Posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:33 AM PDT by ejdrapes
I don't call the Miers nomination LEADING. I call it FOLDING to the Gang of 14 and Harry Reid. Nominating JRB would be LEADING.
If JRB, Owens, Luttig and a few more on the short list told W no thanks because of the confirmation process, W should have gone on national TV and nailed the Senate's petard to the wall for doing this.
He has the bully pulpit. About time he started LEADING with it.
You may be right about Bush achiving a conservative court despite the criticism.
Abortion isn't the main issue for me, although Roe indeed was bad law.
The main issues for me are economic regulation, property rights, devolution of powers, and limitations on government power and scope.
I haven't seen any evidence that Miers has any opinions on these issues at all. I do know that she is quite loyal to GWB, and that GWB favors a strong executive branch (something I have mixed feelings about).
Perhaps she'll share her positions on these issues. I'm not sure I'll like the answers I hear.
JMHO.
Actually it is. It's a way of helping bring the Gynotopia to pass.
Go right ahead and oppose Miers. You have every right to do that, even if I think you are mistaken, which I do.
But if I were you, I would tell those folks commenting about her marital status, her make-up, her temperment, her cooking habits, etc. that they are making fools of themselves.
And if you want to allign yourself with Bill Kristol and David Frum, be my guest.
"James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said he spoke with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove on Oct. 1 -- two days before the Miers nomination -- and was told that "Harriet Miers was at the top of the short list."
"Also on that list were several candidates that many conservatives say they would have preferred, Mr. Dobson said on his radio program that was recorded yesterday and will be broadcast today.
"Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list," he said, according to a transcript obtained last night. "They would not allow their names to be considered because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."
"White House officials could not be reached for comment last night.
Oops. I take back all the nasty things I have ever said about Frum and direct them to Fund.
You are the one tossing around the label "hate."
BTW, I am sorry for your loss b/c of Katrina. I have friends in MS that were affected by the storm.
IMO The damage to the GOP has already been done by Bush. The nomination itself did the damage...as the traffic on these threads indicates. The question is can the damage be repaired. If she is confirmed and if her court opinions turn out, for example, to confirm her to be a closet feminist or advocate of affirmative action, to chose only one of her likely predelictions the damage will not be repaired. There are those that think the conservative wing of the "FR conservatives" have no option than to take what ever the GOP dishes up...well I don't subscribe to that and if Bush turns out in the final analysis to have screwed this up, we could find ourselves in '08 with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President..(if we make it through '06). Not something I contemplate with glee but certainly within the realm of possibility....You dance with he who brung you or you go home with somebody else.
Anyone who knows how to get rid of McCain please raise your hand. He is my worst nightmare. He is one of the reasons we are in the pickle we are in. Going through agony to pick a justice.
No, you can thank McCain, Graham, de Wine et al that joined the RATS on the Gang of 14 to prevent the adoption of the Nuclear Option.
On that, we agree. There is no room for those kind of comments in this debate.
Evidently not. Kelo, et al. The woman wouldn't know the constitution if it bit her on the ass but in your nicely ordered world she was "eminently qualified" to expand eminent domain beyond all recognition.
Perhaps she's an argument for not quite "eminently qualified"?
I remember the announcement His Slickness made of Ruthie's nomination to the SCOTUS. Even back then, she wore her gender on her sleeve as if that were the SOLE REASON she should be put on that court.
Makes me wanna hurl.
So now, let's look at your solution to that problem. Senators do not really answer to the President. They answer to their constituents. You are wanting the President to go on national television and attack people of his own party. This is a losing strategy, if he ever wanted to pass any meaningful legislation during the next three years.
The Senate has the capacity to block all sorts of things, including military funding. Some of these people would do that if they were provoked. I consider a public fight with members of his own party while we are at war to be an extremely foolish and risky strategy.
What I don't understand is Frum's obsession on getting this nomination derailed before she even comes up for a vote.
What I get from opponents like Frum (even Rush and others) is that they are throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way and they think they are too important to the GOP not to get their way. I sense conceit and elitism ("Listen to me, waa, waa, waa."). Harriet Miers is the little guy, not the high falutin' Ivy League elitist know-it-all, so other high falutin' elitists in the GOP don't like the pick because it's not one of them.
Rush alway complains about the "pointy headed liberal elites", but we're seeing "pointy headed conservatives". Apparently Miers doesn't have the right credentials to rub shoulders with the "pointy headed conservatives".
At least Miers has the guts to stay in there and take the abuse, unlike Owens and others on the short list who didn't want to go through it.
I think the emotions on this issue are distorting our perceptions of each other. Debate is healthy, but this isn't.
Whatever the wisdom of the Miers nomination, I don't think it was intended to turn conservatives against one another.
BTW, we agree that the personal attacks on Miers are unacceptable.
Nuts. If there is (and there is) reason to be concerned that she favors affirmative action, why is it sexist to say so? It is sexist to ignore that. and Carl Rove is on record as stating the President's criteria was first to find a WOMAN to replace O'Conner..It's true not sexist and to calim it is sexist is the pot calling the kettle..etc.
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.