couple during the meeting with the lawyers. Both sides see the same picture through an entirely different lens; and both usually accuse the other of being emotionally driven.

    I have often posited here that while my faith is the driving force behind much of my conservative views, I have also stipulated that my view on political decision making is framed more by my view of the constitution, Supreme Court Decisions, and established law.

    Hence, my support for the war I have outlined on numerous occasions as justifiable on several established legal grounds, while also backed up by my faith view on the spiritual nature of the war with radical islam and the long standing collision course that the Bible prophecied that dates back to the inheritance battle between Sarah and Hagar over whose son got Abraham's estate and legacy.

    I also have dealt with the issues of education, social spending in general, and even church/state issues on the basis of the constitution and understanding the intent of the founding fathers through documents like the Federalist Papers. I have taken issue with even the vast majority of the Christian Right on what I believe to be the wrongly held view of trying to shape this as a Christian nation which I do not find consistent with Scripture. I have a position gained over time, that has allowed me to speak to many in "Leadership" in the Evangelical movement in the US. I am not widely liked for this view, although it is also held by the likes of Cal Thomas, the former leader of the Moral Majority and currently a media commentator.

    I have warned the "Church" that they are headed towards a backlash from the American people if they don't restore their true calling and purpose. It is a secondary reason why I am a proponent to do away with the Income Tax. It would remove the whole issue of tax exemption for ministries and the resentment from many that it raises(although the property tax issue is a more difficult one to reconcile).

    So, I hope in my posting here, while I know I am in contrast to the majority view here, to bring at least a semblance of conservative thought that is not grounded in simple terms of "faith or feelings", but has a basis that can be debated on the merits. Yet not totally removing ones self from feelings as we would all be the lesser for our lives if they were absent of feeling.

    The common problem, yours, mine, everyone's,

    Is-not to fancy what were fair in life

    Provided it could be-but, finding first

    What may be, then find how to make it fair

    Up to our means

    Robert Browning (from Bishop Blougram's Apology)

    Posted by love liberty at 10/04/2005 @ 3:29pm

78. CPT - Thank you for agreeing that the world I live in makes a hell of a lot more sense then the one you and your right-wing junta are creating. SCORE ANOTHER FOR ME!!! See how easily "your" world disintegrates - nation and all!

    As you write: the alternative is often necessary. Often!?!?! Or, is it sometimes?!?!?! Perhaps, it's rarely?. In fact, Gandhi correctly concluded NEVER! Remember, he freed a nation of a billion people without a single bullet! You see, you don't explain "when" a nation needs to act as a despotic, global tyrrant, because there is never a logical situation to do so. So, yet again, you are wrong. Atleast this time, you unwittingly admit it.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 3:40pm

79. while also backed up by my faith view on the spiritual nature of the war with radical islam and the long standing collision course that the Bible prophecied that dates back to the inheritance battle between Sarah and Hagar over whose son got Abraham's estate and legacy.

    I don't take issue with anyone holding this, or any other religious belief. I do take issue when elected, or otherwise, policy makers develop US foreign policy based upon legends and other divinations from God. Debating good and evil, biblical prophecy and the like is suitable for church or other religious places, but not in the corridors of secular power.

    The Falwell – Robertson crowd would be amusing under other circumstances. However, they have garnered too much political power in the current administration to laugh them off. When Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of an elected president of a country, he is politically too powerful to dismiss him as a mere crackpot. This point is reinforced when President Bush's spokesman's reply to the assassination comment is merely that it is "inappropriate."

    I think the whole Bush foreign policy team is "inappropriate" because it is executed by megalomaniacs who want us to believe we are on a "mission from God."

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/04/2005 @ 3:53pm

80. BECAUSEISAYSO, Thanks for the clarification. Just so you know, I am an atheist.

    I am not confused about the president's nominee, I am just waiting to learn more about her before forming an opinion. After all, I'm not under deadline :-)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 3:56pm

81. ILP - you are welcome. You are also very optimistic regarding the two unknown appointees - a little optimism never hurt, though!

    So, good luck to us all. As long as the right-wing junta remains in lock step with the rabid evangelicals, the world is NOT a safer place, regardless of the make up of the courts.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 4:54pm

82. As long as the right-wing junta remains in lock step with the rabid evangelicals, the world is NOT a safer place, regardless of the make up of the courts.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 10/04/2005 @ 4:54pm

    Yeah, just ask the Syrians!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/04/2005 @ 6:33pm

83. The Republican party has it's extreme wing. So does the democrat party. Both can be silly at times. I am sure that many on this board are not lock step with people like Ward Churchill. Neither extreme is an accurate portrait of most liberals or conservatives.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/04/2005 @ 6:39pm

84. Is Ward Churchill a democrat?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/04/2005 @ 6:40pm

85. Okay LEN, I want to preface my next questions by suggesting that terrorists would have to kill MILLIONS of Americans and destroy TRILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure before America, itself, would cease to function - this should be obvious even to the most bloodthirsty and paranoid of the conservatives among you. Since such an assault on the US would require ENORMOUS resources, the kind that bankrupted the USSR, for instance, the true purpose of terrorism is to kill enough people to allow terror - paranoia in America's case - to allow the country to collapse under it's own fear.

    Assuming you are a "centrist", and without invoking paranoid rhetoric of "the terrorists trying to overthrow America and/or kill all Americans": who is "more dangerous" to the individual liberty and freedoms in America, the extreme right, or extreme left? To properly answer, you should describe what the worst case scenarios for both sides, one where the extreme right takes over, the other where the extreme left takes over. Another question I would pose is, in your opinion (since you have no other basis for this answer), whose party is controlled by more extreme elements at this moment?

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/04/2005 @ 7:00pm

86. Because, Good post above

    he left with Soros, as he has all the money the Dems crave and Dean who is the DNC and far left, even for Dems.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2005 @ 7:04pm

87. Yeah, LoveLiberty, a little late on the point- just came on board- but I hope that whatever balance of remedies are successful for recovery from your heart ailment find you soon. I don't know about anyone else, but you make me think about the way I think, and it's really appreciated, despite all.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/04/2005 @ 9:01pm

88. COLMES

    Well, you dont disappoint either, God Bless you

    Dismissive of differeing points of view, why? for the simple fact that they are different.

    I accept that liberal views are basically rooted in a desire to do good for all the world. This is a nice premise, I myself thought this way for a long time, when I was teen and in my early 20s.

    But I discovered through hard experience that the world we have ALWAYS lived in, does not work this way. Though many countires have tried to make it this way, all have failed. The Dali Lama was a true pacifist, like many liberals, and he lost his country to Mao, who took it without caring. I am sorry brother, I simply think that most liberals are naive about the world and that taking the path of least resistence often gets you a worse result.

    Liberals on the other hand do not think the same of conservative views, most of you think that our view is rooted in greed. To dominate weaker people and countries for the sake of some ulterior sinster motives. It is sad that you guys think this, you do not understand your ideological opponents but rather give way to crazy consipracy theories, its self-pleasing rhetoric, but not constructive. But hey do what you wish.

    Posted by CPT at 10/04/2005 @ 9:10pm

89. Well spoken(written), CPT. Succinctly to the heart.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2005 @ 9:15pm

90. Well, if Bush's streak continues with His ability to find the next personal Friend who at some time has HELPED the Bush's, and handing them high level Appointment's like Brown and FEMA, then We all should do everything in Our power to block this Judicial Nominee.

    This Person assisted the Commander and Cheif, Bush to get out of the Justice He deserved for going AWOL during His National Guard Duty; Prison. So, is anybody outhere ?. Is this really happenning or am I watching bad telivision !.

    Posted by bridger at 10/05/2005 @ 01:58am

91. Don't worry Bridger the conservatives are going to vote against her.Problem is he'll then have to pick another and if you've looked at the king lately you know he's getting tired. He'll give them what they want,another Scalia.All this thinking he's had to do lately and no vacation in over a month--the man is worn out and doesn't want to fight anymore.Time for a little trip to Crawford.

    Posted by BusyHands at 10/05/2005 @ 02:57am

92. CPT - you are wrong about so-called liberals. They do consider, as well as, have to live with the decisions of conservatives. This is the same argument Maasch gave me regarding left ideology: "I had to live with the liberal agenda, and it didn't work".

    I think we are all interested in new, fresh ideas. Of course, waging war is not a new idea; so basically you are right, progressives and liberals are NOT interested in "feel good" politics of invasion and bloodshed. And again, the paranoia of the right-wing "everyone's out to get us!!!" philosophy leads you to embrace and encourage restrictions of libery and freedom. Yet, you fail to realize, again, that we are all fighting FOR libery and freedom; and should not support a military tyrrant and his repressive ideaology.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/05/2005 @ 09:00am

93. CPT,

    You are awfully fond of labels.

    You asked me what I want (you gave me some pretty fanciful options) I chose none of your options and instead explained that all I really want is accountability in my leadership.

    Apparently you ignored my answer because you prefer to think of me as some pacifist liberal.

    I'm not labeling you. From your posts I think that I can see that you honestly think the only way to rid our country of the threat of terrorism is to continue a war in Iraq.

    I don't have to be pacifist or liberal to feel that you are misguided in your beief that this is the policy that makes us the safest in the long run.

    My personal viewpoint is that the only remedy for hard core anti- USA terrorists is to extinguish them (I think this is also your point). Where our philosphies diverge is that you think this is a finite strategy (you think that we can kill all the bad people). I am not so naive and I think there are better ways to stop the creation of new anti-USA terrorists.

    There has to be a way to fight terrorism by stopping or reducing the rate of creation of new terrorists.

    My wish is to have an accountable administration (which I can presume you agree this administration is not given your silence on the topic). Once we have an administartion that is accountable to the people that elected it rather than to the corporations that paid for it's successful election then we can move forward with sensible energy policy and foreign policy which over the course of time will mitigate the risk of terrorism.

    Posted by colmes at 10/05/2005 @ 10:06am

94. The Miers choice is the strangest, stupidest executive choice since the Roman Emperor Caligula appointed his horse a Consul.

    Posted by jonscoll at 10/05/2005 @ 10:23am

95. Meiers might surprise some people. Earl Warren never served on the bench, but he oversaw passage of Brown vs the Board of Ed of Topeka, which, for all its flaws, was still a decisive step forward from the Jim Crow world Plessy vs. Fergusen gave the stamp of law to.

    The prime question so far as I'm concerned, however, is not who is sitting on the courts, but what grassroots work is done to counter right wing organization at the base. The key reason they have the power they do is because liberals have left everything in the hands of the boojwah state, as opposed to building upon the actual strides taken by serious community organizations during the last major cultural upsurge forty years ago. The foundations of what would be deeper democracy have been allowed to atrophy, or have been ceded to opportunist ventures, so it is hardly surprising the right has stepped into this huge vacuum, and filled it with a bunch of fundamentalist hoo ha.

    Fortunately, things are beginning to shift up, and there are emerging new currents of radical democratic thought that will, as Malcolm X predicted, generate some political growths the likes of which this country hasn't seen yet.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/05/2005 @ 10:52am

96. JONSCOLL - Caligula made a better choice: atleast he had one appointee his party could trust.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/05/2005 @ 12:07pm

97. CPT/MAASCH - why do you keep insisting liberal policies "didn't work"? What went wrong? You mean corporations actually had to pay more taxes than individuals? You mean that they actually forced an end to a decade long and completely meaningless war in Vietnam? You mean that in allowing abortions in limited situations, that women survived to go on to have 2.5 more babies rather than die in an alley? Do you mean they balanced the budget which led to longest post-war boom to the American economy?

    What went wrong to make you two always support the Bible, the State, and the Corporation, before you will support the Individual, in this country? Because that is EXACTLY the pecking order in the right-wing evangelical Republican view of "a better America".

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/05/2005 @ 12:15pm

98. Because,

    What went wrong... 1. Corporations do not pay taxes, they treat them as expenses and pass all on to you, the consumer.

    2.I believe Nixon ended the Vietnam war after continuing the brilliant plan of McNamara, of Best and Brightest fame, of not winning by design. It ended went all support finaly fell. We should have finished it(won) or left . We left and millions more died. By then no one cared, including liberals.

    3.Abortion for me is a private matter and government has no business there.

    4. I am till trying to find where the budget was balanced by the liberals. Clinton budgets NEVER were presented as balanced until GOP was voted into control of the house.

    However, I will give you this,Bush is no conservative as I view his spending.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2005 @ 1:22pm

99. Maasch,

    Taxes are here to stay (unless we're getting rid of our military etc). As you point out the consumer ultimately pays the corporate tax. However, if Boeing pays taxes then the consumers of all the coutries that Boeing sells to pays OUR taxes.

    I'd rather have America's consumers / workers paying 99% of USA federal taxes than 100% of them. Are you anti-American and wouldn't want the same thing?

    Posted by colmes at 10/05/2005 @ 2:32pm

100. Question: If Boeing sells to, say, a German company, does the German company pay taxes to USA? Conversely, does an American company buying a German product pay a German tax?

     Or do they "cancel" each other out on some abtuse balance sheet somewhere?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2005 @ 3:07pm

101. LL: Sorry to hear about your recent health issues. I hope you are doing well. Enjoy reading your posts.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/05/2005 @ 3:17pm

102. Maasch,

     If Boeing sells a plane to a German company Boeing makes a profit and pays a tax to the USA Government on that profit.

     No doubt that USA consumers are paying the taxes of other countries when we consume things that corporations in those countries are selling to us and then that corporation pays its tax to its host country.

     In other words, if we alleviate our corporate taxes and thus remove the burden of consumers in other countries paying our taxes and we still have to pay thiers (when we buy from corporations hosted by other nations) where is the sense in that thinking (assuming that you think it is sensible to try to alleviate the tax burden from the average AMERICAN Joe)?

     Posted by colmes at 10/05/2005 @ 4:14pm

103. JOHN MAASCH,

     It is people like you who really make me scratch my head and wonder "How in the world do rightwingers come up with this stuff"

     You think Dean is "far left, even for a Dem"? This is a man who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association about half a dozen times. He balance the Vermont state budget about a dozen times. I though these were conservative values!

     After all, you keep complaining that Bush's spending is not conservative.

     Also, Dean wouldn't go for gay marriage. He reluctantly allowed civil unions to avoid allowing gay marriage, or at least I've heard a lot of people on the far Left claim that.

     Please consider that you, John, may be so far to the Right that your perception of "far Left" is skewed.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/05/2005 @ 7:21pm

104. 4. I am till trying to find where the budget was balanced by the liberals.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/05/2005 @ 1:22pm

     If you think Howard Dean is a liberal, then look no further. He was a budget-balancing champ as governor of Vermont.

     I don't consider Dean liberal, but I you do.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/05/2005 @ 7:24pm

105. ILP,

     The Federal budget was the intent of my post. I applaud Dean for balancing Vermont and am upset that Bush has not balanced Federal. Does this make me a Bush hater or Dean lover? Or perhaps I am reasonable and will give credit where credit is due. Do you give Bush credit for anything?

     I don't care who NRA, or GAY MARRAIGE or whatever you or anyone else claims are conservative values to influence my vote. ILP.. I am not a follower, as many of my liberal friends think most conservatives are, of talking points in spite of certain truths I find crediable.

