Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Miers as Metaphor
If Poppy Bush was indeed born on third base and thought he hit a triple, what can we say about his slacker of a presidential son? That he woke up in his street clothes under third base at age 40, empty bottle of Jack in his pocket, and thought that God had told him "Snap out of it, boy! You're 90 feet away from hitting an inside-the-park home run!" You can see metaphors aren't my strong suit, so this is where I need your help: How to update the joke to incorporate the dreary Ms. Miers?
Best I can come up with is, "George W. Bush was born on the 18th green, took one look at his caddy, and thought she deserved the Nobel Prize." Please help a brother out in the comments.
Whatever the punchline, this joke ain't funny, least to me. When it comes to the Supreme Court, my single issue of greatest concern is excessive deference to Executive Powers, especially those claimed as necessary to win the latest war. As Mehlman's phlegm attests, Republicans (now that no Clinton is undignifying the White House) can only console themselves that Bush's latest crony might assist them in their ongoing project to pretend the Church Committee was a commie plot, and to basically interpret "separation of powers" as "separating the other two branches from the awesome and all-knowing power of the Commander in Chief." I wish them nothing but failure in their contra-constitutional quest, and hope Miers gets the Borking that Bush Jr. so richly deserves.
|10.4.05 @ 1:14PM|#
You don't even need to be born on third base when you can bring
your own umpire to the game.
...okay, that's not quite it either, but I share your sentiments,
Matt.
|10.4.05 @ 1:17PM|#
The only way that Miers could get "Borked" would be if a handful
of strong social conservatives, say five or six, voted against her
because she isn't anti-abortion (or anti-gay, or anti-whatever)
enough, and the Dems voted against her as a bloc.
I doubt this will happen, though. Bush has just enough loyalists in
the Senate who will actually believe him when he says "trust me,"
and Harry Reid- who allegedly suggested Miers to the prez- has been
praissing her up and down. Complacency will win the day for
Miers.
|10.4.05 @ 1:17PM|#
since Roberts is an "umpire", from the recent confirmation hearings, maybe 'born on third base, thought he hit a triple, and thought his batboy should be umpire'?
The Anti-Puritan|10.4.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Matt Welch, your grasp of metaphor is a lot stronger than Edwin A. Sumcad's. Oops, I'm sorry to damn you with such faint praise.
The Owner's Manual|10.4.05 @ 1:38PM|#
Matt, a supreme court that takes international law into consideration, lets the legislature apply the Commerce Clause to anything it pleases, and thinks private property no longer is, maybe NEEDS a dose of the executive. The Constitution sure isn't a factor.
|10.4.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Boy, if Miers can make people froth at the mouth like this, maybe Bush really is a clever little weasel after all! I hope another guy in black retires or dies soon just so we can see more pundits writhing in agony.
|10.4.05 @ 1:47PM|#
A rather imperial attitude for Bush to take, choosing a Supreme Court justice not on the basis of what's best for the country, but on the basis of what's best for him. So long as he's comfortable for the three-year duration of his term, who gives a shit what happens to the country as a whole for the rest of her life?
|10.4.05 @ 1:48PM|#
The hapless democrats should set up some "independent" Swift
Boat like organizations to run ads praising Miers' commitment to
gay and abortion rights. Get the Biker Dude from the Village People
to appear in a "Gays for Miers" ad and run it heavily in the
Confederacy and on Fox News. (While they're at it, they could
praise Bush's vision in setting up Roberts as the first gay Supreme
Court Chief Justice. Don't tell me he's not).
See, this stuff isn't hard.
|10.4.05 @ 2:06PM|#
How about "W was born on third base, and thought his best chance
at scoring was having a friend for an umpire."
Or considering that it's football season "...W was born on the one
yard line but needed a referee who'd move the goalline closer to
him."
|10.4.05 @ 2:12PM|#
W is like a coyote chasing the road runner of competency through the sterile desert of his mind, only to fall off the cliff of reality and crash onto the ground of. . .no, wait, this metaphor really, really sucks.
J|10.4.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Look, you people have to knock it off with the "Republicans hate
gays" stuff. Yes, some Republicans hate gays, but not all of them.
Most of them are in the "don't care one way or the other, I'd
rather not think about it, but I don't hate them, and who do you
think you are saying that I do just because I vote Republican?"
category.
Thus if you try to pull some kind of "Gays for Miers" crap, A)
every Republican will see right through it, and 2) for every one
you get turned off on Miers, you'll infuriate three who might
otherwise be on the fence, and who will support her just to spite
you.
It's harder than you think.
|10.4.05 @ 2:19PM|#
Yeah, when the Republicans tried to push through the anti-gay-marriage amendment, it was their way of telling gay people "We don't hate you, we really don't care one way or the other."
|10.4.05 @ 2:21PM|#
J-
If it doesn't work, it will be fun to watch the would-be pranksters
get egg on their faces.
If it does work, it will be fun to watch people fall for the
prank.
Either way, sounds like fun!
|10.4.05 @ 2:23PM|#
And the Republicans who opposed the Supreme Court decision in lawrence v. Texas didn't want to imprison gay people who made love to their partners; they just wanted states to retain the right to imprison gay people who made love to their partners.
|10.4.05 @ 2:25PM|#
In all seriousness, though, based on the Republicans I know--it's not that Republicans hate gay people, it's just that they keep voting for people who do.
|10.4.05 @ 2:32PM|#
In all seriousness, though, based on the Republicans I
know--it's not that Republicans hate gay people, it's just that
they keep voting for people who do.
You know, that really hits the nail on the head. And it's why I had
a hard time convincing a gay friend, who subscribes to the
a-vote-for-bush-is-a-personal-slap-in-my-face-and-I-hate-them-forever
idea, to play nice with Republicans who are otherwise nice
people.
|10.4.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Prankish George hopes to leave behind an Almond Joy in the US government's silver punch bowl??
|10.4.05 @ 2:37PM|#
And it's why I had a hard time convincing a gay friend, who
subscribes to the
a-vote-for-bush-is-a-personal-slap-in-my-face-and-I-hate-them-forever
idea, to play nice with Republicans who are otherwise nice
people.
Well, what would YOU think of someone who votes for a person who
wants to make you a second-class citizen, in exchange for the
promise of a tax break?
|10.4.05 @ 3:02PM|#
"it's not that Republicans hate gay people, it's just that they
keep voting for people who do"
Nonsense. Gay marriage is far from popular except in a few areas of
the U.S. Opposition to it is hardly just a Republican phenomenon
and doesn't have to be based on hatred. Many simply oppose having
it imposed by the courts instead of having the opportunity to vote
on it.
And for many Republicans, it's not even a big issue at all. For
most it's way down the list behind foreign policy/national
security, taxes, etc. Despite the fact that they are loud and
obnoxious, extreme social conservatives form only a minority of the
Republican party. And even for them -- although some certainly do
view gays as "sinners" or even degenerates -- many do not hate
gays, but rather are traditionalists who oppose making such a
drastic change to the concept of marriage.
Gay marriage is fine with me and I'd vote for it if given the
opportunity. But labelling everyone opposed to it as gay haters,
and then smearing the entire Republican party through association
is simply idiotic.
|10.4.05 @ 3:05PM|#
Another metaphor attempt: He was born on third base so he's
never seen first or second, therefore whenever he's hit by a pitch
he thinks he should be awarded third base.
OK, that sucks too.
|10.4.05 @ 3:17PM|#
Bush was born on 3rd base, but before he could get home, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg had seized it through Eminent Domain for a luxury condo developer based on her reading of Tanzanian tribal law.
|10.4.05 @ 3:19PM|#
It would be sooooo cool if she refered to GW as her husband during the hearings. But maybe the best we can hope for is some bride-of-Christ gibberish.
Pete Guither|10.4.05 @ 3:26PM|#
George W. Bush was born on first base. Coach Rove woke him up
and gave him the signal to steal home.
Most of the spectators were oddly convinced that runners always
advanced clockwise.
R C Dean|10.4.05 @ 4:37PM|#
David C. said it for me.
I am 100% ambivalent about gay marriage, and 100% opposed to having
it imposed by the courts.
The same polls that show 70% opposition to gay marriage show 70%
approval for civil unions. Civil unions give all the legal rights
of marriage, so I am about 70% annoyed with the gay activists who
are pushing gay "marriage" as a way of forcing societal approval,
when they could get civil unions, legal equality, and avoid a big
pissing match that is harmful to the very people they claim to be
trying to help.
R C Dean|10.4.05 @ 4:42PM|#
Well, what would YOU think of someone who votes for a person
who wants to make you a second-class citizen, in exchange for the
promise of a tax break?
Straw man alert. I don't believe anyone has ever linked getting a
tax break with the traditional marriage amendment, much less said
we will only give you a tax break if you vote against gay
marriage.
Really Jennifer, you usually do better than that.
|10.4.05 @ 5:02PM|#
I don't believe anyone has ever linked getting a tax break
with the traditional marriage amendment, much less said we will
only give you a tax break if you vote against gay
marriage.
True enough, RC. That was actually a swipe at the people (many of
whom post here, and some of whom even write for this magazine) who
say things like "Yeah, well, I hate the PATRIOT Act, and that Gitmo
business bothers me, and the anti-gay stuff doesn't sit well with
me, and I HATE this Iraq business, and I worry about civil
liberties in this country--but I'm voting to re-elect Bush because
I like his tax policy."
Because, y'know, low taxes is the single most important human
right.
|10.4.05 @ 5:02PM|#
Well, what would YOU think of someone who votes for a person
who wants to make you a second-class citizen, in exchange for the
promise of a tax break?
The difference between civil union and gay marriage is somewhere
around number 45 on my list of libertarian concerns: mild violation
of the sensibilities of a few million people.
