Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
And baby---you would have my vote LOCKED DOWN! :^)
You lost me. If O'Connor goes home to be with her ill husband, the Supreme Court goes from 9 to eight. With no new confirmed nominee, then any 4-4 tie decisions mean that the lower court decision stands. There is NO tie-breaker by the Chief Justice, he is just one of the eight votes if there remains a vacant seat...
dvwjr
I knew there had to be a reason you're so obnoxious.
Despite your cold-water-tossing, Bush knows that his legacy is the prisoner of his ability to work with his base, and that he can't throw it away, or he'll wind up like Gerald Ford. He doesn't want that, but he hasn't yet accepted that he can't push Gerald Ford policies and still engage the Right.
So, yes, conservatives can still have an influence, even on the Republican Yacht Club, as long as we still keep having elections.
Pace you.
Actually, I don't care whether you "consider" it or not. I'm not turning in a loan application here, lady. I'm telling you what I think, and I'm telling it to everyone on the forum. So stop with the patronizing attitude.
....you are going to have to do a better job of selling it.
Sell, schmell. I'm right or I'm wrong. What's to sell? Selling is for Willy Loman, and look what it got him.
Karl Rove strategizes because he has inside information on how the Senators will vote, results of the vetting process, considerations of other issues, etc. He and the President make their decisions based on more information which you do not have.
Then why are you here? You don't have it, either.
According to your lights, you shouldn't be on FR at all, because after all, the lights are on in the White House.
Bilge.
You don't know .... Rove and Bush do ....
You know, you only need to make that "argument" once (appeal to authority, actually -- not an argument). I got it the first time. We understand your position. Bush up here, little ants down there.
Now, you can continue to hurl insults,....
Insults? Really? Insults?! Quote one. You were the one who started the scoffing and sneeering, by the way, in reply to my call in my posts #831, 834, in reply to a post of yours previously to Sloth, in which I encouraged President Bush to confront both the Democrats and the Republicans who are playing games and courageously put his agenda forward, and ask his appointees boldly to step up to the line and join battle with the retreating Democrats. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, no uncertain trumpets, and all that. And your reply was to snark, and to point to Bush's briefing book. Which he doesn't read, by the way.
.....and I am sorry if I made you angry, ....
Ad hominem.
"You're just saying that because you're angry (emotional, out of control, unable to think, immature, undeveloped).....if you weren't angry you wouldn't think that."
Happens not to be true, but nice try.
I see no reason to discount the President and believe you.
False dilemma. You don't have to "discount" the President to deal with any of the criticisms of his choice. More to the point at hand, which you've been leading us away from self-protectively, I replied to your asseveration that Pukin Dog and his "source" who wants to lurk in the shadows, dispensing Rove's message onto Free Republic anonymously, are correct when they say that potential judge nominees passed over by President Bush are quailing at the thought of facing Senate Judiciary. I pointed out, perhaps less than suavely, that you had bought that untested proposition from Pukin Dog's secret sharer (to borrow the term of art from Joseph Conrad), but nevertheless you are quite severe with people posting their opinions and suggestions quite openly. IOW, you are being inconsistent, and you accuse us of wild guesswork. In your #841 you scoffed,
All of this armchair strategizing is based on supposition. You suppose that the nominee would stand up to be trashed, you suppose that the Republican senators would vote to confirm (which didn't work too well with John Bolton) and you suppose the television networks would show a woman being browbeatten.In fact, you ask us to follow your strategy based on faith that it will work. If I have to have faith in someone, I will stand with the President, rather than someone strategizing on his computer.
URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499585/posts?page=841#841
Your entire argument boils down to "the President knows what he is doing, and you aren't President, so you aren't qualified to judge, or even to second-guess."
Is that what you told people when Bill Clinton was in office, getting serviced by Monica and selling his office to the Chinese?
.....but I see no reason to discount the President and believe you. That's just the way it is
Pat answer, but I think your appeal to authority is pretty well challenged here, both by my appeal for better leadership from the White House, and by the reaction the President and his minions are getting from the sincere and committed conservatives on Free Republic.
You might want to start working on a better answer.
By taking them on, you acquire momentum, and that itself is worth something.
Put the other way, the only sure way to fail is not to try.
The country needs associate justices who are proof against the rot and unlikely to be rolled by the blandishments and the unethical, illegal back-stairs lobbying. I don't think Miss Miers qualifies on that count, given her political background in the 80's.
Bush has Brutus's fault, not Cesare Borgia's. Borgia was arrogant and assumed he could elevate Julian II to the papacy without putting a deadly weapon into his hand. He affected to despise Julian, and the new pope made him pay for that.
Bush assumes that because he's in the open and a straight shooter, that everyone on his staff is like that, too. Not necessarily so -- maybe they're just hard workers who know how to keep their heads down. Anyone think of that?
We haven't the first, foggiest idea what Harriet Miers's deepest values are. Except that she gave money to Al Gore once, and once was on the Dallas City Council.
I saved myself some time and stopped right there.
I think that is what Custer told his troops at the Little Big Horn.
I thought it was. "Where the hell did all those Indians come from?" In any event, I don't consider GWB to be Custer nor assume that he would suffer the same fate.
I wasn't referring to W., the people playing Custer's part are those such as yourself that say, put up our best, even if it appears overwhelming so,that that candidate will go down in flames.
Excellent but sad post, welcome back.
You are defeated before you even start. You can theorize all you want, but there is no dishonor in defeat if you are pursuing principled aims. And you know, the underdog wins more often than you think. That's why they play the game.
Custer lost the battle, but the Indians lost the war.
Churchill: " Politics are almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times."
How are you so certain that Ms. Miers will be bad for the country?
How are you so certain that Ms. Miers will be good for the country?
I trust the President.
Did you trust him when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill? Or the prescription drug benefit? Trust but verify. We have conservative judicial nominees with proven records. We don't have to take a leap of faith. More than likely, Miers will be on the bench decades after GWB has left office. How will we hold him accountable then?
Oh you may have a chance sooner than that, if the Rove sh*t before the Grand Jury blows up in W's face. But barring that, I guess you can go down to Crawford and takes Cindy's spot in the ditch.
You failed to respond to my questions. Did you trust him when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill? Or the prescription drug benefit?
But barring that, I guess you can go down to Crawford and takes Cindy's spot in the ditch.
Changing the subject with a snide comment doesn't work. I support the war in Iraq and as a Vietnam veteran, I consider it an insult that you would link me with Sheehan, Fonda, and their ilk. I know when I am winning an argument when the other side resorts to personal attacks rather than discuss substance.
I didn't agree with the signing of those two bills. How does my disagreeing with W. on those two instances disqualify me from trusting the man in this particular instance?
Did you vote for W. in 2004? If you did, you voted for him after he had signed those two bills. You in effect voted for a man that you don't trust.
Changing the subject with a snide comment doesn't work. I support the war in Iraq and as a Vietnam veteran, I consider it an insult that you would link me with Sheehan, Fonda, and their ilk. I know when I am winning an argument when the other side resorts to personal attacks rather than discuss substance.
I regret if you consider my suggestion of how you can hold W. (accountable) after he leaves office as being offensive. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Could W. have gotten a better candidate? Without a doubt. If Pukin Dog is correct, then Miers is the best that could be gotten under the circumstances.
At any rate, I do feel that in the Rove,Plame,Libby,Wilson matter, we have a really nasty problem ahead. That is going to make the current squabble over SC nominees seem irrelevant in comparison.
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.