"Whew! This conservative line is hard to walk."
Posted on 10/08/2005 7:14:40 PM PDT by quidnunc
Since taking office, President Bush has heartened abortion opponents by signing a bill outlawing what they call "partial-birth" abortions, curtailing federal funding for international organizations that offer abortion referrals and promoting what he calls a culture of life.
But after nominating White House counsel Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court last week, he was asked directly whether he wants Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court opinion guaranteeing a right to abortion, to be overturned. His response was less than direct. "You know, I'm not going to interject that kind of issue in the midst of these hearings," Bush said.
It is an answer that not only speaks to the powerful passions and treacherous politics surrounding abortion, but also reveals a type of pragmatism Bush has exhibited throughout his political career. There is little doubt that Bush, as he noted last week, is "proudly" conservative. Domestically, he has cut taxes, limited stem cell research and advanced bold proposals to replace cherished government social programs with an ownership society that offers recipients both greater risks and greater rewards while curbing taxpayer outlays.
-snip-
His political sensibilities at times have left him reluctant to take the lead into pitched ideological battles, particularly around social issues, frustrating his staunchest supporters.
"I think Bush is a solid conservative in terms of his views, but above all else he is a coalition builder," said John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum for Religion & Public Life. "The president is keenly aware that he has many parts to his coalition, some of whom don't see eye to eye with religious conservatives."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In my initial Miers-related post below, as well as here, here, and here, I expressed surprise and strong disappointment about Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. Since then, I have decided (not without difficulty) that President Bush's pick deserves support — at least until hearings can be held to learn more about her. So for now I am ready to give the president the benefit of the doubt, despite my disappointment in his choice.
That disappointment has been replaced by a more profound disappointment in some of my personal conservative heroes, who are not exactly covering themselves with glory in their reaction (I daresay overreaction) to Miers' nomination. Examples:
Bill Kristol, who has done so much for conservatism, descends into snide smugness in his Weekly Standard piece today. First, the self-satisfied smugness:
[T]he reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.
I am glad Kristol is so pleased with the "vigor of [his own] arguments" and his "willingness to speak uncomfortable truths." I think he's so unhappy with the Miers nomination, however, that his usual intellectual discipline is slipping a little. I don't think the performance of Kristol's side of the debate is anything to write home about.
Consider George Will, another of my heroes, who sniffs that "constitutional reasoning is a talent — a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career."
This is neither the "vigorous argument" nor the "uncomfortable truth" Kristol admires so much. It is rubbish. Joseph Story, Robert Jackson, Byron White, William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas — especially Clarence Thomas — are all outstanding justices who did not acquire their "talent" for constitutional reasoning after "years of practice sustained by intense interest." They were practicing lawyers, like Miers.
Let's turn to Kristol's claim of "intellectual credibility." While smugly declaring victory for his side, Kristol quotes this anecdote as an example of the "spirited" defense attempted by the president's supporters, who "really were not given all that much to work with by the White House:"
Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&M's in her West Wing office. It wasn't a huge secret. She'd stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&M's in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush's reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&M's were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: "I like M&M's, and I like sharing."
While chuckling over this silly little story Kristol might have taken a moment to glance at Hugh Hewitt's blog, where he might have come across this comment from Betsy's Page:
What does irritate me is those conservatives who basically want to take their marbles and go home since they're disappointed in Bush's nomination. Fine, stay home next election. I hope your sanctimonious conservative purity is warm comfort through the years of Hillary's presidency. Remember that our choice is rarely between the perfect candidate and some other person. Mostly, we have to deal with two imperfect candidates and figure out which one would be less bad for the country. If you're lucky, there might even be a candidate you can like. My experience is that such politicians are rare.
Does that little bit of serious thinking seem a tad more compelling to you than a lame anecdote about Harriet Miers' willingness to share M&Ms? Yet Kristol chose the M&M story as representative of the pro-Miers camp's views. "Intellectually credible" and "morally serious," my eye!
How about one more "uncomfortable truth?" Several times on her show yesterday Laura Ingraham noted with incredulity that Miers had reportedly never discussed abortion with President Bush. Laura wondered, How do you get to the age of 60 in this day and age, as a serious person, and not discuss abortion? Well, Laura, the justice you clerked for, Clarence Thomas, testified in his confirmation hearings that he had not discussed Roe v. Wade (or abortion, I believe) with anyone. He was widely criticized for that scarcely credible claim, yet conservatives rushed to his defense. Is that bit of Supreme Court history an ucomfortable truth Kristol and Ingraham have forgotten about?
-snip-
(Lowell Brown in The Hedgehog Blog, October 8, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
And now that I've gotten that off my chest...I have not made up my mind. I want to hear what she says and how she says it.
Bush the "conservative"?
Since Bush is spending more on social welfare, new welfare programs and global welfare than any president ever, then exactly how do you define "conservative"?
Stop the illegal alien invasion, Mr. "Conservative".
Appoint Luttig, Brown, or Jones, Mr. "Conservative".
Veto the pork, Mr. "Conservative".
Don't let Manslaughter Kennedy dictate the Education Bill, Mr. "Conservative".
Reclaim the $15 billion to Africa, Mr. "Conservative".
Stop closing military bases and stop cutting back on the F-35, the DD(X), the F-22, et al., Mr. "Conservative".
Conservative.............. LOL!
Very bad joke. Our nation's future is at stake. Bush is light years from ever being a "conservative".
I think Bush is only somewhat conservative in his views. He is what I will call a 2nd generation conservative, not a direct convert. Therefore he misses the big picture many times. He gets enough of the pieces right to look and sound mostly conservative, but he is much more of a socialist than he would ever admit.
But I agree that building a coalition is his primary value. And that doesn't mean a conserative only coalition, or even a Republican only coalition. It's kind of a doofy, group therapy sort of concept. I mean, obviously politics requires compromise and coalition building. But the Dr. Phil politicians sell out key principles for temporary political peace, and they do it well before there has been adequate debate on both sides. They go to the "negotiating" table with a white flag in hand. It's political appeasement. Bush gets how wrong that is on issues of war and peace, but he totally misses it in other areas. He just fails to see the big picture and the harm an incremental surrender can do. He thinks in terms of better something than nothing. But he is wrong. Often nothing is better. That way you can regroup and try again.
That's not a conservative line you're seeing.
Of course John Kerry is a very conservative man and you should have voted for him, right? Just who would you have in the presidency if not Bush? He has done much good for us and he has made mistakes, in other words, he is human. Vote for 3rd party or stay at home next election at your peril, it won't be the republican party that suffers but the conservative constituency.
You have freepmail.
I'm assuming you were replying to someone else? (If not, that's ok)
What good has Bush done for us fiscally?
What good has Bush done for us by bypassing highly qualified originailists for SCOTUS?
What good has Bush done for us by his nation building in Iraq that is costing soldiers their lives? Please don't tell me he is "fighting terrorism". You fight terrorism by "influencing" the leaders of enemy nations, not by killing common foot soldiers on the ground. Tell me, what good has he done? He has boosted liberals' stock price and harmed greatly the conservative movement. What good has he done?
Whether Harriet Miers is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court will be decided rather quickly by her demeanor in the hearings. First impressions are important and she has not had the opportunity yet to make a national first impression. I am terribly disappointed in the selection. But I do feel empathy for her, because Bush has put her in a terrible situation. Her work history seems to indicate that she is a people pleaser who is task oriented. Obviously, she wanted to please the President by accepting his offer to nominate her, but I am not sure that that will work out well for either. She has to follow Roberts who I was not thrilled with either but whose strengths in legal scholarship were unassailable. I fear she is going to come off looking like a good ol' girl who found out how to thrive in the Texas world of the good ol' boys. A kind of Ann Richards who found the Lord and took a turn to the right. But following in the stir created by Roberts successful hearings she may well be out of her depth. Kristol and Ingraham are two conservatives that are not my favorites, but when it comes to that bitchy brand of conservatism, I feel that Kristol tops Ingraham by a good margin.
Only one problem true right conservatives stand no chance of winnning the presidency the numbers simply aren't there
You prove, with this post, that you have more in common with Cindy Sheehan than with the people on this forum.
Terrorist symp.
Regarding Hugh Hewitt, (whose poularity i will never understand) "sanctimonious conservative purity is warm comfort through the years of Hillary's presidency"
Well, that may happen. If it does, God forbid, maybe the Republicans and rinos will see that they can't take everyone for granted...
I'm not sure if I Miers is a good choice or not, I'll withhold my judgment on that until I hear her speak. I must however that I do trust Bush in the matter. I don't agree with everything he's done, I would certainly like to see him control spending, and also do something about the sieves we have for borders. But when I start to have serious doubts about him, I am reminded of where we were before he took office, the things he has faced since taking office, and how in spite of all of that, he has done a pretty good job.
I was just commenting on the article. LOL! Sorry. I clicked on the second post (yours) because I didn't want to respond to the person who posted the article.
President Bush didn't put that label on himself...others did. I'm sure he doesn't label himself either. He does what he thinks is right regardless. Bet you hate that, don't you?
Take a hike, you scumbag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.