Misrepresentation

Jim, now you're resorting to misrepresenting my views and putting words in my mouth, to wit:

"Ah, now the truth comes out. Dig long enough and it usually does. The President decides to create a “Christian seat” on the Supreme Court, and that’s all it takes to buy you off."

All I said was that I view her Christianity as a PLUS, while you seem to think it is the only reason for her appointment. Nowhere did I indicate that her Christianity was the reason I support her nomination. Heck, I didn't even say I support her nomination, but you have referred to me as a "Miersian" and a "Miers Cheerleader" or some other such nonsense. I don't know her well enough to be a cheerleader for her. That has been my whole point throughout this discussion. YOU don't know her well enough to be so convinced that she is a disaster.

I know you disagree with me on this (to a rather puzzling degree), but give me a little credit for thinking about this for myself rather than, what was it you said? Just blindly "following the man?"

Apparently Bush thinks Miers will make a better Justice than McConnell. Did that ever occur to you?

The "hysteria" links can be had by linking to just about every conservative blog. George Will's column. David Frum's column. Your posts. And don't forget the comments section at sites like Polipundit. Many conservatives have just decided to take their ball and go home because of this. Yeah, I call that hysteria. Kerry would have done SUCH a better job at picking judges. Real productive. You guys have declared Harriet Miers a disaster without even hearing her out. You have declared George W. Bush's presidency a failure because you didn't get the nomination you want. YOU tell ME how helpful that is to conservatism. Now all of a sudden you can't seem to think of one thing Bush has done right.

My last word is this: I voted for George W. Bush because I'm sure he was, and is, the best man for the job. He is a decent, honest man and someone whom I feel I can trust. And yeah, judicial appointments were a big reason, and he has not disappointed me yet.

You say you (and the other anti-Miers bloggers) are keeping this up in order to try and derail this nomination so a "bona fide constitutionalist" can be nominated in her place. However, you admit to not knowing whether Miers will be a constitutionalist, and refuse to think Bush could possibly have nominated one in this case. Okay...so if he nominates someone you approve of next time and the Left starts their attacks, please don't use the "Hey, Bush won the election! Get over it!" argument. That would be the height of hypocrisy.