Posted on 10/13/2005 6:06:49 AM PDT by OESY
"He does keg stands with the kool-aid. If the Republican party came out on a platform of kicking puppies and taking lollipops from little kids Hugh would write 10,000 words on the virtue of the new platform."
Excellent post - HH is brown nose kiss ass to the RINOs in office.
Accepting arguendo the "borking definition as "to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy," it's clear that it doesn't apply to Aunt Harriet.
Miers's character? We don't know.
Her background? Fine for a manager of a big law firm, but unkown for a judge.
Her philosophy? Don't know, and we're not alowed to ask, apparently.
The kool-aid brigade is doing Jesse Jackson proud in their cries of sexism or borking without any factual basis. We were promised another Scalia, and we got a cipher. And we're supposed to just bend over and smile? Not this time, George.
IMHO no worse or better than by anyone else.
You want judicial revolution well you know … we all want to fix the Law
The Left ignores the Constitution well you know … Janice would stick right in their craw
But when you go hating our President Georgie Bush
We’re just gonna kick you hard right in the tush!!!
We say Harriet’s gonna be … all RIGHT … all RIGHT … all RIGHT
You say you want a paper tray-ay-ail well you know … we all want to know her views
You don’t want to see em-i-na-tions well you know … we don’t need any more Dave Soooooooouz
But when you attack the good lady from S M U
You go from the high road right into the doggie dooooooooooooooooooooooo
We say Harriet’s gonna be … all RIGHT … all RIGHT … all RIGHT
You say you don’t trust Dingy’s Par-ar-ty well you know … we despise the dirty rats
You don’t trust our team in the Se-e-nate well you know … It’s so hard to herd those caaaats
But when you go blaming the Prez for the Senate louts
All that I can tell you is just … COUNT ME OUT!!
We say Harriet’s gonna be … all RIGHT … all RIGHT … all RIGHT
You say you don’t know much about Mi-i-ers well you know … we all want to hear her talk
Your not sure if she’s got the qual-al-als well you know … she’ll have to walk the walk
But when you just want her to quit and shout her down
We’re ain’t gonna take you more real than BOZO THE CLOWN
We say Harriet’s gonna be … all RIGHT … all RIGHT … all RIGHT
Hugh brave? Don't make me laugh, parroting everything the administration says or does is anything but brave. Hugh is nothing but a disgusting mouthpiece with no opinion of his own, if you want to know what Hugh thinks go read the RNC website, there you'll find Hugh's thoughts word for word.
Funny you associate the anti-Miers crowd with the left. Who has been using the leftist sexist argument so far? It has been Mehlman, Laura Bush, and other Miers supporters.
"How bad is it to be borked by Bork?"
"IMHO no worse or better than by anyone else."
But ironic, no?
Now THAT I will give you! ;>)
"Unfortunately, once she reaches the hearings, she's pretty much guranteed a seat on the SCOTUS."
I'm wondering how many nominees that have been withdrawn or not confirmed made it to their confirmation hearings before that happened? Do you know?
"I'd rather stop her short."
For what reason? Because you don't know enough about her? Isn't that the purpose of the hearings?
"Conservatives are in short supply in the Senate"
Very, very, very true. So how do you expect to get an extremely conservative judge with a long paper trail confirmed by the senate?
" there are not enough to stop her if she refuses to demonstrate competence and originalist judicial philosophy"
She has a long legal career that demonstrates competence. About half the people nominated to the supreme court have not had judicial experience.
Her judicial philosophy is what's in question. Not because she's made questionable decisions or choices in teh past, but because we don't have a nice paper trail.
She should face some serious questioning at her hearings and she should be asked to give examples that would help us understand her reasoning. That's the way the confirmation process is set up to work.
"Most 'Pubbies will shut up and drink the cool-aid."
I think you should take a closer look at what you've been drinking.
Nice! I like it. It's got a beat and I can dance to it ;)
BY IN LARGE (shouted that to cover the shallow minded Bush haters on this board who will take the following as applying to all those who disapprove of this nomination)
the people criticizing this nomination are who I would call the "whole loafers". Those are the people for whom compromise is a four letter word. They see compromise as weakness, forgetting is was their hero Ronald Reagan who said something to the effect that it was better to get some or most of what you wanted than none at all.
Many of these critics see Harriet Miers as a major player in the political new tone. I think some even see her as having blocked access to President Bush.
I am not against a reasoned debate on this nominee. Despite what the "whole loafers" say there is a record on Ms Miers which can be discussed. The problem is with the "whole loafers" they can't get past their anger and desire to get even with Bush and Miers. Either that or they are too lazy to do the work required to take a look at her record.
"Paper trail doesn't explain it. They had paper on O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. It proved nothing."
THANK YOU!! Why did it take so long for someone to say that. No matter who (or is it "whom"?) is nominated, we will never know how they will rule until they are on the bench. My gut is to go with the Prez on this one.
O.K. I LOVE IT!! You've gotta send that to the RNC. This would be a great TV commercial for people to ".....call you Senator and tell him/her to vote to confirm Harriet Miers.....". Much better than those bland ones they are airing now. Go ahead. Send it to Ken Mehlman.
Dare ya, dare ya; double dog dare ya.
You may disagree with Hewitt, and with those of us who are either supporting the Miers nomination or taking a wait-and-see attitude, but to dismiss him and us as "kool aid drinkers" shows the weakness of your own argument.
By now, we all have been told over and over again the litnany of concerns from the anti-Miers forces:
She doesn't have the intellectual heft.
She didn't come from one of the top law schools.
She hasn't written or spoken of her "judicial philosophy."
She's a "crony."
Her life and work experience isn't "good enough."
She's "too old."
What have I left out? Oh, yes, I've even come across some who complain about her looks, the way she puts on her makeup and her bangs. (Oh, but don't let anyone say some of the criticism of her is sexist.)
Some of us refuse to follow the herd stampeding in the wake of the Right-wing punditocracy. We prefer to make up our own minds about this nominee. We prefer to trust the President we admire and for whom many of us worked hard to elect twice. In coming to our own conclusions, we think Ms. Miers' resume is impressive, what with math and law degrees, a successful career as a practicing attorney, stints in elective and appointive state and federal office, and, as far as is known, a sterling personal life.
Yet you, and others, dare to dismiss us as "kool aid drinkers." And how, exactly, is that supposed to win any of us over to your side of this or any other argument?
The problem is with the "whole loafers" they can't get past their anger and desire to get even with Bush and Miers.
You nailed it. It's the emotionalism of the "whole loafers" that really is so disappointing. We're supposed to be the side that can discuss things like adults. But for many of the whole loafers, this is more of a venting than a discussion.
Would Hugh's words be the opposite from those you read on DU? Hey, he's a conservative! Live with it!
CAN I GET AN AMEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS!
AMEN!!!
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.