The W
Views: 101525217
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.12.14 2220
The W - Current Events & Politics - Harriet Miers (Page 2)
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(651 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (42 total)
Boston Idol
Blutwurst








Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2928 days
Last activity: 2721 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.00
What they should be asking nominees is whether
they would allow their views to interfere with
their judgement on cases brought before them,
but then that is what Democrats are looking for
when the complain for "moderate" justices. They
want someone who cares more about his or her own
views than about the Constitution and merely looks
for excuses to get the "right" result in the end.

Nine benevolent dictators doing what Congress does
not have the courage to do and what the people do
not have the will to do. That's Roe v Wade, Brown
v Board, and the rest of the judicial activism.

The problem is that Congress isn't going to grow
those balls and the people never have the will.

For all the bitching from conservatives about the
will of the framers, I think the framers knew this
in their day, when they made shabby accomodations
like counting slaves for voting purposes without
giving them the vote. It's not inconceivable that
the framers created the third branch with the hope
that judicial activism would fill in the gaps where
Congress and the will of the people fell short.

It seems to me the whole point of giving judges
lifetime tenure was to allow them to ignore the
politics of the day in favor of another standard.
Based on that design, the framers must have wanted
some amount of judicial activism. It's the only
reason for giving them immunity from election.

Frank

"The voice of the people has been said to be the
voice of God; and, however generally this maxim
has been quoted and believed, it is not true to
fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they
seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore
to the first class a distinct permanent share in
the government... Can a democratic assembly who
annually revolve in the mass of the people be
supposed steadily to pursue the public good?"
- Alexander Hamilton
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2901 days
Last activity: 2629 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.96
    Originally posted by bash91
    It's not the fact that she has a close working relationship with the President that disqualifies her, it's that there doesn't appear to be any other reason for nominating her other than that relationship. The question I always ask when facing questions of cronyism is "Would someone else have nominated/appointed this person?" If the answer is no, then I'm pretty comfortable saying it is cronyism. I can't even ask that question about Harriet Miers without starting to giggle. Bush may think she's qualified, but there is very little in her public record to make the rest of us believe it. At this point in time, Bush trying to make an argument from ethos just isn't going to work. To borrow a line from Reagan, "Trust, but verify." Right now, we can't do that and there's no indication that we'll ever be able to before she's seated. In this case, I can't help but think that this is nothing more than cronyism at it's finest.


Maybe the President knows more about her judicial philosophy and legal mind then we do given their close relationship over the last ten years. What is there to say she isn't qualified besides the fact that (like Rehnquist) she has never been a judge and didn't attend a top tier law school? Is there anything specific?

"Trust but verify" - that's exactly what I'm trying to say. We know next to nothing at all about Miers and yet people already want to oppose her and attack Bush? Why? In the coming weeks there will be a hearing and many new facts will come out where we can "verify" that she is qualified.


    Who says she is? Listening to Bush and to Cheney, I don't recall them ever suggesting she's a constructionalist. John Roberts isn't a strict constructionalist, why should I assume that Miers is one. If anything, based on past Bush's history with appointments, I'm pretty safe if I assume that Miers is not a constructionalist nor an originalist. Unfortunately, it really appears as though Bush valued loyalty over competence in this case.



    I know her character. She's a woman of principle and deep conviction. She shares my philosophy that judges should strictly interpret the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and not legislate from the bench," [President Bush] said


Whether you trust his judgment on the matter is another question. (And what's wrong with Roberts?)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 2 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
Of course the President knows her mind since they appear to be buds. She had dinner with "W" Sunday night. She has been a close confidant for over a decade.

Perhaps the real question the neocons ned to ask is "How conservative is the president?" He certainly isn't a fiscal conservative.



Perception is reality
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Bossier City, LA

Since last post: 858 days
Last activity: 1 day
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.42
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Maybe the President knows more about her judicial philosophy and legal mind then we do given their close relationship over the last ten years. What is there to say she isn't qualified besides the fact that (like Rehnquist) she has never been a judge and didn't attend a top tier law school? Is there anything specific?


I don't doubt that Bush knows more about her than do I, but, as a conservative libertarian, I have absolutely no reason to trust Bush's judgment in this case. Bush has repeatedly thumbed his nose at conservative on the issues that matter, McCain Feingold and the administration position in Grutter v. Bollinger (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com) readily spring to mind, while offering them lip service on the issues that don't really matter. As for her qualifications, the question isn't "What says she isn't qualified?", the question is "What says she is qualified?". That's the question to which I've yet to see anything resembling a good answer. I don't doubt that Ms. Miers is a nice woman, a good attorney, loyal to the President, and a genuinely wonderful human being, but none of those things are qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice.

I really don't care that she hasn't been a judge because a substantial minority of the Supremes weren't or hadn't been judges before they were appointed. However, most of them also had something else to recommend them besides being a close personal friend of the President and I sure don't see that with Miers.

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    "Trust but verify" - that's exactly what I'm trying to say. We know next to nothing at all about Miers and yet people already want to oppose her and attack Bush? Why? In the coming weeks there will be a hearing and many new facts will come out where we can "verify" that she is qualified.


I'll say it again, I have absolutely no reason to trust Bush and every reason to doubt him on this particular issue. We know next to nothing about Miers other than that she was Bush's secretary, adviser, and counsel, and that's all we are likely to ever know about her before she is confirmed and that's certainly not enough for me to believe she's qualified. As for "new facts" coming out, I don't see it happening. The vast majority of Ms. Miers career will be protected by attorney client privilege whether it's to past clients when she was in private practice in Texas or to the President as his counsel. The odds are really good that we now know as much about Harriet Miers as we ever will. Quite frankly, she's the ideal stealth candidate. She has even less of an accessible paper trail than Roberts and has his Judiciary Committee experience to use as a template for how to answer, or not answer, questions.

Why Don't I like Roberts? Well, I don't like Roberts' claim to have no judicial philosophy preferring instead to be process oriented because that position is one that seems to me to very easily lead to absurdities because "it was done correctly". I also don't like his willingness to seemingly endorse a comparative approach rather than an originalist approach. I don't care for either of those positions, but at least it's something with which I can grapple. I don't even see that much out of Miers and, given the way these confirmation hearings will play out unless some GOP senators ask real questions, I won't.

Ultimately, it really looks to me like Bush decided that loyalty was more important that ability or qualifications and rewarded a long-time, loyal, and unqualified crony with a truly plum position.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 23 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.40
    Originally posted by bash91
    As for her qualifications, the question isn't "What says she isn't qualified?", the question is "What says she is qualified?".
You keep saying this but, technically, the President is free to name whomever he wishes without ANY restriction...unless I've missed a list of qualifications somewhere. There sure isn't one HERE: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html



CRZ
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Bossier City, LA

Since last post: 858 days
Last activity: 1 day
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.33
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by bash91
      As for her qualifications, the question isn't "What says she isn't qualified?", the question is "What says she is qualified?".
    You keep saying this but, technically, the President is free to name whomever he wishes without ANY restriction...unless I've missed a list of qualifications somewhere. There sure isn't one HERE: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


Oh, he's free to appoint anyone he likes but I'd like to believe that we should expect and deserve more than "Because I said so" as a means of measuring the qualifications of a nominee to the Supreme Court.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 258 days
Last activity: 59 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.61
    Originally posted by bash91
    Oh, he's free to appoint anyone he likes but I'd like to believe that we should expect and deserve more than "Because I said so" as a means of measuring the qualifications of a nominee to the Supreme Court.

    Tim



"Because I said so" seems to sum up the Bush Administration pretty well to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.



DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 2 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
Well, Brownback isn't covinced she's drunk the neocon koolaid. Makes up my mind for me, I'm okay with her. Anyone who doesn't stack up in our favorite son's book is likely sane.



Perception is reality
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 23 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.41
Well, so much for Miers.

Click Here (hosted.ap.org)

    Oct 27, 10:05 AM EDT

    Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

    By TERENCE HUNT
    AP White House Correspondent


    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush ended his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court Thursday and promised a quick replacement. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."

    The White House said Miers had withdrawn her name because of a bipartisan effort in Congress to gain access to internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.

    [MORE]
I won't have ANY fun unless Bush picks someone even "worse" to REALLY stick it to everybody. ;-)



CRZ
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
I just have this awful feeling that somehow the spin on this will go:

1. Bush says "I tried to nominate a woman and a trailblazer and the Democrats refused to work with me to get her through. They have no interest in cooperating with us." People will accept this even though it was neocon anger that killer Miers off.

2. Bush nominates someone much more aggressively conservative.

3. When Dems object the media gets to repeat the "Bush tried to come to the middle and got no help, now the Dems are just being obstructionist."

Of course I still think this was a no-lose situation for Bush. Miers most likely would have been a typical conservative vote for him, so either she gets confirmed and he gets to shift the court, or she gets dinged, he gets to complain about the opposition, and then nominate someone he really wants anyhow.

The Dems needed to shortcircuit this by coming out very strongly for this nomination. Bad strategic choice on this one IMO.



Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 166 days
Last activity: 6 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
spf--I think that the only people who would swallow that particular spin would vote Republican no matter what, so I wouldn't worry. Any reasonable person would feel that Bush got a pretty substantial black eye on this, so that should (operative word being should) put him under pressure to name a good nominee.

As far as someone more aggressively conservative, I'd argue that no one *really* knows how conservative Miers is/would be. For that reason, I think the Dems played it smart by largely staying out of it and letting the right torpedo it. And, Republicans still have the majority, so Bush always has had the option of nominating someone pretty aggressively conservative.

My hope is that he'll do as good of a job with this as he did with the Fed Chair nominee. Bernanke is an outstanding choice; now we'll see if history agrees with me.



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 258 days
Last activity: 59 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.61
I hear Mike Brown's available...



The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.



And if our transcendental "if" should find a final floor
Then man will know the death of God where wonder was before
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 2 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
I agree with Corajudo spf. The neocons shot her down. Brownback was on the radio bascially saying that unless the next candidate has a huge paper trail, has the second amendment tatooed on their forehead, passes the neocn litmus test, and eats liberals for lunch, just forget it. Bush must now squarely pick a Scalia type to keep his base. This is really what the Dems need. The neocon Senators gave the Dem's a huge gift if the don't blow it.



Perception is reality
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2901 days
Last activity: 2629 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.99
    Originally posted by spf
    Bush says "I tried to nominate a woman and a trailblazer and the Democrats refused to work with me to get her through. They have no interest in cooperating with us." People will accept this even though it was neocon anger that killer Miers off.


Really, it was the social and judicial conservatives who tanked this nomination because social cons wanted a guarantee that a nominee would overturn Roe, Casey, etc. while judicial cons wanted a proven strict constructionist with a paper trail. If anyone on the right would have been happy with this it might have been some neocons because of the perception that her time in the White House during a war might lead to deference to the executive in matters like tribunals, coercive interrogation, etc. Might be a stretch to make that connection, but it certainly wasn't the neocons that destroyed the nomination.


    Bush nominates someone much more aggressively conservative.


Considering the Miers record seemed nominally conservative at best, "more aggressively conservative" would be a mainstream strict constructionist to the left (relatively speaking) of Scalia and Thomas. Someone in the mold of Rehnquist or Roberts would be "more aggressively conservative" than Miers.


    When Dems object the media gets to repeat the "Bush tried to come to the middle and got no help, now the Dems are just being obstructionist."


That won't stop it from being true that the Dems are obstructing a qualified nominee. (And let's not act like the mainstream media is the propaganda wing of the Bush Administration. Have you seen their coverage of the last two nominations?)

    Originally posted by Corajudo
    Any reasonable person would feel that Bush got a pretty substantial black eye on this. . .


I don't know. It certainly isn't good that his nominee went down in flames like this, especially coming from his own base. But if he nominates a strong conservative to replace Miers, he does nothing but gain support. He wins back the conservative base, and let's face it, it's not like he's losing any support from liberals on account of him nominating someone more conservative.



(edited by BigSteve on 27.10.05 1236)
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Bossier City, LA

Since last post: 858 days
Last activity: 1 day
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22
I think Corajudo's got it about right. I doubt there will be a lot of the spin that spf envisions just because, as I've (The W) and many other people have argued, she just wasn't qualified for the post. It's awfully hard to spin when you've got people like Charles Krauthammer (washingtonpost.com) suggesting how Miers can gracefully withdraw.

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    The neocons shot her down. ... Bush must now squarely pick a Scalia type to keep his base. This is really what the Dems need. The neocon Senators gave the Dem's a huge gift if the don't blow it.


I'd really disagree with this point. It wasn't the "neo-cons" who shot her down, it was CONSERVATIVES and libertarians who so profoundly objected to nominating an un or, to appease CRZ, under-qualified candidate for purely patronage reasons. Glenn Reynolds (instapundit.com), the gang at Volokh's place (volokh.com), Patrick Frey (patterico.com), Steve Bainbridge (professorbainbridge.com) are just some of the more prominent voices who most certainly aren't "neo-cons" who objected to this nomination.

Will Bush nominate a Scalia clone this time? Well, that's what he promised when he was campaigning, which is also what had one segment of the base so exercised and I don't see that as a necessarily bad thing no matter what your political persuasion. One of the most persuasive arguments against Miers for me was the argument made by many, including most loudly by Hugh Hewitt (hughhewitt.com) was that she'd be a reliable vote on Roe and other issues. That's not what any principled conservative or liberal wants, if they're honest, as a Supreme Court Justice. Someone who reaches a decision despite the law because that's their personal belief is how we get horrid decisions like upholding McCain-Feingold or Kelo. I'd much rather have decisions made, even if they are ones that I don't personally like or believe are decided incorrectly like the plethora of cases on drug-testing High School students, after actually looking at the case at hand as well as at precedent, the statutes, and the Constitution rather than relying on a judge's personal feelings.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 2 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
Bash, outside of the libertarians, they didn't care about patronage. Some used it as a smokescreen because she was "conservative" enough. In the Senate, who do think are true conservatives and not neocons. I don't see many.



Perception is reality
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.93
Reaction and quotes from our elected leaders (and some guy named Bork)

From Click Here (cnn.com)

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, Senate majority leader:

"I respect her decision and appreciate her service to our country."

"We remain ready to fulfill our duty to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees. And the Supreme Court still awaits its next justice -- a highly qualified nominee who is committed to upholding the Constitution and who believes in the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, Senate Judiciary Committee member

"The president now should take his time. When we do it again, the president should do it right: slowly deliberately, carefully with real consultation and real consensus. One of the reasons for this problem -- this mistake -- is that there was no real consultation. There was no real reaching out and discussion of names back and forth."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi

The former Senate majority leader said Bush "should nominate a strict constructionist conservative." "That's what he is and ran as as president," Lott said. "He said, "If you elect me, this is the nominee you will get."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, Senate Judiciary Committee member

In a written statement, Leahy said, "I spoke to Ms. Miers this morning, and I wished her well. I look forward to consulting with the president on his third nominee to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, and I hope it is a decision he approaches with the necessary independence from partisan factions."

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, Senate minority leader

Reid blamed "the radical right wing of the Republican Party" for ending Miers' nomination. "Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues," Reid said. "In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right-wing base."

Former Judge Robert Bork, ex-Supreme Court nominee

"I think it was appropriate. She was not -- I didn't think, a lot of people didn't think -- really qualified. I think we all have to have some sympathy for her because she was thrust into a position as a nominee she shouldn't have been put in, and as a result, got rather beaten up in the press and elsewhere."

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, Senate Judiciary Committee member

"We were at an impasse on documents. We needed information of what she had worked on at the White House. They were unwilling to provide it for executive privilege, and we were at this impasse. I think at the end of the day that just brought the whole thing on down."

I've thought, since Miers was nomintated, that the whole idea of her being confirmed was a shot in the dark by Bush. Kind of the same tactic he took with Roberts, but there was no way in the world the "right" would take another leap of faith on the unknown, regardless of election year politics and alleged "support" for their President, who is looking more and more lame duck by the day

The Right - I think this is obvious and has been quoted and stated many times - think this is their chance to shape the direction of this country socially, which is not my idea of what the Supreme Court is all about. I'm not really sure what outlawing abortion will do, but I'm pretty sure the recent ruling that "my domain" can be taken by the Government - a ruling which seemed to slip under the radar for some reason - is a bad idea

I'm curious to see what Bush has in mind next...I'm thinking Alberto Gonzalez, which really should make things fun

Brownback, as always, is lying through his teeth

FLEA

(edit to save another post)

EddieBurkett:

The problem with Gonzalez is didn't he also serve as White House counsel, and therefore suffer from the same issue as Miers of not being able to release all his documentation? (Then again, he has had other positions from which information can be gleaned, so maybe he would work???)

