In Which I Hold a Brief and Pointed Political Conversation with the Ragged Hole in the Left Knee of Jeff Goldstein’s Quicksilver Blue Jeans
Part 2 of the Patterico Rips Off Goldstein Series:
Me: “So, what do you think of this same-sex marriage bill? Is Arnold right to say he’ll veto it?”
Hole:
Me: “I think he’s right to say Proposition 22 can’t be legally changed without submitting the issue to the voters. On the other hand, I don’t like his suggestion that the issue be left to the voters or the courts. The courts shouldn’t have any say.”
Me: “Fu –”
Hole: “Actually, I think all he meant by that is that the courts are going to decide the legality of Proposition 22. Obviously, they have a role to play in deciding that issue, and the legality of Proposition 22 will be a central factor.”
Me: “Hmmm. You know, you make some pretty good points. For a hole.”
Goldstein: “Uh, why are you wearing my pants?”
(Part 1 of the series is here.)
Tomorrow: a roundtable discussion with the ghost of John Merrick, Grieving Mom Cindy Sheehan, and 70s Kung-fu expert and counterculture icon Billy Jack.
………….have you talked to Karl Rove’s breakfast burrito at all?
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 9/8/2005 @ 7:20 amDude that was shameless. Just shamless.
Christopher Cross (ae032a) — 9/8/2005 @ 7:58 amLiterally LOL …
Sister Toldjah (2e9349) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:58 amI’ve concluded that Arnold is paying the assembly to raise his poll ratings. They just passed a bill to allow drivers licenses to illegal aliens, which he’ll also veto (that should be good for a few more points).
They were also in a hissy fit over his support for a ballot measure calling for tough tracking of sex offenders (another sure winner with the voters). Carole Migden, assemblydyke from SF, said such issues were too emotional for voters, & should be left to the assembly. At this rate, he won’t have to do anything but veto bills to ensure his reelection.
beautifulatrocities (318bb9) — 9/8/2005 @ 11:17 amMan, I can’t wait until tomorrow’s interview. Cindy Sheehan and Billy Jack?
Retired Geezer (817e4e) — 9/8/2005 @ 1:56 pmGeezer:
I probably won’t really do that — but Goldstein has already done several. If you’re not reading his site, then for cripe’s sake go now. It’s better than mine anyway.
Patterico (22db50) — 9/8/2005 @ 2:10 pmRACIST!
Jeff G (693ff9) — 9/8/2005 @ 3:39 pmRe: your post here:
https://patterico.com/2004/11/04/2257/i-hereby-nominate-miguel-estrada-for-the-supreme-court/
what do you think of my post here?
http://americansforfreedom.blogspot.com/2005/09/speculation-on-next-scotus-pick-is.html
I think the President will nominate Miguel Estrada.
jp (83a014) — 9/8/2005 @ 3:41 pmHe is young, 43, which is one of the most important factors
His resume is impeccable. Nominated to the DC Circuit by President Bush in 2001 and was fillibustered until he withdrew in 2003 before the Senate agreement of 14 approved most of the previously filibusterees. Estrada was filibustered for the precise reason that the White House had not provided access to documents prepared when he was assistant solicitor general. My interest comes in this point. Estrada and Roberts have almost identical resumes, experience and the most important thing, duplicate experience in the Solicitor General’s office. If solicitor’s general office documents are not released and democrats vote for Roberts, how can they vote against confirming Estrada?
If Bush waits until Roberts is confirmed to announce O’Connor’s successor, that is an excellent, excellent point. It may even be worth a post. If I do one, I’ll credit you and likely link you.
Patterico (22db50) — 9/8/2005 @ 3:59 pmBut couldn’t you find a more relevant post to post your comment? This is the post about the hole in Jeff Goldstein’s jeans.
Patterico (22db50) — 9/8/2005 @ 4:00 pm