The Fifth Horseman: GOP Opposition To Miers

Thursday, October 06, 2005

 

GOP Opposition To Miers

I don't want to sound obstructionist, or anything, but.....

Woo hoo! It warms my Liberal heart when things go wrong for Dubya.

This time, Dubya's agenda has been running into trouble in the form of Chickenhawk opposition to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

And not just any Chickenhawks...this nomination is meeting scorn from the big, fat, bloated Chickenhawks. Like Trent Lott. From the La Times:
On Wednesday, skepticism about Miers' nomination came from some GOP senators who normally are party loyalists.

"There are a lot more people — men, women and minorities — that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is," Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said in a television interview. "I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent [to the Senate]…. I have to find out who these people are, and right now, I'm not satisfied with what I know."

Lott's sentiments echoed those of a number of fellow conservative Republican senators, including John Thune of South Dakota, George Allen of Virginia and Sam Brownback of Kansas — all of whom are thought to harbor presidential aspirations.

I couldn't help but notice Trent, the most racist Senator in Washington, inserting "minorities" in there. Cute Trent, very cute. But not very believable.

But that doesn't detract from the main point: many in the Chickenhawk Brigade don't like Bush's nominee. That pleases me.

In other news, Bob Herbert penned an excellent column today, discussing the inherent racism of the GOP's power base. Here are some of his best turns of phrase:
Just as the Democratic Party would have been crippled in the old days without the support of the segregationist South, today’s Republicans would have only a fraction of their current political power without the near-solid support of voters who are hostile to blacks.

When Democrats revolted against racism, the G.O.P. rallied to its banner.

And, this one:
Bill Bennett’s musings about the extermination of blacks in America (it would be “impossible, ridiculous … morally reprehensible”) is all of a piece with a Republican Party philosophy that is endlessly insulting to black people and overwhelmingly hostile to their interests.

Excellent...simply excellent.

Hats off to you, Bob.

Comments:
Oh, yeah, simply excellent. Pul-eeze.
This column by Herbert would have been even more interesting if he had thrown in a paragraph about why Bennett's speculation - about what would happen if the thing Bennett described as morally reprehensible - actually took place was factually incorrect. But, no. Herbert, as always, is satisfied to preach only to the converted. The unfortunate, inconvenient fact that crime rates differ by race is not even explained away. He is the least interesting columnist in America, IMHO.
Atwater, by the way, was a very conflicted man, being as he was gay and all.
 
Well, Bennet was right on one thing: crime rates would go down if every black baby in the nation was aborted.

However, they would also go down if every white baby was aborted, as there would be fewer people around.

Bennet singled out blacks purposely. A racist through and through.
 
He may not have addressed the issue in his column, but if you go to the freakonomics blog, after "[controlling] for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide."

"In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement."

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/09/bill-bennett-and-freakonomics.html
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?