Posted on 10/03/2005 6:31:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
In a just-completed interview on Fox News, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol made no effort to sugar coat his criticism of President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers as his Supreme Court nominee.
Among Kristol's comments:
There is no way to say she is the best-qualified.
It really looks like W, faced with pressure and criticism, "flinched."
This is an insult to the well-qualified conserative women W has appointed to the federal bench.
W could have appointed Miers to a federal judgeship before but didn't do so. Could reflect his views on her qualifications up till now.
He's spoken with a number of leading conservatives already this morning and they are disappointed.
Kristol stated more than once that he was surprised by the pick and was obviously disappointed, to the point of seeming almost angry.
I have subsequently altered my view after my quick knee jerk reaction. hugh hewitt has a good sober take on this pick
www.hughhewitt.com
She donated to Gore's campaign. She's a NOW-nag. What more needs to be said.
So you are saying you'd not have a threesome with Ruth and Harriet?
My problem with this pick! Why choose Miers, a total judicial blank, when qualified known quantities like JRB and Priscilla Owen are available and would in all likelihood serve longer? Not being privy to the President's inner circle, it's frustrating, but I just don't get it!
I doubt he has the conversatives mostly to thank. He has moderately right people like me to thank.
Ack!
This fact is her single most qualifying act from her history.
She donatd to Gore. How does that help make her a good pick? She was Bush's personal attorney and donated to Gore. How does that make her even a trustworthy friend, muchless advisor?
This fact is her single most qualifying act from her history.
This fact is her single most qualifying act from her history.
You made some good points, but I think appointments to the SC deserve more than simply whether one is a loyal friend or not. This is not supposed to be a gift or promotion.
I personally would like to have seen Judge Brown myself. I don't like unknown entities and certainly don't believe GWB on anything political anymore. The fact that he signed CFR admitting it was unconstitutional at the time says volumes.
a proven record is just what bush was trying to avoid, thats what the nomination game has come to. smallest target posssible.
Sorry for the 'triple'. Network problems....
This is W's legacy, right here. He knows her well. He has no excuses.
If she isn't a constitutionalist (which is a conservative...have you ever met a liberal consititutionalist?) it will haunt him forever.
I think this pick tell us more about Bush than anything he's ever done.
You are full of S$#$%^. Did you take a week off of work and give up your salary to travel to other states to GOTV????? Did you go door to door in unfriendly hoods with lit and talk to voters? Did you spend time away from friends and family to call people on the phone and to coordinate GOTV events?
I know many conservatives that did. I would be very very surprised if you did.
Bill Kristol was and remains John McPaines butt boy and tries to "stick it to" Bush at every opportunity.
I tend to agree with you on spending and CFR. But as for judicial appointments, I think the president has done pretty well. The same folks in here that disagree with Miers as an appointment applauded his choice of Janice Rogers Brown and many others. I don't get their logic.
I agree with you.
From the response by many on this forum you would think we had a say in who President Nominated. Hey people, get a clue, we do not have a voice. (This is not directed at you Pondman)
The only choice we had as to who would be selected for the next opening was who we voted for to be President.
The choice then was between Bush and Kerry. I went with Bush. For all you that are unhappy with President Bush's choice, do you really think Kerry's choice would have made you happy?
And for all you who believe any President is going to nominate a exteme conservative, wake up and smell the coffee.
The best we could have hoped for is a "moderate". I am comforatable that President Bush would not nominate an extreme lefty, but beings how I am to the right of Bush, it is possible that this nominee is to the left of me. I will live with it.
I am not a one issue person, which is the one characteristic of both the extreme left and extreme right, and perhaps why both extremes seem to be in a constant state of turmoil. Me, I will wait to know more, and accept what ever happens.
The Supreme Court is important, but earning a living is more so, and so I will end this and go to work.
Have fun guys, but remember, nothing you have to say will matter to anyone.
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.