Posted on 10/20/2005 7:18:02 PM PDT by frankjr
NYT FRIDAY: Rove and Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, but only this week has Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say... Developing...
"The eliutes are probably going to scuttle a SCOTUS nominee who the red-staters have reason to believe will nuutrealize, if not overturn, Roe v Wade.
The red-staers won't forget or forgive that.
"
BS. I am a red-stater. There is no reason to believe Miers will overturn Roe. There is no track record. none. zippo. We were sold down the river with Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor- all who had more of track record than the current pick. Souter was supposed to be a "home run" for conservatives. Bush will be gone in a 3 years. Miers will be around for 20. Conservatives need a greater reason to believe than "because a Republican President says so." Been there, done that. No thanks.
Part of being from an Irish Catholic family. I'll put my right wingness up against anybody's.
That's just what I said -- they ALL expire, even ones who the Senate approve, when the next administration takes over.
You just cannot say that the Senate has the last word when he has another option.
As long ad DeLay and Miller are 24/7 on the leftist news, this doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting out like it should be. Can you imagine if they covered Able Danger with as much energy as they do the Delay/Miller story. These are just distraction stories to bury Able Dange. It can't get out.
P.S. I have never voted on the presidential level for anyone other than a Republican.
We can't all be wrong! :-)
Let's see --- almost half of them voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry and I'm supposed to trust in their intelligence?????
The CIA is involved in Able Danger. Not as much as the FBI. If soros is involved with them, he's a player as well.
Only executive branch appointments, not court appointments, which is what we were talking about when this started.
Nice try, though.
I think it's a reasonable approach to say that if the liberals in the GOP want to be part of the coalition, they must support conservative candidates. If they're going to support Democrat policies let them be Democrats. It is wrong to have both parties offer effectively the same policy, because in that case there is little point to having an election, just declare the government sovereign and run a bureaucratic regime. Which brings me back to something I was asking before, which is... what's the difference which party is in control?
Besides, it's been proven time and time again that being a consistent conservative gets strong respect from the electorate - there really is, still, a profound respect out there for the kind of values and love of country that made us great to begin with - while being a lily-livered Republicrat is a good way to lose elections while spending a lot of money. (Of course, the proven best way to win office is to already be holding it.)
I agree with you. 30-50 years of liberal, secularist crap and we, as conservatives just wake up? It will take awhile, but...dammit..it needs to happen or we can write this country off. Our fault? Maybe.
yeah it's past time for Bush to come out swinging instead of playing nicecy with the democrats and the press
these people want to destroy him and all that we stand for and he talks crap like "is that background noise I'm hearing?"
what kind of Bravo Sierra is that?
Really? Then you should have said so when I mentioned John Bolton.
Nice try, though.
What exactly are you implying with that repmark?
The winner is doing our bidding already, tomato. It's a two-party system, and that is not likely to change any time soon because the masses (that's us) don't want more parties stinking things up.
The r/r threatened to sit it out the first time Bush ran, and it didn't hurt my side. The second time around, they weren't nearly as smug about their "power".
I'm not sure the GOP is in any position now where it can threaten or be threatened. We have evolved.
"but they will always heed the ones whose choice will make the difference between winning and losing."
God, I wish I was louder.
"Also, it would seem that this whole thing comes down to Libby's word vs. Miller's word --- does it not??"
Not even that. Miller SWORE before the Grand Jury that Libby was not her source. She had heard about Plame from someone else--whom she couldn't remember. (Never mind that she spent 84 days in jail to protect this unknown person and her editor says he knows who it is.)
Anyway, it's not Miller vs. Libby. It's the DSC/MSM vs. the US.
The media has decided to overthrow our elected government, and they will do it however they see fit. It's their right, don't you know?
You've got freepmail
He is.
Why can't we get the SOB?
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.