So, Bush did an end run around the Democratic caucus and appointed Charles Pickering, Sr., to federal appeals court.
Unless Pickering is confirmed by the full Senate – deemed “unlikely” by the New York Times, his appointment will expire in October, at which point, he will be forced to retire from the bench.
In other words, the whole purpose of this appointment is to throw a bone to Bush’s right-wing constituency, supposedly based primarily in the South. But why? This group is not going to abandon Bush.
What is the point of this controversial appointment, which will probably irritate unaligned voters, those who hold November 2004 in their voting machine-operating hands.
There is no question that the election will be won or lost among the ranks of the Independents and others not affiliated with major political parties.
Let’s say that the majority of unenrolled voters have views similar to Libertarians.
That would mean that we are socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and generally against big government and imperialist adventures like the war in Iraq.
As social progressives, I would guess that the Pickering appointment would be an aggravation for most of us.
To repeat the question, what, then, was the point? I think Young Master Smurf, or rather, his handlers, just wanted to thumb their noses at the Democrats, three days before the Iowa caucuses and the observation of Martin Luther King’s birthday. It’s part of the whole frat boy mentality of this Administration: throw favors at your friends, throw beer bottles at your enemies.
It’s enough to make you want to pack up and move to a civilized place, if you could find one that doesn’t have below-zero winters and a lot of crazy people who find the speaking of the English language offensive to their cultural identity.