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

Skip to comments.

This is where I get off
NRO - The Corner ^ | 10/22/2005 | Goldberg, Jonah

Posted on 10/22/2005 7:13:03 AM PDT by RyanM

Jonah bails entirely on Harriet...

THIS IS WHERE I GET OFF [Jonah Goldberg ]

My official position on Miers has been to criticize the selection, but give her the benefit of the doubt until the hearings. In other words, bad pick but she's the nominee so let's give her a shot.

No more.

After reading this story I'm officially against Miers. I'm with the Editors , Will, Frum, and Krauthammer.

It's not just that Miers was in favor of racial quotas -- we'd pretty much known that for a while. It's the fundamental confirmation that she's a go-along-with-the-crowd establishmentarian. The White House says that her enthusiastic support for goals, timetables and quotas at the Bar Association says nothing about her views on government race policies. Yeah, right. She simultaneously thought what she was doing was great and important while also believing it would be unconstitutional if the government did the same thing.

The White House says she's an unchanging rock of principle. Uh huh. So have her opinions held constant since the early 1990s? Or have they shifted with the wind? If she's a rock, I don't want her. If she's a weather vane, I don't want her.

I just don't want her.

Start over.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: auntharriet; miers; quotaqueen; quotaqueenmiers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-148 next last
To: Rudder
It's the fundamental confirmation that she's a go-along-with-the-crowd establishmentarian.

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. ;^)

81 posted on 10/22/2005 8:57:26 AM PDT by headsonpikes (The Liberal Party of Canada are not b*stards - b*stards have mothers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

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."


82 posted on 10/22/2005 9:01:54 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (read my posts on Today show bias at www.newsbusters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

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


83 posted on 10/22/2005 9:04:14 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RyanM

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


84 posted on 10/22/2005 9:11:49 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

Agreed.


85 posted on 10/22/2005 9:12:14 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

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?


86 posted on 10/22/2005 9:14:48 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
The argument that "goals are not quotas" is always trotted out to defend the indefensible.

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.

87 posted on 10/22/2005 9:16:00 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (read my posts on Today show bias at www.newsbusters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Who's Agenda are you Parrotting When You Do NOT Support Miers?click to find out.
88 posted on 10/22/2005 9:21:36 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

"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!


89 posted on 10/22/2005 9:24:50 AM PDT by John Robertson ( Safe Travel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John Robertson

Goal does not equal quota


90 posted on 10/22/2005 9:26:01 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

"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?


91 posted on 10/22/2005 9:33:15 AM PDT by John Robertson ( Safe Travel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

"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.


92 posted on 10/22/2005 9:35:22 AM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Thanks for the link. Didn't know there was a petition going for Harriet Miers. I signed it.


93 posted on 10/22/2005 9:38:44 AM PDT by mountainfolk (God bless President George Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

"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.


94 posted on 10/22/2005 9:43:55 AM PDT by John Robertson ( Safe Travel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

See #89, 94


95 posted on 10/22/2005 9:50:10 AM PDT by John Robertson ( Safe Travel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

See #89, 94


96 posted on 10/22/2005 9:50:53 AM PDT by John Robertson ( Safe Travel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: John Robertson

Right on.

I've invited Calpernia to clearly state for the record whether she would have voted for the "goals" resolution. Awaiting response.


97 posted on 10/22/2005 9:54:34 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (read my posts on Today show bias at www.newsbusters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
Holy crap!

How can you defend a goal like that (and try to claim it's not really a quota)? Why are you forced to defend someone who thinks in such ways about race? That's truly disturbing.

I am a minority. I don't look at people's skin color or gender when I hire someone. That's unethical, it's wrong and demeaning to ALL races.

To sit there and say that I'd like to see 1/10 people hired to be a "qualified" minority is pure bullcrap. What I want to see is 10/10 highly qualified "kick-ass" employees that will make the competition quiver in fear.

Just because someone is qualified does not make them the best person for that job. That's a fundamental but very important difference to make.

If you start believing that this isn't an insiduous train of thought, then you've started down the slippery slope to socialism and don't even know it. It also is the start of the plantation/white guilt mentality which leads to minorities believing they aren't ever going to be good enough.
98 posted on 10/22/2005 11:01:22 AM PDT by rom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker; TAdams8591; Pharmboy; Das Outsider; meema; Texas Federalist; Rodney King; ...

ping


99 posted on 10/22/2005 11:05:42 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest; Calpernia


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."


100 posted on 10/22/2005 11:12:03 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-148 next 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