Skip to comments.Who Elected President Bush (And Supports His Choice For Scotus)?
Posted on 10/11/2005 4:19:08 PM PDT by shrinkermd
click here to read article
Last I checked, everyone gets one vote each. That means the @-hole who wrote this trash did no more than any one of the ppl he mocks.
May as well. You guys hock up every slimey loogey spewed by some third-rate dogcatcher to trash Miers.
This guy has as much credibility as the shoe-polish-coiffed David Frum with his "unnamed sources."
Thanks, I voted for Bush twice.....and trust me, I live in the most blue of blue states that there is.
I was beginning to think my vote meant nothing and that I had no opinion. I'm glad there are others who think this to be idiotic too.
yep. Nothing is needed from you...except your praise and your donations.
If you're from a 'blue' state, no matter what you've done, you can't comment on this.
Most have their opinion, regardless of the facts or anyone else's right to have a differing opinion.
Tantrums R Us has become the tragicomedy of the right.
Why stop at chastising the blue-state conservatives for not winning their own states for President Bush? It seems we can go further by criticizing them for failing to vote conservatives from their blue states to the Senate. It seems this whole mess has more to do with RINO Senators from the elite blue states than with President Bush himself.
You're such a crybaby anyway.
Thank you for the post.
Coutler, Levin, Malkin, Krauthammer, Kristol et al. are NATIONAL COMMENTATORS!.
These names you mentioned did as much as anybody to energize the base in ALL states, and I may add, if it was not for these same individuals, Florida would have gone for Gore in 2000 FOR SURE and Ohio may well have gone for Kerry in 2004.
This is one of the most stupid remarks I have seen on this subject. This list of conservative commentators (much more lengthy than that list of yours) are right on the mark in their critique of this crony pick by Bush. You have made one of the worst cases yet on this subject matter. To see others on this thread agree with you and somehow fail to realize we are talking about NATIONAL COMMENTATORS is astounding! Fan club members and loyalists get so dizzy in their cheering that they fail to see the most obvious points.
With this stupid line of thinking, Bush should not be president because he is from "just Texas" and was not from all 50 states in the union.
And weren't you a former banee who couldn't hold his tongue on the alan keyes threads?
Uhm, based on what? To me, the so called "moderate" Republicans that still on the local level dominate the blue state suburbs are the ones that really support this nomination, the rural and exurban conservatives are the ones who are most disgusted. Really a very stupid arguement, because while the pundits live in blue states, it is the people in the red states that give them their ratings.
"You're such a crybaby anyway."
See, this is the problem people like you and howlin have.
You can't stand the fact that somebody might disagree with your ideas and your tactics, so you consider their going after them to be personal attacks.
And because you feel they are 'personal attacks' you respond with actual personal attacks like you just did with me.
Thanks, though, for illustrating exactly how you act. Can't deal with the issues so you resort to calling names.
It is so ill-reasoned that it makes idiocy look like brilliance by way of comparison.
I guess then when Clinton was in office, you didn't have a right to complain either if your state didn't vote for him.
Popular vote? If strict Constitutionalists such as Scalia and Thomas read your post, they'd laugh at you. Nowhere in the Constitution does the popular vote have any meaning in Presidential elections.
The positive spin is that this is still a great country. A free country where ordinary joe's can totally flame the president for making a pick they don't agree with. He's no more immune to it than the baseball manager who leaves a pitcher in too long or sets the lineup the wrong way, or the football coach who fails to manage the clock in the last 2 minutes. Pick your analogy.
So here we are, all of us honestly caring about the outcome, honestly wanting the best for our country, honestly acting on our patriotic feelings. And we're free to do it, and lame as the press is, they are free to deliver our feelings all the way to the Oval Office and the halls of Congress. They've heard us.
But, at the same time, it's UGLY for the party. Personally, I am sort of glad. You're right that the Democrats are worse, and maybe we're stuck with what we have, but the idealist in me thinks that this sort of thing is an opportunity for constitutionalists to gain a stronger foothold. What frustrates me is that we have become the blacks of the GOP. The taken for granted. We have no leverage. And I'm sorry. I don't go in for the adoration that some ppl give the president. Call me a cynic, but to me politics is an ignoble profession, and anyone in it is to be watched closely, not worshipped.
Not Minnesota, not Michigan, not Wisconsin, not Maine, not Vermont, not New Hampshire, not Conneticut, not Massachusets, not New York, not Pennsylvania, not Delaware, not DC, not Illinois, not California, not Oregon, not Washington, not Maryland, not Hawaii.
Hmmmmm...As an observer, looking back at the past few years, with all the growth of government, massive government spending, social programs, open borders ect, etc, does this now make those conservative states with everyone else being fooled?
She contributed the max to the DNC five days before the 1988 Presidential Election.
Someone who contributed the max to the DNC five days before the 2004 Presidential Election would be known as a "Kerry Lefty". It's not just an opinion, it is a fact.
no, they don't, but their votes kept the liberals from harping on the "he never won the popular vote" train.
Plus, even though they can't deliver their states, the blue states deliver a hell of a lot of money to the presidential campaign for republicans.
To insult them like this is idiotic.
I may not agree with the Miers nomination (or I may), but this observation is extremely well-perceived. I live in NC, so I guess I get to talk about SC nominations. Of course, anyone really can talk, but we don't have to listen to people who don't help us anyway.....
I was just using the imbecilic reasoning of the man who posted that utterly moronic piece.
After all, where the hell in the Constitution does it say that we have to be silent if we disagree with a decision made by the president?
Ping post #61. I posted that before I saw your post.
Agree. This may be the most stupid comment I have seen on Free Republic this year.
Absolutely wrong. Buchanan and Kristol did nothing but cause harm during both campaigns. I started listening to Ingraham during the campaign, because of her support for the President. I haven't listened to her since August, and I'm not the only one.
You also have a rather high opinion of pundits. Right now, the pundits behavior is not any different than Dan Rather's. They latched onto a lie during Katrina and they are running with it.
That's right. They were all just a bunch of sodbusters. All farmers found universities, lead armies to defeat great empires, serve as envoys to the great nations of Europe, lead state governments, design architecture, write books, create new scientific inventions. Just your run of the mill pig farmers.
Ah yes. There's the nut of the matter: You're more concerned about the dainty sensibilities of liberals than you are about the supremecy of the Constitution.
You said: So, in return, can we get him to stop ruling us, especially with his out-of-control spending, border insecurity and silly nominations?
Sorry, nope, you lose. The election was a national one. You're IN the nation, so deal with it. But the poster has a great point. No one has to listen to you.
it's not just buchannan and kristol. People just like to cite those because it's 'acceptable' to dislike them.
The names of prominent commentators who have come out against the nomination in one way or the other is astounding. Limbaugh, limbaugh, steyn, coulter, malkin, frum, almost all of national review, will, noonan, and on and on and on.
And the white house and the party is ticking of their best weapons for what? A mediorcre, unknown nominee that would never had been named by any other president, and wouldn't have been picked by GWB if they didn't know each other for years?
no, I wasn't, so don't put words in my mouth.
I was just pointing out one of the benefits of winning the popular vote: It shut the liberals up about something for a change.
Whether or not you agree or not with the Harriet pick, these individuals have earned due respect.
Chill. No one is telling you to be silent. However, if you want the privilege to disagree out loud with the president, then you should extend the same privilege to those who disagree with you.
I guess the genius who made this comment (on the comment section of a blog, no less) should tell all the people in the 'blue states' that the republicans don't need their money for presidential campaigns.
I can't believe some people felt this completely moronic comment was 'well stated'.
Yeah - I gotta siddown and shaddup - and I ain't the one who donated $1,000 to that Uber-Conservative - ALGORE. Go figure.
Can you read or do you just make shit up as you go along? THE BLOGGER SAID THIS!
she's nominated & has a .45, good enough for me....
A state's electoral votes are what matter in the presidential election, not the amount of money donated by the state's residents.
You should learn the Constitution.
Laura Ingraham has been more committed to the conservative cause than anyone in the entire Bush family-with the possible exception of Jeb, and even that's iffy-has been during the course of their lives.
