Thanks for the image Pookie18
Posted on 07/22/2005 5:13:32 PM PDT by sirthomasthemore
A small town in Indiana and a brief filed saying that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided are entirely positive signs on first inspection, but the second reveals only a leaning and not a falling off on one side or the other. This is, of course, by White House design for the public understanding of Judge Roberts. Bush has exhibited his recurrent traits and examining G.W. Bush right now is the only way to know what really is in the heart of Judge Roberts.
Roberts is deliberately without much record. He is deliberately congenial and with friends all around. He is deliberately professionally competent, hard to make controversial – fine. I say "deliberately" on Bush's part – it is unknown if Judge Roberts has achieved his stealth status by his own design or by chance. Seemingly driven, popular success would encourage an individual to remain somewhat vanilla, but great strategists also sometimes hold their tongue and bide their time. We don't know, and that's the point.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I think Ann made some great logical points, too. The spinelessness of the Republicans scares me to death, not Ann's excellent analysis. It seems that people who have strong, INTELLIGENT arguments, and who put their ideas out in a hostile leftist environment always get slammed (most people don't have the guts to state the truth). That she gets vilified here, too, is a shame.
We need people like Ann and Michael Savage, who tell the truth and refuse to use the PC language. PC is going to be the death of this great country! If she is wrong, she would be the first to admit it, but then I noticed, she is hardly ever wrong, as is Savage.
It's possible though that Mr. Bush "read the soul" of Mr. Roberts and both men know conservative truths that neither man will speak of.
___________________________________________
I pray that Mr. Roberts is a Conservative, a Catholic and becomes an advocate for overturning RvW, upholding the US Constitution and interpreting the Laws as they were meant!
As far as being a Keyboard assain as to his character. I am willing to give this man a chance like anyone else. To accept Mr. Bush's ability to "Read the Soul" of this man. I have to rely on Mr. Bush's history in "Soul reading"! I submit to you that the President's record is questionable to poor, e.g. My good buddy Putty!!
I believe that Mr. Bush claimed to have looked into Good Buddy Putty's soul and claimed he could count on him to work on all of the issues that faced the two great powers. Of course this was true until that Soul Reading was tested and Russian equipment and advisors were pouring into Iraq up until US troops were probably a few blocks away.
The Russian involvement in the Oil for Food program is another example of the President's ability at "Soul Reading" and "My Good Buddy Putty" help and cooperation.
We, unfortunately, will not know until it's to late. Ann Coulter, inspite of the Keyboard assassins and other attacks by Liberal assassins on HER and HER character has always been profoundly loyal to the Conservative cause and this country.
I'm standing with ANN- I think we have another Liberal Ringer, I pray I'm wrong. It will be an Honor to eat Crow Pie with the likes of Ann Coulter.
Here's another theory, Bush has been cowed:
"New Republic Liberals Happy with Bush Choice of Roberts
The New Republic ^ | 07/21/05
WHITE HOUSE WATCH Legal Theory by Ryan Lizza
The question this week is: Why did George W. Bush make such a seemingly responsible choice? There is little in the history of Bush's decision-making that would have predicted the president would settle on someone like John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court...
Finally, Bush did not slavishly reward his base of evangelical conservatives. Some conservatives are describing Roberts as a "bold" choice. He is clearly not. His commitment to the social causes that animate the religious right is shrouded in mystery compared with that of other potential nominees, such as Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, Michael McConnell, or J. Michael Luttig. Some of the more rabid conservatives have started to point this out. On the fringes, there was Ann Coulter,... "We don't know much about John Roberts," she sputtered. "Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives." Over at The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes, perhaps the most pro-Bush columnist in America, posted some morning-after regrets, noting that Bush had made a "safe" choice rather than pick a true ideological conservative. National Review's endorsement of Roberts was notably tepid. "He will, almost certainly," the magazine announced with some trepidation, "be an improvement on his predecessor."
These conservatives had reason to expect more...Considering the importance of the high Court to his most rabid supporters, there was every reason to believe that Bush would choose a more ideological conservative than Roberts. ...The more brass-knuckle and base-pleasing Luttig apparently made it to the end of the sweepstakes but was passed over for the more moderate, more even-tempered, and more easily confirmable Roberts. After 15 years of crying, "No more Souters!" religious conservatives have been presented with someone whose views on many social issues are as unknown to them as those of their judicial bête noire were in 1990.
Why, then, did George W. Bush break with all of his known habits and instincts Tuesday night? For one, the Democrats' strategy of unified opposition and obstruction may finally have chastened the White House. Democrats have recently made life miserable for Bush..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1448693/posts
Thanks for the image Pookie18
Ain't that the truth. Today FR as a whole is only slightly more right than the Republican party. When FR first started it was closer to bunch of militia types.
Is there a difference anymore? I can't tell the Repubs from the Dems...including the Commander in Chief.
Revolt is necessary.
Civil, intelligent debate is now a rare thing on this forum.
That is not my experience. Many times when you scratch a self-titled conservative you find someone who is really not a conservative at all. Being a conservative on 2 or 3 issues is not sufficient. Going by my circle of friends, all conservatives, we agree on what I call the bedrock issues. By and large, any "disagreements" are on fringe issues and, even then, on the margin.
If Roberts turns out to be a good nominee, then chalk one up for Levin. What we say now matters less than seven 'moderate' Democrat senators.
Mike, my feelings mirror yours. President Bush can't win for losing sometimes. I am happy with his choice.
My only concern is that President Bush had the chance to nominate Luttig or Jones, and let the (confirmation/filibuster) chips fall where they may...
Ed
My take is that Rehnquist will be replaced by Roberts...and we'll have another young "Rehnqist" as Chief of the Supremes for another 30 years.
Look. You need to cool it.
You've been here a scant three months and you're acting like you own the place.
If you don't like what people have to say, ignore it or respond.
But drop the "I know what's best" crap.
What are those bedrock issues?
OK. Who who wrote the definition of "Conservative?" Where is it?
IMO, each person has a different minds eye of what makes a conservative a conservative.
Help!!!!!
Can you believe the nerve of some of these guys?
They're more elitist than liberals sometimes.
But it's all up to JR. This forum is what he allows it to be.
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.