Posted on Fri, Oct. 28, 2005

Conservative pundits led charge against Bush choice

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post


WASHINGTON – Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham and their conservative colleagues didn’t sink the Harriet Miers nomination on their own. But in the blink of a news cycle, they turned against their president, framed the debate and provided the passion that undermined her case.

It was Krauthammer who offered the White House on Oct. 21 what he called “the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum” by using a refusal to turn over Miers’ internal memos as a fig leaf for withdrawing her Supreme Court bid – which is precisely what she did.

“I guess she reads my column,” the Washington Post and Fox News commentator said Thursday. “All that was missing was the footnote.”

This time, no one can blame the liberal media. And what made the right’s revolt all the more remarkable was that its opinion-mongering wing didn’t simply stand in polite opposition to Miers. Its troops hit the trenches, attacked Miers as unqualified, ripped President Bush for cronyism and in some cases raised money to defeat the nomination.

Some, like Ingraham, a former Supreme Court clerk whose syndicated radio show reaches 340 stations, felt the heat. “I received phone calls and e-mails saying I was being disloyal to the president and we were Borking Miers,” said Ingraham, whose stance was also challenged by about a third of her listeners. “I was standing up for what I believe are conservative judicial principles, and no one was going to dissuade me from that. ... Without alternative media, the talking points on Miers would have carried the day.”

The contrast with the nearly lockstep conservative support for the administration on other battles – from Iraq to the campaign against John Kerry to the CIA leak investigation – could hardly be starker. And the sheer speed of the anti-Miers broadsides meant that no one had to wait until the evening newscasts or morning papers to find out that much of the right was appalled by the prospect of Miers on the high court.

After Bush nominated his White House counsel at 8 a.m. on Sept. 29, Ingraham was criticizing Miers on the air at 9, and Kristol was doing the same on Fox News minutes later. At 10:17, Frum assailed the nomination on his National Review blog, an essay that drew extra attention because he had worked with Miers as a White House speechwriter.

“The talking point was ‘Let’s wait for the hearings because we don’t know anything,’ ” Frum said. “Well, I knew something. It was my responsibility. This was not fun. I take no pleasure in this. The long-term consequences for me are probably not going to be favorable.”

In recent days, Frum helped found a group called Americans for Better Justice, along with such columnists as Mona Charen and Linda Chavez. The group raised $300,000 and began airing anti-Miers commercials.

“I don’t think that’s what journalists ought to do, even if they’re in opinion journalism,” said Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard. He was one of the most prominent conservatives writing that his ideological allies should hold their fire until the Senate confirmation hearings.

“I thought the conservatives who came out so harshly against Miers were off base, but they had some effect in keeping Republican senators from immediately jumping behind Miers,” Barnes said.

At first, some White House supporters dismissed the early conservative critics as Ivy League elitists ganging up on a non-judge who attended Southern Methodist University. But the groundswell on the right spread: A skeptical Rush Limbaugh interview with Vice President Cheney. A National Review editorial saying the “prudent course” would be for Miers to withdraw. A Wall Street Journal editorial calling Bush’s move “a political blunder of the first order.”

As newspapers began digging out past speeches and writings by Miers on such subjects as affirmative action and abortion, right-leaning pundits grew even more alarmed that she was insufficiently conservative. National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg said he wound up channeling the views of lawyers and former Reagan and Bush administration officials who could not speak out because of “career considerations.”

“We were all hearing from people in the know that this woman simply wasn’t up to snuff,” said Goldberg, who initially took a wait-and-see stance and then opposed Miers as her past writings surfaced. “We were putting forth an argument that wasn’t just punditry. We were reflecting deep discontent within the conservative movement. We played a part in changing the climate simply because of the megaphone we have.”

Yep, we sunk her and America will be the better for it. Always looking out for you Johnny.

What point is this article trying to make?

That us repugs don't just blindly follow the President? Thanks!

He mad an idiotic choice with Mrs. Miers. Plain and simple...and conservatives called him on it. End of story. Nothing to pounce on here lefties.

What point is this article trying to make?

That us repugs don't just blindly follow the President? Thanks!

He mad an idiotic choice with Mrs. Miers. Plain and simple...and conservatives called him on it. End of story. Nothing to pounce on here lefties.

No I think the article is trying to make the point that the RIGHT WING MEDIA has more power than the office of the president. I think it makes that point well. And I think it torpedos your arguments that the media is solely liberally biased.

No I think the article is trying to make the point that the RIGHT WING MEDIA has more power than the office of the president. I think it makes that point well. And I think it torpedos your arguments that the media is solely liberally biased.

100% agreement!!!!!!!

I never stated that the media had a sole liberal bias. I think there is a definate slant toward the left when the media is concerned. Also this does not discredit that theory because in this instance it benifitted the left to report this event. So it disproves nothing.

The point is that President Bush made a bad choice. On that we agree. A large section of the conservative base made it known that they did not support Mrs. Miers and the problem resolved itself.

I don't think the right stands blindly behind the President and I don't think the left stood blindly behind President Clinton. It just seems that way when you're standing on the other side of the fence.

I don't think the right stands blindly behind the President and I don't think the left stood blindly behind President Clinton.But I thought we were all dittoheads, incapable of thinking on our own? You know why the left is pissed? They thought Miers was going to turn out to be an O'Connor. Nope, not this time.

The second the left didn't scream when Miers was nominated, I knew there was something wrong with her. Thanks for the heads up lefties.:waving:

Yeah...nice work guys :N

What point is this article trying to make?

That us repugs don't just blindly follow the President? Thanks!

He mad an idiotic choice with Mrs. Miers. Plain and simple...and conservatives called him on it. End of story. Nothing to pounce on here lefties.

You should go back and read up on a few threads when she was first nominated, you would think the Conservatives/Repub's here thought she was the best thing since sliced bread. Funny to see the snake turn around and bite it's own tail.

No I think the article is trying to make the point that the RIGHT WING MEDIA has more power than the office of the president. I think it makes that point well. And I think it torpedos your arguments that the media is solely liberally biased.

FreeFaller hasnt been on the 'Liberal Media' is ruining this country bandwagon as far as I can tell. It's the other righties here mostly.

FreeFaller hasnt been on the 'Liberal Media' is ruining this country bandwagon as far as I can tell. It's the other righties here mostly.

You're right. I'm sorry FreeFaller I didn't mean you in the literal sense of 'you FreeFaller' I meant you as in the conservatives on this board.

I should have said:

"...and it torpedos the conservative argument that..."

You're right. I'm sorry FreeFaller I didn't mean you in the literal sense of 'you FreeFaller' I meant you as in the conservatives on this board.

I should have said:

"...and it torpedos the conservative argument that..."

sorry, wrong. We conservatives have never said that the total media is liberal. We assert that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is liberal. No, we PROVE IT DAILY.

Here's another example for you, since you don't seem to get it yet.

TV Brands Alito an Extremist, but Touted Ginsburg the "Moderate"

Posted by Rich Noyes on November 2, 2005 - 08:15.

As soon as network reporters heard of his nomination, they began to brand Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito a right-wing extremist. During live coverage Monday morning, ABC's Charles Gibson termed Alito "very conservative" and "the most conservative member" of an otherwise "liberal appellate court." Over on CBS's Early Show, Gloria Borger dubbed Alito "quite conservative," the same label applied on CNN's Daybreak by Carol Costello. On Good Morning America, ABC's Jessica Yellin labeled Alito as "conservative" five times in 50 seconds.

Monday's evening newscasts carried the same message. On ABC, anchor Elizabeth Vargas called Alito a "staunch conservative," while Terry Moran found him "deeply conservative." CBS's John Roberts said that "if confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O'Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a solidly conservative direction." In contrast, NBC's Brian Williams, agreed Alito was "dependably conservative" but he also saw an "independent streak," as did reporter Pete Williams.

Despite the labeling, Alito's career — Justice Department lawyer, U.S. attorney, federal judge — is not that of an activist. In contrast, Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg had solid activist credentials as director of the Women's Rights Project for the ACLU, but reporters were loath to assign her a liberal label.

