Posted on 01/31/2004 3:07:29 PM PST by Kevin Curry
So? Attacks aside, my two boys are compensated by the taxpayers, and they keep the criminal element down as Dallas police.
Scorning all goverment employees is ignorant, Joe.
If we don't have the majority we don't control who comes out of the Judiciary Committee. Once the nomination is on the floor, unless we also use the filibuster (which I don't like) we are toast.
I fail to understand why you seem to think that the presidential election doesn't affect other races. Many people are single ticket voters...all Pubbie or Rat. It concerns me that the pull the all Pubbie lever...not the Rat one.
You are very cavalier in the risks you want us to take. I am not about to encourage such a foolish course of action. It would be suicide for conservatives.
You're preaching to the choir.
You should be pinging those paleocon and libertarian lunkheads.
That's an insult to all of them.
And the only one's that work for their keep are in the military. Have you ever seen what these government employees make? Have you ever seen their pensions? Please Howlin. The government has grown into an all encompassing monster, and we are all paying for it.
But I'm not surprised that you think this is just dandy.
Bush is engaged in foolish gambles and game playing with his recent leftist initiatives. Far too many conservatives agree but are unable or unwilling to call him on it. Bush is ill-served by such people.
I am preparing for a possible Bush loss because of his bad gambles and gamesmanship. I don't expect him to lose--he's got enormous sums of money to shape the election in his direction and he faces a woefully inept and comedic group of stooges who want to replace him--but it could happen.
I am very familiar with the argument that a flawed Republican president is better than any Democrat on the issue of judicial appointments. In the run-up to the 2000 presidential election I posted one of the first--if not the first--post that dealt with that issue at greater than superficial depth. I recall it because at the time you were bitterly opposed to Bush's election, and some of us were trying to persuade you that the alternative was far worse because of the power of judicial appointments.
The argument had power and found resonance here at FR, and it soon it defined the general tenor of debate. You came around quickly, fully 180 degrees.
In retrospect it was an overly simplistic and inaccurate argument. Worse, it contained within itself an almost unbreachable defense founded on raw gut-clawing fear. It is irrational fear that we are contending against now. It is high time we banished fear and took a fresh look at the issue in the sharp light of reason.
The fact is, neither party has the punch or ability to put a "ringer" after its own image onto SCOTUS presently. The only candidates that could survive a Senate Judiciary Committee vetting today would likely be candidates common to both lists. Until and unless one party gains a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, you are not likely to see another Ruth Bader Ginsberg or an Antonin Scalia appointed to the Court.
Lesser courts are subject to the same dynamic.
We elected Bush in part so he could redefine the federal judiciary in a more conservative image. Has he succeeded? He has failed miserably. Why? Because the Democrats are willing to fight him to the death over the issue!
There is still plenty of fight left in that wretched beast.
If Bush is re-elected, he will face the same filibuster-capable Democrat minority that he faces now--even if Republicans pick up all the good breaks in the races they hope to win. Bottom line: Bush will have four more years to fail. What was the point, especially if we must inherit the burden of record-breaking deficits and social entitlements as a cost of that failure?
There is a way to break the stalemate. It is to add to Republican strength in Congress and use that power to redefine by law the jurisdictional reach of SCOTUS. It is time to think outisde the proverbial box.
Your comment about our needing a competent commander-in-chief is a fair and important one. Again, you must steel yourself for the possibility that Bush is not re-elected. Again, you need to address that risk clearly and rationally--not from bone-aching fear.
Regardless of who the commander-in-chief is, he will not be alone in commanding the troops. Uniformed commanders are the first line of defense and will continue to take care of business. As awful as Bill Clinton was (and I was in uniform while he was still comander-in-chief), there was only so much evil that he could do--most of it was tempered and dissipated into harmlessness. His attempt to integrate homosexuality into the ranks was so ill-recived that the public reaction to it contributed in large part to the Democrats' resounding defeat in the 1994 elections. The president does not lead the military in a vacuum void of public opinion--as Bush has discovered in spades. His every act and nuance is scrutinized for its effect on morale and effectiveness. Public scrutiny is a powerful control on presidential power over the military.
What do you do?
In my (not so) humble opinion, this is their entire point. They know for a fact that their 3rd party can't win. So, then, everyone on the Right must suffer for their Phyrric victory.
For this reason alone, I have gotten back in the saddle. For those who would question my apparent preference for safety over freedom know that I still recall Ben Franklin's words, "Those who would give up a little liberty for security, deserve neither". I have not forgotten. The keyword above is "current". We ARE in a war.
That said, I hope that you will continue to allow the conservative base field their concerns and work toward moving the GOP back to its conservative principles. The California Republican Assembly and many others are trying to get the attention of Bush/Rove & Co. and apparently have had some success, as witnessed by his new interest in fiscal responsibility (after this years outrageous budget proposal and the outcry it has created).
Enjoying the Superbowl, I hope.
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.