If Bush Doesn't Nominate A True Conservative, I'm Voting For Hilary For Presiden

Well, nothing wrong with 2008 or 2006. Let's also target 2010 as well. We should have 60+ Senators, since the President carried 30 and 31 states in 2000 & 2004.

Unlike some of the emotionally-driven folks around here, I'm very patient. The numbers are all inexorably in our favor as long as we keep working for victory in the Senate.

First, you should educate yourself on the English language as that is the language that we use here to convey ideas and for the development of thoughts. I suspect when you wrote "likable" you either thought you wrote "liable" or didn't know the difference, either way, you should at a minimum, reread your replies before posting. This is an example of your inability to communicate in the language of this forum as some people don't listen to conversation, you don't even read your writing carefully.

As far as hunches go, I think you and I may have been less informed, as we all were, at the time of the last appointment to the SC as we had no FR, I certainly did not have Fox News cabled to my home, and the plethora of conservative radio talk shows to direct discussion and uncover the traits and leanings of candidates for the bench. I certainly was less informed as we all were when David Souter was placed on the bench. Do you think we may be better informed now? If so, would you support a man like Souter to sit on the bench? Because of all the coverage with respect to the nomination process of Thomas, didn't we, if you are a conservative, have a good feeling about him? The liberals certainly hated him and for me that is a good sign.

If the liberals go along with the present attorney general, is that a good sign? For me and many conservatives, that is a disaster in the making. Hopefully however, since the liberals were nearly certain that they would be in the WH presently and liberal SC judges knew it as well, I think Ginsberg may have delayed the inevitable and now will have to retire. I suspect GWB will get three chances to prove me wrong, that is, he is an elitist and universalist in the way he thinks of his Presidency. Yesterday, however, GWB said things that make me think differently with respect to my conclusion when he essentially told Tony Blair and the G8 to pound sand with respect to Kyoto and so-called global warming. That is a traditional American view, not universalist, conservative, and right. If he keeps on doing things like that even while throwing billions away in Africa I may have to modify my views.

Yeah right - she'll be under pressure by the Hollywood left and moveon.org to nominate a hardcore liberal (left of any current justice)!

Libertarian is the best choice if you are more conservative fiscally than socially. Constitution is your best choice if you are the other way around.

What happens if Hillary loses the primaries and they nominate a DINO, would a strong third party challenge come up on the left by the Greens or the Socialists?