The President speaks with Margaret Thatcher on her 80th birthday, Oct. 13, 2005.
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 ...
You are the weakes debater on here. Weakes I've ever seen, you just cite strawmen arguments over and over again. You do the Party no good.
Your usefullness is questioned so report to Section9 of your cell.
But for his and the president's support of Specter we wouldn't have the problem of Specter on the Judiciary.
You are ... mistaken (nice word for lying).
No, I do not believe that the communist liberals have a chance to win control of congress.
The President speaks with Margaret Thatcher on her 80th birthday, Oct. 13, 2005.
Are you willing to cut Bush any slack on this promise? After all, the unconstitutional filibusters concocted by Schumer, Kennedy, Clinto et. al. were implemented after he made that promise.
For the record, my two biggest reasons for voting Bush were:
1. The courts, and
2. the terrorists.
"All I'm asking, is you consider the implications for this. Elections didn't come to an end in 2004 and Bush is not the last president we'll ever have."
__________________________________________________________
Presidents come and go, Supreme court justices last a lifetime.
"Miers has a fine record and certainly meets any qualification posed by the Constitution."
Great, half the people on here (base voters all) expect more than the minimum requirement out of a SCOTUS associate justice from a Republican president. Now believe me, they're not going to suddenly start diminishing their expectations and fall in love with the wisdom of the pick. That is short of discovering Miers wrote several distinguished volumes on natural rights and constitutional law under a pen name. If the WH had an argument that would content the discontented among us, we'd have heard it by now.
So in light of that, what are you going to do about it? The Bush administration's position is to win the argument at all cost. I don't think this is a remotely sensible course for the administration to take. I don't mean to hammer you, but really the political situation relative to the division of the base, is now critically more important than the nominee herself. But this is a foreign notion to most Miers advocates. They want to fight their brothers and win the day for Bush. I and others on the other hand, want to win the 2006 election over the Democrats.
As do you, for miscitation of Godwin. Buh-bye!
"No, I do not believe that the communist liberals have a chance to win control of congress."
Well, you have to wonder then if you're tendering sound politcal advice with an assumption like that. The Democrats can certainly win. They are well organized, well financed and totally determined. Their views are marginally unpopular it's true, so they need out help granted. We're currently helping.
I told you why I didn't answer it. Now you're calling me a liar just like you're calling the President and Miers liars.
I see how you operate Oh cBOLDt One.
"Condi Rice is a Bush crony."
That is a false statement. Condi had a vigprous and open intellectual life well before Bush came on the scene. She was a mind even in the 80's.
Harriet has been a Bush toady for about a decade.
Since they had the ability to stop this stealth nominee and did not because of their cowardice and political opportunism, I will say to them that if she ever votes to let abortion continue unabated that the blood of millions of little babies will be on their hands.
I will say if she ever votes to allow homosexual "marriage" that they will be the ones responsible for the lasting damage done to the institution of the family.
I will say that Almighty God will hold them, accountable for failing to do their duty to question the President of their party.
Yep, we're agreed on that dimension too.
"But this is a foreign notion to most Miers advocates. They want to fight their brothers and win the day for Bush. I and others on the other hand, want to win the 2006 election over the Democrats"
__________________________________________________________
Bush has pulled out the stops on this nomination.
Why didn't he pull out all the stops against the Gang Of 14? He's willing to fight a just and necessary war in Iraq, but is not willing to lay the Gauntlet down on Senate democrats and a couple of RINO's
Okay...How about "weak" and "trust-breaking"? I can't be sure he wasn't intentionally trying to weaken the Party, so maybe it wasn't stupid.
He performed his Constitutionally mandated duty and now the Senate will perform his.[sic]
Ah, so is this the answer you'd be giving if he'd nominated Hillary?
It's time for your medication. Please go to the nurse and receive your pills.
Do you take out public ads to undermine him while people are trying to get him fired (even as he is responsible for many people's lives during a war) ?
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.