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

Skip to comments.

Newsweek: Gonzales Pick Will Doom Jeb Bush
NewsMax ^ | 7/3/05 | NewsMax

Posted on 07/03/2005 8:02:04 PM PDT by wagglebee

f President Bush chooses Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that might well doom the GOP Senate incumbents, those on the religious right say, by infuriating the party's fervent, evangelical grassroots, Newsweek reports in the current issue.

"If the president is foolish enough to nominate Al Gonzales, what he will find is a divided base that will take it out on candidates in 2006," says Manuel Miranda, who heads a coalition of conservative groups called Third Branch Conference.

A former legal counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Miranda went on to threaten retribution against Bush's brother Jeb, should he decide to run for president.

"We're not Republican patsies," he tells Newsweek. "Jeb Bush can go sell insurance."

Newsweek Chief Political Correspondent Howard Fineman and Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Debra Rosenberg preview the battle ahead for O'Connor's replacement in the July 11 cover, "O'Connor's Odyssey" (on newsstands Monday, July 4).

"This is probably the most significant Supreme Court resignation and nomination we'll see in our lifetimes," says Jay Sekulow, counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. His counterpart at the liberal Alliance for Justice agreed. "The stakes are now enormous," says Nan Aron.

Also in the cover package, Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas and Contributing Editor Stuart Taylor Jr. recount the legacy of O'Connor and her years on the bench, where she was the classic swing vote in countless 5 to 4 decisions.

Newsweek also lists the likely contenders for O'Connor's successor: Edith Brown Clement, a Fifth Circuit judge; John Roberts, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C.; J. Michael Luttig, a Fourth Circuit judge; J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Fourth Circuit judge; Janice Rogers Brown, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. and Gonzales.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2006; bush; conservativism; gonzales; gop; jebbush; mannymiranda; newsweek; sandradayoconnor; scotus; supremecourtnominee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: HiTech RedNeck

I know that Jeb has never publicly said that he wanted to be president and has, numerous times, said that he wasn't running. But try to get that message to set in, around here. LOL


81 posted on 07/03/2005 11:32:31 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
If the President nominates Gonzales, it will be because he knows him better than Manuel Miranda does."""

Or because the president has decided not to honor his promise to nominate judges like Scalia. We already know that Gonzales is considerably to the left of Scalia, because his amicus brief in the racial quota cases was very weak and namby - pamby, and because he declined to submit an amicus brief opposing the eminent domain outrage in the Kelo case. Gonzales is a liberal republican. nominating him would be a betrayal of Bush's promises and a betrayal of the Republican mainstream.

82 posted on 07/03/2005 11:38:13 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
And yes, I am correct; Jeb will NEVER be president.


Don't you get it dude, he is NOT running, he is NOT running!

When he has finished his excellent job as our Governor here in the State of Florida, he's leaving Tallahassee and goes back to Miami-Dade!!!
83 posted on 07/04/2005 12:19:33 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Jeb never wished to, so that taunt has all the power of "YOU will never be president."


What's a matter with this guy? Has he celebrated 4-july too early, you know what I mean!?!
84 posted on 07/04/2005 12:23:58 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Is there a possibility that I'm actually not writing in English, as I suppose? Are there any posts, that I have made, in which I have claimed that Jeb is EVER going to run for president? Have you even bothered to READ any of my replies?

I'M THE ONE WHO KEEPS SAYING THAT JEB BUSH IS NOT NOW RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND SHAN'T!

Hello.................?

Go argue with the many FREEPERS, who keep saying that Jeb is either running for president or should. That wouldn't be me.

85 posted on 07/04/2005 12:24:21 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Tannerone
Jeb bush is a lost cause! The only way i would vote for him is if I had no other choice. Meaning the Hildabeast was running!

What if the Hildabeast wins the Presidency in 2008, and Jeb Bush is the only credible Republican in 2012?

Conservatives will long for the "good, old days of President Bush"

86 posted on 07/04/2005 12:40:50 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; danamco

Don't know about Republican 'dynasties', but it is interesting that since the 1952 Presidential Election, there has always been a "Nixon", "Bush" or "Dole" on the Republican ticket, with the exception of the 1964 'Goldwater/Miller' duo.

If either Jeb Bush or Elizabeth Dole would be on the Republican ticket in 2008, then the 'streak' would continue...


dvwjr


87 posted on 07/04/2005 1:00:53 AM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr

True, but it is highly doubtful that a Bush or a Dole will be on the '08 GOP presidential ticket.


88 posted on 07/04/2005 1:25:50 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I think Clarence Thomas is head and shoulders above the rest. Scalia is acceptable in that he is similar to Thomas. But anytime those two disagree, you can bet that Thomas got it right.

Cutting of my nose to spite my face? If Bush puts a non-conservative on the court, then every rationalization I ever had for voting Republican is out the window. It has always been about the Supreme Court. If it weren't, Bush wouldn't have come close to being elected.

Seriously, what sort of "victory" would come from voting Republican if they demonstrate they can't put conservatives on the Supreme Court? The Medicare boondoggle? The American's with Disabilities Act? Temporary tax cuts? Government growth at a faster pace than when the Democrats are in charge? Campaign Finance Reform being signed by a Republican? Billions of tax dollars being shipped off to Africa? Promises to sign gun control legislation? In-State tuition rates for illegal aliens? An unprotected border?

I know full well that Democrats are likely worse on many of those issues. But you reach a point that you get tired of choosing between a punch in the face from one side versus a kick in the nuts from the other side.

I was elated at the election of George W. Bush. Positively enthusiastic. If he can't put a conservative on the Supreme court, he will be more than a dissapointment, he will be a failure.

89 posted on 07/04/2005 2:00:32 AM PDT by shempy (EABOF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: shempy

Calm down and get a life. You are starting to sound like the Dems. . . I demand that the GOP do WHAT I WANT NOW!

It does not work that way, and you know that! I am both a fiscal and social conservative, there are a lot things that Bush has done that I do not like.

However, given that GOP candidates are more closely alligned with my beliefs (but still FAR to my left!) I will vote GOP.

While it sounds good, voting 3d party or sitting an election out is both stupid and counterproductive.


90 posted on 07/04/2005 2:35:22 AM PDT by txnativegop (God Bless America! (NRA-Endowment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop

Things like open borders, CFR, enormously increased spending.

CFR has badly hurt the DEMS and has helped the GOP somewhat. Don't like it, but its' effects are hard to dispute.

Open Borders: I would like to see a 2-mile wide minefield running from the Pacific to the Gulf. Will that happen? No!

IMHO, the Federal/State Gov'ts have no authority upon which to spend money for any social program of any kind for any reason.
I am probably wrong on this last, but that is what I believe should be done.


91 posted on 07/04/2005 2:42:33 AM PDT by txnativegop (God Bless America! (NRA-Endowment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
Yes, I do demand that Bush appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court. I can live with the rest of his liberal ways, if he can just do that.

Republicans say they are aligned with us, but how far have they nudged the pendulum? How far have they moved governance to the right? I am not saying we should all give up. Quite the opposite, we should exert every last ounce of pressure we can on Bush to appoint a conservative. And when he does, we should redirect that pressure to the panzies in the Senate.

Now, if he goes with a Gonzales instead of a conservative, that is it for me. I don't want that to happen, so I am making all the noise I can.

I still think he will appoint a conservative, primarily because he knows there are millions of conservative that will freak out if he doesn't. But let's just all quit pretending that Bush is a principled conservative. He is not a prinipled conservative.

92 posted on 07/04/2005 3:17:29 AM PDT by shempy (EABOF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: shempy
I would like to know how YOU are going to know that someone is a conservative judge.

Are you going to take the word of the special interest groups? Which ones?

Are you going to take the word of the media pundits? Which ones?

What are you going to do if, say, the Heritage Foundation likes the pick but Gary Bauer's group doesn't? How will you decide?

The reason I am asking these questions is because I don't have a detailed knowledge of the judges nor now they have ruled in constitutional issues. I have't read one thing written by any of the people whose names are being bandied about as being on the short list.

Therefore, I have to take the word of someone else when deciding if the selection is a good one.

Since I didn't get elected, I don't get to choose. The President does, so I think I will accept his decision. I see no reason to believe that he will fail to keep his campaign promise, which is to nominate strict constructionists. He did NOT promise to nominate a conservative activist. That is an important difference which many people are failing to see.

93 posted on 07/04/2005 3:52:44 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Gonzales is a staunch anti-gunner. We do NOT need him anywhere NEAR the judiciary.


94 posted on 07/04/2005 3:55:38 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Alberto Gonzales just became Atty. Gen. Let him stay where he is and nominate someone more conservative. Al is not very well liked by Bush's conservative base because of his views on abortion and Affirmative Action.

And gun control.

95 posted on 07/04/2005 3:56:22 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Exactly...spread the word...


96 posted on 07/04/2005 3:59:00 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

You are correct in believing the republican senators will fold like a cheap suit.
I have absolutely no confidence in the lot.
I also wouldn't invite a single one over for two minutes to share my 4th bar-b-wue.

I also will refrain from supporting any of them should they fold.


97 posted on 07/04/2005 4:24:44 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Now, go take a deep breath, count to 10 and relax.



LOL..... got links?


98 posted on 07/04/2005 6:12:30 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ArmedNReady

Being bi-partisan means doing what that DamRats want.


99 posted on 07/04/2005 6:15:51 AM PDT by MudSlide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
O'Connor's replacement is not as critical as some might believe

I have to disagree with you. There have been too many 5-4 decisions that we have lost. Always better to have the majority on your side.

100 posted on 07/04/2005 6:18:47 AM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 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