...
... 
... 
... 
...
Posted on 10/15/2005 5:21:50 PM PDT by Impeach98
... ... ... ... ...
GEORGE WILL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601468.html?sub=AR
ANN COULTER: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
DAVID FRUM: http://frum.nationalreview.com/
PAT BUCHANAN: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9539
LAURA INGRAHAM: http://www.lauraingraham.com/
ROBERT BORK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9623345/
BILL KRISTOL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/166quhvd.asp
MONA CHAREN: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2005/10/07/159703.html
TERRENCE JEFFREY: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/terencejeffrey/2005/10/05/159416.html
MICHELLE MALKIN: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin100605.php3
BOBBY EBERLE - GOPUSA: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=49
MELANIE MORGAN: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46824
PEGGY NOONAN: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007363
MICHAEL GRAHAM: http://www.free-times.com/Usual_Suspects/suspects.html
JOHN PODHORETZ: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29257.htm
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9684
NATIONAL REVIEW EDITORIAL BOARD: http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200510141544.asp
My fellow conservatives... please feel free to use this as a resource when arguing with your friends who work at the RNC, for the White House, or had a 10 year romantic relationship with Miers and are now asked to appear as talking heads on cable news channels to tell us how smart she really is.)
How about we use this as a resource to key in on a bunch of self important crybabies who think they speak for conservatives?
Some have called for Bush to pull Miers' nomination. Some have called for Miers to go to Bush and pull her own name. Some have started a petition to have the White House pull her nomination. Some have simply called her a "disaster" of a nominee without saying what should be done. Others have said the President would be best served if he were to pull the nomination but haven't necessarily demanded it. Others have just pointed out the problems with Miers as a SCOTUS nominee.
I point that out so that no one will get their panties in a wad and say "this person DID NOT say Bush should withdraw the nomination."
This is the list I've been keeping of the people who made it clear that if they were asked whether or not to nominate Miers they ALL would have emphatically said "NO."
And before all is said and done we might have each of them demanding the withdrawl of Miers' nomination. As I said... many of them already have.
I was just going to post we should have a pool to see how long it takes for someone to start attacking the conservatives and BAM! It didn't take you long!
Kristol is a McCainiac why is his opinion of any worth?
Morgan is a nice lady who works at KSFO because her husband is the programming manager.
George Will?? give me a break.
Ann Coulter who was against Roberts then for him???
These people no longer speak for conservatives than Jessie Jackson speaks for Blacks
Is this the point where I am supposed to be impressed? Wait a second. I know its coming. Hold on. I can feel it welling up. Dang! Just ain't doing it for me.
Oh well.
My loss I suppose.
From best scenario to worst:
a) Miers withdraws own nomination
b) Bush withdraws nomination
c) Senate rejects nomination
d) Miers confirmed
Between a, b, and c, all that changes is how much punishment and embarassment gets served with the failure. If d happens then the GOP will find itself abandoned at the polls on election day.
Republican senators who voted for ACLU Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg are wondering how they can vote against Miers.
Is this the kitty killing thread?
None of those people are perfect but they've all got a hell of a lot longer record of opinion than, say, Harriet Miers, and they are all solidly in the conservative camp.
Im not attacking conservatives, I am posting my opinions unless you have been declared the Grand Poobah of conservatives and someone neglected to inform me.
In that case, assuming you now speak for all of use, I plead guilty as charged.
When they can come up with a logical substantive reason not to confirm Miers, I might listen. Until then, they're just throwing a temper tantrum.
That's quite a list.
Since Harriet is 60 years old I would disagree with you, she has had opinions far longer than any of them with the possible exception of Will.
And besides, they don't speak for ANYONE. All their audiences/readers/followers HATE THEM and LOVE BUSH.
Are you being purposely disingenuous? Whatever her opinions may be, we sure don't have evidence of them.
Nah, just cheer along this Administration making a big mistake by spiting its base, not realizing it, then when realizing it saying "tough, what we say goes" and contributing to an increased likelihood for electoral problems for candidates we will all support in 2006.
you've also forgotten rush and david limbaugh as well as mark steyn
Amen. I appreciate the 'longer record of opinion than, say, Harriet Miers,"
In fairness, she does have a bit of a record, but we are told to disregard her pre-1988 record (which is somewhat fair, since people change) but then there isn't a whole lot to evaluate post-1988 which kind of makes it a Catch 22.
