Posted on 10/13/2005 10:41:48 PM PDT by goldstategop
So he's a liar, is that what you're saying?
Because there's no reason for HIM to be floating a trial balloon.
"When I look upon the field of potential candidates the president could have picked to fill the seat held by Sandra Day O'Connor, I am struck by the fact that these other individuals have a track record of involvement in constitutional law that is lacking from your resume."
As conservatives we do like positions rewarded based on merit, especially at the Supreme Court level, do we NOT? Miers qualifications are sorely lacking in comparison to other candidates.
We also like proven conservative credentials which Miss Miers also does NOT possess.
Why not??? He was on the White House staff, he still has connections there, he wanted to show them off with this "scoop"---what's so weird about that?
Sure he is. He knows about as much about her now as he did on July 5th.
You do understand that my "another victim of a piss poor nomination" was referring to the author of the letter. But if she'd followed my advice, the letter never would have been published anyway.
And do not mistake my "piss poor nomination" comment as a slam against Ms. Miers. This nomination is a silent capitulation to the gang of 14, and was meant to be hustled in under the radar wih superficial hearings have a pre-ordained outcome. If the vote became contentions, that darn filibuster issue would show up, and NOBODY on the hill or in the WH wanted that to happen.
Now they are on the dime, trying to figure out a graceful exit from the fine mess they agreed to put themselves in.
As for trust, GWB broke his subjective campaign promise to me. He said "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas" which to me meant the candidate would be identifiable as such at the time of nomination. Yes, I know we didn't talk about it in great detaik during the campaign, but that is the understanding that was invloved in my calculus to support and vote for him. Seems I'm not the only one to have the same or similar understanding, but to hear some around here, I and a bunch of others are barking moonbat traitors with hair afire and should STFU because were elitist sexist pigs, or something like that. I get confused.
You can have every shred of information pointing you in one direction-and evidence that confirms your deepest suspicions-without necessarily facing up to reality.
The choice of the White House Counsel was so counterintuitive-especially after the Mike Brown debacle-that I don't think even those closest to President Bush believed that he would actually pull the trigger.
He was fired; and I doubt anybody takes his calls.
Right. As a Presidential speech writer, a much lower position than White House Counsel.
Don't you think we should trust our president a bit more?
"We also like proven conservative credentials which Miss Miers also does NOT possess."
Isn't it funny that these people are being whipped into a frenzy by somebody who isn't even an American citizen?
I do find it amusing.
Hello, stranger.
"We also like proven conservative credentials which Miss Miers also does NOT possess."
The last batch of nominees with "proven conservative credentials" got filibustered by a large majority of the Senate. Yet you go out on a limb like the plethora of conservative pundits and claim she has none, and at the same token "know very little about her".
Hi. Hope things are well. How's the mini one?
All 5 of them are doing great!
Come around more often.
This was denied by the White House and Mr Frum, who accused Mr Novak of "making stuff up" and said he had given a month's notice on January 24, while the speech was being written.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,658724,00.html#article
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.