Posted on 10/22/2005 7:13:03 AM PDT by RyanM
This is the essence of what I've been to glean about her "style" over the past week.
Boy, did Bush screw up on this!
****************************************************
My impression, too - mindmeld placemarker. ;^)
Great. We'll put you down in the group of "conservatives" who support resolutions encouraging the "goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates."
I don't disagree with your reservations about W. We don't have much excuse for being too surprised, really, because he never ran as a total, pedal to the metal doctrinnaire conservative (like me!). Truth is, I've been pleasantly surprised far more often than disappointed, because my expectations were low.
But we always argue that a president should have his choice for SC justices. That's why we work so hard to get "our" guys in office. I think conservatives have been two-faced and hypocritical in fighting SO hard and implacably against Miers. Stating reservations is fine; then we should have shut up and waited for the hearings. His judicial record warrants that. Shut up, or at least toned it down.
Plus -- is W on record as opposing preferences? If not, then would we expect him to demand such of an appointee?
Dan
So, you've never read an MSM article with "readily verifiable facts," gotten the impression they meant to give you, and then later learned that OTHER equally readily verifiable facts that they chose not to mention cast the story in an entirely different light?
Ah, to be so young again.
Dan
Agreed.
Some ideas you present, I'll agree with you. Other parts, I will take issue. I will take issue, because we would be screaming bloody murder if the liberal press would not presnt a liberal president and their SCOTUS nomination wiht continuing exposure and scrutiny. Yet we are asking for silence from our folks? Sure, some of it is the constant drumbeat of the same old same old, but often there is an amplification or a new audience to expose the material to. Also, the people who have been doing this are passionate about their positions. So why not? Should we stiffle their passion and thoughts simply because we don't agree with it? For the sake of (disfunctional) family unity?
Exactly. What is the point of establishing "goals" if they are not meant to have some coercive force? Shouldn't the only goal be to choose the most qualified applicants? If that means 8/10 minority applicants one year, fine. If it means none for five years running, so be it.
"When you come up hard like she did, you either pull the ladder up behind you or you leave the ladder down and reach back and pull people up," he said. "Harriet reached back -- that's who she is."<<<<<
Yeah, that sounds horrible to me."
It should should sound horrible, because it's the voice of self-serving corporate-speak pabulum feel-good touchy-feely kumbaya POLITICAL CORRECTNESS you're hearing, one of whose horrid handmaidens is QUOTAS!
Goal does not equal quota
"A sign of how bad the Miers nomination is: it has pushed otherwise good conservatives into the uncomfortable position of splitting hairs in defense of racial quotas!"
Great--spot on!
And have you noticed how all the pundits and commentators conservatives used to like and quote...are now troublemaking disloyalists?
"Goal does not equal quota"
If you don't mind me adding my .02, what happens when you don't reach your GOAL? Doesn't the govt. usually step in with the tyranny of the courts and say "your not trying hard enough, we will set up quotas for you", so in order to avoid the coercion of the state private business puts in place quotas and you have a self fulfilling prophecy.
Thanks for the link. Didn't know there was a petition going for Harriet Miers. I signed it.
"Goal is NOT Quota."
Well, you force my hand.
You can call it a..."goal," "desirable hiring outcome," "fair practice," "level playing field"--hell, you can call it "Fred" for all I care--but when you have a certain number of openings and you declare that the first criterion for filling a certain percentage of those openings will be anything other than talent, experience, or even competence--indeed, that those openings will be filled based first on race, ethnicity or gender--then you have entered the insidious Land of Quota.
"Quota" has become a charged word, so those who favor them usually try to call it something else--goal, etc. But that doesn't change what it really is any more than calling killing a baby "reproductive choice" changes that. Do not be used by the Marxists.
See #89, 94
See #89, 94
Right on.
I've invited Calpernia to clearly state for the record whether she would have voted for the "goals" resolution. Awaiting response.
ping
yet more evidence that miers supported affirmative action
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1498195/posts?q=1&&page=201
"Miers' time on Dallas City Council provides some insight"
Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women.
The agenda item's title: "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan."
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.