Personally, I believe that Ann Coulter is "mainstream," and she is a lawyer, but everyones knows that, right?
(can you see the dems trying to agrue with her?)
Posted on 07/16/2005 8:53:44 AM PDT by advance_copy
WASHINGTON - President Bush gave the nation several clues Saturday about the person he will nominate for a seat on the Supreme Court, except for the most important one — a name.
In his weekly radio address, Bush said his eventual nominee will be a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values."
His candidate also "will meet the highest standards of intellect, character and ability and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country," the president said.
"Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of," he said, without revealing the name that many are anxious to hear.
Bush also discussed his recent meeting with Senate leaders of both parties to discuss the nomination and confirmation process for a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. The first woman to serve on the high court, O'Connor announced July 1 that she is stepping down after 24 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Republicans have morphed into democrats and Democrats are socialistic anti american bast.rds
Someone ought to save posts like this and then throw them back when President Bush nominates someone of whom we all can be proud of
The following year, Justice Stephen Breyer was confirmed 73 days after his nomination was submitted, with 87 votes in his favor. Again, Republican senators in large numbers voted for confirmation of Justice Breyer despite significant philosophical differences."}}}
Tell me, O great seer of the future, what was President Bush doing in these lines from his radio address today, if not telegraphing that the Dems better not filibuster his nominee due to "philosophical differences", which has to mean that he knows his nominee will be philosophically unacceptable to the Lib Dems.
HMMMMM??????
(My thanks to kaslin in post # 68 for the transcript of the President's radio address.)
Clearly I am disappointed in "W"s administration. He has taken a non-existant approach to illegal immigration as his proposed legal status for illegal immigrants has drawn hundreds of thousands more illegals within out borders.
Furthermore,I feel that he has been less than aggressive in reining in price gouging on gasoline prices. As an example: under Clinton the oil companies posted record profits each quarter of his administration, the same has happened under "W", however, the percentage of profits under "W" has accelerated at an accelerrated rated each quarter during "W"s administration. The econ school admonition about supply and demand is clearly false in this case if the given reasons for higher prices is short supply of crude or refining capacity. If this were the situation there would be a case for increased prices but not for record increases in profits at a record pace since costs to the oil companies are not rising in a like fashion.
The increased prices in crude and its distillates are a choke on the stock market and on economic growth. This is a topic that can well hammer conservatives and RINOS in the 06&08 elections. "W" is so short sighted that he has lost track of the importance of domestic issues as campaign issues. If he thinks the war in Iraqi will carry the day in 06&08 I think he is wrong. No matter how just the undertaking may be he will lose support for it if he doesn't get his eye on a clearly defined domestic agenda. At this time I find him to be a one issue president and the nation, as well as his party are paying a steep price for his myoptic political view.
Personally, I believe that Ann Coulter is "mainstream," and she is a lawyer, but everyones knows that, right?
Look, conservatives are abandoning the GOP in droves and it has very little to do with the DEMs. Political opportunists have infested the GOP, abandoned conservative ideals, coopted the Marxist ideals formerly employed by mostly DEMs and thumbed their collective nose at real conservatives. The more important question is, do you want to be a party to that?
If the pick is conservative, it's better Bush label him this way before the MSM labels him an ultra-conservative who's out of touch with the mainstream, which is what they'll do regardless of who it is.
Regarding not telling the whole truth, that was a reference to your earlier post about shooting a witness before he takes the stand.
This was not a good comparison, because the standards for ''truth'' are variable due to circumstance. The standard of ''truth'' for a sworn witness simply cannot be the standard of ''truth'' for a president, as noted in one of my earlier posts. On the witness stand, omission constitutes a violation of the witness' oath to tell the ''whole truth''. Not so for the president (and a good thing, too).
Aw now come on Bush ...
Nominate Karl Rove. I'd pay money to watch the reactions to that.
( Barring that nominate Ashcroft ).
Who knows, Mr. Bush might do the sensible and Constitutional thing and nominate Judge Brown. Or anyone named Edith. In which case(s), a different group of voters will have been stiffed.
So how do you satisfy everyone???
It is a serious issue and this President knows it and has been addressing it even before the gas prices were this high - to no avail. He cannot pass legislation.
They are getting him an energy bill this year finally it seems but it will have little effect on energy prices in the short term. Much more needs to be done and this President knows it and would have loved to have been able to build on energy policies that had been put into legislation. You are listening too closely to the Dems who claim it is big oil that determines what this President does.
Love to see her nominated, but I doubt if she'd fancy the pay cut!
;^)
You dance with the guy who brung ya.
I'd wager a significant amount of $$s that he's going to sell out the base on this. But, will be the first to be very happy, and to eat major crow if I'm wrong. (Which I pray to God that I am!)
I think you should start eating that crow right at this moment, because there will be a lot of crow for you to swallow!!!
On the other hand Clintons have been the biggest disaster for the democratic party, ever, loosing everything since 1994!!!
In my part of the stream Janice Rogers Brown is Mainstream. Just do it George.
The President didn't omit anything he said "faithfully interpret the Constitution", IF he nominates a "good" judge in my eyes, Brown, Estrada or Luttig it wouldnt be a lie.
Think of what would be going on today if Democrats had the White House and the Congress!!!!!
I remember 1993 (the last time that was true). It was a true nightmare. Most Americans were so opposed to what they saw happening, we had the "revolution" of 1994" which for the first time in 50 years broke the lockjaw grip of Democratic power in Congress. What a difference we saw in that change? Welfare reform! Budget constraints! But the Dems began attacking individuals and, yes, we gave them fuel. (Newt Gingrich, for example).
But think of the nightmares that were going on? The chief enemy of the country under the Dems were "right wing extremists" - not terrorists or Communist China to whom the Dems opened to doors of this country and sold out our top secrets!!!!
As a direct result of the WEAKNESS and lack of security and TREACHERY of Clinton's policies, 9-11 happened.
Think about if Gore had been in power after 911? Think about if Kerry were in power now?
And worse than both is the Clinton II power grab that is in the works now.
Soros running our foreign policy? Do you like that sound?
I know you don't - not really. Sorry for the argument. It is just that the dangers are so great this time - the cost is too high to dump the Republican party. Such action opens the door wide to total destruction of this nation.
I see no such warning as you indicate in the text of the president's address. ''Better not'', forsooth? I don't even get a sniff of a ''better not'', because there doesn't appear to be a corresponding ''or else'' clause between the lines.
''Better not'' w/o ''or else'' is rather a waste of time, don't you think?
The president appears to be taking the high road vis-a-vis the Marxists; he gives an honest recounting of the history of the two most recent nominees to SCOTUS. I think, too, that he understands that they don't give a damn, that history is entirely one-sided as far as they're concerned, and that they in no way consider themselves bound to the standards evinced by Pubbie senators in the 1990s.
The question is: does the president have the resolve to jam an originalist down their throats, or will he, in the name of comity and his famous ''new tone'', and in the interest of a quick confirmation, nominate O'Connor lite?
I hope for the former, but I'll wager on the latter. BTW, as regards wagering, there are some really very interesting bets to be made on tradesports.com on the name of the nominee. Worth a look for the practical political observer; tradesports was very nearly spot on (in terms of odds quoted) during the 2004 campaign.
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.