I was wrong; so please join me in supporting Harriet Miers.

[Cboldt]

Well please disreguard my last post then, but your reticence to state your postion just lit off all that I find wrong with the consevative movement.

Too late. I already regarded it. I'm interested to hear your expression of all that you find wrong with the consevative movement.

[devolve]

Logic 101


Threads on Free Republic like the Miers nomination topic are quite telling -


I do not refer to Harriet Miers.....

[Antoninus]

So, why not simply remove Specter from the committee? That would have been really bad PR, considering Specter’s health issues at the time these decisions were being made.

I don't buy this. I think it's a case of the GOP senators not having the cojones (or the votes) to remove Specter.

Another reason why I don't believe this whole line of argument is because if Bush had named, for instance, Luttig and he was defeated in the committee with Republican votes, it would have been the judiciary committee which felt the wrath of the Conservative base--Specter in particular. All this negative energy would have been focused on him. Instead, it's all focused squarely on the president.

The Miers nomination was either a terrible miscalculation on the part of the president, or a purposeful thumbing of his nose at the base of the GOP. Very distressing.

[potlatch]

Some nights this can be appropriate to post on a thread!

[Victoria Delsoul]

Threads on Free Republic like the Miers nomination topic are quite telling -

They sure are.

[Artemis Webb]

wb ping

[A Jovial Cad]

Well, Dog, looks like the "cool kids" you're trying to impress your way back into favor with aren't satisfied with that pound of flesh you tried to offer up with this horse crap thread you started.

Seems "Kryptonite" here--one of their devoted tounge-wagging sycophants--has been given the nod to let you know that The Coven is still mightily unhappy with even the pathetic shreds of opposition you posted against their arrogant decrees just a few days ago, prior to that mewling Opus of yours (said Opus which you, in turn, posted this thread in order to disclaim and renounce).

Looks like more abject obeisance will be necessary in order to get back into their good graces...why don't you just agree to run all of your tender, scintillating notions through them before posting in the future, and perhaps they'll welcome you back into the warm fold of the smugly tolerated?

...(snicker)...

[RinaseaofDs]

I agree completely. I have arrived at the position that we currently restate to liberals all the time:

Elections have consequences, and W is President. I believe he should have the nominee he wants, and that the Senate should confirm her.

This is not enough in my opinion to hand power back to Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and their ilk.

[ottersnot]

It appears to me that Harriet Miers is the best CONFIRMABLE candidate for the Supreme Court at this time.

I can either believe this is spin, or I can think less of the Republican Senators than I already do.

Tough decision.

[jla]

Capitaine: "In Miers, Bush has clearly taken what he can get, and our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administration’s term is up. The current makeup of the Congress will just not allow our agenda to be passed at this time without major sacrifices and pragmatic thinking to overcome the inherit weakness of having traitors in our midst."

JR: "Let me get this right: Miers is all we can get for now, for all the byzantine reasons you outline. But the next time out, we get what we want, per you: 'our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administration’s term is up.'"

Capitaine: "What I am telling you is that Miers is indeed all you can get. And if there is another opening, you are going to get another Miers, and another one after that, because you will probably have the very same Senate or worse."

---

So how is our "best hope" dependent on another vacancy if that vacancy too will yield a nominee such as Miers who in your words is merely "all we can get"?
You do see the contradiction you made, don't you?

[jla]

You know I won’t tell, so don’t bother asking me for names, links, or further information.

Now why wasn't I surprised to learn this?

[Redcloak]

A very good analysis.

Too many Republicans think that we have some sort of perfect storm in DC with which to swamp the Democrats. We don't. While we firmly control the White House and the House of Representatives, we do not really control the Senate. To get a lasting lock on the Supreme Court, and really begin to undo the last 70 years of Democrat rule, we need to control the Senate. That isn't going to happen as long as we're stuck with the likes of Specter, Lott, and McCain. So in the here and now that we actually have, Bush has to make appointments that will pass that weakly held Senate.

The perfect cannot be allowed to become the enemy of the good. While there are perfect candidates for the Court, a good one that actually passes confirmation is a better choice.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

We need to control the Senate.

R-55

D-44

I-1

[fedupjohn]

Welcome back

Thanks for your ever diligent analysis, I understand alot more then I did earlier.

[1035rep]

bookmark

[Congressman Billybob]

Actually, I noted several other posts which described questions about Beldar's work. So, you don't have to write back to me on this subject.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[RunningWolf]

There is nothing here from you thats not breaking or cutting edge.

I think your little birdie is the Conservative radio talk shows.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

There is nothing here from you that IS breaking or cutting edge.