Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News: Possible Miers Withdrawal? WH Reaching Out to Conservative Leaders for 'Plan B'
Fox & Friends Weekend

Posted on 10/22/2005 4:11:56 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-284 last
To: ekwd
Neither should disappointment in not getting one of the conservative favorites play a role in opposition to Miers.

Who said it did?

281 posted on 10/23/2005 12:37:38 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Perhaps my eyes and ears have failed me, but it sure looks to me that a lot of pundits did.
Here was Rob Dreher's reaction:

WHAT WAS BUSH THINKING? [Rod Dreher] Here in Dallas, people who know Harriet Miers insist that she's a rock-ribbed conservative, though nobody can really say what that means in practical terms. Folks here are real high on her. As for me, I am really, really disappointed in the president. As a social conservative, the main reason I voted for him was the Supreme Court. I thought John Roberts was a stellar nominee in most respects, though not the judge I would have picked; anyway, I'm tickled that he is now the Chief Justice. I figured this second pick would be someone who was not a stealth candidate, and that Bush would finally pay his debt to the social and religious conservatives who form the bedrock of his base. It looks like cronyism wins again with this president, though at least he didn't nominate Brownie. That might not prove to be a fair judgment; judging from the scuttlebutt at World magazine's blog, which Kathryn linked to over at Bench Memos, Miers could well be a stalwart social conservative. But even if she were, you really have to wonder why the president passed over Judge Luttig, Judge Owen and so many others who have clear records. In our editorial board meeting this morning, one of my colleagues, a fellow who is high on Miers and who is to the left of me, was exulting over Bush sticking a shiv in the back of social and religious conservatives with this pick. And I'm thinking that the president is so embattled on so many fronts right now, from the Iraq debacle to the Katrina mess to the GOP's ethical scandals, that he doesn't need to alienate his base. I think he has just alienated his base, which had every reason to expect better of him.

Notice that, while he was saying that others' instant reaction was positive, his was negative.

Here is one of his posts the next day:

OUCH [Rod Dreher] But Kathryn, I fully expect that if Justice Stevens retires, President Bush will nominate his dog Barney to fill that vacant seat. After all, who can a man trust to be loyal more than his dog? I reckon the president knows Barney's heart as well as anybody's, and certainly Barney has no paper trail, unless you count stuff he chewed up when he was a puppy. Besides, if Caligula can put his horse in the Senate... Posted at 06:16 PM

Here was Kathryn Jean Lopez's immediate reaction:
IT'S [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Miers. Watch Bench Memos. I promise the coverage will get better than my insta-depression. Posted at 07:17 AM

You can get to the posts with this link:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_02_corner-archive.asp#078596

And, yes, some others on The Corner were not so quick to jump on the anti-Miers bandwagon.
282 posted on 10/24/2005 7:48:27 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: ekwd
You said: Neither should disappointment in not getting one of the conservative favorites play a role in opposition to Miers.

I make a distinction between disappointment, per se, which is what anybody who doesn't like this pick has; and disappointment that aims to justify itself "just because one of my favorites" wasn't picked.

From your examples ...

I am really, really disappointed in the president ... I figured this second pick would be someone who was not a stealth candidate ... you really have to wonder why the president passed over Judge Luttig, Judge Owen and so many others who have clear records.
The rebuttal, "You're just angry because you didn't get your pick," is a cop out, because it doesn't admit to exploration of the substantive differences between the Miers pick, and a host of other picks that weren't. It's an insult to the person who is disappointed, because it paints the dissapointment as deriving merely from the childish pique that comes from not getting one's way.

The "you're just angry because you didn't get your way" rebuttal is as hollow and false as the "sexist" and "elitist" retorts.

283 posted on 10/24/2005 8:04:30 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Since I view "I'm angry because I didn't get my pick" as a fair interpretation of what Dreher was saying, we can agree to disagree on this.


284 posted on 10/24/2005 10:19:21 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-284 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson