Yes, I would rather have had Bush nominate Janice Rodgers Brown, and have had a knock-down, drag-out fight in the Senate, with all the Demoncrats and RINOs voting against Brown, and her nomination failing--and then Harriet Miers.
Because those events would have driven enough Black voters out of the arms of the Demoncrats to break the stranglehold that keeps Blacks on the urban plantations. It would have been a blow to the Demoncrats that it would have taken them years of more lies to overcome.
Janice Rogers Brown was my first choice but I trust President Bush. All the moaning and bitching and claims that "these so called conservatives will never vote Republican again" ... so don't. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Talk about being "stuck on stupid".
I am tired of Freepers that can't wait to throw GWB over the wall at the first sign of any conflict. We want the senators to show some guts, but when the first volley is fired, the weak kneed Freepers run for cover.
Go ahead, flame away.
You could have something there. Maybe that explains why so many libs are pleased with her nomination.
And if Bush had done that, and all the Rhinos and moderate mccainites didn't have the will to back a Janice Rogers Brown, and she or Luddig lost the nomination, would that stand on principle to pick a fight still be a great idea? That's how we got kennedy and souter in the first place remember????? The result is the important thing here, not the means by which the result is accomplished. If 20 years from now, she's considered to be a strong conservative who always found with Scalia and Thomas, isn't that what matters? Janice Rogers Brown by the way is a libertarian, and has some funny ideas about some things, so I wouldn't necessarily bank on the idea that she would be a female version of Clarence Thomas.