I know the difference. I was dismayed by the announcement of her selection as well because I had hoped for Luttig. However I know Bush is the real deal, and that he is entrusted with both the political, Constitutional, and spiritual responsibility to make the choice. He has proven himself reliable with judicial appointments. I accept his choice and support him. His adversaries have shown their character as well. They are not to be trusted with anything. Some of them have repeatedly lied about Harriet Miers out of envy, bigotry, elitism, or some other dark secret. Their treatment of Miers reminds me of the Libs' treatment of Bork and Thomas; yet they have only started. The real base will remember how they treated Harriet Miers. This will be the Canadian traitor's last stand.
Therefore, most of the criticism of Harriet Miers does not stem from elitism, sexism and bigotry.
Harriet Miers has no constitutional and Judicial experience what so ever and apart from working with GW, no ties to the conservative movement. Among the known nominees, she was the LEAST qualified.
Since when was merit NOT a consideration in hiring among conservatives who oppose affirmative action and quotas precisely because merit is NOT important in such instances, especially to one of the most prestigious jobs in the land, and a life time appointment? Ironically, Janice Rogers Brown and other Black women on the list are far more qualified than Harriet Miers. One would think President Bush and Republicans have reversed the trend and are now promoting affirmative action for whites over blacks with this nomination.
There may be a few bad apples who oppose Miers for some of the reasons you state but hardly the majority of conservatives who are against her nomination for the reasons I have posted. To have some conservatives and Republicans making the same claims and accusations against other conservatives and Republicans normally charged by the left, is an outrage.
That people could have been more tactful in conversations about Miss Miers lack of qualification in comparison to other nominees is a given, but it is impossible to discuss this nomination without specifically highlighting Miers weaknesses in comparison to the other known candidates on the President's list. The future of our country and our court, demanded this dissent, and both are imminently more important than Harriet Miers as important in God's eyes as she may be, who in my humble opinion, unlike Judge Bork (a most qualifed candidate who suffered far greater slings and arrows than Harriet Miers thus far), will probably be confirmed.
The difference between this nomination and other's made by the president is the fact Miss Miers is the President's friend. His other appointees were not. And one of her most outstanding traits is her ability to reveal little about herself. In this instance, the president could not possibly be objective. She wasn't even vetted in the manner and degree to which other nominees were. Therefore, this time, (and I did support Roberts), I do not trust this presidential decision.
Thank you for your civil response.