Posted on 10/04/2005 10:45:14 AM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
No, impossible.
Wishful thinking.
I don't know. Bush is taking a pretty big gamble here. If Miers turns out to be not as liberal as everyone is saying, then her confirmation might be at risk.
If Bush really wanted to avoid a fight, he should have picked someone much more liberal. Sure, it would have offended the conservative base; but they're offended by the Miers pick anyway. Someone as liberal as Ginsburg would sail right through, no drag-out fight. Then we could declare victory and get on to avoiding the next fight.
Crony simply means a good friend. Cronyism means favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.
It is possible to appoint a good friend without resorting to cronyism. The question is what are the qualifications for office. Unlike the qualifications many are supposing should be there, the President has come up with his own list. From what I see it is that someone be a originalist and that he have a strong sense that they will remain so during their tenure. Secondly, that there be a reasonable chance she is confirmed. With these qualifications, Miers was the most qualified on both counts. A history on the bench is not evidence a la Kennedy. Since he sets the qualifications, cronyism does not apply here.
"DU called, they need you back."
Nothing like the narrow minded somethingorother who thinks that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world - those that support Bush's every move, and those that are DU members...
Posts like yours are shamefully ignorant. I'm embarassed to be on the same message board system, frankly.
"Why doubt him now?"
Let's see.
CAFTA, massive social spending, open borders, giving up on offshore drilling, LOST, promising to sign AWB if it came across his desk, lousy cabinet appointments, kissing Palestinian terrorist ass, looking into the soul of Pooty-Poot, letting Sandy Berger off the hook, refusing to kick some ass about Abel Danger, covering up for the Clintons, shall I go on?
I was being sarcastic. I agree with you 100%
Huck knows I was being sarcastic too, we've joked about this in the past.
""Why doubt him now?"
Let's see.
CAFTA, massive social spending, open borders, giving up on offshore drilling, LOST, promising to sign AWB if it came across his desk, lousy cabinet appointments, kissing Palestinian terrorist ass, looking into the soul of Pooty-Poot, letting Sandy Berger off the hook, refusing to kick some ass about Abel Danger, covering up for the Clintons, shall I go on?"
I missed the part where he's screwed us on jurist appointments. Go over that part for me, genius.
"If Bush really wanted to avoid a fight, he should have picked someone much more liberal. Sure, it would have offended the conservative base; but they're offended by the Miers pick anyway. Someone as liberal as Ginsburg would sail right through, no drag-out fight. Then we could declare victory and get on to avoiding the next fight."
Again, what are basing this on? You don't know anything about Miers, do you?
If I was Bush, and wanted to put a solid conservative on the bench, I could either nominate someone with a largely conservative paper trail, and fight, possibly losing, or I could nominate someone I have known for 20 years and trust to be conservative, with no paper trail, and get through without a fight, saving my political capital for the next battle.
The objective is to get conservative, originalist judges on the court, not to win a lengthy, bloody fight with the left.
The only gamble here is your piece of mind. You're uncomfortable because you don't know as much as you'd like to about Miers. Neither do the dems. But Bush DOES.
It is not about turncoat. I put principals above loyalty to a man in something as vital as the supreme court. And believe me, I love Bush and have always supported him in the past. But this is the US Supreme Court. The nominee he puts up will be there for life. Bush is choosing 11% of the supreme court in this lady. Her ruling will affect our lives for decades to come. If not use political capital on this, then on what? Conservatives should not again be put in the position of hoping a nominee turns out good. We should not be put in a position to again just giving our blind trust to a politician over a position that will affect our lives. Conservatives should know by FACT how a nominee will turn out. Not by blind hope and trust in a politician. We should know, dammit!!! The Dems know what they are getting when they put up their nominee. Why can't we???
The freakin DEMS know for fact the way their nominee will turn out. Why is it then that we conservatives can't? Instead we always have to resort to blind hope and trust. My point is that we should know what we are getting. Not hope we get what we want. Like a guy said over the radio, I fear this lady will turn out to be Souter in drags. We conservatives simply should not be put in this position again.
That's something I'd expect on DU, not FR.
This crap is making it really hard for me to contribute to the Freepathon...
In related news he announced his vet is the new surgeon general, his gardener as the new sec ag, and Niel Bush to replace Greenspan.
Cronyism was nt right then, it certainly is not right now.
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.