SCOTUS Nominee Harriet Miers
None of us know much about her, but I have a couple of predictions to make based on this profile in the Washington Post…..
1 – DailyKos and the others on the Anti-Religious Left will seize on this paragraph and insist she must be a lesbian.
Miers, who is not married and does not have children, was active in professional organizations and eventually was elected head of the Dallas and Texas bar associations, where she was known for encouraging members to do pro bono work.
After all isn’t every strong, single woman with no kids a lesbian?
(GP Editor’s Note — Confederate Yankee confirms I was right!)
2 – The Human Rights Campaign will oppose her nomination unless she publicly accepts her obvious lesbianism, has this week or proves she has had an abortion in the past. The HRC will call her a “threat to the future of mankind and future architect of the Montana Gay Concentration Camps.”
3 – Log Cabin Republicans will issue a wussy statement about their wanting questions answered and a fair process established in the Senate confirmation hearings, and express hope that….ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Even though I am confident that a ton of gay Republicans in DC must know Ms. Miers and/or her staff either professionally or through friends since she has worked in the Bush White House for years. Now that I think about it, maybe for Christmas I will give the Log Cabin Board and staff a new set of balls. For their ‘holiday tree,’ of course.
Ms. Miers is now for you to pick apart as I delve into my manic Monday.
UPDATE UNO: Unofficial members of the “BlogLeague of Gay conservatives (BLOG-c)” have their take on Ms. Miers’ pick. Chad (Cake Or Death?) thinks Bush has chosen a nominee that he expects will be shot down.
UPDATE DOS: Here’s the expected yawner from Log Cabin Republicans.
(Washington, DC)—”Log Cabin looks forward to a thorough and thoughtful review of Harriet Miers’ nomination to the United States Supreme Court. Recognizing the importance and impact of the Supreme Court, we support the confirmation of all fair-minded jurists to the bench. Given the lack of a public record on Ms. Miers, the confirmation hearings will be a critically important part of the confirmation process. Log Cabin will carefully study Ms. Miers testimony during this confirmation process, particularly as it relates to questions of basic fairness for gay and lesbian Americans.”
UPDATE TRES:The Human Rights Campaign has a less-than-over-the-top-and-bilious reaction so far, to my surprise. Hmmm.. is it because she is a lesbian?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
94 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dunno much about her, hope she’s a construtionist, but I’m not sure.
Considering that W has said all along that he likes Scalia and Thomas, he must feel pretty confident based on their personal relationship that she’s got her head in the right place. Unless, of course, he’s being a wuss again.
Bill Kristol just now on Fox News: “He flinched.” We’ll see.
I’m just glad she’s a mathematician, like me!
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 3, 2005 @ 9:06 am - October 3, 2005
Bruce,
Sometimes you understand why some people use the word spinster. This will be an interesting confirmation as she has no judicial record.
If she claims all that attorney client priv. she is heading for troubled water.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 3, 2005 @ 9:09 am - October 3, 2005
Or, Chandler, perhaps the partisans on the Judicial Committee, without a paper-trail for Miers will have to resort to asking her questions about her judicial philosophy instead of how she’d rule on their specific pet issues. The horror!
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 3, 2005 @ 9:48 am - October 3, 2005
Re: Point #2,
Forget the lesbianism. I think their main concern will be about whether or not an abortion lies in the background.
Re: Post #1,
As Jimmy says Math Sucks!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 9:58 am - October 3, 2005
[…] The GayPatriot thinks that the Dems will try to “out” her as a Lesbian (because she is not married and does not have any children, she must be gay). […]
Pingback by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Harriet Miers Nominated for SCOTUS — October 3, 2005 @ 10:04 am - October 3, 2005
Miers at First Blush
Even though the name of Harriet Miers last week began to rocket up the list of possible Supreme Court nominees, her nomination this morning still has me a little bit shocked. I thought it was a forgone conclusion that the President would shore up his …
Trackback by The Malcontent — October 3, 2005 @ 10:08 am - October 3, 2005
She’s done charity work for Exodus Ministries.
Comment by inLA — October 3, 2005 @ 10:44 am - October 3, 2005
No. 7: She’s done charity work for Exodus Ministries.
Former board member. Well that’s all you need to know. Some have claimed that Bush has personal experience with the ex-gay movement. Would explain a lot. GP and GPW are going to have to address this.
So far the “idea epidemic” seems not to defend her but to ridicule those that would oppose her.
Comment by anon — October 3, 2005 @ 11:01 am - October 3, 2005
Harriet Miers: Supreme Court Nominee
THE BIGGEST news of the day…
AP reports: “President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pi…
Trackback by California Conservative — October 3, 2005 @ 11:09 am - October 3, 2005
Libs Already Questioning Miers Sexuality
Wow. It took liberals less than two hours before questioning SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers sexuality. At least this time they are going after the candidate, instead of their kids. Update: GayPatriot made the prediction at 8:49 AM. Can we call…
Trackback by Confederate Yankee — October 3, 2005 @ 11:10 am - October 3, 2005
So, are liberals going to play another “Mary Cheney” card?
Comment by California Conservative — October 3, 2005 @ 11:10 am - October 3, 2005
It’s apparently a different Exodus Ministry, for prisoners.
And, I expect that it will be some on the right who will ask the lesbian question indirectly, given the anger that this nomination will generate on the right.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 3, 2005 @ 11:13 am - October 3, 2005
[…] [UPDATE 10:44 AM: According to Conservative Yankee, the lesbian theme is already being suggested! That didn’t take long. Do note, however that the Exodus Ministries to which Miers belongs is about re-habilitation of convicts, not about “re-habilitating gays.” Gay Patriot has some predictions.] […]
Pingback by The Anchoress » Miers: Anchoress Knows-all-Sees-all — October 3, 2005 @ 11:16 am - October 3, 2005
I’m an evangelical Christian and I don’t care if she IS a lesbian… but I do care that we have no idea how she will judge. Look at the blog pages. The base is demoralized. Will conservatives and evangelicals get out to vote if GW has screwed them? We know virtually nothing about Roberts, either. I guess George doesn’t take his promises very seriously.
Comment by Chris Malott — October 3, 2005 @ 12:11 pm - October 3, 2005
Right, because liberals care whether or not she’s gay because they’re all anti-gay. (rolling eyes) Think about what you’re writing. You really think Dems believe that being gay disqualifies anyone from being a SCOTUS justice?
How deluded can you be? If it was discovered that she’s had a female “roommate” for the past 30 years who do you think would be crawling the walls? The Family Research Council or the Human Rights Campaign? Which side generally thinks “living the gay lifestyle” means a person is morally and ethically corrupt as well as hellbound? Which side thinks that gay people have no right to marry, no right to be parents, no right to serve in the military? Especially take into consideration that either DOMA or gay marriage could come before the court within the next decade or so it wouldn’t be something that conservatives could ignore.
If you truly think that liberals would object to a lesbian on the court what are you smoking and why don’t you pass it around?
Comment by zoe kentucky — October 3, 2005 @ 12:20 pm - October 3, 2005
Liberals support stripping gays of rights via state and Federal law and constitutional amendment when a Democrat proposes or supports doing so, Zoe — indeed, they call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
I don’t think you understand the depth of hatred that the Democrats have for Bush, or the degree to which HRC is a puppet organization of the Democratic Party. HRC openly supported candidates who wanted to ban gay marriage for religious reasons and because it violated tradition. Their current executive director in his previous role gave $300k to a supporter of the FMA when ordered by the group’s lesbian founder.
In short, if Harriet Miers is a lesbian, the Democrats will oppose her because of the fact — and because it isn’t publicly palatable for them to admit that they oppose anyone who Bush nominates — and HRC as their puppet organization will oppose her as well.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 12:26 pm - October 3, 2005
Whoa! Easy there, Chris. Before we impugn W, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. If there’s one thing we can count on with Bush, he’s a man of his word.
Case in point: Although many of his conservative supporters have been criticizing him (myself of the loudest) for things like steel tariffs, prescription drug benefits, the education bill, etc., Bush is basically living up to his suggestion that he’s a compassionate conservative. You’ll recall that it was the same critics who were made nervous by that moniker when he coined it. He’s pissing a lot of us off, but you’ve got to hand it to him: He’s doing what he said he’d do.
One of the most maddening things for his opponents (and some of his supporters) is that Bush does what he says he’ll do. So what’s with the lack of faith here?
Now as the topic turns to Supreme Court nominations, it’s true we don’t know an awful lot about Roberts, and even less about Miers (hell, I have to keep looking up the spelling of her name). But what indication has Bush given us that he’s not going to come through here? I mean seriously: I remember nodding along all the way through the campaign in 2000 when Bush was going on and on about Supreme Court nominees and who he admired. He did it again in 2004 and I again nodded.
Now he’s nominated two people we don’t know very well. But nothing indicates that they’re anything other than constructionists. That’s what I want, and I believe Bush and take him at his word when he says he admires and would nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas. Are Roberts and Miers like Scalia and Thomas? We’ll find out. But Bush’s past track record, although disappointing to fiscal conservatives, is one of doing what he said he’d do. I see no reason to believe that, as far as Bush knows, Roberts and Miers are constructionists.
If they’re not, and we find out Bush didn’t nominate people he believed to be like Scalia and Thomas, I’ll be the first to line up to criticize him. But let’s not jump to the conclusion that he’s abandoned us just yet.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 3, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - October 3, 2005
It’s Miss Cleo!
Mom! Bruce at GayPatriot just made me spit out my coffee… None of us know much about her, but I have a couple of predictions to make based on this profile in the Washington Post….. 1 – DailyKos and the…
Trackback by Villainous Company — October 3, 2005 @ 12:36 pm - October 3, 2005
I’m an evangelical Christian and I don’t care if she IS a lesbian… but I do care that we have no idea how she will judge. Look at the blog pages. The base is demoralized. Will conservatives and evangelicals get out to vote if GW has screwed them? We know virtually nothing about Roberts, either. I guess George doesn’t take his promises very seriously.
Your sentiment is duly noted, Chris.
However, here’s the problem. Your group isn’t big enough in and of itself to completely get its way in everything. If you want that to happen, you have to make your group bigger, and that involves going to people directly. The most effective means of making politicians heel is through voter action.
Furthermore, the threat of staying home and not voting, while potent, carries with it some considerable risk. Had you done so in the last Presidential election, for instance, think of who would likely be nominating and what kind of justices they would be nominating.
Your choices are twofold — stay home and take that risk, or go work with voters to get what you want.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 12:43 pm - October 3, 2005
As someone who actually took W seriously on his promise to veto McCain’s free speech stompout, I say bullhockey. W is a politician (and often a stupid liberal one-compare his championing of No Child Left behind or the Medicare bill with his “support” for SS reform)
The real question is whether Miers is a constructionist or a compassionate conservative in the W mold. And considering how hot Bush was originally to push Gonzales on us, I suspect she’s just Gonzales in drag.
Comment by HowardDevore — October 3, 2005 @ 12:48 pm - October 3, 2005
“I’m an evangelical Christian and I don’t care if she IS a lesbian… but I do care that we have no idea how she will judge. Look at the blog pages. The base is demoralized. Will conservatives and evangelicals get out to vote if GW has screwed them?”
Social conservatives are already screaming “Betrayed! Betrayed!” One would think that Bush just nominated Nelson Rockerfeller as Supreme Court Justice. Social conservatives tend to be greedy and overreaching and then are somehow surprised when they are worse off for their overreaching. The same people who insisted on retaining and enforcing sodomy laws seem to have no clue that by doing so, they got Lawrence v. Texas which otherwise would never have come down. Same with Romer.
This nomination doesn’t knock anyone’s socks off, but she is likely to rule in ways that social conservatives would like. If they sit out of 2006 or 2008 because of her, then – well – they deserve to be permanently banished from the political process. They need to get beyond stupid.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 3, 2005 @ 12:49 pm - October 3, 2005
What “Bizarro World” do you hail from? This tortuous logic as to why Dems would oppose a lesbian is ludicrous.
Comment by Eric — October 3, 2005 @ 12:50 pm - October 3, 2005
Sullivan said she belongs to Exodos…interesting.
Comment by Aaron - LLP — October 3, 2005 @ 12:51 pm - October 3, 2005
A different Exodus.
Her one works with convicts or ex-convicts, I think.
Comment by joe — October 3, 2005 @ 12:54 pm - October 3, 2005
There’s nothing tortuous about it at all. The Dems will oppose anyone who Bush nominates, even if she is a lesbian, simply because Bush nominates them.
It has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with blind, partisan hatred; furthermore, because the HRC is nothing but a puppet organization of the DNC, as they showed with their multimillion-dollar endorsements calling Democrats who support banning and stripping the rights of gays “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, they will do as they’re told.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 12:55 pm - October 3, 2005
#17 – Bush’s “steel tariffs, prescription drug benefits, the education bill” are more destructive (of the nation’s future) than compassionate. If they’re “compassionate”, as Bush would claim (and as liberals would claim – remember, Kennedy wrote the Education bill), we have distorted the word “compassionate” out of all recognizable meaning.
#20 – I agree – Miers is most likely Gonzales in drag.
I wouldn’t care, since I am not a social conservative, except that I do want the best or most qualified people on the court. Roberts was probably the most qualified person in the United States, for his new job. But Miers seems more like a second- or third-string choice.
Comment by joe — October 3, 2005 @ 1:02 pm - October 3, 2005
I have to echo Eric on this. The hypocrisy of Democrats opposing a lesbian for the High Court is pretty breathtaking, just on the face of it all. But I guess it shouldn’t really surprise those of us who are conservative. It’s important to keep in mind that the Ku Klux Klan was founded in the South following the Civil War so that southern white Democrats could intimidate southern blacks and control their voting patterns. Regrettably, there are racists in both parties today, but the vast majority of those who preach race hate are Democrats. The fact remains that for over 140 years, racism has been and continues to be the domain of the Democratic Party. President Bush has the most racially diverse government in American history. Why, then, should it be a problem for Democrats if he extends that same politic to gender? Because the Democratic Party is fueled by social and political oppression, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Comment by greg — October 3, 2005 @ 1:09 pm - October 3, 2005
An absolutely awful choice. Not only is this woman lacking in basic gravitas, she only became a Republican relatively recently (note the Al Gore contributions listed on The Corner). The party switch was apparently some sort of career move; and her persona and career reek of opportunism.
I just hope the Senate Republicans have enough balls to say no. Give her, Brownie and the other cronies their Medals of Freedom and then appoint McConnell or Luttig to the bench.
Comment by JT — October 3, 2005 @ 1:30 pm - October 3, 2005
#20 Howard: Great point about McC/F. I, too, was disappointed that W had less than I had hoped for respect for the First Amendment. (Oh, how I went on and on red-faced and angry about that one!) But did he actually say he was opposed to it previously? I vaguely remember, but I’m not sure. Can someone help out?
But as far as your other examples, I think that helps prove my point about his “compassionate conservative” BS (by the way, his definition of the term, not mine): It’s what we should have expected; he didn’t pull the wool over our eyes with that one.
#26 joe: As I mentioned above and was alluding to in my original comment, W has indeed defined “compassionate” to mean big government and wasteful spending. But did anybody who supports him think he meant anything else when he said it? That’s my point: we saw this one coming, and if we didn’t, we’re as foolish as the Democrats say he is. For my money (no pun intended), it was a trade-off I was aware of and, unfortunately (especially in 2004, after 9/11) willing to make.
Sigh…what we need is someone internationally like Bush but domestically more like Kemp! Come to think of it, Kemp is like Bush internationally. Hmm…
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 3, 2005 @ 1:45 pm - October 3, 2005
Oh, but anyway, the point still is…let’s hold off for a bit and see what she’s all about before we give up. Here’s a hint: listen to the criticism coming from Kennedy and Shumer. That’ll be our indication of how much of a constructionist she is. I have a sneaking suspicion she’s a pretty hard-core constructionist. I, for one, don’t think W would have it any other way.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 3, 2005 @ 1:47 pm - October 3, 2005
“What ‘Bizarro World’ do you hail from? This tortuous logic as to why Dems would oppose a lesbian is ludicrous.”
Eric, does the name “Mary Cheney” ring a bell? The Democrats may not oppose Mier because she’s a Lesbian (assuming she is one), but they would not be above making her Lesbianism an issue in trying to focus opposition to her. You may choose to distinguish between opposing someone openly because of their sexuality, and trumpeting that person’s sexuality in the hope that someone else (e.g., the Religious Right) does the dirty work. Me, I think it’s a distinction without a difference: it’s using that person’s sexuality against her, and I think it’s dirty pool.
Comment by Brown Line — October 3, 2005 @ 1:52 pm - October 3, 2005
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowryprint022102.html
“WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
BUSH: That’s an interesting question. I — I — yes I would. The reason why is two — for one, I think it does respe — res — restrict free speech for individuals. As I understand how the bill was written, I — I – I think there’s been two versions of it, but as I understand the first version restricted individuals and/or groups from being able to express their opinion. . . . ”
Bush’s opposition to CFR was the only thing that made him palatable in 2000. And if the Dems would have nominated somebody sane in ’04, I would have sat on my but (but I live in central IL, so I’m sure somewhere up in Chicago I cast a vote or 5 for the Dem).
And how long before his poll numbers plumet to the 20s and 30s and Dems say-“See the country would rather have Kerry and no war” when the real cause is Bush pissing of his base.
Roberts looks to be Rheinquest II on paper. The fear with Meirs is that she will be another O’Connor or Souter.
2 nominations with a Republican President and Majority, and no change in the court makeup. Ugh. 10 more years of Kelo, Lawrence and the other travesties.
Comment by HowardDevore — October 3, 2005 @ 2:02 pm - October 3, 2005
When there could have been a GREAT choice, W made a lame choice which demonstrates neither leadership, conviction, nor insight. It’s like selecting a site for his presidential library and W selects Boise. Nothing wrong with Boise; just the wrong answer for any important question.
So is Miers. Did you hear W offer that Rehnquist had zero judicial experience before becoming an Associate. “I knew Bill Rehnquist, Mr President, and she’s no Bill Rehnquist.” She’s the wrong answer to an important question. I’d have expected former Governor W to nominate her to an open spot on the Texas Supreme Court or a state appeals court –not this Court, not as President.
If confirmed, Associate Souter will breathe a sigh of relief… she let’s him off the hook for the most inappropriate appointment in the modern court history. The Texas mafia wins another round inside the Executive Office and W supporters are left with another “mistake”.
I think W should have asked SlickWilly for help in selecting justices and get him off the relief dinner circuit; SlickWilly at least knew what was needed and made the right choices for his presidency.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2005 @ 2:06 pm - October 3, 2005
And it’s (Miers as screener come choice) a play on Dick Cheney screening possible veep candidates for W, only to become the leading contender in a field populated by much better choices for W.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2005 @ 2:10 pm - October 3, 2005
One has to be screwing some warm body, dontcha know.
Oh, and have a least one accidental procreative effort.
Comment by Juliette — October 3, 2005 @ 2:17 pm - October 3, 2005
Zel Miller Democrat?
That’s my read on Harriet Miers. I can live with that. In fact, I am betting that Bush is counting on her past background as a Democrat to pacify the left (Harry Reid did suggest her to Bush). He will have a harder time with some Republicans, b…
Trackback by Lime Shurbet — October 3, 2005 @ 2:17 pm - October 3, 2005
There is much speculation going on and time will of course tell. I think she is very in the O’Conner mode. Not what the further reaches of either side wanted but someone (as we say in Texas) smack dab in the middle with a tendancy to lean just a little either direction.
Comment by R Cane — October 3, 2005 @ 2:28 pm - October 3, 2005
#32 Howard: Thanks. Spot on. Looks like you have had that link at your fingertips for guys like me, huh? 🙂 Definitely worth thinking about.
Has there been any (logical, Kool-aid-free) refutation or explanation of this?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 3, 2005 @ 2:38 pm - October 3, 2005
“Which side thinks that gay people have no right to marry”
That’d be a solid majority of the country, well above 50% even in places like Oregon. Oregon!
I don’t agree, but you’ve got to realize that the problems on this issue go deeper than just one party.
Comment by Knemon — October 3, 2005 @ 3:31 pm - October 3, 2005
#39- No, but my google fu is strong.
The only refutation usually offered is that Bush signed CFR hoping that the Supremes would strike it down.
And we saw where that led.
The fact that the man played politics rather than doing what he promised speaks volume of character to me. I lost all faith in Bush after that. And neither he or the Republican majority have done much to win it back.
Comment by HowardDevore — October 3, 2005 @ 3:45 pm - October 3, 2005
The Dems did not automatically vote against Roberts — in fact, quite a few of them supported him. So the thought that the Dems go against everything Bush does is baseless. In fact, most Dems have SUPPORTED the Bush agenda in voting for the war, voting for tax cuts and so on. That’s why liberals are furious at their own party, for being spineless wimps who don’t stand up for themselves.
Second, it is the Democratic party that clearly favors more rights for gays than the Republicans. Just look at last year’s platforms during the presidential election.
Third, Mary Cheney is a lesbian who work as the campaign manager for her father, the VP of the US, who also supported the Republican platform to deny gays and lesbians basic rights. Not special rights, basic rights, like the right to marry and to be free of discrimination. So what we have here is a lesbian actively working to deny lesbians basic rights. In these here parts, we call that hypocracy, and it deserves to be condemned.
Fourth, during the campaign, the religious right made quite a bit about how gays and lesbians plan to recruit your children and will destroy the foundations of civilization unless we are stopped. If true, then why did they embrase a man for VP whose daughter is obviously one of these evil people? Again, the hypocracy is what is the problem.
Fifth, back to the main question about Meirs, if she is a lesbian, the Democrats may vote against her, but not because she is a lesbian, but because there are plenty of other reasons to vote against her, such as her lack of experience of any sort on the bench. However, if she is a lesbian, and she states that gays deserves no rights at all, then that is also a legitimte reason to vote against her.
Comment by Randy R. — October 3, 2005 @ 4:45 pm - October 3, 2005
So Randy, if the Dems would never support anyone who believes in denying gays a basic right, such as the right to marriage, how do you explain the fact that their nominees for President and Vice President opposed gay marriage (on religious and traditional grounds) and vociferously supported state constitutional amendments designed to do exactly that?
I always find it amusing when gay activists scream about the party’s “platforms”. The Dems seem to have figured out that, as long as they write into their platform that they support “full inclusion” and “equality”, they can even make blatantly-antigay actions and gay activists will still call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
In short, those platforms aren’t worth the paper on which they’re printed. But they provide a convenient way for gay leftists to explain why giving money and undying support to people who support stripping gays of rights is a good idea.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 5:01 pm - October 3, 2005
NDXXX, hate to disagree with ANYthing you say, but the line about the platforms not being worth the paper they’re printed on… kind of wrong. I’ve worked on some of those “worthless” platforms. They may/may not reflect the policy preferences of the candidates, but one thing they do represent very well are the policy preferences of the collective party structure and especially those who attend national conventions… and very clearly the policy issues, preferences and attitudes of the party elite –since that’s mostly who sit on the platform committee and subcommittees. And the likely nominee generally controls the chair assignments.
They can be dismissed by the general public 30 seconds after they’ve been approved by the convention, but they are a snapshot –usually one that’s predicated on concensus– of the party elites and convention regulars.
They are worth more than the paper they’re printed on… how much more depends on who is using them and for what purpose. I respectfully submit.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2005 @ 5:14 pm - October 3, 2005
You’re more than welcome to disagree with me, Matt. My experience has been — especially in Texas — that they put the looniest of the loonies on the platform committee because it’s the least powerful in terms of state party committees and it’s where it was previously thought they could do the least damage.
After last year’s fiasco, I daresay they’ll be on the cookies-and-punch committee this time around.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 7:06 pm - October 3, 2005
[…] It’s awfully funny that James Dobson supports the Miers nomination, while at the same time the idiotarians on the left are, as predicted, calling her a lesbian. Like Maureen said in comments here earlier, “Irony is such a beautiful thing!” Basil’s Blog linked with 20051003s 2 Comments » […]
Pingback by MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » More about Harriet Miers: Beth Without Profanity Edition — October 3, 2005 @ 7:08 pm - October 3, 2005
If Harry Reid had her on his reccomend list, then Bush blinked. With a Reid reccomend, the hearing will be interesting, informative and a done deal.
What is that I hear?
A lame duck quacking.
Move on folks, there won’t be any sparks till the Republicans leave the ship and the 06 election is in sight.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 3, 2005 @ 7:31 pm - October 3, 2005
#41-44 NDXXX, no offense, but if Texas state party politics is your experience base, I see why you hold that “truth” to be self evident: that platforms aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. “Looniest of the loons” may be apt. But that’s a state party, NDXXX. And, no offense, it’s Texas.
Not a national party organized at a national nominating convention –and those are platforms most people think of when they offer opinions on “platforms”. And that’s what RandyR noted.
Needless to say, thanks for the opportunity to disagree with you. My observation stands: platforms are worthy of examination and they do reflect a consensus on policy issues offered by party elites. If they hold anti-gay planks –then they’re there because the party elites allowed it and it reflects a segment of the party.
What you’re really missing is that more than a little thought and effort go into crafting the document –extensive debate, lawyers and policy wonks crafting language, intraparty segments battling for policy primacy through the written word… then more debate, more examination by others. Maybe boring and dismissive, but it’s still the largest collection of policy statements before the candidates begin in earnest. And it does reflect the policy preferences of the party’s elite… do the convention delegates read it cover to cover like some read your blog? NO, of course not. Party delegates at a national convention are more about today’s event/celebration, the newest button, and having fun -–but you can damn well bet someone on the prospective nominees’ campaigns have been working on the platform language for weeks… and the party’s permanent structure staff have been working on it for months.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - October 3, 2005
Actually, my experience base is quite a bit more than just Texas, Matt. But I also see your point that a lot of work goes into it; it’s just that I’ve never met or worked with a candidate, and that includes national-level ones, that didn’t hold quite a bit of disdain for the party platform.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 9:14 pm - October 3, 2005
Interesting comments on the Miers nomination. And I mean that. I respect that Republicans (even on a gay repub site) would actually disagree with each other. Not often you see that – at least out in the open.
We’re all trying to sort this nomination out but, so far, I have to say it feels much like it felt after Bush put Roberts forward and, while we haven’t a single decision from Roberts to know for sure, there is a sense that he and Miers are unlikely to be the ideologues we on the left half of the continuum feared from the Bush nominations. Extremists on both sides may wail about this choice, but – absent evidence – that should make those of us in between feel pretty good.
By the way, commenters above trying to depict liberal and Dem reaction via Kos are apparently not reading even Kos. His take on the situation might make more sense that some of you would want to admit: Kos at DKos today: ”Breyer was confirmed 87-9. Ginsburg 96-3. At the time, Republicans were a minority in the Senate, a situation not unlike today. I must admit a bit of nervousness at those who want to FILIBUSTER MIERS NOW! without regard to the political situation. Fact is, we need a new Supreme Court justice, and Bush, as president gets to nominate. The Senate, run by Republicans, gets to confirm. That’s a perk of winning elections, and one that I hope Democrats get in just a few short cycles. We could filibuster, but really, it was in Bush’s interest, just like Clinton’s, to find a safe candidate. Reid offered up Miers, Bush agreed.”
Also from Kos at DKos today, perhaps the definitive statement of attitudes toward the gay dimension: “Miers Hearts Gays: Or at the very least, she doesn’t hate them. I wonder what Dobson has to say about that. As reported by AmericaBlog: ‘I just received a document from the Human Rights Campaign that appears to be a “gay rights” questionnaire Harriet Miers filled out in 1989 when she was running for Dallas city council. (HRC says they got the document from a trusted source and thus believe it to be authentic.) There are few interesting things about this questionnaire: 1) The questionnaire is from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas. 2) Miers seems supportive of increased AIDS funding, which isn’t a small deal in 1989, especially in a more conservative place with Texas. 3) Miers says she believes gays should have the same civil rights as straights. Again, perhaps no big shocker today, but this was 1989 in Texas. 4) At the end of the questionnaire, Miers says she is NOT seeking the endorsement of the gay rights group. 5) But then why did Miers fill out their questionnaire in the first place.’”
Thirty, don’t know where you were in your sexual dilemmas back in ’89 or how much you knew then about local gay groups, but it’s your neck of the woods, so fill us in. Is Miers gay-friendly or just gay-exploitive. One things seems clear (especially to the Freepers): she sure was ladling out cash to Democrats in those days.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 3, 2005 @ 9:50 pm - October 3, 2005
As #49 noted, Ms. Miers is on record in Texas as stating that she believes gays are entitled to civil rights protections and that she believes in additional public funding for AIDS patients. The mainstream media is already circulating this information.
In addition, Ms. Miers was active in the American Bar Association promoting an ABA policy in favor of gays adopting children.
So it would appear Ms. Miers is not a clone of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. But I am greatly concerned that James Dobson of Focus on the Family is “excited” about her nomination. He told FOX News he knew things he couldn’t talk about. If that sick, evil man is for her, it rings alarm bells in my mind.
PS — The Exodus group in which she is involved works with prisoners. It is not the group that ministers to “ex” gays.
Comment by Jack L. Allen — October 3, 2005 @ 11:04 pm - October 3, 2005
Don’t worry about Dobson; he is just towing the party line.
Has he EVER dissed a Bush pronouncement from on high?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 3, 2005 @ 11:16 pm - October 3, 2005
#9 no duh.
Comment by gijoe — October 4, 2005 @ 12:05 am - October 4, 2005
Move on folks, there won’t be any sparks till the Republicans leave the ship and the 06 election is in sight.
As long as the liberals have Chumps like you running around and consign themselves to the whackos fighting for control, noboy’s leaving anytime soon.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 4, 2005 @ 12:54 am - October 4, 2005
#53
You’re so cute when you’re vapid.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 4, 2005 @ 12:58 am - October 4, 2005
North Dallas Forty: “So Randy, if the Dems would never support anyone who believes in denying gays a basic right…”
No, I didn’t say that. What I said was ” it is the Democratic party that clearly favors more rights for gays than the Republicans.” Quite a bit different, eh? Yes, there have been Dems who have not favored any gay rights. However, if you look at the voting records of all congressmen and senators, you will find that far more vote in favor of such things as ENDA (The employment non-discrimination act), and against the Amendment to the US constitution to ban gay marriage, are in fact Democrats. No, Dems don’t always do everything we like, but the record shows that they do so much more often than Republicans.
Comment by Randy R. — October 4, 2005 @ 1:21 am - October 4, 2005
First off, in 1989, when Ms. Miers was running for Dallas City Council, I was sixteen years old, and my primary concern at that point was the intricacies of defending against the triple option, not politics.
However, in my experience with Ms. Miers, in answer to QP’s question, while I can say positively that she is not gay-exploitative — in short, she’s not dumb enough to think that she can get away with words and not actions — I can only say that your definition of “gay-friendly” depends on how you define that.
I would be more apt to call her “gay-fair” — that is, she does not discriminate or narrow her views based on sexual orientation. Her stance on the AIDS issue was an excellent example; she was one of the first people to recognize that AIDS was more than a “gay issue”, and she acted accordingly. She did not exclude the issue because AIDS was occurring primarily among gays, nor did she advocate cutting gays out of the solution.
Similarly, when she went to the Lesbian/Gay Coalition meeting, that was an excellent example of her style — even though she may not agree with you, she thinks you’re entitled to know where she stands, and she doesn’t mince words.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2005 @ 1:46 am - October 4, 2005
I’m sorry, RandyR, but this is what you said (emphasis mine):
Second, it is the Democratic party that clearly favors more rights for gays than the Republicans. Just look at last year’s platforms during the presidential election.
Let me quote the aforementioned Democratic Party platform:
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.
Now, how does banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendment, as the candidates selected by the very same convention which ratified this platform strongly and publicly advocated doing, fit this? You define marriage as a “basic right”, RandyR; how does denying it to glbts qualify as “full inclusion” and “equality”?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot:
However, if you look at the voting records of all congressmen and senators, you will find that far more vote in favor of such things as ENDA (The employment non-discrimination act), and against the Amendment to the US constitution to ban gay marriage, are in fact Democrats.
What an interesting double standard. You can be in favor of banning and stripping a “basic right” from gays via constitutional amendment, but you’re still “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, as long as you support employment nondiscrimination and you don’t support amending the Federal constitution. As the example of Inez Tenenbaum showed, if you’re a Democrat, you can support the FMA and still get hundreds of thousands of dollars of support from prominent gay leftists like Joe Solmonese, current head of HRC, and Emily Malcom, crony of HRC kingmakers Hilary Rosen and Elizabeth Birch.
Of course, that’s only if you’re a Democrat — if you’re a Republican, holding those positions would get you immediate denunciation as being completely antigay, evil, and hideous — just look at John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
My advice to you, RandyR; ditch the platform and start looking at what people actually do. You will be amazed and amused at what Democrats do because they think that all gays have their noses buried in it; witness Mark Leno last year arguing that gay marriage wasn’t important or necessary when John Kerry supported banning it, then this year screaming that anyone who would oppose it was a horrible antigay bigot.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2005 @ 2:17 am - October 4, 2005
Plugging the Dyke
You are woman, hear you roar. You need no man. Men are a crutch. Who needs the male species for validation? Not you. You’ve set children aside. No modern woman needs them for fulfillment. Do what stirs your soul. Learn. Live. Explore. Love. Dedicate …
Trackback by The Malcontent — October 4, 2005 @ 3:50 am - October 4, 2005
3 – Log Cabin Republicans will issue a wussy statement about their wanting questions answered and a fair process established in the Senate confirmation hearings, and express hope that….ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Every time I read this, I start giggling all over again.
Comment by Robbie — October 4, 2005 @ 5:24 am - October 4, 2005
Thank you Thirty for the response in No. 56. As much as I’m loathe to trust your judgment on some issues, you’re about as close a contact to the gays-in-Dallas subject as we have, and I take heart in your report on Ms. Miers’ conduct among gays there. Sounds like you may actually know the woman, in which case we’d all certainly understand it if you were excited about her nomination. Are you?
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 7:59 am - October 4, 2005
On a separate note and in the category of it-needs-to-asked: do we have another Tammy Faye on our hands here?
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051002101209990003&_ccc=2&cid=842
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 8:36 am - October 4, 2005
Two things: One, I vastly would have preferred someone more reliably constructionist like Janice Rogers Brown, or Edith Jones, or Miguel Estrada, but, as long as Miers proves to be qualified, I wouldn’t oppose her nomination to the court.
Having said that, the Miers nomination does show that 1.) Bush continues the cronyism that has plagued his administration* and 2.) Bush has no stomach for a fight. It would be a refreshing change to see a Republican president who didn’t duck and cover every time he got pushback.
* Although, as I have said, my earlier beating up on Michael Brown appears less justified as more facts come to light. His handling of the Katrina situation should rightfully be upgraded from ‘incompetent’ to ‘mediocre.’
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 10:34 am - October 4, 2005
I know Ms. Miers professionally and politically.
As far as “excited”, I am happy for her, and I am pleased that someone who I consider an “honest umpire” is being placed on the Court.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2005 @ 10:36 am - October 4, 2005
Interesting piece in today’s WSJ: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354
I think the guy is right. Miers is a bad choice…..not because she isn’t a great lawyer and not because she isn’t gay-positive on some level…..but because she is simply NOT properly experienced and qualified. If she has what it takes to be a good Federal judge, then appoint her to an Appeals court first, for some proof and seasoning there.
