Robert Bork. Rush Limbaugh. Phyllis Schlafly. Laura Ingraham. Michelle Malkin. Mona Charen. Linda Chavez. "So-called conservatives."
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay.
Posted on 10/28/2005 1:15:14 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Conservative leaders who helped force the withdrawal of Harriet Miers said yesterday that President Bush must now appoint someone whose judicial philosophy matches that of the two most conservative justices on the Supreme Court -- and said they would accept nothing less.
"We want Bush to fulfill his campaign commitment to give us a nominee like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas," said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly. "Conservatives have this old-fashioned notion that candidates should fulfill the promises they made once they get elected."
< /SNIP>
Yesterday, Mr. Dobson called Miss Miers' withdrawal "a wise decision" and cited news reports of a speech in which Miss Miers defended abortion rights as "self-determination."
"In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders."
< /SNIP>
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Most respectfully,
Harriet Ellan Miers
Okay, so-called conservatives have heckled from the back bench until a perfectly qualified candidate felt compelled to withdraw her nomination without being heard. At this point I wouldn't blame President Bush if he nominated Al Franken. Our president is a lot more patient than I am and certainly wouldn't do such a thing. But loyalty begets loyalty and I have seen, in recent weeks, the true colors of many of the 'supporters' of our president. I find the hypocrisy disgusting.
Robert Bork. Rush Limbaugh. Phyllis Schlafly. Laura Ingraham. Michelle Malkin. Mona Charen. Linda Chavez. "So-called conservatives."
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay.
Thunder on the right!!!!!!
Funny, but Dr. Dobson never let on he was concerned.
Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Krauthammer, and a flood of others.
Bush blew it with Miers. Lets hope he doesn't blow it again.
Excellent point. Some 'pundits' have acted as if they should have been consulted. Having a byline or radio show makes you an expert ? I think not.
The day I blindly follow people who need controversy to make money, will be the day after the world comes to an end.(sarcasm)
You have to have your own understanding of political realities. there is not a single pundit that I agree with all the time. Not one and it never should be that way. They are just as wrong, as often as the guy who cleans the floor at the Piggly Wiggly.
Carry on! Just wanted to get my two cents in!
Who said they weren't? I merely let out a good, healthy bray of disbelieving horse laughter at the intellectually bucktoothed notion that they (somehow) weren't "real conservatives."
Someone gibbers something jaw-droppingly idiotic online: I point and laugh. Call it a quirk. :)
Conservative leaders who helped force the withdrawal of Harriet MiersConservatives didn't force the withdrawal of Harriet Miers. The impasse over privileged White House documents forced it.
He simply did what the rest of the far right has done, and that is to distance himself from the new lame duck.
No amount of sucking up after this will be viewed by the rest of the party as legitimate, so that little strange anomaly is now corrected. I could not figure out his first statements on this nomination and now I know they were not genuine to begin with.
All is back to normal on that front.
I never should have doubted his lack of integrity.
AWESOME tagline! :)
The sad part to me is that the process has been circumvented.
We elected representatives. The President has the right to appoint whomever he sees fit. The Congress has the right to advise and consent. If conservatives didn't like Miers, and our elected representatives thought she was not fit for the SCOTUS, they should have been forced to vote her down...thus enacting the will of those who voted for them.
Truth is, the conservatives said they didn't trust Bush, but they didn't really trust the process or their elected representatives to work for them.
Those who sought a "Constitutionalist" to be appointed to the Supreme Court, then found a way around the Constitution, and the woman withdrew before even speaking a word at the hearings.
Sad day to me. Rush said, "We're now united." Yeah, until the next candidate comes along and Rush, or Schafly, or Coulter find that they didn't dot their "i's" or cross their "t's" to their liking.
Dobson, Land etal were just being water boys. I've never quite figured out what the payoff is to them, but there at some time will be one at least in their minds. They've been promised something. These guys have embraced a President that will always leave them short of their desired outcomes. I'm not saying that makes Pres Bush a bad President. I'm just saying that if this had been a dem President and had done many of the same things Bush has done, they'd be all over the dem for their actions. These guys have been promised something.
He simply did what the rest of the far right has done, and that is to distance himself from the new lame duck.That is needless provocation. Sniping is so October 26th.
No matter who gets the seat, the DC Lib establishment and MSM movers and shakers will groom him/her with cocktail party, dinner invitations, cozy phone calls, of the 'we are your new best friends...let us show you around' type...to persuade him/her to become a Lib. Sandra Day O'Connor was often seen at their soirees, and look how she turned out.
These guys have been promised something.An audience with the President. A seat at the table. Considered input.
Should they actually get through, they stand a good chance of being voted down in the full Senate until tempers cool.
In any case, the court will now go back into session with a known quantity in the retired and rehired queen of womens issues and some important issues will be coming before her.
Issues that would have been decided differently because the balance on the court is still the same as it was.
But I digress........
What a load of hot steaming horse phuckey.
We are American Conservatives, our alliance rests with the Constitution and the interests of this nation.
"Trust me" is not going to cut it with us anymore, we are too experienced with the results of such folly.
I say put the most conservative strict constitutionalist you can find forward, then kick the demoncRATs butts till he or she moves forward.
The SCOTUS is that important.
Dobson and others were contacted by a over zealous sell job that occurred because the reactions were stronger negatives than expected. They should not have done it, and I still don't know who came up with that brainless idea. I doubt it was Bush, it was probably someone on the Christian right who is close to the admin and thought they were doing him and Miers a favor.
Yesterday, several TV talking heads claimed conservatives wanted to poke a big stick into Libs' eyes (sounds fine with me), and that the resulting public brawl was necessary to make the general dumb public understand what's been going on -- that Liberal courts have been legislating from the bench, and what democrats couldn't win at the ballot box, they've been stealing with the help of Liberal judges. Let them scream and filibuster. Let the gang of fourteen show their true colors. We have the majority in congress. We need to have that public argument, and we need to win.
It is, but using the same failed tactics you used on the border issue will not move the agenda forward.
It will be "Mier'd" in the political realities, as is the border issue. (I made a pun!)
Exactly...
O'Connor is there for the interim, and it might be a long interim.
Partial birth abortion, parental consent, are just two issues that will probably come up with O'Connor on the court.
"Cutting off your nose to spite your face" seems to apply in this instance.
I like the tree branch with the chainsaw in the wrong hand analogy.:-)
This is more like " a family issue" rather than a character issue.
"Robert Bork. Rush Limbaugh. Phyllis Schlafly. Laura Ingraham. Michelle Malkin. Mona Charen. Linda Chavez. "So-called conservatives."
Yes, I have now relegated all of those people to the back bench as I don't know enough about them and therefore see no point in listening to them. It would obviously be stupid of me to ask questions of and listen to answers from people of which I know little. Dismissing them out of hand makes a lot more sense.
He will not, or I should say, should not go throught the same process twice, so look for Luttig or Alito(sp). he (Luttig) was my original pick but Bush wanted to satisfy some who felt there should be some balance in terms of sex. A lot of them actually.
The fact is, that there will be another pick, and if they intend to do this quickly, they need to do it with someone previously vetted.
He will face rat critisism over a male and some in the party, but that really is going to happen no matter who he picks. They all hate him anyway.
My point.
Okay, here's my theory if anyone cares. Miers was a sacrificial lamb and I think she knew it. The reason: Bush knew that if he nominated a true, known conservative, he would not get the support from the spineless, jelly fish republicans in the senate. He knew they were too weak in the knees to put up a fight. Miers was a shot over the senate bow. Many said send a nominee they know something about and that have better credentials. Well, now he's going to nominate someone in the spirit of Scalia and Thomas and we'll see just how well the senate republicans respond. My guess is their still jelly fish and all they care about is their power in Washington, so they'll bow to the Democrats when it's all said and done. And by the way, this is the most despicable group of senate republicans we've ever had. Most just wear the elephant when needed (election time) bur nothing but a bunch of big spenders that give conservatives lip service. Thanks for the space.
No. Just as Dobson, Land and the others will continue to drink the koolaid, so will their followers.Sure they will, but their days of influence in the White House are over.
If they DON'T apply a "litmus test" with this candidate, they will be in trouble. I think the message has been heard. Keep stealth in the military, not the courts. Send up a REAL CONSERVATIVE, and stop hiding.
I've believed all along that the WH and the President see Dobson, Land and so forth as necessary evils. The problem is Dobson, Land and those like them have so emboldened their followers that they can no longer influence them. That dam has been breached.
Since when is exercising your First Amendment right going "around the Constitution?"
No one "forced" Miers to withdraw. She didn't have a gun held to her head and told to "withdraw or else!" People spoke up and the White House reacted.
You do realize don't you that we are the sovereigns in this country.....not the politicians?
I think your theory is ridiculous.
That being said, the nomination of Miers did have a few positive unintended consequences.
It turned the debate away from ideology and on to quality and qualification. That is a very positive development.
It also relieved Bush of any obligation of nominating a woman.
And finally, after Roberts had set the bar impossibly high, Miers has lowered it down to the floor for the next nominee. All that person has to be is demonstrably qualified. I think with O'Connor getting impatient to retire and care for her sick husband, and the death of Rehnquist and now withdrawal of Miers, the Democrats aren't going to be able to stand in the way too much when Bush selects a more controversial candidate.
I think our mantra should be "Let O'Connor Go Home!"
Suppose President Bush was still managing the Texas Rangers (baseball team) and was in need of am established slugger. And let's further state that Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris were available. Would President Bush select one of them or select a 0.180 hitting infielder who coached his daughters in T-ball?
Who are all these "his people" you're talking about? Dobson is no Pope and believe it or not Christian Conservatives actually make their own choices.....as the Harriet Miers nomination shows. After all, if Dobson really had "his people" they would have backed Miers like Dobson wanted them to.
Ohh, I like that!
If they DON'T apply a "litmus test" with this candidate, they will be in trouble.Uhhhh... no.
I'd like to consider your comment, but I don't know much about you. Don't bother telling me more about yourself. Why would I want to know more when I know so little?
Ahhhh. I see. Sorry, I still haven't gotten with the "new tone." (BTW, I do NOT think, like many here, that the "new tone" has been unsuccessful. I attribute much of Bush's success in 2002 and 2004 to his NOT being successfully demonized as a "partisan" due to his manner. However, I also think that like any good general, there comes a point where you need to change your tactics and surprise the enemy. Now is that time.)
This does come in an English language version as well, right...? :)
Who are all these "his people" you're talking about? Dobson is no Pope and believe it or not Christian Conservatives actually make their own choices.....as the Harriet Miers nomination shows. After all, if Dobson really had "his people" they would have backed Miers like Dobson wanted them to.Dobson's people are whoever his following is.
Bloated budget, Title IX, Campaign finance, immigration...this President has done what he wanted and conservatives have played along. If this were the Democraps, the left wing would have sent Ted Kennedy up to run against him in '04. ..
Bush promise a conservative bench. Ya gotta do better than Miers.
"...a perfectly qualified candidate felt compelled to withdraw her nomination without being heard."?
At the heart of this whole matter is the fact that she is decidedly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. You've seen the same "thoughts" and tortured writing the rest of us have; how can you arrive at any other conclusion? Add on top of that that she's a complete cipher and you're asking us to sit idly by while we show the president "deference" and TRUST, because that's all we have, that she'll be a champion of the constitution.
Too much is at stake and you should know that
You can take your smears about the conservatives who 'heckled' Harriet with her own words and shove `em. Ditto your pious crap about 'loyalty.' Bush could have been loyal to us and appointed someone OBVIOUSLY qualified AND conservative. And megaditto your veiled support for a liberal appointee to 'pay back' the right, which really shows your true colors, RINO. Y'all insist upon rehashing the past. But it's over. You lost. Join the party or take your ball and go home to your buddies at DU. But stop yer whining, it's getting tiresome.
Dang, you really ARE a DU troll. No conservative would say something so asinine. I could see maybe saying that about Schlafly, or Malkin, or even Charen or Chavez. But RUSH LIMBAUGH?
Just go back to DU now, before you embarrass yourself.
Great post BUMP!
Aww, you know what I was getting at Kent. I have to put my face on and go teach a bunch of kids how to bias a transistor amplifier to half the supply voltage now. (You'd think their parents would have discussed that with them.) But after today's class I'll have the whole weekend to play. See you later. Have a good one.
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.