Posted on 10/19/2005 9:49:50 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Maybe we should call ourselves Regressives in order to distinguish us from the watered down pablum that passes for GOP or Bush "conservatism". ;-)
I called her a hack writer, back then and was attacked vociferously for doing so. But the fact is, she IS a hack.
Bush hasn't bailed on anyone. If anyone bailed, it's the anti-Miers crowd.
You need to keep reading. We've been given a first class pass to looter and extortionist!
Regressive works. It denotes a backwards trend.
That's one reason why I can't trash Bush on this, yet. O'Connor is still deciding cases. If she's replaced by Miers, and Miers turns out to be better than O'Connor, that's a win. Not a big win in itself, but a win nonetheless.
I can only imagine how O'Connor would be voting if Bush selected a controversial nominee that drew a filibuster which put her retirement off indefinitely.
Of course at the time, the articles of hers on JPII weren't all that bad actually. When placed next to her critique of the 2nd Inaugural Address by President Bush, it makes her look like a hypocrite. I think in both instances, they all "came from the heart" if you know what I mean.
I remember that to this day as well.
Ummmmmm..."heart" isn't exactly where I would have place where the columns came from, LOL
LOL! I got your drift!
In fact, near the time of the Pope's passing, opinionjournal.com ran her editoral of her trip to Rome and the Mass she attended with other Catholic faithful a few years before, when he was suffering the ravages of Parkinsons.
:-)
I would have to disagree. Not because Miers is going to be left of O'Connor, but because conservatives have been burned so many times now. Anything less than a strict constructionist is going to be a complete failure in the eyes of conservatives. Or at least many of them.
Look, this will all be rehashed every single time she takes an activist position on a case. It will rip that scab off over and over and over. Even conservatives that are standing by her nomination now may very well get upset when decisions are not going their way and she's the 5 vote.
I love the President. Feel like he's family type thing, but I can't stand with him on this one. I think the chance of her handing down some bad decisions will hurt him bad, real bad, if she makes it to the court.
now some in his own party.
I'd bet a years pay a proven conservative jurist wouldn't make it past 45 votes !
"Look at the acrimony and insults on this board. Those are the voices of the GOP lashing out against conservatives."
What you said BUMP.
Correct. Just for example, I support the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments. It's time to acknowledge that the income tax is a failure and b) the Senate as the People's house rather than the State's is a collosal failure.
Proud to be a Regressive.
Ah, so if someone is in opposition to Dubya, especially a conservative commentator (Kristol excepted) he can't possibly represent the base, because that would be 'inserting himself into importance,' whereas the President and those supporting him are truly representative of 'the base,' even though some 40% of the folks here seem in opposition to her nomination and FR generally represents ITSELF as composed of the base GOP population.
Good to know the standards have been set. /sarc
Forget the humble crap!......CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
"Once again, his "base" isn't split."
After a couple of weeks of research and intense debate, have any minds been changed? Do you approve of the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
No
40.0%
Yes
35.9%
Need more info
19.4%
Pass
2.4%
I'm voting Hillary!
2.4%
Looks pretty split to me.
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.