>>>>If not supporting Bush on this issue is some kind of political treason, then hang me. But my loyalty is limited by principle, your argument is preaching to Democratic choir, because their loyalty has no bounds, even if it means supporting a serial rapist just because he is "our boy" and not supporting him in his crimes is giving aid and comfort to the enemy or as Howard Dean would label us the evil "white Christians".
And you insinuating my post implies that is absolutely unfair.
From my post:
>>>>>If you aren't supporting Harriet Miers, take some time to do a search of BUSHCOMMISSION.ORG. Not a site search. A search to see where info is pulled from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bushcommission.org%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0
Make sure if you are not on the side of supporting Miers, it isn't information that came from SDS, Not In Our Name, MoveOn.org, of the NLG.<<<<
I am not supporting her because of any information, there is none. Bush nominated as blank page as any 60 year old could be. I do not support her because of my intuition and life experience. I think she is in way over her head, but I could be wrong, she will have a chance prove herself in the hearings. And if she fails, it will not be because of her positions, but because she unable to convince people that she was up to the job. Or to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen. She is no John Roberts, she is no Clarence Thomas, she is no Sandra Day O'Connor, she is not even a conservative version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.