Posted on 07/05/2005 7:44:32 PM PDT by nj26
Anyway, I think the GOP is asking people to cool it because they don't want the fight to be any harder than it is already. They don't want to have the words of their own constituency coming back to haunt them when the president nominates someone else.
IOW..."we're trying to distract them, will you all up!" That is what I think they are asking. Don't screw up the stategery for crying out loud.
Go back to Dummieland, troll
But the vast majority of the noise is grounded in principled objection.
However, if I step back and look at this objectively, the GOP may have a point.
We want the public to see the dims for what they really are. And we don't want to appear to be what the MSM accuses us of being.
I don't think Bush is going to appoint Gonzales. I think he'll appoint someone acceptable to us. But I don't think he wants to appear to be "caving" to anyone, and us screaming and yelling before he's even indicated who he's thinking about will make it look like he DID "cave" to us when he announces someone like Luttig, or Brown, when he's probably been thinking about an appointment like that all along.
Bush knows perfectly well what his base wants. And before I am accused of being soft or a moderate -- I've picketed abortion clinics and done counseling at pro-life pregnancy centers -- I'm against abortion in ANY case, except where the physical life of the mother is in danger.
What will you say to us if he is?
I'm not supposing that he is, but I'm not ruling it out by any means.
If Bush does nominate a real constructionist, then our rightful attention must then turn full time to the Senate.
Damn straight.
Maybe, but I think the far more accurate reason is that they believe Bush will nominate Gonzales. I don't believe taking credit is at the heart of their resistance. They are scared he'll nominate someone that is not a constitutionalist. I'm not frightened based on his prior record of Judicial nominations. At the moment, I'm giving him the benfit of the doubt since he earned it.
The Left is aiding and abbetting this, so that whoever eventually becomes the nominee can be portrayed as the candidate of the "extreme right Christians."
Bush is supposed to be the tool of "right wing Christians" according to same spin. The Left, regardless of truth, will state it is the case either way. As well as "right wing conservatives", dedicated to the erosion of women's rights. yada yada.
It would be helpful if all of the organizations opposed to Gonzales would just be quiet for a few days. They aren't helping the cause one bit.
Yes and no. Personally I think people have blown the possibility of Gonzales being appointed out of proportion. It's as though Bush's record up until now is meaningless. And I do think some people have been WAY out of line in their statements against. It's perfectly fine to object and lay the reason out on the table in measured manner. Quite another to treat him the way Brown, Pryor, Owens and the others were treated. Some people owe Gonzales an apology.
However, the Senate has earned no leniacy. Their record of leadership is minimal. There are people within the Senate body looking for any means to abandon the ship. had the GOP controlled senate behaved with principle and leadership to this point folks would trust them. It is their fault, not the people that elected them, that they have not earned trust that if left alone they will do right.
The Senate will do what it will, it always does. But the people that elected them do not have to trust them, they have the right to alert the Senators of the knowledge they serve the people...not the NYT's or the 'civility of the Senate body'.
Gonzalez also would run into trouble by having to recuse himself on anything he was involved with as White House Counsel (Patriot Act, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.).
All of this ranting is playing into the Left's spin: "Gonzalez was scuttled by the right-wing extremists, and Nominee X is the tool of the fundamentalist Christians."
I swear, I am constantly convinced that President Bush won by divine intervention; it certainly wasn't because of the wisdom of his supporters.
I have this sick feeling that we're gonna get rolled. I'd love to be wrong, though.
I wont say anything to you.
If he nominates gonzales, I will be unhappy. But that doesnt make the far rights behavior any more acceptable
I can guarantee you that the far right has probably pissed off the President and has actaully increased the liklihood of a gonzales nomination. He probably resents seeing his friend savaged for no reason.
I hope he nominates a strict constructionist.
That is why I'm concerned about anyone who is not absolutely known to be 100% solid.
I was pretty sure he wasn't going to nominate Gonzales, until I started seeing these sorts of stories. Now, I'm fairly convinced that if there isn't enough noise from the base, he'll try to do it.
Oh, yeah...we're just a bunch of dumb hicks, you know.
That's why we should just do as we're told, and be quiet.
Gonzalez is not an American.
What's he doing there?
I guess we all know the answer to that.
Bush HAS done alright so far. But the name SOUTER is going to haunt the Bush clan until Bush Jr dispels it. The conservatives have a right to be nervous.
problem is that O'Connor was solid until about 5 years ago.
as for Stevens, I think he is exactly what Jerry Ford and the GOP of 1975 expected and wanted
Not in my opinion. But I think the only one who really "gets it" consistently is Justice Thomas.
So the NY Times says that the WH says that we should stop attacking Gonzales as a potential "nominee". Let's see what the White House really said.
Bush really said that we should stop attacking Gonzales his "friend". Bush didn't say that we should stop attacking Gonzales a "potential nominee" as the Times says.
Now go back up this thread and read some of the lame comments from posters who take the boob-bait from the NY Times.
Wake up! These stories are appearing to agitate the Right and to make a case that the "Gonzalez nomination" was scuttled by the white, right-wing Christians, so that whoever IS nominated can be demonized. As a bonus, the Left gets us all to arguing amongst ourselves.
The President is asking for everyone to be patient and quit bloviating in public until he names someone. He is also asking us to quit attacking his friend.
What is so hard about this? Why do people want to believe the New York Times, proven liars? Get a grip, please!
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.