Posted on 07/12/2005 6:04:01 PM PDT by NeoCaveman
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
There was a breakfast meeting at the White House today, and the president came out and discussed it. His meeting was with -- Let's see, who did he meet? -- Arlen Specter, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy and Bill Frist. Yeah. So he met with Specter, Leahy, Frist and Senator Harry Reid about the current vacancy and what might be an up-coming one.
Just to set this up: last week, the president sort of smacked down some conservatives for daring to suggest that the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, would be an unacceptable Supreme Court nominee because of substantive issues. One was an opinion he wrote in a Texas parental-notification case when he was on the Texas Supreme Court, and the other was his role as White House counsel in watering down the administration's brief against reverse discrimination in admissions policies at the University of Michigan.
Now, the conservatives didn't attack Gonzales personally; they were very respectful, but they nevertheless said publicly they had problems with him, and the president slapped them down -- and today has a meeting with his enemies, along with Frist and Specter. I don't even know that you'd call Specter a friend in this fight, and it just seems that on occasion the administration here is far more friendly to its enemies than it is to its friends. It does appear that way. I don't know why he's meeting with these people. It's not going to change what the Democrats say about him. It's not going to change how they act in the Senate. It's not going to change a thing -- unless, of course, they gave him a list of names and he names one of them, in which case, you know... I can't imagine that. So we'll just have to wait and see, but we do have these audio sound bites. There's some public opinion out there that does not look good for the Democrats, and you'd think the administration could capitalize on it.
Rush seems to becoming increasingly frustrated.
The right seems to want a more bitter partisian President
I could care less if Bush has libs to the WH, so long as he doesnt listen to them.
AS long as the left keeps, losing I see no reason to change tactics
And the Mr. Nice Guy strategy has really pacified the Left (/sarcasm)
How is the left losing?
No, they do not want a more bitter partisan (spelling) President, they just want a President that will finally get as tough with the libs as he is with conservatives. That does not take bitterness.
What's the old saying:
Keep your friends close - keep your enemies closer!!
"The right seems to want a more bitter partisian President"
No, the right wants a President. Not bitter, just someone who leads from the right, rather than pretending to pay lip service to the right and then doing the left's bidding.
No, we want a President who can fight for what is right. We want someone unafraid of being a conservative Republican, someone who lays it on the line. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
I could care less if Bush has libs to the WH, so long as he doesnt listen to them.
If he does pick originalist SCOTUS judicial nominees, the left/Dems/libs/media will hate and vilify him anyway. So what's the point of courting any of them?
Well, let's see:
1. They lost the 2000 Presidential election.
2. They lost (temporarily) the Senate in the year 2000. If it was not for Jumpin Jim, the Senate would have been Republican.
3. They lost house seats in the off year 2002 elections.
4. They lost the 2004 Presidential elections and seats in both the house and senate.
5. More and more states now have Republican governors and houses.
Libs are losing everywhere when it comes to voting. The only problem is the Republicans do not know how to be winners and act like winners.
""If he does pick originalist SCOTUS judicial nominees, the left/Dems/libs/media will hate and vilify him anyway. So what's the point of courting any of them?"
getting that 10% in hte middle on their side. When this whole thing goes nulcear, it will be the DEMS fault.
you need to understand the strategery
The libs are losing at the hands of the voters - never to the administration's actions.
I'm sick of "strategery." And so is Rush.
As the old saying goes - Keep your friends close, Keep your enemies closer is true in this case as it is in any other.
I consider myself a passionate conservative... not rabid, but passionate.
I am finding myself increasingly upset with the high levels of spending, the lack of an effective border control policy, and the beaten-dog approach toward dealing with attacks from Liberals.
I voted for a party that would implement conservative values, and do so without scurrilous behavior.
I'm not a happy camper.
Can anyone say "Third Party", little boys and girls?
If I hear about brilliant strategery one more time, I will gag.
considering the way the President has stood behind the likes of Rumsfeld and others it is a ridiculous comment.
I ain't happy right now either.
If Bush nominates Michael Luttig, I'll once again be a happy camper.
Yeah, let's call it the American Party. America first. Follow the Constitution - for ONCE. Return usurped powers to the people. Get the career politicians the Hell out of DC.
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.