Local time where you're at. ("Where you're at"?)

Okay, did John-boy F’n Qetchup-ass and his pet “shove it” bimboid T’Raisin don “W” & “Laura” outfits and go occupy the White House while we weren’t looking?

I mean, it’s bad enough that President Linguini-ya is off nominating less-than-fully-qualified folks for the Supreme Court like he is.&#160 But to have Laura, one of the more intelligent First Ladies we’ve had in that house for a while, say what she said in defense of her husband’s nomination…well, it just makes one wonder.&#160 I mean, this is honestly something I’d’ve expected to hear come from the rum-raisin-laden mouth of the Widow Heinz.

First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.

Gee, Laura, that’ll be news to Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, y’know?&#160 Then again, would you mind telling me why in the Hell&#153 a Republican First Lady, generally thought to be a borderline conservative at the very&#160 least, is suddenly throwing around the sexism card like it was craps at the casino?&#160 Last I checked, conservatives were supposed to be the ones who didn’t care about the race or sex of an individual, but rather on achievements and accomplishments.

Weren’t we?

“That’s possible, I think that’s possible,” Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC’s “Today Show” whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers’ accomplishments as a lawyer made her a role model to young women.

Well, that’d be just peachy, Laura – if,&#160 as has been pointed out on several other blogs, I were looking for a mere lawyer.

But weren’t we searching for a Supreme Court associate justice?&#160 Did I miss that memo?

A week after President George W. Bush nominated Miers for a lifetime appointment to the highest U.S. court,

Okay, lemme sidetrack here for a second.&#160 WaPo, we know already that a Supreme Court appointment is generally for life, okay?&#160 Chief Justice Rehnquist painfully reminded us of that a couple months ago when he died.&#160 Quit pandering to your leftist, below-average-intelligence usual readership and let’s not waste space and newsprint stating the obvious, okay?

Thank you.&#160 We now return to our regularly-scheduled First Lady-bashing…

he remained on the defensive against conservative critics within his own Republican Party.

They say Bush missed a chance to pick an experienced judge with clear conservative credentials who would firmly move the nine-member court to the right on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and church-state separation.

“Just because she hasn’t served on the bench, doesn’t mean that she can’t be a great Supreme Court judge,” said Bush, whose job approval ratings have sagged below 40 percent for the first time ever in recent polls.

No one is saying that, Shrubya.&#160 What we’re saying is that we expected a better nominee than Harriet Miers.&#160 We expected someone of the caliber of a Scalia or a Thomas – someone like Miguel Estrada or Michael Luttig or the aforementioned Jones, Owen or Brown.

Given that the Republicans control the Senate&#160 – or had you forgotten that? – we expected something more than a compromise pick, which is clearly what Harriet Miers is.&#160 We expected you to go to the mat for the people who put you back in the White House for the second term that eluded your father – and you and your fellow country-club RINOs have told us conservatives once again&#160 what we could go do with ourselves.

Although some conservatives have supported the nomination of Miers to replace retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, others have suggested Bush withdraw it and submit a new name, an appeal the president rejected last week.

Fine with us, Waffleya.&#160 They’re your&#160 midterm elections, after all…

Mrs. Bush, who had publicly supported the nomination of a woman to the high court, noted that Miers had been president of the Texas Bar Association.

“I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she’s broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country,” she said.

Yeah, well, Laura – there’s no glass ceiling to break here, and like I’ve already said – we’re looking for a qualified Supreme Court associate justice…not a “role model”

Slight difference there.&#160 Suggest you go back to that library of yours and research it, hm?

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: limits in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: groupby in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: limits in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: groupby in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: Theme without comments.php is deprecated since version 3.0.0 with no alternative available. Please include a comments.php template in your theme. in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4027

One response to “Laura:&#160 Helping Shrubya defend the indefensible”

1. WaltDe says:

   August 31, 2006 at 8:56 pm

   Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe