Why did he do it? I'm thinking maybe Karl Rove set one of these pods down by W's bed late one night.
BUSHES FAULT!!!!!
Thought you would like this:
Bush Failed to Ask 'What Would Kristol Do?'
by Scott Ott
(2005-10-07) -- President George Bush today acknowledged that before appointing Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court he failed to ask himself the question that he habitually applies to such decisions: 'What would Kristol do?'
William Kristol, the neo-conservative editor of The Weekly Standard, has led the Republican outcry against a nominee who, conservatives fear, secretly favors abortion kiosks in shopping malls, and who may view the Constitution as metaphorical poetry.
The president, who wears a WWKD reminder bracelet, said, "I guess I got caught up in the moment, and tempted by the allure of appointing a justice who actually speaks in language I can understand."
Upon hearing of the president's remark today, Mr. Kristol said, "Acknowledging your sin is only half of repentance, but I stand ready to graciously forgive if the president will turn and follow me."
http://www.scrappleface.com/
Why did Bush do it? Maybe he would have told you, Pat, except you've been undermining his policies so actively on Iraq.
I'm reserving judgement until the hearings. At first I was not happy. Then, the more I heard about her, the more I liked her, but that was mainly w/regards to Roe. While I think she would vote to overturn Roe, much more likely to vote that way than Roberts, IMO, that's only one issue.
I still haven't heard about her judicial approach and her position on issues other than Roe. 'Till I hear that, jury is out.
Pat Buchanan is completely discredited, and so is Kristol. But more than a dozen conservative heavyweights whom I respect very much have come out against Miers. I don't think we should let Pat influence us one way or the other.
Buchanan would have some credability if he had not aided and abetted NIXON who was worse that both Bushs put together
He stayed in Nixon's administartion through DETENTE--WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS--PROPOSED SOCIALIZED MEDICINE__KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS
And WORST of all DRAGGING CHINA INTO THE 20TH CENTURY and opening our country up to their spies by allowing their businesses access
I cannot think of any justice put on the court by democrats that has shifted to the RIGHT, Not one. Anyone know of one???
Did the White House really say this? I doubt it.
(And they could use a proofreader at my Pittsburgh paper (paper trial)
What's that ............ something about Sandy Berger?
Most of the objections raised about Harriet Miers, have less to do with what we know about her, than what we DON'T know about her.
But it is not like she is a complete cipher. After all, she has some degree of expertise in the law, and philosophy that President George W. Bush seeks in his appointments to the Federal courts.
Texas jurisprudence goes back to the days of Judge Roy Bean, where court sessions were often carried out with dispatch and left little room for doubt about the decisions handed down. One does not quite picture Aunt Bea this way, but the same toughness lies beneath the surface.
We have had Justices on the Supreme Court who literally disrespected the law, plainly written, to find some hitherto undiscovered "right" in the nuances of the letter of the law, as reinterpreted in today's world. One of the things we may be sure of, with Harriet Miers, is that she has no agenda that would go LOOKING for these loopholes.
I'm tired of listening and reading this false judgement. And it is a judgement.
I'll admit I have done no personal research on Harriet Miers, so I'm sure there will be some here in FR that will pooh-pooh my thoughts. Be that as it may, here goes ...
The charge that Harriet Miers has no evidence, is, in itself, evidence to the lack of the ones making the charge, that they, themselves have any comprehension of the American human thought processes.
If Harriet Miers is indeed an evangelical Christian, then there's an entire Bible's worth of understanding regarding the concept of being a judge
Jesus himself advised us to judge righteous judgement.
The Apostle Paul wished Christians could/would stay single, to be un-encumbered with a wife, to devote full time to the furtherance of the Gospel, but if they couldn't, then they should marry.
I don't know what kept Harriet Miers single, but as a widower, I know 21 years of being married and a year and a half being single. We so quickly rationalize what we think we think regarding such matters, but there are few words (at least I have few words) that describe any description of my life now as compared to before.
Suffice it to be true ... Paul is closer to correct than not.
Should Harriety Miers singleness be a choice, one must consider ... why.
If her life has been devoted to politics and service, than she has been able to better focus on her profession than most.
The Marxists hate "Born Again", so political correctness has deemed "Evangelical" a safer word, but to evangelize is to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I think the conservatives that are voicing trepidation regarding President Bush's nomination may not have as clear an understanding of Scripture, or commitment to 'evangel' as the churches they attend, the preachers they 'Amen', or the life they (in this phrase .. we) attempt to live.
I think Harriet Miers, with nothing more than faith in these two areas ... being single and being Christian, is probably the best selection we could possibly have.
We can't afford a Porter Goss in the Supreme Court, but we MUST have a correct thinking person there.
The Senate inquisition is sure to reveal mach to us, and if I'm totally off-base here, I'll publically apologize.
I'm keeping an `open mind', though stopping my ears with gun-plugs until the hearings so my brain don't fall out, as often happens with our friends on the left.
I think the thing that bothers those of taking the "wait and see" position is that we've been burned on several appointments by Republicans. That's the obvious point.
More important, argument done right isn't a bad thing, again a fact that our lefty friends ignore every day & in every way. Proper argument leads to optimal decisions.
As the wisdom goes, the stakes (and bases) are hugh.
Will atty Miers just interpret the Constitution, and ignore penumbras and the like? Or will she transmogrify into another `me too' vote for the left.
President Bush gets the benefit of the doubt until she's heard, but like a liberal professor with tenure, once she's in if she's `stealthy', then we're faced with more of the same creative writing.
More FR light, less DU heat. Thanks for listening.
(And finally we're right--even they admit that!)
Why did he do it? I'm thinking maybe Karl Rove set one of these pods down by W's bed late one night.
1) He didn't keep his word on embryonic stem cells and created a market in embryos, which is what the culture of death wants.
2) Bush signed McCain/Feingold. His conservative princpled stand rested on hoping the Supreme Court would do what he was afraid to do - kill it.
3) Bush has yet to oppose a dime in socialism.
4) Bush is proud of recruiting Kennedy to write his education bill.
5) Bush created a whole new entitlement - prescription drugs. It wasn't something he was pressured into, either. It's passed and signed but no one wants it.
Some argue that it is the president's choice to pick whomever he will nominate. Not true. He is there to represent the people who put him there and to uphold the constitution. Republicans never should've voted for Ginsberg based on her unconstitutional views, rather than voting for her in spite of her wacky leftist views.
Bush has created a disturbing precedent in choosing Roberts and Miers. He has sent the unmistakable message that known conservatives need not apply. Some will say, "...but look at his appellate appointments." Sure, he made excellent appellate appointments, but he left them to twist in the wind in his first term. I'm sure the stealthy nature of his SC nominations are not lost on his appellate appointments, either.
He's also damaged Christian conservatives with his behind the scenes re-assurances that, "...she's gonna vote the right way." In a way, confirming liberals fears that conservatives want a Christian activist judge. Thankfully, aside from Dobson selling out, Christian conservatives have not endorsed Miers.
Conservatives need to press Miers during the confirmation hearings instead of giving her a pass. She may or may not do well, but Bush, the Nixon Republican, has slighted conservatives for the last time.
Paddy's panties are really in a knot!!!
The neo-cons strike again! What's the problem? She didn't go to an Ivy League school? She's not Jewish? She's not an Easterner or Californian?