Whining about Miers.

Since I’m sure there are still many conservatives out there who are still upset and whining about Bush not nominating who they wanted, I’m wondering. Do you wish Bush had nominated who you wanted, even if it meant them not being confirmed and Bush being forced to pick a milk toast? I don’t think anyone can argue about the fact that the Republican majority in the Senate haven’t exactly acted with a spine or any kind of united strong conservative voice the four years they’ve been a majority. And it seems the larger their majority gets, the more its spine gets watered down.

This is a reality lesson in life. There are two ways to stand strong to your convictions and beliefs and not waiver. You can go about your life, putting your beliefs into practice, never bending, never breaking, never compromising, and whenever anyone asks what you believe, you tell them, politely, civilly, like how Miers has done it. OR, you can do it another way. You can be all those same things above, and you can also be very vocal, very "in your face", very confrontational, outspoken, and be very well known as to what you believe and stand for, so that if you come up for a position like Supreme Court Justice, it’s known immediately which side of the court you will always come down on. The Scalia / Thomas side, or the Ginsburg / Stevens side. The latter is the kind of person that Michael Luddig, Pricilla Owens, Edith Jones, or David Pryor, who I would sure support. Frankly that’s the kind of person I am, and I was hoping they'd of gotten this nomination. I’m not quite "in your face" with liberals unless confronted, but I also will not sit like a wall flower while people say stupid liberal things in the face of reality. I wouldn’t expect to be nominated for the SCOTUS either. Being that way is not bad in any way, but it is a problem. It’s guaranteeing a nasty, long, drawn out, ugly fight that would not even guarantee ALL the Republicans standing with the President. If Bush thought that the Republican majority in the Senate actually had a spine and would stand up to a fight, I think he would have likely put up someone like Juddig or Jones. I think this pick is an indictment on the complete and total lack of conservative will in the Senate majority. Heck, this woman he did pick stands as a solid conservative nominee with all those who have endorsed her, and not all Republicans are backing her. The bottom line is, Harriet Miers WILL be confirmed, and she much more likely than not, will prove to be a conservative, indications show she will be much like Scalia and Thomas. And if you voted for President Bush both times, like I did, or just one time, then you have to trust that he will keep his promise on Judges, like he has so faithfully kept it to this point. There hasn’t been one single Judge on the district, appellate or federal court level that Bush has nominated that hasn’t been a strong unbending conservative. And this is one fact I STILL can’t get around that frustrates me with those opposing Miers. Miers was pivotal in choosing ALL the Judges that Bush has nominated to all the courts the past five years, all of which have proven to be good solid conservatives that all the conservative voters have liked so much. Yet somehow the person who found, supported, and brought all those good conservative judges to the President, somehow isn’t good enough to be a judge herself when she’s accomplished all the things she’s done in her life? That is simply the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Especially after it’s been proven she said now she was worried that perhaps John Roberts might not be conservative enough. And some conservatives are still not supporting her? ARE YOU FRIKKEN KIDDING ME??? THAT is just simply elitism and nothing else.

I was worried initially, because I desperately wanted an Owens, or Luiddig, or someone just like them, someone that was nose to the wind, finger pointing and shaking to the left, well known vocal hard conservative, BUT, if the person put up instead of them is just like that, with the same conservative ideological beliefs, just isn’t a well known confrontational person who will unite all liberals and democrats and milk-toast weak RHINO Republicans against them, then I will choose the Miers over the Owens or Luddig EVERY TIME, because frankly I have NO FAITH in the Republican Senate majority, and while I am more like the judicial Luddig’s and Jones’s, I’ve still seen nothing that yet shows she’s any less conservative than they are. When she gave money to algore, he was pro-life and hadn’t taken the pink liberal without reason pill yet, and since then she has been nothing but a conservative loyalist on all levels, professionally, personally, and religiously. She voted for Reagan in ‘84, she voted for the first Bush in ‘88. Once she became a registered Republican she stayed Republican and voted and worked and donated that way even when clinton was President, even in ‘91 and ’92 when the democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Not one person who really knows her has come out against her nomination. Frum is the only one I’ve heard of who has worked with her and doesn’t support her, and that was years ago and it’s not as though Frum doesn’t have his own agenda. None of Bush’s judges has disappointed. They’ve all been proven to be very conservative constructionist judges, and there is no reason to believe Miers will be any different. The arguments is stale and smacks of elitism at this point. I prefer someone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the snobbery of Yale and Harvard liberalism, and has lived most all of her life in very conservative Texas. Even when Texas was majority Democrat, it was conservative and had nothing in common with the radical New England and left coast liberal bases of operation. Instead of being a judge she’s been actually arguing law from the conservative perspective, not sitting on high on a bench disconnected from reality. What is so wrong with that? She will be confirmed, and more and more, I believe she will prove herself to be a dedicated defender of the Constitution and what it REALLY says, not what stevens and souter and ginsburg wish or think it says. Her votes I believe will consistently fall right with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, and when that time comes, I hope all here who eviscerated her just because she’s not some elitist insider snob, or a speak first think second hothead that would inflame all democrats and RINOs in the Senate, will remember just how vacuous the opposition to her really was, and just how wrong it has proven to be. Given the past 20 years of her life, I can’t see any rational way she will betray all she has proven to stand for the past two decades. And if you voted for and supported W. Bush last year and in 2000, then for Pete’s sake, show just a little faith and trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her. Have a little faith. With faith as small as a mustard seed, a mountain can be moved. I choose to have faith and pray that Harriet Miers will be the conservative strict-constructionist Justice that this nation desperately needs right now, and pray that she will have the strength and wisdom to adjudicate in that way, and continue to display and enforce the beliefs and convictions on the bench, that she has so strongly lived in her life.

