" ... I thought it provided some much-needed insight, but of course that's JMHO!"
What else are we, if we do not have ... "just our humble opinions"?
Posted on 10/14/2005 4:55:21 AM PDT by G.Mason
Los Angeles
WHITE House speechwriters first learned the name Harriet Miers in January 2001, when drafts started reappearing full of corrections, instructions and particularly annoying requests for factual substantiation. In the campaign, life had been simpler, the editing and fact-checking a little more casual. Now the old ways wouldn't do anymore because "Harriet said" this or "Harriet said" that. Who was this woman, and could the staff secretary please confine herself to secretarial duties?
We had a few things to learn about the job of the staff secretary - the person who controls all paper passing through the Oval Office - and above all about the caliber of the woman behind the editing. And now that fellow conservatives in Washington are asking variations of the same question about President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court - Who is this "crony," "cipher," "hack," "functionary" or, as my former speechwriting colleague David Frum has called her, this "petty bureaucrat"? - I think I can help with the answer.
When you know Harriet Miers, it's funny to think of her as the subject of such controversy. Yet already her notoriety is such that even the most innocent of virtues can be thrown back at her as inadequate - "not even second-rate," as a National Review Online posting said, "but third-rate." She's a detail person. Diligent and dependable. Honest, kind, modest, devout and all that. A real mediocrity.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
" ... I thought it provided some much-needed insight, but of course that's JMHO!"
What else are we, if we do not have ... "just our humble opinions"?
I don't know how good a craps player W is, his poker is pretty good though. I'm hoping for the best, with this unconventional nominee. I hope those who dont agree with him can keep it civil, however. No need to fracture the movement over this.
I would be surprised if she has NOT lurked here in the past. I'll bet most whitehouse staff has at some time.
If true, in any other age in American history, that would be the ultimate compliment. The Editorial Staff of the NY Times probably is confident that in the America of 2005, such a description will have a negative effect. Perhaps so, in the Beltway and among the Far Left. In the so-called Red States and across the heartland, however, such qualities are recognized as compelling reasons for trust, if observed during the hearings.
I'd much rather hear what people who really know her have to say about her rather than prancing ponies who don't know her like Bill Kristol and George Will.
Regarding rllngrk33's question about qualifications, one wonders if Frum, Coulter, Kristol, et al, would have approved of their qualifications either.
Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia section:
"The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.
"At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, boaters, or shippers: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson. Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson. Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves. Broom and Few were small farmers.
"Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge. Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin. Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities. McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a university president. Baldwin had been a minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained.
[edit]
"A considerable number of the men were born into leading families: Blair, Butler, Carroll, Houston, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Johnson, Livingston, Mifflin, Gouverneur Morris, both Pinckneys, Randolph, Rutledge, Washington, and Wythe. Others were self-made men who had risen from humble beginnings: Few, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton, and Sherman.
[edit]
"The educational background of the Founding Fathers was diverse. Some, like Franklin, were largely self-taught and had received scant formal training. Others had obtained instruction from private tutors or at academies. About half of the individuals had attended or graduated from college in the British North American colonies or abroad. Some men held advanced and honorary degrees. For the most part, the delegates were a well-educated group."
Facts such as these sort of put today's arguments in perspective, don't they?
See Najida's post 292 and replies.
I'm HTML challenged and I'm too lazy to learn :)
"We don't need another testimonial from a friend." ...
"This really isn't about Harriet Miers the person." ... and
" The question is whether she is the best and most qualified person for the job."
Those, in fact, were the words you chose. Not I. Words either have meaning or they do not.
" I find it interesting that the Miers' supporters must resort to ad hominen attacks and the "my way or the highway" approach whenever those of us who consider ourselves loyal Republicans and conservatives express disagreement with the President on an issue."
I have attacked no one. I appreciate your strong feelings against Ms Miers. I have, at no time, stated that I supported her.
What I have stated is that there should be Senate hearings. Let the Constitution play out as was intended.
What I find interesting is that there are many here whom seem to want to deny the President his choice and Ms Miers her opportunity to be heard.
You are conversing with a 65 year old male who, in the true caveman style due to growing up in the '40's and '50's, does not adhere to "nurturers" [if you get my drift] running this country. Not as president, in Congress, or on the courts. So that should give you an idea of how much I "support" Ms. Miers.
No, I did not support McCain-Feingold, and quite frankly was and am aghast that it was signed and that it was not over turned by SCOTUS.
I suspect we, you and I, are closer than not to the course we believe this country should be on. Further, I am genuinely sympathetic to your cause. Though to you it may seem like sarcasm, it is not. Were Congressional makeup not be what it is, I am certain President Bush may have chosen differently.
Regards and I wish us good luck.
"Facts such as these sort of put today's arguments in perspective, don't they?"
They most certainly do.
"How did your heart get so cold?"
I must ask you the same thing. Many issues the Supreme Court will ajudicate are literally life and death issues in their long term effect. To choose anyone but the top strict constructionist and then fight to the death for the pick, bespeaks a disregard for human life and the lives of our children. How can you be so heartless as to support this mediocrity?
And Ann Coulter, and Rush, and, Bauer, and Buchanan, and, ...
My head is still spinning with wonder of exactly what the hell is going on, and what is so hard to understand about the fact that the Republican Congress is neutered and unable to sire anything, lest it be artificially inseminated.
>My office cleaning lady is also hard working and compassionate. Thank God she doesn't work at the White House or she'd be a Supreme Court nominee.<
"Bet that the fact she is the cleaning lady is the only thing you know about her."
Apparently your reading comprehension isn't very high. The tongue-in-cheek implication was that if the hard working compassionate cleaning lady worked at the White House, and Bush knew her well, that she would be a potential candidate. Whether I know squat/diddly about the cleaning lady is less important than that Bush is guilty of cronyism on this most important matter. Apparently you believe hardworking and compassionate trump "effective constitutionalist advocate/scholar/jurist". Which is truly sad, because your qualifications would admit the nomination of the cleaning lady while mine require an outstanding jurist.
Agreed. Two exceptional points.
You have to pay attention. I was referring to the use of word "need" to explain that I was not trying to prevent anyone from expressing their opinion or advocating it. Words do have meaning, but you need someone to comprehend what the meaning is.
I have attacked no one. I appreciate your strong feelings against Ms Miers. I have, at no time, stated that I supported her.
Words do have meaning. Here are some the words you used, which I found to be needlessly personal and in some cases offensive:
"Obviously you don't and it is fortunate for the rest of us that you do not control our First Amendment rights.
Unfortunalely for you and those that think like you do,
For those of you who oppose her nomination, you have my deepest and sincerest sympathies.
What I have stated is that there should be Senate hearings. Let the Constitution play out as was intended. What I find interesting is that there are many here whom seem to want to deny the President his choice and Ms Miers her opportunity to be heard.
Unless the President or she withdraws her name, the Senate will have hearings. No question about that. I don't see people wanting to "deny the President his choice and Ms Miers her opportunity to be heard." Since we were not consulted in the selection process, we can only react to it. I can't deny the President anything except my support. A Senate hearing will not persuade me that Miers is the best candidate out there.
You are conversing with a 65 year old male who, in the true caveman style due to growing up in the '40's and '50's, does not adhere to "nurturers" [if you get my drift] running this country. Not as president, in Congress, or on the courts. So that should give you an idea of how much I "support" Ms. Miers
LOL. You are speaking to a 62 year old male who can state explicitly that I don't support Miers' nomination.
No, I did not support McCain-Feingold, and quite frankly was and am aghast that it was signed and that it was not over turned by SCOTUS.
The President signed it while at the same time expressing his misgivings about its constitutionality. He should never have signed it. Leaving it up to SCOTUS was not an act of principled, political courage.
Were Congressional makeup not be what it is, I am certain President Bush may have chosen differently.
I hope that is not the case. If the President views the Miers nomination as a case of political expediency or compromise, then we are really in trouble. I would prefer cronyism to that.
Thanks
Thin skinned comes to mind.
"I don't see people wanting to "deny the President his choice and Ms Miers her opportunity to be heard."
I find it difficult to believe you haven't read such pronouncements, both here and in the media.
"The President signed it while at the same time expressing his misgivings about its constitutionality. ------ He should never have signed it. ------ Leaving it up to SCOTUS was not an act of principled, political courage."
True, possibly true and we will be better able to judge that when the books come out.
"I hope that is not the case. If the President views the Miers nomination as a case of political expediency or compromise, then we are really in trouble. I would prefer cronyism to that."
As I stated these two weeks ago, the day Harriet Miers was nominated, perhaps GWB is playing "rope-a-dope". Perhaps this is why the Whitehouse is releasing the religion thing now.
Perhaps the President is looking to get someone he believes will do the right thing, and should the Dims [religion is like holding a cross up in front of Dracula to the Dims] and RHINO's [who are like Heyenas] go into attack mode refusing to confirm, he sends up a Ghengis Khan for SCOTUS, and the war is on.
I have absolutely no idea, not being in the loop, but the primitive man in me would love to see a knock down drag out fight to the death. The problem is my side would lose because they've got no guts! [Karl Malden in "Nevada Smith" ... "Yer yella ... you've got no guts ... yer yella"] ;)
BTTT!
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.