Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
Since I’m sure there are still many conservatives out there who are still upset and whining about Bush not nominating who they wanted, I’m wondering. Do you wish Bush had nominated who you wanted, even if it meant them not being confirmed and Bush being forced to pick a milk toast? I don’t think anyone can argue about the fact that the Republican majority in the Senate haven’t exactly acted with a spine or any kind of united strong conservative voice the four years they’ve been a majority. And it seems the larger their majority gets, the more its spine gets watered down.
This is a reality lesson in life. There are two ways to stand strong to your convictions and beliefs and not waiver. You can go about your life, putting your beliefs into practice, never bending, never breaking, never compromising, and whenever anyone asks what you believe, you tell them, politely, civilly, like how Miers has done it. OR, you can do it another way. You can be all those same things above, and you can also be very vocal, very "in your face", very confrontational, outspoken, and be very well known as to what you believe and stand for, so that if you come up for a position like Supreme Court Justice, it’s known immediately which side of the court you will always come down on. The Scalia / Thomas side, or the Ginsburg / Stevens side. The latter is the kind of person that Michael Luddig, Pricilla Owens, Edith Jones, or David Pryor, who I would sure support. Frankly that’s the kind of person I am, and I was hoping they'd of gotten this nomination. I’m not quite "in your face" with liberals unless confronted, but I also will not sit like a wall flower while people say stupid liberal things in the face of reality. I wouldn’t expect to be nominated for the SCOTUS either. Being that way is not bad in any way, but it is a problem. It’s guaranteeing a nasty, long, drawn out, ugly fight that would not even guarantee ALL the Republicans standing with the President. If Bush thought that the Republican majority in the Senate actually had a spine and would stand up to a fight, I think he would have likely put up someone like Juddig or Jones. I think this pick is an indictment on the complete and total lack of conservative will in the Senate majority. Heck, this woman he did pick stands as a solid conservative nominee with all those who have endorsed her, and not all Republicans are backing her. The bottom line is, Harriet Miers WILL be confirmed, and she much more likely than not, will prove to be a conservative, indications show she will be much like Scalia and Thomas. And if you voted for President Bush both times, like I did, or just one time, then you have to trust that he will keep his promise on Judges, like he has so faithfully kept it to this point. There hasn’t been one single Judge on the district, appellate or federal court level that Bush has nominated that hasn’t been a strong unbending conservative. And this is one fact I STILL can’t get around that frustrates me with those opposing Miers. Miers was pivotal in choosing ALL the Judges that Bush has nominated to all the courts the past five years, all of which have proven to be good solid conservatives that all the conservative voters have liked so much. Yet somehow the person who found, supported, and brought all those good conservative judges to the President, somehow isn’t good enough to be a judge herself when she’s accomplished all the things she’s done in her life? That is simply the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Especially after it’s been proven she said now she was worried that perhaps John Roberts might not be conservative enough. And some conservatives are still not supporting her? ARE YOU FRIKKEN KIDDING ME??? THAT is just simply elitism and nothing else.
I was worried initially, because I desperately wanted an Owens, or Luiddig, or someone just like them, someone that was nose to the wind, finger pointing and shaking to the left, well known vocal hard conservative, BUT, if the person put up instead of them is just like that, with the same conservative ideological beliefs, just isn’t a well known confrontational person who will unite all liberals and democrats and milk-toast weak RHINO Republicans against them, then I will choose the Miers over the Owens or Luddig EVERY TIME, because frankly I have NO FAITH in the Republican Senate majority, and while I am more like the judicial Luddig’s and Jones’s, I’ve still seen nothing that yet shows she’s any less conservative than they are. When she gave money to algore, he was pro-life and hadn’t taken the pink liberal without reason pill yet, and since then she has been nothing but a conservative loyalist on all levels, professionally, personally, and religiously. She voted for Reagan in ‘84, she voted for the first Bush in ‘88. Once she became a registered Republican she stayed Republican and voted and worked and donated that way even when clinton was President, even in ‘91 and ’92 when the democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Not one person who really knows her has come out against her nomination. Frum is the only one I’ve heard of who has worked with her and doesn’t support her, and that was years ago and it’s not as though Frum doesn’t have his own agenda. None of Bush’s judges has disappointed. They’ve all been proven to be very conservative constructionist judges, and there is no reason to believe Miers will be any different. The arguments is stale and smacks of elitism at this point. I prefer someone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the snobbery of Yale and Harvard liberalism, and has lived most all of her life in very conservative Texas. Even when Texas was majority Democrat, it was conservative and had nothing in common with the radical New England and left coast liberal bases of operation. Instead of being a judge she’s been actually arguing law from the conservative perspective, not sitting on high on a bench disconnected from reality. What is so wrong with that? She will be confirmed, and more and more, I believe she will prove herself to be a dedicated defender of the Constitution and what it REALLY says, not what stevens and souter and ginsburg wish or think it says. Her votes I believe will consistently fall right with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, and when that time comes, I hope all here who eviscerated her just because she’s not some elitist insider snob, or a speak first think second hothead that would inflame all democrats and RINOs in the Senate, will remember just how vacuous the opposition to her really was, and just how wrong it has proven to be. Given the past 20 years of her life, I can’t see any rational way she will betray all she has proven to stand for the past two decades. And if you voted for and supported W. Bush last year and in 2000, then for Pete’s sake, show just a little faith and trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her. Have a little faith. With faith as small as a mustard seed, a mountain can be moved. I choose to have faith and pray that Harriet Miers will be the conservative strict-constructionist Justice that this nation desperately needs right now, and pray that she will have the strength and wisdom to adjudicate in that way, and continue to display and enforce the beliefs and convictions on the bench, that she has so strongly lived in her life.
" They only recently installed those PCs in the White House basement, so they couldn't sign up earlier."
LOL
Yell it from the rooftops brother.
Having scared off 1/2 of the conservatives you will now scare off all of the liberals. Me, I want a SC judge who understands conservative constitutional scholarship, writes well, and argues clearly and thinks logically. The divine revelation school of legal justice scares me no end. God does not speak to me in voices and so I cannot verify what he is telling others. You may not like it, but you started this line of argument, not me.
You're right, agree to disagree. I just don't understand it. I am not happy with Bush on the budget, border control, immigration, things like that, but I don't bust other conservative's chops that are happy with him. He may be a conservative, but he isn't very rational or polite. Thanks for your posts.
I agree with your position on Harriet Miers....
..but I don't appreciate your name calling to my friend Laz.
He is an amazingly funny guy, but also heartfelt serious with what is happening in our country.
He is a friend to many here....
..I don't think you're a troll...... but I don't want you name calling to Laz, OK.
You are a sweet and wonderful person, and I value your friendship over almost all others here.
(Thank-you !)
And much of the anti-Miers stuff this week has been elitist whining by people who don't even know the woman, pure and simple. That was NO excuse for people like you to come here and throw insults and act like a teenager in a clique conflict. It was clearly not directed at ANYONE on FR and you know it. The tone of your posts is still irrational and immature.
Oh, and yes, you found me out. I am straight from moveon.org and DU adding to the rift among Conservatives, by saying that I think people should trust the President on her, since he knows her, and suggesting that people be patient and wait to complain till there is something to complain about, furthermore pointing out that doing so bolsters democrats and gives them a desire to be more active and fight the conservative majority. Yes that's exactly what a liberal hack would come here and do. Whatever. Look, have all your Bush hate, base opinions on things that haven't even happened, and have a good time of it. In a few months when she's proven to have adjudicated consevatively just like Scalia and Thomas, I'll be sure to remind you of all this panic driven hysteria and how silly it was. On the bright side, you've got several months to come up with some more good personal insults in the mean time. Have a good weekend. I'm glad I didn't know more "conservatives" like you when I was younger and just forming my ideas about politics. People like you would have kept me from forming the belief that conservatives are much more civil and mature and able to have adult disagreements with those who disagree with them. It's scared me how talking to you is just like talking to a liberal. Name calling, insults, immature personal attacks with no fact based rebuttle arguments at all. My biggest beef with you is, if you're a real social and fiscal conservative, why have you seemed to so enjoy personally attacking someone else who is also? That defies logic. But whatever. You have your opinion, and I leave you to it. Maybe in a few months you'll come around. Maybe not. It doesn't really matter.
And I was not rude to people who disagreed with me until they took a tone of being a smart ass with me. If you are polite and cordial and mature with me, even if you disagree, I will be the same. If you're a mouthy smart ass to me, I will return the favor. Unlike my wife, I am NOT a diplomat, and when someone mouths off at me I'm more likely to give them a pop in the mouth than a smile and a nod. Not my fault if you can't handle someone coming back at you when you start something.
Incorrect. I value brevity and the subsequent soul of wit more among my allies than my ideological enemies.
That you are unnecessarily wordy is not in question. What is in question is your status as an ideological foe or an ideological friend.
Oh, and yes, you found me out. I am straight from moveon.org and DU adding to the rift among Conservatives
O! Okay. Thank you for putting that final question to rest.
Incorrect. The first word of your vanity, 'Whining', was in fact, rude and quite insulting.
And the whole use of the word "crony" makes me cringe because the day after the nominiation "crony" was the liberal group meeting word of the day, and so whenever anyone accused her of being a crony, that smacks of liberal media influence, so I totally do not trust anything that follows. If she had been some sociality wall flower or had a reputation of being someone who did only to please, that would be one thing, but she has a reputation of being a hard working loyal person who is conservative in her beliefs and actions. And I cannot and will not get around the fact that she is the one who brought all those great conservative Judges to Bush to nominate. That cannot be overstated.
..I'm more likely to give them a pop in the mouth than a smile and a nod..
...You tout yourself as a Christian, but this quote is not Christian talk.
..I find it disappointing.
Man this guy could write a novel.....I just scroll over his comments, lol
You are starting to see, in evidence, what I sensed by instinct. ;^)
This is the main disadvantage to being excessively wordy. People are not motivated to read someone who makes more words than points. That's why I am most upset if someone on MY side is too wordy than if my ideological foes are too wordy.
You’re right. I’ll just drop it with him. He’s been here, you guys know him, so I’ll just chalk it up to him being supremely upset with this nomination to the point that he disagrees with the matter and anyone who doesn’t disagree with to the point of not being civil or polite. I know I get very passionate about things. I was a lunatic during the Schiavo thing. If I had been here then, there wouldn’t be any question as to whether I was conservative or not. I have to go anyway. been putting my wife off of a movie for a few hours now and wasn’t expecting this to eat up all afternoon. 8)
Oh, and I know there are some good Presbyterian, etc, churches, for sure. Just many of them are so disappointing. "gay" ministers and all that crap. Some of the ones in Texas I know of have been like that and it's really aggrivating, though I think most all of the Texas Presbyterian and Episcopal churches broke away with the national orginizatons because of their liberal tendencies. That's good at least. 8) Talk to you later.
Great post. I agree totally. 8)
Don't ever forget that, given even a sliver of a chance, I would cook you into a chili and eat your human flesh.
Forget it. I'll go with what people who know you have said that you're a very conservative guy, and you just have a big problem with this issue. I wish you could have taken a different tone with me, but whatever, doesn't matter. Maybe with the passage of time, and things showing themselves out, your opinion on it will change. Talk to you later.
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.