Redstate

The quality of the discussion has at times been low.  But it's on both sides, there's no monopoly on virtue here.  We should be able to have a robust debate without resorting to the sort of ad hominem remarks that have been appearing.

Why should I call myself a conservative - or even give them the time of day - when I get labeled a "GOP slut"?

Right now, I'm ticked off enough that I hope President Bush nominates Al Gonzales to replace Stevens or Ginsburg - just to shove it up the butts of certain people.

I am deeply opposed to this nomination and am more than a little angry about it.  But I'm not going to take it out on my fellow conservatives.  There ought to be room for reasonable discussion.  I've chosen to ignore the disloyalty rants aimed at those of us who have expressed our concerns.  It does, however, make it hard to stay part of the discussion here.

I think a lot of what you're complaining about ties into this diary:

http://i-j-reilly.redstate.org/story/2005/10/6/91945/2929

Many conservatives were just spoiling for a fight that they aren't now going to get.  I think that accounts for at least 50% of the anger out there.

Reactions have been less than admirable in several cases around this place the last few days. I only hope it dies down quickly.

Right or wrong on the nomination, the insults being directed at fellow redstaters the last two days have been downright liberal.

Not good.

I take it the long-expressed concern that RedState will turn into a conservative hive-mind in the absence of liberal sniping is officially deprecated.

I don't think that you bothered to read that diary where I talked about those who sold their soul to support the least crooked crook, because I was specifically speaking to the author of "Betsy's page." I assume that's Betsy.

By extension, it applies to everyone who derides folks like me for threatening to "take our marbles and go home," thus denigrating the fact that our causes are worth anything.

I also, for the benefit of folks like you, offered an apology for any that I might have offended, and here I'll offer it again. I've tried to avoid the flavor-aid jokes since the first day, and I'll do so entirely from here on out.

That being said, I think that "just trust Bush," at this point, is foolish.

And I know what I felt after reading it.

Your message was received.

is possible to un-ring that bell.

I read the diary and took it the same way Harold did, so I don't think "not bother[ing] to read" is the issue.

And characterizing people's opinions as "foolish" calls into question the sincerity of the olive branch that preceded it. Just my opinion.

If you think I'm being childish and shortsighted for wanting to "take my marbles and go home," then it WAS intended for you.

Otherwise, you're receiving signals on the wrong frequency.

Come, now:

So, if you don't agree with my principles, or just don't hold them as strongly as I do, that's just fine with me. They're my principles after all. But if you go start calling me a kid because I try to live by the strength of those principles, you're just going to expose yourself as a second-rate party hack who views winning elections as an end rather than a means. May I be eternally saved from such a pitiful political existence.

I don't think that's all that easy to misinterpret.

But if you go start calling me a kid because I try to live by the strength of those principles, you're just going to expose yourself as a second-rate party hack who views winning elections as an end rather than a means.

It is crystal clear to those of us who have worked for a Republican majority.

That's ME. So, why did YOU work for a Republican majority? Because you had ideals and programs you wanted to see advanced? Or because you like the letter R better than the letter D?

I'm with you, Harold Hutchison. Like Spectator Girl, I was initially disappointed by the Harriet Myers nomination, but as you say, this is looking better and better all the time.

Harriet Miers could be the greatest gift to conservatives from Senator Harry Reid that President Bush wisely chose to accept...a reliably conservative SCOTUS vote who sails through the Senate, IF we on the right don't mess it up!

For all those here on this site trying to bring down Harriet Miers because she's not a judge--look at her history and let her have her say in the Senate before you judge her! Rated as one of the top 100 lawyers in the country, President of the Texas State Bar (third most populous state in the country), president of a law firm with over 200 lawyers, all BEFORE she ever worked for Governor / President Bush. This is no "crony pick", no "Michael Brown for SCOTUS". Harriet Miers was always an excellent lawyer--President Bush just happened to notice before we did, and he found her talents very useful.

The BEST thing conservatives can do right now is shut up and let Harriet Miers prove herself to the Senators, and not give Democrats any rope to hang her with. If this Miers-bashing from the right doesn't stop, the anti-Miers folks will probably get the fight they've been looking for--DEFENDING Miers against a Dem filibuster.

For all those hurling insults about "Kool-Aid drinkers" and "GOP sluts", I suggest (from a VERY reliable source) that we all check carefully for planks in our own eyes before trying to remove specks from others' eyes. We will all see more clearly.

Peace be with you!

Both of them. I'm puzzled at what goal or objective is worth the price you apparently are willing to extract from those who would be your allies.

