Ok, so he actually nominated John Roberts, a 50 year old conservative. My point is, it wouldn’t matter who Bush nominated. The Democrats would be up in arms because they hate Bush that much. I think I made a point on Chuck’s blog when O’Conner stepped down saying about the same thing.
Expect dirt and mud from the left. It’s the only thing they know how to do and the main reason they are out of power in the Senate, Congress, and Executive braches of government. They truly believe the majority of the US agrees with them regardless of the outcome of the last election.
Amazing.
Better dust off that crystal ball, Don, because your soothsaying sucks: I don’t have a problem with Roberts. In fact, I’m surprised that Bush nominated someone as qualified as Roberts is.
Obviously, I hoped that Bush would nominate someone of a more moderate vein (knowing that he wouldn’t, of course), but I don’t think Roberts is a wingnut crazy conservative pick either, so I can live with him. My main concern was hoping that Bush would pick someone qualified rather than someone political (a la Thomas). He’s done that. I have no complaints.
Sorry.
Comment by Chuck — Tuesday July 19, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
Sometimes you’re more sane than your party leaders. I trust you’ve heard Schumer and a few others already and they aren’t quite as satisfied as you. I stand by my prediction.
Comment by Don — Tuesday July 19, 2005 @ 9:15 pm
I think while I’m at it I might as well bite and address this: “Expect dirt and mud from the left. It’s the only thing they know how to do and the main reason they are out of power in the Senate, Congress, and Executive braches of government. They truly believe the majority of the US agrees with them regardless of the outcome of the last election.”
First of all, dirt and mud is hardly found only from the left. The right has a proud tradition of slinging all the mud they can find and creating more when they can’t. So spare me the “lefties are such mudslingers.”
Secondly, it’s getting rather tiresome having to repeatedly remind you koolaid drinkers that the last election wasn’t a landslide. It wasn’t a rout. It wasn’t a mandate. What it was was a closely contested election with barely a 3% difference between Bush and Kerry. Only 3,012,497 more people voted for Bush than voted for Kerry, which out of a population of 296,654,327 ain’t all that impressive. At all.
So, again, spare me the “we won and we’re the mainstream because we’re the majority.” What you are is only 3 million more people than we are — basically just half the nation. We’re the other half. Half. So does having half the nation oppose you make you “out of the mainstream?”
Comment by Chuck — Tuesday July 19, 2005 @ 9:59 pm
So what happens now? Does Roe vs. Wade get overturned?
Comment by reality tv — Tuesday July 19, 2005 @ 11:32 pm
Chuck: I have to agree the left doesn’t have a monopoly on mudslinging. They do however seem to be able to do it without the media getting riled. Please don’t try to tell me the media isn’t biased. That dog won’t fight.
Since you like to point out that 3 million votes more for Bush isn’t a “landslide” I thought it might be a good time to look at recent election history.
1988
George H Bush 48,886,097 – 53.9%
Michael S. Dukakis 41,809,074 – 46.1%
Total Votes 90,695,171 – 100.0%
Margin 7,077,023
1992
William J. Clinton 44,909,889 – 43.3%
George H Bush 39,104,545 – 37.7%
H. Ross Perot 19,742,267 – 19.0%
Total Votes 103,756,701 – 100.0%
Margin -13,936,923
1996
William J. Clinton 47,402,357 – 50.1%
Robert J. Dole 39,198,755 – 41.4%
H. Ross Perot 8,085,402 – 8.5%
Total Votes 94,686,514 – 100.0%
Margin 118,200
2000
George W Bush 50,456,002 – 48.4%
Albert A. Gore 50,999,897 – 48.9%
Ralph Nader 2,882,955 – 2.8%
Total Votes 104,338,854 – 100.0%
Margin -3,426,850
So, in 1988 George H. Bush had a little over 7 million more votes than Dukakis. Probably not a landslide but a clear majority. In 1992 we have a different story. Bill Clinton has only 43.3% of the vote leaving him almost 14 million votes in the minority. In 1996 He only had 118,200 or 50.1%. Now THAT is hardly a mandate yet your side seemed to think so.
I don’t remember hearing you mention any of this back then. Why? Wasn’t prudent at that time?
In fact in 2000 Bush actually had a much higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in 1992 yet all I heard was “stolen election” and “President select”.
So bottom line Chuck – stop complaining. Your side lost. Get over it.
Reality TV: Why would you think that?
