Careful!
That might be considered whining!
Posted on 07/10/2005 7:19:51 AM PDT by colonel mosby
William Kristol, who correctly predicted that O'Connor would retire before Rehnquist, now has a dire prediction. Kristol claims that Rehnquist will retire this week, and that Bush operatives are already clearing the way to nominate Alberto Gonzales for new Chief Justice. Kristol made the comments on Fox News Sunday, as part of the four member discussion panel.
According to this train of thought, according to Kristol, the White House believes that it can avoid Congressional conflict by appointing a moderate like Gonzales, and then balance it by naming a true conservative to replace O'Connor. This would effectively leave the current "balance of the court" intact.
Panelists Juan Williams and CeCe Connolly applauded this notion, and felt it was a worthy compromise. However, panelist Charles Krauthammer warned that appointing Gonzales to the court would be a huge mistake because, by doing so, Bush would "betray his base" and "betray his promises".
William Kristol said that a Gonzales appointment, or any moderate appointment, would be "incredibly demoralizing" and "disastrous" for George W. Bush, because it would completely alienate his conservative base, and cause a terrible fracture in the Republican Party.
There is more than one hurricane on the horizon.
Who would miss him after his wimping out over using a marijuana case to knock a leg out from under the New Deal?
If he nominates Speedy Gonzalez, there might be a few more of us that refuse to call him PRESIDENT.
In light of the many disappointments brought to us by President Bush over budget deficits, rampant growth in the federal bureaucracy, refusal to do anything to stem the flood of illegal aliens streaming across the borders, and so on -
Is anybody actually surprised by this?
Ding! Ding! Ding!
It took 104 posts to get to the FACTS!!!!!!
These people are believing what they read on a whole lot of web sites that do NOT know what they are talking about!
I would not vote for Hillary.
I did not vote for Bob Dole.
When Republicans fail to understand this, they lose.
Yes, he did.
What are you trying to do, ruin their feeding frenzy?
Don't try to bring actual FACTS into this discussion, Mary!
First off - Gonzalez replacing O'Conner IS (would be) a significant redirection of the Supreme Court (for starters) -
Secondly, I guess Ronald Reagan abandon the whole Conservative movement when he appointed O'Connor - (so silly).
Lastly, GWB has been a man of his word. He has shown great leadership and thoughtfulness with many (if not all) of his decisions as CIC / POTUS - He deserves people to trust him at this time. He is constantly dealing with the treasonous Democrats while trying to be an effective CIC....they last thing he deserves is a bunch of whining so called "supporters" hounding him about he "will abandon them".
Absolutely. And THAT is precisely what drives all these Kritol columns!
In 2000, he did NOT get a call from the Bush-Cheney team to come work in the White House!
Example: Senate Minority Leader blankity blank, D-NV
We all know who that is.
Or ... the number two demonRAT in the House, So in So ...
OR ... The top terrorist leader of al-Queda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, instead of Zarq. (we know who he is)
You get the picture. My comment was not only about this article.
It might not matter is possibly true. It could be 1974 all over again, only lighter. So many people would stay home it would be incredible.
Nominating Gonzales would be an unpardonable betrayal. Bush's approval rating will be <30% for the remainder of his term and he'll be an immediate lame duck for the rest of his time. He'll also go down as a carbon copy of his Daddy--a fake conservative who played the base for suckers to get elected.
That is exactly right and IS the point.
And, thank you for your support of our PRESIDENT.
There was NEVER any such "deal" like that made by George W. Bush."
It is unfortunate that the appointment issue continues to focus on Roe v. Wade--the important objective should be a justice who is committed to application of the words of the Constitution instead of vague concepts of domestic policy and foreign "fundamental law" on human rights and relationships.
The word "abortion" does not appear in the Constitution. If the liberals want to see that word where it counts, they should amend the Constitution to put it there. If as they claim, there is a clear majority of Americans who favor the right to an abortion, the amendment process is available and ought to get the result the liberals seek on that issue.
Imoral; contrary to God's law; but a debate on an amendment that focuses on the extent and limitations of such a right resolves the problem without interference with the basic objective of appointing justices that will apply basic Constitutional legal principals to decision of legal controversy.
The so called abortion argument is intended to obscure the real difference which is not over abortion at all but rather over the application of clear constitutional principals of limited government to our political system.
That is exactly right and IS the point.
And, thank you for your support of our PRESIDENT.
As if Bushes have never done that before.
He works for me. I don't bow to any politician. Especially one who has assaulted the First Amendment and dumped more Big Stupid Government on me.
That is a completely idiotic statement. The Supreme Court is not a legislative branch which would implement incremental change. Having a solid conservative on the bench replacing O'Connor gets rid of affirmative action and partial-birth abortion. And you've read the Texas Supreme Court's partial-birth abortion decision (the one where Gonzalez calls the dissent - not Owens specifically - judicial activists), and have heard the stories of his watering down the administration's brief in the Bollinger decision, and you'd feel comfortable with him on the bench? Wake up, man. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Gonzalez is a man "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas".
And when did I suggest we should not trust Bush in his decisions on the war? You sound like a no-nothing liberal. Focus on what I'm saying to you.
Careful!
That might be considered whining!
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.