Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
You are right about the Republicans going after her...
I just saw Patrick Leahy on Fox....and he was RIGHT (oh, how I hated to post that word)...when he said it wasn't the dems...it was the Republicans that spent millions of dollars on a TV campaign against her...and wouldn't let her speak before the American public as a SCOTUS nominee...
Just sent chills down my spine...they are gloating over the conservatives that are gloating...
It's especially important to fight when what we're facing is bullying tactics from the Democrats. Backing down from a bully only makes the bully more bold. We got into this position in the first place by years of backing down to bullying from Senate judiciary committee Democrats. Ted Kennedy's tirade against Bork should have been responded to in kind. Someone in the Reagan administration should have hit the microphones immediately and given a speech entitled Ted Kennedy's America, which would be an America where forceps are driven into infant skulls as they are being born, where sexual perverts prowl public school hallways, where criminals and terrorists walk free, and where a young woman is left to die in agony while the third rate hack politician who put her there searches for an attorney to save his skin.
The Democrats would be stunned beyond belief if the GOP ever fought back like that. On rare occasion, a Republican does fight back. Remember the stunned looks on Democrat faces when Clarence Thomas actually fought back? And guess what? HE WON!!!!!!
Sink, he (or she) is probably not being honest. "I've already been let down once," he said. Yeah. Right. This would lead one to believe FourtySeven has had only one complaint re GWB.
But it's his choice. Or it WAS his choice. Not sure who will decide this round.
Quite a "down side" if you are an unborn child, don't you think?
This thread proves why it is so important that the President make a good nomination QUICKLY, so that we conservatives can put this Miers episode behind us.
Yeah, but having doubts AFTER learning the facts is far different than spouting venomous charges without any evidence whatever.
My disappointment comes from the manner in which this has been discussed, and for the very obvious reason that Kristol and Frum think they are now calling the shots.
There is disagreement. Then there is name-calling. I don't like name-calling, as you know. I also detest Kristol, and I will tell you right now he is going to try to maneuver the conservatives into abandoning Bush. Kristol doesn't give two hoots about the judiciary; he simply wants to destroy this President. Miers was simply his vehicle of choice.
You were the one who was sold a bill of goods by Rove. This Miers pick was in no way odd, given Bush's track record regarding appointments in general. After his re-election, he became even more interested in playing musical chairs with appointments. He certainly has a right to "hire from within," but you aren't always hiring the best person when you do that.
That would work!
But, our side doesn't have the stomach for that {remember the Government Shutdown?}.
"It wasn't the disagreement with the President that irritated me; it was the juvenile name-calling and threats, from both people here on FR and the columnists."
You mean the White House and the Miers supporters - Calling those of us who expected an originalist nominee "elitists" and "sexist," or "disloyal," accusing us of attacking character when we were really attacking judgement.
"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."
You guys need to look at who you support - and maybe change parties if the folks you really support are those who champion Affirmative Action, Judicial Activism, Abortion, and see Reno and Ginsburg as heros to emulate.
Support from "the middle" is fine, but if the cost is putting liberals on the supreme court, when we can put on an originalist... then what the heck have we been fighting for all this time??!!
It was nothing personal ... and, she herself has not been abused. Her writings, her speech, her invovlement in IOLTA, and her unsuitability to become a justice of the SCOTUS have been properly scorned. Her own mediocrity prevented her seeing just how unsuitable she would have been.
Personally, I have no animus toward her ... and wish her all the best in her future endeavors. I am just relieved and very, very happy that she will not be sitting on the SCOTUS for the rest of her life [and mine].
...and just how is this "breaking news"?
"And when are Freepers like you going to realize that the continual sniping at this President adds nothing to the debate.
If you disagree on certain issues, then you will be taken serious. When you broadbrush, then your comments reek of someone who this President can never please.
Stop and think and you might find this President has actually done something you like -- what other President has had so much on his plate thanks to the previous occupant of the WH?
It behooves all of us to consider that this man has had more to deal with then anyone of us can imagine. Is he perfect, no and he will be the first to tell you so. Does he genuinely care about this Country? Damn right he does."
Sigh. Speaking only for yours truly, for the umpteenth time, I think GWB is a good and sincere man. He is a man of sincere faith and he certainly loves the country. He has some tremendous strengths. He also has some significant personal shortcomings, for sure, but so long as a human being occupies that seat, that's always going to be the case obviously.
I do not believe that he is a thorough, to the core conservative. I have characterized him as an erratic conservative. That is, I believe, the best analysis.
Obviously he's not a liberal. On some things he's not even a moderate. He's given the finger to the UN on several occasions, and I just love that. He's done some very good things on the pro life front, especially on stem cells where he followed a very principled and defensible plan. He's made life for terrorists hell. He's appointed excellent Court of Appeals judges. (On a side note, I think what is important here is that if you look in the areas where he has really excelled, it is where he listened to the best of the best....where he has fallen short, it is where he has broken with that approach).
Then you have the "other" GWB. In many respects, you can't even characterise his domestic agenda as moderate, let alone conservative. This is the one who literally never vetoes anything. Who pushes the prescription drugs benefit. Who pushes for the renewal of the "assault weapons" ban. Who signs McCain Feingold even though he says that it is unconstitutional. Who leaves open the borders even as we try to fight a very expensive and difficult war on terror. Who refers to "institutional racism" in his Katrina speech. Who expands the federal role in education. When GWB does these things, I am left trying to figure out who that is.
And I don't think criticism on these issues are sniping, at all.
I have no clue as to why he is so good on some things and so disastrously poor on others. But I think the answer lies somewhere in the fact that he is neither a conservative or a liberal, but deep down, he's a manager and a pragmatist. And in the Miers nomination, he let his management mentality get the better of him and he departed from the procedures he had established in hopes of avoiding a fight with the Senate.
At any rate, rest assured that if nominates a known conservative, that we will all be on the same page and it will be a lot of fun. We might even win.
Speaking of insulting tone...
There are a lot of people here who are potentially, if not in reality, estranged from their daughters.
Geez whiz.......do you think she quit on her own, without taking into account the lunatic trashing she took?
You all didn't just "voice your opinions" and wait to see what happened; you completely annihiliated that woman.
Frankly, I don't see much difference between what was done to this woman and what liberals do to conservatives.
"W's next nominee get smacked down by the Dems+McCain+Spectre+Snowe+Collins+Hagel+Chaffey+......
Then what, huh?!?!"
1) We indentify the RINOs and go after them.
2) We go to the country and tell them that the DEMS and RINOS want more Ginsbergs and support the ACLU while we want someone on the SCOTUS who supports the death penalty, and a color blind society, etc.
3) We nominate another conservative and fight again.
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.