Skip to comments.
Bush on the Edge ("There is Almost No Enthusiasm for Her [Harriet Miers'] Nomination...")
Washington Times ^
| 10/26/2005
| Tony Blankley
Posted on 10/25/2005 11:57:05 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-208 next last
To: Bommer
Maybe at last Bush will get it into his head that we put him in office and to appoint judges we want, not what he wants.What the hell does that mean? Who is POTUS? What do you know about this nominee? Besides, it is not "Bush" it is either President Bush, or W as an affectionate note of endearment. Some folks need to go back to DUmmmie Underground and hibernate until their friends like The Beast emerge.
21
posted on
10/26/2005 1:35:34 AM PDT
by
Cobra64
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle; flashbunny
I trust Bush as far as I can throw him across the border he still refuses to secure - 4 years after 9/11.
22
posted on
10/26/2005 1:37:06 AM PDT
by
DTogo
(I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
23
posted on
10/26/2005 1:45:48 AM PDT
by
Jaysun
(Democrats: We must become more effective at fooling people.)
To: BetterAmerica
I trust the President in making the right choice. I say give him what he wants. You see what a great job he has done thus far. I presume you're aware that trusting politicians is for the feebleminded and Russians, and so will overlook your missing < /sarcasm > tag.
24
posted on
10/26/2005 1:52:10 AM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Cobra64
Besides, it is not "Bush" Right.
It's "Bush Jr."
25
posted on
10/26/2005 1:52:59 AM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Hank Rearden
Right. It's "Bush Jr."Unless you are being sarcastic, I would laugh. However if you were one of my children, and serious I'd smack you. People need to RESPECT the office, unless of course those who have shown LACK of respect for the Office. In my own humble opinion.
26
posted on
10/26/2005 2:10:46 AM PDT
by
Cobra64
To: Cobra64
When Bush Jr. starts to show he respects us, and the principles he claimed he was campaigning on, I'll reciprocate. Until then, he's just another big-government, power-hungry, free-spending, cheap politician.
And I'd smack back, harder.
27
posted on
10/26/2005 2:13:04 AM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Hank Rearden
Janice Rogers Brown awaits.
28
posted on
10/26/2005 2:43:03 AM PDT
by
armydawg1
(" America must win this war..." PVT Martin Treptow, KIA, WW1)
To: Steve_Stifler
Harriet still hasn't asked Dubya to withdraw her nomination, If you're so clued in, just what has she said to him? Or him to her?
29
posted on
10/26/2005 2:45:48 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: Cobra64
P.
O.
T.
U.
S.
President of The United States
VPOTUS=Vice-President of the United States
FLOTUS=First Lady of The United States
30
posted on
10/26/2005 2:48:27 AM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Abe Fortas....
"During his time on the Court, Fortas continued to advise LBJ on political matters, both foreign and domestic."
Honest Abe Fortas was not as honest as the liberals said he was. It was later determined that Fortas was making late night visits to the White House for off the record updates on what the Supreme Court members were doing and thinking.
Fortas had been a hangerson crony of LBJ since 1937.
31
posted on
10/26/2005 2:59:11 AM PDT
by
cynicom
To: Steve_Stifler
Either she's not as loyal as we've been led to believe or she doesn't read newspapers -- neither option bodes well for the future.
32
posted on
10/26/2005 3:10:05 AM PDT
by
SkyPilot
To: cynicom; SkyPilot
I agree, generally speaking.
A more apt comparison would be the two regrettable SC justices appointed by Harry S. Truman, who were essentially his poker buddies.
Why would President Bush seek to repeat the mistakes of the past?
Hasn't he read George Santayana?
*shakes head in consternation*
33
posted on
10/26/2005 3:14:21 AM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
High probability that Miers name will be withdrawn on Friday.
If not, Bush will have lost this hand of poker.
34
posted on
10/26/2005 3:17:48 AM PDT
by
cynicom
To: cynicom
(Sigh of resignation.)
I hope so, although I'm not optimistic on that count.
35
posted on
10/26/2005 3:18:35 AM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
More and more each day I am inclined to believe that Bush or Laura put Miers name on the short list. There is no other explanation to explain his refusal to cut his loses while he can.
36
posted on
10/26/2005 3:23:41 AM PDT
by
cynicom
To: cynicom
It could also be his means of exacting revenge on us for attacking his friend Alberto.
37
posted on
10/26/2005 3:27:50 AM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Blankley's got a book to sell and his criticism is a sure way to get on all the talking head shows.
Perhaps when he gets out of the beltway and into the heart of America while signing his books, he'll find the real Americans don't have his pessimistic view of the future.
38
posted on
10/26/2005 4:07:57 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
(David Gelernter ~ American Patriot)
To: ALWAYSWELDING
Harriet is looking more and more that her want for this position is trumping the hurt she's doing to the man she's reportedly so loyal to.
Absolutely true. Indeed, with her slim background in constitutional issues, it surprises me that, at this time with all the other problems the WH is having, she could have been very loyal in allowing herself to be nominated. My view is that she's an extremely ambitious individual who latched on to a more powerful person, maximized the value of that relationship for he own gain, and now wants more than anything else to cash in, regardless of the welfare of her client. Once that individual gets on the Court there's no way to expect any loyalty to President Bush, any real integrity, or any consistent judicial philosophy.
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
"First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.) Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals (a debate that should break in his favor at least 60 percent to 40 percent nationally on the judicial issues), rather than the current idiotically unuseful fight between blind presidential loyalists and sighted presidential loyalists."
Well said and good advice. I hope the President is smart enough to follow it.
40
posted on
10/26/2005 5:27:54 AM PDT
by
TAdams8591
(It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-208 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson