Posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:33 AM PDT by ejdrapes
I missed that. Must've been stomach churning.
Impossible that this could be a valid point.
President Bush nominates MEN all of the time. He also nominates women, Black women, Hispanic men and all that I may have failed to mention. These people have no point whatsoever, when they pretend that he "excluded men" simply because for this particular nomination he wanted to pick a woman.
Clarence Thomas was picked by Bush 41. He was deliberately picked by Bush 41 because of WHO he was, not solely due to his record. Others had better records, and one of them was named Edith Jones. Bush 41 had that right.
Conservatives love Clarence Thomas, but most of them posting against Miers and President Bush cannot stand Bush 41 or Bush 43 or Harriet Miers. Truly strange.
The "Bush excluded men" therefore he is sexist against men has to be one of the most stupid claims yet.
What do you want me to explain? I thought I was quite plain.
Actually, it was John Fund.
(or was it Woody Allen?)
You yourself call Ms. Miers a mediocrity. How is she mediocre?
If YOUR side wants to persuade, get your allies to drop this type of attack. Ann Coulter persuaded no one with her over-the-top rants, and the same goes for those types of rants here on FR.
When the petition hits, my name will be on it. I have already sent faxes and letters and emails to my representatives, the President and www.gop.org.
Not being able to track this fine woman's record is the biggest thing that keeps me personally from being able to support her nomination.
Maybe bts doesn't mean you, MM. Could possibly mean others in the punditry class, or some here on Free Republic? I sure hope that is the case. But I will defer to bts's reply. BTW, you are doing a great job. Some of this is insanity. A poster said that he was ashamed that Bush allowed Laura to say anything about this matter. Another said that now he is convinced that Laura Bush made the President select Miers. Insanity, gone to seed.
So it's just fine and you can't say anything about it. (Well, maybe if you're Lawrence Tribe or an Ivy League law prof, I suppose you can.)
Pulling the race/feminist card is a nono. This about does it.
And the "trust me" statement by Bush is insulting.
That said, the President cannot let other conservatives run his business, even if under suspicion the "women" of the WhiteHouse apparently are.
But he cannot either expect to garner blind support from us either.
This is a case of David vs. Saul, Saul delivered to David's hands did not yield to his condemnation. Yet Saul did recognize David's mercy and respect of the position and repented afterwards.
All we want from Bush is the truth, whether he pushes Miers or not... but I am not holding my breath for Presidency to take over political party here, and that is the real problem.
FRUM, while right and appologetic about the need not to sink each other, but he words his petition in a manner that makes it impossible for Bush to accept.
This situation is total crap and attacking Bush or the conservative base unashamedly is evil.
This was an explicit affirmative action-read quota-pick, and there's no use in denying the obvious.
If Governor Wilson were in the shoes of George W. Bush, he would not have even conceived of doing this.
Not for a moment.
Miers was picked for two reasons, and two reasons alone.
1. She was a woman.
2. She was a Bush crony.
She fulfilled both requirements, and that's why she was selected to fill the O'Connor vacancy.
You, for one, said that Miers was not "intelligent".
As well as Ronald Reagan when he nominated O'Connor. He was quite explicit about it.
Could it be that he's a bit confused about who might be an Evangelical? If so, that's typical of the crowd over at NRO.
That is an odd comment, isn't it?
I confess that I might have like to see a Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen or Mike Luttig nominated instead of Harriet Miers. This might have happened if our GOP Senators had any balls. But they do not. There is no unity of party within the GOP side of the Senate. They waffled and retreated on the "nuclear" option. The filibuster is still alive regarding judicial nominees, and there is no assurance that a nominee with a more substantial record could withstand the assault by the Dem (and some GOP) Senators. If you are looking for someone to blame on the Miers nomination (which ultimately, I predict, will result in a very good Supreme Court justice, when all is said and done), look no further than our GOP Senate caucus. They did this. President Bush merely responded as best he could under the circumstances.
I have read most threads on this subject, and that is a ridiculous characterization of the arguements against Ms. Miers. Most of the insultative comments come from the supporters. I support Ms. Miers but only because I think Bush has screwed this up so much this is the best we can get right now. But any questioning of Ms. Miers is met with personal attacks. If anyone needs a lecture on 'normal discourse' it is the Miers supporters.
"President Bush is not responsible ffor the hysterical level of discourse from people like Coulter and Frum. President Bush is not responsible for the venom I have seen posted here."
Of course he is responsible. He has neglected to live up to the promises he has made to the American people. This "Trust me" was just the last straw.
GW did NOT nominate the type of a person that he told us he would. Miers is not the best candidate and it wreaks of cronyism. His chance of changing the SCOTUS with this nomination is minimal, at best. This has the appearance of weakness on his part when the likes of Leahy and Schumer can dictate who he cannot nominate and he takes the advice of Harry Reid, even over his own base. GW is doing what he said he would not do by this nomination.
Wanting us to trust his decision is NOT an option to some of us. His judgment of people in the past has left a lot to be desired and does not bode well in this case, IMO. Some of us remember his being burned or embarrassed, in the past, by placing his trust in the likes of Bernard Kerik, Paul O'Neill, Linda Chavez, and let's not forget Doug Wead and Christy Todd Whitman.
His failure to protect our borders, among other things, leads many of us to distrust his decision making. Calling Americans that are putting themselves out in order to try and protect our borders VIGILANTES, is unforgivable and further makes us wonder about his choices.
Many of us have worked diligently and donated much money to causes to get GW elected and re-elected because we liked what he said he would do and many of those things are not being done.
At this point, if his assessment of Miers is wrong, it will be too late to change it, once she has been confirmed and we gain no ground, perhaps even losing ground on the direction the SC takes our country in the future. If we are to keep this country headed in the direction our Drafters of the Constitution intended, we have got to nominate someone that has fought the battle with the liberals and WON, somewhere along their way.
He has sewn the seeds of distrust and now reaps their rewards.
By the way, if Dubya was using Harriet Miers as his dad and other recent presidents have been using their staff secretaries (haven't seen anything for sure, but I'd say that's probable), Miers, as well as being Dubya's "gatekeeper", was also overseeing the speech drafting and staff-clearance ("staffing-out") process when David Frum was working for Dubya. (Don't take my word for it. Google "staff secretary" and see for yourself. The whitehouse2001.org PDF is particularly fascinating reading.) I think it'd be fair to say that she was basically Frum's and the other speechwriters' editor-in-chief. Now, if they'd had a dust-up because of that and he'd been taking an axe to her consistently ever since, I'd understand that. I don't see how he gets from that neutral point in July to where he's at now. It's not because he didn't really know her from Eve at that point and he knows better now. It can't be.
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.