Pandering the Base

I have to admit I was caught a little off guard with the right wing, neocon reaction to Harriet Miers. This has really exploded, or imploded. Check out redstate.org just for a glimpse of their reaction.

Personally, and these are my opinions here...CLICK CONTINUE READING!...I would like to see someone with a little more experience. Miers has never been a judge before. Sure she’s an attorney, which means she goes where the money is, and sure she’s argued liberal issues and conservative issues before a judge; but she is not a judge. I don’t know the history on this, but how many non-judges have been placed on the Supreme Court?

Dems are quick to point out that Miers used to be a Democrat and she still has that independent thinking ability that Democrats love to think they have a monopoly on, but Miers giving money to Clinton and Gore mean nothing. If I’m not mistaken, she gave them money during a primary, which sometimes Republicans give money to the person they want to come out of the primary for benefit of their chances in the General Election. Democrats do it too, so I shouldn’t be so labeling on that matter. Donating money for primary purposes is not the telltale sign that it appears to be. I'll get back to my opinion analysis a little later, because I want to get onto my point of writing this post.

Something that is very telltale is Cheney’s appearance on Rush Limbaugh’s show this morning. Because of the backlash the Bush administration has been receiving from its base, the neocons thought it necessary to turn on their machine, and Cheney went to work.

This from Limbaugh, credit to Media Matters:

LIMBAUGH: Let me jump right in on the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. Mr. Vice President, there's a lot of concern out there among the president's supporters that her judicial philosophy is unknown. Because, obviously, she's not been a judge. Do you know what her judicial philosophy is? And how can the public be convinced -- the president's supporters be convinced -- that it parallels the philosophy of [justices] Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, as the president had said, during campaigns, was his objective?

CHENEY: Right, well I'm confidant that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you would be comfortable with, Rush.

Now wait just one minute Mr. Vice President. What in the hell does that mean? These quotes from Limbaugh’s morning show deserve answers. If the VP of the United States can go on a talk show and relate the president’s agenda to the conservative judicial philosophy of Rush Limbaugh then it all should end right there. Why should the Vice President have to reassure some drug-addicted wacko that the new nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States shares the same philosophy?

Is this the judicial philosophy of Miers:

If so, then the vice president or the president should hold a press conference and announce it to the nation. Don’t circumvent the press by going to your fake journalists while flipping the rest of us the bird. This backdoor George Bush leadership is old. The public should know the judicial philosophy of Miers. Is Cheney willing to now go on liberal and independent talk shows and say exactly what he said to fat ass? This is our country people. Let’s have some ownership. Demand better.

This is serious stuff and Cheney should be made to answer to the public and not just pander the base. Enough is enough.


EAPrez said...

Was 'blog surfing' and came upon you blogged. I have bookmarked it but would love it link it from my own blog, Details, if that is ok with you.

EAPrez said...

PS you should put your one.org thingie on the left instead of the right...where its at now -- it disables the "NEXT BLOG" feature.

Chris said...

To answer my own question in the post, I have found out that it is rather common for non-judges to be selected for a Supreme Court Justice position.

I still contend that I would rather see someone with more experience. Cronyism has never appealed to me.

Alice: In Wonderland or Not said...

I didn't realize that one did not even need a legal degree to be appointed to the supreme court until I just was trying to look up your question; the one you answered for yourself. I also didn't realize how many prior appontments had not had experience in a judiary capacity.
Ya learn something every day.

Well, the base is obviously getting smaller if they had to resort to Limbaugh.
Does this indicate desperation? I certainly don't know.

I feel the people on the supreme court should be extremely qualified and have brilliant yet open minds.
I'm not sure she fits the bill.

Girl on the Blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Girl on the Blog said...

How sad all this has become when our own VP feels he has to reach the nation on Limbaugh. Also, Cheney seems to always "beat around the bush" (no pun intended)on a lot of questions he doesn't want to answer and/or doesn't know how to answer. We as the USA deserve better than this...

As for Miers...I agree with alice's comment... "I'm not sure she fits the bill".

OnShakedown said...

Thanks for the comment on my blog. Have you heard the theory that Meirs is a "decoy" nominee? I've just heard this thrown around a bit, but haven't found any smart commentary about it.

avereragebusinessman said...

I agree that we should have very high standards for these appointments.

I have heard nothing about a decoy theory but I am lacking in news today.

Cheney on Rush: I find it odd that Cheney would bother.

M said...

Not sure about the "decoy" thing. If his defense of Miers is an act, it's a pretty convincing one. :-)

I agree with averagebusiness man on the Rush thing. I'm surprised that Cheney would do that. I thought Rush never had guests???

Chris said...

Alice, I was shocked too. I do think it is a form of desparation, but the Limbaugh listeners are also their base. I don't see how Bush & Co. get away with this. If they can go on neocon hate radio and define the judicial philosophy, then they must be made to also go on mainstream media and do the same. Thanks for reading.

girl, I'm iffy too.

Chris, I have not heard that theory. But I do agree with businessman and mjs that it's probably not true. Thanks for reading.

businessman, I find it very odd too. I suppose that's my whole point. Why would he bother?

MJS, I think Rush has guests sometimes, but I really don't know. I'm not a fan, the guy's nuts.

Thanks to everyone for reading.