Who Elected President Bush (And Supports His Choice For Scotus)?

Captain's Quarters Blog Comment ^ | 11 October 2005 | msdl5

[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

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The ZIP code where Bush has raised the most money is 10021 in New York City ($712,500), which was the biggest source of money overall outside Washington, D.C. in the 2002 and 2000 election cycles.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/PresFR3Q.asp

[flashbunny]

no, I wasn't, so don't put words in my mouth.

I was just pointing out one of the benefits of winning the popular vote: It shut the liberals up about something for a change.

[kcar]

This is a really specious argument. Many voters in red states, like myself admire the wisdom and insightfulness of people like Coulter, Lowry, Kristol, Krauthammer, Ingraham, Fund, and Rushbo, who very definitely helped W to become President.

Whether or not you agree or not with the Harriet pick, these individuals have earned due respect.

[Vision Thing]

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?

Chill. No one is telling you to be silent. However, if you want the privilege to disagree out loud with the president, then you should extend the same privilege to those who disagree with you.

[flashbunny]

I guess the genius who made this comment (on the comment section of a blog, no less) should tell all the people in the 'blue states' that the republicans don't need their money for presidential campaigns.

I can't believe some people felt this completely moronic comment was 'well stated'.

[badgerlandjim]

Yeah - I gotta siddown and shaddup - and I ain't the one who donated $1,000 to that Uber-Conservative - ALGORE. Go figure.

[cksharks]

Can you read or do you just make shit up as you go along? THE BLOGGER SAID THIS!

[ronnied]

she's nominated & has a .45, good enough for me....

[Vision Thing]

A state's electoral votes are what matter in the presidential election, not the amount of money donated by the state's residents.

You should learn the Constitution.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You know what?

Laura Ingraham has been more committed to the conservative cause than anyone in the entire Bush family-with the possible exception of Jeb, and even that's iffy-has been during the course of their lives.

If I have to pick which Texan I trust me more to stand up for conservative principles, Tom Pauken or George W. Bush, it sure as hell isn't going to Bush, I can tell you that much!

It's not even a contest.

[sydbas]

He hasnt done much for me in 5 years since the tax cut and WOT.

Not like those are small things. He also got the economy going despite inheriting a recession, a devastating (to the economy and to mankind) terrorist attack on 9/11, and through two wars. Yes we would all like him to secure the borders (I know you are going there) but what president has before him? Can't say that it's all Bush's fault. (Oops I forgot we are not aloud to say that anymore since all of the Bush haters have now come out of the closet and now everything is Bush's fault.)

[NCLaw441]

You said: Without the votes of Republicans living in New York, California, Massachusetts, among all of the other states enumerated by this guy, George W. Bush would have lost the popular vote in 2004.
***
I hate to appear elitist, but under our constitution the popular vote doesn't really count. Sure, I am glad we won it, but we didn't in 2000, and Bush was elected nonetheless. The poster makes a brilliant observation. Most of those who oppose Miers are from states that didn't give the electoral, that is, constitutional, vote for the president.

I may or may not support the Miers nomination, but I like the fact that plain ol' folks identify with her.

(By the way, for what little it is worth, I am an attorney, out of a less than elite law school, UNC, and I could interpret the constitution better than at least 4 of the justices.... and I bet there are plenty like me with no apparent "judicial philosophies"....)

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

They certainly need it.

Whether they deserve, much less, are entitled to it, is another matter altogether.

[flashbunny]

"Can you read or do you just make shit up as you go along? THE BLOGGER SAID THIS!"

Follow the link.

The comment listed above is made by a READER of the blog, not the blogger himself. It is 3/4 down the page at this moment.

mdsl5 is not 'the captain' who runs the captain quarters blog.

I'll be waiting for your apology. The question is whether you'll have integrity to rightly offer one.

[Nathan Zachary]

" Most of the pro-Miers people never miss an opportunity to deceive. The DU types are desperate to see Miers confirmed."

And just what does this statement make you?

I support the Meir's nomination because she is a person with integrity. Nothing more.

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 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.

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.

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 decission 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.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

My argument had nothing to do with the Constitution.

It was related to the imbecilic assertion that we had to "shut up" because we lived in states that didn't cast their electoral votes for President Bush.

He was implying that we had less of a voice in the matter than Republicans who lived in states that were in the red column, which isn't true.

[Vision Thing]

I was just pointing out one of the benefits of winning the popular vote: It shut the liberals up about something for a change.

Aren't you the one who despises the Miers nomination because she has no paper trail in regards to her views on the Constitution? Aren't you also complaining about the political nature of this nomination?

If so, you should show little concern about the non-Constitutional concept of the Popular Vote and how the libs can use it as a political weapon against us. Instead, you're merely using it as one of many rationalizations in your opposition to Miers and Bush.

[deport]

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Oct. 3-5, 2005. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
						.
"As you may know, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, and President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace her. Is your opinion of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers favorable, unfavorable, or haven't you heard enough about Harriet Miers yet to have an opinion?"
						.
		Favorable	Unfav- orable	Haven't Heard Enough	Unsure
		%	%	%	%
	10/3-5/05	19	13	67	1
						.
"Do you think the U.S. Senate should or should not confirm Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court justice?"
						.
		Should	Should Not	Unsure
		%	%	%
	10/3-5/05	41	27	32

[shrinkermd]

"...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...."

In respect to Limbaugh, remember he likes a good fight and has been itching for a down and out political brawl over SCOTUS. Ditto for Coulter. Ditto for Malkin. As for Frum, he has never gotten over being fired as a speech writer for claiming he wrote the "axis of evil line." Steyn isn't even an American and he makes a good living looking and writing for controversy understandable to a Canadian-UK-American audience.

My point is, these people all have agendas that may or may not influence what they think about Miers. My personal guess is the one thing not mentioned much is the fact that the President appreciates her character including her Evangelical beliefs. Nothing frightens the intelligentsia, left or right, then having a knuckle dragging, Neanderthal Jesus Freak in SCOTUS. In fact, I have yet to find anyone who can tell me when was the last time we had a "primitive" Protestant (Evangelical) in SCOTUS.

People are avoiding discussing the pros and cons of the relgious issue because it is so fraught with controversy no one can easily make political hay out of it.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Apparently, FReepers aren't the only ones expressing reservations about this nomination.

Not looking too good for Miers, is it?