GOP JUDGES OFFENSIVE

Townhall ^ | 10/27/03 | Robert Novak

[MeekOneGOP]

This obstructing creep never did serve his time in the Pokey ...

Source of pic

Senator Teddy, wearing his controversial neck brace, leaves St. Vincent's
Church with his wife, Joan, after the funeral Mass for Mary Jo Kopechne.

[TradicalRC]

Sorry, but the real lesson of '92 was that if you are a big government republican, you WILL alienate your base.

Read my lips.

[Spirited]

"There is no difference between a rino republican and a democrat."

Nutshell conclusion. Neither has principles. Rather the same as Nazi and Commie, two ends of the same stick yet one is made out to be worse than the other.

[nickcarraway]

All I can hope for is that when the tables are turned the 'Pubs will remember how the Rats treated Bush on this issue.

No chance. And I do think Hatch deserves a lot of the blame. He went to bat for Clinton to get his nominees approved, but he never got anything in return.

[nickcarraway]

I think you are being to easy on them. Right now a Republican vote is worth less than a Democrat vote.

[3catsanadog]

Get out and vote, vote, vote for Republicans with cajones. (I think I spelled this right - if there is a spell check on Free Republic I don't know where it is.)

[chimera]

Well, say whatever you want about George H. W. Bush, but he was a darned sight better than the scumbag who replaced him. I know Bush I wasn't all that conservative and made any number of mistakes (and a nod to you, David Souter), but to anyone who was happy to see Bush I lose, I'd say, you've got to be crazy, because look what we got in place of him. The damage Clinton did to the Presidency and rule of law and the culture of lies, deceit, malfeasance, and death that he inspired or enabled far ouweighs any shortcomings of GHWB. We'll be paying the price exacted by Clinton for far longer than any from Bush I.

[Clintonfatigued]

Actually, the only Bush judicial nomination which features divisions among Republicans is Leon Holmes of Arkansas, who is a lost cause. The other nominees have solid Republican support.

[Antoninus]

Correct. Bill Frist is being betrayed by turncoats in his own caucus. It doesn't seem to matter whether or not Republicans control the congress. They have too many traitors within their ranks.

One way to fix this is to help get rid of the RINOs. The #1 RINO, Arlen (Mac)Specter faces a very conservative primary challenger. We should be supporting him to the hilt!

Pat Toomey for Senate

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

Live NOW on RadioFreeRepublic!
ON FIRE! With Tom Adkins!
If you’ve never listened to Tom, tune in and find out why he’s called a cross between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage!

7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern!

Click HERE to listen LIVE NOW while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

[michaelt]

You're right, this issue doesn't interest those in the middle. The judge issue won't be as big in the presidential election as the obvious other issues - the economy, Iraq, the war on terror. But it will be mentioned.

The Senate GOP will push the issue again in the next year but I don't think they'll go nuclear. They'll do it so the Dems clearly become the obstructionists - which might happen in other issues too.

I think the judge issue will be most effective when used in certain senatorial races where Dems are now the incumbment but vulnerable. Rile up the base in those states. What goes on in the Senate will provide more ammo for our side in the election.

But the obstructionist tag would hurt Dems with moderates too - there's a lot of serious stuff going on, we all need to work together, and if the Dems can be portrayed as wanting to take their ball and go home, well maybe we can send a few of them out of DC and back home permanently.

[chimera]

But the obstructionist tag would hurt Dems with moderates too - there's a lot of serious stuff going on, we all need to work together, and if the Dems can be portrayed as wanting to take their ball and go home, well maybe we can send a few of them out of DC and back home permanently.

But that's the frustrating thing. The 'Pubs play ball, but the Rats don't (unless they're sure the game will go their way). Hatch and the others carried the water for Clinton's SC nominees, and Breyer and Ginsberg are on the court as a result. If the 'Pubs played the Rats' game, they would not be. I'm getting awfully tired of our side playing the role of the gentleman and "good loser" and going along to get along, when the other side never does, and in fact stabs us in the back over it whenever they can. I learned a long time ago that playing the patsy only gets you one thing, and that is more opportunities to play the patsy.

[Rebelbase]

" "New Tone" "

GW has had big cahones in using the military in the WOT. I wish he would develop those same nads in the domestic politics side of the equasion.

His failure to openly challenge the democrats on the confirmations issue makes him appear weak.

On the other side of the coin, I am have a slight optimism that he, in the long run, will prevail. I hope that his failure to act now is just a bluff or stall for a later strike that hinges on being re-elected.

[KantianBurke]

"Sorry, but the real lesson of '92 was that if you are a big government republican, you WILL alienate your base. Read my lips."

BUMP!

[TradicalRC]

I was not happy to see Bush lose and Clinton win. I was merely pointing out that the twenty percent that voted for Perot did so BECAUSE of Bush I. That twenty percent wouldn't have defected if Bush had learned anything after eight years with Ronaldus Magnus. Instead, he kowtowed to the liberals with his kinder, gentler nonsense which was his way of saying that the libs were right in their caricature of Reagan. After that, Souter and tax raising should come as no surprise.

[chimera]

Maybe it's understandable that "the base" might have felt alienated by Bush I because of some of his decisions, which may have been mistakes in hindsight. But feeling alienated should not be an excuse for acting stupidly. If it's clear that the action you're contemplating will result in greater harm to the country, your party, your political movement, or individuals, you should have the sense to understand that your hurt feelings should have lesser import than the harm you may be doing by indulging your bruised ego. Sure, I was not happy with Bush the Elder's actions on some issues, but I was still willing to support him because he was a better person than scumwad Clinton. Sometimes it's better if "the base" exercises a little common sense and judgement and rise above whining and hurt feelings, rather than throwing a hissy fit because they think their candidate "ignored them".

[TradicalRC]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Quite frankly, I think of it as Bush's fault, not the voters. If you would rather take millions of voters to task, then go right ahead. Bush never had the vision thing and was honest enough to admit it. Thank him for the Clinton years.

[chimera]

I guess I was just making the usual point that sometimes we have to make the best choice we can given that it often is not the optimum. While I agree with your discontent with some of Bush I's actions, we'd have been better off, on balance, if he had been elected instead of Clinton. Likewise, given the current options shaping up for the '04 race, it looks like the choice is pretty clear once again. G. W. Bush may be giving the appearance of trying to be an appeaser on some issues, but overall he'll be a lot better for the country than any of the Rat contenders.

[TradicalRC]

If the proper lessons are learned, it doesn't necessarily have to have been a bad thing. W might just be more conservative having learned from his dad's mistakes. The country might just now be rethinking the Clinton years in light of the fact that Bush is more honest and upright than his predecessors. His bright honest approach throws a dark shadow on the Clinton years, IMHO.