Wasn't Miers anti-abortion? Wasn't that the far right's entire agenda?

[socalover]

At least they claimed that abortion was their #1 issue.

If so, why were they so anti Miers? Could it be that she might have been pro civil rights and gay rights?

[Inland]

1. RW didn't trust Bush, and didn't like the stealth.

Bush thought that the RW would accept a candidate based on his wink and nod, as they have accepted his anti abortion bona fides without an explicit statement that he was using an anti abortion litmus test.

Turns out, Bush's wink and nod not enough for RW christians, and Bush's close friendship means nothing to elitist pundits like Will who couldn't care less about abortion.

Also turns out, the RW christians want an apocolyptic showdown over abortion. They don't want stealth, they want VINDICATION as a Bush and his senate allies make the US eat shit as they shove an unapolegetically theocratic anti abortion and anti gay rights candidate down the majorities throat. They want a big FU with the appointment and confirmation.

[tex-wyo-dem]

2. It wasn't ever clear what her positions were on various subjects...

plus even *'s base felt she was clearly unqualified.

However she did get the nod from the fundie RW (Dobson and Robertson).

[PearliePoo2]

3. that's what I don't get either

I understood and believed she would want to overturn Roe/Wade.
What is it that the rabid right doesn't like about her?
Is there something about Miers we don't know that the Fundie-whackos do know and find unacceptable?
:shrug:

[socalover]

11. I think it proves Roe V Wade is just a front for their real agenda nt

[PearliePoo2]

4. that's what I don't get either

I understood and believed she would want to overturn Roe/Wade.
What is it that the rabid right doesn't like about her?
Is there something about Miers we don't know that the Fundie-whackos do know and find unacceptable?
:shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

5. But she was never involved in a firebombing of abortion clinics

So she wasn't anti-abortion enough.

[zbdent]

6. That was the thrust of it, but the problem, for them, was that she was

not militantly anti-abortion.

In other words, she wouldn't throw out the conviction of a clinic bomber who killed several people and was caught on tape an admitted it proudly in court in front of a jury . . .

[Ediacara]

7. She wasn't *clearly* anti-abortion

Some of her past writings indicate that she may have been pro-choice. And some of her past writings indicate she may have been anti-choice. Also, some of her past writings indicate she may have been pro-gay-rights. And some of her past writings indicate she may have been anti-gay-rights.

I think the major issue that the GOP had (although they'll never say this) is that she's dumber than a bag of hammers. For instance, "You're the best governor ever!!!!!," "George W. Bush is the most brilliant man I've ever met," "My favorite justice is Warren," "Do you mean liberal Earl Warren or Warren Berger?" "Warren Burger of course!"

[kevinmc]

8. They want too go back to the 1890's n/t

[Horse with no Name]

9. The problem with Harriett Miers is that she really wasn't anything

She has no history as a corporate lawyer on any stance.
I think what bothered them was that she was a Democratic supporter and had contributed money to Gore before she fell in with the Bush clan.
She could just as easily be swayed back the other way.
IMHO I believe they want someone who has always been a conservative.

[incapsulated]

10. Because they wanted an aggressive advocate

They were afraid that Miers was a lightweight that wouldn't make the conservative agenda her personal religion on the court or have any ability to persuade others to that point of view. They want a Scalia, someone who will be an conservative activist. Even the fundies know that a Bush crony has only one priority: protecting Bush and his friends. They want a true believer.

Edit to add: I wish their agenda ended with Roe. That is only the beginning. They want a fundamentalist state, religious, economic and political.

[bluedawg12]

12. The neocons trashed her, the theocrats would have taken her.

Posted on this earlier.

I agree, that the far radicalright ( Reid got that right) had bigger plans than R v W.

They did not think she could defend their agenda against Sauter, kennedy and ginsberg.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5192093