Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
"If Ted Kennedy is not anywhere near a microphone when the nominee is announced, that is an advantage," Rushton said.

 

;):w00t:

Posted
"If Ted Kennedy is not anywhere near a microphone when the nominee is announced, that is an advantage," Rushton said.

When is Ted Kennedy not near a microphone?

 

;)

Posted

Kind of hard to find a microphone underwater.

 

Yesterday was the 36th anniversary of Mary Jo Kopchne's death at the hands of Ted Kennedy.

Posted
Kind of hard to find a microphone underwater.

 

Yesterday was the 36th anniversary of Mary Jo Kopchne's  death at the hands of Ted Kennedy.

385237[/snapback]

 

This is why it has become really hard for me to stomach listening to Ted Kennedy lecture the Bush administration on morality and ethics.

 

If the libbies want to complain about the "unjust" Iraq War 2 and the Karl Rove leak, can't they at least find another spokesman???

Posted
ABC is saying that their sources are saying it isn't Clement.

385467[/snapback]

I agree. I get the impression that was floated by the WH to throw folks off. Seems the left side wanted the name in advance so they could "agree" and come up with good things to say about the candidate. I think the WH gave them 3 names Saturday and said they were leaning towards Clements.

 

My guess is Garcia. I think he is going to reach out to the Latino's.

Posted
I agree.  I get the impression that was floated by the WH to throw folks off.  Seems the left side wanted the name in advance so they could "agree" and come up with good things to say about the candidate.  I think the WH gave them 3 names Saturday and said they were leaning towards Clements. 

 

My guess is Garcia.  I think he is going to reach out to the Latino's.

385470[/snapback]

 

It would also make sense b/c I think it was her who doesn't have much of a "paper trail." You bet your bippy that Dubya doesn't want to be making the same mistake his father made (by appointing one of the more liberal judges), so he probably wants someone where he knows the gist of how they come to their ruling.

 

I don't agree with a good deal of his domestic policy, but as President, it's his right to nominate who he wants, (and people who reluctantly voted for him lose all bitching rights). Then it's to the Senate to decide whether to confirm. What grates my elbow is that all along, this admin has been whining that their nominees should be confirmed with a big check mark, just because. As if it's just a rote, symbolic gesture the Constitution is calling for.

Posted
It would also make sense b/c I think it was her who doesn't have much of a "paper trail." You bet your bippy that Dubya doesn't want to be making the same mistake his father made (by appointing one of the more liberal judges), so he probably wants someone where he knows the gist of how they come to their ruling.

 

I don't agree with a good deal of his domestic policy, but as President, it's his right to nominate who he wants, (and people who reluctantly voted for him lose all bitching rights). Then it's to the Senate to decide whether to confirm. What grates my elbow is that all along, this admin has been whining that their nominees should be confirmed with a big check mark, just because. As if it's just a rote, symbolic gesture the Constitution is calling for.

385484[/snapback]

I agree, let the candidate get voted on. If they get 55 votes or 100 who cares. Symbol's are BS.

 

I know Ford got screwed by a Stevens as well with no paper trail.

Posted
Which would give his Presidency the validity it's currently lacking.

385556[/snapback]

 

You got that right! :):doh:

 

BTW, nice avatar!

×
×
  • Create New...