Posted on 10/04/2005 5:35:29 AM PDT by shortstop
I think Bob Loonsberry articles are more appropriate for the blog section...preferably the "third rate blogs" section.
Very well said.
After reading the rantings and diatribes of these so-called "conservatives" on this site, it's clear that the DU doesn't have a monopoly on crying and whining. Some people were trashing her purely because of her age and marital status. As far as I am concerned a lot of these people are no better than klansmen who spew personal attacks instead of using any sort of intelligent reasoning.
My God, these people act like they are still in their terrible twos! My prayer is that most of them are just DUers in disguise trying to trash this woman.
In 1992, Miller endorsed then-Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas for U.S. President. That year, Miller over keynoted the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City. In two oft-recalled lines, Miller said that then-U.S. Pres. George H.W. Bush "just doesn't get it", and of Dan Quayle, "Not all of us can be born rich, handsome, and lucky, and that's why we have a Democratic Party."
The DNC concubines* are having a hay day reporting all the attacks by the right wing on Miers.
*(i.e., the liberal media)I was disappointed at first that someone more notoriously right-leaning wasn't nominated by Bush. But Bush knows more than I do.
Is that good enough for you?
I would expect some compromise, but this is just to far for me. I can not nor will not support someone for such an important post I feel is so blatantly unqualified.
You people need to get a grip. Take a deep breath and calm down. The hysterics over Bush nominating Harriet Miers has reached a fever pitch. Consider for a moment:
No one can predict with CERTAINTY the kind of justice Miers or any nominee will be, but she is our President's choice. I know him to be a man of faith and he has known Harriet Miers for many years and knows her VERY well. He knows her much better than any of the other potential nominees and for that, we should probably be grateful, given the fact that many nominees have been a disappointment once on the court.
In the end, EVERY pick comes down to trust and with so much at stake, I'm sure Bush is confident in her philosophy, ability and loyalty. This evening, after hearing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson confirm his support for Harriet Miers, it made my heart sing. Dobson has gotten confirmation that Miers is indeed a conservative AND an evangelical Christian.
Bush HAD to have considered the affect this pick will have on the country, thus his legacy. I would imagine the sting of his father's fatal Souter appointment has made a HUGE impression on him.
I trust that Bush learned from the sins of his father and has selected someone he KNOWS will be loyal to the Constitution since that's what he's promised us all along.
Bush has to realize the fate of our country, his legacy and the GOP's future will essentially lie in Harriet Miers hands. If HE'S comfortable with that, then I think the rest of us should at least give him the benefit of the doubt and keep our powder dry. It is HIS choice to make and he made it.
Next question!
Does typing in all caps make it more true? If so I will need to remember that, it will come in useful when I am short on facts.
The best candidate is one who can be confirmed without wasting all the political capital required for the rest of Bushes term and who will follow the Constitution.
BUMP!
Um, howsabout critiquing his argument, rather than himself personally? I mean, you can always explain how the fact that we know nothing about the woman is really part of Bush's cunning plan, that she's really a strict constructionist in the spirit of Jefferson, and that you know it because you spoke with Jefferson through a medium...
I have a feeling the first two letters of your handle got there by mistake.
I can never support her.
I'm supporting Bush and her. I'm trying to keep the faith, but I'm a breath away from being where you are...
and the brain dead Bush-Bots will be here in droves to defend the indefensible.
Everytime one of them opens their ignorant mouth it proves to me that the man is not what Conservatives thought they were getting.
That's ok koolaid drinkers. You're party is going to take a severe whipping at the ballot box, because a great many of those who did vote for and support this President are not going to be there on Election day. You can thank both him and your own fat mouths for that.
OR. . .'you teach best; what you most need(ed) to learn'; nothing like an ex-smoker to lead one away from tobacco temptations/etc. . .
And just perhaps; Harriet Miers will be to the Democrats; what Souter was to the Repubs. . .an unexpected disappointment.
Don't worry, you're not fooling anyone...except yourself.
(/sarcasm)
Anything about the substantive points raised by the poster?
Cheers!
you know, I am almost (ALMOST) glad he nominated her. The meltdowns I am seeing are classic.
its funny.
One thing that doesn't bother me is that she is not a judge. There is nothing in the Constitution demanding that. The document itself is straightforward enough for the 'farmers and ranchers' whom Ginsberg despises to understand it.
As such, I'd like to see an economist and a business person on the Supreme Court.
What bothers me is her spotty record as an attorney wrt conservative causes.
I wish I could keep the faith, GW is likable. And there are thing he has done that are laudable. But as of late it has been disappointing to say the least. I would have hoped he would have picked a more experienced conservative jurist. One with a clear history for us to look at instead we get the good ol' boy (ok girl in this case) network.
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.