aps said:I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.
Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.
TurtleDude said:you don't understand the concept of uniter. Unlike Gore who during his acceptance speech that he was going to target several groups of Americans for punitive government action on behalf of Gore's supporters, Bush never said anything like that. Gore told us who are hard working high bracket tax payers that we didn't pay enough. He told gun owners that we need to be harassed more
Dems are the ones trying to balkanize America into warring groups
Of course dems will have problems with Alito-he is brilliant and conservative. Nothing scares dems more
Maybe he's not as bad as those guys think. There's been a lot of under-handed propoganda lately, so I don't think it's possible for Bush to nominate someone who at least one democrat won't speak out against, just on principle.aps said:I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.
TurtleDude said:you don't understand the concept of uniter. Unlike Gore who during his acceptance speech that he was going to target several groups of Americans for punitive government action on behalf of Gore's supporters, Bush never said anything like that. Gore told us who are hard working high bracket tax payers that we didn't pay enough. He told gun owners that we need to be harassed more
Dems are the ones trying to balkanize America into warring groups
Of course dems will have problems with Alito-he is brilliant and conservative. Nothing scares dems more
''…the case that I saw for four-plus years,'' he said, ''was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardisations, and perturbations in the national-security (policy-making) process'', he added.
''What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.''
aps said:Hmmmm, turtledude, so the only example you are going to give me of someone who is NOT a uniter is a someone who has NEVER been president. Interesting. I guess it's because you certainly could not say that about Clinton, who talked to both republicans and democrats when he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. It's why they both got through with almost every senator's support (96 for Ginsburg and 87 for Breyer).
I hope that this nomination causes further controversy. If the republicans attempt to remove the nuclear option of a filibuster, they are making a huge mistake. As stated by Alan Simpson (former republican senator of Wyoming and good friend of Cheney's) on Hardball last Thursday:
"I heard Pat say, you know, drive for the vote, get the vote, take the filibuster. Well, let me tell you, pal. When you play that game and go into the minority you‘ll wish you hadn‘t set the automatic fanny-kicker in option because it‘ll get you, it‘ll get you."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9849832/
aps said:I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.
Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.
aps said:I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support
SEN. TED KENNEDY (D-MA): “You Have Obviously Had A Very Distinguished Record, And I Certainly Commend You For Long Service In The Public Interest. I Think It Is A Very Commendable Career And I Am Sure You Will Have A Successful One As A Judge.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/5/90)
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “I Believe Mr. Alito Has The Experience And The Skills To Be The Kind Of Judge The Public Deserves – One Who Is Impartial, Thoughtful, And Fair. I Urge The Senate To Confirm His Nomination.” (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Congressional Record, 4/27/90, p. S5281)
FORMER SEN. BILL BRADLEY (D-NJ): “[T]he Confirmation Of Sam Alito As U.S. Attorney For New Jersey Is Testimony To The Commitment He Has Shown And The Success Of His Efforts As A Law Enforcement Official. I Am Confident That He Will Continue To Do All He Can To Uphold The Laws Of This Nation With The Kind Of Determination And Vigor That Has Been His Trademark In The Past.” (Sen. Bill Bradley, Congressional Record, 12/8/87, p. S17427)
aps said:Hmmmm, turtledude, so the only example you are going to give me of someone who is NOT a uniter is a someone who has NEVER been president. Interesting. I guess it's because you certainly could not say that about Clinton, who talked to both republicans and democrats when he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. It's why they both got through with almost every senator's support (96 for Ginsburg and 87 for Breyer).
I hope that this nomination causes further controversy. If the republicans attempt to remove the nuclear option of a filibuster, they are making a huge mistake. As stated by Alan Simpson (former republican senator of Wyoming and good friend of Cheney's) on Hardball last Thursday:
"I heard Pat say, you know, drive for the vote, get the vote, take the filibuster. Well, let me tell you, pal. When you play that game and go into the minority you‘ll wish you hadn‘t set the automatic fanny-kicker in option because it‘ll get you, it‘ll get you."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9849832/
hipsterdufus said:Let's look at the facts here. Dems are almost totally shut out of all high level meetings. The wedge issues the republicans have put out there are god, guns, abortion and most important gays. They put gay marriage on the ballot in 12 states where it was already illegal. What - to make it double super illegal? Look for immigration to be the next wedge issue.
At a time when the country was uniqulydivided, Lincoln put people in his cabinet who disagreed with him, dems too. He wanted to hear dissenting opinion then make his decisions. Some of his initial opponents ended up becoming his most ardent supporters.
What we have now was referred to as a "cabal" by Lawrence Wilkerson, who wa Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2005.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1020-01.htm
A few people making key decisions. Loyalty is valued over everything, so consequently there are a lot of yes men that have the ear of the prez.
Hobbes3259 said:Maybe the Problem isn't Bush. Maybe its the poisonous atmosphere of today's political left.
You Said....
I guess these guys are just too right wing for you ?
TurtleDude said:the fact is that the GOP, in all those years it was in the minority, never ever filibustered any judge (Fortas was a bipartisan filibuster that lasted just long enough for the guy to RESIGN his associate's seat).
The fact that HALF the obstructionist party voted against a near perfect candidate Justice Roberts shows that the Dems have violated the traditions of this process. GInsburg only had a handful of GOP'ers vote against her and no filibuster was even mentioned. SHE WAS FAR MORE LEFTWING than any Person Bush has mentioned was conservative
Hobbes3259 said:The Ginsburg and Breyer examples of the former Senate giving the President his constitutional due, before the democrats were locked out of power. Now the only way they can achieve their aims, having been shut out of legislation isn by Adjudication, and that option si being slowly choked off.
And Alan Simpson is FoS. It is not a question if, it is a question of When, and By Who. If the Republicans dont uncork the Nuke option, the Democrats may when they get power back in two generations.
Hobbes3259 said:Maybe the Problem isn't Bush. Maybe its the poisonous atmosphere of today's political left.
You Said....
I guess these guys are just too right wing for you ?
TurtleDude said:you don't understand the concept of uniter. Unlike Gore who during his acceptance speech that he was going to target several groups of Americans for punitive government action on behalf of Gore's supporters, Bush never said anything like that. Gore told us who are hard working high bracket tax payers that we didn't pay enough. He told gun owners that we need to be harassed more
Bush said:Second, I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.
aps said:LET ME REPEAT since you clearly are not reading my response to you. Clinton sought out the advice and counsel of senators before he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. Thus, the GOP senators had a say in who Clinton nominated. Bush does not do that with the democrats. You're comparing apples and oranges.
aps said:AGAIN, Clinton sought out the advice and counsel of both parties when he was selecting his nominee. Bush doesn't do that.
cnredd said:While you CONTINUALLY LIE to the members of this forum, may I remind you of what actually happens?
Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle.
Other Democrats sounded anything but conciliatory. "The president has selected a loyal political ally without a judicial record to sit on the highest court in the land,"said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/03/233742.html
Well howz about that!...He DOES consult with them!
From now on, I think I'll call you "The Bat"...:notlook:
shuamort said:
I will take that as an admission that the accusation of lying would be correct...aps said:Continually lie? Okaaaaaaaaaaaay. :roll:
Well well well well, and look what happened to the candidate that was recommended by Reid? She was totally ambushed and humilated by the republicans. I am sure you are just so proud.
Then, like you, I will have to REPEAT...aps said:I'm not sure whether Bush consulted with more than just Reid on that nomination.
What's more obnoxious?...Someone lying to the forum members or someone calling them on it?...aps said:Call me whatever you want, cnredd. Why you have to be so obnoxious is beyond me.
aps said:I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.
Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.
aps said:Ahhhh, thank you, shuamort. On Meet the Press yesterday, one of the chiefs of staff of either Regan or Carter said that they had never seen the country as divided as it is today.
Not only did Bush lie about being a uniter, he said he would restore integrity to the White House. Oh really, Mr. Bush? Yeah, that's why one of your own has been indicated and another one is still being investigated. :rofl
cnredd said:I will take that as an admission that the accusation of lying would be correct...
Then, like you, I will have to REPEAT...
According to the article...
Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators.
That sounds like "more than just Reid on that nomination."...
What's more obnoxious?...Someone lying to the forum members or someone calling them on it?...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?