Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
Shaking my head. You are right.
Ted Olsen is an example of someone that isn't a judge that the base would have welcomed. Older than some of us were looking for, but well respected. Proving the contention we only wanted a Judge incorrect.
I, too, never want to hear the word "diversity" from a Republicans' lips again. No position should be designatated a seat for a specific gender.
There are a large number of possible nominees of highest quality that I would wholeheartedly and unreservedly support.
If the next nominee is Gonzales, however, get ready for an even more bitter fight.
I'm not sure they are afraid. They assume what is coming and are loading their guns as we speak.
Oh wait, they don't like guns.
You think what you will, despite evidence to the contrary. You console yourself with the notion that this was a principled opposition. I'm sure it was for some people. But no amount of after-the-fact whitewashing is going to erase the truth that right out of the box, people like Ann Coulter dismissed Ms. Miers on elitist grounds, and most so-called real conservatives with a variety of grievances against GWB were eager to pile on.
There is NO distinction between what you people did to Ms. Miers, and what the Left has done to countless Republicans and conservatives for many years.
We HAVE the majority of the public on OUR side!
hmmff...how quickly they forget!
Bingo!
I sincerely doubt it will be Gonzales. Gonzales' office objected to Miers. I suspect Gonzales would not accept even if offered. He's now speaking of looking towards a political career in Texas.
I see, I opposed Miers because I wanted a proven strict constructionist on the court, and I'm delusional? Obviously I must apologize for all the invective and name calling I've engaged in. And someday I will.
It all depends on how the leadership reacts. Maybe in such a circumstance, Bush might find it more advantageous to slip more into the background after nominating Brown and let a Senator like Brownback do the heavy lifting of explaining to the public why the Democrats are being so hypocritical on this. This is something that can easily resonate with the public, so all it comes down to is making the right arguments, and if necessary, getting the right people to make the arguments.
If Bush wants to start turning the tide in the PR fight, he might want to try doing the right thing here and get his base solidly on board with him. Because right now, he has almost nobody solidly on board with him, and that's never an enviable position to be in.
Do you deny that such people exist?
Thank you so much. So glad to hear someone agrees with me on the gender thing. I am sick to death of the, it has to be a woman crowd.
I believe the more effective ones are doing work behind the scenes away from the cameras. Unfortunately, conservatives are attracted by sensationalism just as much as liberals and want to see a "fight".
In reality, a lot has been done by Bush et al over the last years. Keeping us out of Kyoto alone was a huge accomplishment, but Freepers hardly mention it.
What exactly is an "ubercon"? Is it akin to uberalles as in Nazi's are uberalles?
Whose fault is that? The President nominated an utterly unqualified Miers simply because she was his personal legal counsel and she shares his religious zealotry. Can you say Nepotism?
I voted for George W. Bush twice, I held signs for him and worked hard to convince friends, neighbors and family to vote for him. I would do it again if only because what the Democrat Party offered was far worse. The President is no conservative and I voted for the lesser of two evils, it now seems. I strongly support his strategic vision for the War on Terror, but I was terribly disappointed in his seeming inability to adequately explain it during the campaign and since. The man babbles like an idiot! I know he is not an idiot, but he sounds like one. When leading the greatest nation on earth, a President needs to clearly outline his plan for policies foreign and domestic and be able to explain and defend them. I am insulted that he seemed to think that myself and other thoughtful, conservative, Republican voters would believe everything is all right if only we could be reassured that Miers volunteered for Meals On Wheels and is a fundamentalist Christian. I am unhappy with the flawed legal reasoning that led to Roe v. Wade, but it is emphatically not the most important issue facing the court and unlikely to be overturned in the foreseeable future. I would be perfectly happy to let each state decide its own policy by popular vote and allow or disallow abortion on a state by state basis. I fear that legal lightweights like Miers would like to impose different, but equally onerous, extra-Constitutional mandates on us all. Rather than being reassured by the President's description of Miers, I found suspicions raised in my mind. I don't want a religious zealot imposing the Christian equivalent of Muslim Sharia on me any more than I want Ruth Bader Ginsberg imposing the values of the lunatic ACLU left.
So have Republicans. Not only are they untrustworthy, but also unreliable (current US Senate/House/White House).
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.