Posted on 10/22/2005 9:19:11 AM PDT by Calpernia
"Trash punditry is more like it"
You do not think there are reasonable grounds to oppose Miers?
>>>I was sticking to the subject of the thread YOU started.
Ah no. The anger in this thread and the info from the google search I provided disproves your state of:
>>>>Disagreement doesn't equate to hate<<<<<<<<
>>>>you do agree that there is reasonable grounds to oppose her, don't you?
No again. All the talking points I have read that are against Miers have been generated from where I back tracked them to, Not In Out Name.
The ONLY freeper that posted anything that generated thought that was against Miers was FairOpinion.
"The ONLY freeper that posted anything that generated thought that was against Miers was FairOpinion."
So do you, or do you not think there are reasonable grounds for opposition. I just want you to be clear on this, because it is an important point.
No one has convinced me of anything, other than they all have really big mouths and a wild imagination.
"No one has convinced me of anything"
Come on now, you have to take one side or another, or at least agree that both sides have valid points to debate.
Or are you here just for sympathy?
I already answered that here:
>>>No again. All the talking points I have read that are against Miers have been generated from where I back tracked them to, Not In Out Name. <<<<
These are not just talking points out there to counter the support for this nomination, there is an absolute panicked campaign. I've not see much like it since the Florida recount with Gore.
I found that VERY telling.
I support Ms. Miers whole heartedly.
"....there is an absolute panicked campaign"
So, how do you expect to debate the anti-Miers side if you refuse you even acknowledge, or, heaven forbid, see for yourself that, for instance, her lack of judicial experience is a reasonable objection.
You don't stop there though, you associate folks who oppose Miers with leftist, terrorist scum.
Then all you do is whine when people have a strong reaction to what I feel (and apparently with some agreement) is a completely childish reaction to opposition to a nomination that has a basis in reason.
You need to do better than that if you want your points to be taken seriously.
Pleeezzz! Go take your "sides" to the grade school playground. There is no room for mistakes. This is for keeps.
The points I have seen have been for the most part based on filling in the dots of the invisible woman from each persons underlining fears and have been more about fiction then fact with frivolous and dangerous assumptions being made all around.
"Pleeezzz! Go take your "sides" to the grade school playground. There is no room for mistakes. This is for keeps."
Yet you can't make up your mind on your own, given all the information out there?
What information?
It's all speculation.
If boils down to trust Bush or trust a bunch of professional fabricators..no thanks.
I'll wait to hear the woman out.
"If boils down to trust Bush or trust a bunch of professional fabricators..no thanks."
That you can distill it down to this, and STILL can't express an opinion one way or another doesn't speak well for Bush or his judicial nomination, does it?
My impression has been that the biggest mouths against Miers are those who cannot abide an heretic.
It speaks badly of how things are working in the Senate.
IOLTA = ?
Plus, she seemed to be a believer in "root causes" for problems rather than personal responsibility.
Very "not good". That's classic social liberalism.
She's starting to sound more and more like a classic liberal in the mold of former mayor Kathryn J. Whitmire of Houston, about whom it was once said that she was a liberal who knew that her constituents were conservative, and yet was still a dedicated liberal "trying to do what she could".
For example, she went once a month down to the fern bars in Montrose to discuss her agenda and turn in her report card with the Gay Political Caucus -- this was in the 80's -- and tried to bum's-rush a "gay is OK" city ordinance through the council and into city law. One councilman stood up to her and managed to get a referendum called, and the voters stomped Whitmire's pet ordinance by 5:1. She knew how people felt, but she tried them on anyway. Thereafter the subject was radioactive for years until the Gay Cabal brought it up again under Mayor Lee Brown.
Put someone like that on the Supreme Court, and never mind Souter, you've got yourself another Earl Warren.
"My impression has been that the biggest mouths against Miers are those who cannot abide an heretic."
Depends whose heretic it is...... ;^)
"It speaks badly of how things are working in the Senate."
If we had any more republicans in the senate we'd grind to a complete halt!
You are not counting the Pseudo Republicans.
