Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
Yes, because when Bush wins, conservatives lose.
Bush has not earned the right to say, "trust me."
1) He didn't keep his word on embryonic stem cells and created a market in embryos, which is what the culture of death wants.
2) Bush signed McCain/Feingold. His conservative princpled stand rested on hoping the Supreme Court would do what he was afraid to do - kill it.
3) Bush has yet to oppose a dime in socialism.
4) Bush is proud of recruiting Kennedy to write his education bill.
5) Bush created a whole new entitlement - prescription drugs. It wasn't something he was pressured into, either. It's passed and signed but no one wants it.
So are you suggesting that the Republican Senate Majority has displayed strength of will when it comes to standing up for conservative values in their legislation and has been willnig to be the majority no matter what the democrats thing? I have seen a vastly different senate in action the past three years. And will you feel the same in a couple years after it's clear that Miers is a firm conservative Justice like Thomas and Scalia?
And some folks will never EVER learn it seems!
Are you sober?
There would not be all this fear and whining if the Supreme Court judges were not nominated for lifetime positions. We need to work on term limits for these clowns.
I try to use paragraphs, but I type so fast adn forget to sometimes use the < p > just hit enter and forget that doesn't work in html. I get so in my thoughts that I forget html and all that. Sorry. 8)
That's the best description I've seen yet!
I just call them the Wrist Slitter Conservatives.
You're a man of limited words, I see.
Post evidence of this. This is news to me.
Yes. For years, now. You must be confusing me with all-thumbs-Allen H.
Projecting?
and you still can't keep up.
But your premise hasn't even got a basis in reality or fact. For it to, she would have to have been a liberal, and even when she was a democrat decades ago she wasn't a liberal. The only way your premise is at all factual is a few years from now, IF she has an established pattern of adjudicating as a liberal or moderate, in direct contravention of conservative constructionist ideals. The evidence about her personally and professionally points to the exact opposite. If she was good enough to pick Luddig, and Jones, and Owens, and Brown and ALL the others you think should have had the nominiation, then why isn't she good enough to have it herself when she was the main person picking conservative Judges for Bush to appoint? Please expalin that. She was concerned that Roberts wasn't even conservative enough so that means she's right of Roberts, and that now somehow isn't conservative enough? He was only a Judge two years before he was confirmed. Exactly how much experience do you figure he had in those two years? And Thomas and Scalia didn't have a mountain of judicial experience before being nominated. I mean come on. This is just plain silly.
However, I will submit to you that after the hearings are concluded, we will all be able to make a much more informed decision.
That's exactly what they want. A big fight with a shame-faced Bush loss so that they can get their rocks off on finally showing Bush who's boss!
The Senate in the their Gang of 14 Compromise this year told all of us including the President how they intended to operate and they didn't care about the Constitution. Our alternative is vote them out of office. I'm from Illinois. It would be great to get two new Senators.
Of course not. I just wonder why such a conservative, pro-life activist, traditional Christian chooses to attend such liberal churches. The Episcopal Church is fairly diverse, but it is uniformly liberal in DC. The ECUSA was active in fighting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and is one of the most vocal supporters of gay marriage. It's fine if Miers enjoys that environment (I like fighting the good fight in the belly of the beast, myself), but I'm not going to shout from the rooftops about her attendence of conservative churches- this would be untrue. There are far more conservative churches in DC, so St. John's is not her only option.
In a way, I'm sorry to hear that because the other explanations for the tenor and content of your contributions to this thread are much more disturbing.
In a May 18, 2001, letter to the President of the Culture of Life Foundation, then candidate Bush stated his opposition to embryonic stem cell research:
"I oppose Federal funding of stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos. I support innovative medical research on life-threatening and debilitating diseases, including promising research on stem cells from adult tissue."
I and millions of other pro-lifers took this man at his word. I’d been made aware of the President’s being a Born Again Christian, and the statement struck me as indicative of a gentleman that confesses Christ.
But Thursday evening, politician Bush broke his promise, despite claims to the contrary by the President’s underlings. By allowing for the federal funding for the research on 60 existing stem cell lines, the President has given his tacit approval of the procedure. By rationalizing that he isn’t really contradicting earlier promises because these 60 lines "were created from embryos that have already been destroyed," the President is engaging in semantic gymnastics, the sort of hair-splitting used by former president Clinton that drew so much ire from conservatives.
How is it stealth when she's been an outspoken pro-live Christian, opposing abortion professionally and personally, she's voted Republican, represented Republicans, worked on a Republican administration for five years, been a Republican President's lead council for five years, and been pivotal in picking ALL of the President's judicial nominees for ALL levels of the judiciary, and ALL of them have proven to be strong constructionist conservative judges? Again, I ask, how is it that she was good and conservative enough to pick Brown and Owens and Luddig and Pryor and Roberts, but she's not good enough to be a Justice herself with her long list of accomplishments the past 35 years? Please explain that to me.
Talk about starting an argument from false assumptions and false dichotomies.
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.