Letters to the Editor
-
Move On
Since when can't a president be allowed to nominate the AG of his choice? If Ted Olson is not up to the task, or if he has a rap sheet a mile long, then fine, he should be so scrutinized. But if he is able and qualified, which Olson is, then let the President choose him. Charges that Olson is too partisan is a joke. This is nothing more than Congress dictating executive power. Who the hell do they think they are???
-
Ted and Hillary
It seems to me that Ted Olson's confirmation hearings would be a heaven-sent opportunity for Hillary Clinton to revive all our anger and indignation over the Arkansas Project Starr chamber inquisition. It's one thing to say, "Mr. Olson, wouldn't you agree that you went a little too far in the Whitewater and Paula Jones matters?" It's another to have the principal victim (in the public's eyes) either grilling Olson from a committee chair or testifying in the first person.
So, Bush might nominate Olson with the goal of strengthening Clinton over her rivals for the Democratic nomination, presumably because his (Bush's) handlers think Clinton's the weakest general-election candidate.
Just thinkin' out loud.
-
Hilarious
Loving the cries of outrage from the indignant right here...
The complaints about how "the President gets to pick his AG" and "Who do the Democrats in Congress think they are?" are just rich. (The President does get to pick. The Senate gets to confirm or reject. Seems easy enough to me.) This is almost as rich as the folks who say that if the Democrats don't let the President have his right wing nominees, Democrats won't get to have their left wing nominees when they regain power.
Newsflash for everyone: republicans aren't shy about exercising whatever power the constitution gives them - and even some that it doesn't. There is no way in hell that a republican congress or even a democratic congress would approve a nominee that the right considers "left wing." Hell, the congress wouldn't approve William Weld when he was nominated by Clinton to be Ambassador to Mexico and HE WAS A REPUBLICAN.
The simple fact is that repblicans are (quite properly, in my opinion) shameless about weilding the power they have. Democrats need to learn to do the same and reject lawless, power-hungry idiots like Olson with a smile on their faces.
-
dare? He will.
Mr. Bush does what he wishes. He believes in his rule.
-
Advice and consent.
Maybe the right-wingers posting on this piece would have been better served if Joe had included a remedial refresher on the Constitution within the article. If Bush doesn't want to seek sound advice - yet expects to have Congress consent to his choice, he better start using the brain God gave him (fat chance) and nominate a worthy candidate. I was just reading about Michael B. Mukasey who I would think is an excellent choice -- and I'm a solid, 100%, liberal.
-
Self Loathing Paranoia
I think that’s what you call it. I’d research the psychological basis, but I have nearly as much skepticism over psychology as I do over global warming.
We now know that Joe got it wrong, “wrong all the way” as he would put it. Michael Mukasey will be the nominee.
We also know that Amity, the salonista letter writer who stroked “Bush is constitutionally incapable of not pushing for Ted Olson”, also got it wrong all the way, . . . and Salon awarded her a star.
It’s hard to predict the future. Getting the Ted Olson story wrong would be easy to do.
What’s telling is the view of the future as seen by salonistas. It’s always a pessimistic view.
Cases in point:
1. The F-15 fighter is way over budget and will never live up to its billing. Reality: Air-to-air kill record of 103 kills, 0 losses. There are many, many examples of similar defense projects, ridiculed by the left, which eventually became examples of American can-do success.
2. Reagan is going to lead us into WWIII, the end is near. Reality: Cold war ends, US and USSR begin dismantling nuclear weapons.
2. We need campaign finance reform, limiting who can spend money and the amount they can spend on elections. Reality: More money is spent than ever before. Hsu, Soros, MoveOn.org (as well as right wing groups) can spend a bundle, others are silenced. So much for free speech. Hillary can undo her sins by simply returning the illicit funds, along with a note that says “please give it back”.
3. Global warming is one of the biggest threats we face and requires immediate action. Reality: I have a textbook in my home (circa 1970’s), written by similar bozos that states that we ran out of nickel 5 years ago.
Is there a single positive proposal being offered by the Democrats to improve our lives?
Can they sell that proposal without demonizing their opponent, or falsely inflating the threat?
If not, what does that say about their ideas, their leadership?
At first I thought it might be the dope, but now I think it that they are suffering from self-loathing paranoia.