If I have to pick which Texan I trust me more to stand up for conservative principles, Tom Pauken or George W. Bush, it sure as hell isn't going to Bush, I can tell you that much!
It's not even a contest.
Not like those are small things. He also got the economy going despite inheriting a recession, a devastating (to the economy and to mankind) terrorist attack on 9/11, and through two wars. Yes we would all like him to secure the borders (I know you are going there) but what president has before him? Can't say that it's all Bush's fault. (Oops I forgot we are not aloud to say that anymore since all of the Bush haters have now come out of the closet and now everything is Bush's fault.)
You said: Without the votes of Republicans living in New York, California, Massachusetts, among all of the other states enumerated by this guy, George W. Bush would have lost the popular vote in 2004.
I hate to appear elitist, but under our constitution the popular vote doesn't really count. Sure, I am glad we won it, but we didn't in 2000, and Bush was elected nonetheless. The poster makes a brilliant observation. Most of those who oppose Miers are from states that didn't give the electoral, that is, constitutional, vote for the president.
I may or may not support the Miers nomination, but I like the fact that plain ol' folks identify with her.
(By the way, for what little it is worth, I am an attorney, out of a less than elite law school, UNC, and I could interpret the constitution better than at least 4 of the justices.... and I bet there are plenty like me with no apparent "judicial philosophies"....)
Whether they deserve, much less, are entitled to it, is another matter altogether.
And just what does this statement make you?
I support the Meir's nomination because she is a person with integrity. Nothing more.
Now I'm a "DU type"? You are stereo typing Meirs supporters as being some soft right leaning liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth, and by suggesting such a thing makes you what?
It makes you a DECIEVER,(and a hypocrite) the very thing you accuse Miers supporters of.
I will wait until the hearings and then decide what I think based upon what She says in answer to real questions, not based on media trash, and opinions people have who know nothing about her.
Al this BS about what she did while she was developing as a person, 20 years ago, 30 years ago and in between does not mean that's what she is today. People live learn grow, and change. It's what she is today that I am concerned with, and She seems to be a fine, upstanding person.
Ultimately, it's not OUR decision anyways, it's in the hands of a bunch of idiots who other idiots elected to sit in the senate. What worries me more, is that this unqualified collection of buffoons will either elect, or not elect her to the bench, and that their decission will not be based on what's good, what's truth, and what is good for the Nation, but on what's good for their political career.
It was related to the imbecilic assertion that we had to "shut up" because we lived in states that didn't cast their electoral votes for President Bush.
He was implying that we had less of a voice in the matter than Republicans who lived in states that were in the red column, which isn't true.
Aren't you the one who despises the Miers nomination because she has no paper trail in regards to her views on the Constitution? Aren't you also complaining about the political nature of this nomination?
If so, you should show little concern about the non-Constitutional concept of the Popular Vote and how the libs can use it as a political weapon against us. Instead, you're merely using it as one of many rationalizations in your opposition to Miers and Bush.
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Oct. 3-5, 2005. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
"As you may know, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, and President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace her. Is your opinion of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers favorable, unfavorable, or haven't you heard enough about Harriet Miers yet to have an opinion?"
"Do you think the U.S. Senate should or should not confirm Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court justice?"
In respect to Limbaugh, remember he likes a good fight and has been itching for a down and out political brawl over SCOTUS. Ditto for Coulter. Ditto for Malkin. As for Frum, he has never gotten over being fired as a speech writer for claiming he wrote the "axis of evil line." Steyn isn't even an American and he makes a good living looking and writing for controversy understandable to a Canadian-UK-American audience.
My point is, these people all have agendas that may or may not influence what they think about Miers. My personal guess is the one thing not mentioned much is the fact that the President appreciates her character including her Evangelical beliefs. Nothing frightens the intelligentsia, left or right, then having a knuckle dragging, Neanderthal Jesus Freak in SCOTUS. In fact, I have yet to find anyone who can tell me when was the last time we had a "primitive" Protestant (Evangelical) in SCOTUS.
People are avoiding discussing the pros and cons of the relgious issue because it is so fraught with controversy no one can easily make political hay out of it.
Not looking too good for Miers, is it?
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.