Damn! She ain't Bolton.

Bush has talked to her every day for years. Through every case being deliberated by SCOTUS...Think he knows what she thinks? Could them crafty Dems be using reverse psychology on us this time to block her nomination? When enough of them are on record as supporting her, maybe we can drop our objections.

I support Harriet Miers. I might have sent up Ann Coulter or Robert Bork or Mark Levin...just for the entertainment value, but then again I'd never be President.

Since Bush is, was, and always will be a stone cold amoral fool, you're analyzing this from the wrong angle.

The only true and innate talent he ever displayed in his pre-politics life was as the head of his cheerleading squad in college. Which, of course, translates nicely into a certain brand of political skill.

Not nearly as skillful as he thinks he is, but then, the average American is more than willing to play fool for him, too; we're too eager to get conned. Something pitiful in our nature, that. Anyway, it's made his road a lot easier than it ought to have been.

Brains are not much required for what he wants to do, as long as that Machiavellian talent is there. I remember once when his lack of acuity was too blatantly displayed a few years back, and his gushy supporters excused this by saying, That's what he hires people with brains for, it's their job to think for him. So intellectual consideration, in the sense of picking someone who's truly competent for the job, doesn't play much part in these decisions.

His appointments also have nothing to do with any actual moral convictions on his part, because he doesn't have any. Positioning personal political success, at any and all costs, as one's highest value still doesn't make it a moral value.

If you want to understand why he does the things he does, stop thinking he's someone trying to do the best thing, or do good for others, and understand his ultimate goal is always and only what's good for him. He uses a road of pretending to do things for the good of others to reach his own personal goal.

This appointment makes sense from that perspective. As do his other appointments and actions. He's really pretty simple.

Hopefully, this will free up your brain time for more stimulating topics.

Hopefully, this will free up your brain time for more stimulating topics.

I managed that by skipping to the last line of your comment.

I'm optimistic about her, check out Thomas Lifson at American Thinker & Keith Jackson's take. Some of the conservative outrage is snobbery - she's not from academia - & some is just people who were spoiling for a fight & wanted to rub the Dems' faces in it. But that's not Bush's style - his genius is in letting his enemies save face while quietly getting his way.

Note to k: she will be just what need, another Scalia ;)

K, two of the brightest politicians we've had recently are Carter and Clinton, and they each made our position in the world more precarious.

And Reagan was no intellectual, but turned out to be right about the things that mattered.

So raw intelligence doesn't seem to be as important as we imagine.

And, as libs are fond of pointing out, there are different types of intelligence. Clinton's was in being a smooth talker, & coopting his domestic enemies' programs. Bush's is in leadership & domestic diplomacy (the hard right can't stand it that Bush doesn't hit back at the lunatic ravings of Schumer & Kennedy, but why should he? He just rises above them)

Certainly it takes more than intelligence to be an effective politician. Still, it matters; and maybe more, the approach to using it makes a big difference in decision making.

Having a plan for post-invasion Iraq, and tossing it as somehow "unnecessary," wasn't smart. Planning is pretty important stuff. Surely that decision played a significant role in the chaos that consumes Iraq today. So did the evaluation that we had enough troops; most people who thought so at the outset have now changed their minds.

The very decision to invade in the first place was based on incorrect analyses of information, and/or deliberate lies. Here we have lack of brains coupled with disregard for brains. Disregard for facts, for truth.

It seems to me that these are cases of prioritizing ideology over fact. You can probably guess that's not a tactic I agree with.

I dislike and distrust virtually all politicians, but not equally or for the same reasons. My opinions on which presidents made the US's position more or less precarious are exactly the opposite of yours, so that argument on the value of intellect doesn't bear fruit with me.

I do agree wholeheartedly with beautifulatrocities that there are differing types of intelligence, which of course will give us differing decisions. I'm sorry I can't speak for libs, or anyone else but myself; what I look for is good info, and I've agreed with that bit for a long time.

Ultimately, if I'm correct that Bush's only true goal is his own personal success, he met that goal. He got what he wanted: to become President twice.

---

Well, Miss Attila, even if you didn't allow me the honored privilege of being your whipping post, I hope we cheered you up a bit anyway. She's going to be just fine, you'll see. Maybe after Thursday, when you have some good doctor feedback in hand, it'll be easier. The unknown is always the worst.

I also hope that those who disagree with my opinions can argue back on a better basis than this:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11967806&postID=112717054148489708&isPopup=true

Unfortunately, the person-or-persons involved did nothing more than display a real lack of intellect and moral behavior on the part of Bush supporter(s). And a rather pathetic preoccupation with their possible lack of penis size. Hmmm. Also, whose time is of so little value that they spend it this way. Gracious. That leaves no actual good human qualities at all. Yikes! Zero people!

Don't worry, I know Bush supporters aren't all like that. That's why I like to visit here in the first place.

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing you evaluate Kennedy's public writings, and the Johnson presidency.

k, no one is likely to be convinced to change their perspective in the space of a few comment posts, and the blogosphere has become far too polarized for that to happen, even were it possible. Nothing you've said above is anything that we haven't heard about ten-bazillion times over the last few years (Bush is an idiot (corrollary: Bush is an Evil Scheming Hitlerian Genius"), Bush is just out to enrich himself and his "oil buddies", there was no plan for post-invasion Iraq, not enough troops in Iraq (corrollary: "Support the Troops, Bring Them Home Now!"), "Bush Lied, People Died", and so forth, ad ______.

I frankly have little desire to respond to it. I value the things we have in common more than it would be worth to be divided over the differences. Others may be more tempted out of frustration to heap scorn and abuse on what they perceive as intractable wrongheadedness on the part of those with whom they strongly disagree.

If I were to get into it, I'd start with some of your bald assertions, looking for solid evidence to back them up, then examining the evidence to see if it stands up to scrutiny. At some point in that process we'd be likely to come to a point where we might agree to disagree and move on to the next bald assertion. But all of that is time consuming and not well suited to the weblog comment section format.

A lot of us in the conservative/libertarian corner are well along the path to disowning Bush ourselves, but for very different (and in some cases perhaps diametrically opposed) reasons.

I feel that history will judge.

And by "history," I mean me in 20 years, since I'm the only one I listen to.

Dang it all! You guys were right. It really was just spam.

And here I thought I had a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy of my very own!!

I knew Penis Day would come back to haunt me.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition/Spam Attack!

I swear: those vermin get more and more sophisticated every day. Now they always start out with some sort of compliment about my "site." (They never say "blog," which is a red flag. Not using my screen name or real name is another. Of course, they never have a word about my real content. It's all generic.)