Posted on 10/14/2005 3:27:53 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON -- To the excitement of all Washington, the hullabaloo over President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet E. (and you can be sure the Senate Judiciary Committee will get to the bottom of this mysterious "E" in due course) Miers builds, picking up wails and execrations daily. What makes the excitement so Continues...
=============================================================
The Borkette-ing of Harriet Miers
OK, on the downside, you-know-who at one time was a Democrat. Hard-core liberal Democrat. Contributed to Hard-core liberal Democrats. Loved FDR. Loved Harry Truman. Was once "pro-choice." Switched parties, became Republican. Strong pro-lifer. Born-again Christian. Ah-ha! Big flip flop there! No core principles!
But enough about Ronald Reagan. Regarding Harriet Miers, nearly two weeks after her nomination was announced, the Bill Kristol-led Rebellion has mushroomed from zero GOP senators opposing Miers to . . . zero GOP senators opposing Miers. To be confirmed, Miers oddly needs to win approval only in the Senate, not the Weekly Standard. So, over the weekend, the MSM resorted to Plan B, quoting over and over the same three rejects: Kristol, Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer.
OK, in fairness, there were a few senators expressing doubts about Miers and her "murky" record. "I just don't know" the nominee, said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. "I don't have any enthusiasm until I know someone. Personal integrity is the most important issue. If they don't have that, what they say doesn't matter."
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas sounded a similar tone, vowing to question the candidate on Constitutional issues and the role of the courts. The nominee "doesn't seem to be a Souter," said Brownback, but he isn't sure. The nominee will "be a free agent once" on the High Court.
Oops! Coburn and Brownback were talking about John Roberts, back in July. Sorry again.
Regarding Miers, Kristol, who admits it's the President's prerogative to nominate whomever Kristol chooses, told Fox News Sunday he doesn't "think any serious person thinks she's the most qualified person, or the most qualified woman to be a Supreme Court judge, and I think she should step aside. It would be good for the President, it would be good for the Court." And you can trust the deep insight of Dan Quayle's former political strategist.
Bauer, who showed his deep affection for Bush by supporting John McCain for president, complained that "the whole (Harriet Miers) strategy is the so-called stealth strategy, picking candidates for the Supreme Court who have no judicial record on things that really matter . . ." Such as regulation of the hapless arroyo toad. And the French-fry-on-Metro-train case. If only Bush had picked a red-meat conservative. President McCain sure would've!
Buchanan, another loyal Republican who ran against Bush as an independent, presents a compelling case: For goodness sake, could we please jump to unfounded conclusions before we hear the lady out? Trust unelected "opinion leaders," they always know all the answers. Buchanan predicted Sunday the nomination will be "withdrawn." Nailing down the exact timeline, Buchanan says she'll withdraw "at some point, maybe before, maybe after the committee hearings. My guess is she will not be confirmed." Silly Bush disagrees. He predicts "she is going to be on the bench. She will be confirmed." Hmmmmm, who to believe . . . the guy who hangs around Lenora Fulani, or the boss of Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Condi, Bolton . . .
Among the things going for Miers:
(1) She's a pistol-packin' mama.
(2) She shoots a .45.
(3) She knows what "Congress shall make no law" means.
(4) She's not from Harvard.
(5) She's not an East Coast elitist.
(6) Bill Kristol's against her.
That alone means she should be confirmed. Plus, she believes in the existence of a Supreme Being. Kristol believes HE IS The Supreme Being.
Contrary to the law firm of Kristol, Buchanan & Bauer, nothing in the Constitution says a qualified nominee 'shall not have attended Southern Methodist University,' or 'shall be a law professor or former law professor or a judge' or 'prolific writer of law review articles and op-ed pieces for the Weekly Standard.' Some say Bush should've just nominated his dog Barney. Yeah, right. Barney could never be confirmed. Barney lacks the "raw intellectual power" to sit on a Court which:
(1) Gives us 10 different opinions for why it's unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in Kentucky but constitutional in Texas.
(2) Decides it's now constitutional to engage in sodomy.
(3) Decides it's now constitutional for cities to seize private homes and give them to private developers to increase tax revenue. Imagine the "raw intellectual power" it takes to drain all meaning from the Fifth Amendment's "for public use" phrase! Doubt Miers has it. That's why I support her. I want her on the Court because she "lacks" the judicial "experience" in creating the mess the whining Ivy Leaguers made of our judiciary. It'll take a cowgirl from Texas to fix it.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
The RAT talking point since Katrina. Using terms like that is a sure fire way to win over converts to your position, if in fact you really care all that much. /s
But, to be fair and balanced, you omitted the other side of the story: the 10 worst reasons to support Harriet Miers. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1502587/posts
We may have to expand that list to include your reasons to support her.
"Dude, that's not Tyrell."
Are you posting from an echo chamber?
Kristol's probably right, but the best qualifications is not a prerequisite.
Exactly, these are the same political hacks who opposed GW when he ran for President in the first place. What better excuse than the Miers nomination to rehash all things negative designed to hurt him – or so they think.
What an excellent wrap-up essay!!! Thank you so much!
And some ant-Miers folks are elitist, sexist, anti-Bush snobs who kill kittens. I could say something about straw men and searching for brains, but I'll forage that.
IMHO the biggest straw man in the argument is the Uber-Cons' manufactured perception of Miers which they torch with utter glee.
You have a really nice FReeper page Victoria.
Is that your art work?
Oh no, that's not mine. I just put them together.
I, for one, resent very deeply the idea that some conservatives oppose Harriet Miers, because deep down we're religious bigots. Lots of us have clearly stated our reasons : cronyism, lack of a conservative record, underwhelming evidence of intellectual firepower, evidence of a possible leftward bias etc. Why can't you just believe that we are sincere in what we say, instead of looking for nasty subconscious reasons?
Your welcome :)
I'm attracted to art. My father had a talent for freehand painting but I wasn't as fortunate. He worked in the Editorial Department for the Air Force at one point in his career creating magazine covers and illustrations.
Anyway, its a nice page.
Glad you liked my page, thanks.
OK, on the downside, you-know-who at one time was a Democrat. Hard-core liberal Democrat. Contributed to Hard-core liberal Democrats. Loved FDR. Loved Harry Truman. Was once "pro-choice." Switched parties, became Republican. Strong pro-lifer. Born-again Christian. Ah-ha! Big flip flop there! No core principles!
But enough about Ronald Reagan.
He shoots. He SCORES!
Well put!
I have read other blogs, where most conservatives were running down Miers as an apostate. On PBC, one conservative journalist said, Harriet Miers would not fit in the right Washington religious circles." Some conservatives have said "we don't want her kind on the court." So you tell me who is bigoted, insiders(blue-states) or outsiders (red-states)conservatives?
I haven't heard anything like that anywhere. Can you name any names?
Nice work John.
It's rather interesting watching people who, by their own admission, know next to nothing about Harriet Miers, waxing on endlessly about her lack of qualifications, and how wrong the ONE man in DC who knows her better than any one after having worked closely with her for over a decade, is in nominating her.
It seems that their entire argument is that she couldn't possibly be qualified because they don't know who she is.
Touché!
And thanks for the ping.
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.