The Fifth Circuit in 2001 found that the Texas program violated the Fifth Amendment because the clients had a property interest in the interest generated by the IOLTA account and could not be taken by the State. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld a similar program from Washington State as a valid public use.
The IOLTA programs were a darling of the left to fund activist lawsuits in the name of the poor.
I can't, can you. Seems like it's time to understand that at some point there aren't any left to play hide the paper trail....it's sad that it's come to that kind of behavior. George needs to go in slugging and take the conservative position as he has in the past, it works. When he waivers and plays these games, he loses. I'd like to see some more fireworks to show how idiotic the liberals really are, especially in this arena given the MSM is drooling all over it. George, grow back your gonads on this one, and get some quality players up to bat.
You and Calpernia are both begging the question of whether Harriet Miers should merit the support of any fair-minded conservative. There is some evidence that, in fact, she should not.
Just because the President says he wants her, and just because he says "trust me", isn't good enough -- really, it isn't.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Bush told everyone how conservative he was in the 2000 campaign, and yet he went to a Log Cabins' dinner and schmoozed with them and made reassuring noises, while his advance woman Mary Matalin was going around the dinner telling gays that the idea of "gay marriage" was a "no-brainer", and that only people who were "unfair" would oppose it -- how conservative was that? Meanwhile, the Christian Coalition got a stand-in visit from Karl Rove. Could it be that the Loggies got favorable treatment because they were, on average, better monetary contributors to politics? Why was George W. Bush so friendly to them, even naming gays as important Administration officials in his first term?
Personally, I think Dubya owes somebody. Someone who's gay and inside the Bush inner circle, like Jerry Falwell's and Bob Dornan's longtime chiefs of staff and go-to guys who suddenly came out to them, has got over on Dubya -- that's a favorite gay tactic, of targeting conservative leaders and forcing them to choose between people and principles. They wormed their way inside the Bush circle, or perhaps there's someone in the Bush family who's gay, and then used Bush's loyalty to turn him. I think George W. Bush has compromised his principles, who knows how long ago, and is a liberal on sexual deviancy.
This is speculation on my part on unexplained but observed Bush behavior -- which is fair, if he's not going to tell us why he went to a Log Cabin ball and appointed "out" gays to staff, and if he's not going to tell us what he really thinks about homosexuality and politically active gays like those in the Republican Unity Coalition -- which is a "gay-straight alliance" within the upper reaches of the GOP. In the absence of exposition and argument, in the absence of any explanation of this glaring inconsistency with his otherwise pro-life, pro-family stance (extending to DOMA support) in Dubya's political behavior, speculation is fair, and warranted.
FOR EXAMPLE:
During Campaign 2000, Bush made a fair point of criticising DIRTXPOTUS for his heavy expenditure of armaments on the "air war" over Kosovo. "Bubba" had drawn down stocks of American weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile and had let supplies, parts, and training budgets languish rather than pay the full ticket for his humanitarian adventure. He had expended more of the arsenal on his Desert Fox "dog-wagging" and the continuing arm-wrestling with Saddam in the "no-fly zones" of Iraq. Retention, training, and spare parts were all nagging problems on which Slick had decided to "kick the can" and was hoping nobody would notice.
Bush got traction against Gore with conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders on that issue, and it helped him win.
After inauguration, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, thinking to redeem the Administration's many overt promises during the campaign to restore the Defense Department's capabilities, handed up a FY 2002 budget request for an additional $60 billion to handle the underages DoD had inherited from DIRTXPOTUS. Bush's reply to Rumsfeld surprised him -- Bush told Rumsfeld to pass the word to the service chiefs to "stand fast" on budgetary requests for funds and spending authority -- the Clinton spending levels would be maintained, so Bush could do his tax cuts.
During the following summer, before the 9/11 attacks, Bush handed down a directive to Rumsfeld for a $60 billion "carve-out" from existing budgetary priorities for the Strategic Defense Initiative, which Bush was resuscitating. This was a $120 billion swing, a decrement from what was needed to supply Bush's campaign promises.
But we should "trust him" on a Supreme Court nomination.
No, I don't think so. Sorry.
The Supreme Court is the ballgame. No room for error there, or for "trust" defined George Bush's way.
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.