Posted on 10/06/2005 6:51:14 PM PDT by George Stupidnopolis
From my post three days ago:
I've been reading some of the Miers threads and I've never laughed so much on FR as I've laughed today.
This nomination is without question the most brilliant strategery ever from the misunderestimated President. From the reactions of some Conservatives you'd have thought GWB nominated Chucky Schumer.
Just make sure you have your rabies shots up-to-date, sit back, and pop some popcorn. This nomination has the hotheads on both sides frustrated -- they wanted a nasty dogfight while the President is only interested in confirmation of a nominee he knows inside-out. She is his freaking lawyer FGS!
40 posted on 10/03/2005 9:11:07 PM EDT by You Dirty Rats (They misunderestimated Roberts; now they are misunderestimating Miers)
"We wanted a knockout. We wanted to burn their ideological cities and sow the ground with tequila salt."
Rubbish! I don't think it was about wanting a fight at all. Most conservatives are just deathly afraid of another Souter. After working their butts on in the trenches for 20 or so years, who could blame them?
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg and Stevens will leave the court once it is obvious to them that for the most part there vote really doesn't matter anymore. Actually, I think Bush is counting on it.
And how about that Trout Wrapper !
>Had Bush nominated a hard-core conservative judge, say a Michael Luttig or and Edith Jones, the fight would have
>indeed been to the death. The all-important swing voters, the independents, would have been convinced by the media
>that the nasty Republicans were attempting an ideological coup. The 2006 swing vote would go to the left.
This is the lynchpin of the pro-Miers argument. I don't think it holds water.
Herein lies the division in the Republican Party.
Some people actually wanted "The Most Brilliant NOMINEE Ever" rather than the most brilliant nomination strategy.
I didn't want a nasty dogfight. I wanted Luttig or JRB as Associate Justice.
Keep trying. I wanted the conservative jurist that would have changed legal thinking for centuries to come, not an enigmatic mediocrity.
I see your point. Man...folks is gettin' steamed.
My friend has a longstanding relationship with the brother and met Ms Mier at social functions. She spoke of the family and was very pointed about the loyalty and integrity of the Meir family.
Maybe we need to cut Ms Peir and Wubya some slack and let the process nfold.
I'm not interested in a fight, I'm interested in *winning*.
A judicial non-entity, that is in no way, shape or form a proven conservative jurist is NOT WINNING. It's failing to even show up and fight ...
How is this thought contrary to my statement about wanting "The best nominee ever?
Haha! That's rich.
I'll bet the family jewels (both) that she has had at least one abortion.
Based on what evidence? I'd bet the family jewels that not ever single woman in the 60's had an abortion....and not even the majority
"...Girl...you'll be a woman soon..."
I wonder how many "brilliant Harvard-educated lawyers" would last past Exam 1 in an undergraduate Abstract Algebra class.
If you have to ask what Abstract Algebra is, you wouldn't.
Of course it doesnt hold water.
It assumes that if the President nominated a real conservative judge, the people would flock to the party of the ACLU, NARAL and NOW.
Previous elections and polls already prove that wrong. Roberts was a popular pick and so would any other well-qualified conservative.
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.