10/25/2005

Responsibility--Part One

Here are some of the early answers I've received to the question posed regarding the responsibilities of the President and his supporters when there is a disagreement, and how that plays out in relation to the Miers nomination.

From Voyle Glover, a very smart attorney: Supporting one's President is, in my opinion, unrelated to his keeping of promises made to his supporters. I will, in general, support President Bush for the following reasons: (1) the alternative is to support the other side or someone who has no power; and (2) my support of him is with a realization that he's going to disappoint me; and (3) my support is based less on party affiliation and more on righteousness and the assumption that I've made, to wit, that God placed him in that position and He will take responsibility for all "mistakes" made /smile

From Jeff Kouba (the Susan Lucci of Blogs!): It pains me to say so, but I hope the Senate rejects the nomination. President Bush needs to understand he represents us. We are not simply supposed to "trust him". We sent him to the White House to be our champion. Instead, he's speared us in the back. The Senate still has a chance to call a do-over. So, when President Bush starts saying things like "I picked the best person I could find", I start tightening my belt, because that can't possibly be true, and someone is trying to blow smoke where I don't want it.

From Lores Rizkalla at Just a Woman: If I had to make a decision based on what I know right now, I would have to say that I oppose the Miers nomination.I hate to say it because I trust our president. But, this is not simply about trust or about him. At the end of the day, it is the president who has the authority to choose his candidate. That is his constitutional right. No debate about that. The debate in my mind has more to do with whether he followed wise counsel. I've said before that so many of us went to the polls, we even flew to battleground states to in order to elect the president who would select the strict constructionist judicial nominees.It didn't have to be this complicated. We didn't go to the polls to ensure a female justice. We didn't go to the polls to ensure a born-again justice. We didn't go to the polls to ensure a friend of the president as a justice. We went to the polls to ensure a justice who would uphold the constitution. That's it.

More tomorrow (including some words from your host).

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home