Skip to comments.
G.O.P. Asks Conservative Allies to Cool Rhetoric Over the Court (No Complaining About Gonzales)
NY Times ^
| July 6, 2005
| DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CARL HULSE
Posted on 07/05/2005 7:44:32 PM PDT by nj26
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-186 last
To: hobbes1
You're so right. Much smarter politics would be to just give the Democrats everything they want, that way they'll have nothing left to complain about.
Oh wait, Bush tried that already. All it does is make them even more shrill and extreme in their complaints. Who'da thunk that appeasement doesn't work?
If you think the controversy over Gonzales is a bad thing, I can't understand for the life of me why Bush and the rest of the GOP are giving such attention to it. Like that'll make it go away? All it does is encourage speculation that he will be the nominee. Is that smart politics on their part?
181
posted on
07/06/2005 3:49:03 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: FreeReign
I never suggested Bush play the "silly denial game." Precisely the opposite. Go back and read my posts.
What I said was because Bush didn't say that Gonzalez was not being considered because he was happy as AG meant that Gonzalez WAS being considered, and I believe Miss Marple is wrong. If Gonzalez truly was not being considered, Bush would have said so which would have ended the discussion.
182
posted on
07/06/2005 7:44:42 PM PDT
by
TAdams8591
(Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
To: TAdams8591
I never suggested Bush play the "silly denial game." Precisely the opposite. Go back and read my posts. What I said was because Bush didn't say that Gonzalez was not being considered because he was happy as AG meant that Gonzalez WAS being considered. I read your post. I know exactly what you said. You didn't read my post or you don't understand what I mean by "silly denial" game.
The president said he would make no comment on who he has in mind for the SC until he gets back from Europe. That means he will neither confirm nor deny any choice.
To: FreeReign
The president said he would make no comment on who he has in mind for the SC until he gets back from Europe. That means he will neither confirm nor deny any choice. The point that was made (which I agree with) is that if Bush wanted to put a stop to this type of talk, he could. No one (at least among his critics) was arguing that that's what he should do.
Personally, I couldn't care less whether he does or not, just as long as he doesn't actually try to appoint Gonzales.
184
posted on
07/07/2005 9:40:01 AM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: California Patriot
185
posted on
07/10/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT
by
TAdams8591
(Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
To: Miss Marple
There is now talk from reliable sources that not only is President Bush considering Gonzalez for the Supreme Court, but for Chief Justice of the Supreme court, to replace Rehnquist. We shall see.
But the time for conservatives to speak up about this is NOW. Not after the damage is done. As my very wise father use to say, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease!"
186
posted on
07/10/2005 7:37:52 AM PDT
by
TAdams8591
(Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-186 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson