GOP rank and file back Miers

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

[BlackElk]

See! We do agree once in a while. Good post.

[buckeyeblogger]

I don't..

[GarySpFc]

Sinkspur is right. The prez needs to get rid of Miers and replace her with Janice Rogers Brown or Emilio Garza. Black women and Hispanics need more representation.

And what if they will not run? What if they cannot be elected by the Senate? May I suggest you need to read the article written by "Pukin Dog."

[G.Mason]

I wouldn't go as far as saying Ms. Harriet Miers will be confirmed. There's a row, or two to hoe on that one.

To make a decision on this confirmation based on ruminations and postulations by Rush, Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, Coulter, etc. etc., without even hearing Ms.Miers utter a sound, is in itself an abomination.

I say let our Constitutional processes run their course. When the dust settles we, each of us, will decide where we will go.

Should that mean voters choose to leave the Republican Party, so be it. Should that mean we lose the majority, which we never had and if we had it no one advised Congress, then so be it.

As much as I admire Rush and many other Conservative pundits, the last I looked they weren't elected to do diddly squat.

I will continue to sift the wheat from the chaff, making up my mind. That means I will listen and watch intently at the confirmation hearings and come to a yea or nay on the nominee.

I trust you and thousands of other Freeper and Americans will do the same.

[Earthdweller]

"I am seeing a jam dive straight into the ground, and it frustrates me."

It's alright Vicomte13....where do they have to go? Into the arms of the likes of Howie or Ross'r us?

They will stick around if nothing else but to simply have another day to show us the error of our ways. :^)

Conservatives are passionate but they are not quitters.

[Les_Miserables]

No reason for withholding consent was mentioned either IIRC. It is not rational to assume they would give uninformed consent or consent against their better judgement. But this is beside the point. If they didn't think Ginsberg should have been confirmed they should not have voted for her. They use as the excuse "Clinton" deserved to have whoever he wanted confirmed. I take strong issue with that and would vote to keep anyone who thought that way out of the US Senate. They are unworthy. To use the same logic to say Miers should be confirmed ONLY because Bush wants her to be is equally insulting.

[sinkspur]

So you also believe we should go with statistics and let representation be dictated by percentages not qualifications--diversity and quotas in other words.

Dallas, prior to 1991, had "at large" representation on the City Council, meaning that the guys and gals with the most money could buy ads and yard signs and get-out-the-vote efforts. The representation advocated by Harriett Miers resulted in single-member districts, meaning Oak Cliff would get a black rep (being largely black), and West Dallas would get a Hispanic rep (being 90% Hispanic). And North Dallas would still be represented by whites.

FYI, the GOP believes in carving up congressional districts so that there are such things as "black districts." This is done so that there will also be such things as "white Republican districts."

New Orleans is 70% black. It makes sense that it would have a largely black city government.

[Earthdweller]

What you said.

.....and so goes the illusion that Americans are the robots of Fox news and talk radio.

(I still love those guys though)

[sinkspur]

But then the 'bot storm absurdly labeling the opposition 'elitist,' and Gillespie's 'sexist' line, pushed me solidly into the doubting Thomas camp.

IOW, you're a spiteful crybaby.

[Les_Miserables]

Tell you what EW. This conservative will watch this roll out. If Miers is confirmed and it turns out based on how she rules on the issues that we have been had yet again, It will be a cold day in hell before I support a Republican for President. I may not vote for Hillary but I darn sure will find somewhere else to send my vote. Yep you can say where else I have to go but I agree with Rumsfeld. If you can't solve the problem make it worse. If Republicans think they can do without a substantial part of their base ok, good for them. We'll see. It might not get a viable third party going or drive the RINOs out but we'll see how the bushbots get along with some of us gone. Seems like a pretty dull strategy, "My way or the Hiway" but hey, go for it.

[BlackElk]

CAUTOR: Actually, throwing around terms like diversity and quotas will not cut it. The only quota involved in a change to district voting is the quota of one Council Member per Council District.

There is a Federal Voting Rights Law. It frowns on and prohibits schemes to deprive designated minorities and particularly blacks of representation. It was passed in the late 1960s and reauthorized repeatedly thereafter. Demonrats claim to support the VRA as do blacks. Republicans often suggest ambivalence.

Where VRA is vigorously applied, black constituents tend to be pooled to afford maximum opportunity for electing black office-holders. Previously the black vote might have been split among 5 districts electing 5 white Demonrats. When you pool the black votes to guarantee the election of one black officeholder, you may also cause the election of 4 conservative Republicans in districts depleted of black votes. This is one of the tools that changed control of Congress and numerous state legislatures from Demonrat to GOP.

In cities, one trick previously used to elect all white legislative bodies where there may have been as much as a 40% black vote was to abolish district representation on City Councils in favor of at large voting (where racial voting can elect an all white body. Miers was honest enough to admit this problem existed and that it was not fair to black voters. This does not make her either Louis Farrakhan or the village idiot teaching sociology at the local community college who runs an abortion mill for anti-nuclear gay whales in her spare time. Nor does it make her PC, just honest.

When legislators are elected from districts, they may wind up being elected racially but they had better take care of crime on the streets in their districts, and the sidewalks in their districts and the potholes in their districts. Same for the white guys and gals on the Council as to their districts.

Would you find it out of the ordinary that a 51% minority community was electing only Caucasian candidates in an at large race for every Council seat? If not, then you should honestly admit that there is a problem too.

Is there a truly conservative way to vote conservative by voting whites only even when you don't know much about the candidates? If so then don't blame blacks or Hispanics for voting black or Hispanic. Have we really come to THIS as a movement?????? We CAN do a lot better. Being black or Hispanic is not some sort of moral misbehavior.

Blacks, Hispanics: Fellow Americans to be wooed and won at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion. Think it through and become the person you can be.

[Vicomte13]

"It's alright Vicomte13....where do they have to go? Into the arms of the likes of Howie or Ross'r us?"

If a third party nationalist shows up, a retired general or something similar, someone who says he will close the borders to illegals, etc., and he starts campaigning in the Midwest, he will take a lot of votes, like Perot did. Especially if he doesn't go bonkers like Perot did.

That's where they would be able to go. And I suspect they would.

There has not been a fight along these lines in the GOP for a long time, because there hasn't been an issue this important.

But anyway, I'm getting repetitive. There's no point in my saying the same things over and over again. It's boring and doesn't change anything. I'm going to sign off of commenting on Miers now. We will see what happens in the weeks ahead.

[scratcher]

Your list is not factual. Starting with #1

[McGavin999]

Ah, so you are for politicizing the bench. I see.

[XJarhead]

Because it is obvious that he assumed the support of his own party, which he is not getting.

How is that obvious? All he needs to get her through is the support of 51 Senators. And I'll bet he gets that support from Republican Senators alone. He doesn't "need" the support of every member of the base. And perhaps he's wagering that those members of the "base" who don't support the nomination now (and that's only 27% even here on FR) will sing a different tune after they start seeing how she rules on cases presently pending in front of the Court.

If she is confirmed, and immediately joins the Scalia/Thomas wing (hopefully with Roberts), perhaps helping to overturn Roe, do you really think the base is going to stay upset? Or may they perhaps admit that Dubya was right all along?

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.

Just because someone "hears" that it was Andy Card's idea doesn't make it true.There are rumors all the time, started by various people for their own purposes.

[Cautor]

"FYI, the GOP believes in carving up congressional districts so that there are such things as "black districts." This is done so that there will also be such things as "white Republican districts."

Thank you for that information and the other details concerning Dallas' racial politics. But you didn't tell me whether you believe in quotas and affirmative action? Nor have you told me whether Miers believes in affirmative action and quotas.

My growing sense is that the strategy of the Miers supporters is to obfuscate. When there are no facts on your side--and most of her supporters seem to take her blank slate record as a good thing--obfuscation is probably a good strategy, maybe the only one.

[Les_Miserables]

Your quote came from a newsmax article that begain with In an interview taped Saturday night and set for broadcast on Monday, leading conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to be defending Harriet Miers against critics who say she doesn't have the qualifications to sit on the High Court.

The problem I have is it was the reporter who injected Miers name not Scalia and makes the judgement that it appeard to be an endorsement (her opinion, CNBC BTW). He is quoted elsewhere (I'll try to find it) that it would not be appropriate for him to endorse her. The quote in your post does not endorse Miers but does approve of one of her characteristics, no judicial experience. My grandmother when on the pulpit committee of her church was asked by a church member what she thought of a particular candidate for pastor. Her response? Well, he wore a nice tie..

[G.Mason]

".....and so goes the illusion that Americans are the robots of Fox news and talk radio."

Illusion indeed.

As a parent, I would certainly hope some of these folks wouldn't beat the hell out of their kids without first allowing them the opportunity to defend themselves by answering a few questions.

[Cautor]

Believe it or not but way back yonder when I was in law school, I took a seminar on legislation. Our grade came from a semester-long project. Being young and naive, I volunteered to work with some lawyers at Common Cause at their office in Washington, DC (yes, you can barf here). The task was to develop model legislation for states to adopt that would er...take the politics out of redistricting. It was an interesting exercise but thankfully never produced a product any state legislature wanted to touch with a 10 foot pole. It's an area that surely has spurred a great deal of legislation and political fireworks. Just ask Tom DeLay.

[deport]

1. Signed documents supporting WORLD COURT and HOmosexual adoption
2. Supported lowering standards for police and fire dept to allow for diversity
3. Stated that Courts should set legal fees not texas state legislature- (rule from the bench??)
4. Supported funding for radical leftist feminist speakers at Texas college

---

Do you have links to the actual documents/data/etc rather some posting here on FR of the above allegations?.. If so could you post them?