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

Skip to comments.

Questions About Miers That Bush Needs to Answer
Human Events Online ^ | 10-14-05 | Schlafly, Phyllis

Posted on 10/14/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT by Theodore R.

Questions About Miers that Bush Needs to Answer by Phyllis Schlafly Posted Oct 14, 2005

If John G. Roberts' confirmation hearing is any guide, we won't learn anything from Harriet Miers' confirmation hearing. So here are some questions we would like President Bush to answer.

You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?

You said, "She's not going to change.... 20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy, that she is today." Isn't that claim ridiculous after Miers already made a major change in her philosophy from Democrat (giving personal contributions in the 1980s (when she was age 43) to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen and the Democratic National Committee's campaign to elect Michael Dukakis), to Republican in the 1990s (contributing to George W. Bush and others)?

Do you understand why Bush supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who voted against Chief Justice Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?

Since your supporters voted for you to change the direction of the Supreme Court away from activism and toward constitutionalism, do you understand their sense of betrayal that your two appointments have failed to do that: Roberts for Rehnquist was a non-change, and Miers for O'Connor can reasonably be expected to be another non-change?

When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?

In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen?

Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?

And why are Miers' advocates constantly talking about her religion anyway? Is her religion a qualification for office?

Since your wife, your mother, and all the women you have appointed to high office (such as Condoleezza Rice and RNC Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson) oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Do you really think that serving on the Texas Lottery Commission helps the resume of a Supreme Court nominee?

Miers is a corporate attorney who served on the Dallas City Council as a representative of the business community. Can you provide any evidence that she or the business community cares about the social issues that conservatives care about such as the definition of marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, abortion, euthanasia, or the sovereignty issues?

Why do you tout Miers' activity in the American Bar Association when most conservatives regard ABA influence as a negative rather than a positive?

Do you really think that pro-lifers will be convinced that Miers is pro-life because in 1989 she bought a $150 ticket to a dinner which 30 other Dallas politicians attended in order to be introduced?

Since Miers hasn't written anything memorable or important by age 60, how can we assume she has the capability to write Supreme Court opinions? Is there any constitutional or conservative principle on which Miers ever took a stand?

Since Souter, after one pro-life vote in his first term on the Court, was ridiculed by the press as "a black hole" from which no opinions emerged, then "grew" left to avoid the scorn of the media, aren't you concerned that Miers (who has never written anything on constitutional issues) would suffer the same fate?

Since O'Connor demonstrated her lack of judicial philosophy by unpredictably switching back and forth, so that the media praised her as the most powerful woman in America, aren't you concerned that Miers' lack of judicial philosophy would take her down the same path?

Why do you offend traditional women by choosing Miers, who helped create and raise funds for a radical feminist lecture series at Southern Methodist Law School that featured as speakers Gloria Steinem, Patricia Schroeder, Susan Faludi, and Ann Richards? What role did Miers play in White House pro-feminist policies about Title IX and women in combat?

Since Miers' chief qualification for high office is that she is your lawyer, aren't you worried about unfortunate parallels between her and Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of his personal lawyer, Abe Fortas?

Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; ghwb; gwb; harryreid; johnroberts; jrbrown; miers; oconnor; reagan; rehnquist; religion; schlafly; souter; supcourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last
Mrs. Schlafly must think that Miss Miers will be no conservative at all on the court.
1 posted on 10/14/2005 12:39:02 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9684
Here is the link.


2 posted on 10/14/2005 12:40:06 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Most of these questions have been answered by those supporting the Miers nomination.


3 posted on 10/14/2005 12:42:04 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Questions About Miers That Bush Needs to Answer

UM NO, you have this EXACTLY backwards. The Pres picks, the Senate consents. If the "Conservative" pundits want to interject themselves into this THEY have to explain to US why we should listen to them over the people WE picked to represent us. Bush has NO questions to answer. The Conservative PUNDITS need to explain to us WHY we should pay ANY attention to their temper tantrum. So far they have FAILED to make any case beyond "Whaaaa, she is NOT who WE want". Too bad. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, you self appointed critics have NO role in this.

4 posted on 10/14/2005 12:43:01 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......Water Buckets UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

"You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?"


