Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire (Captain's Quarters Blog)
Captain's Quarters Blog ^ | 10-11-2005 | Captain's Quarters Blog

Posted on 10/11/2005 12:49:28 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite

White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire

It's either feast or famine at the White House with the Harriet Miers nomination. Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent. However, given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them, the administration has seized practically every opportunity to do so. The latest comes from the normally classy First Lady, who again promoted Ed Gillespie's barnburner accusation of sexism among the ranks of conservatives:

Joining her husband in defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Laura Bush today called her a "role model for young women around the country" and suggested that sexism was a "possible" reason for the heavy criticism of the nomination.

"I know Harriet well," the first lady said. "I know how accomplished she is. I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling. . . . She's very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes, certainly the Supreme Court." ...

Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she said, "It's possible. I think that's possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments."

Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. Given that conservatives generally don't trust trial lawyers and the Bar Association and are at best ambivalent to government sponsorship of gambling, those sound rather weak as arguments for a nomination to the Supreme Court. If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House.

Instead, we get attacked for our supposed "sexism", which does more to marginalize conservatives than anything the Democrats have done over the past twenty years -- and it's so demonstrably false that one wonders if the President has decided to torch his party out of a fit of pique. After all, it wasn't our decision to treat the O'Connor seat as a quota fulfillment; that seems to have originated with the First Lady herself, a form of sexism all its own.

Besides, conservatives stood ready to enthusiastically support a number of women for this nomination:

* Janice Rogers Brown has a long run of state Supreme Court experience, got re-elected to her position with 78% of the vote in California, and has written brilliantly and often on constitutional issues. She is tough, erudite, and more than a match for the fools on the Judiciary Committee, and would also have made minced meat out of any arguments about a "privileged upbringing", one of the snide commentaries about John Roberts in the last round.

* Edith Hollan Jones has served on the federal bench for years, compiling a record of constructionist opinions. She is younger and more experienced than Miers, and has been on conservative short lists for years.

* Priscilla Owen has a record similar to Brown's on the Texas bench and has demonstrated patience and judicial temperament that would easily impress the American people to the detriment of the opposition on the Judiciary Committee.

* Want a woman who litigates rather than one from the bench? One could do worse than Maureen Mahoney, who has argued over a dozen cases at the Supreme Court, clerked for Rehnquist who also later named her as Chair of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission, has been recognized as one of the top 50 female litigators by National Law Journal, and even worked on the transition team in 2000-1 for George Bush.

How does endorsing that slate of candidates equate to sexism in opposition to the unremarkable Miers? It doesn't, but as with those practiced in the victimization smear, the facts really don't matter at all. This kind of argument we expect from the Barbara Boxers and the Ted Kennedys, not from a Republican White House.

It's enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin notices this, too.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antibush; harrietmiers; miers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-335 next last

1 posted on 10/11/2005 12:49:33 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine; Stellar Dendrite; nerdgirl; Ol' Sparky; Map Kernow; Betaille; Pessimist; ...

ping


2 posted on 10/11/2005 12:50:16 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

What a jerk I turned out to be for not loving the Miers nomination!


3 posted on 10/11/2005 12:50:56 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Bookmark


4 posted on 10/11/2005 12:51:24 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. Given that conservatives generally don't trust trial lawyers and the Bar Association and are at best ambivalent to government sponsorship of gambling, those sound rather weak as arguments for a nomination to the Supreme Court. If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House.




BINGO! Don't ask me why I don't support her. Tell me why I should.


5 posted on 10/11/2005 12:52:28 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

ping


6 posted on 10/11/2005 12:53:04 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr; beckett

p
i
n
g


7 posted on 10/11/2005 12:53:56 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

It's enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.
-----
A-M-E-N.


8 posted on 10/11/2005 12:54:24 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
More of the same garbage. She answers a question posed to her that is is possible that soem do oppose her because of she is a woman. Of course it is possible, it is even likely and it has nothing to do with anything.

But don't let me stop you from feeling aggrieved.

9 posted on 10/11/2005 12:54:32 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

From bench.nationalreview.com:

Criticisms
[Mark R. Levin 10/11 12:52 PM]

Let's be clear about something re the Miers appointment and the arguments of some of her advocates: it's not sexist to oppose quotas in the judicial selection process, it's not elitist to demand excellence from nominees to the Supreme Court, it's not a virtue to promise voters justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and then fail to deliver, and it's not disloyal to the president to raise legitimate questions about a nominee's untraceable judicial philosophy.


