What we have here folks is a case of the Cat-on-a-hot-iron-stove syndrome. You know the old saying of Mark Twain that a cat who, having once sat a hot stove, will never sit on another hot one--nor a cold one either.
Yep, conservatives got burned with the David Souter fiasco, nominated by George H. W. Bush and we don't want to get burned again. Sooooo, conservatives are about as nervous as a poor boy about to ask a millionaire for his daughter's hand in marriage.
But Miers is no Souter. Just like 'W,' she had a life transforming meeting with Jesus Christ years ago and it transformed her politics, too, from Democrat to Republican. She teaches a Sunday School class for third graders at her evangelical church. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she bravely tried to get a rescension of their official endorsement of pro-abortion politics. Souter's biggest claim to conservatism was that he liked to climb mountains.
Souter was unknown to Bush 41, who nominated him through the recommendation of others: then Chief of Staff John Sununu and then U. S. Senator from Vermont, Warren Rudman. Sununu was later fired, in part, over Souter and Rudman has proven himself no friend to conservative Christians. Papa Bush never was a big friend of Christians either, let alone someone to profess, openly, a significant faith in Christ, like his son does with such sincere fervor. That is a big difference.
There is a another perspective of the way these two nominees have arrived at their nomination. While Bush 41 nominated Souter from the recommendation of others, Bush 43 rendered his choice by his personal and long time political/business relationship with Sister Miers.
It is apparent that Miers is no Souter, because "W" is not his father. ¶ 8:33 PM 12 comments
Tom Delay, US Congressional Representative R-Texas temporarily stepped aside from House Majority Leader's Post last week.
Pundits and political enemies want to make something big out of the indictment against House Majority Leader Tom Delay, but American citizens instinctively seem to know this is politically motivated, prosecutorial abuse of power. That is what Rasmussen's polling data shows: Overnight people's opinion of what was unfolding in the indictment has swung Majority Leader Delay's way. Rasmussen found that "On Wednesday night, 43% said the charges were based upon the facts involved while 31% said they were politically motivated.
"On Thursday, following a full day of news coverage, 37% said the charges were based upon the facts while 39% said they were politically motivated."
Hmm, "interesting, but not so funny," to quote Arte Johnson, an old Laugh-in regular.
This could be bad for Tom Delay, since the GOP, to their credit, passed a rule that any House Representative under indictment must step down from any leadership posts in the House pending its outcome. His temporary displacement may make it hard for Tom, the Hammer, to REplace his replacement.
This ethics measure was self-imposed by House Republicans, when they gained the majority in 1994, in response to the Dan Rostenkowski scandals during the Democrat's majority. In C-SPAN's Booknotes review author Richard Cohen is credited with writing that the rise and fall of Dan Rostenkowski mirrors the rise and fall from power of the House Democrats in 1994. Indicted for Corruption, Conspiracy, Mail Fraud and Bribery, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of Mail Fraud and plea bargained to a seventeen month sentence instead of a twenty year sentence with which the mutliple charges could have nailed him.
Despite Rosty's indictments for corruption, Democrats refused to discipline him in any way. When his was convicted for corruption, he only was ousted from congress by the wisdom of the voters in his district in 1996.
The GOP's rule change is a good thing, but Delay's flimsy indictment is not in the same league with the numerous felonies that sent Rostenkowski to jail.
PowerLine notes Delay's objection that the indictment does not pass muster by virtue of its lack of specificity: "Article 21.11 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says, in part:
An indictment shall be deemed sufficient which charges the commission of the offense in ordinary and concise language in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is meant, and with that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged..."
Enter the wisdom of the Average American Voters who know hypocrisy when they see it; they always have the last word. They will be asked how they fell about it in the only opinion poll that really matters: election day.
And that's The Daily REView from John T Johnson.
The Embattled Mike Browne
Former Fema Director testified today on capital hill about the fiasco of Hurricane Katrina. Last year he oversaw the diaster relief in Florida necessitated by five, count 'em, FIVE major storms: Bonnie, Charlie, Frances, Jeanne, Ivan(Bonnie, a Tropical Storm; the rest Hurricanes). Disaster relief in Florida worked like a well oiled machine--no looting, a minimum of human suffering compared to what it could have been.
Fema functioned under Mike Browne during those horrible hurricanes with virtually no complaints.
Who else in America would you ask to tend to a hurricane disaster given FEMA's perfoprmance in 2004? No other person would have been more experienced or would have enjoyed greater confidence of the public than Mike Browne.
So what was the difference in FEMA during the Katrina relief effort? Three things come to my mind:
1. Florida had a Republican Governor, while Louisiana's was a Democrat.
2. New Orleans paid for the many years of Levee Board corruption and paid dearly for an incompetent Mayor.
3. Katrina's relief effort goes down in history as the only time storm victims shot at the people who were trying to rescue them.
Now Mike Browne needs to help himself this week in his Congressional testimony, by placing the blame for the Katrina relief fiasco squarely where it belongs: at the feet of two indecisive, incompetent Louisiana democrats, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. ¶ 7:51 PM 0 comments
