Such is what happens 99.943% of the time.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/03/2005 2:26:02 PM PDT by KMAJ2
By the title, some will think a blanket endorsement follows, but this is a non-endorsement vanity analysis.
Who is Harriet Miers and what do we really know about her ? Basically, not much. And there in lies the crux of the matter. Usually it is the far left that provides the knee jerk reactions, in this instance, the far right has emulated the far left.
If the best solid reason that can be used to decry her nomination is 1988 democrat donations from her law firm, than you reveal an entrenched ideological mindset. If your best solid reason for supporting her is because Bush chose her, you are in the same boat.
The strongest criticism from the left will have to be cronyism, and a legitimate case can be made. Inexperience simply does not wash, 10 of the last 34 justices had no experience as a judge, so sweep that excuse away. So the question becomes, will the democrats want to risk defeating Meirs, knowing Bush will then follow with a more established conservative. Bush will have every reason to do so, if the democrats block Meirs.
Personally, the biggest negative in this choice is that it was not an energizing choice, it did not create an excitement in the base. That said, it will only alienate the fringe right who have been bashing him already.
We hear claims of this being another Souter, or, God forbid, another O'Connor. The big difference is that unlike the Souter and O'Connor nominations by recommendations from others, Bush personally knows Meirs, this is not an unknown to him. Should we condemn Reagan for O'Connor and Kennedy ? He accepted someone elses recommendations for those two. That alone gives me a little more confidence in this selection, especially when combined with her personal background and history, church membership, etc.
I think, that once again, people might be 'Misunderestimating' Bush, and Rove, once again. The difference, this time, it seems the far right have become the bomb throwers and doubters. Did he know the negative reaction from hard line conservatives would occur ? If so, was it deliberate to soften democrat criticism to actually get what he wants ?
I am not willing to make an endorsement, I still need more information. But Bush's, and Rove's, track records have left a lot of naysayers laying in their wake. In this nomination, I sense a little of that Harvard MBA business strategy coming in to play. Who knows Meirs best ? Quite possibly George W. Bush, and he may be putting the fox in the democrat judicial hen house.
Anyone for Stevens or Ginsburg stepping down ? Stevens age and Ginsbergs health could lead the way for two more openings. Those would be two nominations to make a real difference.
bump
Bush says "trust me."
Those defending the Prez's pick are beginning to remind me of C3P0 in Return of the Jedi, as Chewie strangles Lando "TRUST HIM! TRUST HIM!"
Pathetic.
Well said.
I believe that if she is in fact an Evangelistic Christian, this will show clearly enough that she will be attacked. This will provide plenty of energy to many on the right and we will be surprised that many on this side object because of her faith.
"Usually it is the far left that provides the knee jerk reactions, in this instance, the far right has emulated the far left."
It's not a knee jerk reaction. Nobody is saying that she's a liberal. What we are saying is that nobody (probably including Bush) really knows where she stands, and that means she should not have been picked over young, well qualified, conservative candidates.
Uh, whatever.
Such is what happens 99.943% of the time.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
"I believe that if she is in fact an Evangelistic Christian, this will show clearly enough that she will be attacked. This will provide plenty of energy to many on the right and we will be surprised that many on this side object because of her faith."
You are just doing the opposite. You are supporting her with nothing other than her faith. By the way, anybody who thinks that "she's an evangelical" is sufficient reasoning to support her nomination should then reconcile the fact that she never got married or had children.
President Bush,misunderestimated by both sides.
I've been thinking about that angle ever since Rush mentioned this on his show today. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Democrats will attack her on just the Evangelical Christian credentials alone.
I sense faux praise from the Democrats. They've been gearing up for a tooth-and-nail fight over the next selection for about a week or better now.
KMAJ2, you took all the words right outta my head. I was thinking exactly the same things.
Satan works both sides of the street. Don't underestimate his power with both conservatives and liberals.
My guess is if she is a genuine biblical based Christian, she will be attacked like none has been before.
Neither did Ann Coulter.
In addition to Jesus many who have followed God laws lived unmarried and without children.
Ann C. is just waiting for my divorce to become final.....
Just curious...How did you come to that conclusion?
Do you know what I know about my lawyer...? My MOL? My best friend? My dogs?
LOL...but IF you DO know what I know about the above..for some weird FReeper voodoo-like powers...please tell me where the DEC Crude Oil futures are going to peak at.
Is that within your scope?
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.