Posted on 02/02/2005 6:33:50 AM PST by OXENinFLA
PROGRAM -- (Senate - February 01, 2005)
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General. A number of colleagues spoke on this nomination today, and we expect a full day of debate tomorrow as well. Under the agreement, we will alternate debate in 1-hour blocks throughout the day. Again, I encourage those Members who wish to speak on the Gonzales nomination to contact the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee as soon as possible.
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2005 -- (Senate - February 01, 2005) Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, February 2. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and at 9:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General, as provided under the previous order; provided that at 2:30 p.m. Senator Byrd be recognized for up to 1 hour.
Your agenda on this thread is to smear Alberto Gonzales.
And I am not your pal.
He is utterly boring, that's for sure. I can see Hillary walking all over him whenver she pleases.
What policies do you agree with? The WOT doesn't count.
I'm not smearing Gonzales, I'm raising valid points about his credentials.
And of course, you're right. You're not my pal. I'm more discriminating in my selection of company and just because Bush endorses somebody doesn't mean I approve of them.
I guess you liked Chrissie Whitman, Tom Kean and Norman Minetta too, "Mr. Republican"?
Why did you decide not to start your own thread on the topic of Alberto Gonzales?
Impugning his character isn't "raising valid points".
I'm looking and listening to Jack Reed and thinking that some poor woman must have been desperate to marry him. Can you even imagine listening to him over the breakfast table for years and years? (Sorry for this meandering, but what else is there to do during his "speech"?)
Do you think that President Bush, the same man who has stood up for the military, stood against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, who has ignored the attacks of the democrats and done what is right for our country...do you think this same man is going to appoint someone to the Attorney General's position that is going to grab your guns and open the borders? Would it nor make more sense that perhaps someone who opposes Gonzalez is exagerrating and making up stuff in order to poison his nomination? Does it not make MORE sense that Gonzalez is a good appointment, just like Rice and Rumsfeld are, and that certain people are stirring the pot for their own reasons?
No need for a lengthy debate, but I would like you to seriously consider this possibility before answering.
And I think Michelle Malkin is a good columnist but she is not above exagerrating herself, and she is NOT an expert on immigration, merely somone who has a strong opinion and writes supporting her opinion. That is not the definition of an expert.
Apparently not, if you're basing your opinion of Alberto Gonzales from statements of those whose opinions you value.
and just because Bush endorses somebody doesn't mean I approve of them.
Apparently there's not much you do approve of concerning Bush and his nominees, juding from your posts just on this thread.
I guess you liked Chrissie Whitman, Tom Kean and Norman Minetta too, "Mr. Republican"?
I guess you're flat run out of anything responsive to say and have resorted to claptrap boilerplate.
Rush is covering an story that 2 Boston Globe reporters did on Jeff Gannon of Talon news for asking softball questions at WH press conferences. They did an investigative report on who was the traitor in their midst!
People who are rightly concerned about illegal mexican immigration that has been and continues to be a very serious problem really don't deserve to be called and assumed to be "bigots". Whether or not you support George Bush, this is an issue you have to admit he has largely ignored.
How about that guy Nelson from Florida. He could make you homocidal.
Wow, I typed that long response to ZULU, and Reed is STILL going on and on!!!
Well, isn't THAT telling! Apparently they don't like anyone getting into their club without passing their litmus test. HA!
I'm playing with my cat O'Reilly.
Get out your copy of War and Peace. LOL
If I said that I believed he supported a program for amnesty for illegal invaders, supports affirmative action, supports abortion rights, and support gun restrictions, that means I'm "impugning his character"?????
Excuse me, I thought I was raising questions about his political views, not "impugning his character". If questioning a person's qualification for office and political views is considered "impugning his character" we are no longer a democracy and free speech is an empty expression.
If the claims I stated about his positions are not valid ones, point to me to a source which will refute them. I have an open mind. Instead of refuting my arguments, you are impugning MY character.
I find Michelle Malkin to be greatly overrated.
I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I will.
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.