Posted on 10/25/2005 11:57:05 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
< /snip>
Those who claim that it is only Washington eggheads and activists who are disillusioned, misunderstand and underestimate the consequences of such Washington-based problems. The current Washington Republican negativity to Mr. Bush is as a stone thrown into a lake -- it will ripple outward until it causes waves on the distant shores of the heartland.
< / snip>
More importantly, the president is perilously close to duplicating the estrangement his father experienced from his congressional allies when George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990. Just a year out from congressional elections, Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them. (After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)
If they decide in the affirmative, their constituents will hear criticisms rather than support of the president for the next 12 months. The most dangerous time for any politician is not when his opponents say rude things about him, but when his own partymen do. They will start out respectfully disagreeing, but will build to more flagrant rhetoric as their Democratic Party opponents start raising and spending more money and start rising in the polls.
< /snip>
First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.)
Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals...
< /snip>
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Agreed.
I agree with that.
I've supported the president on her nomination from the beginning, but I've placed my hopes on the hearings bringing out the information needed to make a better decision.
"Waiting to get more info" is hardly an "enthusiastic" endorsement. So far, I'm OK with her resume, her pro-gun, and her pro-life positions. I'm not OK with her support of "proportional" affirmative action.
Impolitely... simply 'stuck-on-stupid'.
I saw on tv this morning how Bush was going to make yet another push for Harriet (she's giving a speech, or something . . . ). This is getting more and more ridiculous, not to mention pathetic, by the day. It's reminding me of when Al Gore remade himself over and over hoping he would eventually take.
He needs to replace the nomination with someone who is VERY pro-gun (2nd Amendment) and is very pro-life. Yes, there will be a battle but we are prepared for that and we expect the MAJORITY to act like one and muscle through the fight and appoint a true conservative/constitutionalist judge to the bench. That is, after all, why we fought to elect these people.
If we get another Ginsburg or Stevens, I'm done with the party for good.
I want Roe vs. Wade overturned, I want the 86 MG ban overturned, I want my freaking rights back that have been stolen over the last 40+ years by the liberal/communist establishment.
Mike
Posted on October 25th, 2005 at 2:10 pm.
About 'Susan Estrich defends Miers'.
Susan “I’m the most progressive liberal of all liberals” Estrich has already defended Miers on Fox News on several occations, as has Bob “Mr. Democrat” Shrum; both have said that “She’s not an ideologue”, which is of course a liberal code word for you-know-what. Shrum also said that “I’ve known Harriet for years”…(Sigh).
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1704
Yes, that Bob Shrum.
Stupid me thought after 9/11 happened that we would finally tackle this problem. But it was obvious to me at that moment that GWB is more about hispandering than actually doing anything about this problem.
There is simply no excuse the bots can come up with for this. After 9/11 he had the whole country behind him and everyone would have bacjed it.
To me, being party oriented is fine as long as a person does his own thinking. Once a person follows the party line without question his self worth is gone.
Wait till the march of the bots begins. They will smear you, trample you and call you silly names.
Now you did it. You'll be getting the "who's Abe Fortas and what did he do" question :-)
But you're right, this is pretty close. As close I guess in 'modern' history (for us old guys).
I got to wondering this morning, not about your personal position BTW - your post just triggered the thought, that the "true believers" can't really change their mind about Ms. Miers based on the hearings either.
If Bush made a good pick, as the pro-Miers people assert, how could hearings change that trust? If her performance comes off as "weak," it can be attributed to having a bad week or something. But it can't be because Ms. Miers is the wrong person for the Court.
IOW, a defender who stands by Miers being a good pick is asserting that she's a good pick for the Court, period. Would the President make a pick that was not? If he would (pick a nominee who is not suitable for the Court), then he is not trustworthy.
Those who hold firm to the "trust GWB" defense cannot change their position with respect to the Miers pick on the basis of her performance at the hearings. To do so would mean their trust was misplaced.
GWB's pick had to account not only for her judicial philosophy, but also for her mental ability. Indeed, her outstanding career has been advanced as evidence of her mental ability and energetic drive. To a "trust GWB" adherent, the fact that GWB picked he means, per se, that she possesses the required intellect. And neither Ms. Miers written answers, or answers during the hearings can change that.
Posted on October 25th, 2005 at 2:12 pm.
About 'Susan Estrich defends Miers'.
This is the second feminist liberal columnist to support Miers. The first was Ellen Goodman on Sunday.
With friends and agruments like these, Miers doesn’t need any enemies, sexist or otherwise.
Remember, the “Sisterhood” is a liberal force too powerful for mere mortals to oppose.
Yes, that Ellen Goodman.
Allow me to begin, "you ignorant fool."
;-)
I agree... I'm just realizing how committed I'm going to have to be. From now on, I'm voting only for those people that support what I support. Anything less, and I'll write in a protest vote or leave it blank.
Mike
True but his elevation to CJ was scuttled by his own demoncrat party. That's why Dirksen called off the filibuster, he didn't need one.
And besides his tiny legal problem, Fortas was an LBJ crony. That mirrors Miers to a tee.
I became a conservative during Ronald Reagan's tenure. "TRUST BUT VERIFY."
It is possible to trust someone, but also to look for more information. The president is not some divine figure to me; he's a fallible human being.
My approach has been to keep a score sheet of facts with pro and con sides.
The "con" side has two items on it: (1) Supports proportional affirmative action, (2) Turned in a weak questionaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee (she should have known better in this climate)
Granted, the same thought process gave us Dick Cheney as VP, but Harriett Miers is no Dick Cheney (no matter how much alike they look).
"I'm unhappy with her selection because she doesn't have a proven track record, not because I think she's a terrible person."
I think this is the issue that most people have with her nomination.
I don't care if she's white black green or purple, male or female.
What I care about is, what proof do we have in her record, that she is a conservative who will uphold the Constitution.
So far all I can say is None.
There is no proof one way or the other what her legal convictions are and I personally am not willing to wait and see.
Been stung far too many times to continue to do that.
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.