Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
In that case, you are the part of the base that is *completely ignored* by GOP politicians. If they know that they have your vote no matter what they do, then they have ZERO incentive to take your views or preferences into account when dealing with public policy. Political pressure can only come from those whose support might be lost.
There are people on FR who, if a cackling GOP president slit a baby's throat on national television, would start posting stuff like "that baby probably needed killing" or "our President is playing badminton and the rest of you naysayers are playing mah-jong." The party KNOWS these people exist. They are a captive demographic. The party is free to do whatever they want to attract other voters, because they know that they can do no wrong in the eyes of the 'bots.
Miers was a tone deaf nomination that, for some reason, failed to go through regular vetting procedures. Trying to put an unknown, stealth candidate through this process ... with escalating outrage, both in the Senate and in GWB's base ... was not only an outrage but, also, a cruel thing to do to this woman who is supposed to be GWB's and Laura's dear friend.
The SCOTUS is not an appropriate place for OJT.*
You are right! Thanks for your clarification. Guess what I hate is the thought of the Dems salivating at what they think is a Conservative Crack-Up -- but like Rush says, it's not - it's a Crack-Down.
Well, for the record, when I said, "I've already been let down once", I was talking about the Miers' nomination. I would think that's pretty clear from the context. I was originally disappointed by Roberts, but I've come to put up with that nomination because, as I said to sinkspur, I knew there'd be another pick anyway. And I trusted Bush.
If you must know though, on other things, sure, I've been disappointed by Bush. Haven't you? I can't believe that someone could find no fault in any president. I don't think there's ever been a "perfect president". CFR, the borders, his education bill, these were, and still are, sticking points with me. The Miers nomination was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
I supported him through two elections. I worked tirelessly here, in Maryland of all places, to get him re-elected in 2004. I supported (and still do) support his WOT, his tax cuts, his LOWER court nominations, and the Repubican party in general. I still support him now. But I'm allowed to be disappointed. Being disappointed doesn't mean someone doesn't still support someone else.
If such a conservative nominee gets presented to the Senate, will you be fighting alongside the rest of us to expose the Dems hypocrisy, or will you just be sitting there muttering about how this is all the fault of the "anti-Miers lynch mob"? If you choose the second option, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
I was actually wondering why I hadn't seen you around. You're normally solidly behind Bush. Good for you for listening to your gut!! :) (No, I'm not being sarcastic - we need more people to realize it's not in this COUNTRY'S best interest to rally behind bad decisions - even if they are made by OUR President.)
Exactly - no Dems came after Miers like that, so they will be able to get away with a vicious attack on the next nominee - although I have a bad feeling the next one will have open conservative credentials but end up being another Souter. Maybe that's what they wanted in the first place. Some Republicans out there WANT to keep abortion as an national election issue.
I hate to say it but O'Connor is a known quantity -- this nominee was an unknown with no judicial experience, a former Indy, who donated to Democrats, and made that speech in 1993.
I will take O'Connor. I have been a loyal Bush supporter but he is not correct 100% of the time and I will not support an action when I think he is wrong. All of us can agree to disagree on an issue.
I am part and parcel of the Oklahoma Conservative Republican grassroots that told the establishment here in Oklahoma NO MORE wishy, washy candidates and we, in turn, elected Dr. Tom Coburn who I couldn't be prouder of since he went to D.C. Dr. Coburn was less than impressed with this nomination -- he is a straight shooter which spoke volumes to me so I waited to get more information -- what I got this week, I sure didn't like.
"I have NO problem with people who questioned the nomination. But I have been nauseated by the personal attacks on both Ms Miers and the President. And there are a whole lot of others around here who have felt the same way."
Meanwhile, you are LESS nauseated that Bush tried to shove this crappy nominess down our throats with the emphatic "trust me?"
Telling.
TO MRS MIERS, I DO APOLOGIZE FOR ANYTHING WE MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT HURT YOU ANY WAY. Being as smart as you are, I am not surprised you took this decision. I am sure you also understand it was never about you personally... but this nomination is just too important for the country. I really believe that.
THANK YOU... WE APPRECIATED IT DEEPLY
After all these years of Chafee, Snowe, Specter, etc., it's apparant that we can't win with the middle-of-the-roaders (who cannot credibly claim to be conservative).
I opposed her (belatedley). It's not even close. The anti's were, in many cases, absolutely horrible. That is not to excuse "sexist" and the other names thown out by the pros. Some painted too wide a swath: "elitist" applied to Coulter (that was the heart of her early argument), but not all antis.
But like I said, it wasn't even close. One of the reasons it took me so long to switch to the oppose side is that it was hard for me to be on the same side as such mean-spirited people. And for that, I'm sure I'll be called a pollyanna.
BTW, the same could be said of the immigration issue. I would have a tendency to agree with the hard-liners, but so many of them are loudmouthed jerks. It's hard to associate with such people, even if tehy are "right".
Name ONE that attacked her or the President as viciously as Ann Coulter did?
Oh boy that's a toughie. The reason is that its 'buried' somewhere within this thread. I saw it maybe in the first 200 or 300 posts.
It was in response to a "now you'll get Gonzalez because JRB withdrew her name" comment.
Yeah in hindsight I should have made a note of the post number. I have a pen and Post It Notes right in front of me - duh. But honest, its here somewhere. I wouldn't make stuff like that up.
I supported Miers solely on her being born-again, but what has transpired has happened for a reason. I am certainly not disappointed she withdrew.
May God be with the high court.
As I said, forget ever nominating someone like Scalia or Rehnquist then.
O'Connor said in her resignation that she would stay on the Court until her replacement was confirmed.
And you either are not being honest, or you didn't pay attention. Right out of the box, the first complaints about Ms. Miers was where she went to school. Just yesterday, on one of the local talk radio programs here in the L.A. area, this argument was being used: She went to SMU, not one of the better law schools.
You mean like "uber", "reactionary", "Buchananite", "fringer", "elitist"? Names like those?
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.