Posted on 10/30/2005 8:05:58 AM PST by quidnunc
One thing's for certain about this Harriet Miers mess: The conservative movement can never, ever play the Bork card again. No more whining about liberals tarring-and-feathering Robert Bork in his 1987 Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
For two decades, conservative activists have droned on about their spiritual leader's defeat in the Senate. They carry him around on their shoulders as proof of how the establishment's out to get them.
Well, forget that nonsense.
No more of that cry-babying, not after what conservatives like writer David Frum and organizations like Concerned Women of America using National Review magazine and The Wall Street Journal opinion-page megaphones have done to Harriet Miers in two short weeks.
They've turned a woman whose credentials for the Supreme Court matched or outpaced those of William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor into the image of a naive, untested first-year law student.
A Texas Republican I spoke with, who knows Miers well, put it best: "I don't know this woman they're talking about."
-snip-
Maybe the power boys and girls on the right like the present state of things, true believers practicing the art of political marksmanship. But I'll bet the rest of the country doesn't. As my Texas Republican friend said, "Washington's a sick place."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
It would have set us back another 10 or more years. Senators would have had to choose between their electorate or the President. What a HORRIBLE place to put them with elections in 2006!!! STUPID!
Stupid stupid stupid to argue that "she should have had a hearing." We did not filibuster, we did not hold her up in committee. She WITHDREW. The left and the crybabies here need to GET OVER IT. Wait for Bush to nominate a strong constitutionalist and we'll all rally together. If you don't want to rally for a originalist, what the hell are you doing here?
No kidding. The MSM revels in its hypocrisy--they'd be supporting the left in a Senate-rules-based-procedural-game that subverts the Constitution to prevent the appointment process from moving forward, but God forbid that conservatives actually exercise their constitutional right to free speech (all we did, btw) and the Prez pulls the plug as is HIS constitutional prerogative.
Condescension, ridicule, and arrogance characterized the most strident of those in the Coulter/Frum/Will/Kristol axis.
They did the conservative movement no good with their nastiness.
Uncalled for? Maybe. Ms. Meirs withdrew herself. We will see who is nominated.
Justice O'Connor is not someone I admire one bit and replacing her with another just like her, or worse, is serious business to get nasty about. I really don't give a damn about the polite sensibilities of the Washington social set, they are the problem.
True? A lot of people who might agree with me want a lot of the same nominees I do. A lot of us worked to get George Bush elected. I have supported him since his first presidential primary and sent him money from California to get him into the Texas capital. Now, I want what I worked, voted and paid for damn it!
It's not that what you think are "willing idiots" don't understand what the left is trying to do. It's they ARE the left. You think these folks playing the 'same as a filibuster card here care if a conservative is nominated? Hardly. They wanted another O'Connor and they're bitter as hell they didn't get her.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Oh, please. You have to have been under a rock for the last few weeks. Hear are some of the "non-personal" comments from the pundits:
Cleaning lady
Paper pusher
Legal secretary
Church lady
Graduate of a second tier school
Posters on FR chimed in with charges of brown-noser, lesbian, old maid, groupie, etc.
I do not appreciate revisionist history from the left, and I sure as heck I will not tolerate it from the right.
Some might be. I don't think all are.
Cry Me a River, Hugh
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 27, 2005As far as the up-or-down vote thing goes, one notes that the problem conservatives had with the up-or-down vote requirement was that the Democrats were denying Senate votes on judicial nominees who had already been vetted, and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. At no point in time has the issue been that every presidential nominee, no matter how unqualified, must be accepted without dissent from the moment of nomination. Nor has the issue ever been that the president's supporters must remain silent to allow any nominee, regardless of qualifications, to complete the nomination process. The whole point of the argument was that qualified nominees, whose nominations were before the Senate, were refused a vote by senators of the opposing party. Conflating that with pundits who have nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of confirmation process, and who merely express their opinions about the quality of a nominee, is either intentionally intellectually dishonest, or a sign of an sad inability to reason properly.
I'm not the one who had objections to how Ms. Meirs was handled by the conservatives. But, I sure as hell want what I votedand worked for - - more Scalia and Thomas jurists on the court. O'Connor is a joke...
Pray for W and Our Troops
I never said a word about Meirs until she withdrew...
Do a search...
Well, good for you. However, that doesn't mean that there were plenty of people, both in the punditry and FR, who did make personal comments.
~snip~
Miers
~snip~
delenda
~snip~
est
~snip~
I think most are. Most of the folks who are posting that 'this shows hypocrisy' stuff have also clearly stated they aren't conservatives, dislike conservatives, and won't support conservative nominees in the future. As if there was ever any doubt about that anyway.
You might be right. BTW, I wasn't suggesting any of them are conservatives. Some might be "moderates", whatever that means.
In light of Bork's views on the 2nd Amendment I couldn't be happier about his tarrring-and-feathering.
"Jumpin' Jim" Jeffords was a moderate too, but he finally tired of the pretense and formally became a Democrat.
"I do not appreciate revisionist history from the left, and I sure as heck I will not tolerate it from the right."
But you don't mind generating that revisionist history, either. You and the rest of Miers' merry moonbots are trotting all over hither and yon claiming that the opposition to Miers was purely about insults and that it's ruined the GOP and broken Bush, as if any of that is true. Heck, you people were even the first on JimRob's unity thread to flamebait about the whole thing. You simply don't care if the party dies or a conservative nominee loses, because the only purpose of the party to you is to maintain power. To y'all, better to shoot the horse that brought ya rather than let anyone else ride it.
Too bad the truth will out. Y'all can't headfake conservatives any more. We're wise to you. You are trying your best to neuter the GOP along with your wing of it. But ain't it a shame when you RINOs lose hard like this, to the point your silly Clintonista tricks don't fly any more?
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.