Posted on 10/03/2005 3:07:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Count Ann Coulter among the conservatives who are unhappy with President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Asked by NewsMax.com if she considers Miers to be what she had called John Roberts after his nomination - a "tabula rasa” - Coulter, who’s now out with the paperback edition of her best-seller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” said:
"No. She’s something new: a complete mediocrity.”
Ouch.
I was about to write to you to ask your opinion. I see now that I don't have to. "Trust me." LOL.
From CHAOS?!?
Watch out Black Tooth, you're showing your age. Guess I am too because I know what you're talking about. :)
I'm willing to let Miers play out in the hearings. What's so difficult about that?
Apparently it didn't even occur to Bush. The word is, Reid first suggested her name.
I agree with your point that Bush had to reach past several dozen far more qualified and demonstrably conservative potential nominees to tap Miers, an unknown and untested third-stringer.
But from the two dealmakers' perspectives, it is a compromise that will work. She is a safe nominee, and Bush likes that. And she is a weak nominee, and Reid likes that.
And how do you know better than Bush does what she is?
Bush is leaving the border desolate, throwing money around like robert downey jr at a south american poppy farm, and appointing these stealth nominees. That is something to be a little annoyed with but the man is human and he does a good War on terror to be fair.
Since the 2002 elections, conservatives in this country have been told that we have to compromise on our agenda to make sure we can get our Supreme Court Justices.
On the turn of a dime, you and hundreds like you explain and demand the exact opposite of the freerepublic message and that of many many Conservative political establishment scions and pontificators of the last 5 years since movement conservatives gave our institutional support to Bush's first general election campaign.
The entire situation is an undeniable rejection of the Conservative special interests and voter base by a lameduck president.
If she is confirmed, there will be no chance for a Republican president to win in 2008, because some USSC case between now and then will show up and go against Conservatives, and it will be used none stop to dissuade participation and voting by the conservative base of the Republican party. ONE BAD DECISION BY MIERS, AND REPUBLICANS LOSE 2008 BIGTIME.
She is smarter than 99% of our FR Posters--PERIOD!
But I Suspect "W" has "Pulled a 'Fast One'" on ALL of us (Especially the "Dems)!
I am willing to Give the Supremes a Year--& THEN, I expect to hear the 'Dem's HOWL!!
Even his own 'Pubs tend to Underestimate "W"!!
Despite the fact that the Guy has REPEATEDLY HIT "GRAND SLAMS:"--Even "His own People" think he's "Just an Average Bloke!"
Doc
Actually, I believe in South America they are Coca farms. You find a wide variety of poppy farms in Afghanistan though. You are blessed not to have the kind of sordid past that would allow you to know the difference.
Thank you, very well stated. This week I'l be talking to a one ro two of those local Conservative lawyers in NJ, I'll have to ask them what their opinion of Miers is, and their opinion of Bush, and his choice.
Isn't that hilarious?
It didn't even occur to the President to nominate a woman he's worked with for years?
I think the President, Rove and Cheney are playing the Dems like the fools that they are. We shall see. Should be interesting to watch.
I think the bomb throwing is what I like about her.
Whose to say what would happen. Bush might have nominated Brown or Owens, the Dems might have stopped the nomination, and they also might have turned an entire generation into Republicans by being so pathetically partisan. If that DID happen, the NEXT nominee breezes in, and the Dems lose whatever political capital they have left for years to come.
Thanks for trying to understand where I am coming from.
Let me just say that you don't have to assume anything about Ms. Miers to realize why this has people up in arms.
Remember Reagan's famous statement "Trust but verify"? He said that in the context of arms control agreements, but the logic applies here too. There are some things that are so important in life and in politics that, no matter how much you trust and respect another person (in this case GW Bush), you still need some assurances that you are going to get what you have been promised. That's all that is going on here.
As far as Ms. Miers conservative "street cred" is concerned, there are few, if any, independent assurances available for us to examine. There's no "paper trail," no decisions to parse, no articles to analyze. Nothing.
In short, there is no reliable way for conservatives to verify her good-standing as a fellow conservative. All we can do is trust Bush blindly, which despite the possibility of future rewards puts us in a precarious position at the present.
So, do we go happily down the primrose path with the President or do we follow Reagan's advice and insist upon assurances before embarking?
Honestly, I'll take mine up front every time. I'm not in a gambling mood.
Hey! Trust you too! :-)
I still liked the metaphor, and I agree with you on the larger point. Anytime you can work Robert Downey Jr. into the conversation, you know you're havin fun!
Exactly. Many of us believe President Bush has done that. I hope and trust he learned some lessons from his Father.
I'm just weary of those bashing the President and his nominations when there is no basis for it. We shall see what unfolds.
Well I agree with you, but let's not run too far down the shoulda woulda coulda path.
Avoiding confrontation on a SC nominee is more important than how many of the following? Never touching the veto pen, allowing government spending to skyrocket, campaign finance reform, Rx, Raich, Kelso, CAFTA, IRAQ, etc etc.
We sit here wondering where Bush has shown any amount of leadership for the general populace, outside of adding as many citizens as possible to the public dole. Now we have to ask ourselves where the one bedrock principle used to bludgeon ALL criticism against Bush on these issues where "compromise" held back all acceptable dissent, where this bludgeon has taken us, now that this bedrock principle has been violated.
Exactly - why bother to even have a constitution if politicians, bureaucrats and judges are allowed to bend it to their will? The Constitution was meant to keep government, not citizens in a box.
Ideologically I'm sure disappointed but can you elaborate the legal community perspective?
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.