Posted on 10/10/2005 5:30:35 AM PDT by gobucks
The Republican base across the country looks more favorably on President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court than the cluster of conservative critics who are opposing her inside the Beltway, according to a Washington Times survey of state party chairmen.
snip
Eileen Melvin, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said she had just come from a meeting with state committee members in conservative Lancaster County, where she asked them what they thought of the Miers nomination. "They said we trust the president," she said.
snip
In Washington state, party Chairman Chris Vance said he e-mailed information about Miss Miers, provided by the Republican National Committee, to a statewide list of 10,000 Republican officials and grass-roots activists. "The next day, I got less than 10 e-mails out of 10,000 from people who were upset with the nomination," Mr. Vance said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Nope...That's the Senate's job...And the more conservative Senators who are looking but can not find any qualifications thus far, are receiving a scathing attack from the liberal Republicans...
It's like buying a new Kentworth as an addition to your fleet of trucks...And you need a driver...Your human resources person comes up and says I have a great prospect...
You ask, does this person have a good truck driving record??? The HR person says no, she doesn't even know the first thing about a truck...Never even ridden in one, BUT, she shore is smart...Trust Me!!!
I believe your comment about the election is spot on. I will predict that if a bunch of Republican senators torpedoe this nomination that their punishment will be a Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2006.
I do...
"The President is not tasked with proferring a nominee with universal acceptance, only majority acceptance of the US Senate."
Technically, this is correct in a constitutional sense.
It is also technically correct in a constitutional sense that the President can do absolutely anything he wants to, issue any orders, override acts of Congress and the Supreme Court, etc., and as long as 2/3rds of the Senators won't vote to impeach him, his acts stand - illegal though they may be.
The bar of what a President HAS do as part of his office, or CAN do if he pushes his theoretical power to the absolute limit, is so low that it's not hard to clear.
The President is the leader of the Republican Party. His job is not just to please himself and his inner circle, but to take the party to victory. Dividing the party with a bad choice and then using his men in control of the party apparatus to start propagandizing against a large segment of his own party that strongly opposes his act here is not the route to ultimate victory.
It would be better for everyone if he withdrew this nomination.
The first two are immaterial. The third is highly improbable. Those that are moaning the loudest are probably not part of the Republican leadership, either locally, or otherwise.
For those of you who choose any one of those three, oblivion is the correct answer.
I must be chopped liver. I gave to GWB and other GOP candidates in 2004, and I don't back ber.
Nope...That's the Senate's job.
Wrong. The Senate only gets to advise and consent. Up or down vote with comments.
If the R Senators vote her down then W has miscalculated, but I don't think they will. Right now, they are performing for their red meat base...us. They will vote her in, trust me.
And BTW, that's how I got my first corporate job...with no experience, based upon the interviewers belief that I could handle it well. Happens all the time.
AMEN!
I trust Scalia, but not Miers.
Why is everyone trying so hard to sell her nomination?
"When Democrats heartily ENDORSE someone, elephant ears had best stand up at attention."
The RATS endorsed her because they know what the Right is going to do. And they did exactly what the RATS wanted.
Best thing that can now happen is the Right endorse a "pro-life, Christian, woman" who understands business law. Then watch the RATS scurry as they change their tune and go after this woman.
It is called strategery and Bush hasn't lost a big pot poker hand in five years.
It would be a tragedy that will split the Republican Party for a generation and probably destroy our majorities in both houses.
You see how the Democrats refuse to cooperate with the Republcans on all issues and then blame him for the most partisan administration in history. That's how you appear to me.
>>sounds more like repeating the "party line"
Isn't this the job of party chairmen?
I'd say this nominee is a pig with lipstick, but someone may think I'm attacking Ms. Meirs personally - which I'm not - I just think it's a duck from a conservative fight, a failure to project the conservative agenda.
Yeah, let's just toss out that whole constitutional authority thingy. After all, it's only a piece of paper that was written by a bunch of rich white guys two hundred years ago. What did they know?
1) The Democrats do not heartily endorse her--some have made statements of support, but htat hardly counts as being "hearty endorsement.
2) I guess I am one of those "rank and file", and I am not displeased by Meiers. Not my first or second choice, but as far as I can tell, not a bad choice.
OK, we'll put you in charge of picking the ice cream.
Now, back to the topic...
I do not believe it. I live in a very mainstream conservative community and I have found few that support her nomination.
Jimmy Carter was an Evangelical.
'Nough said.
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.