Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems Want Talks With Bush on Nominees (want more than courtesy calls)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 7/6/05 | Jesse J. Holland - AP

Posted on 07/06/2005 3:52:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - Democrats say the courtesy calls they've received from President Bush and his top aide, while appreciated, fall far short of the advice and consent consultations they expect before Bush announces a Supreme Court nominee.

Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois got a call Wednesday from White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who is with Bush in Europe for the Group of Eight summit.

Card has also called Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, but no names of possible nominees were mentioned, according to their aides.

The Democrats said they want to know more — specifically whom the president is considering — before Bush sends his first Supreme Court nomination to the Republican-controlled Senate for confirmation.

"To be meaningful, consultation should include who the president is really considering so we can give responsive and useful advice," Kennedy said.

Bush and White House aides have been calling senators since Friday, when Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced she would retire once her successor is confirmed.

Among the first to get a call from Bush directly was Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on the nomination.

After voting as a bloc to stop several of President Bush's appeals court choices, Democrats have been demanding for weeks that President Bush consult with them before naming a Supreme Court nominee.

An agreement in May struck by the "Gang of 14" — seven Democrats and seven Republicans — includes a pledge not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. At the same time, they agreed to oppose attempts by GOP leaders to change filibuster procedures that Democrats have used to block nominees.

Nelson played a pivotal role in bringing those 14 senators together, while Durbin, Kennedy and Schumer all sit on the Judiciary Committee. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), another Judiciary Committee Democrat, also got a call from the White House, but her spokesman would not say who called.

Nelson told Card that Bush's "No. 1 goal should be getting a good jurist who won't be an activist judge" and that they would talk more once the president makes it back to Washington, said David DiMartino, the senator's spokesman.

Bush has said he would consult with senators on both sides, but Republicans say the White House will not be able to do enough to satisfy Democrats and liberal groups.

"For some senators and outside groups, no amount of consultation will ever be sufficient," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), a Judiciary Committee Republican.

Leahy and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are expected to go to the White House on Monday along with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to talk more with Bush about the upcoming vacancy.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: bush; dems; nominees; talks; want
Maybe if they had Teddy K make the calls.. ;-)

HELLOOoo? HELLLOOoooo ?

1 posted on 07/06/2005 3:52:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

What part of 'L O S E R' don't the libs understand????

It's not their turn to do anything....they don't have a turn....they LOST!!!


2 posted on 07/06/2005 3:55:44 PM PDT by HarleyLady27 (My ? to Libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
To be meaningful, consultation should include who the president is really considering so we can give responsive and useful advice so we can immediately begin the smear campaign," Kennedy said.

There, that's better...

3 posted on 07/06/2005 3:57:11 PM PDT by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

That's funny, I don't remember bill clinton making courtesy calls on the Republicans when he proposed controversial appointments. He was far too busy playing gold, going to fund raisers, or traveling to foreign parts with his cast of thousands.


4 posted on 07/06/2005 3:57:45 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I think Bush should meet with these folks....and then pin their ears back about the renegade nature of the courts, how he and the Republican Senate are going to rectify the situation, and how they (the Dems) can do nothing to stop them.


5 posted on 07/06/2005 3:58:07 PM PDT by My2Cents ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"...fall far short of the advice and consent consultations they expect..."

That sentence would sound so much better if it ended with "that the Constitution requires." Or perhaps "that all past Democratic presidents have done."


6 posted on 07/06/2005 3:58:16 PM PDT by geopyg ("It's not that liberals don't know much, it's just that what they know just ain't so." (~ R. Reagan))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

golf.


7 posted on 07/06/2005 3:58:20 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"To be meaningful, consultation should include who the president is really considering so we can give responsive and useful advice," Kennedy said.

*Snort*guffaw*snicker*....He has been at so long, the lies all seem like truths to him..

8 posted on 07/06/2005 3:59:32 PM PDT by cardinal4 (Relocate Guantanamo inmates to Dick "Rhymes with Turban" Durbin's house..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The May agreement was just a delay of the inevitable. This posturing is only a prelude to the filibuster which is a certainty. The Republicans will have to match the audacity of the Democrats or cede control of the federal courts to the minority party.


9 posted on 07/06/2005 4:00:30 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Leahy and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are expected to go to the White House on Monday along with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen , R-Pa., to talk more with Bush about the upcoming vacancy.

..DAMN!...not Specter. :((

10 posted on 07/06/2005 4:02:44 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The President should tell the demoncrats to stick the meeting where the sun doesn't shine.

I hope he stays strong on that issue, I'm tired of seeing republicans giving in to every demand the dummies make.
11 posted on 07/06/2005 4:03:05 PM PDT by puppypusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
That's funny, I don't remember bill clinton making courtesy calls on the Republicans when he proposed controversial appointments.

These guys aren't even trying to disguise what they're trying to do, they're so desperate. All they want is a bunch of pinatas they can flail away at over the summer recess, in the hope they can weaken them to the point where they have no public support and are thus that much easier to filibuster and pound on during the confirmation hearings.

President Bush is playing his cards very close to the vest, and I'll bet it's well into August before he even announces his nominee. These increasingly shrill demands to release the list NOW are going to get mighty tiresome.

12 posted on 07/06/2005 4:09:41 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Why not ask the Dems to present a list of their candidates.

Like social security they wouldn't have ideas, they only want to tear down. They are totally berift of ideas or meaningful proposals.

If they did supply a slate of candidates we would at least get some serious yucks.


13 posted on 07/06/2005 4:12:10 PM PDT by Recon Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC

I suggest Bush schedule the meeting at French Gay nightclub so that Kennedy can get even more stinkin' drunk,
Durbin can discuss treason with the Frogs, and the Democrats can take it up the ass!


14 posted on 07/06/2005 4:12:57 PM PDT by Doc Savage (...because they stand on a wall, and they say nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
President Bush is playing his cards very close to the vest, and I'll bet it's well into August before he even announces his nominee.

Agree, well into August and between now and then the librules are going absolutely bonkers. They should everybody alive disqualified by then.

Great strategy.

15 posted on 07/06/2005 4:17:56 PM PDT by Chuck54 (Someone please ping me when Barak Obama utters an original thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The President should wait til the depths of August to announce his nominee (Janice Rodgers Brown), when Teddy will be too busy getting drunk and chasing barmaids in Palm Beach to notice.


16 posted on 07/06/2005 4:19:29 PM PDT by Argus (Omnia taglinea in tres partes divisa est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Democrats say... (they) fall far short of the advice and consent consultations they expect before Bush announces a Supreme Court nominee

This is so much bullshiite it takes the breath away!

The Founding Fathers didn't want or expect the perfumed princes Senators to have any more input other than a simple "yeah" or "nay" vote on the matter.

Here is what the men on the scene when the Constitution was actually written had to say about this matter, and before it was even ratified:

"It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 66, 1787

(emphasis in the original)

The Liberals, as usual, are trying to rewrite the constitution to their own advantage.

17 posted on 07/06/2005 4:20:23 PM PDT by Gritty ("The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result"-Sandra Day O'Conner on the Kelo Decision)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Considering the animosity and disrespect the leftists have shown to the President, I'm amazed he calls them at all.

He should invite them into the oval office, administer molten iron enemas to them all, then ask them to state their concerns.


18 posted on 07/06/2005 4:21:18 PM PDT by Renfield (If Gene Tracy was the entertainment at your senior prom, YOU might be a redneck...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Ooh... the new summer TV mini-series The 44. See what happens when 44 members of the Senate that had super-powers behave once those powers are gone.

-PJ

19 posted on 07/06/2005 4:22:19 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
They need to ask the Democrats: "What judges on the Appeals Courts do you find objectionable?" And then "Why?"
20 posted on 07/06/2005 4:24:04 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Homophobic and Proud!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27

"What part of 'L O S E R' don't the libs understand???? ?

I would say they don't understand any of it, but why should they? They just keep on redefining reality and no one stops them.

(Saddam acted like that after GWI - he lost, but he never stopped trying to set the terms and he got away with it as long as he was dealing with Bubba. Remember? He wasn't going to submit to this or that kind of inspection or flyovers etc.? The Oil for Food scam to name one example was the biggest the world has seen.)

GWB could literally kiss the feet of lib senators and they would stab him in the back as soon as it advanced their agenda.

G*d I hope Bush has finally learned that lesson.


21 posted on 07/06/2005 4:24:15 PM PDT by Let's Roll ( "Congressmen who ... undermine the military ... should be arrested, exiled or hanged" - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

On PBS Senator Spector was attacking Robert Bork pretty ferociously. Also said something like the American peoples opinions have changed over 200 years. Looks like we might have trouble with him again...


22 posted on 07/06/2005 4:28:10 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty

Of course they will get their usual opportunity to posture, pontificate, and mince before the cameras. Buncha queers.


23 posted on 07/06/2005 4:28:26 PM PDT by johnb838 (A chill wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

"I know Specter, and the truth is not in him" -- Robert Bork.

"Having one's name turned into a verb is to acheive a certain form of immortality" -- Robert Bork.


24 posted on 07/06/2005 4:33:07 PM PDT by johnb838 (A chill wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Why, yes, Gentlemen! I've made a decision! I plan to nominate Robert Bork!

(Sounds of DIMS heads imploding (nature abhors a vacuum))!

Hey! One can dream, can't he? LOL

25 posted on 07/06/2005 4:37:31 PM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound (Freedom comes to those who understands it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

As leading Democrats lash out at their political enemies the party itself seems to be passing from an erratic state of misdirected introspection, after the 04 election, to what looks very much like breakdown.
This apparent disarray was not caused by foes alone but from a rigid, almost mystical, obsession with “social change” and from an increasing recognition by voters of the contradiction between utopian goals and daily reality.
Their leaders also misjudged the efficacy of the word reform. Reform can be beneficial but carried to extremes it becomes revolution. Revolution is almost always destructive of social order in its struggle to deliver on promises that are not possible in the real world.
Democrat’s have moved so far to the left that many prominent long-time supporters are having second thoughts. The party has lost too many elections. It seems to be weary, without ideas, without a theme, without conviction.
The party that could once pick from a large number of political giants for nomination to high office must now settle for the strongest of the weak -- and it shows.
One of the main reasons for the Democrats’ decline is not hard to find. The left have long enjoyed a supportive, if not biased, exclusive information soapbox provided by the major TV and print media. That source is gone. The leftist media’s influence has been dimmed by a high-tech phenomenon called the “Information Highway.“ No longer restricted to one worldview, information now flows from many springs.
The truth is now out in the open. The internet, blogs, talk radio, best-selling conservative books and publications, and a revitalized well-informed conservative revival have elbowed liberals off the stage.
The serious weakening of one major party in a bi-party system is nothing to cheer about. What makes the precarious position of the Democrats dangerous to the nation is that America thrives on a strong two-party system. Such a system provides balance and stability over the parliamentary systems we see in Europe.
In European countries, a number of minor parties form coalitions to share power that could never be attained individually. But coalitions, like alliances, last only until a better deal comes along for one of its members. Almost the very definition of a political coalition is that it is left-leaning and fragile. European governments come and go with clock-like regularity.
We see this kind of disproportion in America when a third-party candidate manages to attract enough votes to allow the weaker of the two major parties to win with a plurality. Our system must be preserved without becoming a multiparty circus.
So what can be done to fully restore the kind of sound two-party structure that has allowed Americans to create the freest nation on Earth with the highest standard of living ever known, while all other types of government, including “democracies,” have faltered or failed? A good question.
Here voters face a dilemma. The other major party, the Republican party, has lagged only a few steps behind in the Democrat’s long journey to socialism and the welfare state.



For no matter how far to the left the Democrat’s have moved, Republicans have done little to reverse direction. Inaction is tacit acceptance.
Even when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House no significant efforts have been made over the years to slow or stop the collectivist decay that has slowly eroded Constitutional rule-of-law, individual responsibility, capitalism and self-government.
With the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor we could see the beginning of what may well be the defining period that will either speed up the Democrat’s decline or prolong rule by judicial fiat.
With President Bush’s first of what could be several nominations the battle over Constitutional Rule of Law will take place. A “moderate” will never satisfy Democrats in the Senate. Unless Bush nominates a hard-core leftist there will be a battle royal over each confirmation and it promises to be down and dirty.
A major force behind the inexorable socialist drift in America has been the pattern of what amounts to judicial legislation that has taken place in the Supreme Court in recent decades. What was impossible for the left to achieve in the legislative branch has been accomplished by Supreme Court rulings that have many times battered the Constitution.
One of the last rulings by the Court, expanding the definition of Eminent Domain and endangering private property rights, is only the latest in a process that has been on-going for years.
Democrats have made it clear that they are determined to maintain their grip on the high court. The party will fight to the last filibuster to prevent nominees from being elevated to the Supreme Court who do not show a tendency to follow collectivist principles and who have, instead, consistently supported the Constitution’s Original Intent.
If Democrats lose the battle of the Supreme Court its last fluttering breath of life might well echo Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard “Dr. Demento” Dean’s famous bitter wail of defeat and defiance -- Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaahhh!

