[DallasMike]

I still see the Miers nomination as a battle between social conservatives and neo-conservatives.

       

 

 

        Stingray blogsite: Conservative Christian Commentary

[w_over_w]

Is this .gif overhead or from the ground level? Your answer will decide whether you're a social conservative or neo-con.

[Parmenio]

Does anyone know if hearings on the Miers nomination have been scheduled? I haven't heard of any, and it strikes me as a bit odd. If I recall correctly, within a couple of days of the Roberts nomination Specter gave a general target date for the start of hearings for the Roberts hearings. So far, there seems to be nothing scheduled for Miers.

[counterpunch]

As Bush's personal friend and personal lawyer, not to mention holding the same position in the Bush White House that John Dean held in the Nixon White House, Miers is just the person Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer will love to interrogate for hours on end.

By the time its all over, the public won't be able to tell if they just watched a confirmation hearing or an impeachment trial. What did Bush know and when did he know it? We're about to find out.

[loboinok]

"we know she's a serious born-again Christian;"

Emphasis on 'serious' and thats really all I need to know about her!

[shempy]

I still see the Miers nomination as a battle between social conservatives and neo-conservatives.

I disagree. "Neo-conservative" typically refers to either those people that have converted from being liberal or to people that adhere to a new view or trend within conservatism. While Kristol and some others are neo-conservative, Laura Ingraham, Rush, Mark Levin, etc. are not at all neo-conservatives.

I do agree that it is a battle between different conservative factions, I just disagree with your labels.

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID...."I still see the Miers nomination as a battle between social conservatives and neo-conservatives."

I dont agree with your characterizations of the divisions, but the important point is this...

Any strategery which ends up pitting one conservative group against another...as has already happened with this nomination on this forum..CANNOT be good for the conservative movement long term. All may be resolved...eventually...or it may not be.

The WH has rolled the dice with Meirs...which in my opinion is totally uncalled for.

[xzins]

social...neo..conservatives

I'm tempted to do the same, but I'm a combination of both. I buy into the moral imperatives of the social conservatives, and I buy into the democratization of the world scheme and financial largesse of the neo's.

But, I'm not conflicted about Miers. I support her. Her nomination matters not a whit in terms of world & social policy.

Is there something about the rejected, potential nominees that would have led to more neo-conservative friendly rulings from the Supreme Court? Is there something about potential Miers viewpoints that would be contrary to neo-conservative hopes?

I cannot see them yet, if they exist.

There's something more to the Miers rejection than a neo/social conservative rift.

[Revolting cat!]

There was a Harriet lawyerette,
Who by sixty would not marry yet,
She sucked up to royalty,
Who did reward her loyalty,
Appointing yet another suffragette!

[Always Right]

I still see the Miers nomination as a battle between social conservatives and neo-conservatives.

It is really battle between conservatives who are willing to trust Bush and conservatives who do not.