Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
She was a conservative, you dolt.
Maybe you need to shoe a few more mares to relieve some stress, Amish. Jimminy Christmas, picking a nominee from your work group was a bad decision in the first place. Didn't the president think that her documents would be requested, thus triggering the attorney-client priviledge argument? It was a waste of time. You have to remember there are 535 people in congress that want to be president and they will want some answers to a stealth candidate, conservate or not.
No, instead she attended cosmic bowl at the local alley. Who cares, right? Your argument is silly and shows that you haven't paid any attention to the substance of the objections to Miers.
What would you do if he nominated JRB? Seriously.
That's right, I remember that thread...and you were sorely disappointed.
Better guard your emotions this time, just in case you don't get the nomination. Wouldn't want you to sink into a depression after missing out on the Papacy and the SCOTUS, LOL.
I thought maybe you did, but I quit putting words in other people's mouths a long time ago. It doesn't pay. LOL My coffee hasn't kicked in either. I followed your lead on Estrada. He's one of the good guys, isn't he? ;o) Gonzales is anti gun, and he scares me.
>> And now all the Miers haters are gearing up to do the same to the next person the President nominates. <<
Yeah, we all just were out to embarrass the president. YOu're pretty darned twisted if that's how you think. If the next nominee is Alberto Gonzalez, you're damned straight we'll oppose him. If the next nominee is Miguel Estrada, we'll fight to our last breath. See, the people on this web site are CONSERVATIVES, not just partisan hacks. We actually care about moving this country in the right direction.
Steering Committees. Also the Senate could kick his moderate butt out anytime.
Where the hell in the Constitution does it say eight years anyway.
The Senate (And within each party) makes it own rules.
Does this prediction (prediction it is, since Arlen is up for reelection in that time span) come with the same sterling guarantee that you gave when you told us that Ratzinger would NEVER be elected Pope and Miers would NEVER step down? Maybe internet deacons should stay out of the prediction business.
They may not have won, but regardless, they will be able to frame it as if they did (with the help of MSM of course).
I am not disagreeing with you, the dems may not have won, but it does not mean the GOP won either.
From what little I knew, I was leaning against her nomination, but still did not have enough factual information. I am still concerned about the process. And once again, I like the debate. I am not a good debater, so reading the differing opinions of others gives me a foundation in a seek for what I seek as truth.
I guess I am objecting to those who did not allow enough information to come out prior to calling Bush a traitor to the cause, demanding Bush withdraw the nomination. IMHO, that is what has given the dems the fodder now to say once again Bush has fallen to the extreme right wing of the party.
This is what the dems wanted. We gave it to them. We know it is a load of poo, but since the dems framed the Rockefeller memo, plamegate, etc., they have a better chance of coming out on top with voters.
If he does send up the name of JRB or any of the others we wanted to see, it will be so much easier to portray her as a mandate of the extreme right wing. Add the gang of 14 variable and MSM and it is anyone's guess. Can Frist get his party to fight the fight with another nomination? Can we count on the dems members of the gang of 14 to stay true to their word?
IMHO, someone should have known this nomination would stir up such a ruckus. We all know Bush is probably major po'd right now which may be a good thing. Maybe it will bring back the "bring it on" Bush I thought was most effective.
I bet we would get 2 or 3 Dems, at least.
I don't share those feelings, but I can understand your position.
What is clear from Ms. Miers speeches and writings, however, is that she was a poor choice for the Supreme Court. We've suffered from justices' evolving standards for too long.
And the bottom line is many have shown themselves to be no different (intellectually speaking) from the DEM's arguments - In that they do NOT trust
GWB - They only trust the "outcomes" they like -
######
You are so right. And this reality makes me very sad for our future.
That's because if he wants to be President he needs more votes than just people on FR.
Yes, Estrada is a good guy, and would be a fine appointment, as far as I know.
Estrada? What's wrong with him? Did you mean AGAG?
We should know and remember who helped make the Kool-Aid as well. . .back to post 548 and some insights from Mark Levin:..................................................
Lest we forget, Majority Leader Bill Frist and the overwhelming majority of his Republican colleagues were poised to defeat the unprecedented and frequently used (or threatened) filibuster tactics that had been unleashed against President Bush by the Democrats to weaken his appointment power. . .(. . .)
The big media editorialized against it. George Will wrote at length (albeit unpersuasively) against it (see here and my response to him here). And Bill Kristol's favorite presidential candidate in 2000, John McCain, the leader of the Gang of 14, was all over the media making clear he would torpedo such an effort.
And that's exactly what he did. This in no way excuses the president's blunder in choosing Miers. But the ideological confrontation with the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and the Democrat left that many of us believe is essential, including Will and Kristol, was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose.
This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
(. . .)
I have no doubt that this was part of the White House's political calculation. And it's possible the president didn't want to limp into this fight. That's no excuse. But McCain — who wants to be president and has now endorsed Harriet Miers — and his cadre must not escape scrutiny for their blunder.
And again. . . worth repeating as we get set for the'post mortem' by MSM. . .
"Roberts is brilliant, but the jury is still out on him."
What are you talking about? He is the jury, at least Chief of it. :)
Applying camo as I type, LOL! Blackbird.
I agree. If President Bush wants to unify the party, he needs to declare war - choose a solid candidate and the base will rally around him mightily.
Regards, Ivan
That thought has crossed me mind. Now when a conservative is announced, the conservatives had better get behind that person 100% and not take "no" for an answer.
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.