A little mustard to go with your foot?
Posted on 10/26/2005 4:36:13 PM PDT by LS
Like Dick Cheney.
"Another Koolaid drinking jack@ss."
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! black tooth isn't a kool aid drinker, he was joking
Bullclinton. Cheney was qualified to be POTUS let alone Veep in 2000.
Cheney probably approves of the Miers nomination. How do you explain?
Welcome aboard & well said.
This is why Roe v. Wade was such a bad decision-moral arguments aside, it was an egrigious misuse of judicial authority and a violation of states' rights.
Oh! If only we had the clout to cinch the nomination for Janice Rogers Brown I would feel that we had worked a major miracle. She is the perfect choice.
I don't explain probablies.
Read the full 1993 speech linked on this thread. Do you care to defend it?
Thanks for the post. Welcome to the (growing) club.
Seems to me that begs the question, if after reviewing the evidence you have come to this conclusion, why do you think this President made this choice? Did the White House not have the same information you later received? Was the White House and President Bush deceived?
Were the pundits and conservative talking heads correct, like when Coulter said:
it was some of the conservatives defending Miers' mediocre resume who are playing the Democrats' game?
Was Coulter correct when she wrote:
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture.
There were many, many other statements made regarding this choice. Some seemed to have evidence, or insider knowledge, some seemed to be based on her experience or lack of it.
So again I ask, if after reviewing the evidence you've come to this conclusion, why do you think this President made this choice? Did the White House not have access to the same information you have? Was the White House and President Bush deceived? Did he choose here because he just liked her?
Any opinions?
Doesn't matter. The nominations are based on Senators, not us. Certainly you can make an argument that Senate approval is based on consent of the voters, but those are state by state calculations and IMHO far removed.
Everything is about ratifying the nomination. The conservatives are blind (seemingly) to the political calculation involved in Senate approval.
You may hate the nomination, but the POTUS has the discretion. You either support Bush or you don't.
My first jaw-dropping betrayal by George Bush (aside from the border issue, which bothered me even before he was elected) was CFR.
IIRC, when asked what he would do if Congress passed it, he made that smart-aleck smirk on his face and said something very similar to "I'll see how fast I can sign it." Hyuck hyuck.
Hare-dee-FREEPIN-Har!!!
I couldn't believe the arrogance with which he signed what he admitted was unconstitutional legislation.
While I supported him on the Iraq War, I knew the "Bush is a straight shooter" claim was nothing but a a big fat stinking load of crap, just like his "Read My Lips" Dad.
The way I see it is that W just doesn't see Miers except through the lens of a dear friendship and good personal advisor.
I believe W sincerely believes he nominated one who fulfills his promise. I do trust him to, as best he can, attempt to fulfill his promises. I have NO DOUBT he is a man of integrity. However, he is human and can make mistakes. Also there was talk they shortchanged the vetting process b/c Bush felt he knew Miers so well. He's probably been blindsided by this stuff too.
Shouldn't have happened. Bush may have made a mistake here, but I don't believe he deliberately attempted to put a Souter (or worse) on the court.
Oh come on, read the speech. Either you agree with it, and it certainly shows a judicial philosphy, or you don't.
"You either support Bush or you don't."
And if you don't, your'e with the terrorists, right?
"Cheney probably approves of the Miers nomination. How do you explain?"
Uh, did you see his appareance on fox news or the thread here about it?
That said a lot of people are going through writings from 12 to 15 years ago with a fine tooth comb.
She has worked with the President for the last 10. Also Sen. Cornyn of Texas, no liberal in any sense has high praise for her.
Yep it is a matter of trust and given the Bush administrations track record on judicial nominations, they are the ones to be trusted since they do have the "paper trail" on the people they appoint to the courts.
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.