Monday, October 03, 2005

I had it wrong.. in my post about harriet miers :(
Is all wrong.. if Bush wants to nominate Harriet Miers that's his right.. but wy sneak a liberal into the court? Why not just be honest and give the position to Hilarty R. Clinton? At least this way we know what we're getting?

I have heard that perhaps old GW doesn’t have the fight in him to nominate a Bork.. and that's just fine by me. But why nominate someone who goes with whatever political party can get her the furthest? Why put someone up who's sexuality can (WILL) be questioned? Is it that G.W. has some master plan? Some plan that we are too small minded to know about, or even be given a hint about?

I hope for the sake of the nation that the Republicans on the Senate Committee give this one a good once over.

It is this type of maneuvering against all common sense that makes me a political agnostic.. I don’t believe in any of them.

It is better for my stomach and anxiety level when politicos do the predictable.. this I have to say was in no way predictable..

Could it be that he (G.W.) is just trying to get some heat off by putting a liberal on the court, so he can go back to spending GUADZILLIONS on southern reconstruction and Iraq?

I am starting to doubt G.W.’s as a conservative? He may just be the latest in pro-government, spendaholics.. and I don’t care what side of the Lib/Con coin you are on, or what side of the isle you sit on, a spendaholic is not what we need right now.

I got an idea… let’s make stealing government money Treason.. that way we could shoot the people that are going to steal the reconstruction monies.. you know it is going to happen.. at least this way we could limit the out-and-out loss to government approved pork.

(I will say again.. I think we’re screwed Toto)

1 comment:

midwest_hick said...

I'm not sure why anyone considers him a 'conservative' any way.....he hasn't been fiscally conservative....and sadly we gave him 2 terms to show us this.