Letters to the Editor
-
Too Old To Matter
Why are you bringing up something that happened all the way back in 1925? I mean, it's not like stuff that happened before 9/11/01 counts in current political discourse. (Well, except for Bill Clinton's blowjob.)
-
If you say it enough, it will become real
Yeeeah, seems that as the reality-based community is insidiously swaying the United States towards it's view of, well, reality, the White House continues to slide into fantasyland, where if you say something with enough emphasis, then it's true. I hate to uphold Godwin's Law here, but this brings to mind Hitler in his bunker, planning operations that could never be carried out with panzer divisions that did not exist.
We've spent the last seven years drifting in a strange alternate Universe where a fervent belief into something would somehow make it real. (Wait... that sorta sounds like the kind of "blind faith" advocated by religious fundamentalists.) And something tells me to watch out for a book by W. (coming in April 2009 to a bookstore near you!) which describes how our administration warriors were greeted as liberators in Iraq, showed those damn terrorists that you don't fuck with America, strenghtened our "moral values" and rammed through laws that make America great (such as taking the kid gloves off of the CIA interrogation squad).
Perrino is not solely at fault for saying all that crap. She is only a small part of the problem, just like one's mouth is merely the conveyance for all the lies germinating in one's brain. She's a symptom for a parasitic infection that has afflicted America for almost a decade now. We need some antibiotics, stat, before it would take a horrible invasive surgery to cure this disease.
-
It would be historic
It would be the first time Congress realized Bush is not the Emperor.
-
It would be historic AND unprecedented...
to quote Ms. Perino, if THIS Congress defined THIS President...
And Irving143 is right: why do you keep bringing up stuff that happened before 2001 and the blowjob heard round the world?? What are you? Some sort of accuracy freak?
-
It would be historic AND unprecedented...
to quote Ms. Perino, if THIS Congress defied THIS President...
And Irving143 is right: why do you keep bringing up stuff that happened before 2001 and the blowjob heard round the world?? What are you? Some sort of accuracy freak?
-
Revisionist History
is par for Bush's course. If the neocons "win" this political and cultural battle, my greatgrand kids wil never know the truth. They'll have to obtain a copy of and read the Hearld Tribune (if it's still in print) to read anything near reality...
-
Unpresidented
[snark] Unprecedented? Actually, Perino said "unpresidented." It's the new White House buzzword for whenever Congress challenges the notion of president as Unitary Executive Emperor.
Use it in a sentence: "The Congress' exercise of its legislative powers and duties under the Constitution is unpresidented. [/snark]
-
"Advice and consent" means SOMETHING...
...doesn't it, Ms. Perino? Maybe not to her, or Dubya, or others of their ilk -- but it means something to Americans.
Here's info concerning NINE Presidential cabinet nominees rejected over the years, copied from the U.S. Senate's own website: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm#8
(That entire webpage will be enlightening to today's ignorant administration lackeys, who evidently couldn't pass a high school proficiency test in civics or U.S. government.)
- - - - - - -
Cabinet Nominations Rejected
Name: Roger B. Taney
Nominated by: Andrew Jackson
Nomination Position: Treasury
Date Nominated: June 23, 1834
Date Rejected: June 24, 1834
Vote: 18-28
-------------------------
Name: Caleb Cushing
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: Treasury
Date Nominated: March 2, 1843
Date Rejected: March 3, 1843
Vote: 19-27
Note: President Tyler responded to the rejection by renominating Cushing twice on the same day, March 3, 1843. Both times, the Senate rejected the nomination, first by a vote of 10-27, and later by a vote of 2-29.
-------------------------
Name: David Henshaw
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: Navy
Date Nominated: December 6, 1843
Date Rejected: January 15, 1844
Vote: 8-34
-------------------------
Name: James M. Porter
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: War
Date Nominated: December 6, 1843
Date Rejected: January 30, 1844
Vote: 3-38
-------------------------
Name: James S. Green
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: Treasury
Date Nominated: June 14, 1844
Date Rejected: June 15, 1844
Vote: not recorded
-------------------------
Name: Henry Stanbery
Nominated by: Andrew Johnson
Nomination Position: Justice
Date Nominated: May 27, 1868
Date Rejected: June 2, 1868
Vote: 11-29
-------------------------
Name: Charles B. Warren
Nominated by: Calvin Coolidge
Nomination Position: Justice
Date Nominated: January 10, 1925; renominated March 5, 1925
Date Rejected: March 10, 1925
Vote: 39-41
Note: After the Senate rejected Warren, Coolidge renominated him on March 12, 1925. The Senate again rejected the nomination on March 16, 1925, by a vote of 39-46.
-------------------------
Name: Lewis L. Strauss
Nominated by: Dwight Eisenhower
Nomination Position: Commerce
Date Nominated: January 17, 1959
Date Rejected: June 18, 1959
Vote: 46-49
-------------------------
Name: John G. Tower
Nominated by: George Bush
Nomination Position: Defense
Date Nominated: January 20, 1989
Date Rejected: March 9, 1989
Vote: 47-53
-
Let me explain it to you slowly... like a parent talking to a three year old...
Ms. Perino,
While I realize that you are working for a group of people that are used to getting their way, and are not inclined or even comfortable in following the rule of law, it should be pointed out that the Congress thinks that the next Attorney General should, in fact, be dedicated to following the rule of law.
I can understand how this seems like a foreign concept to you, but there was a time when the rule of law was to a greater extent followed by people in government. I can see how such a requirement by Congress could cause you dismay. But, your boss has made his legacy in ignoring the constitution, international law, common sense and common decency. So, there is a presumption that anyone nominated for anything by your boss, will only continue to enable him to disregard the rule of law.
So, Dana (can I call you Dana?) please bear with our little quaint system of checks and balances. It is fragile and nearly destroyed by your boss... but it is still, in theory, the rule of law. Besides which, there are plenty of Bushies who are still holding office, and will do everything they can to get your bosses choice installed as the next Attorney General. For, you will see, this check and balance thing at the moment, is really just for show.
-
Not a microscopic rejection rate
According to Wikipedia, there have been 80 Attorneys General. According to RichEmery, there have been two rejections of Attorney General nominees. That's a 2.4% rejection rate (2 out of 82). Not big, but not microscopic. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that it's higher than the average rejection rate of all federal nominees.