I think there is a book waiting to be written, “The Non-Idiot’s Guide to the Things You Were Taught That Were Wrong” (or, Paul Simon was right, after all of the things you were told in high school that were wrong, it’s a wonder you can still think at all.)

And with that, perhaps I will have both the first and last word on a thread (not that it matters.)

LN Smithee, your conclusion is in conflict with your assumptions. If the Dark Lord himself was unable to sway GWB on a pardon for Libby, who deserved one, then it’s muddleheaded to assume that the Architect could somehow compel Bush to make the undeserved Miers nomination. It’s contradictory.

1. Re-read my first comment at #11. Never did I say Rove “compel[led] Bush” to nominate Miers. I said he “presided over monumental blunders like Harriet Miers’ SCOTUS nomination,” and further wrote in reply to imdw that if I was Bush’s top political adviser and saw that he was determined to reject qualified jurists in favor of his personal attorney, I would quit. Why? Because 1) It would be clear he wasn’t listening to anything I was saying; 2) when the fact that she wasn’t qualified would be inevitably (and rightfully) be exposed by the Democrats in Judicial Committee hearings, it would scar not only Bush’s legacy, but that of the GOP (whose members would either have to fight their own President or suffer the electoral consequences of voting for her) for decades to come; 3) In the unlikely event she would be confirmed, I would have to spend the rest of my livelong days having to defend her presence on the Court, especially if — like other GOP nominees — she “evolved” into an emotional, unfocused gooey center.

As it stands, Rove can just shrug off the Miers nomination as a mistake that was ultimately corrected. If it hadn’t been, imagine him — or any Republican, for that matter — having to squirm when asked why Obama’s more-qualified radical nominees should be rejected when GWB chose a crony for the Court over legitimate candidates like Samuel Alito.

2. I don’t know if you were active in right-of-center web circles on the run-up to “Fitzmas,” the day leftoids looked forward to for celebrating the indictment of scads of Bushies by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. If not, in a nutshell: a rumor swept like a fireball through the leftosphere that up to five Bush Admin aides were to be targeted in the Plame episode, including Rove, Powell (who was still their enemy at the time) and possibly Cheney, making it the first step to their ultimate goal: Bush’s impeachment. When the news came that only Cheney COS Libby was facing conviction for obstruction and perjury, they were crushed, but hopeful that it was a ploy to get him to flip on Cheney, Rove, or even Bush himself.

Fitzgerald did nothing to tamp down that kind of talk, refusing to rule out out the possibility of further indictments, but, of course, they never came. And Libby’s conviction had no impact on the only pertinent questions in the Plame kerfuffle; Who “leaked” her name to Robert Novak (A: Powell’s deputy Richard Armitage) and whether or not doing so was a crime (A: It wasn’t, regardless of what Henry Waxman or Sean Penn believes). Some suggest that what Libby perjured himself about shielded his superiors from conviction, but that doesn’t stand up to either the evidence or logic. But even if he was the sacrificial lamb for the crimes of the Bush war roomies, pardoning him would have a Nixonian ring to it, undermining U.S. Attorneys and the concept of equal justice. If you’re a Republican, that’s not what you want.

I can’t know what Bush’s thinking was on Libby, but my stance is clear and consistent: Just as with Clinton, if Libby lied under oath, he should have been convicted. He should be happy with getting to serve his time outside bars. And Cheney? Looks like Bush had to remind him who was in the Oval Office, and who was in the rectangular one.

You sound like a smart person. Steele’s blowing it in many ways, though. Dan’s disgusting assertion that people who are sick and tired of Steele have unresolved race issues is also a great comment to ignore.

He’s angry, even at this point, about people unsatisfied with Steele? He thinks there isn’t enough basis for that, but there is enough to accuse people of racism? The most powerful RNC operative and the US President are black men. It’s besides the point that there will always be pigs, sexists, racists, etc.

Dan doesn’t have the full link to the speech either. We have to deal with what we do have, and it’s a pattern of incredibly backwards comments and terrible fundraising performance and fiscal discipline. *There is no doubt that if Steele were not Black, he would already be gone* which is what the democrats are gloating about.

So don’t tell me he’s being persecuted for being black, when it’s quite the opposite. I wish the Dans out there would just get over their issues with race, because that’s not relevant, and if John Mccain said that the outrage would be 100X greater.

Where’s the link to Mr. Steele’s full speech? Without that, this entire post is pointless. I agree with Dan Riehl, except I do get it. It’s fun to whine about stuff you can’t explain.

Where’s the link to Mr. Steele’s full speech? Without that, this entire post is pointless. I agree with Dan Riehl, except I do get it. It’s fun to whine about stuff you can’t explain.

I wouldn’t, certainly if you dig up information that illustrates the way that a particular type of ideology you’re not in sync with (in your case, that being conservatism) leads to failure and nonsensical results. Moreover, I’m quite willing to point out the impact of socio-political sentiment I don’t care for — in my case, that being liberalism — regardless whether it emanates from a person generally of the left, right or center.

Moreover, I’m willing to cite Republicans (or folks on the right) like Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan, much less Richard Nixon, as being guilty — unfortunately — of such behavior on occasion.

The piece on FDR dates back to 2004, the one on Hoover to 2009. What’s surprising is that both analyses say nothing about the huge tax increases that were proposed and passed into law under Hoover and Roosevelt. And the effect such new burdens would have had on the psyche — among other things — of investors and entrepreneurs throughout the country.

Also, no mention is made about FDR trying to get the IRS to let him wiggle out of paying for the very tax increases he had imposed upon more affluent Americans, of which he was one.

My awareness of such basic facets of US history has been revealed to me mainly because of the curiosity triggered by discussions in this forum. And, again, the more I look below the surface, the more I realize how corrupting, idiotic and misguided liberal sentiment truly is, whether it emanates from a Democrat (naturally), Republican or Independent, etc.

As far as the Steele debacle, I have been thinking about it, and elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents, not the ideals of their party. They get elected to govern the way that the masses want to be governed. Trying to ram all those values down the throats of voters is not going to be very effective, unless the voters have the same values. This is a democracy, and everyone gets a say in how things are to be governed. This means that compromise is an essential part of any successful governance. If you are completely uncompromising, and demand that everyone agree with your values, or they can’t be part of the club, your club is probably going to shrink and shrink and shrink. It looks absolutely horrible when the head of the RNC, a black man, meets with college black students, and he literally tells them that the GOP basically has nothing to offer them. What message does that send (it’s pretty obvious)? How many of those students went home thinking, “Wow, I totally want to be part of that party, they are really looking out for me.” Surely the GOP has something to offer to everyone, and they need to be focused on those things.