Would Barbara (mama) Bush allow an anti-choice Supreme Court nominee?

[Kurovski]

Barbara Bush has in the past signaled that she is pro-choice.

Many believe that she wields a great amount of influence over the Bushmen. (And George's wife, Laura Bush has said that she does not believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned.)

A number of years ago I was e-mailed a satirical piece from Salon that had former First Lady Barbara Bush pumping iron in a gym while bossing around her husband and sons.

It was sent to me by a friend whom I had dated for three years and was ex-secret service. When discussing the article, he informed me that Madame B was a power to be reckoned with, and that was why he found the Salon piece uproarious. It was news to me.

At any rate do we need to demolish any Dems who will vote for Harriet Miers? was it really necessary to flatly trash, say, the estimable and honorable Russ Fiengold for his vote on Justice John Roberts?

Would it really be possible to stall a nominee until BushCo is out of office? Would it be worth the years-long struggle to do so? How would it affect the party, and the publics perception of the Democrats and how would it interfere with the work that the Congress and Senate do during this time of on-going crisis?

Many on DU are of the mind that if the Republican party lost the abortion issue it would damage them enormously. So the party is not about to overturn Roe V. wade. I'm one of those who see that as a reality.

Unfortunately for the Republicans they will lose many voters with the appointment of Miers. it is likely that James Dobson is repaying some favors by publicly echoing Bush's "trust me" defense to Bush's abortion-and-gays-voting bloc that Rove worked so assiduously to pander into the loyal fold. The sheep will stray. there is no shepard's hook with enough twists and bends in it to keep them all in the fold. And there are also many good people of conscience who would perhaps vote for neither of the two parties once they realized neither intends to outlaw abortion.

Perhaps the greater threat of Roberts and Miers is their tendency to rush to the defense of corporations. if they can be fair while doing so, I think that would be easier to fight on many fronts as opposed to if if Roe V.Wade were overturned.

Bottom line: I don't think Roe V. Wade is going away anytime soon, this might be the best SC we can hope for, and is it really practical to reject every nominee Bush comes up with until he is out of the White House? on this final point I'm asking those with knowledge on that matter--is it possible and practical? Because, and let me say it out right: no Bush nominee will be satisfactory to any of us who see this as an illegitimate administration, but I for one would like to explore the reality that we must face.

[havocmom]

1. So long as that nominee were 'pro-rich', you betcha she would allow it

Rich women can go abroad for medical treatment, and they can afford doctors who will do as they are told here in the US.

If the choice is between ideology and $$, The Quaker Oat girl will follow the money and not bother her beautiful mind with details of how it affects other classes.

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Anti-abortionists among the rich women...

...are a bunch of self-serving hypocrites, that don't really give a damn about anyone but themselves.

Hell yeah, they're for abortion--but ONLY when it pertains to them (they are, after all, the princesses of America, and you better accept it if you know what's good for you), and those around them, and they abhor the idea that their tiny bit of tax dollars their expertly setup loopholes couldn't catch, would go to help those women with no money to have an abortion, no matter that these women pay more in taxes (sales, payroll, etc.) than they.

Adding to the outrage of this all, is that these rich, self-absorbed faux "anti-abortionists" would have NO PROBLEM flying first class to Switzerland, or some nice warm, tropical place, check into a five-star hotel, sip tall drinks, and have their abortions in a posh, sterile room, and--voila!--it becomes an instant "business" tax deduction, thus FREE for them, but not for us sucker taxpayers who get taxed on the very first dollar we make, and have to pay taxes for these people who fight to take our rights away in this country, and using our money against us, to do so.

The majority of my husband's clients are very wealthy people with opulent clothes and German sports-cars (or SUVs when they have a kid or two) and he'll never forget when one elitist sat in front of his desk; nose in the air discussing the 2000 Presidential Election, and spewing hatred that Gore's plan was to help bring to life universal health-care.

Her opinion? {I paraphrase}

"Why do I have to pay for someone else's health insurance? I didn't make them sick. I didn't make them over-eat, or have babies, so why do I need to pay for them with MY taxes??"

Of course, she forgets, that every time her CEO hubby has his taxes done, it's the American people's tax dollars collectively that help get them tax return money.

But hey...Aren't the general masses suppose to work to enrich the privileged aristocracy in the United States? :sarcasm:

[Kurovski]

7. Thanks for that story on how class warfare in this country

never ended.

It's just that it's the wealthy elitists, the ones who whine and moan the loudest about "class warfare" who have never laid down arms.

The Republican war against the non-wealthy majority in this country escalates daily with Bush in the WH, and we are getting absolutely creamed despite the fact that we are the majority.

Remarkable.

[tanyev]

10. Prescott Bush Treasurer of Planned Parenthood Fund Drive

Prescott S. Bush as Treasurer of Planned Parenthood First National Fundrasing Drive—1947
Planned Parenthood fundraising letter of January 8, 1947, lists Prescott S. Bush as treasurer of Margaret Sanger's first national fundraising drive. At that time, contraception was against the law in Connecticut, and the state had a large Catholic constituency. In 1950, during Prescott's first race for the U.S. Senate, the syndicated columnist Drew Pearson accused Bush of being a member of Planned Parenthood. Bush lost and accused Pearson of spreading the lie that cost him elected office. This fund-raising letter proved Pearson right.

Planned Parenthood fundraising letter.

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/extras_documents.php

[Kurovski]

12. I've been wanting to read Kitty Kelley's book.

My, but what a sad trash heap of a family be the Bush's.

So many things to learn about them. The one thing that regularly strikes me about that crackpot criminal clan is the enormity of their phoniness.

[BlueCaliDem]

11. Sadly, It Never Had, But What Irks Me So...

...is that it's alive and well, and even thrives within the majority of that "non-wealthy majority" you've pointed out in your post who are, in truth, acknowledgeable, stubborn, and haunted by one, or two wedge issues they been so injured by sometime in their lives (or those lives of loved ones) that they just can't see clearly, and staunchly continue to vote against their best financial interests and well-being, and help facilitate the proliferation of "taking from the poor to give to the rich".

Yes, class warfare is alive and growing, but what most don't seem to understand is, is that the rich to uber-rich in this country are the ones winning the class-war because just about ALL Republicans and a handful of Democrats in government (like Rep. Meeks in New York!) are corruptible and help them keep the status quo.

I mean, HOW can Americans think that having universal health-care is a negative thing? How can Americans not see that there is more than enough money in corporations for a living wage since it's a public secret CEOs and other high-ranking executives get get anywhere between 500 to 1000 times MORE than their average employee??

How could our Democratic senators and representatives in Congress allow this discriminatory, idiotic bankruptcy reform bill pass without so much as a whimper, knowing that the drafters of that bill are credit corporations that benefit solely from it??

To Clinton's credit, he vetoed this unchanged bill twice during his presidency, and threatened to veto it again (when they threatened to present the bill unchanged for a third time) should it pass through Congress without more protections for the least affluent in our country, and one needs to ask himself just how this bill could've passed in both the House and Senate while Democrats are still there to stop it--and didn't.

I just don't get it...

[Kurovski]

14. Amount of information and level of participation.

Far too many in America have been convinced that their participation just doesn't matter.

Democratic leaders allow something like the bankruptcy bill because they have been corrupted, and perhaps that's the least troubling answer to the question. You most likely realize that fact.

What I think we find difficult to fathom is how Americans can stand for it. Remember "The silent Majority"? Yes, well I think we may have another one on our hands. At least, I'm hoping we do. Not that the media would ever bother to call them out.


America is not in very good shape these days. I think our only chance is to have greater attention and participation from more of us.

In regard to national health care, a majority of Americans are indeed for it. There was a study posted from Pew here at DU recently that points to that. I also remember a survey that asked about Hillary Clinton's plan, but it was "tricked out" so that respondents did not know the details were lifted from Clinton's plan.

It was approved of by a majority of Americans.

What I don't get is why America has such a high tolerance for being lied to and abused. Kicked around, really.

Whatever happened to the cry "Don't tread on me"? :-)

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Like You Said, "Amount of Information & Participation, only...

...in ways that manipulate our thinking starting from the first day of school that has resulted in us garnering such a high tolerance for being lied to, and abused, and yes. Kicked around, too.

All of this ties in to the slow, but insistent "feeding" of, for example, love of the Star Spangled Banner, and the Pledge of Allegiance which was somewhat more forced on our impressionable children (including yours truly) starting from day 1 in Kindergarten; never questioning authority and "doing as you're told" and "jumping through hoops" or risk angering your teacher, or worse, getting bad grades; a mentality necessary to keep the masses in line under the few in the future.

You nailed it with "the amount of information and participation" that has made the masses so easily fooled, and willing to be "kicked about", because I believe it all starts the moment our children go to school--and ties in with, perhaps, the reason why military recruitment in high schools had been so successful before people started waking up, and seeing the lies.

But it ain't easy.

