PDA

View Full Version : Civil War Brewing in the Republican Party


tennisbum79
Oct 6th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Civil War Brewing in the Republican Party

George Will:Miers is the wrong pick
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html


Ann Coulter: Miers a 'Complete Mediocrity'
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/3/175314.shtml


Rich Lowry: Bush takes huge gamble on nominee

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/richlowry/2005/10/04/159360.html (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/richlowry/2005/10/04/159360.html)

kiwifan
Oct 6th, 2005, 08:43 PM
Republican haters have to always remember that the GOP is a coalition of capitalists, good ole boys and religious "nuts" (and to a lesser extent others). The religious nuts are upset about the nomination and the religious nuts are the ones that always vote in primaries. So certain GOP politicians better start "acting upset".

The good ole boys usually only vote in the general elections and they are the ones that used to be Democrats before Reagan/Bush took them away. The generally don't know or care about that Supreme Court stuff. They just want to be reassured that Americans kick ass!!! :p

The capitalists don't really care about anyone's issues they just manipulate the good ole boys and religious nuts in order to stay in power. What a great shell game the capitalist have played - they've convinced the people who probably need it most that Unions, Lawyers and Social Services like Public Health Care are bad for them. :lol: :tape:

Most capitalists don't really believe in the same things the religious nuts do - so they don't necessarily want Active Right Wing Judicial Advocates on the bench - they don't want their porn, strippers, abortions, etc. taken from them either.

SelesFan70
Oct 6th, 2005, 08:46 PM
If Nevada Democrat Harry Reid likes her.... :eek: The question is...is she a religious conservative or an economic conservative...or neither...or both?

hablo
Oct 6th, 2005, 08:47 PM
What a great shell game the capitalist have played - they've convinced the people who probably need it most that Unions, Lawyers and Social Services like Public Health Care are bad for them. :lol: :tape:

oh damn, bunch of cheap jerks :haha:

drake3781
Oct 6th, 2005, 08:50 PM
I don't get it. She is an Evangelical Christian, Anti-Abortion,and Bush Faithful. So why don't they like her?

I think it's a lousy choice but I hate Bush and everything he stands for.

tennisbum79
Oct 6th, 2005, 08:57 PM
Republican haters have to always remember that the GOP is a coalition of capitalists, good ole boys and religious "nuts" (and to a lesser extent others). The religious nuts are upset about the nomination and the religious nuts are the ones that always vote in primaries. So certain GOP politicians better start "acting upset".

The good ole boys usually only vote in the general elections and they are the ones that used to be Democrats before Reagan/Bush took them away. The generally don't know or care about that Supreme Court stuff. They just want to be reassured that Americans kick ass!!! :p

The capitalists don't really care about anyone's issues they just manipulate the good ole boys and religious nuts in order to stay in power. What a great shell game the capitalist have played - they've convinced the people who probably need it most that Unions, Lawyers and Social Services like Public Health Care are bad for them. :lol: :tape:

Most capitalists don't really believe in the same things the religious nuts do - so they don't necessarily want Active Right Wing Judicial Advocates on the bench - they don't want their porn, strippers, abortions, etc. taken from them either.

You must admit that the religious nuts are now running the party.

It is no accident that most House and Senate leadership is dominated by southern senators and representative.

There was almost revolt when David Dreier was picked to replace Tom DeLay, so to appease southern congressmen; the decision was made to a pick a rep from Missouri, leaving Dreier in a minor role of helper


The capitalist influence has vanished with beginning of the war on terror.
Even the Weekly Standards has has been speaking their language lately.

Only Billy Crystal is concerned about concerned about the religious nuts, Fred Barnes embraces them. All the think of influence are more preocuppied with foreign policy and religion, read religion as defined in contrast to Islam.

tennisbum79
Oct 6th, 2005, 09:00 PM
If Nevada Democrat Harry Reid likes her.... :eek: The question is...is she a religious conservative or an economic conservative...or neither...or both?
Why can't the rank and file republicans find out for themselves instead of relying on Sen Reid's first impression of Miers. This sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say to his ditto heads

SelesFan70
Oct 6th, 2005, 09:06 PM
Why can't the rank and file republicans find out for themselves instead of relying on Sen Reid's first impression of Miers. This sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say to his ditto heads

Rush says a lot of things. :p But I don't think Bush would have picked her if he's not "sure" she shares his philosophy. The more right wing Repbulicans wanted a drag out fight with the Democrats, but I don't think the moderate Republicans have the backbone to actually squash the Democrats. I think it's a brilliant choice. When you have Republicans and Democrats unsure....it's a good thing. :devil:

tennisbum79
Oct 6th, 2005, 09:19 PM
Rush says a lot of things. :p But I don't think Bush would have picked her if he's not "sure" she shares his philosophy. The more right wing Repbulicans wanted a drag out fight with the Democrats, but I don't think the moderate Republicans have the backbone to actually squash the Democrats. I think it's a brilliant choice. When you have Republicans and Democrats unsure....it's a good thing. :devil:

As much as I enjoy the infighting, I think one of the many group opposed to her may have a point. She is not qualified.
Not that she has not been a judge, but most of her law pratice is confined to corporate law, nothing to do with constituional law. George Will is leading this wing of the opposition. As for the religious right, they only want reinsurance she will vote to reverse Roe vs. Wade, they could care less about her legal scholarship.

For the intellectual republicans, one might be tempted to praise them for their intellectual honesty. Not me. The subtext to their opposition is that Miers does not have the intellectual capacity to make a convining argument in favor of a strict constructionist agenda, nor does she have the leadership skill to persuade others to come to that side. It a self preservation argument.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Oct 6th, 2005, 09:34 PM
I'm so conflicted. I have no problem with Miers. I understand that Bush is going to appoint judges that meet his criteria and Miers is about as good as it gets with that. I don't want the GOP to fight her nomination for the sake of the court.

