Posted on 10/12/2005 9:40:01 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
So what is my retort. We all know he was hoping that by saying that it would quell some of the conservative base, it doesnt make Bush stupid or anything and it says nothing about her qualifications it was a political move. Plain and simple. It shows me that Bush knew that there was going to be problems and that one of his guns was the religion ofg her, not for the Senates sake,but for his bases sake. He still should never have nominated her, but things are what they are so he sticks to his guns.
Essentially, they will accuse the President of using a religious test, which is strictly against the constitution. Whether or not this holds water, the words are coming from W's own mouth, so they will be free to raise a firestorm.
Is this a deliberate attempt to sink this nomination?
Perhaps using Miers as a way to soften the attack on the next nominee?
Yeah, that's a flip-flop if I ever heard one.
I believe I watched this response on television and from what I recall there are some words left out of this news report.This would not be unusual for the media.If someone could get the complete exchange between Bush and the reporter,that might be very useful.If I am in error would someone please correct me.Thanks
"What are the dems gonna say? You're a Christian so we don't want you on the SC?"
No, they're not going to say that. They're going to refer to the section of the Constitution that says that no religious test may be applied to anyone taking a position of responsibility in the government. They're further going to quote President Bush saying, "There is no litmus test."
Myself? I don't care what her religious beliefs are. I want to know her position on Constitutional issues. She could be a Quaker or a Buddhist or a dispensationalist. That does not matter to me one whit. But I do want to know her positions on the Constitution.
I am sure that is not why he picked her, but that is what he decided was going to be one of her saling points, due to lack of history.To assume otherwise I believe is rather foolish.
Would you expect Bush to nominate an atheist?
Bush is in a fog. Sharpton, Kerry, Jesse Jackson are all Christians as are millions of others who support abortion. Bush should withdraw the nomination.
I do not see this as a religious test, I see it as a attempt to sell her to the base, where does it say her qualifications are that she is an Evangelical Christin and therefore is qualified for the SC?
Bush is a fool.
What a complete and utter moron to say this.
Oops I didnt read the whole news report, I was going off what I watched on TV, two different things and two different contexts ,my bad.
"Would you expect Bush to nominate an atheist?"
Of course not. You're not getting the problem here. It is not that President Bush considered her religious beliefs in the nomination. It is that he said what he said, giving further ammunition to the opposition.
Forget her religion. That's not the problem. It is Bush's words that are the problem.
First, he told us that she was a powerful woman, who broke through the "glass ceiling." That evokes feminism, and feminists are not going to be for any nominee he proposes, so that's useless.
Basically, President Bush has nothing he can say that is a real recommendation for Miers, so he's punting. This punt didn't carry very far, and is likely going to be returned by the opposition, which is going to get pretty good field position.
It's not about religion.
This is so stupid. Here we are decrying the Liberals' illegitimate attempts to apply a religious test to public office, and here the President practically admits to one himself. Her religion should have nothing to do with it. It should be her qualifications, character and judicial philosophy, full stop.
This just gets worse and worse.
President Bush has single handedly discredited 40 years of intellectually developed conservative judicial philosophy.
We're laughing stocks now.
Gee. Ya think? Congratulations to you for being the first person on this thread to actually exercise the intelligence that normally is the hallmark of this site. That so many "Freepers" on this thread are so quick to ram their heads deeply into their own behinds and take this article as anything more than the MSM usual attempt to create a false story, is just amazing.
It truly amazes me that people smart enough to find this site are stupid enough to trust the press to report ANYTHING accurately.
People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
----------
It is rather troubling that in the last two days, all we have heard from the WH is that we should (a) focus on her role as a woman and (b) focus on her religion.
Seems to me that there is nothing that would placate you anyways, and therefore its futile in any attempt to convince you.
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.