> Neither did Ann Coulter.
Check! Mate in two.
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.
[[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!"]]
Typical Bush basher response. I didn't endorse the pick, but I won't react in a knee jerk fashion and start throwing bombs.
Predictions ? I think the left will start attacking her on religious grounds, and that will motivate/energize the Christian right. The fringe non-Christian right will continue to naysay, and may provide enough impetus to defeat her.
Some conservatives are power hungry and do not realize they have not achieved the iron-fisted majority, fillibuster proof (if you will), necessary to simply walk over the left and impose their will without paying a political price. Tactical strategy will always be more successful than brute force in the current political climate with the biased pandering of the old media (they have not been made irrelevant, yet). Patience is a virtue in politics, as well as life.
Check! Mate in two.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Well said!
Quite possibly George W. Bush, and he may be putting the fox in the democrat judicial hen house.
WE HAVE A WINNER!
My guess is if she is a genuine biblical based Christian, she will be attacked like none has been before.
WOW! That is very astute discernment!
2000 years later, the "true believers" are also the shrillest and most willing to lead the angry mob...
Gee, I guess that takes Ann Coulter out of the running.
Without a doubt. I wouldn't expect anything less from the secular left.
"Gee, I guess that takes Ann Coulter out of the running."
Are you serious? Did you actually read what I wrote? My whole point was that "She's an evangelical" is not SUFFICIENT in and of itself to prove that she's a judicial conservative (as many are making it out to be). Ann Coulter is well known for her conservative views (particularly when it comes to the courts), so your argument is totally disingenuous.
Well, she is unmarried also without children, as some have suggested, this should be the only reason Harriet Miers is gay and should not be considered, because being "unmarried" or "childless" denotes homosexuality and unqualified characteristics in many FReepers yardsticks when measuring up a nominee.
When I first saw that comment, I thought the same thing. Good response! : )
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.