Rambling Rhodes

Ryan, while I enjoy the Onion-esque humor your timing is bad, Lehey said today that he believed that Gonzales would be appointed attorney general and that he hoped Gonzales would rectify the ambiguous nature of Ashcroft's stance on prisoner torture. Not all us Dem's are protestors.

e., my post was just to point out that, at this point, actual Bush appointees to, oh, let's say, Supreme Court posts, will be contested, no matter what. I'm not sure the Gonzales post can be contested. I'm pretty sure it can't be, seeing as how that's not up to congressional review, I don't think (I may be wrong). I was posting more toward the Supreme Court appointees, whoever they may be.

I was mostly being silly. But read it as you will.

Ryan, are you sure Bush didn't eat it?

Ryan, why would Democrats in congress oppose a Supreme Court nominee who they considered suitable, when backing a Bush appointee could earn them tons of political capital for use in other issues, like gun control and social spending? Especially in light of the fact that, as the minority, they could very well lose the fight over a nominee-- which would strengthen the public perception that Democrats have been effectively marginalized and cost them political bargaining potential in future efforts?

If a Bush nominee is suitable the Democrats have a million good reasons to back that nominee-- not least of which being that an effort to block a suitable nominee will almost certainly be subverted by centrist Democrats who would see an opportunity to gain connections on the other side of the aisle by refusing to support redundant obstructionism.

So if the Democrats don't back a Bush nominee, you might want to consider the possibility that they're doing it for reasons other than political pettishness.

Points taken, Joshua. I shall never try to be flippantly silly again.

Except in that last comment, eh, Ryan?

Gonzales is the guy who advocated ignoring the Geneva Conventions on torture of prisoners. He comes off as a pretty cold and mean bastard.

But at least we won't have to watch him sing, badly, like Ashcroft did. Bah!

And I'm seconding Amelia's comment, I think Bush ate it. But only after excitedly running to show "Uncle" Dick what he found.

Ryan, you said, my post was just to point out that, at this point, actual Bush appointees to, oh, let's say, Supreme Court posts, will be contested, no matter what.

I was responding to that point. It had nothing to do with your flipancy or your silliness. If you'd said, "I was just being silly. I don't really think the Dems will be reflexive obstructionists," I wouldn't have felt any need to respond.

Sorry. I shall never assume there is substance underlying your humor again.

K, Josh, I'll bite. First off, what do you think the hot-ticket issue will be for any Bush SCOTUS nominee? I'm betting abortion. Now, although I'd agree with you that the Dems in Congress, if left in a bubble, would no doubt follow the course of action you put forth. Abortion rights lobbyists, however, will put amazing pressure to bear against any nominee that even smells of even ever having had a thought about limiting abortion rights. So, yeah, I think you'll see a lot of reflexive obstructionism going on, not so much because they'll necessarily want to, but because lobbying pressure will be brought to bear hard, perhaps harder than at any point in history, if this election was any guide. And, the Dems, at least recently, have had a tendency to listen to the loudest voices, not necessarily the majority of voices. Unless they just magically learned their lesson after Nov. 2, which I kinda doubt.

Magic doesn't have anything to do with it; the losses in Congress are unsustainable. Democrats know it.

Part of my point in responding isn't to defend the Dems' honor-- my point is that you're scripting the narrative. So if the Dems object to someone you can go, "Bah! Stupid obstructionist Dems!" But the Dems have very little to gain and everything to lose by blocking a SCOTUS nominee: loud lobyists can only do so much to get you reelected. At some point, you have to face the political realities of the situation, and I think many Dems are doing that after Nov. 2.

I enjoyed the humor actually, just pointed out that you posted it on one of the only days of the year the Dem's chose not to contest a nominee. Joke on!