Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miers Unfairly Maligned
The Toledo [OH] Blade ^ | October 8, 2005 | Kelly, Jack

Posted on 10/08/2005 10:44:49 AM PDT by quidnunc

The Washington Times reports that Karl Rove was "very involved" in President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. This should put to rest the notion that Mr. Rove is a political genius.

-snip-

The world is made up of doers and kibitzers. We in the chattering classes are kibitzers. Many, like Mr. Will, have convinced themselves that thinking and writing about what other people do is more important than actually doing stuff. It isn't.

Harriet Miers is a doer. She practiced law where it matters most, in the courtroom. She was managing partner of a mega Texas law firm. For the last five years she has been staff secretary at the White House, a more important job than most of her critics realize, and White House counsel, at the intersection between law and policy, and as good a preparation for serving on the Supreme Court as a year or two on an appellate court.

Harriet Miers may not be a deep thinker. We'll find out during her confirmation hearings. But to assume she is not simply because she's a doer is unfair, and almost certainly inaccurate.

Mr. Bush has said Ms. Miers is bright, and a solid conservative. We should judge for ourselves in the hearings. But until then, conservatives owe him and her the benefit of the doubt.

I used to think conservatives were morally superior to the moonbats of the Left. But the reaction to the Miers nomination indicates we are just as petty, petulant, snobbish, short-sighted, self-destructive, and unfair as they are.

(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: comformorelse; havesomekoolaid; miers; wahwahwah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last
To: Parmenio
Because Reid made an error. He put Harriet Miers' name on a list of acceptable candidates, thinking that Bush would never pick her. Think about it: If she's so unqualified, why would Reid consider her? He had to put somebody down, so he put down the nice lady who talked with him about Roberts.

I don't know what the worry about "unqualified" is, anyway. I might be (cough, cough) unqualified, but I know how to vote the way Scalia and Thomas do.

41 posted on 10/08/2005 12:07:49 PM PDT by AmishDude (Proud inventor of the term "Patsies". Please make out all royalty checks to "AmishDude".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
That doesn't explain why he continued to praise her and highlight the fact that he recommended her, after the nomination.
42 posted on 10/08/2005 12:10:32 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Sure it does. Reid didn't want to look stupid. He was ready for the possibility, Miers' name was floated.


43 posted on 10/08/2005 12:13:39 PM PDT by AmishDude (Proud inventor of the term "Patsies". Please make out all royalty checks to "AmishDude".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo

Rove is a very smart guy, but he has blind spots, one of which.

Are you saying that it was OK to put Arlen Specter back in the Senate because Rove engineered it? Not only did we get stuck with Specter, but he managed to wreck Santorum's reputation in the process too, so Rick may not get re-elected next time around.


44 posted on 10/08/2005 12:15:35 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo

Rove is a very smart guy, but he has blind spots, one of which.

Are you saying that it was OK to put Arlen Specter back in the Senate because Rove engineered it? Not only did we get stuck with Specter, but he managed to wreck Santorum's reputation in the process too, so Rick may not get re-elected next time around.


45 posted on 10/08/2005 12:15:44 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo

Rove is a very smart guy, but he has blind spots, one of which.

Are you saying that it was OK to put Arlen Specter back in the Senate because Rove engineered it? Not only did we get stuck with Specter, but he managed to wreck Santorum's reputation in the process too, so Rick may not get re-elected next time around.


46 posted on 10/08/2005 12:15:47 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
He still had plenty of options available to him. He didn't have to praise her. He could have ignored the fact that he had recommended her. If pointed out to him, he could say that these were just names that seemed within the generally acceptable range, but that he still wanted to examine more closely, etc.

Does it really make sense that he would have recommended someone that Bush knew better than himself, if he didn't have reason to believe that she wasn't a threat to liberals?

47 posted on 10/08/2005 12:21:25 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: inquest

So you're saying Reid has super-secret information on Miers?


48 posted on 10/08/2005 12:29:52 PM PDT by AmishDude (Proud inventor of the term "Patsies". Please make out all royalty checks to "AmishDude".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Instead of reflecting the sort of humble gratitude that one might hope to see from them (or that one sees routinely from Ben Stein), this crowd seems to consider themselves fit to judge the "excellence" of those whom they find to be lesser intellectual lights.

Humility.

49 posted on 10/08/2005 12:32:44 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Not only did we get stuck with Specter, but he managed to wreck Santorum's reputation in the process too, so Rick may not get re-elected next time around.

I know several who supported him have sent back his requests for $$$ and stated "Go get it from Specter's backers "
50 posted on 10/08/2005 12:34:08 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
I posted this on another thread...but I'll post it here, too.

It seems that there are two central camps:

1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.

2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.

The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.

Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.

The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.

Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.

51 posted on 10/08/2005 12:36:29 PM PDT by seadevil (...because you're a blithering idiot, that's why. Next question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
It doesn't have to be "super-secret", but he is a political insider. He doesn't get to where he is by living in a cocoon.
52 posted on 10/08/2005 12:39:52 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

Or until Republicans understand that you don't actually have a majority in the Senate if you elect RINOs.


53 posted on 10/08/2005 12:41:12 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: seadevil
I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.

By saying that they don't intend to repeat their mistake, that's how. Next question?

54 posted on 10/08/2005 12:42:05 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: inquest

But you're saying that Reid knows something that nobody else does.


55 posted on 10/08/2005 12:51:55 PM PDT by AmishDude (Proud inventor of the term "Patsies". Please make out all royalty checks to "AmishDude".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Trouble is, those senators don't consider it a mistake when they voted for RBG. They voted for her because they believed that the POTUS earns the right to pick whomever he wants and absent obvious illegalities or proven history of mental instability or some other glaringly obvious disqualifier (please note that ANY of the "deficiencies" discussed on any Miers thread don't even approach this high bar).

At the end of the day, she'll be approved at least 65/35. You heard it here first.

56 posted on 10/08/2005 12:53:35 PM PDT by seadevil (...because you're a blithering idiot, that's why. Next question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38

"The charge of "If you're against Miers, you're an elitist snob" is as valid as "If you're against federally funded school lunches, you're for starving children.""

Isnt it amazing how some individuals will use the same logic as the left? Incredible how the WH puts out the talking point of "elitist" and those here go to such great lengths to prove it. Why didnt they do the same with the "sexist" charge that Ed Gillespie made? Hmm....


57 posted on 10/08/2005 1:02:02 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
But you're saying that Reid knows something that nobody else does.

No. You're assuming that the President really does think he's nominating a constitutionalist. Given that assumption, you're right that my scenario wouldn't add up. Given that assumption...

(remember, by the way, that this is the same President who had no problem at all teaming up with Teddaquiddick in passing the "No Child Left Behind" Act - he's a uniter, you know)

58 posted on 10/08/2005 1:07:10 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: seadevil
They voted for her because they believed that the POTUS earns the right to pick whomever he wants and absent obvious illegalities or proven history of mental instability or some other glaringly obvious disqualifier

They may have thought that then, but I think their experience with Ginsberg and Souter has disabused a great many of them of that kind of erroneous thinking.

59 posted on 10/08/2005 1:09:34 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: inquest

No, no, no, don't change the subject. We're talking about Harry Reid. Stick with Harry Reid. Why is his endorsement a problem?


60 posted on 10/08/2005 1:12:46 PM PDT by AmishDude (Proud inventor of the term "Patsies". Please make out all royalty checks to "AmishDude".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson