The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[NeoCaveman]

The key to achieving that dream, of course, is to carefully select an electable conservative for 2008 who will remain true to the conservative vision and not cause conservatism to fall victim again to the paradox of unified control.
It is not too soon to start looking for that candidate.

Of could re-elect Bush and still start looking for the Right candidate in '08.

I'm leaning towards Owens, Santorum, or Sanford. Right now in that order.

[deport]

This Court was appointed with GOP approval.

---

Thanks for posting the list of SCOTUS appointments.... It proves the fact that a Democrat will appoint Liberal Justices and that even a Republican appointee can go left.... It only means you try to point the best you can but you never know...... but so far the Democrats have stayed true to their liberal leanings in their appointments..

Good post.....

[olliemb]

You did not state in your post that you would like to see a democrat in the white house. /But certainly you would know that if we lost conservative non republican votes we ( you and I ) would lose the white house to the democrats.

ARe you that dissatisfied with the president that you would not support him--he is by far more conservative than the democrats would ever be and so far he is the best. PErhaps if he ran against another conservative I would understand your veiled threat of not voting for the president. And yes, as long as there is an R behind the president and as long as he would appoint conservative judges, fight against abortions and keep God in school and be against affirmative action and be against gay marriages and defend America and make us proud of it--yeah, he is conservative enough for me to vote for him. ARe you willing to risk the conservative values that President Bush so far has shown us to have a democrat win the WH b/c your lack of support for a conservative who is not as conservative as you would put a far left liberal in charge?

[HAL9000]

NOW tell me again why he could not get confirmed in the Senate?

I think it would be difficult, considering -

January 19, 2001 - CLINTON ACCEPTS RAY DEAL OVER PAULA JONES STATEMENT-ALSO ARKANSAS BAR LICENSE SUSPENDED 5YRS, FINE

and

November 9, 2001 - Ex-President Clinton resigns from Supreme Court bar rather than fight suspension

He can't even represent a case in Arkansas, much less before SCOTUS, for nearly two more years.

Everyone seems to have forgotten about his suspension, which suits Clinton fine. The Democrats aren't going to damage his legacy and "rehabilitation" by resurrecting the issue of his suspension again.

I'm more worried about Chief Justice Hillary Rodham-Clinton - which could happen if George Bush loses the election.

[raloxk]

I sort of remember this line of thinking back in 1992. No big deal if Clinton wins, he'll be a one termer.

[arrow107]

Another good post; You bring up very valid points. That is exactly the quandry that we find ourselves in. It seems that my job is to do no damage, and delay the fight long enough for my children to take over. But by then, their interpretation of conservativism will probably look alot like liberalism is today.
I am not your enemy, I am true blue - you are a Republican, what do you offer? Come with us, we will only take you a little to the left?
In reality I will probably vote for GWB - but damn I'm not proud.

[Kevin Curry]

I'm more worried about Chief Justice Hillary Rodham-Clinton - which could happen if George Bush loses the election

That's even less likely to happen than Slick Willie getting a seat on the big bench.

Hillary is the single most bitterly divisive person drawing breath in America today--far more so than George W. Bush. A Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee will NEVER give her a ticket to the SCOTUS ball. And if they even hinted they MIGHT do that, there would be a filibuster on the Senate Floor that would last until she rolls over and croaks of old age.

Scag Hag Hillary will make a play for the presidency or nothing. Better that she be forced to burn vast sums of money slogging it out with a failed Democratic incumbent in a bloody and vicious Democratic primary and convention in 2008 than she get a clear shot at a fresh Republican candidate with all her money intact.

[raloxk]

I wouldnt count on the GOP senate blocking HRC, if she were nominated to the US Supreme Court. Worse thing is, it isnt like any of Kerry's nominees would have any more restraint than she does

[olliemb]

"2nd paragraph-> that's a reason to vote for again for Bush..concerns about who will take credit?"

NO,to your question. It was an added fact as evident with Clinton and Bush 1. However, the democrats sure enjoy telling everyone that Bush 1 had trouble with the economy and Clinton magically got it right and they have been floating that so that now a lot of people believe it. ANd now the belief is that democrats will put more money in your pocket b/c they have the magic bullet to improve the economy.

The point of that statement is that Bush is righting the economy right now and it still has not fully shown what his efforts would be till the second term.

And by the way it is nice to have gridlock as long as you have the "big gun"-- ie< POTUS to win at the end with a veto in case you lose the fight.

[CMAC51]

Republicans have never had this level of control with a Dem in the White House. Not in recent history, anyway.

You too easily forget the Republican Revolution in 1994. The Republican's had a true mandate. Within a year, the fiscal conservatives were carping about no balanced budget amendment. The NRA group was all hot a bothered about no assault weapons ban repeal. The Christian Coalition was withholding support because abortion hadn't been overturned. When the government shutdown hit, the conservative power groups stayed on the sideline because of all their single issue pet peeves. The Congressional Republicans got hung out to dry and took a beating. It was easy to blame on Newt being too arrogant, on the Republicans being too overreaching or that they misread the popular stance. The truth is conservatives abandoned them because of their single issue 100% or nothing stances. Don't think for a minute that the Republican powers in the Congress don't remember. They took a stand and when they turned around, noboby was standing behind them.

Based on what I have seen on this forum since the State of the Union Address, nothing has changed.

[Kevin Curry]

Hillary Clinton will neither be nominated to the Supreme Court nor confirmed. It is not even an issue.

[Zipporah]

As far as the Democrats.. they spin everything, I paid little to NO attention to their bull when they took credit re Bush 1... they are transparent.

Well in listening to the State of the Union speech.. seems like a lot of $$ would go along with his proposals...

Many years ago, a friend told me that having both parties holding both the executive and legislative branches wasn't a good thing.. she said, at least if Republicans held the House they would stand up and fight.. or vise versa. We will see how it plays out ..

[CMAC51]

would you have us compromise our values for the sake of the party?

The million dollar question. If you compromise one value, then all are at risk. If you maintain all your values, then you achieve nothing because no one will ever be in a position of power who continually represents all of your values. Where do you draw the line? The Republican Party is the only outlet with enough clout to affect any of your valued positions. The Republican Party being a synthesis of varied value groups can never wholly represent your value positions. Without the Republican Party, you lack effectiveness (don't even pretend that there is an effecive alternative, that wastes both our time). With the Republican Party you comprimise your total value position.

Rush has said many times that Conservatism means making the hard choices. 100% ideological choices are not hard. The choice is already programed for you by the ideology (insert values where necessary). The hard choice is determining when less than 100% is still the right choice.

[HAL9000]

Hillary Clinton will neither be nominated to the Supreme Court nor confirmed. It is not even an issue.

I don't share your complacency. I remember when everyone said Clinton didn't have a chance in 1992. I remember a lot of people who said Hillary would never run for Senate.

[FreedomSurge]

Brilliant anaysis. Keep em coming.

[Tamzee]

Brilliant conservative strategy, let a brain-dead leftist into the White House who has spent decades despising our country. Utterly insane...

[mrsmith]

You're totally out of touch.
Only a nominee of the president can be appointed to Chief Justice.

If Republican Senators obstruct Hillary, the Chief Justice position will be vacant until the next electin or a more rabid liberal ( DC circuit judge Norma Holloway Johnson?) will be offered and confirmed.

Either way, at that next election the Republicans will be voted out for opposing the nomination of Hillary! _{TM USMedia}.

[Redleg Duke]

Well stated, but the Bush Bashers and Conservative Purists are more concerned with "sending a message"!

[arasina]

I think your article assumes too much when you say how the Democrats will be the minority and thus beholden to honor their oaths of office. Your entire premise of Unified Control is based on that assumption.

How can one be certain a gridlock situation will result if your desired defeat of President Bush is successful? Are you guaranteeing that people who are writing in their protest candidates will vote GOP for Congress and the Senate? (And if they are so principled to vote against President Bush, why are they not principled enough to also vote against members of Congress and the Senate that they deem RINO political trash? Where are your candidates for those offices, the ones who actually do the legislating in our Republic?)

Your write-in presidential candidate will not win the election, so that could very well leave you with a liberal Dim president AND a leftist majority in both houses of Congress. How is THAT gridlock?

Will you be pleased when the issue of illegal immigrants is tabled rather than explored for solutions, so the problem can increase under a Dim president much like terrorism did during the Clinton Administration? Do you think it's just going to disappear after the election? Do you think we will return to a Constitution-minded legislative body simply because someone other than George W. Bush is president? Do you think the Supreme Court justices who will be appointed under this new president to replace those who will be retiring will be Conservative and not legislate from the bench?

[arrow107]

Well said, I just have to accept that my values as a whole, are from days and men long past.