Posted on 10/11/2005 4:19:08 PM PDT by shrinkermd
Who elected Bush?
Not Minnesota, not Michigan, not Wisconsin, not Maine, not Vermont, not New Hampshire, not Conneticut, not Massachusets, not New York, not Pennsylvania, not Delaware, not DC, not Illinois, not California, not Oregon, not Washington, not Maryland, not Hawaii.
Not one electoral vote from the land of Pundits and Bloggers except for Virginia's 13 electoral votes.
I suggest that Coulter, Lowry, Kristol, Krauthammer, Ingraham, Fund, J-Pod and the rest first do their jobs in their home states and/or the states of their youths. HELP GET A DAMN PRESIDENT ELECTED, then complain.
We don't want to hear another talk show host out of New York or DC claim that they got Bush elected. Maybe you energized the troops out here but we did the work. You reside in the land of zero, nada, nothing - no Electoral College votes.
This SCOTUS arguement is treating the rest of the Republicans thoughout the country who actually provied electoral college votes for The President the same way the Dems and the news media did after the 2004 election. Hicks, hayseeds, Jesus freaks, rednecks, NASCAR fools......
Many people in the states that actually provided Electoral College votes are at some level of support or at least wait and see over this nomination. The polls say so. Check MSNBC and Drudge.
Posted by: msdl5 at October 11, 2005 05:38 PM
Really?
So I suppose that whole "being head of the Texas Republican Party" thing is illustrative of his thwarted political ambitions, hunh?
And if anyone is the "patsy" it's John Cornyn, who's flacking for this sub-par nominee.
I realize it would have been too much to ask for him to come out in full-throated opposition, but if he thinks he's earning any brownie points among conservatives by doing this he's sorely mistaken.
Who's the head of the Republican Party of Texas now? I don't even know.
Actually, his political ambitions were thwarted. He lost, twice, in his attempts to unseat Jim Maddux, and lost to Cornyn in the primary in 1996. I haven't heard his name since.
I realize it would have been too much to ask for him to come out in full-throated opposition, but if he thinks he's earning any brownie points among conservatives by doing this he's sorely mistaken.
Uh, Cornyn knows Miers, which is why he came out as quickly as he did, in favor.
I'm sure Cornyn cares what a bunch of Yankees think about him, or a bunch of disgruntled Republicans from Texas.
He and Kay Bailey have their seats as long as they want them.
I don't think anyone should "shut up" because their state didn't help elect the president. However, the states with more elitist thought are states that never vote republican anyway (or at least rarely do). The heartland of America is happy to see someone who isn't from inside the "judicial loop" be nominated. True, she is no John Roberts, but also true she is no David Souter. At least I suspect she is neither. In fact she may be just as competent as Roberts (but I do doubt it).
What has bugged me from the outset is the almost immediate attacks against this nominee by those who should at least have given her the initial benefit of the doubt. By all accounts few know much about her, yet many were willing to not only disagree with the nomination, but to call her names like paper stapler and the like. This was uncalled for. I think there was more than a little snobbery in response to this nomination, and that struck me as unfair.
It doesn't say anything about me, I'm not pro-Miers.
I support the Meir's nomination because she is a person with integrity. Nothing more.
Miers might be a lot of things but I don't see the "integrity". She was a radical Democrat when Bush came a knocking at her door.
Now I'm a "DU type"? You are stereo typing Meirs supporters as being some soft right leaning liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth, and by suggesting such a thing makes you what? It makes you a DECIEVER,(and a hypocrite) the very thing you accuse Miers supporters of.
I never said you are a "DU type", most of the pro-Miers arguers are and you are including yourself with the "most". Don't you see that most of the arguments coming from the pro-Miers people are illogical Democrat like arguments? I know of pro-Miers people on FR who aren't DU types but they are in the minority.
I've seen anti-Miers arguments that are illogical and I step in and expose these arguments as such, but such arguments are rare. If you consider yourself as typical pro-Miers then you undermine your own credibility.
I will wait until the hearings and then decide what I think based upon what She says in answer to real questions, not based on media trash, and opinions people have who know nothing about her.
Those who know her admit that they don't know where she stands. A reporter once asked her something like, "what do people say about you behind your back"...she replied something like "they don't know where I stand on anything". I won't trust her answers during the hearings.
Al this BS about what she did while she was developing as a person, 20 years ago, 30 years ago and in between does not mean that's what she is today. People live learn grow, and change. It's what she is today that I am concerned with, and She seems to be a fine, upstanding person.
You will need to consider everything and ask yourself: "Would I bet the existence of the Republican Party that this nominee is not another Souter?".
Ultimately, it's not OUR decision anyways, it's in the hands of a bunch of idiots who other idiots elected to sit in the senate. What worries me more, is that this unqualified collection of buffoons will either elect, or not elect her to the bench, and that their decision will not be based on what's good, what's truth, and what is good for the Nation, but on what's good for their political career.
Which is why they must be pressured to do the right thing.
Haven't heard this. Can anyone confirm this?
Oh, so you have to be BORN a Republican. I see. It may surprise you, but I at one time was a (cough) Democrat(cough). But I grew up, made some money, and saw the inner workings of the truly corrupt and evil party it is. Now that I have many years of life experience and knowledge behind me, I will never be anything but a Republican. Unless the party stops being one of course. I question some who claim to be Republicans, but we CAN control that via the electoral process.
I Forgot! It's Hubble material though. I Didn't take it here in NJ !
So, you have let hearsay in the media make up your mind for you. I see.
I refuse to allow them to do that. In fact, Why I like FR is because the media is taken apart andd their lies, misleading articles and political agenda is exposed on a regular basis.
I do know that Bush is a pretty smart guy, he knows things we don't, so I'll rely on his choice for now, and see where it goes. I will not let hearsay in the media (which for all you know may not even have a shred of truth to it) form my opinion.
Laura Ingraham needs all our prayers for her full recovery from breast cancer. She does not need some goofball fawning over her at NRO.
According to you, this is a "done deal."
So why the fuss?
:_)
Somebody has to come throught these threads and flush.
The slurs just keep on piling up on those who oppose the Meirs nomination. First they were "elitists", then "mentally challenged", then "sexist", then "jumping the gun", and now "those who did no work to help elect Bush".
I am in the hick, hayseed, Jesus freak, redneck, and NASCAR fool category, not to mention being a strong defender of the Confederate flag. I am also a conservative (e.g., an elitist, sexist, etc.) who has serious reservations about his work in helping elect Bush.
Why countervail your "point of view" when all you've got is high dudgeon? I'm just havin' some fun and gettin' under some thin skins.
Everybody needs to lightin' up around here. You, especially.
That doesn't mean I need to be silent, or restrain my criticism of what I believe to be one of the most disastrous, incomprehensible decisions of the Bush presidency to date.
I learned two lessons from that. 1. To reread my posts and think about how they read to other people
2. That a great deal of anger on threads such as that (and this one) are wasted energy, because we don't control the outcome.
All this noise isn't affecting a thing in Washington. The pundits in Washington have built up no particular loyalty from the President, and he has already considered all positions before he made the nomination.
I am waiting for the hearings. I find it odd that you would remember, after 5 years, who was an opponent on the Keyes threads.
Sinkspur is praising Aaron Burr.
Call me crazy, but I think being on the side of the man whose party was the indirect antecedent to the Republican Party, the creator of the Coast Guard, the Bank of New York, the New York Post-when it had a better reputation-and the man who was probably more responsible for the eventual ratification of the U.S. Constitution than any other-with the possible exception of James Madison-and rescued this nation from the brink of fiscal ruin, is preferable to touting the wisdom of Aaron Burr, whose name is synonymous with deceit.
I'm talking about the keyes threads from last year - when he ran against obama for the 2004 election.
The thing was back then, almost any criticism of how keyes was running his campaign (and it was a very poorly run campaign, probably do in part to the poorly organized IL GOP) was construed as outright support for obama. Somebody even made an 'obama cheerleader' graphac that they would whip out whenever anybody expressed doubts in the keyes candidacy.
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.