Posted on 10/24/2006 9:51:23 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
SCOTUS picks are dependent on the Dems getting the Senate. If the Dems win the Senate, Bush probably cannot get anybody approved, no matter who it is.
On a side note, I'm in Florida and there are several Florida Supreme Court judges up for election. Anyone have a clue how I can find out which ones are more conservative?
Thanks!
DICK DICK ALERT, DICK DICK ALERT, HIDE YOUR CHILDREN, COVER YOUR EARS, RUN FOR THE HILLS!!
Dickstrodamus now knows that this election is a toss up and will be decided at the polls. In which case, there will be an election. Dickstrodamus also knows or knew that the democrats had this election locked up until they didn't in which case they could have unless Dickstrodamus thought they didn't in which case the Republicans were going to win or not win depending on the votes.
Dickstrodamus says, he will know what will happen as soon as it already does. Dickstrodamus, the master of triangulating his predictions, hath spoken!!!!
Reminds me of my husband's great uncle who was an old-timey General Practitioner. (I met him when he was in his 80's.) He claimed he always made accurate predictions about the sex of babies before they were born. He told every mother to be that her baby would be a boy, but he wrote in his record book girl. If the baby was a boy everyone was happy. On the other hand, if the baby was a girl and the mother objected saying "you told me she would be a boy". He just pulled out his record book and showed her the entry that said girl settling the matter by telling the objecting mother she was obviously mistaken.
He was a devil! Died in his late 90's doing what he loved best...fishing.
already mailed by ballot in.....no way I won't vote.
This is a critical election.
I think teh GOP will realize that the closer we get.
For the past several years, Dick Morris has been consistently wrong in all of his predictions. Sounds to me like he has finally figured out that if he calls both sides of a race he can claim he was right after the election.
"The GOP base, alienated by the Foley scandal"
I, for one, am sick of hearing inside-beltway politicos use the above expression. Not one person outside the DC area cares anything at all about Foley. Not one religious person in America is going to sit out the election because of the Foley matter. It is the Dem's lack of understanding of Christians which cause them to keep making this error.
Not quite true, Dickie. Even if they do succeed in running the table against "all five vulnerable GOP incumbents" (not likely, IMHO), the 'Rats still would need a takeover either in Virginia (against George Allen, who is not included among the "vulnerable", according to Morris) or in Tennesse, even if they held in New Jersey with Menendez. And if they lost in New Jersey and beat "all five vunerable GOP incumbents," they would have to win both Virginia and Tennessee. So they'd have to win at least two of the three - Virginia, Tennessee, and New Jersey - in addition to sweeping the other five races mentioned.
In short, the 'Rats chances for a Senate takeover are very slim!
He actually did vote for the Democratic landslide, before he voted against it.
What do you expect from a lib?
Poor dickie... so many toes... so little time to suckle.
LLS
What is strange is not that "the Republican base seems to be coming back home," but that Dickie Morris is calling a trend toward the GOP "encouraging."
If he has genuinely renounced his identity as a Democrat (even as an anti-Clinton Democrat), I congratulate him. But I still have to be convinced that he has really changed party affiliation.
"How did Clarence Thomas get thru with a Dem controlled Senate?"
Good question. I wan't into what was happening at all back then. maybe someone here can enlighten us both. but I do know that these are different times now, with the Dems hard-wired and out for blood. I'd bet *any* amount of money that a Dem-controlled Senate would not confirm another Alito-type nominee.
I just don't know.
Could be reverse psychology.
Make the Republicans feel like they have the wrap on the election and, many will stay home.
In any case let's keep up, getting out the vote. This would drive the Democrats crazier than they are.
Unless it is a stealth candidate, or perhaps a Janice Rogers Brown. In any case, with Roe possibly on the line, it will be extremely difficult. Hopefully the Pres won't *go along to get along* and put up moderate.
Dick Morris: Brilliant analysis, Wack conclusions
Dick Morris is a giant windsock. He'll tell you which way the wind is blowing.
Problem is, any idiot can do that. There isn't one thing Morris says that half of FR couldn't tell the rest of the world.
Being a good political consultant tells you what COULD be or where things WILL be in a week or a month or a year if things go a certain way.
Morris can't really do that anymore. I don't know why he's still in the business.
Basically, it comes down a few factors:
1.)He was black. Looking back at it now, it's easy to say 'Well, black people don't like him much, so why did the D's care? (unfortunately, NOW has done a wonderful job of demonizing this great man)', but they didn't know that back then. They were scared s#!tless that if they opposed him they'd lose their votes.
2.) Some D's didn't like being played for suckers. Biden, for example, might be a blowhard, but he doesn't like being blatantly lied to. He flat out said it was clear Hill was lying, and he didn't like being lied to.
Of course, you might say, even if they didn't believe her, why didn't he just oppose him on ideological grounds? Well, first off, I think being lied to by those who opposed him actually might have made him want to vote against them just to pi$$ them off.
But the other thing is that, believe it or not, things use to be much, much more biparisan in the area of judges. This was right after Bork, and while Bork was defeated, even some on the D side came to the conclusion that Bork had went to far, and they wanted to restore a more fair process. It wasn't till Tiny Tommy Dashle started pulling crap in 2001 that the system really melted down.
C.) Arlen Specter, who opposed Bork, was EXTREMELY pro-Thomas. The reasons for this are complicated, but bottom line is Arlen being for him removed their 'cover' and made them look unreasonable if they opposed him. The fact that Specter, a former DA, ripped Hill a new one during the testimony didn't hurt either.
It's also worthy of note that the D's controlled the Senate, true, but that was back when they still had D's like John Bereaux and Sam Nunn. Not conservatives, but with the exception of Ben Nelson, certainly to the right of the entire D senate right now.
Sorry, missed yours. Read my last post.
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.