HOWEVER, it is funny to see the religious right finally screwing with the GOP. See what happens when you allow fundamentalism in politics? See Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et. al.

Helen Lawson
Oct 6th, 2005, 09:40 PM
I'm telling you guys, as far as right wing stooges go, Bush has selected some ok people.

He could easily get a Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, or Renquist clone through this Senate, yet he hasn't even tried to do so. I'm not sure WHY he hasn't tried, but who knows. Maybe sometimes semi-incompetence actually does have unintentional benefits.

kiwifan
Oct 6th, 2005, 10:16 PM
I'm so conflicted. I have no problem with Miers. I understand that Bush is going to appoint judges that meet his criteria and Miers is about as good as it gets with that. I don't want the GOP to fight her nomination for the sake of the court.

HOWEVER, it is funny to see the religious right finally screwing with the GOP. See what happens when you allow fundamentalism in politics? See Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et. al.

This is pretty much my position too. :cool: :yeah:

A4
Oct 6th, 2005, 10:46 PM
Most ppl bash Bush just for the hell of it, I guess. Personally, I don't think he's as right-wing as others claim. He often used the term "compassionate conservative" to describe himself and thats about as far away as you can get from a Scalia or Thomas. I think his choices for the Supreme Court pretty much reflects that. Over the next 20 or so years, I wouldn't be surprised if both appointees turn out to be more of an O'Connor/Kennedy than a Scalia or a Thomas.

The appointments may also be a reflection of current results arising from past mistakes he made i.e. listen to right wingers (nuts) like Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc etc and you get an Iraq and all the death/destruction associated with it. Listen to ppl like Powell and you'll probably make the right decisions.

tennisbum79
Oct 7th, 2005, 06:55 PM
The appointments may also be a reflection of current results arising from past mistakes he made i.e. listen to right wingers (nuts) like Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc etc and you get an Iraq and all the death/destruction associated with it. Listen to ppl like Powell and you'll probably make the right decisions.

I wished that were true. I think Bush believes her fundamental christian belief would make her vote the way most chirstian right wingers would want to.
I am not even sure her legal qualification played a crucial role in Bush's decision.
Ultimately, you can count on the leakers in the White House to ge the real story leading up to her choice.

As a side note, I believe she was in charge of the search commitee to pick a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court and it handed up to be her?
How does that work?
This alos happen in the case fo Dick Cheney, He was heading the commitee looking to pick a running mate for Bush.

Scotso
Oct 7th, 2005, 11:48 PM
Hopefully it will tear itself apart.

And then hopefully the Democrats will do the same, and liberals will win elections.

tennisbum79
Oct 8th, 2005, 01:10 AM
Most ppl bash Bush just for the hell of it, I guess. Personally, I don't think he's as right-wing as others claim. He often used the term "compassionate conservative" to describe himself and thats about as far away as you can get from a Scalia or Thomas. I think his choices for the Supreme Court pretty much reflects that. Over the next 20 or so years, I wouldn't be surprised if both appointees turn out to be more of an O'Connor/Kennedy than a Scalia or a Thomas..

He may not be, but he certainly talked like one. If you are right, I think he may have boxed himself by his own doing.

I can understand Bush hiring Dick Cheney on his father’s recommendation, because when he was Secretary of Defense, he seems very reasonable and was not as dogmatic as he is now.

Because of Bush’s lack experience or disinterest in foreign policy, coupled with a lack of intellectual curiosity for a person of his education and social background, he was seen as canvas that could be molded by people who had been waiting in the wing to implement their visions of the world.

So people like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Douglas Pfife, Richard Perle and publications such as the National Review, The Weekly Standards, and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and AEI jump at the chance to shape the foreign policy.

On the social front, christian fundamentalists led by Gary Bauer, Gerry Falwel, Richard Dawson, Pat Roberson and their respective organizations, put the power of their constituencies to work on Bush and shape his social policies.



Normally these 2 groups would have had some frictions. Not in this case.

Why? Because of the way the foreign policy group shapes the debate: although they do not care about religion, they needed the constituency it provides. Therefore they cast the policy in some kind of religious cloth; for the christian right, what is happening in the Middle East is as God intended.



Benjamin Natanyu, the former Israeli prime Minister, who is not very religious himself, attended a rally organized by the Christian right and was greeted in a revival-like fashion.
The trouble with this alliance is that in the christian sequence of events as dictated by the Bible, Israel will ultimately disappear (and Jesus will come back to take christiana to heaven), which should not be to the liking of Israel. But in the short term, the common enemy are the Palestinians. Hence those small considerations can be pushed aside.

Sam L
Oct 8th, 2005, 01:19 AM
WAR WAR WAR WAR :clap2: :clap2:

This is just what we needed.

Sam L
Oct 8th, 2005, 01:20 AM
Amidst all this, I hope Karl Rove dies.

A4
Aug 11th, 2009, 08:17 AM
Most ppl bash Bush just for the hell of it, I guess. Personally, I don't think he's as right-wing as others claim. He often used the term "compassionate conservative" to describe himself and thats about as far away as you can get from a Scalia or Thomas. I think his choices for the Supreme Court pretty much reflects that. Over the next 20 or so years, I wouldn't be surprised if both appointees turn out to be more of an O'Connor/Kennedy than a Scalia or a Thomas.

The appointments may also be a reflection of current results arising from past mistakes he made i.e. listen to right wingers (nuts) like Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc etc and you get an Iraq and all the death/destruction associated with it. Listen to ppl like Powell and you'll probably make the right decisions.

Okay, I'm blushing (as much as possible) with embarrassment at this quote I made 4 years ago. Geez, was I naive!!!!!!