[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.

[Owen]

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

He does not settle for "anything". He settles for the best he can get confirmed. Period. Hard stop. No equivocation. The best you can get.

You will NOT get a justice confirmed who walks out on the capitol steps and announces "I am virulently Pro Life and I Can't Wait to get on the court and overturn Roe v. Wade."

There is no way in hell such a justice will not be filibustered to death and Bush Wisely Will Not Nominate Him just so you can run around and beat your chest.

Bush will nominate the rightward most candidate who is viable -- just like WF Buckley. The Democrats would nominate the leftware most candidate who is viable, and with a gutless GOP Senate, a lot more leftward than you would believe possible.

Without Bush, more babies will die than with him. That's unavoidable and reality and there is NOTHING you or any of us can do about it.