Replies

As I said, I am well aware of the origins - let me try one last time - "Dark horse" is an expression which is frequently used in political contexts. When you say that a candidate is a dark horse, for instance, what you mean is that although the individual was an unknown before the election, he / she succeeded in winning the election. It is believed that Benjamin Disraeli was the first person to use this expression.

A "dark horse" doesn't necessarily have to be dark in color. The word "dark" here can also means "secret" — the trainer of the horse keeps the potential of the horse a secret. Everyone ELSE is kept in the dark about the capability of the horse. Any questions?

"A "dark horse" doesn't necessarily have to be dark in color. The word "dark" here can also means "secret" — the trainer of the horse keeps the potential of the horse a secret. Everyone ELSE is kept in the dark about the capability of the horse. Any questions?"

I'll give it one last shot and then you can have the final word. It's really easy, but you can't seem to grasp it.

Let's start with the origin of the term. You have a horse that runs in races (that's what the horse does and is known for). The horse wins all the time and all the folks in the stands know it. Every time they see the horse, they say I'm betting on that horse, it's a sure winner. Well, there are nefarious folks who would like to make money by betting on a horse with long odds. But they don't want to take a risk on a horse with an unproven record that has long odds. They want a horse with a proven record that has long odds. Such horses just don't exist. So the nefarious folks decide to play a trick. They take a horse that's a proven winner, and which everyone would recognize and, well they change his appearance (they darken his coat) to fool the people into thinking he's some unknown horse with long odds.

So you would contend that Miers (the dark horse) is a known winner that everyone recognizes as such. But to fool us, he has her disguised so we don't recognize her as the winner you say she is. Well, you're right about one thing: she has long odds of being a winner. And since she has no track record as a judge, not even Bush knows how she will turn out. He thinks he knows because she's an old crony of his. His argument and yours boils down to this: TRUST ME.

I'm not willing to trust him. I trusted his dad when he said "read my lips." I no longer trust this man because he promised me a judge in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and he gives us a Friend of Bush who is a perfect stealth candidate. And he failed to confront the Senate bullies called RINOs and Democraps. QED.