btt
Great post!
I prefer the Army acronym: MOOSEMUSS! I begin to wonder if there are bitter little McCains running about on this forum.
Establishment (primarily East coast) Republicans are a far more dangerous enemy than liberal Democrats. At least the latter doesn't dress up in costumes.
What if Miers is a conservative AND [President]Bush is consistant in the fact that he has always picked good Judicial nominees (the one that survive the RINO's in the Senate).
I totally disagree with this because to the average apolitical American...the SCOTUS is way below the radar.
Just listen to one of those man on the street interviews that Hannity does, many, many Americans have no idea who the VP is, much less understand or even know that the President has made two recent nominations to the SC.
If they're apolitical, I don't think they're following this story.
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
OK, that one crossed my eyes while wading through it.
Cheers!
I support GW, even though sometimes I disagree with him.
This is a pretty good analysis of the situation.
The unfortunate reality is there are too many so called conservatives that think they have to appease the liberals.
I'd really like to see us use our power to overturn some of their most outrageous advances.
Specifically, allowing the US to be dictated to by the joke U.N., the restrictive environmental regulations, immigration laws that aren't enforced, socialism run amok, etc, etc.
I just don't think it will ever happen. The MSM and the civil services are too deeply infiltrated by the leftists.
Right on the money.
Not bad. But you'll probably have the party over principle types pushing the abuse button like a heroin addict pushes the morphine button in the hospital.