Posted on 10/03/2005 5:19:12 PM PDT by wagglebee
Dr. James Dobson is thrilled about Bush's choice...
GHWB Sununu who I have alot less faith in then Rove or Cheney. Besides Bush has known Miers for 20+ years GHWB didn't know Souter from Adam.
All of this may be good and well, but this scares the schitt outta me. If this turns out to be another Kennedy or Souter, I am done with this b.s., I fought too hard the last 6 years to watch one decision screw us up. Holy crap. look at the map again Mr. President, don't look at the voting totals, look at the map. All you have to do is lead them, they will follow. Stealthy candidates only weaken the base's resolve to call, write and stand up and fight.
How do you fight for a Kennedy or Souter? You don't because we did'nt "know" who they were...we did know who Bork was,. he was ahead of his time. We needed another Bork before the Senate committee and make the dems blow their last wad on him. Plus, get the base energized to fight the fight for him or her.
"I mean the only ones with decent things to say about this pick had names like Schumer and Reid." <--cowpie
Gingerich, Hewitt, and the one who's opinion means something to me, Jay Sekulow,to name a few.
Better make sure he's not on the payroll.
Dude, Bush can do no wrong. And if you want to criticize a single one of his actions, you should go back where you came from: DU, you Communist
That's the sort-of-accepted story of Souter; that Warren Rudman advocated on his behalf to John Sununu, who then did the same to President Bush the Elder. Sununu famously said that Souter was a sure thing, or home-run for conservatives. So Bush made the worst mistake of his Presidency and listened to Sununu, when good judges like Emilio Garza were available.
Rudman apparently brags about this deception in a book he wrote.
Of course it could be that Bush knew Souter was a liberal, and that he wasn't deceived at all as he secretly opposed giving the Court a conservative majority (which it eventually and finally would have had for a brief window of time until Byron White retired a couple of years later). I believe Bush was still defending his pick yrs after he left office, but that could just be the natural instinct of not wanting to admit a mistake.
Bush chose an unknown because he felt it was the only way to avoid a messy confirmation battle with a possible filibuster.
There is a difference between the cases you cite and this case. Bush has known Miers personally for a decade. They have worked closely together in a variety of tasks in all that time. So Bush has an understanding of her outlook on a person-to-person level that didn't exist in the Kennedy and O'Conner situations. Conservatives should take that into account before they denouce the choice.
That's what I like about Bush. He is pushing more and more Republicans to be a moderate. Wait and see. Isn't that what moderates do?
Conservatism is based on the principal that everything is either right or wrong, good or bad, up or down. From first glance.
When someone or something is put out there that cannot be identified as good or bad, right or wrong then there is smoke and mirrors happening. The first rule of investing is never invest in something you don't know about or understand, yet many Republicans will invest in this SCOTUS nominee not knowing or understanding truly what she is.
There is some positing that this nominee is a throw away. OH? The President nominated someone to throw away? OR may it's like CFR. Yeah, sign that bill cause the Supremes would overturn it.
If you look closely at this President, you'll find a couple of things. First, while he may be a believer, his church that nourishes his faith is mainstream, even liberal. Secondly, look very closely at some of the things he has advanced. Many are from global worldview. His border initiatives are a good example. His policy between Israel and the Palistinians is another. Even in Iraq, we've given up if we even had designs to begin with, of having a non Muslim government in place. How can peace thrive in that type of environment.
So after writing this, some will say I'm Buchanan like. Far from it. I'm an admitted moderate. But I have an understanding of what social conservatives believe. And this President, depsite social conservatives deepest desires, is not what he has been sold to the social conservative movement.
I read somewhere on this forum earlier today that big business has more of the Presidents ear than does social conservatives. I believe that's true.
In addition, many social conservatives are now saying lets wait and see during the confirmation process. If this process is the same as the John Roberts process, what additional will be learned. Roberts confirmation was purposely designed to be stealth. Will this one be different?
I think he nominated exactly the kind of person he wanted.
This is the kind of nomination W wants in the mold of his fathers nomination.
The bottom line is W is a politician and as such being also a methodist like hillary has no soul to speak of.
Therefore no principles no matter what you believe.
Thank you. You have nailed it. GWB personally knows this person. It is not like he is guessing. It is almost like: "hey, I'm taking a chance with Roberts, but I know this Woman".
With this pick it is apparent that the president has run out of political capital and is mortgaging the White House.
I am absolutely NOT DENOUNCING Miers, I trust Bush on his choice. But there is some natural skepticism when there were so many other potential nominees (many of them women) who are "known constructionists" and I just hope Bush didn't decide to do this just to avoid a fight. Rush also offered another possible scenario.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496071/posts
So are the ACLJ and the Priests For Life.
And I should take your word for all of this, of course.
Sorry. I went to the dentist today, and wasn't allowed to drink kool-aid afterwards for several hours. I think I'm better now. Brilliant move by the consummate poker player, George W. Bush! Thank God the grown-ups are in charge! Huzzah!!
I'm glad we have Rush out there to articulate the Conservative view point in stark, unfliching, agressive terms.
However, when it comes to "real world" politics most of his suggestions are laughable.
"Last time it was just Coulter and a few others. People said "If Mark Levin likes him, that's good enough for me." Others said Roberts was just a prelude for the REAL fight, which would be the second nominee (even though that never made any sense.) So here we are, and it's not just Coulter this time. It's also Levin, and Rush (which de facto means Hannity must be in the same boat,) Malkin, Kristol, Frum. I mean the only ones with decent things to say about this pick had names like Schumer and Reid."
Bless you Huck. I was just thinking of all the vitriol heaped on Ann Coulter because she dared say something negative about Bush. This time, she has good company. Those who used Levin before will have to now find other excuses for blindly supporting Bush's blatant act of cronyism or is it affirmative action or maybe it's both.
"Natural skepticism" is one thing and a characteristic that we all should have. But we are seeing some irrational high speed wobbling going on here today. It's just plain foolish. There is absolutely no reason for this kind of hand-wringing doom and gloom attitude. Leave that to the Dimlycrats. They have no hope anyway so who would want to be like them?
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.