"she has had opinions far longer than any of them with the possible exception of Will."
Ok, besides her opinion that GWB is the bestest president ever, and that she favors affirmative action, or she thinks the Federalist society is 'too partisan' while the NAACP isn't, what exactly are her positions?
I am hoping for Option A as well. Let Harriet Miers help save Bush from his own mistake. And let Bush appreciate her loyalty and give her a trial run on constitutional law in a non-SCOTUS position and see how she does.
Many of them have raised the unaddressed conflicts of interest. If you haven't heard the substantive questions that await answers, then you haven't been listening.
Speaking for all of the working class filth of the United States, I cast my vote: nay.
Look, what the conservatives wanted was Armageddon, what Bush promissed was a conservative jurist.
All of these professional blowhards have their teat in a wringer because they didnt get the knock down drag out they wanted.
Can you assure me that Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens were even open to the idea of being nominated?
And what about J Michael Luttigs' siding with the Democrats on the GITMO issue?
You simple assume facts not in evidence, you assumed that your candidate was available and more so you assume that your candidate was acceptable to our spineless GOP Senators.
That's true, we do have some hard evidence on her, and that hard evidence says we should expect Al Gore style policy preferences. I am willing to entertain the "she's changed" story - if only there were a shred of evidence to back it up!
You are certainly entitled to say whatever you wish here at Free Republic but that is an extremely intellectually dishonest thing to say.
They HAVE offered all the reasons why Miers should not be the nominee, and that is precisely why you accuse them of throwing a temper tantrum.
May I point out that the collective pro-Harriet defense thus far is "trust me," and "she's a pretty good lawyer" (which it appears she is), "shut up you elitists" and "shut up you sexists" oh and "did we not mention she's an evangelical Christian, what more of a code phrase do you nutballs in the extreme Right want from us"
That's hardly a compelling argument for someone to be nominated to the most important SCOTUS opening of the past 30 years.
There are dozens of candidates more acceptable and I bet few if any were even asked. If she was the only one able and willing, what will Bush do if another spot opens up? Nominate his wife?
This nominee is showing the split within the conservative movement
Neocon conservatives dislike her because she lacks the pedigree and her ideologue is religiously based.
Religious right conservatives like her or are not worried about her because she is a Evangelical Christian and her ideologue is morally based
Do you disagree that Bush has done a good job so far in his appointees to the Federal Bench?
exactly.
This reminds me of my law professors who though only law professors were competent about "cutting edge" law.
Nah, you're just attacking the position that a majority of conservative leaders have come to.
You are welcome to point out that a few conservatives DO support Miers, although not because they think she's great, but because they think the President has the perogative to appoint whomever he pleases and so long as the person isn't a convicted felon, while we may not like it we should go along with him.
That list I believe includes Fred Barnes, R Emmett Tyrell, William Rusher, Hugh Hewitt (he's more establishment Repub. then movement conservative, but still...), James Dobson (depending on which day of the week you ask him). David Limbaugh might even join this list - he's gone back and forth. Oh and Thomas Sowell.
It speaks volumes to me that the Miers' proponents I've listed above go through grueling gymnastics, explaining they don't really like her that much, but that the fit conservatives are throwing just isn't right.
Meanwhile, the arguments against Miers made by the conservatives I've posted in this thread all pretty much get down to fitness for the job, experience, qualifications, background in constitutional law issues. I think that makes their argument much more compelling.
I've already contacted my two senators - neither of whom serves on the Judiciary Committee - to inform them that I and most of the people I know (conservative AND liberal) are opposed to seeing this third-rate crony trumping the BEST prospects. The reason? If this nonentity gets thru the Judiciary Committee she will need confirmation by the full senate. More important, if senators start feeling the heat of public opposition they'll both communicate it to Bush and start thinking about their own reelection prospects. This may be the last opportunity for a generation to move the Supreme Court in an originalist direction. Bush blew it but we conservatives are NOT powerless! Let's raise hell and let them know in DC that we've had it with this farce!!
