Sunday, October 09, 2005

Still More Evidence of Cronyism in Bushland



I was trying to find a link to one of my favorite news shows when I ran across this article posted on Media Matters for America. The New York Times article explores how Harriet Miers worked a dual role after being appointed by Bush to head the Texas Lottery Commission, which was supposedly suspected of shady dealings. It looks as though some of the questionable activity centered around an employee who had information about Bush's own shady National Guard experience. Here's a clip:

"Allegations about political favors playing a role in Bush's National Guard career first arose in the midst of a lawsuit filed by Lawrence Littwin, the former executive director of the lottery commission who was both hired and fired during Miers's tenure. Littwin had reportedly been investigating what he considered improper political contributions made by Gtech, a company which had a contract to run the Texas lottery. In his lawsuit, Littwin claimed that Gtech pressured the commission to fire him by threatening to reveal that the company had paid lobbyist Ben Barnes $23 million to keep Barnes from publicly claiming that he pulled strings in order to get Bush into the Guard.

In her capacity at the commission, Miers was directly involved with Littwin's dismissal in October 1997. Littwin's lawsuit claimed that after he began looking into financial ties between the company and Texas lawmakers, Gtech pushed Miers to fire him [Houston Chronicle, January 6, 2001]. After a federal judge in Texas ruled that Miers did not have to testify in Littwin's lawsuit to provide an explanation for why Littwin was fired, Gtech settled Littwin's lawsuit for $300,000.

Subsequently -- and while still serving on the commission -- Miers was paid $19,000 by Bush's re-election campaign to investigate his National Guard record in order to "identify potential vulnerabilities early on and deflect any charges that Bush got favorable treatment," according to a July 17, 2000, Newsweek article. Newsweek reported that Barnes's allegations were a key part of Miers's investigation. That would mean that the Miers investigation -- and therefore Bush himself -- potentially benefited from Miers's knowledge of and involvement in the lottery commission."

Everybody knows Bush had preferential treatment with his National Guard stint. First, to get in at all - and later to cover the fact that he was AWOL while out campaigning for his dad. Harriet Miers appears to be a Bush loyalist first and foremost. No wonder he trusts her so much.

Conservative pundits like Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative rag The Weekly Standard characterized Miers' nomination to the high court 'at best an error, at worst a disaster' which should be reconsidered. 'He (Bush) has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction.'

George Will, with whom I hardly ever agree (except for our shared love of baseball and the Cubs) called for the Miers nomination to be turned down by the Senate. Here's a clip from his Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post:

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

Thank you, George, for your eloquence. But will GW listen? I doubt it - so we'll be subjected to an awful dissection of this poor woman at the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course, the evangelicals will say she will have been persecuted for her beliefs. But, to be sure, this nomination should go down in flames due solely to the fact that she is nothing more than a political crony who is clearly not qualified to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

11 Comments:

At 5:20 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

M. Goodman writes:

"Everybody knows Bush have (?) preferential treatment with is (?) National Guard stint. First, to get in at all - and later to cover the fact that he was AWOL while out campaigning for his dad."

No, everyone doesn't "know" that. What is funny is that you think it matters. Lol. Bush will not be running for a third term and though you like to state your opinion as though it is proven fact, you cannot prove that this had anything, whatsoever, to do with Bush nominating Harriet Miers.

Yer tew muych, M. Goodman.

 
At 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

M. Goodman is as entitled to his educated opinion, as you jacke are entitled to you uneducated opinion, bad typing and futile attempts at insulting people that can think for themselves rather than quoting biased sources. Do you have someone wipe your ass for you as well? Because you obviously can't think beyond the retoric of the GOP. Recent polls show that a lot of people are now caring about what damage the Shrub is doing to this country--too bad it's too little too late--Now the rest of us (liberal democrats and others) are left to clean up the mess you all startedd, the same way we did after Daddy was finally booted from office.

 
At 1:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way, I know there are typos, I just figured it would make the posting easier for you to read. (You shouldn't throw stones unless you are ready to have them tossed back at your head.)

 
At 3:06 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

Anonymous, I would never suggest that Mr. Goodman has no right to form his opinions. Whatever gave you that impression? I support everyone's right to have their respective voice heard. A good argument is one of the best ways to educate oneself, imo. I find, through the challenge of a good debate, I learn more than I would if left to my own devices.

There certainly are a wealth of biased sources on the internet from both sides of the aisle. I think one should read a little of both in order to form their own opinions. If my quoting sources in order to make a point bothers you, I'd say that's a personal problem.

I seem to be reinforcing my belief that liberals do not like anyone to disagree with them by reading and commenting on Mr. Goodman's blog. Lighten up, wood ya? Lol. Don't you agree that everyone ought to have a right to have their voice heard? Or is that reserved only for those who agree with your political agenda? :)
You have a nice day.

 
At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a difference between having ones own opinion and attacking others as racists, etc. Using quotes are a good way to reinforce one's ideas, but when they are presented as your argument it looks like you can't think for yourself. Fortunately for us we live in a country where everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but conservatives seem to want to take that right away. Enjoy your freedom of speech.

