Miers Withdrawal–Victory for the Constitution
Like many conservatives, I was relieved to learn this morning that Harriet Miers had withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. While I was initially disappointed with her nomination, I believed that, as the president’s nominee, she deserved the benefit of the doubt. But, the more I heard about her, the more I began to lean against her confirmation.
As I said before, I believe the president blundered badly in picking her. He did not adequately consult with Republican Senators and his conservative supporters and was thus not prepared for their strong opposition to his choice. Many were not convinced that she would be a conservative jurist while others were troubled by her lack of judicial experience. Still others (including yours truly) were troubled that her writings did not show much understanding of constitutional issues and that her answers to questions from Senators (both in her questionnaire and in her meeting with them) were inadequate or mealy-mouthed.
Her failure to convince Senators she was up to the job of a Supreme Court Justice led to her decision to withdraw. While Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid — and other Democrats — claim that “The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination,” even some of his Democratic colleagues, notably Charles Schumer, questioned her qualifications. Had she demonstrated an understanding of constitutional law to Senators, I believe that most Republicans would have supported her confirmation — despite her lack of any conservative record on judicial issues.
As it was Senators’ concerns which led to her withdrawal, we see once again the genius of our Constitution which, in Article 2, Section 2, gave the President the power to appoint “Judges of the supreme Court,” conditioning that appointment on the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” More than two centuries ago, in a piece for the New York Packet, preserved for us as Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton saw the Senate’s “co-operation” in such appointments as “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President:”
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing.
In making this appointment, the president took his base for granted and did not fully anticipate this “possibility of rejection.” As Senators held discussions with Ms. Miers, they determined that she lacked the qualities they expected from a Supreme Court Justice.
Impressed by her skills as White House Counsel, the president likely thought she would do an equally good job on the Supreme Court. When members of the Senate, this “different and independent body,” disagreed, he likely realized that, in tapping her, he had shown favoritism for this trusted aide, an accomplished attorney, but someone better suited for administrative than judicial responsibilities.
Her withdrawal thus represents a victory for the Constitution. By providing a check on the favoritism of the president, our founding charter prevents a capable, but otherwise unqualified individual from sitting on the Supreme Court. With this experience behind him, the president is in a better position to do as he did a few months ago and appoint a jurist of the caliber of Chief Justice Roberts to the highest court in the land.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
52 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I don’t see this as a failure of the president at all. I think this was planned. Miers uses up the political capital on both sides, then a new, more conservative nominee comes along, and the Dems can’t say anything (because they challenged Miers on her mediocrity and proximity to the Pres, and this person will have an appropriate resume (ala Roberts) and be far removed from the WH), and GWB will be a hero to his own base again.
Comment by caltechgirl — October 27, 2005 @ 2:05 pm - October 27, 2005
Thanks a lot Caltechgirl!! Here I was thinking I had an original thought for once.
Comment by Chad — October 27, 2005 @ 2:10 pm - October 27, 2005
Damn, you’re an optimist! You think THIS — the Miers stink — was planned? Like he planned his Iraq Folly? Like he planned his Social Security debacle? Like he planned his minion’s attacks on a CIA NOC? Like he planned his rush back to DC to sign Terri’s law in the face of a disbelieving country? Like he planned his attention to vacation vs. hurricanes? If this is planning you admire, the rest of us are really concerned about what he’s planning for next.
You’re also delusional (or predictable, possibly) in trying to blame Miers withdrawal on Democrats. Don’t you read/think/listen/observe? This withdrawal is due to the LACK OF REPUBLICAN support; Democrats simply sat back and watched this Eat-Your-Own show.
God, we are sick of this little W cult that jumps sweet for Shrub everytime he f’s up. You’re all a bunch of fawning Harry’s.
Love Pussy
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 27, 2005 @ 2:15 pm - October 27, 2005
Great! Now we’ll get some black-robed Kleagle who’s votes on Roe v. Wage, Gay Marriage and DADT were genetically-programmed at-birth without any Constitutional-reflection. While on most things I’m conservative-libertarian, when it come to the SCOTUS I get nervous around the “conservatives”.
Comment by Ted B. — October 27, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - October 27, 2005
It was the conservatives who deserted GWB on this one; the Dems could sit back and watch the conflagration. GWB proves once again he’s not a conservative, and this time the conservatives said “enough.” The corporate welfare programs may now finally come to a halt.
Comment by DSH — October 27, 2005 @ 3:44 pm - October 27, 2005
As a Miers supporter I am shocked, SHOCKED that the extreme right wing of the Rebublican party denied Harriet a straight up-down vote by the entire Senate. It was no Democrat that wielded the power for her to withdraw the president’s nomination.
=
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 27, 2005 @ 3:56 pm - October 27, 2005
And as for this being “A Victory for the Constitution”, you could not be more wrong.
Bork’s rejection by the Senate WAS a victory of the Constitution.
This was political shenanigans that denied the Senate it’s Constitutional obligation regarding this nominee.
Harriet was not Borked, she was Bushwhacked.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 27, 2005 @ 4:23 pm - October 27, 2005
And for all you who thought she was unqualified:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html
I feel like joe, three postings in a row.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 27, 2005 @ 4:31 pm - October 27, 2005
To quote Gerald Ford, our long national nightmare is over. I am so relieved that this unwarranted pick has been held up to scrutiny and found fatally wanting. As to #4 and the “Kleagle candidate,” I don’t believe Robert Byrd is in the running.
Comment by JT — October 27, 2005 @ 6:42 pm - October 27, 2005
#3
Wow. Another fresh steamy pile from a real Pussy.
Eww.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 27, 2005 @ 6:44 pm - October 27, 2005
#11
Wow. Another fresh steamy pile from a real Pussy.
Eww.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 27, 2005 @ 7:27 pm - October 27, 2005
#1. Are you saying that Karl Rove is an (evil) genius, plotting and planning all sorts of political schemes?
Comment by jimmy — October 27, 2005 @ 7:44 pm - October 27, 2005
11. #11
Wow. Another fresh steamy pile from a real Pussy.
Eww.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 27, 2005 @ 7:27 pm – October 27, 2005
I totally agree, Chumpler. Glad to see you acknowledge that.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 27, 2005 @ 8:05 pm - October 27, 2005
#13
GayCon,
I don’t know if it was Dan or Bruce that kept removing my posts about how interesting that one pussy was hissing at another Pussy, that I posted the above post to see if IT would be removed. How, odd, it wasn’t.
It is nice to see that the moderators actually protect those in the circle jerk especially after they have made a post of no merit.
Oh, well, if I expected to be treated well, I would have left months ago.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 27, 2005 @ 8:31 pm - October 27, 2005
Interesting responses here. My own take: GWB is a not-too-bright guy who, thanks to his wealthy family, has never been told no or not gotten what he wanted his entire life. If you take a look at his resumé, he was pretty much a failure at all his own business initiatives, but quite successful in areas where others could control him. I don’t think he’s too happy being told no as much as he has been recently….no social security reform, no guest worker program, no supreme court justice who’s been at his beck and call for the better of the last 11 years. Now his political hacks around him are on the cusp of indictments for possibly traitorous acts. I feel like I’m watching the fall of Cornelius Fudge in real life….
Comment by Kevin — October 27, 2005 @ 8:56 pm - October 27, 2005
the entire miers nomination/withdrawl mess shows the hypocrisy of the right. whatever happened to nominees who deserve an “up or down vote?” oh, i guess they mean it only when everything seems to fit their model.
bush lost tons of political capital on this, and if he wasn’t lame-duck beforehand, he certainly is now.
bend over, w, the religious right is calling in their markers.
Comment by bucksrbest — October 27, 2005 @ 9:51 pm - October 27, 2005
Glad we all agree about Shrub’s capitulation to his right wing. Wonder if the so-called “gay patriots” are seeing any message here about who controls their beloved GOP? I doubt it — it’s always blinders on and bottoms up here.
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 27, 2005 @ 10:10 pm - October 27, 2005
The conservative commentators took issue with the nomination from the outset. The reason why they advocated withdrawal of the nomination rather was an up or down vote was to avoid embarrassment to the President, a vote that would have been pointless since the outcome was obvious.
I may have voted for Bush, but I reserve the right to publicly disagree with his individual proposals and nominations. I think this is a key distinction that gays on the left are having a hard time conceptualizing because it is so foreign to their own experience.
When Bill Clinton took office, the first thing he did was break a pledge on military exclusion of gays. Yet there was no uproar among the gay left. Like mistreated pets, they simply huddled in the corner. They turned out at the next election to re-elect Clinton, ignoring his prompt betrayal in 1993, communicating the equivilent of “Please sir, may I have another.”
It’s hard to respect the opinions of people who have no self-respect.
Comment by JT — October 27, 2005 @ 10:18 pm - October 27, 2005
Nice post, Dan. I am relieved and am now saying my prayers for Janice Rogers Brown to be nominated.
JT said: I may have voted for Bush, but I reserve the right to publicly disagree with his individual proposals and nominations. I think this is a key distinction that gays on the left are having a hard time conceptualizing because it is so foreign to their own experience.
Amen!
Comment by PatC — October 27, 2005 @ 10:28 pm - October 27, 2005
#15
You mean the liberal fabricated resume?
Jeez, you suck. Can’t you find anything based in reality instead of the world of liberal BS?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 27, 2005 @ 10:43 pm - October 27, 2005
Those who find hypocrisy in those of us who are delighted that Ms. Miers withdrew her nomination by pointing out that we favored an up and down vote on the president’s judicial nominees miss the point of this post.
While I leaned against her confirmation, I wrote that she deserved the “benefit of the doubt” until her confirmation hearings. Unlike me, Senators had the chance to talk to her face to face and came away unimpressed. They had the chance — that the American people would get in the hearings — to assess her qualifications.
Most Senators who met with her did think she understood the issues she would have to adjudicate as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, they found her answers to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire incomplete.
Senate GOP leader met yesterday with the President and indicated that support for the nomination was “fading.” She would not be able to muster the 50 votes necessary for confirmation.
Contrast that with the opposition the Democrats’ filibusters. In those cases, each of the blocked nominees had the confirmed support of a majority of the Senate. That is, Democrats blocked a vote where a majority supported the nominee. Ms. Miers withdrew her nomination as it became apparent that a majority opposed confirming her.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 27, 2005 @ 10:50 pm - October 27, 2005
#21 — Re: Your final paragraph. That is a very important distinction. Unfortunately, I think it’s probably going to be lost on the kind of people who believe Republicans are trying to “exterminate” gay people.
Comment by V the K — October 27, 2005 @ 11:10 pm - October 27, 2005
JT in #18, the gay left (with a handful of noble holdouts) did more than just vote to re-elect Clinton in 1996. HRC refused to rescind its endorsement that Democrat after he had signed DOMA that year. And they’re not even a partisan Democratic organization — at least not officially.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 27, 2005 @ 11:15 pm - October 27, 2005
I had questions about Harriet Miers’ qualifications but not for the same reasons as the far right theocratic wing of the Republican Party.
The Democrats didn’t have anything to do with this fiasco. Miers didn’t even have a chance for hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee because she was “borked” by Republican theocrats.
In doing so, the far right theocratic wing of the Republican Party showed just how hypcritical it is. How can right wing guttersnipes like Gary Bauer, Ann Coulter, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, et al, ever stand before America with a straight face and demand an up or down vote on all of Bush’s judicial nominees? How can those theocrats ever again howl that Democrats have litmus tests on abortion, gay rights, church-state issues, etc.?
Of the prospective nominees warming up in Bush’s bullpen, the only one I could support is Alberto Gonzales. But I don’t see him being called up. I think it’s more likely Bush will give the Republican theocrats one of their own — someone so repulsive to mainstream Americans in both parties that mainstream Republican Senators like Specter, Collins, Chafee, etc., will join Democrats to reject him or her.
Then Bush will nominate Gonzales. And he will be confirmed.
Comment by Jack L. Allen — October 27, 2005 @ 11:22 pm - October 27, 2005
Ann Coulter is a theocrat?
The mind does boggle.
Comment by Synova — October 27, 2005 @ 11:26 pm - October 27, 2005
#15
I don’t think he’s too happy being told no as much as he has been recently…
I am heartened that a conservative groundswell made a difference. So much for the fact that we are all mind-numbed robots following our fearless leader. I am still waiting for the all out liberal attacks against Kerry and both Clintons for not following the party line.
Comment by John — October 27, 2005 @ 11:28 pm - October 27, 2005
#20 – I’d be happy if you could provide proof of any individual business venture which GWB was successful at on his own; I have yet to see where this guy was successful on his own.
Also, exactly what age was GWB when he became an adult and therefore responsible for his actions? I keep hearing this term about how he made mistakes in his youth, but no one has said when exactly he stopped making those youthful mistakes.
Comment by Kevin — October 27, 2005 @ 11:34 pm - October 27, 2005
#21: Please don’t lay the filibuster excuse solely at the feet of the Democrats. Let’s not forget that it was the Republicans who started this, doing the exact same thing in the 90s to Clinton’s judicial nominees. While he was president, the number of un-filled judicial positions was the highest it had ever been because of this tactic.
It must be quite inconvenient for George “things would be easier if I was a dictator” Bush to have to deal with the incovenience of a democratic, contstitutional government constantly getting in his way. Maybe he’ll just keep making appointments during congressional recesses, as with John Bolton, to keep that pesky elected Senate off his back. I’m heartened to see that some elected Republicans are finally understanding that good government doesn’t mean doing everything the president wants.
By the Way: Profits at Exxon today topped $9.9 *billion* for the quarter….highest ever for any corporation, ever. All of this because, golly gee, gas prices just had to go sky high because of the hurricanes. (although, why we had to be gouged, I still don’t understand). Glad to know who George is really working for.
Comment by Kevin — October 27, 2005 @ 11:53 pm - October 27, 2005
It must be quite inconvenient for George “things would be easier if I was a dictator” Bush to have to deal with the incovenience of a democratic, contstitutional government constantly getting in his way. Maybe he’ll just keep making appointments during congressional recesses,
Maybe you should read the Constitution (Article II, section 2). He has every right, according to that document, to do it.
Comment by John — October 28, 2005 @ 12:20 am - October 28, 2005
Jack, in #24, borked by the theocrats? Some, notably James Dobson and Pat Robertson, backed her nomination.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 28, 2005 @ 12:43 am - October 28, 2005
#27
Offhand, the one that sticks out is how he was a failure at running a family oil business. The thing that liberals don’t want you to know about and consider is that it folded around the time of the oil bust. Many small oil companies went out of business and over half a million people were out of work.
As for the rest of your comment, it doesn’t deserve to be acknowledged.
#28
Let’s not forget that it was the Republicans who started this, doing the exact same thing in the 90s to Clinton’s judicial nominees.
Name one that was fillibustered.
By the Way: Profits at Exxon today topped $9.9 *billion* for the quarter….highest ever for any corporation, ever.
And how many companies or even industries, for that matter, have a higher profit margin?
All of this because, golly gee, gas prices just had to go sky high because of the hurricanes.
How much did the CBO report the oil industry damages from the hurricanes?
(although, why we had to be gouged, I still don’t understand).
Clearly there’s a whole hell of a lot you don’t understand, including capitalism and reality. Glad to see you admit that you’re a partisan idiot though.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 28, 2005 @ 1:24 am - October 28, 2005
Let’s not forget that it was the Republicans who started this, doing the exact same thing in the 90s to Clinton’s judicial nominees.
Please name a Clinton nominee who was filibustered, unless you’ve been exterminated.
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 5:48 am - October 28, 2005
And before anyone brings up the Paez myth, there was no filibuster. Only 14 Republicans voted against cloture, and there was only one cloture vote.
This is a touchy subject for me. One of the blockaded Bush judges is a close family friend and a wonderful lady.
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 7:13 am - October 28, 2005
Glad to have HMiers off the SCOTUS circuit. Even for the GayLeft, that’s gotta be good news ’cause of all those in that dwindling camp thought she was a wrong choice, thought it was cronyism, and generally slammed the nomination. Gheez, imagine now, how the GayLeft thinks it’s a mistake on GWB to have her name withdrawn? The Potomac two-step from the GayLeft. Gotta love that GayLeft camp, they are consistent.
And VdaK… on the GOP filli-buster of Clinton era nominees… Michigan’s own brave war hawk liberal, Sen YosemiteSam Levin, said that his sister-in-law nominee was indeed sort of, kind of, almost filli-busted by the SenGOP in the waning moments of the Clinton era. OK, no vote. OK, no motion. OK, no blue slip. OK, no plan to. BUT IT STILL COUNTS. ” Just because it wasn’t reality doesn’t make it so” –Sen Ted Kennedy.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 28, 2005 @ 8:22 am - October 28, 2005
#32 Saying the Repub’s never filibustered is splitting hairs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml
[Quote]
“All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton’s nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton’s appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton’s second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing — but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote. “
Comment by MarkP — October 28, 2005 @ 8:37 am - October 28, 2005
Michigan-Matt — You mean Senator Carl Lenin?
http://kurlander.blogspot.com/2005/10/levin-levin-bo-bevin-aw-screw-it.html
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 8:38 am - October 28, 2005
#35 — Mark, none of those are filibusters. And none of it began with Republicans. Democrats blockaded many of Bush 41’s appointments the same way. And don’t forget who invented ‘borking.’ But, we understand how difficult it is for you lefties to admit it when you’re caught in a lie.
Good news though. After four years of blockading by democrats (especially Senator Lenin and Dingbat Debby Stabenow), our family friend was approved to the Sixth Circuit 97-0 yesterday.
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 8:56 am - October 28, 2005
V the K————————
Please DON’T call me “Leftist”! Believe it or not, I HATE the Dem’s MORE than I hate the Repub’s.
Comment by MarkP — October 28, 2005 @ 9:05 am - October 28, 2005
#39 — I apologize then, but, please, in the future, please don’t point to something that wasn’t a filibuster as though it’s the same thing as a filibuster. If you disagree with the tactics used, that’s fine, but it’s a separate issue. It doesn’t justify the filibuster accusation and I don’t like the two parties playing tit-for-tat any more than anyone else does.
You can understand why I was confused. It’s easy to mistake someone for a leftist when they distort historical reality to justify an inaccurate talking point.
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 9:18 am - October 28, 2005
Back to the point I was trying to make. Why is a filibuster so much more reprehensible then denying votes or hearings? How is it not the same thing (in the larger spectrum)?
Either way is still about the opposing party using every “TRICK” in thier bag to block a sitting presidents judicial nominee that they have strong philisophical differences with.
I say to BOTH parties — THE PRESIDENT won the election, it’s his CHOICE. Give them a up or down vote. (By President, I mean generic Repub or Dem)
Comment by MarkP — October 28, 2005 @ 9:33 am - October 28, 2005
Lord have mercy! They’re now calling each other “leftist”. Must be a very confusing day for the gay patriots.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 28, 2005 @ 4:37 pm - October 28, 2005
#41 BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROFLMAO!!!!!
Thanks for the GOOD laugh! Nothing like some levity when needed!
Comment by MarkP — October 28, 2005 @ 4:46 pm - October 28, 2005
VtheK and thatgayconservative:
Why do you stoop to name calling? name calling is the childish, angry response un-educated people use when they’re unable to make a intelligent comment. I picture you balling up your fists and seeing your eyebrows furrow really hard as you try to come up with a response.
Pardon me for not using the exact, perfect information in my statement about Clinton’s judicial nominees…check out #35 for the specific ways that Republicans stopped judicial nominees from even reaching floor.
Comment by Kevin — October 28, 2005 @ 8:17 pm - October 28, 2005
Unless, of course, you’re calling gay conservatives “Uncle Toms”, and I presume, calling black conservatives “house niggers”.
As soon as you start whining as much about THAT namecalling, Kevin, then we might believe what you’re saying.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 28, 2005 @ 11:48 pm - October 28, 2005
#44
I believe that gay conservatives are called Aunt Kennys, and while I like the historical and prosaic “House Nigger” I believe that Uncle Tom is appropriate. I wish that the term could be updated to Auntie Luther, though.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 29, 2005 @ 3:29 am - October 29, 2005
No, Chandler, NorthDallasThirty is “Uncle Tom” (in the gay context). Black conservatives are called “The Two Percenters”, for that’s the level of support Bush gets among African-Americans in the latest polls.
Love, Pussy
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 29, 2005 @ 3:54 pm - October 29, 2005
I laugh at you guys, repeating slogans without meaning to lambaste us, yet persistently refusing to address our ideas.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 30, 2005 @ 12:53 am - October 30, 2005
GapriotW,
How about addressing this comment I just laughed out loud from SNL:
It seems the Republican party has reversed it’s opinion and participated in a second term abortion.
(Then they flashed a picture of Harriet)
I had tears running down my cheeks.
I never thought SNL could be funny again.
Oh, I forgot the repeated slogans:
You are a hated minority in your own party and you vilify your own kind.
I return you to business as usual.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 30, 2005 @ 3:49 am - October 30, 2005
GayPatriotWest, we’re only having a little fun. You want the site to be fun, don’t you?
Now, sugar, I know you also want the site to be serious, so let’s take a break from the merrymaking and be serious and start addressing the “ideas” you feel we don’t give enough attention to. Where do we start? Want to start with your idea…
1. That the war on Iraq was necessary, justified, and noble?
2. That it’s better for gay people to support a political party that wants to subjugate gay people via a Constitutional Amendment? And the twin idea that it’s good for gay people to always slam the one party that has brought them every single gain they have ever made?
3. Your idea that we needed the Terri’s Law charade foisted upon us by your party and president?
4. Your idea that Social Security would be better off privatized?
5. Your idea that tax cuts for the wealthy make sense, given that we’re now saddled with 2 Trillion more in debt than when your ideas were first put into action? And your related idea that paying 15-20% in debt service is smart and not a drain on national resources? (See, some of us are actually a little more true-blue conservative than you are.)
6. Your idea that it’s OK for one party to prevent a vote on a SC nominee but not OK for the other party to do the same? Or your idea that it’s OK for a president to put justify a SC nomination on the basis of the nominee’s religion?
We could on and on about your ideas. Where do you want to start?
Love, Pussy.
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 30, 2005 @ 9:10 am - October 30, 2005
Chandler, usually we don’t bother deleting your comments simply because they prove our point that more often than not you’re not here to argue with us, but to call us names.
Given how much time you spend on this blog, it’s amazing how little you understand of gay Republicans, indeed, how little you understand of the GOP.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 30, 2005 @ 4:35 pm - October 30, 2005
#50
I treat Gay Republicans like rarefied and endangered species you are.
Hated by a majority of your party and reviled by your own kind.
It is a tough existance.
The reason I stay amused here is because, wether or not I truly understand all y’all, I do honestly pity you.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 30, 2005 @ 10:37 pm - October 30, 2005
1. That the war on Iraq was necessary, justified, and noble?
Only if you consider stopping a brutal madman who was systematically starving, imprisoning, torturing, and murdering millions of people while doing his darndest to keep and build weapons to facilitate his doing it to more to be all of those.
Then again, what am I saying? I’m talking to liberals who cover up said dictator imprisoning and torturing the infant and toddler children of political dissidents and call it “dealing peace”.
2. That it’s better for gay people to support a political party that wants to subjugate gay people via a Constitutional Amendment? And the twin idea that it’s good for gay people to always slam the one party that has brought them every single gain they have ever made?
As opposed to supporting a political party that also wants to subjugate gay people via constitutional amendments and who supports a candidate who wants to remove equality in the one state where gays currently have it? You and yours deem that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
3. Your idea that we needed the Terri’s Law charade foisted upon us by your party and president?
Just because you think death should be the default for the innocent and those unable to protect themselves doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t disagree.
4. Your idea that Social Security would be better off privatized?
Of course it would be. Look at Democrats like Corzine and Kerry who are billionaires because of their private investments.
5. Your idea that tax cuts for the wealthy make sense, given that we’re now saddled with 2 Trillion more in debt than when your ideas were first put into action? And your related idea that paying 15-20% in debt service is smart and not a drain on national resources? (See, some of us are actually a little more true-blue conservative than you are.)
It makes more sense than cutting taxes and increasing Federal entitlements by trillions of dollars, which was John Kerry’s entire economic platform.
6. Your idea that it’s OK for one party to prevent a vote on a SC nominee but not OK for the other party to do the same? Or your idea that it’s OK for a president to put justify a SC nomination on the basis of the nominee’s religion?
Nothing wrong with the majority party doing it; the problem comes when a moonbat minority attempts to use the rules in a way in which they were never intended.
Meanwhile, discrimination based on religion or religious affiliation is against the law in this country. Funny how liberals like yourself argue in favor of it constantly, saying that a person is unqualified because of their religion.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 6:08 pm - November 2, 2005