I don't love Bush on conditionally

Unconditionally.

Can you honestly name all the Republican's you have voted for for President last year back to when you were 18, and not have one democrat on the list? If not, your opinion on this is really not valid

Total crap. Beescrap. Royal Jelly crap, in fact. People can have voted for Democrats when they are younger, but be conservative today, especially if they grew up in the south.

You bandy about the term 'ignorant', yet this one comment of yours displays your own ignorance with great clarity.

Stirring the pot among conservatives, which all good libs do for a living.

I see. If one does not blindly follow the Party Line, one is a liberal.

You would have made a wonderful communist in Russia.

That's not at all what I said. But the bottom line is, the final outcome from this will be that the liberals will have been encouraged by the divide that was caused because people were so upset over what may happen, and in time, I believe will be proven to have not happened. So a lot of wasted energy being so upset over her, and it will not change the outcome. All the conservatives agsinst her wouldn't change the nomination. She will be confirmed. All the angst is only giving the liberals another spoon with which to stir the political pot. That's the bottom line. It would have made much more sense to be cautious and concerend, but optomistic and prayerfull, and then if she turns out to be a problem, scream loudly and make Bush pay for it the rest of his term, instead of getting the crosses ready before you even know what the result will be. It is just flatly irrational and defies all logic.

Have you read anything this past week of all the support she's received from well known conservatives who know her and conservative organizations who support her and all the things she's done in her life professionally and personlly? The only side of this argument lacking any edivence to support their conserns is the idea that she isn't conservative. There isn't evidence to back that up. There is TONS of evidence that she is a conservative evangelical Christian with a 30 year record to back that up. You're arguing for the side which has no evidence to base it's opinion on. The evidence that does exist at this time, suggests that she would be a good conservative Justice like Scalia and Thomas in rational and belief. That has been well established the past week many times, and I'm sick of pointing out the same facts over and over.

Well if any of the rhetoric I've heard from other so called "conservatives" this week sounded like anything BUT whining, I wouldn't have used that word in my subject, but all the past week all the people I've heard against Miers sound like a bunch of spoiled rotton elities snobs whining because they didn't get the toy they wanted for Christmas and I'm sick of it! If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, and all the anti-Miers bilge stinks of foul.

If the concern was rational and voiced in a way that it conveyed the thought of "Well, we have concernes, and we're nervous because of souter and kennedy and o'conner, but we'll wait and see what happens, and hope for the best and boy you'll hear from us if this blows up bad". If it had been like THAT, no problem. But the anti-Miers crowd is largely WHINING!!! And it's old! The Ingram/Coulter crowd need to grow up and not make something and issue before it's even got a basis in reality or fact and the premise of the fear being presented hasn't even happened yet in any way. That's just silly.

And the ABA being neutral is consistant with the Constitution. She has proven she's pro-life beyond rational argument as evidenced by her personal and professional actions witnessed by many others. Neutrality on abortion is how many things should be. Because if this country becomes strongly opposed to things in nature that Christianity is opposed to, that means someday it could be opposed to Christianity itself, and that is not a precedent that I would want set. She was arguing that it was not appropriate for the ABA to have taken a stand in favor of abortion. Arguing they should be actively opposed to abortion would have been as morally wrong and dangerous as it is for them to be against it. If an entity can be made to be against what you are against, it can also be made to be for what you are against. Where do you go from there?

On the Bush-bot angle, I also believe in strict immigration reform, and I recycle all the garbage I can, can't stand smoking, and would support a 50% to 100% big tobacco and alcahol tax. Am I still a goose stepping Bush-bot?

LOL. Nope. But I don't like your sin-tax inclination.

I do share your general optimism. Life goes on. I (generally) don't care if I get my way, or not, when it comes to government. It's bigger than me, and life is too short. Even "the worst" does not discourage me.

Hey, that's what you sound like. Don't give me that crap how I haven't been here long enough so I have no right to an opinion. I was an active conservative Christian Republican years before this web site was even a twinkle in someone’s eye. Some of your comments are narrow minded and insulting, and smack of either liberal troll, or a conservative who mostly is right, but turns on people who disagree with them on just one issue, like this. I mean, in forums and social settings where most people are liberal to independent, I'm called a radical flaming zealot conservative Christian wacko. Now I'm here, and the anti-Miers people sound much the same way at times in some of their comments. It's disappointing to me because I thought here, of all places, conservatives would wait and not pass judgment until there were hard facts to be had. Instead, I see the same kind of fear mongoring from some here that condemns Miers as a liberal suiterite without time having passed or evidence come to light to back that supposition up. So this isn't exactly fun for me. All this anti-Miers stuff here busted my bubble.

