That's quite some rant, sparky.
Your copy of Roget's must be worn out!
But we have only Bush's word on that.
And even if it were true, frankly, it's not good enough.
David Frum at NRO puts it best today:
Yesterday's White House talking point was that Miers "reflects the president's judicial philosophy." OK. But can she articulate it? Defend it? And persuade others of it - not just her colleagues, but the generations to come who will read her decisions and accept them ... or scorn them. That's the way this president should have thought about this choice. And that's the way the Senators called on to consent to the choice should be thinking about it now.
This elitism is mostly nonsense. There are plenty of conservatives (I am one of them) who have no Ivy League degrees, nor particularly expected a nominee to have one.
What we want is some evidence of outstanding ability. Maybe there's some there. But it is not on evidence yet in any thing we know about Miers. Runing a law firm and and getting elected to head the Texas ABA are fine things but they do not necesarily require outstanding ability - at least not of the sort that is called for on the Supreme Court.
If the fight is going to happen anyway, why fight over an unknown and untested nominee with skimpy judicial qualifications?
There is a place for vanities. The news section isn't the spot for your opinion piece.
Jeepers, I'm glad someone out there "gets it," KMAJ2. The President has got his opponents tucked in between a rock and a hard place with their own rank and file. It's not going to be easy for them to wriggle out of it either.
And people say this president is a "BB-brain," a dim bulb.... He's playing some real hardball politics here; it would be grotesque if the Right in a pique of self-destructiveness doesn't back him solidly on this nomination. We should just sit back and watch all the fun when this nomination goes to the Judiciary Committee.... :^)
Thank you so very much for your excellent analysis!
When did anyone promise they were not going to filibuster Miers?
Mark my words, that ideological battle many conservatives are looking for is going to happen.
This is EXACTLY what I've been thinking since finding out Miers is a born-again pro-lifer. Why does anyone think the Senate Libs and RINOs will allow an "uncredentialed" pro-lifer to get by them any easier than a "credentialed" one?
Which calls into question the entire strategery of the stealth pick: If this stealth nomination gives Bush the very confrontation it was supposed to avoid, then he'll be going into that fight without a large part of the conservative base that he's just alienated.
In which case, then it would have been just as well to go with one of the "known" jurists the conservatives wanted, and gone into the fight with a united, and enthusiastic, party behind him.
Miers is the President's choice. Time for everbody to get on board. End of discussion.
First of all, let me say that it was obvious to anyone who carefully reads posts on FR, that your post was a vanity, and a personal opinion. Secondly, those who attacked you for your opinion are acting childish. Those sort of attacks and emotional responses are better suited for DU, not mature adults who look to FR for adult discussions.
Thirdly, I appreciate your post and am disgusted at our supposedly fellow Republicans who seem to think they and they alone know who would have been the best nominee. For those who seem to think they can predict the future, and those who think they know more about Miers than President Bush, I would like to ask this question. Would you please gaze into your crystal ball and tell me where I misplaced the instruction manual for my new digital camera? Also, please tell me where I can purchase one of those crystal balls you put so much faith in?
Oh, and may I had, "BUMP!"
When conservatives argue among themselves, Greta gets Rush live on the phone, and the perky Katie gets the vapors.