Skip to comments.If You Don't Trust Him to Choose, Why Did You Vote for Him?
Posted on 10/14/2005 6:47:23 PM PDT by quidnunc
click here to read article
The answer is easy...it was either Bush or Gore, or Bush or Kerry....
I have a wait and see attitude about Miers and yes I do trust Bush as much as I can trust any politician.....but the question is pretty lame.
Actually, I think the question is insulting.
Well, who the hell were we going to vote for? Our choice was what? Bush or Gore/Kerry----oh I forgot we had Nader in there and the Libertarians (who I have a soft spot for in amny things). The SCOTUS choice is far bigger than the concerns of social conservatives. It has a lot to do with more of an originalist approach and each branch of government operating as it is supposed to. Ok I am not minimizing the concerns of social conservatives but look at the bigger picture--and still I think Miers falls short.
Who ate all the strawberry ice cream?
The Republican Party isn't a religion where the leader gets the doctrine of infallibility applied to his decisions.
My other choice was John Kerry.
No that is not why. We did not blindly trust Bush. But we looked at Roberts record of working for Rehnquist, working for Reagan, working for Bush. We saw a long history of supporting Republicans and making rulings based on Constitutional principles. We have none of that with Harriet. Harriet has supported more Democrats in her life than Republicans. Maybe Harriet has changed, but we are not confortable hoping.
You must have missed a few, there have been some really lame ones.
What makes you think they voted for him or he was their first choice?
This place was banana's when he got the nomination. Almost as bad as it is now.
But the choice was between Bush and Kerry: arsenic or cyanide.
I mistakenly believed that after re-election, Bush could be convinced to control the borders. Now my support is for the WOT and not much else.
Because Bush promised to put good solid conservatives of the breed of Scalia and Thomas on the Court. He did not compromise on court appointments during his first term, preferring to endure the filibuster, so it looked like a good bet to vote for him again in 2004 on the basis of these promises. That was also the reason why people worked so hard to increase his majority in the Senate.
Now he has broken his promise. It's not the first time that a politician has done so, but I will say that Bush is usually a man of his word, which makes it all the more disappointing. Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing by nominating Miers, but now he needs to think again.
You are right, and I don't think any honest Republican could say that G.W.Bush is a Conservative. He is however President, and therefore has the right to nominate whomsoever he pleases. All the elitist Conservatives pissing and moaning about Meirs are just like Schumer; they think they, not the President, have the right to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice.
He's entitled to favor his cause, wrongheaded as it may be... as we are free to express our displeasure. I actually appreciate it, because it makes the low signal-to-noise quality apparent. So many articles, so little substance, so few answers.
Apparently "they" don't even have the right to express an opinion of what should be done with this abominomination.
Not really, at least not for me. Bush made a very specific campaign promise to nominate folks like Scalia and Thomas. He should expect us to see if his nominees actually measure up to that standard.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I'm tired of the knock-down drag-outs over this nominee. Passioned debate... I can deal with that. Junior High School name calling... I can't.
The expectation that I'm going to shut-up when I disagree with a political leader, even one I supported, is unreasonable.
The author's use of someone else's "Let God be God" quote to infer similar treatment for GWB... that should be legal grounds for a hot poker up his arse.
Wrong. The President DID promise to nominate SCJs in the mold of Scalia. He hasn't and though it is his choice, it is our choice to voice objection. 1st Amendment, I believe.
This may be the dumbest article I've sort of read today.
(skipped through to the ending "Trust & obey, for there's no other way" quote)
Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, OK? That's why God kicked us out from our jobs as head of the dumb animals food chain.
It wasn't all down-side: so we sweat for a living. We also got the power to think for ourselves.
And I think this article is stupid.
The President is not the King. He needs to listen to the pulse of the people that put him on office and that is us.
What is an elitist Conservative? One who has stood their ground and not given in to the "softening" of the GOP? I need to know.
As I said: Just like Schumer.
I expect and demand that following the Hearing a fair up or down vote be taken by the full Senate. I will accept the result of a fair up or down vote.
I am proud to be an American. We should all remember the following:
I AM an AMERICAN
By, Ray Cornelius
now dont get in a snit. WHEN DID THE TERM "ORIGINALIST" COME INTO USE?
It is the Republican Party not the Conservative Party. Why don't you, Krauthammer, Kristol, Limbaugh, et.al. wait for the hearings before you spew your baseless venom?
You are correct, Roberts got the benefit of the doubt. Now that that is all used up, there's no more left for Miers.
Harriet has supported more Democrats in her life than Republicans. NOW YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT !
Trust and verify. For a politician to prate of 'leadership' should be political suicide. A pol must be effectively led by his constituency else his thoughts turn to re-election and pandering to the dumbest of the masses. Democracy, the rule of fools by fools.
Adam and Eve were vegetarians!
It's not just like Schumer. Schumer gets to vote. The rest of us just get to object and tie this to other issues of discontent. Bush's choice after all.
Hmm, I hear the iron bells tolling. Excuse me while I get out my prayer rug and genuflect toward the beltway. /sarcasm
I don't take much on faith, and this is not one of those things. I am also a little tired of reading criticisms "implying" I should not question the decisions of my betters.
I believe GW has made a poor choice, for a number of reasons. Some of the know it all pundits seem to think that is on par with accusing him of child molestation. /roll eyes, shake head
I'm also beginning to think the Republican leadership has been playing Three Card Monty with the filibuster smasher. And by that, I mean it's been intentional.
I voted for him in 2000. I didn't approve of the patriot act and its potential for abuse by future administrations. I decided to vote for third party candidates that more closely matched my desire for smaller, less intrusive government. But I don't understand why we are chastised for mistrusting our leaders even if we did vote for them. I would think it foolish to not keep an eye on those who are entrusted with power.
Bush, and other elite Republicans, used the Conservatives as a vehicle to power. Now that they have it, who are we to question them? Lowly scum!
If you chose to limit your selection to the lesser of two evils.
Many of us preferred to not compromise our principles and voted Third Party instead.
I have plenty of bitches about Bush policies , but I don't think I, or any other Republican, should presume to know more than he does about this nominee until we have at least heard her at the hearings.
Well I am an honest Conservative. I think President Bush is a Conservative. He is not the most Conservative man in the party, but by-and-large he is Conservative.
When I compare him to my Senator Lott, he is very Conservative. Did you know that right before Katrina hit Lott came out in support of eco-terrorists in Mississippi, favoring a moratorium on offshore drilling for Natural Gas? I'll bet his arse waiting in line for 5 hours to buy gas after Katrina hit us, had a modifying effect on his PC crap!
I also believe that we will see movement on the borders soon. Frist announced today that it was on the docket. It should have been done long ago. Washington is so screwed up today, it is amazing that anything can get accomplished.
Too old, not a parent, questionable track record, trial lawyer, no prior interest in Constitutional issues. There are plenty of more qualified candidates.
Gotta cite for that vegan claim? It was my understanding that everything God made was for their use.
I don't have chapter and verse, but I know that one of their sons liked a good barbeque while the other was a sod-buster. Remember? Things got a little heated when God spurned Cain's offering and he got marked down and had to go to anger-management classes?
Given the choice, we had to vote for him.
It certainly helped that he promised to nominate constitutional originalists. Now what do we have?
"NOW YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT!" Haven't been reading very much of what's been posted about this, have ya? Go back, look at her campaign donations, then return and tell us we don't know that. I'll hold my breath...Honest.
Trust but verify. The problem here is that there is nothing there to verify.
Who said there were no better qualified candidates? That is beside the point. She is his nominee and only he has the right or power to make the nomination; not you, me George Will,Limbaugh, Coulter or anyone else. Let's wait for the hearings.
That's not true. "They" do think they're entitled to critize what they see as a poor decision. And they are!
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.