On the June 14, 1993 NBC Nightly News, Andrea Mitchell termed Ginsburg "a judicial moderate and a pioneer for women's rights." The next morning on ABC, Good Morning America co-host Joan Lunden asked legal editor Arthur Miller: "We hear words like ‘centrist,' ‘moderate,' ‘consensus builder.' How will she fit into this court?" Miller, a longtime friend of Ginsburg, predicted (wrongly) that she'd be a centrist Justice.
The morning after Judge Alito's selection, all three network shows featured both a liberal critic of Alito and a conservative supporter. But the morning after Judge Ginsburg's selection 12 years ago, the only guests invited to discuss Ginsburg were from the Clinton White House or her personal admirers. And the only complaints forwarded to audiences came from pro-abortion activists worried that the liberal feminist Ginsburg wasn't hardline enough on Roe v. Wade.

On the June 15, 1993 This Morning, CBS's Paula Zahn hit a pro-Ginsburg guest from the left: "The National Abortion Rights Action League is not totally comfortable with this nomination of Judge Ginsburg. They do not feel that she supports Roe v. Wade fully. Are their fears justified?" Over on NBC's Today, Katie Couric voiced similar fears to White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty: "So you don't think she has an open mind in terms of interpreting Roe v. Wade, as some abortion rights activists are concerned about?"

There was conservative opposition to Ginsburg from groups such as the National Right-to-Life Committee, but the broadcast networks just ignored it in their rush to gush (although CNN, to its credit, did include pro-life critics in their Ginsburg coverage.)

Now, the same hard left activists who worried about Ginsburg's purity are getting airtime to complain about Alito's supposed extremism. "I think it may even require the Democrats to filibuster," pro-abortion activist Kate Michelman claimed on Tuesday's Good Morning America. But 12 years ago, conservative activists troubled by Ginsburg's selection were shut out of TV coverage that celebrated her "centrism."

sorry, wrong. We conservatives have never said that the total media is liberal. We assert that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is liberal. No, we PROVE IT DAILY.


So the Wash. Post and Fox news isn't "mainstream media"??

Your article doesn't "prove" a damn thing, in fact the original article posted proves you are flat wrong. This is just another example of your (and the "christian-conservative-republican" bowel movement in general) hypocracy, since you don't seem to get it yet.

So the Wash. Post and Fox news isn't "mainstream media"??

Your article doesn't "prove" a damn thing, in fact the original article posted proves you are flat wrong. This is just another example of your (and the "christian-conservative-republican" bowel movement in general) hypocracy, since you don't seem to get it yet.

The Washington post is liberal.


And what do you base the claim Fox New Television is "conservative. The mere fact they have the nerve to hire ANY conservative commentators who aren't little more than strawman arguments? Or are you calling Greta Van Susteren,Chris Wallace,Juan Williams,Eleanor Clift,Alan Colmes,Susan Estrich,Jane Hall,Mort Kondracke,Mara Liasson,Ellen Ratner, or Geraldo Rivera conservatives?

How many conservatives are prominent on CNN?
I'd ask about MSNBC, but who cares... their viewership is limited to their family members.

And is the claim Fox News is more conservative than CNN and acknowledgment that CNN is infact dominated by a liberal agenda?

Your article doesn't "prove" a damn thing, in fact the original article posted proves you are flat wrong. This is just another example of your (and the "christian-conservative-republican" bowel movement in general) hypocracy, since you don't seem to get it yet.
What are you talking about? It clearly demonstrates that the media represented two judges, with distinctly different Judicial and political philosophies with entirely different levels of respect. Ginsberg, who is an unabashed liberal head counsel for the ACLU, was held up as a MODERATE of all things. And Alito, a guy who has been approved in the past with unanimous support, is represented as fringe extremist? That's a clear bias in the reporting.

Maybe in the newsroom Ginsberg is considered a moderate compared to the rest of the people there, I wouldn't be surprised.

Couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try.

Aren't you supposed to be studying?

And Alito, a guy who has been approved in the past with unanimous support, is represented as fringe extremist? That's a clear bias in the reporting.Both times he was nominated for judgeship he received 100-0 support. Both Times!

Now watch what happens to these same hypocrites on the left. This is going to be great.

Aren't you supposed to be studying?Aren't you supposed to be selling some lighting services? LOL.

Don't worry about Fossten. He can show his professor this forum and receive an 'A' in political science.

Couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try.

