Quote:
Originally Posted by maximusveritas
I do see a bit of Rovian strategy in what the Bush administration is doing. They are trying to make as many outrageous decisions as possible in order to make it impossible for the Democrats to fight all of them. It'll mean that the White House will probably go unchallenged on lesser outrages like the Roberts nomination. In the end though, this is going to hurt our country, but its not like that ever stopped them before.
|
Nah, nominating Bolton to the U.N. is going to have no significant effect on "our country". Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time our U.N. Ambassador did have a significant effect on the U.S. as a whole...
I don't see anything remotely outrageous about this decision: it is a rarely used, but definitely legitimate procedure. Likewise, there is nothing outrageous about John Roberts, unless by "outrageous" you mean "more conservative than Justice Ginsburg". I have a suspicion...
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|