Skip to comments.Rush 10/3 Thread (Cheney Will Be On the Rush Limbaugh Show)
Posted on 10/03/2005 8:53:59 AM PDT by Rosemont
Remind me to have you read Washington's journals, and how he, even in a position of power, deliberately avoided picking fights with other generals under his command so as not to divide. Rather brilliant. They faded out, he succeeded. And I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with you, believe me. You'd be trying to draw fire.
Reid doesn't know Miers any better than we do...he likes her from working with her on judicial nominees...his attitude will change when he finds out how she stands on certain issues......I look forward to these hearings..
She may turn out to be great but since she is such a blank slate and some of the Dems like her, it is clear that Bush wanted to avoid controversy. Not the tactic I would have preferred. Sigh.
Actually, how conservatives and Liberals feel about her isn't of much concern to me. I was in direct conflict with Coulter on Roberts, have refused to read her columns on the subject since. When the Libs were praising Roberts in obvious strategy to divide conservative support, I stayed by him.
My main objection is that I feel he compromised in the area of expertise and intellectual acumen. I think she's adequate, I do not think she's near the intellect of a Roberts, Thomas or Scalia.
Ideology, who knows? But there was no denying Roberts skills.
"Rush is right. This is a nomination from a point of weakness. Looks like the WH is worried about W's poll numbers."
The best way to get his poll numbers up would have been to engergize his base and stir things up a bit.
Maybe Bush has been in D.C. too long.
Criticism is not against Miers, it is against Bush.
So is Michelle Maulkin, Laura Ingraham, Tony Snow.... I tend to agree with them. I'm skeptical, but that's just me.
I hope I, "DEVANE617" am wrong about my prediction and Rush's ultimate support of HM. I still think Rush will find a way to support the WH as he always does.
I agree with you completely - just by looking at her. It's maybe a sixth sense or first impression. I'm very disappointed with president Bush today.
VP Cheney Plans To Detail Support Of Harriet Miers On Rush Limbaugh Radio 1 PM ET/10 AM PT..."
WOW! Just heard El Rushbo say he is VERY disappointed that W picked Miers because it makes him look weak! I bet you deep inside Rush is hopping mad! WOW! I thought Rush was going to KUDO W on Miers...now I'm sort of nervous after all the praise I gave W on Miers! WHO do I trust more at this point? Hard to pick, but if I had to pick now it would be RUSH! ACLJ has endorsed Miers though...ugh, this is confusing!
Bush NEEDS a fight right now. The reason his poll ratings are down is because conservatives are disenchanted with his spending, his failure to control the borders, and his pandering to the race hustlers after Katrina. Bush needs a clear right vs. left fight...a vicious, bloody fight....to rally the base for 2006.
Some people just don't get it. It's the Democrats who are desperate to avoid a Supreme Court fight. The reason they threatened Bush so much on this issue was to intimidate him into not sending up a nominee who would trigger a fight. The 'Rats knew that a fight would result in the public rallying around the nominee, who would then be confirmed, with Bush's ratings going up and the GOP base rallied for 2006. The last thing the 'Rats wanted was a situation where Ralph Neas & NARAL & Co. were demanding that they filibuster while phone calls & e-mails from back home were running four-to-one in favor of the nominee. Imagine Mary Landrieu or Max Baucus or Bill Nelson caught in that trap.
Bush avoided a fight and gave us a stealth nominee who is a decade too old, thus providing the Democrats with political cover.
Here's the after dinner photo.
My own response is the same as your's and Rush's....after all this time of waiting and now we have not one but two stealth candidates?
but like Rush....I don't know anything about her
It is a proven fact that it is better to energize your base than try to appeal to people who are not going to vote for you anyway.
Who are they?
Why are you on this thread if you don't like Rush? What's your motive?
That's right. We can't think for ourselves. Let's wait until Rush gives us the talking points -- the reasons why we're supposed to applaud the nomination of a woman who donated to Al Gore. I can't wait till Rush comes on and tells me what to think and say.
Pinging before reading!!
Sure he's allowed. He's allowed to lose listeners because of it.
You are a fool.
If you refuse to even listen to the show, and it's obvious you have NOT, get off the thread.
Amen to that. Not that poll numbers are the be-all and end-all, but recall that Clinton's poll numbers jumped when he was fighting the "Right Wing Conspiracy" and impeachment.
>> Rush has been turned off my radio once again.
When he's positive, he's good.
When he started off by saving that it's hard not to be "pulled" to the criticism of this nominee.....that was all I needed to hear.
