Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Uh, Benedict never married. Your Fred-Phelpsian viewpoint has anybody who is not married slotted as a homosexual.
That's ignorant and bigoted.
Read below the title...
On a conference call held by the Federalist Society this morning, former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie admitted sheepishly that Miers was a Democrat througout the 1980s; asked specifically about the Gore contribution, Gillespie said that she was a 'conservative' democrat who later became a republican...
So Miers was a conservative Democrat who later became a Republican.
So was Reagan. This really means nothing - you can argue either way.
The Dems controlled Texas until recently. If you wanted a prominent position in power, you tended to be a Dem.
She hasn't donated to Dems that I can see since 1988. So what's the big friggin' deal here?
"LOL. Too funny. Just imagine you have this massive national problem. Your only choice is picking one of two people to solve it.
#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?"
It seems that Miers is #2 in your example. Is that the intent of your question? She is most certainly not unkown, except to you.
It's public info. She donate to Gore's '88 campaign for President, and Lloyd Bentsen before that.
That doesn't mean she's a democrat today, but seeing that we don't know anything about her - and probably won't during the confirmation hearings, since she'll certainly employ the Ginsburg Method - all we can say is, she's probably a centrist at this point with the possibility of being a stealth conservative.
There are a plethora of known quantitites - conservative originalists - who would make it through confirmation, albeit with some scars at the end. But if you want to satisfy the base, you don't throw out Harriet Miers. You throw out a known quantity that says "I've listened to your vote".
Bingo.
I would add the qualifier, "without a fight," to that.
The problem was it wasn't a hypothetical case for Miers. Gore was seeking the 1988 nomination to run against Bush 41. Now we learn that Miers may have given money to Clinton in 91-92.
They should be ALLOWED to marry.
Saying that everyone who is not married is gay is sophomoric and stupid.
Are YOU an example of an ideal married person? God help us all.
Cronyism and Gender.
Would I like to have 40-45 years with a good conservative on SCOTUS, yes! Remember, my premise is that the concrete is not completely hardened at 40, and that absolutely power can change (corrupt) people. What if he or she is a Souter?
Since there's been some talk of Meatloaf here, we could find ourselves singing along with Paradise by the Dashboard Light....
"So now I'm praying for the end of time to hurry up and arrive...." :-)
Of course there is a way around it and there is no betrayal.
He has nominated the rightmost candidate who is confirmable.
Both of those criteria are equally important. Repeat, both of those criteria are equally important. An unconfirmable nominee advances his agenda . . . how?
There is a tidbit above in the thread stating she has recently become a devout Christian. Bush would know this, and its meaning would be camouflaged in the paper trail.
I know one thing for sure, she as an unmarried woman will have great difficulty standing up for heterosexual marriage, life and other things. The dumpster divers of the Left are going to put tremendous pressure on her. Her lack of a traditional private life will make it VERY, VERY hard for her to help steer the court in a socially conservative direction.
I really, really hope this nomination fails.
You are missing the historical context. The ABA leadership officially adopted a Pro-Abortion position. Much of the general membership was outraged. The tactic used by the alienated Pro-Life membership in response to the Pro-Abortion leadership was to demand a full vote of all members. This was the "Pro-Life" position in this controversy. You need to understand this.
You haven't been here long enough to know that The Unappeasables and The Malcontents LIVE for days like today; it makes them so happy because they have something else to bash Bush with.
FYI, these people probably never supported Bush in the first place and like to claim the mantle of "real, true" conservatives in order to mask the fact that they've never been able to elect a DOG CATCHER to a national office.
And believe this: they WANT the GOP to lose in 2006; they are under the impression if the GOP will only lose, we'll turn to them in desperation and let them run the party.
By that time she was working for Bush. She had a vested interest in a Bush victory. It looks like it paid off.
#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?"
It seems that Miers is #2 in your example.
OK, so Steve says she is the most conservative, and the most experienced for the job above all others.
OOOK. Uh...That's good Steve.....
:)
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.