Comments on: ON THE CUSP OF IRRELEVANCY

By: John

John — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:56:22 +0000

I believe that this “Monarch” Bush, has forgotten that this is a Republic. He and Cheney are working the government like a Monarchy. While he cannot enact laws he has gone about his business circumventing them. More harm has been done to our constitution by his presidency than any other president. It is no wonder that the Democrats will win the presidency and most of the congress in the next couple of elections. Bush and his Religious right supporters have lost the trust of the silent majority and will go down in history as the worst of the worst regimes to run this country. We have seen more corruption and scandle than we can bear. Right now a BJ in the White House looks good in comparison to the BS we have been getting from Bush and his cronies.

By: Syl

Syl — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:43:01 +0000

“progress in Iraq has slowed”

Since when?

Which points up something you completely left out of this article…the power of the media. It’s the media that filters the news, gives its own narrative, and shapes public opinion.

Then they have the nerve to cite opinion polls as news. Yeah, it’s opinions the media itself created.

As for the grousing by conservatives over Miers, I’m disgusted with it. All of it. Elitism and snobbery, as bad as on the Left. I may have voted for Bush but my estimation of conservatives just went down the tubes. I’m truly disappointed in my new found friends.

By: Der Fuersprecher

Der Fuersprecher — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:39:18 +0000

“Did you watch the same Roberts hearing that I did? What have we gotten from Scalia, Thomas? Nothing. We know how they will vote, but mostly combative alienation. Roberts will be studied for generations and will be the new mold for constitutional law. Roberts told us how he is going to set the new precedent for Mulberry vs Madison. The reach of the Court will be tempered. Look how convincing he was with hostile Democrats, and think about how he will be able to solidify consensus with Kennedy, Oâ€™Connor. In the future, we wonâ€™t even care who is put on the Court.”

This is the same type of flattering elitist drivel that helped turn pre-justice David Souter into the left wing ideologue he has morphed into as Justice Souter.

We can only hope and pray that Roberts cares more about restoring the original intent of the framers than seeking the approval of assbags like â€œFritz.â€

And what type of consensus will Roberts be solidifying with O’Conner by the way?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:51:27 +0000

I agree with Ken. Edgar turned down the IL Republicans’ begging him to fill Peter Fitzgerald’s seat. He did so because he didn’t want to re-enter the political arena, having gotten comfortable in his post-governer life.

Even vulnerable incumbents have tremendous advantages over opponents. I think it may be a bit premature to cede 2006 to the party without ideas.

By: cjg

cjg — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:39:58 +0000

I would still vote for the presiden, but not, in any way, for
the republicans.
Whiney, immature screeching that
sounds as if the liberals were doing it, for heaven’s sake.
If no-one can figure this man has
had to deal with one crisis after
another since 9/11 and has
always got what he wanted and
will continue to unless the
conservatives don’t wake up and
smell the coffee.
They are not good for much in my
book if this is how they complain.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:07:14 +0000

Rick,
Did your brother Terry grow up in the same home with you? Must be something with the water around Georgetown.
Did you watch the same Roberts hearing that I did? What have we gotten from Scalia, Thomas? Nothing. We know how they will vote, but mostly combative alienation. Roberts will be studied for generations and will be the new mold for constitutional law. Roberts told us how he is going to set the new precedent for Mulberry vs Madison. The reach of the Court will be tempered. Look how convincing he was with hostile Democrats, and think about how he will be able to solidify consensus with Kennedy, O’Connor. In the future, we won’t even care who is put on the Court.

By: gs

gs — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:31:43 +0000

Are you implying that Bush reluctantly nominated a crony because he had no choice? Please.

I viewed the 2004 election as a contest between an unqualified challenger and a barely qualified incumbent. My opinion has not changed with hindsight. It’s premature to label 2006 as a Democratic year, but Bush is doing his part to make it so.

By: Ken Smithmier

Ken Smithmier — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:20:35 +0000

The former IL governor is Jim, not Bob. Your theory of 2006 being the Year of the Democrat may be right, but in Edgar’s case most here believe he would have beaten Blagojevic, but stayed out for health, family, and financial reasons. Those close to him agree.