Posted on 10/09/2005 9:29:32 PM PDT by BCrago66
I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal's Political Diary that "while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself."
But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now--and loudly--because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. "She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession," says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
secretive
Well, don't marry it, because it ain't gonna be around long.
Yep...John Fund, secret liberal. Bush basher from waaay back.
(sarcasm)
"She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession,"
Maybe in Texas if a woman reaches 60 unmarried she earns the title Mr.
You've been doing quite well making up stuff as you go along... answer your own question. Surely you have a word in mind.
Clearly John Fund has little understanding of a Proverbs 31 lady. She is humble and not open to grandstanding. Being quiet and operating in the background is part and parcel of their belief system.
Andy Card??? Egads, now I am really nervous.
Souter
"Ms. Miers's record is one of initially supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it."
That's my new tagline, ;)
Sphinx.
You're making an awful lot of accusations, so let me ask you something.
Do you think that Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, the entire editorial board of National Review, George Will, Mark Levin, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, numerous conservative legal scholars, Phylis Schlafly, and all of the people against the Miers nomination here on FR… HAVE ALL BEEN FAKING BEING CONSERVATIVES FOR ALL THESE YEARS? If you can't answer that question then please stop making accusations.
Further evidence the WH blew it
Give her a lifetime Supreme Court appointment--- she's nice!
You know, Justice Thomas' nomination wasn't too long ago, so if you say something about it, most of us can access whether it is right or wrong. I was around at the time, and I followed that nomination avidly. The "Conservative Establishment" was for Thomas, and so were the great majority of Republican Senators. But the Republicans didn't control the Senate at that time, and couldn't prevent his nomination hearing from being turned into circus. All Republicans voted for Thomas, except for a couple Northeast squishes.
Clarence Thomas had a record of brilliance, as evidenced by his in his speeches and judicial opinions. He had ideological passion, and would discuss his natural rights philosophy with his associates in the government, many of whom he hired because of a similar philosophic bent. And - unlike Miers - he had taken his conservative/libertarian positions in public (and as a black man, he was excoriated for it.) Miers has a record as a play-it-safe mediocre cipher.
Don't forget Sam Brownback.
Exactly, but after suggesting this, he does an about face.
Fund isn't falling in with the hysterical Kristol's and Coulter's.
Well he does suggest that the nomination be withdrawn. It might me bore subtle than Coulter (who isn't) but its the same result.
"Give her a lifetime Supreme Court appointment--- she's nice!"
Yeah! And she's a woman! And Bush likes her! (/sarcasm)
Worse; Souter at least knows what he is doing and has the guts to stand for something. Miers is just going to be one big embarassing mess; The Governor Blanco of the Supreme Court.
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.