My objection isn't with her person, qualifications or predicted performance. Gerge Bush's nomination is milqtoast because the nominee is "stealth."
I just don't get all the venomous oppositon from conservatives towards her, and I say that as a life long conservative Christian Republican who's been a delegate at the State convention.
Not all of the venemous oppoisition is against her as a person, etc. It is an objection to the political tactic of "stealth."
What this loud and blatant opposition to her does do is do what the democrats haven't been able to do and are so gleeful about. Split the conservative movement in this country.
The opposition is less about here than it is about what seems to be a gutless pick by the President. She might be great, but her nomination isn't.
I understand the reaction that amounts to blaming the disappointed person for being disappointed. Call 'em unappeasable, Donner Party Republicans, whatever. But the reality is, the party has the burden of attracting voters. It is the party leader's fault when the party has a split. The differences of opinion "just are," and need to be efectively countered.
The prople who are disappointed with the nomination have pretty clearly articulated thatthe don't like the gang of 14 deal, etc., yet the party is not even mentioning that battle. Grrrrrr.
You can oppose her speficically and wish it had been someone else without withdrawing support from the President and the conservative majority ...
This nomination is a risky way to advance conservatism. It is "stealth conservatism." If it gets much more stealthy, it'll be off the political scene entirely.
How is it stealth when she's been an outspoken pro-live Christian, opposing abortion professionally and personally, she's voted Republican, represented Republicans, worked on a Republican administration for five years, been a Republican President's lead council for five years, and been pivotal in picking ALL of the President's judicial nominees for ALL levels of the judiciary, and ALL of them have proven to be strong constructionist conservative judges? Again, I ask, how is it that she was good and conservative enough to pick Brown and Owens and Luddig and Pryor and Roberts, but she's not good enough to be a Justice herself with her long list of accomplishments the past 35 years? Please explain that to me.