Redstate

I think, was reflected in the eyes of Linc Chafee when he announced last year that he would write-in the President's father rather than vote for this President in 2004.  That is the genuine split.

What would those hip with the split do if the President nominated Edith Jones when John Paul Steven's passes from this Earth, on to a more miserable place?

Blind loyalty to any man (or woman) in government is, I think, a dangerous thing.  I have to pick what I support and reject what I do not.

Has Ed Morrissey achieved maverick status yet? I mean the post did not he existed when he was writing about able danger or air america. But now that he writes about Conservative Rebellion Or Civil War he is the new star at the Post.

Ed,can you get me McCain's signature?

people who call themselves republican but spend our tax dollars like democrats.  

Just thought I ought to anounce my position in the Civil War the Captain is describing.

Morrissey is a little far-reaching in his conclusion by questioning (though thoughtfully so) whether or not the conservative movement will lose its way, based upon, of all things, the Miers nomination.

The course of conservatism will continue to gain strength.  The debate within the party gives great opportunity to clarify argument and platform, and to further solidify a more determined course.

That's a lovely Christian sentiment, want to try that again?

Ed's a traitor now for speaking(if not understating) the truth?  Give me a f!cking break.  Who is the traitor, the one who pointed out the betrayal or the one who actually betrayed us?  

Conservatives have been swallowing Bush's litany of heresies because they have been anticipating a very conservative Supreme Court.  Bush promised us vouchers; we got the Kennedy "education" bill.  We were promised "fiscal responsibility" and we have the biggest spenders since FDR, and the unbelievably insulting "ongoing victory" in fiscal restraint.  We were promised free trade, and we got ridiculous sugar subsidies, steel tariffs and myriad import quotas.  Ridiculous giveaway subsidies to the energy and transportation industries, whose lobbyists practically wrote those bills.  And so on.  We have no reason to support Bush anymore.  (Got that, Karl?)

My only question is whether I sit out the 06 and 08 elections, or vote down-the-line Democrat to punish our leaders as much as possible.  I don't know how many whippings it's going to take the party establishment before they start respecting us.  Clearly, 1992 and 1998 weren't enough.  

Before we can move this country in a conservative direction, we have to have a party that represents us, not the navel-gazing silk-stocking conceit of the Beltway cocktail circuit.  

Generally, we frown on profanity even when it is partially bleeped out by asterisks or exclamation points. If it's clear to everyone what you mean, just don't do it.

The only exception might be if you are quoting someone else, and the meaning of their post cannot be preserved otherwise.

Regards,

and no longer support gun rights?

Who looks like the party contender for GOP in 08?

Giuliani     33.0% (29.5%)

08

"My only question is whether I sit out the 06 and 08 elections, or vote down-the-line Democrat"

No need to. The GOP may elect a person to the left of Hillary just to win

"Morrissey writes that a complete abandonment by the conservative rebels is merely a fringe position."

What defines the fringe, numerically? If 90% of conservatives feel one way, is the other 10% fringe? Or does the percentage need to be 99%? What's the threshold? It matters, markedly.

For let's say that 10% of conservatives are upset enough over the nomination that their commitment to voting is impacted. Let's say that half of them decide to vote anyway, and another half decide either to not vote or to protest vote.

That works out to about 1.7% of the electorate. Sometimes, that does not make much of a difference. Sometimes, it matters a tremendous amount. 1.7 points in the Democrats direction and they win the Presidency in 2000. 1.7 points in the other direction and the Republicans pick up several Senate seats that year.

There are several Senate races where if everything went right for the Republicans, it would still be a close race in 2006. Maryland. Nebraska. Pennsylvania. Michigan. Washington. Rhode Island. Florida.

Think that 1.7 points might be significant in some of those races? I do.

I think people throw terms like "fringe" around too often. I am probably guilty of this as well. Fringe is not anyone who disagrees with you. Fringe is not a group in the minority, even by substantial percentages. Fringe is unrepresentative of a meaningful quantity. I don't see evidence to support the contention that those opposing Miers fit this definition.

over compromise.  Bush did not split the party.  The anti-Miers fanatics decided the party is for them or no body

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/754

Fanatics are like that. If they cannot get what they want they see no problem in destroying what is possible.  They don't even have a solid case!  Just a lot of what if's and silly theories.

may gain strength for a while.  As for conservatism, I'm not sure what that means anymore.  I could delude myself for almost five years that Bush didn't endeavor simply to ratify the 1960's, but the Roberts and Miers nominations, along with the reaction to Katrina, tore away that veil of delusion to reveal the truth:  I've been kidding myself.  I don't think I'm the only one who has suddenly realized this.  I'm sure he'll continue to be successful, but at the moment, I can no longer convince myself there's enough difference between the Republican Party that Bush has fully co-opted and the Democrats who despise him for me to care too much who wins.  

... almost as if you are attempting to intimidate people into abandoning their opinions with harsh rhetoric. Do you really think that is likely to work? Do you really think that you are likely to get  them to change their minds? And more importantly, do you think you will honestly be able to convince undecideds to view those opposing Miers as extremists when their ranks include people such as Steven Bainbridge and Ann Althouse, who are not exactly the types anyone would associate with extremism in any form? Do you really think you will be successful in marginalizing people like me as being extremists?

You might want to blow out that match in your hand before you start accusing others of causing an explosion.

Dollars to donuts you get called an extremist for that one.

you just made it more succintly than I.

Conservatism and the Republican Party is bigger than just George Bush.  Its by arguments such as these that direction of both will be solidified.  Are not stories such as these evidence of that?

Ideologues have one issue and one position and there is nothing else for them. We have three more years to push conservative polcies under Bush at risk.  We have the 2006 and 2008 elections at risk.  We have want tax cuts made permanent.  

But these fanatics don't care.  It is Luttig or Armaggedon.  Just because I get their message doesn't make me the problem.  The far right was going to overstep at some point, and then lash out.

Forget about purging the party of the moderates.  Like Buchannan, it is more likely the ideologues will leave the party because they are the ones incapable of dealing with not getting their way.

Compare the comments re a conservative (currently or in the past) on Kos or the Democratic Underground to the Meirs response (sold-out, betrayal, etc.) by Republicans/Conservatives and you see the problem. This is politics folks, not pure theory.  Why would we vote FOR a Democrat/Liberal candidate by NOT voting for Republicans/Conservatives?  Let the worst man win?  

Doubtful, at least from someone worth being concerned about.  Extremists are obsessed with an issue.  My 'issue' is the broader conservative movement and retaining progress.  I am not promoting an issue to the point that all other matters are irrelevant.

Fanatics and Extremists rarely understand they have jumped the shark.  They, obviously, wish to think of themselves as normal, rational people.

Their facade is easy to see through, though.  When a single issue becomes an obsession, all the silly rationalizations cannot alter the reality.  If Bush had nominated Hillary, all the hysterics would be valid.  But Miers has some very good aspects to her that a Luttig doesn't have.  All evidence is she will be a strong conservative voice - there is no proof otherwise.

So, in the fantasy world of the extremist the world is ending because Miers might as well be Hillary, therefore who cares about other conservatives and other issues.

OK, if that is how they want to be, it is a free country.  Of course, there is no broad interest in fanatics in politics.

that you bring up the tax cuts.  AFAIK, that's the only truly conservative thing Bush has accomplished during his presidency, and they aren't even permanent.

What kind of fanatic nutjob would be more concerned about the million unborn children that get sucked out of their mother's womb every year than Health Savings Accounts?

Clearly, those people have jumped the shark, and are not ready for "the big time" that is politics.

But Miers has some very good aspects to her that a Luttig doesn't have.

Really? Like being a partner at a major firm? What else? Be sure to cite to actual evidence, not just wholehearted beliefs on your part.

All evidence is she will be a strong conservative voice - there is no proof otherwise.

Prove that you don't want to beat your family to death.

So, in the fantasy world of the extremist the world is ending because Miers might as well be Hillary, therefore who cares about other conservatives and other issues.

With all the flames you're tossing around, you might want to avoid straw men.

OK, if that is how they want to be, it is a free country.  Of course, there is no broad interest in fanatics in politics.

Nor in people who think they alone understand the broader implications of a political event.

I guess it's like the old quote about pornography, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."  I guess the same applies to Ideologues and views that are just hard to accept.  

Can anyone defend recent comments such as made by Alabama State Senator Hank Erwin?  I would certainly categorize his statements outside the mainstream of thought, even amongst those who have not tasted the "Flavor-Aid" of moderation.

Erwin, R-Montevallo, is of the opinion that Hurricane Katrina and other storms on the Gulf Coast were a punishment from God. He said so this week in a column he distributed to news outlets.

"New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness," Erwin wrote. "It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God."

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1127985402
240410.xml&coll=2

I'm hesitant, but interested, to know what anybody thinks of this possibility.

What happens if the Miers nomination fails, either by withdrawal, or vote in committee or on the floor. Let's assume the worst of all possibilities, extended battling, ugly accusations, embarrassing testimony, whatever anyone can imagine.

So what? So what happens to the POTUS, and the remaining length of his term. How or why could this occurrence cause him more or less troubles than he already has, or could face?

I'm not thrilled with the selection, but I can be convinced to accept it, if not support it, but don't see how it is uniquely or pre-eminently important to the POTUS and his ongoing relevance.

I foresee how he could mishandle it from this point forward, and I foresee how it could pass with confirmation and recede in importance, but I don't see the doom and gloom scenarios if it fails.

I do understand the extreme concerns if it succeeds, and how we'll all be holding our breath for a while to see what happens.

What's the downside for failure?

I think that the implication that Justice Stephens is going to Hell isn't very Christian, either.

For those who are unrepentant in their direct support for an abortion regime that has been responsible for about 40,000,000 deaths, aren't there?

That's expanding the list of people I'm looking forward to meeting there considerably, if that's the case.

And, as soon as I vote in favor of uphold Roe v. Wade on the Supreme Court, too, the advice of Matthew 7:1-5 will become relevant.

I've always said that I would have loved to see the expresion on the face of Ayatollah Khomeini when he woke up in Hell given that he thought he was such a saint.

I'd like to see your expresion when you find Justice Stephens in Heaven as well.  'course, I could be wrong about who gets to go there but we'll all find out eventually.

Why not recess appoint Bork?

Is said to be paved with good intentions.

Is there a possible good heart explanation for this?

Linc Chafee bucking the party is no more evidence of a GOP split than Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign was.  

Yes, some involved wore or formerly wore the GOP label, but embraced few if any of the GOP's core principles and attracted few if any of the GOP rank and file.

The split caused by the nomination is a deep, public, and ugly one.  The only possible cure I see is for an early 2006 opinion by Justice Miers for the majority overturning Roe.  

Even that might not do it.

I favor miers. I trust the 15 year relationship more than even a paper trail of the groomed luttigs. I trust both and don't care which justices' written opionions most resemble shakesphere. Contary to public opinion, this lawyer, knows that in each case, one may affirm or reverse and it doesn' take years of grooming to apply the originalist theory. The court is not a reward position for activists.

Bork has often commented on the relative simplicity of application. Its character that matters. Amnd I don't question Luttig/s character? The point is that so many seem to think that Bush's oath was to name a justice from the Weekly Standard's list. Seeing Kristol and Co. go ape in seconds, reinforces why Bush is president and Pat isnt.

I wa sdissapointed that bork slammed her, but that's his loyalty to his people. We forgive Bork. kristol eventually.

Bush can be trusted on killing terrorists and judges. Pryor and most of the lawyers he appointed in texas and many in DC had no track record. Bush, not pat is the proven expert.

They said that Bush is not qualified to judge whether rmiers can judge roberts. Follow. but they are?

Miers may be a better writer that saint luttig. It wont matter. Some janitors have "better" uniforms. The toilet's just as clean.

True brilliant legal minds aren't really needed on appellate courts.

Trial work is real. Trial lawyers and jugdes would love to wear sweaters and muse.

the gal can do it

sorry

There is no conservative movement if everything and anything we accomplish is overturned by an activist court.

Bush garnered as much support as he did among conservatives because of his stances on the judiciary. He may not have won the nomination without said support, and he may not have won the Presidency without it.

So feel free to call extremists those who don't feel, like you, that the judiciary is not worth getting worked up about. If your opinion of their core beliefs is that they are extremists, then frankly you never belonged in a workable coalition with them.

But if you think that you can call them extremists and have it work for you or your beliefs to any extent, then you are simply not dealing with reality. I personally think it was a mistake for conservatives to abandon George H.W. Bush over his broken tax pledge, but that I felt it was a mistake didn't change that many did. Many could have called the Perot voters extremists, bolting because they did not get their way on trade or whatever their pet issue was, but would that have kept them in house? Doubtful. All that calling them extremists would have done is made them less willing to come back.

So while you profess to be concerned with the greater conservative movement, you might think about if you are doing it a service by espousing rhetoric that will make others in the movement want nothing to do with you.

Your plain sense ability to read actions, then you certainly may.

You will, however, be ignoring the words of Jesus (John 7:24), and Paul (Eph 5:5; 1 Cor 5:3), and Peter (2 Pet 2:1-3:9).

I will not judge another man's life.  And take care those who do.  Best advice my grandfather gave me.

Hitler might not have been such a bad guy, after all.

I understand most of your points, but perhaps I was unclear.

If the Miers nomination fails, why won't the next pick succeed in confirmation, in short order, and move the court to the right. And, the POTUS will be non the worse for the ordeal.

What is the failure that is looming from rejection? That the next pick will be worse in some way - a known and more liberal selection to gain acceptance, delayed such that bad opinions ensue, a lethal or debilitating blow to the POTUS political abilities which only encourages further weaknesses and compromises?

There are plenty of incremental arguments to be made, but if anything, the POTUS and his team have mastered getting past them, or making up for them at the next opportunity (the Bolton appt. being the most recent notable example).

In a sense I'm seeking doom and gloom mongering. What's the worst case, but reasonable (i.e. justice Hilary doesn't count) scenario?

He said not to judge, which is not the same as condone.

No wonder you are so lost.

Because I realize that the difference between "not judging" and "condoning" is one without a distinction.

But, to put it in even smaller words, "I guess I shouldn't judge Hitler as a bad person. Perhaps he was only misunderstood."

Not to jump in when you don't even understand the words being used. Just a hint.

Let me stand on it and belt something else out.

Our conservative Republican coalition has a real problem of late in understanding coalition dynamics. We only have a majority vote in this country when we maintain the coalition, and we cannot maintain the coalition unless we deliver for the various factions within our coalition.

We have many in our tent who are fiscal conservatives, who want the budget balanced and spending constrained. We cannot expect to hold them, forever, if we don't start delivering for them.

We have many in our tent who are concerned with illegal immigration. We cannot expect to hold them, forever, if we don't start delivering for them.

We have many in our tent who are concerned with the way the Supreme Court, and lower courts, have been used to pursue social change that cannot be attained through the legislature. We watched as the moderates in our caucus stabbed them in the back with Bork, and we dismissed their concerns with O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. We cannot expect to hold them, forever, if we don't start delivering for them.

We can go down the line on other factions. Some have been placated of late. I think that gun advocates are pretty happy right now, but they too are very concerned over the composition of the Supreme Court.

Maybe you want to call each and every faction therein, and a few others, as 'extremist'. If it makes you happy, go ahead, but don't be surprised if they tell you to 'stuff yourself' when you need their vote. A governing coalition comes from people with many disparate core issues. It holds together by each having their needs addressed. And if all you are doing is using a group for their vote, you really should not be surprised when they balk. You instead should feel ashamed for basically using them.

Nice to see you have made it to the gutter.  Your black and white is unable to grasp more complex perspectives.  (a)  Miers is not pro-abortion and there is no proof she would vote that way.  In fact, there is plenty of evidence she is pro life.  So making up smears about others so you can avoid facing how ridiculous your position is shows how little people should be concerned about your views.

I care greatly about abortions and want to end them except in the rare medical case they are the last option.

But from your little high horse you have now become so obsessed you equate supporting Miers with supporting abortion.  

Stop drinking the Kool Aid kid.  This is not the end of the abortion fight and you SHOULD know it.

But like I said, fanatics have many ways to convince themselves they are not the radicals - it is the rest of the world.

BTW, we can get through this by rebuilding the conservative coalition or destroying one side or the other.  Your pick.  When ever you are ready to admit your side overreacted and Miers is not Stevens we will welcome you back into the fold.

Would compare Stevens to Hitler....

Then....

You are, of course, spot on - which explains why I wrote this and this and this.

However, if you intended your well-thought out comment for its immediate audience, I think you are wasting your time.

He is Borg. You will be assimilated.

he also is not really a conservative republican anymore except on social isses and taxes, but  I admire Pat and given his recent independant stance, am not upset with him much I am with Kristol  and some others that didn't let let 10 minutes apss before insulting Bush and Miers and declaring that only their list of luttig and co, which included 3 judges that Bush and Miers put on appeals courts. I causes one to question their judgement, maurity and motives.

