Shep Smith: Miers True Conservative But Right Wanted Nominee Who Would Poke Left in Eye

Fox News | governsleastgovernsbest

[Duke Nukum]

I was never overly fond of Shep and his show but did my best to keep an open mind until I caught some of his NO coverage.

He always did these annoying little things in the past like I heard him call Hannity "Hammity" during one of their co-broadcasts, you know, Hannity was on the radio and Shep was on his early FNC show, and that just seemed not right. Unprofessional. Annoying.

But his coverage of the Katrina was grating. I kind of felt he and Geraldo should move to Louisiana and run for state office since they seemed to want to dictate policy.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Well put. I'd even take Geraldo over Shep. At least Geraldo brings a kind of shameless energy and enthusiasm to his grandstanding.

[kittymyrib]

Shep can scarcely read, so what does he know? He is Fox's weakest link.

[Dave S]

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.

Maybe Shep could have been clearer but I think there were elements of both wanting the fight and wanting the highly qualified originalist to help carry that fight.

[Red Badger]

He defends Meiers now, but she better not try to take his parking place!

I remember! LOL!!!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Perhaps but I didn't think so. He began by saying that W gave conservatives the big wink-wink to let people know she was really 'one of us,' and that conservatives accepted that she was.

Thus, by Shep's theory, conservative oppostion to her had nothing to do with her philosophy and everything to do with wanting a more confrontational appointment.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

He is Fox's weakest link.

To mix a metaphor, I say 'vote him off the island!'

[ZULU]

Shep should back to New Orleans and count alligators.

[untrained skeptic]

"We went wrong?"

Very, very wrong. Not in disagreeing with the Miers nomination. Supreme Court nominee's shouldn't just get automatic support. We've seen enough bad ones by Republican presidents in the past. What went wrong is the way Miers was attacked. She was borked by the right. The very thing we have criticized the left of doing and seriously damaged their credibility over.

"Harriet Miers was questionable on many issues and Bush's commitment of ignoring 'Conservatives' and appeasing Liberals has gone too far."

"I'll attack Harriet Miers and Bush because Bush was an idiot."

How about instead of attacking Miers and Bush you present the reasons she isn't appropriate for the court in an honest and dignified manner? That's what should have happened. Unfortunately most of the outspoken opponents against Miers failed to do so and seriously damaged their credibility. All you had to do to see it was to look at the sources for their information and compare it to all the other information out there. It was pretty obvious they were looking to strech any tidbit of info into a way to portray her as a liberal and quite willing to ignore information that contradicted that assesment.

Pure Borking.

If your method of attacking is honestly presenting facts and disagreeing with the president, then attack away! I've got no problem with that at all. I do it myself.

"Appointing someone because of their religious background and expecting the base to walk in lock step is not only egregious but it is down right insulting."

There's no reason you or anyone else had to walk lock step with the Bush administration. Miers religious background was merely one of reasons presented that conservatives might support her. People being offended by Bush mentioning her religious background were looking awfully hard to be offended.

Do you think that her religious background wasn't significant? Why be offended that if was mentioned?

"This was the tip of the ice berg that got most of us true Conservatives upset with a man who has abandoned the base."

He abandoned his base? I think you're a bit confused on who we elected president. We elected the guy who campaigned as a compassionate conservative. He's overall a moderate. He's conservative on some issues and liberal on others.

He's not a tax and spend fiscal liberal. He's a reduce taxes, boost the economy, and spend the increased tax revenues that result moderate.

He didn't abandon people on those issues, he would have had to be on that side on those issues to begin with.

You can complain that his views are not your views, I do it all the time. But all this crap about abandonment and justifying New York Times style tactics is a load of crap.

"He should have worried about how far we have fallen from the Reagan Revolution"

Given the choice of Reagan's record of Judical picks and Bush's, I'll take Bush's.

Given the choice of Reagan's method of "nation building" and Bush's, I'll take Bush's. On social spending, I'll definately take Reagan.

"The Republican party needs to wake up and get with the program! Let Harriet Miers and the Minuteman be the warning to Bush and all other Conservatives who dare test the waters of their base."

Let's see. We had made significant gains in the senate which is the main roadblock for conservative legislation. The borking of political nominees by the left seems te be an issue which was helping Republicans considerably. So what did we do? We have the Right bork a candidate, stoop to their level, and damage the credibility of the right.

I think the Minutemen are doing a great job of forcing congress to look at an issue they'd much rather avoid. There was nothing wrong with opposing Miers, because we really didn't have good reasons to support her, and unless some reasons surfaced, I think she would have been withdrawn even without the childish tactics.

Instead, we seriously damaged our credibility and we'll likely pay the price in not being able to get a true conservative majority in the Senate, which means passing real conservative legislation is going to still be nearly impossible.

[Byron Norris]

"How about instead of attacking Miers and Bush you present the reasons she isn't appropriate for the court in an honest and dignified manner?"