I don't think "Releasing of Documentation" has anything to do with it, other than it's an easy way for Brownback, etc. to get out of saying what they *really* feel. The Democrats can scream all they want about something like that, but there really isn't too much they can do about it - if the "right" wanted Ms. Miers, she would be there by now. "Not enough doucuments", coming from the Republican Party, is just a nice way of saying - "no chance in hell, GW"

The uber-cynic in me thinks Bush never had any intent of letting Miers get on the bench, and he was entirely using her to a) set up an ultra-conservative candidate, as spf alleged, and b) distract the media from the Plame situation, especially with the specter of indictments looming.

Of course, the rational side of me knows that the uber-cynical side can be a bit imaginative at times.


That's the weird thing and, not directed at you, but more at the Republicans - PARANOIA. They went along with Roberts, knowing he was unknown, but *close enough* to what they wanted - and if he turned out to be more "middle of the road" than they liked, another seat would be open (SD'C)

But the right is taking no chances with this one - if the pick would end up being some kind of leftist fruit cake, the Conservative Movement is this country would have egg on their faces for the next 30 years. It happened back in the 70's - this time around, it's going to be someone that's the dead nuts

The "True Conservatives" are dancing in the streets now, throwing Miers under the bus and howling like Ted Kennedy was found dead. Seeing as she is a Friend of George, my advice is they should shut up, like now, lest they find themselves on some kind of Enemies List. On the outside looking in

FLEA

(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 27.10.05 1829)


Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com - THE IWC 100! And The Wrestling Dead Pool!!
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc








Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.44
    Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
    I'm curious to see what Bush has in mind next...I'm thinking Alberto Gonzalez, which really should make things fun


The problem with Gonzalez is didn't he also serve as White House counsel, and therefore suffer from the same issue as Miers of not being able to release all his documentation? (Then again, he has had other positions from which information can be gleaned, so maybe he would work???)

The uber-cynic in me thinks Bush never had any intent of letting Miers get on the bench, and he was entirely using her to a) set up an ultra-conservative candidate, as spf alleged, and b) distract the media from the Plame situation, especially with the specter of indictments looming.

Of course, the rational side of me knows that the uber-cynical side can be a bit imaginative at times.



"Now that you've built up the courage to get into the gym, let me give you five reasons why you should put in the time to train with consistency: 1. Increased strength 2. Improved self-confidence 3. Injury prevention 4. Self-discipline 5. Sex (Trust me, you'll have a better shot with the ladies if you're in shape.)" -- Making the Game, pp. 14 - 15
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28
President Bush won't, I think, nominate Gonzalez. He has to nominate a constructionist, because it was the constructionist conservative base who brought this nomination down. Maybe there really aren't that many conservatives in the senate - I think there are some - but all the republicans, even Saint John McCain, listen to the conservative base. Because they can't get elected without them. For the same reason Liberals fawn all over the labor unions - that is their base.

Bush will nominate Brown (either Edith or Janice) or one of the other constructionist judges whose names are being bandied about. Gonzalez would be a huge mistake and I doubt the president will make another on this front. It's a possibility though. He's a bulldog SOB on some stuff.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.68
I wasn't able to find an answer to this after an exhaustive search of Wikipedia, but is O'Connor allowed to revoke her resignation?



On the flip side, congrats to ABC for hiring Tim McGraw to tailor the lyrics to "I like it, I love it" for every halftime highlight show throughout the "Monday Night Football" season. Just last week, my buddy House and I were discussing Cosell's classic highlight narratives in the '70s, and how nobody had approached them since, and I told House, "Only one thing could ever come close, and I know it's a long shot, but what if ABC hired Tim McGraw to tailor the lyrics to 'I Like it, I Love It' for each week of NFL highlights throughout the season?" And wouldn't you know, it happened! See, dreams can come true. --- Bill Simmons, www.sportsguy.net
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Libby indicted, maybe more to come
Next thread: JBL's video commentary.
Previous thread: Are we in the end times?
(651 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_6927091 See also: http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=32230 http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/353643.html http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/29/1410258.shtml
The W - Current Events & Politics - Harriet Miers (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.167 seconds.