So, how long had O'Connor, Kennedy and Soutr worked directly with Presidents Reagan and Bush41?


5 posted on 10/14/2005 12:45:11 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever; NixonsAngryGhost; indcons; 2ndreconmarine; Stellar Dendrite; nerdgirl; ...

ping


6 posted on 10/14/2005 12:48:29 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
and Miers for O'Connor can reasonably be expected to be another non-change?

Make up your mind Phylis! Either YOU know all about her and Bush doesn't need to answer any of you questions, or you DON'T KNOW anything about her and are just ignorantly blathering by making statements like the one above. Which is it?

7 posted on 10/14/2005 12:48:47 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Very good questions.


8 posted on 10/14/2005 12:49:36 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. Ps. 51:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Bush didn't get himself elected. Why spit in the face of those who gave him the power to nominate? Besides, who will you bow to 3 years from now? He's just a man you know.


9 posted on 10/14/2005 12:51:27 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. Ps. 51:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Most of these questions have been answered by those supporting the Miers nomination.

Exactly. I used to respect this person but I don't anymore. This is nothing more than DISINGENIOUS grandstanding.

Good God! How many 'conservatives' are going to shamefully exploit this situation to get either their 15 minutes in the spotlight or grandstand?

10 posted on 10/14/2005 12:51:45 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

A liberal colleague sent me this:
http://www.cronyjobs.com/

Kinda funny until you realize, this is how they regard us.


11 posted on 10/14/2005 12:51:47 PM PDT by FreeInWV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)?

This is the most disingenuous argument of all, raising the past history of others to predict the end result, then asking Bush to prove a negative (I will not be duped as they were).

12 posted on 10/14/2005 12:52:19 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Agreed, though some questions are a bit weak. Have you read our FreepThread on "In Her Own Words?"


13 posted on 10/14/2005 12:52:45 PM PDT by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Theodore R.
Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?

Ouch....that must hurt.
15 posted on 10/14/2005 12:53:56 PM PDT by indcons (Let the Arabs take care of their jihadi brothers this time around (re: Paki earthquake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
You said, "She's not going to change.... 20 years from now she'll be the same person,...

Statistically speaking Miers will probably be dead in 20 years. Again, please prove a negative.

16 posted on 10/14/2005 12:54:49 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Johnnie the haphazard use of ALL CAPS makes your posts a bit difficult to read. You may want to try using italics or bold to emphasize your points.

HTML guide

17 posted on 10/14/2005 12:55:36 PM PDT by nerdgirl (just say NO to posters who are "stuck on mean")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

In case you missed last night's Brit Hume show on Fox, Fred Barnes--a Miers supporter--hinted that she might have a small weak spot. This is how NRO summarized Barnes' remarks:

"On Brit Hume's show last night, Fred Barnes announced that Miers might have trouble during her hearings, but only if senators set out to embarrass her by asking her about "the third amendment," "the seventh amendment," and other, lesser-known aspects of the Constitution. Think about that for a moment. I mean, really. Just think about it. The third and seventh amendment are parts of the Bill of Rights. Asking Ms. Miers to demonstrate at least rudimentary knowledge of the Bill of Rights would represent an unfair and hostile action? This is what the Miers nomination is doing to us."


18 posted on 10/14/2005 12:55:45 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

I will bow to no one. I will elect people who will put people on the courts who will strcitly interpret the Constitution, despite what those desperate for media attention might want.


19 posted on 10/14/2005 12:56:00 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (I'd never question a DUmmie's patriotism. Even after 14 years, they're still loyal to the USSR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Great post! Absolutely true.


20 posted on 10/14/2005 12:56:10 PM PDT by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Since your supporters voted for you to change the direction of the Supreme Court away from activism and toward constitutionalism, do you understand their sense of betrayal that your two appointments have failed to do that: Roberts for Rehnquist was a non-change, and Miers for O'Connor can reasonably be expected to be another non-change?

She can also reasonably be expected to be a major change.

When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?

I'm not sure what the attempted connection is here.

In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen?

Maybe Mrs. Schafly can call up the Senate and see how many votes those candidates could have gotten and get back to us.

Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?

Miers converted to this church and lives by its tenets, as opposed to the likes of Fat Teddy.

Oh, well, at least Schafly isn't asking how a childless unmarried woman can hold a pro-life stance like she did in an earlier column.

21 posted on 10/14/2005 12:56:23 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Either YOU know all about her and Bush doesn't need to answer any of you questions, or you DON'T KNOW anything about her and are just ignorantly blathering by making statements like the one above. Which is it?,

That's what's driving me nuts - those opposed to Miers are both clamoring how she is an unknown, and then almost in the same breath say she's gonna be another O'Conner.

Can't have it both ways, folks.

22 posted on 10/14/2005 12:57:43 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Do you understand why Bush supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who voted against Chief Justice Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?

Actually has there been anything printed where Reid is quoted as saying "I support Harriet Miers' appointment to the Supreme Court"?

23 posted on 10/14/2005 12:58:03 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons

"Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?"

Read my lips, Harried will never change....again.


24 posted on 10/14/2005 12:58:29 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
ou self appointed critics have NO role in this.

They have as much a role as YOU DO in your support
25 posted on 10/14/2005 12:58:49 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Who cares, if President Bush said today the sky is blue, phyllis would be all over the media saying the sky is orange.


26 posted on 10/14/2005 1:00:45 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Roberts for Rehnquist was a non-change

I guess Phyllis is upset that Roberts will have the same view on Roe as Rehnquist did. Either that, or she's not thinking very logically.

27 posted on 10/14/2005 1:02:00 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Lashed to the USS George W. Bush: "Damn the Torpedos, Full Miers Ahead!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WinOne4TheGipper
I will elect people who will put people on the courts who will strictly interpret the Constitution

This is just the point. Will Miers be a rigid constitutionalist? I certainly hope so. If she will be, this is a change from her history in the late 80's and early 90's. But then again, that was a long time ago. It really does boil down to whether you trust Bush to be a true conservative. On many issues and decisions of Bush in the last five years, I have been disappointed.

28 posted on 10/14/2005 1:02:25 PM PDT by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I listened to her in a Q & A earlier today. Here are few more of her points.

Phyllis - don't think will get much out of HM during hearings
Phyllis - Partial birth ban will get to SCOTUS - "Will you recuse yourself on the PBA ban case?"
Phyllis - Entitled to know that know, and if she recuses, that oughta kill the nomination
Phyllis - GWB is not demontrably pro-life, and all of the women in his life are NOT
Phyllis - We are not a Bush party. We are a conservative movment
Phyllis - conservative movement needs to assert itself

In general, she holds that it is bad karma to inject Ms. Miers' religion into the calculus. That is more or less irrelevant for evaluating a SCOTUS pick.

29 posted on 10/14/2005 1:02:26 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
What you are describing is pure arrogance. If Bush agreed with you in anyway he would never have become the successful politician he is.

If the republicans follow your advice in any measure, they will become a minority for another generation.

30 posted on 10/14/2005 1:02:37 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Ok, Johnnie.......you have made your point. For the sake of your readers, please stop using so many caps. All caps make for bad reading and they are bad etiquette.


31 posted on 10/14/2005 1:04:37 PM PDT by indcons (Let the Arabs take care of their jihadi brothers this time around (re: Paki earthquake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
"Actually has there been anything printed where Reid is quoted as saying, 'I support Harriet Miers' appointment to the Supreme Court'?"

No, but she was on his list of candidates that he said he would approve.

32 posted on 10/14/2005 1:05:10 PM PDT by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Either that, or she's not thinking very logically

Phyllis thinking logically. That is the definition of an oxymoron.

33 posted on 10/14/2005 1:05:39 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
UM NO, you have this EXACTLY backwards. The Pres picks, the Senate consents. If the "Conservative" pundits want to interject themselves into this THEY have to explain to US why we should listen to them over the people WE picked to represent us. Bush has NO questions to answer.

As usual, the pro-Miers arguments would apply the same had Bush nominated Hillary Clinton.

34 posted on 10/14/2005 1:05:56 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Actually, a white woman aged 60 in the U.S. has a life expectancy of 23.5 more years...so she has a 50% chance of living to the age of 83 years and 6 months.


35 posted on 10/14/2005 1:06:40 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Actually has there been anything printed where Reid is quoted as saying "I support Harriet Miers' appointment to the Supreme Court"?

Nop. That's a certainty. All he expressed is that he supports the nomination - that's code for "no filibuster."

36 posted on 10/14/2005 1:07:26 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?

Excellent point, that the pro-Miers in the administration and on FR will probably ignore. This is the best Miers opinion piece I have seen.

37 posted on 10/14/2005 1:07:51 PM PDT by TChad (Neil Bush for Fed Chair!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
So, it is alright to promise one thing before an election and do another thing once elected?

Who do the Senators, who will vote whether or not to confirm Miers, represent? Are not the citizens who elected them entitled to express their views on the matter? Are citizens who think their elected leaders have made an error in judgment not entitled to an redress of grievances?
38 posted on 10/14/2005 1:08:59 PM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Typical presumption from the Antis. The President does not have to answer ANY questions about this nomination and shouldn't. Now it goes to the Senate for disposal one way or another. There will be NO poll to see if we like it or not.

There is no requirement that nominations be popular with all or acceptable to all or even to any except 100 people deciding to accept or reject. And THAT is how it was designed by the Founders who wanted to keep the voters out of this completely.


39 posted on 10/14/2005 1:10:14 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"Phyllis thinking logically. That is the definition of an oxymoron."

Excuse me, but this is an outrageous comment. And BTW, the rate of illegal immigration has increased dramatically under Bush relative to Clinton.

40 posted on 10/14/2005 1:10:14 PM PDT by Leonine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Bush has NO questions to answer ... you self appointed critics have NO role in this.

Um ... I'm not sure you want to say things like that.

Ms. Schafly is a conserative hero ... and like everyone else, she has a perfect right to question this nomination.

41 posted on 10/14/2005 1:10:53 PM PDT by Oliver Optic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: indcons

I don't think Hariiet Miers is the most qualified person in the country

But I am think she will be very Conservative

But I think overturning Roe v. Wade will be a disaster for Republicans


42 posted on 10/14/2005 1:11:26 PM PDT by richconklin (Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

"The Conservative PUNDITS need to explain to us WHY we should pay ANY attention to their temper tantrum."

The simplest answer: Because we vote!


43 posted on 10/14/2005 1:12:17 PM PDT by Prolifeconservative (If there is another terrorist attack, the womb is a very unsafe place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: indcons

Random thoughts:

I don't think Hariiet Miers is the most qualified person in the country

But I think she will be very Conservative

And I think overturning Roe v. Wade will be a disaster for Republicans

I am ready for George Allen in 2008


44 posted on 10/14/2005 1:12:19 PM PDT by richconklin (Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Since your wife, your mother, and all the women you have appointed to high office (such as Condoleezza Rice and RNC Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson) oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Good one.

45 posted on 10/14/2005 1:12:29 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon
Who do the Senators, who will vote whether or not to confirm Miers, represent? Are not the citizens who elected them entitled to express their views on the matter? Are citizens who think their elected leaders have made an error in judgment not entitled to an redress of grievances?

Are you done with the hysterics?

No one is stopping you from picking up the phone and saying your opinions.

46 posted on 10/14/2005 1:12:53 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Just another whole loafer.


47 posted on 10/14/2005 1:12:58 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (It is easy to call for a pi$$ing contest when you aren't going to be in the line of fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Details, details can't let details get in the way of high dudgeon. Phylis is just upset because she wasn't consulted.
48 posted on 10/14/2005 1:13:05 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Mrs. Miers. At one point in time you were given a .45 cal pistol by a relative. Do you still own said pistol, have you ever actually fired said pistol, what is your current carry pistol, and do you prefer a Kydex quick fire rig to an Uncle Mike's IWB crossdraw?

If your answers are "No", "No", "Nothing", and "What?" then you are not what we need sitting on the USSC right now...

49 posted on 10/14/2005 1:14:07 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Good God! How many 'conservatives' are going to shamefully exploit this situation to get either their 15 minutes in the spotlight or grandstand?

Cut them some slack! Everyone has to make a living. :^)

50 posted on 10/14/2005 1:14:26 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last

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