Posted on 10/10/2005 10:19:20 PM PDT by CalRepublican
Here's the money quote:
JF: Here's the problem. Because the White House has been so unfair to Harriet Miers and her supporters, because they haven't collected the information, they've sent you onto the beaches of Normandy without proper ammunition and armament. Because of that, we are going to see six or seven surprises come down the road the next few days, about Harriet Miers. Now all of them are sustainable individually. The problem is because the White House was completely unprepared for this, they're doing a disservice to you and her supporters...
HH: Want to give me an example of one, John?
JF: The Texas Lotter Commission, and all the various contracts that were allocated, how they were allocated, and Harriet Miers' role in them.
HH: And what's that going to tell us about her?
JF: The story will be coming out this week, and it's going to involve possible interference by the governor's office with the operations of the Lotter Commission. I'm not saying Harriet Miers was involved. I'm simply saying these are stories that are going to come out, that need answers, and frankly, the White House hasn't done the homework. I hope they have the answers ready.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioblogger.com ...
lol. You're right. We SHOULD be better than this. This nomination is a good place to start being better than this.
Well I just answered that. Dream on if you think that. Justice Justice Roberts will be responsible for the opinions of Ginsburg?
In such situations managing means you assign duties and in the case of a law firm make sure people are billing enough hours.
Well, let me put it this way. I work for a large law firm. I know a lot about what managing partners do. I doubt it would be unheard of for this to come to her attention.
The point is that if her supporters are going to crow about how much her position meant and the kind of responsibilities it entails, then they'd darn well better be prepared to have her take responsbility for the bad things that happened on her watch.
I keep hearing about how she "has made a payroll," etc. I've got no idea what good that will do her, but it's actually doubtful she had much to do with that anyway. Most big firms have a CFO or something similar that handles the budget.
This woman's experience is a joke.
Okay, so let's take that off the qualification list then shall we? Because that is going to do her zero good on the bench.
You describe Communists and Nazis, not Conservatives.
We heard the same kind of worrying about Roberts who is an excellent appointment.
Roberts hasn't ruled on a damn thing yet.
I will never undesrstand those of you acting like this.
At some point, someone in Washington better start acting like a conservative or 2006 is going to be ugly.
This will be hopefully my last post on Miers, at least for a while. I'm going to try to just back away and ignore it.
But, and I'm thinking this in a Fred Thompson voice from Hunt For Red October (where he lamented that things were going to get out of control).
We, the conservatives, have squandered 5 years of built-up indignation over the poor way democrats treated Bush's nominees. We have lost the moral high ground, and have endorsed the gutter politics that we previously attacked our enemies for.
I'm not talking about the few who argued that Miers was unqualified. I'm talking about the Farah and Corsi's of the world, and now this rush by the conservative pundits to gain the trophy as the "person who saved conservatives from the evil Harriet Miers".
To trash the nominee, opponents have misled us at every turn. It started with false accusations that she gave money to Bill Clinton (and the suggestion she gave money to Al Gore in 2000, turned out it was primary season of 1988).
Then there were the "she supports international courts", and "she tried to get the BA to vote on abortion" (she was trying to reverse a pro-abortion BA stance).
Then there was the wildly misleading criticism of her $415 donation to her company's political PAC, which then did the unforgivable: donated to 10 republicans and 14 democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
There's also the "she's a closet feminist" because of her support for a women's chair named after a fine female attorney -- because she should have known that the liberals would use a women's chair for their nefarious purposes.
Oh, don't forget that she is a lesbian. Or that she was unsuitable because she didn't get married, or didn't have children, or was too old, or too ugly.
There is an entire sect of conservatives who toy with the idea that Miers is actually a democrat double-agent who has been pretending to be republican for the last 10 years, just to get this nomination and stick it to us. (They seem outnumbered by those who say Bush is actually the one sticking it to us because we said bad things about his good friend Alberto Gonzalez).
