I can tell the difference d;^)
Also, I long for the days when being a political insider used to be considered a bad thing by conservatives.
How times are a changing. Its getting hard to tell Ann Coulter from Alan Colmes these days.
Oh dear God NOOOOO! What is bush going to do start supporting RINO's in the primaries?
Oh wait.
He already does that on a regular basis.
Better "foolish" or not "trusting of the President" than "betrayed".
Hope doesn't equal fact.
Ms. Miers does not have a solid record as a conservative.
If GOP Senators are unwilling to accept her nomination on hope alone, that is very understandable to me.
Mr. Sessions (R)Mr. Sessions affirmative…. “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) Mr Cornyn…affirmative "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
Mr. Coburn (R) Mr.Coburn..affirmative. “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
.
Every 2nd term Prez enters "LameDuck-hood" for different reasons, but they always begin the slide sometime around the mid-term elections. Looks like GWB is a little ahead of schedule.
It's really a shame. It didn't have to go like this. He could have picked a fight with Senate Democrats over a nominee with a real conservative record. He might have lost, but this would have galvanized his political base and helped the Republicans in the mid-terms. But as things sit, the Congressional Republicans are more likely to run away from this President's record.
The White House has a message for conservative senators to get back in line. Do they have any messages for the seven RINOs?
I have a message for those pseudoconservative Republican senators, we will remember.
Well I don't know about the rest of PA. but this one here is NOT voting for Santorum....
He has proven to me that he needs to be replaced, he can sit home and watch what happens when you don't represent the people that put you in office, when you listen to the lobbyst groups...maybe then you will pay attention IF YOU EVER get the chance to get back in office....
Note that what they SAID is not like the inflamatory headline.
They didn't warn the senators to support his nominee "or else".
They made the observation that, when she wins the nomination (which that still say she will), she will sit on the bench.
And in a couple of years, when it turns out she is a scalia or thomas, at least in result, the conservatives who weren't against the nominee from the beginning would look at senators who voted against her because she wasn't conservative enough will have lost some credibility.
I would say this differently, because I disagree with them. If she makes it, and the next nominee isn't trashed because of what the conservatives do to her, and everybody turns out to be great nominees, NOBODY will remember this crap 10 years from now, except when new nominees come up.
Why would I lash out at someone who to a principle stand to stop someone they thought would be bad, even if they turn out good? It's like being mad the coach didn't call a bunt when the guy hits a home run.
Now, the pundits who all promise she's a terrible nominee might have to look for new jobs -- they will have lost their credibility (if they had any).
However, if Miers is rejected, and a "more conservative" nominee is sent up, and that nominee turns out to be a souter after getting the appointment -- then there will be a backlash against everybody who fought this nominee.
What the White house is saying is that opposing this nominee isn't a FREEBEE for the conservatives. Because, as I and many others have said, you don't KNOW she won't be a great justice. You are just scared because you don't know she will be. I understand, I'm a little scared too.
But I trust the president to a point, and if he turns out to have been right, and his detractors turn out to have been wrong, there could be consequences to that result.
For example, if Miers has been on the court for a while, and all her votes are solid, Brownback will NOT get the nomination for president if he votes against her. Why?
Because he will be judged on his "judgment" of judicial nominees, and will be found wanting.
On the other hand, if he saved us from Harriet, we will never know what he saved us from, so unless the replacement is a second coming of Scalia, he will also not get the nomination.
That is what "warning" means.
And who will look foolish if she gets in there and votes like Souter? We'll be stuck with her for decades while everyone forgets who was foolish when it counted, when it's too late to matter any longer.
Is this really the best that the White House can do? Are they going to run ads against conservative senators in '06? I don't think so. Elections are over a year away, and how senators vote now is irrelevant, especially considering that it's unlikely that Miers will do anything of immediate substance in the next year or so.
* Conservatives badly want a candidate in the mold of Scalia and Thomas (which Bush promised), whose judicial philosophy is to interpret the constitution as written.
* President Bush bypassed a rather large pool of candidates with a documented history of this judicial philosophy, in favor of one who totally lacks such a documented history.
* By doing so, president Bush has lobbed a grenade at the cohesion and morale of the Republican party.
* The history of such stealth "trust me!" candidates has been extremely poor for Republicans, and predictably sets off alarm bell visions of Souter and so on.
Interesting that the article mentions a message from the White House, but the body of the article has no quotes from the White House at all. Someone seems to be trying to stir up trouble amongst conservatives.
I can tell the difference d;^)