Sunday, October 09, 2005

Our Girl Harriet


President Bush managed to piss everybody off with this one. The Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination has been roundly panned by pundits from virtually the entire political spectrum. I can almost see GW smirking after he and his trusty advisors came up with this one. This ought to throw everybody for a loop, yuk, yuk. One thing I've got to hand GW, he has shown an uncanny ability to top his daddy when it comes to boneheaded presidential moves. The elder Bush at least had the good sense to avoid a protracted war in Iraq after Desert Storm, while Boy George boldly ventures forth on a misguided crusade to build a democratic state in the heart of the Middle East. Is that conservative? Seems like I remember W criticizing the Clinton/Gore administration for their "nation building" in Bosnia. You don't hear much about Bosnia these days. I guess it depends on your point of view about this nation building concept - if a Democrat is doing it, it's nation building, if a Republican does it, it's fighting tyranny and spreading democracy. Of course, it also helps if the proposed construction site has a fair amount of oil under the surface and your administration is tight with big oil.

Daddy Bush appointed legal lightweight Clarence Thomas to the bench in what many regarded as a cold, cynical move that would force Democrats to oppose a black nominee. I wonder, has Thomas ever voted independently of ideologue Scalia? Ever written an intelligent opinion? He did serve a huge role in casting one of the votes that put Bush's son in the White House. So, the appointment did pay a quick dividend politically. Do you recall how Thomas characterized his contentious nomination process as a high-tech lynching? After viewing his service on the court so far, I guess it could be fair to similarly characterize his ideological obedience as good old-fashioned Uncle Tomism.

In George Bush we have the same man who asked us to trust him as he spread fear and loathing about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as a rationale for an unprovoked invasion. Turns out the intelligence was bad - wasn't his fault (never is). This is also the man who appointed a totally unqualified Michael "yer doin' a heckuva job" Brown to lead FEMA. (Brown had been commissioner of the Arabian Horse Association, which at least symbolically represents the abundance of horseshit GW has cast upon the American public.) And now . . . he gives us his girl Harriet, former White House secretary and personal legal council. She has virtually no record, no court experience, didn't appear on anybody's list of the top 100 (1,000?) candidates - but not to worry. Our fearless leader knows her heart. Trust him on this one. She'll never change, he assures us. Shew, what a relief. One thing we do know - she is a born again Christian, which, in political terms, is nothing more than a blatant signal to the GOP's conservative base that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when the opportunity presents itsself. She will, of course, refuse to talk about that during the hearings.

In the five years that have passed since the Supreme Court awarded Bush the presidency, could anybody, even his harshest political enemies, have calculated how poorly he would have performed? I wonder how many years it will take to undo the damage this administration has done to the country and our standing in the world. But back to our girl Harriet. I doubt seriously that Bush will withdraw this ridiculous nomination. I just hope the Senate has the guts to vote it down. It'll be interesting to see who stands tall and who bends over.

12 Comments:

At 2:07 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

M. Goodman writes:

"I wonder, has Thomas ever voted independently of ideologue Scalia? Ever written an intelligent opinion? He did serve a huge role in casting one of the votes that put Bush's son in the White House. So the appointment did pay a quick dividend politically. Remember how Thomas characterized his contentious nomination process as a high-tech lynching? After viewing his service on the court so far, I guess it could be fair to similarly characterize his ideological obedience as good old-fashioned Uncle Tomism."

I see RACISM is alive and well in the Ozarks. Have you ever accused a liberal leaning Justice of only voting to follow the ideology of the other liberal leaning Justices on the court?

In the recent case on the eminent domain issue, Kelo v. City of New London, were all of the liberals at the Supreme Court honoring our constitution as our founders intended? Justice Scalia and Thomas voted against the government seizing personal property to hand over for private use simply because it would increase tax revenue. Were you in favor of a City being able to take your personal property just so they could hand it over to a developer? These are questions to be considered.

I'd like to think that Supreme Court Justices are following an interpretation of the American Constitution and not mingling it with foreign legal cases, as well. We need more strict constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. If Harriet Miers turns out to be a strict constitutionalist I will support her and I was quite proud that Thomas voted against the City of New London in the Kelo case.

Were you one of the one's who laughed when Condoleeza Rice was called an "Aunt Jemima" when Bush appointed her as Secretary of State?

I did not, nor would I ever call a black man an "Uncle Tom" simply because I disagree with his ideology.

 
At 2:32 PM, Blogger RSmith said...

Okay, I disagree with his political ideology - actually, I don't think he has one. I've always regarded him as a political opportunist who hitched his wagon to some politicos who ushered him to high office. He just checks out what Scalia and follows in lock step - as you corraborate. In the context of his own racially charged "high tech lynching" comment before the Senate committee, I don't think the Uncle Tom comment was out of line. In fact, here's a confession, I actually stole the comment from a friend of mine who happens to be black.

 
At 4:49 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

M. Goodman writes:

"He just checks out what Scalia (?)and follows in lock step - as you corraborate."

I corroborated (with three o's) NO such thing. You state your suspicions and opinions as though they are all proven fact, sir. They are not. I am certain that if, and that's a big if, Thomas votes the way Scalia votes on every case that there is another reason for it than the simple fact that that is the way Scalia voted.

Further, I'd suggest to you that if you'd like to continue in the luxury of calling certain "black" people your friends, you might want to leave the "Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemima" labeling to them. Unless of course, *you* are a member of the Black community, in that case, you'd just be an a--hole.

 
At 5:23 PM, Blogger RSmith said...

Thanks for catching my typos. Thanks also for the advice, but I've somehow managed to carry on with some nice relationships with all manner of people from various races and sexual persuasions over the course of the last forty years or so. However, only my closest friends can call me an asshole. Now I'm offended.

 
At 9:41 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

I'm glad you consider me as one of your new closest friends, Goodman. :)

No, I'll tell you what I find offensive is that many people still try to hold back black people by insisting that any time a black person excels in any field in America he is considered to have sold out. That's sad but, alas, it seems to be the tool of the Democratic Party in relation to black Americans. Keep telling them your party will give them everything they want, don't deliver on it, in the meantime lie blatantly about the Republican party being comprised of only rich people. Yep, that bad old "man" that wants to keep them down.

In reality is the Democratic Party who is playing them and at the first whiff of one of them stepping out of the box, he/she is an Uncle Tom or an Aunt Jemima. All those who practice such tactics, black, white, red, yellow or sesame street green ought to be ashamed of themselves. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. :)

 
At 10:46 PM, Anonymous Soprano2 said...

I see you've made the big-time of blogging -- you've picked up your very own troll! LOL

As for Thomas and Scalia, they're joined at the hip--when Scalia sneezes, Thomas says "Excuse me".

 
At 11:00 PM, Blogger RSmith said...

Explain to me how the Democratic Party hasn't tried to represent minorities. Virtually every piece of meaningful legislation created to erase institutionalized segregation, guarantee minorities the right to vote and a fair shot in the workplace over the past fifty years has been passed over the vehement objection of the GOP. That's basically how the Democratic Party lost the Southern white vote. If you honestly believe that nearly 90% of black voters have been duped into supporting Democratic candidates, I guess you could also buy the argument that the 80% block of Christian evangelicals have been duped into supporting the GOP. Actually, there's probably some truth to that one, since Bush and his inner circle actually have very little real conviction over issues like abortion and faith-based initiatives. They're playing them Christians like a fiddle while the tax breaks for their buddies roll in like a love offering. Can I get an Amen?

 
At 11:16 PM, Blogger RSmith said...

Thank you Sister Soprano - somebody out there actually agrees with me. And thanks for not pointing out my typos, too.

 
At 9:58 AM, Anonymous Jacke said...

Cute, Goodman.

I gave no percentages, said nothing in regard to Democratic efforts to "represent" Black Americans and wasn't discussing past history, rather, what I was referring to is the exploitation of Black people by the Democrat Party. Since you want to feign ignorance about it, and since I'm busy "trolling" around (I thought I was commenting on a blog which I supposed might be interested in other's opinions, could I have been wrong? Could the owner merely be engaging in a cerebral massage which welcomes only agreement?) I have provided some reading material for you:

From this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-12-15-oppose_x.htm

QUOTE

"Every time Democrats become desperate, they incite African-Americans, and we in the black community foolishly rush to their aid.

It is injustice for the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and NAACP President Kweisi Mfume to call for Lott's resignation when less than two years ago Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the third-ranking Democrat and a known former Ku Klux Klansman, referred to some white people as "White Niggers" repeatedly on a news show."

END QUOTE

From this link:
http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/6.22/001109-once.html

QUOTE

"Gore...was stone silent on issues such as urban investment, health care for the uninsured, fixing lousy inner-city schools, racial profiling, affirmative action, the obscene disparities in the criminal justice system, and the Clinton administration's racially-marred drug policy -- a policy that has more than a million black men and women warehoused in America's prisons for mostly non-violent, usually petty, drug-related crimes.

But in the final few days of the campaign, with the election on the line, Gore did the predictable. He made like Clinton and turned up at black churches, preaching, praying, belting out "We Shall Overcome," and dancing with his wife, Tipper to a gospel choir bellowing, "Oh happy day." "

..."Clinton hustled off to black neighborhoods to fire up the faithful. He led spirited chants and cheers for Gore at black churches, in parking lots of predominantly black shopping centers, on street corners in Harlem, Oakland and South-Central Los Angeles the weekend before the vote...."

END QUOTE

(So much for that separation of Church and State liberal Democrats are always crying into their porno mags about).

Here we find:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8418

QUOTE

"Take blacks for granted? Democratic candidates, almost on cue, troop down to black churches around election time, precisely so that no one argues that the candidate takes blacks for granted."

and:

"Recall Sharpton began his career by falsely accusing a former assistant district attorney of rape. Sharpton's M.O. is simple: blame the White Man; blame the System; continue a status quo defense of government schools; bash the police; demand handouts, programs, set-asides, loans and grants for "the disadvantaged."

The Democratic Party says to blacks, "You're a victim. We're here to help." Does Sharpton have the guts to turn to his party's leadership and say, "Stop treating us like victims"? When and if that happens, some will wonder whether Al's been drinking Jim Jones' Kool-Aid."

END QUOTE

Oh, and don't forget Howard Dean's quip that if this was a Republican gathering the only way they could draw this many Black people would be by inviting the service employees. (paraphrased).

I'll be happy to provide more if you are finding yourself unsatisfied. :)

 
At 7:56 PM, Anonymous Tish said...

Yes, Sister Soprano, it is so unnatural for conservative constructionists to vote in the same manner, isn't it? *eyeroll* How odd that the "tolerant, loving, can't we all just get along" Left peg the black guy as the stupid one.

 
At 8:08 PM, Anonymous Tish said...

You're taking creative license with history, Mr. Goodman, when you say, "Virtually every piece of meaningful legislation created to erase institutionalized segregation, guarantee minorities the right to vote and a fair shot in the workplace over the past fifty years has been passed over the vehement objection of the GOP."

In reality, the most comprehensive, life altering legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was supported by the vast majority of Republicans. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than did Democrats. If you'll remember, Senator Grand Kleagle Byrd wore himself out filibustering that particular legislation.

In fact, throughout history, it has been the Democrat Party which has shown the most hatred and contempt towards blacks. History has, somehow, been revised to suggest that all those racist Democrats left the Democrat Party and joined the Republicans. Liberals toss that out as though it is irrefutable fact. Not one, however, has been able to provide the names of more than THREE Dixiecrats who made the switch to the "racist" Republican Party. Would you like to give it a shot?

Racism exists in both parties, though it seems to be more en vogue to lambast one party while giving the racists in the other a pass and a pat on the back.

Have a nice day.

 
At 1:58 PM, Blogger Jacke M. said...

I thought of you when I came across this article, M. Goodman. :)

An excerpt:

'Party trumps race' for Steele foes
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 2, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home