Posted on 10/16/2005 12:08:21 PM PDT by Westpole
President Bush has blundered badly with the nomination of Harriet Miers. It isn't just the profound split within the Republican Party that is damaging. The presidency itself is weakened because his judgment is now doubted within his own camp.
The Democrats always doubted his judgment, indeed his intellect. Now the same doubts are being expressed on the right. What is it about this nomination that can so undermine the presidency? The main problem with Ms. Miers nomination can be summed up simply - she is a "weak sister".
People respect bold action even when they don't agree with it. The Democrats mostly voted for the war in Iraq even though they opposed it. A bold move by a President will usually be deferred to. But there is nothing bold in this nomination. The very character of the nominee that is emerging is that of a follower not a leader.
Some may believe the strength of the opposition to Miers comes from people with misgivings about her views on Roe or her clandestine leanings on any number of other issues. But that is not what is giving the Bush presidency problems. Mr. Bush could have gone in one of two other directions;
If he nominated a conservative intellectual leader the right would have cheered and the left would have played the same cards they have over other conservative judicial nominees. Their opposition would only have made the President look stronger not weaker. Had Mr. Bush nominated say a leader with centrists or even liberal views the right may have objected but he could claim that "balance" on the court is a an important principal for American stability and his willings to put stability over his party's wishes would have made him look bold and certainly in the media wise. In either case the president would be a bold thoughtful leader but Mr. Bush did neither. He nominated a camp follower, a weak sister whose best quality is her loyalty to him. If confirmed the Democrats would hope the loyalty was binding as long as it was convenient. Whereas the right would hope she would just follow Justices Scalia and Thomas. So what Mr. Bush has done is force both sides to wonder which leader this follower will follow. No one is comfortable with making that speculation for a justice of the Supreme Court. And everyone senses a missed opportunity to increase the intellectual heft of decision making in the country's only forum for which there is no appeal.
I do not know what DU is nor where it is. Nor do I care to know. I am a sensible conservative.
"If this nomination has done nothing else it has split the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement wide open and has opened the probability of a Dim comeback in '06." ---- Well then, get on board with the President and quit having such an ego-centric snit!
You got that right. Club Stupid. You attack Miers with juvenile rhetoric. Remember. Then when I pointed out her legal record to you as a fair debate point, you said I was "fawning over a "benchwarmer" at best." Now you're whining because you and your buddies can't bully me into agreeing with your ridiculous charges. Like, PresBush needs to be supervised and I'm "fanatical" because I don't agree with the ridiculous assessment being made of Miers experience and qualifications.
I don't see how I've lost the debate. You haven't debated the facts from the get-go and there is no evidence you have anything legitimate to offer. You don't seem to care about Miers experience and qualifcations. You don't care that she hasn't even had her hearing before the Senate. You and your buddies want to lynch her in the hopes that a miracle will take place and Miers will pack up and go home. Ain't gonna happen.
For someone both heralded and feared as a potentially conservative voice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Harriet E. Miers has played a key role in exposing college students to some unmistakably liberal ideas.
In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community. A strong advocate for women, Ms. Raggio helped persuade state lawmakers to revise Texas laws to give women new rights over property and in the event of divorce.
Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground.
A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998. In the following two years, the speakers were Patricia S. Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman widely associated with women's causes, and Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991). Ann W. Richards, the Democrat whom George W. Bush unseated as governor of Texas in 1994, delivered the lecture in 2003.
Other speakers in the series have included Geraldine Laybourne, founder of Oxygen Media, a cable-television network for women; Gwen Ifill, moderator of public television's Washington Week and a correspondent for The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer; and Colleen Barrett and Herb Kelleher, both top executives at Dallas-based Southwest Airlines, who teamed up to give the lecture in 2004.
A description of the lecture series on Southern Methodist's Web site says it "brings role models of vision and achievement to SMU to speak on gender and women's issues."
The series "expands students' opportunities to hear and interact with nationally renowned speakers in the area of women's studies," the site says, "as well as strengthens intellectual ties between the university and the greater community."
FR has been literally peppered with this information in the last few days-- where have you been, and -- especially if you are working on a master's as you claim to be-- why can't you do your own homework???
[I'm working on a master's degree at a conservative-- though not completely uncontaminated by liberals-- university right now. I have been for two years.]
Then you of all people should know much better than to attempt to defend women's studies programs. For your information, I am also at a university, in a teacher's credential program, and I have had more than a healthy exposure to "women's studies" speakers, usually in classes touching on diversity and multiculturalism, along with attempts to indoctrinate me and my student colleagues with a liberal feminist agenda that is simply staggering to the intellect and totally anathema to any concept of academic freedom.
If you read the literature, the general curricula of women's studies is riddled with collectivist philosophy and leftist social activism.
Females already significantly outnumber males at co-ed universities across the nation. Starting yet more women's studies programs at universities is like bringing coals to newcastle at best. Once inside, the womens' studies faculty often gravitates toward administrative functions such as diversity enforcement and appeals, where the toxicity of their activist agenda is maximized.
At worst, women's studies programs are providing lifetime employment for embittered feminists with no other viable means of support.
Now: do you really think that someone who is responsible for helping to set up a women's studies program could ever in your wildest dreams also be a strict constructionist? And if so, what then would your answer have been if I had posed the same question to you three weeks ago, before the Miers appointment became public? (Honest response please.)
Harriet Miers-- withdraw your nomination. NOW!!
"More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."
-Harriet Miers
Pay no mind to these people. They're objective is to bad mouth Bush, Miers and anyone who agrees with the President's choice to sit on the SCOTUS. Miers deserves her hearing and she deserves respect as the President's nominee. There are several key issues I'm at odds with Bush on. But Bush has a good track record at nominating solid conservatives to the federal courts and Miers shouldn't be personally attacked for not meeting the personal standards that some folks have set.
You're a little behind on the terminology. Calling someone an idiot is a personal attack. Truthfully examining her record is not.
My my, So many words, so litle substance. You're right she has a legal record, slim though it may be, when pertaining to Judgeships. She went to law school. she graduated. She worked as a lawyer. She's religious. And ..And .. Oh right she sucked up to GW big time, almost forgot that. To reiterate, there is very little there, there.
Your wish to call people stupid for wanting a bit more Judicial history is just to cute for words.
You attempt to clothe yourself with the dignity of Reagan the elder is laughable, and more suited to Ron "TuTu" Reagan.
"Trust but verify" there is very little to verify about Miers. That is the problem.
I do not read about women's studies, except in instances like this at FR. I am not a fan of women's studies. Feminazis are emotionally twisted in my opinion.
Honest response? I'd have said that I could not support anyone who created a women's study where the likes of Gloria Steinam is received as a spokesperson for women. She does not speak for me in any way. I do have a question, though. Your posts mentions many liberals/feminazi-types. Were traditional conservatives not represented at all as speakers?
It disturbs me that these studies were created as late as the 90's. This is definitely a negative in regard to Miers, in my opinion.
I'd be interested in your response to #163, regarding the women's studies program. This is the first clearly negative thing that I've seen about Miers, but I wonder if all of the details are there, or if they have been selectively presented.
That's what your doing. Engaging in a mob action, a political lynching of Bush`s SC nominee.
LOL. Yeah right. Instead of talking about her born again christianity, nice table manners, and spiffy thank you notes, the WH is going to push her experience. But her lack of experience is the essence of all complaints. Bush wimped out and named a stealth good ol gal and everyone has to take it on faith that she's super duper. NO SALE for this conservative.
The shoe fits ya. You wear it with pride.
Keep reading. Did you miss the anti-Federalist (too political) Society comments back in her Dallas city council days? But the NAACP is just jiffy. She has Zelig like political tendencies. She wants to please. Not a good trait, once on the court she may wander leftward. I would prefer a stubborn conservative mule over a trendy ladder climber.
Your posts mentions many liberals/feminazi-types. Were traditional conservatives not represented at all as speakers?
I do not know and cannot in all honesty tell you one way or another. I am 1500 miles removed from the location of SMU and I have not been there. All I can tell you is that extrapolating from my personal experiences with feminists in my ed school, probably not: there is no pretense to offer any balanced perspective whenever the subject of feminism comes up where I am. I did ask around for a "men's studies" program or counseling service once and got the answer that it did not exist at my university.
It disturbs me that these studies were created as late as the 90's. This is definitely a negative in regard to Miers, in my opinion.
Yeah, here's another one from a more recent thread:
[Feminist author Susan] Faludi said Miers, 60, was a new victim of the backlash. “The Republican religious right is prepared to pay lip service to strong independent women as long as they can be relied upon to act against women’s rights. The moment they are not sure their gal is going to stay on the reservation, their hostility comes to the fore.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503424/posts
I wonder if it is only a matter of time before NOW comes out in favor of Miers. After all, from their perspective, she has more paper trail bona fides than from the strict constructionist perspective.
"More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."
--Harriet Miers
(If this statement does not reek of a politically correct agenda, I don't know what does. It is cloaked in a double layer of liberal code words and code phrases, but obfuscating the original meaning is something that is to be expected from a lawyer.)
Exactly right. Too many people act like the President is some sort of king or god whose desires shall not be thwarted, and gee how dare us peons forget our places. Fact is, he *does* work for us, and if enough people object to Miers being on the Court, she won't be on the Court, the President's desires to the contrary notwithstanding.
The shoe fits ya. You wear it with pride.
Just thought I would give a demonstration of what a one trick pony you are. Each line above is from a separate distinct post by you, to various people with whom you do not agree. Severe case of projection on your part. The really stupid thing I can see is intentionally alienating those you are trying to convince of your position.
Doing over and over what does not work has often been called the height of insanity, but rave on.
Actually, that *is* the way it works. Why do you think Miers needs Senate approval? Because the President doesn't get what he wants without the consent of the people.
Main Entry: consent
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: agreement
Synonyms: accord, acquiescence, allowance, approval, assent, authorization, blank check, blessing, carte blanche, compliance, concession, concurrence, go- ahead, green light, leave, okay, permission, permit, right on, sanction, sufferance, understanding, yes
Antonyms: dissent, refusal, veto
Great, thanks for the spell check, as you say, you are truly sanctimonious.
>>>>I really hate to quote a liberal, but, Dorothy Parker said it all...
>>>>Meier's going for the SCOTUS is like an NBA halftime where they pull some schmoo out of the stands to take one shot at the basket from Halfcourt, to win "whatever." Their chance of making the shot is barely possible. But! What if they do. We still don't sign them to an NBA contract.
>>>>Sorry she is no more talented than any Halfcourt scmoe, who played some basketbal in school.
What is absurd, is your fawning over a "benchwarmer" at best.
>>>>Being testy is not the same as having testoterone poisoning. Your reference to brains, was obviously made as an excuse for your lack of thinking. If you don't think to well, don't think to often.
>>>>Had it not been for Iraq and SCOTUS, I might well have voted for Kerry.
>>>>"Kay baby" and Cornyn and Earthdweller. Just many ways to say "Bushbots"?
>>>>Had I known The President would start not vigorously pursuing the War On Terror, make weak SCOTUS appointments, I could have voted for Kerry and hope, that keeping the goverment out of one party hands would negate some of the excesses we are seeing.
>>>>Now I have to worry that not only will we see a Hillary Presidency, but we will lose the congress also.
>>>>And ..And .. Oh right she sucked up to GW big time, almost forgot that. To reiterate, there is very little there, there.
>>>>You attempt to clothe yourself with the dignity of Reagan the elder is laughable, and more suited to Ron "TuTu" Reagan. P>>>>>My my, So many words, so litle substance.
That last remark of yours about sums up your entire effort on this thread and fits perfectly with your endless attacks on Miers, Bush and anyone who chooses to disagree with your idea of the way things ought to be in American politics.
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.