there are some images that ought not be invoked, even through utterance…
there are some images that ought not be invoked, even through utterance…
If I had a cite, I wouldn’t have said “I could be wrong…” 
I remember hearing this on a Harball show awhile back, but it could be that it’s a matter of interpretation as to whether or not a rules vote can be subject to a filibuster. If that’s the case, guess which side will win?
to deconstruct the process a bit further, the real action will bein the seven republicans of the gang. If the dems can peel off three (cause, remembetr, cheney breaks ties)to vote against cloture on the debate of the parliamentarians overrule of Cheney’s ruling closing debate on the nomination, the nomination goes down
so the field of play becomes the defnintion of “extraordinary” as per Olympia Snowe. Lincoln Chafee, and one more who Iwish we had…
Maybe Susan Collins
oh shit.
I need remedial arithmatic. The dems need to peel of SIX. We are truly and righteously fucked…
From the Britannica bio of William Howard Taft: “The son of Alphonso Taft, secretary of war and attorney general (1876–77) under President Ulysses S. Grant, and Louisa Maria Torrey, Taft graduated second in his Yale class of 1878, studied law, and was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1880.”
My choice would be Anita Hill. Do you think she has a chance?
parenthetically, it appers that the britannica still has a substantial edge over the peoples’ encyclopedia…
Eh?
“Fucked” because the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is getting to actually choose a judicial nominee?
Yes, that IS unfair.
My answer to the OP: Emilio Garza.
I did a little googling, but didn’t find anything. However, if you think about it, a rule change must be exempt from unlimited debate. Otherwise, why would the Dems need to worry about the nuclear option-- they could just filibuster it. Why did they need to get the 7 Republican Senators to agree to vote against the rule change?
I think we can safely assume that it would not be possible to prevent a vote on a rule change by the use of a filibuster.
who said it was unfair? They stole it, fair and square.
That said, the party in control is controlled by a faction of raving loonies;it is a pure embarassment that the dems are reduced to singing the praises of the filibuster, a strategy of odious history.
Here is what glimmer of hope I can muster…
The reasonably conservative faction signals that they are not willing to threaten the future of the Republican Party to pay off Bush’s campaign debt to the Troglodyte Right. Honest persons all, they feel somewhat guilty at letting the Bushviks run wild. Being loyal Republcans, they will not oppose so much as gesture, sort of political body language. Gee, wouldn’t it be swell if the White House could propose a moderate?
If GeeDubya chooses to nominate Cotton Mather, he is saying that the Dobsonistas rule! dude! and the future of the Republican Party depends on genuflecting to the Trogs. Given the stubborn arrogance of the Bush admin., I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
But if cooler heads prevail Bush will nominate a relative moderate. One who has already been bitterly criticized by some on the extreme right. A Catholic, perhaps? Boy, hispanic would be pretty good. But with solid conservative credentials. And somebody from Texas! The Saudi Arabia of America, home to some of the more extreme fundamentalist capitalist sects.
Wherever could they find such a man?
Of course, maybe he was too tough on terrorists. He’s been criticized for that, not being nice to people who hate America. The liberals are sure to bring that up. That’s just how they are, always eager to attack someone for loving America too much.
(Reposted from parallel thread. If there’s some rule about that, mea fuckup)
Our Dutch newspaper mentioned Gonzales as a possible moderate candidate …
they are slahering the lipstick on that pig, aren’t they? Almost makes you want to kiss him, but, naah.
In the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Emilio Garza.
I don’t know about moderate, but Bush is defending the candidate from the right wing smear machine:
Bush: ‘Tone Down’ Attacks Against Gonzalez
Over in the thread about “What would be the practical effect of overturning Roe v. Wade?” there’s been considerable speculation that such an eventuality would cripple if not destroy the GOP because it would politically galvanize the majority of Americans who support (in a general way) abortion rights (“To the barricades! The wall has been breached!”) while letting the air out of the religious right’s political campaign (“We won! Roe v. Wade has been overturned! We can all go home now!”)
If this is perceived to be so by Rove and his buddies, look for them to push Bush in the direction of a moderate.
If possible, they will try to make it look like they were pushed toward the moderate candidate. They were, once again, determined to do God’s work but were betrayed by back-stabbing, so called “centrists”. The call will go out to the loyalist cadres “Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more!” “Another election or two, and we will have the absolute mandate we require!”
Would the Dobsons and the Bauers looks at the Brown Surprise on their plates and cry aloud “Yummy!”? And if they get pissed, will the Bushiviks be able to direct that anger in a politically expedient direction? Towards what remaining rational consevatives still persist, until they stand out like a Unitarian in Hell?
We live in interesting times.
And yet again the Pandarus Politicus faction of the GOP has a direct object lesson handed to them…something about believing that rabid attack dogs will never go back up the leash at their handlers…