Is this possible? Bush nominates an unqualified crony lacking certifiable conservative credentials to be Associate Supreme Court Justice. The nominee is devoured by the right while the left holds on to their political capital, and money. The nominee is destroyed by the presidents own party giving him the opportunity to nominate someone else at just the moment that indictments come down. Now he's able to nominate a conservative which the press will see as politically necessary though regretful. This nominee is backed by a solidified GOP but abhored by liberals who are now forced to fight a two-front war against the nominee and indictments, and perhaps tax-cuts and Social Security reform. The nominee is resoundly defied by Democratic senators leading to a fillibuster showdown that the president wins. Thus leading to the following storyline: "President Bush won nomination for Priscilla Owens today after a brutal fillibuster showdown led to Senate Republicans using the "nuclear option" and bolstering the second-term of a presidency that had been tainted by charges of scandal and corruption."
Time will tell.
The debate over Miers -- really just a debate over abortion -- obscures the real problem of this issue. Before Roe v. Wade there were abortions and, were it repealled, there would continue to be abortions. It is a human problem in which laws are only one abrogating mechanism. If the point of one side is to end all abortions, and the the other is to retain individual freedoms, then the true aim of each side should be to diminish the need for abortions.
The passions surrounding Row so muddy the thinking about this problem that sensible policies are avoided. Make it easier for women to not get pregnant, period. Advocate for ex education, free birth control in all forms, greater elligibility for the morning after pill, which prevents pregnancy, on one side and; because pro-lifers have an ethical grounding in their view that the fetus is or becomes human, eliminate abortion after the first trimester.
Why must this be an either-or issue? Not because it is ethical, but for political reasons. Not only that politicians use this issue to divide electorates but also because the more radical groups on either side are not willing to give any ground for fear that by doing so, the national consciousness will shift against them. If late-term abortions are banned, pro-choicers fear that most Americans will be little affected and thus prone for more restrictions. If birth control were expanded and abortions declined, pro-lifers fear that America would view this as making headway and eliminating the need for a total ban.
If there was ever a time for horsetrading among politicians isn't this it? Is it not possible to create a bill that gives up ground on both sides leading us toward a more ethical and also more effective policy on this issue? Absolutely, but not so long as politicians and people take a hard line either for, or against, abortion as opposed to abortions in general. (Note: This echoes thoughts from a column I read, I believe, in the WaPo that urged addressing abortion as a problematic issue.)
From The AP via The Note: Former President George Bush (41) offered some timely words on what it's like to be a political player in a scandal engulfed Washington, DC.
"Asked by Simpson what was his toughest time in public service, Bush said it was chairing the Republican National Committee during the Watergate era."
"It was terrible," Bush said. "I remember one shoe would drop, and then in the press another shoe would drop."
Bush recalled that the Democratic chairman at the time, Robert Strauss, who was a friend of both Bush and Simpson, called and said the GOP job was like "love with a gorilla."
"I said, 'What are you talking about,'" Bush said. "And he said, 'Well you can't stop until the gorilla wants to.' That's exactly how the job felt. Every time you turned around, there was some other scandal, some other exposure, some other thing that happened."
From WaPo: "Now, even as high gasoline prices continue to anger motorists and aggravate financial problems at General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., the oil companies have begun to report record quarterly profit. Yesterday, British energy giant BP PLC reported a $6.53 billion third-quarter profit, up from $4.87 billion in the same period last year. And tomorrow, analysts expect Exxon Mobil Corp. to show that it earned nearly $9 billion over the past three months -- the largest corporate quarterly profit ever."
I'd say we should reenact the Boston Tea Party with oil drums but I'm thinking that would be ungood for certain reasons.
Snow is falling outside my office right now...and it's only October.
Sick, tired and the weather forecasters are expecting snow by possibly the end of the week. All is lost.