Well stated. Conservatives aren't always Republican. Especially when they don't see conservatism coming from the party.
I'm not sure the head-shaking should be directed toward your conservative "allies". We didn't appoint her, nor should we be asked to forego our principles...
What "conservative principles" are in play when a candidate for the supreme court is lied about continually in the hopes of getting her name withdrawn so we can have our "preferred" nominee?
What great conservative principle says that a president has no right to a hearing on a nominee for the Supreme Court?
What principle of conservatism leads people to oppose a person for what they don't know yet about her?
I am a conservative. I recognize little of "conservative principle" in attacks by Laura Ingraham, or Ann Coulter, or George Will, or David Frum, or Bill Kristol.
I understand and respect those who say we should reject a nominee because we don't know enough to be sure they will be a strong and lifetime advocate of judicial restraint.
So, argue that point. But don't say that is what the anti-miers people are doing. Go and read the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or any other newspaper in america. Go read what they are reporting the argument against Miers is.
1) She's a close friend of Bush (OK, but how does that make her unqualified)?
2) She was only picked because she was a woman (OK, but how does that make her unqualified?)
3) The White house called us names (OK, but how does that make Harriet Miers unqualified)
4) The White House said she was religious (OK, but how does that make her unqualified)
I asked what proved she was unqualified, and I got 3 answers that were all lies and innuendo.
If I could jump in a time machine, and go back and advise the president, I would recommend against this nomination.
But he did it, and we have to deal with it. And if the argument was "We have serious doubts about the qualifications of Miers to be a good justice, one who will faithfully interpret the constitution according to the principles we believe in", I wouldn't be arguing. I have doubts, and wait to see the hearings.
But the arguments used by her opponents are exactly the kind of baseless, take-things-out-of-context, personal cheap foul attacks that we always rightly chastise the left for. We see that here on this thread, and on this board. "She gave money to Clinton, she supports radical feminism, she is a double-agent for the democrats, she is a clueless hack who only got where she is because she is a kiss-up"
I had hoped that at the LEAST we could agree that baseless personal attacks on the character of a nominee is out-of-bounds. We already hear that potential nominees are turning down appointments because the left will use personal destruction to stop them. Now we see that there is a rabid conservative contingent that will do the same. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies.
People here who never met the woman have called her the devil. They should be ashamed, but instead they whine about the adminstration calling them names, as if they are not guilty as sin.