What’s Wrong With This Caption?

AP Photo

President Bush remains tight-lipped about prospects for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court, during a news conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard at the White House, in Washington, Tuesday, July 19, 2005.

Tight-lipped or smirk? Looks more like a smirk to me…

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to What’s Wrong With This Caption?

  1. Ron Chusid says:

    Actually I think it is a look of amazement. Someone just explained to him what the Supreme Court is. He wasn’t aware that it does things other than help steal elections.

  2. Marjorie G says:

    More doofus than POTUS, seriously, I can’t look at that face.

  3. Marjorie

    I know I had to put blinders on to post it! LOL!

    We’ll bury it quickly, I promise.

  4. Marjorie G says:

    People forget he was goon squad, loyalty enforcer for his dad, with similar character and skills to mentors Atwater and Rove. I’d equal culpability and participation for everything done in our name.

  5. Marjorie G says:

    Hola, Pamela!

  6. battlebob says:

    Laura just told him the animals at his “ranch” are waiting for his return
    He just got the illustrated version of My Pet Goat as a gift from Roberts

  7. Nick says:

    Ron LOL, I love it, I love it, I love it.

    Thinking like Karl Rove (just for a moment) but as a Democrat. A question: Would it be so bad for the Democrats politically is the Supreme Court overturned Roe. vs. Wade? If Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would not ILLEGALIZE abortion, it would simply turn the matter over to the states. Remember, the Roe decision was handed down on Jan. 22, 1973. New York, Hawaii, and California (and its then governor Ronald Reagan) enacted liberalized abortion laws BEFORE Roe. v. Wade. Without Roe around, many of those “tolerant traditionalists” who vote GOP over “moral values issues” would trend back to the Dems. In other words, one of the biggest hot-button socail issues that the GOP has used to its great advantage since at least the 1980s would be defused.
    I’m not saying Mississippi would start voting dem over this, but wouldn’t it help dems win votes in the more culturally conservative areas of the MidWest (e.g. rural Missouri) where Dems find a number of like-minded people on economic issues but not necessarily social issues?
    What’s more plenty of states would enact laws permitting abortion, so the right to an abortion would not be gone, and given the difficulty of obtaining abortion TODAY in states that are rabidly Christian conservative (e.g. Georgia) I’m not sure if the overturning of Roe would change foks’ lives one way or the other than overturning Roe would change the lives of folks living in states that would certainly enact pro-choice laws.
    Finally, having Roe overturned would expose the GOP for what they really are (even if this is not always clear to voters): In the pocket of intolerant theocrats like Falwell, Robertson, Reed, etc.
    Because the agenda of the religious right has rarely been passed into law on the federal level, culturally moderate voters end up voting GOP in part because the lack of the legislative success of the Christian Coalition, gives these voters the mistaken beliefs that 1. Hollywood liberals have too great an upper hand and 2. the GOP is home to cultural conservatives but NOT theocrats. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would go a long way in showing the fallacy of those beliefs.
    EJ Dionne is right when he says that most American voters are not Hollywood libertines or Christian conservatives, but “tolerant traditionalists.” What Dionne neglects to mention is that faced with a choice of erring on hte side of being too culturally libertine or too culturally conservative, swing voters will in most cases err on the side of being too culturally conservative. As any parent ( or in my case teacher) will tell you, its easy to tell people to loosen up and not be so stuffy, its not so easy to get folks to act responsibly.
    If Roe were overturned, it would go along way in removing the stain of the Democrats as the party of “personal irresponsibility” while enhancing the stain of “theocrat” or “intolerant” on the GOP.

  8. Ron Chusid says:


    I’ve also thought that politically it would be good for Democrats and bad for Republicans if Row v. Wade were overturned. (Of course it would be bad for individuals affected).

    Currently many people vote for anti-abortion Republicans because they do not think it matters as long as the Supreme Court has protected abortion rights. If Row v. Wade were overturned, many Republicans would be in trouble running on an anti-choice position. Do they moderate their positions or give up the support of the religious right? That would be a hard choice for many Republican candidates.

  9. Nick,

    Roe v Wade is something from a woman’s point of view, that should never be overturned. It’s about a right to privacy. Putting it back in the States hands creates serious issues for women. At the State level it can be made illegal. Then you a situation where women have to travel out of state for services. What if you live in say the middle of the country and every State around you says it’s illegal?

    We can’t go back to coat hanger days, Nick.

  10. Marjorie G says:

    This is very much about choice, Nick, about health and other life’s crises. Not pro-abortion as has been polarized by many. We want adoption and planned parenthood available, but this administration says no contraception, counseling or abortion. More than a little impractical.

    As Kerry would say, be careful what you wish for. Do you want to jail the mothers and doctors? Do you want to force pregnant women to dangerous, illegal abortions? Most of America says no when taken to that inevitable conclusion, and now just needs to look at reasons why women choose to end a pregnancy. Most are health, and unavoidable, but others are economic and lack of a support system.

    Roberts is unclear to me, and I know both sides are polarizing him and the issue. I am also not sure of the GOP preference is giving in, or keeping it a GOTV issue.

    Pamela, need a preview for the long-winded.

  11. Nick says:

    I agree about not going back to coat hangers, but in fairness it should be pointed out that abortion was legal in a few states even before Roe and that many states (probably a majority of the 50 and the District of Columbia) would allow it.
    As to your question about what if the states around you have all outlawed abortion, most of those states are solid red states in the Mountain states and the South where it is already very difficult to obtain an abortion, so there would not be much would change from the Roe era of 1973-?. There still remains the political problem of what are Dems to do? Most Americans may oppose the overturning of Roe, but two facts can be gleaned from many post 1973 elections.
    1) There are more pro-life voters who might (otherwise vote Democrat) for whom abortion is a deal breaker, than their are pro-choice voters (who might otherwise vote GOP) for whom keeping Roe is the No. 1 priority.
    2). The Dems have been framed in the public’s mind (rightly or wrongly) as the PRO-ABORTION party (as opposed to pro-choice).
    I thought Kerry ran a fine campaign and did an EXCELLENT job in all 3 debates. There were two minor mistakes in the 3rd debate. One was mentioning that Mary Cheney was gay, he should have said “If you ask homosexuals–some of whom are Republicans as well as Democrats–…”
    Despite what Chris Matthews thinks, I don’t think that gaffe swayed many voters at all.
    The other mistake was Kerry’s highlighting his support of Roe while letting Bush say he didn’t have a litmus test for his Supreme Court nominees. Bush looked like the one with the open mind on the abortion issue while Kerry and the Democrats looked like a party wedded to a procedure that many Americans find distasteful, to say the least.
    Its pretty clear that Americans don’t want to return to coat hanger days (thus the public opinion polls showing most Americans oppose overturning Roe). Its also clear that a majority of Americans don’t view abortion as just another procedure (thus the polls showing most Americans supporting ban on partial-birth abortions, except for the threat to the mom’s life). So how do dems crack the cultural code? Dems don’t wanna overturn Roe, fine. How to make the GOP look like the intolerant party, which they are, on this issue?

  12. battlebob says:

    My two cents on RvW.

    Prior to RvW, the deciding factor for women getting a abortion was mainly economic. If money was available, she could go to a state or country where abortions were available. Often times that wasn’t possible. Where are poor pregnant young inner-city girls supposed to go for a safe abortion? The results were horrible things such as coat-hanger abortion or in some cases, beatings to the womb area to force a miscarriage.

    Wallis talks about taking the abortion to a higher level.
    The idea is to both prevent unwanted pregnancies and help for the women who is pregnant but doesn’t want to be a parent. This is very complicated because it encompasses more then just abortion. It leads to help and discussions about issues that lead to teen and adult women unwanted pregnancies. Various options are given women such as strengthening Adoption services so that the child could be born into a healthy environment. So we need to merge the conservative view of a strong family unit (which their ideas and policies will never help happen) with Democrat values which try to correct the real problems. Various alternatives to abortions must be provided along with care for the mother and child

    This is actually a continuation of the old ends vs. means battle. Dems care about the means as well as the end. Repubs only are concerned with the end because they say outlawing abortions will stop the problems of women giving birth to unwanted children.

    The Repubs beat their family value drum about how unwanted pregnancies are caused by a dysfunctional family. They ignore economic, cultural, psychological, physical, prenatal and postnatal medical care and adoption services. To them once conception occurs it is too bad.
    So the Repubs are not the pro-life party but the pro-conception party or the pro-love-in-the-backseat party or the pro-date rape party because women are on their own once they are pregnant.

  13. Nick

    There are women in those Red States who may not be red people and might appreciate keeping it legal. That’s the bottom line.

  14. Battlebob,

    “So the Repubs are not the pro-life party but the pro-conception party or the pro-love-in-the-backseat party or the pro-date rape party because women are on their own once they are pregnant.”

    LOL! That about says it all!

  15. Nick says:

    I thinkl my question of how to crack the cultural code on abortion just got answered when you said “So the Repubs are not the pro-life party but the pro-conception party or the pro-love-in-the-backseat party or the pro-date rape party because women are on their own once they are pregnant.”