Posted on 10/09/2005 9:44:14 AM PDT by Crackingham
The sole purpose of the NYT. The droning beat of the left marches on...
Memo to NYT and acolytes - "We don't care about no stinkin' polls"
Report the news or get out of the business.
Gee. The NY Slimes notices Don Wildmon. And he's criticizing Bush. I'm shocked, shocked I say.
One MSM outlet reports social conservatives are on the side of this nominee.
Another MSM outlet reports social conservatives are not on the side of this nominee.
The MSM hasn't a damn clue what this is about, or they are using it to distort the debate. I'll tell them what I've said before. Stay the hell out of this family feud Liberals. Your words have little sway. They did not cause this debate, they will not keep it going, they will not be responsible for the end result. So quit flattering yourselves with the idea you have any contribution to make here.
For those who want to dig instead of feeling helpless you don't know enough...
Mier's documents for your perusal (Act as if you don't see the NYT section and go in neutral):
http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/miers/miersindex.htm#article
These guys are hoping to create a vast illusion that the Republican party is bereft, bankcrupt, corrupt, and incompetent. But the base already knows what it is dissatisfied with, and unlike democrats, knows that the way to change it is in the election booth. The result of all this will not be a dem sweep of congress and Hillary in the White House. It will be that we select extremely conservative candidates and reject the "compassionate" part of conservatism.
Shouldn't there be a law against using conservative and Bush in the same sentence? Using republican is okay but not conservative.
I really despise the NY Slimes.
That being said what do you have when the Republican Party has chased away all it's conservative backers?
A Democrat majority.
Although, at this point, what the difference would be, I have no idea.
Oh, yeah. He's only fought two wars, a global war on terror, prevented terrorist attacks here and abroad. He's dealt with 9/11 and Katrina. And he did it all without the help of the UN, of Europe, or any of the idiots in the media. He did it alone.
Spare me this junk about Bush not being a conservative. When it came down to it, Bush didn't stick his finger in the air to decide if this country was worth defending. And he didn't take a bribe from some Saudi scumbag to look the other way.
IMHO, this is a case of President Bush taking the easy route.But I'm sure he tried alternative routes first, all with negative outcomes.
If he had appointed, say, Janice Rogers Brown, there would have been one Hell of a fight. The RATS may have even filibustered. And if they did, I'm sure Frist doesn't have the stones and management expertise to keep the Pubbies in line to exercise the "constitutional option."
IMHO, all of this went into the President's thinking before nominating Miers.
GWB may not care about the polls but the Reps and Senators
who are running for re election do care about them. So I
would expect more "off the reservation" type behaviour by
people running in close districts.
For instance when watching a "news" show they reported that
the House of Reps was considering a bill to build a wall all
along the 2,000 mile border with Mexico. As 06 draws closer
expect to hear more about it.
He did it alone? No other Americans helped. Wow! SuperBush to the rescuuuuue.
Ummm? What about the medicaid drug bill which he pushed? That's not conservative.
What about the No Child Left Behind Act that he allowed Kennedy to write? Would a true conservative have even proprosed such a bill or would a true conservative have proprosed eliminating the Dept. of Education and returned control of schools to local governments?
What about Campaign Finance Reform? Would a true conservative have signed that one? Or, would he have vetoed it? Come to think of it Bush has not used veto power yet. Let's see if he vetoes McCain's "let not use torture let's use hugs" bill?
Bush a conservative. Not likely.
Wars don't count. He was forced into that position. It was a response not something he can claim to have originated. Unless of course you are agreeing to the theories that he planned to invade Iraq all along.
For instance when watching a "news" show they reported that the House of Reps was considering a bill to build a wall all along the 2,000 mile border with Mexico. As 06 draws closer expect to hear more about it.
------
Let's hope so. The present attitude in the GWB administration AND THE CONGRESS is disgustingly irresponsible and criminal in its neglect of what is important to our laws, our soverignty, and fairness to the REAL citizens of America. The cost of such a building project has been estimated, and is mere peanuts compared to the GROSS WASTE and radical present spending in Washington at present. When compared to the costs of the war, medicare, estimated waste and fraud in government, and the cost OF SUPPORTING MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS, it's cost does not even look like sales tax...!!!!
Let me start off by saying that I am religous, conservative, and opposed to Miers nomination. I read the article this morning and it was amazing how the "reporter" didn't strike a single chord with me. He seems to have a hollywood charicature idea of religious conservatives ("The Religious Right", as the left loves to label it), and doesn't touch on a single reason I share for opposing the Miers nomination.
My opposition has nothing to do with Bush not being able to "encode" as well, and the implication is both hysterical and insulting. It's almost as if the writer has never had a conversation with a conservative or a religious person.
It's almost as if the writer has never had a conversation with a conservative or a religious person.
------
Most likely, you are right. The miserable excuses for "journalists" in the leftist toilet-paper rags are clueless and blinded by liberal-brainwashed editorial policies. Hopefully they will all eventually go out of business.
Would it not be nice to see a REAL NATIONAL-LEVEL conservative newspaper, pro-America, pro-Constitutional!!!??? It would sell like crazy.
No rep wants to go into a election with the Congress having
a 33% approval rating. Believe that.
-----
A key indicator of the tragedy that EVERYTHING IS POLITICALLY-DRIVEN, not driven by the real needs of this nation and its REAL people...there is the tragedy.
Meaning that it's DOA in the Senate?
"Would it not be nice to see a REAL NATIONAL-LEVEL conservative newspaper, pro-America, pro-Constitutional!!!???"
I think the Wall Street Journal is pretty good, but far too dry. Perhaps a National Review Daily is in order?
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.