     I decide from my point of view, and from where I sit Dean is a liberal. Therefore, based on your statement you find Dean is not, I then conclude you are even more liberal. Period. I think you would hear "screams" all accross the land if you claimed he was not a liberal!! It takes more than one or two beliefs to perhaps to start to fit into a pidgeon hole.

     I am not that hard to figure out. Perhaps I don't fit your model of a conservative....as to scratching your head, it might just be a case of dandruf.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2005 @ 8:24pm

106. Hey, wait a minute....I know what I am.. I am in the middle and that makes me in the majority!!!!!!!!!!...from my point of view of course.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2005 @ 8:27pm

107. Rio,

     Perhaps Jay is being held in reserve for the pick after next?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2005 @ 9:45pm

108. RIO BRAVO:

     I find it interesting that you refer to secular humanists in such ways that are usually reserved for those who are religious. Words like devout, for example, evoke an almost religious reverence for some ideology. Could it be that your critique is more a description of yourself? Perhaps you find it difficult to understand people whose thought processes are different than your own, hence you paint them with the same brush that, given a different perceived ideology, you would paint yourself.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/05/2005 @ 10:46pm

109. Left wing extremist groups in congress? Socialist democrats? THIS congress? "Anti-christians"? What planet are you living on, Rio Bravo? Are you serious? Or are you just repeating this shit for shock effect?

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/05/2005 @ 11:27pm

110. JAYARJUNYAH:

     Doesn't that post sound like he pulled it directly out of one of Hitler's stump speeches?

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/05/2005 @ 11:35pm

111. Sounds like something. what it sounds like, I'm not sure. All I know is, I'm glad you can't catch that mess through cyber space.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/05/2005 @ 11:47pm

112. JAY:

     Actually, you can. Got to redstate.com. It's sort of like that feardotcom site from the movie. It buries itself into your brain, makes you go crazy.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/05/2005 @ 11:52pm

113. Jorcheim, I'll take your word for it. No point in giving the old hypertension a run for its money.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/06/2005 @ 11:01am

114. I don't know if anyone else has offered this explanation of the apparently illogical nomination, but here goes. When Bush presented Harriett in the White House to announce that she was his choice, I could not take my eyes off of HER eyes, and what her eyes were fixed on. She was drilling a hole in Bush's head with her doe eyed stare. I have seen a lot of men and women who are either in love or infatuated with one another, and I swear that what I saw was a woman in love with her patron. When they met 10 or 12 years ago, Harriett was a handsome woman, and at sixty, she is still in pretty good shape. And at twenty something, she was quite beautiful, before the lines of corruption set in.

     But I can easily imagine an affair between the slightly younger G.W. and the older, experienced, high-powered attorney. Her latter career was made on Bush's coattails, just as many of his cronies have been made. Look at the footage of the announcement, and you will see a woman looking at her man. She is literally batting her eyes, and she has the most admiring smile I have seen on anyone's face in the White House since Jackie. She loves George! Who knows, maybe she had an abortion for him, and he is so grateful that he told her never to worry; he would take care of her future. Not that she isn't capable of taking care of herself, but she hitched herself to his star. It's all speculation, and I admit the speculation about an abortion is tasteless, but I mention it because that is the level of hypocrisy that exists in Bush's world. At the least, this is the worst kind of cronyism. ------------------------------------------------

     DIFFERENT TOPIC: This New York subway warning stinks of decoy. Why is it that everytime there is extremely bad news for the administration, suddenly something like this terror warning comes up. And none of them have been legitimate. With Rove, Libby, DeLay, Frist, Abramov and others about to go on the choppiing block, it is the perfect time for a "terror scare." Nobody is buying it, except the unfortunate New Yorkers who have no choice but to take it seriously, having their lives disrupted. And using baby carriages? How stupid do they think we are? If I'm wrong, well then I'm wrong.

     Posted by randwolfe at 10/07/2005 @ 07:49am