And I was about to post a reply as well, but since it's been summed up so nicely I think I'll go put that battery in one of the Town Car's that:Beer I've been meaning to get to.

Yay a round of back patting and self congratulations for the deluded conservatives

whoo parrrr ty

And what do you base the claim Fox New Television is "conservative.Why do you think FOX was so hugely successful? Because half this country was sick of listening to the b.s. that was reported and twisted every day. And now moderates and liberals are tuning in because finally they get to hear both sides of the story, which is always much more entertaining and enlightening.

Paar tay.

What are you talking about?

Allow me to hold your hand and walk you down the path of clear understanding of my point since you seem to be plagued by the same reading comprehension disease shared by many of your fellow conservative members here.

1) I post the article in an attempt to dispel the myth strongly-held by conservatives (as evidenced by numerous posts about the "Liberal Main Stream Media" here in this forum) that the MSM is purely liberal leaning.

2) Fossten even clarifies the definition of this myth:
We assert that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is liberal.

This statement is absolute, leaving no room for the possibility that, hey, some people in the MSM might also lean to the right.

Then boastfully adds:

No, we PROVE IT DAILY.

Followed by posting an article about biased reporting of two judges' positions.

3) I reply by stating that the original article I posted DIS-PROVES his assertion that the MSM is purely liberal.

I made no statement or implication that the MSM does NOT contain people with liberal leanings, ONLY to point out that the MSM is full of people with leanings to both sides. Therefore for anyone to come on here and attempt to bitch and moan and cry and kick their feet about the "Liberal MSM", to them all I have to say is they are full of Bull Sh!t.

Aren't you supposed to be studying?


Ha ha. Actually I'm at work.

Allow me to hold your hand and walk you down the path of clear understanding of my point since you seem to be plagued by the same reading comprehension disease shared by many of your fellow conservative members here.

1) I post the article in an attempt to dispel the myth strongly-held by conservatives (as evidenced by numerous posts about the "Liberal Main Stream Media" here in this forum) that the MSM is purely liberal leaning.

2) Fossten even clarifies the definition of this myth:


This statement is absolute, leaving no room for the possibility that, hey, some people in the MSM might also lean to the right.

Then boastfully adds:



Followed by posting an article about biased reporting of two judges' positions.

3) I reply by stating that the original article I posted DIS-PROVES his assertion that the MSM is purely liberal.

I made no statement or implication that the MSM does NOT contain people with liberal leanings, ONLY to point out that the MSM is full of people with leanings to both sides. Therefore for anyone to come on here and attempt to bitch and moan and cry and kick their feet about the "Liberal MSM", to them all I have to say is they are full of Bull Sh!t.

PURELY is your word. Not mine. I said liberal. Don't use dynamic equivalence to translate my statements.

PURELY is your word. Not mine. I said liberal. Don't use dynamic equivalence to translate my statements.

So you didn't say "We assert that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is liberal."?

So you didn't say "We assert that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is liberal."?

Sigh. Read the above post. I said what I said. Johnny inserted the word PURELY to achieve his own meaning.

Sigh. Read the above post. I said what I said. Johnny inserted the word PURELY to achieve his own meaning.


Correct, Johnny did say 'PURELY', but your statement is of itself absolute and final.

"We assert that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is liberal"

If you want to say it was taken out of context, that's your choice.

...it was taken out of context...

Why, thank you Deville, I appreciate you agreeing with me.

Just using absurdity to illustrate previous absurdity.

:bowrofl:

Why, thank you Deville, I appreciate you agreeing with me.

Just using absurdity to illustrate previous absurdity.

:bowrofl:

Lol

(This is an absolute sentence. Not much room for 'maybe's' or 'if's'. But have it your way.)

"We assert that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is liberal"

You said yourself that you said that, if you're implying that Johnny gutted the sentence like you did mine now then just say so.

Deville, we should stop wasting our time arguing with those who demonstrate factional competence to arrogance ratios. :D

Deville, we should stop wasting our time arguing with those who demonstrate factional competence to arrogance ratios. :D

Oops, I meant "fractional".

You're probably right Johnny.


On a different thought......

