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 ...
Correct the "now" to know.
I have the same problem with these "facts" that I have with similar statements of support. Most of this stuff is extrapolation from events without context framed and worded to elicit a specific response. In this case negative..Have seen similiar stuff to elicit a positive response. I suppose the reason we are dealing in what I call "nits and lice" is there are no real positions she has taken that are clearly identified and unambigous and that indicate a specific philosophy. Without those clear positions as a backdrop we are reduced to reading the fairly sparce tea leaves and the beauty of the beholder becomes highly debateable. For example I am more troubled that she supported a forum for feminine advancement than that the first speaker in that forum (whom she probably did not pick) was a radical leftist Gloria Steinem. That shows me more about how she might rule on affirmative action cases than whether she is a radical leftist. All of this lack of real data is why I would have to vote no right now if I had a vote.. I still look forward to the hearings hoping they can provide enough insight to change my mind but it may be a stretch.
Agree. The beltway echo chamber effect that the majority of intelligent people (i.e. the GOP rank & file) take with a grain of salt.
I think most are willing to withold judgment until the hearings.
The real answer of the support will be next year in the 2006 mid term elections. I don't feel particularly comfortable with Miers as a choice, and if I were included in a survey, I would have to answer "no" right now.
Commenting on the news and politics on this forum does not equate to joining the Republican Women's Club or pounding the pavement for the local county assessor candidate.
I know quite a few people on FR. Discounting the people who are libertarians, Perot or Buchanan supporters, the numbers of people who do local politics is not that large. (Of course, this is among the people that I know on FR, so it isn't scientific.)
For example, although I worked on the Bush campaign and am a member of the Indiana Republican party, I don't really have contact with the state chairman, the local political people, or do any committee work. The people who do the local work have my admiration and support. I am unable to do local stuff because of my husband's job (conflict of interest things).
So thinking that everyone who posts an opinion here, whether pro or con, is a grass-roots activist is, in my opinion, a faulty premise.
Another poll...
Not that anyone cares ;-)... but I'm D, B, C, C
Better I suppose from my initial --- B, B, B, C
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2005_10_09.PHP#004567
1) Do you think George Bush made:
A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (9% --7)
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (49% -- 39 responses)
C) A so-so decision? (20% -- 16)
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)
2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:
A) Made you view George Bush more favorably? (4% -- 3)
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither? (33% -- 26)
D) I'm not sure yet. (10% - 8)
3) Would you prefer that George Bush:
A) Continue to support Harriet Miers? (41% -- 32)
B) Withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (25% -- 20)
4) If the Harriet Miers nomination is not withdrawn by President Bush, then at her confirmation hearings, would you prefer that Republican Senators:
A) Vote to confirm Harriet Miers? (33% -- 26)
B) Vote against Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (33% -- 26)
But headed out the door to where? Oblivion?
Should that not read..."Gop lockstep, non thinking sheep back Miers"..
Really. The state party charimen spend all their time sucking up to the RNC in the dream of someday getting to be under-secretary of under-secretaries.
If this looks improper to those of us who are naturally inclined to support the President, how does it look to the fence-sitters who determine the outcome of elections?
Worse some of them publicly admit to voting for Perot, now that's and outrage.
"But that testimony doesn't add up. How come state party chairmen report 0.1% opposition while a sampling on FR shows it at 27.7%? This sounds more like repeating the "party line" rather than true testimony of experience."
Spot on.
The party apparatus, obviously, is going to support the party chief. One way to do that is to try and make the opposition look small: a bunch of deranged bitter-enders.
Of course, when playing the disinformation game, it is crucial to be credible. If you depress the numbers too low, like this absurd "It's running 10-to-1000, so it's all liberal hype", you lose all credibility. Really it makes things worse. Because there is that 1/4 to 1/3 who already oppose the nomination, and they know they're not bitter-enders. And when you have Limbaugh and Hannity, Coulter and Ingraham, Will and others - the whole panoply of conservative punditry that matters and have massive audiences - all saying the same thing as the 1/4 to 1/3, if a bunch of state party chairmen tell you that opposition is running at 1%, you know a few things:
(1) They're lying. Not just "mistaken". Outright lying. The opposition is too large, too vocal, too OBVIOUS, and too many of us feel it and see it and show it, and know others who do.
(2) They're spinning. Ineffectively.
(3) They're serving a particular interest in the party, and willing to calumnate a quarter to a third of the party in order to serve that interest.
(4) They're scared. When the gates slam down and the leadership is giving a coordinated response like that - which is obviously untrue, even ridiculous - the folks doing this are using the regular playbook, and find that not only it isn't working, but it is making things worse.
Don't leave out the 33.4% that need more information. IMO that vote should be read "Not Yet" more negative than positive. In an issue as polarizing as this a "need more data" vote should not be read as even splitting evenly between positive an negative but should be more prudently read as a negative willing to listen to additional data. That data not forthcoming would leave the voter unsatisfied. That would make my reading of the data 60% not yet willing to support the nomination.. a pretty damning number.
Yep - keep spinning away!!
I do.
Won't affect what I do in 2006, in any case.
The poll on Free Republic shows only 34 percent support Miers, with a large majority either opposing her or waiting for more information.....
I tell ya, I probably would have been in the "not sure yet" category without the heavy-handed and dishonest tactics used to generate support for the nomination. But what those tactics tell me is that if the truth were laid bare I wouldn't like it at all.
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.