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
Coutler, Levin, Malkin, Krauthammer, Kristol et al. are NATIONAL COMMENTATORS!.
These names you mentioned did as much as anybody to energize the base in ALL states, and I may add, if it was not for these same individuals, Florida would have gone for Gore in 2000 FOR SURE and Ohio may well have gone for Kerry in 2004.
This is one of the most stupid remarks I have seen on this subject. This list of conservative commentators (much more lengthy than that list of yours) are right on the mark in their critique of this crony pick by Bush. You have made one of the worst cases yet on this subject matter. To see others on this thread agree with you and somehow fail to realize we are talking about NATIONAL COMMENTATORS is astounding! Fan club members and loyalists get so dizzy in their cheering that they fail to see the most obvious points.
With this stupid line of thinking, Bush should not be president because he is from "just Texas" and was not from all 50 states in the union.
And weren't you a former banee who couldn't hold his tongue on the alan keyes threads?
Uhm, based on what? To me, the so called "moderate" Republicans that still on the local level dominate the blue state suburbs are the ones that really support this nomination, the rural and exurban conservatives are the ones who are most disgusted. Really a very stupid arguement, because while the pundits live in blue states, it is the people in the red states that give them their ratings.
"You're such a crybaby anyway."
See, this is the problem people like you and howlin have.
You can't stand the fact that somebody might disagree with your ideas and your tactics, so you consider their going after them to be personal attacks.
And because you feel they are 'personal attacks' you respond with actual personal attacks like you just did with me.
Thanks, though, for illustrating exactly how you act. Can't deal with the issues so you resort to calling names.
It is so ill-reasoned that it makes idiocy look like brilliance by way of comparison.
I guess then when Clinton was in office, you didn't have a right to complain either if your state didn't vote for him.
Right?
Astounding reasoning...
Popular vote? If strict Constitutionalists such as Scalia and Thomas read your post, they'd laugh at you. Nowhere in the Constitution does the popular vote have any meaning in Presidential elections.
The positive spin is that this is still a great country. A free country where ordinary joe's can totally flame the president for making a pick they don't agree with. He's no more immune to it than the baseball manager who leaves a pitcher in too long or sets the lineup the wrong way, or the football coach who fails to manage the clock in the last 2 minutes. Pick your analogy.
So here we are, all of us honestly caring about the outcome, honestly wanting the best for our country, honestly acting on our patriotic feelings. And we're free to do it, and lame as the press is, they are free to deliver our feelings all the way to the Oval Office and the halls of Congress. They've heard us.
But, at the same time, it's UGLY for the party. Personally, I am sort of glad. You're right that the Democrats are worse, and maybe we're stuck with what we have, but the idealist in me thinks that this sort of thing is an opportunity for constitutionalists to gain a stronger foothold. What frustrates me is that we have become the blacks of the GOP. The taken for granted. We have no leverage. And I'm sorry. I don't go in for the adoration that some ppl give the president. Call me a cynic, but to me politics is an ignoble profession, and anyone in it is to be watched closely, not worshipped.
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.
Hmmmmm...As an observer, looking back at the past few years, with all the growth of government, massive government spending, social programs, open borders ect, etc, does this now make those conservative states with everyone else being fooled?
ditto.
She contributed the max to the DNC five days before the 1988 Presidential Election.
Someone who contributed the max to the DNC five days before the 2004 Presidential Election would be known as a "Kerry Lefty". It's not just an opinion, it is a fact.
no, they don't, but their votes kept the liberals from harping on the "he never won the popular vote" train.
Plus, even though they can't deliver their states, the blue states deliver a hell of a lot of money to the presidential campaign for republicans.
To insult them like this is idiotic.
I may not agree with the Miers nomination (or I may), but this observation is extremely well-perceived. I live in NC, so I guess I get to talk about SC nominations. Of course, anyone really can talk, but we don't have to listen to people who don't help us anyway.....
Great post.
I was just using the imbecilic reasoning of the man who posted that utterly moronic piece.
After all, where the hell in the Constitution does it say that we have to be silent if we disagree with a decision made by the president?
Ping post #61. I posted that before I saw your post.
Agree. This may be the most stupid comment I have seen on Free Republic this year.
Absolutely wrong. Buchanan and Kristol did nothing but cause harm during both campaigns. I started listening to Ingraham during the campaign, because of her support for the President. I haven't listened to her since August, and I'm not the only one.
You also have a rather high opinion of pundits. Right now, the pundits behavior is not any different than Dan Rather's. They latched onto a lie during Katrina and they are running with it.
That's right. They were all just a bunch of sodbusters. All farmers found universities, lead armies to defeat great empires, serve as envoys to the great nations of Europe, lead state governments, design architecture, write books, create new scientific inventions. Just your run of the mill pig farmers.
Ah yes. There's the nut of the matter: You're more concerned about the dainty sensibilities of liberals than you are about the supremecy of the Constitution.
You said: So, in return, can we get him to stop ruling us, especially with his out-of-control spending, border insecurity and silly nominations?
***
Sorry, nope, you lose. The election was a national one. You're IN the nation, so deal with it. But the poster has a great point. No one has to listen to you.
it's not just buchannan and kristol. People just like to cite those because it's 'acceptable' to dislike them.
The names of prominent commentators who have come out against the nomination in one way or the other is astounding. Limbaugh, limbaugh, steyn, coulter, malkin, frum, almost all of national review, will, noonan, and on and on and on.
And the white house and the party is ticking of their best weapons for what? A mediorcre, unknown nominee that would never had been named by any other president, and wouldn't have been picked by GWB if they didn't know each other for years?
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.