10 posted on 10/11/2005 12:55:13 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38

ping


11 posted on 10/11/2005 12:56:13 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dead
What a jerk I turned out to be for not loving the Miers nomination!

Oh, you Male Chauvanist Pig, you!

12 posted on 10/11/2005 12:56:14 PM PDT by gridlock (Eliminate Perverse Incentives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent.

In my opinion, this should come with an idiot alert. Will the press and Democrats take what the President says FOR this nominee or against her?

He made the statements regarding her judicial philosophy and about how he knows her and for conservatives, that should be enough.

Bush in his brilliance IMO also put someone out there that wouldn't get a 100 million dollars in donations to use against Republicans in two election cycles coming up.
IMO Bush out thought most even here and nominated a person we need, not the one we wanted, but the choice gave Democrats far less ability to raise fund raising dollars against Republicans as I see it.

Seems IMO that Bush was brilliant.

PS, this would NOT be breaking news, but should be under bloggers, right?

13 posted on 10/11/2005 12:56:34 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Sexism, huh?

Isn't that the same thing Cokie Roberts and Barbara Mikulski said?

Remind me again. Which party controls the White House?


14 posted on 10/11/2005 12:58:03 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
However, given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them
Oh horsesh%^t, I can't wait for the hearings to get this over with.
15 posted on 10/11/2005 12:58:10 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
"Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. ... If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House."

While that's a fair point to make, we hardly live in a world that demands to be served by news from one source (e.g. the White House).

CQ, with little effort on their own part, could easily research to find that Miers picked Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Owen, and other staunch right-wingers for the federal bench. She led the President's research committee for those judicial openings.

If you are happy with her selections for the federal bench, then perhaps you should show some minute respect for the person who wanted them there.

16 posted on 10/11/2005 12:58:35 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Levin knows better than that. That's not what SOME -- I wonder if you people understand the word "some" -- people are doing.

Referring to Ms. Miers as a cleaning lady, for example. It's possible that could be sexist.

Attacking her because she's a "dried up old maid." Perhaps that's sexist.

Saying she's not qualified to be on the Supreme Court because she has a long-term friendship with a member of the opposite sex and is therefore sexually promiscuous (this one wins the prize for the stupidest objection) could also qualify as sexist.

Those things HAVE happened.


17 posted on 10/11/2005 1:02:16 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne

" Oh horsesh%^t, I can't wait for the hearings to get this over with."

how many times has it been pointed out that the hearings wont tell us anything? that doesnt stop you people from say "wait till the hearings"...give me a break. she will likely invoke the ginsburg rule on matters that will come before the court--even if she DID answer the questions-- this does NOT mean that she would NOT drift leftward within 5-10 years.

from her previous support for affirmative action, creating a "women's studies" (read: feminist) lecture series-- one cannot hold much hope in "trust me"


18 posted on 10/11/2005 1:02:25 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
The Bush family keeps slipping in their own BS.

First, George Bush pulls the most outrageous stunt in decades of Republican't politics by naming an unqualified crony to--of all places--the Supreme Court! (even after he promised a Scalia or Thomas).

Then, Laura Bush tries to pull a Jesse Jackass by screaming "sexism".

Outrage after blunder after playing the "sexism card". Where will it stop? Why have the Bush's shifted the gear into reverse and floored the accelerator?
19 posted on 10/11/2005 1:02:59 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm.

These are the qualities of a good chief executive,

but not a judge.

20 posted on 10/11/2005 1:04:21 PM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

NRO comment on the sexist charge:

Okay, we confess. We don't like Harriet Miers because she's a woman. We also don't like Condi Rice because she's a woman. We don't like Margaret Thatcher because she's a woman. We don't like K-Lo because she's a woman. We don't like Mary Ann Glendon because she's a woman. We don't like Michelle Malkin because she's a woman. We don't like Lucianne Goldberg because she's a woman. We don't like Noemie Emery because she's a woman. We don't like Gertrude Himmelfarb because she's a woman. We don't like Limor Livnat because she's a woman. We don't like Linda Chavez because she's a woman. We don't like Midge Decter (had to slip that one in there) because she's a woman. We don't like Jane Austen because she was a woman. We don't like George Eliot because she was a woman. We don't like Sarah, Rachel, Rebecca and Leah because they were women....


21 posted on 10/11/2005 1:06:12 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
There has been a disconcerting animosity for the hard right in this administration, just as there was in his father's. It is what separates the country club, Rockerfeller wing of the party from the rest of us. They think we are a bunch of racist, sexist yahoos who can't possibly understand the complicated issues the way they do.

We gave them open borders. We gave them medicare prescription drugs. We gave them campaign finance reform. We even conceded the need for 25,000 federal agents crawling up our backsides every day in the airports of America.

The only thing we asked for, and the one thing that was promised us, was a strict constructionist court. We never waivered in our support for this president. Now that he is a lame duck, the wife feels free to call us "sexists". Go figure.

22 posted on 10/11/2005 1:07:16 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
The First Lady was asked if sexism were a possible reason for some of the people objecting to Miers, and she said that it was a possibility.

That doesn't mean that she thinks all people objecting to her nomination are sexist.

Whiny conservatives that keep looking for insults where none were meant are no better than whiny liberals that do the same.
23 posted on 10/11/2005 1:08:09 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
CQ, with little effort on their own part, could easily research to find that Miers picked Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Owen, and other staunch right-wingers for the federal bench. She led the President's research committee for those judicial openings.

Do you have a source for that? It is my understanding that Gonzalez chose thost nominees.

24 posted on 10/11/2005 1:11:11 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Regarding the TV interview of the President and Mrs. Bush this morning, I found the following comment of interest:

Q A lot of criticism coming for your nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, from conservatives - people like Trent Lott and Pat Buchanan and George Will and Bill Kristol. Were you taken off-guard a little bit, caught by surprise by the amount of criticism you're getting for Judge Miers?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, I made a decision to put somebody on the Court who hadn't been a part of what they call the judicial monastery. In other words -- I listened, by the way, to people in the Senate who suggested, why don't you get somebody from the outside. And I figured that people are going to kind of question whether or not it made sense to bring somebody from outside the Court.

What did Bush mean by wanting to put someone on the Court "who hadn't been a part of what they call the judicial monastery."

Was Roberts part of the judicial monastery? Is Bush speaking in tongues?


25 posted on 10/11/2005 1:11:30 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Hello everybody!


26 posted on 10/11/2005 1:12:49 PM PDT by A.Hun (Flagellum Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
These are the qualities of a good chief executive,

but not a judge.

Good chief executives are, in my opinion, generally highly qualified to serve as judges. They have demonstrated the ability to analyze a case, listen to conflicting arguments and, in the end, exercised good judgment.

How is a good chief executive NOT qualified to be a judge?

27 posted on 10/11/2005 1:12:54 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Southack
From Nov. 2004:

Since I arrived in Washington four years ago, he has served with skill and integrity in the White House as Counsel to the President. I have counted on Al Gonzales to help select the best nominees for the federal courts, one of the President's most important responsibilities.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041110-8.html

28 posted on 10/11/2005 1:13:54 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cautor; Stellar Dendrite

I see you two have your routine down pat.


29 posted on 10/11/2005 1:14:09 PM PDT by A.Hun (Flagellum Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
"Was Roberts part of the judicial monastery?"

Yes. Harvard is an elite school that turns out elite judges.

Roberts is an elite intellectual. The "common man" he is not.

30 posted on 10/11/2005 1:14:26 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

Laura Bush is not a politician, she is never going to be running for anything like Hillary Clinton.

All this attention to what she says is nonsense.

She didn't bring it up Matt Lauer brought it up.

She was in a no win situation if she said no the media would criticize her for not defending women.


Also to say republicans gave this country open borders is a joke. The borders were open all the way during the Clinton administration.

The only way to stop illegals is a fence and the dems are blocking a proposal by republican duncan hunter for a fence on all of california southern border.



I'm also so tired of republicans getting bashed for spending. Republicans in congress are making Louisiana pay loans while the dems want to throw 250 billion at Louisiana.

If we beat up on our own enough we will get something ten times even worse.


31 posted on 10/11/2005 1:14:26 PM PDT by johnmecainrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt

Gonzales was also on the research committee for selecting conservative federal judges.

32 posted on 10/11/2005 1:16:29 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
If she doesn't withdraw she will be confirmed.

Whats worrisome is we really have no idea how she will be with a lifetime appointment on the SCOTUS. Nobody really knows what she truly believes, thats why everybody likes her.

I admire her faith. I'm an evangelical Christian too, but Jimmy Carter is also and I don't want him on the SCOTUS.
33 posted on 10/11/2005 1:16:46 PM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

"Tell me why I should."

