you are talking about.
Perhaps it becomes "cool-aid" after the cyanide is mixed in?
Hewitt is a cool-aid drinker.
Unfortunately, once she reaches the hearings, she's pretty much guranteed a seat on the SCOTUS. I'd rather stop her short. Conservatives are in short supply in the Senate - there are not enough to stop her if she refuses to demonstrate competence and originalist judicial philosophy. Most 'Pubbies will shut up and drink the cool-aid.
you are talking about.
Perhaps it becomes "cool-aid" after the cyanide is mixed in?
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.
Where do you plan to find the conservative senators to vote for someone you'd like? Someone you like (I'd probably like such a nominee too) would be someone the Democrats hate (and someone Specter would hate and someone the Gang of 14 can't be counted on to support). The Dems consider this a "swing" seat in perpetuity; for Rehnquist's seat, they didn't get anyone worse for them than Rehnquist.
In this nomination, the stakes are higher for them, too. I think they'd filibuster. Thanks to McCain, the Republicans didn't break it when they had the chance.
"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I'm wondering how many nominees that have been withdrawn or not confirmed made it to their confirmation hearings before that happened?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.
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?