Posted on 10/06/2005 2:24:09 AM PDT by AntiGuv
I expect those most negatively vocal on these threads about Miers were likely disaffected Bush supported anyway so little is lost there..As a matter of fact I think he has really let us down in major areas (judicial appointments are NOT one of those areas) and every time I bring those up on the threads the Bushbots come out of the woodwork..sometimes you just can't win. I do try to take each issue as it comes and I don't worship anybody on this earth. Bush has many faults..They would be less apparant if he could just talk. But heck No body's perfect. I know the situation is as complex as it is important. And I guess taking swipes at Bush for this nomination is fair from the point of view that we were all salivating for a real showdown.. I wanted that too but counting the numbers just doesn't win the hand here so I give Bush a pass on that part or at least won't get on a bash Bush wagon. I also won't join the crush Miers band since most of the rhetoric I see from that quarter is not informed debate and I can't separate the BS from the cream... And the table has been set by Bush yes, but the Liberals are using the arguments against us..check the pundits. Since when does a Democratic spokesperson use "well she did support gay rights and give to Gore" as evidence that Bush has made a mistake...They are trying to inflame us against ourselves. Check the media...and it's working ..check the threads... I still say we haven't enough info to crucify or crown and that is the core of the problem we need to solve. Beating up Bush or Miers will get us nowhere...Sorry I have to leave this thread and go try to find more data...good luck, enjoyed the dialog.
Your assertions are unfounded and not even documented and we have reached the back side of the circle yet again.. Have a great and blessed day. Gotta go find real data.
^
The range of expectations (great!) is pretty limited, and is exclusive to only a select few. If we listened to the cliquesters, why would anyone bother to try at anything? It's preordained, according to them.
That they have contributed to this situation is distressing, but better to know now than later.
I believe Miers will do well. I think she's hit a nerve with middle-class America, because she is someone people perceive has actually led a regular life, not one filled with smarty pants thinkers and intellectual snobs and elitist college grads who earn tons of money.
There's a flaw in this analysis. Our "bench-clearing brawl" would have been with other Republicans, not the Dems. Had Bush named one the the "A-list" nominees, the weak-kneed, country-club wing of the party would have defected. Harry Reid would have picked off just enough votes to kill the nomination. And when we emerged bloodied and battered from our "brawl", the Dems would have been the last ones standing; without throwing a single punch or getting so much as a speck of dust on their shoes.
Peggy is foolishly assuming that the GOP, particularly those in the Senate, are a monolith of conservatism. One might as well believe the moon is made of green cheese.
They want a trophy Justice. They want someone with a thoroughbred pedigree they can point to with pride and adoration. They want someone who gives them bragging rights to lord their vicarious triumph over the vanquished liberal Democrats.
Had Bush clearly picked such a princess of the realm, I'd be tickled pink. Apparently, he has not. So, I'll settle for what was promised.
Wouldn't it be a hoot should Miers outshine Roberts?
Their barking moonbats and you're....?
September 29, 2005
Often mentioned are federal appellate judges Alice Batchelder, J. Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Priscilla Owen, Samuel Alito, Karen Williams and Michael McConnell.
Also said to be under consideration are corporate attorney Larry Thompson, White House counsel Harriet Miers, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Bush hinted Monday he might choose a woman or minority member, but some outside advisers were intrigued by another part of his comments. The president said he had interviewed and considered people from "all walks of life."
---------------------------
Inboxrobot.com
... leading contenders include current and former high-ranking administration officials with long ties to Bush: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House Counsel Harriet Miers....
-----------------------
Here are three from September. There are dozens more, but you can look them up for yourself. Hope this helps!
Don't choke on that baloney.
It is a ludicrous nomination. I join with Bill Kristol and ask her to withdraw.
An impeccable pedigree just about sums it up perfectly. You got it.
These types are looking for one of those little fluffy pooches that has spent it's whole life being groomed in only the best salons by only the brightest stylists, well-mannered and bred, who can go to the big show and bring home the trophy that they can point to as their validation that they done good.
Miers is a mutt without the fancy pedigree. They're shocked and sniffy about it.
(You have your analogy, I have mine. LOL.)
"Another 'barking moonbat' joins with Norquist, Weyrich, Coulter, Levin, Malkin, Goldberg, Kristol, Savage, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Novak, Buchanan, the Eagle Forum, Operation Rescue, et al."
Funny, we all agreed with most of them most of the time... but now they're a bunch of disloyal, elitist nuts, right?
And add Krauthammer, Frum, Will, Steyn, Hannity, and Bauer to that 'barking moonbat' list! How dare they question the wisdom of the Miers nomination?!
'barking moonbat' joins with Norquist, Weyrich, Coulter, Levin, Malkin, Goldberg, Kristol, Savage, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Novak, Buchanan, the Eagle Forum, Operation Rescue, et al." And add Krauthammer, Frum, Will, Steyn, Hannity, and Bauer to that 'barking moonbat' list! How dare they question the wisdom of the Miers nomination?!
You know what: This could be a great post: Just NAME all the conservative lights who are opposed to Miers, in the title.
LIMBAUGH, NOVAK, BUCHANANAN, INGRAHAM, KRAUTHAMEER, FRUM, WILL [etc.]...FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING
Just a title suggestion. Then go on to ask the bots here: Have you ever agreed with any of them on anything? Oh, with many of them, on many things? But now they're all wrong at the same time?...
along those lines.
Anyway...
I like George Bush, but I never did see him as "all that conservative a fellow." And I don't believe he ever saw himself as one, either.
Excellent article by Peggy. The idea of term limits for the SC justices is a good one, and I have been thinking about that recently myself. Their enormous influence on America is far too much power for anyone, and too many have shown time and again, they are NOT mature enough and don't have the character to handle it well.
You've put your finger on it there.
But you were not going to get it either way. No matter what, you were not going to get that kind of fight.
But there shouldn't even be a fight, if judicial restraint and/or Presidential prerogative were respected by the DEMs and RINOs.
Agreed. But we deal with what we have rather then the way things should be.
There is also something else to consider. John Roberts was as pure as the driven snow and he and his family were still attacked and subjected to disgraceful invasions of their privacy.
Families are now considered fair game. Until that is stopped you are going to have a number of qualified people saying "No, thank you." when they get the call.
I hear you on that. And it's probably the essense of my disappointment. I wish the GOP and RNC were more effective and more conservative. They do get that message from me. I am VERY unhappy with the Republican party, and impatient with its cheerleaders.
Oh boy do I agree with you on that!
Peggy mixes her metaphors!
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.