Posted on 10/08/2005 10:44:49 AM PDT by quidnunc
I don't know what the worry about "unqualified" is, anyway. I might be (cough, cough) unqualified, but I know how to vote the way Scalia and Thomas do.
Sure it does. Reid didn't want to look stupid. He was ready for the possibility, Miers' name was floated.
Rove is a very smart guy, but he has blind spots, one of which.
Are you saying that it was OK to put Arlen Specter back in the Senate because Rove engineered it? Not only did we get stuck with Specter, but he managed to wreck Santorum's reputation in the process too, so Rick may not get re-elected next time around.
Rove is a very smart guy, but he has blind spots, one of which.
Are you saying that it was OK to put Arlen Specter back in the Senate because Rove engineered it? Not only did we get stuck with Specter, but he managed to wreck Santorum's reputation in the process too, so Rick may not get re-elected next time around.
Rove is a very smart guy, but he has blind spots, one of which.
Are you saying that it was OK to put Arlen Specter back in the Senate because Rove engineered it? Not only did we get stuck with Specter, but he managed to wreck Santorum's reputation in the process too, so Rick may not get re-elected next time around.
Does it really make sense that he would have recommended someone that Bush knew better than himself, if he didn't have reason to believe that she wasn't a threat to liberals?
So you're saying Reid has super-secret information on Miers?
Humility.
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
Or until Republicans understand that you don't actually have a majority in the Senate if you elect RINOs.
By saying that they don't intend to repeat their mistake, that's how. Next question?
But you're saying that Reid knows something that nobody else does.
At the end of the day, she'll be approved at least 65/35. You heard it here first.
"The charge of "If you're against Miers, you're an elitist snob" is as valid as "If you're against federally funded school lunches, you're for starving children.""
Isnt it amazing how some individuals will use the same logic as the left? Incredible how the WH puts out the talking point of "elitist" and those here go to such great lengths to prove it. Why didnt they do the same with the "sexist" charge that Ed Gillespie made? Hmm....
No. You're assuming that the President really does think he's nominating a constitutionalist. Given that assumption, you're right that my scenario wouldn't add up. Given that assumption...
(remember, by the way, that this is the same President who had no problem at all teaming up with Teddaquiddick in passing the "No Child Left Behind" Act - he's a uniter, you know)
They may have thought that then, but I think their experience with Ginsberg and Souter has disabused a great many of them of that kind of erroneous thinking.
No, no, no, don't change the subject. We're talking about Harry Reid. Stick with Harry Reid. Why is his endorsement a problem?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.