Nothing is known about Miers. So, knowing everything about nothing still adds up to nothing>
We've had FOUR stealth candidates appointed by Republican Presidents in the past 25 years. Only ONE ended up being an originalist. Why would anyone with a brain consider this to be an acceptable strategy? What good is Republicans controlling the Senate if a known originalist can't be nominated?
It's no wonder we never see any changes in this country when we have conservatives that are dumb enough to let the Republicans keep getting away with such a strategy.
The facts are the liberals are smarter than we are. Their President found two known leftists and got them appointed. There was no question where Ginsberg and Breyer stood, no need to guess how they would vote and both ended up being reliable votes for the left. I'd like to see the Republicans use the same strategy before anyone posting here is dead, but it doesn't seem to likely to happen.
You know, from all the complaints I've heard, it seems that it's "we don't know anything." So why dont' we all just shush up and wait for the hearings.
In a passing moment of concurrence with Ol' Sparky, I'll bump this post.
Who's the one?
Actually, a fair amount is known— both through her prior statements and through the testimonials of those who worked closely with her.
Incidently, Anthony Kennedy was NOT a stealth candidate; insofar as anyone could determine he brought very solid conservative credentials to the court.
I feel your pain. So how do we get there? We can divorce ourselves which means we go back to being a minority party. Maybe that'll learn 'em some but I'm not sure most will really get the message. Or, we can grumble through the '06 elections and keep pressuring RINOs to grow a spine. At the same time we can try and get a more conservative presidential candidate a little more exposure. These polls for Rudy and Condi are just face recognition at this point. The favorite conservative names I hear on this site aren't known at all to Walmart shoppers.