Posted on 10/04/2005 7:34:23 AM PDT by veronica
They all say that the President is avoiding a fight that we need to have. Well, let them suit up and fight themselves!
These pundits have existed for years alongside the mainstream press, and have they ever called anyone out? Heck no. Krauthammer and Will get their paychecks from the Washington Post like clockwork, and they have never shown one ounce of embarassment for working for the same publication as E.J. Dionne and Dana Milbank.
Rush used to have a yearly jolly program with Russert, and once had Chris Matthews host his show. Coulter made a lot of money appearing with Bill Mahar on his show.
Before they start criticizing the President's conservatism and fighting spirit, I suggest they look at who employs them. The pundits need to do a little explaining, if you ask me.
Good post, Miss. I pointed out yesterday that Ann Coulter donated $250.00 to Buchanan in 1996. Not a damned dime on record to President Bush, or any other Republican since, that I can find.
Some support.
It's bash-bash-bash, Bush shoulda-coulda-woulda, the drama machine kicks in on Fox News and we are treated to day after day of negativity, including Gold Star's despicable commercials. (No bias there!) The bloggers cite each other in a circle jerk, Michelle said that John said that Bob said that Ann said that Michelle said, none of it good.
Like you I am very curious to know when the pundit clique of elitist snobs are going to put up or shut up.
Or how about an interview with Don Rumsfeld. Not the "gotcha" type but one that would ask questions about the direction of the military, where he sees things in 5 years, etc.
There are so many people I would like to hear from. Their voices are silent. Instead we get non-stop tabloid stuff on Fox, carping on talk radio, and a bunch of drama queen pundits who think that Harriet Miers is the sign of the End Times.
Well, I am basically an optimistic person, so I will say that one good thing has come of this: not only am I saving money and my sanity by not supporting these people, I have the cleanest bathrooms in town!
I have been thinking for a while now that the differences between us and them (on our own side) is what defines us as optimists and them as doom-and-gloomers.
When was the last time you heard or read something positive about President Bush, his administration, the progress in Iraq, or much of anything? It's all negative, all the time.
Recall that Rush used to do programs featuring callers who were successful and overcame many obstacles, who gave encouragement and inspiration. He doesn't bother anymore, and I fear he has turned from optimist to pessimist.
The pessismists have been in power a little too long and it is time for a change.
Thank you, I have enjoyed our exchanges and look forward to agreeing with you again sometime. LOL.
Ain't that the truth. I have to laugh out loud at Rush's take on this, considering that just last Friday, he was livid at the White House for not "standing up for Bill Bennett"! If that wasn't the dumbest I've ever heard! Sure, let's have the President stand up for these pundits.
What is the deal with all of these people wanting a fight? Are they so certain they would win in the Senate? Laura Ingraham said that we should just keep sending nominees up until one passes. Perhaps she would like to be the first candidate. Let her sit in front of the committee.
I find it interesting that these pundits don't apparently view judicial nominees as people; they think of them as cannon fodder.
Grrr. I think I will go run the vacuum.
Rush has gone to the mat though, so I won't be unkind if he wants to take Levin's bad advice regarding Miers. Speaking of Levin, I just stumbled on him in another thread calling people "sheeple" for disagreeing with him, engaging in the most base rhetoric, invoking his FR tenure to justify his condescension, and praising someone for a job well done insulting their fellow FReepers.
I like that he's willing to mix it up and engage FReepers rather than lurk around collecting evidence to be used later, but I admit to losing some respect after seeing his lame reasoning. These are the pundits we've been willing to accept.
Almost all freepers agree that we conservatives must change the hearts and minds of the general population, most of which rarely follow politics. A good fight would have put politics into the spotlight and provided us the opportunity to make the case for conservatism. The fact that this is a Supreme Court nomination and the debate would have centered on Constitutional issues would have been a bonus, as the vast majority of Americans are absolutely clueless when it comes to Constitutional issues.
You overestimate what is needed to qualify for the job of S Ct justice. In my view, the minimum is quite low: excellence as a lawyer in private practice, as a professor, OR as a judge will do. Most S Ct justices were intellectual mediocrities who are scarcely remembered today. The same fate will meet most of the currently sitting justices. Would someone brilliant be a BETTER pick? Perhaps. But confirmability is very important. Take me, as an example. I'm hardly on anyone's short list for the S Ct, but I am much smarter than Miers, and have better academic credentials. So what? I am unconfirmable, so Miers is a much, much better pick than me. The most important thing that justices do is VOTE. I have a good idea how Miers will vote. And the work of a justice is collaborative. There are 8 other justices, and they are served by 36 or so very, very smart and hardworking law clerks who represent the very cream of the law school crop. Scalia can be brilliant, and Miers can concur. O'Connor's biggest problem is that she tended to vote the wrong way. Although praised to the skies today, she is no intellectual heavyweight. And as a result, she will do little harm in the long run--she produced very little coherent theory that will shape future jurisprudence. Nor is Ginsburg, and for heaven's sake, nor is Souter. The selection of Miers is a tactical masterstroke. The Dems can't really oppose her. Bush is too weak for a showdown over someone like Luttig. She will nudge the court to the right, but in any case there is little ability to move that way because I think Kennedy will find more occasions to be the swing vote by moving left. The long-term strategy is preparing for the NEXT S Ct pick--which might very well be during this administration. That pick WILL have the potential to change the balance of power in a profound way for years.
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.