![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Hat tip to the rude one
The Rude Pundit's take on the Wingers backlash against the Miers nomination:
'Cause, even though, and, c'mon, the chances of Harriet Miers being some lefty who's been playin' rope-a-dope with George W. Bush since the 1990s are about the same as Donald Rumsfeld admitting an error, it's a blast to watch conservatives go ballistic that Bush didn't nominate Johnny Fuckyerrights, a Pepperdine-educated ideologue who has personally beaten a "confession" out of a "terrorist" and then shoved aborted fetuses back into wombs after chainsawing down an old growth forest just to make a single copy of a book on intelligent design that can be sold by Halliburton at a thousand-fold mark-up to poor school districts forced by law to teach it. And, what the fuck, he's black.
Here's the National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru (which, strangely, is also the name of the Rude Pundit's favorite Sri Lankan dish) on CNN's Newsnight last night: "I think it's a missed opportunity for the president to nominate somebody and get them confirmed who's a solid conservative with a track record and a known quantity, who has given us some evidence that she's thought seriously about the role of the judiciary in our society." Ponnuru (which is also the Rude Pundit's favorite Kama Sutra position) said that, as William Kristol commented, conservatives are "demoralized."
And then Ponnuru joined the party liberals have been having for about, let's say, four and a half years now: "[T]he argument that the administration making is, this was a good decision because the president made it and the president makes good decisions. And that might be enough for a monarchy, but it's plainly not a persuasive argument in a democratic system." Which used to be called "questioning a President at a time of war" or "treasonous" or some such shit when it was the rest of us who asked Bush to actually persuade us that he's right. Hey, National Review, welcome back to America - now why don't you help clean up the fuckin' mess you made?
'Cause, even though, and, c'mon, the chances of Harriet Miers being some lefty who's been playin' rope-a-dope with George W. Bush since the 1990s are about the same as Donald Rumsfeld admitting an error, it's a blast to watch conservatives go ballistic that Bush didn't nominate Johnny Fuckyerrights, a Pepperdine-educated ideologue who has personally beaten a "confession" out of a "terrorist" and then shoved aborted fetuses back into wombs after chainsawing down an old growth forest just to make a single copy of a book on intelligent design that can be sold by Halliburton at a thousand-fold mark-up to poor school districts forced by law to teach it. And, what the fuck, he's black.
Here's the National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru (which, strangely, is also the name of the Rude Pundit's favorite Sri Lankan dish) on CNN's Newsnight last night: "I think it's a missed opportunity for the president to nominate somebody and get them confirmed who's a solid conservative with a track record and a known quantity, who has given us some evidence that she's thought seriously about the role of the judiciary in our society." Ponnuru (which is also the Rude Pundit's favorite Kama Sutra position) said that, as William Kristol commented, conservatives are "demoralized."
And then Ponnuru joined the party liberals have been having for about, let's say, four and a half years now: "[T]he argument that the administration making is, this was a good decision because the president made it and the president makes good decisions. And that might be enough for a monarchy, but it's plainly not a persuasive argument in a democratic system." Which used to be called "questioning a President at a time of war" or "treasonous" or some such shit when it was the rest of us who asked Bush to actually persuade us that he's right. Hey, National Review, welcome back to America - now why don't you help clean up the fuckin' mess you made?