Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Brian_Baldwin
Just whose words are these...Laura Ingraham's or yours?

Whose ever they are, they are all sound and fury, no though, no logic,baseless, and nonsense.

34 posted on 07/05/2005 10:30:11 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: nopardons

I seem to remember her also mentioning Republicans giving us lousey judges, mentioning them by name and that she expects better from Bush.


37 posted on 07/05/2005 10:33:39 PM PDT by tertiary01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: nopardons
... they are all sound and fury, no though, no logic,baseless, and nonsense.

Yeah, audio often reads that way. They say that if we read the transcripts of our phone converstaions we'd go insane...:-)

44 posted on 07/05/2005 10:39:28 PM PDT by Types_with_Fist (I'm on FReep so often that when I read an article at another site I scroll down for the comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: nopardons; PhiKapMom
Whose ever they are, they are all sound and fury, no though, no logic,baseless, and nonsense.\

Most of the words are from Brian Baldwin (Ingraham didn't refer to Bush as "Mr. Peepers"), but they definitely reflect the same tone and spirit that Ingraham -- a former law clerk for Clarence Thomas -- displayed Tuesday morning.

It was Ingraham who led the charge nationwide against reflexively reinstalling RINOsaur Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary Chairman after he spit in Bush's eye regarding the upcoming SCOTUS nominees mere hours after they were both re-elected. Specter offered a half-fast reassurance that he wouldn't be a roadblock, and Frist cleared the way for him to be in charge. Later, when wishy-washy Sandra Day O'Connor (she couldn't dare overturn Roe v. Wade, but had no problem flip-flopping her own majority vote on Bowers vs. Hardwick based on other countries' laws) announced she was retiring, TWO DAYS LATER Specter sat alongside Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) on national television and joined him in urinating on the remains of the Robert Bork nomination!

Now, on top of that, President Bush, who campaigned saying he would nominate for SCOTUS jurists in the tradition of Scalia and Thomas, gets all huffy when true believers say forthrightly and truthfully that Alberto Gonzales -- whom Bush didn't fight for when he was nominated for a judgeship -- doesn't fit that bill? I don't care if he's President; if he is going back on a campaign promise, he's going to get what's coming to him just like his father did!

What Ingraham has been saying for the past two days is that the President has no business telling people who wrote checks to him and pounded the pavement for him during the '04 campaign for the express purpose of halting the trend toward judicial superlegislature to "tone it down" because he 'doesn't like it when someone criticizes his friends.' What could be more lame than that?

The only "nonsense" is coming from people who think that Bush has earned the benefit of the doubt. Wake up and smell the Chafee people! Bush is NOT a demigod! He isn't infallible! And when he's about to make a mistake that will last for decades, set aside your reverence and speak the truth!

258 posted on 07/07/2005 1:38:16 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Real Freepers Don't Need Witness Protection Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson