cryowizard (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
cryowizard) wrote2005-10-22 12:57 pm
cryowizard) wrote2005-10-22 12:57 pm
Entry tags:
On Miers
Well, I kinda knew Miers should not be on the Supreme Court because she qualifies for it as much as Michael Brown qualified for being FEMA director. On top of everything else, according to Washington Post, she apparently was a supporter of affirmative action in the legal system.
Right, that's what we need -- an unqualified bleeding heart on the highest bench in the country.
It is interesting to note that George Bush continues to defend her nomination despite a pretty nasty backlash from his conservative base. Along with the Karl Rove debacle and the huge domestic spending habits, the numbers do not look good. The President's approval rating sank to an all-time low of 40% this week. The Democrats hated him from the start, and Rebuplicans of all levels seem to question whether he was a true conservative to begin with.
Now, I'm not a fan of the President myself. I think he was a bad administrator during his entire career in business, and his High Office tenure was no different. I believe he is not the right man to have been a face of conservatism to both domestic and international audiences.
Because of this misrepresentation, should the showball roll downhill on the war, spending, border policies (or lack thereof), spy scandals and dubious nominations, the 2008 elections may see a backlash against the conservative candidates, and (oh, no) give Hillary Clinton a shot at the office, something that should never happen.
If it does, George Bush will go down in history, besides all the other stuff, as a man whose choices ushered an era of an ultra-liberal Hil. Brrr....
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers supported affirmative action goals in the early 1990s when she served as president of the State Bar of Texas, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
Miers wrote that "our legal community must reflect our population as a whole," and under her leadership the lawyers' association supported racial and gender set-asides and numerical targets for jobs, the newspaper reported.
Source
Right, that's what we need -- an unqualified bleeding heart on the highest bench in the country.
It is interesting to note that George Bush continues to defend her nomination despite a pretty nasty backlash from his conservative base. Along with the Karl Rove debacle and the huge domestic spending habits, the numbers do not look good. The President's approval rating sank to an all-time low of 40% this week. The Democrats hated him from the start, and Rebuplicans of all levels seem to question whether he was a true conservative to begin with.
Now, I'm not a fan of the President myself. I think he was a bad administrator during his entire career in business, and his High Office tenure was no different. I believe he is not the right man to have been a face of conservatism to both domestic and international audiences.
Because of this misrepresentation, should the showball roll downhill on the war, spending, border policies (or lack thereof), spy scandals and dubious nominations, the 2008 elections may see a backlash against the conservative candidates, and (oh, no) give Hillary Clinton a shot at the office, something that should never happen.
If it does, George Bush will go down in history, besides all the other stuff, as a man whose choices ushered an era of an ultra-liberal Hil. Brrr....
no subject
It is a way too softly put, my dear. We have a brain-damaged retard running this country god knows where, and you are wasting time on phrases like the ones above.
I don't find anything wrong with supporters of affirmative action (as long as it is not taken to the extreme). I am not crazy about Hil, but I'd definitely prefer her to the bunch of narrow-minded religious fanatics that currently occupy the office.