GOP rank and file back Miers

The Washington Times ^ | 10/10/05 | Donald Lambro

[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.

[McGavin999]

you may have noticed is that non-registered visitors tend to be more conservative than even registered FReepers.

Yes, I noticed that a full 4% of them plan to vote for Hillary.

[XJarhead]

Well, for the most part Bush does very well when he and his team think through a strategy. He/they didn't think this one through.

I'm honestly curious why you're so sure they didn't think this one through. For all the criticisms of Dubya that are valid, judicial appointments is the one on which he's been the most rock solid. If he screws the pooch on one, then its fair to jump on him. But on this particular issue, I'm cutting him the benefit of the doubt.

Not because I think he can do no wrong in general, but because I think his record to date on judicial appointments specifically has been outstanding.

[DrDeb]

FACT: Compared to the voting public, this forum features a disproportionate number of libertarians, Pat Buchanan/John McCain apologists, Constitution Party malcontents, and DU plants/disruptors AND STILL almost 70% of FR survey respondents either support Miers or are at least willing to give her a fair hearing. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

OBSERVATION: I'm a grassroots activist in Ohio who spent the past weekend with MANY members of our 'army' from last fall . . . NOT ONE member of this army voiced a negative opinion relative to Harriet Miers or the President. RATHER, we were all uniformly appalled at the insular, elitist, agenda-driven vitriol emanating from beltway 'conservatives'. [BTW: We ALL got a good laugh from the notion that the MSM actually considers Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, David Frum and George Will our 'leaders'!]

[thoughtomator]

Anomalous. Look back at previous polls and you'll notice that non-registered site users are consistently a few points more conservative than registered ones.

[ez]

Well, for the most part Bush does very well when he and his team think through a strategy. He/they didn't think this one through. It happens, he/we should learn and move on.

I disagree. I think they DID think it through, came up with a candidate who a)can be approved, b)will not veer left and c)will adhere to the word and letter of the Constitution including overturning Roe if given a chance.

Do you have any evidence this is not so?

[G.Mason]

"Do not attempt to do a thing unless you are sure of yourself; but do not relinquish it simply because someone else is not sure of you."

Stewart. E. White

===================================================================

For better, or for worse, we the people elected GWB. As Americans we have that precious right to be critical and so we shall be.

Along with that right, we have an obligation to allow due process, which is the confirmation hearings.

Beating each others of us over the head with cries of "I'm leaving the Party", or "I'm voting for Hillary", are 1.) Not constructive ... and 2.) of no consequence to this matter at hand.

Unless, of course, one believes that the thousands of letters, calls and emails one can cause to be generated against the Senate confirmation hearings will stop it.

[ez]

OBSERVATION: I'm a grassroots activist in Ohio who spent the past weekend with MANY members of our 'army' from last fall . . . NOT ONE member of this army voiced a negative opinion relative to Harriet Miers or the President. RATHER, we were all uniformly appalled at the insular, elitist, agenda-driven vitriol emanating from beltway 'conservatives'.

This is the same reaction I had.

[AndyJackson]

will adhere to the word and letter of the Constitution

This is the part that her supporters are so glib about - that Constitutional law just means following the letter of the Constitution. Fact is, most SC cases that are constitutional involve conflicts between competing clauses in the Constitution. Sorting that out require a lot of hard thinking and arguing to get it right and convince others you are right. Knee-jerk conservatism is not a reliable guide.

[conservativecorner]

Can you believe the way conservative groups are being treated by the WH for wanting a place at the table when picking a new SCJ? I guess they are telling conservatives that the Party has become a "Party of The Moderates". It looks more and more like they hijacked Reagen's Conservative Dream for this country while we conservatives rallied around them because of our patriotism. I hope I'm wrong, but at this point I wouldn't bet either way.

[AndyJackson]

why you're so sure they didn't think this one through.

Because it is obvious that he assumed the support of his own party, which he is not getting. He checked with Harry Reid, but not representatives of his own base. In fact, we hear that this was Andy Card's idea. If it were well done, we would not really know whose idea it was, nor would we care.

[AndyJackson]

Can you believe the way conservative groups are being treated by the WH for wanting a place at the table when picking a new SCJ?

Reid gets a seat, but conservatives do not? Go team!

[MrNatural]

I just checked in before leaving for work; I see these threads are as overrun with 2-percenters and other nay-sayers as before. They are like liberals; they get all wound up at every potential setback for GWB, and just like the left, they get their hopes dashed every time.

Because at the end of the day, Miers will be confirmed, and a year from now will have demonstrated that she is (along with Roberts) as strict a constructionist as the court has seen in the last century.

And I say that because George Bush's record on judicial picks is like Joe Montana's in championship games. Not that they care; they only care that, down at the goal line again, Joe is not running the play they would have called.

[McGavin999]

You are right, that's why having a law degree takes that completely off the table. Anyone with good character, a working knowledge of the constitution, and a "judicial temprement" (i.e. waiting to hear the evidence before making a judgement ;o) ) is all that the senate really has to look at.

[olde north church]

1. We don't elect a president expecting him/her to be clairvoyant.

2. We don't make our decisions based upon the reading of chicken entrails, tea leaves, Tarot cards or crystal balls.

3. Anyone who says they know what their position on an issue will be 5 years down the road is a liar.

4. The Sun did not shine out of President Reagan's ass.

5. Limbaugh, Coulter, Kristol, Krauthammer, Hannity, Colmes, Yogi Bear or Michael Moore have about as much influence on my opinion as the color of the pants of a person walking toward me.

6. The Democrats doth defend Meirs too much.

7. "Trust me" doesn't necessarily mean, "Abdicate your analytical skills to the wind because I am your leader.". It could actually mean, "I know her beliefs as a result of working in close proximity with her or associate with her."

8. There are many registered Democrats who are fed up with the direction their party is going as well. Don't assume only Republicans with vote for a third party candidate.

[McGavin999]

A SC justice makes new law every day through decisions based on application of legal principles to the facts before the court.

But that is NOT their job. It's the job of the legislature to MAKE laws, it's the job of the USSC to make sure laws are constitutional or are applied within constitutional constraints.

How much knowledge of the constitution does it take to say "Where does it say that?" If it's not in there, it falls under the 10th Amendment. The only test is that what the states pass does not conflict with the constitution. PERIOD.

[sinkspur]

Signed documents supporting WORLD COURT and HOmosexual adoption
Supported funding for radical leftist feminist speakers at Texas college

These are both false, and the documentation has been posted here, over and over.

It is desperation on your part that you continue to post lies about Harriet Miers.

[guinnessman]

Yesterday I saw Pat Buchanon arguing against Miers being introduced by Tim Russert as a "conservative Republican". Since when is Pat Buchanon a republican?

Last time I checked, he was running for President as an independant with a protectionist platform.

I'm still undecided about Miers, but the arguments of Buchanon and Kristol aren't going to sway me.

[McGavin999]

Take a look at the poll in post #179 and you'll see that 20% of Freepers didn't even vote for Bush. They were mostly 1 Percenters.

[G.Mason]

"Don't assume only Republicans with vote for a third party candidate."

You were doing fairly well intil you threw the bomb!

May I say ... Don't let the door hit you, where the good Lord split you, and do us all a favor and take as many sunshine warriors with you as you can.

[sinkspur]

Miers' thoughts about racial diversity placed her squarely on the progressive side of the 1990 suit, which was pivotal in shifting power in Dallas politics to groups outside the traditional, mostly white establishment.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to give any representation to Blacks and Hispanics, since they only make up 51% of the citizenship of the city of Dallas. Nope, white men from North Dallas are the only ones who should be allowed to make decisions for everybody!