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 ...
Unless they're appointed to the Supreme Court.
Then, watch out!
Conservatives don't become liberals.
Unless they're appointed to the Supreme Court.
Then, watch out!
---
I don't think so. If you are originally conservative you aren't going to lust for empowering yourself by taking power away from the people later on.
The fact is that there were many conservatives-although there were also a handful that were merely masquerading under that banner prior to being confirmed-who became decidedly more liberal in inclination only after having served on the Court for a number of years.
What's more, there were a few liberals-such as Earl Warren-whose tenure on the bench turned them into full-fledged radicals.
It's an irrefutable historical fact.
Will you punish the senate republicans?
Do you want Harry Reid, who apparently suggested this nominee, to be running the Senate? "
Think about the answer you provide the next time you post to a Conservative.
Did anyone see Gingrich on Hannity and Colmbs? He was asked about Freehs' book where Freeh is about to tell the world that Bill Clinton tried to shake down the leader of a foreign country. Did anyone hear it the way I heard it? This is astonishing. The Director of the FBI announcing that the President of the United States was shaking down a foreign leader for personal money? Good God. That is the biggest story of the century. Where is it? Did I dream it?
The VP candidate that year was Lloyd Bentson, a Democrat from Texas. I believe she also gave him money directly. It is likely she was supporting that ticket, but not because of Dukakis.
Not that it matters. Imagine this, conservatives who will argue that political philosophy doesn't matter in judges, since they don't make law, but then get all upset if a candidate was once a democrat. Even is she was a democrat TODAY, that would only matter if we expected her to be an activist judge.
For this pick, at this time, I don't expect to punish any of my representatives in 2006. My congressman isn't a solid conservative, but he is pretty good. Allen is my senator, and I'm pretty happy with him although I wrote him about his comments on Cindy Sheehan.
After the hearings, I'll write my senators to provide my opinion on the nomination, but it won't be a litmus test for me.
I would support a conservative in a primary against John Warner in 2008, but would support him strongly in a general election against a democrat.
I will be strongly supporting with my time and effort the candidates running this fall in Virginia for Governor (Jerry Kilgore), Lt. Governor (Bill Bolling), Attorney General (Bob McDonnell), and my delegate (Bob Marshall). I also write a column which has been supportive of Jeff Frederick. I supported a more conservative candidate against a long-term republican Harry Parrish, but now I am supporting Harry Parrish in the general election.
I am a strong supporter of primary challenges, I think they are good for the party, and good for democracy. I am in the minority in that view amongst my republican peers here, who only see primaries as good if they don't like the other candidate.
I simply urge that everybody reading this thread, and not just whoever happens to prompt the thoughts I have (and who therefore appears as the "postee") to consider before the election what their goal is, and whether their actions will accomplish that goal. Then do what you think is right.
The ability to accomplish the goals for the majority of us can be guaranteed in time.
It's about how we treat each other until we know more.
The process of knowing will take longer for some of the FR posters.
I believe this. I have seen Kennedy interviewed on CSPAN and it is clear he has one eye on the mirror at all times. A real preener, I'd say, and a schmuck of a constitutional lawyer.
The way I heard it, Clinton refused to get permission for Freeh to interview suspects in Saudi Arabia (I think it was), but shook them down for a contribution to the Clinton Library.
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.