BonoVoxSupastar said:
Of course they will, first of all that's not hard, plus GW more than likely won't be making the nomination.
I do not believe she will make it in.....
He will be making the next nominee....
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Of course they will, first of all that's not hard, plus GW more than likely won't be making the nomination.
Dreadsox said:
I do not believe she will make it in.....
He will be making the next nominee....
nbcrusader said:
I thought the right was upset that Miers didn't have a clear right-wing paper trail.
nbcrusader said:
So, if you don't understand was GWB means, it means "nothing" and is "idiotic"??
Dreadsox said:I think the sexism charges on the part of the administration is equal bullshit......
Why would you think I would not think it bullshit? You have known me long enough I would think, to know that I am not that partisan that I would not speak out when I smell it.
Irvine511 said:no, it's that NO ONE can understand what GWB meant because it is a meaningless statement.
nbcrusader said:
Now you speak for everyone's understanding??
Dreadsox said:
I do not think she is the real nominee. I think it was done to stir the pot, to prepare for the fight for the real nominee. What has everyone been screaming about? QUALIFICATIONS.
The real nominee will have qualifications. And then what will the argument be? Where will public opinion be if he nominates a highly qualified judge?
He is shaping the debate, and the players are taking the bait.
There is my opinion....and it is not about sexism....
What Is To Be Done?
. . . about the Harriet Miers nomination.
by William Kristol
10/17/2005, Volume 011, Issue 05
IT'S BEEN A BAD WEEK for the Bush administration--but, in a way, a not-so-bad week for American conservatism. George W. Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was at best an error, at worst a disaster. There is no need now to elaborate on Bush's error. He has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction. There is a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it.
But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.
One should add that some of the defenses of the president have been spirited as well--and in fairness to the defenders of the Miers nomination, they really were not given all that much to work with by the White House. Consider this game effort from one former Bush staffer:
Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&M's in her West Wing office. It wasn't a huge secret. She'd stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&M's in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush's reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&M's were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: "I like M&M's, and I like sharing."
Do these things matter at all when it comes to her qualifications for being an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court? Yes. They speak to her character. And in matters of justice, matters of character count.
So what now? Bush has made this unfortunate nomination. What is to be done? The best alternative would be for Miers to withdraw. Is such an idea out of the question? It should not be. She has not aspired all of her life or even until very recently to serve on the Supreme Court. And her nomination has hurt the president whom she came to Washington to serve. Would a withdrawal be an embarrassment to the president? Sure. But the embarrassment would fade. Linda Chavez at the beginning of the first term, and Bernard Kerik at the beginning of the second, withdrew their nominations for cabinet positions and there was no lasting effect. In this case, Miers could continue to serve the president as White House counsel. The president's aides would explain that he miscalculated out of loyalty and admiration for her personal qualities. And he could quickly nominate a serious, conservative, and well-qualified candidate for the court vacancy.
Dreadsox said:The left has not gone after her?
Really?
But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.
Irvine511 said:someone who thinks they know what he means by this statement is fooling themselves and simply grafting their own sentimental notions of "knowing" a "heart" -- again, WTF!?!?! -- you know, kind of how lyrics like "i'll give you everything you want/ except the thing that you want" work.
financeguy said:
To be fair, I seem to remember Clinton coming out with this kind of guff on occasions also. In general, it's liberal politicians who are known for spouting meaningless nice-sounding babble and conservatives who are supposed to be the straight talkers. Actually that links in to the current conservative dissatisfaction with Bush. He is not clearly spelling out a conservative agenda for the US and they don't like that.
Irvine511 said:
but regarding a SCOTUS nominee!?!?!!?!?
he's positing that, because he "knows her heart," that she will therefore make a good nominee, as if it's a resume credential.
either way, it's stupid, and i'd say the same thing if Clinton were to say it about a SCOTUS nominee.
Irvine511 said:for a laugh, and a cry, and perhaps a bit of vomiting, i present the Harriet/George letters:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html
meritocracy? what meritocracy?
this is a oligarchy, dammit!
dynastic politics!
(you've got to wonder -- just how are we going to explaing to kids 30 years from now about the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidency from 1988 to 2016?)
Irvine511 said:
but regarding a SCOTUS nominee!?!?!!?!?
he's positing that, because he "knows her heart," that she will therefore make a good nominee, as if it's a resume credential.
either way, it's stupid, and i'd say the same thing if Clinton were to say it about a SCOTUS nominee.
nbcrusader said:
Oh, so now its not what he said, it is who he said it to.
The only consistent thing is the inconsistency.
MrsSpringsteen said:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051016/D8D98DFG1.html
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she remained open to voting to confirm Miers, citing in part the conservative criticism."
"The way she's being beaten up by the far right is very sexist. People should hold their fire, and give people an opportunity to come before a hearing," said Feinstein, D-Calif."
MrsSpringsteen said:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051016/D8D98DFG1.html
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she remained open to voting to confirm Miers, citing in part the conservative criticism."
"The way she's being beaten up by the far right is very sexist. People should hold their fire, and give people an opportunity to come before a hearing," said Feinstein, D-Calif."
nbcrusader said:
Is this a possible strategy (strategery) to keep the Dems off balance ahead of the hearings?