But they write good articles.

Bush appoints good judges and kills terrorist in large numbers.

So as to not lose you.

As WH counsel she deals day in and day out in the all important legal aspects of the war on terror and the patriot act.

She also has private practice experience, which is as close to private life experience - something judges lose grasp of over time.

I have spent 20+ years taking care of my family - there is my proof!  Prove you are not a fool!

I laugh at the fanatic anti-miers ideologues who all of sudden get all upset about being challenged.  Should have thought of that before you folks went over the cliff of obsession.

BTW, why do you folks always feel the need to get personal like those loser liberals???

Would fail to understand the rhetorical tactic of using a generally accepted example to show the folly of a position someone is taking.

But while we're at it, Hitler was responsible for about 1/4 of the number of deaths in the holocaust as we've had in this country due to abortion.

Gotta give you folks something useful to do with your bits and bytes?

I just don't find that it is my place to judge another's soul.  If you feel you can, that's up to you.

I caught the amatuer attempt at debate...

Like usual, you misunderstand my being unimpressed with you as not understanding you.

We are fighting for the soul of the conservative movement!

RedStat told us so.

So I am here to join battle with the fanatically obsessed as directed!

What would you propose as a solution to this problem? Because I'm pretty well open to suggestions.

The next three years and two election cycles are gone.

Plain and simple.  That is why this fight is such a disaster.  I would be more than happy to take down bush if he had proposed Hillary - but Miers????

Obsession kills, and has killed the conservative movement for the next 3 years.  The fanatics would have backed down by now if they had it in them.

Just like when Clinton was elected because a whole group of reps and cons got impatient and dumped Bush 1, this crop of ideologues have decided to show everybody how thin skinned and short sighted they are.

Free country.  Free to make mistakes, free to point out the mistakes.

OK, I will admit if you are serious I may be wrong and misjudged you.

Let Miers be.  Fight for the next candidate.  Fight for a more conservative President.  Fight for a more conservative Senate.

Conservatism is not yet the proud norm in the country.  It is getting there, but it is not there yet.  

The anti-Miers crowd has made their point and their case.  Destroying the conservative movement would invalidate their points and their case.

24 hour time out from posting on anything Miers and NO responding to each other's posts.

Talk about footbal, talk about Stacy Campbell being rejected from the Congressional Black Caucus, talk about Hillary being inducted into the National Women's hall of Fame.

Cheer for the Rams.  Or the Cardinals.

Anything but Miers and picking nits at each other!

Ever hear of partial birth abortion ban or parental notification, or the ban on destroying fetus's for research, or Terri Schiavo...

Maybe if you were better informed you wouldn't be so off base.

Interestingly, you point out the 1992 election. You're correct that Bush lost that election because he dropped two consecutive bombshells on the base - the nomination of Souter and the violation of his "read my lips" pledge. So, we lost the 1992 Presidential election.

On the other hand, in 1993 Haley Barbour became RNC chairman and understood that if the Republican party would start trumpeting conservative principles instead of betraying them, that might be a formula for electoral success, rather than trying to appease the middle.

And thus, though we lost the Presidency in 1992, the Republican revolution of 1994 happened, and we gained both chambers of Congress back, which we have held to this point.

Now, again, the party apparatus has become bloated, and consistently drops bombs on both the social and fiscal wings of the conservative base. So it appears that they are slow to learn. If we have to send a message in 2006, so be it - and the ultimate irony is, that it might be the same person with the same vision in 2008 (Haley Barbour) who brings the conservative message back, stronger than before.

especially when your own party defies their president. The last time a congress defied their own in a major way, was Jimmy Carter.

Bush's success is due to leadership qualities. The msm dems have slandered him daily for 5 years. But the public did see us united with him. many could see a split as a reason to go back to voting "the man," not party in 2006.

Bush will not reward those that defy him. Their cliques and lists are already influenceless due to their running to the mikes w.i 15 minutes of Miers nomination. They acted like children. The TV DC crowd. And their language has been deeply insulting of a woman they don't know. They do know that she is as near acinch to decide cases correctly. But she's not on their list.

They did not give her a chance. Those types of allies are expendable. The base is us. We care not who, only that whoever, rules correctly. She will. Bush has bever been wrong ion judges. Kristol and Pat have.

"Better" qualified matters not, and who knows who is. "Qualified" get the same job done. "better" satisfies an ego of saelf importance.

The most important asset we have is the president and tearing him down makes things worse.

Ask yourself who you would trust given the judge matter and the pundits. These same talking heads were around when W learned the 41-souter lesson. Bush has put the learning into practice.

In fact why am I wasting so much time on these DC heads??? cause their on tv

You've just listed a bunch of  things that were either overturned by courts, or are still waiting approval by courts. Which is kind of why we're all so worked up over this.

For the reply.

Cheer for the Rams.  Or the Cardinals.

I would, but I'm a Christian, and God is a Red Sox fan.

/t

I don't really have a horse in this particular race, but I don't think it's a given that if Miers were defeated the logical result is that the next nominee would automatically be a hard-core conservative AND that that nominee would be confirmed.  There are two reasons for this:

1. Bush can be a bit unpredictable.  It's not at all clear that he'd react to a defeat brought on by the defection of members of his own party by turning around and attempting to appease those same people.  You might wind up with a solid moderate, who would draw moderate Republicans and most Democrats to get a 51+ vote.  (I admit, this is a bit of a fantasy--my point is mostly that no one knows what would happen.)
   
2. If Miers were defeated, it would be MUCH easier for the Democrats to filibuster a very conservative followup nominee.  First, it would be difficult to persuade moderate Republicans to stay in line when they had just witnessed a massive splintering of the party; and second, it would be hard to win the argument in front of the American people that it's okay for Repulibcans to fight nominations, but not for Democrats to do so.

I agree with you. I just try to couch such designations as , "if he doesn't repent, then...

not "his going to...

that's all

are my fundamenatalist bone fides in order?

Thanks for the reply. That's plain and simple and a fairly worst case scenario.

I just wonder if it really gets all that bad. I think the intensity of this past week has been a bit OTT on both sides, but necessary nonetheless.

It strikes me that either the confirmation or rejection of Ms. Miers will not result in lasting damage. Perhaps the confirmation if she is the squishiest Souterite to come down the pike. Even then, a third nominee is in the offing, and her age is somewhat limiting to that extent (consider that Souter is only 6 years her elder, and he's been a punching bag for how long?)

As far as rejecting her, I don't know that the POTUS will suffer long, nor bother exacting revenge on the naysayers - what exactly could he do, and carrying a grudge seems the least of his flaws.

Politically, it would be a sharp negative spike, but like comedy, timing is everything, and other events loom large and the next elections are still relatively distant.

It may advance his lame duckiness, but could also re-enliven conservative activism in other areas. That, and the POTUS does have great influence on setting agendas and refocusing energy elsewhere. A good example is all the chaos and social breakdown which did not follow hurricane Rita, and did not reinforce the federal government's evident incompetence and thorough failure.

Then again - Anthony Kennedy is still sitting in Justice Bork's seat.

Somethings missing and I believe it is a similiar media commentary on the horrendous split within the Democratic Party.

But what's most disturbing in the shrill voices raised against Miers...is the overwhelming use of the term "I"...As in all the conservative "I would not nominate her" from those "I"s who have not been & couldn not ever be elected President of the United States.... Particularly Buchanan who routinely guests on MSNBC & seems to enjoy disagreeing with whatever the elected administration is doing.

If it's an accepted belief that the MSM routinely slants "left" and has the DNC's phone number on speed dial...then exactly who is benefiting from this continued in-fighting within the Republican Party....  

I'm a conserative Republican. Miers has been nominated...that's not going to be changed. Worst case scenario (if Miers turns out to be more of an O'Connor than a Scalia) would be losing the hard won Republican majority in the Senate & House & ultimately allowing George Soros even more power...

No one pretends to be my mother...

Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers, Miers,

Please don't try that again.

Well said.  They want a battle?  OK - we will give them one.  Bush will be standing at the end and the fair weather opportunists will be out.

Just like Buchannan.

I was pointing out how zealots wanted to teach everyone a lesson about 'real conservatives' and gave us 8 years of Clinton.

Yeah, that sure showed us how smart those fools were......

Geez, are you clueless?  The guy naively claimed never pushed for anything else dear to social consvervatives and you come back with the lame excuse libs are fighting these in the courts....

I suggest you stop digging.  Your reputation cannot take much more of this.

I never said the courts where not important.  Whaty I said was the revolt of Miers had nothing to it.  It is a chicken little event by people who do not take any of this serious.  They act like Hillary was nominated.

The ARE extremists and fanatics - by definition.  On the flimsiest of evidence backed up by loads of emotion driven speculation they decided to risk everything in the conservative movement - including their own pro-life issue - for NOTHING!

Bush will win and no one is going to ever listen to these people again.  They are not serious about the stakes they are playing.  They are ignorant of the damage they have done, or worse do not care.

That is a fanatic and extremist. Someone so bent on getting their way the process can be tossed out - the ends justifies the means.

I am not making them act this way (though I sure am goding them further out on their limb, make no mistake about that!).  They never demonstrated the self control required to lead this country or the conservative movement.  I don't care where the damage is coming from.  If DeLay is guilty out he goes.  If these people are damaging the party for no good reason, out they go.

I do take this seriously. Which is why, after a week of trying, it is time to take them on as they ask.

We were rebuffed.  There is also a time when those damaging the party need to marginalized.  They wanted to battle this out - OK.  Be happy to.

FYI, those who feel that the judicial wacthers are not getting their fair share just go here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/

And realize how silly that statement is.

Read

http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/7/10/114235/038

11 years (and counting) of Congressional control.

Indeed, how will it ever recover? Somehow, I imagine I'll get by.

My point was, all the stuff that Bush has "pushed" for has been rendered completely ineffective by the courts.

dem party attacks. The vicious, slanderous attacks against Bush and Miers risk that unity and protection. The public could decide that they might as well just vote "the man". And all this over  a small group's presumed entitlement tohave Bush select from a list they complied. They know that Bush knows after 15 yrs that she is fine. She will be great at the hearing. The public will love her better than robot roberts or any DC magazine writer. They don't know or care who luttig is. They, like Bush, want the court to rule correctly, not nice shakesearean prose to marvel at.

amen

It's funny, that you feel the need to lecture me on the posting rules. It's exhibit number 2,000 over the past three days of you claiming yourself the be an authority - nay, the pinnacle of authority - on subject which you know next to nothing about.

For the record, while you have bleated on and on about the behavior of those in opposition to your view, you have called your opponents thusly:

fanatics and extremists.

Zealots and fools.

Fair weather opportunists.

Fanatics.

Fanatically obsessed.

Fanatic ideologues gone over the cliff of obsession.

Fanatics, extremist, silly.

I have not included any of the things you have said in response to me, as I have certainly done my share of dishing out.

For myself, I am going to take c17wife's excellent advice and not respond to anything you have to say. You can feel free to respond to anything I have to say, if you so desire, but don't mistake my silence in response for agreement.

Everyone's emotions have been worked up over the past week, and that includes mine. However, it's past time to bring the dialogue of this site back into the realm of civilized.

The next time you make a personally derogatory remark about your opponents, including calling them extremists, fanatics, silly, delusional, or anything of the like, it will be your last.

winter Solidiers.  While we're in the majority act like it...Soldiers. When we're in the minority...Partisans.  

Get behind the generalship of our most successful leader.  Soldiers follow the chain of command, accept tough orders & take the hill the leader targets. Partisans select their own leader & own hill & then (less consistently) do the same.   Most plans executed well beat perfect plans executed poorly.

This isn't a shot against those honorably fighting against Harriet, only those who continually threaten to quit the party in their winter of discontent.  Didn't most of them leave more than once already?

Never mind the lib media, no one really pays attention to them anymore anyway.

I agree with you that Ms. Miers will be the next Justice of the Supreme Court. I don't think that's such a bad thing. President Bush is not RETARDED, this is NOT another Souter because unlike with that nomination, this nominee is close to the President.

She will bring valuable practical experience regarding business, law, and the war on terror to the court.

I'll keep it simple [s]o as to not lose you.

I assure you, there is no danger that you would lose me.

As WH counsel she deals day in and day out in the all important legal aspects of the war on terror and the patriot act.

So does the Attorney General. So does the Solicitor General. Are they up next?

And by the way, what you describe is not her day-to-day life. But that's because you don't actually understand her job description.

She also has private practice experience, which is as close to private life experience - something judges lose grasp of over time.

As an initial matter, I conceded that. (Apparently, I "lost you.") As a secondary matter, it is not altogether clear that "private practice experience" makes for a better judge. You clearly think so, but the record is mixed.

I have spent 20+ years taking care of my family - there is my proof!  Prove you are not a fool!

Unfortunately, your proof is nothing of the sort, and I can't prove that I'm not a fool, because I'm arguing with one.

I laugh at the fanatic anti-miers ideologues who all of sudden get all upset about being challenged.

As soon as someone intelligent challenges me, I'll let you know. I might lose you, though, so I'll let you know in single syllables (word-pieces). I'd note, however, that (1) there is no such thing as an "anti-miers(sic)" ideology; (2) simply because someone disagrees with you, does not make him or her a fanatic (indeed, from your posting history, it simply means that they disagree with a self-aggrandizing loon with an undeserved superiority complex); and (3) the idea that you, uniquely, have sallied forth to challenge those who oppose the Miers nomination bespeaks large problems on your part. Seek help.

Should have thought of that before you folks went over the cliff of obsession.

The glass walls of your posting history the last several days leave you little room to cast this particular stone.

BTW, why do you folks always feel the need to get personal like those loser liberals???

Your word for the day is "parallelism." As that might be a bit much for you, let me try it this way: No one got personal until you did. Insofar as the remark about your family was taken personally, you might pick up a logic book and look for the phrase "proving a negative." It'll give you a bare clue.

You're doing a disservice to yourself by constantly beating this Luttig drum. It's not just Luttig - the point is that there were literally hundreds of people from both within the federal judiciary and without who would have been better and more qualified picks than Miers.

That you would bring up Luttig in a discussion of the revolution of 1994 and its causes shows that you're becoming myopic in this discussion. Perhaps you need sleep.

When did He become a loser?  Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sometimes, he allows his "team" to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. Presumably, he's teaching them a lesson of some sort.

Moving your comments into the comments box, rather than the title box. It gives you more space to work with, and doesn't result in posts that are wholly unintelligible.

I have to admit, i enjoy your posts, even if we don't quite see I2I.  P.S. Yankee fan.

1994. Kristol and co, do link their positions in the movement that produced the gingrich revolution to their presumed entitlement to have particular federal judges promoted to the sup ct. The problem is that Bush promised to out originalists on the courts, not to pronmote partcular persons and not to fill sup ct seats with fed app ct judges.

And despite Bush's track record, that neither reagan or 41, had, certain pundits trashed him and miers w/i minutes of the anouncement as if they had been betrayed.

Something that they can't know. Must a president indulge a select vocal few that don't trust him to fulfill his promises unless its with their appoved list?

But a movement, yes.

This would not be an issue if Republican Presidents had not betrayed the conservative cause three times already.

I do believe Thomas has given your condescension its just reward.  

That's gotta smart a bit, huh?  Ouch.

Citizenship has different duties than soldiering.

Those of us who ask that our leaders give us proper explanations for their choices rather than charging up whatever hill they point to are exercising not only our right but our duty as citizens.

your got it and I know it

you are an honorable man

and, given my expectations concerning states that actually would ban abortion, from your political standpoint and from both our religious and moral stand points, the real battleground is with our witness where we are.

But I want prayer back in school and local control of subjects and values taught in schools and Roberts and Miers will do it.

in christ

So it's the zealot's fault that Bush-Sr. was betrayed by his 4 years in office as a pragmatic elitist?

and presuming Bush to be wrong and turning on him, despite his track record, and since defeating her would not ENSURE a choice of a mortal soul that the self proclaimed protectors of the "movement"(NOT YOU) have annoited as having the constancy of planetary revolutions, the exercise is one of self indulgence and a reckless impatience.

If, defeating her, after proof positive was presented that she would not be an originalist, GUARANTEED the appointment of a lead pipe cinch, the yes. But such a dialectic does not exist.

THE MOVEMENT cant be president.

with only 400 unified citizen-soldiers.  US Special Forces adopted the approach and teach him by name.  

A small, selected & unified group...Behold how good/and pleasant it is/for brothers to dwell together/in unity/in unity/la, la goes a song.

swords cutting a little too sharply here.  She is playing with your children, I read.

If you are referring to the Benjamite, I believe the purpose of God whittling down the army was to prove that victory would not come by their own strength, but by His.

Still good advice though, even today.

with yet another victory, but that is implied when 400 Israelites defeat an army in the Bible.  I amen you!  

This nomination battle will be in the spiritual realm, as well.  We endeavor (& pray) to determine upon which side to fight.  The Angel of Light is surely engaged.