Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Thought George Will Was A Conservative?  
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu.../georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html
"Miers is the wrong pick"

"In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''"

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Only conservatives write for townhall.com. Usually when most other mainstream publications won't accept their diatribes, because they're so over the top. I wonder what Will is doing slumming it out there? Maybe Miers has him so worked up, he's hanging out with the lunatic fringe in an act of commiseration.

User currently offlineNUair From Malaysia, joined Jun 2000, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 993 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional.

I'm a huge Feingold fan and have voted for him in every election (until I gave up my voting rights and became a resident of DC). The bill McCain and Feingold presented in 2000 looks absolutely nothing like what Bush passed in 2002.

The purpose of the bill was to essentially take all money out of politics (which is what Bush had a problem with) by the time it went through congress it basically set up some weak ass regulations on soft money that had enough loopholes for any yutz to get around. Since the passing of the bill in 2002 it is said the number of lobbyists here in DC has doubled.

While I really don't like Bush I don't think you can compare the 2000 bill McCain Feingold presented with what Bush finally passed.

As for Miers, she has no experience and no qualifications...so in this administrations mind, she is a perfect candidate.  Smile

I don't buy this whole conservative anti Miers movement I think its BS and why would they doubt any friend of Bush's commitment to the Christian Right? Something smells a little fishy about the whole thing.



"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 989 times:

Quoting NUair (Reply 2):
Something smells a little fishy about the whole thing.

I'm thinking like a 4 day old sun bathed carcass.


User currently offlineIadbgo From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 968 times:

This column was actually in the Washington Post today...so George Will isn't slumming for anyone here. It is funny that this was brought up cause I was just talking to a guy at work about him. i don't know if any of you want This Week, George Stephanapolus' show on Sundays...but George Will is on every week and he is hilarious to watch cause he has this way of sitting that just tells you that he thinks he knows 10 times as much as the other people on the show.
I have to admit I don't always agree with him, but the is smart...there is no doubt about that.

IADBGO


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6875 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 931 times:

Instead of labeling Ted, maybe you should read and heed Will's comments- he's looking at things through a purely Constitutional perspective.

At least someone is.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 915 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 5):
Instead of labeling Ted, maybe you should read and heed Will's comments- he's looking at things through a purely Constitutional perspective.

I think you mistook the intent of the thread. I meerely wanted to point out that someone who I thought was a respected and intellectual conservative was calling out W. for being totally inept at picking justices.

It's one thing when a liberal jackass like myself calls W. inept but when somebody such as George Will does it, I think it gives cause for pause.


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 900 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 6):
I think you mistook the intent of the thread. I meerely wanted to point out that someone who I thought was a respected and intellectual conservative was calling out W. for being totally inept at picking justices.

It's one thing when a liberal jackass like myself calls W. inept but when somebody such as George Will does it, I think it gives cause for pause.

Not just Will, but most conservative groups are disappointed, at the very least, with the Miers nomination. The National Review has been called the "epicenter," but lots of conservatives are not happy campers right now. The following are what I would call mainstream conservatives, not exactly far-right whackos, in the same way The Nation, The New Republic and The American Prospect are mainstream liberal publications:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/
http://frum.nationalreview.com/
http://bench.nationalreview.com/

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007357
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten.../Articles/000/000/006/166quhvd.asp

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 878 times:

I'm a conservative, and I am very disappointed with the pick, as well. First of all, I strongly disagree with not nominating a judge. This pick really had a chance to swing the court, and for all we know, we're getting another Souter. She might be a "converted" conservative, but I am unwilling to buy it--too much is at risk for the Republican party. I'm not saying that from a "legislative" perspective, I'm saying that from a judicial perspective.

Truthfully, my ideal choice would've been a judge who has a very strong conservative record. Preferably, Janice Rogers Brown. A good dust-up over confirmation would've been great for the Republican party. First of all, the left would go absolutely ballistic in its over-the-top, in-your-face way that only alienates most voters. Secondly, the left wouldn't be able to contain their hypocrisy. Imagine that, a black woman... could you imagine the double-speak coming from the left? Most importantly, the so-called "nuclear" option needs to be put into law. The fact that the Democrats (or at some point in the future, the Republicans) don't have a majority shouldn't mean that the nominee should be able to be filibustered into oblivion.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 863 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 8):
The fact that the Democrats (or at some point in the future, the Republicans) don't have a majority shouldn't mean that the nominee should be able to be filibustered into oblivion.

 redflag 
It's a necessary safety valve to prevent the majority from running over the minority. I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing when the Dem's re-take the house and senate.


User currently offlineThumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 856 times:

Lets not re-invent history Ted. The filibuster is not a necessary safety valve. It is an administrative procedure that is being used by the democrats in new and creative ways to circumvent the constitution.

The Republicans could have just as easily vetoed Ginsburg's nomination to the court when Clinton nominated her. Right or wrong, to Republicans her judicial views where just as offensive as any "conservative" nominee. They did not because other than her being a "far left" liberal there was no legitimate reason to do so.

The fact is the democrats are making up these "rules" as they go along. It is an outrage that they try to accomplish through filibuster that which they cannot accomplish throught the ballot box.


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 851 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 6):

I think you mistook the intent of the thread. I meerely wanted to point out that someone who I thought was a respected and intellectual conservative was calling out W. for being totally inept at picking justices.

You're mixing up Conservatives and Republicans.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 846 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 8):
A good dust-up over confirmation would've been great for the Republican party.

This process, Jcs, isn't about the fucking GOP. It's about putting in a UNITED STATES Supreme Court Justices, not a Republican Party Supreme Court Justice.

If this is simply being used-by the likes of you, or the president, or anyone-to simply advance the conservative cause, then you hold party and ideology over country, and to me, that makes someone a pretty piss-poor American.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 841 times:

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 11):

You're mixing up Conservatives and Republicans.

It's all SOOOO Confusing........


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6875 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 817 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 6):
It's one thing when a liberal jackass like myself calls W. inept but when somebody such as George Will does it, I think it gives cause for pause.



Quoting Newark777 (Reply 11):
You're mixing up Conservatives and Republicans.

Right.

I think true conservatives are really pissed. The entire core base is pissed off to no end.

Bush capitulated on all the spending bills, he hasn't defended our borders, hasn't delivered on national security, we have a bloated budget, and literally there is NOTHING he has done that smacks of anything remotely conservative.

My Dad is a good example of an alienated core voter--the ONLY reason he voted for Bush in last election was because of the hope of having constructionists on SCOTUS. Real conservatives who would rule always in favor of limited government. Now Bush just flushed that down the toilet entirely with a stealth cronyist pick.

Bush is singlehandedly destroying the Republican party and the true conservatives within who feel homeless, much like the true old school Democrats feel homeless as their party has been hijacked by the leftist nutjobs.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What If George Bush Was A Black President? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 16:57:37 by VHVXB
Thought A Speeding Ticket Was Bad, Try A Felony.. posted Sat Jul 15 2006 18:48:54 by UA777222
And We Thought MD-90 Was Weird: WX Conspiracy posted Fri Sep 23 2005 22:34:56 by TedTAce
Dick & George: Will They Be Holding Hands? posted Sat Apr 3 2004 01:52:46 by WellHung
So U Thought Brussels Was A Nice City?Think Again! posted Wed Nov 15 2006 19:00:58 by VinnieWinnie
Thought Homicide Was Bad, Try Planet Destruction posted Mon Jul 17 2006 15:23:24 by Kieron747
Thought A Felony Was Bad, Try Homicide... posted Mon Jul 17 2006 14:01:03 by Aloges
You Thought The Olsen Twins 18 Countdown Was Weird posted Mon Jun 5 2006 09:21:00 by TedTAce
George Bush's SOU Speech Will Be Bumped For Hockey posted Wed Feb 1 2006 01:57:16 by L-188
Will He Be George VII posted Sun Dec 25 2005 17:26:34 by Dtwclipper