Um....ok...hold on....(sound of crickets)...

OH..OK I GOT IT!

Because you should trust GWB.

And..and..because you suck!

And you are a DU troll!

Um...I can think of others...just give me a few minutes....


34 posted on 10/11/2005 1:16:53 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dead
What a jerk I turned out to be for not loving the Miers nomination!

Heheh. You're dead.

35 posted on 10/11/2005 1:16:59 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
He made the statements regarding her judicial philosophy and about how he knows her and for conservatives, that should be enough.

How do you square that with

nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic or demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution.

The key word, demonstrated.

She may well turn out to be a good justice, but she’s a lousy nomination because GWB turned his back on the very requirement, demonstrated respect for the Constitution which he campaigned on twice.

…………………………………..

Main Entry: dem•on•strate
Pronunciation: 'de-m&n-"strAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -strat•ed; -strat•ing
Etymology: Latin demonstratus, past participle of demonstrare, from de- + monstrare to show -- more at MUSTER transitive senses

1 : to show clearly
2 a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence b : to illustrate and explain especially with many examples
3 : to show or prove the value or efficiency of to a prospective buyer

36 posted on 10/11/2005 1:18:22 PM PDT by SJackson (Palestinian police…in Gaza City…firing in the air to protest a lack of bullets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Southack

"CQ, with little effort on their own part, could easily research to find that Miers picked Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Owen, and other staunch right-wingers for the federal bench. She led the President's research committee for those judicial openings."

No, she did not pick them. She was just in her position recently. She can be given credit for helping with Roberts, but that's about it.


37 posted on 10/11/2005 1:18:52 PM PDT by UM_mac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dead

What riles me more is that Bush says she won't change.
__________________________________________________________

She has changed quite often. She was a democrat, then became a republican. She voted for Gore, then voted for Bush. She donated to Hillary, then donated to republicans.

Her past history show she does change, quite often.


38 posted on 10/11/2005 1:19:04 PM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dead
What a jerk I turned out to be for not loving the Miers nomination!

You said it not me!

39 posted on 10/11/2005 1:20:14 PM PDT by A.Hun (Flagellum Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: johnmecainrino

It's disheartening to see even Laura Bush under fire for a quite innocent response to a Matt Lauer question. By sundown tonight the country will believe Laura actually called conservatives "sexists". She did no such thing.



40 posted on 10/11/2005 1:20:32 PM PDT by YaYa123 (@ God Bless President Bush As the MSM and Democrats Seek To Destroy Him.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: UM_mac
"No, she did not pick them. She was just in her position recently. She can be given credit for helping with Roberts, but that's about it."

Incorrect. Miers has been advising GWB non-stop since he became governor of Texas back in 1994.

41 posted on 10/11/2005 1:21:24 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
In other words -- I listened, by the way, to people in the Senate who suggested, why don't you get somebody from the outside.

Great. I'm thrilled to know that Bush listened to Reid and Leahy.
42 posted on 10/11/2005 1:22:32 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Good impression of the koolaiders.


43 posted on 10/11/2005 1:22:32 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Southack
1. Do you have a source as to who was on this com.?

2. So who gets the credit for the judges...Gonzalez or Miers?

44 posted on 10/11/2005 1:22:32 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: TheForceOfOne
I can't wait for the hearings to get this over with.

That is like saying that you can't wait for your wedding to end your engagement to an insufferable fiance. The hearings, and God forbid, confirmation, are just the start. And unlike a bad marriage, we have no way of getting out of it.

46 posted on 10/11/2005 1:24:09 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt
"So who gets the credit for the judges...Gonzalez or Miers?"

President Bush plus his entire selection committee.

47 posted on 10/11/2005 1:24:12 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
It's disheartening to see even Laura Bush under fire for a quite innocent response to a Matt Lauer question. By sundown tonight the country will believe Laura actually called conservatives "sexists". She did no such thing.

Most of the Miers detractors do not care, and some here will actively promote that lie.

48 posted on 10/11/2005 1:24:29 PM PDT by A.Hun (Flagellum Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

The Captain is scuttling his own ship. Maybe if he's lucky, the S.S. Hilary will pick him up on the way to the Presidency.


49 posted on 10/11/2005 1:24:50 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

mark


50 posted on 10/11/2005 1:25:01 PM PDT by sauropod (Polite political action is about as useful as a miniskirt in a convent -- Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-335 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson