Posted on 10/10/2005 8:53:48 AM PDT by jcb8199
Next the Senate Rinos (gang of 14) will filibuster the nomination so this true conservative never makes it to the bench. Face it guys, we don't have the votes to obtain a Priscilla Owens or a Janic Rogers Brown. Furthermore, after being stabbed in the back by his own party the President would be in no position to win such a fight; he would have definitely been weakened by losing the Miers nomination.
Wrong answer. It was "read my lips" Bush that got Bubba elected. That whole "trust me" thing, and the establishment dimpublicans didn't learn a thing from their failure. Screw me once, shame on you...
Blackbird.
Yeah, a new party would really help the Republicans...have you forgotten Perot made Clinton's election possible? Republicans may not be perfect, but we are in a critical time in history and can not afford to risk a third party.
Clinton would not have been elected except for Perot.
OK.
Actually, I was thinking of what would benefit Americans.
It comes down to trust.
If the President hadn't gotten behind amnesty for illegals and had instead advocated a marked increase in immigration law enforcement, harsh penalties for lawbreakers, and deportations, he'd have had a much easier time maintaining trust and credibility.
And that's just one issue.
Well, get the Prez to become a conservative and nominate a conservative (R) next time and you won't have to worry.
"Face it guys, we don't have the votes to obtain a Priscilla Owens or a Janic Rogers Brown. Furthermore, after being stabbed in the back by his own party the President would be in no position to win such a fight; he would have definitely been weakened by losing the Miers nomination."
You are surely right that it might be difficult to hold the many panty-waisted Republican Senators in line if the President made a bold nomination of a real strict-constructionist. Part of that is his own fault for backing Specter over Toomey, etc. Nevertheless, Bush would be doing the right thing in doing so. He also could have a one-on-one with Frist, grow him a spine, tell him every GOP Senator will be held in line or else, and let Mr. Specter know that he will be chairman of the Senate Office Building Toilet Committee rather than Judiciary if such a nominee is not voted out of committee. When LBJ was Senate majority leader, he held tight control over the Dim Senators. It's beyond time for the Pres. and Repub. Senate to get tough and give America a Supreme Court justice who will be true to the constitution.
A Christian communist on one side and an Atheist Communist on the other side. Hold me back, the choices are just too good to be true.
I know just what I've got. Anything would be better. Full blown communism is the direction we are presently headed. The only choice is between an Atheist or Fundamentalist Christian. Neither is going to prove acceptable to the bulk of America.
Yeah I would have to worry because there are not enough votes in the Senate to confirm an outspoken conservative candidate. He/She would certainly be filibustered. It would take months, and the President could lose in the end.
Ok, it gets out of committe and is then filibustered in the Senate...Don't forget the gang of 14. I do not believe this is a fight the President can win.
Also, you must face facts, there are 7-8 Rinos in the Senate. We do not have enough conservatives to get tough right now. Maybe if we get our act together we can elect a few more conservatives, but a big fight now could hurt the GOP in 2006.
Evidence being? Roberts is an enigma, Meirs even more so. Bush's low amounts of success in the 'trust me' department stem not from his appellate judges, but from spending, immigration, War on Terror, etc.
That's a worn out fallacy. Man, you party firsters need some new material. Blackbird.
don't be surprized when Meirs turns out to be a SD O'Connor clone.
My God, you would think that W. has nominated Ted Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Get over it people. Or, hell......, go vote demorat. You will love what you get from those folks.
In Alaska we have two republican partys.. One for the RINOs(moderates) and One for the folks that don't know they are RINOS yet(regulars).. Then we have the democrats.. a slightly less confused band of socialists..
It is quite true...Perot siphoned Republican voters. I am sorry if you voted for Perot and do not wish to admit he kill Bush I's chances, but it's the truth. As for party Firsters, name a third party that has a snowball's chance in hell, that won't lead to a Democratic victory and I'll consider such a party. It doesn't exist. If the Republicans don't win, then the Dems will and that is to awful to contemplate.
Save your sympathy, I've never cast a vote for Perot, so it's lost on me. I agree to your Party firster stance, in the sense that as long as there are more of you who'll hold your nose, then the 3rd Party doesn't stand a snowballs chance. I'll also tell you this as a matter of fact, until I see a significant difference in the 2 Party's, neither will get my vote. If it's so awful (again I agree, though there is little difference) to contemplate a Dem winning, then sooner or later more of you will stop holding your nose and join us. The Republicans were once a 3rd Party, and have lost their way. Infiltration into the Big Tent was the driving force. Root out your lefty's and I'll reconsider my 20+ year membership. Until then, waller in your own misery, I'll take mine elsewhere thank you. Blackbird.
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.