10/11/2005

Bashing Laura Bush

By: Cao, Filed under: Bush , General @ 8:10 pm

After seeing this linking to this, I’ve hit the limit with all this whining and crying in the blogosphere about Harriet Miers. When push comes to shove, Republicans have turned into a bunch of simpy whiney assed children who don’t know how to behave themselves.

The stuff about how Bush has ‘let us down’ with the Harriet Miers nomination is nothing like the republicans themselves letting everyone else down. Poll results are skewed to appear as negative, people are grasping at straws trying to make things look worse than they really are–when we don’t even know for sure.

Even Scalia came out in favor of Miers and still I’m hearing all kinds of crap in the big echo chamber echoing things that Michelle Malkin is saying in addition to others who haven’t made it a big secret that they’re not happy with this pick–as if it’s the end-all of EVERYTHING.

Well…it WILL be the end of everything as we know it, if people continue running around like chickens with their heads cut off and don’t come down to reality for a second.

The Miers pick isn’t the end of the world, and why don’t we wait and see how the confirmation hearings go? Wouldn’t that be the prudent choice?

The democrats and their horrid tirades against the President have affected us as a group so badly that now people are chiming in — doing the work FOR THEM!

I’m beginning to think that the idea of the conservative blogosphere being a big echo chamber is completely correct. People don’t think for themselves; they echo the sentiments of the big blogs, hoping they’re going to pick up traffic or links from them…ahhh an Instalanche! A link from Malkin!

Well you know what? I could give a damn about all of that.

I’m stating my opinions and I don’t care if they don’t agree with the holy alter of the “Big Blogs” that people seem to worship. They’re simply extensions of the media, anyway…and isn’t that what we’re supposed to be opposing? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be fighting–the leftist media spin?

This feels like a big leftist set up to take down the Bush administration and I’m not going to fall for it. What’s worse, is with the set up of Tom DeLay, I’m getting the feeling that there’s a strong force out there that’s trying to make it even more “unpopular” to be a conservative, which is a pretty frightening situation to me.

We ARE AT WAR, people! Nothing is as important as preserving our way of life…! The socialist democrats certainly aren’t going to help us fight this thing–

Why has the Harriet Miers thing suddenly become the most important issue in the sphere? Why are people hemming and hawing before they actually know anything about where she stands?

I know all I need to know…and the President has the authority to do what he did…why can’t we just leave it at that?

What? Are we going to redesign the founding documents, or are we going to leave the beauty of the structure that was laid down in the founding documents work like it has worked for over 100 years?

We vote for the President, the President nominates the people he trusts for the Supreme Court.

That should be the end of the story. We should be grateful that he has taken all the stands he has on all the issues he has–in spite of the wimpy Republican base he has. Can’t people realize that by our divisive in fighting we’re just accomplishing what the leftists have been trying so desperately to do with complaining about the Tsunami relief, the Katrina disaster, and the WOT?

Why don’t you people grow some balls?

Thanks to The Conservative Cat

14 Responses to “Bashing Laura Bush”

  1. Stop The ACLU Says:
    October 11th, 2005 at 9:10 pm

    Now Lets Bash Mrs. Bush!

    Apparantley it isn’t enough for the “Coalition of the Illin” to bash GWB. It looks like they’ve decided to move on to Mrs. Bush now. Sinking to talking about her horse jokes? Michelle Malkin says that Mrs. Bush used the sexis…

  2. Sister Toldjah » The Laura Bush “It’s Possible” Controversy Says:
    October 11th, 2005 at 9:32 pm

    […] Other bloggers thinking similarly: Bryan Preston , Jay at Stop the ACLU, Cao, Rob at Say Anything, AJStrata… By: Sister Toldjah in: Politics, Law/Judiciary | Email this post    Trackback URI for this post: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/11/the-laura-bush-its-possible-controversy/trackback/ » […]

  3. California Conservative » The Laura Bush “It’s Possible” Controversy Says:
    October 11th, 2005 at 9:37 pm

    […] Other bloggers thinking similarly: Bryan Preston, Jay at Stop the ACLU, Cao, Rob at Say Anything, AJStrata … […]

  4. George Berryman Says:
    October 11th, 2005 at 9:58 pm

    Well you know what? I could give a damn about all of that. I’m stating my opinions and I don’t care if they don’t agree with the holy alter of the “Big Blogs” that people seem to worship. They’re simply extensions of the media, anyway…and isn’t that what we’re supposed to be opposing?

