Posted on 10/14/2005 6:47:23 PM PDT by quidnunc
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.