Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
See you at the polling place.
At 8:15 am the President is going to announce he will officially switch to the Democrat Party.
Let us know your justification for Miers donating to Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen??? vapor lock? brain freeze or just "stuck on stupid!"...
this is gonna be good. LMAO
Yeah, but if you were simply looking for "diversity" it still seems there were better choices. We may be surprised, but this does look very bad.
This is in response to rbmillerjr's comment lest I be misunderstood again."And goodbye to you, too. Say hello to the freaks at DU for us."
Yeah, I guess Miers was against continuing the Reagan Revolution and all of us she just click are heels and hum Hail to the Chief. Miers is a crap pick-- I expected Bush to not blow this. Needless to say, I am unhappy.
I'm just remembering Rove's stated long-term objective: permanent Republican majority.
The best way (long term) to get the GOP base excited is to think past the current Adminstration and set the stage for soemone to run to the right of Bush.
That's what I'm getting at.
(BTW, I didn't know you're a woman. My apologies)
It is not a question as to whether Miers is a conservative. I assume that she is. It is whether she has the backbone and temprament to stand tall intellectually. Other judges have shown that ability. Why run the risk with Miers when there are judges who have taken their lumps and held their ground?
Again with her past contributions to the other side!!! Give it a rest.
Back in my corporate animal days I always held stock in my competitor's corporations....that way I got all their publications, annual reports,etc. Maybe that was her reason. There are many reasons she would have made those contributions 17 or 18 years ago but the fact is they have little or no bearing on her now.
..and most of us conservatives protested the liberal insistance that the nominee of a Republican President expose their personal beliefs in judicial committee hearings....yet...now sadly....I hear this same insistance from the right...
Hmmmmmmmmm
Like Rehnquist?
I'm sorry, but this 'crony' thing doesn't hold any water at all. They know each other. He trusts her. That gives me even more confidence in his choice.
He's pro-life. She's pro-life. He doesn't want a judge to legislate from the bench. Neither does she.
He's done exactly what he's said he would do.
If Harry Reid supports her, and Chuckie is "neutral" - why do we really need to know more?
Just a thought, but what if she's not afraid to go under the inquisition. *shrug* What if the strategy of hers and Bush (or should I say Rove) is to go on the record about how she feels about certain strong mainstream positions? Show the public how she believes, and watch the Democrats oppose her beliefs and riducule those beliefs in the spotlight. Show them to be REALLY far out of the mainstream.
That would be a saving grace for conservatives. It's all I can hope for at this point. I'm not happy at the moment.
Or Stevens IMHO.
You don't spend much time with dim politicians do you?
I strongly supported Roberts from the beginning.
I will not strongly or even support this nominee at this time. I won't crucify, but I will not defend.
You are correct. The President will have to convince she is acceptable to the base because right now she is not.
Does that mean she won't be confirmed? No. The Senate may well confirm her.
Does that mean the President betrayed the base? No one has enough information to declare either way. It's foolishness to act as though they do. His promise was a strict constructionist, nothing else, and that can't be determined either way at this time.
But, imo, this is more than about ideology. There were simply better qualified candidates to choose from, and that, I think, I find most disappointing.
Do I trust the President. Yes, always have. No one can state otherwise. She may well be a strict construtionist, I do not know, I assume he feels he does.
But I do not believe she is even in the top tier of intellectual accomplished men and women that should have been chosen. And it is on that I doubt I'll find my opinion changing whether ot not she proves to be the strict construtionist promised.
But, to reiterate, the President will have to sell this woman. I'm standing back as an observer.
Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. I guess you would have voted against him. I guess you would have voted against all those southern senators who flipped over from the Dems.
Based on her political activity since then, and based on the President's trust in her, I believe she'll probably be a fine justice.
Interesting.
Enjoy President Hillary.
But hey, at least you told us! How fickle we are, always threatening to leave when we we're just looking for an excuse. That's why we organize, donate, pray, and work so hard for the GOP - so we can find a reason to leave.
The next time you accuse me of claiming to speak "for the church," take a deep breath and exhale. You don't know what you're talking about. I am the last person I would ever want people to see as a representative of "the church." Few are so worthy.
Be careful whom you make your enemies. In 2006 and 2008, you may be looking back at Bush as the one who should be tonguelashed, not me (us).
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.