The main theme of today's WaPo White House Briefing is "the upcoming Supreme Court nomination will finally answer the question of just how conservative and ideological President Bush is." This encompasses both Froomkin himself and the various articles he excerpts from.
Um... hello? Where have these people been for the last five years? When has Bush ever shown himself to be any kind of pragmatic moderate in anything other than rhetoric (and even that is still pretty rare)? Haven't they paid any attention at all to Bush's other judicial nominees? The only possible nominee who is not ridiculously hard-right is Alberto Gonzales, thanks to his unwavering loyalty to the President, but the prospect of nominating someone so blasé about torture and indefinite detention without trial is not exactly cause for celebration.
My only question is whether Gonzales would be an upfront sacrifical lamb, setting the stage for a hard-right nominee without a record of cheerleading for torture (*unenthusiastic hooray*); or whether he would be packaged as the moderate, "compromise" nominee after some ridiculously unqualified raving right-wing gargoyle has been shot down. Either way, I think we're pretty screwed when Abu Gonzales is the best that we can hope for.
6 comments:
Bush is conservative?
Well, you know, in the hard-right-fascist sense of the word...
what I love is that Gonzales has absolutely NO record whilst on the bench of the Texas Supreme Court.
I doubt he could even see over the desk.
when editing at Jones McClure, i would come across opinions written by "gonzalez." i always thought that was our good friend. now i think i am mistaken.
Gonzales doesn't need a record. It's enough to know that he'll vote however Bush wants him to vote.
In a totally moderate kind of way, of course...
"What Are These People SMOKING???"
Ditto!
Post a Comment