[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.

[dmzTahoe]

If that was correct reasoning, Bush I should never have nominated Thomas, as he was openly Pro-life. Scalia as well, would never have been nominated.

You fight for what is right, and then if you have to settle for a little less, you do so. You do not start the fight with the candidate who is most acceptable.

As in any negotiation startegy, you have your best case/strongest outcome and then you have in your mind the least you will accept. You should not go into negotiations with your least best outcome on the table.That is what you are saying Bush should do.