Whining about Miers.

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.

I like your essay, thanks for posting it.

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.

Appointing Supreme Court judges was the cornerstone of GW's 2004 campaign. He told us over and over again the importance of finding judges who were strict constructionist - as he said “somebody who looks at the words of the Constitution for what they are, somebody who will not legislate from the bench,” which means that a constructionist judge will adhere to the meaning of the words in the Constitution the same way as it was originally intended – no room for spinning. All along GW has made good on his promise by nominating conservatives judges and he hasn't failed, so why doubt him now?

What's the point of getting a monumental judge who would put up an extraordinary fight leaving Democrats speechless due to his magnificent answers while we conservatives clamor and cheer patting ourselves on the back only to see him defeated?

After all, as the President he gets to pick who he thinks is qualified to do the job, because he knows her better than the critics and better than us. And she'll go through the Senate confirmation hearings, and we we'll get to trash her some more. But she'll be confirmed, and therein lies the difference between a monumental judge and Harriet Miers.

All this is the biggest thing that disturbs me. I mean, I started off in the same place as BluH2o and Lazamataz, but ended up somewhere else. To me, the most important thing is furthering and expanding the conservative majority in this country, and making sure that pinko "anything goes, if it feels good do it" liberals NEVER control the Legislative branch in this country again. Ever. THAT is the single most important thing, because so long as that is the case, the conservative agenda can pretty well get what it wants over time, even withstanding the occasional democrat President.

Clinton really didn't accomplish much in his eight years, got no real substantive legislation through Congress. The two lasting things Clinton did was clear crop the military, which is STILL paying for his total lack of competence, and the fact that he proved that the President can be just as immoral and lying and deceitful as anyone else. Two wonderful accomplishments to be sure, any liberal will forever be proud of him. My wife's grandparents still think Lewinsky is all a lie and that the Republicans made it all up even though Clinton admitted it in his own book. You can't get through to people with the liberal needle surgically attached to their arms, so it's not even worth trying.

But this with Miers could well turn into the end of the conservative majority if people aren't careful. Liberals are frothing at the mouth over this divide over Miers. And I would have never thought it would have happened. There are a wide divergence of views in the Republican party. I prefer to call myself a Christian conservative rather than a Republican, because I never have felt comfortable with strict party line ties, though I only vote Republican and see nothing in the Libertarian or Constitution party that would make me vote for them over any Republican. It's tossing a vote in the toilet far as I'm concerned. I just hope this goes away quickly. It is not good for the conservative movement. I'm just hoping that all those opposed to Miers have their primary objective as the continued strengthening of the conservative Congressional majority, and not getting exactly what they want how they want when they want. The latter will surely end the conservative majority.

She's voted Republican like Scalia an Thomas. She's lived her personal life much like Scalia and Thomas. Kept in the same kinds of circles like Scalia and Thomas. And she's brought to the table a couple hundred Judges for Bush to nominate the past five years, who are all in the same mold as Scalia and Thomas, if not at the very least judicially conservative. There are apparently many more similarities between Miers and Scalia and Thomas than there are differences. Beyond the fact that he was a man, Renquist was quite similar to Miers when he was nominated by Reagan. He wasn't a judge either, and most of what showed him to be a conservative was from his career as a lawyer and personal references from people who stood up and sang his praises as a conservative, which has happened in Miers case. Sure I still wish Bush would have picked Owens or Jones or Luddig for the spot. There's lots of things I've wished for, but wishing for something doesn't make it so. The choice has been made, and I still believe all that's left is to pray and hope that Bush's judgement on her is as right as the 300+ other great conservative judges that he's put in the courts the past five years. Behaving that was i this situation is certainly better for the most important thing, which is contining to advance the conservative social and ideological agenda, and grow the Republican majority in the Housee and the Senate. That IS the most important thing here, and this divisive conservative divide is counter productive to that end, and serves only to embolden the liberal democrats on the other side. And that's not Bush's fault, it's the fault of the people allowing this nomination to become more important than the continued conservative majority.

This is long, but I would really like for anyone who disagrees with the Miers nomination to read this and give me your thoughts on it. When I named this thread "whining about Miers", I didn't mean that to antagonize any Freepers. All last week, all the talk on TV and Radio I heard against Miers sounded like whining to me. So calling the thread that made sense. If I'd of known it was going to make some Freepers go from the topic to personal jibes, I would have called it something else, but I was focusing on the content of my initial post, not the subject. Anyway, below is what I see as the biggest problem that could stem from this if everyone doesn't get their priorities straight. At this point, though I still feel confident she would be a very conservative Justice on the SC, because of all this internal strife, I wish Harriet Miers would withdraw from consideration, and maybe Bush would then pick, preferably Edith Jones, Precilla Owens, or Michael Luddig, and placate the conservative masses who seem to know better than he. And then if that judge that receives the conservative dissident movement’s approval, somehow manages to get past Arlen Spector, Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, the other liberal RINOs in the Senate, and the sure to unite 45 democrat Senators who will oppose a known "Scalia / Thomas clear cut hard social conservative with a paper trail, we still have to hope we’ll be lucky and they will stay true to the precious paper trail that so many conservatives seem to think is so almighty important all of the sudden, and will not become another kennedy, o’conner, and suiter, who were supposedly known to be conservative because of their time on the bench previously. Someone who is opposed to Miers, please tell me how well those three have worked out for conservative constructionist ideals on the bench of the Supreme Court? Reagan and Bush 41 didn’t know any of them, yet all the conservative voices ripping into Bush and Miers, said what good conservatives those three were, and yet, they aren’t and haven’t been at all.

The one thing I do know for certain fact, is that I haven’t busted my butt every political season the past 16 years making calls, volunteering for campaigns, being a delegate at conventions, and doing whatever I could to help further the conservative movement in the country, just to see it implode on itself because some in it create a huge rift because they didn’t get the Supreme Court pick they wanted. Let’s talk about that. I haven’t gotten tighter border control or the military on the border that I want from this President. I haven’t gotten stricter immigration policies from this President. I haven’t gotten much tighter budget discipline to cut pork and other spending from this President that I have wanted. There are several things I have wanted from Bush and haven’t gotten, but the big picture is far bigger than George W. Bush. The big picture is making sure the majority conservative movement in this country continues, and the liberals don’t get control of the country again. This divide over Miers is the surest thing to bring liberals right back in to power. All the people saying how they’ll "leave the camp" and "take their vote elsewhere" is proof of that. Meanwhile the democrats sit snickering the past week enjoying this immensely. Is that what conservatives want? Putting their personal desires above the continued conservative majority in the House and Senate?

If this silly internal conservative split continues, as it has the past week, I can very well see the democrats reclaiming the House in 2006, the Presidency in 2008, and the Senate in 2010, if not 2008. All because some in the conservative movement didn’t get exactly what they wanted in one Justice nomination. The sad thing is, this time next year, if Miers doesn’t step down, she most likely will have proven that she is a Judicial conservative like Thomas and Scalia. Thankfully, if that’s the case, it would be before the 2006 elections, and that would give time for the conservatives who do not support the Miers nomination to admit they were wrong about her, even if the admission is only to themselves in silence, and get back to fighting to further the conservative agenda, adding more seats to the Republican majority in the House and the Senate. The problems is, that unified spirit, in spite of not getting every single thing you want, is needed NOW, not next year. Because Tom DeLay, a proven Christian conservative leader is under attack by the liberals NOW, not next year. Under attack and indicted for doing things that democrats have done for decades, but it’s not illegal for them to do it. And Bill Frist is being attacked with a bogus SEC investigation NOW, not next year. And the media is just dying to indict and convict Rove and Libby NOW, as they have been for over a year now, not next year. The whole conservative movement is under attack on every level by the mainstream liberal lapdog media and their democrat political masters, and it will only get worse the next year and one month. There is a reason someone came up with the saying "Go along and get along". If you are someone who voted for Bush last year but don’t like the Miers nomination and don’t trust his judgment on this, then why did you vote for him last year? What has happened in just ten months that you have no trust in him whatsoever when he has appointed ONLY strict constructionist conservative Judges the past five years. That is what I don’t understand. Like I said in the beginning, there are plenty of things I want that Bush hasn’t done, but he IS the leader of the conservative movement right now, and he does more that I like than I don’t.

The war is the single biggest thing going on in this country and the world right now. And a conservative split over a Judge will not help in the aggressive administration of this war. It’s still not too late, but it’s getting there. I wish that Bush would have nominated Jones or Owens or Luddig, but he didn’t. There’s nothing I can do about that, and there’s nothing anyone else can do about it. Seemingly, she seems a safe pick, with strong conservative values. Surely she’s a safer pick than kennedy, o’conner, or souter, so in any case, the court will be more right of center with her than o’conner, and that’s a net win. Or at least it would have been before all of this conservative dissent helped embolden the liberals in the country for ’06, because that will be the lasting legacy of this nomination even if she turns out to be more conservative than Thomas and Scalia. The democrats got what they needed to fire up their base from the conservatives upset over Miers being nominated. And that is a huge threat to the conservative agenda on the whole. That energy should have been directed to defending aggressive conservatives under attack like Tom DeLay, who I know and went to church with for over ten years. Instead, there are more conservatives upset about Miers, than are upset about DeLay being hit with trumped up conspiracy charges by a known liberal political hack. That total misdirection of energy on the past of so many conservatives could end up destorying the conservative majority if it doesn’t STOP and NOW! And it’s not Bush’s fault, it’s the fault of the conservatives who are choosing to pick a fight within the conservative movement, instead of continuing to get along to further the conservative agenda on the whole, even if it’s not 100% how you wanted it. That’s the reality of this situation. At this point, I’m not encouraged about the ’06 elections if this continues. If Miers is confirmed and proves she is a judicial conservative by this time next year, or if she withdraws and someone the conservative dissidents gets the nomination in her place, and that person somehow gets by the united liberal democrat Senators and the weak kneed Republican majority Senate, then this can be fixed and the Republicans can add to their House and Senate majority. Short of those two things, it doesn’t look good. And I never would have thought that conservatives feeding on their own would be the end of the conservative majority. Very disappointing, and it makes me wonder what the heck I’ve spent so much of my personal time on politics for, when I could have been furthering my own life and pursuits. Very disappointing.

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.