White House warns holdouts

U.S.News.com ^ | 10/13/05 | Kenneth T. Walsh

[empirekin768]

Well Tenno, we can't have everything from one man is all I can say. I'm not one of the cultists who thinks the man urinates holy water and he's infalible in all deeds. Indeed, part of that informs my objection to this nomination. Bush has done far more things right, than wrong.

[af_vet_1981]

Not a Republican

Ah, so you admit it.

You don't caucus with us.

It's just hate Bush, all the time.

[Gondring]

Thanks! It's just a pet peeve of mine when Mike Godwin isn't given credit. :-)

[empirekin768]

Unlikely is one thing, we're agreed on that if we're cruising. We have the structural advantage. Impossible is something else. They can win and right now, we're running on a lot of things that seem designed to actualize it. I'm not arguing it adds up to our defeat, I'm arguing we need to do what's necessary to make sure it doesn't.

[Gondring]

After reporting to the nurse, please head down to the shop...your logic circuit has failed, also.

[trubluolyguy]

Are you willing to cut Bush any slack on this promise?

---

After the borders and the spending? No slack from me. Nominate what you promised. Lets have the fight. If we lose, then nominate Meiers as a compromise pick. But to not even try....smacks of wimpishness that 41 would have been ashamed of.

[af_vet_1981]

It's time for your medication. Please go to the nurse and receive your pills.

Are you soliciting an illegal drug deal on the Internet ?

[empirekin768]

God, how dense can you get. AF, tell us you're drunk. You need an excuse of some kind man.

[Stellar Dendrite]

lol

[gogogodzilla]

Let's not forget, President Bush stated that Islam is a religion of peace.

Any here who disagree with that statement must now be a traitor.

[scratcher]

"I'm arguing we need to do what's necessary to make sure it doesn't."

I agree with that.

Have a goodnight

[empirekin768]

Alright! Now go forth an write Brownback to vote against! ;)

[trubluolyguy]

News flash you sad, sad, deluded little Republobot, not being a Republican, doesn't equal hating Bush. About the time I was asked to swallow my principles over Illegal Immigration, and Bush called the civilians trying to do HIS JOB FOR HIM vigilantes, I decided my principles were more important than "Senor Bush."

I don't hate him. I think he is wrong. There is a difference.

[gogogodzilla]

Nope, I'm a card carrying Republican.

And without more information on the nomination, I currently cannot support Miers.

Thus, a Republican is now EVIL. For I am not supporting the President's nomination. This is your own standard.

Methinks you would feel more welcome at the DU-ngeon.

[trubluolyguy]

Let's not forget, President Bush stated that Islam is a religion of peace.

Any here who disagree with that statement must now be a traitor.

---

Every time I hear him say that I just want to friggin' puke.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

And now a word from our real Sponsors of Free Speech

The Men and Women who serve,
and have served, our country
are the ones who make sure that
the Politicans and Judges are free to do their job.

We would not have a US Supreme Court
without the protection of the Military.

Politicans and Judges are safe
because of the Military who protect them.

TEST : Call your Senator or Congressman's office
AFTER 5 PM, or on the weekend.
IF you speak to an actual person, ask who's in charge today?

Now look up the phone number
of your local military base.
Call that number 24/7
and ask the live voice you get
to speak with the person in charge.

Send a Thank You while you enjoy your Freedom also.

[tennmountainman]

I don't disagree with that either

[Cboldt]

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.

Make me an offer (not you literally, GWB and the GOP - and tell it to me straight).

The rulers want us to accept the political process of stealth. Where the Senators and the people are satisfied with being uncertain, because certainty or convicion would erupt into a fight over principle.

I reject that system of government, and demand transparency. I want to see conviction expressed in certain terms, not "code words" and focus group tested "buzz phrases" like "strict constructionist" with no more. SHow me the money.

I reject the premise that a President should choose nominees, under the constraint that the Senate can at a whim set the hurdle for confirmation, now at 60, to whatever level it chooses. That is absurdity - and yet the chattering class and sheep go baaah bahhh .... cluck cluck cluck. The president is supposed to have a simple majority, up or down vote, after airing out the principles and convictions of the nominee in no uncertain terms.

Those who settle for less are not preserving the Republic for their posterity.

[gogogodzilla]

AFvet says, "You am TRAITOR! DIE! DIE! DIE!"

:-)

Myself, I think Islam should Rest In Pieces (RIP).

[Kryptonite]

I don't care about any other subjects when discussing the nomination issue. I find it disturbing that too many people didn't want the fight after the Gang of 14 gave filibustering credibility with their deal. I wanted that fight then, and I want it now. Their deal sent the message that if someone with the strongest record of conservative ideology, originalist construction, whatever you want to call it, was nominated, the Senate would reserve POWER to make Bush look bad (even by bringing up other subjects such as you have done), by claiming that the nominee is too extreme in the abstract, or perhaps too extreme to replace O'Connor in particular, to merit a floor vote.

The fact is that the deal was a power grab by Senators who wanted control over the nomination process, and were not merely content to debate and vote among themselves.

And all of us let it happen.