Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Actually, I do think Priests should marry. Then the Priesthood wouldn't be a haven for self-hating, predatory homosexuals to make their decision to not enter heterosexual marriage seem like a holy act.
Chris Cillizza
Picking through the background of newly minted Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, there's some political activities that may irritate the president's conservative base -- she donated campaign cash to a handful of Democrats, including Al Gore.
In her defense, the donations date back to the 1980s. For example,Miers gave $1,000 to Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, during his 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to Political Moneyline -- the best site on the Web to track money and politics.
During that same cycle, Miers also donated $1,000 each to Democratic Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and the Democratic National Committee.
Miers's more recent donations less surprising. She gave $2,000 to President Bush's 2004 re-election effort and $5,000 to Bush's recount fund in the aftermath of the 2000 election.... http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/
"So given the choice in 1988 between continuing the Reagan Revolution or making Albert "Insufferable Pr*ck" Gore President she chose the latter... God, that makes me really gung ho for her nomination. It certainly shows she's a fantabulous judge of character."
And by the way....let's take a little trip down memory lane.
In 1976, RR won the Texas primary - against sitting Pres Ford. The conservative revolution had begun, and the Republican revolution was gearing up.
In 1988, there was also a Texan, Bush 41, running for President. It would be expected that most big time Texas lawyers would support VP Bush.
Yet...she stayed with the Dem party. This is very strange.
Seems to me that it comes down to this. The pro-Bush folks here have two arguments:
1) Trust Bush.
2) She's pro life b/c she fought the ABA on being pro abort.
That's pretty slim pickens when you talk about the most important domestic action taken by this President. This is even more important than Rehnquist replacement, b/c there is an opportunity to gain here.
Anyone who believes that we are going to gain a vote on this is truly living in an alternative universe. That doesn't mean that miracoulously it won't happen, but .... no one without a conservative track record has ever "grown" into conservatism on SCOTUS. It always goes the other way.
There is no way around this. Bush betrayed his base. He promised a Scalia/Thomas.
There are puh-lenty of those folks around. Any poster on this thread could list a dozen immediately.
But he chose his buddy.
And the only response we hear is: trust Bush.
Yeah for five years.... She's a really, really old 60.
I never said Miers was a lesbian. Souter is a homo. Everyone in Washington knows this. Not news. About Miers I have no idea.
Delguadio opposed John Roberts too.
So what? I never heard of this group.
Oh I believe it.
I've seen the short fuses go off on these people before... The crybaby fringe of the party, who actually believe the party needs them for our guidance. They sit in the middle of the forum and bawl, and we have to spend all our time soothing their fractious nerves. Maybe that's how they hope to lead.
More super secret, super strategy eh?
Well, we're taking the chance now and it was totally unnecessary. Janice Rogers Brown or Luttig would have been incredible choices and most likely would have been eventually confirmed after a battle.
So we have kept the "balance" of the court but unfortunately the "balance" has been left for the last 20 years. Unless there's some Rovian strategy here that I don't understand I think Bush just blew a great opportunity for protecting the Constitution and Conservative values. It's a sad day for me . All we can hope for now is that she turns out better than expected.
I'll try, but since your posts #19 & #30, I have no patience for posters giving others tongue lashings when they don't even bother reading the damn threads.
You want photos? Sorry I don't have them. Try working in DC and see what you hear. Unless everything I have heard for ten years is mistaken, Souter is a "diverse" individual.
Ha ha, 20 years ago I was voting democrat. In fact, 13 years ago I was voting democrat!
There is a question mark on the headline. It doesn't say she contributed to them.
Hold it, we have a couple of Freepers who checked the FEC, and the record there says she donated to Republicans.
I'm close to done too.
#1 is basically unknown, and inexperienced.
#2 has a long proven track record of no-nonsense, top shelf leadership, problem solver etc.
Who would you pick to do the job?
Yeah for five years.... She's a really, really old 60.
Ah...What?
No. The only qualification I have seen on this board for this nominee is that W knows her.
"is it OK if we gather the facts about her, look at them with some perspective and then decide?
NO!! We have to have a hissy fit RIGHT NOW!!"
I think his MBA is showing.....GWB isn't a typical politico so his decisions are sometimes much deeper and harder to read.
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.