Mothering Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Round two of the Kristol neocons ("dump her or else") vs. the Dobsonian evangelicals ("confirm her or else"). Walking right through the <a href="http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/default.asp?archiveID=7466" target="_blank">looking glass</a>...<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">On Fox News Sunday, when Bill Kristol suggested that Judges Edith Jones or Alice Batchelder would have been better picks, [Brit] Hume interrupted:<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Bill, I can tell you this about Alice Batchelder. She was very, very closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not pleased to find that.</td>
</tr></table></div>
When Kristol questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brit’s first statement makes clear, the only way he could have gotten this information about White House opinion is by hearing it from the White House (unless of course he is simply reporting second hand reports—which would mean that he was engaging in rather loose reporting practices).</td>
</tr></table></div>
Hume's show is also the one where James Dobson noted Oct. 3 that "I do know things that I am not prepared to talk about here," that he had received information from the White House that the members of Congress did not.<br><br>
And in the latest on "whose fault is it? It CAN'T be the president's fault," the conservative WSJ opinion Journal floats <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007398" target="_blank">the idea</a> that it was William K. Kelley's fault:<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">The Miers pick had its origin in the selection of John Roberts last July. Ms. Miers was praised for her role in selecting him and the wildly positive reaction. At that point, a senior White House official told the Washington Post that William K. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel who had been appointed to his post only the month before, stepped in. The Post reported that Mr. Kelley "suggested to [White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card that Miers ought to be considered for the next seat that opened."</td>
</tr></table></div>
Will conservatives nibble on this one? If not, we're sure to see the next theory floated soon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,757 Posts
Wow...sounds like what they did to McCain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
776 Posts
I really cannot imagine how so many who claim to be of a spiritual nature can so consistently tolerate the predominance of negativity of this administration. The vehemence and backstabbing make me so ill and yet seem to be the basis of so much of their appearance of power . . . :puke
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top