 
At 4:06 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

Well, I'll tell you "anonymous" calling a black man an "Uncle Tom" because he votes on the Supreme Court like the conservative he is is something that I consider racist. Further, I would be willing to bet you that if a Republican had called Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans an "Uncle Tom" for any reason, the liberal media would be all over that Republican calling him a racist.

Calling a black person an Uncle Tom or an Aunt Jemima because of their political views is an effort to silence them and belittle them for their beliefs, period. In short, who is trying to silence who? Look in a mirror. You have nothing to say about that, instead excoriating me for pointing out the double standard which exists in our country.

If you have something to say against my argument, say it, personal attack is not a form of debate. Implying someone is unable to wipe their own a** is not debate. If you want to defend Goodman's position that Justice Clarence Thomas does not think for himself but bases all of his votes on what Scalia does, then prove it, if you can't prove that then it is an unsubstantiated claim, based upon absolutely nothing but racism, IN MY OPINION. You are more than welcome to change my opinion by providing evidence to support Goodman's claim.

And, yes, I certainly do enjoy my freedom of speech, more than I could say, thankfully the likes of you cannot silence it.

What has been amazing to me is that a person would set up a blog and then, he and his "friends" resent the fact that a person might comment upon their thoughts. Why have a blog? Doesn't Mr. Goodman hold a room full of students hostage to his thoughts as it is? Seems to me that would be satisfactory. I would think someone with the brilliant mind of a school teacher would welcome dissenting thought and debate. Am I wrong?

I am local to the Springfield area myself, I thought it would be nice to check in on some of the other local blogs in town. Whew! I had no idea how unwelcome I would be! :0

 
At 12:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

jacke, you are only being responded to in the same way you present your arguments. Look back over your comments and tell us you were not intentionally being insulting. If you want to talk about double standards maybe you yourself should look in the mirror. It is apparent that you are not just "checking out" local blogs, from the comments I have seen you leave here and elsewhere it is obvious that you are looking for people to argue with, not an even exchange of ideas. I think it is YOU that is not interested in what anyone else has to say but only the thoughts of yourself and your "friends." That is what your blog is for.
I'm not out to convince you of anything and frankly wouldn't waste my time in trying to do so. But I also have the right to expres my opinon-or wait is that right just reserved for you, tish and the other conservatives? I've lived in this area long enough to know that my opinions are in the minority and that is fine with me because I don't have a problem thinking for myself and not just following the bandwagon. And by the way I don't see anyone trying to silence your free speech--your comments are still posted are they not?

 
At 3:21 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

Anonymous, not that it will matter to you, but any statements I made, I made because I believed them to be true.

Not once in your reply did I see anything which addressed any of the comments I have had concerning Mr. Goodman's original post. Not a single one of my posts have been a simple attack on anyone's personal beliefs, political or otherwise, rather they have been a disagreement with his or your viewpoint in regard to the subject being written about.

Your latest entry is simply a personal attack, there are no replies to any of the legitimate comments I have made. If you cannot see that, there is nothing I can do.

I have no doubt that if I had called a Black person an Uncle Tom or an Aunt Jemima because I held the opinion that they were following blindly after another's political beliefs that others would call me a racist, moreover, they'd be right.

You nor Mr. Goodman have answered any of the questions I have raised or any of the comments I have made regarding the actual topic. I take that back, Goodman at least originally made an effort, you have not.

Don't worry. I don't plan on being a "troll" at your favorite blog site. I have much better things to do. It is clear to me that there is no chance of legitimate exchange of ideas here. I find this is often the case when dealing with liberals, I genuinely hate to generalize about people, but you, indeed, fit most of my experiences with liberals. If you ever decide to visit my blog and comment on any subject you find there, you are most welcome.

Sincerely,
Jacke

 
At 10:30 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

Ya know, Anonymous, I've been thinking about what you said. Perhaps I could have been a little more diplomatic in the way I said what I said. I don't regret the "racist" comment. I still think it was a racist remark but I shouldn't have called attention to Mr. Goodman's spelling and typos. For that I humbly apologize.

I think we should all consider that, in attacking a political party, some of those belonging to that particular party may take offense at those words. Mr. Goodman certainly cuts Bush no slack nor anything he does, that's apparent. The leftist bias is very evident. He also seems to be somewhat anti-Christian. I think in such a case that maybe he, and inadvertantly you, should not be surprised at receiving a response such as I gave.

You are correct, tones were set from the beginning. My tone was set by the tone I perceived coming from Mr. Goodman and your tone was set by the tone you perceived coming from me.

I'm willing to accept my portion of the responsibility for our heated exchange.

 
At 1:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is unfortunate that our political system is designed as such that we are put in the position of "attacking" our neighbors over differences of opinion. Of all the problems facing our country, isn't it a shame that partisan politics keeps us from moving forward? The name calling only exasperates the situation.
I'm not surprised at any of the labels/insults that people fling--it's just disappointing. I'm sorry for aggravating the situation. Jacke, I fully respect the fact that you have an educated, articulate opinion, even if I don't agree with it. If I didn't agree with Goodman on some matter, rest assured I would let him know about it. ;) It's probably a good thing I don't have time to have my own blog!

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Jacke said...

What say we try this again sometime? You know, fresh start?

...and you're more than welcome to visit my blog anytime!

You might even find I'm not so bad after you get to know me a bit.

:)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home