I actually had a little hope that Rush wasn't so influenced by others, but I was wrong. <<
Jus' keep drinking that good ol' Bush Kool-Aid, brother. Nothing Bush does is wrong. A man who can't express a simple thought or use a complex sentence without stepping on his pecker is actually the prefectest, bestest President of all time!
Rush needs to get behind President Bush on this. United we stand, divided we fall. The RATS and MSM already are claiming the GOP is in disarray over Rove, Delay, Katrina, etc. The best way to prove them wrong is to stand with our President over his nominee.
I agree with you. Evidently the WH thinks it is to appease the media and the Dems. Oh well.
On the other hand, Fred Barnes has a pretty good piece suggesting that we need to wait and see from the hearings before we pass judgement.
Frankly, I'm not too thrilled with the "cronyism" either.
my questions to Cheney:
1- why give a lifetime appointment to a 60 year-old?
2- is she truly our best and brightest?
3- what message does this send to the many brilliant appellate court judges that were passed over?
4- why didn't you save this "throw away" appointment for when John Paul Stevens retires?
American Center for Law and Justice.
They should make a show about Dick Cheney being president.
In 2008, of course. ^^
This makes me feel a little better about her: http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/
I'm nervous, too. I don't know what to think. I just heard Wendy Long from Judicial Confirmation Network endorse her. But then I hear Scott McClellon say democrats involved in selection.
Well the Bush Bashing Bots need to whine and moan on every thread..
The extreme right has been rejected, and they are blubbering like babies.
They know that Rov v. Wade is not going to be overturned, and that SCOTUS is not going to intervene to save the Schiavos of the world.
I thought the idea was always that we do not want judges legislating from the bench. Now the complaint from the right is that we don't trust this judge not to vote in our favor.
What a mess.
all good questions.
Granted, Roberts was incomparable in this sense but I don't think anyone has put forth the case she in the top league of those remaining.
I didn't need a fight. I would prefer her qualfications be sound. Miers are adequate. It's a disappointment to me.
Yes....I am tipping my hat to you----I predicted exasperation...but not so much anger or disgust...
I just saw a thread that says that Cheney will be on with Rush...maybe he can calm Rush down.
President Bush wants to get action taken the next 3 years. If the dims do like Miers, than good. Maybe work will get done.
i dont like how rush has started this show. This is CLEARLY a horrible decision by Bush and rush knows it. He is suger coating this bigtime-- probably because cheney is coming on at 1! Savage will go crazy tonight saying rush is just a spokesman from the Republican party..
I used to think that as well, but the truth is if we can't voice our opinions on this forum something is wrong.And no matter how good GW is he can't be right every single time.
"The caveat is, I don't know this woman. She could end up being fabulous." Rush then goes on to say, "Why do we have to roll the dice?"
That's the kicker. If you have a nominee with a record, the record gets drudged up and used against the nominee.
So, with a difficult record to parse (for us as well as the Dims), there are these options:
1. Immediately oppose, because Bush picked her
2. Immediately oppose, because of unknown record or because (any given RINO or Dim) expresses anything other than rabid hatred of the nominee
3. Immediately support, because Bush picked her
4. Immediately support, because (any given trusted conservative) expressed support
5. Wait and see what comes to light in a period longer than 2 hours.
I'm opting for choice #5.
Savage is a nutcase. If he is against Rush or Bush, then I am 100% for them.
I think the extreme right do want a judge to legislate from the bench when it comes to issues such as abortion (which I think it is a state issue)..
Hopefully she's a Zell Miller style ex-democrat, who actually had the principles to switch to the GOP.
Again... Rush does not always support the WH. Rush expresses his own beliefs. Does Rush agree with the WH when it comes to Border/Illigal Immigration issues? Does Rush agee with the WH when it comes to handing billions of $$$ to Africa? Does Rush Agree with the WH when it comes to the huge spending buget? You are wrong.
I am not a Bush bashing bot. Nor are many in objection. You do yourself a disservice in dismissing objections as rooted solely among the discontents that are never happy. This discontent is widely more spread.
Its about correcting previous legislative rulings.
All hail Bush! March in step! Cannot get your conservative credentials if you criticize, now can you?
All of us criticizing the pick are persona non grata now, right?
IMHO, his bio would read alot better to me without this:
He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ).
We are not blubbering like babies. We are fighting like sled-dogs.
Your inverted understanding of judicial activism not withstanding, we do not want legislation from the bench. We want Strict Constitutional Interpretation.
"Bush...weak...pick...designed to appease..."
Rush is correct, as usual. What concerns me is the last point he made before going to commercial. Bush is making it look like nominating a conservative IS outside the mainstream.. somthing to run from.
Stick that in your pipe, Rove.
I am sick of all this "realignment" talk. What is party "realignment" when it cost your soul?