Sheppo's legs are stuning.
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.
So sorry. Mis-posted.
Very well put, IMHO.
And the rise of federal spending. And can we forget immigration?
Darn it if Shep would have just told us this a few days earlier the nomination could have been saved.(/s)
Thanks for clarifying - no prob.
He certainly didn't do a "Delay" Mug Shot....HA HA
Thanks, I forgot those.
Mier's may be a true blue conservative, but that's water over the dam. We do want to poke the Left in the eye...that's very true.
Agree. Some people get off on bashing when they don't even know if something is true - makes them feel better. I'm no fan of Shep's but conservatives targeting someone based on a gay publication of all things is ironic.
Period.
But she wrote the speech promulgated yesterday in which she praised "self-determination" on abortion in 1993, several years after her conversion.
And I AGREE with him. Some of us can be so Ann Coulter in-your-face, and now we get pissed off when somebody calls us on it? Please.
(MISSED! HA! HA! I'm ducking under my desk!! HA! HA!)
Sheppo's legs are stuning.
I was not aware of that timing and must say I'm disappointed.
We went wrong? 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. 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. This was the tip of the ice berg that got most of us true Conservatives upset with a man who has abandoned the base. President Bush should have paid more attention to our borders than education and national defense than prescription drugs, a brain dead woman on life support named Teri Shiavo, the Tsunami, Africa, and Hurricane Katrina. He should have been more concerned on how far we have veered away from the Constitution than about winning a few cheap votes. He should have worried about how far we have fallen from the Reagan Revolution to a party that concedes and capitulates to the lesser life forms on the Left. Instead of 'porking things up' he should have cut spending in the areas that are not 'necessary and proper' which I believe education and prescription drugs are and focused more on defending American and stopping al Qaeda. The Constitution, nor Madison or the rest of the FF behind the Constitution would have allowed such things to pass and neither would they have approved Welfare or have the other Liberal programs today as being 'necessary and proper' either. 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. If they do not go back to being the Conservative party that stands by the Constitution than they will lose much of their base that are true Conservatives. All those Conservatives that opposed Dubya did so because of principle. True, we're not all the same. A lot Republicans are Socially Conservative who use to be Democrats but because the GOP is against abortion and gay marriage they now support the Republicans. I am not one of those. I actually believe in the Constitution and I believe in a strict-constructionist philosophy. Given Bush's record so far it is a no-brainer why Bush is slumping so low in the polls. If he messes up again with the next pick there will be more hell to pay for sure.
I think Shep makes a good point. Miers is obviously conservative, but with Republican control of the Senate, we should be able to nominate a strong intellectual conservative who the liberals will have no way of fighting. This was the way I took his comments, and I think they make sense.
I agree that Miers is a social conservative. I believe that Miers is a true evangelical Christian which would make her a social conservative. I know that Miers wasn't respected as a legal scholar but that doesn't bother me. I would rather have someone who exercises sound Constitutional judgment than someone who doesn't but has a grasp of all the legal minutiae.
I have this concern that as conservatives we are going to regret not backing Miers. I think that we are going to learn that Miers would have been a reliable conservative vote on the USSC. Hopefully, the next nominee will a reliable conservative vote and not another Souter. The problem is that you never know until it is too late.
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.