Posted on 10/03/2005 10:43:26 AM PDT by The_Victor
Would it be Harding, 1921-23? I know the GOP had big losses in the 1922 elections. The problem now is that so many of the Republican senators are caricatures in spinelessness and in need of a backbone transplant which Dr. Frist cannot provide.
No, I was wrong. Not Harding, but Reagan, 1981-83. He had 58 senators at one point, including first time seat holders in AL and GA.
That donation to Bentsen was for his easy 1988 Senate reelection. He was not yet in line for a surprise v.p. selection. It is odd though that this woman has given to two candidates who ran against his father: Gore (primaries) in 1988 and Bentsen (Senate general election) in 1970. Maybe he hopes Al Gore will endorse her confirmation.
I do not believe she will be a swing vote. Why? Republicans have found one of the best ways to ensure a person has a solid philosophy before going to the Court is to give them political experience serving under a Republican in Washington.
She has that.
Of course, O'Connor was also the GOP majority leader in Arizona and yet was pretty moderate. However, Arizona is not D.C. The aspect that helps innoculate the candidate to WASHINGTON politics is service in WASHINGTON, which Miers has. O'Connor did not.
Let's chill if this is the right church from Dallas Valley View Christian church here is their doctrine. Miers was a member of this church. This should have the left quaking or ranting mad.
We believe the Bible to be the only infallible, inspired, authoritative Word of God. As such it is our final authority for all matters of faith and Christian practice.( 2 Timothy 3:14-16 )
We believethat there is one God eternally existing in three persons- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is the Creator of all things. ( Genesis 1:1; John 1:1; Matthew 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 13:14)
We believe in Jesus Christ , God in human flesh, who came to this world to die for our sins and who was bodily raised from the dead. ( 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 )
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Living God, who draws people to Christ and who lives in every person who has received Christ. ( John 16:8-9; Acts 2:38; Ephesians 1:13-14)
We believe thatman, created by God, willfully sinned and as a result is lost and without hope apart from receiving Jesus Christ. ( Romans 3:23;6:23; Acts 4:12)
We believe that salvation -forgiveness of sins -is available only by the grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ. This free gift of forgiveness is offered to all who receive Christ as Lord and Savior. ( Ephesians 2:8-9; Colossians 2:6; John 3:16)
We believe the Bible clearly teaches the pattern to receive Christ is to believe in Jesus as God's Son and Savior of the world, repent of personal sin, confess Christ publicly, and be baptized. ( Romans 10:9; Acts 2: 36-38; Mark 16:16 )
We believe that full immersion under water is the prescribed mode of baptism as indicated by Jesus' own example and command, and best depicts our union in His death, burial, and resurrection. ( Mark 1:9-10; Matthew 28:19; Romans 6:4 )
We believe that the Church is the body and bride of Christ on earth, founded on the day of Pentecost, consisting of all Christians everywhere. ( Matthew 16:13-18 )
We believe that death seals the eternity of each person ( Hebrews 9:27 ). Those who are forgiven will spend eternity with God in heaven, those not forgiven will be eternally separated from God in hell .( John 5:28-29; Daniel 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Acts 17:31)
http://vvcc.org/home.asp
no indication there he knew of his beliefs
Ginsburg was the equivalent of this lady, but from the left. It's about where one imagines the political center to be.
The spectrum is not frozen in time. The definition of moderate liberal and moderate conservative varies as the issues of the moment vary. When Ginsburg was confirmed she was evaluated as a qualified moderate liberal. Because she was not extreme, she was accepted by GOP senators.
Nowadays, as the country has drifted right, she seems more extreme now than she did then.
Even with the country having drifted right, the entire Dem caucus and the 7 RINOs would have perceived the alternatives discussed on FR today as extreme right wing. Those alternatives would have been rejected.
This, by the way, is not opinion. Bush would not have guessed at this. He called those RINOs and asked them who would trigger their defection.
Nothing whatsoever would be gained by tossing up 10 rejected nominees. It would weaken his presidency and his control of the national agenda when it became clear he did not have the support of the Senate in his ideological choices.
This woman is a Christian. This is a stealth nominee and she is a brilliant pick. Bush has put the Democrats in a position of pointing at her religion and declaring that this defines her ideology as being too right wing extreme. They will not dare do this. It would cost them their seats if they overtly position themselves as anti-Christian.
-" President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views."
Reuters gets it wrong again. Conservatives don't want a justice who will uphold our political views we want a justice to uphold the constitution.
Jimmy Carter was a big "We believe" kinda guy too. Yet he thought killing babies before they are born was something he "believed " was a woman's right.
I stand corrected. She contributed money to the DNC when Bush41 was running against Dukakis.
2. I can't refute this point.
3. I couldn't disagree more. You say that you make your comment based on the simple fact that Bush picked her? Well, Reagan picked O'Connor and I'm sure he thought she would be be more conservative than she turned out to be. My point is, I'll trust Reagan over Bush anyday,,,and Reagan was probably a little disappointed.
4. This is just a total 'cop-out' excuse. No reply needed on my part.
5. Yes, again, I agree,,,she IS untouchable given the fact she has no paper trail. This is PRECISELY why many of W's base are so upset. After all, do you expect that his base would be excited by someone who has been described (by both sides) as a 'moderate democrat' as late as the 80's?
6. Pure speculation on your part. This is as credible as my pure speculation that given the fact she was a democrat as late as the 80's--she is HARDLY someone that conservatives can rally around. I must say that I do feel my speculation is a little more realistic--given the fact that I just mentioned.
Although, I respectfully disagree with much of what you have said, thanks for the debate. To me, this is a huge disappointment. I just hope that I am wrong.
Kinda funny how universal that view is around here.
Didn't make any sense, did it? Got my dates confused.
Didn't Fortas have ethical questions? She just might not be as qualified as one would want.
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.