Even today, I struggle with not falling back "into my old, comfortable ways" and need the alternative media like DU to keep my feet firmly planted on the ground, while my head slowly stops spinning from the barrage of propaganda I get from the television, and is cleared with opposing arguments I would've never asked myself on my own.

You can say I'm a "recovering Stepford"; ensuring I ask myself always what the other side of the discussion can be and doing research on my own, but it's a constant battle.

I think America is under-going the same struggle.

[MisterLiberal]

2. One

One simple reason why it's worth anything we have to do: The justice in question will be there for at least 20 if not 30+ years!!!

We have to make a stand now! Especially if Dems know that the Reps have the numbers to pass their facist candidates, then they should stand toe to toe and vote against them, if nothing else, on principle.

No, half our party is voting FOR THEM!!!

[Kurovski]

3. It's looking like the Republicans may reject her

without the help of Democrats.

I think it's all going to go on how she handles herself during questioning.

My impression is she simply doesn't have the intellectual breadth or heft to pull it off.

If she really believes that George is the smartest man she ever met, we can pretty much count on that being the case.

MisterLiberal, regarding your comment about fighting the nomination,
can we keep rejecting nominees? Will that work? Will someone finally be acceptable?

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Too bad Bar didn't HAVE an abortion about 60 years ago

Or better yet, Grandpa Prescott's mom should have had one.

[Bridget Burke]

8. Perhaps she was already unhappy with her "war hero" husband...

But a young bride should NOT have had such feelings.

So she swilled gin throughout the pregnancy. That was a home remedy for "bringing on a late period" not so very long ago. Gin is flavored with juniper berries which can serve as an abortifacient.

But the gin method rarely worked. It might explain a few things about little Georgie.

[cassiepriam]

6. Bush surrounds himself with all these maternal women who take care of him.

To make up for what he did not get from Mommy?
And he rewards them well.

[Captain Hilts]

17. Women around W are there because they don't threaten him.

He knows they won't run for office or write tell all books.

Kind of like how FDR surrounded himself with Catholics, Jews and women. Politically, they were goin' nowhere.

[Bridget Burke]

9. It wouldn't matter to her.

Roe v Wade would not make abortions totally illegal throughout the country. A rich girl in trouble could visit a more liberal state.

Other states will have "loopholes" for the health of the mother. Get a doctor to say her "mental health" will suffer & slip her into a private clinic for a discreet D&C.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

13. Take a look at Dobson for a clue about this

Dobson was initially opposed to the Harriet Miers nomination but then, Bush whispered something into his ear that made him change his mind. Dobson's obsession is the abortion issue and, for him to turn and suddenly change to support (which he has since backed off from, though for other reasons), it obviously had a lot to do with a plan to overturn Roe v. Wade. No, don't have any doubts-- Miers' plan is to shut down Roe at her first opportunity.

This alone makes her questionable. But it's all the shady dealings of her law firm with sham tax shelters and tax cheats, Ponzi schemes, and those infamous torture memos-- http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2417 --
that make her someone who has to be defeated. She cannot be allowed within 10 square miles from SCOTUS with that sort of record.

[noonwitch]

15. Yes-her hubby nominated Clarence Thomas

I don't think she really cares about Roe v Wade, because rich women have always been able to get abortions and always will be able to. It's the rest of us who will have to go to Canada after being raped or molested to get one. Little Ashley from Grosse Pointe's parents will still be able to arrange for a private physician to perform a D&C when her boyfriend knocks her up after her debutante ball.

[Captain Hilts]

16. The Bush men ignore the views of the Bush women. It's that simple. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. She didn't stop Clarence Thomas' nomination

and he is not pro-life.

[Kurovski]

19. That's a good point to consider, but consider also that at the time,

Thomas' appointment would not have strongly affect the balance of the court regarding RvW.

I think it may be true that Bab's truly does not care that poor women would have little choice, She has made her contempt clear for the bothersome nature of our other assorted plights.

But politically speaking, the end of RvW means the end of the Republican party as a winner against democrats. They won't even have enough votes coming close enough to steal elections.

Which is why I would imagine the Republicans to be so hot on the un-verifiable, easily tampered-with voting machines.

Which argues against my own view that the R's really won't ever overturn RvW. Once machines that switch or create votes for R candidates are in place, they can do whatever they want and say it's what American's want, despite the reality.

OK, I've decided we must never let a Bush nominee through, and I hope that's the plan. It is great that the R's are arguing against Meirs, certainly the public will figure out that if the Republicans can do it, so can the Democrats.

If it was a plan on the part of the D's to have this happen it was certainly one worthy of the nastiest R. Good job. :thumbsup: