Posted on 10/08/2005 5:39:47 AM PDT by joeclarke
"Who's In the Doghouse? Miers, Miers." Who Put Her In The Doghouse? Innerbelt Conservatives!
I have the highest esteem for these conservative pundits, but they have shot a week of broadcast time condescending a woman who is an "unknown" to them.
There is probably a lot they don't know. I just don't like hearing 7/24 what they don't know.
Has Air America offered them better contracts?
Self-promoting posts like this belong in the "Bloggers/Personal" forum, not "News/Activism".
Normally I just hit the "Abuse" button on something like this and move on to something else.
But I've started to see more and more individuals ignoring this posting guideline and feel it necessary to make my gripe public.
I reported this to the moderators. It belongs if chat (if it belongs anywhere at all). However, you claiming constructive debate from the anti-Miers side is laughable, although you have been an exception for the most part.
Posts similar to this have been made by anti-Miers bots by attacking her appearance. That's not constructive either. Others have selectively highlighted portions of articles to take them out of their context to deliberately mislead readers, or make outright fabrications. That's not constructive, either.
It has been moved out of the news section.
Good.
I didn't research joeclarke's posting history,
but a couple days ago, I noticed that some other numnutz had a lengthy record of posting nothing but excerpts from his/her own blog. (Some had been moved to Bloggers, some were still in News). He/she didn't even bother responding to any of the replies on those threads.
I forget which blog site it was, but that kind of flagrant abuse really pi$$ed me off.
You'd think they'd get a clue after having their posts moved to "Bloggers" a couple of times.
These idiots just make more work for the Mods who already have their hands full taking care of other crap.
IMHO, if they can't follow simple posting guidelines for their material, their blogsites oughta be BANNED.
It seems there's five posts attacking conservative critics' character and motivation for every one attempting to find some truth about the nominee.
There oughta be a law!
OTOH, the posting software already filters URLs for sources that are either prohibited or "excerpt only". Perhaps that can somehow be modified so that known bloggers are automaticly redirected to the Bloggers/Personal forum.
Just a suggestion. We'll let Jim/John & the Mods decide if the problem is big enough to merit any priority.
And we in turn have the right to criticize them, just as they are criticizing Bush.
I agree.
[shrug] I still don't like Miers as a nominee. Bad choice. Bad politics.
From the American Thinker
There is also a palpable hunger for a struggle to the death with hated and verbally facile liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer. Having seen that a brilliant conservative legal thinker with impeccable elite credentials can humble the most officious voices of the Judiciary Committee, they deamnd a replay. Thus we hear conservatives sniffing that a Southern Methodist University legal education is just too non-Ivy League, adopting a characteristic trope of blue state elitists. We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article in the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind.
These critics are playing the Democrats game. The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness. Nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality. The Houston lawyer who blogs under the name of Beldar wisely points out that practicing high level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm not only demonstrates a proficient mind, it provides a necessary and valuable perspective for a Supreme Court Justice, one which has sorely been lacking.
Ms. Miers has actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative acttion, and other regulatory demands of the state. She has also been highly active in a White House during wartime, when national security considerations have been a matter of life and death. When the Supreme Court deliberates in private, I think most conservatives would agree that having such a perspective at hand is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Other conservatives are dismayed that the President is playing politics (!), rather than simply choosing the best candidate. But the President understands that confirmation is nothing but a political game, ever since Robert Bork, truly one of the finest legal minds of his era, was demonized and defeated.
The Presidents smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the Presidents formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust for confirmation hearing combat between the likes of a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown and the Judiciary Committee Democrats. Possibly their own experience of debating emotive liberals over-identifies them with verbal combat as political effectiveness.
In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats playbook, seeing bombast and gotcha verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combate, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.
Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the Presidents White House lawyer and counselor, some take her lack of a paper trail and a history of vocal judicial conservatism as a sign that she may be an incipient Souter. They implicitly believe that the President is not adhering to his promise of nominating Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades, and who has served as his close daily advisor for years, are so striking as to make this level of distrust rather startling. Having seen the Souter debacle unfold before his very eyes, the President is the last man on earth to recapitulate it.
He anticipates and is defusing the extremely well-financed opposition which Democrat interest groups will use against any nominee. Yes, he is playing politics by nominating a female. A defeated nominee does him and the future of American jurisprudence no favors. By presenting a female nominee, he kicks a leg out from under the stool on which the feminist left sits. Not just a female, but a career woman, one who has not raised children, not married a male, and has a number of firsts to her credit as a pioneer of women's achievement in Texas law. Let the feminists try to demonize her.
If they do so, almost inevitably, they will seize on her religious beliefs and practice. Some on the left will not be able to restrain their scorn for an evangelical Christian Sunday school teacher from Dallas, and this will hurt them. They will impose a religious test against a member of a group accounting of a third of the voting base. Speculation on her being a lesbian has already started. "She sure seems like a big ol' Texas lesbian to me," as one of the Kos Kidz put it.
They are going to make themselves look very ugly
I repent for posting in the wrong forum. It will not happen again.
I do wonder if the those down and nasty types who use the same language against me as libs do, realize that they are playing into the far left's hand?
The most that the antiMiers crowd can do is sell off George Bush and make way for an expansion of democratic socialism. We really have to look at the lesser of two evils, don't we?
So, Bush is not the perfect guy or Harriet the perfect woman.
Who could guarantee that all those "better qualified" Supreme Court nominees would not pull a Souter or a Kennedy once installed into Scotus?
I bet the left is salivating over our internecine battle........
The Gingham Dog and the Calico cat
Side by side on the table sat
The Gingham Dog roared "Bow-wow-wow"
And the Calico Cat growled "Me-ow, me-ow"
The air was littered in an hour or so
With bits of gingham and calico
Next morning where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat
The truth about the cat and pup
Is this: They ate each other up
Leni
Where's your proof? If you know something about Miers that isn't gossip then share it. And name a liberal judge that Bush appointed.
What did the Richmond lawyer, now Judge Roger L. Gregory, specifically do so right? He chose as a mentor and law partner former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder, Virginias first Black (and generally considered quite able) Governor and managed himself to be born Black, thus lucking into the undoubted judicial qualification of becoming the first Black Judge on the Fourth Circuit (which covers the Carolinas, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia). What generally did Judge Gregory do right? He made it through law school, less than a distinguished record, is liked by those who know him, could evolve into an able Judge.
http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/040130mh.asp
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.