I'm always going to get a lot more of what is important to me from supporting an R than a D and until that changes that's the way I vote.

So style me a second rate party hack if you must but I'm not going to the mattresses over what written legacy a Justice Miers may or may not leave behind.

Here is my diary

http://ajstrata.redstate.org/story/2005/10/5/184853/698

And, if you are interested, we started a carnival for those who have not freaked out over Miers

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/742

You are not alone.

And this is the part that you left out when you re-quoted me, I freely accept the fact that not everyone shares my principles. Fine. Just don't mock the depth of my convictions if I'm willing to walk away from a party/politician that I don't think is advancing those principles.

"RedState.org is focused on politics, and seeks the construction of a Republican majority in the United States."

Not quite yet. Being done with some Republicans (Bush) isn't being done with the party as a whole. Yet.

What makes you think conservatives will want you around to do more damage the next time you don't get your way?

I asked you on my Diary to make the case for damaging Bush politically, losing the next 3 years of conservative legislative progress, losing the momentum in 2006 and possibly hurting the party in 2008.

Make your case and then be prepared to deal with the fact many of us think you are over reacting.  The price you want for not getting your way is too high.  You and others like you are getting heat because you made a really, really big deal out of this but have nothing concrete to warrent all the damage to the party and movement.

All you folks who did not get your way had to do is wait and see how she turned out.  But you all lost all semblance of self control and caused this enormous rift.  Yes, you can take responsibility for this - because those of us who were not out of control upset are not the ones who fanned these flames.

To even answer this, but I'll give it shot.

The margin for error, as far as getting Roe overturned, and reform of the federal judiciary enacted, is razor thin. So, really, the "wait and see" approach pretty much sucks. Particularly when that approach has not exactly produced stellar results in the past.

Scalia had a wide paper trail. Not surprisingly, he's been great on the bench. Others did not, and have been pretty terrible. So no, let's trust the President and "wait and see" is not a viable option for some of us. You're free to keep on thinking he'll respect you in the morning, but I'll pass.

Then, you also have the fact that a million unborn a year are dying while we all sit around and "wait and see" and golly gosh really hope everything turns out okay. That takes a backseat to pragmatic political considerations every single day of the week.

Second, my vision of the party as it currently stands is that, in large part, it needs to be saved from itself. The leadership has gotten fat and bloated on its own pork and power - and yeah, I really rather would not see the Donks take control of things, but right now you'd have to have your head in the sand to ignore the fact that things are headed that way anyway, and it ain't because the Republican party has been too conservative. It's because we've failed to keep conservative promises that the American public bought into back in 1994.

SO there you have it.

This whole debate has been down a step, toward a liberal level.

Whether it's the "flavor aid" and "blindly trust the leader" stuff on one side, or the "elitist" and "tantrum" stuff on  the other, the entire discussion has been on a very low level.

I submit that the reason there is so little substance here, is that there are no facts available yet.  So, I still wish we'd all just wait for the hearings beore coming to a decision.

All of you hoping that Republican Senators will take down this nomination, I'm sure you realize that such a move won't happen until after the hearings, so there's no harm in waiting for your side, either.

It's all about the big picture, my friend.  And the big picture is still better with the R's.

And, you have a wealth of it. Just make sure you burn it more often pursuing positive outcomes than negative outcomes.  

Funny how everyone invoking Reagan in this debate have no problem violating his 11th Commandment.

Sorry, I meant invoking Reagan in the Miers debate a la "Reagan would have done this, Reagan would have done that," not necessarily on this thread.  I agree wholeheartedly with your diary Harold.  Here's my thoughts:

http://mark-i.redstate.org

Some view politics as sport.  Without question, it can be exciting to engage and defeat your opponents.  But the point of our political system ought to be to arrive at wise policy decisions in the best interest of the American people.  If you think Bush is wrong, it is your OBLIGATION, not just your right, to voice your concern.  It does not follow that, just because Dems oppose a particular policy, that it must necessarily be the best choice. Party loyalty is meaningless unless it yields good POLICY.

in dysfunction.

Much to the entertainment of our foes and jackals in the MSM.

Have a think skin. Just think: we have been insulted, and have been fighting with, some really good people.

Unlike our fights with the Kos Kids, our fight has been with people who are basically on the right side of history.

We have more to do than hold grudges against people who we normally agree with.

