Posted on 10/25/2005 10:55:57 AM PDT by bigsky
This sentence is incomprehensible. It sounds like something from Babblefish.
"951 Freepers against the Miers nomination = 1/65237234th of the votes President Bush received in 2004."
And i'm sure nobody beyond those 951 oppose her. I'm sure Limbaugh, Will, Novak, Coulter, Frum, Chavez, and Krauthammer don't speak for anyone either.
Somebody who doesn't know the facts.
BS......we came out and gave bush a 3 million vote advantage .
Actually, it was a complete across the board increase, with no one group having a larger turnout than they did in 2000, except for Hispanics.
That's right. Start calling names.
Speaking of idiots, you made this statement:
we have remained silent on every supposed conservative nominee since stevens and have gotten screwed
So, you got "screwed" on Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas?
You appear to be drunk. Perhaps you should to to bed.
BUT.....so called religious conservatives voted in the SAME percentage in 2000 that they did in 2004.
There are some cleaning ladies that I'd rather see on the Supreme Court than some "highly qualified" [in]Justices.
Let's see, what party was complaining about the "politics of personal destruction" a bare few years ago? This is simply going to drive the Rats to hysterics.
Based on the poll here at FreeRepublic, conservative support for Miers has been eroding - justifiably so in my opinion.
Bush, if he is a wise man, should be reading the handwritting on the wall at this point.
BRAVO!.. beautiful point!
The prove is in the pudding, as they say :), just LOOK at what our WONDERFUL ***TRUSTED**** REPUBLICANS have given us in the SC!!!!
JUST LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT TODAY! - Our wonderful Republicans put most of them there!!! Can you people SEEEEEEE?"
Can you blame us for not being so "trusty" this time?... Don't we have the right to be 'a little apprehensive?' :)
My game plan: President Bush has appointed excellent judges at all levels. This is his choice, as we've always argued -- that is why we work so hard to elect a good President. Concerns were expressed, and it should have been dropped then. This continued, increasingly-nasty pile-on only hurts our larger concerns and delights and serves our enemies. The President knows her and has confidence in her; she can answer for herself at the hearings.
Let her.
That's my game plan.
Dan
I have not seen the commercial.
I call it mean and low-brow because, IMO, it would be more fitting for people in the President's party who oppose his nominee to address the White House directly about it rather than hit the airwaves. In other words, I would rather a friend tell me directly that I have offended them rather than they "go behind my back" or "shout from the rooftops" their ire at me.
Well said! I am sick and tired of these people tearing each other down. Reagan is probably spinning in his grave the way these people are acting. Disrespecting the President that is of their own party.
And this whining is really getting irritating. I thought conservatives were of a heartier breed but I guess not.
How long have these same "conservatives" been screaming that GWB's nominees deserve to have an "up and down" vote in the Senate. Sounds like they've reversed themselves on this one just because their chosen favorite wasn't selected.
Even if they think that this nominee is not the best or "most qualified" it makes them all hypocrites for the stance they are taking now which is to have the hearings and floor vote short circuited.
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.