![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amulhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304684.stm
That's right, he's picked another aid for a high-level position they're totally unqualified for. She's never been a judge, fer crying out loud.
My personal favorite line from the article: "But some of Mr Bush's supporters have expressed concern at her lack of conservative credentials....[much further down]...'The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters,' said the conservative advocacy group Public Advocate." That's right, folks. They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?
Oh, I'm sorry. She's a middle-ground choice because she's a woman, so hopefully Democrats will overlook her complete lack of experience as a Constitutional scholar. Because we'd much rather see an incompetent female lawyer than an actual MODERATE WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS AGENDA, which is what we were asking for in the first place.
Hell in a hand basket, I say!
Exactly how many crap choices is he going to offer before we all just throw up our hands and say, "Next!"
That's right, he's picked another aid for a high-level position they're totally unqualified for. She's never been a judge, fer crying out loud.
My personal favorite line from the article: "But some of Mr Bush's supporters have expressed concern at her lack of conservative credentials....[much further down]...'The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters,' said the conservative advocacy group Public Advocate." That's right, folks. They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?
Oh, I'm sorry. She's a middle-ground choice because she's a woman, so hopefully Democrats will overlook her complete lack of experience as a Constitutional scholar. Because we'd much rather see an incompetent female lawyer than an actual MODERATE WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS AGENDA, which is what we were asking for in the first place.
Hell in a hand basket, I say!
Exactly how many crap choices is he going to offer before we all just throw up our hands and say, "Next!"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 3 Oct 2005 19:04 (UTC)