The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Lonely Conservative Completely Wrecked My Morning

Posted on | June 11, 2012 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

What sort of random joy in brutality would lead you to use words like Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice in the same sentence? That’s just wrong. R – O – N – N – G – G.
Holder is packin’ less gear than either Sotomayor and Kagan. The thought of those two playing “Let’s play crayons with the Constitution” with Holder truly sickens.

George Washington did not sign on for this abuse.

What would George say to the likes of a Holder on the SCOTUS?

So let that be a lesion to you: Mitt may not have been your first choice out the door for a candidate, but the first rule of survival is recognizing the wolf closest to the sled.

Obama Must Go, and “Nation of Cowards” with him.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • Pingback: Five Words for Conservatives Who Won’t Get Behind Mitt Romney | The Lonely Conservative

  • http://proteinwisdom.com/ McGehee

    If Harry Reid is still Senate Majority Leader it won’t matter; Etch-A-Sketch could nominate anybody he likes but the Senate would only confirm Holder. Or Jarrett. Or…

    The Senate is far more important.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Holder belongs in prison.  And I agree with McGehee that we need to take control of the Senate.  I am not saying it is more important, but it is certainly equally important.  

  • Pingback: WyBlog - Five words which should strike terror into any Conservative not lining up behind Mitt Romney

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    I agree with McGehee.  If the right kind of Republicans (there is a difference) don’t take control of the Senate, there will be no telling what Etch slams through as a SC nominee.
    If the right kind of Republicans don’t maintain a majority in the House, there will be no telling what sort of budget Etch would sign off on.

    The sad fact is that no matter which one of these jokers gets into office, conservatives will have to take both houses of Congress in order to manage whichever one gets in — which means they will have to be resistant to any cajoling, arm twisting, or foot stomping from either one, as well as willing to call either out if there is an attempt to bypass Congress through the cabinent/czars/courts (a very tall order).

    Focus on Congress…and focus a lot on local/state…conservatives are going to need all the good help they can get no matter which of these guys becomes president.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • Quartermaster

    What would George say to the likes of a Holder on the SCOTUS?

    I don’t think he’s day much. He would, however, hang the whole lot of them and call it a good day’s work for the country.

    He might not stop with the Chicago gang in the WH either.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

     It is vital to take control of BOTH the Senate and the White House.  Leaving either in Democratic hands is a prescription for disaster.

    Interesting projection from commenters about Romney’s supposed budget.  The voices must be talking to them again.  He did take Massachusetts from a $3 billion deficit to a  $2 bil surplus in four years without a tax rate increase, so there is that.  Besides, doesn’t Congress get the final say on appropriations?  That is another reason we need the Senate.  The House passed a down payment on what needs to be done already with the Ryan plan.

    Ditto for judicial nominations.  There is no way to judge Romney by the Massachusetts system where a commission dominated by the legislature suggests a list of qualified nominees, the Governor picks three from that list, and the legislature votes on those.  Romney did at least force the commission to remove names and party from the histories so Republicans couldn’t be scratched out of hand.

    Without the Senate and, in fact, a dominating majority in the Senate, we are screwed anyway. 

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    Just for giggles, what exactly is anyone supposed to base their opinion on future Romney performance on other than his prior history?

    What he’s said while on the campaign trail?  We’re supposed to believe him when he says will do things, even if his actions in the past do not support what he says?  And sometimes even what he says seems vague, but trust that he really, really means it now because now is different?That has been one of the problems hasn’t it?  Just taking politicians at their word, not looking at their history, and believing it will happen because we want it to?

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    As for the argument that Romney behaved the way he did in MA because he had to, some of that isn’t holding up to scrutiny (those e-mails, while perhaps a bit of dirty pool, are nonetheless there and are not encouraging).  At the very least it shows that he is quite comfortable with shifting his stance if may be expedient for himself or powerful interests he is allied with.

    That’s rather…troubling.

  • http://twitter.com/RangerSG Shawn Gillogly

    And I respond by saying, “Supreme Court Justice David Souter.” Yeah, he was a “Home Run for Conservatives,” the Bush Administration told us. Oh yeah. If they were the closer pitching, and getting to watch the ball get Charlie Browned, MAYBE.

    Sorry, Mitt has to earn my vote. If he can’t prove he’ll act like a Conservative, I’m not kidding myself into thinking he’s one. A statist is a statist.

  • http://twitter.com/RangerSG Shawn Gillogly

     This is true. Harry Reid can refuse to take up his legal obligation to budget. How do you think you’re going to get him to vote for anyone he doesn’t pre-approve?