Posted on 10/17/2005 10:51:26 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
12% huh??
Oh yea .. it's sinking ... / heavy sarcasm >
Frum has a lot of ego invested in this matter.
Newsweek is reporting that the White House has also recruited New Hampshire politico Tom Rath to threaten to oppose the presidential bids of any senator who opposes Harriet Miers. But Rath is as responsible as anyone for putting David Souter on the court. What on earth did they say to him? And if those assurances were contradictory, why should anybody believe either?
You're funny, Sparky. You've run Frum 10 ways from Sunday to try to build a "tsunami" against Miers. And it ain't happenin'. The broad grassroots seems to like her.
"Frum has a lot of ego invested in this matter."
I think a lot of conservative pundits have their egos invested in this. I understand their position, but I have to say, if Rush doesn't stop harping on this subject, I'm going to stop listening to him. He's getting tedious.
NRO, you have lost the argument. Comparing poll A by firm 1 to Poll B by firm 2 is so intellectually dishonest it boggles the mind that any supposed "Conservative" thought they could get away with it! No matter how NRO trys to spin it, 12% agree with the Hate Hariette Dogma. The Hate Harriet always crowd has LOST the debate. Clinging to it dogmatically rather then admit your error will NOT change reality. Learn to live with it.
Also, 43% say the Senate will vote to confirm, 26% say the Senate will vote to reject, 19% don't know, and, oddly, 13% say her nomination will not make it to a vote. Source is here.
So, even with all the hullabaloo, this particular poll still says Miers will be confirmed, though by less than the Rasmussen poll.
Since we don't know the internals of this poll, it would be best if a similar poll were taken next week to determine if there were erosion or an increase of support.
Absent that, this poll is being selectively used by Frum for his daily blast at Miers.
He simply can't get it through his head that Miers is not going to withdraw.
Why should I think that what Frum and the others of his ilk are doing is in any way different from what Ralph Neas does for the People For The American Way, that is "lawyering" for his side?
This is already happening. The Evangelical conservatives who sprang out of the gates with support for Myers are mostly keeping quiet at the moment. Gary Bauer has played this role most publicly, backing off what he first said, but you don't hear much from the others, either.
"Empty assurances" has been my evaluation. It all came from Karl Rove and some selected Texas judges who are friends of the nominee. It's unlikely that Rove knows where she really stands on these issues, or wants to know. He was just doing his job.
The grassroots seems to like the broad.
"to oppose the presidential bids of any senator who opposes Harriet Miers."
That's it, guys! Time to play hard ball against any conservatives who oppose the PRez! You just go beat the hell out of them! Aaarrrgh! Show those conservatives who the boss is!
(Sure wish someone with some stroke could get the political geniuses in the White House to oppose people in the primary who are liberals, rather than those who are conservatives....).
Damn it! Shouted Frum again and again and again.
They, like all but the die hards, are sick to death of the hysteria. They're likely worn-out; that's why they're quiet.
The hearings start three weeks from today. That's when more decisions will be made.
By the way, I think Frum's petition is irrelevant. I don't see any purpose that could be served by signing it, and I doubt whether many others who oppose this nomination see much purpose in it either.
Whether Frum has his nose out of joint for some reason, I don't know. But what he has said so far has been reasonable enough, except for those who want to support Bush and Miers regardless of the facts.
Instead of throwing every single conservative commentator under the bus on this issue, maybe people should just consider that Bush is selling us a lemon. The past couple weeks have seen a lot of long-respected conservatives suddenly smeared for not blindly going along with Bush's selection.
The only oppinion I have of this nominee is that I do not remotely think she is the best qualified for the job... that doesn't mean I have an unfavorable oppinion of her.
I do not believe in diversity for diversities sake. Nor "political balance" on the court nonsense. Best person for the job, period... diversity is the outcome of the persuit of excellence. Diversity for diversities sake is a race to mediocrity.
Where are those facts regarding the nominee? I'm wanting to compose pro-Miers selling points, and need something to work with.
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.