Posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:33 AM PDT by ejdrapes
Yes it is very sad, I don't like what I'm seeing one bit. But we have been led down the garden path too many times and we're not going to be led there again.
I don't think for one minute that Bush "Lied". But this "trust me" doesn't wash as far as Harriet Miers is concerned.
We aren't interested in what Miers might be. We are interested in getting a PROVEN originalist on the SCOTUS. Someone who's record is impeachable and trackable.
Nothing else will do.
Your posts cause me to believe you are a CINO.
I believe our President to be a basically good man, loyal to a fault. I believe he rewards loyalty which is what is going on here.
Being loyal is not a sufficient, IMNSHO, justification for placement on the SCOTUS.
"Blasting this woman" as you put it, is entirely appropriate. I'm still not satisfied about Roberts. Reason is preferable over blind emotion. 'Pod.
I am not impressed with Medved or Starr. Sowell is worth listening to, however.
Many people did and didn't care.
"Compassionate Conservatism" leaves the same taste in the mouth as does "Affirmative Access." Remember that one from the 2000 debates?
Why call people fools because of their concerns...If you are misguided and proved wrong I would not call you a fool. This kind of rhetoric moves me to think this whole debate Bush has created by nominating this unknown has done more damage than nominating a true conservative and waging the ensuing battles..At least we all would have been closer to being on the same page, and our cause would have been righteous..Calling fellow conservatives fools is beneath a true FReeper.. You should be ashamed of yourself. As should Bush.
Yep. 'Pod.
AHhh. Since 9/18/05....welcome to Free Republic
Right. And Laura doesn't advise the President.
You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
The problem is there should be a bit of evidence before the hearings. There is none except for her friendship with Bush. I agree with you that we should know more but it must not be easy to continuously defend Bush's nominee with so little information. Cautious skepticism seems a more rational path to me...If she truns out to be great..great...but the fact that we will only have the hearings to go on leave me a little short on the confidence scale...How will we know the answers she gives (to the questions posed) really represent her since she has no record that would confirm whatever she says at the hearings....The fact is this is a mess that should never have occurred...regardless of how afraid anyone is of an open debate on a well defined nominee. The debate itself has caused FReeper to insult Freeper. I have followed your posts calling out this problem of vitriol and they seem to always be directed toward chastizing those most concerned about Miers and never toward her arch defenders...One wonders at the fairness of that if you are really concerned about the rhetoric and not just shutting down the debate.....As it is we are stuck and we should not be.
Well spoken post and regarding risk, people who are so afraid of risk that they never take any seldom win anything. Risk of defeat in this circumstance would have cost little if any more that this debate itself and could have won the day. If not there would have been tomorrow. After Miers is confirmed, tomorrow will be 20 years away. Finally there is considerable risk with a nominee without a record...
That is a fair criticism, in that I am probably more sensitive to those insults coming from people with whom I do not agree. I will try to be more aware and chasten those from both sides equally.
I do not trust our President to a fault, I hope, but rather to the degree that he has earned my trust, and that degree is very high.
I believe him to be one of the most courageous, direct speaking, deeply faithful and tremendously wise leaders I have ever had the peaceful comfort and genuine gratefulness to experience.
There is probably no one in America who cares MORE about placing strictly constitutional Americans within our highest court than this President. These judges he nominates, if confirmed, will be making rulings WHILE our President is still a sitting President, there will be hugs accountability he will have to face should any of these folks trash the constitutional framework our highest court must support.
I also believe in a FAIR FIGHT and a PUBLIC HEARING before I rant and wail and throw in the towel regarding ANY human being nominated by this particular President And especially because Harriet is a person not known in the public spotlight. She is an unknown, not to the President, but to all of us.
That I am willing to wait and listen to her, to hear her MYSELF, is not placing blind trust in anyone, imo, but rather is taking an approach that is fair. And to me, this matters. My President has earned this willingness to listen before casting aspersions, at least in this house.
And President Bush has earned at least this modicum of respectful patience to a great degree considering the fact that I respect and deeply admire and have come to trust the amazing people he has chosen to oversee the federal agencies and courts within our nation.
Our President is fallible, he sure is, ie. he is hesitant to go after our border problem full bore because, I am guessing, congressmen and women and senators are pressuring him to avoid any drastic action, fearing a backlash at the voting booths. Democrats are in the same rotting row boat, here.
I know our President walks a fine line between doing what he knows is right and juxtaposing each action in relation to any damage such action would cause at the voting booth-the ( horrific ) destruction to our nation should we lose the majority in our house and senate in D.C.
It is tough stuff.
And our President has had the back of our military, the back of people like me who absolutely respect him to his very bone marrow for staying the course and he has gracefully fought a war on two fronts....terrorism and liberal traitors and dishonest and willing to distort news by a corrupt media. ( billy the out of control clinton never had to fight the mainstream press...folks like katie colic, dan blather, etc were forever kissing his fat arrogant arse, slobbering over it, in fact. Some rapists just get all the good luck. )
I admire his decisions. I admire the people he has chosen to surround himself with and to lead the various gov agencies and I would NEVER EVER be willing to accuse our President of hiring anyone he believed was the LESS THAN THE VERY BEST to serve our nation for the shallow, dangerous reason of rewarding cronies. Super HUGE HOGWASH.
That is such an insult to the terrific leadership of this ethical and moral and courageous leader that I refuse to even consider it...he has NOT EARNED such an insulting and degrading criticism....it stinks on the surface and it stinks all the way to the core of the idea.
So there! < and of course, hugs, because you know I have stood with you in DC and think the world of you, sauropod.
Can well understand you for not giving Harriet the chance (she most SURELY deserves as our President's choice BEFORE blasting her credentials and philosophy, imo) before she testifies before the judiciary committee (Pod-can do we really live in a world where slugs like kennedy and schummer are able to sit in judgment of genuinely good people of incredible integrity? Surreal stuff!)
After all, Pod, you have the company of thought by some of the best conservative thinkers in America, including Judge Bork.
But you do not have ALL of our conservative thinkers in your ball park. You just have some of the best :^)
One of us is wrong. I hope it is not me. But I will wait until I know more about Harriet before I decide she will be detrimental to our highest court, drifting leftwards and trashing our foundations, as it were.
And if she appears wishy washy, afraid of the uncivilized senators who will attempt to berate her in front of the cameras, if her temperment or answers chill me, I will be right here calling for her to be voted down in committee. >
Dittos.
I hope I am needlessly worrying. I hope I am wrong.
And whos to blame.?.. US.!.
For failure to excute the 2nd amendment option..
You know... the reason the second amendment was given to us..
To make revolution LEGAL.. We have met the enemy and is US..
A fat and cowardly US.
The conundrum is the Declaration of Independence calls for rebellion if the government usurps the rights of the people and the Constitution demands allegience through military enforcement to the government no matter how corrupt it becomes. The framers obviously thought they had given us a framework that would help prevent the need for resolving the conundrum but at the time they did not consider the concentration of power into political parties nor did they intend for the Senate to be an elected body subject to the whims of the electorate and special interest groups. They were supposed to be custodians of States Rights insulated from the swings in voter opinion by their state legislatures. The 17th Amendment indeed began the continuing rotting of our Democracy and the dictatorship of special interests. The Senate no longer functions with a concience of what is best for the country but what is best for the "party".
bttt
Even you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic.. The words democracy, democratic and democrat are used NO WHERE in the american constitution,, ON PURPOSE.... Thats because to the founders a democracy is nasty thing.. and it was then and is now..
People for an american democracy are democrats..
People for an american republic are republicans..
Pity that most republicans are in fact democrats.. i.e. the source of the problem..
Few americans even know the difference in meaning of those words..
and sad to say.. even CARE to know..
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.