The Horrors of Contraception

Thank you, Amanda.

Fuck you, Leon Kass.

Miers Withdrawal

Ok, I know I am a little late on this, but bear with me if you have heard this commentary before.

There are two differing opinions on why Miers' nomination was ultimately a failure:

1. She was an idiot and could not properly describe the eleventeenth amendment.

2. She did not have the proper cred with the right wing of the GOP (i.e. she did not publicly and forcefully say we should commit genocide on all homosexuals).

I think it was a combination of these two things, although to whose pressure Bush bowed will help us reason out what kind of judge his new nominee will be.

Those who believe opinion 1 can say that Miers lost the support of the moderates - most notably Specter - in the GOP and could not have been confirmed without them. I will not argue that she is a complete and utter idiot - who else would think Bushie is the coolest ever? - but since when has that stopped Bush from getting his way? The counter to that is Bush is at his lowest point in his presidency. His political capital was bought on margin and has quickly evaporated. He has the Plame investigation, a failure of a war in Iraq, a failure of a social security policy and a weakening economy all on his hands. Add to that a Senate majority leader soon to be under investigation for insider trading and Bush's hands are pretty much tied.

It can be a comforting thought that Bush is being forced back to the middle; however, the problem with Miers was not her views, but rather her incompetence. Therefore we still need to worry about the possibility that Bush will nominate a Roberts clone - a dark horse with an excellent resume - in which case the GOP moderates will be back on Bush's side and we may wind up with another justice like Roberts, who may or may not be a Scalia or Thomas.

Those who believe opinion 2 are certainly painting a dark picture of our times. Whether it is true or not I still think is up for debate. This opinion centers around the idea that Bush could not get Miers onto the court because of lack of far right support. This is evidenced by senators like Brownback demanding to see her credentials - i.e. if she believes that Darwin is a test from god - because of a lack of certainty as to where she stands. As an aside, I love how the right wing accuses Democrats of politicizing the court - when it should be about judges' ability to interpret the law - and then goes ahead to commit unadulterated hypocrisy. IOKIYAR I guess. Getting back to the point, this opinion carries a lot more water than I would like it. Why else would Dobson be called to testify in front of the senate judiciary committe? The right wing made it very clear very quickly that they were not happy with Miers - she was too stealthy for them to believe she would do whatever Bush wanted - and even accused her of being a liberal. I guess that is akin to accusing her of being a wolf in sheep's clothes, but if she is a liberal that would make her a sheep in wolf's clothes. Dangerous, dangerous sheep that will kill us all.

If opinion 2 is the case, then we can only expect Bush to nominate another Bork in order to shore up his base. Most likely Lutting, Owen or Rogers-Brown. I do not think Gonzo is holy enough - and he is a minority - for the true believers. However, if Bush nominates another Bork it remains to be seen whether he can get that nominee passed.

As I stated before, I think the truth is a mix of these two opinions. It comes down to where Bush was feeling the most pressure from, which we still do not know, though we will be able to tell when the next nominee comes around, which I imagine will be soon to divert attention from the Plame case. Regardless of these opinions the bottom line is that Bush is weak. Whether he decides to gamble on his next nominee and put forth a Bork will all depend on what he thinks he can get away with. Now that is a scary thought.

Finally, on the other side of the aisle I am ambivalent to the Democrats' strategy through all of this. Keeping silent and not taking a stand may have worked out very well for them in this situation, but that probably will need to change in the near future. What is most important to keep in mind is that whatever their strategy is, they need to have a modicum of unity when they execute it and speak with the same voice.

Merry Fitzmas!

Hunter sums up it up nicely.

Bush Blogging

"We must have greater confidentiality in the White House."

Translation: Fuck you, America!!!!!!!! Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and that Dick can take a leak all over you and you'll just have to deal with it.

The worst part was when he applauded the citizen response to Katrina, and then said that "there is a limit to the love government can give."

That's right, government should not lift a hand while people die - wait, I seem to recall something about the war on terror... well, I guess I can't remember after all - because it should not, and uncoordinated, disorganized people do a fine job by themselves. Well, I guess if you lower your expectations enough the response was ok.

Finally, can someone PLEASE remind the preznit that his war on social security is over and he lost? He's such a crybaby.

And the Culprit Is...

Cheney?

I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

For the record, even though he's as guilty as a pedophile in a preschool, I don't expect Cheney to get indicted. But this just makes things better and better considering how damning the article is.

Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Here's to waiting for the indictments like the new year's eve ball to drop.

A Whole Lot of Pride But No Shame

Since I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the case and the reasons I cannot be positive that the judge will not have to recuse himself, but this is absolute bullshit:

The judge in the case, Bob Perkins of the 331st Judicial Criminal District Court, said he was temporarily putting the prosecution on hold in light of a defense motion demanding that he recuse himself because he was a Democrat who had made recent donations to the Democratic Party and to Democratic candidates.

DeLay is doing the only thing he knows how to do: attack, attack, attack. When the music is over and he has nowhere left to attack - outside of the Democratic conspiracy to get him because he is effective and not because he broke the law - he will have to stand trial. At that time, with everyone around him already having been indicted for corruption, the Hammer will fall.

Texas Oil for Food

Just thinking over how it's funny that the U.S. was up in arms over the U.N. oil for food scandal, but they were never outraged enough to trace the corruption to its source:

Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., the flamboyant Texas oil trader who flaunted his close ties to the regime of Saddam Hussein, was indicted yesterday in federal court in New York on charges that he paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to the regime to sell Iraqi oil under a United Nations program.

I can hear the wingnuts now: He was charged in NY, that's where corruption is!

Link.

Bush Knew About Rove and Plame All Along

Time to break open the bubbly:

An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

If the question is who knew what and when, I think dear leader should be in for a world of pain.

Never mind that he is first and foremost a liar and a hypocrite. First he lied about not knowing anything about the situation. Then he lied because he said he would fire anyone involved in the affair. Bush says he stands for the law, but apparently his law puts himself and his party above the nation. I'd like to say he's a failure of a human being, but I'm not even sure he fits there. Whatever, he's a failure of whatever ape-man thing he is.

I'd like to apologize all the other ape-men out there for Bush making them look bad. My sympathies to you, I know you're all good ape-men creatures. I didn't vote for him.

Link.

Judicial Transparency

What I think should be most appalling to anyone on either side of the political divide is the degree to which the Bush administration is employing smoke and mirrors to keep everyone disoriented in order to get its nominee, Harriet Miers, onto the court.

We don't know anything about her and everything we hear, from both the left and the right, is met with vigorous denial. First she was for abortion, then against it. In fact, we know so little about her philosophy - past that Bush knows her heart, which isn't a good sign for sage judicial philosophy - that abortion is the only contentious issue on which we can try and lambaste her. At least Roberts, master of evasion, had his hapless toad; Miers only has a bad hairdo.

So when I see something like this:

Harriet E. Miers, the Supreme Court nominee, disclosed on Tuesday a 1989 survey in which she supported banning abortion except to protect the life of the pregnant woman. The disclosure alarmed abortion rights supporters but failed to assuage the concerns of some conservative Republicans.

I'm not surprised, because a stalwart, anti-privacy candidate wouldn't sit well with most people, and I really don't know what to think besides that Harriet Miers is not qualified for the job. Not because she once supported banning a woman's right to maintain her privacy - although a constitutional amendment goes a lot farther than just overturning Roe - but because I don't believe she has the legal grounding to sit on the highest court in the land.

That we are met with continued resistance to any inquiry into this woman's thinking and views is enough of a reason reject her nomination. The probable reason, because most likely she doesn't have any views outside of "Bushie is so cool!!! OMG!!!!," is enough to can her as well. The bottom line, which, funnily enough, is appearing at the bottom of this post, is that the only reasonable position is to be for more transparency in the government, not less. Unless some GOPers somewhere are trying to make the argument that more transparency on Miers is jeopardizing the country's safety. I can hear the chants now.

9/11! 9/11!

Suck it, Dick

WaPo:

As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

Woohoo!!!!