So why are the neocons and RR suddenly objecting to

[Skidmore]

an appointment made by *? It seems that she is very "pro-life" and would probably keep the neocons agenda in play too. I don't get it. Something just doesn't jive here.

[tritsofme]

1. They wanted blood.

They wanted to see an immediate and visceral reaction by Senate Democrats to a nominee like Owen or Janice Rogers Brown.

They're too stupid to know that this Miers will probably accomplish all the same goals.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. If you listened to Buchanan on Hardball

his point is that she is an unknown and GWB skipped over so many "good" judges who had proven their conservative stripes.

I think he sees it as caving.

[crispini]

3. Yes. They've spent a lot of time and effort on their "farm team."

and now a lot of those favorites have been overlooked.

[Tesla]

4. Mama and Laura told him that he HAD to pick a woman,

and Harriett was the only other one he knew.....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. He may as well have just picked Laura.

[bowens43]

5. There are plenty of better qualified

conservatives with unquestioned conservative track records across a wide spectrum of issues. It is naive to think that this is only about Roe vs Wade.

[Liberal Librarian]

6. Could Reverse Psychology Be in Play?

This may be a stretch, but what if the neo-cons orchestrated this so Dems would jump on board in favor of Miers because she allegedly ascribes to some "liberal" ideologies? Dems vote yea, Republicans vote yea, Miers is in and we can kiss numerous freedoms good-bye.

[mtnsnake]

7. "she agreed that gay men and lesbians should have equal rights"

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid21332.asp

[kweerwolf]

21. In the long run, candidate interviews don't mean a whole lot.

I've done candidate screenings with my LGBT Democratic club and just by virtue of it being an LGBT club, all candidates will give lip service to "equality." That doesn't mean it will translate into support for LGBT issues once elected. We've had candidates we've endorsed based on their screenings either fail to act on LGBT issues or vote with "the other side" a few times. After that they will not return phone calls or give you the old "it was necessary to vote that way because that's the reality of politics" answer.

Also, Miers ONE interview with an LGBT group was 16 years ago and her opinion is sure to have undergone some evolution (or 'devolution') during that time.

There's an interesting article about Miers' interview with the gay group in the Dallas Observer:

"She was honest with me," Bartos says. She says Miers told her she was very uneasy about seeking gay and lesbian endorsements. In the same conversation, Bartos says, Miers told her she was opposed to abortion. She says Miers had been pro-choice in her youth but had experienced a "born-again" religious awakening that caused her to change her mind.

Bartos says she persuaded Miers it would be a mistake not to show up for the candidate night at the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

"She went, and she told them what they didn't want to hear."

The caucus confronted Miers with a list of test questions. Miers answered their questions honestly but did not seek their endorsement. It didn't take long for the caucus to decide that Miers definitely was not their friend.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2005-09-29/news/schutze.html

[zbdent]

8. conning the left

trying to make it look like "they don't want her" - I believe that they're trying "reverse psychology" . . .

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I find that very far fetched.

You're telling me every single conservative is smart enough to play along with that game? I mean, we're not merely talking about the upper level people being upset - we're talking about the rank and file. I somehow doubt there was some kind of mass email that went around Free Republic within 5 minutes of the nomination coming out telling them all to feign outrage.

[zbdent]

14. As for FR's IQ, all they needed to see was the "donation to Gore"

as for the rest of the "smart enough" - scripts - hell, Reagan did great with scripts - but when it came down to actually understanding the consequences of his "off the cuff" legislation ideas, read Stockman's book "Triumph of Politics" . . .

[Liberal Librarian]

15. Perhaps...

Yes, it could be a stretch but we already know this group is a secretive well-oiled machine. They wouldn't necessarily be stupid enough to get the word out via traceable e-mail.

[jsamuel]

9. saving face by giving up on bush due to the nom. instead of failure

http://truthdigger.blogspot.com

Fed up Republicans Using Miers Nomination as an Excuse to Save Face While Giving Up on Bush

They don't want to admit that they were wrong on their policies or on their support of the Iraq War.

They don't want to admit that what their ideals have brought us is the biggest govt' in history and the biggest national debt in history.

They don't want to admit that Katrina was a huge federal failure.

They don't want to admit they have been supporting the oil companies and taking more money out of their own pockets causing gas to skyrocket.

They don't want to admit that they have become so corrupt that they are stealing more money than could possibly be saved by destroying public programs.

They don't want to admit that ultra-conservativism is causing most of the problems that we face today.

So, they finally are fed up, but instead of showing true form and admitting they were wrong, they are going to say Bush picked a bad SC nom. and that is the last straw?

Guess so.

[Skidmore]

12. Who are "they"?

And why would they do this now when they are this close to getting exactly what they've all been begging for? I don't buy this sudden conversion stuff. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. They are lying.

[jsamuel]

18. "They" = fed up republicans.

Those who are fed up with Bush's failures, but have been on his side because they don't want to admit they were wrong. The followers of this admin that see all the failures, but lie to themselves every time to keep following Bush.

I think these same people, the ones in denial, are picking something they can call "not conservative enough" (even though she is "on the extream side of the pro-life movement").

It is an opportunity to save face and deny that they were ever wrong.

By doing this they don't have to "convert". That is the point. By giving up on Bush over a "not conservative enough" SC nomination, they can stay with their failed policies and say they were never wrong, just Bush was wrong.

[paineinthearse]

11. Frum bashed her on CSPAN Journal this morning. nt

[seabeyond]

13. inexperience. 5 years seeing inexperience bring incompetence

sittin and watching the incompetence of inexperience in katrina did it to a lot of people. then put together with they knowingly hiring soemone for pres with inexperience but saying that is ok he surrounds himself with experienced and smart people. to have a big to do not a week or two ago of bush putting someone with no experience in important places and then to put the scj with no no no experience. it is hard for them to say la la la la la with hands over ears. pisses em off. hard to defend. they cannot

[Skidmore]

16. The obvious obtuseness of this administration has never stopped

them from justifying anything in the past--no matter how egregious the infraction or how blatant the insult to peoples' intelligence it was.

[Liberal Librarian]

17. Obtuse Today, But What About 30 Years Ago?

I agree that today they are more blatantly obtuse, however, they didn't become a governmental majority because they've always been obvious. It took them 30 years to get to this pinnacle of power and had they been obtuse then, they wouldn't have maneuvered themselves to this point today. So who's to say some remnants of the ability to pull-the-wool over the public's eyes doesn't still exist? Not everyone is cognizant as those that post here.

[seabeyond]

20. regular repugs. i am jsut saying. i am hearing a tougher time

defending. can only defend for so long. the repuglar people in community. may have taken a long time, but katrina was loud for them in the incompetence, regardless of how they try to defend now with it is the governors fault, they still see the incompetence of bush. talking to father about katrina and not blaming bush for all. he says i did see he didnt act fast enough, do enough. later talking roberts what a good guy he is, my father hears, surely i dont have a problems with him. who the fuck knows i say, he has only been on bench two years, we dont know. (remember i am talking to repug) i tell him that is problem with bush, he doesnt put experience in. then not a couple days after this conversation we get another choice scj and she isnt even a judge.

kinda put an exclamation on my point to father.

[meg]

19. She is obviously not a Federalist

like Roberts must be. That's why the right wing is saying that * had a list of good people he could have chosen, i.e. a list of Federalists.