Posted on 10/06/2005 11:21:55 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
"Inciteful" or "insightful?"
And do you not remember that NOT A ONE OF THEM would go on record stating what "out of the ordinary" meant to them?
You need to read your so-called evidence. The questionnaire that you are citing about her support for full civil rights for gays was actually "do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?" Same civil rights is a far cry from supporting the homosexual agenda, esp in 1989. In the same questionnaire she opposed the repeal of the Texas sodomy law and indicated that she was NOT seeking the endorsement of the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas.
The financial contributions to Dems were in 1988. No further contributions to dems after that.
You need to be careful about believing everything Mr. Farah writes.
PLEASE....after all her absolute nastiness - first over Roberts and now over Miers, she deserves nothing. Calling for the President's impeachment and saying things like Bush hates conservatives really proves her intellect...
It's not that I don't agree that the Democrats should be held to account, it's that I realize that as long as the Republican majority includes 5-7 marginal votes it cannot be counted on. They have proved this multiple times. This begins to remind me of the old fashioned football coach that persists in running the ball up the middle after 10 plays and 0 yards gained. At some point you have to call another play, the objective is to advance the ball however you can within the rules.
I don't see why Frist could not have just gotten 51 senators to sign letters of agreement and sent them to the president, confirming the candidate, and let the democRATs have their little whine-fest. That would have satisfied the Constitutional dictates and left the minority in just that - minority status.
The Constitution just says that a majority of the senate has to agree in order to comfirm an appointee, it does NOT dictate the formality by which the consensus is achieved.
I disagree. If they had tried to 'educate' America during a battle royal for the Supreme Court, all that would have done is create months of negative press for the President from the MSM, compounded by incessant yammering from the Dems. The people who NEED to know all this stuff would have tuned out from all the screaming and yelling and gone one blissfully unaware of duties of the Supreme Court.
Please put aside your concern that Meir is some kind of mole because she was once a Democrat. Most older, deep south posters here were once Democrats too, myself included. We were just as conservative then as we are now, but registering Democrat was the only way you could vote in all elections because no republicans were running in most races.
And for that matter.....Ronald Reagan was once a democrat too.
Listen, I never even heard of Harriet till the other day, I was hoping Bush would pick Edith Clement. But I do love it when Bush surprises the hell out of senate Democrats, and he's done it this time, in spades!
I'm thinking by the time the hearings begin, most of us dubious, doubtful conservatives will have figured out why Bush went with Harriet.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Bush asked Harriett to subject herself to this battle, knowing full well she would be rejected, so that Democrats and RINOS would be more likely to let through his real pick next time.
I do not know who Farah is. I read extensively, but I do not drink the Kool-Aid.
Yes, but without anything to fight for as a collective group (like Luttig or Brown) Republicans will become fractured and causeless.
What world do you live in...in the real world if you don't have enough votes, you lose. A second term President can't lose and still retain any power. I am so sick of all this whining. President Bush did the best he could with the weak kneed sissy Senate.
In the end, the gang of 14 justifies themselves. The left is an expert at this sort of thing. The President loses-why put the nominee or the country through this if you have a conservative who can make it without a fight.
Why not?
Good one, LOL. Both I'd say.
{:>)
One thing I think we should do is let the RNC know that it is the hapless Senate majority we hold accountable. The anger being directed towards Bush lets them off the hook. But on the hook is exactly where they should be for their failures on judicial nominees, fiscal constraint, social security reform, etc. etc. etc. I'm tired of the McCains and Grahams managing their careers at the expense of the agenda. And I'm tired of them waiting for Bush to do the heavy lifting on every issue, including the intervening and campaigning to regain their majority, while they tip toe around.
BTTT
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.