Does Bush Ever Listen to What He Says?

So I’m sitting here working, listening to CNN in the background, and the President is doing a press conference with the Prime Minister of Australia, and they open the floor to questions. Obviously, the two pressing issues that arise are the Supreme Court and the “Leak”. First question is about the Supreme Court, and whether or not it’s important to name a woman to replace O’Connor. So, he stumbles around, as usual, and then says this doozy, “ I want to be known as the kind of person who does what he says he’s going to do…“Link to transcript of press conference.
Now, concerning the “Leak”, didn’t he say that if anyone that was involved worked in the White House, they’d be fired? And hasn’t he basically recanted that statement in the last few days? So, Mr. President, which is it going to be, a “person who does what he says he’s going to do”, or a person who does what he’s told to?

And for a funny little read on Rove, check out “Perfect project: Rove deserves a Rove makeover” at the Miami Herald (note, it is a subscription site, so you may want to go to Bugmenot and get a login.)

Jon Stewart Has it Right,Again

Now, don’t get me wrong, I despise the Rove machine, and all it stands for. Which really however, is the root of what Jon Stewart said this evening about the Rove/Plame “scandal”, and that is, it’s not really about legality issue, its just another example of how this administration on the surface says and does one thing (see videotapes of Rove being interviewed, denying any involvement at all, McClellan vehemently denying any White House involvement, Bush’s statement about firing leaks), then under the surface the White House was involved, Rove did have a hand in it, and Bush has no intention of firing, not to mention even distancing himself from those involved (see the smirk on Rove’s face today exiting Air Force One with Bush). All the allegations of back room deals, war for oil, all come rushing to the surface when situations such as this occur. The logical conclusion has to be that if they are capable of lies about outing a CIA agent, or if not out right outing (we still don’t know who the first Novak source is) then why wouldn’t someone believe that Cheney really did have closed door meeting with the energy companies, or that the administration really did have a plan before 9.11 to invade Iraq, and that contracts with Halliburton were already in place? As the old saying goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Frog March, Witch Hunt, or Much Ado About Nothing?

The national media had to latch onto the Rove story. No matter how many other global events occurred- hurricanes, bombings, pregnant no-talent bleach blondes attending film premiers- the story just didn’t go away. The question now is, what will come of it. Already, the lead talking heads from the Dem’s camp are posturing; Henry “Let’s call an investigation at the drop of a dime” Waxman, Harry Reid (who actually has had the most reasonable response I’ve read from the “left”) and now I’m hearing even good ol’ Kerry is waking up from the nap he’s been taking since last fall. But will all the clamoring, all the rankle, simply be spun as being a witch hunt, or will the Dem’s do the smart thing, and stand back, and give Bush and his boys enough rope to hang themselves?
Tiny Little Dots discusses the media growing a pair, and one would hope that considering the ramifications the case has had on how journalists will be able to do their job, I for one, expect them to take to task the red meat this story is exposing. But if the “frog march” that Joe Wilson first spoke of is to happen, the patient persistence of the media and left is the only way to let middle America take hold of this, and only then will Bush and co. be forced to take action.

Posted in Uncategorized Tagged

Chief Justice O’Connor?

So it seems with all the speculations in Washington on whether or not Rehnquist will step down, and how Bush is going to stack the court for years to come with conservative judges, the angle is being played that if he does step down for health reasons, that O’Connor should be nominated for the Chief Justice position. The New York Times reports that a conversation was had between some senators and Justice O’Connor on the very subject and that she said she was “flattered” and that she didn’t say no. I find it an interesting move, as she’s been lauded by both sides since her resignation, and find it hard to believe that Bush would be able o escape public opinion on the matter. If she were nominated, it would be a slam dunk conformation, and if she wasn’t nominated, the Republicans would be painted in a light that perhaps the dems could pull more seats in Congress in ‘06. I wonder what pressure there is now on Rehnquist to stick it out as long as possible, when just days before the hope was that he’d step down?