Miers' Shocking Record (Joseph Farah Slams Bush's Betrayal Of The Base Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 10/05/05 | Joseph Farah

[West Coast Conservative]

Yes.

[Southack]

What Farah said about the tax increase, homosexual adoption, et al is accurate per say, but misleading because he leaves out the City council context at the time of her votes (she was attempting to reconcile Black Dallas with White Dallas in a series of compromises)...local issues and machinations that have nothing to do with her core philosophies.

Farah compounds the above slight by further omitting her pro-life record, her mission-sponsoring record, her pro-gun record, her speech to the homosexual group in which she told them that she didn't share their values/beliefs, etc.

Farah is a kook on his best day...an ideologue on the rest.

You're better than that. Don't let yourself get suckered into his anti-intellectual drivel that would have you digging and concreting in bunkers for every Y2K/Ramadan event.

If you're just mad at President Bush, fine, say so...but don't go resorting to cheap Farah-like tricks and omissions just to score a few fleeting points with people who don't know any better.

Hold yourself up to a higher standard than Farah if you want to be less miserable for the rest of your life.

[Howlin]

I can't believe you're actually using Farah as a credible source.

[goldstategop]

That's the problem every one has. The Democrats can't attack as an extremist conservative but neither can people who want to help her cite her views on the record that could counter Farah's findings. We've heard from people who knew her - that is well and good - but bottom line at the end of the day, the person who really knows what her views are is Miers herself.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Howlin]

Call him a kook - that's supposed to discredit the veracity of what he says.

Didn't Dan Rather say something close to that ridiculous remarks about those forged documents?

[Howlin]

Do you those sound like conservative positions?

Farah has already made those claims in other articles; and most of them were thoroughly DEBUNKED on those threads.

[libertyman]

Mr. Farah doesn't hate President Bush....he voted for him @ least once, possibly twice. President Bush deserves to be taken to the woodshed over some of his despicable choices & actions.

[Howlin]

He's slamming her because she isn't for going outside the Constitution to push the conservative cause?

Remember when conservatives were actaully AGAINST a litmus test?

I do, too.

[goldstategop]

If its not Farah, its someone else. Now do you see why the absence of a paper trail can help as much as hurt a person? When we know something about a person's view from them, we get a sense of their inner qualities, their philosophy and the way they answer the Big Questions of life. Southack made an attempt to refute Farah's charges but it can't be as convincing as it could be if he could refer to something Miers has written about her life and her philosophy. That's why I think documentation of a personal sort is critical in a Supreme Court justice so we know what kind of justice that person is going to be. I don't want a blank slate and at the moment what we have reminds me of the old 80s line: "where's the beef?"

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Howlin]

Yes, he does.

[Mo1]

"Mr. Farah doesn't hate President Bush"


Oh yea .. I can just feel the love in the air


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496853/posts?page=21#21

[one more state]

Quite simply: Farah is a kook.

I think you should read some of his other articles before totally discounting Farah. He's right on the mark when it comes to immigration. The one thing I fear about Miers is that she agrees with Bush on immigration. We may have a judge that thinks our borders should be totally open. You can bet not a single senator on either side of the ile will ask anything about that.

[Howlin]

If its not Farah, its someone else.

FGS, you've gone off the deep end.

Now do you see why the absence of a paper trail can help as much as hurt a person?

I sure do; because it leaves the door wide open for Farah and his fool followers to make up whatever they want to about somebody.

Did you not hear Brit Hume tonight? Bush told the people in the White House that he was nominating her because he was POSITIVE she will adhere to the Constitution and that she will NEVER change like the other ones have.

[goldstategop]

And he demands such a litmus test, where? Its not too much to ask a candidate for high office to have fixed views of some sort. Would any one vote for a mystery candidate for Governor or President? Why should any one accept a blank slate in a judge?

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Howlin]

I think you should read some of his other articles before totally discounting Farah.

Ah, how do you think that the vast majority of people on this site CAME to the opinion that he's a gold-plated kook.

We're READ them all over the years.

He's simply NOT a credible person on ANY topic.

[HAL9000]

But for freedom-loving Americans, it's time to bid a fond farewell to the Republican Party.

It's past time to bid farewell to Joseph Farah. He'd be happier with President Kerry.

[Howlin]

And he demands such a litmus test, where?

Do not insult my intelligence; he wants a judge to PROMISE to further a certain conservative ideology; that's a litmus test no matter how you dress it up.

[Steve_Stifler]

From all the reports we have, Miers is considered to be the most loyal of Bush's aides. Therefore, in order for conservatives to lose on this nomination, we have to believe either (1) she is, in fact, the most duplicitous of his inner circle and has maneuvered herself into a position where she can betray the Bush presidency in the most terrible of ways or (2) Bush isn't a conservative and is nominating her to maintain the liberal status quo on the Supreme Court. Neither seems likely to me.

While I'm not overjoyed by her selection, it's because I think we should be able to nominate and confirm the posterchild for conservative legal values and not have to rely on a stealth candidate. It's definitely not because I'm worried she's going to join Souter on his own private reservation.

[goldstategop]

That's only the opinion of the man nominating her. Its his opinion and while I respect it, its not really the issue. The real issue is - what is Miers' views on constitutional law, on judicial tyranny, on stare decisis, on the proper role of the courts and how does her judicial philosophy relate to these concerns? In truth, we don't really know. My point is, if conservatives knew her views, we'd be a lot more supportive.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)