I seriously think there is something in the national subconcious that is triggering these large reactions from people. I don't know if it is suppressed anxiety over Al Qaeda threats or the subliminal impact of years of slander against Bush. I don't know if it is the corrosive effect of haters like Michael Savage who are not just right on some important issues but bona fide twisted screamers shouting down all discussion. I don't know if it is partially because of the persuasive lies about the Federal response to katrina being slow or what. I don't care. I care that liars and spammers not get the edge in setting the agenda and that we go forward.

am not happy with the nomination.

That being said, I think that you're comments and diaries have been factual and name calling from whomever is not appropriate.

I appreciate you trying to raise the bar a bit here on how people treat each other.

I have been on both sides of this issue with Miers as its unfolded and I guess my thought is that if she were somehow defeated, I wouldn't cry.

If she makes it to SCOTUS this term, she'll get a chance to tell us who she is on PBA and parental notification.

If she fails to uphold limitations on abortion, then I will probably sit on my hands in 2006.

REGARDLESS, I think its okay for people on both sides of this to have a CIVIL debate.

With civil being the key word.

That's a big part of it. No bloody fight that leaves the liberals gutted.

Another part is the realization on the part of many that President Bush was never a social conservative. His major nominations  -- Cheney, Powell, Roberts, Miers -- have been to business conservatives. Oh, if they will give an occasional line about Roe that makes them all the better. But make no mistake, the power is with the people who see making a good business environment as Job 1 -- Bush, Frist, Hastert, and on down the line.

That realization has dawned on people of late. And it's not pretty.

is all you have to offer as a reason to damage Bush and lose the next three years.

Every indication is she is as pro-life as anyone else.  And yet you folks who lit this fire and damage cannot see all the damage you did to your own cause.

Rush Limbaugh was making the argument today that his concern was simply the selection mad Bush look weak and would embolden democrats.....

Can you understand the stunning stupidity of such a rationalization?  Selecting his counsel might look weak, so that warrented bashing Bush and really making him politically weak!  The mind marvels at such logic.

Bush as one or two more selections coming - and you throw it all away because you simply do not know.  You do not know.  You are bringing down the base because you do not know.

What you did is cry 'fire' in a theatre and excuse your actions by saying there could be a fire....

I give up.

He is quitting and is now looking forward to Reps losing...

Goodbye redstate - you once held such high hopes.

But do as you will.

Don't let your "fear" stop you.

I agree. We're done here.

The people who know her personally are just as "afraid" as I am.

They are so afraid they have given up on making the tax cuts permanent, winning three new Senate seats on '06, doing something with SS, dealing with the border issue, winning in Iraq....

You see the balance here?  You folks fear a hypothetical, so you torpedo everything.

I fear the destruction you have wrought by your own admission that you would rather sink the ship than see what is over the horizon.  You admit the whole thing can come crashing down because Miers might not be a solid choice....Might.

And on top of all this I bet you think you should be patted on the back for your stubborness!!

Afraid...I cannot believe you people are doing this because you are afraid....  All the work, all the support, all the hopes blown away because your afraid of what is only a theory - all evidence pointing the opposite way.

Just goes to shows too many cons are not ready for prime time.

Leon has said if the cons need to lose so he can get his way so be it....

So be it.

Leon

I want to understand precisely your position because I relocated my marbles from the DEMS to the GOP in June 2001 on principle and so, am not opposed to marble relocation on principle.

And, your diaries and comments are some of the best here at red state.

But, I am concerned about timing and pre-judgments that could harm the President pre-maturely.

I think I am safe in saying that what you care about in this context is that the fulfillment of Bush's promise (or does your proposed departure also depend on the GOP senate?)to nominate originalist judges which would ultimately result in achieving the reversal of judge made national legalized abortion? correct?

Therefore, you must agree that your marbles should not be taken home until it is conclusively established that the Miers' nomination is a betrayal of that promise. agreed?

I would say, that there are only a few ways for you to be absolutely positive that you have been  betrayed by Bush, and thay are:

1. Bush knows that Miers is not an originalist
   
   
2. Bush doesn't know and doesn't care
   
   
3. Bush thinks she is but lacks justification

Now, how can any of those be proved. I think its difficult to absolutely prove any of them, since true betrayal goes to Bush's intent, heart, if you will.

But I would consider your departure justified no sooner than before you hear her testimony and until right before the vote.

Given Bush's track record on appellate judges and her major participation in choosing same, Bush's statements about her, and her statement, assuming she doesn't testify in contravention, shouldn't you wait until she actually votes on the issue while on the court?

Among other things.

Leon

That Frum piece is weak with yoo, according to press reports, and unnamed official,

vs.

