Wednesday, May 06, 2009
So, he might as well nominate a real Leftist
G -- oofy ...
O -- out-of-touch ...
P -- arty.
What idjits! What maroons!
To wit (say it fast):
WASHINGTON -- The person President Obama wants to put on the Supreme Court is "far to the left," says one Senate Republican. A "hard-left judicial activist," a conservative group says. The nominee better remember that judges have to "subordinate themselves to the law," another GOP senator warned Tuesday.
Imagine what they'll say when they actually know who the nominee is.
...
What some progressives are hoping, in fact, is that the right wing stirs itself up into such a frenzy opposing the nominee in theory that by the time an actual name surfaces, conservatives have marginalized themselves.
Yep. So, you go Jeff.
Read it all, from Salon.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is, as DrLoboJo said, "a PR guy's nightmare." Indeed. Bring it on, colonel.
Sen. Orrin Hatch said President Obama "was elected as probably the most liberal president in history." Ah, no. That would be Lincoln.
Let the games begin -- wait, they've already begun.
Let the bloodletting start: Obama should nominate a real effing Lefty, if for no other reason to teach these guys the difference between a liberal, a Leftist and a socialist.
--ER
O -- out-of-touch ...
P -- arty.
What idjits! What maroons!
To wit (say it fast):
WASHINGTON -- The person President Obama wants to put on the Supreme Court is "far to the left," says one Senate Republican. A "hard-left judicial activist," a conservative group says. The nominee better remember that judges have to "subordinate themselves to the law," another GOP senator warned Tuesday.
Imagine what they'll say when they actually know who the nominee is.
...
What some progressives are hoping, in fact, is that the right wing stirs itself up into such a frenzy opposing the nominee in theory that by the time an actual name surfaces, conservatives have marginalized themselves.
Yep. So, you go Jeff.
Read it all, from Salon.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is, as DrLoboJo said, "a PR guy's nightmare." Indeed. Bring it on, colonel.
Sen. Orrin Hatch said President Obama "was elected as probably the most liberal president in history." Ah, no. That would be Lincoln.
Let the games begin -- wait, they've already begun.
Let the bloodletting start: Obama should nominate a real effing Lefty, if for no other reason to teach these guys the difference between a liberal, a Leftist and a socialist.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
The odds-on favorite, Sonia Sotomayor, has already been attacked in the neo-con TNR, in a widely criticized article. One of the biggest criticisms of this particular piece of drivel is the author admits he has not read her opinions, and recycles nothing more than gossip, unsourced.
The Republicans have nothing. NOTHING. Their wad is shot. They resemble liberal Democrats during the early years of the Reagan Administration - repeating the same, tired mantras to a public the majority of which has ceased to listen.
The Republicans have nothing. NOTHING. Their wad is shot. They resemble liberal Democrats during the early years of the Reagan Administration - repeating the same, tired mantras to a public the majority of which has ceased to listen.
I'll bet a dollar to a donut he took longer to pick the white house dog than he will the Judge.
# posted by 
: 4:38 PM
: 4:38 PM
But of course -- there are gobs and gobs of qualified people out there to serve on the Supreme Court.
And I'll bet he doesn't pick a women he brought from Texas who helped him cover up torture as a White House counselor in conjunction with the Attorney General.
And I'll bet he doesn't pick a women he brought from Texas who helped him cover up torture as a White House counselor in conjunction with the Attorney General.
Actually, I agree with the Anonymous commenter, but only because these lists of federal judges are already drawn up by Senators of both parties long in advance.
I have a confession to make. I heart Rush Limbaugh.*
Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/ch748f
*Not really.
Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/ch748f
*Not really.
Anon: So? Let's see. A president who is a constitutional scholar himself, former law professor, an honest-to-God intellect who has probably been rolling around SCOTUS candidates in his mind since Nov. 4 (Obama), versus any of recent GOP rube who has occupied the WH (Dubya, Aytch Dubya, Ronnie).
I'll bet you're right. I'll bet he already knows who he's going to select. And I hope he keeps it to himself for a long time. There won't be nothin' but crumbs and a greasy spot left of the Republican Party.
I'll bet you're right. I'll bet he already knows who he's going to select. And I hope he keeps it to himself for a long time. There won't be nothin' but crumbs and a greasy spot left of the Republican Party.
Doofass!
LOL. Ok, I'm going to assume that 1., you meant to say "without" a teleprompter; 2., you think Baptist and Pentecostal preachers, who are notorious for not speaking from text, are great thinkers; (but most of them aren't; many of them are good orators and storytellers, which is a different thing); and 3., you don't do much, if any, thoughtful public speaking.
Oh, and 4., you've never used a teleprompter.
I speak from text publically from time to time, but fortunately, I write conversationally, so if I'm on my game most people can't tell it. I've considered using a Telepromter, and I will if I think the occasion calls for it.
Try again, Anon. Speaking from text says nothing about whether someone is "smart" or not. I mean, look at Limbaugh: He uses notes, at most, but talks out of his ass.
LOL. Ok, I'm going to assume that 1., you meant to say "without" a teleprompter; 2., you think Baptist and Pentecostal preachers, who are notorious for not speaking from text, are great thinkers; (but most of them aren't; many of them are good orators and storytellers, which is a different thing); and 3., you don't do much, if any, thoughtful public speaking.
Oh, and 4., you've never used a teleprompter.
I speak from text publically from time to time, but fortunately, I write conversationally, so if I'm on my game most people can't tell it. I've considered using a Telepromter, and I will if I think the occasion calls for it.
Try again, Anon. Speaking from text says nothing about whether someone is "smart" or not. I mean, look at Limbaugh: He uses notes, at most, but talks out of his ass.
That's the best you can do? The whole phony "teleprompter" business?
Too funny. Conservatives are like Dr. Johnson's women preachers and dogs walking on their hind legs; a funny anomaly that wears off quickly.
Too funny. Conservatives are like Dr. Johnson's women preachers and dogs walking on their hind legs; a funny anomaly that wears off quickly.
LOL. I love that this is what Republicans are reduced to: criticizing someone's speaking with a teleprompter.
On his worst day, Obama is miles more erudite than GWB was on his best day.
In the olden days, no Republican would have been so stupid as to get so far off message that they would leave such an obvious opening for criticism. Never criticize an opponent for something that your guy does worse. Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they kept on message and were clever about spin. Now they're criticizing how Obama talks after having elected (twice) a guy who couldn't speak WITH a teleprompter? Dumb.
Anyway, I hear Harriet Miers is looking for a job, maybe Obama will consider her.
On his worst day, Obama is miles more erudite than GWB was on his best day.
In the olden days, no Republican would have been so stupid as to get so far off message that they would leave such an obvious opening for criticism. Never criticize an opponent for something that your guy does worse. Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they kept on message and were clever about spin. Now they're criticizing how Obama talks after having elected (twice) a guy who couldn't speak WITH a teleprompter? Dumb.
Anyway, I hear Harriet Miers is looking for a job, maybe Obama will consider her.
Just a note to let "anon" know he/she is not alone. I have stopped posting because any valid argument is never addressed. Snide semantics are used by those who fancy themselves as intellects to twist and attack, rather than discuss or debate. My only hope is that all of his relatives and friends in the RW have advanced degrees and are liberal Democrats. Otherwise, they know that they and their opinions are not respected.
# posted by : 7:48 AM
: 7:48 AM
Look out ER, you're attracting a crowd of anonymous torch-bearers whining about your intellectual elitism! You know where that leads.
Snide semantics? I'm gonna have to think about that.
LOL. Most of my kin are rock-ribbed conservatives. And some oldtime racists, although not in my immediate family; it still floors me to hear "good" church-going people use the N-word so casually. Oops. My friends are a complete mixed bag.
Hear this: I have zero respect for some opinions, and yes, that does reflect on the people who hold them.
Racist opinions? Homophobic opinions? Warmongering opinions? Thinking-anything-to-the-left-of-Goldwater-and-Wallace-before-they-came-to-their-senses-is-socialist opinions?
They're bullshit. And the people who hold them are wrong.
LOL. Most of my kin are rock-ribbed conservatives. And some oldtime racists, although not in my immediate family; it still floors me to hear "good" church-going people use the N-word so casually. Oops. My friends are a complete mixed bag.
Hear this: I have zero respect for some opinions, and yes, that does reflect on the people who hold them.
Racist opinions? Homophobic opinions? Warmongering opinions? Thinking-anything-to-the-left-of-Goldwater-and-Wallace-before-they-came-to-their-senses-is-socialist opinions?
They're bullshit. And the people who hold them are wrong.
LOL! There is nothing elite about my intellectualism, such as it is. It's as populist as all get-out.
OK, OK, populist circa 1933, FDRwise and economicswise. OK, OK, and populist circa 1870s "free love" era, civil libertarianwise.
But elite? Not.
OK, OK, populist circa 1933, FDRwise and economicswise. OK, OK, and populist circa 1870s "free love" era, civil libertarianwise.
But elite? Not.
1870s "free love" era ????
__________
So, now the shoe is on the other foot. You guys have been calling me arrogant and elitist, pompously full of snide semantics, and unable to resist stamping down opposing opinions for months now.
I thank the Anonymous callers for inferentially recognizing that I represent the repressed wishes of the mainstays at ER.
I am the mascot. The herald. The chevron. The avatar.
It's hard being so far out in front. Few thanks do I get. But then God calls only a few to put on the embroidered robes and lead.
All in the service.
__________
So, now the shoe is on the other foot. You guys have been calling me arrogant and elitist, pompously full of snide semantics, and unable to resist stamping down opposing opinions for months now.
I thank the Anonymous callers for inferentially recognizing that I represent the repressed wishes of the mainstays at ER.
I am the mascot. The herald. The chevron. The avatar.
It's hard being so far out in front. Few thanks do I get. But then God calls only a few to put on the embroidered robes and lead.
All in the service.
Re, "1870s 'free love' ":
"Yes, I am a Free Lover. I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please, and with that right neither you nor any law you can frame have any right to interfere. And I have the further right to demand a free and unrestricted exercise of that right, and it is your duty not only to accord it, but, as a community, to see that I am protected in it. I trust that I am fully understood, for I mean just that, and nothing less!"
-- Victoria Woodhull
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull
"Yes, I am a Free Lover. I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please, and with that right neither you nor any law you can frame have any right to interfere. And I have the further right to demand a free and unrestricted exercise of that right, and it is your duty not only to accord it, but, as a community, to see that I am protected in it. I trust that I am fully understood, for I mean just that, and nothing less!"
-- Victoria Woodhull
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull
However, I would probably take that long to say I'm a "love 'em and leave 'em" type of guy.
If I were.
If I were.
I thought I was the most semantical and arrogant of all, but I don't rate even an honorary mention. I meed some claquers.
Back to the nomination;no matter who Obama puts on the bench there is no way to know with any certainty how they will vote. Consevative judges have a way of evolving into moderates and even liberals. Ask Ike about that. The younger the judge the more likely they'll evolve. The brighter they are the more prevalent they are to move toward comprimise. So it is a crap shoot.
Roll'em.
Roll'em.
But when has it ever happened the other way? Felix Frankfurter? Hugo Black? Not if judged by the whole of their service.
Post a Comment
<< Home
