Cutting off our noses (Vanity)

Vanity ^ | 11/04/05 | Paloma_55

[villagerjoel]

The problem that I have with this is the very fact that she's so close to the president. If this were Clinton I'd be calling it a scandal!

[July 4th]

I agree with you. As a conservative attorney who is quite involved in litigating constitutional issues, I'm sick about this pick.

[citizencon]

The consensus seems to be that Miers is not the best choice. Who is the better choice, then? The President's choice whom he knows up close and personal or our personal choice whom we don't.

[Mike Darancette]

I was really, really hoping that Bush would start a big fight and pick Janice Rogers Brown

JRB's nomination would have caused a fight and everyone knows it, the fight would have been over Brown's public record and the RINO's might have even voted against her.

The fight over Meyers will be based on her lack of qualifications and her faith, making her detractors elitists and anti-Christian.

Bush has chosen to make this fight on ground of his own choosing.

[tennmountainman]

"Bush has chosen to make this fight on ground of his own choosing"

But in doing so he broke a promise to millions of conservatives who believd what he said about picking a judge in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

[Generic_Login_1787]

I hear you and I can even understand you, but when it comes to beliefs, I'm a conservative first and a Republican second. Bush has always -- ALWAYS -- been a marriage of convenience for people like me; I voted Libertarian in 2000, and I only voted for Bush in 2004 because I didn't want the libs to play any more games with the popular vote.

If he insists on "winning" arguments by trading in ideological stakes for political capital he will never use -- see McCain-Feingold, see the border, see spending, see the Michigan affirmative action case, see civil unions (which I can accept, but not the backdoor way he floated them) -- then I think he has to be shown that my vote is not the slam dunk he thinks it is. Tax cuts are nice, but only a part of the reason why many of us consider ourselves conservative.

I don't expect Bush to turn into Reagan or Goldwater, but his pragmatism serves no cause except his own. And when he brushes aside meritocracy and nominates for the Supreme Court a woman whose primary qualification is his familiarity with her -- I think I'm entitled to feel sold out. That's not how conservatives do it. And I will not have my putative leader taking all the arguments I've had with my liberal friends over the years and throwing them back in my face like this.

[tennmountainman]

Do you believe Miers is a nominee in the mold of Scalia or Thomas?

[TheDon]

I am not going to trash the woman. I am not going to whine and cry that the Republican Party is doomed. I am not going to play into the hands of the Democrats who would love to see Republicans tear their own person down.

Don't be such a killjoy.

[Generic_Login_1787]

Who is the better choice, then? The President's choice whom he knows up close and personal or our personal choice whom we don't.

This fallacy needs to be stopped right here.

I have no reason to doubt Miers is a delightful person with a strong character. That has NOTHING to do with her ability to interpret constitutional law. I don't know Luttig, but I damn sure know he's a more learned and respected constitutional scholar than Miers is. Security blankets are for children, not presidents.

[MNJohnnie]

Nonsense. I am acting like a real Conservative not a knee jerk Bush hater. I am actually willing to learn the FACTS 1st and make an informed decision instead letting a knee jerk "Hate Bush" political agenda do my thinking for me.

The position being taking by the Moveon.org "Conservatives" are directly at odds with what the Conservative Legal group the Federalist Society, Focus on the Family and other Conservative groups are saying. Grassfire is saying its withholding any statement pending finding out more. I agree with Grassfire. Get Grassfire to join your Dump Miers crusade and I will listen to you. Until then, quit wasting my time with your usual I-hate-Bush tirades.

Sen Brownback says he will met with her Monday but is dubious about her qualifications. Get Brownback to come out and say "Nope, bad choice will not vote for her" and I will take your objections seriously. Until then the Dump Her Now looks like a knee jerk Bush hater response NOT a THOUGHTFUL response. It seems you are all mad JUST cause she is BUSH'S choice and are flailing desperately away at anything to justify opposing her.

Rush Limbaugh said this is a missed opportunity, he did not embrace the "Dump Her Now" dogma of you Buchannanites. Funny how quick you are to forget the fact that you said the SAME sort of things about Roberts when his name was announced. Sorry YOU are the one acting like a Democrat letting your emotional hate Bush dogma blind you from doing ANY thinking. That is not a position I care embrace.

Actually MAKE a case why Meirs is a bad choice. Your immediate response to EVERY issue Hitman is a hysteric I-HATE-Bush-tirade. I am willing to see what is found out about her. Given that Sen John Conyrs likes her carries a lot more weight with me then the predictable tirades of the Hate Any Bush Always crowd.

Actually get some Senators and Name Conservatives like Limbaugh to endorse your "dump her now cause Bush picked her" and I might take your objections seriously. Until then this is just another example of the "I hate Bush so this is bad idea" knee jerk reactions of the Moveon.org "conservatives".

So explain this. Why would Meirs, if confirmed, be the ONLY SC Justice since 1916 who has stated her unequivocal support for the Right to Bear Arms in previous writings? Not even the "Hero" of the Conservative Movement Robert Bork can claim that. But that's right, Your I-HATE-BUSH dogma prevents you from actually bothering to find out any of the FACTS before you demand Conservative "Bork" her.

[Mike Darancette]

Do you believe Miers is a nominee in the mold of Scalia or Thomas?

I don't know (no one does) but we'll be able to compare votes real soon. I do believe that she is no O'Connor.

[tennmountainman]

You must be thinking of someone elses reply. I have not trashed Miers nor do I engage in name calling. Of course no one knows how she will vote. But had Bush picked a tested conservative nominee, we could have been reassured that vote would be with Scalia's or Thomas's.
Millions of conservatives waited 20 years for this moment.
And the wait was not for an unknown recently converted to republian nominee

[HitmanLV]

What are you talking about? I'm the one being critical of the knee-jerk types.

[Soul Seeker]

Thank you for you opinion.

Now here is my response.

I will not be silenced or told to get over it. And, personally, I am beginning to resent everyone telling me to do so or implying I am trashing her, whining, a troll, a malcontent susceptible to MSM propaganda. That is a weak character attack that should not be necessary of anyone if her strongest credentials were not based almost solely on the President's support. It is very clear that more than the convenient few always counted to speak against, are unhappy with this nomination.

The Party is big enough, certainly strong enough, to handle intense disagreement over principles. Learn to debate and disagree without asking for silence or implying something is wrong about our response.

I am not trying to sabotage her, matter of fact, I think she'll be confirmed. What I will not do is actively support her, nor will I pretend I am happy. In my view, he could have done better and he did not. I am disappointed. I have the right to convey that to the man I elected, believe in and support.

If I am no longer free to voice my dissent and my disappointment, than we become the Democrat Party. Is that what some people want? If so, you'll find the Republican Party will go the way of the Democrat Party when they began demanding 100% alliegance.

[ModelBreaker]

Get over it. Whining, crying, stomping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue is not only childish, but it makes Republicans look bad.

With all due respect, statements like this have no more content than do statements like "You are a mind-numbed bush-bot" or "Bush lied, people died" or "Chimp-nazi haliburton blood-for-oil."

A lot of good conservatives have serious reservations about this pick. Calling them whiny babies is insulting and suggests that the best you have is silly, ad hominen attacks. Save them for Hillary.

At a minimum, this pick is problematic in the effect it is already having on the 2006 get-out-the-vote effort. I do a lot of recruiting in that regard and, if things continue the way they have been going since the Miers pick,I will have hundreds of fewer volunteers in my county in 2006 than I had in 2004. Maybe it can be repaired. Maybe not.

It didn't take rocket science to see this problem. I could have told you what a Miers pick would do before the pick. The base is bloody dispirited. You may call them whiny babies or chimp-nazis for all I care. But those whiny babies are the ones that will be walking precincts (or not) in 2006. RINO's, moderates, good government republicans, and fiscal Republicans do not walk precincts. Conservatives (with no adjectives) walk precincts.

It's not just the Miers pick. It's the Miers pick after five years of profligate spending, CFR, unfettered illegal immigration and the response to Katrina. The reaction amongst conservatives I have been talking to is about 50%, 'Why bother? It doesn't matter if we elect Republicans anyway. They take us for granted.' Regardless how we got here, the Miers nomination has touched a raw nerve in the base and pretending that only crybabies that have bad nerves would feel this way doesn't change that.

This president is having big problems right now. Ignoring the effect of his actions on his political base is symptomatic of those problems. Hurling personal insults at those who are going to be walking precincts (or not) in 2006 does not help our president. Some small effort by the white house to at least pretend it cares about the base would sure help my GOTV efforts right about now.

[flashbunny]

"Your question is equivalent to asking me whether I think a movie is good or bad, before I've seen it. The answer is, obviously: "I don't know". But my point is it makes no sence to trash the Bush/producers, until you do."

To use the movie analogy:

Say it's the 80s and you're financing an action movie.

The producer says he has Stallone signed for the lead role.

You give him all the money, and then he tells you he's hired FRANK Stallone, not Sylvester Stallone.

Now while Frank Stallone may be able to do a good job in the movie, he's not the draw you expected, and the return on your investment is in doubt.

When Bush ran, he promised everyone he'd nominate judges in the mold of scalia or Thomas.

Instead, we get a female frank Stallone.

Someone that may be good, but without enough of a track record for any of us to know for sure.

That's what people are upset about.