Bush's track record of appointing justices frum and yoo love with Miers by his side and Bush's and Miers' statements.

its not close

Frum's "better picks" won't be picked if she loses anyway even if one makes the leap that they could win, and that is what I suspect Frum doesn't care about. He wants a fuly engaged horse whuppin to "win the argument." Well, that fight won't win gop weaklings in the senate and we won the argument with Bush's election.

Yes., I would like a more clear delianation of the issues for the public, but Roberts' UMPIRE and Miers' statement that Broder understands will suffice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR200510050
1940.html?sub=AR

Both of them know her personally. That's not evidence that can be easily brushed aside.

relate what others in the admin thought and do not descibe any example from personal knowledge or encounters with her to back up their opposition. They know and worked with her but don't say what they saw and heard her say and do.

Priscilla Owens, William Pryor, John Robers...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/

Dude, you are so lost it is pathetic.  This is a track record we can stand by.  Runaway in fear of the unknown and be done with it.  Cons deserve better.

Take Frum, a speechwriter, with you.

I worked a mayoral campaign in a large North Eastern city a few years back. At times things got very ugly; even very dangerous. The experience disabused me of any romantic notions I had that American politics is a bunch of intellectuals sitting around a mahogany library debating the finer points of the Federalist Papers. I have worked other campaigns and seen how people can fight to make their government work.

American politics is a tough business. You need to develop a thick skin and a quick wit so you can give back as good as you get.

But would this be the one that wound up with an attempted firebombing?

Despite your sincerest attempts, you will not succeed in goading me into banning you, so that you can go brag about it elsewhere. However, you promised earlier today that you were done with this site, and so I am wondering where your honor is.

Since we're clearly not big league enough for you, why do you insist upon hanging around?

I understood that article to say that Yoo's personal observation was that:

1. She was on the wrong side of Grutter v. Bollinger
   
2. She never took a strong stance on any conservative position, on any position whatsoever, except allowing the ABA to continue the qualification process.

Those are personal observations, if I understood Frum right.

Sorry you've been pilloried.  The good news is that the first 72 hours are now played out.  As a long time observor of political debate and head-on collisions I've noticed that the first 72 hours is critical for survival. If the injured party makes it past the first three days without serious complications setting in they almost always survive.  Miers is not out of the woods, but she hasn't gone on life support following her unexpectantly violent collision with elements of the new media right.  There are plenty more chances for future crashes (esp. the hearings) and the Dems are clearly observing the first rule of politics and staying out of the way, but now does not appear to be the time to call the priest...uh, non-denominaltional evangelical minister. Has anyone else noticed this "72 Hour Rule?"

Let me ask you - exactly how is the conservative agenda "damaged" by the fairly non-conservative Bush being "weakened?"  With Republican control of the House and Senate, there is no reason why the President is required in order to get things done.  If this were 1991 with Democrats in control of Congress, than yes, we'd need a politically strong President to stand against the liberals and to sucessfully sell conservative ideas.

The problem isn't that a "weakened" Bush will cause the sacrifice of the conservative agenda.  In all liklihood a strong Bush is equally useless to the conservative agenda.  He's been unwilling to stand up for anything "conservative" other than tax cuts.  And tax cuts don't tax courage - tax cuts are more popular than not.

I'd actually rather see a weakened President - maybe then the RSC can get out from under the leadership structure and sell a return to real conservative governance again.

Permanent tax cuts, Senate gains, social security reform - it was all dead months ago.  About the time that Justice O'Connor announced her retirement the whole agenda hit the toilet.  That had nothing to do with the President's choice of John Roberts, or of Harriet Miers, or the criticism of the latter pick.  Your cause-effect relationship is broken.  The effects you bemoan did not stem from the debate of the past week.  It happened because the President and the Republican leadership in Congress lost its political will to act on any of the agenda items.

And you yourself point to the problem many of us have - it's about "might."  We are upset precisely because we are in a "she might be good, she might not" situation.  For the last decade at least - conservatives in the legal community have developed an outstanding farm system of solid, smart, lawyers and jurists who are known quantities, who have a clearly expressed judicial philosophy from which we can say with a degree of certainty whether he/she would be "good" or "bad" on the Court.  And yet, we have been presented with a total unknown who we have to buy on faith.  And no offense, I save my faith for God, not George Bush.

HEH

He said that if the Republican Party is not going to push forward his policy preferences, then he will not support them.  He did not say he would like to see them lose and let Democrats in power.  He said he was indifferent to who wins because his policy preferences are going to be thwarted either way.  I don't see why that is such an absurd position.

