Rev Up the Rhetoric and the Smear Machines

For those of you, who, like me, were hoping for a long Holiday season before the start of politics as usual at the beginning of the New Year, forget it. Our hopes for a temporary respite have been dashed:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who missed the Supreme Court’s November argument session while being treated for thyroid cancer, will be absent for the December session as well, the court announced on Friday.

Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer, said Chief Justice Rehnquist was continuing to receive chemotherapy and radiation treatments as an outpatient and was meeting with his law clerks and court officials at his home. Ms. Arberg said she had no information on when the 80-year-old chief justice might return to the court.

If you thought Bork and Clarence Thomas were something, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Regardless who Bush nominates, the Atriettes and the like are going to go batshit loony. This is going to be ugly.

Mind you, this isn’t even Bush trying to appoint someone to replace a sitting liberal judge with a conservative. When that happens, it will be even worse.






9 replies
  1. 1
    Kimmitt says:

    Regardless who Bush nominates, the Atriettes and the like are going to go batshit loony.

    Well, yes, since Bush is inevitably going to nominate a wingnut that even you will find somewhat distasteful, then yes.

    Don’t get me wrong — the possibility exists that Bush could bring forth a center-right (heh) candidate (ha) in the spirit of (hee hee) unity . . . oh, I can’t even finish the sentence. It’s too absurd.

  2. 2
    Terry says:

    I believe you may be overly alarmed, John. Many in Washington say that the “fix” is in, and that Bush will likely get his nominee confirmed with relative alacrity. The looney-tune nutjobs, such as the Kimmitts of the world, only make that confirmation easier as Democrats up for reelection in the red states see that association with such ilk doesn’t bode well for their chances in 2006.

  3. 3
    Kimmitt says:

    Why, Terry, you disappoint me. I’d thought you’d learned how to make a post without a pseudo-psychiatric diagnosis. I recommend wrapping a rubber band around you wrist and snapping it.

  4. 4
    Dave Schuler says:

    the Atriettes and the like are going to go batshit loony.

    As opposed to the calm reasoned collegial tone of principled opposition they’ve taken heretodate?

    The problem of singing fortissimo all the tinme is that there’s just no where to go.

  5. 5
    Terry says:

    no, Kimmitt, I heard from your former shrink in Chicago just how far gone you are….that’s all.

  6. 6
    shark says:

    the possibility exists that Bush could bring forth a center-right (heh) candidate (ha) in the spirit of (hee hee) unity .

    or in the “spirit of unity” the Dems could let Bush’s appointment pass…

    Or is unity a 1 way street where Reps. have to give in to Dems?

    Eh, f**k your unity. Bush and his party have the hammer, and they’ll use it. And if the Dems want to get in the way and get their heads bashed in, so much the better. Lets see if they learned the lesson of Tom Daschle (hehehehehe)

  7. 7

    I suspect there’s an area where Democrats in Congress would be quite willing to go along with a relatively moderate nominee. It has to do with not wanting to be seen as blindly obstructive right out of the gate.

    I suspect there’s also an area where Dems in Congress and elsewhere don’t want to have Republicans’ ability to roll over them rubbed in, big time, first thing out of the gate. So they’re braced for a right-wing hack or some Texas-style cronyism.

    If GWB was one-fourth the politically savvy president LBJ was, he’d be on the phone to a few Democrats, sounding them out with a short list of names of the type suggested above and their reactions. Not that he’d be promising one of those would get his nomination necessarily, but just to guage reactions. People like Reed, Breaux and Baucus.

    Sometimes, just having input given some shred of consideration can have a tonic effect on a person.

  8. 8
    Kimmitt says:

    Or is unity a 1 way street where Reps. have to give in to Dems?

    I said center-right, not center-left, friend. Unity is a 2-way street, where the people in charge get most of what they want and give the people in the minority a little of what they want.

  9. 9
    CadillaqJaq says:

    C.W.Anderson posts: “If GWB was one-fourth the politically savvy president LBJ was, he’d be on the phone to a few Democrats, sounding them out with a short list of names of the type suggested above and their reactions. Not that he’d be promising one of those would get his nomination necessarily, but just to guage reactions. People like Reed, Breaux and Baucus.”

    It sounds like C.W. would have GWB tipping his hand, only to have the biased leftists misrepresenting it as weakness and attempting then to make political hay to the detriment of all future, potential nominees.

    Much like that loaded question at the White House press conference and again during the debates: “Mr. President, will you give us one example of when you were wrong?” Any answer he’d have given would have come back to belt him over the head as even his non-answer did: another damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.

    As far as kissing up to the “loyal opposition” in the Senate, I’d err on the side of caution and leave ’em out of the selection mix altogether until it comes time for an up-down vote. In other words- screw ’em! That’s what I would refer to as “political acumen.” The other side has done a great job of self destruction lately, why would anyone want to take their advice? Savvy that, C.W.?

Comments are closed.