I thought most all people here would be even keeled enough to wait and get the full picture before dropping the hammer on an as yet "fuzzy innocent until proven guilty target". Most here seem to be like that. But some are going out of their way to condemn the woman because of who she isn't, not who she is, and that is both judgmental and ignorant. EVERYONE deserves the right to prove themselves and prove what they believe in, and if her personal and professional life are an indicator she is someone any good ideological conservative will be proud of. Some here just seem to be irrationally in the "shoot first ask questions later" camp, and that is NOT what I have come to expect in conservative circles. All the conservatives I know in the real world off the inter net are rational and thoughtful, with all the same concerns I have, that I have voice here, but are patient and prayerful enough to wait and see before passing judgment and creating a Conservative in fight that the democrats can take advantage of. I can't make it any plainer than this and I've done so several times here. People are either ignoring it, or choosing not to acknowledge it because it's easier to just label me a Bush-bot, which is itself ignorant and dismissive of the facts I've stated about myself.

And I felt the same way. I would have preferred Luddig or Owens or Pryor, but it didn't happen. The milk has been spilt. Tough cookies. After review, this woman looks like she would be a good solid conservative, and since Bush knows her personally and has for many years that may be the very reason he picked her and NOT one of those other judges, because if you recall, three of the last four Republican nominiated SC Justices were judges before their nominations, and the Republican President who nominated them didn't know them from Adam, and they didn't work out too well, did they? Maybe Bush felt the best way to guarnatee a very conservative Justice on the bench was to go with someone he knew for years, to Bush, Miers IS a known commodity. Instead of a judge whom everyone says is a good conservative, like people told his Daddy Souter was. That didn't work out so hot either.

If this is so, then please explain to me why "Laz" went out of his way to be rude and make some of the posts he made to me, when I've said nothing that deserved it. If he's so conservative and proven it here over time, then I don't understand his inability to allow me to say that I'm sick of all the whining about Miers based on what some think may happen. Explain some of those posts he's made then, because they sure were not worded like a very politically conservative person had assembled them.

On my worst day I'm a better debater than you on your best. And I have been for many years. I'll put my posts here against yours in this thread any time buddy boy. You STILL have yet to disprove anything I've said without a smart one liner or some other intellectually devoid comment that has no bearing on the topic at hand. At this point, I don't care why you don't like Miers because you are a no-import poster. Your posts are hollow with a total lack of civility and respect for someone who disagrees with you, and like all mental midgets you are unable to use facts and history and reason to debate someone who disagrees with you, and your posts prove that out to the Nth degree. At this point, if you did manage to eek out a rational respectful post that disputed points I've made, I wouldn't even respond, because I would have to assume it was a fluke of nature, and my response to it would be met with another juvenile troglodyte response.

He is conservative and he is a good guy...

...I realize you don't know him, but he's responding from his vast disappointment with how things should have gone.

I'm not really speaking for him, he can speak for himself....but many of us here know and have known him for years.

You're entitled to your opinion....and I happen to agree with you.

Sometimes folks disappoint us....and Laz is disappointed with President Bush....leave it at that.

I am still very much in President Bush's corner, as are you.

Thanks for the Thread.

Okay, so no thank you, you don't want to trust Bush. I then have two questions for you: 1) Did you vote for him last November, and if so, why vote for him if you don't trust him? If not, your opinion is not important because you likely votes for kerry in which case you would oppose ANYONE bush nominated. 2) When it comees to judicial pics, not overall administration policy, which I disagree with on several point as I have illustrated in great detail, name for me one, JUST ONE Judge that Bush has put up, that has proven to be a liberal suiterite or even just a moderate not as "conservative" as kennedy even, if kennedy can be called that with his judicial record on the court.

All those great conservative Judges Bush appointed, Miers picked to present to him, and she was concerned that Roberts, whom most all conservatives now agree is even more conservative than Renquist himself, that Roberts was not conservative enough. Based on that, how do you figure that Miers is a dangerous pick?

Bush is President. It's his preogative to pick who he wants. I would have picked someone else, but I don't know her, never met her, neither have you, neither have any of her detractors, and they haven't met Luddig or Owens or the other powerhouse Judges they wanted either. For all we know, some of those big name in your face judges are hypocritical b******s like tim hutchinson or bob packwood or other "good conservatives" that talk a good talk, and chase interns on the side. I challenge you to question Bush's walk with God and the fact that he is a dedicated Christian man, and weigh that with the fact that ALL of his judges have been conservative so far without exception, and Miers picked those great conservative judges, and tell me how this premature indictment of her and Bush is justified before anything has even come to pass that would justify it?

You are wordy as hell, but you don't say much.

You seem to be upset that people are insulting of you. Yet it was you who started with the epithet that anyone who doesn't like Meirs is a whiner.

You deserve all the insults you are getting.

Furthermore, who knows how conservative you really are. You can type anything you want here. It may, in fact, be you who are a liberal troll trying to increase the infighting amongst conservatives.

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.