Posted on 10/14/2005 6:47:23 PM PDT by quidnunc
I'm beginning to wonder why the political conservatives voted for Bush. I assumed at the time that it had something to do with believing that he would be able to pick better players for the Cabinet and the Court than his opponents (Al Gore and John Kerry, lest we forget.)
At least, that's what they claimed in the Novembers of 2000 and 2004. In this last election, as in no other, the Court was thought to be vitally important.
In religious right circles, at the grass roots level, there was high excitement that the nation might finally get some Justices in who would roll back the tides of misplaced internationalism, judicial invention, and Supreme legislation that have proven so vexing to those in the heartland trying to raise decent families in an unholy world. Because President Bush is a man of sincere faith, whereas John Kerry was clearly a man of pure opportunism and personal religious hypocrisy ("I believe life begins at conception" did not ring true from a pro-choice politician), prayerful people whose participation in politics is normally limited to election day came out in force to actually work for candidates. Phone banks were filled, neighborhoods were walked, parties were held, and registration drives were pursued by massive numbers of people otherwise uninterested in the process.
All this optimism was based not on who would be the likely nominees, but on who would be the one to pick such nominees — a man whose heart they trusted, George W. Bush.
-snip-
Now, don't get me wrong. Most Christian conservatives — like most Americans — don't know much about potential court nominees. They've heard the names of judges the Democrats filibustered, and that's about it. As was the case with John Roberts, most ordinary people on the religious right didn't know who she was, since who the White House Counsel is does not generally show up as a prayer concern to any but those immediately involved. What they knew about John Roberts was that the President admired him and he seemed to be a good man, a good father, a Constitutionalist instead of an activist, and the choice of the President for Chief Justice. The religious conservatives, with no particular knowledge of Roberts, immediately got on board. Why? Because they trusted the man who nominated him.
Although Roberts wasn't on the conservative intelligentsia's wish list, the usual gang of conservative pundits quickly found out enough to satisfy them that the non-selection of Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown or Michael Luttig hadn't shafted them. (Though Ann Coulter didn't like him, anyway.) Besides, the Democrats were acting like babies already. All the players were on the sides one expected; all was right with the world.
But Miers is a different situation altogether. Conservatives have occasionally wondered who this president really is. Spiritual conservatives wondered if he could be trusted to do the right thing in the face of long odds, or if he would prove to be merely a consummate politician playing the evangelical card to his political advantage. Economic conservatives have worried that he would some day risk conservative political gains for some deep and unknowable spiritual conviction.
Now we know.
Christian conservatives should no longer doubt this president's sincerity. He has made a selection based on a conviction that flies in the face of pragmatic politics, and he is not backing down. He is risking everything to bring in a nominee that he himself believes is the best available choice, despite the objections of politically-minded conservatives and the opposition of those he considers his allies.
The Miers nomination is the Category 5 hurricane that breaks open the levees of conservatism, exposing its deepest divide: that between those who are conservative primarily for intellectual reasons, and those whose conservatism is a habit of the heart. The president has declared his loyalty; he is, above and beyond his economic theories and his powerful defense of the free market, a True Believer.
These disagreements have arisen from time to time, in the divide between the social conservatives longing for more true believers in the Reagan White House and the political pragmatists urging them to be patient; in the rift between the George H.W. Bush New World Order acolytes and the cultural conservationists on Pat Robertson's team; in the tug of war between hard-line fiscal conservatives and open-handed compassionate conservatives willing to spend a little money to prod the resistant into participating in Bush's visionary "ownership society."
Between the two, there are differing definitions and applications of "trust." It might be said that both subscribe to Reagan's sage advice on the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify," — but one group considers the trust primary, and the other tends to suspend trust in the hunt for verification.
-snip-
It is important to a purpose-driven Christian to seek a Biblical response to matters of culture, and to follow that response regardless of its pragmatic consequences. Despite the deaths of 45 million babies as a result of the Roe decision, they are called to forgive all those involved and to seek to change the situation through prayer and repentence, rather than anger and action. Where they have no knowledge, they seek advice from people they trust who do. Quite bluntly, they trust Dobson and Warren more than they do Limbaugh and Coulter. And because Dobson and Warren trust Bush on this, they are more inclined to do so.
-snip-
The conservative intelligentsia sees the President's membership in the social conservative club overshadowing their power to control the dissemination of conservative information, and they are having none of it. They can't accept the notion that the President of the United States might have access to better information concerning Court nominees than they have. They can't handle the idea that when he said "I will nominate candidates to the Supreme Court," he really meant "I" and not "my friends in the conservative think tanks." They can't stand it that, after all this time in the wilderness, they might still be "out of the loop" when it comes to the important questions of the presidency — especially when they find out that a doltish nobody like James Dobson actually had a seat in the "kitchen cabinet" this time around. It wasn't the judicial conservative elite invited to that conference call — it was the evangelicals. And that smarts.
The conservatives who are crying the loudest — and with a venom and a bitterness usually reserved for Ted Kennedy or illegal immigration — do more than anyone else to convince those who trust Dobson and Falwell and Robertson and D. James Kennedy and Marvin Olasky and Dick Cheney and President Bush that the president, leading with his heart, is right on this. There seems to be more than a little "it's not FAIR" in their whining and braying. Though they were in no way owed a consultation, the fact that they did not get one appears to have driven conservative think-tank mavens into paroxyms of rage.
Tsk, tsk. That's no kind of witness for the world.
-snip-
Rick Warren is fond of saying, "Remember: God is God, and you're not." The conservatives angry that the president actually had the nerve to exercise the authority they gave him to bring up a nominee that will do what they want her to do would do well to remember that President Bush is President, and they're not.
-snip-
I'm beginning to wonder why the political conservatives voted for Bush.
Where they have no knowledge, they seek advice from people they trust who do. Quite bluntly, they trust Dobson and Warren more than they do Limbaugh and Coulter. And because Dobson and Warren trust Bush on this, they are more inclined to do so.
It is the Republican Party not the Conservative Party.
Al Gore actually said what you say Bush said
Probably not. But do you deny Al Gore made the statement?
I don't have the resources to review each and every one of Bush's 2004 stump speaches. If you have done so, please advise.
"strict constructionalist"?
"that's y the pres(W) is followin the constitution"
I rest my case regarding the previous suggestion.
> Who said there were no better qualified candidates?
Ahem, the president, upon introducing her and in subsequent days, said she was the best qualified candidate.
However as stated before, this "message" has been widely reported and not directly refuted by Bush either. This is typical of politicians to go with the maximum ambiguity.
"BASH: A longtime top Bush aide confirms to CNN Mr. Bush didn't actually publicly pledge a Scalia or a Thomas, but they made no effort to clarify. To conservative activists, it was code. They expected Mr. Bush to pick justices with clear records showing they'd move the court right."
Bush did get much of his support due to not directly refuting this "message". Miers is clearly not to the level of Roberts Scalia, Thomas nor Renquist. This is the point where the ambiguity becomes more clear and many are not happy. Makes no difference on what exactly was said. There is a lot that was unsaid and not refuted and therefore expected. Bush's appointees are successively moving away from the expectation and, yes, creating outrage regarding same.
Why doesn't Bush take the Clintonesque approach and, as in a court of law, say:" I never said that. All of these people are mistaken. I have kept my (non)promise".
Boy, that would fix everything, wouldn't it.
Upon further review of the situation, Miers is another step on the path to the eventual nomination of Gonzales.
Comedy Gold.
It is also widely reported and not directly refuted by Bush that he is a blithering idiot, a murderer, a puppet of Karl Rove, 100% responsible for all the black deaths in Louisiana, an extreme right wing conservative, an undercover left wing activist...and the list goes on. But one thing about Bush that both his enemies and proponents agree on is that he is plain spoken and says what he means and means what he says. So now the only way to support the lie that "Bush promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" is to say that by not directly refuting media reports "Bush is speaking in code."
To your credit, I am impressed that you actually tried to find evidence that Bush said what it is claimed he said. But the more you dig, the clearer it must be that Bush never promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Yet, time and again I see opponents of Miers state that Bush broke exactly that promise. That is a lie. It is a made up charge. And if you have to make things up to support your argument, you need to reevaluate your argument. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with his choice of Miers. It is not acceptable to create "facts" and "quotes" to support that disagreement.
I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench.
I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in -- I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint." [1st Presidential Debate, October 3, 2000; transcript CNN
Combined with The statement on Russert that Scalia is his favorite Justice (along with Thomas) would certainly lead one to believe that that was where he was headed if he ever got to make a SCOTUS nomination.
This is quite different from the examples you cite (a blithering idiot, a murderer, a puppet of Karl Rove,) in that Bush himself claimed so, not the media. If you think these situations are the same, you need to make a closer examination of your argument.
Now we also find the following:
Bush's record of appointing judges in Texas suggests he will appoint more cautious judges than constitutionalist ones, more O'Connors than Scalias. One analyst made an observation repeated elsewhere by others: "Bush;s judicial picks are not extreme... [They] don't carry an ideological flag with them to the bench." One paper quoted a University of Texas professor saying that Bush's approach "is not so focused on ideology [as] it is on reputation and ability." Tom Pauken, former chairman of the Texas Republican Party, calls Bush's appointments "a mixed bag" and says, "I would not have confidence that we might not see another David Souter on the Supreme Court in a Bush presidency." (from: http://dutyisours.com/human_events.htm)
Scary actually.
Miers is not a proveable strict constructionist. We'll even have to wait to see where Roberts goes. Bush is not following his talk. Gonzalez falls into the crony type that Bush would love to appoint. Bush needs some shots across his bow. The 'Rats would love to gain control of Congress and implement their impeachment plans. Sure hope it doesn't happen.
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.