I don't really get your joke, but this one doesn't.

Oh, I wasn't directing my comment at you. Rudey and I have an ongoing debate on this topic. We sit on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum.
I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I agree that African Americans need to start playing the political game both in terms of voting and in terms of back channels. While AfA's are only 13% of the population, they are capable of changing elections because in many areas they are highly concentrated. AfA's tend to vote disproportionately less then they appear in the overall population, in contrast to Hispanics who vote disproportionately more in many areas. Personally, I think that they would benefit from voting more. Period. But I also agree with you that there should be more AfA centered issue PACs and other money contributing venue. EMILY's list has made a huge difference in the number of women in elected offices. I similar organization could do a lot of AfAs.
I do know that the social conservatism of many AfAs has made them feel forced to vote Republican because of social issues. However, I don't think voting republican is the answer. I agree that the republican party blames the poor for their own situation and isn't looking to meaningfully help them. And if wealthier AfAs defect to the Republicans both with their money and their votes, whatever safety net there is for the poor in this country will be gone. The people who don't need the help have to put their money and power behind maintaining the government safety net and even expanding it, because otherwise it will be gone.
Truthfully that is one of the reasons I am so vehimently pro-choice. I personally don't care if Roe is reversed for me. I have excellent access to birth control and I live in New York, which legalized abortion before Roe was decided. My life isn't going to change, if Roe is reversed. But I fight for all the women who live in states where if Roe was reversed there would be no access to legalized abortion. I think many issues the AfA community face have a similar dynamic. The ones with the power, money and education have to speak for those who don't have those blessings.

Coming back to the topic:

This was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Conservatives don't like her and some Democrats do.

Some Liberals and Conservatives Find Themselves in Awkward Spots

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ax.xlarge1.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/po...l1/04reax.html

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - In a topsy-turvy moment in the Capitol, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate, stood alongside Harriet E. Miers on Monday and had only kind things to say about her selection by President Bush for the Supreme Court.

Mr. Reid called her "a very fine lawyer," said her lack of judicial experience was "a plus, not a minus" and pronounced himself pleased that she was a trial lawyer. "That's what I am," he said.

For Mr. Reid, who suggested two weeks ago at a breakfast meeting that Mr. Bush consider Ms. Miers for the Supreme Court, the selection may have been a personal triumph. Evidence that, perhaps, a Republican president took to heart some advice from a Democratic leader.

Mr. Reid was not the only person saying unexpected things. The selection of Ms. Miers, a close confidante of Mr. Bush who both sides say has been a trailblazer for women in the law, turned politics inside out on Capitol Hill, where she quickly began her courtship of senators.

Conservative Republican stalwarts who had ardently defended the last nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., were strangely silent. That is an indication that Ms. Miers could face trouble from the right, which has demanded a nominee with a record demonstrating a willingness to revisit Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision.

Democrats, intent on preserving their right to block Ms. Miers even as their leader came forth with effusive praise, sounded cautious, yet oddly relieved.

After a year of partisan infighting over Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, Democrats had insisted that he not send them any candidates who had been blocked by filibusters. Several Democrats had also asked him to name a candidate from outside the judiciary, advice he apparently heeded, said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I talked to President Bush this morning," Mr. Leahy said in a telephone interview from Vermont. "He well remembered that I had raised the point that he should look outside the judicial monastery. I said: 'Yeah, you're the first one who listened to me. I made the same recommendation to President Reagan and President Clinton.' "

While Republicans like Mr. Cornyn were polite in their praise, the most conservative Republican senators were mostly mum. One ardent opponent of abortion, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, issued no statement. Another, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, said simply that he wanted to know more about Ms. Miers. Senator John Thune of South Dakota said he would "reserve judgment."

-Rudey

Funny how you're arguing with something many political scientists have pointed at.

But then again you never, ever have facts - just accusations and smoke.

-Rudey
--Pooooof

I saw that; it seems like many conservatives were hoping the President would choose someone who has a more conservative record. It is very interesting to see the response to the nomination; it's not exactly what I would have expected.

Rudey, I am thinking abor becomeing Tree Huger from Your Posts!:(

God, Get with Real Life! All are shit for brains and You want to folow them?:rolleyes:

Dah,

Give Me Fred Dalton Thompspn for President!

Ok- back on the topic- I am one of those Dems who doesn't mind the Miers nomination. For once, I am not dipleased with old Dubya. She may turn out to be a Souter, she may turn out to be a Thomas- but I feel better not knowing that she is a Thomas instead of knowing for sure that she is.

agree wholeheartedly.

And I am one of those Republicans that feels we can do better and is willing to put up a fight.

-Rudey

Lol, so you're happy being blissfully ignorant?

If you want to break my post down to that....okay.

However, a more discerning understanding of what I am "happy" about is as follows: I expected Bush to appoint Clarence Thomas reincarnate. I expect whomever Bush appoints to actually reach the Court as Republicans run the Senate. As such, I am "happy" that he did not appoint an open Clarence Thomas. No matter what Miers is or is not she is not an open Clarence Thomas which means that when issues come before, even if she has an inner Clarence Thomas, she can still be swayed AND save face. She doesn't have to live in Scalia'a azz as C.T. does because she hasn't made her name that way.

I am also "happy" that she could actually end up like a Souter. Now that is a long stretch, but definitely wouldn't be a possibility if Miers were CT #2.

So, to summise, I know that Bush is not going to appoint a Breyer - Bush clearly is no Clinton. I know I am NOT going to be crazy about whomever Mr. Pres. appoints. So, realistically, as I am not going to love whomever he appoints, I am "happy" that he either appointed an

a) an unknown with the heart of CT, but who is not a public CT2 so can actually consider the opinions of other judges and not just have to stick to her guns because she was appointed specificaly because she was a CT2; or

b) an unkown who may turn out to be more liberal like Daddy Bush's Souter; or

c) an unknown somewhere in between.

Seeing as she is a woman who worked through school and didn't just skate by on daddy's money I am willing to bet "c" is more likely- and I am "happy" about that, because out of my realistic choices- I'll take a "c" over a CT2 any day.

I'd be happy if she was just an O'Connor reincarnate or somewhere thereabout. I was alright with the status quo.

Girl, I'd be ecstatic if that were the case.

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ons/index.html

I can't say I'm shocked by this news.

not shocking at all. I thought she would have withdrawn her nomination weeks ago.

They predicted on the Today show this morning that she would do it just before the indictments came down in the Rove case so that it wouldn't be big news for long.

Good.

Now let's get a nominee that's been a conservative on record.

-Rudey

Bush's next nominee will be his house maid from Crawford -- both hispanic and female I hear.

But only if she can prove to be a documented worker.

Tacky, Very Tacky, but may be more truem than many of Us Poor Reps can or will ever beleive!:confused:

Who in the Hell is giving G W Stoopid Pill for Breakfast?:rolleyes:

If His damn Ego is that Big, We all have a Problem!:rolleyes:

Yes! A Rep. but wondering!:confused:

Don't worry. Halliburton will provide documentation at a cost of $50MM.

-Rudey

Rudey, the Problem is That You are So Damn Correct!!!!!!!!!:)

Shits and Grins on the Prices That We are paying for Items!:rolleyes:

God, Give Me an Open Ended Contract! So Da.!!!;)