Posted on 10/22/2005 4:22:38 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Absolutely right.
We'll see on Miers and the rest. I keep trying to look at this from a DEM perspective rather than a GOP perspective, and if I'm a Dem, and the hard-liners kill what I think is a sure anti-Roe vote, then I'm giddy as hell. I have to think that the secret to defeating ANY conservative nominee is not to mobilize all the Dems (which is as simple as ringing the pork-dinner-bell) but to shatter the GOP.
Consider this: in the past, their strat has always been to try to peel off the RINOs. Now, they have stumbled onto an incredibly successful strat of convincing Republicans that a particular person isn't "conservative" enough. It truly is brilliant, and I don't think it was deliberate or conceived by Carville. But it appears to be working.
As for the illegals, I do think that this is building to tsunami-level proportions. Someone will have to ride this wave, and it may completely dwarf supreme court nominations before it is over.
That's just fine and dandy. But an employee who stabs their boss in the back after the decision is made should be FIRED! If you don't agree with the man, don't take his paycheck. That doesn't just apply to those who work in the WH, that applies to anyone working for anyone.
You don't work for the man, you get to say whatever you want, but someone who is EMPLOYED by him and goes behind his back to undermine him does not deserve to continue in that job. PERIOD!
You tell me how long you would pay someone who was undercutting you.
Since then, two things have happened; as if to match the tidbits of her record that showed her "going along to get along" policy of dealing with liberals on the Dallas City Council, papers came out showing that in 1989 she opposed abortion - this time giving the liberals ammunition;
since neither side is willing to take a chance with her, and adding to that her reportedly lackluster performance with Senators so far, her odds of being confirmed are dropping darn near zero.
So basically because the President has an (R) by his name we are required to support his every action?
If what you care about is supporting the President out of personal loyalty, then I guess supporting Miers is the right call. If you care about the conservative agenda, then we should oppose Miers and try to get a known orignalist on the bench who will support us on property rights, gun rights, stopping affirmative action, etc.
If the RINOs and the Dems manage to block all such nominees, so be it. But we shouldn't surrender to them without a fight.
How many SCOTUS nominees did Slick Willy make that pulled out? I remember Lanny Guinered(sp?) and maybe one other.
Don't have the answer, but over the course of the last couple weeks I've seen a compendium of SC candidates who for a variety of reasons were not confirmed. If I recall correctly, something like 29% over history didn't make it.
So far all I have seen against Miers is that no one knows how she will vote. No one likes the idea Republicans dont have an ironclad guarantee she will vote "our" way. Well for your information there is no such thing as a guarantee, and so far ,what I have seen of Republican arguments they are crap. She wasnt what we wanted, Whine ,whine. Republicans are sounding more like the whining Dems every day.
I cant say you are totally wrong, you arent.
ping
"Wars are not won when the troops shoot their leaders in the back."
Dubya is the REPUBLICAN leader. Who is this conservative leader we're all supposed to fall in lockstep with, exactly?
You know that whooshing sound you just heard? That was my point going completely over your head.
What are you saying then, that we shouldn't whine or complain about what the governmet does, but rather just go along with whatever Bush wants?
No, there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee. But it'd be a hell of a lot more likely a nominee would take our side on the issues if the nominee had a well known constitutional originalist philosophy.
Oh, puh-leeeze. You're all absorbed into this lecturing on following your "leaders," and hunting down backstabbers, and on this thread you're so worked up about...WH leaks!?!?!? Hardly. Anyone who disagrees with Bush is simply not following the right leader, in your eyes, and any leak or hint of a leak regarding a pullout is messing up that whole super-duper-licious Miers nomination you've been mainlining the Koolaid over, and your little 'hunt-down-the-leakers' lecture is all about that.
"You know that whooshing sound you just heard? That was my point going completely over your head."
Oh, I got your point. It's just so obvious that it's not about 'leaks' with you. It's that you're just not enjoying the idea of chuggin' Purplesaurus Rex after suckin' down so much Rainbow Punch.
" Are you insinuating that conservatives have betrayed BUSH??? dont you think its the other way around?"
GWB can do no wrong! He's infallible!
I repeat: doesn't it trouble you in the LEAST that the MSM has figured this out, and that it is working to fragment off the "conservative" vote rather than the RINOS? It should bother you just a tad. I think they are on to something.
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.