Sure, I will. Where are her qualifications? Why should we support Mrs. Miers to the highest court in the land? I mean I don't know how to be succinct here, other than to say that I want to see the reasons why she should sit there. Why should we support her when she has no record that is being presented by a President that expects the faithful to accept his faith alone, especially a faith that I will go upon later, that he has betrayed?BR>
Now as far as this Compassionate Conservatism thing goes, I am and I will never be a C.C by our definition. Why? Well because Conservatives are compassionate because we respect our Constitution and the fact the STATES and the PEOPLE, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT decide what is best on the state and local level. The Federal governments job isn't to care for people. That is something that is maintained by the States. Go back and read the 9th and 10th Amendment if you disagree. And no it is not 'Necessary and Proper' to support those who cannot support themselves on the Federal level or provide drugs to the elderly, nor should Incorporation via the 14th apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Go read the enumerated and numerated powers and tell what powers Congress has outside of that! Anyone who believes that the 1st Amendment applies to the States is not only a fool but ignorant of the 14th Amendment's intent. And that is to ensure that slaves and those born in the USA are treated as equals by the law. Most Conservatives are not true Constitutionalists and I will give you that. Some are Teddy Roosevelt Progressives. Others are JFK's Democrats who have crossed over due to the extreme Marxist turn by the Left. Than there are those of us who believe in the Constitution and want to see our country take a turn back to an Orginalist intent. I however am and like many others who are disheartened by Bush's failure to be a Conservative feel abandoned and betrayed by a man who does not walk the walk and talk talk. If this is the Compassionate Conservatism that we elected, than why do we see the President's approval rating slumping? It is more than just the Left (whom I can care nothing about) that is creating this slump! .

You can pick Bush's picks over Reagan's any day. Maybe you're more like Nixon and H.W Bush but I am not. I am an Originalist and a Reagan Republican. See when my party or my president elects to adopt policy more akin to the Left than the Right, they should be prepared to accept responsibility for their actions. They should expect to be challenged and if they simply do not care about our vote anymore or the fact that we support them than perhaps it is time that we create a new party. If the base is no longer important, than we should dissolve. No I don't think that is helpful and I do think that it defeats the purpose but I do believe that is what will happen if the Moderates or the RINOs continue to take over the Republican party. I mean that is like selling your soul out and that is something I will never do. Remember the folks down here in the Red States didn't vote for a Moderate; the folks down here voted for integrity and principle.

[Petronski]

Shep is a preening idiot, but I've heard this argument from actual Freepers of longstanding:

"...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."

[carton253]

Shep is right... he pretty much summed it up in a nutshell...

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Shep lost any credibility as a newscaster he had with me as he hysterically wet himself on camera in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Looks like with Alito we've gotten the fight some want!

[untrained skeptic]

"Sure, I will. Where are her qualifications?"

She has a long career in the legal field. She does not have experience as a judge, which is far from uncommon for Supreme Court nominations.

"Why should we support Mrs. Miers to the highest court in the land?"

Extremely good question. There's a lot that we know about Miers and most of it's good. The problem with her is we didn't know enough to justify supporting her.

I never had a problem with people not blindly supporting her. I had a serious problem with the manner in which she was attacked by many.

Anything the administration put our about her was responded to with indignant rage. Her history was picked through and anything good was ignored, anything questionable was spun to make her look like a horrible appointee. Anything blatantly bad... well, I never really saw anything that was clearly bad.

The Bush administration had not presented enough of a clear picture of Miers to earn the support of staunch conservatives. However, she did not deserve the spin and FUD that was tossed at her from a great many right wing pundits. It was shameful, and embarrassing to myself as a conservative.

"Now as far as this Compassionate Conservatism thing goes, I am and I will never be a C.C by our definition. Why? Well because Conservatives are compassionate because we respect our Constitution and the fact the STATES and the PEOPLE, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT decide what is best on the state and local level."

I agree. There's nothing compassionate about creating dependence on the government.

"Why should we support her when she has no record that is being presented by a President that expects the faithful to accept his faith alone"

Very good point, and we should have continued to demand more information. That has nothing to do with the behavior to which I objected. I have no problems with rejecting her as a candidate because we didn't have enough information to justifying supporting her. However, she was still answering questions for the Judiciary committee. The confirmation hearings hadn't even started yet.

I can understand being fearful to wait to long to object about not having enough information. Attacking her nomination based on not having enough information was clearly justified. However, the Borking tactics that were used to attack her were shameful. I read article after article in the NRO that were disgusting attacks. These are people arguing that we need a constitutionalist that will base their decisions on well constructed arguments, yet the majority of the arguments they used against her were not well constructed, but merely ad hominem attacks.

"Go back and read the 9th and 10th Amendment if you disagree."

I don't disagree.

" You can pick Bush's picks over Reagan's any day. Maybe you're more like Nixon and H.W Bush but I am not."

Reagan nominated Kennedy, which is who I am not very happy with.

As for originalist intent and Reagan, don't forget that Reagan signed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986. That law not only is directly at odds with the second amendment, it's one of many examples where the commence clause was horribly abused.

Reagan was one of our best presidents, but don't blind yourself to the fact that he was far from a constitutional originalist in many cases.

"If this is the Compassionate Conservatism that we elected, than why do we see the President's approval rating slumping?"

How about because he's not doing anything. I think that illegal immigration is hurting him because he's somewhere between being way to weak on the issue to actually being part of the problem.

However, on SS reform which was a major goal, he would need a conservative senate to make any progress, and we don't have a conservative senate. The conservatives on the senate are likely afraid of taking up the issue because they don't trust Bush to back them on trimming the costs, with good reason.

You have enough conservatives in congress to likely hold off sweeping new legislation that would give FEMA, an organizations that should be tiny and have little more than an advisory role, broad new powers.

The liberals have undermined Bush's support for the war, so we don't have the ability to force Iran to quit helping the insurgency in Iraq. Any threats we make against Iran are hollow, and Iran doesn't respond to hollow threats other than to see weakness and push harder.

We are a nation politically divided. There isn't enough support to move conservative legislation forward. Therefore the government is becoming stagnant.

What we really need are about 10 more conservatives in the Senate. Then conservative legislation could be moved forward and Bush, while he would likely lean more liberal on some of the issues, would go along with it. However, Bush isn't going to fight the Senate for extremely conservative legislation, and even if he was willing to do so, he's likely to lose to the liberal Senate anyway.

"See when my party or my president elects to adopt policy more akin to the Left than the Right, they should be prepared to accept responsibility for their actions."

I agree. But the tactics of distort and spin used against Miers are not the tools used to form constructive arguments.

How do you expect to sway conservative people away from the liberal rot in the Republican party by using distortion and FUD?

I also find it amusing that these same conservative pundits are screaming about how Bush has abandoned the base of the Republican party. Are we talking about the same Republican party? The Republican party I see isn't all that conservative. If it were, why is it that most of the Republicans in the Senate are RINOs?

Here in Ohio, the liberals have been in charge of the Republican party for some time. Ohio has republicans in the majority of Statewide elected offices, yet our State is spiraling out of control into a pit of overtaxing and overspending. The "Republican" governor is responding by continuously trying to change the state constitution to allow him to spend more money.

We're going to have a tough fight over the next decade to try and wrest control of the party back from the liberals. Maybe then we can start sending conservatives to the US Senate instead of the likes of Dewine and Voinovich.

Right now we're fighting the likes of Moveon.org who are trying to change our election system to remove protections against fraud.

"If the base is no longer important, than we should dissolve."

There's no question in my mind that true conservatives are extremely important to the our great nation. I do question if they still represent the base of the Republican party. You don't dissolve because liberals are taking over. You expose them for what they are by exposing their lies and you fight to regain control of the party.

You can't do that through distorting facts. That damages your credibility and allows you to be marginalized.

"Remember the folks down here in the Red States didn't vote for a Moderate; the folks down here voted for integrity and principle."

The person they voted for was and is a moderate. They voted for a moderate. He is a lot better on the issues of integrity and principle than Kerry is by far, but he's still a moderate.

[GOPJ]

Miers was cheerleader, confidant and sounding board for President Bush. Her personality type is keyed into how people really feel - and because of that she's be able to offer a type of counsel others can't.

I was against Miers being confirmed, but she's won my respect for her important spot on the team.

My concern is she would have performed the same function on the SC. Miers might have attached herself to a conservative -- and we'd have an extra conservative justice. Great. Or she could have attached to a liberal..

Powerful men who surround themselves with powerful "truth tellers" only, are handicapped. Bush is smarter than that -- but he confused the mirror she holds up to him, with the person she is... Powerful people needs a "Miers" on the team, and she deserves our respect. Not confirmation...

[GOPJ]

Please see comment #136

[linkinpunk]

Interesting take.

Now that she is history, I hope the Kristol/Coulter/Limbaugh people back her with as much vigor as they opposed Miers.

[Byron Norris]

Well, Skeptic you convinced me that we should still support President Bush. I think most of this rage came from the way that she was presented. I agree that Bush is still the man when it comes to politics and that the GOP is the only party to vote for. No, we're not the party of 'classic conservatism' but we are the only hope. And that is why I will stick to the GOP and to support it financially.

I certainly hope that we can get at least ten more seats or even more in the Senate but I hope that the GOP doesn't hurt itself by fracturing the base even further. A lot of what happened was incendiary and questionable. But we can't make that a reason to get the Democrats back in power. Perhaps if we have stronger numbers in the Senate we will have a better chance. Let us all hope and pray for that and the next time election time rolls around we all need to head for the polls and ensure that more Republicans are elected!

Thank you for your well thought out and superfluous response. I do say that it is a breath of fresh air!