What do you know about the Constitutional Party

#101
#101
BigPapaVol said:
that would be much more palatable if Obama weren't the most socialistic candidate ever and likely to walking into the middle of a heavily democratic congress. If the congress were going to be closer to even or Repub leaning, then I have no real problem with that strategy. Since that's not going to be the case, we would be overwhelmed with a massive shift toward socialism for at least 2 years and most likely all 4.
Click to expand...
As opposed to a gradual shift to collectivism with one term of McCain and Marxist Dem elected in 2012?

It's a matter of not if, but when. You would rather prolong the agony.
 
#102
#102
Rasputin_Vol said:
It's a matter of not if, but when. You would rather prolong the agony.
Click to expand...

it sounds like you'd rather have an "I told you so" moment.

We're fairly screwed either way, but I'd much rather get screwed with the prospect of having constructionist judges appointed to the federal bench.
 
#103
#103
:thumbsup:I hope our new PRESIDENT does that for the PATRIOTS of this COUNTRY.....:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:
 
#104
#104
MG1968 said:
it sounds like you'd rather have an "I told you so" moment.

We're fairly screwed either way, but I'd much rather get screwed with the prospect of having constructionist judges appointed to the federal bench.
Click to expand...

Like a Harriet Miers?
 
#108
#108
Rasputin_Vol said:
Like a Harriet Miers?
Click to expand...

what's your point? Bush isn't running for President. Miers was a terrible choice, but likely would have been better than Ginsburg or Souter.

I get it that you don't like McCain, nor do you like the direction the GOP has taken. However, thinking that it is in the country's ultimate best interests to have a neo-socialist like Obama elected President is foolish.

The best thing that can come out of this election is split government with McCain, even as a nominal Republican, in the White House getting into daily pissing contests with Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress. I'd rather see nothing get done for four years than a hard lurch toward the socialist utopia that Obama, Reid and Pelosi envision.
 
#110
#110
BigPapaVol said:
is that relevant?
Click to expand...

Yes... very much so. The reason why the lost control of the house is because the party has drifted away from their conservative values and had become wasteful spenders. Electing McCain (am member of this Congress) is doing nothing to change the general trend of where the GOP and this country are going.
 
#111
#111
BigPapaVol said:
Do you really believe he was trying to appoint Miers, or make Alito seem like a Rock star by comparison?
Click to expand...

That is Limbaugh logic, right there. Of course he was serious about nominating her. That sounds like something Limbaugh would say. No way was Bush being that calculating or clever with that pick. Heck, if anything, he should have nominated Robert Bork first, gotten the Dems all worked up, and Alito would have seemed like a kitty cat. The purpose of him nominating Miers was for him to appear more moderate and he had hoped that the Dems would let her just slide in because she was a woman, replacing another woman (O'Connor).
 
#113
#113
MG1968 said:
actually, Limbaugh went ballistic when Miers was announced.
Click to expand...

I realize he was. But by Limbaugh logic, I mean that he had a habit of trying to spin a situation into a positive after the fact. I can hear him now probably saying , "See folks... I told you so. Bush was really aiming to have the Democrats shoot their load on Miers and use up all of their capital on her so that he could really nominate Alito..."
 
#114
#114
Rasputin_Vol said:
I realize he was. But by Limbaugh logic, I mean that he had a habit of trying to spin a situation into a positive after the fact. I can hear him now probably saying , "See folks... I told you so. Bush was really aiming to have the Democrats shoot their load on Miers and use up all of their capital on her so that he could really nominate Alito..."
Click to expand...

so, Rush was right?
 
#115
#115
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is Limbaugh logic, right there. Of course he was serious about nominating her. That sounds like something Limbaugh would say. No way was Bush being that calculating or clever with that pick. Heck, if anything, he should have nominated Robert Bork first, gotten the Dems all worked up, and Alito would have seemed like a kitty cat. The purpose of him nominating Miers was for him to appear more moderate and he had hoped that the Dems would let her just slide in because she was a woman, replacing another woman (O'Connor).
Click to expand...

I think that assuming Bush wasn't surrounded by some very clever and calculating political minds is a bit silly. He got elected to POTUS twice and should have gotten killed the second time.
 
#116
#116
BigPapaVol said:
I think that assuming Bush wasn't surrounded by some very clever and calculating political minds is a bit silly. He got elected to POTUS twice and should have gotten killed the second time.
Click to expand...

Clever...:banghead2:

See thats the problem. That is why the GOP has been a failure. Why be clever or calculating? Why not just do the right thing and implement the principles they ran on.
 
#117
#117
Rasputin_Vol said:
Clever...:banghead2:

See thats the problem. That is why the GOP has been a failure. Why be clever or calculating? Why not just do the right thing and implement the principles they ran on.
Click to expand...
I would say Alito was the right thing and the CJ spot was a complete home run.
 
#118
#118
Again, I don't believe that the Miers nomination was some "clever" act by the Bush administration, but the fact that you would insinuate that there was some shifty work going on in the background indicates just how cynical even you are about politics... and it just represents a microcosm of what people say when they are cynical about the type of leadership we have running this country. Nobody takes what a politician says at face value. Every action they make has some other unseen motive behind it. You just admitted it yourself. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with us enabling these politicians and not holding them accountable. I have a problem with us being cynical about our leadership and and trying to second or third guess every move or parsing every sentence. Not saying that I'm a romantic that expects 100% of the politicians out there to be honest, but it would be nice to have at least 40%... 25%... 10% that actually mean what they say and stand by the principles that they campaigned on.
 
#119
#119
Rasputin_Vol said:
Again, I don't believe that the Miers nomination was some "clever" act by the Bush administration, but the fact that you would insinuate that there was some shifty work going on in the background indicates just how cynical even you are about politics... and it just represents a microcosm of what people say when they are cynical about the type of leadership we have running this country. Nobody takes what a politician says at face value. Every action they make has some other unseen motive behind it. You just admitted it yourself. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with us enabling these politicians and not holding them accountable. I have a problem with us being cynical about our leadership and and trying to second or third guess every move or parsing every sentence. Not saying that I'm a romantic that expects 100% of the politicians out there to be honest, but it would be nice to have at least 40%... 25%... 10% that actually mean what they say and stand by the principles that they campaigned on.
Click to expand...

truth isn't really electable policy today. I'll admit that the behind the scenes stuff and deal cutting is an enormous factor in decisions that come down.

It would be foolish to assume that the president hadn't canvassed a pretty solid set of congresspersons prior to his announcement. I have to think the feedback was probably pretty sour.
 
#120
#120
BigPapaVol said:
It would be foolish to assume that the president hadn't canvassed a pretty solid set of congresspersons prior to his announcement. I have to think the feedback was probably pretty sour.
Click to expand...
Never questioned the fact that he didn't get a pulse of the congress before the nomination. I'm just questioning the part about the Miers nomination being a clever way to boost GOP spirits by running out a moderate, having her step down, and then running out Bush's alleged true first choice in Alito, and in turn making Alito look like a rock star in comparison. It sounds overly contrived. I think it wasn't that complicated. He ran out a crony. There was out cry from the GOP street, and he had to backpeddle. I'm not sure what sort of information he could have gleaned from the congress that would make him jump through the hoops that you are alledging.

But back on topic, the point is that I'm not sold on the notion that voting for McCain is going to mean that we are going to necessarily get a strict follower of the constitution. Using your logic, if a president would be foolish to not take the pulse of congress and make decisions based off of that, then what do you think a moderate, fence sitting, appeaser like McCain is gonna do? Would you sleep at night knowing that McCain of all people is going to make judcial appointments based on the likelyhood of them getting nominated in a democratically controlled house/senate or based on the pulse of congress? :eek:hmy:
 
#121
#121
Rasputin_Vol said:
Again, I don't believe that the Miers nomination was some "clever" act by the Bush administration, but the fact that you would insinuate that there was some shifty work going on in the background indicates just how cynical even you are about politics... and it just represents a microcosm of what people say when they are cynical about the type of leadership we have running this country. Nobody takes what a politician says at face value. Every action they make has some other unseen motive behind it. You just admitted it yourself. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with us enabling these politicians and not holding them accountable. I have a problem with us being cynical about our leadership and and trying to second or third guess every move or parsing every sentence. Not saying that I'm a romantic that expects 100% of the politicians out there to be honest, but it would be nice to have at least 40%... 25%... .
Click to expand...
:popcorn:
:10% that actually mean what they say and stand by the principles that they campaigned on:bad:
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top