Posted on 10/25/2005 10:55:57 AM PDT by bigsky
A 30-second TV ad is set to air tomorrow, Wednesday, that some believe may be as effective at helping stop the Harriett Miers confirmation as the Swift Boat ads were in helping stop John Kerry.
BetterJustice.org, a conservative grass-roots organization, created and funded the hard-hitting anti-Miers (but pro-Bush) ad. The organization's board of directors includes several otherwise staunch Republican stalwarts, such as David Frum and Linda Chavez.
"Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler!" So stated the so very un-sumo-like Ann Coulter.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net ...
Contrast that to the tepid reaction among Republicans and conservatives to the Miers nomination.
And in the ensuing weeks-as we've had more time to contemplate the implications of a Justice Miers-we've moved from ambivalence and dejection, to hostility and outrage.
I wouldn't call that an improvement.
The last nominee to garner as negative a reaction was Judge Bork.
Twelve percent of the American public viewed him negatively.
Do you know what percentage of the public views Miers in that light?
Twenty four percent!
In other words, Bork times two.
When nearly a quarter of the public is displeased with a SC nominee it's never a good sign.
bless you and all the great work you have done over the years ....................
Stretching the number a bit?
There are a lot of non members voting. It's more like this...
Members...
No 42.1% 949
Yes 32.4% 731
Need more info 21.0% 473
That's over 53% in the camp for hearings even after all the media coverage. Why do you think they have to come out with TV ads if they think they are winning?
Logic is your friend.
Trouble is the hearings are a joke, a show trial. Once she gets in there anything can happen. She could be revealed as a communist agent and be confirmed anyway. The Senate is the biggest bunch of corrupt, venal, elitist, perfumed, pantywaisted, prissy, posturing, prancing ponies in the country, and it's a travesty that they should have the kind of power invested in them that they do when most of them ought to be sitting in orange jumpsuits at the crossbar hotel ridin' with some big boy named bubba.
The constitution does give the power to the Senate to advise and consent on the nomination. That constitutional check (in theory) prevents the appointment of someone woefully and obviously unqualified to understand and adjudicate constitutional law.
Hmmm.... The ad hominem attack machine ok for she but not for thee?
Thank you oh so very much for the blessing! And may God always bless you, beyond the sea!
My experience is the opposite.
Are you comfortable with the fact that she is for race based affirmative action and quotas?
Why do you think that Reagan came out with ads when he was running against Mondale? Was he not winning? Logic is your friend.
Partisan influence peddlers, terrified at the prospect of non-insiders the approve becoming the norm, set a paniced effort to reassert their authority.
This is no longer about Meirs, this is only about protecting the respective judicial monestaries. This only plays in the beltway, not peoria.
"He's against the 2d Amendment?"
"Slouching Towards Gomorrah" and found this passage at p. 167, after Bork denounces gun control as "frivolous":
Gun control proposals are nothing more than a modern liberal suggestion that government, which is unable to protect its citizens, make sure those citizens cannot defend themselves.
I can't wait till we get more 5-4 votes in favor of race-based quota programs.
Oh now it's "woefully" unqualified is it?
Bahahaha! You people are in for a rude awakening. Have you even read any of her writings or are you just looking at what the NRO has been putting out?
"Hmmm.... The ad hominem attack machine ok for she but not for thee?"
I don't consider the "attack" on Miers the same as that on Bork. The Bork attack was based on outrageous fear-mongering over abortion, women's rights, etc. It was all based on political considerations and was an attack on a judicial philosophy.
The attack on Miers is simply about qualifications and is fair in a way that I believe the attack on Bork was not.
Huh? Where in my post did I apply woefully unqualified to Miers? I replied to your assertion that there were not qualifications explicitly set out in the constitution. I pointed out that the nominee still has to get pass through senate. Nominees can make it through dispute ideological differences (Ginsberg), but not for lack of qualifications.
Geesh, you are over sensitive.
"Slouching Towards Gomorrah" and found this passage at p. 167, after Bork denounces gun control as "frivolous":
Gun control proposals are nothing more than a modern liberal suggestion that government, which is unable to protect its citizens, make sure those citizens cannot defend themselves."
Howlin, is this true? If it is, why do you characterize him as against the 2d Amendment?
Her writings are the problem. When asked to anme her favorit legal writer, you know she picked:
John Grisham.
Enough said. Do you can at all about the message this sends?
If she were so qualified, why didn't GWB appoint her earlier to a district court or appellate court? He could have done so, see how she did, and then consider her for the court.
Because it was an election??...Duh.
This is not an election..it's a movement/demand for the removal of nominee.
Your friends are losing Punditbot...
I will be watching Miers for signs of a woman's right's bent toward judicial activism. We don't need the government in the buisness of equalizing outcomes.
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.