Posted on 10/22/2005 4:11:56 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
You forgot to add Laura Ingram to your "liberals" against Miers.
Um, how should I put this. That's an outright lie! While Ann Coulter is busy knockin' boots with some mid-20's, liberal boytoy and Rush is rationalizing the damage he is doing as "a crackdown" and Kristol is "demoralized" and Will, Buchanan and Carlson, who BTW never supported George Bush, whine and make smarmy remarks from on bow-tied high, a MAJORITY of Conservatives are waiting to see what cooks.
Actually not devious liberals, but right wing beltway elitists, who are having a communual hissy fit over a woman who even hasn't had her day of hearings.
BTW, where has she come out for govt. mandated affirmative action?
If Bush got in a knock down fight with the conservatives and Miers was rejected he would nominate Gonzales. You think that is a good thing? I think it is better that Miers realize she is about to embarras herself and the President and withdraw.
Yet another "I know you are but what am I" response.
One would think you would know you've gone to the well many times to many.
If she withdraws, the left will scream that Bush is beholden to "extreme special interest groups"...the "fringe whacko right" and will terrify soccer moms about their daughters going to prison for abortions. They will demand a judge of moderation and paint every subsequent candidate as an extremist.
They would have done this anyway, but by putting Miers up first and withdrawing her, they will be able to claim...SOMEWHAT RIGHTLY...that far right special interests forced Bush to withdraw her and put a more "extreme" candidate in her place.
Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
Miers backed hiring goals on race and gender
By Jo Becker and Sylvia Moreno
"Where has she come out for govt. mandated affirmative action?"
Not government-mandated, but have a look . . .
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that "our legal community must reflect our population as a whole," and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal.
---
White House spokesman Jim Dyke said Miers' actions on the bar do not indicate how she might rule on the big question before the high court, which is how far government can go to promote diversity. "The best I can tell, this was a private-sector initiative to increase diversity, which is not the same thing as a government mandate of quotas," he said.
Miers, the first woman president of the Texas Bar, vowed in her first interview with the Texas Law Journal as president to "be inclusive of women and minorities."
During her tenure, she championed increasing the number of female and minority lawyers in the bar's leadership ranks and in law firms across the state, writing that "we are strongest capitalizing on the benefits of our diversity."
She and the board passed a resolution urging Texas law firms to set a goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates. The board also restated support for a policy of setting aside a specific number of seats on the bar's board of directors for women and minorities.
Although Miers was not the author of either policy, board members who served with her said she fully supported both efforts.
Is it Halloween or have you morphed into a Democrat?
Elitism has nothing to do with money, or schools or anything physical at all.
It has everything to do with people who think they are smarter than everyone, who think the rules are for everyone else, that THEY should be allowed to dictate policies, that think everyone else is a bigot but them, of course.
Lib/Dem weenies are the ones who are jealous and resentful of wealth, Ivy Leagues, etc.
ROTFL. We are more concerned that she is going to embarrass herself by wetting her pants the first time Schumer or Brownback asks her any kind of consitutional question. After all this women has to cram into three weeks of preparation what most nominees have spent a lifetime dealing with. As Jay Leno said last night you are asking a Podiatrist to do open heart surgery following a three week cram course.
So far everytime Miers does a courtesy call on a senator, that senators opinion of her and her qualifications takes a dive. Not a good indication of success in the hearings, unless her current courtesy meetings are part of a stealth program to sow low expectations. LOL.
Miers is toast, and I hope Bush uses his head for the next nomination.
Here's link to article on Miers and affirmative action quotas.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002576434_miers22.html
Suits me fine but I doubt a few conservative Senators have much part in the process outside of contributing to the media frenzy.
That is a slap in the face of women everywhere.
She is a worthy addition. Will certain folks here would argue that illness has deprived Laura of her senses?
Oh.....I never heard that ALL these "elitists" are championing those with "elitist" law degrees from "elitist" law schools within the elitist Ivy leaque as the alternative BETTER choices (despite the fact that those they have suggested received their law degrees from non-Ivy league law schools). Those darn "elitists" couldn't possibly be REAL conservatives if their concern lies with constitutional law experience/knowledge and proven conservative values (i.e., not touting quotas to fill the bench).
Laura's been on a roll......I've enjoyed listening to her sound commentary....."illness" aside.
I'm too lazy to research it, but someone compiled a list demonstrating that most of the alternatives to Miers that those "Beltway elitists" are promoting have neither Ivy League degrees nor elitist credentials.
Sincerely,
Governsleastgovernsbest - B.S, Cornell; LL.M. Harvard
[but that don't make me an elitist ;-)]
I don't know if she's a good choice or not. I've been waiting to hear what she says and have been watching. I think the President is backed into a corner though and I'm curious to see how he is going to get out. If he keeps her, it seems he is going to alienate a lot of his base. If he has her withdraw, he will be labeled as weak and folding under pressure. If his team is watching here I suggest he pray about this, and do what he believes is best for our country. If she's the right judge it will all work out. If he made a mistake, pull her. Just do the right thing for the right reasons. We need the "Cowboy" back.
So shouldn't a private organization be run without govt. intereference. Isn't that a conservative value.
I know W is the master of the rope-a-dope but I think that one's going a bit deep.
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.