October 12, 2005
Is Bush Really to Blame for Miers Nomination?
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family talked publically yesterday on his radio show about what he knew of Harriet Miers per a phone conversation with Karl Rove. Many Democrats speculated that Rove had divulged how Miers would vote on the Roe v. Wade issue and others that might appear before the court. Dobson has posted a transcript of his broadcast regarding the issue.
Dobson has been a firm supporter of Miers despite her lack of credentials and points out in the transcript that many of those held in high consideration for the nomination withdrew their names from consideration because they didn't want the publicity of dealing with an ugly confirmation. He didn't specify exactly which candidates had withdrawn. So is this Bush's fault after all? It seems very simple when you think about it. Who could blame a high profile judge from withdrawing their nomination in the face of the ridicule and speculation that would certainly result from an ugly confirmation hearing? And would we really want a person who essentially "can't take the heat" there anyway? I hold a lot of respect for Dr. Dobson and although I don't think that Miers is the best choice we must ask ourselves: was she the only choice?
Check out Basil's Articles of Interest
Posted by everyman at October 12, 2005 03:31 PM | TrackBackIf Bush was limiting himself to women, as Dobson suggested, then Bush is still to blame. He took out more than half the potential applicant pool in the name of affirmative action.
Posted by: KJ at October 13, 2005 09:32 PMIf Bush was limiting himself to women, as Dobson suggested, then Bush is still to blame. He took out more than half the potential applicant pool in the name of affirmative action.
Posted by: KJ at October 13, 2005 09:32 PMKJ, you do make a great point but I think the nomination of a woman or minority was done more out of political strategy than affirmative action. The Dems would have had their backs against the wall trying to explain to their minority constituents (who prove to be a large portion of their supporters) why they voted against confirming a Janice Rogers Brown. So, I don't think the nomination of a minority or woman was done out of some need to compromise. I think that's probably the general consensus of the conservatives in this nation as well. We're just upset because we couldn't get the chips to fall completely in our favor. Thanks for the comment :-)
Posted by: Everyman at October 13, 2005 09:41 PM
