Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My...What?

Like the GOP base, I'm all in a dither over Edith Miers. On the one hand, I like the name Edith. On the other hand, she kind of disgraces it. And she reminds me of my third grade teacher, but in a bad way (in case she is reading - I will always love you, Mrs. Fea.) Bush might as well have nominated his third grade teacher. There is barely any difference. Granted, who among us wouldn't have done the same thing? If I ever become President, I too want to be able to place all of my friends and family in positions of power, just like Vito Corleone did. Now, I just don't know whose side to take in this internecine fight. On the one hand, I know that the religious right (just like Ayn Rand) are always wrong. It's almost an axiological certainty. And they oppose this nomination. So, taking my cue from them as always, I support it, right? This seems to be the thinking of many Democrats, who would probably put Satan on the bench if they thought it might bug the Republican majority. And if Miers nomination is defeated, who's next? After all, these conservatives have been saying they oppose Miers for not being conservative enough! I don't relish the prospect of seeing the arch-torturer Alberto Gonsales on deck, or the rightist lunatic Janice Rogers Brown. Maybe having our family realtor interpreting Constitutional law for the next generation isn't such a bad idea. On the other hand, what an absolute toilet of a judge. Does Miers even, like, have any idea what she's doing? Does she even know which way the robe goes on? This is going to be like sitting through Legally Blonde III for the next twenty years. And the thought of seeing Bush out there in the courtroom passing her winks about how to rule turns my stomach as well. It's kind of like we're seeing the very worst and the not so bad of Bush cronyism at the same time. On the one hand, it's so blatant, it makes you want to cry. On the other hand, it's so inept and stupid it makes you want to laugh. I mean, is there anybody left from Crawford that Bush hasn't given a federal job to yet? Couldn't Bush find some work for the former grounds-keeper of Ameriquest Stadium, or maybe his old plumber? We'll know we're at the end of the Bush administration when the President runs out of nicknames for his relatives and old college buddies. Or maybe, as Dr. Strangelove would have it, the end of the world. ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." "Yeeeee-haw!")


Alcluith said...

Thanks for your comment - glad you liked the photos! The platypus's origins are explained here...

Isabella di Pesto said...

I don't get the "Edith."

She's Harriet Ellan Miers.

Edith, as in Edith Bunker?

In any case, I guess George Bush believes even mediocrity needs representation on the Court.

ts said...

weazoe, i think you're falling into the "bush is a stupid chimp" trap. and about miers ... you should think she's brilliant for being part of the team that's got bush where he is. they can't all be idiots, right?

weazoe said...

You're 100% right, Isabella. I was getting her name mixed up with the two "Edith's" Bush was supposedly considering for the nomination. I feel like a fool.

Regarding whether Bush is a stupid chimp. I agree with you that that's a dangerous trap to fall into, but sometimes it's almost unavoidable. What brilliant scheme is Bush plotting by stashing his lawyer on the bench? Isn't this a little obvious for the greatest political mind of his generation? And if he's so diabolically smart, why does this nomination look like it's doomed to fail? Unless the whole controversy is just a trap to bait Democrats? That's what I mean that I can't figure any of it out (obviously - I don't even know the damn woman's name.)

Isabella di Pesto said...

I think Bush's nomination of Miers is a case of the changing of his handlers. Rove is busy defending himself in the Grand Jury, so Bush made the decision to go with Miers probably without Rove's input.

That's what I've read and I do believe it because his choice is so off the wall.

Miers is not a distinguished jurist. She may have broken through glass ceilings and she may have done a lot of pioneering as a woman in a man's world, but that doesn't make one qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

I still can't understand how Bush could have been so utterly wrong on this important nomination. He's split the conservatives over this. Strange.