Amazing how so many supposed "Conservatives" are so quick to adopt RINOs like Brooks that say what they want to hear. Guess you and David did NOT see the Rasmussen poll numbers it is NOT Miers who is "Sinking" when only 12% of Conservatives agree with the Hate Harriette all the time dogma of the fringe "Moveon.org" Conservatives.
Curious, just what part of the Constitution do you people think gives you Veto authority over the President's Judicial Picks? Gonna be kind of hard for you people to go back to arguing for an up or down vote for President Judicial picks now that you have adopted everyone of the Hysteric Left's talking points to rationalize your knee jerk Bush hate "dump Miers" error. Nice job. Thanks for helping flush 5 years work on educating the public on the Constitutioal duties of the Pres and the Senate just so you all can have a hissy fit because the President did not pick one of YOUR cronies.
Amazing how so many supposed "Conservatives" are so quick to adopt RINOs like Brooks that say what they want to hear.
I wasn't so I did some research and posted this thread: Two articles by Harriet Miers (is her writing as bad as they say?)
I think it's called the 'confirmation process' in which our elected Representatives can either give the thumbs up or down for Miers.
No one adopted anyone. The piece - as it is written - presents new facts in a clear way. It may as well have been written by Saddam from his jail cell - it was a good piece.
But you are putting the personality above the facts. Just like W has repeatedly promoted not the best person for a job on the basis of their ideas, professional background, and educational background, but because of their loyalty to him.
Are there any criticisms at all you have of W? Or is the cult of personality what you have bought into?
She is going to crash and burn at the hearing. It will be especially obvious following John Roberts' performance.
This woman needs prayer for the weeks ahead - not so much for confirmation or defeat as for stamina against the evsicerating assaults on her character from the... Right.
Let’s review what a “RINO” is – a term usually applied to liberal republicans like Arlen Specter, Christopher Shays, etc. I’m unclear how you came to the conclusion that David Brooks was of this ilk other than you’re just smearing another conservative who is less than impressed with Harriet Miers and a lot of us out here share his concern. As for the Rasmussen poll, unless I’m mistaken, I thought that had to do with Bush’s approval rating among republicans, which is around 84 percent. It is utterly appalling that phony conservatives like yourself smear the rest of us as “moveon.org” conservatives, because clearly we detest George Soros and his digital brown shirts. In the real world, conservatives who oppose Harriet Miers (due to her unknown quantity, zero experience with constitutional law, lack of a judicial philosophy, her past as democrat/contributor to Al Gore, paltry resume that includes commissioner of the Texas Lottery, involvement in corruption according to Jerome Corsi, etc.) are in no way suddenly affiliated with progressives – you’re dishonestly smearing individuals who aren’t blind party loyalists.
As conservatives, as members of an online grassroots forum called Free Republic, we were under the delusion that we have a right to speak out against nominees that we feel not only don’t share our values, but may very well be hostile to them. This is unjustified giving the Supreme Court’s record of legislating for the ACLU and progressives in general. What makes you think you can shut us up and force us into silence or even submission? Especially when the best argument you have for Harriet Miers are smear tactics associating us with the Left?
I don’t think it is hard for us to call for up or down votes when liberals like Leaky Leahy, Drunken Ted Kennedy and the rest attempt to filibuster judicial nominees on the sole basis that they are conservative. Given Harriet’s association with a Democratic Progressive Caucus in Texas, I don’t think you have to worry about them opposing her on those grounds. The problem is we oppose Harriet Miers and you reflexively support her by trashing freepers as “moveon.org” conservatives and other truth defying attacks. We haven’t forced the public to unlearn information, that’s absurd, but we’re opposed to Bush choosing his personal attorney and long time loyalist from Texas, Harriet Miers, while completely ignoring the massed legal talent assembled by conservatives through the Federalist Society.
Try "advice and consent."
The main reason for this is to prevent cronyism: to prevent the appointment of those unqualified. I hope the Senate does its job and votes her down. Miers is clearly unqualified. Her appointment would be a travisty and a huge set back to conservative jurisprudence.