Harriet Miers

[Proletariat]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush announced his choice in a televised Oval Office event saying, "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government."

If confirmed by the Senate, Miers, 60, would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first ever female justice in 1981. (Watch: Miers has little judicial experience -- 2:30)

Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association. She also served on the Dallas City Council.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/03/scotus.preview/index.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Quick work Prole'.

I predict that Ms. Miers' skills ar argument will be thoroughly tested in the near future.

Seamus

[Proletariat]

I kinda wanted Brown personally, but at least it isn't Gonzalez. I don't know a ton about Miers but she's a bit scary looking to me.

[Don Corleone]

It's amazing how poorly the Democrats try to hide the fact that they're getting their talking points from 'People from the American Way' (what a joke that name is, btw, they're a pack of rabid marxists).

The PFAW crowd came out and said: Well, since she's never been a justice, she's going to have to give detailed answers on a whole range of issues that might come before her and explain, in detail how she would rule and why. It's just now 8, and an official from Charles Shumer's office is on CSPAN saying the exact same thing. Guess they forget to reword their marching orders this early in the morning. :dizzy2:

On a personal note, I don't know the first thing about her and don't feel qualified to give her a thumbs up or down. I just found it amusing how in 'lock step' with the PFAW Charles Shumer's office is.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I too was sorta hoping for Brown, she struck me as a stauch conservative. I know little about Miers, but find the Dems desire to use Torquemada Questioning encouraging.

Don:

You are absolutely right. The talking points need to be put together with a couple of variants. Does no one on that side possess a thesaurus?


Seamus

[Proletariat]

That was good. I didn't spit my coffee on the keyboard or anything, but it was funny.

Someone with more knowledge and a libertarian bent has gotta sell me on this one. I'm not finding a lot yet about how I should feel about this from my quick search on the usual blogs and sites.

Color me underwhlemed so far.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, Bush's vetting crew seems to have found another candidate with little or nothing readily "objectionable" on her resume. As to views and philosophies, I haven't read/seen anything specific yet either. With the media proctoscope teams already spooling up, I suspect we'll hear plenty over the next few weeks. I just hope I can sift the nuggets from the gobs of wet sand they'll be throwing.

Seamus

[Proletariat]

Screw that. I wanna hear about what sort of hairs she's dropped into her subordinate's sodas when they had their backs turned. You know, the stuff that really matters.

It's gonna be a fun few weeks.

:grin2:

[Don Corleone]

One of the commentators on NPR had a good point. Since she's been White House counsel, she's made the arguments for the White House on a lot of the cases up for consideration this term and thus, will have to recuse herself from a bunch of them (or maybe she won't). ~:confused: Would one of the pros care to comment on at what point ethics would require her to recuse herself from hearing a case?

[Redleg]

Give it a day or two the bloggers will have all the information - distorted to their view point of course - and the condemnation of another Bush Croney will begin again in the media.

[Don Corleone]

Very interesting. The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm) has a story that a conservative 'family values' group, Public Advocate, is rejecting the Miers nomination. They did so for litmus test reasons, that she's never ruled on cases and they're afraid she'll turn out to be another Souter (pro-choice when they finally get on the bench). Okay, let me be the first to say litmus tests are litmus tests and they're either wrong or they're okay. I say they're wrong, for all sides.

[Xiahou]

I kinda wanted Brown personally, but at least it isn't Gonzalez. I don't know a ton about Miers but she's a bit scary looking to me.
Yeah, when I first heard the nominee was a woman I was thinking "Oh please let it be Brown". Then when I heard it was Miers, my first thought was "Who the hell is Miers?"

I really wish it had been Brown. I would've loved to hear the liberals on the judiciary committee try to question her commitment to minority and women's rights. Considering her having spent part of her childhood in the segregated south and later had to work her way through college as a single mother... Oh well, wishful thinking I guess. :shrug:

She better not turn out to be a 'make it up as you go' jurist though. The only reasons I voted to re-elect Bush was because of Supreme Court appointees and because he wasnt Kerry. So if he screws up his nominee, I won't be a happy camper.

[Devastatin Dave]

we've been Soutered, Bush screwed us, like father like son.:furious3:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

we've been Soutered, Bush screwed us, like father like son.:furious3:

How can you tell? I haven't seen anything that would let me make that kind of assessment yea or nay so far.

Her acceptance statement suggests a reverence for the Constitution as framed....."Be true to the founder's vision of the proper role of the court" etc.

Seamus

[Hurin_Rules]

Ah good, another political appointee with no relevant experience.

I can see it now, Bush holding a press conference in the future to say, "Harry, you're doing a heck of a job!"

[Proletariat]

Everyone seems pissed about this one. Let's bork her.


I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?

I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/

(This article btw, pretty much sums up everything I'm completely sick of Bush for.)

[Goofball]

I have to say that I find it beyond ridiculous that somebody who has never served as a judge can even be considered for a position as a judge on the highest court in the country.

And yes, I know that both parties have promoted political hacks with no other relevant experience to the SC before, so I am not just taking shots at Bush or the GOP here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A number of the non-judge experience nominees have gone on to illustrious careers on the High Court. Rehnquist is only the most recent example.

Seamus

[Red Harvest]

I have to say that I find it beyond ridiculous that somebody who has never served as a judge can even be considered for a position as a judge on the highest court in the country.

And yes, I know that both parties have promoted political hacks with no other relevant experience to the SC before, so I am not just taking shots at Bush or the GOP here.

I agree.

[Proletariat]

Well, the people who created this system hardly found it ridiculous since being a judge is hardly a requirement.

This isn't the reason why this is a stupid pick. It's because it's blatant, in-your-face cronyism. Many, many other qualified conservative picks were out there to choose from.

[yesdachi]

I really think whoever it is needs to have been residing over some court before residing over the Supreme Court.

[Pindar]

Since she's been White House counsel, she's made the arguments for the White House on a lot of the cases up for consideration this term and thus, will have to recuse herself from a bunch of them (or maybe she won't). ~:confused: Would one of the pros care to comment on at what point ethics would require her to recuse herself from hearing a case?

White House Council means she was the personal lawyer for the President. Recusal would only be relevant or warranted if she were to hear criminal proceedings on Pres. Bush regarding a specific case she had worked on. This is not likely for SCOTUS.

[Pindar]

I have to say that I find it beyond ridiculous that somebody who has never served as a judge can even be considered for a position as a judge on the highest court in the country.


If you do a little investigature on the history of SCOTUS justices you will find there are several who served without being initially judges. Two simple examples are Chief Justices: John Marshall and William Brennan.

[Proletariat]

From the WSJ, a nice summary of reaction, which I found on Instapundit.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112835192385358534-jln6lcmyrapjcrVFjFwOO1FFy8k_20061003.html?mod=blogs

If the genuine right and left dislike her, and the moderates have nothing to gauge what to expect from her, who besides folks who just like anything Bush does are going to go for this pick?

I'm really confused as to how she's been nominated, other than the obvious cronyism charge. Is it really that simple?

:embarassed:

[Pindar]

For the record I would have gone with Luttig or McConnell.

(Postestus Democraticorum Delenda Est)*






*The power of the Democratic Party must be destroyed.

[Proletariat]

I'll never understand why Luttig or Brown couldn't have been given the nod.

1) I want my Nov '04 vote back.

2) Can't we just give Scalia two seats?

[Kanamori]

John Marshall and William Brennan.

They are some of my least favorite.


I would be interested in seeing a detailed breakdown of why you hate the democratic party. I dislike most politicians in general, many of them are democrats that I distrust especially, but my favorite politician -- guess which one~;) -- is a democrat.

[Divinus Arma]

The more I hear about this woman, the less I like her. Sounds like a sailer to me. Just hang in there and don't do anything to rock the boat.


This was the opportunity of the century. Remember this is me: HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVE (http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/political_map.asp?PS=28.75&ES=77.5&q1=2&q2=5&q3=3&q4=2&q5=1&q6=1&q7=2&q8=5&q9=2&q10=1&q11=2&q12=5&q13=2&q14=1&q15=5&q16=1&q17=1&q18=2&q19=4&q20=4). And I say Bush has screwed up royaly. He will go down in history as an IDIOT:

Disgusting fiscal policy with no restraint.

A campaign in Iraq predicated on misinformation and groupthink.

And now Harriet "Sailboat" Miers.

What a jackoff.

[Divinus Arma]

I would be interested in seeing a detailed breakdown of why you hate the democratic party.

You HAVE to create a new thread on this! Since it is your question, I'll let you take the initiative. But WOW. That would be FUN!!! ~:cheers:

And then I will create a "why-you-hate-the-Republican-party-thread" just to balance things out. Sound good? You go first.~D

[drone]

IIRC, Texas is one of the most litigous states in the Union, frivilous lawsuits were a big problem. Tort reform was always a big topic when I would visit the state. She was head of the Texas State Bar in 1992, anyone here know anything about her stance or any action taken to deal with this issue?

[Geoffrey S]

I have to say that I find it beyond ridiculous that somebody who has never served as a judge can even be considered for a position as a judge on the highest court in the country.
Just to make certain, but wasn't Rehnquist also never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court? By all accounts he's supposed to have done a good job.

[Goofball]

Just to make certain, but wasn't Rehnquist also never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court? By all accounts he's supposed to have done a good job.

This reply is for all of you who have pointed out to me that there have been others appointed who had no experience on the bench.

Yes, I know this (as I mentioned in the second part of my first post).

My point is that for just about any high level job, you can find individual cases where people without the relevant experience have made good despite their inexperience. However, this is the exception not the rule. There is just too much potential for the Peter Principle to rear its ugly head here, because we simply don't know how this woman will perform as a judge. At least with any other job if you realize you have promoted somebody to their level of incompetence you can either fire or demote them. Not so with the SC.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just to make certain, but wasn't Rehnquist also never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court? By all accounts he's supposed to have done a good job.

Yes, and yes, and I already posted to that effect. Must I use red font or profanity simply to get someone to read it?:wall:

Profanity all judges! Take those black robes, wad them up and profane and impossible suggestion! I'm profanity at the whole lot of those profanity.

Did that work?

Seamus~;)

[Pindar]

John Marshall and William Brennan.


They are some of my least favorite.

Good man.



I would be interested in seeing a detailed breakdown of why you hate the democratic party.

I don't hate the Democratic Party. I think many in the Demo Party are conveniently disconnected from reality and therefore ill suited to be in positions of power. At present, there is a evil Triumvirate that holds the Party's reins: the race pimps, government ciphers and the ivory tower. Each of these stands is flawed. The race pimp peg is flawed because race is a false category. The government cipher peg is flawed because it is anti-meritocratic. The ivory tower* peg is flawed because it is an echo chamber that confuses tenure for depth. These pegs make the Democratic Party distinct in some ways from Leftism in general. The clarion for the international Left is anti-globalization. This view has some standing in Democratic ranks but no clear constituency yet. These pegs plus the Democratic Party's alienation of people of faith and its fundamental failure to understand the War should doom it to the minority position, but vigilance is always called for. (How's that? All the breakdown you could want in a single paragraph ~:) )


I dislike most politicians in general, many of them are democrats that I distrust especially, but my favorite politician, guess which one~;), is a democrat.

Has McCain become a demo?

My guess is you kowtow to Feingold.


* A catch all for pseudo-intellectualism which is often an excuse for license.

[Geoffrey S]

Yes, and yes, and I already posted to that effect. Must I use red font or profanity simply to get someone to read it?:wall:

Profanity all judges! Take those black robes, wad them up and profane and impossible suggestion! I'm profanity at the whole lot of those profanity.

Did that work?

Seamus~;)
My apologies! Guess that's what I get for not reading all posts in detail.

Goofball: good points. Mainly my post was just to make certain I had my facts straight, I do agree that the exceptions prove the rule. When appointing someone to something like the Supreme Court it's take the certain over the uncertain.

[Goofball]

These pegs plus the Democratic Party's alienation of people of faith and its fundamental failure to understand the War should doom it to the minority position, but vigilance is always called for.

Weird. The Democrats' fundamental failure to understand the war dooms them to a minority position, but the Republicans' fundamental failure to understand the war wins them a majority in Congress and gets their Presidential candidate reelected.

You crazy Americans. I'll never understand your political thought processes...

:dizzy2:

[Pindar]

Weird. The Democrats' fundamental failure to understand the war dooms them to a minority position, but the Republicans' fundamental failure to understand the war wins them a majority in Congress and gets their Presidential candidate reelected.

You crazy Americans. I'll never understand your political thought processes...

:dizzy2:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Cor. 13:11

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Bush What a let down. The man has lost his balls.

[Goofball]

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Cor. 13:11

And yay, there was a time when I had not yet learned to think for myself or argue my points effectively. And in those days of darkness I fell back on dusty old books full of fairy tales when I had no valid rebuttal to the points of another; but when I became an educated man, I let go of that crutch and began to make arguments of my own.

1 Goof. 66:6

Honestly Pindar, do you think the Republicans' prosecution of the war has shown that they "fundamentally understand" the mission any better than the Democrats do?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Honestly Pindar, do you think the Republicans' prosecution of the war has shown that they "fundamentally understand" the mission any better than the Democrats do?

I'm not Pindar (for which Pindar is no doubt eternally grateful), but I would venture a "yes" in response. For all the bureacratic political turf wars and tactical mis-estimations (which Have occurred, despite right winger cool-aid drinkers who deny this), the Republicans do understand that this is a war that cannot be bought off, shuffled to others to bleed for us, or ignored away. They are seeking to smash the existing structures and power bases of hyper-readctionary Islamist terrorism, and to supplant fuedalism and poverty with democratic freedom and the hope of prosperity. I do not think these efforts have been perfectly executed, but they actually do offer the hope of victory. UN Sanctions, the treatment of terrorist attacks as simple criminal acts, the use of military weaponry by remote control to annhilate empty tents, etc., however well intentioned, has exactly zero chance of making a real difference. I will take a strategy that has the promise of victory any time -- even though the cost is higher.

Seamus

[Pindar]

And yay, there was a time when I had not yet learned to think for myself or argue my points effectively. And in those days of darkness I fell back on dusty old books full of fairy tales when I had no valid rebuttal to the points of another; but when I became an educated man, I let go of that crutch and began to make arguments of my own.

1 Goof. 66:6

This is a heretical work that is not accepted by the sound minded. 1 Goof, as with all the Goof chronicles, are pseudepigarphic and written outside of and independent from the rational tradition.



Honestly Pindar, do you think the Republicans' prosecution of the war has shown that they "fundamentally understand" the mission any better than the Democrats do?



Yes.

[Pindar]

I'm not Pindar, but...



I got kind of tinglely there. ~:)

[Xiahou]

Here's one from the guys at the Cato Institute entitled "Cronyism":

Ms. Miers would be well qualified for a seat on a court of appeals, where she could develop a grasp of all these important issues. She would then have to decide what role text and original meaning should play in constitutional interpretation in the context of close cases and very difficult decisions. The Supreme Court is no place to confront these issues for the very first time.

Given her lack of experience, does anyone doubt that Ms. Miers's only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is her close connection to the president? Would the president have ever picked her if she had not been his lawyer, his close confidante, and his adviser? Of course, Hamilton also thought that the existence of Senate confirmation would deter the nomination of cronies: Read the article. (http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5109)
Personally, I have to agree with that. She may be a great and wise lawyer- but she's only getting the nomination because of cronyism.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

George Will (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html) also makes the case against Miers. I agree, let's bork her, in a warm, fuzzy, bipartisan way.

[Xiahou]

George Will (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html) also makes the case against Miers. I agree, let's bork her, in a warm, fuzzy, bipartisan way.


It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.I totally agree with that. Again, it's entirely possible that she would be one of the best justices ever- but we have no evidence for that other than Bush saying "trust me". Coming from the "conservative" president who's presided over unprecidented bloat and growth in the federal government..... I say no thanks. Cronyism. :bow:

[Proletariat]

What if she gets borked and there's a worse selection? This just sucks all around. I had been hoping for Stephens to retire so we'd get a threefer, but now I don't even care.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont think Bush would appoint a non-conservative. She is too old though..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Consider this hypothetical.

Perhaps we should have litmus tests.

Allow any member of the Judiciary committee to ask for projected rulings on 5 specific issues.

This is, after all, what both sides want to know. As in, "before we give you a quarter century with no hope of recall to vote however you please on matters that affect all of us, how would you vote on X." Partisans of all stripes are vexed by the endless "stealthing" of nominees. What everyone really wants to know -- background be durned -- is how are you likely to vote on the issues I care about. So ASK!

This way, constitutionalists could ask questions that specifically evaluated a nominee's willingness to "read in to" or "stick strictly to what's written in" the Constitution. Right to Lifers can get a definitive answer on their issue, and so on.

Then, if the judge ever goes back on their word, Congress would have the right to begin impeachment proceedings.

....Just a thought

Seamus

Edit: Post was mostly intended to throw fuel on a fire. I do not advocate litmus testing and agree with the posters below. Just stirring things up.

[Del Arroyo]

Consider this hypothetical.

Perhaps we should have litmus tests.

Allow any member of the Judiciary committee to ask for projected rulings on 5 specific issues.

This is, after all, what both sides want to know. As in, "before we give you a quarter century with no hope of recall to vote however you please on matters that affect all of us, how would you vote on X." Partisans of all stripes are vexed by the endless "stealthing" of nominees. What everyone really wants to know -- background be durned -- is how are you likely to vote on the issues I care about. So ASK!

This way, constitutionalists could ask questions that specifically evaluated a nominee's willingness to "read in to" or "stick strictly to what's written in" the Constitution. Right to Lifers can get a definitive answer on their issue, and so on.

Then, if the judge ever goes back on their word, Congress would have the right to begin impeachment proceedings.

....Just a thought

Seamus

I think this would cut rather deeply into the concept of "balance of powers" and completely do away with the intended a-political status of judges.

If people think the courts have too much power then what is needed is a constitutional ammendment explicitly limiting jurisdiction and the scope of court rulings-- explicitly politicizing high-level judges would be a solution worse than the problem.

DA

[Xiahou]

Perhaps we should have litmus tests.I don't think that it's needed. To be confirmed, an appointee should be able to demonstrate that they are competent, well-qualified and intent on upholding the Constitution.

Now, for Miers, we currently have no real evidence to support any of those criteria. Sure, she was a lawyer, headed a law firm, and was the president's counsel... but, none of that provides any insight on how she would behave as an impartial judge. One of the stated reasons (by Hamilton) for Senate confirmation was to keep the president from appointing any crony he wants.

[Strike For The South]

Harriet Miers for gay minorty and womens rights...are we sure Bush is still in the white house

[Xiahou]

I just found out on FoxNews that Im apparently an elitist snob for being unhappy about Miers. link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171382,00.html)
This was also a discussion topic for 'the panel' at the end of Special Report, as well as a story on the "Big Story" w/John Gibson. Who knew right?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's crap. I didn't (and won't) go to Harvard.

[Red Harvest]

Anybody find out what Dubya's pet nickname is for Harriet yet? He's got some real doozies, like Turd Blossom for Karl Rove (nope, I'm not making that up.) If we can find out what he has nicknamed her, we might have a much better idea of what he really thinks about her.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I just found this list of awards for harriet miers on wikipedia.
If you believe that these are impressive awards, maybe the cronyism thing is not a substantial or reasonable critique.

If this is a meritocracy, should someone who is capable be exempt from a position if they are friends with the one in charge? Ths goes against common sense and nature - we are not talking about nepotism here. Bush has believed that she was the best legal advice around for years and now he has the means to promote her.

I just hope to crap that she votes the "right" way when the time comes. Who knows - if she doesnt then I feel betrayed by the bush admin for doing nothing for the pro-life movement in these entire 8 years.

This was the single reason that I voted for him.

If he fails here, my opinion of the US as fighting a just war in iraq will evaporate. The US only has the RIGHT to change the world if it is changing the world with the right amount of respect for life. His failure will show me and many others that the republican party is the worst enemy of the right to life movement. Failure after 8 years of a majority in the Representative and Executive is not failure, it is perfidy.

The Republican party attracts the pro-life vote as its champion and then de-claw's it.

With friends like these, who needs democrats.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Sandra Day O'Connor Award for Professional Excellence" Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism 2005
"100 Most Influential Lawyers in America" National Law Journal 2000
"50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America" National Law Journal 1998
"Woman of the Year" Today's Dallas Woman 1997
"Women of Excellence" Women's Enterprise Magazine 1997
"Louise B. Raggio Award" Dallas Women Lawyers' Association
"Jurisprudence Award" Anti-Defamation League 1996
"Merrill Hartman Award" Legal Services of North Texas
"Sarah T. Hughes Award" Women in the Law Section, State Bar of Texas 1993 "Human Relations Award" American Jewish Committee 1992
"Justinian Award for Community Service" Dallas Bar Association 1992

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ah their almost all womens awards. We know that makes them inferior ~D

[solypsist]

I've been following this story for a while now.


When democrats oppose a republican nominee because the nominee is seen as a radical conservative, they're bashed for obstructing justice and the chants for "up or down vote" come out of the woodwork. Now a republican is nominated and some republicans are talking about opposing her because she's not conservative enough? And we're supposed to read this with a straight face? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of this? Democrats are supposed to support a republican nominee under the pretense that though they disagree, the nominee (roberts) is qualified to do the job and therefore they have no grounds for objection, and then something crazy like this happens?

It's hilarious and sad. ~:cool:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of this?

Are the republicans threatenng to filibuster the nomintation? There is NO hypocrisy here.


It's hilarious and sad.

Your post certainly is.~D

[Proletariat]

When democrats oppose a republican nominee because the nominee is seen as a radical conservative, they're bashed for obstructing justice and the chants for "up or down vote" come out of the woodwork. Now a republican is nominated and some republicans are talking about opposing her because she's not conservative enough? And we're supposed to read this with a straight face?

I'd like to preface this by saying, please don't ban (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=947815#post947815) me.

You're surprised that conservatives want a conservative Justice when a conservative was put in the White House and the senate is under conservative control?

Somehow you've confused hypocrisy with democracy.

[Red Harvest]

I'm still waiting for someone to divulge Dubya's pet name for her. Anybody seen it yet?

EDIT: While we are waiting, anyone want to give a it a shot as sort of a Backroom contest to see who can be closest to the pin?