Posted on 10/03/2005 5:19:12 PM PDT by wagglebee
>How can the President have that much personal and professional contact with a person for over a decade and not have any idea of what she stands for? Does that make sense to anyone?<
Makes perfect sense to me. Bush knows his nominee up close and personal, we don't; so how can we say he made a bad decision in Miers and the right decision should have been the person each one of us wanted?
I misread your post and thought you wrote that Cornyn was known for his pro-abortion views. Which of course he's not, in fact he's been out front in putting an end to legislating from the bench. So now we have Bush and Cornyn, who know this nominee better than most, signing off on her but I guess for some that's not enough for some.
And gwb has a globalist agenda and has not admitted it? is that your opinion? I am one who has thought this from the beginning of his administration. We needed to get into the Mideast and Sadaam was his way in.
Rush is incisive in his analysis. Anyone who thinks he has lost his edge is proven wrong by his program today.
Here were my own summary thoughts earlier today:
I have been no this topic for a couple of hours I would like to make a few observations clear:
One, I don't believe anyone really believes this is cronyism. It is a choice that lays Bush open to unfounded arguments of cronyism in the MSM and by liberal socialist Democrats. That being said, Miers (sp?) is no Abe Fortas. Mr. Fortas had criminal ties, Mrs. Miers has a sterling resume.
Two, I don't believe anyone really sees this pick as a Souter. Bush Sr. did NOT know Souter at all, that is why it was a foolhardy (maybe not for you conspiracy folks out there) and stupid pick. That being said, Miers is no David Souter, but may be a questionable pick that could turn out like O'Connor (though if you check the record...Ken (Clinton cannot be prosecuted) Starr did the vetting work on O'Connor and judged her good. Bush is and has been a close friend of Mrs. Miers...which is far better than a Souter. We just mean the pick may turn out poorly...only time will tell.
Third, we (as Rush was saying today) were ready to take it to the Dems, go nuclear (I prefer constitutional) and change the rules forever so the courts would NOT have to go through Filibuster anymore. A fight we were ready to fight...will not be fought...unless Ginsburg or whathisname fade out. Even then, is Bush willing?
Finally, despite all of what I have posted (venting my dissappointment) on FR today, I hope and trust the Lord God that Bush and Co. know what is really in the package. So...having vented my spleen of what shoulda, coulda, woulda...I am tucking my powder in my belt.
Godspeed!
We could have had any great steak on the menu. Why ask if the chopped beef is good?
>What's the point of making a fuss?
I agree! As many have said, there is no gaurantee. We will not know until she has voted many times.
Think of it like the investment prospectus:
Past performance is not indicative of future performance.
Same applies to her no matter what views she has now.
Wow....You have potentially the greatest powers I've ever seen here on FR..!!
You can tell if a person has a soul...and apparently how much of one they have too!!.......
I'm in awe....!!
I just watched a replay on CSPAN of Chuck Schumer's first official reaction to the nomination, and no lie, he seemed giddy. He was really happy about it. And then he bitch slapped all us "extreme right wingers" and said GW had repdiated us TWICE now.
Was this woman in the White House prayer group?
This CRONYISM charge is such a crock!!
The whole flipping city of D.C. is one big giant CRONY-ISLAND for crying out loud!! Good ol' boy's and girls hire who brought um to the dance...or they hire who bought um's son's and daughter's, friends, uncles, aunts..etc..etc.........
Roberts sailed through although he ended up with fewer votes than he may have deserved as he was "well qualified" but I wish Bush had appointed a "known" conservative. He is making the base froth with anxiety and making a very large gamble.
"He was really happy about it. And then he bitch slapped all us "extreme right wingers" and said GW had repdiated us TWICE now."
Sadly, he's right.
Well, I guess god has spoken..............
LOL!!
Affirmative cronyism.
But if you are a unitarian you don't have to worry about.
I don't have any problem at all with the donation to Bentsen. This was before he got tricked into being Dukakis' running mate. In the mid-80's, Bentsen was a fairly conservative Democrat (along the lines of Zell Miller) and a supporter of Reagan on many issues. He was very popular and influential in Texas and it is perfectly understandable that a high-profile attorney in Dallas would find it prudent to donate to his senatorial campaign (IIRC the GOP didn't even mount a real campaign against him; and even when he ran for VP, he easily won reelection).
I don't think that Dubya's ever been a major social conservative; he's more of a Rick Warren evangelical than a Pat Robertson evangelical. Moreover, he's always valued loyalty/ personal relationships more than policy positions. He likes Harriet Miers, just as he liked John Roberts, which is why they got the nominations over more well-known conservative intellectuals.
But hello?! McFly? Is that all we care about now? Are we the same as the DUmmies with our "litmus test"?
I want a strict originalist. If we get THAT, we get someone who knows Roe is bad law and overturns it - even if they ARE pro-choice. If we get an originalist we get someone who doesn't believe the end justifies the means.
People here focusing on the fact that "hey, man she's pro-life so shut up" are getting on my last nerve. I'm pro-life too... does that mean I deserve a SCOTUS nomination?!? What about pro-life Harry Reid? You gonna vote for him next time too?
There's much more to this nomination than just abortion. It's frustrating that that's all that half the people here care about. Frustrating as all get out.
For people to be FOR someone simply because they are pro-life and therefore believe they'll overturn Roe and that's all they care about are in fact advocating judicial activism. One issue = qualified. Sad. What about Kelo? What about the commerce clause? Do any of you care?
Tricked? Has he ever repented?
He was very popular and influential in Texas and it is perfectly understandable that a high-profile attorney in Dallas would find it prudent to donate to his senatorial campaign
Great, so Miers is the type of person who'd give her allegiance to someone based on how well they can grease the wheels for her.
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.