Posted on 10/06/2005 6:44:13 PM PDT by aft_lizard
After a few days of arguing over the Miers nomination for the Supreme Court I am rather sick of it. I have been arguing for her even though I know little about her. I think she is a fine individual and probably a good Christian , and I think her qualifications are just fine. After all 35 of 55 Founding Fathers were lawyers, does that mean the other 20 werent qualified?But I digress to write this because I am moving into the No category.
I decided this not because I dont like her, I personally feel that she would make a fine Justice, but her simple nomination has torn the base apart. I think it would do us and the RNC good if we all united against her, because as it stands right now we are becoming laughing stocks to the otherside, and if there is one thing I hate ,and thats to be laughed at by commies. We all need to stop the name calling, the troll insults and the Bush-bot insults and well all of them, and yes I am guilty of it too. I wont be a vociferous voice against her, you will probably still hear me defend her and the President, like I have been doing.
I urge a consensus from the base to emerge over this.The poll on FR is showing the Yes crowd with 30.3% the nos with 24.4% and the need more info at 41.8%(the hillarys dont count), and this is the member poll results.I dont think it would be to unfair to reason that if you were to poll the base outside of FR the results would be the same, and that is dangerous for any party. Sure it shows that we arent a lockstep party, or a lockstep ideology, with the powers that be. But if a movement is to survive it has to have a secure foundation, and right now I see the foundation rumbling as if to fracture.
I would have prefered Brown or Luttig but I'm accepting Mier without much fight.
just frustrated is all.
Don't worry, it's all part of "THE PLAN".
Democrats will roue the day she was nominated.
Yes, they are laughting at us, but in the end, it is
we who will be laughing at their disarray.
She may very well turn out to be an excellent strict constitutionalist, but I am not prepared to gamble on it. I have been screwed too many times by politicians who said, "Trust me". Why make a pick that will get 85 votes that no one really knows? Why not pick someone who has an established record and will get 51 votes?
For many of us, there's no point in arguing, because this is a done deal. But speaking for myself, I'm just sore because there were others far more qualified who could have been picked. At this moment in history, picking from the bottom of the batting order is not wise.
Still though, Stevens might not last 3 more years, so there might still be a chance for redemption.
I didn't notice there was a poll but I wouldn't know how to respond anyway. Would I rather it were someone else? Yes. Would I be despondent if she were defeated? No. Am I going to pout and hope the Republicans loose until they beg forgiveness if she wins. No.
I hope you are right. But in the mean time waiting for them to roue the day, we have to worry about the base, and frankly I prefer a tax-break and spend republican congress over a tax and spend democrat congress anyday. So Bush gets a black eye over it, that will be short lived. I am sure Luttig or Brown will be the next pick if he has to go the bench so to speak.
The other side might be laughing at us, but it's laughter that means nothing, and serves to demonstrate their ignorance and incivility.
We are debating. That's a good thing. We are not in lockstep. That's a good thing. We are approching the question from many different points. That's a good thing.
If the other side were reasonably intelligent, they'd see that we have a healthy relationship. They are united by hate. We're united by truth. It's easy to hate. Getting to the truth takes a little longer.
Good title.
I must admit I don't think I've seen Freepers quite this divided over what theoretically should have been "one of our own".
I am hoping some key Republican senators will ask her to step down before the hearings, but it's not likely.
And a majority in the Senate does not equate to a majority of conservatives.
Something about that 'picture' just made me laugh and I swear, I'm not a commie. I just can't picture Joe Stalin laughing. He had no sense of humor whatsoever.
I had similar sentiments on a thread yesterday evening. I basically stated that I wasn't going to object to her nomination any more. I don't like it, I don't think it's the best choice that could have been made, but for the sake of unity, I'll go along with the President's choice.
I agree on the "Trust me" part,but if Bush had said that over a spending issue then it would be "what the?"for me, seeing as his past on spending has ben non-stellar. But he has done very well on Judges so far and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The only thing that's going to fix FR is for a democrat to win the next election. If a Republican wins we'll continue to eat our own until we're too fractured to be useful. We're doing that already, and have been for some time.
No, it has not.
The base is fine; it's the usual suspects, The Malcontents and The Unappeasables, who are having a fit.
and the vanities just keep on coming
was this the Rodney King issue
don't anyone criticize "my president" ya hear me...lol
Hope you are as gullible as the Senate Democrats... if this splits the Conservative base, then the Rats will love her... or have I said to much???
What is the foundation? SOunds like you're arguing for robots. Remember Islam means submission.
well somebody had to break the ice and start with the insults. might as well have been a bush bot.
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.