I have yet to call one Harriet supporter a name. Meanwhile I have been told to go back to DU, called a liberal, a moonbat, and much more. I am not just gonna walk lockstep in what I think was not a wise pick. Bush could of handled both these choices better.
[[I have yet to call one Harriet supporter a name. Meanwhile I have been told to go back to DU, called a liberal, a moonbat, and much more. I am not just gonna walk lockstep in what I think was not a wise pick. Bush could of handled both these choices better.]]
Go back and read my original posting. I do not think you will find that I singled out either side as being the exclusive purveyor of vituperative rhetoric.
You may have assumed because I posted a defense or explanation of how the Miers pick came about, I was taking sides. My point was to focus on reasoned disagreement. You are free to disagree, irrelevant attacks, by some, on Bush for other policies adds nothing to the factual debate other than proving one hates Bush and thus hates the nomination or anything else he does. The verbal back and forth of 'If you don't toe my conservative line you are a traitor to the conservative cause' or 'If you don't support Bush no matter what, you are a traitor' is all so much pablum and detritus.
Though I am leaning towards her, my own research is the basis for my opinion, but I am waiting for more information.