Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
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.
A reasonable speculation. I share it. But my objection is less about her than it is about being timid.
to Bush, Miers IS a known commodity.
That cuts in several directions. Only one of those directions is fighting for limited FedGov and constitutional principle.
The other directions are cronyism, advancing "compassionate conservatism" in the form of federal tax $$ to regulate local affairs, etc.
It will be what it will be. And I am sincerely greatful for your indulgence.
He's got to back off and not be insulting to people who merely have differing positions than he does.
His is not the only valid opinion in the world, and his acting like it is, sticks in my craw.
"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."
That is one of the very reasons you anti-Mires folks have had for opposing her, because she used to be a democrat and gave money to algore when he was a pro-lifer? So, its different if it’s you, and different if it’s Miers huh? Well well well. Okay. Whatever. Great house of cards there.
"You bandy about the term 'ignorant', yet this one comment of yours displays your own ignorance with great clarity."
Since you didn’t get it when I said that, I’ll be clearer. I was implying that people with mixed voting records for President have no real business being in this argument on a conservative forum, because recently, the democrat candidates have been f’ing kerry, algore, "never met a woman he didn’t hump" clinton, and "reform the rapist of his wife" dukakis. NO CONSERVATIVE would have voted for those hump jobs. NOT ONE! So yet, when it comes to President, the voting ticket the past 12 years is VERY telling. I didn’t say if you had EVER voted for a democrat or independent. I specifically said PRESIDENT. Savvy?
I see. If one does not blindly follow the Party Line, one is a liberal. You would have made a wonderful communist in Russia."
See, this is why I accused you of being a dink in the first place. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I don’t follow the Republican party line for Pete’s sake, and I’ve never voted outside the Party either. Some of your comments are worded exactly as I have seen liberals make them. That’s just a fact. That doesn’t mean you are a liberal, but it does mean you need to work on your communication skills and not be so insulting just because someone disagrees with you. You anti-Miers folks have gotten way too much in a twit before there is even anything concrete to be upset about. That is ABUNDANTLY clear. The idea of someone like you saying I would have made a good Communist, given the fact that I’ve railed against pinko libbies and communists and spent my childhood playing a myrid of games set against the Soviet Union, is so hilarious. And it also proves another point I made. Some of you are incapable of defending your point without name calling and being insulting. You didn’t make a single point in your post, just name called and insulted. I think FR needs to make "adults only" signs for the top of the forums.
..but I have heard & read ad nauseam...folks in the media (who I generally admire)....insist & demand this woman's removal from the list..
....and I too, am tired of all the whining.... before she's even had a chance to defend herself.
Give her a break and a chance.
The only you Allen knows is the one he's reading today...
..give him a chance to have his say.
You know, that’s a big thing that really helped me come to grips with this. I mean for her to be a closet lib that is going to adjudicate that way, my God. I would be more afraid that she’s the anti-Christ than a stealth lib suiterite if she has been able to stand being surrounded by so many Christian Conservatives that the Bush administration is filled with the past five years. Any lib would have run out and found a fast moving train to jump in front of before being able to endure that. I cannot and will not believe that anyone is clever enough to subject themselves to decades of actions contrary to their real belief system, all as a plan to get into the administration of someone who had no political ambitions until six years before he was President, and pick hundreds of conservative constructionist Judges to boot, all to curry favor to be a stealth lib Justice on the supreme court. On top of that, she’s been a VERY active member of a VERY conservative evangelical "evangelical: liberal four letter word" church for many years, and NO LIB would be able to stand that. That kind of environment is completely and totally incompatible with liberal ideology. For Pete’s sake I can’t even stand being a member going of any Episcopal or Presbyterian or Methodist churches anymore because they’re largely so liberal and I can’t stand watered down Christianity. But somehow she’s a stealth lib and she has subjected herself to a evangelical church and was very active in it beyond just attending, beyond that. NO WAY in heck. Uh uh. Nope. I’ll believe it when I see it, and to do that, there will have to be a majority of rulings the end of this current term where she found with ginsburg and suiter and stevens, and against Thomas, and Roberts, and Scalia. If that doesn’t happen, then all the anti-Miers people are just flat wrong, and all the bickering served NO purpose at all.
FWIW, I'm an Evangelical Presbyterian :)
First of all, that wasn't a typo, that was a plain old grammatical error.
Secondly, I find it difficult to want to bother with you, because you are much more wordy than your points merit.
Never mistake volume for quality. Try editing yourself in order to make yourself more readable.
Some of the most vile things are said about President Bush and lately his nominee Ms. Miers.
No Christian (or just civil person) would ever say these things, or if they did, would later apologize. Today someone wrote that she is "some old maid from Texas". There has been worse. These folk feel justified in their abusive remarks because it's more of Bush this Bush that blame Bush all the time. Bush is worthless to them. Scum to them.
I don't understand or well tolerate people acting this way. Ms. Miers deserves respect. She hasn't done anything to deserve such verbal abuse. President Bush deserves respect; he is the President and he has done plenty of good for America, yet he is not perfect because no one is.
These we speak of will not credit him with deserving anything, even civility, much less appreciation and affection and our prayers, for the good things he is and the good he has done. The hateful behavior of the Left has been showing up on the Right. Someone on here yesterday called President Bush "a dolt". That was the essence of their entire post. This is Leftist-like rhetoric, but on the Right.
All of it is directed against President George W Bush, who is a decent man who has shown determination and courage and vision, who is our President, the only one we have, but they can find only fault there.
Your point about praying and having a little bit of faith that he will nominate conservatives to the bench because that is his promise and his track record, and that he knows this nominee whereas Souter was a mystery to his father are simple, good-hearted common sense.
The point I like best is that both he and the nominee deserve to be treated civilly and their presentations given a fair hearing, first and foremost.
Right on. :) Yeah, I do have my days where I would go for a "sin" tax. Mainly after I've been forced to walk through the smelly crap to get where I have to go, and my clothes smell like crap when I get home and I feel like I have a cold for a few hours, or when a family gets wiped out by some drunk doing 90 in a 45, and its his umpteenth dwi. Since my mother was almost killed by a drunk 40 years ago who hit her in a school zone, doing 70 while she was stopped at a red light, and she hasn't been able to work since, and my father has had several heart attacks and quadrupbypass because of his smoking for years, when there's no history of heart disease in my family. So I'm pretty jaded on both of those and wish they were taxed out the butt. So yeah, man I'm some kind of Bush bot. ;) I'l get discouraged about all this as rulings start coming out if she start sporting a streak of yellow on back of her robe like kennedy and o'conner. All the posturing and griping before then, given the evidence that her character and beliefs are conservative in nature, is really just silly and premature. Like living in fear that something horrible is going to happen every day of your life, instead of going about your life doing the best you can, and dealing with a problem when a problem actually happens that you can see and identify, not one that is maybes and coulda shoulda wouldas. No thanks.
See, that's why you're just a jerk. You might be conservative, but you're a jerk.
You've gone from reasoned poster to name calling...
..FWIW, I defended/agreed with your position.
You may not call Laz a jerk.
And I'm outta here!
Could you possibly put forth 6 actual intelligent polite posts that dispute what someone you disagree with that you said. Because you haven't done that. People here who aren't opposing Miers because she isn't who they may have wanted put forth facts and history and rational facts, and you just make smart mouth comments that in no way intelligenty rebuts what someone says. You have no reason to disagree if you can't put forward rational factual responses that disprove what someone says that you disagree with.
http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/2005/10/specter-on-miers-courtesy-of-nyt.html
This may interest you. The entire Southern Appeal blogspot is very "enlightened" on this topic.
Frank
Including Rush Limbaugh.
And even good ol' Laz.
Projection, thy name is Allen H.
'Tis truly amazing.
They only recently installed those PCs in the White House basement, so they couldn't sign up earlier.
Thank you. :) I just don't understand who is a conservative, but they get nasty when another conservative disagrees with them on one issue like this, when it's pointed out that facts just don't support the strong opposition. This is the first time when I've disagreed with conservatives about an issue and it was so much like disagreeing with a liberal. I've been called a Bush-bot, a goose stepping nazi, a communist, a lemming, etc so on. Very disappointing. I expected better from a place that is made up of conservative people. So much for Republicans being where all the adults are.
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.