You don’t give a private lawyer the Supreme Court as their first-ever judgeship. I mean, I know it’s been done, but (1) it probably shouldn’t be, (2) it certainly shouldn’t be done with someone who has never held public office beyond Dallas City Council. Earl Warren had at least proven himself as a State governor, right?
Harriet Miers is a bad appointment.
Comment by joe — October 4, 2005 @ 10:46 am - October 4, 2005
Oh and P.S., the essence of the WSJ article I linked is that Harriet Miers’ appointment is an example of cronyism, one which the Framers of the Constitution would have viewed with contempt almost automatically.
#62 – I agree – On recent evidence, Michael Brown wasn’t incompetent; just not sterling. – I disagree that Bush “has no stomach for a fight” or immediately caves; look at Iraq. I think what we are seeing with Miers is that Bush would rather pick his fights carefully, and he decided to let Harry Reid vet this one; also, Miers is very close to Bush and (he hopes) very loyal to him, making it a win-win for Bush….except for the fact that (again) we all lose because she’s fundamentally not qualified and should not have been picked.
Comment by joe — October 4, 2005 @ 10:52 am - October 4, 2005
VdaK, no offense but try to name an Administration of late that wasn’t hip deep in cronyisticalishness… it’s tough to do ’cause, unless you come to the WH without a political base, the cronyies are the ones who got you there, the ones you feel merit/deserve your loyalty, and the ones think you can trust –until they screw up. And then, sometimes, as Prez you still support ’em rather than toss them onto a sword.
W had the unique chance to pick a stellar nominee. He chose someone close, someone with Texas ties, someone he’s learned about and grown to know under tough conditions. Maybe he was more concerned about picking someone he could personally attest would be a strict constructionist and not legislate from the bench… if so, his conscience is content. He was elected to make the tough choices/decisions on behalf of all Americans and his supporters.
Or maybe because he gave the Right CJSCOTUS Roberts and lots of fairly vibrant, young, keen conservative federal judges, he could make this choice a personal one? I still think it’s more a bunt, less a homerun.
I don’t know; I’m waiting for memoirs.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 4, 2005 @ 10:57 am - October 4, 2005
MattandJoe (now there’s a cute couple name), my dream SCOTUS pick would have been someone with a brilliant mind, and no legal experience. My dream conservative president would likewise be a person with a brilliant mind, a peerless grasp of history, and a willingness to fight for his principles.
I can think of two names that would work for both: Newt Gingrich, and Victor Davis Hanson.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 11:49 am - October 4, 2005
I don’t think VDH would want to be a SCOTUS judge, though.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 11:50 am - October 4, 2005
Dallas:My advice to you, RandyR; ditch the platform and start looking at what people actually do. You will be amazed and amused at what Democrats do because they think that all gays have their noses buried in it; witness Mark Leno last year arguing that gay marriage wasn’t important or necessary when John Kerry supported banning it, then this year screaming that anyone who would oppose it was a horrible antigay bigot.”
Sheesh. That’s exactly what I am doing! As I said, look at the voting records in congress. I agree, not ALL Dems vote in favor of gay rights, and yes, I was upset about Kerry’s stance. And in general (yes, yes, this is a generalization) the Dems have a much better voting record on gay rights than the Republicans do. Down there in Texas, with the Republicans in full control, how many gay rights bills are being passed? In Georgia, the Repugs are trying to deny gays the right to adopt. Nancy Musgrave, a Repubs is the original sponsor of teh FMA, which garnered far more support from the Repubs than the Dems.
You keep isolating a handful of Dems, and keep saying that they represent the entire Dem party. What I am trying to show you is that the entire Dem party isn’t unified on gay rights, but most Dems are in favor. The Repubs are not unified against gay rights, but most are against. The platforms are not proof of this, I agree, but they are indeed evidence consistent with this conclusion.
So my advice to YOU, Dallas, is to investigate the voting record of all congressmen and senators, as the HRC has done, and compare.
Comment by Randy R. — October 4, 2005 @ 12:28 pm - October 4, 2005
I understand it is very frustrating when a politician doesn’t live up to their promise, and some prominent people have been mentioned who didn’t back all the gay rights positions that we would have liked. But this is true for politicians of all stripes. I myself don’t give money to any politician who believes that gay marriage isn’t necessary. But I did give money to Kerry’s campaign for two reasons: His position on gay rights was better than George Bushs, and two, his position on most of the issues I am concerned about (the war, the economy, taxes, the deficit, the trade deficit) were more in line with mine. Given the limited choice of two men, I HAVE to choose. (Yes I had another choice — not vote, but I refuse to not vote, seeing as it’s as close to being “unamerican” as possible. I hope on that issue, at least, we can all agree).
And so we choose the lesser of two evils. Given the winner take all approach to our brand of politics, having choosen Kerry, I had to support his campaign 100%, even though I disagreed with so much of what he did, and fully blame him for losing the election.
I wish it were not either or. I wish for every elected office, we had at least one person who fully backed gay rights. But that is often rare. So in the absense of a perfect world, I seek to support Democrats.
Why? Because hopefully, if Democrats take back either or both houses, there is a greater likelihood of ENDA passing. I know, 10 years ago, when the Dems controlled everything, ENDA was not passed by the Dems. But the Repub leadership won’t even allow ENDA to come to a vote on the floor. So all other things being equal, the Dems are better on this issue. So if there are more Dems — even some who are hypocrites, or worse — the sheer number of Dems would mean that the Dems would control the agenda by their majority, and we would be further along.
Yes, this is a long and arguous process. Yes, it’s often two steps forward, one step back. But the point is to keep the fires going in all places: the courts, the legislatures, the churchs, the media, and within our families. The debate will never be over — who said the debate on racism or sexism is over? But with poking and proding at all levels, we can at least achieve legal equality, and work on the social equality at the same time.
Comment by Randy R. — October 4, 2005 @ 12:41 pm - October 4, 2005
#67 Newt on the Court? Damn, that’s thinking outside the proverbial box. Hmmmm. But I agree, he’d have been better than HMiers and it would have been a homerun –not a bunt down the third base line.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 4, 2005 @ 12:42 pm - October 4, 2005
You keep isolating a handful of Dems, and keep saying that they represent the entire Dem party.
Silly me; I made the assumption that the Democrats’ Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, as well as their last President, were actually representative of the Democratic Party.
When you show me that the Democratic Party yanked its endorsement of these people and Inez Tenenbaum and blasted them for being antigay bigots, then I’ll believe that Democrats support gay rights. Until then, I’ll just call the Dems lying bastards who have so brainwashed the gay community that they can openly support stripping gays of rights and still be called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Down there in Texas, with the Republicans in full control, how many gay rights bills are being passed?
Hmmm…..since John Kerry’s support of the Missouri and Massachusetts state constitutional amendments was called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, what exactly do you define as a gay rights bill? Republicans shot down an attempt to ban gays from adopting this year; in addition, Republicans that I have worked with helped Dallas, Fort Worth, and various suburbs thereof both pass some of the most progressive nondiscrimination ordinances in the country, elect multiple gay City Council members, and a lesbian sheriff (who isn’t even a Republican, but is far better than the corrupt idiot who was there previously).
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2005 @ 12:49 pm - October 4, 2005
#71 – Newt would make a lot of great decisions, as a Justice – and as an ex-Speaker, he’s dealt with Constitutional questions over the years quite a bit more than Miers has.
But Newt would never be able to keep his yap shut enough to get through confirmation, much less enough to avoid impeachment (for creating controversy) once he was in office.
Comment by joe — October 4, 2005 @ 1:22 pm - October 4, 2005
I myself don’t give money to any politician who believes that gay marriage isn’t necessary. But I did give money to Kerry’s campaign for two reasons: His position on gay rights was better than George Bushs, and two, his position on most of the issues I am concerned about (the war, the economy, taxes, the deficit, the trade deficit) were more in line with mine. Given the limited choice of two men, I HAVE to choose. (Yes I had another choice — not vote, but I refuse to not vote, seeing as it’s as close to being “unamerican” as possible. I hope on that issue, at least, we can all agree).
The problem is in my mind, Randy, that you’re confusing who you vote for with whom you support publicly and how you do it. Your vote is your own, based on your own evaluations of what you think is important, and whomever you vote for is completely secret in our system unless you wish to make it otherwise.
However, your vote does not necessarily drive your public actions or your support. I voted for Bush, but I made it clear what I thought about his gay-rights stances, and I assure you, no money changed hands (2004’s contributions were to the Point Foundation).
In short, there’s nothing forcing you to 100% support a candidate whose views you don’t 100% support. The myth that you must is pushed by the gay liberal elites like Joe Solmonese and Hilary Rosen who are paid shills of the Democratic Party and lose money if gays speak out against antigay Democrats.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2005 @ 1:33 pm - October 4, 2005
No. 63, that is indeed exciting. By professionally, I take it you know her from the Texas Bar Assn. or her old firm. Is she as warm and outgoing 1-to-1 as we hear?
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 1:52 pm - October 4, 2005
#73, nawh joe… Gingrich knows the game well enough to answer completely, seeming to be forthright, but without providing bullets to the other side. He does it all the time with candy-ass reporters asking the “do you still beat your wife” questions. I’d enjoy watching Newt and ChuckieS go at it… Newt answering the questions, ChuckieS looking to the right and left and cameras for reenofrcement his questions were “zingers”.
I just wouldn’t want to be counsel before a bench Justice Newt’s on… he’d eat up all my time for response and with clarifiers.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 4, 2005 @ 2:02 pm - October 4, 2005
Feel free to call all Democrats “lying bastards.” I don’t really care. However, there are plenty of Dems, such as both Kennedys, Jerod Nadler and Rep. Lewis, who have gone to bat for us many times, the three openly gay dems like Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, and the majority of Dem congressmen who voted against FMA and in favor of other gay-rights bills. To put them all into the barrel “lying bastards” hardly advances anyone’s cause and only makes you look foolish and ignorant.
Although I am a Dem, I was a member of the Log Cabin Repubs here in DC for quite some time. Why? Because when we speak of gay rights, the kit ‘n kaboodle, we are basically talking about a large grand social movement. We simply cannot achieve all that we seek by supporting only one party. On this I disagree with many of the more liberal gay rights groups, but even the HRC supported a NY Repub senator over a Dem a number of years ago (Name escapes me right now — he was a bald Italian guy from Long Island). And when you advance a broad social movement such as ours, you are going to find people who are too afraid to make the progressive choices. After being in the LCR, I learned that there are many repubs in congress and in state legislatures that privately support us, but feel that they can’t vote in our favor because of the backlash at the next election. So, are these people “lying bastards”? Well, yes, because they tell us one thing, then vote another. In fact, they may well be doing exactly the same thing you accuse Dems of doing. But to me, that isn’t a very productive process, to just call them names. Rather, I would like to work with them, and hopefully show them that people generall don’t vote out of office officials who vote for gay rights. in other words, their seat will remain safe. And there are enough gay repubs to make that happen, fortunately.
We need the support of people from both sides of the aisles. Right now, most of the support — at least in US Congress and the Senate — comes from the Dems. Does the party support us? Sometimes yes, but as you correctly point out, sometimes no. But what about the republican party? Ken Mehlman is gay, but refuses to admit to it publically, and he supports the entire Bush agenda, including FMA. Can you perhaps see why that drives liberals up the wall?. But the larger point is that we can and do develop support from the Repubs and the right-wingers.
Can we at least agree there are members in both parties who are sympathic to our cause, and actually do support us with legislative votes as well as rhetoric, and that the best way to advance our rights is to continue to cultivate broad support from members of both parties?
Comment by Randy R. — October 4, 2005 @ 2:28 pm - October 4, 2005
But Newt would never be able to keep his yap shut enough to get through confirmation
Yeah, I was talking about performance on the bench. I think the Senate ‘Confederacy of Dunces’ — Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein — pretty much make it impossible for someone as outspoken as Newt to be confirmed.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 3:14 pm - October 4, 2005
Two thoughts come to mind:
1] I have never met a plain looking single heterosexual careerwoman of a certain age that didn’t have plenty of gay male friends.
&
2] She became a christian a little after Bush “gave up drinking”, which means, as an old old friend, she probably drank with him during the wonder years.
My conclusion of Cocktails and Cocksuckers: FAG HAG.
This would explain everything. One of those drink with the sinner, forgive the sin types. She probably hangs with GayPatriot types.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 5, 2005 @ 2:25 am - October 5, 2005
Several points:
I think it’s disgusting that there’s even speculation that Ms. Miers might be a lesbian. We don’t know and, if she is, it isn’t any of our business. I know she isn’t the only 60-year-old woman who’s made such a commitment to her career she never had time to develop a relationship that would lead to marriage.
She would appear to have sufficient experience to serve on the Supreme Court. Two chief justices as diverse as William Rehnquist and Earl Warren were not judges; their experience was primarily in politics. Earl Warren, one of history’s great chief justices, was named chief justice mainly as a reward for delivering California to President Eisenhower in 1952. Sandra Day O’Connor, who’s only judicial experience was as a state judge, might not have been appointed had President Reagan not been enthralled by her talk of ranch life when they met.
I certainly hope Chief Justice John Roberts and Harriet Miers aren’t clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — the justices George W. Bush supposedly admires the most. We know they don’t believe in the 14th Amendment and at times I suspect they don’t really believe in the Bill of Rights. For god’s sake, that Vatican stooge Scalia even believes government has the right to ban masturbation.
It might be years before we know where Roberts and Miers stand. But I’m hoping Bush 43’s appointee Roberts turns out to be just like Bush 41’s appointee David Souter. I would have preferred naming Alberto Gonzales to replace O’Connor but I’m keeping my fingers crossed Miers is in the mold of O’Connor or Justice Anthony Kennedy.
And Chandler in Hollywood, regarding #51. You’re correct that that rightwing bigot James Dobson seldom opposes Bush. But he has done so, including campaigning in Pennsylvania’s 2004 GOP primary against Senator Arlen Spector at the same time President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum were working their butts off to get Spector nominated.
When I think about my political hero, Barry M. Goldwater, I wonder where he’d stand on these Supreme Court nominees. I’m guessing that if he were alive today, because he was so committed to individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion into our private lives, his ideal justices would be John Paul Stevens. David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer on most issues, as well as Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy on many issues. He wouldn’t agree with every decision, such as the eminent domain ruling this year, but the “iberal” and “moderate” justices would probably please him most.
