Posted on 10/19/2005 9:49:50 PM PDT by freedomdefender
In 1986, George W. Bush reached a crisis point in his life and changed what wasn't working. He dug deep and got serious. He got humble. He questioned himself. He can do it again, and should.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
What Sam Brownback?
Or Trent Lott?
Trust me, you're not "Miss Marple."
I suppose he's not Ms. Behavin either.
:-)
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
When given a chance to do so, he ducked. He picked a fourth tier nominee. In the meantime he is ticking off people like me with charges of elitism, sexism, cynicism. A signifiant portion of the GOP is disaffected. His lockstep supporters take up the charges and suggest that folks like me have never supported him.
If the President and his lockstep supporters want to, they can ram this nomination through. It will be costly and painful to do so. It will only alienate supporters like me even further.
Is Harriet worth it? Is winning on this one really worth what is happening on FR every day?
Even in the best marriages there can be conflict. One spouse can be right and have ample justification for a choice that the other spouse hates. If the spouse truly loves the spouse that despises his choice, that spouse will listen and probably accomodate their spouse for the good of the marriage.
For the good of the GOP and the conservative movement in the US, W needs to let go on this nominee. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe he feels that he needs to stick to it. I would suggest otherwise. He will, through this, go a long way to mending a widening rift.
Go ahead. I dare you. An early morning belly laugh is a fine way to start a day.
The list of those opposing this nomination grows every day. Linda Chavez has come out against this nomination. She is not what you would call a wild-eyed malcontent.
You don't think Linda Chavez has an ax to grind?
Perhaps we could do a side by side evaluation of Miers' musings in the Texas Bar Journal and Noonan's columns. Just remember that if Noonan had come out in favor of Harriet, she would be lauded as the greatest columnist in America.
LMAO!
I have not said this, but it would be unfair to suggest that W made his pick because he has an axe to grind with a number of conservatives. I would prefer not to ascribe evil intent to someone when there is no evidence of it.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me how many pundits you tote up on the anti-Miers side. I want the woman to have hearings, and I don't care if Nancy Reagan comes out against her, I still want the hearings.
I wish I could concur on the hearings. Unfortunately, the stealth strategy of the WH will not permit a real examination of someone with no record. I must, therefore, suggest withdraw for the good of the party.
I pretty much have removed myself from these threads, as I am quite convinced all sides are firmly entrenched in their positions; arguing over this is simply a waste of time.
I will say this, however. Peggy Noonan's reference to the President's past drinking problem is one of the tackiest things I have seen a columnist do, especially one who purports to be a Republican and a Christian. She should be ashamed of herself.
W often talks about his conversion experience. In his conversion he found the grace to make needed changes in his life. Noonan is suggesting that Bush could find the grace to regroup and bolster his presidency. I would avoid ascribing an evil motive to her column.
I think everybody's got it wrong on the hearings. (Full disclosure: I'm wait-and-see with a bias toward "oppose"). These hearings will be different. Most of the time, we already know the qualifications, the hearings are normally about "how will he/she vote?", which of course, we can't know.
The objections to Miers are more qualifications based. I really think the hearings are going to be more like an oral exam in con law. She'll sink or swim based on her knowledge.
Unfortunately, the anti's have overplayed their hand, and painted a picture of a woman who can't string two sentences together. She'll look brilliant by comparison. I think she'll get confirmed, it'll be be antis fault for talking down her intelligence, and it'll be a shame if she turns out to be somewhat less than competent.
Would you care to match some of Miers' musings up against Noonan's? Go ahead. I dare you. An early morning belly laugh is a fine way to start a day.
Th only thing laughable here is your ability to read with comprehension. How does that reply have anything to do with what I posted? It does not.
I have always avoided characterizations of her intelligence. I have emphasized the fact that she was not the most qualified nominee at a time when the Court needs a stellar one.
at least she didn't say that there's "too much God" this time.
I think W anticipates another vacancy in the very near future, and this present nominee is a fish for them to fry before he brings on the ba**-buster.
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.