Posted on 10/25/2005 11:57:05 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
< /snip>
Those who claim that it is only Washington eggheads and activists who are disillusioned, misunderstand and underestimate the consequences of such Washington-based problems. The current Washington Republican negativity to Mr. Bush is as a stone thrown into a lake -- it will ripple outward until it causes waves on the distant shores of the heartland.
< / snip>
More importantly, the president is perilously close to duplicating the estrangement his father experienced from his congressional allies when George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990. Just a year out from congressional elections, Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them. (After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)
If they decide in the affirmative, their constituents will hear criticisms rather than support of the president for the next 12 months. The most dangerous time for any politician is not when his opponents say rude things about him, but when his own partymen do. They will start out respectfully disagreeing, but will build to more flagrant rhetoric as their Democratic Party opponents start raising and spending more money and start rising in the polls.
< /snip>
First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.)
Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals...
< /snip>
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
LOL! Which one gets to be "the guy part"? :)
Gee pessimist, I guess you lost your arguement this morning at your DNC meeting, that cindy sheehan should shut her yap, or was that meeting at buchanan central?
How about "King George"?
Get off it already.
This is politics... not religion. Last time I checked nobody elected him pope.
And nobody elected you Pope either.
-SteveH (with a little help from Do not dub me shapka broham ;-)
"Those who hold firm to the "trust GWB" defense cannot change their position with respect to the Miers pick on the basis of her performance at the hearings. To do so would mean their trust was misplaced."
Beyond that, I think its almost a religion w/ some of these people. Just like the pope is supposed to be infallible, so too w/ Bush.
Wise man. Party policies, direction and priorities change with the wind - ideology doesn't. There are still some very conservative people in the south that still vote straight ticket Democrat simply because they are loyal to the democratic party of the 1930s.
This why Republicans continue to be disappointed with their nominees. A judicial activist that leans toward conservative causes is a very unreliable vote and not a person you want on the court. Judicial activists of any flavor are unstable and unreliable.
What you want is someone that has a track record of basing judicial decisions on sound judicial philosophy. It doesn't matter if the ruling went against a conventional conservative position if was based on what the law actually said and on originalist philosophy.
A good definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The republicans have been very stupid with their nominations - they have been lucky with a very small number but more often than not, they make bad decisions.
Good???
What in the heck are you reading that indicates Miers is going to be withdrawn?
And by the way, you're wrong about your whole philosophy of elections in a republic. We elect people who we ask to do the best in THEIR judgement, not to ask them to take a poll of what WE want before they act.
Should the President be impeached for nominating her?
Should he resign?
"... we expect the MAJORITY to act like one ..."
---->
Given that you KNOW that the Demodogs will vote 45-0 against any "very" proGun, proLife nominee --- You will get the MAJORITY which counts - the majority of senators, who include such "Republicans" as Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, and Warner --- to DEFEAT that "VERY pro-gun (2nd Amendment) and very pro-life" nominee by a MINIMUM of 51-49
I have no idea what state you are from, but you clearly must believe that the "Republican majority" is a "conservative majority".
IT IS NOT.
No, he should be fired, along with Mehlman, Gillespie, and Karen Hughes.
Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them.
(After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)
"I have no idea what state you are from, but you clearly must believe that the "Republican majority" is a "conservative majority".
IT IS NOT."
Which is why the Republicans are going to lose the majority in the House and the Senate within the next three election cycles unless they change... Oh, and I'm from Virginia.
The Dems are beginning to actively court gun owners (generally a very conservative side of the Republican party) and if the Republicans lose that base, they will never hold the majority in Congress and they will not win the White House again for decades if even that soon.
Mike
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 10/26 08:45 AM]
Some good points, via an e-mail:
but today’s article in the Post is really important assuming the quotes are in context. Miers appears to be responding to RECENT cases that her audience would have known. That means she was talking about Casey (1992) (reaffirming Roe) and Lee v. Weisman (1992) (striking down graduation prayer), and trying to put them in an understandable intellectual context. When you read the article with this in mind, it becomes painfully obvious that she’s offering an intellectual justification for the outcomes in those cases — both of which are anathema to conservatives. Maybe she’s walked away from those views now, but there’s nothing conservative about them.
Second, look carefully at her embrace of the language of the Left in her description of the debate about the protection of the unborn. “Attempt to once again criminalize abortion,” “decide for herself” — those are loaded characterizations. Conservatives who find this kind of language disturbing should not be dismissed as being in a “snit” as the White House spokesperson suggests.
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.