Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Bush Supporters Set to Launch Anti-Miers Ad Campaign
Human Events Online ^ | October 25, 2005 | Human Events

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.

Video on Human Events Online

(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ads; bloodinthewater; bush; chavez; coulter; frum; judge; judiciary; justice; limbaugh; miers; nomination; nominee; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 581-583 next last
To: justshutupandtakeit
No I haven't but then I am a realist rather than a hysterical whiner.

So not following lockstep with the president is hysterical whining? Do you just look vote for whoever has an (R) next to their name and then put your head in the sand during their term?

Bush has implemented and pushed for some very nonconservative initiatives. Are you aware of any of them?

441 posted on 10/25/2005 3:00:52 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; sinkspur

So everyone who speaks out against the nomination is to be demonized?

Perhaps you missed the latest FReeper poll. Seems you are in the distinct minority.

===

After a couple of weeks of research and intense debate, have any minds been changed? Do you approve of the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Composite Opinion
No 44.2% 2,160
Yes 32.8% 1,604
Need more info 16.8% 820
I'm voting Hillary! 3.6% 177
Pass 2.5% 124
99.9% 4,885

Member Opinion
No 41.9% 953
Yes 32.5% 738
Need more info 21.0% 477
Pass 3.2% 72
I'm voting Hillary! 1.4% 32
100.0% 2,272

Non-Member Opinion
No 46.2% 1,207
Yes 33.1% 866
Need more info 13.1% 343
I'm voting Hillary! 5.5% 145
Pass 2.0% 52
99.9% 2,613


442 posted on 10/25/2005 3:00:52 PM PDT by DC Ripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tioga

Miers is NOT one of our own. That's precisely the point.


443 posted on 10/25/2005 3:01:11 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: tioga
I can't imagine a comercial that could be done in good taste that I would support. This is tacky and sad. We are eating our own.

You'll see it on Brit Hume's show tomorrow. I can't imagine it's anything but a hit piece.

444 posted on 10/25/2005 3:02:19 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
There most certainly WAS Conservative talk radio, when O'Connor was nominated. There were also Conservatives pundits and columnists ( all of whom are still around ); none of which went nuts on O'Connor.

People mobilized back then and it wasn't just Dems who did so. It was more difficult to do so, but you have a selective memory, if you think that it never happened.

Conservative caviling about Reagan, when he was president, was loud, long, and constant. They just didn't do it over O'Connor.

445 posted on 10/25/2005 3:02:58 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
No, No, No!

Don't you see, Bush 41 "evolved", and "triangulated" against the Democrats, he was "engaged" in "strategic political maneuvering" when he raised taxes after pledging not to.

That's just what Bush 43 is doing now - he's got a "secret plan" to reshape the Supreme Court, by using "stealth nominees" to "placate the Democrats into submission".

Please try to forget that Bush 43 won two elections by promising Scalia and Thomas - style nominees. He's deep into "strategic triangulation" just like his father, and you OWE him you unquestioning allegiance - there's no room in this modern "centrist" GOP for principles!
446 posted on 10/25/2005 3:03:37 PM PDT by mobyss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Are you kidding me??? We were just talking about this at work and someone brought up Chris Cox and I thought that might be a FANTASTIC nominee. From what I recall, he has experience in Constitutional Law and his reputation around D.C. maybe a twin to Roberts'. The guy is solid.

Why didn't anyone think of this sooner? Because he's only been head of SEC for a few months?


447 posted on 10/25/2005 3:05:40 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Stuck on Genius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Now reread what you objected to and show me what is wrong with it.

As has been pointed out, we have the 17th amendment today. The founders put in a process of amending the constitution and the 17th amendment is an example of that.

In any event, who appointed the senators prior to the 17th amendment? The state legislature. Who elected the state legislature? The people of the state. If the senators voted contrary to the people, they would receive pressure from the people via the legislature.

Politicians have had to endure public pressure from day 1 of the republic. Well, at least until CFR came along.

448 posted on 10/25/2005 3:06:36 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

I don't know what Miers is or isn't at this point. All I know is from the git-go she has been trashed.


449 posted on 10/25/2005 3:06:42 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

This is going too far. I'm not impressed with Miers, but, a commercial is mean and lowbrow.

***

Did you watch it?

And please explain how it is mean & lowbrow, if you would.


450 posted on 10/25/2005 3:07:08 PM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"What is NOT considered or fair is short-circuiting the nomination process by doing and saying everything possible to force Miers to quit."

Why? I really don't understand this. What's wrong with us expressing our opinions with the ultimate hope of either having the nomination withdrawn or influencing Senators to vote against her. Why does this tactic bother you so much? There's nothing anti-constitutional about it. So why?


451 posted on 10/25/2005 3:08:20 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

He, with the help of many of his Republican colleagues, tried to get a spot on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but it was squelched by Senator Boxer, who presumably realized that it was a short step from there to the SCOTUS.


452 posted on 10/25/2005 3:08:46 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: garv
I assume since you posted it you find it apropos and largely agree with it.

I find it apropos, but I don't agree with all of it. You should go to the link, click back, and read Rod Dreher's condescending column, to which McKenzie's is a counterpoint.

The point of the column is to show that the GOP is not just the uber-conservatives. The last poll I saw indicated that most Republicans supported allowing Miers to have her hearing. That would mean that those who want to derail it are in the minority.

If those are the uber-conservatives, and you are proud to be one, then so be it.

453 posted on 10/25/2005 3:09:00 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
What does the first amendment have to do with the Senate?

My post didn't link the two. Follow the "To" tree see that I and another poster were refuting the notion that only the president has any say in this process.

The other poster pointed out that we the people have the first amendment right to speak our minds against our leaders.

I then added on that the senate has the power to reject the nomination.

454 posted on 10/25/2005 3:11:14 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: DC Ripper
FR is representative of FR only.

The last Rasmussen poll taken indicates that most Republicans support her getting hearings.

455 posted on 10/25/2005 3:11:26 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
There most certainly WAS Conservative talk radio, when O'Connor was nominated.

Who? All I'm aware of was little regional and local talk shows. Rush didn't come along on a national stage until later.

456 posted on 10/25/2005 3:13:27 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169
And please explain how it is mean & lowbrow, if you would.

It is dark, and in black and white.

Black and white images are used when the intent is to demonize someone without actually saying the words.

457 posted on 10/25/2005 3:13:53 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

"I am wondering what the real reason is behind saying Mier's has exceptionally poor writing skills because it is not evident in 99% of what I have read independently."

Look, you tried to defend her writing by posting that something that really is pretty sophomoric. When I criticize that, you don't challenge it but shift the focus to basically ask why I should care about her writing. If I have to explain why the writing skills of a SCJ are important, I guess we're probably not going to see eye to eye.

"What do you want? A Hemingway or a conservative?"

I want a strict constructionist. I know she's not a Hemingway. There's no way I'm going to know whether she's a strict constructionist before she gets on the bench.

"Get your priorities straight man. The woman is not a retard like others have been implying. Just admit it."

I really like this, though. OK, I admit, she's not a retard. Of course I never said she was, or anything close to it.


Now what?


458 posted on 10/25/2005 3:14:50 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Simply because not everyone clicks their heals and blindly follows along like sheep does not make one less a Republican, less a conservative, or less a Republican conservative.
****
Well said!


459 posted on 10/25/2005 3:15:01 PM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

"I am a realist rather than a hysterical whiner."

That's funny!


460 posted on 10/25/2005 3:16:00 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 581-583 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson