Looking for a little clarity
Some people were confused by my linking Harriet Miers to Bush since some people seem to be having trouble focusing on the facts. I’ll be the first one to admit that when Miers tried the case mentioned she was a registered Democrat, but considering Zell “Liberalism is a disease” Miller is also a registered Democrat, I wouldn’t read to much into that. What is simple fact is that when Republicans didn’t run the Justice Department, Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. When they took over, Microsoft got let off. And now the Republican machine is appointing this Microsoft lawyer to the Supreme Court. Microsoft’s got a dad in the Republican lobbying machine that ties them all together. So the details of her party registration aren’t perfectly in line, but she’s essentially Bush’s personal lawyer. Doesn’t that sound “partisan” to you? You need every dot to line up in perfect corruption to see what’s plainly true?