Olly Mensch wrote:

No, Ollie. It depends on whether the Republicans will do what is right
for the country or merely back a reactionary, dogmatic ideologue in lock
step order. Something you ignore quite conveniently.

Alan

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:51:34 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com>
wrote:

Emily

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:39:17 -0400, emily@nospam.com wrote:

Well, I for one, have a slight hope that Bush will not throw
down the gauntlet at a time when his approval ratings are going
South and that wiser heads within the G.O.P., a party which does
contain social moderates, may temper his inclination.

We have a few Bush supporters in this group who are social
moderates and it will be interesting to see if they defend
Bush's "right" to appoint whom he pleases over a wiser appointment
of someone who might serve to avoid the kind of even deeper
division in the electorate of a decision totally ideologically
based. I believe the future of the Republican party rests on
holding some kind of consensus on certain issues rather than
swingling wildly to the extreme right. And I am sure there
are sane Repubicans who recognize this. Will they prevail?
I have a slight hope they will.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:49:03 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com>
wrote:

Nixon and Reagan had the luxury of nominating real conservatives,
knowing they had no chance of being confirmed with a Democrat
majority. Thus they could tell their voters that they had tried and
then they nominated something like Rhenquist and O'Connor.

The GOP now has the numbers to confirm anyone Bush nominates. I'm
anxious to see what he does and what will be his excuse for *not*
nominating a true conservative.

Gary James wrote:

There is a big difference between a 'true conservative' and a
reactionary ideologue. Democrats would likely grudgingly accept a 'true
conservative' and not filibuster the nomination, although voting against
it and permitting confirmation. They would however, filibuster a
radical reactionary ideologue, and rightfully so, as that is NOT what
the public wants.

Alan

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:30:39 -0400, Oldie69@webtv.net (Olly Mensch)
wrote:

What was dirty about it?
Thumper

I noticed on the news yesterday that the demonstration groups are
already acting out for various causes. Even when I support their cause
as with abortion, I abhor their methods which I believe do more harm
than good.

Thumper wrote:

I may be wrong, but wasn't one of the reasons that Bork's nomination
went nowhere is that the ABA rated him 'unqualified'?

Alan

On 2 Jul 2005 06:48:27 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
<GoldenStatePoppy@aol.com> wrote:

What methods do you approve of for women to make their
position known? Do you believe a peaceful march is abhorrent?
What will you personally do if Bush nominates a candidate who
opposes abortion? Just sigh and go on with your life, while
castigating those women who feel strongly enough to join a
march or other demonstration?