Comment by Don — Wednesday July 20, 2005 @ 7:00 am
That was then, this is now. Now you don’t have the mandate/landslide/majority you seem to think you have — and you didn’t answer my question about whether having half the country oppose you makes you “out of the mainstream.” I guess answering it wasn’t prudent.
Comment by Chuck — Wednesday July 20, 2005 @ 9:26 am
Polls since the election also indicate that popular support for Mr. Bush is not as high as it was at the election. In fact the majority of people now disapprove of the way he is handling the job of president.
So perhaps it is accurate to say that you ARE out of the mainstream if you support Bush!
Comment by Daryl — Wednesday July 20, 2005 @ 10:42 am
Ok, I see. Don’t muddy the waters with facts because that gets in the way of your point. Typical liberal mindthink. I expected better from you Chuck. To simply dismiss it as not relevent shows how you libbys hate facts.
I guess I’ll answer your question even though anyone with half a brain would realize being either a moderate conservative or moderate liberal puts you in the mainstream. The probelm is those on the fringe like Schumer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin, Limbaugh, and Coulter believe they are actually in the mainstream.
So if having half the country oppose you means half the country supports you I think that means you are in the mainstream.
So to answer your question in short, No.
Comment by Don — Wednesday July 20, 2005 @ 11:20 am
Don, I’m fine with talking about facts — in fact I prefer to — but I’d also kind of like to stick to the subject, not go rambling off on some completely unrelated tangent while you air out grievances you’ve been nursing from 10 years ago and more.
I was speaking specifically about the current right wing attitude that “we are the majority because we won a staggering victory and you are out of the mainstream”. I introduced facts to support my contention that, in fact, you are barely in a slim majority and to question how you can dismiss 49% of the country as “out of the mainstream.” Your response? A spew of data that amounted to a “Yeah, well what about this?” response that completely avoided my question and wasn’t at all relevant to what I was talking about. Talk about muddying the waters…
Me, I love facts. I use them in arguing against Bush every day. Unfortunately, you dismiss and discount them because they’re inconvenient to your BushCo “substitute reality.”
Comment by Chuck — Wednesday July 20, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
Well Chuck, you keep saying Bush doesn’t have a mandate yet your boy from 92 to 00 had a -14 million vote “mandate” for his first 4 years and 168k vote “mandate” for the second 4 years. Kinda makes me think you have no idea what a mandate is. I’m still trying to figure out what “facts” you introduced. And while we’re at it show me where I said “we won and we’re the mainstream because we’re the majority.” Seems to me you were the one who said that. Yeah I did say, “Your side lost. Get over it.” First sentance there is a fact since you seem to have trouble telling them from fiction. The second sentance is just advice and therefore not fact(and I don’t expect you to take it anyways).
One thing I’ve noticed you do a lot is paint every conservative with a broad brush. You keep forgetting I’m not a Republican and keep saying “Don thinks this” or “You drank the koolaid” yet there are very few things about Bush that I totally support. One of them is the war on terror and another is lowering taxes. I’m against a lot of his big government ideas because they are too much like the Democrats. In fact aside from the 2 things I mentioned I don’t see a real big difference between Dems and Repubs.
Comment by Don — Wednesday July 20, 2005 @ 7:41 pm
You’re right, I do tend to paint you with the Conservative brush, and I shouldn’t do that. My apologies. On the other hand, I think you’ve said that you bought into the whole WMD story and support the Iraq invasion, so you have been sipping at least a little of the juice.
I keep saying Bush doesn’t have a mandate because he doesn’t. That’s the point I’m making. Why you jump from that to “Neither did Clinton” — when A) I never said he did, B) we’re not talking about Clinton in the first place, and C) it’s completely non-responsive to the point I’m making — is beyond me. Frankly, it’s like talking to my wife: I ask her what restaurant she wants to have dinner at and she answers me by talking about a manicure she had two months ago.
The facts I introduced were the election numbers, illustrating the fact that Bush doesn’t have the overwhelming majority the Right acts like he has. You never said outright “we won and we’re the mainstream because we’re the majority” — that’s what I’ve said is the current right wing attitude. But you’re definitely on the right as far as I’m concerned, and you do seem to share that sentiment. Your original statement that started this whole discussion was “They (me and the other lefties) truly believe the majority of the US agrees with them regardless of the outcome of the last election,” which certainly sounds to me like another way of saying “we’re mainstream and you’re not.” Please do correct me if I’m misunderstanding you.
Comment by Chuck — Wednesday July 20, 2005 @ 10:05 pm