Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
Issue 1 in Pukin's rant was what I have been posting since last Monday when all hell broke loose. The other likely candidates (one of which was my pick) either may not have passed the vetting or turned the offer of a nomination down. Why? After seeing what the demos/rinos/msm attempted to do to Roberts.........could be intimidating to those who did not wish to drag their families through it. Look what they wanted to do about the Roberts' kids' adoption FGS
But most of all, I was amazed at the immediate piling on of Meirs by people who make a fine art of research while shunning the knee-jerk reaction typical of the left. But it's obviously a human thing.
Pukin, grow a thicker skin. Your "rants" count for a lot to many of us whether we always agree or not. That gives you a perhaps unwelcome responsibility. :o)
Historically, Republicans have controlled their RINOs by insisting that they vote with the party on critical bills or other votes. The rest of the time there is a tacit understanding that they can vote against, because their votes are not needed.
This is one of those votes where at least some of the RINO votes are needed. There's something badly wrong with the leadership and with party discipline if they can't call in those chips.
Part of the problem lies with Frist and his predecessor, no doubt; but part of the problem also lies with Bush as the de facto head of the party.
The GOP ... we are experts at stealth conservatism. Trust us. Send money.
Your comment about more than one of our favorite potential nominees turning it down is also something I have heard from someone I know in DC. So that is two independent sources corroborating this.
I guess my problem is: when Scalia and Reinquest(sp) were nominated we didn't own the Senate either and with Thomas we fought and so why can we not fight now?
I'm told I can pick that up at Walmart? But yeah, I need it.
Miers should follow the Roberts template.
Maybe he should change his name to Pukin Cat! ;-)
You have to do the math, Dog. (Understand, I am talking about Bush nominating a QUALIFIED, SCANDAL-FREE nominee.) Well, I have done the math:
1. Chafee: the most likely turncoat, but by no means a definite vote against.
2. Snowe: she's a follower, not a leader. Might vote against if the liberal Maine press hounded her enough.
3. Collins: same thing, but less likely than Snowe to vote against.
4. Warner: slim possibility that he would vote against.
5. Specter: a slimmer possibility, and actually not likely given the riot act that was read to him when he was allowed to take the Chairmanship. (And remember, Specter was NOT part of the "Gang of Fourteen")
That's five (5) votes against, and only IF ALL FIVE go against a President of their own party to vote against a qualified nominee simply because the DEMOCRATS say that that nominee is "too conservative". The odds that ALL FIVE would join hands is very slim, especially once WE got rolling.
Cheney is the 51st vote in the unlikely scenario that ALL FIVE of the above RINOs turned Judas. We win.
(By the way, NO WAY does McCain vote against a good conservative nominee - - the guy wants to be President and he isn't a complete idiot. He may have been skittish about the "nuclear option", but he supports conservative nominees unabashedly.)
Graham and DeWine will vote FOR a qualified conservative nominee, guaranteed. (Hopefully by now most people understand the genius of the "Gang of Fourteen" deal, and appreciate Graham and DeWine's sacrifice in agreeing to become ringers in that amazing neutering of the Democrats' filibuster threat.)
Lugar and Hagel don't worry me too much. (Voinovich does worry me somewhat due to that little problem he has with "mental stability".)
Remember, we are talking about a QUALIFIED, SCANDAL-FREE nominee here. Do you have any idea how vociferous and passionate the support for such a candidate would be? Everybody here would get Bush's back and take a bullet for him in order to make sure that a solid conservative nominee was confirmed. I believe that in the end, the wishy-washy RINO Senators noted above would have ended up far more scared of us than they are of the dying, socialist "mainstream" newsrooms.
It is a real shame that Bush punted on the most critical decision of his Presidency. I have done the math and it DID NOT have to come to this. The whole thing makes me want to throw up.
This was a terrible nomination. The hearings will once again be a meaningless and uninformative TV show starring a bunch of blowhard Senators, and in the end we conservatives will be left with nothing else to do but cross our fingers and hope that Miers turns out to be no worse than O'Connor. Wow. That's just great.....
That is NOT what I voted for.
That is pretty much my take on the whole affair as well. Good analysis.
Beldar did a good job in putting up the links, and his views were of value, in my view hyped, but of value. He instigated my own research. He did his job. Honest effort, even if opinionated effort, should be encouraged, not traduced. It is the useful and salubrious fuel which helps to illuminate the public square.
I might could be convinced. I was encouraged to see her 2nd amendment views, and you've posted some thoughts worth considering.
Er...rope-a-dopii?
I don't know ya from beans, feller, but your willingness to make a public recantation over an issue that's had this forum boiling for days says something about you right off.
Don't know quite what to make of it at the moment, though...so I'll stay tuned.
There may have been more that I missed, but I don't think it could have been more than a sentence or two. Batchelder was the only one he mentioned by name.
As I am a believer that we are all responsible for our own reality, THIS statement is quite true.
Although we sparred a little over this, I never was opposed to Meirs, How could I be, I don't know what she stands for. I was disappointed in Bush, and felt this pick did not do him, or conservatives justice.
Now, I still don't feel great about it, because whatever she is, she will be there a long time. The downside is very severe if Bush is wrong. I might feel better if I had your source, but I don't, so I'll just have to continue working on my golf game instead.
For all the Opus bashers, I like to bash a good narcissistic Opus as much as the next guy, and maybe I'm getting soft, but Opus is also a very fine wine.
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.