Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
If this is true, conservatives to KNOW that and defeat ANY Republican on the Judiciary of blocking originalist judges. That is another argument in favor of a showdown.
The only reason the GOP doesn't want to do that is so they can protect RINOs as Republicans care more about power than conservatism.
It's fourth and seven and a field goal will win the game. Oh wait, don't kick the field goal--let's try a pass in the corner. That's what I hear the carpers saying on all the threads.
I keep hoping that someone will tell me why this choice is the worst thing that ever happened simply because Harriet Miers is a name that FReepers hadn't heard prior to her nomination. I wonder how many people had heard of William Rehnquist before his nomination the SCOTUS ... and he, too, had no previous judicial experience. That didn't turn out too bad ... ;-)
The people like Owens have just been seated in their current spots after years of contentiousness and delay. Their positions are important, also. I personally want a strong judiciary (i.e., constitutionalist, non-activist) on all levels, not just SCOTUS. Why expect those like Owens and Brown, having just survived running the gauntlet, to go through it again, this time with the stakes even higher and the mud likely to be much thicker?
..... If one of the "approved by FReeper" nominees had been selected, then their SCOTUS confirmation process would be much more harsh than what they have already endured ... and we would have to start back at the beginning on filling their current positions, a process that could be dragged out for years longer. It makes sense to me to leave them where they are and select someone new for SCOTUS.
When Bush hasn't let us down on any other judicial appointments and we know very little about Miers, I don't understand why so many people assume that Bush has suddenly gone off the deep end simply because they are not familiar with her. Isn't this awfully presumptious? Isn't it also quite presumptious to take the stand that there are only 4 or 5 people in the whole country who meet our criteria for SCOTUS, even though very few of us know diddly-squat about potential candidates?
If anyone can/will address any of these points, I would appreciate it though I'm not sure that I will have time/opportunity to respond ... and will not argue. I'm just trying to learn and understand ... :-)
My insiders tell me your insiders are not credible.
This is what many of us have been trying to get across for days now.
The more I like about this the more I think it's time to pull old spectors FBI files and W's administration needs to make that old basturd spector an offer he can't refuse...
You go, Puke! You got that right again! Liked your argument and readers might like yet another supporting view--applying the MOOSEMUSS, principles of war to the question. Look it up on www.mysandman.blogspot.com
LOL!!!
I'll buy your analysis with but a few comments on the above.
Caveat....I don't like RINOS. Period. At least here in the liberal hell of Delaware, we KNOW where Biden stands.
But look where RINOS get elected! Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Arizona. All places with a serious split in the compilation of the voters.
Anyone running in Pennsylvania that was anti-abortion would never get elected there. Period. Too many liberals in Philly, with the rest of the state Republican voters being basically Republican-Lite.
So the Republican party, in what can arguably be called questionable wisdom, choose to run as representative of the party a RINO. Only a RINO would win there.
One could argue with my assertion and indeed there's indications that the pendulum is swinging. But that pendulum swings slow and changes slower.
So we get the RINO's we can stomach. The rewards of having Republicans in the majority are many. The Chairs of all committees are Republican. This fact alone is worth its weight in gold. There's the factoid, however misleading, that there is, indeed, a Republican majority. Sure we have several RINOS but it's better to be the majority than the minority in any case.
Thus decisions are made and something is lost. We get Arlen Specter or maybe NOBODY. Maybe back to minority status. Maybe back to Democrats chairing all the committees. Remember how Daschle bottled up everything in committee?
As for it being OUR fault, ie the solid conservative voters, I say no. First, this administration has run scared witless from backing solid conservatives in RINO-like states. There was that guy from New Jersy. Another from California. One of them was named Simon, forgive my aging memory. Early indications that with a little backing from the administration these candidates might have had a chance.
It's not the CONSERVATIVE voters who won't back, or elect, these candidates in RINO states. It's the voters, a salad bowl of mostly socially liberal folk who want a Repub to mind the money. Lots of PA Democrats voted for Spector. Many of them would likely have refused a Santorum.
These RINOS do what they were elected to do. Which is to represent their voters. Spector is nowhere, nowhere, nowhere if he goes against abortion. The voters of PA simply will not elect a senator with that stance. It's not your solidly CONSERVATIVE voters who would refuse to vote for an anti-abortion candidate. It's the liberal voters, many registered Democrat, for God's sake, who would so refuse.
We live in a representative democracy and though I can't stand Pelosi, she was elected to represent the Mooonbats in San Francisco.
You either live within our political system or you don't.
If one does not think that these representatives should represent their voters than I guess one would also assert that Sunnis should represent Kurds and Shias shouldn't be represented at all. Or some other more appropriate analogy.
Basically I agree with the analysis of the poster and suppose that's EXACTLY how it all came down.
It's our political system. Like they say, it ain't perfect.
As for WE not supporting solid conservative candidates, I'd say not true. WE don't have enough votes in those RINO states to get them elected. What WE should be doing is....tada...educating our fellow voters.
And, exactly who helped Mr. Specter get re-elected? Oh, it was Bush that saved his sorry, sagging ass along Rick Santorum. It was also many fellow red-state Senators that allowed him to chair the judiciary after supposedly getting a promise from him that any nominee would get a fair up and down vote on floor.
Yet, ANOTHER reason to have this fight. If this is true and Specter pulls this, he needs to be removed from leadership.
Do Dems do the same in primaries? I've never noticed myself.
"he looked like the cat that swallowed the canary "
Oh, I know. I wanted to slap him. Who appointed him as the one to "approve"?
we have RINOS in the Senate that can't be trusted to vote for a partisan known conservative nominee, and the Dems have moderates who are uncomfortable with using the filibuster.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to argue here. With that agreement they agreed to take over the Senate and gained greater influence over the entire government. I told people that at the time, and they vehemently denounced that assessment.
Damn right there are Dems in red states that don't want to act, that's why you force them to a vote. Force them to commit on record. Then use it against them in their eletions if they make the wrong choice. You call the bullies bluff.
Granted, if put on scene like that where they would be forced by their constituents to vote right they'd rataliate elsewhere. Tax cuts. WOT. But they are already looking to raise taxes, and withdraw. They just protected the terrorists in a bill!
What I am saying is that the President is made weaker by appeasing them, and in the long run, it won't matter. Give them two years and they'll have our troops pulled out, taxes going up, and any number of ills UNLESS something dramatically changes in the Senate. They need to be faced down and defeated.
"The President has done everything he can to get a better Senate. Look at all the campaign appearances and fund raising events he's done."
He actively supported Spectre vs. Twoomey in a close race. I'm not sure that's turning out as expected.
I'm willing to keep the House majority.
I'm asking why the Senate.
I knew it was my fault.
Well, Dog's got a better track record around here than you do, so most of us will take Dog's sources over yours.
And in a similar vein, no matter what the GOP asserts either.
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.