I tend to think that you are somewhat new here and do not understand what makes Leon tick.  Granted, I don't know him personally, but I have read enough of what he has written here to know that life is his issue.  That is it - everything else is almost pointless to him.  Now if Republicans are not going to press for jurists who are clearly on record as being against Roe and the idea of a constitutional right to abortion, then what is Leon's motivation to expend effort to see Republicans in power?  In that scenario, Democrats are the same as Republicans on Leon's issue.

And "wait and see" doesn't work when there is no turning back.  Take something like the Medicare drug benefit - if it fails to work out, we can fix it - pass new laws, change the structure, and make it better.  If Harriet Miers fails to pan out then we're stuck with hoping she dies young or does something that merits impeachment in order to correct the problem.  It would be like buying a security system for your house (and locking yourself in to a 20-year contract) when you are not sure if anybody will respond in the event of an alarm.  Are you willing to buy in on a "they might respond" or on the salesman telling you "I've been working with these systems for 10 years - trust me, the guys respond every time?"  I cure wouldn't feel comfortable with that.

Sorry, Bush has done a lot more for conservative causes than tax cuts - which are not permanent yet:

Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Parental Notification

Education Results for Education Money (not trivial)

Ban on Destruction of Embryos for Reseach

War on Terror/Iraq

Health Savings Accounts

Energy Bill/ANWAR

Etc.

I can't believe I am explaining US Government 101 to a reader at Redstate, but if he needs to go to the democrats to get votes we lose more elements of the conservative agenda.  He tried for school vouchers but there was not enough support, so we lost them.  That was when we did not have the Senate.  There are enough moderates in the Senate to nuetralize the cons.  That Gang of 14 can water down any policy proposals.  

Bush has succeeded because he has had America at his back.  And now the whiners are stabbing him in the back because they did not get their way.

Bush is not the one looking bad in all of this.

I am too old to gloat about being banned from a website.  Besides, it is becoming pretty clear the anti-Miers crowd is as clueless as Rush's little logic bomb about Bush looking weak.

Just read the names on the list of judges confirmed and tell me again Bush is not supportive of the conservative base and the odds are Miers is not the best pick.

All anyone had to do was avoid the chicken little cries and observe the 11th commandment and we would not be in the disaster we are in.  Miers will be confirmed.  The Gang of 14, plus Leahy and Reid have signalled their support (because they know her and feel she is not an ideaologue).  The DC club works that way.  She is the kind of die hard conservative they can live with because they have lived with her for years now in their dealings with the WH.

And we could have had an end to the partisan wars through a very face saving capitulation by Senate dems.  A capitulation which would have neutered the far left liberal fanatics.

Leon, this ain't about you so get over that right now.  It is because it is not about you that you keep coming out on the wrong side of this.

If you had ever once said you would sacrifice for your country - now would be the time to make good on that oath.  When are you going to get over that crossed signal you thought Bush sent right at you (while ignoring the issue of a new US SC Justice) and realize where you are?

Ban me?  What would that do about this issue???

Nothing.  Cons have been screwed by cons.  And since it was a insurrection from inside it did a lot of damage.

Like I said - you and the big name pundits like Buchanan who want us to turn on Bush have not given us anything concrete to make that leap.

Could have been a nice peaceful capitulation....

And I was unclear; Democratic campaign operatives tossed an incendiary into the rival headquarters, but it didn't go off, IIRC.

the best crop of conservative lower ct justices ever.

and that miers was the one that found them!

and roberts!

And Bush and Miers are not going anywhere.  But the lashing out by the Anti Miers crowd did a lot of damage and I doubt I will trust any of them ever again on anything they say.

They went ballistic like the world was about to end.  They insinuated major flaws in Bush and Miers and called on the base to turn on Bush.  So when we looked at the source of the alarm, ready to see the worst, it turns out all they have were sour grapes and theories.  

This is worse than calling for an impeachment by the opposition, this is calling for what is basically the end of the second term by supposed allies.

And when you call 'fire' like that it better be for real and serious.  But these anti-Miers types compounded their mistake by arrogantly, and at times insultingly, dismissing those who did not see a serious problem.

We have no need for partisan bomb throwers who are so fanatical they bomb their own allies.  

The damage will last for years as long as the bomb throwers refuse to admit they over reacted.  I can understand over reaction and I can ignore a minor disruption due to high emotions.  But this has been more than a minor problem of emotions.  The Anti Miers crowd want Bush's head and all who support him.

Well, anyone willing to destroy the next 3 years of Bush's term can go the way of Buchannan as far as I am concerned - he is not a republican anyway.

Look at this list:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/

And the second most powerful court in the land, the DC circuit, is now decidedly shifted to the right.

All this as a run up and people buckled.  Maybe they simply thought it was too good to be true?

a bit.

Things here have gotten way out of hand. So why don't you drop the triumphalism, start afresh, and play nice.

Cannibalism isn't a pleasant sight and you are doing as much damage as the people you are arguing with.

of DC conservative lawyers cultivated since the 80's is greater than their allegiance to conservative principles, actual acheivement of the goals of the cadre or to the party making it possible.

Its a personal committement to particular persons. The very definition of elitists.

I admire Bork and the intellectuals he spawned, but they didn't all live in DC and folks out here in the red states like miers beieve in originalism just as much even if we didn't spend all our time on it.

laura ingraham has lost me forever

can't listen to her now

should have known

she regularly makes fun of southerners, w/o whom no one would know her name

elected bush

and that their chosen icons are the only ones capable of dealing with Breyer's brilliance?

They insult miers but also exhibit the naievete that the libs on the court can be persuaded?

By a scalia or thomas type, when the real scalia and thomas have been unseccessful.

I have no such illusions.

And also have no inclination to consider scalia and thomas better tha miers.

This bigotry is making a lot of folks mad down here. Why don't they get one of their blue bloods elected?

Miers, may actually have a chance to persuade a lib ot two by not suffering the fools and playing hard to get. Southern ladies have a talent for getting theor way and making the fellas think its their great skill!

My advice to you is to think about what you are independent of the parties themselves. Once you are sure of yourself and where you stand, then take a hard look at the parties available to you. See where you fit in and where you feel most comfortable. It's never going to be perfect.

I've been on both sides of the major political division in America. I have friends and colleagues on both sides, and it's always been difficult to decide which side I fit best on. I came to the conclusion some time ago that the best place for me is the GOP, but that doesn't mean I don't still get mad at things that go on in the party, like things that some Democrats are doing, or even think about changing my mind. All of that is normal and healthy. Heck, if you stop thinking about what you think, then you're going to end up getting lost in it all.

So my advice to you is to stick with it. You seem to know that you're a conservative, and the GOP is the conservative party. So work towards, within the party, making it more in your image. Fight back against people who insult you from within; this is a big tent party, and you have the right to participate in the GOP without being slandered and attacked by your own comrades. Worst case scenario, remind them of Reagan's 11th Commandment.

The Miers nomination has brought out the best and worst in some people. That's what happens in tough times. But things will be better, and more importantly, it might not be so bad to realize that even those people who insult you, they still probably want you on their team. I know that not all Republicans I've spoken to have necessarily agreed with me, but I know as sure as anything that I want them on my team, they want me on their team, and we're all better off for it.

While there are many cross-currents jeopardizing this nomination, I too believe that religion is the most is the most dangerous for two reasons.  

Miers' evangelical background is distrusted among multiple constituencies in this fight.  Fear of jihadist Christians establishing sharia law is a foundational myth among the modern left.  But there also exist a nervousness among secular, Catholic and mainline Protestants of the right.  Much of their fear stems from how evangelicals have come down in the long running debate over the value on non-Christian sources of wisdom or authority.  

The answer to early Church father Tertillian's question, "what does Jerusalem (the Judeo-Christian well-spring of wisdom and knowledge) have to do with Athens (the secular well-spring of wisdom and knowledge)?" continues to divide.  American Evangelicals have generally sided with Tertillian that Athens is to be avoided entirely or treated with great skepticism.  Because of this they are often viewed as non-intellectual, anti-intellectual or plain old ignorant by those who place some confidence or great stock in Athens.  

Evangelical's reluctance to enshrine Athenian "reason" above or equal to Jerusalem's "revelation" is often seen, and caricatured, as an unreasoning superstitious rejection of logic itself.  It is no surprise to me that those most convinced of the value of Athens (I am NOT saying that these folks aren't Christians or Godly), with backgrounds in the elite academe, are the fiercest critics of this nomination from within the Republican coalition.  

But just wait till the left realizies what this woman's religious affiliation suggests about her view of the best sources of wisdom and knowledge.  

Valley View's web-site has a profession of faith fundamentals that would make Lyman and Milton Stewart proud.  In addition to inerrancy of scripture as the sole authority in matters of faith and doctrine (no German theology need apply), Christ-only salvation, heaven-hell, and the necessity of adult immersion, they also practice a male-only congregational leadership model.  Just wait till that shoe drops.  

This doesn't ensure that she will approach the Constitution the way Valley View approaches scripture, but you can rest assured the secular left will be terrified at the probability.  No living document, no outside sources of wisdom, authority or illumination, only a restoration plea to "speak where it speaks and remain silent where it is silent."   Such philistine, narrow-minded, ultra-orthodoxy is the sum of all the left's fears and, sadly, some on the right.    

While there are many cross-currents jeopardizing this nomination, I too believe that religion is the most is the most dangerous for two reasons.  

Miers' evangelical background is distrusted among multiple constituencies in this fight.  Fear of jihadist Christians establishing sharia law is a foundational myth among the modern left.  But there also exist a nervousness among secular, Catholic and mainline Protestants of the right.  Much of their fear stems from how evangelicals have come down in the long running debate over the value on non-Christian sources of wisdom or authority.  

The answer to early Church father Tertillian's question, "what does Jerusalem (the Judeo-Christian well-spring of wisdom and knowledge) have to do with Athens (the secular well-spring of wisdom and knowledge)?" continues to divide.  American Evangelicals have generally sided with Tertillian that Athens is to be avoided entirely or treated with great skepticism.  Because of this they are often viewed as non-intellectual, anti-intellectual or plain old ignorant by those who place some confidence or great stock in Athens.  

Evangelical's reluctance to enshrine Athenian "reason" above or equal to Jerusalem's "revelation" is often seen, and caricatured, as an unreasoning superstitious rejection of logic itself.  It is no surprise to me that those most convinced of the value of Athens (I am NOT saying that these folks aren't Christians or Godly), with backgrounds in the elite academe, are the fiercest critics of this nomination from within the Republican coalition.  

But just wait till the left realizies what this woman's religious affiliation suggests about her view of the best sources of wisdom and knowledge.  

Valley View's web-site has a profession of faith fundamentals that would make Lyman and Milton Stewart proud.  In addition to inerrancy of scripture as the sole authority in matters of faith and doctrine (no German theology need apply), Christ-only salvation, heaven-hell, and the necessity of adult immersion, they also practice a male-only congregational leadership model.  Just wait till that shoe drops.  

This doesn't ensure that she will approach the Constitution the way Valley View approaches scripture, but you can rest assured the secular left will be terrified at the probability.  No living document, no outside sources of wisdom, authority or illumination, only a restoration plea to "speak where it speaks and remain silent where it is silent."   Such philistine, narrow-minded, ultra-orthodoxy is the sum of all the left's fears and, sadly, some on the right.    

I really think that the chatterers are only hurting themselves. I am amused at the msm stories about Bush's split with THE BASE, as if the base are the chatterers in DC.

The base cares about originalism and results, not WHO gets the job done.

The base will judge by rulings on the court.

After 5 years of nearly constant msm generated crises and between election polls, and yet Bush's reelectionand congressional gop strengthening, I ahve come to trust the people.

We are the base. We read Bork too. We can read the constitution and apply it.

One of the things that turned me off in the lib dem party before I switched was the elitist attitude of so many of the rank and file, not just the NYC DC crowd.

But the elitists in the gop that I honestly had not seen a bad side of until now, (heck, I kinda thought I was one of them! and actually am glad this happened for my own humility.) but unlike the dems, our coalition is grounded in values and principles, not personalities.

And those values and principles transcend men. And we thought that was why the DC elitists have done such great work. But it seems many did it forst for their own self aggrandizement.

We can win w/o them. 'Ppreciate the fine essays!

I do think the picks deserve the benefit of the doubt - at a minimum.  Unfortunately, some self-appointed arbiters of who was and was not a "good conservative" for the court have denied that.

Hugh Hewitt today made a very good point in his blog today.  It's very easy for the blogosphere to end up going off half-cocked in some cases.  Doubly so when some folks decide their feelings have been hurt.

EXACTLY.  The GOP will ALWAYS reflect my views better than the Dhimmicrats.  I might not get EVERYTHING I want, but I'll get a lot more (and the country is far better off) than when/if a Dummocrat is in office.  

You haven't heard about the others who know her personally who ARE NOT "afraid?"

And why are you so willing to rely on what others say about her, but not the President, who you know is pro-life and wants a Justice who won't legislate from the bench?

Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Parental Notification

Ban on (funding) Destruction of Embryos for Research

If abortion/life is his ONLY ISSUE (I could say plenty about one-issue people, but I won't start that fight right now), then Bush has done a pretty good job, especially with his previous judicial nominees added to the mix.

Seems to me if abortion is the sole issue to be concerned with, he should be Bush's biggest supporter!

God, I've been saying that since day one as well.  Something tells me Reagan would not be pleased.

and so do many others, but you don't "trust" them.  Why trust Frum and Yoo, then?

For me, though, the issue is the fact that the Democrats have proven utterly incompetent on national security/foreign policy matters.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for people who I think place this country at risk.

I find it ironic that those threatening to bolt are the ones calling themselves "the base."  HEH.

Many of them also seem to think they are the ONLY ones who have done anything to build the party--volunteering, giving money, etc. etc.  

I suppose, though, that misconception fits with the kind of person that would stomp off when they don't get their way.

eggheads in DC. And i consider myself an egg head, at least until I discovered I'm seen as a neanderthal by some.

The base doesn't care if Bill Kristol's icon that has SLAVED for the movement amidst the heathens. We thought they believed in it. Not that they only did it for ego.

The base elected reagan and gingrich w/o them. And we want results, not cadre aggrandizement.

Heck, we were always conservatives.

party in large part due to the defection of evangelicals from the democrat party in 1980 forward as well as new evangelical voters in the 90's for congress (and the conservative majorities for the losers plus perot) and now for Bush, GOP congress and  a majority of states due to the court's assault on free speech abut God in the public square and the value-less PC cultural relatvism in our children's schools.

America is a religious country. We were not an oppresive theocracy before the 1963 engle case took prayer from school.

We know we are distrusted by some people. They sue us all the time.

The election results for the past 25 years and the roe alternative so mnay libs choose that reduce the number of lib voters every year indicates the real problem is the secular fundamentalists'.

He makes a persuasive case that those who know her are pretty staunch in thier support-

Beldar on Myers

On the other hand, Frum did say:

"[A]ccording to press reports,....." which isn't firsthand, by my reading.  

have gladly acccepted Byrd's approval of Meese on the court! amen

LA Times:  Miers called an opponent of abortion

If conservatives fear a repeat of the Souter affair, some liberals worry about a replay of the Clarence Thomas nomination.

In his Senate testimony in 1991, Thomas denied having a "fixed" opinion about abortion or Roe vs. Wade. "I have no agenda. I am open about that important case," he said. Eight months after being confirmed, he voted to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

I hope people don't get the impression that I'm saying all politics is a back alley, street fight. I have worked other campaigns that were quite civil.

Miers has qualifications that would be useful as a judge.  From her myriad decorations in Texas, it's clear that she can work both sides of the judiciary.  She's also, clearly, an excellent lawyer. (having been the head of the Texas Bar, etc, White House counsel, etc, etc.)  What's most important to me as an American at this moment is the nomination of someone who is unequivocally qualified, moderate, and diplomatic.  Do I want my interests represented?  Yes.  Do I disagree with Republicans?  Yes, on almost every issue.  It doesn't mean I don't value their contribution to democracy.  Further, I'm not about to assert that Democratic values wouldn't be problematic in deep-red territory, such as southern Missouri. (my home state)

Our nation's pluralism is one of its strengths.

Those of you worried about lacking judicial experience, remember this fact:  John Roberts only had three years of experience in the federal judiciary.  In my opinion, that is pretty scant, especially given his nomination as Chief Justice, considering he had no experience as a justice of the Supreme Court.  Clearly his work in Washington and his law career figured into the decision to nominate and confirm.  There's more to be considered than whether or not someone has had experience as a judge, clearly.

What bothers me is that, as some as said, President Bush is expecting to be taken on his word.  Micheal Brown was installed as head of FEMA on the Executive Dept's word, and what did we learn with that?

Bush and his staff don't check references, and they clearly fail to perform background checks at times. (being as it is that Brown's resume was total fluff.)

Considering the time he's spent with Miers personally, that's less of a consideration.  However, it's still a pertinent point that mustn't be forgotten.  Pure unqualified cronies, at SCOTUS, could cause some serious issues.  Noone in this country wants the Executive Department to be able to call in Supreme Court decisions.  Sure, it may benefit issues on your agenda at the moment, but a precedent like that, in the hands of the opposition, could be a serious problem ten years down the line.  Any "progress" that you think you've made would be up for referendum by the next president with a nomination.  I'm willing to assume that no thoughtful American wants that.

...a large point to this useless post?

I meant is there a larger point to this useless post.