"sitting this one out may soon look like a mistake of historic proportions."
...and I know it's true, because I read it on the internet.
read it on DU
hmmmmm
so I guess Karl Rove really was indcited
bttt
And it would be just like the Stupid Party to make such a mistake. (And for the record, I already voted and I voted "R")
I'm quite active in GOTV efforts and let me tell you, TONS of (R) people are voting. Nobody's buying the mind-control stuff, I guess our intolerant tinfoil is on too tight LOL.
From the unscientific sampling of what I see and hear, the GOP turnout may well exceed the normal mid-Presidential-term election!
Especially now that Jean Cherie has lit our fire!
Prayers UP.
I think this whole "stay home on election day" is media driven. It's a left wing wet dream. I don't know anyone who'd give up everything they believe in and let the democrats win. A person would have to be suicidal to do something like that. It's just stupid and self defeating. Who's that dumb?
Sorry. No dice. I'm not accepting their fantasy.
While this election is still important for control of the Senate, have no fear: Bush and Rove already have "Plan B" in hand if Stevens (or perhaps Ginsberg) retires within the next two years. They will nominate a conservative Hispanic or African-American female for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, they'll employ the same strategy that put Clarence Thomas on the court.
Can you picture Schumer hysterically opposing an intelligent, conservative Hispanic or African-American female? The FIRST Hispanic or African-American female to be named to the High Court?? He'd look like more of an ass than he already is. The vast majority of Americans would see that as a travesty, especially minorities. Sure, they'd try to assail the nominee as a turncoat, "Uncle Tom," or something of the sort, but if the nominee displays half the demeanor Justice Roberts or Alito did during their confirmation hearings, the attacks wouldn't stick and would indeed likely backfire on Schumer and his ilk.
That's my take. Bookmark this post if the Dems take the Senate on Tuesday and then a vacancy opens up on the High Court before 2008. Be that as it may, please prove my prediction completely irrelevant by electing Republicans on Tuesday. . .
The appointment of justices like Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts is the best thing we can do to preserve the Republic.
There is nothing which can prevent our voting to continue this process on Tuesday.
Certainly no further abomination or outrage by the execrable party of the Left or its handmaiden propaganda bordello.
later read
"sitting this one out may soon look like a mistake of historic proportions."
CORRECT!!!!
We have gained so much since we got rid of Daschle and the democrats controlling congress as if it were 90 democrats to 10 republicans even when they only had 1 or 2 senators more than republicans
My personal choice to replace either would be Janice Brown, formerly on the California Supreme Court, now on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has often been a stepping stone for elevation to the Supreme Court. But control of the Senate, even by a slim majority, is essential to this effort.
I expect that whoever replaces Frist as Majority Leader in the Senate will have to use the constitutional option to force a vote on the floor. Keep in mind that that option requires only a majority vote to make it work, since it would be a vote on a ruling from the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, ruling that a filibuster is illegal as applied to a judicial nominee.
The longest legacy that most Presidents have is their appointment of federal judges, since the judges serve for life and often outlast the Presidents who appointed them by a quarter century or more. Therefore, I second the opinions presented in this article.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "The Truth about the War"
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
If Stevens goes tango unit tomorrow and both houses go Democrat then there could be 28 months where there will be a lot of 4-4 decisions.
Dear God! It will take 60 votes for Bush to get a nominee through to replace Stevens!!!!
"It points out what could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the 20-year movement to recast the court with a constitutionalist majority. It would be a cruel twist indeed for conservatives to “teach Republicans a lesson” next Tuesday, only to be taught a lesson themselves within months when new Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) leads a Democratic majority against the most important Supreme Court nominee in decades. Conservatives whose mantra is “no more Souters” should bear in mind Robert Bork’s fate after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986."
The most important sentences of the story.
All Bush would have to do is appoint, say Janice Roberts Brown, after the next Congress convenes and goes into recess. She would stay in office till Jan 2009. It has been done before.
Last year the rumor was that he was spotted pricing homes in FLA.
Count me skeptical.
The other point that seriously needs to be brought up is this: If the Democrats do succeed in becoming the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, then the strong "immigration reforms" bill created in the House is gone, and President Bush's and the U.S. Senate's "Kennedy-McCain immigration bill" that's loaded with a finite number of favoritism's towards illegals that are either already here or will be here in the future and guest worker programs in the U.S. will end up making it to the President's desk for him to sign. Also, if the D's end up controlling one to both Houses of Congress, then the President's socialistic North American Union which mirrors the socialistic European Union will become a reality!
Justice Ruth Ginsburg presents another serious prospect for turning the direction of the Court. Born in 1933, Ginsburg is younger than Justice Stevens, but she suffers from poorer health. She was already 60 when President Clinton appointed her in 1993, and she has, by way of her decisions, faithfully applied her champion's contemptuous disregard for the Constitution. Ginsburg's departure under a Republican administration could mean an earth-shaking alteration in the makeup and direction of the Court. ...