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.

[sinkspur]

But you didn't tell me whether you believe in quotas and affirmative action?

No. But I also believe that keeping blacks from any representation on a city governmental body when they make up over half of the city (along with Hispanics) is wrong, and federal courts have determined the same thing.

Nor have you told me whether Miers believes in affirmative action and quotas.

I don't know. I would doubt it, but, that's why I'm anxious to find out more at the hearings.

[Godebert]

Count me among those who don't buy into the Coulter-Kristol-Limbaugh-Malkin "the sky is falling" punditry.

Aren't you the same guy who just said they'd vote for McCain in another thread?

Now, please notice: I am not calling them betrayers to "the cause" or "idiots" or "panderers" nor do I accuse them of wanting to hurt the movement.

What movement is that?

[shield]

Considering W has nominated nothing but great conservatives to the courts....he'll not nominate someone for the SC any different. Sorry....I'll TRUST W on this one. He's proved time and time again, he'll never nominate anyone that'll not help to move that court to the right. W knows Harriet Miers...the dembos are quiet...if she's another souter...she'll be HARD RIGHT...LOL..

[Cautor]

I am glad you are honest enough to tell us you will not reveal your position on quotas and affirmative action.

I support equal opportunity, but not affirmative action, and certainly not quotas.

[Les_Miserables]

So wanting to our Senators to understand and test the philosophy of a prospective judge and decide if that judge will be good or bad for the country is politicizing the bench? If that's what you mean then you bet, I'm guilty. How do you think we got into this mess in the first place? By the dear GOP rolling over and not doing due diligence on the nominees for SCOTUS. I think we are about to get past that part of the maturing process. At least I hope so.

[sinkspur]

I am glad you are honest enough to tell us you will not reveal your position on quotas and affirmative action.

I said "no." That means I do not support either quotas or affirmative action.

That's different from single member voting districts, which are geographic in nature.

[scratcher]

#1 was taken from a list of potential agenda items for the ABA House of Delegates meeting. Nothing in that report shows any support by Miers

http://www.abanet.org/leadership/sneak2.html

[deport]

Nothing in that report shows any support by Miers

---

Thanks and I knew that but was trying to get the poster to back up his/her assertions.... That is one of the most egregious down falls of those on this board, imo, is that they make these assertions that are at best a 1/2 truth. They would be better served to get the truth out and then make their arguments.... Can you imagine, lowering standards for the fire fighters in Dallas.... lol. I bet the standards were written by some good 'ol boys back when wimmen were confined to the kitchen and barefoot and pregnant. Wonder why these people are against female workers?

[Cautor]

"I said "no." That means I do not support either quotas or affirmative action."

My apology for misunderstanding your response. I am pleased to hear where you stand. I would be even more pleased to know where Miers stands.

[scratcher]

" I knew that but was trying to get the poster to back up his/her assertions"

Sorry I interrupted the wait ........... :)

"They would be better served to get the truth out and then make their arguments"

Can't help but wonder why they don't want the truth

[Stellar Dendrite]

" pushed me solidly into the doubting Thomas camp."

So essentially you are admitting you are a elitist sexist anti christian bush hating DU'er?? /Sarc

[VRWC For Truth]

Considering the GOP apparatus has to support the status quo to keep their jobs. This article is bird cage liner.

[rob777]

But then, if you read the article, it's not just the opinion of state party chairmen. It's them relaying what they've been told by the rank and file.

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.






Let me see, party chairmen e-mail RNC provided talking points to a list and we have a survey that reports what probably is the response from those who received the e-mail. It's a lot more than "them relaying what they've been told by the rank and file." This looks to me like a self reinforcing loop designed to filter out criticism.

[rob777]

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.






Any criticism here of President Bush should be viewed on its own merit, not based on whether the those offering the criticism supported Bush. By that standard, none of us here had a right to criticize Clinton during his administration. If my memory serves me right, criticism of the Clinton was one of the few things that united us all. Were we all wrong?

[gobucks]

I understand your concerns about Miers. What is interesting to me, is how little the furor is raised over Roberts, who I thought was far more of a threat, than Miers.

She is either going to turn out to be oconnor or worse, or she's going to be Scalia in a skirt.

All I know is this: she didn't have to attend a bible thumping conservative church. If she did all this time merely for a power grap purpose, then indeed she is incredibly dangerous.

I just don't see this woman being that craven, and fooling everyone in the Bush white house.

[Ruth C]

Would that be the conservative or liberal Republican senators?

[Liberty Valance]

bttt

[Ruth C]

How about 'I don't know' which would be an option in a well designed survey?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Your prejudice blinds you...

Not quite as much as yours does, by all appearances.

I don't feel the need to willfully distort a statement in order to bolster my argument.

If you can read a transcript from that exchange and honestly tell me that Scalia was endorsing-in any way, shape or form-the nomination of Harriet Miers, then you are deluding yourself.

[ez]

Careful, or I'll dub you shapka broham...;-)

Scalia said IN REFERENCE TO A QUESTION ABOUT MIERS that it would serve the court well to have a non-jurist. I take that as an endorsement, you do not. So be it...