Of course it's okay to go for the best shot. But what if you can't get close enough for the best shot to do his stuff. You go with what you can. All I am saying is that Ms. Miers is no wet-behind-the-ears spring chicken just out of law school and her experience might be a better asset than some other candidate's years of judicial experience if that candidate has been shielded from most real-world experiences.
I'm sorry you don't like the choice but I think you ought to at least wait for the hearings to make your judgment that she isn't the best choice.
I'm sorry you don't like the choice but I think you ought to at least wait for the hearings to make your judgment that she isn't the best choice.
I appreciate your response, but to stick with a basketball analogy, you put your offense on the court before inbounding the ball to see how the defense is going to set up. This is leaving our best shot in the locker room and throwing in the towel. If it looks bad, call a new play. Instead we're projecting what may or may not happen and taking an enormous risk.
Nothing is going to come out of the hearings. Her time with the president is privileged and not going to be revealed, and her own personal beliefs will be protected under the Ginsburg precedent. Besides, even if we knew for a fact she's pro-life, she's not going to tell that to the senate. So we're left with nothing but a question mark until the first rulings come along. That's why I'm calling this a half-court heave.
Playing "not to a lose" is a sure way to lose.