Folders: A Sense of Place ·­ Blogosphere ·­ Chat ·­ Competitive Sports ·­ Current Events ·­ Domestic Sphere ·­ Family ·­ Finance, Careers, & Education ·­ Games & Goofiness ·­ Geek Subjects ·­ Global Policy ·­ Health & Fitness ·­ Literature & The Arts ·­ Marketplace ·­ Meta-Forum ·­ Mostly Christmas ·­ Movies ·­ Politics ·­ Social Policy ·­ TPW Archives ·­ TV Talk ·­ Values & Beliefs
The Perfect World >> Politics >> Pincher versus the General

Pincher versus the General

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 04:51:15 AM

So we don't have to gum up the works.

This thread is tagged: conservative, republicans, politics
tag this thread:   
  (All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
Check Subscriptions   The Latest   First   Previous   Next   Recent   
PincherMartin -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 04:55:31 AM -- 1 of 449

Can we retitle this thread, "Who's the Real Conservative?"

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 04:56:34 AM -- 2 of 449

Yes you did. You spun it to meet your Snow is corrupt, and Baker was browbeaten thesis.

Why do you even bother linking?

Just make up what you want. It can't be that difficult.

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 04:57:24 AM -- 3 of 449

I concede you are more conservative, and frankly, even if I didn't concede it, I'm terrified to challenge you at the heart of your being.

dirt track date -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:09:09 AM -- 4 of 449
Shit is fucked up and bullshit

If we are going to follow this properly we need stats. Pincher's basic political orientation vs. Jack's.

I should know but I'm too much of a dilletante to keep up with who's who and whether the basic disagreement is yer basic liberal vs. conservative or some finer shading. I know Jack used to be about 100 others but lost track long ago.

PincherMartin -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:10:07 AM -- 5 of 449

From the "General Political Discussion" thread:

I did not want Miers selected. I found her qualified. You did not. We had a spirited discussion on it and traded historical references. You, or anyone, can look it up. All they need to go is go to your link or search whichever name I was using at that time in The Supreme Court thread.

I did. I accurately summed up your opinions. I also linked to your FFFT article on the nomination. You were weak on Miers, and your attitude (as expressed in these pages), if it had been widespread among voters, would not have gotten the nomination withdrawn.

Your self-appointment as defender of the faith disallows anything else but villains and heroes, Bush-shit heroes and romantic figures like yourself, true to the cause.

Nonsense. I recognize many shades of gray. Your views just don't fall within any of them. It's support Bush all day, all the time.

Surely you must feel as ridiculous as you read sometimes, but who am I to deny a man his one shot at glory?

I'm not sure how to take this coming from a guy who starts an "Ask Jack Browning" thread.

dirt track date -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:10:42 AM -- 6 of 449
Shit is fucked up and bullshit

And since I actually read the first few posts I'll admit to what I was going to post in the first place: that Pincher usually sounds pretty reasonable, but I don't know jack about Jack.

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:12:44 AM -- 7 of 449

I was "weak."

What is wrong with you? Is your dick not working and you're compensating by emphasizing your conservatism?

We're not in a foxhole defending the original copy of God and Man at Yale.

I didn't want her. We disagreed as to her qualifications. You found her unqualified from the get-go to justify a "no" vote. I didn''t. We discussed the history.

Thus, I failed conservatism and worse, you?

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:15:52 AM -- 8 of 449


I'm a cross between a sycophant, a toady, a Benedict Arnold, and a fellow traveler. Or I alternate. Hard to tell.

GregD -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:19:47 AM -- 9 of 449
After the power to choose a man wants the power to erase. --Stephen Dunn

Jack, you're deliberately seeking to recast your moderate support of her confirmation as a moderate rejection of her nomination, when in truth you kind of fell off in the end, then came out in support of Alito.

At the least, your own characterization of your previous statements on Miers is disingenuous. You weren't pleased as punch with her but, as now and always, you figured the president had a plan and all would be well if we only went along with him.

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:21:11 AM -- 10 of 449

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:21:43 AM -- 11 of 449


You're retarded. I'm giving you my exact quotes, seriatim (in the other thread).

GregD -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:23:19 AM -- 12 of 449
After the power to choose a man wants the power to erase. --Stephen Dunn

You're retarded.

Always easier than demonstrating where, anywhere, you said you thought Miers shouldn't have been selected or shouldn't be confirmed. At least you and Goddard agree with each other on something.

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:25:06 AM -- 13 of 449

Look in the other thread, along with your batheball.

PincherMartin -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:25:50 AM -- 14 of 449

From the "Civil Liberties and National Security" thread

God forbid this war get in the way of anyone making money.

Yes, Jack, what have you been called upon by Bush to sacrifice for this war? Higher taxes? Mandatory service to the country that interferes with your livelihood in any way? Reduced access to dirt-cheap goods for the sake of security?

How is any complaint you make about others not supporting the war waged by Bush, which you do continually, not at least faintly ridiculous when you make no sacrifice, and most importantly, won't even countenance any sacrifice for it yourself? To you, the war is equated with support for Bush and little else, the partisan blended in with the patriotic to such a stunning degree, that you equate the president with the country.

There appears to be no end of men willing to eat shit for Bush.

He is down to 34% in the polls, so there does appear to be some limits to the shit-eaters.

PincherMartin -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:29:54 AM -- 15 of 449

What's an important issue for Jack while we are at war and are carrying heavy debt loads?

The repeal of the estate tax.

To Jack, the joy of being a Republican is being able to say a hearty "Fuck you" to the rest of America.

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:31:53 AM -- 16 of 449

(dirt - let me add to my list of contemptibles that I can also be Mr. Potter)

Adios and until tomorrow, hero.

PincherMartin -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:33:29 AM -- 17 of 449

Get some sleep. You'll need it.

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:34:17 AM -- 18 of 449

Uh oh.

Pincher's got the fever!


GregD -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 05:39:37 AM -- 19 of 449
After the power to choose a man wants the power to erase. --Stephen Dunn

Damn, it's like Must-See TV here.

Jack Browning -- Tuesday, February 28, 2006 -- 03:23:58 PM -- 20 of 449

I'll use this thread for ad hominem and to correct Pincher and his minions.

With regard to Miers, Greg alleges "Nowhere, anywhere above, do you say that she shouldn't have been nominated or that she should be withdrawn."

Greg is a retard and a liar, a lethal combination.

Relevant excerpts from my observations follow--

Still, I wish opponents who rest their fight on qualifications issue (and the evils of cronyism) well in their endeavors to spike Miers. I am your political ally even if I can't sign on to your goofy theatrics and your pointless resume' reviews.


The question is simple and need not be gussied up.Is Miers my choice? No. Is Miers a leading light? No (nor was, irrebuttably, Thomas or O'Connor or Rehnquist, and arguably, Breyer, Souter, or Ginsberg). Is she eminently qualified? No. Is she well qualified? Depends. She is certainly in Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, and John Harlan territory. Maybe even Byron White. Maybe just below Lewis Powell. Is she qualified? Yes. And clearly as qualified - if not more so - than Rehnquist, who became a leading light. Managing a law firm, being on a city council, being president of bar associations, and being in various positions in the White House, including White House counsel, are not traditional positions for Associate Justice and may not be compelling to everyone. Each to his own. They're not compelling to me either, though I don't give them such easy short shrift as others. I just don't require "qualified" to equal "compelling." Earl Warren's experience as DA, state AG and governor may not have seemed compelling either. Flopsy hits it. Like the histrionic conservatives who have ridiculously staked opposition on qualifications or hypocritically leveled the blank slate charge, Flopsy is insulted. So too Krauthammer, Will and to some extent, me too. As I said, politically, I don't know why I'm being asked to trust the president. Again, though. I'm not so politically insulted that I'm made stupid.She's qualified, if not stupendous, compelling, or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.


My vote for Miers would have everything to do with my view of the proper role of Senators in this process. From what I've seen thus far, I don't believe she's unqualified and I don't agree with the Schumerian approach. You're free to call me a loyalist hack, as I'm free to respond that you're excitable to the point of moist. I don't see where that gets us. You believe she's unqualified. Fair enough. As for Miers being welcomed with open arms by the Democrats, while I agree that they should take the chance, as she may well be a Souter, she also well may be a Taney. There's risk.


I oppose her politically because Bush promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and while she may well be in that mold, it's offensive to me that we have to have such a person snuck in through the back door. The qualifications knock is very weak. The crony charge is silly. Simply put, President Bush owed me a fight with the left, not an intramural scrum over a stealth nominee.


In sum, Miers is qualified, though no star, and her experience is commensurate with that of Rehnquist, who was a bit of a dud as well in 1972. I oppose Miers politically and, in fact, would have preferred many other nominees, first and foremost Janice Rogers Brown.


[On October 14, National Review called on Miers to withdraw, opining "What, then, should be done? Some conservatives have called on the president to withdraw her nomination, and a few have urged senators to vote against her. If the president withdrew the nomination, we believe that he would seek a replacement who could unite conservatives as he no doubt expected Miers to unite them. But that nominee would be tarnished, perhaps fatally, by the suspicion that the president was forced to pander to the Right. The president, moreover, surely does not want to risk looking less than strong and steadfast. The prudent course is for Miers to withdraw her own nomination in the interests of the president she loyally serves. The president could then start over. Both he and his party would probably benefit from having the clear fight over the direction of the courts that only a new nominee would allow. But for that to happen, some conservative senators are going to have to send a diplomatic message to the White House."]

Pincher called it "an excellent editorial."

I called it an excellent suggested resolution but observed Unfortunately, there is nothing in the administration's makeup to expect any nifty footwork.


As a conservative in the tradition of Mussolini and Sulla, I don't like her one bit.


If the chairs can link up and make a case on her performance before and response to the committee, along with the disaffected conservatives and the liberals who simply won't accept a nominee on record as overturning Roe, Miers may be shot to pieces, necessitating a withdrawal or, if necessary, committee and floor defeat. For Bush - who I can't imagine would withdraw her (it is not in his nature, though the exercise might be therapeutic) - the best thing to happen would be a floor vote, as opposed to Miers' voluntarily withdrawing. A withdrawal would be seen as a cave-in to the right. A floor defeat would be seen as a defeat delivered at least in part by Democrats, and for varying reasons. In that process, they have some blood on their hands, even if Miers is killed ala' the victim in Murder on the Orient Express.


I concede, I never called her a lesbian or engaged in self-flagellation. I suppose that does, in some quarters, make me weak. But just as Greg lied when he stated "But you sure as shit wanted her confirmed, at least until it was obvious she was out," he has lied again. Retarded or no, there must be some accountability.

Check Subscriptions   The Latest   First   Previous   Next   Recent   
The Perfect World >> Politics >> Pincher versus the General