Whose Agenda are you Parrotting When You Do NOT Support Miers?

Net Searches ^ | October 22, 2005

[processing please hold]

I recognized the similarities of opinions from day one. I couldn't tell their comments apart. I usually stay off Miers threads, sounds too much like DUmmyland to me. And with that comment I shall leave before too many knives find themselves in my back.

[GarySpFc]

I likewise have trusted Bush on his choice of judges, and I am not about to listen to a bunch of malcontents who think thousands of posts prove Miers is not fit for the seat on SCOTUS.

[ez]

That's silly. I am not against Bush's right to nominate whoever he wants. Of course he has that right. I am merely commenting on the quality of the decision he made.

Whomever.

Anyway, you are measuring the quality of his decision based on YOUR idea of what the nominee should be. He has a different set of criteria than you.

It is YOU who are willing to further weaken this administration over ideological purity.

[bourbon]

I'm supporting her because there is an all-out full-court press right now to make Republicans appear weak and corrupt so Hillary! can be President.

True. I'm sure Dems smell blood in the water. But whose fault is that?

The truth is the weakness of Republicans is a problem which is endogenous to the GOP.

If Republicans had been doing what conservatives had wanted all along--throwing their legislative weight around, fighting the filibuster and employing the "nuclear option"--then there would be no accusations of weakness.

So, please don't blame conservatives for the newfound weakness of the GOP. It's the fault of RINOs, the Gang of 14, a limp-wristed Senate leadership, and (now) the President.

[ElPatriota]

..fighting for, if Miers withdraws and a strong conservative is put up as the nominee are the pro-Miers crowd going to be supportive?..

Hmmmm... interesting question and I don't have the answer to that. Let's assume (dream) W would pick Mrs Brown this time [Woman, black, conservative!- who could be against her? :)], would they support her?... I guess we will have to wait and see. Who knows, maybe this is the end of the conservative unity for a while and who knows, maybe this is the beginning of a down period for us. We might lose the senate or congress, or presidency who knows. But let's do what we have to do (voice our opinion) and let's just LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!...sometimes losing is not necessarily bad... and sometimes "wining" is not really winning...

If we keep "winning" but still keep all the RINOs we have... I don't think that is winning. But if we get rid off the RINOs and in the process lose the senate for a while, it might be a good time to do some serious thinking and retake it with better Republicans :)

[governsleastgovernsbest]

There are probably 1000 Christian female lawyers in this country who are more qualified to be on the SCOTUS than Miers.

You rang?

[Cboldt]

... we'll see when the final vote is taken whose ends you serve with your demands for intellectual purity...

A modicum of intellectual honesty would do. Phiosophical purity can't be debated when one side resorts to tricks that amount to sophistry, or other forms of intellectual dishonesty.

[ez]

Are you stating that his right to nominate who he wants means that I can't comment on a message board about what I think of the choice he made without violating the Constitution?

Sure you can, but when you join the chorus calling for her withdrawal, you do the work of your opponents for them. The media has begun an all-out assault on Bush. Only you can decide if you wish to assist them.

[ez]

And, besides if having a Christian woman on the Court is so important to you, there are probably a 1000 Christian female lawyers in this country who are more qualified to be on the SCOTUS than Miers.

Dude, when will you get it through your head that it's the PRESIDENTS choice, not yours.

[podkane]

I'm supporting my own agenda.

As we all should. Be very of all politicians, but PARTICULARLY those who claim to epsouse your views.. they are the ones most likely to pull a fast one..

From the World News Daily:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46671

and

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46964

and from Jerome Corsi:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46963

Conservatives have been working for decades to come to this point: having a truly conservative, God-fearing SCOTUS. If the Bush admin. is getting so arrogant that they feel it's entitled to hand out the "goodies" to their pals, not to listen to "those that brought them", we need to step up.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I likewise have trusted Bush on his choice of judges, and I am not about to listen to a bunch of malcontents who think thousands of posts prove Miers is not fit for the seat on SCOTUS.

Translation: don't confuse me with uncomfortable facts, opinions and arguments that might challenge my views and make me re-examine them. I'm going with absolute loyalty to one man.

[ez]

I don't believe W's choice of Miers had much to do with political calculation.

Of course not, that would you appear stupid.

[Cboldt]

They've gotten this far without your support, apparently.

Bzzzt. Negative. Wrong.

Bush and the Senate do not have the luxury of sitting behind a LCD display demanding perfect adherrence to their agenda. They have real-world political calculations to make.

So do I.

You're the one attacking Bush for making political calculations and then blaming HIM for splitting the party.

I'm attacking this pick, and honest critics of what I type will admit I've made reasoned arguments in support of my position. This pick has caused some tension, but the GOP supporters deny that it amounts to a split.

[Petronski]

Ingraham has observed that, although her own resume is stronger than Miers, she would laugh in the face of a nomination, and would lobby against her own confirmation.

[N3WBI3]

Whose Agenda are you Parrotting When You Do NOT Support Miers?

My own! Why must a conservative who disagrees with Meirs be 'Parrotting' someone elses view point...

[fallujah-nuker]

"... Nays - Helms, Nickles, Smith [that's all of the NAY votes]
Ayes - Chafee, Grassley, Hatch, Lott, McCain, McConnell, Specter, Stevens, Warner

Those Ayes are GOP that are still in the Senate. There may be others, I picked the names out from memory."

That confirmed what I suspected. I believe the Chafee who voted for her would have been the father of Lincoln Chafee of the gang of seven.

[bourbon]

I finally got around to reading your tagline. Puh-leeze.

If your brand of anti-intellectualism/philistinism becomes a foundational philosophy for conservatism, you can kiss conservatism good-bye.

Intellectuals aren't a problem for the Court. In fact, intellectuals are a practical necessity on the Court. The problem with the Court over the past 50 years hasn't been the influence of intellectuals, but rather the influence of liberal/socialist intellectuals. The most effective replacements for these people are not political hacks but conservative intellectuals.

What part of the old adage "fight fire with fire" don't you understand?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

The media has begun an all-out assault on Bush. Only you can decide if you wish to assist them.

Thanks, Smokey, but I'm not assaulting Bush, I'm supporting the principles he claimed to run on.

[ez]

Phiosophical purity can't be debated when one side resorts to tricks that amount to sophistry, or other forms of intellectual dishonesty.

You mean like listing all the moderate R Senators that voted for Ginsburg?

Ayes - Chafee, Grassley, Hatch, Lott, McCain, McConnell, Specter, Stevens, Warner

How did Santorum vote on Ginsburg?

[nicmarlo]

it's not my job as a business man to fix the world- my job is to make money without breaking the law.

Nor should it be government's to interfere with how a private enterprise believe it would be best to run it's business. Law theorhetically exist for the purpose of keeping individuals safe from harm and to punish wrong-doers. Violation of PC has become a made-up "crime," thereby creating criminals.