Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hannity radio show will have Sen. Lindsey Graham @ 1630 EST - Sen. Bill Frist scheduled for 1700 EST
Hannity Radio Show | 5/24/05 | Libloather

Posted on 05/24/2005 1:23:58 PM PDT by Libloather

Frist's first interview since the musshy middle announced their deal. As far actual news goes - Rush called Frist's office and at this point all judges will get a vote.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; 430; 500; bill; est; filibuster; frist; graham; hannity; lindsey; radio; scheduled; sen; senator; show; simperingpansygraham; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-335 next last
To: All
Well, after hearing Rush's take, then listening to Senator Frist on Hannity's radio show, (and then Sean talking to Pickering a little later)....

I fear my first instincts were correct. This is a huge loss for the GOP in general, and for conservative aspirations in particular.

Reading between the lines (he couldn't bring himself to say so directly), Frist believes that McCain & co. not only stabbed him in the back, they really ursurped his power.

The more I think about it, I'm now thinking that the mentally unbalanced McCain and his cohorts are planning to position themselves as "moderates", to draw "wishy-washy" Repubs into a "new" political party.... Perot revisited, except the target is not to draw conservatives but "fence sitters". Which of course means Hillary will be the next President.

And once McCain is able to put a permanent wedge in the Republican party, he will once again betray those that trusted him, and throw his lot in with Hillary, so as to be her VP or SecDef.

McCain: Drop the Mc, call true conservatives Abel, and you get a perfect picture of what has happened out of the Bible

301 posted on 05/24/2005 3:29:50 PM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
It's not good to turn a majority into a minority like that. Think about what Jeffords did & how we ended up with Dems as committee chairs after he got turned.

Yes, I'm thinking about that. The end result was a Red Avalanche of support for President Bush and Judges who will interpret the Constitution and not force their values on the entire country. Republicans gained in the Senate.

Sometimes it is better to fight and lose a battle than become a captive of dogs and lose the war.

We need to fight and win.

302 posted on 05/24/2005 3:34:43 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

Read the thread started last night that got the whole thing started. My conjecture is the following: Bush doesn't really care about his nominees. He will nominate them and if they get confirmed, fine. But, he wouldn't waste any political capital on them. He doesn't really care about the courts or the Constitution, as his reckless spending has shown. He neutralizes the conservatives by nominating them, but wouldn't really lift a finger to confirm them. The conservatives in the meantime get themselves worked up in righteous anger against the Democrats. I think he sort of miscalculated that this will turn into a wrath against his own party members, but I am sure Karl Rove has some contingency plan worked out. In my opinion, Bush doesn't care about his nominees or not care enough to spend any capital on them. All of that is reserved to get a true RINO in the bench so Souter can have a brother in the court.


303 posted on 05/24/2005 3:37:07 PM PDT by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

It was on Inside Politics that Graham over-stepped. By quite a lot. LOL


304 posted on 05/24/2005 3:39:21 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad
My conjecture is the following: Bush doesn't really care about his nominees.

Errrr, Bush isn't a Senator. What did he have to do with the moronic 7? All those RINOs hate Bush.

305 posted on 05/24/2005 3:39:54 PM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

Are you saying Bush the elder engaged in political patronage and screwed up the court forever for a personal cause? Seems like a libelous statement to me. But, it is true that everyone knew of Souter's true colors when he was nominated. Biden and Rudman were reported saying that they got what they wanted with a Souter nomination. He was in the 2nd C of A for a little while and all his decisions were aweful. It was a bad sign but Bush went ahead with him anyways.


306 posted on 05/24/2005 3:41:52 PM PDT by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: maggiefluffs
Hannity did an excellent job. Graham was a real weasel, I was somewhat surprised by that. He kept saying 1 of the nominees wouldn't make it.
307 posted on 05/24/2005 3:42:02 PM PDT by Kokojmudd (Today's Liberal is Tomorrow's Prospective Flying Saucer Abductee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: inkling

Bush spent zero capital on his nominees. Why? Why is it that Bush worked all night to get his welfare schemes passed through Congress but wouldn't lift a finger for his nominees? Again, this is the divide and conquer strategy of the Republicans that people like you fall for. Bush nominates and saves his face with conservatives. The Senate blocks and Bush does nothing like a French general. Some people caught this bluff a long time ago and outed Bush for what he is.


308 posted on 05/24/2005 3:44:32 PM PDT by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

We do need to fight to win, but it does not get done by eating our own, even our ugly step children. We need a way to smack our misbehaving children, without making them think that the only way to get away from the abuse is by running away.

My first rule change proposal for 06 goes along the line of committee chairs going to loyal members of the party. Those chairmanships enable the holders to get money for their re-elections.


309 posted on 05/24/2005 3:46:49 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Peach

He said: "Over in Iraq, we have soldiers dying and others being wounded, and all of them are subject to being shot at. They didn't have to volunteer to join the military. And I didn't have to change my vote to support this filibuster plan. But I did it for the good of the country."

Peach, I heard Lindsey make this comment on two programs, but he was on The Ralph Bristol Show in Greenville at 5 P.M., and did not make this statement again. I believe Graham is well aware of the trouble he is in, and seemed to be trying to do some back pedaling. Ralph Bristol is a local talk show host, and while I usually don't like him too well, he did a good job of 'taking it to Lindsey'. He demanded answers and challenged Lindsey on why he would participate in this compromise when the Republicans had a chance to win a complete victory. He reminded Lindsey that if the Democrats were in the position the Republicans were in, they would never ever entertain the idea of a compromise! Lindsey acknowledged he had disappointed his constituents, but he thought he was doing the right thing, but he might be proven wrong.

After the interview with Lindsey, Thomas Ravenel was the guest. He was critical of Lindsey's position in this matter, taxes, and free trade. He seems to have an interest in running against Graham in 2008! He said he couldn't commit now, because 'it would take a lot of money to mount a campaign, and he had to concentrate on making money in his real estate business if he were to entertain running.' Ralph asked him if he was aware that he might not have to use his money because Republicans were so upset with Lindsey they might contribute enough for his campaign?' He said, "Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that." He sounds interested. He ran a good race against DeMint, and sounds good, but he has not held public office before. I'm hoping Bob Inglis will challenge Graham, and I could support either man. I admit I feel a little sorry for Lindsey, because I think he has let John McCain manipulate him. However, he is accountable for his actions. I wish folks in Arizona would recall McCain...he's dangerous IMO, because you can't depend on him or trust him...he's a complete egomaniac.


310 posted on 05/24/2005 3:48:46 PM PDT by PeskyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
We do need to fight to win, but it does not get done by eating our own, even our ugly step children. We need a way to smack our misbehaving children, without making them think that the only way to get away from the abuse is by running away. My first rule change proposal for 06 goes along the line of committee chairs going to loyal members of the party. Those chairmanships enable the holders to get money for their re-elections.

Expel the deviant lest all be corrupted.

311 posted on 05/24/2005 3:49:35 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: PeskyOne

Interesting! I hope someone good DOES run against Graham; I'll work my heart and soul out for them.


312 posted on 05/24/2005 3:50:20 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

My way would tend to do that. Depriving them of some of their mother's milk will empower primary challengers to take them out.


313 posted on 05/24/2005 3:57:39 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
Hannity: "Why would seven Republicans undermine the President?"

Excellent question from Sean. That's what it all comes down to.

314 posted on 05/24/2005 3:59:58 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Pester the strongest young Representative in your state to go after him.


315 posted on 05/24/2005 4:00:46 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
My way would tend to do that. Depriving them of some of their mother's milk will empower primary challengers to take them out.

Okay

Reward the faithful and loyal.

Punish the traitors.

316 posted on 05/24/2005 4:00:52 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: PogySailor
Wow, is Graham naive or what?

I go with "or what." Quisling Graham has been waiting for more than four years to stick it to President Bush and conservatives.

317 posted on 05/24/2005 4:05:52 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
Frist got rolled and proves the adage of "He who hesitates is lost."

Or "Strike while the iron is hot." :-)

318 posted on 05/24/2005 4:08:26 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

Whip them until they bleed.


319 posted on 05/24/2005 4:09:20 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Great idea. Mind if i borrow it?


320 posted on 05/24/2005 4:13:07 PM PDT by bella1 (red county, blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-335 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson