Posted on 10/25/2005 2:07:02 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
< /snip>
Mr. Viguerie, in his first public statement of opposition to the nomination, said Mr. Bush "has broken his word to his conservative base and has greatly diminished his credibility."
"If the president does not quickly withdraw the nomination," Mr. Viguerie said, it will reflect "a shaky will" on his part to engage the Senate and the nation "in one of the most important debates of our lifetime."
Mrs. Schlafly and Mr. Viguerie added their names to a growing list of respected conservatives who have expressed disappointment or outright disapproval of the choice of Miss Miers. None, until now, had called for her withdrawal.
The public statements by Mrs. Schlafly and Mr. Viguerie represent major setbacks to the White House campaign to rally conservative support for Miss Miers -- and are considered significant for another reason.
"With Phyllis and Richard going public and [American Conservative Union Chairman] David Keene's break with Bush on this last week, the door has opened for conservative leaders to say it's OK to criticize the president," said Merrill Matthews, an analyst for the Institute for Policy Innovation. "It also opens the door for conservatives to disagree with Bush on other things."
"The bigger story here is that the conservative movement is showing that it is bigger than this administration," he said. "The only two religious-conservative groups strongly in favor of Miers are James Dobson's Focus on the Family and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. And they have been trying to sell it by saying, 'We need an evangelical on the court.' "
< /snip>
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
REALLY 'nuff said.
IWWT.
Ms. Miers is a RINO at best, another ABA Souter at worst. She is not what the country needs, even in the short term. Definately not good for the long term, though now it does seem to be a good thing that she is 60 rather than 50 or 43.
Are you seriously posting opinions on a conservative political board, without knowing who Richard Viguerie and Phyllis Schlafly are, and WHAT THEY'VE MEANT TO THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT OVER THE DECADES -- ?!?
This is some sort of parody, or online "performance art"... right?
When logic opposes logic, there may be a winner. When logic opposes belief, there will not.
Again, this adds no new information to the debate unless it's significant that Schlaffly and Viguerie are catholic and that Miers is conservative evangelical.
Is that supposed to be the point?
In 1793, George Washington nominated William Patterson for the Supreme Court, only to later withdraw the nomination.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg for the Supreme Court, also later withdrawing the nomination.
Sometimes, a great president needs to know when to withdraw a nominee.
If President Bush withdrew the nomination of Harriet Miers, he would be in good company.
We really need to get a second FRPoll on Miers... things have 'evolved' since the first.
I refer you to the story of the "Emperor's New Clothes", in which everybody went along with the charade until a child spoke up and said, in the hearing of all, "He's naked!"
There was nothing new in that statement, either. The point is that somebody audibly uttered what everybody was thinking, and that made it "all right".
Viguerie and Schlafly are not primarily famous for their church affiliations, but for their pioneering work in conservatism.
If a kid can call down an emperor for parading around in his "birthday suit", these two titans can definitely take W to the woodshed for this appointment.
That wasn't my point.
The article added nothing new. It expressed their disapproval once again.
And......???
Everybody knows that Miers has her supporters and everyone knows that Miers has her critics. If they going to write something, at least they could contribute to the conversation by adding new factual information.
The fact that somebody is saying what everybody knows, is significant per se.
Now, let's see who else chimes in.
(Don't wish for a world ruled entirely by logic -- that would have MEN riding sidesaddle.)
It did need new info for me.
It was a waste of perfectly good time, paper, and ink.
:>)
Is that supposed to be the point?
Go back to Post #9, and try again.
I already know that Shlaffley and Viguerie are conservatives and that they're opposed to Miers.
What's new?
This is an article without a point.
Unless the point is more grousing, or that they're catholic and Miers isn't.
We're at the stage where they should be adding new pro or con information on the appointment. Guess they just had to fill column inches.
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.