Yes, that was a joke. :^)
Posted on 10/13/2005 5:47:35 PM PDT by baystaterebel
White House officials have a message for conservative Republican senators who have expressed doubt about supporting Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
The West Wing types argue that she will turn out to be just as conservative as President Bush says she is, and voting against her would be an embarrassment over the long term. This message is intended for holdouts including Sam Brownback of Kansas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
"If Miers is confirmed and she winds up being what the president says she is, Republican senators who voted against her will look quite foolish," says a GOP insider. This could cause a backlash against these legislators from conservative Bush supporters at the grass roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
"Don't hold Saddam accountable by standing up to him. We had better compromise and play soft, else we might have to go to war and that would be a rough time, so the best thing to do is just roll over now."
"Don't hold the lefties accountable by standing up to them. We had better compromise and play soft, else we might have a Democrat win and that would be a rough time, so the best thing to do is just roll over now."
Funny how the Bushbots change! It's transparently about a personality cult and short-term pragmatism and cowardice without principle, rather than integrity and willingness to risk short-term losses to stand firm for long-term gain. Principles and the future are important to me; count me as a conservative, not a Bushbot.
Another funny thing...I recall when the Conservative Party almost got more votes than the Republicans did for Governor in New York State.
I figured out how he can deal with that. Even if the House impeaches, the Constitution doesn't say teh Senate MUST have a trial. All it says is the Senate has the sole power to do so.
So if the Senate just keep the articles of impeachment off the calendar, he's safe. /tongue in cheek.
An example I use to illustrate the danger of literal reading of the constitution to justify the 60 vote hurdle as "within the rules."
And even if we all secretly knew the nominee's judicial philosophy was honest--to interpret the Constitution as written--the fact that Bush made such a weak move and strengthened the opposition is appalling.
Yes, that was a joke. :^)
Last time Ted Kennedy was elected the Libertarian got more votes than the Republican.
What that during Dinkins' tenure ?
I guess I shouldn't have left off the /tongue in cheek thingy.
I'm serious though. I think that is exatly what she might be like. Conservative on some things, but not so conservative on others.
There were other choices he could have made that would have made the dems heads explode and conservatives cheer. I would have preferred a pick like that myself.
Actually, you act more like a 1960 John Birch Society type ranting about "the conspiracy" and the "enemy". The rebirth of the conservative movement came when Buckley and the "National Review" ran the Birchers and the fringe paranoid nutcases out.
For the modern GOP, you would represent a tremendous step back.
I think that's exactly what is being said on numerous posts on FR.
If you voice disagreement with the President's nominee, you're not a patriot. You're a traitor. You're endangering the troops. You're evil.
As I've stated before, I'm undecided and awaiting her hearings. But some of the over-the-top rhetoric here is more likely to push me to the "no" category than anything she says before the Judiciary Committee will push me to "yes."
"Does he really think of them as vigilantes or was he just sucking up to Fox?"
Isn't the real shame the fact that nobody can really tell why he said it?
This encapsulates the difference between the administration and it's opponents. In economic terms, the administration discounts the future very heavily. 99% of the remaining important things in W's life will happen in the next 3 1/2 years. After that, he retires to the ranch and gives an occasional award. For movement conservatives, the next 20 years is the relevant time frame.
So the value to W of a win NOW is big, regardless that there were better nominee's available and W regards the damage from a loss NOW as huge. He also realizes that there really isn't much the conservatives can do to him in the next 3 1/2 years. So the downside is slim.
(One way to see the truth of this is to ask yourself, what if O'Conner and Rehnquist had retired well before the 2004 election, when W needed the base's votes? Miers? Don't think so.)
Folks with a 20 year time-frame will value those scenarios differently. But aside from complaining, there's not really much us 20 year-ers can do. Miers will be confirmed. If she's another Thomas, we can all raise a glass and celebrate. If she's a bomb and/or Roberts is a bomb, the party will have a different nominee in 2008 and he/she will say, don't blame me, I didn't nominate her.
What puzzles me is the strangely inappropriate responses of the administration to the opposition. Leveling charges of sexism and elitism against a big chunk of your base is just weird to hear from Republicans. If you are going to jam something down a friends throat, you should try to avoid insulting them while you are doing it.
I'm just curious, do you know Harriet Miers?
"As in Vietname, they are being killed more effectively because our enemies have allies within the country."
Sure, you're right. The NLF was notorious for broadcasting testimony of the the Warren Burger hearings as demoralizing propoganda against our troops.
Give me a break man, stop trying to paint conservative critics over a SCOTUS nomination as national traitors. It does your argument no service at all.
Yep...same here... I have to deal with all the gloating, as I am surrounded by libs. They were crawling around cowed, except for occasional sniping...now they are openly celebrating and mocking. >sigh
Are you implying that John F Kerry was not a traitor ?
ROTFLOL!
You have to assume the Bush haters think he lied about Iraq. It's in their water.
Well said, BUMP!
Definitely! Hopefully, they will all vote down the nominee, and we can get a true, known, openly-proud-to-support-the-Constitution-the-way-it-was-written nominee. :-)
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.