Posted on 09/20/2005 11:05:25 AM PDT by TChris
NO kidding?!!! I really thought Dingy would vote for a conservative, pro life, anti international law, Republican nominated, religious-oriented man like Roberts.
I was so wrong.
Rule of thumb: If dingy harry is against it, I am for it.
Reid being against Judge Roberts only emboldens my support for Judge Roberts and President Bush.
HRIDS
Harry Reems' older brother.
Only power matters to her...ethics or integrity do not count.
Second paragraph correct. First paragraph incorrect. Baucus will vote FOR Roberts. He is up in 2006, in a heavily Red state. Hitlery! will vote AGAINST, else the DU and moron.org activists will back somebody else. If Hitlery votes YES, then she's thinking 2006, not 2008. Remember, in 2000, she won by quite a bit less than Gore did in New York, and the Supreme Court fights may continue to get the R base out in 2006, IF Roberts votes conservatively enough to keep the often apolitical Christian conservatives active.
Janice Rogers Brown, on the other hand, would turn out the vote big-time, on both sides.
If you wanted to take the long view, best possible would be a Supreme vacancy opening up in the fall of 2006, and another in the fall of 2008. As long as the Rpublicans turn out in Florida and Ohio (damn Taft), it is our responsibility to hold Bush's feet to the fire and make sure conservatives win in the primaries.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Roberts to Ginsberg 10/03/05 : Morning Ruth, Aren't you feeling well? You look a little flushed.
Roberts to Stevens 10/03/05 : Morning John, Gald you could make it. How long have you had that tremor?
As a red state with a blue and red senator, I can certainly dream with you.
LOL.
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.