0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:09 am
Kennedy Slams Unnamed Supreme Court Nominee
by Scott Ott
(2005-07-02) --

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, today criticized President George Bush's as-yet-unnamed replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as a "brutal, Bible-thumping, right-wing ideologue who hates minorities, women and cocker spaniels."

"He or she is clearly outside the mainstream of American values," said Sen. Kennedy. "President Bush has again ignored the Senate's 'advice and consent' role, forcing Democrats to filibuster this outrageous nominee."

The Massachusetts Senator said his aides have already discovered "reams of memos" showing that the man or woman Mr. Bush will appoint has "a history of abusing subordinates, dodging military service, hiring undocumented workers, spanking his or her children and rolling back the clock on human rights to the days when the Pharaohs ruled Egypt with an iron fist."

The Senator's office issued a news release to the media documenting the allegations against the potential high court judge, with a convenient blank line allowing reporters to fill in the nominee's name as soon as that information is leaked.

http://www.scrappleface.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memo to Dubya: Go for it, baby! You're gonna get hammered and vilified no matter what, so you just pick the most conservative, qualified, and youngest nominee out there. Hit it out of the park. Your base is there for you.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:22 am
Well, if we're going to quote Spiro Agnew on the Bush Supporters' thread, we should keep it in perspective.
Quote:
"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
President William Clinton addressing the people of Philadelphia, May 28, 1993 in the Courtyard, City Hall, Philadelphia, PA.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:30 am
Flashback

A thought - Many recent SC rulings have not gone down well with The Electorate. The inevitable wrangling over Sandy's replacement well could be the petard by which The Dems hoist themselves beyond repair. The Electorate is likely to tumble to the idea that Republicans have been voted into the Executive Office and into majorities in both Legislative Houses. Whether The Dems like it or not, acknowledge it or not, that is a mandate for Republican policies and appointments.

By choosing, as no doubt they will, essentially to grind the gears of government to a halt in the process of obstructing the next SC appointee, whoever that might be, The Dems will serve but to further alienate The Electorate from themselves. I suspect that without realizing it, The Dems are setting themselves up for stunning mid-term disappointments. Again. It seems almost as though The Dems are committed above all to securing for themselves permanent minority representation.


We shall see.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:43 am
I just hope the Republicans don't cave in on insisting on the right of the President to make judicial appointments to whatever. The President is elected by the people who understand that is part of his job. I know several of the Senate Democrats do not respect that, but I would hope that some do.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:50 am
Foxy, I agree.

However, the GOP has at least 51 solid votes no matter who the nominee is, and the same majority will break a filibuster. 

Looks like the president can have whichever nominee he wants. Period.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:04 am
Well, currently it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster but the GOP majority can change that rule just as the Democrats changed the rule from a simple majority in the past when it was to their advantage to do so.

I'm to the point they should do that if the Democrats persist in their obstructionist policies. I think the GOP would lose a lot less political capital by doing what is right--it will be presented negatively in the MSM--than they will lose by being wimps.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:06 am
Or it might happen that some of those 51 republican votes are going to be running for re-election.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:19 am
Foxy - John McCain stated that if the Democrats filibuster a qualified mainstream conservative, then the filibuster deal is off.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:21 am
Well score one for McCain. His conservative credentials have been pretty shaky lately, but anybody is capable of veering off into left field now and then. The good ones always eventually get back on the road though.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:25 am
I think he listened to some of the 'feedback' LOL.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 01:34 pm
The nuclear option is always on the table.

I hope they act sensibly, but the left (MoveOn, NARAL, other assorted fringe elements) have already started their hysteria.

The Dems need to get a clue about WHY they are such a minority, before they even less a presence on Capitol Hill.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 01:37 pm
Lash writes
Quote:
The nuclear option is always on the table.


And given the way the Democrats will use anything, right or wrong, to blast the Republicans, I don't think the GOP has anything at all to lose by using it. I hope they do.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:45 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Or it might happen that some of those 51 republican votes are going to be running for re-election.
Laughing ... which historically becomes easier when their opponents make asses of themselves with uncalled for protestations, temper tantrums and filibusters... need some picture reminders of who their opponents were? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:29 am
Really good to see Obill here. Smile

The following should probably be over on the big Iraq thread, but I doubt it would be either raad or appreciated much there, at least by those who most need to read it, so I'll post it for those more likely to read and appreciate it.

It does address one of the most onerous of the Democrat talking points:

June 30, 2005
The Coalition of the Deaf and Blind

Feigned shock and surprise seems to be the emotion du jour on the Left. What do you mean that invasion of Iraq may have been a policy option as early as 2002? We were never notified! Their latest antics call for pretending that September 11th and the Iraq War are two separate and totally unrelated events, until two nights ago, when President George W. Bush contrived to make them one.

There's been quite a bit of discussion of late about what liberals did or didn't do in the aftermath of 9/11, and what they did or didn't know. In their narrative, we were solidly united, until George Bush started a completely unannounced and unexpected war. And so, the Coalition of the Deaf and Blind came into being, dedicated to flushing down the memory hole the new hawkish thinking about terrorism and national security in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In light of these histrionics, it might be helpful to examine the world as it actually was in September 2001, and what President Bush said, in his own words, about what lay ahead in the war on terror - in a time when 90% of Americans and 80% of Democrats supported his policies.

The night of September 11, 2001 was not one for bold, sweeping policy pronouncements. Nonetheless, the President gave his first hint that this conflict would not be limited to those who perpetrated these acts, but to the states that supported them:

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

In the days that followed, there would be much discussion of the name used to define this struggle: the war on terror. There was nothing inevitable or automatic about how our war aims were defined. In fact, it would have been easier had the President limited his objectives to a Clintonesque "We will find the perpetrators and bring them to justice," followed by a particularly intense round of sand-pounding in Afghanistan, and a ticker-tape parade down Broadway six weeks later, bringing this whole chapter in our history to a swift conclusion. Given America's mastery of lightning fast quasi-wars - Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf (still then the archetype), Bosnia, Kosovo - this would have been the obvious and conventional route. But, in a moment of decision, the President concluded that this time, something different and greater was called for. And he did something that you wouldn't have expected, committing us to a long struggle to eradicate terrorism broadly defined, not just mitigate it. At the time, Democrats overwhelmingly supported this.

Another hint that this would be a big war, more like the Cold War than the Persian Gulf War, came in President Bush's radio address the Saturday following the attacks:

Victory against terrorism will not take place in a single battle, but in a series of decisive actions against terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.

We are planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our country and eradicate the evil of terrorism. And we are determined to see this conflict through. Americans of every faith and background are committed to this goal.

The President's September 20, 2001 address to a joint session of Congress was the foundational statement of this war, and it was applauded by virtually all who today form the Coalition of the Deaf and Blind. In it, the President stated that nation-states would not be off-limits in this war:

The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

And, in a crucial passage, punctuated by bipartisan applause, the President explicitly declares that this war will extend beyond al Qaeda:

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

In another passage surely missed by the Coalition of the Deaf and Blind, the President prepared the country for a long and difficult war, and put the country on notice about what we should expect:

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Though necessarily broad, the September 20th speech was a remarkably prescient foreshadowing of everything that has happened in the last four years.

Over the course of the eight months that followed, these very thoughts were amplified and refined in the doctrine of preemption announced at West Point on June 1, 2002. When that speech was delivered, the President's approval rating stood at 75%, and even in last year's campaign, a majority of Americans supported preemption. And yet, the Coalition insists that all of this is somehow news to them.

But, but… Saddam Hussein didn't attack us on September 11th! There was no Iraq-al Qaeda connection! Leave aside just how dubious that latter claim is - (cough)Zarqawi(cough) - and calmly re-read the President's speeches from that September. The President didn't say al Qaeda - he said all terrorism. What about this do you not understand?

From the fedayeen in Nasiriyah, to the "foreign fighters" from Egypt and Saudi Arabia found dead in the battle for Baghdad, to today's al Qaeda-driven insurgency, terrorism has been the sole means of waging war against American troops. It was Saddam's - and Zarqawi's - only war plan. Call us crazy, but is it that unreasonable to assume that: A terrorist after the war = a terrorist before the war? The debate over whether Ba'athist Iraq was a terror state as defined multiple times by the President in September 2001 is pretty much over. And yet liberals remain under the impression that Saddam was the Iraqi Robert E. Lee, an honorable and worthy opponent who obeyed the rules of warfare, and had nothing to do with terrorism.

Only a member of a coalition of the deaf and blind could actually believe that.
http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/06/the_coalition_o.php
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:08 am
The blog author of Foxfyre's post
The blog author of Foxfyre's post:

Patrick Ruffini is never far from the place where politics meets technology. Until recently, Ruffini was webmaster for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential campaign, proudly serving as part of the team that executed the most sophisticated online strategy in political history. At the campaign, Ruffini was responsible for day-to-day website operations, designing creatives to crisply communicate the President's message, and developing special features surrounding major events like the Conventions and Presidential debates. Ruffini also designed and served as chief writer for the campaign's official blog, and managed the campaign's outreach to the blog community.

Prior to arriving at the campaign, Ruffini maintained a political blog which launched in July 2001, back when such sites were still known as "me-zines." His commentary has been featured on websites ranging from National Review Online to FoxNews.com, and he has appeared as a guest on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has called PatrickRuffini.com "one of the best websites out there with a lot of very interesting, very innovative information," while nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt calls Ruffini "a genuine breakthrough thinker on the blogosphere."

Other professional highlights include Ruffini's year at the Republican National Committee during the successful 2002 midterm election cycle, and the time he spent at the American Enterprise Institute, where he learned how innovative ideas become transformational public policies.

Ruffini graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania in 2000, with a B.A. in Diplomatic History and Political Science. Academically, he focused his coursework on American foreign policy and Presidential communication, writing a thesis paper on Ronald Reagan's Cold War leadership that is now on file at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. Ruffini worked on numerous campaigns in his four years at Penn, and as chairman of the College Republicans, helped revive the organization with a focus on voter registration and getting every Republican to the polls.

The important 2000 election spurred Ruffini into his study of voting trends in America, seeking to apply scientific rigor to the analysis of precinct-by-precinct election results. His ongoing work in this area is available through the Research section of this web site. Ruffini has also worked for Michael Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics, developing his personal web site and his official Almanac web site.

Ruffini currently lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and their two cats.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:11 am
Yes, isn't he good BBB?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:17 am
Impeccable credentials!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:53 am
timberlandko wrote:
A thought - Many recent SC rulings have not gone down well with The Electorate. The inevitable wrangling over Sandy's replacement well could be the petard by which The Dems hoist themselves beyond repair.

On the other hand, the SC most certainly did rule according to the electorate's wishes when it came to the Schiavo case. Any all too conservative new appointment who might tip the balance the other way a next time surely would not go down well with said Electorate.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 10:35 am
This Gerlertner guy is so right about who causes 'quagmires'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Danger of the Kennedy Quagmire
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 12:18 pm
As my 4th of July patriotism kicks in tomorrow, I am starting a new project, I'm calling it "Hate Mail from Home." I have requested from a number of sources a list of APO addresses of US soldiers serving in the ME. I am composing a "Dear Joe/Jane letter to be sent to each and every soldier in the theatre explaing in clear detail why I hate each and every one of them personally essentially because I have been repeately informed here in the US of A that questions or criticisms of US of A foreign policy is equal to aiding and abetting the enemy and implies a desire to see each and every one of them dead or. at least, seriously wounded. As it is my duty to fulfill such statements to the best of my ability (I am that much of a patriot) I will also wish that they lose the invasion over a prolonged time in order that more of them might suffer along side the insurgents as well as the civilians. I will, of course, sign the letters with "Dyslexia, secretary to the Republian Central Committee for the Destruction of Democracy in American" Do I have any co-signers here?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 02:14:52