Neocons FAKING opposition to Miers to trick the Dems!

WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES and the DNC!!!

I have been hearing liberal Senators like Dianne Feinstein say that they don't see any reason to object to Miers appointment, and am greatly alarmed by this. I am confident that the neocons are using Miers lack of a judicial track record and all this supposed "outrage" by Limbaugh & Co. to lull Dems into a false sense that Miers is a moderate. She is not. She is a hardcore neocon with strong anti-choice ties (see below). Karl Rove is behind this, I am sure of it. He has coached Limbaugh and those right-wing pundits to fake opposition. The neocons think if they all shout that they are opposed to Miers, then the Dems will approve of her in a knee-jerk reaction, as in, "If the neocons don't like her, then she must be acceptable." Unfortunately, it seems to be working. DO NOT BUY THE HYPE. We are about to walk straight into this trap and confirm a "stealth" neocon judge. Do the research and write your Senators and Congresspeople. Write the DNC. Tell them not to be so gullible. A true moderate should replace the moderate O'Conner. Tell them to oppose Miers, if only for the following reasons:

1."She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race. "I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president." Ms. Bartos said Ms. Miers told her she was "pro-choice in her youth" but underwent "a born-again, profound experience" that caused her to oppose abortion."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/100405dnnatabortion.d644831.html

2. She donated money to the very man who brought the partial birth abortion ban case to the Supreme Court, Donald B Stenberg
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

3. She has been romantically linked with Texas Supreme Court judge Nathan Hecht (wikipedia), who has been vocally anti-choice in his rulings, according to the Republican National Coalition for Life: http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2000/mar00/00-03-24.html

4. This quote from another thread worries me:
Quoting Mr. Hecht on Ms. Miers's judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." Mr. Hecht says he and Ms. Miers "went to two or three pro-life dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1823612#1823623

They may be faking opposition, but the Dems are probably also faking support - I know that's what Reid is doing. A game is being played for sure, by both sides.
Do you really think Dems don't know all this stuff about her?

pushing the conservatives to derail her nomination.

But that could well backfire. Where's the upside? If the RW folds ranks on her, she sails through with the consent of Dems. If the RW kills her nomination, they then go back to * and *demand* he send up a slathering RW wacko. In that case, the much-worse wacko gets confirmed even if every Dem in the Senate votes against them.

Why do I get the feeling Ted Olsen is waiting in the wings?

she's a fundie nutcase and completely loyal to Bush. That's why I think Reid and others are saying she's OK; they are trying to influence repugs against her. No one really knows her positions; she's a mystery. That's why Bush gave that press coference this AM - trying to let his base know she'll be good to them.

I don't think there is much difference, honestly.

If she was a Dem, she was a very conservative Dem, as her backing of Gore in '88 (almost a totally different guy from now) shows.

The company the OP mentions indicates that she runs around with Federalist Society nutjobs, and is likely as bad as any of them.

They could be playing each other. The democrats supporting her makes the republicans angry I'm sure. Maybe this is a way to over-ride her and isn't Kennedy getting some papers?

however, the WH is using the "attorney/client privilege" line and will fight tooth and nail before releasing anything.

I think a fight is on the way...wait and see.

A fight is on the way.

Reid is a fairly conservative Dem and anti-choice, so he may genuinely approve of her, as she is also anti-choice.

are you kidding me? Are you freaking kidding me?

I wouldn't call that anti-choice. Not unless he was active in the pro-life movement, which he is not.

vote for or against a woman's right to choose?

other work for shrub.

Clever ruse Very possible)or not this nominee is not acceptable.

One thing for sure the Neocons want to regain the initiative. Just listed to the new NPR and their agenda is Kristol Klear.

When one (and esp. all ) of their mouthpieces start this stuff - you have to be suspicious.

Ann Coulter was saying similar stuff about Roberts.

Why do they need to trick dems to get her confirmed by a republican controlled senate?

We simply do not have the votes. They could nominate Atilla the Hun for the Supremes and there is not a damned thing we could do about it.

.

They feel they can't operate properly without it. It's part of their nature now. It's the only way they can win and are afraid to stop because it has worked so well. It is so sickening. It would be amazing if they actually came out and told the truth about ANYTHING.

They are *pissed* that Ann Coulter didn't get selected.

Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me...You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong. So, you could have put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

"She has been romantically linked with Texas Supreme Court judge Nathan Hecht."

:P

But seriously, you raise some great points. Surely most of us are not fooled.

But a lot of Senators don't get their news from the Internet.

and the DNC! They should at least have all the facts before they play this game.

What else you need to say?

get hold of. You can't even judge her judical philosophy without the experience, and Bush is not releasing his work with her, no matter what the law says.

So you have an Attorney, which we know that, and that is it. I for one would not approve her just because of this. Remember this gal is on the highest court in the land. Even Clarence Thomas has a year of Judicial experience....

if this nominee is blocked , who do you think will be the next nominee and how many times do you think that the republican majority will allow a nominee to be blocked before they exercise the nuclear option?

They have gotten everything they have asked for and then some. The only thing the Democrats have done is save the nuclear option and stop the Senate Nomination of John Bolton who got the recess appointment anyway.

Look at John Roberts, he went through without a hitch. A few voted against him and a few voted for him.

To answer your question, they should do the right thing. If they feel this candidate should not sit on the highest court of the land, then they should block this nomination with all that they have. Which they have not done on a Judicial Nominee yet.

The one after that will be still worse. Are you really willing to trade a possible moderate for a known right wing extremist?

The republicans didn't get everything they want. At least three very vile judicial nominations were blocked but if this goes to the nuclear option one of those previously blocked may end up with a life time appointment to the supreme court. This is much more important then winning a political game.

The right thing is to ensure that an extremist doesn't get the appointment. We know little about this nominee, maybe it would be a good idea to wait until after the hearings to start screaming at our senators. No matter what, each nominee will get worse and the chances of that nominee being confirmed will only increase.

Bush is not going to nominate a liberal.

no one knows what this woman will do when she hits the bench. Not the Democrats, not even the Republicans. I would rather have someone I at least knew something about them, not just another Brown wannabe...

you know to be a right wing extremist then someone who may or may not be a right wing extremist?

First of all, they're much too stupid to arrange that. Secondly, they have a majority in the Senate so they have no reason to do this. There will be no filibuster and they know it. If the Dems were to filibuster this candidate the 'nuclear option' would be used. There is no evidence that she is a radical extremist.

Did you really expect to get a pro-choice nominee from this administration? It's not going to happen and if we were to bring her down , the next nominee would probably be worse and much more difficult to fight.

there is not evidence that she isn't....

However, they need to look back into her days in Texas. I do remember hearing something about the lottery a while back. Will have to check the archives at the library to get good results and I guarantee they are doing that. If she has a past, they will find it, and the republicans will try to cover it up as usual...

if she is filibustered who will be the next nominee? Do you think it will be someone more to our liking? I don't think so. There will not be multiple filibusters. The republicans may let us get away with one but they will use the nuclear option if we try for a second. Be assured , the next nominee will be much worse.

but are we not taking chances voting for a judge for the USSC who we know nothing about? What is that called?

but I see it as a choice between getting a possible moderate and a definite right wing extremist. The next nominee will be known and this person will be a staunch conservative. I just don't see us winning this and I don't see the nominees becoming less Conservative as they are shot down. The way I see it is that the repugs may allow us to filibuster this one because many of the right wingers also oppose her but they will not allow another filibuster. The next nominee is likely to be someone like Janice Brown or Priscilla Owen.

My point is that we will get one filibuster, that's it. Whoever comes along next will be the next supreme court justice. I doubt that that person will be more to our liking then Miers. We have no choice.To filibuster this nominee will mean that the extreme right will get the justice that they actually want.

I have been trying to get this idea across all day.

or is it just symbiotic group think or what?

positions they want to get out there.

That is why it is not unusual for all of the networks to run virtually the same story - even though there would have been no reason for them to do so.

Plus insiders have said as much.

Every RW radio shill I buzzed through yesterday were reciting almost exactly the same talking points (mistake, historical moment for conservatives going to waste, * screwed up, wanted someone in the mold of Scalila and Thomas, etc., etc., etc.).

Being that these guys get their daily briefings, scripts and talking points from the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, something doesn't smell right.

I don't believe anyone is fooled. Senators aren't going to be breathing fire 24/7. That's OUR job.

We will have no credibility with the american public if we don't play straight, oppose nominations on their merits or lack thereof.

WE have to prove that WE are the straight shooters, which we generally are.

Appose Miers on her lack of experience and point out that her nomination is cronyism pure and simple, follow that up with there are plenty of properly qualified experienced judges he could have picked good or bad.

We just don't know what we are dealing with on this woman, and that is precisely what Senate Confirmation hearings are designed for. Senate Confirmation hearings would not exist if the President could jsut get his pick, teh candidate needs to prove that he or she has the incumbent expereince PERIOD. It was frequently pointed out how crappy a judge Rehnquist was, so the she's not the only nominee without judicial experience.... we have to stop her... if not for her business dealings, for her conflict of interest with the President.

This is not a poker game, make the idiot present another candidate, fight that person too... get some balls.

disappointed.

The local pundit was pissed to all hell, and he's not a neocon, just a rabid Conservative.

They love the fact that shes a Bush cultist through and through (though they call it die hard loyalty or some such clap).

One of them put it to me like this, if she has been that involved with the WH for all that time and no one really knew who she is she must have been being groomed for the post the whole time... too paraphrase badly.

The other guy seems to be impressed with the things we are already starting to be pissed about... probably because they pissed us off. Everything except the Aug 6 PDB. Haven't caught what he thought of that. The anti-choice rumor, the fundie fried rumor and the Lottery thing all seemed to please him no end. Enough so that he acted like a typical repuke again with the faux swagger and boulders of schadenfraude (sp? I cant believe that word is not in spell check) on his shoulders...

Who knows yet what the dealie is, certainly not anyone posting on a blog or board anywhere.

We are never going to get our message through. I asked her staffer if they have gotten any of this info, and have they researched Miers online. He said they have their staffers researching through the major media outlets, but not online. Well, if CNN is any indication, they are taking the "she's a moderate" and "conservatives are pissed and liberals are happy" ball and running with it, so the Senators will probably also hop on that bandwagon and we will be hoodwinked.

Maybe I need a government refresher course but can't they approve her even if every democrat voted against (which would never happen anyway). So in that case why do they need to do a bother with a trick like that.

I think at least 62 have to vote for her to make it a majority vote, which means some Democratics will have to vote. Reid already sounds like he wants to date her....

They had their list of people they wanted to be chosen and this woman wasn't on it. I think they're genuinely mad.