Posted on 10/15/2005 11:22:42 AM PDT by gobucks
Thanks. I'm astonished that some fellow conservatives are swallowing disinformation whole -- simply because they welcome media reports that appear to reflect badly on Miers.
We've already seen multiple lies about Miers propagated, and then debunked. E.g., that she supported gay marriage and gay adoption.
People, look at these media "facts" about Miers just as skeptically as you would look at "facts" about President Bush ... as reported by Dan Rather.
http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/bio.html
Phyllis Schlafly's bio. Very impressive. Harriet Miers is qualified to shine her shoes.
:)
My apologies. I misspoke. I cannot find where Bush uttered the words "in the mold of a Scalia" or even anything close to it. Apparently it is an urban myth. It's been repeated so often in the media and in the words of political pundits that I thought it was an actual quote. He did say he would appoint constructionists and that he admired Scalia and Thomas and stated outright that "I am pro-life," but I cannot find where he supposedly promised to appoint someone "in the mold of Scalia."
It's extremely unlikely. Thomas had the background and made the most of it. Miers doesn't.
You are right on one point. Mostly I listened to Thomas talk, and was impressed with his obvious intelligence and breadth of understanding. I have read a fair amount of Miers's writing and looked at her record, and I don't find anything of the kind. Her natural mode is gushy and fuzzy.
Jim, in response to the claim that Bush didn't speak those words, someone replied on a thread yesterday that he heard Bush speak at several rallies in Texas, and that's exactly what he said.
Unfortunately that's not enough proof. The poster sounded honest, but remembering just what you heard in a speech is tricky. I agree that we should stop citing it unless and until someone can find better evidence.
Unfortunately I've read so many threads on Miers now that I don't recall where I saw that particular comment.
You just keep jumping offside with your idiocy.
50 million Muslims have been liberated from despotic regimes because of George W. Bush. That alone will earn him a favorable place in history.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html
GORE: And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice groups that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose.
Here's the difference: He trusts the government to order a woman to do what he thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended.
LEHRER: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment. But, to make sure I understand your position on RU-486, if you're elected president will you not throw appointments to the FDA, you won't support legislation to overturn this?
BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. I think the FDA's made its decision.
LEHRER: That means that you wouldn't throw appointments to the FDA and ask them to reappraise it?
BUSH: I think once the decision's made, it's been made, unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.
GORE: Well, Jim, you know, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement the day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now, that sounds to me a little bit different. And I just think that we ought to support the decision.
BUSH: I said I would make sure that -- that women would be safe to use the drug.
LEHRER: All right, on the Supreme Court question, should a voter assume -- you're pro-life. You just stated your position.
BUSH: I am pro-life.
LEHRER: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court or any other federal court will also be pro- life?
BUSH: Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy.
And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in -- I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint.
I've named four Supreme Court judges in the state of Texas, and I would ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.
LEHRER: What kind of appointments should they expect from you, Vice President Gore?
GORE: Both of us use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor litmus tests, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And, in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history.
And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment.
GORE: And when the phrase "strict constructionist" is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, just -- it's very clear to me.
And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.
LEHRER: Is the vice president right? Is that a code word for overturning Roe v. Wade?
BUSH: Sounds like the vice president is not very right many times tonight. I just told you the criteria in which I'll appoint judges. I've had a record of appointing judges in the state of Texas. That's what a governor gets to do. A governor gets to name Supreme Court judges, and I've given...
Well noted - it is impressive how many of the good people on this site automatically and unthinkingly accept the stated PREMISES of articles put before them, particularly from the MSM.
People with media experience know that a story like this one may well be a "filler" - you need some news to fill-out a paper's page or for the evening news broadcast, so you just write what everyone naturally presumes, through common sense, is going on: i. e., the candidate is boning up for the hearings.
The public, of course - the uncritical section of it, presumes it has just been let in on the most confidentials of confidentials...That, folks, is simply how you make a living in the media business.
Well noted - it is impressive how many of the good people on this site automatically and unthinkingly accept the stated PREMISES of articles put before them, particularly from the MSM.
People with media experience know that a story like this one may well be a "filler" - you need some news to fill-out a paper's page or for the evening news broadcast, so you just write what everyone naturally presumes, through common sense, is going on: i. e., the candidate is boning up for the hearings.
The public, of course - the uncritical section of it, presumes it has just been let in on the most confidentials of confidentials...That, folks, is simply how you make a living in the media business.
Since you have had a few hours time for further research, and a thread dedicated to this subject, I'd like to revisit this.
I believe the research shows no direct quote attributable to GWB that makes this string ..."I promise to nominate jstrict constructionst judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." However, Bush has said that he would nominate strict constructionist judges. Bush has advanced Scalia and Thomas as benchmark examples to define "strict constructioninst."
Further, VP Cheney was invloved in the following exchange ...
HANNITY: So in that sense, the President's promise, you believe, has been fulfilled, and that is that she fits the mold of a Scalia and a Thomas?CHENEY: I do.
Now, I want to know if you consider me in that "liar" bunch. I say (using shorthand) "The president promised nominees in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." My disappointment is justified, because he broke his promise.
Am I lying to support my position of being disappointed, when I assert that the president did not honor his promise?
Or are you just playing a superficial word game, where the object is to obtain an exact quote.
Bush and his campaign manger know what kind of judges conservatives where expecting him to appoint and the reason a lot of them including Christians voted for him.
You can split all the hairs you want but if President Bush deliberately let people believe what he knew to be a lie regardless of the source of it in order to get their support he is not an honest person and his word is no good.
If you knowingly gain from deceit even by silence or inaction you are not honest.
You have been given other instances where a poster said he did not keep his word. I do not know personally if he did so or not in those instances.
I do know he did not keep his word in his first campaign to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem if he was elected.
The candidate may or may not be a good judge but the people who are concerned have every right to be so.
The record of Republicans and all politicians in general does not encourage anyone of any reasonable intelligence to give much credence to the plea from their lips to "just trust me".
And you know for a fact that Miers is not exactly who Bush says she is? You are accusing a good man of lying. That is a serious charge. Serious charges should not be made if you don't have the evidence to back them up. What is your evidence that Miers will not rule from the bench EXACTLY as Bush says she will?
Agreed. For five years I have hoped that Bush would make such appointments as soon as he had the chance to do so. I have often said that we should be patient until that opportunity arose, because it was a good sign that he did not put up a bunch of weak or compromise candidates during his first term, as his Republican predecessors did.
Until the current controversy I had no reason to doubt that Bush would keep his word. He has indicated many times that he understands just how basic judicial appointments are for the future of our country.
Absolute bullspit.
You cite Armstrong Williams' remembrance of Democratic strategies of deeming Clarence Thomas "unqualified" and call the criticisms of Harriet Miers [the] "same garbage." By what measure?
Exactly which of the criticisms are "garbage", and which are true?
Like another President once said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Me? I'm staying right here. Happy trails.
(Audible groan.)
Some of us are Conservatives first, Republicans second.
Sorry about that.
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.