Posted on 10/11/2005 9:08:44 PM PDT by freedom4me
During the 11:00 p.m. (CST) newsbreak, Donna Fuducia reported that Karl Rove told James Dobson that 80% of the potential SCOTUS nominees on the President's list declined his offer because of they didn't want to undergo the grueling confirmation process. Perhaps this sheds new light on the reason why W chose Miers.
By the way, I won't tell anyone I was dumb enough to vote for McCarthy just to go against my parents, if you won't :)
yes...she now along with with 50% of the GOP, a large(?) number of freepers, most known conservative writers etc
have all collectively lost their minds according to the rather loud Bot chorus here
Haven't read all 550+ posts, but is anybody buying the idea that Janice Rodgers Brown backed down from a fight with the lib Dems?
I was referring to the over the top wack jobs for the last week on free republic that have come up with ever accusation and lie you can imagine to trash the nominee. Krauthammer is not always right sometimes he is very wrong like when he trashed a Beautiful Mel Gibon Movie about the Crucifixion of Christ as anti Semitic. That was horse manure and his ramblings about Miers are the same crap. When he is good he is very good, but when he is bad he sucks. Michelle Malkin has been going off the deep end for the last six months, and I stopped watching her and reading her. It is a shame because she has been brilliant in the past. She seems weird ever since that scumbag Chrissy the sissy Mathews practically assaulted her, the cowardly jerk. None of these people are perfect and they are in love with their own notices. We put them on these pedestals and they do not want to get off.
"Affirmative action Republican" should theoretically be an oxymoron...
No. Over success. He walks a line between cheerleading conservatives, and cheerleading GOP. TO the extent those lines diverge, his job gets pretty tough.
I wasn't buying his "the conservatives and GOP will prevail" bluster today. I wanted to - but I knew he was trying to spread confidence out of thin air.
What? Every politician has to go through this process, and all of those presently sitting on the Supreme Court had the courage to face potential slander and dredging up of past events. But after all the partisan character assassinations and gossipping is done by the Senators, they are the ones who look bad before before the American people, not the SCOTUS nominee.
Beyond all that, consider what our brave soldiers and marines are going through to serve our country right now. It takes guts to stand up and do something for America that requires a possible sacrifice. Our troops are facing real bullets and real bombs, not some cheap verbal shots from washed-up windbags like Teddy Kennedy and Patrick Leahey.
well...this fight continues to simmer....10 days later (more or less)
the PC defenses coming from the White House were unfortunate
i can't believe Laura Bush played the sexist card...is that really true?
"So let them drag out the embarrassing dirty laundry. Who cares? How many millions more are we going to allow the Democrats to kill in the womb before someone steps up to the plate?"
Well yes, from OUR (the public) viewpoint it is best to get the paper-trailed qualified judge up there, despite whatever is brought out, pubic hair, devil worshipping, eating cute animals, whatever. It is time to BEAT the dnc once and for all and establish that the president can put his judges in place with his senate. That still has not happened.
For many of us the judge issue is one of the biggest reasons to put up with many of the domestic antics of this administration. I am not sure what your views are on the ones I am thinking of (border control/lack of, breathtaking deficit spending with huge spending increases, no child left behind, senior drug plan) but there are valid conservative concerns (or outrage) on any of the above. Re-establishing conservative voting majority on scotus would almost be worth all of that, despite the huge forward spending the senior drug plan is going to bring in.
It is another issue to be the judge(s) who are actually being asked to be burned at the stake with NO guarantee the GOP senate will actually push them through. From the viewpoint of the sacrificial lamb I can certainly understand some hesitation about going to the altar. I bet we don't know a quarter of what some of the appelate judges who were on hold for years went through, if it was enough for some to withdraw their acceptance of appelate nomination.
Well, we knew she hadn't done it all by herself but WOW!
As to your last sentence, John Fund made a simlar remark. Miers seems to have impeccable timing.
BTW, coincidentally, she became a Born Again Christian and a Republican around the same time she first met GW (They met in 1989).
"Haven't read all 550+ posts, but is anybody buying the idea that Janice Rodgers Brown backed down from a fight with the lib Dems?"
NO
I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that Blanco is a woman. Bush hesitated because the federal government cannot just walk into to any state and take control.
Of course you are right. In fact, pretty much everything is voluntary nowadays. But "the call to duty" comes upon you in many different ways. You can turn away from many such calls. And sometimes most folks would be none the wiser. But they are calls to duty, just the same.
It couldn't possibly be that you've put the wrong person on the pedestal, now could it?
Oh yeah! I have 5 grandkids and boy, is this on my mind every single day.
Well, if that's true we best find that out right away.
I do wish he wouldn't have caved to the pressure to nominate a woman and only a woman.
In this diverse group, you can count on somebodies typing thatthey believe that - and they may in fact be being honest.
Or, maybe she wasn't on the short list.
I think the story is cover. Best person for the job - the President said Miers is it. He didn't say "best woman for the job." ANd it's going look sexist -AND- not honestly exploring the field for "best" if the "short list" only had women on it. Would you admit that "women only need apply for this opening."?
I have seen the names in other publications, like "USA Today." I would love to see the list being used by the Inner Circle. Might be more than the 12 I've listed.
Agree and was mulling that over.
But how could they possibly put that out there if in fact it was inaccurate? These nominations come few and far between. It's not like a top potential nominee would forever remain quiet after being passed over, due to the administration implying that top potential nominees chose to opt out before a nominee was even chosen.
And how could they not reveal the names? If in fact it were true, would it not help their position to reveal the names?
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.