Karl Rove

[El-Moldo]

Moderate? Straddling the fence? And you know how dangerous this can be for a guy.

[fleaflicker]

Neither political party has all the answers and all the solutions. No political party has a monopoly on the truth.


That's precisely the problem with you guys. I am not having it both ways on all the issues, but I am willing to see where BOTH parties are right and wrong on certain issues, because, unlike others, I am willing to think outside party lines and not buy all the bull$hit that both parties manufacture. I find it rather disappointing to that you guys buy all the cr@p that the Republican party tells you. By the way, the safest place on the road is in the MIDDLE of your land, and the safest place on a very high wall is in the MIDDLE. To go to either extreme on the Great China Wall is to be dancing along the edge, and the place where your politics are is on top of the barrier that is supposed to keep people from going over the edge.

[LionPride]

Hey - I disagree with Bush on a few things. Like border security. He's far too lenient, and far too close with Vicente Fox. We need to tighten down our borders and stop the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants.

And as I mentioned in another post, he could've done better with his pick for the Supreme Court, even though I think Roberts will be good for the job.

I get sick and tired of Republicans trying to "play ball" with the Democrats. It's never reciprocated. Did you see this kind of backlash when Clinton nominated Ginsburg or Breyer? So why wouldn't we give them a nomination that's far to the right? There's enough left leaning judges on the bench now, that putting one on that has proven he/she is conservative could help to balance it out.

Let's hear it for the Constitution party! If there were a legit candidate that's part of the Constition Party, I'd vote for that candidate. But, $$ talks and the Republicans and Democrats control it all. So, the Republican party represents most of what I believe in, so that candidate will almost always get my support (although a few Democrats have gotten votes from me in the past).

So don't sit there and proclaim that us conservatives always buy into the party line. Just like you may not always agree with Dems, but yet you'll vote for that candidate the majority of the time.

[fleaflicker]

LP, I was responding to Moldo and Pale Rider, and I am glad that you don't always fall for the party line. I think we can both agree that one needs to examine what comes from both parties and try to discern what would ultimately be in the nation's best interest.

Democrats aren't playing ball? Hmm, I recall a few years back, when GW fed them his 'info' they were all too eager to cooperate. I guess they trusted that he wasn't deceiving them. I thought, too, that we needed to go to war if Iraq had WMD back when this actually happened (though I was very wary of the claim that Iraq was involved with 9-11, and I don't ever recall buying that line). Of course, this was coming from the TV media and everything (that so called 'liberal media'), and of course, most Americans are very prone to buying what the TV tells them, within reason. None of us really ever stopped to think that he might be lying about all the proof he had that Iraq had WMD, and all the intel, and whatever. In fact, for a time, we called our fries 'freedom fries' because we didn't like the French not joining us in the war in Iraq, and criticized it because we thought that it was all about France selling Iraq weapons, forgetting that, on our own in the 1980s, we supplied Iraq with WMD. But nonetheless, the search of the areas that the UN has never been allowed into turned up empty. So why is it that some of us still insist that the President was telling the truth all along, while others of us are ticked at the President for leading us by the nose (and at ourselves for allowing this to happen)?

Sorry for getting all long winded, but the Dems did play ball with that. Of course, the whole argument about that is another thread. Anyways....

[Lemmy]

Lionpride President Clinton did play ball with the Republicans with the nominations of Judges Ginsberg and Breyer. Orrin Hatch, Republican Senator from Utah, was the minority ranking member of the Senate Judicial Commititee. From Senate Hatch's autobiagraphy....

It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

[El-Moldo]

Instead, it sounds to me like Republicans were playing ball with Clinton. Sounds like Hatch took the lesser of 2 evils when he wrote "While liberals, they were far better than other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration".

[once a runner]

In '92 and '93 the Democrats had control of both the house and Senate. Clinton didn't have to play ball at all. He probably could have had Babbit nominated, but as Hatch said, it would have been a fight. So he compromised and nominated someone who the Republicans would support. Clinton didn't have to compromise, but did.

[El-Moldo]

How bright was Clinton? He INDICATED that "he had heard Breyer's name but had NOT thought about Judge Ginsberg"? Sounds to me like he didn't compromise, as much as he was shown the light!!! That HIS choice wasn't really that smart.

[LionPride]

Yeah - we've seen how "moderate" Ginsburg & Breyer have been over the years :roll:

Thanks for playing with the Republicans Billy Boy.

[once a runner]

So basically it was Hatch's idea to place Breyer and Ginsburg on the court. It sounds like you have one of your own Republicans to blame for that. Not to mention all the other Republicans who overwhelmingly agreed to put them on the court.