Posted on 10/13/2005 5:47:35 PM PDT by baystaterebel
I agree. I feel like I've been kicked in the ass...and at about the same level in the front too.
Why the hell not direct anger at McCain and Graham right now? They're the ones with Presidential aspirations. They're the ones to make an example of, on behalf of all conservatives. They're the ones who made the power grab to give them the ability to define whether a nominee they think is too extreme deserves a floor vote, even if Bush nominated someone whom he didn't think was so extreme.
I think everybody ought to read this primer on the Gang of 14 over the weekend, and come back next week guns ablaring at McCain, Graham, et. al. - it would certainly be more productive for conservatives to do that instead of what they have been doing.
Friggin' Graham sold out on the idea of appointing known conservatives with credentials in favor of social security reform, and then didn't accomplish a thing on social security reform. He should be twisting in the wind -- his political aspirations should be taking a hit right now. But no, it appears conservatives want to make certain instead that Bush isn't elected to a third term, or take it out on Jeb, who had nothing to do with Miers.
Dumbasses killing themselves.
I've called, I've expressed my opinion and "expectations." I will watch their conduct, and will act in an informed manner following that. But yeah, the GOP and RNC have a split on their hands.
Thanks for your efforts. I'll try to get on Rush and give him a piece of my mind.
Can't you post anything without insulting someone. You personally have done more to convince me that Miers does not deserve this nomination than any one person. Why aren't you able to engage in rational discussion?
I object to the LIES spread about Bush, Laura and Miers and you think I'M the one that is insulting? Did I accuse YOU of "worshipping" a man? And it is also a LIE that I changed your mind in any way you jumped to the conclusion that Miers was not appropriate and have been flailing about ever since. Blaming me for your not supporting her is the height of mendacity.
Have you objected to the LIE that Laura called the opposition "sexist" when it is clear she did nothing of the sort? Have you objected to the Antis' demeaning Miers and belittling her and saying the President is a liar? Or do you have a case of selective outrage?
Rational discussion is my forte but utterly foreign to those who prefer character assassination, falsehoods, distortions and misinformation. Before calling ME out you should look to your own camp's misdeeds. Then you might have some credibility.
You take things as they come. In case you missed it there was great angst here on FR when the traitorous RINOs deserted the leadership. They got their share of mail and if we are smart this one issue can be added to the case of why each of these should not be reelected. Moving right along the next event we have is Roberts..who is not a proven conservative but did have good bona fides so while we exibited concern no major outcry..Then comes this nomination of someone no one (including Bush himself) can offer objective bona fides for. Therefore the outcry from those of us who believe this is a poor and potentially dangerous nomination. The first time we get a whack at any of these turkeys is '06 and then '08. At that point we will have been given the opportunity to replace 2/3 of the senate. I don't feel like a pot because Bush made a bad choice. I feel like saying his choice was bad. However I do feel Bush is a darn sight worse than just a kettle. Your mileage may vary.
Losers that didn't defeat the filibusters are all speaking from a position of personal failure.
Until the filibusters are defeated, we could elect Jim Robinson President and McCain, Graham et. al. would get to define whether his nomination of you or I presents an extraordinary circumstance justifying a filibuster which keeps the Senate from doing its job of debating and voting.
Attacking the filibusters means attacking the Gang of 7 Republicans, listed in my tag line, for giving the filibusters credibility with their deal. Note in particular that Reid immediately attempted to claim that their deal meant the filibusters were constitutional. They obviously aren't, and I don't think the current SCOTUS would disagree with me. There are people who can't be considered moderates all over that court, from Ginsberg, Stevens and Souter all the way to Scalia and Thomas.
For someone who has complained about the "crap" on FR in the past your name calling and insults do not do you good service. Your age doesn't make it ok to call someone idiot or stupid. You owe the lady an apology and if you are as much a man as your home page makes you out to be you will offer it to her. I could care less about the Santorum issue but I am sick of name calling and insults on FR.
So your point I suppose is that having lost the fillibuster argument (for the moment) we should just shut up on the other things that beg to be addressed? Come on, you can do better than that. If Miers is anything better than "Whadda Gal" lets see it. I'm willing to be wrong and willing to be convinced that she is the best thing since sliced Scalia...just show me the record that proves it.
Because that is exactly when McCain, Graham et. al. made their power grab, to make certain that another obvious Scalia-type would never get a floor vote because they'd characterize that nomination as an extraordinary circumstance justifying a filibuster in order to put pressure on Bush's reform agenda. Graham and Snowe immediately went on record as using the judicial filibuster agreement to oppose Bush's reforms.
Read this primer
Man where were you? There was loads of outrage (out here and in the Senate chambers too as I hear it). The 7 felt secure in their positions and held. I think it did damage some of them but the bobsie twins from Maine are working with an electorate that is debatable so I dunno about them. I do think Graham is now vulnerable, and I think McCain damaged himself also..We'll see. I agree with you about how bad the Republican Senators have performed but they are trainable via the ballot box and my senators do pay attention to their US mail traffic. Not too sure email does much but give them a daily barometer but I use that too. Now we have another chance to ring their bell. I for one think we should ring it loudly and often.
Reminds me of the church song - where were you when they crucified my Lord?
I'm willing to accept blame for not doing enough earlier to actually deliver a death blow to the Gang, but everybody has to realize, from this point forward, where the core problem lies.
BTW, it's been fun, have a great weekend. Peace out
No, it would have been stabbing Specter in the back for Santorum not to have supported him, as Specter had strongly backed Santorum in his previous elections. It's stupid to have expected anything different. If you did, you are too far gone for anyone rational to care what you have to say.
Specter has stabbed Republicans in the back time and time again. It was an opportunity to be rid of him. Santorum should have stayed out of it. Supporting a traitor to the party time and again is politically stupid. To think otherwise is irrational.
"YOU WILL NEVER EVER GET ANYONE AS GOOD AS SANTORUM IN PA AGAIN IF YOU LET HIM LOSE THE ELECTION!!"
"It's his to win or lose. Stop blaming the voters."
This is of course nonsense, as most politicians are dependent on the voters for their vote and dependent on core supporters and activists for their campaigns. It's not merely up to Santorum whether the Senator in 2007 from PA will be Santorum or a liberal Democrat - it's up to US ... When campaigns fail, it is a common failure of the candidate and the support base failing to win over the voters.
I note that you don't in any way argue against my 100% true point: Santorum is the most conservative Senator you could possibly get in a northeast state. Every conservative should be ecstatic that we are lucky enough to have him and not another RINO or Democrat in that spot.
I am going to blame conservative voters if they commit Hari Kari and fail to support the one conservative incumbent in the US Senate from the northeast.
There are dozens of other RINOs and Democrats to oppose or fail to support ... When we treat those who agree with us 95% of the time as an enemy, we end up having no friends.
Sometimes conservatives can be so myopic.
That's what I said. Don't blame the voter. It is a failure of the candidate and the support base to win over voters.
I am going to blame conservative voters if they commit Hari Kari and fail to support the one conservative incumbent in the US Senate from the northeast.
Huh? That doesn't square with your first assertion. Santorum has to earn the votes. If he doesn't earn enough, he loses. That shortcoming would lie mostly at his feet and partly at the GOP's feet.
I like Santorum, BTW. He's not a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which represents about the political line dividing me from a candidate.
"Unless that Senator explained that the unconstitutional filibuster interposed since Clinton nominated Ruth Buzzie has resulted in Bush nominating someone with a record which is incapable of being reasonably discerned."
The fact is that Miers, for all the unknowns and question marks, is a more acceptable nominee than the absurdly out-of-mainstream leftwing Ginsburg.
It doesn't matter what excuses to come up with that Bush nominated Miers, filibuster or no ... What excuses did Clinton have for nominating an ACLU advocate and extremist to the USSC? "Because I could"?
To ask conservative Senators to vote against Miers because 'she's not conservative enough' when those same senators mostly went along with Breyer and Ginsburg is asking for a double-standard wrt a Republican President vs Democrat President.
I want to know why we didn't stand against the Ginsburg nomination, if we now have discovered, in our disappointment about the Miers nomination, that maybe Senators *can* decide to say 'no' over a nominee who just isnt good enough.
I can tell you one thing right now. A "no" vote will not discredit the filibuster. Alas, it will strengthen it, because it will strengthen the hand of the democrats as they make arguments about 'this nomination is for a very serious position, we need high standards' etc. etc.
"Conservatives should be trying to convince democrats that she's a bad choice,"
... and when we've done that, you think they are going to jump for Janice Rogers Brown? I think not!
Bush nominated her, he won't withdraw her.
She will get hearings, she will get a vote.
If Miers goes down in flames, it will set a precedent like the Bork nomination in raising the stakes and the politicization of the overall process.
I said it before. The only good outcome would be if Miers gets confirmed and manages to vote just like Thomas.
The second-best outcome, a quick withdrawal of the nomination and replacement candidate that is solid and conservative, will NOT happen.
Any other outcome will have negative consequences.
JMHO. I am conflicted and see that this has become a true 'quag'-Mier of a nomination.
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.