Notice how many times debate point's when they don't favor the 'RIGHTIES' either completely get dodged or get twisted back and forth so much that by the 3rd or 4th page of the thread the original point's are no longer being covered?

Sigh. Read the above post. I said what I said. Johnny inserted the word PURELY to achieve his own meaning.

So you will admit that what you SHOULD have said is "The MAINSTREAM MEDIA is more liberal than conservative". Right?

Look folks, the fact that MSM tends to be more liberal than conservative should not be any grand revalation. On the "inside", conservatives tend to be sneaky, secretive, deceptive, distrustful, greedy, closed-minded and unethical, while on the "outside" they try to appear all up-front and honest. In other words, full of their own sh!t, always trying to hide their real selves because, in the eyes of the "almighty god", they should be ashamed of themselves. Meanwhile, liberals tend to be open, honest, forthright, sharing, trusting, truthful, open minded and ethical. By definition, reporters MUST be in search of the truth, which requires them to ask the tough questions to seek out the reality of the situation. This requires a personality type that isn't ashamed or afraid of what "secrets" may be hiding in the closet. This is more closely aligned with a liberal attitude.

Look folks, the fact that MSM tends to be more liberal than conservative should not be any grand revalation. On the "inside", conservatives tend to be sneaky, secretive, deceptive, distrustful, greedy, closed-minded and unethical, while on the "outside" they try to appear all up-front and honest. In other words, full of their own sh!t, always trying to hide their real selves because, in the eyes of the "almighty god", they should be ashamed of themselves. Meanwhile, liberals tend to be open, honest, forthright, sharing, trusting, truthful, open minded and ethical. By definition, reporters MUST be in search of the truth, which requires them to ask the tough questions to seek out the reality of the situation. This requires a personality type that isn't ashamed or afraid of what "secrets" may be hiding in the closet. This is more closely aligned with a liberal attitude.

You came so close to finally speaking the truth. Here, I fixed your hallucination for you.

Look folks, the fact that MSM tends to be more liberal than conservative should not be any grand revalation. On the "inside", liberals tend to be sneaky, secretive, deceptive, distrustful, greedy, closed-minded and unethical, while on the "outside" they try to appear all up-front and honest. In other words, full of their own sh!t, always trying to hide their real selves because, in the eyes of the "almighty god", they should be ashamed of themselves. Meanwhile, conservatives tend to be open, honest, forthright, sharing, trusting, truthful, open minded and ethical. By definition, reporters MUST be in search of the truth, which requires them to ask the tough questions to seek out the reality of the situation. They have to act like a liberal, talk like a liberal, become a liberal if they have any chance of catching the liberal.:F

"I'm not a crook!"

Richard Nixon circa 1974


"I am not a thief."

Charles Keating circa 1998

"I'm not a crook!"

Richard Nixon circa 1974


"I am not a thief."

Charles Keating circa 1998

" Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time – never."

Bill Clinton circa 1998

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

-- Bill Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony

"Any president that lies to the American people should have to resign."

Bill Clinton

So you will admit that what you SHOULD have said is "The MAINSTREAM MEDIA is more liberal than conservative". Right?

Look folks, the fact that MSM tends to be more liberal than conservative should not be any grand revalation. On the "inside", conservatives tend to be sneaky, secretive, deceptive, distrustful, greedy, closed-minded and unethical, while on the "outside" they try to appear all up-front and honest. In other words, full of their own sh!t, always trying to hide their real selves because, in the eyes of the "almighty god", they should be ashamed of themselves. Meanwhile, liberals tend to be open, honest, forthright, sharing, trusting, truthful, open minded and ethical. By definition, reporters MUST be in search of the truth, which requires them to ask the tough questions to seek out the reality of the situation. This requires a personality type that isn't ashamed or afraid of what "secrets" may be hiding in the closet. This is more closely aligned with a liberal attitude.

Johnny, you're just mad because you got caught putting words in my mouth and now you're hastily backtracking to try to make me say what you said. It's fascinating watching you and Deville having a conversation with each other and pretending to be getting feedback from me as well.

Actually, I'm having more fun than ever watching you liberals stewing in your own juices, spitting hate. I can just picture you angrily pounding on your keyboard as you typed that post.