    Amen to that. I actually took off the link to Malkin from my blog months ago because to me at the time it seemed like she was practicing… well blogosphere cronyism.

    And you are 100% right about the wrongness factor of ‘Big Blogs’ writing for mainstream media outlets. This to me is the blogosphere equivalent of ’selling out.’ Of a Beetles song being used to sell pocket protectors. Blogs need to be counter-culture. That’s when they work best. Not when they go mainstream.

  5. Mister Snitch! Says:
    October 11th, 2005 at 10:07 pm

    Michelle Malkin laps it up

    Ms. Malkin’s had the error pointed out to her, but rather than issue a retraction, she’s standing by her overreaction. Michelle, that’s not what being “principled” is about. That’s just being too big for correction, something you admonish others …

  6. TJ Jackson Says:
    October 11th, 2005 at 11:56 pm

    Cao:
    It is Bush who has defaulted on his promise to appoint a conservative to the courts. Apparently Miers declared Warren her favorite Supreme Court Justice-heartening I’m sure to all conservatives who want an end to an imperial court. Further, she played a major role in shaping the policies the administration presented to the Supreme Court supporting affirmative action. I don’t trust a “Shadow” candidate (who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of nominees). To reassure his base was this the best candidate that Bush could present? Why is it that the Democrats have stayed silent regarding her? What more do conservatives need know then Reid supports her.

  7. DH Says:
    October 12th, 2005 at 12:30 am

    TJ: That Warren BS was debunked about 3 days ago, catch up man.

  8. Don Surber Says:
    October 12th, 2005 at 1:20 am

    Malkin In The Middle

    Cao’s Blog: “I

  9. Cao Says:
    October 12th, 2005 at 5:00 am

    Via Washington Post:

    Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with “Warren” — which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade. Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.

    From a Christian point of view, I’m in agreement with Jay Sekulow on this:

    She is, number one, been on – twice - a very prestigious list put together by the National Law Journal, one of our biggest publications. That is the 100 most influential lawyers in America — and that’s a significant list. You don’t get to be on that list unless you do understand the inner workings of the law and how it develops, and what a judicial philosophy is supposed to be. So she has been on that list. She is a thinker in that regard. She is well respected by those who have worked with her and understand — look, she’s been involved heavily in this process of picking judicial nominees. And there’s not one nominee that the President has put forward that any of us has objected to, and I think that’s in large part because of what her involvement has been.

    There’s another historical fact. I thought David Brody’s piece was very interesting on the history. Do you know the last time there was an evangelical nominated to the Supreme Court? Back in the 1930s. This is a big opportunity for those of us who share an evangelical faith in Christianity to see someone with our positions put on a court. She was a very active member of an evangelical church in Dallas…I think she’s going to be a good pick. The fact that she’s not a judge, I say thank the Lord for that. We needed somebody who wasn’t a judge to be on the Supreme Court, to move things around a little bit.

    Perhaps this is the reason that I’m comfortable having faith that things will turn out okay and I’m not adding to the level of hysteria in the blogosphere that this was ‘another’ bad move the president has made. Frankly, undermining the president and his decisions is the worst possible thing we can do right now as we face an even more incredible issue–public support behind the War on Terror.

    Scalia–remember that Scalia? People say we should have more “Scalia’s” on the bench–but they’re not listening to what he says about Miers’ nomination:

    “There is now nobody with that [non judicial] background after the death of the previous chief,”

    Scalia laments to Bartiromo.

    “And the reason that’s happened, I think, is that the nomination and confirmation process has become so controversial, so politicized that I think a president does not want to give the opposition an easy excuse [to say] ‘Well, this person has no judicial experience.’”

    Scalia concludes:

    “I don’t think that’s a good thing. I think the Byron Whites, the Lewis Powells and the Bill Rehnquists have contributed to the court even though they didn’t sit on a lower federal court.”

    I think people have some selective listening skills when it comes to this nomination; is this because they’ve joined the ranks of the leftists with Bush Derangement Syndrome?

    As Thomas Sowell put it:

    President Bush has taken on too many tough fights — Social Security being a classic example — to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

    When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn’t really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

    Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand — and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.


    Republican Orrin Hatch, offered unconditional support to Miers    .

    In 1993, when the American Bar Association moved to enshrine its support for abortion-on-demand, Miers fought to have the issue put to a vote before the entire ABA:

    “If we were going to take a position on this divisive issue, the members should have been able to vote.”

    As the Note Notes, she kept at it, seeking to overturn the Bar’s pro-abortion stance into the late-’90s.

    Leonard Leo, president of the Federalist Society – you know, the evil, neanderthal Federalist Society – is a supporter.

    Hugh Hewitt posits that Miers would be particularly strong in the area of national security jurisprudence. Having been “present at the creation” in the war on terror, not cooped up in isolated Circuit Court chambers or rarefied law school classrooms, a Justice Miers would be unlikely to let Jose Padilla roam the streets, or open up the gates of Gitmo. Folks – that’s at least as important as the social issues.

    As our picture of Miers comes into clearer focus, the Souter II narrative begins to strain credulity. It requires us to believe that the President who gave us Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen – and no RINO that I could name at the Circuit or District Court level, who fought the fight on Miguel Estrada, and who had originally orchestrated the masterful trade of Roberts-for-O’Connor, would suddenly punt at this critical moment. It also requires us to believe that Miers, who has worked with Bush for a decade, who is the White House staffer most intimitately involved with vetting nominees’ judicial philosophies, and is one of the people Bush knows best, has been able to hide her true beliefs from her boss until – Ah, ha! – she donned the judge’s robe. I’m sorry, but I don’t think this is the same thing as an unknown from New Hampshire handpicked by Warren Rudman.

    Miers on the Second Amendment:

    The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.

    Adds David Kopel,

    “As far as I know, you have to go back to Louis Brandeis to find a Supreme Court nominee whose pre-nomination writing extolled the right of armed self-defense.”

    But people aren’t even looking at this kind of evidence, they’re stressing the negative.

    All the evidence is pointing towards a solid pick in my book, despite the derogatory disparaging slams towards Laura Bush playing the “sexism” card and telling horse jokes. I’m really appalled at the behavior of people who I thought shared my conservative outlook on the world–they’re behaving no better than people like Maureen Dowd, who is completely unhinged.

  10. Kerfuffles Says:
    October 12th, 2005 at 9:38 am

    The Big Bloggers

    He’s fighting a war on two fronts; at home and abroad in the Middle East. Now there are whiffs of mutiny in the air. The Captain Bligh Bloggers are after his hide. Can’t we just give the guy some slack? Can’t we at least wait until…

  11. DH Says:
    October 12th, 2005 at 10:25 am

    “Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.

    Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn’t express admiration for his jurisprudence.”

    NRO link

  12. msn hotmail Says:
    August 22nd, 2006 at 6:11 am

    We recommend you to visit excellent msn hotmail site. qY0ptan0x

  13. SSgt Yatahey Says:
    August 22nd, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    LOL @ “msn-hotmail” — it’s obvious you’re either a STUPID-*** MUSLIM wanting to destroy someone’s computer, or you’re just another DUMBASS IGNORANT LEFTIE-LOVING DEMOSHITTER.

    Either way, this is the most excellent site for you … :mrgreen:

  14. Cao Says:
    August 22nd, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    oooh that slipped under my radar, yat. I will remove the linkage.

Leave a Reply