Ok, so the Washington Post is not that bad…it’s much worse

I did not realize it was possible for something to go from being awful to downright God awful (no offense to the atheists of this world) in less than 24 hours, but the Washington Post, apparently sensing that the Jayson Blair Times is about to go out of business, is immediately trying to fill the void as the world’s best birdcage lining.

Today they declared a Jihad against President Bush for having the nerve to nominate to the Supreme Court the finest legal minds. I always knew the WP was anti-intelligence, but even by lowered journalism standards created by liberals, this is ludicrous.

Today the WP writes…

“As for the Supreme Court, we now know that the president’s two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution.”

Was this meant to be a surprise? Was Robert Byrd asleep at the hearings? Was Ted Kennedy drunk at the hearings? Well, ok, bad examples. These men are conservatives, which is exactly what a conservative President who keeps his word nominates to the Supreme Court to begin with.

People may disagree with President Bush when they dislike his actions, but nobody possessing any sanity questions his integrity. If he is such a simple man with simple words, why are liberals having such trouble understanding these simple words? What does that make them?

The WP continues…

“Just say no.The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush’s next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.”

Acceptable to who? Liberals? Sure, let’s clone Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s embryonic stem cells and then conduct a seance to bring Thurgood Marshall back from the dead. Why not? Apparently the constitution, which liberals seem to think changes on a daily basis, should just be shredded and replaced with an autocracy controlled by these clowns that keep losing Presidential elections decade after decade.

“The court (and, I think, the country) loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the dissenters.”

Well apparently enough people on the court felt there was a good reason. This is typical liberal arrogance. People disagree with them, therefore they are shortsighted. I think if  a liberal ever admitted they were wrong about anything, the oncoming intellectual armageddon would be worse than anything Al Gore could conduct, his assault on being reasonable notwithstanding.

“If another conservative replaces a member of the court’s moderate-to-liberal bloc, the country will be set on a conservative course for the next decade or more,”

Precisely. Exactly as the voters have been saying for the last 40 years, especially since 1980. The American public in 2006 rebelled against republicans. It did not embrace democrats, and certainly did not embrace liberalism.

“In 2005 conservatives had no problem blocking Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers because they could not count on her to be a strong voice for their legal causes. They revealed that their view of judicial battles is not about principle but power.”

It was precisely about principles you unprincipled dolts. The reason you cannot see when something is principled is because you do not possess principles to begin with!

Conservatives wanted the finest legal minds on the court. Liberals wanted one black, one woman, one hispanic, one Asian, and perhaps a token white male, provided they were a guilty white liberal. Besides, conservatives appointed Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor. Shockingly enough to liberals, they were minorities, just ones who agreed with the majority of the court.

Liberals complaining about activism should remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then they should be quiet, sit down, and figure out a way to rig a presidential election, since winning honestly would require them becoming republicans, or at least mdoerates, to appeal to the majority of the electorate that prefer normal people to liberals. This is not me talking. It is 40 years of American voting.

The Washington Post should have it’s editorial board run for President. Then, if they win, they can nominate Pol Pot, or even better, Pinch Sulzberger, to the Supreme Court. Until then, they should go back to what they do best, albeit badly…write columns to the few people that still need cheap placemats to place their dinners on while watching Fox News.

The President gets to pick whoever he likes.  This country is moving right of center. The President is right of center. His superb Supreme Court nominees on the court are right of center. All is right with the world, unless you live in Cuba, Venezuela, or liberal fantasy land, reserved for crybaby toddlers three and under.


12 Responses to “Ok, so the Washington Post is not that bad…it’s much worse”

  1. mdvp says:

    I agree with everything you said. Not to mention it’s beyond me how liberals can say 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and a moderate is anything less than all the balance they could want. They want total control, and they believe their own lies that America agrees with them. Worst mistake a politician can make.

    And how do you come up with this stuff on a daily basis? It would take me at least two days to write all of this and I doubt it could be as good or funny. Great job and keep it up!

  2. Carole says:

    As Rush Limbaugh says, when you win the presidency, you get to pick the justices. You lost, democrats. Deal with it.

  3. jackman says:

    Sorry about that rating thing. You’re a man after my own heart!

  4. Russ says:

    Following up on your comment over at my place. Very thought-provoking, thanks for the link!



  5. Lauren says:

    Soon enough we’re gonna see them screaming for a gay, a Muslim, and a member of some terrorist organization to be elected onto the Supreme Court-just so we aren’t offending anyone.

    Stupid liberals.

  6. Skul says:

    Socialists will never be happy with any SCOTUS verdict unless it advances socialism,and a re-writing of the Constitution. To me, that is the purpose of liberalism, and their ultimate goal.

  7. Smart-Lass says:

    Well said, eric, as always. The libs wouldn’t know legitimate legal reasoning if it bit them. Thank God we have a president with the nerve to keep his promise and put Roberts and Alito on the Court!

  8. micky2 says:

    I just started a blog of my own {for what its worth} and for three days Ive been looking at this one stupid story about Paris Hilton { I’m so ashamed I’m thinking of deleting it}
    that I wrote, and trying to come up with something truly deep and entertaining to the virgin void on my screen.
    So I have to hand it to you. You do this very well on a daily basis. Especially for someone that’s only been doing it for three months.
    On another note, the story above cant help but make me think of how every time I debate a liberal, they always want to refer me to the liberal sources they get their info from. I mean what the fuck ! [excuse me} How stupid can anyone be to think that anyone is that stupid ? At least have the decency to draw your conclusions from a tally of both sides.
    Keep up the good work, maybe one day soon you’ll end up sitting next to your favorite Ham on FOX as news contributers.

  9. Peewee says:

    Who was the author of that editorial?

  10. Skul says:

    Micky2, you might leave a link. It would help.

  11. Skul says:

    Picked up on Russ at beerbaitnammo. He has a pretty good site; Added the guy to my list. He said something about Okinawa, gotta go back.

  12. micky2 says:

    Here you go skul
    I wasnt sure if I really wanted to advertise, like I said I was thinking of deleting it

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.