Posted on 10/24/2005 6:03:59 PM PDT by Cautor
You think this is a revelation? We don't know what Miers is - that is the whole problem. Rush points this out as his reason for being disappointed with the nomination.
"This woman could end up being fabulous,” Rush acknowledged, but asked: "Why do we have to take the risk? Why do we have to roll the dice?”
When did I ever say that Rush said that she wasn't conservative? I said that he was against the pick and was disappointed. I have backed that up.
One op-ed piece I had read some time ago said that Rush built that bandwagon, and everyone (the pundits) left without him. Which put in simple terms, best describes Rush to a 'T'. His views change over time.
It was so simple that it took multiple posts to figure it out.
You needed the attention...lol.
You haven't. You've posted dated quotes from Rush that support your side of the argument. The rest of us have seen his metamorphosis over time.
Rush "gets it."
He saves his attacks and venom for democrats.
That she keeps to herself to an obssessive degree, according to Miers associates interviewed by John Fund.
No, that's NRO's link title, not his. When you click on the link, it takes you to "Next Step".
Because you have chosen a position and taken root. Whereas onyx and I have pretty much remained "neutral" or open-minded for the most part throughout. That's why I find it laughable that Harry Reid, and a left winged organization, have come out in favor of her, when they spent most of the past 2 years torpedoing candidates to-and-fro.
A person can be against or disappointed with the nomination but still want the process to run to the end. Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Rush was disappointed from day one but held out hope that Bush was doing some sort of strategery.
To be clear, many who are disappointed with the nomination want Miers to withdraw so that the conservative movement is not damaged by the resulting repercussions of the nomination hearings.
They were dated specifically because you or the other poster claimed that Rush was split from "day one". Therefore, "day one" quotes are the only ones appropriate.
I didn't miss the "metamorphosis" - in fact I predicted it here on FR before it ever happened.
Yes they are. You can't have it both ways.
Rush was disappointed from day one but held out hope that Bush was doing some sort of strategery.
Right.
To be clear, many who are disappointed with the nomination want Miers to withdraw so that the conservative movement is not damaged by the resulting repercussions of the nomination hearings.
I think it will be damaged if the process is undermined and Bush is left to please both sides of the aisle. The damage and dangerous precedent you and your cohorts have inflicted has been done. The Democrats don't want a nominee who is known to be "outside the mainstream", you don't want an unknown quantity, and we all don't want a Liberal, so what's left is the squishy middle.
You need to stop dabbling in tarot cards, crystal balls, trickery, spookery, and kookery. It gets you in trouble every time.
My position on this topic has nothing to do with Miers withdrawing. I mentioned, in passing, that Rush was originally against the nomination. I never said that he called for a withdrawal - I don't know why you guys keep trying to make the two of them equivalent.
Regardless, he was against it originally as I have pointed out that he was in his own words, "disapointed" and that the nomination was made from weakness.
Good. So then you agree that all of the other BS I hear around here is not the problem.
She's been criticized because she's an SMU grad, a so-called secretary, a crony, a person who doesn't know the Constitution, a person who isn't smart enough, somebody who isn't conservative enough, somebody who isn't an originalist...yada, yada, yada.
You: Yes they are. You can't have it both ways.
No, a person can be disapointed with the nomination but be resigned to chalking it up a missed opportunity and hoping for the best. I believe that is how Rush felt - at least initially.
No one disputes that.
I don't know why you guys keep trying to make the two of them equivalent.
Probably because you're confused by your own posts. I have no problem understanding your posts or the position you have taken since "day one". Your position hasn't changed, mine hasn't either (in fact I still remain open-minded and welcome the hearings), Rush's has, he's finally come to his senses and realizes that your position is based on pure self-involved emotion alone.
Personally I don't care what Rush thinks or feels, it's you that I have an issue with. You've firmly placed yourself in the "unqualified, Bush toady, donut fetching, 3rd rate college attending, crony" camp with your outrageous irrelevant nonsense from "day one".
She's been criticized on those points because of her lack of qualifications.
To be clear, I am against the nomination because she doesn't have a judicial track record. I don't care as much about how she ruled but how she came upon the decision. Did she apply the laws as they were intended or did she let her own personal and political view play into the decision. We don't know and will never know because she doesn't have any track record.
This has been the problem with earlier Republican presidents. Rather than looking at how a person came to a ruling, they only cared about what the actual ruling was. If a person ruled against abortion then they were ok - if they didn't then they weren't. It's more complex than that. A ruling favorable to abortion may have been the correct decision depending on the relevant laws and circumstances.
Judicial activists are dangerous and we have to make sure whe don't put one on the court.
We got lucky, really lucky, with Rhenquist. Why roll the dice?
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.