[Owen]

>
GWB thanks his lucky stars everyday that he hasn't had to nominate a Supreme before this election. I wish it would happen. We would then see his true colors...if he appointed a true conservative, he'd upset the Dem's and not be seen as "compassionate". If he selected a moderate, he'd further alienate his base. My guess is he'd go for the appeasement, especially in an election year.
>

You see, you don't think it through. You offered two possibilities. The third tells the tale, not the first two. If he DOES NOT nominate an overt liberal, that tells you what you need to know about him -- that he fled the liberal option. THAT is what is definitive. Not a wise choice to avoid nominating an unconfirmable conservative. What defines him is getting the rightward most he can get successfully. Probably a right leaning moderate. It would be his decision to nominate a mildly conservative justice that would be cause for joy for us and despair for the left.

Extremists will NEVER get what you want. It's not GWB that defines this or any conspiracy by the GOP. It is timeless truth. GWB would nominate a conservative moderate justice who could be confirmed. We would rejoice. And we should look forward to his opportunity to do so.

[dmzTahoe]

"Not a wise choice to avoid nominating an unconfirmable conservative. What defines him is getting the rightward most he can get successfully. Probably a right leaning moderate. It would be his decision to nominate a mildly conservative justice that would be cause for joy for us and despair for the left."

The exact same strategy that Bush I used in nominating Souter...that was a real winner, huh? Bush I went to the mattress for Clarence Thomas, and even though we all went through hell with Thomas during the hearings, he was confirmed. That's what it takes in this political climate>

To settle for anything less just to appease and avoid a battle is selling out your principles.