There is a 2nd-hand story repeated here about how Harriet hates christianity, because she nixed a "perfectly acceptable christmas card" as "too christian".
Some was rehashed from the Roberts nomination; for example, her quite reasonable assertion that gays and lesbians deserve the same civil rights as every other citizen was twisted to suggest she supported special rights -- even though talking about the SAME questionaire, she said she supported the Texas anti-sodomy law, proving that she never wanted to give special rights to gays.
But it seems that, for some conservatives, "whatever it takes" is the marching order to protect us from an evil non-conservative judiciary. There's a lot more hate-filled bile running around about miers, but I think I've made my point.
So, when the next good conservative nominee is picked, and Schumer starts his unintelligeable rant about ideologues and balance and choosing judges based on their political views, he will be quoting from a wide range of conservative pundits and politicians to support his position.
When Ralph Neas, or NARAL, or any Soros group digs up decades-old information and distorts it, and uses it to call our nominee a nazi, or a woman-hater, they will be using the same language the conservatives used against another conservative (or at worst a moderately conservative) nominee.
And when we complain about the left-wing smear, the media (which never liked us) will gleefully point out to the nation how we are hypocrites, and we will gain no traction.
And the nuclear option? Forget it. We lost that with the FIRST kristol article, but certainly now with all the attacks on this nominee. Frankly, the only thing remaining for conservatives to make our destruction complete would be to call for a filibuster to stop this nominee.
And I can only pray that I haven't just given them the idea; I wouldn't put it past them after what else I've seen.
Hey, Miers is unqualified, she isn't what we were promised, we don't like trusting, we don't trust Bush, we want certainty. I understand, sympathise, and even mostly agree. Conservatives could have played the meritocracy card, with good effect. We could have shown to the world the PROPER use of senate rejection -- to stop unqualified nominees.
But all that is lost, flushed down the drain in conservative's rush to tear down a nominee they weren't sure about, with no regard for common decency, the truth, or the respect earned by the president simply because the constitution gives him the right to pick nominees.
I hope you are all happy. But you probably won't be. At best now, you will stop a nominee that we weren't sure of, without ANY hope of getting a better nominee. At worst Miers will be confirmed but will have a very bad taste in her mouth for conservatives. To the degree Bush actually IS prone to payback, conservatives can expect it in spades for thier ill-mannered attacks.
And getting any of the "blessed" candidates through will be much harder, as the democrats will use the conservative playbook to bury the next nominee.
I'm sorry, but that is how I feel. I know there are good arguments against Miers. But too many people made a sport out of it, went too far. Coulter can be forgiven, she is expected to be bombastic. But too many others that are "respected" made too many personal attacks; and all the others who didn't are smeared with the worst of the bad behavior whether they had good arguments or not.
Jeez. At a glance, Fund's comments read like crony, in all capital letters.
We heard the same kind of worrying about Roberts who is an excellent appointment.
That is a daffy notion. Two woman in executive positions do not equate to sorority sisters. You have been watching secretaries in the office too long.
Yeah and if she RAN the firm then she's also responsible for the firm's PAC contributions to Hillary Clinton.
Ping
Ping. (It's like marshalling the troops these days.... Sigh....)
"The point is that if her supporters are going to crow about how much her position meant and the kind of responsibilities it entails, then they'd darn well better be prepared to have her take responsbility for the bad things that happened on her watch."
Same thing I've been pointing out.
However, from what I've been hearing back, only the things that make her look good should count.
That's total BS. PACs have independent committees.
EVERYBODY has been saying this---that this is a nomination that just wasn't "vetted" properly.
Partners in a firm are liable for the actions and misconduct of their other partners. That's why firms carry malpractice policies. That's why you have to be careful who you team up with. That's why I'm pretty sure I don't want Harriet Miers on the SCOTUS team.
You're a little late with that rumor.
It's be debunked.
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.