And yet no mention of DeLay here.

jaim · 10-04-2005, 4:05 AM

No mention of Tom DeLay. No mention of Hariet Miers. No mention of Jack Abramoff and his relation to the Republican party. No mention of Bill Frist. No mention of procurement chief David H. Safavian. Are you right wingnuts too embarrassed to bring the names of these people up in a political discussion? Maybe some of you voted for some of these folks and think they are just getting a bumb rap from the media.

QuikMike · 10-04-2005, 9:08 AM

you know jaim, I wondered the same thing....where is the outrage and public outcry about Delay, Abramoff, Frist, etc....??? why is there no debate about this going on here???? Most assuredly, the media is "spinning" the truth...

CBRVFR · 10-04-2005, 9:16 AM

Read the sig...

Even if one were a fan of his political views, it would be hard to feel much empathy for someone so arrogant.

As for the Supreme court nominee, no one knows anything substantive about her. The partisans will either hate her or applaud her, but they won't know why.

rocket · 10-04-2005, 9:26 AM

Be careful...I might get a wild hair and indict one of you lefties. It might not have merit (see Ronnie Earle) but I'll do it just the same. Maybe I'll even get a film crew to follow me around to document it. Hey, if you want me to drop the charges just make a six figure donation to the DNC. I have done this unsuccessfully several times take a look at my track record (see Ronnie Earle). What's a little prosecutorial abuse among friends?

Baketech · 10-04-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaim

No mention of Tom DeLay. No mention of Hariet Miers. No mention of Jack Abramoff and his relation to the Republican party. No mention of Bill Frist. No mention of procurement chief David H. Safavian. Are you right wingnuts too embarrassed to bring the names of these people up in a political discussion? Maybe some of you voted for some of these folks and think they are just getting a bumb rap from the media.

Do you think the charges against DeLay have merit, or are they politically motivated...

sheepofblue · 10-04-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaim

No mention of Tom DeLay. No mention of Hariet Miers. No mention of Jack Abramoff and his relation to the Republican party. No mention of Bill Frist. No mention of procurement chief David H. Safavian. Are you right wingnuts too embarrassed to bring the names of these people up in a political discussion? Maybe some of you voted for some of these folks and think they are just getting a bumb rap from the media.

I'll take the hook.
Tom Delay is a political hit operation.
Harriet Miers is a horrid choice, she has zero obvious qualifications other than being Bushes friend and a lady. Both are stupid reasons to choose someone. Further I think Bush has a terrible track record on the constitution. Early on he signed the free speech impediment act (sometimes called campaign finance reform) despite the FACT that it infringes on free political speech.
Bill Frist is anther hit piece as he has indicated a possible presidential run and the oponents are getting in early blows (no I do not want him to be president)
David H. Safavia <- no idea who he is

*Mo Noyz* · 10-04-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fisherman jaim

Are you right wingnuts too embarrassed to bring the names of these people up in a political discussion?

No.

But what's to talk about right now? I'm still trying to figure out what it is, exactly, that Earle is charging Delay with. As is common with your every day liberla, there is no specificity. Just a general charge.

And I don't have an opinion on Miers yet. I, like almost everyone else in this country, know nothing about her. Based upon many things that I heard and read yesterday, she was obviously on a short list that Senate dems hinted would earn their nod of approval. Politically, I think it is a smart move by Bush. He couldn't have made this same choice in 2003, say, but as a lame duck he can afford to make these kind of choices.

It may be cronyism, but who knows? It's an assumption I will not make. She prepped Roberts for his hearings and obviously did a great job. So, perhaps she's more qualified than most think.

And most importantly, if she makes it in, it shouldn't upset the make up of the SC. That's a good thing, IMO.

rocket · 10-04-2005, 3:01 PM

I have to agree with SOB on the Miers nomination. I'm tired of this "Trust Me she's the right person for the job" crap. This is what we fought so hard to get and he throws the liberal girly men a bone. Go figure. Stealth Smealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

I'll take the hook.
Tom Delay is a political hit operation.
Harriet Miers is a horrid choice, she has zero obvious qualifications other than being Bushes friend and a lady. Both are stupid reasons to choose someone. Further I think Bush has a terrible track record on the constitution. Early on he signed the free speech impediment act (sometimes called campaign finance reform) despite the FACT that it infringes on free political speech.
Bill Frist is anther hit piece as he has indicated a possible presidential run and the oponents are getting in early blows (no I do not want him to be president)
David H. Safavia <- no idea who he is

Baketech · 10-04-2005, 3:12 PM

While we are at it...why hasn't anyone mentioned all of those seniors that Bush killed on Lake George...

*Mo Noyz* · 10-04-2005, 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket

This is what we fought so hard to get...

What exactly do you mean by this?

*Mo Noyz* · 10-04-2005, 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

While we are at it...why hasn't anyone mentioned all of those seniors that Bush killed on Lake George...

He's a good tipper.

Baketech · 10-04-2005, 5:55 PM

Ughhh...

rocket · 10-04-2005, 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

What exactly do you mean by this?

Bush promised to nominate SC Judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. The urgency of filling the SC with strict constructionist was a huge factor in getting Bush in. If a liberal were elected then we'd have to worry more about those who choose to legislate from the bench i.e. the Eminent Domain debacle we just went through. So the fight was getting this man re-elected. After all we did to re-elect this man the least he can do is follow up on his promise. The idea of nominating this unknown quantity is distressing because there were so many more qualified individuals to choose from. We shall see.

*Mo Noyz* · 10-04-2005, 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Ughhh...

I hadda do it...........

luvtolean · 10-04-2005, 6:21 PM

Yeah, never been a judge and straight to the Supreme Court. Distressing. If she is confirmed, she may be a good one, but there are so many to choose from.

*Mo Noyz* · 10-04-2005, 6:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket

We shall see.

Exactly.

And although I'm no fan of Eminent Domain, the ruling was far from being a debacle. Unless, of course, you are for the SC ruling on everything while completely nullifying the states jurisdiction.

Baketech · 10-04-2005, 6:32 PM

Rehnquist...

Getsome · 10-04-2005, 6:35 PM

hmmm....

rocket · 10-04-2005, 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Exactly.

And although I'm no fan of Eminent Domain, the ruling was far from being a debacle. Unless, of course, you are for the SC ruling on everything while completely nullifying the states jurisdiction.

I hate the concept of Eminent Domain. I was friends with a Anne Arundel County worker who used to make offers -very low offers to people who had property the county wanted for some reason or the other. I look back I think he was pretty matter of fact about taking someone's property. I can see the purpose of it but not for the latest cases. I recall that recently some fellow is going after a politicians house up north. I hope he is successful.

*Mo Noyz* · 10-04-2005, 7:33 PM

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

rocket · 10-04-2005, 7:35 PM

That's right it was Souter. Even better! Only in America

seamus · 10-04-2005, 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Rehnquist...

Wasn't he nominated to the SC without ever having been a judge?

Baketech · 10-04-2005, 8:57 PM

Yes...as were several others...

jaim · 10-05-2005, 1:51 AM

The President can nominate who ever he/she wants to the supreme court. That is what the confirmation hearings are for. The president nominates the justice and the senate can then decide whether to accept him/her or not. It would be nice if the president would actually nominate someone for a position who actually has prior experience. Bush's choice doesn't bother me too much but the confirmation hearings do. It points out that is isn't only Bush and a few of his buddies who are "in on it" but the whole political process, democrats included. The average tax paying citizen gets screwed from all sides. No one is looking out for them, at least no one with enough power to do something about it. The reason this is such a big deal is because the supreme court is the chief arbiter on matters that effect all Americans. So every citizen has a stake in who sits on the court.

As far as Safavian goes here is the story on that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...5091901859.htm

And for Delay and Frist being a political hit piece. Turn about is fair play. The republicans did all they could do to get Clinton. Time for Democratic party pay back.

As some might notice. Abramoff is the center of a lot of this republican corruption. And it seems he is bringing the reds down with him. So much fo the republican moral high ground.