Miers' legacy: An angry base

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, October 29, 2005 | Kevin McCullough

[jwalsh07]

Family is good Johnny. Sorry about your home but glad to hear you're attitude about it is as good as ever.

Regards,
John

[kcar]

With the appeals court nominees and Roberts the call was the Senate just needed to do an up or down. With Miers, they demanded to see her work. And it was republicans who were doing the demanding.

We demanded to know more because she was a crony. Advise and consent had that specifically in mind. Barring that, the demand to give it an up or down vote is directed at the opposition party, not our own. Being vital and active participants within the party in power, we're part of the editing process. Our party leaders need our feedback.

[bmwcyle]

That is also what are all about.

[ohhhh]

[The base is always angry.]


Uh, what base are talking about?

The left wing pro communist, baby killing buthchers, military hating, God hating , Christ hating, America hating, constitution changing liberals?

Or the right wing pro American, pro life for all born of women, military apprciating, God is our Father, Christ is our Saviour, Constitution Originaist and grateful originalist American patriot right wing conservative and Christian conservative pushed to the limit of all patience base?

Just curious.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank God you are doing ok after Wilma!!! And thank you for the ping!

[Mike Darancette]

I expect to see Bush's numbers go up 15% now the base is happy to be shed of Miers.

Ignore the polls that show the only group that is happy Miers withdrew is Democrats.

[Mike Darancette]

The conservative gave an intelligent debate on why they did not want her.

The part that won the most hearts and minds was the Reasoned discussion of Miers sexuality, lack of intelligence, looking like a washer woman and being Caligula's Horse.

[Reagan Man]

Miers' legacy: An angry base

Some of us didn't need Miers to get angry. This "base" conservative remains angry about Bush`s liberal spending habits, his expansion of the federal bureaucracy and his ignoring of the immigration issue. Each issue is just as important as who the President nominates to the SCOTUS. Giving Bush a pass on his big government, open borders Republicanism will continue to damage this nation. Having an originalist conservative sitting on the SCOTUS is an idea I support. Michael Luttig is the best man for the job. But whether its Luttig, Brown or another conservative jurist, no SC justice has the power to limit the expansion of the liberal nannystate. If the GOP`s conservative base had shown the same outrage over Bush`s fiscal irresponsible spending as was expressed for the Miers nomination, maybe we'd have a shot at limited government. An idea at the very heart of our Constitution and the Founders original intent.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let's define some terms:

• Base = Any particular group of people who are in disagreement with the President's handling of any particular issue at any particular time.
• Angry = The permanent state of mind of the "base."

The truth of the matter is that they who lay claim to the term "base" are truly NOT the base.

[ST.LOUIE1]

Whew! What a week it's been down here in South Florida ;-)

Ya didn't lose your *crown*, did ya? : )

Take care, King. God bless you AND your Sis.

Excellent post!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If the GOP`s conservative base had shown the same outrage over Bush`s fiscal irresponsible spending as was expressed for the Miers nomination."

The conservative (as you define conservative) wing of the GOP is not the "base"; if it were, if would have more of an impact on policy making...it does not.

The reason why there may have been an impact on the Miers nomination is that a large portion of what is the real "base" of this party spoke up.

"...liberal spending habits, his expansion of the federal bureaucracy and his ignoring of the immigration issue..."

So the "Reagan Man" thing is a touch of sarcasm?

[dangus]

WHOOOAAA!!! Hold on there...

Lani Guineer was a radical left-winger. You're analogy would hold up if he had nominated someone like Janice Rogers Brown. What he did was the equivalent of Clinton naming someone like, well, like John Roberts.

No-one EVER, EVER argued for a filibuster. Why are you making up talking points/lies for the DU?

[Texas Federalist]

The base is always angry.

We were happy when Miers withdrew, so we're not always angry.

[Reagan Man]

I see you've returned to give us more of your comedy routine. LOL I'm laughing.

[Rocky]

Good article. Sorry to hear about your house.

[bert]

.....or strategy .....

What say the FReepers? Did W purposely nominate Harriet to wake up the sleeping conservative base? Did he piss some folks off on purpose to get them off their butts?

[Earthdweller]

"Do or die with every mistake is very liberal."

You nailed it..but I also felt a lot better after I told a few knuckleheads off here in the last few days. :)

[Earthdweller]

"We were happy when Miers withdrew, so we're not always angry."

Twist that knife in just a little bit more..it will put another smile on your face. /sarc

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's what you "see."

What everyone else sees is how you avoid responding to the points made, and instead take issue with me.

Telling...

[bmwcyle]

I never read or heard that. You must hang with a lower crowd.