Let's just say it's way beneath drug laws (massive violation of the
rights of -- and active injury of -- millions of people),
immigration laws (great violation of the rights of billions of
people), and trade laws (moderate violation of the rights of
billions of people). And, yes, it's even well beneath sodomy laws
(massive violation of the rights of -- and very rare active injury
of -- millions of people).
Is one supposed to hate everyone who has ever voted for a Democrat
or a Republican? I consider these people mistaken. I don't consider
them evil.
|10.4.05 @ 5:05PM|#
The difference between civil union and gay marriage is
somewhere around number 45 on my list of libertarian concerns: mild
violation of the sensibilities of a few million people.
Separate but equal.
|10.4.05 @ 5:13PM|#
Separate but equal.
Perhaps. But then again, half the budget of every state in the
country is not at stake in supplying services possibly differently
to married and unioned people.
And, frankly, my preferred solution would be to remove the word
"marriage" from the law and to make all such relationships civil
unions -- nothing more and nothing less -- in the state's eyes.
|10.4.05 @ 5:17PM|#
my preferred solution would be to remove the word "marriage"
from the law and to make all such relationships civil unions --
nothing more and nothing less -- in the state's eyes.
Mine too. But so long as the government sticks its nose in, it's
bullshit that they make one class of citizens inferior to the
other. And trying to amend the fucking Constitution over a
matter as trivial as weddings? I don't know if that or the
anti-flag-burning-amendment proposal was worse.
Party of small and limited government my ass.
|10.4.05 @ 5:29PM|#
"George W. Bush was born on the 18th green, took one look at his
caddy, and thought he deserved the Green Jacket."
what's the only thing more boring than golf on TV?
golf on the radio
|10.4.05 @ 6:16PM|#
I think the analogy is to Clinton era peccadilloes.
...Monica Lewinsky got a great job without any qualifications too.
Unlike Lewinsky, however, Harriet Miers didn't have to give a great
job to get one.
The Anti-Puritan|10.4.05 @ 7:37PM|#
Unlike Lewinsky, however, Harriet Miers didn't have to give
a great job to get one.
That we know about.
|10.4.05 @ 8:31PM|#
Jennifer, "Seperate but equal." I agree with you on a moral
level - I support gay marriage - but I think the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court overreached in declaring that civil unions
for gay couples violated this doctrine in a legal sense. I would
have preferred to see a Vermont-style decision, in which the civil
union and marriage options were preserved for the
legislature.
In Brown vs. Board, there was actually a physical and therefore
social separation between the majority and minority groups; this
separation resulted in unequal services ("protections under the
law"). And the imposition of this distinction materially effected
the opportunities and outcomes of the oppressed group.
In the SJC's decision, they ruled that even a civil union law that
provided all the legal benefits and recognition of marriages would
violate the equal protection doctrine. And why? Because of people's
feelings. Other people, straight people, might feel that gay unions
were inferior to straight ones, because of the legal terminology.
Gay people may then feel bad, because people are thinking bad
things about them. Now, in my mind, inheretance rights are a
protection under the law. Hospital visitation, automatic mutual
adoption, tas filing status - those are protections under the law.
The symbolic politics of applying the same term to the unions of
gay married couples and straight married couples? Not so much, from
a legal/constitutional perspective.
Now, from a political perspective, I agree wholeheartedly.
|10.4.05 @ 8:32PM|#
RC, "The same polls that show 70% opposition to gay marriage
show 70% approval for civil unions. Civil unions give all the legal
rights of marriage, so I am about 70% annoyed with the gay
activists who are pushing gay "marriage" as a way of forcing
societal approval, when they could get civil unions, legal
equality, and avoid a big pissing match that is harmful to the very
people they claim to be trying to help."
Just an FYI, in Massachusetts, Home of the Court-Imposed Gay
Marriage, there was a civil unions bill filed in the legislature
every year since the late 1990s. Every single year, it passed the
Senate, and every single year, it had a majority of the House as
sponsors. And every single year, the conservative Democrats who
made up the House leadership refused to let it out of committee. So
in the scheme of things, I can't muster much sympathy for the
newborn lovers of democracy - good, clean, heterosexual democray -
currently roaming my state in rent garments.
|10.5.05 @ 1:22AM|#
How about, "He's such an asshole, he voted for Ralph Nader, and now can't get away from the bong long enough to think of an insult about someone else's incompetence"? No, wait, that's too long.
|10.5.05 @ 1:34AM|#
"So in the scheme of things, I can't muster much sympathy for
the newborn lovers of democracy - good, clean, heterosexual
democray - currently roaming my state in rent garments."
So, in a sense, that House leadership was 'ignoring the will of the
people', as represented by the wishes of so many of their
colleagues.
If that's the case, it's probably a good thing that the SJC pushed
the situation back into motion.
|10.5.05 @ 7:22PM|#
For the feminists:
"She was born on third base and so she thought she had a
penis."
According to the Posts Op-Ed page:
"She was born on third base and thought she was playing
football."
and the last, bad attempt,
"She threw a ceremonial pitch and thought it was a no-hitter."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245