Posted on 10/17/2005 6:45:39 AM PDT by quidnunc
Consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds?
Michael Reagan ping.
It's reasonable. Collect all we can find about her opinions. Give some deference to her conversion experience from Democrat to Republican (seeing this is from Michael Reagan, that's a good reminder.)
See what comes out of the hearings.
Make a list of pros/cons, and write senators accordingly. I don't see anything wrong with that.
yes, elected him and it looks like he has betrayed us with this nomination.
Is it a betrayal because:
1) you know for certain that she is not a judicial conservative; or
2) that you personally are not convinced she is a judicial conservative?
Ooooooooos and Ahhhhhhhhhhs. Sinkspur is gonna love this.
Ever wonder what a stampede of conservatives would look like? The MSM and the laughing hyenia liberals are doing all they can to stampede the electorate. SOME KNOW BETTER, others are pushing their way to the front of the herd and leading the charge over the cliffs of doom.
This article is nonsense. None of the anti-Miers pundits are suggesting that she should be filibustered. Some are saying she shouldnt have been nominated and some are suggesting she should be voted down..a few others that she should withdraw her nomination. BUt I havent heard a single conservative say she should be filibustered so the comparison is ludicrous.
I normally like Reagan. This is a dissapointing commentary on his part.
I lost a lot of respect for Michael Reagan when he passionately supported the Clinton Administration's efforts to hand Elian Gonzales back to Fidel Castro.
Another Republican minder dispatched to herd up the "irresponsible" conservative critics. Pat Ruffini must have promised Reagan a box seat at the '08 RNC Convention.
You forgot the part about George Bush being a liberal stooge and Laura Bush being pro-abortion and that Miers censors Christmas cards, writes unacceptable personal notes and went to that school for retards, MSU. :^)
You are absolutely right. The conservatives who are upset at the Miers nomination know that the Constitution empowers the President to nominate whom he will. They have merely questioned the wisdom of nominating Harriet Miers. Is Mr. Reagan unable to see the difference?
Quite a few good Conservatives supported that move as well. This place (FR) went apesh*t over it.
You know, you're not supposed to point out the logical fallacies in the argument before the thread builds a head of conservatives-are-evil steam!
The problem was the shrill minority of lunatics who started screaming "Bush lied!" in complete A.N.S.W.E.R.-style hyperbole.
Reagan didn't say that conservatives/ Republicans were calling for a filibuster. This is what he said:
Now, all of sudden, because the president didn’t call us personally and get our permission, we wise pundits are now suddenly acting the way the leftists did with Roberts and others, demanding that he reveal how Harriet Miers will vote and what she thinks about just about everything. That’s exactly what we condemned the liberals for demanding.
Reagan explicitly lays out how some conservative pundits are acting like the Dims--'demanding that he (the President) reveal how Harriet Miers will vote and what she thinks about just about everything.'
Whatever. The president doesnt have to consult you before he picks. And you, just like every other dissenter, knows nothing about her. At least not enough to call it a betrayal. So get off the "Bush didnt do what I wanted him him to do bandwagon" and wait until the hearings to make an informed post..
People wonder why Bush doesn't defend himself over B.S. the Dems and LSM throw out, and here his own party pulls exactly the same crap on him his enemies would.
Since she can't sing, Laura should just shut up.
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.