FracturedRepublic(vanity)

6 Oct,2005 | Me

[aft_lizard]

After a few days of arguing over the Miers nomination for the Supreme Court I am rather sick of it. I have been arguing for her even though I know little about her. I think she is a fine individual and probably a good Christian , and I think her qualifications are just fine. After all 35 of 55 Founding Fathers were lawyers, does that mean the other 20 werent qualified?But I digress to write this because I am moving into the No category.

I decided this not because I dont like her, I personally feel that she would make a fine Justice, but her simple nomination has torn the base apart. I think it would do us and the RNC good if we all united against her, because as it stands right now we are becoming laughing stocks to the otherside, and if there is one thing I hate ,and thats to be laughed at by commies. We all need to stop the name calling, the troll insults and the Bush-bot insults and well all of them, and yes I am guilty of it too. I wont be a vociferous voice against her, you will probably still hear me defend her and the President, like I have been doing.

I urge a consensus from the base to emerge over this.The poll on FR is showing the Yes crowd with 30.3% the nos with 24.4% and the need more info at 41.8%(the hillarys dont count), and this is the member poll results.I dont think it would be to unfair to reason that if you were to poll the base outside of FR the results would be the same, and that is dangerous for any party. Sure it shows that we arent a lockstep party, or a lockstep ideology, with the powers that be. But if a movement is to survive it has to have a secure foundation, and right now I see the foundation rumbling as if to fracture.

[nhoward14]

The people tearing the party apart are zealots who want their own activist judge on SCOTUS. The only acceptable nominee to that faction is an abortion-clinic protesting, shotgun-toting, Southern Baptist.

[Publius6961]

The only reason there is a conflict at all is on account of the "copernican effect", too many centers of the universe in the Republican party, even here at FR.

It would never occur to me to play the "me! me!" game and start throwing hand grenades by assuming that what I think is important enough to have to "share it", and pressure others to embrace my faultless judgement.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a representative republic and it's the president's call, I should butt out and if I'm unhappy with his choice I'll vote for someone else next time.

End of story.

[sport]

They were emasculated when they caved in to clintoon in the '95 "government shutdown" over the "Medicare cuts".



73 posted on 10/06/2005 7:34:07 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants

I will agree with that and they have not either had them surgically restored or grew new ones.

Clinton beat them like a drum that is a fact.

[Howlin]

nerdgirl
Since May 19, 2004

Chat it up online? Is that what you think we're doing here?

[Howlin]

And they'll know and we'll know......LOL.

[rock58seg]

You're frustrated? Well so am I. I am as on the "plantation" as any Democrat voter. I am in a damned if I do, and Damned if I don't situation.

I have been a Conservative since Dewey. When I urged my father to mend his yellow dog Democrat ways, at the early age of nine.

I have trusted the President when he let Kennedy
write the school bill.
I trusted the President when he signed McCain-Feingold.
I trusted the President with the drug bill.
I trusted and support him on Social security.
I trusted the President on the budget
busting Transportation bill.
I have and will continue to voice my contrary
opinion to his Illegal alien ("solutions"?).
I trusted and support him on the war on Terror.
I trusted his non-use of the veto.
I trusted him on Clinton holdovers in the Cabinet
I trusted him when he promised SCOTUS judges like
Thomas and Scalia.

I will not vote Democrat because I could not have trusted any of them on any of the above.
I am tired of RINO causes taking precedent over my causes.
I have looked at the Libertarians, but, never for very long.
There is no way a sane person can support the "surrender now" Liberals.

Can we not have a national Conservative Party, such as New York state Conservative Party? It is one of the things they do correctly politically. In spite of their obvious naivette in voting majoritively Democrat, at least one gets a relatively clear idea,what factions are producing the votes.

[Lancey Howard]

and the need more info at 41.8%

That is the most telling result of the poll. This was a horrible nomination. The hearings will once again be a meaningless and uninformative TV show starring some blowhard Senators, and in the end we conservatives will be left with nothing else to do but cross our fingers and hope that Miers turns out to be no worse than O'Connor. Wow. That's just great.

Bush had an opportunity to create a brilliant legacy and save the nation from the onslaught of the Euro-style secular socialism that the Democrats have been foisting on the nation through the courts for decades. This was the biggest, most important decision of his Presidency. And Bush blew it.

[McGavin999]

Actually, you are right. Senators are no longer beholden to the state they are sent from. Since they can get campaign cash from all across the US they no longer even bother to look after the best interest of their states. I'd love to see the 17th recinded and go back to the legislatures picking the senators.

At one point, the senate was dignified and a place of quiet debate. Now it is as rowdy as the house. Goes to show what happens when we tinker with the constitution.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Sorry, dude. I thought about this long and hard this afternoon while picking the rest of the tomatoes and pulling up the rest of the carrots in the garden. I'm loyal to the party. But, I'm more loyal to principle.

We've been promised over the last thirty years by GOP presidents and candidates that they would work to undo RvW. Bush PROMISED to pick justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. There is no reason to assume that this nominee is in that mold other than Bush's suggestion that this was the best candidate and his plea to "trust' him.

After thrity years of promises, that ain't enough. I ain't gonna sacrifice principle on the altar of party loyalty. Therefore, I must, with reluctance, respectfully dissent.

[Howlin]

Can you not read and comprehend posts?

I was speaking about the people on this forum.

And William Kristol is most certainly NOT a part of Bush's base.

[DCPatriot]

"...and if there is one thing I hate ,and thats to be laughed at by commies. We all need to stop the name calling,..."

Priceless!

[Publius6961]

LOL!

Now there's a subject I can talk about!

[dmw]

No, we are the thinkers--not the Kool Aid drinkers.

[Howlin]

The "base" is not split.

[Rodney King]

I think you continue to pester because you want to invoke a fight.

What are you talking about? Everyone was playing nice until she came on and started with the insults. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the person who starts the insults is the person who wants to invoke a fight?

[muawiyah]

You don't know how hated he is or what degree of threats he gets.

The man's life is undoubtedly a living hell and it will only get worse.

After all, he can't trust the Marshalls who protect him ~ they are not high income folks, and Souter said it was OK for the rich to steal their homes and throw their families into the street.

Betcha' Souter has a crick in his neck always looking behind him as he moves around the USSC building.

[KoRn]

Good or bad, one thing is certain about Miers now. She is in a terrible position to be going into the hearings. Typically nominees will try to say as little as possible, trying not to make many waves or give hostile Senators ammo to use against them.

Miers finds herself in a position where she HAS to say things to assure conservatives she is worth confirming, and this will give Kennedy and friends all the ammo they need to start their usual hell raising and try to get her blocked. Most of the time a conservative nominee will have a solid judicial background to go on where assurance isn't needed. She doesn't have that luxury. She is going to have a very tough time, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she didn't make it.

[aft_lizard]

I agree sort of. I think the jury is out on her as far as her voting will be, and the same for Roberts to. If they both turn out to be conservatives, Bush's legacy is a lock, and I will look the fool in retrospect. But my point for the no is that the party and the base is more important than one person, I could have went with a solid yes, after all I was in the need more info crew, and I really still am in it just leaning far more to the nos. Another point I didnt point out is he could have nominated a known quantity in a Luttig or a Brown and saved us all the grief and would have united us.

[Howlin]

No, we are the thinkers--not the Kool Aid drinkers.

If you need to continue to post drivel like that to convince yourself you're superior to the rest of us, go right ahead.

But it's not working.

[Ramius]

I recall the same people and the same vitriol over Roberts. Funny how that's all gone away. Even Ann Coulter seems to like Roberts now.

One thing that will make a difference is the hearings. Of course we won't find out how she'll vote on things, but we will learn a great deal very quickly about how she comports herself. If she comes across as strong and intelligent I think much of the GOP pushback will melt away.

If she carries herself badly, or shows weakness, then it'll go very badly for her.

We'll see.