And to those of you who’ve been debating the importance of party platforms, forget it. Only ideologues on the right or left pay any attention to their respective parties’ platforms. On several occasions I helped write my state GOP’s platform and never ran into a voter who knew what it said or who really cared what it said. At the 1968 GOP National Convention, which I attended as a very young Nixon loyalist, I joined the majority in adopting a platform but, beside myself, the only other members of our state delegation who knew what was in it were the man and woman who represented our state on the platform committee. The real “platform” is what the presidential nominee spells out in his Acceptance Address. And to this day, 37 years later, I have yet to meet a voter who remembers that Richard Nixon clearly hinted in his Acceptance Address that he would open the door to relations with Red China.
Comment by Jack L. Allen — October 5, 2005 @ 6:28 am - October 5, 2005
#79 Chandler, I didn’t think you could get any lower in the blog-game of personal smears and wild-assed speculation.
And then you did. Bravo, script-boi, you are officially in the gutter. On second thought, with your last comment, you skipped the street gutter and landed squarely in the sewer hole.
Shame on you. And please, no artifical restoration by a claim you spoke with hyperbole or sarcasm.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 5, 2005 @ 9:52 am - October 5, 2005
Can we at least agree there are members in both parties who are sympathic to our cause, and actually do support us with legislative votes as well as rhetoric, and that the best way to advance our rights is to continue to cultivate broad support from members of both parties?
Absolutely.
After being in the LCR, I learned that there are many repubs in congress and in state legislatures that privately support us, but feel that they can’t vote in our favor because of the backlash at the next election. So, are these people “lying bastards”? Well, yes, because they tell us one thing, then vote another. In fact, they may well be doing exactly the same thing you accuse Dems of doing.
I’ve dealt with that myself, Randy.
However, the difference between Democrats and Republicans in that situation is very simple — Republicans tell you up front that, while they may privately support you, they feel that their constituency would not tolerate their vote as such. That’s why, as I outlined in my link, you come armed with what IS important to their constituency, and help them frame the message that way.
In contrast, when I’ve dealt with Democrats, they treat gays like they do other minorities — complete support when you’re in their office, bashing you elsewhere, then following up with an apologetic phone call and a promise for pandering elsewhere — only to renege on the latter and repeat the process two weeks later. I have never felt such an combination of rage and amusement as when a prominent Dallas Democrat told me in a meeting that he supported gays, then was caught on tape a few hours later applauding as Bishop T.D. Jakes stood up and blamed “effeminate men” and homosexuality for the problems of the black community. Rage because I was pissed that he had lied to me; amusement because he honestly thought he’d gotten away with it.
In short, be honest about your reasons and motivations, and I’m OK with that. Be two-faced, and you get “lying bastard”. Ted Kennedy and others fall well into that category; Kennedy has said publicly that he would never support or endorse anyone who supported stripping gays of rights, and then along came Bill Clinton and John Kerry. He doesn’t get a free pass because of his last name.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2005 @ 11:21 am - October 5, 2005
No. 63, that is indeed exciting. By professionally, I take it you know her from the Texas Bar Assn. or her old firm. Is she as warm and outgoing 1-to-1 as we hear?
Ms. Miers is a very pleasant person to be around, well-spoken, with an excellent mind and sharp wit. I’ve never had issue with her, although we have disagreed on several points; I’ve always found her willing to listen and to consider.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2005 @ 11:41 am - October 5, 2005
#81,
Silly boi,
I said what I meant and meant what I said.
Is michigan filled with simpletons like you?
I love all of MY fag hags and, don’t cha know, they love me.
But ND30 is professing to be her kinda gay.
No Dick, ever share a Boilermaker with the nominee?
By the way, are you glisteny under an actual real persona?
Your personal digs are identical and equally insipid.
H@@@
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 5, 2005 @ 12:39 pm - October 5, 2005
#79 Thanks for reinforcing and validating my assessment, Chandler. But the stink of shame remains –is the LibLeft so filled with undisciplined minds that you can’t help but resort to smear? Of an Associate Justice nominee? Or is that you’ve been so long relegated to a fragment of the public arena that your hate fouls your speech? That kind of nonsense works in the DemocratUnderground –leave it behind in the future.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 5, 2005 @ 7:14 pm - October 5, 2005
#85
Matt,
There is nothing to smear the afformentioned nominee by calling her a fag hag. I would LOVE it if she actually were. Now, as to what your problem is, I haven’t a clue. If on the other hand she is a closet drinking, withered old cunt that hates children, now that may be another story and one I find no foundation for.
There is absolutely no hate in my original hypothetical.
Like a dirty mind, you will read into things, things that aren’t there.
The stink of shame is back on your hands, little boi.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 5, 2005 @ 7:52 pm - October 5, 2005
You seem so sure that Miers is not a lesbian. . . . . .
How do you plan on dissembling when it comes out that she IS a lesbian? Pray tell!
Dan in Baltimore
Comment by Dan Cobb — October 7, 2005 @ 2:13 pm - October 7, 2005
Dan,
This may be a stretch, but I have never, NEVER met a lesbian who was anti-choice. Conservative, liberal, whatever, never anti-choice. For people to say she is a lesbian holds as much credibility as saying she’s a pre-op trans.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 7, 2005 @ 2:52 pm - October 7, 2005
Jack Allen (#80)-
I’m curious about your assertion that Goldwater would have been happier with the current liberals on the Court than with the conservatives. The two big cases I’ve spent time thinking about from last term were Kelo and Raich — in both, the four liberals you name came down on the side of greater government power at the direct expense of personal liberties.
When you say Goldwater would have considered them (Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer) ideal justices on “most issues” — what cases are you thinking of?
Comment by Clint — October 7, 2005 @ 3:35 pm - October 7, 2005
From Americablog:
Dallas board of adjustment member/ex-city plan comm. Sharon Boyd who says she is a “close” friend of Miers, appeared on Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show on Sirius OutQ channel, said that while Miers is certainly pro-life, “social issues are not her primary expertise or concern.” Boyd: “She told me: the more she read about it, the more she learned about the procedures, she just could no longer be pro-choice.” Boyd said that if Miers were asked to revisit Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws, she doubted Miers would vote to allow states to regulate the conduct. Boyd: “She believes in equal rights for everyone.” Boyd said Miers had many gay friends and “was not uncomfortable with gay people.” When she spoke before a group in 1989, “it was pretty brave for a conservative like Harriet”.
(end)
N35, we have a winner: FAG HAG!
May God bless her and bring her back to choice.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 8, 2005 @ 2:12 am - October 8, 2005
LOOK AT THIS LINK
Gay Patriot » SC…
Trackback by Ola Nilsson — December 1, 2005 @ 3:42 pm - December 1, 2005
creepy appalachian music
Gay Patriot » SC…
Trackback by Rudolf Willem Bosch — December 6, 2005 @ 9:31 pm - December 6, 2005
south carolina mp3
Gay Patriot » SC…
Trackback by Stener Vogt — December 7, 2005 @ 11:15 pm - December 7, 2005
[…] A blog I follow closely, Gay Patriot had this to say: “After all isn’t every strong, single woman with no kids a lesbian?” […]
Pingback by Blowhard » Wild about Harriet — January 27, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - January 27, 2006