Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
After all the griping about cronyism, I hope GWB would be a little gun shy about nominating someone he calls a friend like Gonzales. I'd hate to see him nominated too.
Wrong...she should not have even been nominated, and apparently she agrees with me...not you.
Please explain how the withdrawel of a woman with very little track record is a win for the democrats? LOL, they've been Harriet's most ardent supporters during this process. Harry Reed's first pronouncements sounded as if he'd nominated her.
Putting another Souter on the court would have been a win for the Democrats! We have no way of knowing Miers wouldn't have morphed into one.
Conservatism won. Miers may have turned out to be a good conservative. I don't think so. The next nomination should have a track record, and should be a known quantity before any of us sign on.
One unknown quantity lost, is NOT a win for the democrats.
It's not about whether Bush has a setback for a couple weeks. It's about who is influencing our society for the next 25 years.
I couldn't listen to Laura this a.m. Thanks for posting that quote....I agree. Thank you's are in order.
The manner in which Miers was sunk gives the Dems in the Senate a huge lift. They can freely say they were willing to support the President's nominee, but she was sunk by the "radical right wing". Whomever the next nominee is -- unless he/she's definitely more liberal/moderate than Miers, will be portrayed as a pick forced on the President by the Terry Schiavo/Pat Robertson freaky right wing, and opposed on that basis.
They've wanted an opportunity to derail the process, and it was just handed to them. It would have been much better for her to have failed on a vote where there would be a lot of Democrats on record as having opposed her. Now, the withdrawal will be blamed entirely on the right. And the Dem "support" for her will be there excuse to derail future nominees.
<< Some of us felt that way about this pick. Paraphrasing Otter from "Animal House": "We f***** up; we trusted him." >>
I guess you won't make that mistake again!
Who does? Ingraham, Lott, Coulter, Kristol, etc.?
I think yours was the closest - but based just on a quick scan for the number "27"
OK, and what exactly do you plan to do about it? Sit there and stew?
While you're wallowing in the grudges that you're nurturing, you might want to take the time to remember that your side had very little to offer in the way of arguments to support her. A lot of "trust Bush", "she's an Evangelical", and when all else fails, rather shameless attacks against her opponents for being supposedly unpatriotic by making life difficult for Bush. Pretty much nothing else of substance. If you enjoy continuing to lose like this, then by all means, keep up that method of argumentation.
Agreed.
Sadly, I suspect that you're right. It was one of the first things that crossed my mind (re the situation at the WH).
Agreed. I was trying to keep an open mind...when I read the text of the speech I was furious.
He was until he recommended not nominating Brown or Rogers but someone more acceptable
What a Pµ§§`/
President Bush Outlines An Agenda For Economic Growth [Spoke at Economic Club today]
It will be fun to watch the MSM trying to speculate about two topics at once...the Plame affair and the upcoming SC nomination.
Each lib paper has to choose which headline to run.
My yes, what a patriot she now is... a few minutes ago she was a witch, a bumbling lackey, a toady.
I still believe Miers deserved to be heard.
Thanks. Same here. We all deserve a do-over from time to time.
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.