Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
I was listening to the John Batchelor Program on WABC Radio in New York last night.
He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.
It has grown from 5% last week, to 30% end of last week, to 50% beginning of this week, to 75% last night.
Fund was on the program to comment on his op-ed piece:
How She Slipped Through Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.
Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
This reply by you shows why we shouldn't listen to you any more.
We know, and YOU KNOW, because Leo Leonard came out and said so, and said he strongly endorsed the candidate, because in his long years working with her he has proven herself to be a highly qualified person for the job.
But now you act like you'nve never heard of him, never knew he was consulted, didn't know he endorsed her.
And then you ask why he should be consulted. Well, you KNOW he is the Vice President of the Federalist Society (the society that you falsely said Miers doesn't support). You know that we all revere them for their approach to constitutional issues.
So it isn't good for your side that the person they put in a leadership position is so certain that this nominee has what it takes and should be supported, since you (with NO evidence whatsoever) think she should withdraw.
Anybody who pretends not to know that a major player was consulted and endorsed the nominee after 2 weeks of this discussion cannot be trusted to provide factual or useful additions to the debate.
I'll apologize tomorrow when I'm not so mad at those who sling false, lying accusations just to support their side -- this anything goes mentality is totally antithetical to the principles of conservatism.
We aren't sure she is qualified. Stick to the facts. Some are truly convinced she will be an O'Conner on the bench. Say that. But don't stoop to MoveOn.Org tactics. Don't lie about her, misrepresent her record, debase her achievements, ridicule all who support her, just because you are certain that your "cause" is just.
My point is that I don't understand how all these unelected people have some right to vet nominees. And the point of specific examples is to see whether you are talking about vetting her in terms of her legal credentials, or in terms of her political credentials. And I have no clue why people like the three you named should be involved in judicial selections.
I know, for example, that he discussed it with Leonard Leo, just for starters.
Oh hell, that's a fair question that I can't really answer candidly here. But in terms of what's publicly available, he released a public statement on her nomination almost as soon as it was announced -- obviously something that was written ahead of time.
And he should be consulted rather than others because...?
As the Executive VP of the Federalist Society, he's got more knowledge regarding the judiciary than the other three put together. Plus, impeccable conservative credentials without the latent nutbag factor of Keyes or Bauer. Now I'm not saying that the President is required or obligated to consult with him. But the fact that Leo is a fan of hers and consulted with the Administration on these picks makes me more comfortable with the nomination than I might have been otherwise.
On second thought, don't bother replying: Bush is right, his critics are wrong---I get it.
I may only agree with half that statement. The pick may not have been the right pick. It may turn out to have been a terrible pick.
But I do think the tone and content of what many of the conservative critics is wrong. As someone else put it, too many conservatives are trying to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube by fooling themselves into thinking that enough foot-stamping will unravel history. It won't. And arguments like "he should have checked with Alan Keyes...." We've now got all these pundits out there basically offended that Bush didn't clear it with them first, and that strikes me as incredibly self-important.
If its a bad pick, then state the concerns publicly in rational tones. The hissy fit thrown by Coulter and her ilk are not going to make the problem any better. And venting emotionally just because you are upset....well, it looks to be like the kind of thing the NARAL gang does, and I thought we were above that.
A weakened Bush is going to be forced to nominate even worse people than Miers down the road. And there are some conservatives doing the "I'm finished with the GOP" routine that accomplishes nothing more than helping President Hilary get elected, and making Associate Justice Tribe more likely.
"Little Stellar, I have news for you. I know Sam personally, and his aide phoned my office yesterday to chat with me about Miers. Yes, they are going to say it is 50/50 at this time, because he does not want to anger either side."
gary, i dont care what you say because you've proven yourself to purposefully push misinformation on this site (as a shill for the murdering former KGB putin). your explanation doesnt make sense..if they're going to tell everyone it's 50/50 then why did one of his offices say that the overwhelming majority were against it?
You also stated last night that fund has changed his mind on this nomination-- but I proved you wrong by citing his petition and posts on NRO.
Some of those folks have announced they are leaving the GOP about ten times over the past four years.
Keyes has made a cottage industry of trashing Bush. No surprise there.
Abigail Thernstrom I didn't know about...do you have the source for her statement?
OK. You gave three reasons to oppose Miers. I said all three were false.
Let's make this easy. Prove to me I'm wrong on the FIRST charge. Or at least, give one supporting piece of evidence that shows that the first thing you mentioned is NOT false.
Yes, I called you a liar. I don't normally do that. But you KNOW that Miers supports the federalist society. She said it, We've said it, the VP of the society says it. Her quotes from 1989 don't even support your charge. YOU KNOW this, or should know it (you don't appear to be stupid). I've seen you on discussions for the past two weeks. You are IN the threads where these are debunked.
For you to still use this as arguments against her is dishonrdy. And you are NOT doing it out of ignorance. You WANT to mislead people here. And you succeed, others quote this same lie, because they saw you and for some reason trust you to tell the truth.
I generously grant that you do so because you really and truly believe (with no proof) that she will be a bad justice.
But since you spent two weeks telling everybody that "trust me" isn't a valid argument, you can hardly tell us now to "trust you" that she will be bad.
So instead you repeat this lie about her to back up your feelings about her.
So go ahead, prove that she opposes the Federalist Society. Tell me that you had NO IDEA Leo Leonard was associated with the Federalist Society and had endorsed her.
Harriet Miers is an accomplished lawyer who is qualified for the bench. She is not somebody's mother-in-law who has no reason to be in the room.
Good reply---thanks for maintaining the civility and rationality. I have to attend to other stuff now, but I'd like to reply in the same tone a little later.
OK. Tell me three things you have learned about Harriet Miers in the last two weeks that make her unqualified.
It was in that Isikoff/Newsweek piece posted here I think last week. Some participant in an e-mail exchange linked her e-mail. She was not happy with the leak, of course.
Little Stellar, I admit I was given some misinformation on Fund. That said, Brownback will allow Meirs to have a hearing, and if she doesn't have any obvious blemishes will be confirmed.
AFAIK, Miers is agnostic toward the ultimate goals of the FedSoc. Most people appreciate the FedSoc activity in gather people of diverse opinion, so spaeking at the FedSoc is not an indication of one's core philosophies.
Can you show something that unequivocally indicates that she supports the FedSoc?
I'm not going to tell you again: post as many times to me as you want, I don't reply to abuse.
are we having fun yet
That is such a great point that it bears more emphasis. If Bush is right about her approach to interpreting the Constitution, and that she's got the brainpower to do intelligently, then does anybody here really want him to back down?
I mentioned this to Gary before, but this is starting to look like a friendly fire incident. There's a target out there, and some people have commenced firing without being sure they've correctly identified that target. That's how you end up hurting one of your own. There is just no reason to be blasting her so heavily at this point in time when we can just as easily wait for the hearings and get a better picture. And make it less likely that we're going to be firing on one of our own.
Right to life
Right to bear arms
National sovereignty
Strong military
Lower taxes
No legislating from the bench
Those are the main things I believe in. I think most people would call me a conservative.
Now, within the conservative framework, I am probably what is called a pragmatist. I am willing to compromise on certain issues (the education bill, for exampl) in order to advance the conservative point of view in the long-term. I am willing to understand why we have people like Olympia Snowe, and while she votes against us much of the time, I am grateful for her vote which allows us to hold committees.
So, am I a moderate? No. Am I as conservative as people who will not give in on any issue at any time? No.
But all that aside, there's more that I would add. First and foremost is that she has no public record supporting any conservative views. And you're deluding yourself if you think the hearings are going to change that. All that's going to happen is a lot more political pressure and wheeling and dealing from the White House to get Republicans to vote for her. Candidates with no such record have never worked out well for the Constitution, at least at any time since FDR had his way with the court.
Secondly, her former involvement with the Democrats, continuing well after her much-touted Born Again epiphany in 1979, raise questions as to what her views really are. A past history with the Democrats usually isn't a problem, when the person can say definitively that she's been completely disenchanted with them. But Miers has given no such indication. Even if asked that question at the hearings, the answer will be prefabricated to tell her Republican questioner whatever he wants to hear. It's very unusual for a person in public life to make such a sharp political shift like this without giving a public reason at the time. The most likely answer that suggests itself, therefore, is that it was done for career reasons.
If you can't reply in a civil, rational manner, don't respond at all.
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.