Posted on 06/22/2005 6:16:30 PM PDT by watsonfellow
Boy I hope you're right. I have a sneaking suspicion you may be, at least that's my hope as I read the Kristol article in the other thread.
It kept coming up in my head, what about Estrada? I'd love to see him thrown back into the democrats faces as Frist finally pushes the Constitutional Option.
The coalition should be Hispanic conservatives who oppose illegal immigrants.
A tiny fraction of hispanics oppose illegal immigration. Id like to believe a majority of hispanics are against illegals, and "polls" would tell you that they are, but the direct correlation of support from hispanics of a politician and support by that politician for illegal immigration tells a different story.
OUCH!!
I voted for George Bush because I trusted his judgement, I'm not about to second guess him on what is probably the most significant decision a president will make. He will make the best decision possible. He's not thinking short term, or one issue, or making one segment of his supporters happy. He's thinking the history of the country, what's best for the country, and yes, his presidential legacy too. He's not going to screw it up.
I've mentioned before, I think it would be very interesting if he nominated Joe Lieberman. Democrats would pressure Lieberman hard not to accept. I wouldn't mind Orin Hatch being picked. Orthodox Jew, Mormon, Orthodox Jew, Mormon...(I don't think there's a dimes worth of difference in the two of them. Both would make some good, and some disappointing judicial decisions.) Hey! this is one way to clear out the senate deadwood.
I would be thrilled, absolutely thrilled, if Bush picked Ted Olsen. I don't know where he stands on abortion or stem cell, or guns, or borders, I don't care.
I just don't see getting all rattled over this. Whoever Bush picks will be better than anyone a democrat president would nominate. We should be shouting for joy that this president finally gets to name a Supreme. And we should uniformly, support his decision.
So your point is that Bush should nominated people he hates, that have been disloyal to him.
Is that about it?
No, just a realist, especially as concerns the electability of the alternatives that are suggested here.
Consider:
1932-1993 --- Except for some brief periods of time in the 50's and in the 80's, the Democrats ruled the roost. Sure we had some Republican Presidents, but for the most part the Democratic agenda was on the fast track and we only served to occasionally slow it down.
1994-2000 --- We made some changes, we got Congress, but we were too damn slow in learning how to adjust to the front seat, so only minor gains were made.
2001-2005 --- We still have not learned we are in the pilot's seat and thus do not take advantage the opportunities afforded to us. You cannot lead those who refuse to follow (Congress)
And what is being proposed in this thread?
Constructive alternatives?
Combining forces with all Republicans in a united stand?
Strengthening our position to work together?
No. Instead it is proposed that we jump ship, dump Bush because he might nominate a Latino, and start looking for a true conservative to raise us from the ashes of moderation and lead us back to the GLORY days of Reaganism.
You tell me who that leader is and I will be glad to get on board. They had 60 years of unfettered control to take us to where we are today and many here want to jump ship after a relatively short period of time.
Sorry, but I still see progress, painfully slow at times, but it is forth coming.
All will be flocking to churches everywhere to pray that Gonzales is not picked, as it would force you to leave the party.
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.