We now have one new opening on the Supreme Court, with another possible one to come, and an extreme right wing President seeking to satisfy supporters who don’t believe in the separation of church and state and consider Roe v. Wade the work of “activist judges” which should be overurned.
I’m guessing the Democrats will be steamrolled over in the vetting process, which means we’ve got one hope: That Presidents who appointed extremely conservative judges to the SC have not always gotten what they bargained for.
PAD
• 
Let me explain it to you this way, Bill: All politicians are two-faced weasels. And yes, I’m including democrats and republicans if that makes you happy. Bush and Santorum show one face to the public by supporting Specter because party unity is expected. But the real fact is that they are secretly hoping that he goes down in flames.
I don’t know. It’s hard to know if something that is “secret” is, in fact, true. Specter’s opponent came mighty close to winning, an endorsement by Bush would probably have tipped him over. Whether he could have won he general election is more problematic. But you have to admit that you have put Bush in a no win position–Support the conservative and he is an intolerant neo-con trying to purge the party of dissent; support Specter and he is a two faced-weasel. I think that basic fairness dictates that one should be open to the idea that a person has at least the POTENTIAL to do the right thing but it’s hard to see how Bush could possibly do that for you.
Since you like to through the word fact around, here’s another fact for you: Specter has been the target of several well-organized groups who have openly stated that they want to bring him down as an example to all the other “RINOs”. It is their stated goal to send a message that if they can bring down a senior senator, then every other “RINO” will have to tow the line their way or face a similar attack.
I do not dispute that. Can you dispute that they failed? Evidentally they have less influence and power in the party than they thought. Good. Hopefully the extremists in teh Democrat party will prove to be as luckless.
oh, and, while i’ve heard of it, i’ve never seen Indestructible Man, though i’ve always been a fan of old horror films.
Oh it’s great; Lon is an executed criminal brought back to life by two hapless scientists who he promptly kills (How could they not see THAT coming?) He has, for somereason, super dense skin as a resultm and goes off killing The Folks Who Done Him Wrong. Despite the title he is not actually indestructable and the last 15 minutes or so has him being destructed left and right. But it’s still a more honest title than THE BEAST WITH A MILLION EYES. Don’t get me started.
I think that basic fairness dictates that one should be open to the idea that a person has at least the POTENTIAL to do the right thing but it’s hard to see how Bush could possibly do that for you.
Bush has an unbroken record of doing the wrong thing, so why should I expect anything different.
Can you dispute that they failed?
Why would I? I’ve already said that they failed four times on this page alone!
Evidentally they have less influence and power in the party than they thought.
There are two types of influence. One is their influence over voters, which has never been as strong as they hoped. The second is their influence over the party’s policy makers, which appears to be waning as Bush’s poll numbers continue to sink. Even so, their ability to mobilize their rank and file members is still considerable, especially in presidential primaries.
Good. Hopefully the extremists in teh Democrat party will prove to be as luckless.
I’ll you what: The day Leiberman is targeted for elimination by extreme elements in his own party the way that Specter has been, I’ll worry about the extremists in the Democrats’ camp.
The second is their influence over the party’s policy makers, which appears to be waning as Bush’s poll numbers continue to sink.
Ah, but their failure with Specter came about when Bush’s poularity was high. So again, they do not seem to be much a force to be reckoned with.
Bill, go back and read what I’ve written before. I’m tired of repeating myself. Bush backed Specter publicly at least, because of party unity and the fact that this primary opponent was a sure-fire loser in the general election.
“They’re saying nice things about the guy because they agree with some of his opinions?”
No, they agree with two of his opinions (and maybe his idiotic posturing on Hollywood). They are backhanded compliments at best.
I’ve heard a number of people here say this and maybe I’m misreading the tea leaves but I think that McCain may have a far better chance than you’re giving him.
If McCain could get past the GOP party itself, he might actually have a chance with the people. However, I’m fairly certain that Ed Gillespie would never let it get that far.
McCain/Lieberman would have a very good chance at success as a ticket, yet neither would ever leave their respective parties. And if McCain wouldn’t sign on with Kerry, I doubt that Lieberman would sign on with McCain.
My real point about Miller, I guess, is that he’s no Democrat, which is why I didn’t include him.
I like McCain. I’d have voted for him, if the GOP had put him forward. I do wish he’d just go independant, with or without a democratic partner.
Personally, I’m all for letting the #1 and #2 guys serve as president and veep. The way things are now, people vote more for a party than they do for a person.
McCain won’t get the GOP nod. Rove will most certainly be backing a different horse and he’ll have his slander machine undermining McCain just as he did in 2000.
I agree, Den. He is too independent of a thinker for the GOP machinery to back him.
Which is too bad. From what I’ve seen of McCain, he seems like that rare politician that actually tries to get something done that helps people, not just something that advances a party platform.
Which is exactly why he is so hated by his own party.
Anyone else watching Tony Blair address the news the past few days and wonder “why can’t we vote for THAT guy…”
Anyone else watching Tony Blair address the news the past few days and wonder “why can’t we vote for THAT guy…”
I was saying that last night when watching coverage of his speeches (particularly the one with Bush in standing behind his right shoulder).
Granted, Blair has made his fair share of mistakes, such as following Bush’s “blazing trail” into Iraq, but he’d still be better to have.
Den,
McCain is not hated. He just annoys a lot of Republicans, particularly with McCain-Feingold, which only limits political speech. Political speech is the CORE of the First Amendment. It amazes me that people will get worked up over a librarian in the South not wanting to carry a satirical book, but feel that limiting the right of people to, say, take a full-page ad out in support of their issue or candidate is somehow okay.
Yeah, when Bush told the story of how he saw a dog that rolled over, but only part of time, so he named it John McCain, you could just feel the love.
Spare me.
Not that it’s relevant to how the extreme right feels about him, but for the record, I don’t agree with the McCain-Feingold law either that limits “soft money.” After seeing how the 527’s were able to spring up quickly and fill the slander void, I think it’s clear that the law has done more harm than good.