So given the choice in 1988 between continuing the Reagan Revolution or making Albert "Insufferable Pr*ck" Gore President she chose the latter... God, that makes me really gung ho for her nomination. It certainly shows she's a fantabulous judge of character.
"So given the choice in 1988 between continuing the Reagan Revolution or making Albert "Insufferable Pr*ck" Gore President she chose the latter... God, that makes me really gung ho for her nomination. It certainly shows she's a fantabulous judge of character."
And by the way....let's take a little trip down memory lane.
In 1976, RR won the Texas primary - against sitting Pres Ford. The conservative revolution had begun, and the Republican revolution was gearing up.
In 1988, there was also a Texan, Bush 41, running for President. It would be expected that most big time Texas lawyers would support VP Bush.
Yet...she stayed with the Dem party. This is very strange.
Seems to me that it comes down to this. The pro-Bush folks here have two arguments:
1) Trust Bush.
2) She's pro life b/c she fought the ABA on being pro abort.
That's pretty slim pickens when you talk about the most important domestic action taken by this President. This is even more important than Rehnquist replacement, b/c there is an opportunity to gain here.
Anyone who believes that we are going to gain a vote on this is truly living in an alternative universe. That doesn't mean that miracoulously it won't happen, but .... no one without a conservative track record has ever "grown" into conservatism on SCOTUS. It always goes the other way.
There is no way around this. Bush betrayed his base. He promised a Scalia/Thomas.
There are puh-lenty of those folks around. Any poster on this thread could list a dozen immediately.
But he chose his buddy.
And the only response we hear is: trust Bush.