Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush on Greta's Show NOW! (Ozzie & Harriet Miers!Alert)
Fox News TV ^ | October 4, 2005 | Vanity

Posted on 10/04/2005 7:16:56 PM PDT by buzzyboop

Ok, never posted vanity thread, but Rush is on Greta now. He is summarizing the arguments he made on his show regarding Harriet Miers.

Also, his Slickness is also on Greta's show tonight. Rush is the bigger coup, though. Wasn't the last TV interview he did with Letterman??

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: foxnews; harrietmiers; limbaugh; miers; rush; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next last
To: Pyncho

Do you really think that Bush would risk the conservative shift of the Supreme Court for political gain?

I think Bush knows what he's doing and that his nominees will be exactly what he expects.

He picked Bolton for the U.N. even though the fight for him was going to be hard, but there is no doubt that Bolton was the best pick and obstructionism from the court didn't make a whit of difference.

On the other hand a filibuster of a supreme court nominee with a conservative record that succeeded would've lost us a lot of credit and demoralized the Right, and there is no doubt that RINOs in the Senate would've torpedoed any attempt to use the nuclear option.

No, the President knows that his job is to set the stage for conservative electoral victories in 2006, and 2008. This means consecutive guaranteed victories and fighting battles he knows he can win outright. Gambling political capital is a bad idea when losses could cost us momentum, and conservative momentum in this country is still building. You can't tell by listening to the MSM or even to some of the popular conservative talk show hosts, but more and more people are coming around, and the President is trying to foster that momentum.

Big showy battles and fancy rhetoric and Democrat strategies. It is also the losing strategy.


161 posted on 10/04/2005 10:00:48 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

Please point out the similarity.


162 posted on 10/04/2005 10:01:31 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I am a huge fan of Rush. I can appreciate his dismay over the rug being yanked out from under those who wanted a battle royal over the Supreme Court nomination of a conservative. He obviously has nothing personal against Harriet Miers but she is not the catalyst conservatives were looking for to initiate this fight. I think Rush was too eager to get the inevitable war done and over with to accept that it can't happen successfully at this time. The one fact that we all must accept is that, as Rush suggested on the radio today, President Bush does not want to go into battle with the army he has in the senate. Given the number of outright RINOS, coupled with unpredictable self serving squishy Republicans, he cannot risk making a farce out of the hearings that would give the RATS great glee and result in another good person being shot down. As far as the sympathy Rush and others have for those numerous, solid conservative SC Justice wannabees, I think all but one would have been let down anyway. And I would add, who in the work force hasn't been passed over for higher positions when they know how much they deserve to be the chosen one? That is a really lame consideration IMO. Love Rush but not in a lot of agreement with him on this one.


163 posted on 10/04/2005 10:02:38 PM PDT by mountainfolk (God bless President George Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

How are you going to win in 2006 when you've ticked off the base? You just don't get it.


164 posted on 10/04/2005 10:02:44 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (A Plaming Democrat gathers no votes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

We agree entirely on Bolton, and now we are talking about an ambassadorship. On the Court, the point is not to place "a vote," but rather to place a presence, and she ain't it. And there are presences that would have passed without a filibuster, but likely with a somewhat greater fight (a la Roberts).

Stand back. I consider this decision the equivalent of Bush the Elder saying read my lips and then raising taxes. I'm sorry, but you don't do this to your base. He WILL get some Republican negative votes on this one, and THIS was not necessary at all. This is just a bad decision even if the President is entirely accurate in his appraisal of how she'll vote on the Court.


165 posted on 10/04/2005 10:04:47 PM PDT by Pyncho (Success through excess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
So, I'm still not sure what Rush wanted Bush to do. Seems like he's saying have the fight just to out the Dems for what they really are.

I think Rush is playing a game. He's talking about changing cultures and having wars...does he really think we are about to avoid either when an Evangelical Christian takes center stage? Anybody who has watched the Democrats question several of the Bush judicial nominees and Ashcroft will know how the Dems will perform with people of strongly held religious views. And yet she is sort of a non-traditionalist, never marrying, blazing a trail that hadn't been open to women.

With everything I learn, Miers becomes almost a brilliant choice. The fight will be on a level that is accessible to all Americans.

166 posted on 10/04/2005 10:06:00 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Well said! Rush is quite talented at this game. He blusters and he hints but when the time comes to finally make a decision, he drinks his kool aid like a good buy. Rush will support Miers when the vote finally come. He always supports Bush in such cases.


167 posted on 10/04/2005 10:06:13 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
Are you daft? NO.

End of discussion? It ought to be. Don't insult me. You don't have a clue about my experience with judges.

Maybe after you apologize we can discuss how important it is to have an understanding of constitutional law so thorough that a justice can sway other justices into changing their minds about a particular case, because that's what it takes day in and day out to actually "change the direction" of the court, which was President Bush's stated goal. I was very impressed with Roberts' understanding of constitutional law, but as one of the foremost SCOTUS practicioners, I fully expected him to perform well during the hearings. I have serious doubts about the ability of Miers to perform in a similar manner. I'm also concerned that the demonrats will make her out to look like a mental midget, which will reflect poorly on Bush as well. They already have a head start on that angle because just about anybody will look silly compared to Roberts. He's an extremely tought act to follow. And no, the democrats don't care if they come off as callous or too hard, particularly if the media provides cover as it always does.

I'm anxiously awaiting the hearings. We'll all see how it plays out then.

168 posted on 10/04/2005 10:06:26 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

We had the chance to defeat Saddam, and we passed. Bush has the chance to defeat the Democrats and he's passing. You can't change the fact we are still at war in Iraq and will be still at war with the Democrats.


