Posted on 10/25/2005 11:29:10 AM PDT by DGA
Why don't they subpoena the liberals? Seems only fair, if they are subpoenaing conservatives.
What part of the Constitution gives these bozos the right to subpeona people to inquire about their private conversations?........
Where were all the subpoenas when SANDY BURGLER WAS STEALING CLASSIFIED PAPERS ????????????????????
This is just common practice.
Afterall, "Rev." Barry Lynn, Michael Newdow, and Patricia Ireland were all grilled during Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg's confirmation hearing.
You're all just being parano ....what? That didn't happen?
Never Mind!
Easy answer - because the libs aren't running around like four year olds saying stoo-pid stuff like,
"Ha-ha, I know something you don't know. I know how Harriet will vote and you don't, ha-ha"And the winner of all the ijit 'insider' statements:
Rove told me things I 'probably shouldn't’t know'Yep, brilliant. Utterly brilliant. And of course the Judaical Committee would ignore this, uh-huh.
Hmm...both of them can be considered "journalists". Where is the MSM?
When he talked about the conversations on his radio show, and implied that he had inside information, he opened himself up for questioning, IMHO. That wasn't the brightest move on Dobson's part. He may have a lot of political influence, but he seems incredibly naive about some things.
Feinstein made a comment like that with respect to Roberts. Others as well.
Liberals, beware! If you really want this, it can come back at you with a vengeance! Subpeonas can fly at the drop of a hat (or a name!). "What did you discuss, Sen. Kennedy, Mr. dean, Mr.?".....................
Those "media interviewers" were on FNC. It was during Neil Cavuto's show as I heard it live. When Dobson said that I nearly fell out of my chair. I thought 'how stupid is he, to say that on live TV'?
However almost immediately after blurting it out, he started to back track and changed the subject. That led me to believe that he was exaggerating (we all do it at times) and in reality he don't know 'squat' and no such assurance ever came.
So now the problem for Dobson is that he stepped in "it" good and can't retract it and admit was was exaggerating as he'd 'loose face'. But maybe worse - be seen by the left as a 'Religious Wing Nut' liar and validate their moonbat paranoia of the religious right.
Correct.
But the difference is, and I believe a BIG one, is that she's on the committee and her comments were after her interview with him. The same with the comments of Durbin or ole Arlen.
However, Rove or anyone at the WH shouldn't be giving secret assurances (leaks) to Dobson (or any group) as to how she'll (Miers) vote on any matter that may come before SCOTUS. That goes directly back to the 'crony, lackey, brown nose, toady' charge and if true -- proves it.
I don't want a toady on SCOTUS. I want some one who will follow the dang Constitution.
I don't blame the WH for trying to assauge the base. I do blame Bauer and Dobson for blabbing. They should have expressed their support, and that's it.
One of the big differences with the Feinstein thing was that she was BSing in order to poison the waters. She later voted against Roberts.
Of course, that might be what Dobson's doing as well, but I doubt it.
I don't either, but I sure with they were more effective at it.
Where is the promotion of this nominee? Is the WH going to sit and take all the crap slung at this nomination? Where is the defense? What is the defense?
I think they are smart to try to support their nominee thru one on one meetings, in order to avoid inflaming the liberals. But the problem is that either they are not doing that, or they are not succeeding at that.
They should have told Dobson to keep his mouth shut too, though maybe they figured he was smart enough to figure that out for himself.
That isn't goping to cut it. THe WH needs to sell this nomination to the public. What are they waiting for?
They don't need to sell it to the public. They need to sell it to 51 Senators. And they get to choose which 51 Senators to make their pitch to.
What do you mean you blame Bauer for "blabbing"? He wasn't given any assurances by anybody. And he doesn't even support the nominee!
That's the first level. Don't lose sight that the Senators have the burden of answering to voters. I told mune that I would work my fingers to the bone to unseat them if they voted up a nominee that did not have a clear record that reflected a jurisprudential philosophy that resembled that of Thomas, Scalia or Rhenquist.
This is precisely why we need to repeal the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution. The framers had is right the first time.
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.