Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
That sounds like an admission.
On what basis could any Republican oppose JRB?
For some, life is about a cult of personality. For others, it's a cult of ideas. The difference is this: A person can change, even mis-represent him/herself. An idea is constant. If you believe in an idea, then cling to the idea above all. Anyone can say, "I am a conservative," with their fingers crossed behind their back. But the preamble to the Constitution will never change. It will never wake up and decide it's something else. We've seen firsthand the damage done by a group of people who've decided THEY can get the Constitution to change. This is an affront to everything this nation stands for, and we had better put out this fire while we have a chance. That means taking the best educated route to appointing the kind of constitutional guardians who will view the constitution in its original intent. Put my faith in W? I gave him a chance. I voted for him twice. He's proven himself disingenuous to his words. I don't "trust" him. I trust someone who has a track record that reflects the qualities we want in a jurist. We can never be 100% sure, but it sure beats a shot in the dark when the soul of a nation is on the line.
But I think we can be sure that the names discussed here will not be on Bush's list.
" You're asking Bush to be a robot. He's a human being, and human beings can do some strange things when they've been humiliated."
Sure. Keep in mind thought, that if W uses this as an oppty for revenge and appoints Gonzalez, the ensuing war which could rip the party to shreds won't be the fault of those who oppose the nomination - the fault will fall squarely with Bush.
If he can't put the country over his bruised ego, he doesn't deserve the job, and he should step down, too... if he feels his only alternative is to nominate another liberal to the SCOTUS.
I have never said anything that would make anyone think otherwise.
I have asked people repeatedly to stick to the issues and not attack the President's, or in this case, Miers' character.
There are hundreds of us who feel that way. Discussion is one thing. Vicious attacks are quite another.
All I said from the beginning is.........let's let her have her hearing and make an informed decision when she does. It didn't happen, and for that, I am not pleased. However, I am relieved that this is over, and taking a breath before the same nasty minority begins its attack on whomever the President chooses next.........because it WILL happen.
In my belief, yes, ultimately, we all have the same God and we were all created in His image.
Well, that's a problem, I graduated high school in 1989, in that time, I've put my elementary mathematics skills to use and concluded that one aborted baby is too many.
Brown would be filibustered if not outright voted down.
"Fair game to mock a person's faith? Regardless of what the WH did or did not do, that was completely out of line."
Don't be so silly. What was mocked was not her faith, but using it as a qualification after being told that there should be no religious test. I don't remember anyone making Jesus jokes for example. They mocked her religion somehow being a qualifier.
You didn't put my name on your post....but if I get a vote....count me as an "aye".
I remained out of this Miers stuff pretty much. One time, I did have a brush with criticism when I gave my opinion that as far as the rhetoric and the level of vitrol lobbed, I thought that no side could claim aggrieved status.
I found no angels in the tripe, only demons. But, of course, pointing that out received a "Who? Me?" response as the scripts were being continuously read on both sides.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
You certainly did not deserve such attacks.
Oh, puh-leeeeeeze!
Bring it on.
Most people didn't. But some did.
And those people know who they are........and should be ashamed.
But I highly doubt they are.
Shouldn't we at least try? The democrats sure would.
Bush needs to "dance with the person who brought him" and stick to his base.
"Brown would be filibustered if not outright voted down."
I don't think so... and getting an originalist on the court is one battle worth fighting. Buckling under and appointing a liberal is no victory!
The president? Absolutely. The party? Nah, McCain will save it. The Court? Pfft. He doesn't care one whit about the court.
I would like Jim Rob to post a poll on FR and ask "who on FreeRepublic.com knows Meirs better than President Bush?", and see what happens.
Very, very bad move, IMO to let her go; very wrong move to attack him over this. Not good at all. Sadly, I only hope the person who gets confirmed is strongly supported by those who opposed Miers, and that this person will support R.v.W. It would be the ultimate irony.
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.