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 ...
What the hell does that mean? Who is POTUS? What do you know about this nominee? Besides, it is not "Bush" it is either President Bush, or W as an affectionate note of endearment. Some folks need to go back to DUmmmie Underground and hibernate until their friends like The Beast emerge.
I trust Bush as far as I can throw him across the border he still refuses to secure - 4 years after 9/11.
Off with her head.
I presume you're aware that trusting politicians is for the feebleminded and Russians, and so will overlook your missing < /sarcasm > tag.
Right.
It's "Bush Jr."
Unless you are being sarcastic, I would laugh. However if you were one of my children, and serious I'd smack you. People need to RESPECT the office, unless of course those who have shown LACK of respect for the Office. In my own humble opinion.
And I'd smack back, harder.
Janice Rogers Brown awaits.
If you're so clued in, just what has she said to him? Or him to her?
O.
T.
U.
S.
President of The United States
VPOTUS=Vice-President of the United States
FLOTUS=First Lady of The United States
"During his time on the Court, Fortas continued to advise LBJ on political matters, both foreign and domestic."
Honest Abe Fortas was not as honest as the liberals said he was. It was later determined that Fortas was making late night visits to the White House for off the record updates on what the Supreme Court members were doing and thinking.
Fortas had been a hangerson crony of LBJ since 1937.
A more apt comparison would be the two regrettable SC justices appointed by Harry S. Truman, who were essentially his poker buddies.
Why would President Bush seek to repeat the mistakes of the past?
Hasn't he read George Santayana?
*shakes head in consternation*
If not, Bush will have lost this hand of poker.
I hope so, although I'm not optimistic on that count.
More and more each day I am inclined to believe that Bush or Laura put Miers name on the short list. There is no other explanation to explain his refusal to cut his loses while he can.
Perhaps when he gets out of the beltway and into the heart of America while signing his books, he'll find the real Americans don't have his pessimistic view of the future.
Absolutely true. Indeed, with her slim background in constitutional issues, it surprises me that, at this time with all the other problems the WH is having, she could have been very loyal in allowing herself to be nominated. My view is that she's an extremely ambitious individual who latched on to a more powerful person, maximized the value of that relationship for he own gain, and now wants more than anything else to cash in, regardless of the welfare of her client. Once that individual gets on the Court there's no way to expect any loyalty to President Bush, any real integrity, or any consistent judicial philosophy.
Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals (a debate that should break in his favor at least 60 percent to 40 percent nationally on the judicial issues), rather than the current idiotically unuseful fight between blind presidential loyalists and sighted presidential loyalists."
Well said and good advice. I hope the President is smart enough to follow it.
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.