Posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:33 AM PDT by ejdrapes
"For the Bush Administration to suggest that opposition to the present nominee is motivated by "sexism" is insulting, preposterous, and a sign of terrible political weakness."
An off the cuff remark made by Laura in response to a specific question does not represent the official position of the Bush Administration and to suggest that it does is insulting, preposterous, and a sign of terrible political dishonesty.
"No, it can only damage the coalition of the perpetually offended on the far right, and that can only be good."
Yes, I find the perpetually offended on the far right to be almost as obnoxious as the perpetually offended on the left. A dose of common sense a little practicality would do wonders for both.
"And stop crapping all over the forum swiping at conservatives."
I am a conservative myself so I am not swiping at conservatives, I am swiping at those conservatives who think it is smart to shoot themselves in the foot.
I don't recall her name being across from George W. Bush's on Column A when I went into one of the prehistoric voting machines they have in my city in order to cast my vote for POTUS.
I'm having trouble seeing how a First Lady fits into major, consequential policy decisions undertaken by the White House.
Please elucidate.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but it was not merely an "off the cuff remark". The same charge was repeated - and amplified - by the Attorney General of the Untied States this morning on a national news program.
Please don't misunderstand me - from what I have heard, I think I would like Harriet Miers as a person. I think she deserves a fair hearing, and I hope she demonstrates a solid grasp of Constitutional issues and conservative principles. If so, I will support her. What I resent is the cheap, dishonest way in which legitimate questions about her have been framed. The President did not choose the most evidently qualified candidate. That is not an arguable point. Instead of admitting such, and explaining why Ms. Miers would nonetheless be an excellent Justice in spite of her lack of "credentials", the Administration went into a defensive posture, lobbing mortars at its own supporters.
Look, I've said it twice today on this forum, an I'll say it again: it's not about her. It's about him. Many Conservatives have serious doubts about George Bush's judgment on a range of issues, and this nomination just brought the issue to a head. His response has done nothing to alleviate those concerns. To the contrary - they have revealed a lack of candor.
That hurts. I worked for the guy. I've shaken his hand. (How many of you can say that?) I am disappointed that he has not kept some promises that I thought were vitally important, and I am doubly disappointed that he would allow this dispute to divide his own supporters and fill the opposition with new hope and undisguised glee.
"And conservative support will be missing the remainder of his second term."
So you think some conservatives will sit on their hands, and cut off their nose to spite their face, perhaps leading to a disaster such as a pull out from Iraq before the job is done?
There are lots of issues that need work and we need to support the President where he is right and hold his feet to the fire where he is misguided, not sit in the corner and sulk like babies.
"withholding judgment" is a good idea at this point in time. Whey don't you try it?
Well I agree with you 100%! :-)
LLS
In other words, 46% of the respondents did not immediately support the President's choice to fill the O'Connor vacancy.
Correct. That, you can say. But you can't say that the poll showed that 46% of conservative respondents were opposed to Miers.
I don't recall the #'s on Rob'ts but those are in the link I posted. He's a done deal so that part of the poll wasn't of personal interest.
Even if another vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up during the remainder of Bush's presidency, I can almost guarantee you that you'll never see a "fight," at least not over philosophical differences or political convictions.
FUND????? Have you ever watched him on Fox? I never got the impression that he was a solid conservative. More of a Blue-Dog Democrat.
Granted, no one would ever confuse him for Paul Gigot-except perhaps, H. Ross Perot-but I don't think anyone can credibly question his commitment to conservative political principles or to the Republican Party, regardless of what you might think of him personally.
Maybe he's just bad on Fox, and maybe they need him to play the "moderate" next to Fred Barnes.
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.