Jack Chesney
660 Laurelwood
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA 30071
July 1, 2005
847 words


26 posted on 07/06/2005 4:40:50 PM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

You are a looooooooser! Better luck next time. Bush should put the pedal to the metal. Screw um.


27 posted on 07/06/2005 4:42:09 PM PDT by gathersnomoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
"I know Specter, and the truth is not in him" -- Robert Bork.

What's in him has an aroma that is immediately recognizable to anyone who lives on a farm.

28 posted on 07/06/2005 4:42:19 PM PDT by Republic If You Can Keep It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

As leading Democrats lash out at their political enemies the party itself seems to be passing from an erratic state of misdirected introspection, after the 04 election, to what looks very much like breakdown.
This apparent disarray was not caused by foes alone but from a rigid, almost mystical, obsession with “social change” and from an increasing recognition by voters of the contradiction between utopian goals and daily reality.
Their leaders also misjudged the efficacy of the word reform. Reform can be beneficial but carried to extremes it becomes revolution. Revolution is almost always destructive of social order in its struggle to deliver on promises that are not possible in the real world.
Democrat’s have moved so far to the left that many prominent long-time supporters are having second thoughts. The party has lost too many elections. It seems to be weary, without ideas, without a theme, without conviction.
The party that could once pick from a large number of political giants for nomination to high office must now settle for the strongest of the weak -- and it shows.
One of the main reasons for the Democrats’ decline is not hard to find. The left have long enjoyed a supportive, if not biased, exclusive information soapbox provided by the major TV and print media. That source is gone. The leftist media’s influence has been dimmed by a high-tech phenomenon called the “Information Highway.“ No longer restricted to one worldview, information now flows from many springs.
The truth is now out in the open. The internet, blogs, talk radio, best-selling conservative books and publications, and a revitalized well-informed conservative revival have elbowed liberals off the stage.
The serious weakening of one major party in a bi-party system is nothing to cheer about. What makes the precarious position of the Democrats dangerous to the nation is that America thrives on a strong two-party system. Such a system provides balance and stability over the parliamentary systems we see in Europe.
In European countries, a number of minor parties form coalitions to share power that could never be attained individually. But coalitions, like alliances, last only until a better deal comes along for one of its members. Almost the very definition of a political coalition is that it is left-leaning and fragile. European governments come and go with clock-like regularity.
We see this kind of disproportion in America when a third-party candidate manages to attract enough votes to allow the weaker of the two major parties to win with a plurality. Our system must be preserved without becoming a multiparty circus.
So what can be done to fully restore the kind of sound two-party structure that has allowed Americans to create the freest nation on Earth with the highest standard of living ever known, while all other types of government, including “democracies,” have faltered or failed? A good question.
Here voters face a dilemma. The other major party, the Republican party, has lagged only a few steps behind in the Democrat’s long journey to socialism and the welfare state.



For no matter how far to the left the Democrat’s have moved, Republicans have done little to reverse direction. Inaction is tacit acceptance.
Even when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House no significant efforts have been made over the years to slow or stop the collectivist decay that has slowly eroded Constitutional rule-of-law, individual responsibility, capitalism and self-government.
With the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor we could see the beginning of what may well be the defining period that will either speed up the Democrat’s decline or prolong rule by judicial fiat.
With President Bush’s first of what could be several nominations the battle over Constitutional Rule of Law will take place. A “moderate” will never satisfy Democrats in the Senate. Unless Bush nominates a hard-core leftist there will be a battle royal over each confirmation and it promises to be down and dirty.
A major force behind the inexorable socialist drift in America has been the pattern of what amounts to judicial legislation that has taken place in the Supreme Court in recent decades. What was impossible for the left to achieve in the legislative branch has been accomplished by Supreme Court rulings that have many times battered the Constitution.
One of the last rulings by the Court, expanding the definition of Eminent Domain and endangering private property rights, is only the latest in a process that has been on-going for years.
Democrats have made it clear that they are determined to maintain their grip on the high court. The party will fight to the last filibuster to prevent nominees from being elevated to the Supreme Court who do not show a tendency to follow collectivist principles and who have, instead, consistently supported the Constitution’s Original Intent.
If Democrats lose the battle of the Supreme Court its last fluttering breath of life might well echo Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard “Dr. Demento” Dean’s famous bitter wail of defeat and defiance -- Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaahhh!


29 posted on 07/06/2005 4:46:14 PM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

Robert Bork is a tad old now.. It would be best to pick a person not much over 50.. Besides.. Giving the Dems too much time or a list of proposed names gives them time to get their smear research way finished.. In my opinion.. One day for committee, one day for floor discussion and vote..


30 posted on 07/06/2005 4:50:40 PM PDT by glowworm ( Liberalism is truly a mental condition...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: glowworm
I agree Robert Bork is a bit old, and I was just joking about the giving the DIMS a payback for what they did years ago!

I'm sure there are many qualified candidates for the position, none of whom the DIMS will like!

I like your tagline!

31 posted on 07/06/2005 5:04:34 PM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound (Freedom comes to those who understands it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: glowworm

"Dear Senator kennedy,

Remember what you did to my nominees over the last 4 years and what you did to Bolton?

Well payback is a beotch!!!!

Justice Brown is my first nominee and I expect an up or down vote."

Sincerely,

The Texas Tiger


32 posted on 07/06/2005 5:06:22 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The Democrats said they want to know more — specifically whom the president is considering —

Oh, yeah; that's gonna happen.

Soon, guys!

Wait for it.

33 posted on 07/06/2005 5:06:54 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
...Or Kennedy and his people could get Tommy Daschle to help them. (...I understand he's 'unemployed' just now. Thanks, John!) Daschle wanted to pick the judges himself a while back, if my memory serves. I guess some things just never change.

"It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose -- they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President." --Alexander Hamilton (1788), Federalist No. 66

Oh, and...P.S. There is a Duplicate Thread at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437920/posts

34 posted on 07/06/2005 5:10:30 PM PDT by Seadog Bytes (“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”—Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
GWB could literally kiss the feet of lib senators and they would stab him in the back as soon as it advanced their agenda...I hope Bush has finally learned that lesson.

I hope so too but I see no evidence of it. In spite of his stellar performance in foreign affairs, he is not very assertive in domestic affairs. Unless he's kissyfacing a Clinton. You can count on him to show up for any dinner honoring a Kennedy. And he praised Sandra Day O'Connor lavishly the other day. I think if a true conservative stepped forward and single-handedly saved Earth from an asteroid impact, GWB might say something positive about the fellow, but it would have to be a big rock.

35 posted on 07/06/2005 5:21:05 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: eureka!

"so we can immediately begin the smear campaign"


As Schumer's cell phone fiasco revealed today, the Demagogues are going to go to 'war' over anyone Bush might conceivably nominate, and all these blatherings in the press are merely the piffle of vicious Demagogues trying to pretend to reasonable......


36 posted on 07/06/2005 5:22:17 PM PDT by Enchante (Kerry's mere nuisances: Marine Barracks '83, WTC '93, Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombs '98, USS Cole!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Seadog Bytes

The Dems hate. They hate with a vengence. Top of the hate list is Bush. If Bush did everything they want, they would still hate him. There is no way to bring "unity" to a group of people who live in a world of "relativism" because relativism is just that: no boundaries, no concrete rules, no set of values or standards uniformly applied to all citizens. Republicans are prepared to set standards built on a foundation of Christian values in concrete. Unity will never happen.


37 posted on 07/06/2005 5:25:59 PM PDT by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Integrityrocks

The mischief of the dems is neverending.

Pres Bush will meet with them I do suspect. And I suggest cold coffee, no cream, splenda and cold untoasted bagels. Some fruit cocktail would be a nice bow to Deadwood.

I can't hate dems anymore than I do now. I do believe they have exhausted my capacity to loathe, hate, despise. I am out of words.


38 posted on 07/06/2005 5:30:34 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

...not to mention the countless bjs


39 posted on 07/06/2005 5:46:09 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (fiat voluntas Tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Um, I have 2 words for these losers, but "pound sand" is gonna have to do.


40 posted on 07/06/2005 5:46:37 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (fiat voluntas Tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus

GWB could announce his nominee on the anniversary of Chappaquiddick (July 18).


41 posted on 07/06/2005 5:54:30 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (fiat voluntas Tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Integrityrocks

42 posted on 07/06/2005 6:42:45 PM PDT by Seadog Bytes (“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”—Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson