Posted on 10/12/2005 12:26:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A journalist friend just spoke with a top Texas lawyer who spoke with Priscilla Owen last week. He says that she "most emphatically" did not withdraw her name from consideration to the Court. If the White House spin is that Harriet Miers got the job because nobody else wanted it, it would seem that the White House is at a desperation point. Posted at 12:07 PM
Why don't you just admit that your Depends are full and the night nurse hasn't shown up yet?
The claim that most female candidates withdrew their names to avoid the "persecution" that would insue from the Democrats is really hard to swallow. Who in their right mind would do that if they were honest motivated jurists? They are a fearless bunch, especially motivated females...This whole spin is just malarkey from the WH IMO. If in fact the females on the list were such Wusses and we are left with Miers, Bush should have fallen back to his "best qualified" list and picked a guy like Luttig. (a non female...there I said it...I must be a sexist..for wanting a superior known conservative judge on the bench)
Sorry Rush Limbaugh, but in a time of war I support President Bush, and LOYAL to him. I have confidence in his appointment, because Harriet Miers was LOYAL to him and also a true prolife evangelical conservative. President Bush is managing two wars, a war against a worldwide terrorist enemy, and war against liberals. President Bush hasn't had any help from the UN or the media. He's done all of those things alone. President Bush and Harriet Miers has done an excellent job serving this great country. Harriet Miers isn't perfect but she was right there with President Bush on all these problems and was LOYAL. So I will always stay LOYAL to the President and trust his judgement. Now we are engaged in a great internal and external testing whether conservatives LOYALTY can long endure. Let us have conviction that we are right and in that conviction, let us dare to do our duty, as 'we understand it to be' and give moral and LOYAL support to our President
"Good idea. Let's get rid of Bayh ;)"
Now you're talking...
Gee, that's right, Cheney wasn't the most qualified to be VP. He was just some guy who knew the Bushs; forget the impressive speeches he made as SoD during the GWI.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
Well, obviously you're going for longevity of service on the SC while I'm looking for gravitas.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid even if it is from Republicans.
You'll be looking til the cows come home. Miers will be confirmed.
" WOULDNT'T GO THERE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Today during a conference call with bloggers a little bit ago, Ken Mehlman highlighted his own membership in the Federalist Society as a student. Why bring that up in defense of Harriet Miers? If indications are she's not a fan of such "politically charged" groups (even as a political type in Texas).
Posted at 04:07 PM
--
It's one laugh after another!!!!!!!!!!!! "
Saw that on NRO. If it's true, Mehlman isn't thinking clearly.
Yep. First place to start and push hardest, but we also need to pick those RINOs that have weaknesses. I think McCain could be weakened on several issues, immigration, CFR, abortion...
Not so much anti-Federalist as misrepresenting the nature of the Federalist Society. Se ascribed to them "political activism" and said she dod not want to belong to a "politically active" professional society. Fact is, the FedSoc makes no position statements, and espouses only strict construction of the Constitution in court, and open debate.
The ABA, which Ms. Miers participated in leadership, doe prepare and promulgate political position statements, e.g., in support of gay adoption, in support of judical activism, etc. I'm not saying Miers holds those views, but only that she does belong to a professional organization that promulgates political position statements.
So, to summarize, not exactly anti-Federalist. Just not clear on the difference between FedSoc and ABA, and used as a reason for not belonging to the FedSoc (participates in making political position statements) that if applied with principle, would have her not retain membership in the ABA.
Here's a couple of samples to give you the flavor:
No, it isn't good enough, because it does nothing to help Bush win, and it does nothing to help retain control of Congress. Bush can think ahead to "governing" all he wants to, but he's got to get there first, and, if he gets there, it will all be for nothing if they lose the House to Gephardt. Three heart attacks? Five Vietnam draft deferments? Big Oil? Daddy's pick? Overweight, bald, and boring? None of those may matter in reality, but politics is not about reality. It's about perception. And winning . . . and losing. I am a Bush supporter, and will work for his election, but I almost feel like I might as well not bother. Almost.
Cheney is a good pick in a perfect world where the Dems play fair. This is not a perfect world. He gives Gore a fighting chance. The Dems can now put some 'evidence' behind their charge W is just the same old Pubbie wolf in sheeps clothing. W didn't pick a minority or woman or pro-choicer. He had a brilliant opportunity to underscore this ticket as a new, fresh Republicanism. Cheney's not the way to do it. I see from the NYT via Drudge that Cheney's heart is not 'normal' in function but that he's considered in good health and able to withstand the vigors of a campaign--a campaign that's just going to be a few months long. This isn't the same as if he ends up President somehow. I'm uneasy with this medical issue. I can just look at my own father at 66 as a bypass patient. It opens up the 'daddy's boy' thing which *will* work. All the Dems need to do is hit Bush with 'remember the recession?' What's he going to do? Counter with the Gulf War? Didn't work for daddy. Also, neither Bush nor Cheney has worn the uniform. I expect Gore will pick another 'Nam veteran (likely one that didn't fly a typewriter) to underscore that point. IMHO, this shows Bush is overconfident in his lead. I'm very concerned he just handed over the election. I think this is a disaster.
Cheney is a good pick in a perfect world where the Dems play fair. This is not a perfect world. He gives Gore a fighting chance. The Dems can now put some 'evidence' behind their charge W is just the same old Pubbie wolf in sheeps clothing. W didn't pick a minority or woman or pro-choicer. He had a brilliant opportunity to underscore this ticket as a new, fresh Republicanism. Cheney's not the way to do it. I see from the NYT via Drudge that Cheney's heart is not 'normal' in function but that he's considered in good health and able to withstand the vigors of a campaign--a campaign that's just going to be a few months long. This isn't the same as if he ends up President somehow. I'm uneasy with this medical issue. I can just look at my own father at 66 as a bypass patient. It opens up the 'daddy's boy' thing which *will* work. All the Dems need to do is hit Bush with 'remember the recession?' What's he going to do? Counter with the Gulf War? Didn't work for daddy. Also, neither Bush nor Cheney has worn the uniform. I expect Gore will pick another 'Nam veteran (likely one that didn't fly a typewriter) to underscore that point. IMHO, this shows Bush is overconfident in his lead. I'm very concerned he just handed over the election. I think this is a disaster.
The saddest of all things this time around is that those of wealth who did step up to the plate were cut off at the legs. Cheney is an admitted internationalist and China-lover. You obviously believe Cheney's the type of guy who would step up and unselfishly serve his country, losing millions in the process. Wow. I guess I'll just wallow along with the rest of the 2% in the pigpen of ignorance and help elect Al Gore.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Does anyone even care that Iraq is ready to vote on their constitution? Some of you are more determined to hang the President and White House over Miers than to really see what amazing progress is going on in the world.
Those who are amung us seem to be the ones who are most determined to destory us.
No, the point is that there is ONLY 54% favorable. And that's supposed to be among the people who put bush in office!
They are not going to be brought to a vote and, if they are, per the Gang of 14, they will be filibustered.
Is this not clear to you?
We should support the President regarding the war. but that doeno and should not mean he gets supported on every other issue even when he's wrong. Preposterous.
See, bet you weren't anticipating an Inside the Actors Studio reference on a Harriet Miers thread, were you?
I have been reading your replies all day long. It is clear to me you have an agenda.
And what is with your name????
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.