Posted on 10/04/2005 10:39:32 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
Well I'll answer the question. He should have tried even if he had only 47 or 48 votes.
What better time than to truly "out" the RINOs in the Senate and force them to vote with Bush or give up any hopes they might have of being a Republican President. I think you know who I'm talking about.
The fact that Bush failed to do so and instead accepted the Harry Reid recommendation tells you all you will ever have to know about the decision making process in the White House. This was a gutless Can't-we-all-just-get-along Rodney King decision. Washington is a club and Bush is a member. The disease that has infected his Presidency with it's massive spending and do-good social programs is the same one that will infect Miers. You will see it over time when she starts making decisions based on what her five star social circle wants to see rather than what the law says in plain English.
president sounded pretty confident this morning about his selection and usually he is right
or even worse, a dame sham.
"It's all just a part of this rich tapestry that we call life." Cocky Locky
Sort of like being dehumanized
Then you and the others are saying that those who continue to support the President are blind robots and inhuman?
Oh, and then there's the feeling I get both from threads like this one and from my liberal co-workers that I should just shut up and take what they and you say as gosple.
And Heaven help anyone who ssays anything positive about President Bush or anyone who works for him or are related to him.
I'm trying not to be offensive or stubborn but I feel like my opinions are being stifled or ridiculed.
Sorry for the rant but I had a bad day and it's getting worse.
Miers' lack of an "ivy" law school degree is in her favor, IMHO. So, she missed out on a four-year brainwashing session followed by another three-year brainwashing session? That's a negative?
Does Bay of Pigs come to mind??????
"It's always the same thing with her - beating up Republicans"
Somebody has to do it!
He is a Coward, not asking congress for a Declairation of War after the 911 attack killes more Americans that Pearl Harbor; trying to work the war on terror through the f**kin UN when it was we who were attacked; not standing up to the out of control spending in conress by vetoing the pork spending bills; and most pathetically, asking the minority demonrats in the senate who would be an acceptable list of canditates so they wont filibuster his nominee. This boy is not a fighter and certainly not a hard charger. His path in life should have been on the board of some numbnut country club in Arlen TX that Hank Hill is trying to get into... Not running the nation.
Harriet is that you?
Ah, substance.
Does he believe the right to privacy exists in the constitution?
I believe he does, in the 4th amendment.
So what?
Er - the right to privacy is what made Roe law. Are you saying you believe he's going to uphold Roe?
Notoriety, book sales, speaking engagements. She's the bad girl of the right.
Don't forget dresses like trash.
I second your opinion.
I don't think Bush is fooled and as far as Bush being fooled with Putin, Putin was never solid. Putin has the Russian mafia and old KGB threatening to kill him all the time. If they get to him, a former cooperative person would be rendered uncooperative.
I think Russia is a hell hole and there is no way to predict from one day to the next what politicians there will have the power to do. They can be threatened, blackmailed and hurt in many ways and that has NOTHING to do with Bush misjudging them, it has to do with the way Russia is and the effect that would have on a leader from there.
Hopefully not, but we are counting on the 'benefit of the doubt' for President Bush. Who knows... will it be like father like son.
I've had the same thoughts as you. On the other hand, I've often said the average man off the street should be on the Supreme Court because they have more common sense than the justices.
Don't let the old times intimidate you.
Absolutely right.
Miers will prove to be a *judge* who prefers to just get along with her colleagues over faithfully defending the law as written by Congress and the Founding Fathers.
The whole Souter comparison is a red herring. Nobody will ever turn out like Souter, who was a turncoat from the minute he was confirmed.
But Miers can do as much damage to the promise of effecting real change in the direction of the court, Bush's stated goal, just by compromising on sound conservative principles like those eloquently put forth by Roberts in his hearings, and the conservative wing (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) of the court.
What do you mean? I'm sure she's well aware of that.
And until then, do you have a problem with her voicing her opinion? Or is it just that her opinion differs from yours? I certainly hope this Miers lady is more tolerant of dissent than some FReepers I've encountered lately.
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.