Posted on 10/24/2005 6:03:59 PM PDT by Cautor
The campaign to urge the withdrawal of Harriet Miers has moved to the next level. Two new groups have stepped forward: WithdrawMiers.org (http://www.withdrawmiers.org/) is a consortium of social conservative groups that will encourage members to write directly to their representatives in Congress.
Some friends of mine and I meanwhile have organized Americans for Better Justice (http://www.betterjustice.com/default.php?page_id=1) which has raised money for a national television and radio advertising campaign to urge the withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers. You will be able to see our spots very shortly on the site. They will be airing this week on "Special Report with Brit Hume," "Fox and Friends," the Rush Limbaugh program, the Laura Ingraham program, among other places.
[snip]
There is a very great deal at stake. The seat to which the president has nominated Harriet Miers has been the court's swing seat on a range of issues from same-sex marriage to racial gerrymandering, from religious liberty to federalism. It is too important to be shrugged off - and it is reckless to suggest (as some of my email correspondents are suggesting) that this is a job that can be done by pretty much anybody with a tablespoon of common sense. On the contrary, reversing 4 decades of bad jurisprudence will take very uncommon levels of courage, ability, integrity, and independence. Conservatives have worked too hard for too long to settle for anything less than our very best on the Supreme Court. Please join me and BetterJustice.com in pressing the president to reconsider and do better.
What world do you bushbots live in? Yeah, this sounds very "split" to a rational person...
"There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don’t think this is it""It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness.
"There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the Court. This is a nominee that we don’t know anything about. It makes her less of a target, but also doesn’t show a position of strength.
How do you guys consider this "split"?
Where do you get this notion, that a withdrawal is the same as a filibuster and therefore not conservative? You are wrong on both counts. Withdrawing a nominee has nothing to do with ideology, either Liberal or conservative and is not unconstitutional.
Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey.
Rush has not trashed her or called for her nomination to be withdrawn.
Like ALL level headed people, he is happy to let the process determine her fate.
And where did I say he did? I said that he came out against the nomination. I just backed up that he was certainly disappointed and not happy with the nomination.
This is in direct conflict with the earlier assertion that Rush was "split from day one".
I've heard examples of Rush shift his thinking time and time again on a variety of topics throughout his 17 year radio career. It's not a first. In fact, I've heard Rush launch into pure hysterics when this President has engaged in strategerial genius against the left, only days later, agree it was a stroke of genius, after he's allowed it all to soak in.
I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Geez, get with it.
You took issue with BSF's comment that Rush has been split from day one.
I interpreted the comment to mean that Rush has not trashed her and is willing to withhold trashing hher or affirming her until she has her hearing.
Maybe I am wrong regarding the meaning of BSF's post, but I doubt it.
Beats me. Because that's not what I said either. I said this attempt to get her to withdraw by the likes of you is tantamount to filibustering this nominee, because she would not have had her hearing, which for some odd reason all of a sudden, your vehemonently opposed to.
Withdrawing a nominee has nothing to do with ideology, either Liberal or conservative and is not unconstitutional.
My point exactly. But you alone have painted yourself into that corner of making it political.
Not the first time someone has tried to attribute some other posters words as mine. I never said Rush has trashed this nominee either. I don't know where that came from.
It's GINSBURG, and he withdrew after it was made public that he smoked MJ in college. Oh the horrors.
I am so tired of word games.
Did your post that "Rush has been split from day one" mean that he is willing to let the process run its course: i.e. -- give her the hearing and assess her AFTERWARD?
I never said that he called for the nomination to be withdrawn. I said that he came out against it and I backed it up. You and FreeReign said that I was wrong and Rush was split from day one. In actuality, Rush wasn't split, he was solidly disappointed and disheartened.
Here is more from Rush's initial take on the Miers nomination.
"The Democrats are saying some favorable things about Harriet Miers right now, led by dingy Harry (Reid), the Senate leader. He likes her very much. Almost like he’d like to marry her, he likes her so much."And when you start hearing the President’s opponents start talking about this in the way they’re talking about it, you have to have a red flag go up.
"But the main reason I don’t like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers, because I don’t know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy, to appease.”
I certainly do expect to start to cheer lead this pick as a brilliant part of strategery in a few days however. He can't afford to make any more enemies. As you rightfully pointed out, Rush has a recent history being annoyed at the administration and then backpedaling once it is "explained" to him.
Right. Can't have some pot smoking pinhead sitting on the highest court in the land.
Better a sockless goober, from Yale, Harvard or Princeton?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What world do you bushbots live in? Yeah, this sounds very "split" to a rational person...
I don't know how this all will end
But one thing I do know is that I will never forget the borking this women recieved
He is also on record as saying the fact she went to SMU, donated to Democrats in 1988, and became an Evangelical Christian, is for the most part, irrelevant. People's hearts change. He would rather give her the benefit of a doubt, than throw her under the bus for someone far worse.
Exactamundo! LOL!
THANK YOU.
I read your post correctly.
JMJ. It's so damn simple.
Because you only post one side of the split.
More from Rush;
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.