169 posted on 10/04/2005 10:06:48 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (A Plaming Democrat gathers no votes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: hjvan
The problem is that yesterday Rush himself gave the most compelling argument against going to war against he Senate Dems over SCOTUS. The foot soldiers in our "army" would have been people like Senators Snowe, Chafee, Collins, DeWine, and Voinovich with "Sir Arlen the Valiant" leading the charge. (And who knows which side "Prince John of Arizona" would have been on!)
170 posted on 10/04/2005 10:13:45 PM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

There are MANY candidates more qualified than Meiers who would not have caused any stir with the weak sisters in the Republican coalition. She was hardly the only pick the President had to keep the Senate together on his side of the aisle.


171 posted on 10/04/2005 10:16:48 PM PDT by Pyncho (Success through excess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

Assuming she's confirmed will she be just another vote or something else?

If she performs as someone with such limited prowess that she comes off as nothing but a crony, then that will discredit future nominees, no?

I hope she does well in the hearings and on the bench, but have nothing to put my confidence in. If JRB or any of the others mentioned often (Jones, Owens, Luttig, etc.) were nominated instead - jurists who have proven themselves against attacks - I'd rest easier.


172 posted on 10/04/2005 10:20:30 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

Look, picking a conservative nominee would not enable us to defeat the Democrats. The best way to defeat their hold on the court is to get conservatives confirmed.

We disagree on the relative strengths of our Parties. I believe that the Republican majority is too fragile to have passed a known conservative onto the Supreme Court without a prolonged and damaging fight that would cost us, not gain us seats in both Houses in 2006.

You believe otherwise. It is as simple as that.


173 posted on 10/04/2005 10:37:35 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
I hope she does well in the hearings and on the bench, but have nothing to put my confidence in.

We have the President's word, the judicial nominations he's made thus far, the kind of people he's put in key roles in his administration and the sorts he urged to run and campaigned for in the Senate. I think we have something more than the nothing you claim to go on at this point.

174 posted on 10/04/2005 10:44:41 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
He is absolutely right that the Republicans will pay for this ill advised move by the President in 2006

Yeah right and he was correct about hillary losing in 2000.

175 posted on 10/04/2005 10:48:47 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Yeah right and he was correct about hillary losing in 2000.

Midterm elections are when you need your base more than any other time. It is when only the most ardent supporters go to the polls. If he demoralizes his base, they will not vote in the midterms in great numbers.

176 posted on 10/04/2005 10:54:31 PM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Midterm elections are when you need your base more than any other time. It is when only the most ardent supporters go to the polls. If he demoralizes his base, they will not vote in the midterms in great numbers

Fune, then don't vote but don't try to pull some others into your political suicide mission.

BTW, just pointing out Rush that was wrong and has been wrong in the past(i.e hillary losing in 2000).

177 posted on 10/04/2005 10:58:04 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
The nominations he's made so far to the federal courts of appeal have all been judges. Miers hasn't proven herself in that context. The others he's put into his administration aren't judges either.

Ben Ginsburg made the same arguments on Hardball tonight, and as great as he is, wasn't very convincing. While it is true that several people outside the "judicial monastery" have been high court justices, that in and of itself doesn't prove that this nominee will be a great jurist.

Tell you what, let's see how she does in the hearings. I'm certainly not going to claim that I'm convinced she's going to perform in a stellar fashion before then, but I'll be quick to acknowledge that she has if she does.
178 posted on 10/04/2005 10:58:24 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth; Pyncho
VRWCFT:How are you going to win in 2006 when you've ticked off the base? You just don't get it.

Easy enough... by picking a conservative that can pass Senate scrutiny and be speedily confirmed. The base will forgive him eventually for that. You might not, but most will when Miers proves to be a strict constructionist and a strong conservative presence on the court.

Most of the questions about her "qualifications" and personality are raised entirely by speculative journalism. She was a successful trial lawyer who rose through the ranks to manage a good sized law firm. You don't gain that kind of resumé through timidness and lack of gumption. She exhibits humility and humbleness, but nobody focuses on her strength of character, which is self evident from her record.

GHWB's "Souter" fiasco was because he did not know Souter, but took the counsel and advice of others. GWB does know Miers and he believes in her.

It is ridiculous to think that Bush would endanger the goal of shifting the court to the Right by appointing someone he doesn't trust. And when it comes to GWB's inner circle, these people are typically loyal to him, as he is loyal to them. He trusts them, and they act constantly on his behalf.

Take Michael Brown as an example. He took a hit for the President, even though it cost him his position and his reputation. He knew that his remaining on the job would put the President on an awkward position of defending him when there were greater concerns at hand.

Strategically, the Democrats are in a bigger bind now than if the President had chosen a known conservative. No matter what they do they lose ground. No matter what happens, the only charge that can be made against the President is cronyism, which is a lot of hogwash if his appointments prove out to be qualified and motivated.

The legislative agenda, which is key to the advancement of the Republican majority, can now move forward. And you're mistaken if the fight for the Republican majority is going to fought out over a supreme court nominee. It is important that a conservative, strict constructionist be placed on the court. The fight you seem to want is not important, nor constructive.

I still want to see Social Security reform, tax reform, and immigration reform. If we pick needless fights with the Democrats right now, our future agenda will be placed on hold.

Pick your battles, pick your ground, and defeat your enemy in detail. Move swiftly. Do not let the enemy pin you down.

179 posted on 10/04/2005 11:01:09 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
Bush is the one who said if elected he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

He's been consistent on this matter since he started nominating judges.

180 posted on 10/04/2005 11:01:21 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper ("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson