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.
If McCain wants the nomination, he gets the Gang of 14 to support/ not allow the filibuster of whomever Bush puts up.
I do want someone to poke liberals in the eye (A dual eye Three Stooges poke would be nice) and kick em' the nuts while they are at it.
I was never impressed with Shep's tabloidy style of reporting. He was like breathless Rita Cosby with her annoying "my sources tell me..." crap. Rita had so many sources that she lost credibility and her show was a joke. Shep is much the same way.
Remember what they did to Pete Williams of NBC?
>>>"When President Bush nominated Miers, he did so with a big wink and let conservatives know she was 'one of us.'<<<
Shep Smith is an absolute idiot. How did he get a job at Fox, anyway? Is he the nephew of the wife of a board member? I don't get it.
No, Sheperd. Perhaps report the news and cease commentary:)
It's possible that Miers' Christian conversion has so changed her that any personal philosophy she spoke of before that conversion is meaningless, in which case, we truly should have trusted the president.
Not sure why you're addressing this to me. I'm not accepting anything as true. To the contrary I made it clear that at the time I wrote this thread I had been completely unaware of the gay reporter's allegations and thus that such thread had absolutely nothing to do with this one.
Understood. You're simply trying to set the record straight. I don't take that as a defense of Smith, per se ;-)
This was an instance of saving Bush from himself. Ultimately, he should be thankful. He should also remember he doesn't walk on water. Fallibility is human. I'm sincerely hoping he doesn't make a move to spite us like selecting Gonzales next.
I don't *want* a fight but if the nominee is excellent, I'm not at all afraid of one.
I disagree. Yes some were saying a fight would be good. But at the same time, they were expressing sincere qualms about Miers' conservatism and credentials. There's no way, IMHO, that if conservatives had been convinced she was a strong, principled, articulate originalist they would have opposed her simply because she wasn't offensive enough to liberals.
Attack Smith's sexuality when there is nothing to add to your argument.
I don't see anything wrong with having a fight over a nominee in the US Senate. Get it all out in the open. Let America hear both sides. There is a Constitutional struggle going on in this nation, and I think a debate in front of millions would be a good thing for the nation. I wasn't looking for any "bloodbath", but instead, an honest presentation of what a true Constitutional scholar could mean for this nation and why we so badly need one on the court at this time in our history. A battle of ideas is what I'm looking for. This nation is suffering because we have become so complacent about things that we once were so full of passion for. Quick, easy and cheap. We want our wars fought that way, and it seems that we'd just as soon take the easy route to solve every problem. It's a dangerous mindset, but I'm afraid one that's taking hold.
Thanks, I agree.
As mentioned, when I wrote this thread I had absolutely no inkling of the thread that appeared yesterday and the allegations about Smith's personal life.
I don't like to use the language of the left, but there is some silly homophobia going on here.
Notice you said "possible" which is exactly why Miers is unacceptable when there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of excellent nominees available to pick from where "possible" and "trust the president" are not the primary qualifications. And as far as her conversion being claimed as a qualification? I'm offended. The very Constitution itself is offended.
The damned drama queen earned my scorn fair and square.
I think it has been exasperation with the war, gas prices, etc., you know all the liberal catch-phrases, and the anti-Mier conservatives at FR and elsewhere, didn't have the balls to admit it, thus they used Miers as their venue to attack.
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.