Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
It depends on which site you look at. Regardless, the fact is that it is her and she did donate to the Dems. It is a indisputable fact.
True. He may need to come out and inform the rest of the those who don't have an MBA before they have a conniption and get their panties in a wad.
That's what this is all about.
I got rid of all my GW stuff when he put Bill Clinton on stage with Bush Sr. Bush has been a huge disappointment in so many ways. The only comfort I get is when I try to imagine Kerry being President!
I think so too. He's a problem solver, and a quality administrator, and he doesn't do anything for show...........just to get the job done.
I trust him on this one.
Great. All that work and the court stays the same or gets worse.
> Now we learn that Miers may have given money to Clinton in 91-92.
Oh my God. Source, please?
DOH! (ma'am)...
Sheer unwashed speculation on my part, but maybe they like her because she isn't Brown, Luttig or Clement. And then there's the age issue - even if confirmed, she likely will not serve as long as JRB would likely have served.
It's true. Sorry you can't deal with that. You are even deflated by this pick. Nows not the time to drown yourself in Kool-Aid. I suspect the Democrats will let her on the court because she is so old and easy to marginalize and bully. Very few can stand up under the onsalught she is going to get.
God I hope this is erroneous.
Nothing against MBAs or the President...but your post made me laugh. Are you suggesting that an MBA degree somehow makes a person wiser or more clever? My experience is that MBA programs are puffed-up income producers for Universities, full of "class presentations" and useless, superficial "marketing theory".
>
He has nominated the rightmost candidate who is confirmable.
And you "know" that because Bush nominated her. And Bush nominated her because she's the rightmost candidate who is confirmable. And we know that, because Bush nominated her.
Nice circular logic.
>
No, we know that because the gang of 14 have 7 RINOs with several up for re-election, and They Have Talked To Bush. As has Specter. As has all the GOP caucus.
Confirmability is not guesswork. You ask, you get an answer. Luttig or a more rightward choice would not be confirmable. In Bush's informed opinion, this choice is the rightward most nominee who is confirmable.
No distortion, montag. We know EXACTLY what you are saying, especially since you have yet to offer one credible source that Souter is gay.
"I got rid of all my GW stuff when he put Bill Clinton on stage with Bush Sr. Bush has been a huge disappointment in so many ways. The only comfort I get is when I try to imagine Kerry being President!"
I volunteered for Bush 04 for a year. I think the same thing but then look back and wonder if theres as much of a difference as I had hoped.
Well, this MBA is having a real difficult time understanding this particular decision. Some might say it's "deep" and "hard to read"; Occam might just say she was picked because of her gender and closeness to the President.
So if that isn't the case, then the GOP shouldn't campaign like it were so. And they shouldn't constantly seek support and money under these false premises.
The Democrats are loving Bush's choice. That says it all. The real message here is:
DAVID SOUTER WAS NOT A MISTAKE.
I agree ,
this is just one of many slaps in the face to the conservative bas voters by Mr Appeasement GW Bush
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.