Posted on 10/19/2005 9:49:50 PM PDT by freedomdefender
In 1986, George W. Bush reached a crisis point in his life and changed what wasn't working. He dug deep and got serious. He got humble. He questioned himself. He can do it again, and should.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yes, it is sad. It shows a vicious, pack mentality.
There are no Dems on the horizon with a chance of beating Kay Baily (KayBaby)Hutchison.
My congressional district is unfortunately gerrymandered so that a Dem will win. Henry Cuellar thinks there is really a Social Security lockbox with actual money in it. Just gotta laugh at the Dems. Why fight it.
So until 2008, this is the nearest I will come to something that actually effects me. (Unless someone wants to hire me to go to one of the filibuster turncoat senators states and work in the primaries for their defeat. Ohio, Rhode island? or Maine. I prefer Rhode Island.) I am sufficiently happy to rail against the Mediocre Miss Miers. Hereafter known as 3M girl. Postit all you want to.
Too bad there is no longer a POST OF THE DAY. This one would win hands down!
Nobody can seriously argue that Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy or even O'Connor are either.
So our President nominated someone who appears at first glance likely to vote along with Scalia and Thomas more than any of those other names.
It's not a sure thing in my mind but I think that's where he's coming from.
Seems to me that too many people against this nomination are more concerned with whether she'll inspire Lawrence Tribe to write a glowing report of her in his next Con Law treatise instead of realizing what we're up against. Nobody believes Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens are legal heavyweights more than reliable liberal votes. If Miers is a stealth conservative who will provide a reliable vote, that will matter most to conservatives and the movement.
Finally, Bush never promised another Scalia or Thomas. When asked in the second debate if he had an opportunity to nominate someone who would he choose and why, Bush first said "I'm not telling" and then explained what kind of person he would not nominate (pledge, dred scott). He said he would nominate strict constructionists. Then Kerry pointed out that Bush said (in '99) that he most admires Scalia and Thomas, to point out where Bush was "coming from".
People who trumpet the whole Scalia/Thomas *promise* have been fooled by John Kerry, of all people.
This is one of the best posts I've seen on the Miers nomination. And I'm marking for further consideration tomorrow.
Your spinning hard the "Scalia Thomas" quote. Bush made the statement in the 2000 campaign. And it was not off the cuff. He said it repeatedly. Either he was sincere and bailed out on the fight or he was merely manipulating conservative voters. Neither scenario looks good.
And I'm really getting tired of her hypocrisies; of which, there are now endless amounts.
bttt
I don't see any transcript linked in your post. I linked the transcript from the debate one year ago in my post.
Got *quotes*?
Well said.
Another perspective: With regard to the balance of the court, the only meaningful test is whether Miers is preferable to O'Connor. That's the choice at hand.
And yes, it is still only a gut feel at this point, but I don't think Miers will be nearly the mistake for Bush that O'Connor was for Reagan.
We have had this little thing interceed called Katrina, and right after that another little thing called Rita. There is something about having over a million Americans become homeless overnight that sort of takes your mind of the current agenda.
In addition to that he has had to fight one USSC battle and is starting another. The man has a full plate and we're only one year into his second term. He is a human being, he is not God, give the man a break. There is still 3 years remaining, as long as the republicans don't go into full revolt (or full revolting). Social Security didn't get into trouble overnight, it won't be fixed overnight.
Her critique of the 2nd Inaugural Speech is when the downward slide for me begun. I remember her central theme was framed around the phrase "too preachy". This after several articles detailing her being "razzle dazzled" by JPII in Rome, New York, Denver and Mexico City.
He didn't say it in the second debate. He said what's in the transcript, and John Kerry said what's in that transcript too.
Kerry mentioned Scalia and Thomas. Bush didn't.
Do you have any transcripts handy to back up your post?
Thank you very much.
He's only said it once in 2000 at a debate with Algore. To date, he hasn't reneged on that promise.
The "best" argument I've heard is that the promise refers to the seated Justice, not to the nominee. That is, he can't be held to his promise now, because his promise referred to the time after the nominee is seated.
It's basically the "fooled you" argument, if you know what I mean.
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.