Johnny, you're just mad because you got caught putting words in my mouth and now you're hastily backtracking to try to make me say what you said. It's fascinating watching you and Deville having a conversation with each other and pretending to be getting feedback from me as well.

Actually, I'm having more fun than ever watching you liberals stewing in your own juices, spitting hate. I can just picture you angrily pounding on your keyboard as you typed that post.

There's no hate spewing...you said something illogical...now take credit for it.

There's no hate spewing...you said something illogical...now take credit for it.

You misquoted me yet again, Raveneyes. I said spitting, not spewing. It's a little nitpicky, but you do it all the time.

Now that's really funny. I've got a thread with FIVE pages and counting just filled with examples of the MSM's liberal bias, and yet you guys can't come up with one article that shows otherwise. So you try to get all semantical on me and get bogged down in minutiae in order to distract from the subject of this thread, and in the process you misquote me.

If you people had a clue about how to debate, you'd be posting examples of how I'm wrong, instead of trying to get me to change my wording. Typical.

Not to mention Raveneyes, who can't even add up numbers correctly, accusing me of being illogical.

This is hilarious.

:bowrofl:

Not to mention Raveneyes, who can't even add up numbers correctly, accusing me of being illogical.

Hey...I'm not the only one who didn't add numbers properly there Einstein...math and logic are not the same thing...you are illogical and math challenged.

Now that's funny I don't care who you are.

you guys can't come up with one article that shows otherwise

The whole thread was started with an article that proved the point...

Main stream media is not 100% liberal. It may be largely liberal, it may even be predominantly liberal, however saying "Mainstream media is liberal" is a falsehood and illogical.

Grow up. Get over yourself and your self righteous indignation. Learn to play with the big kids and maybe we'll start playing nice. Otherwise just go ahead and sit around being nit-picky with me and state falsehoods about me, and I won't feel guilty when I don't play nice.

blah blah blah...personal attacks as usual...blah blah blah...


It's so easy to get under your skin.

The whole thread was started with an article that proved the point...

Main stream media is not 100% liberal. It may be largely liberal, it may even be predominantly liberal, however saying "Mainstream media is liberal" is a falsehood and illogical.

Grow up. Get over yourself and your self righteous indignation. Learn to play with the big kids and maybe we'll start playing nice. Otherwise just go ahead and sit around being nit-picky with me and state falsehoods about me, and I won't feel guilty when I don't play nice.

So basically we all agree.

The "mainstream media" is covers these news stories from what could be called a predominantly liberal perspective. There are occassions where they will pursue a story simply on the basis of sensatationalism, but otherwise it's safe to assume the bias will be fairly labeled as "left-wing."

There wouldn't necessarily be anything wrong with this IF those in the 'news' industry would be honest about it. The criticism comes fromt he fact that despite the glaring bias, they still scream that there isn NO liberal slant. What is so offensive is the fact that they continue to lie about it.

So basically we all agree.

The "mainstream media" is covers these news stories from what could be called a predominantly liberal perspective. There are occassions where they will pursue a story simply on the basis of sensatationalism, but otherwise it's safe to assume the bias will be fairly labeled as "left-wing."

There wouldn't necessarily be anything wrong with this IF those in the 'news' industry would be honest about it. The criticism comes fromt he fact that despite the glaring bias, they still scream that there isn NO liberal slant. What is so offensive is the fact that they continue to lie about it.

Sure we can agree that the slant of a news article will usually be liberal, but I find it offensive that all media is labeled 'liberally biased' when there are plenty of right wing and plenty of neutral representations in mainstream news media.

Sure we can agree that the slant of a news article will usually be liberal, but I find it offensive that all media is labeled 'liberally biased' when there are plenty of right wing and plenty of neutral representations in mainstream news media.Sure, let's modify it from 'all media' to 'most media' outlets are liberal.

Sure, let's modify it from 'all media' to 'most media' outlets are liberal.
I think that was the point. I may be wrong because I didn't post the thread, but I think that was the idea...even though the title is a bit abrasive

I think that was the point. I may be wrong because I didn't post the thread, but I think that was the idea...even though the title is a bit abrasive

Yeah, that and the fact that this particular segment of the "conservative" side of the MSM took it upon themselves to raise money to launch a "Sink Meiers" campaign. Reminds me of the SBVT scam last year. You don't see the liberal side of the MSM doing that very often. Thus, it confirms the "abrasive" (albeit sarcastic) title.

Reminds me of the SBVT scam last year.You don't know crap about the SBVT. A group of outstanding guys thrust into the election because John Kerry and is big fat ego had to get up on stage and act like a war hero when the truth is he was far from that. After '4' deferments, he 'volunteers' for Vietnam after hearing his fifth and final deferment to go to Paris will be denied and he will be drafted instead of getting to pick and choose as he finally does. The Swift Boat guys are still being persecuted for telling the truth and are being sued to this day for making a documentary that exposed Kerry for the fraud that he is.

Yeah, that and the fact that this particular segment of the "conservative" side of the MSM took it upon themselves to raise money to launch a "Sink Meiers" campaign. Reminds me of the SBVT scam last year. You don't see the liberal side of the MSM doing that very often. Thus, it confirms the "abrasive" (albeit sarcastic) title.

What is your complaint? That people on the political right engaged in a sensible public debate about the qualifications of a nominee, and whether they thought she was the right choice for the issues facing the court through the future? A conspiracy is a clandestined group of people, operating behind the scenes in the shadows. This certainly isn't the case.

But to say the liberals in the MSM don't do that goes beyond simply making an incorrect statement. It's outright foolish. The left-wing engages in clandestine character assignation daily. That's their M.O. With the inability to advance an agenda that will be supported by the public, or intellectually supported, they've reduced themself to just destroying their opposition personally.

Upon his nomination, the leftist started advanicing "theories" that Justice Roberts was gay. Remeber Clarence Thomas' nomination? And it's the left-wingers in the MSM that pick up these balls and run with it, reporting the stories, marching orders, and press releases from the liberal groups like the DNC or ACLU as though they were truth. And they spin the stories about these people with the perspective that they are "evil, conservative, nazis" or something to the like.

On the "inside", liberals tend to be sneaky, secretive, deceptive, distrustful, greedy, closed-minded and unethical, while on the "outside" they try to appear all up-front and honest. In other words, full of their own sh!t, always trying to hide their real selves because, in the eyes of the "almighty god", they should be ashamed of themselves. .:F

Damn I thought you describing the Bush Cabinet! You have it right on the money...

Oh but then you can't see the truth and have to look at it all through the Bush-Davidians concept, we will follow our corrupt leader to hell.

Why not look at the truth. Open your eyes for once!

Damn I thought you describing the Bush Cabinet! You have it right on the money..
And you base this on what?

Oh but then you can't see the truth and have to look at it all through the Bush-Davidians concept, we will follow our corrupt leader to hell.
Would the simple fact that there was so much internal pressure to withdraw the Meirs nomination, mentioned in this thread, completely undermine your argument?

Why not look at the truth. Open your eyes for once!
Good advice, give it a try.

You don't know crap about the SBVT. A group of outstanding guys thrust into the election because John Kerry and is big fat ego had to get up on stage and act like a war hero when the truth is he was far from that. After '4' deferments, he 'volunteers' for Vietnam after hearing his fifth and final deferment to go to Paris will be denied and he will be drafted instead of getting to pick and choose as he finally does. The Swift Boat guys are still being persecuted for telling the truth and are being sued to this day for making a documentary that exposed Kerry for the fraud that he is.

To borrow a worn-out passage from another fellow member......

Actually, I'm having more fun than ever watching you RWWs stewing in your own juices, spitting hate. I can just picture you angrily pounding on your keyboard as you typed that post.

There is a lawsuit against the SBVT?? Please do tell!!!

Would the simple fact that there was so much internal pressure to withdraw the Meirs nomination, mentioned in this thread, completely undermine your argument?


That "pressure" to withdraw Meirs was EXternal, not INternal. She's an old pal of GW's, remember??

That "pressure" to withdraw Meirs was EXternal, not INternal. She's an old pal of GW's, remember??

Shows our party leaders can be influenced by us, but not by the screaming left.

To borrow a worn-out passage from another fellow member......



There is a lawsuit against the SBVT?? Please do tell!!!

Hah. You don't borrow, you distort and misquote.

Typical fib tactic learned straight from Dan Rather.

That "pressure" to withdraw Meirs was EXternal, not INternal. She's an old pal of GW's, remember??Do you all RWWs follow Bush blindly or not. Make up your mind.

Miers was not the best choice, period. Bush tried to placate the Democrats. Screw that and screw them. That is the message that Bush heard loud and clear.

There is a lawsuit against the SBVT?? Please do tell!!!If you were serious in your comment, I would. But I don't believe you are, therefore, look it up yourself.:F

Do you all RWWs follow Bush blindly or not. Make up your mind.

Miers was not the best choice, period. Bush tried to placate the Democrats. Screw that and screw them. That is the message that Bush heard loud and clear.

Lol., When she was first nominated, the RWW's here were defending Bush for choosing her and flinging feces at the Lefties for saying that Bush choose her for all the wrong reasons (i.e. Religious beliefs, Friendship etc.). Now that the Far Right has chewed her and spit her out all of you jump on the "She was a bad choice and it was a mistake" and 'We' fixed it ourselves' bandwagon.

Truth is, if she didn't decline and was still up for nomination, all the righties would still be defending Bush for choosing her.

Lol., When she was first nominated, the RWW's here were defending Bush for choosing her and flinging feces at the Lefties for saying that Bush choose her for all the wrong reasons (i.e. Religious beliefs, Friendship etc.). Now that the Far Right has chewed her and spit her out all of you jump on the "She was a bad choice and it was a mistake" and 'We' fixed it ourselves' bandwagon.

Truth is, if she didn't decline and was still up for nomination, all the righties would still be defending Bush for choosing her.

See, that proves that you don't pay any attention to what Conservatives do or say. You probably just swallow your opposition party's talking points without examining the facts.

The fact is that the Conservative community was critical and cautious of Miers from the MOMENT she was nominated. The only people defending her were Bush and his cabinet. I was unsure about her, so was Bryan. JOHNNY admits that the Conservative pressure got her to withdraw. Even the Democrat senators didn't know what to think. They actually liked her a little. If that ain't a red flag, what is?

Truth is, if she didn't decline and was still up for nomination, all the righties would still be questioning this pick by Bush and continuing to check her background.

Shows our party leaders can be influenced by us, but not by the screaming left.

So quitcherbitchin about the "liberal" MSM!

Do you <think> all RWWs follow Bush blindly or not. Make up your mind.

Miers was not the best choice, period. Bush tried to placate the Democrats. Screw that and screw them. That is the message that Bush heard loud and clear.

And a pleasent surpise, it was. I didn't want any of GW's "butt buddies" on the bench either.

See, that proves that you don't pay any attention to what Conservatives do or say. You probably just swallow your opposition party's talking points without examining the facts.

The fact is that the Conservative community was critical and cautious of Miers from the MOMENT she was nominated. The only people defending her were Bush and his cabinet. I was unsure about her, so was Bryan. JOHNNY admits that the Conservative pressure got her to withdraw. Even the Democrat senators didn't know what to think. They actually liked her a little. If that ain't a red flag, what is?

Truth is, if she didn't decline and was still up for nomination, all the righties would still be questioning this pick by Bush and continuing to check her background.

Go back and read the thread titled 'Will Bush Ever Tell The Truth'. It was posted when Miers was first nominated. I did not see one post from anyone in the right flat out denouncing Bush for his bad choice like there is now. As usual, the thread turned into a different topic fairly quick, so only the first page and a half is about the Miers nomination. Also, I am not talking about the ENTIRE conservative community, I was referring to the conservatives in here. I stated so in my post.

As far as not swallowing your parties talking points without taking in facts, take a good look at yourself before you point the finger.

...I was referring to the conservatives in here.

Here was my 1st post on the subject.

"You're not being gun shy. The left thinks she is a weak candidate is all. On the right, we want to make sure OUR candidate moves this court to the right. We have had enough of the Souters and Ginsbergs, thank you. Has nothing to do with lack of judicial experience. Over half of the Supreme Court justices had no prior bench experience. We want and deserve a CONSERVATIVE. We want and deserve a guaranteed CONSERVATIVE."

I wanted a conservative and when I found out she was not conservative enough for me, I objected.