Posted on 10/20/2005 1:15:35 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
No honest person who really knows Bush would believes otherwise. I belive Miers will be a reverse-Souter, in spades!
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
I sure hope not. You never cease to enlighten, excite, or amuse me. Troops like yourself are few and far between, and I for one would miss your rants. They usually say what I can not due to my lack of writing ability.
If necessary, I'll pay the bets that you will not be ranting again.
For your reading pleasure NRO has another anti-Miers column up by Byron York. The usual vehement anti-Miers cadre of posters have already commented on the thread. It is almost like they have nothing better to do than post the same stuff hour after hour--day after day. I am not a black helicopter believer but I am confident there are folks posting here who are on somebody's payroll who has a vested interest in her nomination tanking.
Your reply presents a false dichotomy. He is President now, and (tg) Kerry is not. That does not mean I have to agree with everything he says or does. To accept the position advanced about Miers, here, is the same thing as saying we should have a guest worker program because the President says so, or CFR is great because the President signed it, or I just LOVE that prescription drug bennie because it was the Prez who pushed it. It is no more true on Miers than it is on those issues.
I stand with you.
I didn't say I agree with everything he says or does. I don't. Perscription drugs is butt ugly. The Teddy Kennedy education bill sucked. I respectfully back the Pres the way I would respect my Chief if I were active duty Navy.
Hard to beleive you ran out of vanity with this post.
Win or lose, I’m standing with President Bush.
Me too!
We would agree with you except for one little teensy-weensy problem: The President has gone out of his ever-lovin mind. He needs to be contained, not encouraged. We are not worried about Harrie, she is going to take care of herself at the hearings, in Our opinion. At the moment We are concerned about the quality of the company that has been visiting the People's House there in Washington over the last two days.
Bump for later
So while the democrats bemoaned how many judges were appointed by republicans, we could say it didn't matter because judges aren't beholden to party, but to principle.
We got so far that even liberal democrats would grudgingly accept that asking about personal views wasn't worth filibustering, and the weak republicans were able to get cover for allowing conservatives because they believed in judicial restraint.
Further, we had successfully planted in the minds of america that, so long as a pick was not ethically challenged or incompetent, the President has the right to choose whatever nominee they want, and the Senate had no right to argue for specific nominees or complain that there were other people who would be more acceptable.
But when Miers came out, the attacks came from many angles. There was the "we don't know her philosophy" attack. That was a good argument for waiting to find out, and the point was correctly applicable to confirming a nominee.
There WASN'T really a "she's incompetent" right away, that came as we learned stuff, but expressed politely this was a rational discussion to have, meaning it was a valid reason to oppose a nomination.
There was the "there were good people who already were well-known". Granted, many who said this were also part of the previous two groups. But by loudly complaining that Bush picked the "wrong" choice, instead of picking one of the "conservative pundits" choices, we undermined the principle that the President gets to choose the nominee.
If conservatives can refuse to support someone simply because they aren't on the "top 20 conservatives" list, how can we argue against the democrats when they present their own "top 20" list and refuse to approve anybody who isn't on the list?
But even worse were those who immediately attacked her because she had been a democrat, or had given money to democrats, or had said nice things about democrats. Or had supported affirmative action in a legislative body. Or had personally chosen to endow a women's study program.
I believe some of the charges of this group were false. But regardless, these were attacks on the personal opinions of the nominee. Having fought to convince the public that they shouldn't worry that our judge nominees were all hard-right conservatives because they wouldn't push policy, here we were screaming about our own President's pick because of her politics and personal policy positions.
If conservatives can attack a nominee for what they personally believe, why can't the democrats attack a nominee for what they personally believe?
Because of this, I have considered that it would be a disaster for Bush to pull the nominee on the basis of this attack, or for her to withdraw. Doing either would be a capitulation to the idea that personal ideology matters in judicial picks, and that the President must bow to the wishes of political operatives presenting lists of names, rather than choosing the nominee he desires.
Having said all that, I am quite unimpressed with what I can see regarding this nominee's ability to make it effectively through this process. This has nothing to do with her intelligence, which I do not question. It has nothing to do with her politics, that I don't care about. It's not even that I don't believe she will be a strict constructionist -- I don't see any evidence to doubt it, but she hasn't proven it yet.
And I'll also admit that I still don't have enough information to ACT on this feeling. Because I don't trust the MSM, or Arlen Specter. I need more information. But the flap over her questionare, if true, sounds like someone who isn't committed to the process in a serious way.
I know, it could be that the questions were stupid, and she was flippant. But she, of all nominees, can't afford to be flippant and still earn support. She has to meticulously answer the questions in a way that will assure us of her temperament and judicial heft.
Instead, we see signs that she isn't trying to answer constitutional questions with correct constitutional answers. Meaning that if she is going to cite the constitution, she better get it right. I'm still OK but not happy with her saying "she has to read up", but on a questionare she shouldn't put down an answer that isn't correct.
On the other hand, if she can show herself to be less than ready for this task, it will be easy for her to withdraw without it being the fault of conservatives applying "bad reasons" to force her out (bad being because of politics or because the president has to choose from a menu).
If Miers has to leave because she simply isn't ready for the job of justice, then Bush will not have the baggage of having bowed to conservative pressure -- but only if conservatives get smart NOW, and back off from the BAD ARGUMENTS and stick to arguments ABOUT HER.
For example, arguments that she should withdraw because we don't like the process should be dropped. WHO CARES what the process was, if it gave us a good justice we lucked out, if it gave us a BAD person we should reject them because they are BAD. Let's attack the white house AFTER this nomination to make sure they follow a better process, but let's not argue that the PROCESS is a good reason for rejecting a nominee.
And lets drop the "she's got too many liberal ideas" argument, because they will be thrown in our face with the next nominee "He has too many conservative ideas".
And please let's drop the "We need one from OUR list or else we are going to defeat the senators who vote for them" argument. Because that is the argument MoveOn is using to pressure democrats into opposing GOOD nominees for their political, rather than their judicial views.
I hope I can get an AMEN from even most of the anti-miers folks about the inappropriateness of arguing politics, process, or lists as a reason for throwing out a nominee already selected.
So today is the first day that I find myself more hoping she withdraws than hoping she makes it through. Although both choices scare me, because i still have trust that Bush knows what kind of judge she would be, and I'll feel bad if her replacement isn't that kind of justice.
I agree. They are taking out our generals and I am sick of it. And, I am even sicker of the conservatives joining them in trashing our conservative talk hosts and our leaders.
We need to attack the source of these problems. We need to hound McCain, Lott, and all the rest of the turncoats until they realize we conservatives mean business. We do not accept RINO's that stab us in the back.
They need to be advised of what this war is about - the fight against the liberalism that will destroy this country. And, their little power plays better not ruin our agenda.
Leave Bush and his staff, Hannity and Limbaugh alone. They are our only workers in our fight.
I will not fight for a professional politician.
In particular, I will not fight for one who's screwed us over and over, from stomping on the First Amendment to growing Big Stupid Government like a madman.
If Bush Jr. realizes people will rally to him just to dump his bootblack on the Supreme Court, he knows he can get away with any damn thing he wants to pull from now on.
Time for him to get with the program, not us.
So, if your Chief picked someone for a key post and there was no indication that person was even in the same league as a few dozen other very qualified people, would you offer unquestioning support for the choice?
Say it ain't so, Puke. Your vanity posts are better than most articles posted here!
That is a shocking, yet completely solid metaphor.
Only you need to add the part where you walk away from her and piously stating it's because you always knew she was also a slut.
Some people need to take a good long look in the mirror.
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.