William Kristol on Miers pick:
By on Oct 3rd, 2005 at 10:45 am
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hmmm…if Kristol is against her, maybe we should be for her…
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:53 amI agree if Kristol is against her, maybe she will not be so bad.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:56 am#3 – UM – if you clowns haven’t noticed, this is big victory for you. Complete with Harry Reid’s approval. Bush f*d up, big time.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:06 amNED,
I’d just like to correct some language:
Didn’t you mean to say, “Bush f*d up again, big time. What else is new?”
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:21 amYou call it victory that we have a president who makes bad choices? A victory is when incompetent and or corrupt officials (Brown (check), Delay, Frist, Cunningham, etc pending) are removed from office. Since Bush can still appoint someone else or otherwise exercise the authority and power of the presidency, no victory here.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:21 amKristol has his ‘3-D’ response to Miers…booohooo.
William Kristol is complaining that Bush selecting Miers is a sign of weakness? He is one of the major proponents among the neocons for regime change in Iraq. The Iraq quagmire is one of the main reason for Bush’s weakened position. I don’t know anything about Miers but I know that Kristol is a sniveling backstabbing chickenhawk punk.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:26 amHmmm…if Kristol is against her, maybe we should be for her…
The enemy of our enemy isn’t necessarily our friend.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:32 amKristol would be piloting one of these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-20
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:34 amin a different era.
I nominate the incomparably competent,intelligent, compassionate and oh so sexy Anne Coulter as my Supreme Court nominee.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:14 pm#10 OH YACK!!! We don’t need Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court. She is a RUDE RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS NUT.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:34 pmVictory? I think not. Because he has managed to alienate everyone, except Rove? I want people in the courts that are well qualified and intelligent. I don’t want them to be politically minded AT ALL. I work in the law profession and know first hand that there are MANY great minds that deserve the job because of their hard work and respect of and dedication to the constitution. Hell, I work with one that would be a shoe in. And, BTW, he is rather conservative, although not a repub.
Cronyism is wrong – plain and simple. I, unlike these trolls, don’t want to just WIN; I want what is best for this country!! THAT, my friend, is patriotism.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:36 pmImagine, NeD, doing something for the country even if it means going against a particular partisan agenda of your own. Would you do that? Would you do what is constitutionally proper or would you just WIN for the sake of saying I WIN? Would you put someone in that position that agrees with YOU, as an individual, or would you choose the more qualified candidate?
Where does this fit in to your stance on affirmative action? By your own standards, NeD, doesn’t the most qualified deserve the position, no matter what color, religion, partisan identity, etc.?
I thought so.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:43 pmPP – she’s clearly not the most qualified person. She might be conservative, but it doesn’t matter – she is not nearly as quality as someone like Roberts, Scalia or a Janice Rogers Brown type.
This was a FLINCH. The left finally got to Bush. Unfortunately, they may really get him after the mid-terms.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:17 pmScalia and Brown are obviously on an agenda, a mission if you will, that surely skews their rulings. That is not proper in our most important court. Trust is crucial here. Another “Brownie” doesn’t make progressives happy. That is foolish thinking.
The left did not “get” to Bush. He doesn’t care who thinks what and never did. This is payback and you and I both know what he does is always about a bigger picture. We just may not know that exact picture after all, do we? He does nothing for the sake of fairness for all and equality in government. He does only for his personal agenda and that is what I despise about this low IQ nonthinker.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:14 pm“she is not nearly as quality as someone like Roberts, Scalia or a Janice Rogers Brown type”
Brown is qualified? Bahahahahaha!
NED made a funny….
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:29 pmHe goes only where Karl Rove directs him to go. We all know Bush has handlers.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:29 pmWho cares, William Kristol is part of the problem not part of the solution.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:40 pmRed Flag…..bushie wants her? I smell a rat. A right winger, posing as a moderate?….something wrong here folks. I bushie picked her there is A REASON in his favor. Tricking Democrats to not oppose her? A lepord DOES NOT change his spots.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:51 pmKristol is a Neocon and Mier is not yet seen to be as strong as he’d like.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:24 pmHe will jump on board as time goes on.
She is inexperienced (CRONY) she is Bush’s personal lawyer.
She assisted in cleaning up his AWOL record in Texas.
She is involved in the lottery scandal in Texas.
She is unqualified for the SCOTUS, but Bush wants loyalists — he is more concerned with his legacy at this point than anything else. He can’t be reelected. He needs someone to fix his image in history.
Besides she might know where all the bodies are buried.
P&P—— Payback for what?
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:49 pmHmmm …. Maybe George W. Bush has finally figured out how to be a true “uniter, not a divider”!
By doing something this puzzling, he’s got people from all different points in the political spectrum stopping our name-calling long enough to say “WHAAAAAAT???”
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:54 pmWouldn’t her testimony to congress give the Dems a chance to ask about Bush’s Guard duty since she worked that for him?
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:58 pm#23 No, it’s an open case!
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:20 pmPayback for her efforts at helping the Texas redistricting phenomenon. She was key in her role. She is a major corporate lawyer and I believe this is just yet another backscratching moment in history.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:46 pmIt’s really sad for us all that Bush uses all of us for his rewards to his loyalists, no matter that the unqualified are placed in high places.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:39 pm[...] William Kristol on Miers pick: “Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized.†[...]
October 4th, 2005 at 10:30 amReid approves because Miers is pro-life, LIKE HIM! Bet you didn’t know Reid was pro-life, eh?
Besides, she is a staunch, evangelical Christian and tried to get the ABA to move away from its pro-abortion position.
I would’ve liked someone (like Kristol says) with a Constitutional track record, but this is NOT a David Souter whom Bush 41 didn’t know at all!
Miers will be the next Scalia and/or Thomas.
October 4th, 2005 at 6:26 pm