Posted on 10/07/2005 9:10:28 AM PDT by Sabramerican
My "Dear George" Letter
Sorry, George, but you lost me at Harriet. When a reporter asked you Oct. 4 if Harriet Miers was the most qualified possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court and you answered, "Yes þ I picked the best person I could find" ‹ and you did it with a straight face ‹ that was it.
I'm done. Check, please! I'm outta here.
I am no longer a George W. Bush supporter. As a conservative, I have been bitch-slapped by this man for the last time. Those suffering from "Battered Conservative's Syndrome" will no doubt make excuses and find some reason to stay with this serial abuser of our principles, but not me. I have had enough.
I've had enough of defending a "conservative" president who has spent money faster and grown government bigger than any president since LBJ. I've had enough of a "conservative" who refuses to do anything to secure our borders, and whose only plan to stop illegal immigration is to hand out temporary worker permits to create even MORE future illegals.
And George, when you look me in the eye and throw me a good old-fashioned Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman" line like Harriet Miers is the most qualified person in America for the Supreme Court þ buddy, you're on your own.
It's bad enough that she's hardly conservative and has no record of achievement. Mr. President, making an affirmative-action appointment of an unqualified crony to one of the highest offices of the land is wrong, no matter what your politics. It's not just a mistake. It is shameful. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The fact that you aren't is the reason you just lost me.
Again and again, watching you throw tax dollars around like a drunken teenager at a New Orleans strip joint, I've told myself, "Stick with George, because he gets the big ones right." And the biggest of the "big ones" has always been rescuing America from an out-of-control, activist Supreme Court. You promised me a Scalia. Instead, you're sticking me with a "sistah," a woman whose qualifications for the Supreme Court begin and end in her brassiere.
She's no Scalia. She's no Thomas. She's not even a Ginsburg or a Souter. She's a joke ‹ FEMA's Michael Brown in a skirt. In fact, that's an insult to Brown, who had at least some experience as a judge, if only at horse shows.
Your nomination of Harriet Miers is an insult to the court, to conservatives and to any American who cares about competence. She's an utterly unqualified crony who has never sat on the bench, never written on constitutional issues, never been involved in a single significant issue or overseen an important case. According to you, Mr. President, she's been your attorney off and on for 10 years, and you've never once discussed the issue of abortion and the Constitution!
Good grief, my mailman and I have had that conversation.
George, you have done more than merely betray your conservative supporters. You have embarrassed us. You have made incompetence and cronyism part of the conservative character. You kept CIA director George Tenet after the worst terrorist attack in American history occurred on his watch. You kept Michael "Best In Show" Brown in a job at FEMA he was never qualified to do. And now you're giving the Dallas Library Lady a seat on the highest court in the land and telling us, "Trust me, I know she's good"?
Sorry, no dice.
Trust you? You just went on TV and told me that Harriet Miers is the most qualified person in America to sit on the Supreme Court! C'mon George, even Harriet's MOM doesn't believe that.
And now we find out that, in addition to giving campaign checks to Al Gore, Miers chaired an American Bar Association panel that recommended legalization of gay adoption and American participation in the International Criminal Court ‹ both liberal positions that you oppose. So mediocre is the Miers pick that your supporters have already fallen back to the "Don't worry, we'll probably get another pick before Bush is gone" defense.
Mr. President, if you honestly believe that Harriet Miers is the most qualified candidate, then you wouldn't be qualified to be president.
But you don't believe it, and you know it. The question is "why?" You've got 55 Republicans in the Senate, you had a dozen well-qualified conservative candidates you could have chosen from, several of them women. Why pick an incompetent crony when you held all the cards?
I fear that, when all the layers are pulled away, we will find that your answer will be "because I wanted to." You knew it would leave conservatives disappointed and despondent; you know she's a second-rate nominee at best; but in your heart you are what I've always feared you were: a Bushie, a spoiled, rich-kid president's son who has spent your life doing what you wanted whenever you wanted and making sure everyone else knows it. The more people complained about cronyism, the more determined you were to shove one down our throats.
Well, Mr. President, you've certainly made that perfectly clear. You've told my fellow conservatives and me that you don't need us. That's fine, George, because we don't need you.
I'm done. I'm off the team. I have gone from a George Bush believer who reluctantly criticized you when necessary to an avowed critic who will support your positions when I can, but not your presidency.
Harriet Miers, "The best possible nominee?" That's like saying "George W. Bush, the best possible Republican president."
What a joke.
One question, would you rather have Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or Harriet Miers? Ginsberg is a Rocket Scientist compared to Miers, who is merely a technician at Estes Corp. I got that..
Here is where I get stupid. I think any conservative leaning person, but especially an accomplished lawyer, can read a few books about the Constitution, the Founders, The Federalist papers (of a conservative bent of course), and be a better Supreme Court Judge than half the Jurists we have there already. Am I out of my mind? HOW HARD IS IT to interpret the Constitution, when you are going to do it STRICTLY?
I'd say I trust more Freepers (assuming they'd do a couple of weeks of reading and homework) with this job than I would the 4 liberals sitting on the court right now.
Ok, so I am a blabbering idiot, I know, my wife never says that outright, but I can see it in her eyes sometimes, and my 2 little kids make me feel like it often enough...
he's a former local DC, WMAL, talk radio host. Fired for some arab inspired opposition to stuff he said on air.
And under-qualified justices make that much more likely to happen. Check and balance. It's not just for the 20th century.
You know, if we repealed the 17th Amendment, it would go a long way in returning this country to the correct path.
Bump!
I've yet to see anybody on here say that.
But she IS the pick.
Then you and others MUST work even harder to get more conservative Senators elected because as it is now there is NOT a conservative majority in that body.
Just imagine the damage that could be done to the judiciary if the RINOS teamed up with the DUmmies to defeat that judge with the long conservative record they can distort.
Remember what they did to Pickering.
False dichotomy, I believe.
Ok, let me pose a question - why are so many people opposed to Harriet Miers? Most people know next to nothing about her and they automatically assume she's a bad choice. Why?
We complained loudly about the negative press that The Passion of the Christ received long before it was released by people who had never seen the movie. People who had no knowledge of the film or its content. How does that differ from the Harriet Miers nomination?
We gnash our teeth in anger when a credit bureau denies credit to someone because they have no credit history. Same principle - why is the LACK of information a bad thing?
Look, I don't know Harriet Miers from a box of Krispy Kremes, but I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in before I make a decision about her nomination. If I decide that she's not qualified based on not having any information about her, how dumb does that make me?
Rather than beat her and W up when the facts aren't in, let's be a little circumspect and give her the chance to defend herself and justify the nomination before bashing her out of ignorance.
By the time this is over, you and I will be the only two left in the Republican party.
It's an attack of the Wrist Slitting Conservatives! It's quite embarassing. :-)
I agree with your post 51. This is a troll to be sure. How come no one has zotted this? I'm dissappointed in my fellow vikings.
Don't kid yourself; there's a lot more of US than there are of the WSC's!
NO ONE on here has said that. but those that are opening their veins, and preparing to mount the hale bopp in their purple shrouds and, nikes continue to accuse anyone remaining rational, of doing so.
This will become a classic!
WSC!! LOL!
UH, and that itself is partly Bush's doing, since he throws his support behind RINOs in the primaries. You seem to think that Bush has his hands tied by the presence of the RINOs. The reality is that he likes them.
Matter of fact, I don't think the liberals or the Dems have suggested it either. I think Mr. Bush is alone on this one.
P.S. what really agravates me is that Stevens was appointed by Ford, O'Connor and Kennedy by RR, and Souter by Bush I yet NONE of them can be counted on to vote with the Constitution.
It very well could be. I assumed as much before, but maybe Bush knows things that we dont.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.