Posted on 10/07/2005 3:06:16 AM PDT by Crackingham
Edited on 10/07/2005 3:37:55 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Meirs is Roberts' second vote.
Roberts now has 2 votes instead of just one.
Bush knows what he's doing. He's playing to win, not to dazzle the media.
I particularly liked this sentence so I thought I would repeat it.
Sowell, however, does have a point. Rush was talking about this yesterday. If Conservatives want GW Bush to "go to war" over the Court, we must consider what kind of Army he has. Sadly, the troops he has in the Senate consist of traitors to the "Gang of 14", RINOs such as Snowe and Chaffe, and jellyfish. There are several good ones, but not enough of them.
So--we get Stealth in a Skirt. And it looks like all we can do is pray and hope for the best.
Also, I wonder if current justices like Kennedy and Souter read the newspapers or watch television concerning this particular debate. I have no doubt they follow it closely.
I hope the outrage that they see of their "conversion" to become Liberals bruises their precious egos--even if for just a nanosecond. They are a disgrace.
I've rubbed elbows w/ the 'beautiful people' quite a bit. I can testify that all church goers are tolerable except for one group: evangelical church goers. The quiet laughter and tinkling wine glasses go dead silent when the topic of true blue bible thumpers comes up.
For some reason, they become terribly provoked - my own theory is that the 13 letters of Paul are words that make them choke. To have a woman who reads those letters making decisions on the SCOTUS? They must be sleeping fitfully.
Tells me more "politics" need to be won at the very local of local levels. This also tells me that far too many people are yet "sitting in the wagon instead of helping to pull it". Weak "large" players tend to get elected when the local activity is poor, non-existent, or frightened. In which case those "larger players" are a result of weak "sisters" at the voting level.
This overall says, there are far too many people demanding "others" declare and fight for "liberty" for themselves. But they themselves? Their lives are too busy, too full... etc.
They subscribe, locally, to the "gladiator" theory of politics in America. Not quite realizing, or accepting or being courageous in recognizing -- that defending your liberty is YOUR job in conjunction with those "elected" to office.
Thanks! Dr. Sowell apperntly is one of the few pundits who thinks before he writes. I have been making this point about the Senate and I am consistently ignored. Maybe some of the people who are so angry will redirect their anger to the appropriate target.
being courageous
This point is also worth repeating. Courage. Our columnists have more courage than those in the Senate. Too few see past the petty issues or privileges of the moment to see the clear issues of the future. Bush has foresight; often those with strong religious values have foresight as well. It is because we trust in something larger than ourselves. We can only hope that Meiers also has both courage and foresight.
You said: Meirs is Roberts' second vote.
Roberts now has 2 votes instead of just one.
Bush knows what he's doing. He's playing to win, not to dazzle the media.
***
I agree with this simple, well-stated analysis. We had supposed first tier nominees in Kennedy and Souter, with paper trails, and look how they have turned out. Personal knowledge of the candidate is at least as reliable as a paper trail or ivy league education in determining how firmly a nominee will remain attached to her conservative moorings. Pundits, even conservative ones, hate to be proven wrong, and the writings you see from George Will et al are evidence of this.
Oh, surely, you can find 12 more articles on this subject to post.
Just an hours worth of work for someone intent on stirring up divisions in the Republican Party.
Common, just 12 more. Don't slack off now.
I don't know, however, that I could honestly say that our columnists have more courage than those in the Senate. It's kinda like saying boxers have more courage than wrestlers: Two different fields. One field observes and makes commentary upon those in the arena. Those in the arena are often sucking up to those in the commentary fields, in order to get elected or support on a pet issue; and because that columnist can wield a pen to reach millions of (potential) voters. This puts the pundit in the "power" category over a person in the political arena, often.
In this, of yours:
It is because we trust in something larger than ourselves.
I am in perfect accord with you!
You would think, but it has been reported that Harriet demanded that the Presidential Christmas Message be fixed so it would not offend anyone. Kind of a New York Times thing to do.
I think Pubbies need to support more conservative candidates in the primaries, regardless of what the party bosses would have them do (Spectre vs Toomey -- our loss; Coburn vs Humphries -- our gain).
There's nothing wrong with this..holding Bush's feet to the fire and the article is fairly moderate, plus I like Thomas Sowell.
>> "why are the Senate Republicans "this" way?" <<
That is a good question. And a related one is: "Why did president Bush work so hard to re-elect Arlen Specter, who is such a continuous pain in the butt, when a true conservative could have been re-elected, if the administration had put it's weight behind him?
Sowell skirts the issue here. The GOP doesn't have the fortitude to contfront and repair the DEM's abuse of cloture to get its way on nominations.
And neither the Senators or the President make an issue of this. Meanwhile, Myers (9th Cir - on the Senate Exec Calendar since March 17), Boyle (also out of committee, June 16), Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad (in committee since February) are not being acted on either. I think the GOP-lead Senate should properly handle those nominations. Maybe it would put to bed the notion that the President needs more than 51 votes to obtain a confirmation. And -THAT- would change the entire dynamic of the calculus for a SCOTUS nomination.
The DEMs and RINOs have effectively circumscribed what consititutes acceptable jurisprudence in a way that is favorable for advancing the radical social agendas of abortions, homosexualtiy, and suicide-on-demand. Conservatives are reduced to "stealth."
What is your source for Miers demanding that the Christmas message be fixed?
Problem is Big tough Bush campaigned for Spector in Pa instead of a real conservative ,Now I think that is more telling than anything,then he wonders why no one trusts him.
I have said from day one BUSH is not a real conservative.What about Immigration? What about the unconstitoutional Campaign finance reform? Give me a break if Harriet shares his philosophy ... well we are finished
Crackingham is a trouble maker.
Eh? Actually, Kennedy was a third-tier replacement for Bork. Souter was a stealth candidate. Anything jump out at you 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.