Rush has finally now said "I oppose her nomination" or something very close. However, he didn't have it on his website, and I didn't want to post a link to something and have people then say the transcript of that person was wrong. But you are right - I just don't have a good document to cite.
David Limbaugh has both blasted Miers and the Bush Administration for attacking her critics, and then also said maybe her critics are too riled up. Mark Steyn I thought was neutral for now even though he was not fond of the pick.
Help set me straight if I've got my facts wrong on any of what I've just written.
Popman
There is indeed a split between conservative probably several fissures is even a better way to look at it.
I want to actually hear the lady answer questions and not prejudge the matter as all of these professional talkers have.
Im still waiting for someone to come to the defence of William Kristol who supported John McCrazy, exactly why is his judgment good.
And as for Natl Review please remember how they totally caved to CAIR over that Islamist groups allegation of anti-muslim motivation behind featuring a hard hitting book on the Islamists in their bookstore.
On that one Rich Lowrey showed his cowardice and sorry I simply dont trust that periodical anywhere near as much as I used to.
Nope I am disagreeing with you and you seem to think you silly thread will be a rallying point for FR conservatives, I had the temerity to disagree with you.
Neither of us has any idea where Miers is on the important issues, I say wait until she testifies and I say that I trust my President who in case you havent noticed has done a superlative job on judidical nominations up to this point and Miers has been his chief "vetter"
Will she or will she not be confirmed?
Be fair. He wasn't just the bestest President ever. He was the brightest man she ever met.
But that's OK - Bush returned the favor.
He said Harriet Miers was the MOST QUALIFIED person in the nation to serve on the SCOTUS. Michael Graham wrote about this (in a different column from the one I posted):
"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 I picked the best person I could find" (and you did it with a straight face) that was it."
"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."
"How about we use this as a resource to key in on a bunch of self important crybabies who think they speak for conservatives?"
They speak for me and I've heard of them. I've never heard of you.
I can certainly see why so many people are flocking to public service considering how some of you conservatives are treating your own.
Well we are equal, Ive never heard of you either, and I wouldnt presume to speak for you.
I do not believe that:
She's never been a judge.
She didn't attend a top tier law school.
She's not qualified! (using a list of imagined necessary qualifications)
She's "the cleaning lady!"
rise to the level of logical and substantive reasons. That is where you and I will continue to differ on this nomination.
I think you are correct about Mark Steyn; from the piece I read, I too would say he is neutral. I think he is reserving judgment, but I agree with you that he isn't fond of the pick. Thomas Sowell also goes in the neutral camp; I think his piece on the nomination is worth reading for anyone who has not yet seen it. He seems to see pragmatic reasons for the nomination, setting his opinion apart from a lot of other commentators.
Hugh Hewett sure is going to get a big increase in market share.
Bay
You are correct.
See, therein lies the problem. I think you got it exactly right that this is how Rove and others view it.
But see, let's get real. Who wanted Armageddon were the Senate Dems. What conservatives wanted was a solid conservative SCOTUS nominee.
There is a problem when an Administration is more worried about the criticism they will take from their opponents than following through with what is supposed to be a shared philosophy.
This same methodology of decision making (when the same dynamic has come up before) is why we have Bush signing McCain Feingold, why we have Bush not vetoing spending bills, why we have Bush promising to print money for Katrina, why we had the giant Prescription Drug plan. I won't throw immigration in there because I think Bush has long thought that conservatives who want to see illegal aliens kept out of the U.S.A. are racists - an entirely different reason to snub the base.
Hugh Hewit's market share is less than Chris Matthews dont make me laugh.
I've also had it with this "farce" from a group of conservatives and their attacks. There are alot of conservatives that do support the Meirs pick and/or at least to give her a chance before ripping her apart. First time I can remember where I get so angry I have to turn off Hannity or some other talk show host as they rip the nomination with Coulter or team.
You left out "all the critics are cynics."
If we have to follow that standard why not just be completely anti-elitist and go pick out the youngest checker at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store. Then we'd get a great, non-elitist, non-judge, non-constitutional scholar, young person who could serve on the court and make understands-real-life rulings for 80 years.
My God, the establishment of my own party is turning into the "let's dumb down the standards" Democrat Party. Ack!
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.