Posted on 10/27/2005 12:39:29 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Can we agree?: Shep Smith is preening ignoramus.
Smith just concluded an interview of Juan Williams by offering up the following pet theory:
"When President Bush nominated Miers, he did so with a big wink and let conservatives know she was 'one of us.' But even though conservatives knew that, they rejected her, because she was not sufficiently in-your-face as a pick, and they wanted to poke liberals in the eye with a nominee."
Has Smith been following the debate that has raged in conservative circles over Miers? Is he aware of the serious doubts that arose as to the bona fides of her conservatism? Did he read her speech that became public yesterday in which she expressed support for "self-determination" on abortion?
For Smith to suggest that conservatives rejected Miers despite being confident of her conservatism just because they wanted to inflict more pain on liberals with a more 'offensive' nominee is idiocy parading as theory.
I don't know--I mean, after all, Harry Reid liked her. The Republicans can do far better in choosing a candidate I'd think. Maybe one the Minority Leader isn't waving the flag for? I kinda think that's what Shep was getting at as well. Why compromise when there's no need to?
Apparently, the homosexuals in general were quite enthralled by her. She got the old "thumbs up" from them.
If that is not at least partially true, and the speeches didnt become public until the last day or so, then why do more than fifty percent of those on Free Republic cry out for the "red meat" Janice Rodgers Brown as opposed to Luttig, McConnel, or Clement?
Both those "guys" rumored to be gay, Run that back again to see if they were holding hands.
I think you need to reread my post.
That is exactly the point I was making, albeit in a way that left it open to be misinterpreted obviously.
He defends Meiers now, but she better not try to take his parking place!
You're talking politics. Don't you know that the President is expected to hurl himself flaming off a cliff to satisfy the greater petulance.
Its basically what Rush said today in his show. He had felt that Bush had wasted an opportunity to appoint a real strict constructionist and have a fight so the public could be educated. The movement conservatives were pissed off by Miers appointment because they wouldnt have that fight or if they did, they wouldnt have a vocal spokesman for their side. They wanted Janice Rodgers Brown to stick her finger in Schumers eye.
So much for the hate the sin but love your neighbor attitude of the "religious" right.
Since VP Cheney, Brit Hume, and at least two major pro-life figures have gay children its embarrasing to see these personal attacks. Think how it must hurt people like Cheney or Hume if they visit FR and see this crap from folks who are at best one step removed from trailer court trash.
Sorry I obviously misinterpreted. I assumed there were a lot of people piling on Shep thinking he came out of his own accord and was sticking this in their face. I dont know that he's gay and I dont care as long as he doesnt hit on me.
I resemble that remark.
It's moot now, but just how obvious is it? She's on record in favor of racial set asides and quotas, and yesterday a speech was released that she gave in 1993 in which she spoke in favor of a woman's right to "self-determination" on abortion.
It was revealed yesterday that in 1993 she gave a speech advocating women's "self-determination" on abortion.
I have moved six or seven times since I spent two months of Summer school in trailer park. But I guess there are times I resemble that too. :-)
As I always say—I don't care what grown ups do in their private lives, just don't make me watch or approve and stay away from my children.
Anyway, no harm, no foul. Misunderstandings happen.
I agree that many conservatives would be happy to have a fight. But I don't believe most of those same conservatives were convinced Miers was a true-blue originalist. There was too much shaky stuff that came out regarding her record on affirmative action and abortion.
If they were convinced she was a solid conservative pick with strong intellectual credentials, I'm confident they would have supported her. Evidence of that: a great majority of conservatives supported Roberts even though his nomination was not a poke in the liberals' eye.
Not that I wouldn't enjoy seeing that!
But that's the BIG difference: conservatives weren't convinced she WAS a strict constructionist. Had they been the great majority would have supported her even if her nomination had not been particularly confrontational.
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.