Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
There's a GREAT scene in the movie "Glory" when Denzel's character refuses to carry the flag:
Trip: I ain't fightin' this war for you, sir.
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: I see.
Trip: I mean, what's the point? Ain't nobody gonna win. It's just gonna go on and on.
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: Can't go on forever.
Trip: Yeah, but ain't nobody gonna win, sir.
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: Somebody's gonna win.
Trip: Who? I mean, you get to go on back to Boston, big house and all that. What about us? What do we get?
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: Well, you won't get anything if we lose.
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: So what do you want to do?
Trip: Don't know, sir.
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: It stinks, I suppose.
Trip: Yeah, It stinks bad. And we all covered up in it too. Ain't nobody clean. Be nice to get clean, though.
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: How do we do that?
Trip: We anty up and kick in, sir. But I still don't want to carry your flag.
It stinks, and we're all covered up in it. But it sure would be nice to get clean.
Hey, you're really observant to notice I am the only one, on this entire Miers matter that has become nasty. Everyone else has been so kind and considerate. You really are a sleuth tex! Stay on the case!
I'm talking about the Buchanan Brigades, Constitution Party, and all the rest of the 3rd party debating societies, who spend all their time proving to each other that they are holier than thou.
Here's a scenario for ya:
W's next nominee get smacked down by the Dems+McCain+Spectre+Snowe+Collins+Hagel+Chaffey+......
Then what, huh?!?!
Link?
I always viewed Harriet.M's nomination as a stalking horse.
Yes he does look weak right now, but he could have avoided that by nominating a strong, qualified judge in the first place.
Well said.
Oh, you can criticize, alright. Have at it. Just remember that when you go way over the top, as has happened in this case, you risk destroying much more than you may gain.
In this case, you have put yet another nail in the coffin of something I consider to be extremely valuable, and that is the Founder's vision of people from all walks of life going into public service to participate in governing ourselves.
/Self appointed thread nanny wandering off muttering under breath about being sick and tired...tired and sick....
I am PART of the base; the part that doesn't use their vote as blackmail.
I think it makes the entire conservative movement look bad when people cannot disagree without such stuff. And before you start in on how this is all Bush's fault, I don't believe Bush forced anyone to call people "kool-ade drinkers" or "brown nosers".
You guys really need to look at how you present your arguments. You certainly aren't going to draw any support from the middle with behavior like this, and guess what: you need those middle people to win elections.
On the positive side, and I know this sounds strange, it does take some of the steam out of the indictment mess.
I was talking about Roberts. I guess I should have said "previous SC pick". I didn't like it when he nominated him, because of the same reason I didn't like Miers: He was little known, and not very much of a track record. I put up with that because I knew there'd be another opening.
But then he nominates Miers. Even less known about her! That was very disappointing. I don't think it's much to ask that he nominate someone with a proven track record of strict Constitutional interpretation. How often do we get a chance to nominate someone to the Supreme Court?
Yes, his other picks to lesser courts have been fabulous. I apologize for my misuse of words. Thanks for pointing out my error with grace and style though! Nothing warms the cockles of one's heart than to be called a "doofus".
Well, now Sandra O'Conner is going to get to make so big damn decisions.
Happy now?
Uh-er, did you say something about the GOP bein' awak and ready for a fight or some brawlin'? Remember, the GOP you're talking about is the Senate GOP. Those guys can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag with an M-1 Abrams tank! If that's what we're relying on, I fear the worst. I wish the President would find his cojones on this one and start remembering the "bully" part of the bully pulpit. That might put some steel in the Senate jellyfish.
Only if he nominates someone unsuitable.
I don't see how that would translate to 70 Republicans in the Senate, and leaving the Supreme Court vacant isn't something the President is going to do. We need to remember that even running against a liberal's liberal in 2004, Bush only won 31 states.
IMHO, he'll find another Roberts, someone who is solidly conservative but isn't a firebrand and will be acceptabl to the Democrats. I would guess it would be Jones/Clement, or perhaps someone like Consuelo Callahan. I can't imagine him not picking another woman to replace O'Connor.
I don't think Bush, nor the Senate has got the stomach for the fight we all want to see.
I wish you were right, that Bush was bluffing all along, but I don't buy it for an instant. First of all, as Rush has said, this move emboldened the libs, as it smacked of weakness. Secondly, it discouraged his allies in the base. Thirdly, it squandered a great deal of much needed political capital.
Whatever the motivation, I'm glad we got it behind us. Now, let's see if the President can quit listening to Andy Card and serve us up a genuine originalist with credentials for this nomination.
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.