Posted on 10/08/2005 3:16:37 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON--When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers on Monday, we saw it as a missed opportunity. It left us underwhelmed, not appalled. But having spent last evening communing here with some 1,000 conservatives at National Review's 50th anniversary dinner, we see a political disaster in the making.
We talked to quite a few people, and we heard not a single kind word about the nomination from anyone who wasn't on the White House staff. A couple of our soundings led us to think that such support as it has received has been more sycophantic than sincere. One putative proponent privately distanced himself* from his public praise of Miers. Another person, whose employer has strongly backed the Miers nomination, told us, "Of course, I disagree wholeheartedly."
The White House seems genuinely befuddled by the intensity of conservative opposition, and especially stung by the harsh words of George Will and Trent Lott.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I don't like her much but she'll easily fly through.
It is an amazing coincidence that at the same time the President nominated Harriet Miers, aliens from the planet RINO came down and snatched the bodies of so many stalwart Republican backers.
Excerpt:
One putative proponent privately distanced himself* from his public praise of Miers.
* Our use of the masculine pronoun is gender-neutral and should not be construed to mean that the person in question is male. Nor should this disclaimer be construed to mean that he is female.
Now that's funny.
I hurt myself laughing!
I know, I am too sexy for my everything
National Review was at best lukewarm about Thomas.
The more I think about this comment I can't help but wonder if this is not treason against the Republican Party.
Saying, Truth be told, however, his public record on issues other than civil rights is still more Souteresque than Borkian." is not quite the same as dozens of Conservative writers saying this nomination is disastrous.
Do not forget, the debacle that was Souter was still a very open wound to conservatives in 1991.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...guess I'll think for myself.
Feel free, by all means. There's certainly not so much as one, single syllable in the article posted counseling you to do otherwise, after all..
Helpful hint, however: "trust me" and "because he's the President, that's why!" aren't really examples of thinking for one's self, either.
Not pointing at you, specifically. Just saying, is all.
In other words, "Souteresque" cannot be construed as anything except as a cut direct?
This is just a question to you or anyone whose memory is clearer than mine on the point: Do you happen to recall exactly when the national Dem party became a wholly-owned subsidiary of NARAL? Leading up to Roe, lots of national Dems (including Ted Kennedy) were or claimed to be anti-abortion? Is there even a clear dividing line that I missed, or was the change gradual?
Right there demonstrates the utter absurdity of this article. Neither are Conservatives. Both are Country Club Republicans. Better go read what Paul Weinrich, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and the REAL Conservatives are saying. They are saying "Wait and see" which "the Dump Her Now" folks are misinterpreting to mean "They agree with us".
Sorry "Conservative Establishment" but you see stuck on stupid on this one. Why don't you quit acting like the Dinosaur Media and actually FIND OUT SOME facts on Meirs instead of hysterically spinning for all you are worth trying to find a spin line to use? This "Whaaa she is not OUR choice" ranting day in and day out is getting boring and making most of us wonder if this "Conservative" label people like Ingrham. Coulter, Lowry, Tranto, Malkin, Hannity etc are claiming isn't just a slick marketing ploy on their part to ride the coattails of the winning side.
Oh good, another one of those bushbots vs. elites threads :)
If coming from a Conservative Republican it is most assuredly negative.
I do not know the precise answer to your question about NARAL. It probably wasn't a fixed point in time but rather a gradual, creeping thing that was a spin off of the NOW grip on the Dems.
bttt
Trust me is not a good enugh reason to support someone for a position of the importance. And that is the best thing going for her. I have the fear she is souter 2 and can not support her.
Hmmmmmmm. Whether, on the one hand, to award more weight to the proven conservative intellectual heft and firepower of such long-years-in-the-trenches warriors of the right as Malkin, Coulter, Taranto (how can I take your dismissal at all seriously, when you don't even know how his name is spelled, for heaven's sake?), Krauthammer, Goldberg, Bork, Schlafly, etcetera, etcetera... or (on the other hand) an anonymous clot of faceless online non-entities with names like "Bucktooth1234," on the other.
Oh, golly whillikers. Decisions, decisions...
Surely folks know by now.... he doesn't doesn't make decisions depending on which way the polling goes (like Clinton)
...but by wise counsel (plus guts & instinct)
God bless him......the long knives are out there!
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.