Posted on 10/03/2005 7:44:05 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
I'm with you! (See #38...)
Is this an appropriate place to use "GMTA!"? '-)
Nah, the Democrats aren't happy either.
They know as little about her as we do.
The reason they were caught off guard, some seemingly satisfied, is because they are reactionaries. I said this before and I say it now. How the Democrats react is not an indicator of what is right or wrong. Too many people think what they say will prove or disprove a policy or an individual. Untrue. They are no longer sensible in that regard. They react to however WE recact. And when they see many of us unhappy, they feel they scored a game winning goal.
They'll fight her precisely because she is unknown and the only real recommendation to her credit that carries any weight with most on Left and Right is that the President feels she'll honor the promise he made to us. That's enough to set them off. And that will be enough to keep outright rebellion from breaking out on our side.
It will not, however, be enough to raise lagging spirits of this base.
We all are deeply concerned that Mr. Bush make these precious nominations count.Mark Levin said something very interesting. He said that he was working for Reagan and he helped vet Justice Kennedy. And he said that Kennedy had a good paper trail, and he also lied through his teeth in an interview. So Mark Levin demands that the nominee have a good paper trail? Levin is down on Meirs for want of that "paper trail" - but I'm coming to suspect that when NARAL gets finished picking on her the GOP will have very little trouble with its base over this nomination.
Look at it this way: we'd like to see Mark Levin nominated, right? And Mark Levin vetted SCOTUS nominees for Reagan. Well, Bush has nominated very good judges so far - and Harriet Meirs has been the one vetting them. Exactly how could that have happened, if Harriet Meirs is a closet lib?
Bush's previous judicial picks constitute Harriet Meirs' actual "paper trail."
Oops! Sorry for the double post! Fat fingers...
Bush's previous judicial picks constitute Harriet Meirs' actual "paper trail."
Miers was not the sole individual vetting this nominee, and further she was operating according to the instructions given by the President. It may evidence discernment to find nominees befitting his choice, it may also follow she apparently doesn't flaunt the job description assigned but anything other than that is allowance of Faith in the President.
But the main point stands. People are disappointed. Even if she turns out to be a strict contructionist, it doesn't change the fact this knocked the air out of a lot of people. And that should be worrisome to the Republicans. Talking people into the nominee will not change the spirits of the base, and a depressed base will not help in pushing the agenda nor in coming elections.
Yes, it is. :-)
It drives me nuts and I wrote them about it last night; when it comes in my email, I don't even bother to read it.
I'm glad you don't live in a swing state. You can vote like a fool. (And I suspect you do.)
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.