Are you still a principal in NJ?
Is English not your native tongue?
Who gives a dog poop about joeclarke.net?
You got Laura and Ann heads on the wrong dogs!!!!
"Hurry, hurry, hurry, folks! Sell Joe a pig in a poke! He'll buy it. He don't know no better!"
HAhaHAhaHA!
Ah. Once again, the shrill (and increasingly desperate-seeming) "anyone not happy with Saint Harriet [Insert Angelic Chorus Here] Miers must be working for THE OTHER TEAM, yeeeaaaarrrrrrrrghhhh, *SNORT*!" meme.
Wouldn't you just naturally suppose, were there actually good and sufficient reasons to swallow said nomination, uncritically -- or any, even -- the pro-Miers contingent would find it infinitely easier, and more efficacious, to trot those out in support, instead...?
Funny how the gutless wonders in the US Senate NEVER draw any bile or heat from these people. Why do you suppose that is? You know the grand wonderful Senatoral idiots who just passed a Terrorist Protection Amendment as part of this year's Defense Appropriations 90-9? After spending ALL their time shooting at their own side, the "Conservative Establishment" wonder WHY what is SUPPOSE to be THEIR Legislative agenda goes NO WHERE??? How about this pundits. TRY to shoot at our political foes 1/30th as much as you snipe at OUR SIDE for the next 6 DAYS. JUST TRY! But I suspect that what we are seeing is what the Whine-all-the-time crowd REALLY wants. It is much easier for the poor little dears when all they have to do is bitch about everything instead of ACTUALLY getting ANY thing done.
She is not a member of THE club. Therefore she is not worthy of their praise. It's that simple.
WOW! I wish I could photo shop like that.
By the way, how old are you?
*shakes head*
Blog Pimps don't belong in the news section of FR Joe.
another bushbot shaking his fist at real conservatives
This isn't constructive, nor does it belong in the news section.
[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 President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s 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 President’s 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