Shake it, Hugh! WORK dat thang! WHOOOOOOOOOO -- !!!
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Shake it, Hugh! WORK dat thang! WHOOOOOOOOOO -- !!!
Yeah, we all voted for Bush because of the up or down vote issue...right...and by withdrawing the worse candidate and making the best decision in weeks, NOW we will turn on him
I like how Schumer makes public statements saying Miers doesn't have the votes to be confirmed, and is upset when she is pulled because 'she didn't get a chance'
Now, come on Hugh. Be a man. It's easy: "I---Was---Wrong."
"Absent a miracle of Senate efficiency, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will cast one of her last votes on the most important abortion-rights case in a few years. And then the accounting will begin in earnest."
Hi, WD! Long time no see!
So...what do you think of all this?
Hugh is 180 degress wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin, and frankly I don't have time this morning.
All I can say is his entire political philosophy is based on a position of weakness, not strength. The problem lies in the GOPs refusal to stand and promote strong, proud conservatism. Instead, we have this milktoast, wimpy, 'compassionate' version.
Sorry I had no strong feelings either way on the Meiers nomination other than my initial dissapointment. I was willing to hear what she had to say in the hearings and listen to what she said.
To those predicting disaster for Bush from all of this, could you even imagine the democrats shooting down a Clinton SC nomination?
Yep- we're all just Bush Bots.... ;)
Hewitt doing the RINO spin. [snore]
Perhaps, but that is why Republicans should've taken a stand against Ginsberg's nomination. A president gets to nomimate whomever they choose so long as that person will uphold the constitution.
Even though Republicans didn't take a stand against Ginsberg on those grounds, they have maintained that upholding the constitution is their goal. It can be reasonably argued that Miers nomination did not meet that standard. There's no inconsistancy here.
Hugh Hewitt comes off as an inside the beltway talk show host. Is he Salem Communications (His network's) DC LOBBYIST-TALK SHOW HOST?
I think he's absolutely right on this. She should have been allowed to get at least to the committee. That's what hearings are for.
As for the people who declare how high-minded they were and that they were really just concerned about getting a strict constructionist, I have no idea why they felt compelled to call the woman a lesbian, announce that they thought she had probably had an abortion at some point, scream about her makeup, and use the time-honored Dem tactic of cherry-picking old writings and remarks to find something inflammatory. I have seen more rabid invective about her on this board than about people who really deserve it, such as Fat Teddy and the gang. Imagine if we put that much effort into attacking our real enemies.
I think this was a power grab, not egged on by the "Christian right" as I have seen implied by various commentators, but by the secular right and its pundits such as Kristol and Coulter. I would have preferred various other candidates, too, but I think this spectacle of destruction was completely wrong and will indeed come back to bite us.
I don't see how that follows. In fact, this just proves it, doesn't it? If the Dems had not appointed judicial activists (read "politicians") to the courts, we would not be having this discussion. The personal beliefs of a judicial appointee are relevant only if judges view themselves as being free to ignore the law in preference of their own personal beliefs. But if the Dems are going to make personal beliefs relevant, then the conservatives are going to have to determine what those beliefs are just as are the Democrats.
If we can go back to the days when judges applied the law, and did not mould it to match their own ideology, then we won't need to deal with this. And that is what the conservatives want to do.
I'm tired of this nonsense. Ann Coulter didn't pull Miers nomination, neither did Goerge Will, Krauthammer or anyone else. George Bush did.
And why? Because he was told, by Republican senators, that when the "sacred" up or down vote was taken she would be defeated, perhaps even at the committee level.
And why was that? Because she was a disater, even at the first stage of the process-the courtesy calls with the senators. It was also reported that she was a disaster at the mock preparations for the hearings.
Th nail in the coffin was the 1993 speech, where she revealed herself to be in the mold of O'Connor/Kennedy, not Scalia/Thomas.
If Bush wants to be mad at someone, look in the mirror. He broke his Scalia/Thomas mold" campaign promise, and people had the right , and duty, to point this out.
Miers was an unqualified affirmative action hire (Womans Seat on the bench)
I liked Hugh better when he wasn't so obviously a fanboy.
That's pretty funny, since she was nominated in the first place because the Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process!
I am appalled at the behavior of some in my party. They have done the job the leftists usually do for them. Hope they are proud.