SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (62684)10/3/2005 1:35:33 PM
From: abstract  Read Replies (2) of 65232
 
Your contention that it is the Main Stream Media and the Liberals that bash Bush is rather full of beans (it is seemingly everybody):

Michelle Malkin: “What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. It’s not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It’s that she’s so transparently a crony/’diversity’ pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush’s bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity–among conservatives as well as the nation at large–one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.”

National Review’s David Frum: “The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error. … [N]obody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States.”

American Spectator Blog: “ There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination. …According to several White House sources, few inside the building took the possibility of a Miers nomination seriously. Now that it’s a reality, they are stunned. ‘We passed up Gonzales for this?’ was one conservative staffer’s reaction.”

Instapundit: “Perhaps they’ll change my mind, but so far I’m underwhelmed.”

Public Advocate: “The President’s nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.”

RedState.org: “Color me less than thrilled . . . I just can’t think that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job.”

National Review’s Corner: “It’s an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president’s cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.”

Powerline Blog: “A Disappointment: Harriet Miers, that is. I’m sure that she is a capable lawyer and a loyal aide to President Bush. But the bottom line is that he had a number of great candidates to choose from, and instead of picking one of them–Luttig, McConnell, Brown, or a number of others–he nominated someone whose only obvious qualification is her relationship with him.”

Southern Appeal: “I am done with President Bush: Harriet Miers? Are you freakin’ kidding me?! Can someone–anyone–make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do?”

Right Wing News: “Disaster, Thy Name Is Harriet Miers: George Bush’s decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing. Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush’s pal.”

commondreams.org
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext