Did Bush call them for the Alito appointment
--posted by Tony Garcia on 10/31/2005
The new appointee to the Supreme Court is Samuel Alito.
Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years," the president said.Actually, I heard that this is not the correct meaning of the nickname. I assume the blogosphere will correct that in time.
So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.
What I want to know from the people who so arrogantly opposed Miers because they were not consulted (Miers was not acceptable to THEM and thus everyone should oppose her) is DID YOU GET YOUR PERSONAL PHONE CALL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE GETTING YOUR APPROVAL?
I'm specifically asking Bogus Gold, Our House, Daly Thoughts, Kennedy v Machine (who seem less focused on the MN Senate race lately and more focused on being a party-lap dog), just to name a very small few.
The shame in having to call people out like that is of those 4 blogs I respect the authors of 2 of them very much--1 of them is a friend of mine--and putting them is such a spot can be tough.
5 Comments:
Gee Tony, you've done such a lovely job telling me my secret inner reasoning for opposing Miers, why not continue and provide my answers to this question too. If you'd ever like to engage in actual dialogue, brush up on basic manners first.
Calling someone to task for their empty discourse is not bad manners.
Let us see if I am wrong...
What is your position on the Democrats filibusters of Bush's judicial appointments?
As of the day of her announcement what specifically about Miers was worthy of opposition?
Since you requested that I answer the question posed in this posting for you I will oblige. You were not called, but since Alito is acceptable to your litmus tests you will forego the vacuous animosity towards the nominee.
It is easy for you to bitch about being called out, whine that I'm telling you your "secret inner reasoning" and point call me unmannerly all while avoiding the very underlying charges I have been making for weeks on this matter: intellectual dishonesty, elitism of liberal proportions and providing rhetorically empty discourse on the matter.
I'm not certain if you are responding to my criticism of your personal blog (which is one that I otherwise enjoy) or your collaberation which I believe has lost focus and credibility over the past few months...though the elite will not say so.
If you are here because of your collaborative blog I would like to know so I can refer you to Hour 2 of yesterday's show where we discuss that blog.
Tony, the moment you have demonstrated that you actually read what I wrote regarding the Miers nomination, rather than skipping to the conclusion and assuming the rest, I'll respect your opinion on the matter. The reason I object to you telling me what I think on the matter is that you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.
Looking at the poll you cite in the post above this, this "elite" you want to write off consists of about 1/3 of Republicans and conservatives. That is an electorally fatal number. I wrote a post explaining why a number as large as 1.7% was incredibly dangerous in a closely divided state like Minnesota. Your lazy generalizations not only don't address that kind of issue, you give no indication you've ever thought about it.
Tony, I have it on good authority that you're a very decent fellow. I suspect you don't even realize how insulting you come across sometimes. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, and doing so as strongly as you did here. I'd be happy to shout back and forth over beer about it. I like that kind of thing.
But if you run around telling people how much I suck without providing links for your readers to read my own statements about which you disagree, I don't see that as argument. It's an attack.
And, no, I wasn't responding to anything specifically about KvM. Though it is curious that you've never asked me any questions about it if its such an important topic to you. You devoted an hour of your show to it? Did you ask any of the contributors for input? If not, why not? We might seem terribly elite to you, but we're pretty easy to contact.
Tony,
At your recommendation, I listened to the segment of your show you recommended. It was another example of what I observed earlier - you didn't cite a single example of our writing. Yet you attacked in the most personal terms. You accused us of "attacking people like you" repeatedly. Easy to make that charge when you don't have to offer evidence.
It was a cowardly rant Tony. You could have invited any of us to speak for outselves. But it was easier to pretend we were too remote to get a response from, which isn't even true. Andy was on your freaking show the prior week.
Come listen to that radio segment with me in person some time. That's not a threat or a dare. No ill-will is going to be carried over. Bygones and all that. But I seriously mean it. It will be instructive.
The reference to KvM on the show was ad-hoc. It was a discussion that Marty & I have had a few times before.
The individual blogs (yours & Andy's...are the ones I read) are good on their own. But KvM has entirely lost focus of the Kennedy race. Reading the blog gives very little insight or inspiration to support Kennedy anymore.
It has instead utilized its position as a heavy traffic blog to belittle those who were against Ron E for GOP Chair...those who wanted accountability (or at least an explanation in front of the GOP convention) from Hoplin instead of rewarding him with victory.
It posted ad naseum about Miers and how bad she was from day 1...claiming the nomination (from day 1) was bad for the party. All the while there was NEVER any attempt to resolve the criticisms of Democrats blocking federal judges with the want for blocking Miers.
Considering only those 2 methods of presentation I have put into question my own support for Kennedy. The mood now for the average grass-roots person that I am (and that I talk to in my neighboring districts) is KvM (along with the GOP Eibenstiener/Hoplin supporters) think so little of the little people. They are either elite or elite wannabes and could not give a shit about anything but their own position within the GOP.
With that sense coming from the elite and wannabe elite I find the reflex is to read/hear what they say and realize that they are on the wrong side until proven otherwise.
My wife & I agree (with quite a few in her office, my office and our car pool) that if the election were today we would not vote for Kennedy based on what has come from KvM and the Eibensteiner/Hoplin supporters over the past several months.
In 2006 I may be voting a striaght write-in or Constitution Party ticket with only the exception of the 2 candidates I know personally and trust. The elite piss on the grass roots, assume they are the only ones who know what is best for conservatives and generally treat the rest of the non-elites like shit.
They are hypocrites. Examples:
1) party of accountability, yet don't say anything about CRNC, Hoplin's scandals, etc
2) Bush should be allowed to appoint whomever he wants to the bench, except if the elite wannabes do not like the appointment
3) very inclusive party, unless you are pro-choice, not a bible-thumping Christian, anti-tax, moral pushing person.
4) party about morals...except when it comes time to place Oliver North on a pedestal, circle the wagons around DeLay for his money laundering, want to ban casinos but allow poker tournaments
5) Anti-tax except when it comes to stadiums for the Gophers, Twins or Vikings...oh yeah, and the Wild.
6) Anti-tax boondoggle except for the North Star commuter rail
The list goes on and on...the examples of this philosophical hypocrisy from the upper echelon of the GOP is extensive.
So, this whole discussion began with you not taking kindly to my tasking you with a question...did you get your personal phone call from the White House? Aggressive? Yes. Snide? Yes. Different than the tone that has been taken against the Miers supporters (or the objective observers like myself)...not in the least. Was the question rhetorical? Yep, and I think the point was made.
But, Doug, I noticed that while taking issue with my rhetorical question you skipped the actual question:
What is your position on the Democrat's filibusters of Bush's judicial appointments?
Post a Comment
<< Home