Now get back to arguing about the significance of the donations.
Posted on 10/06/2005 2:52:59 PM PDT by maryz
Why are Democrats and liberals so silent on the nomination of Harriet Miers? "The oldest rule in politics is that when your adversaries are fighting among themselves, you keep quiet," says political handicapper Charlie Cook.
Mr. Cook says Democratic Senators are divided in their reaction to Ms. Miers. The older and more tradition-minded are distressed that the president chose someone so close to his inner circle with such a scant public record on legal issues. Of course, they neglect to mention their own role in encouraging the president in that course by filibustering so many of his appellate court nominees. As for younger Democratic Senators, Mr. Cook says they are positively gleeful that Ms. Miers was selected. "Given that Democrats have only 45 Senators they view it as dodging a bullet," he told me. "They feared getting someone who would have been far more formidable on the court."
snip
Conservatives should start to realize the fun and political gain that liberals are having at their expense. While skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself. And those on both sides of the political spectrum will be able to make a more informed judgment.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Maybe you're right. Maybe Miers could keep up a pretense of being conservative for 10 years of 12-hour days just for Bush's benefit. I couldn't keep up a pretense that long myself (the best I can do in a liberal workplace is keep my mouth shut, and that's a strain).
Bush does have a free hand. This is what he does with it.
John Fund is right on again.
I've heard that "liberal drift" thing expressed from many sources but I don't think so. Conservatives don't become liberals. It just doesn't happen in the real world unless the lib was masquerading from the start.
This is not Reid's choice. I think he came close to endorsing Miers because he has the sense to realize the potential damage to the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, if they get up on their hind legs and savage a women of success and high achievement. When Harry Reid can recognize a point like that, it lets you know how out of touch with reality are Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin.
The only intrigue in this process is whether Hillary! Clinton will demonstrate her hypocrisy for voting for a woman as a Justice whom she does not like, or demonstrates her hypocrisy by voting against a woman of high achievement.
Either way that Hillary! votes on the floor of the Senate, she will have to struggle like a bug on a pin. Couldn't happen to a more deserving woman, so to speak.
Congressman Billybob
She gave $1000 to the DNC during the primary season, not to Dukakis. You are wrong and misleading.
You are the misleading one. She contributed to the DNC five days before election day 1988. Those who contribute during the final push are the hard core partisans. Dukakis was the nominee that she was supporting.
If she wanted to give money to Dukakis, she'd give money to Dukakis. She gave money to his challenger, Gore. She gave money to the party DNC.
You want to lie - go ahead. You'll have to live with yourself.
Are you saying that those who gave money to the RNC five days before the Bush/Gore election in 2000 weren't contributing for Bush's final push to get elected President?
And the idea that it is a positive that she contributed to Gore in 1988 is insanely hilarious. The man is a psychopath. Had Gore been nominated and won the election, would Miers still be considered a qualified Republican nominee for SCOTUS in 2005? She wouldn't even be considered if that had happened. We are supposed to forgive this support for rats merely because the rats lost in 1988?
You are typical of a rat who keeps repeating the same lie over and over. I can't be "corrected" when I am correct.
This sure doesn't seem like the John Fund on CSPAN this morning.
do you have a link or source for that info? the one i read said al gore in 1988 and lloyd bentsen for 1,000 each.
The Dems on the judiciary committee have such a strong need to bash Bush, that they won't be able to resist objecting to Miers' nomination (to some extent, at least.)
Great column -- thanks for the link!
I didn't see it; what did he say?
The DNC contribution is widely reported, it's not a secret. The date of that contribution was 11/03/88 and the Bush 41 vs Michael Dukakis election was five day later on 11/08/88. "Final Push" contributors are the party faithful, be it Democrat or Republican. She has been contributing to Republicans from the moment that she saw the opportunity to enter the Republican fold. This is supposed to forgive her earlier Democrat contributions.
Now get back to arguing about the significance of the donations.
Ask and ye shall receive. Why do people argue over stuff like this? Gore invented the internet so we could research this kind of stuff and argue over the significance of the donations, not that they actually occurred. ;-)
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php
*sigh*
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.