Forgive me, but I'm gonna pass on that. George W. Bush is no liberal.
Bush has nominated known conservatives, so I can't say that he hasn't been conservative just because he's nominated another stealth candidate. Roberts was a relatively stealthy pick as well, and conservatives seem as pleased with him as they've been with other nominations at the lower level courts.
But Miers doesn't make me say he's been consistently conservative by nominating her after Roberts.
I'm not sure conservatives have established the street credibility necessary to demand that ALL of Bush's nominees be known conservatives, as opposed to stealthy conservatives.
That's exactly why conservatives need to lead out front on the filibuster issue, to establish the necessary credibility to demand that ALL nominees be known conservatives.
Until conservatives establish that credibility, the GOP isn't going to take very kindly to their recent tirades, and all of us will continue to suffer.
"I'm not sure conservatives have established the street credibility necessary to demand that ALL of Bush's nominees be known conservatives"
Which is why the liberals hold on to the Congress/Senate and White House, oh my mistake.
What we have is a party that wants to ride the middle. As long as people admit that then there is no argument. A piddly tax cut here, a big spending program there, kill some fanatic muslims here, throw money at bureacracies there...
>> I'm not sure conservatives have established the street credibility necessary to demand that ALL of Bush's nominees be known conservatives, as opposed to stealthy conservatives. <<
How about anyone who is not at best stealthy? I didn't complain about Roberts because even though he was a stealth candidate at best, he had established himself as a fantiastic pick on non-ideological grounds.
But by scraping so deeply the bottom of the barrel with Miers, he has made very plain that he would never CONSIDER an outspoken conservative.
>> That's exactly why conservatives need to lead out front on the filibuster issue, <<
I agreee whole-heartedly that the use of the filibuster in this instance would be unpardoable. So much so, I can't believe you'd even bring it up. There's no need "to lead out front" on the issue, because it's inconceivable that a conservative would filibuster.
>> Until conservatives establish that credibility, <<
That's my point! He trusts Putin and Chirac and the U.N., but lets his minions call conservatives "vigilantes," and "sexist" and "discriminators."
>> the GOP isn't going to take very kindly to their recent tirades, and all of us will continue to suffer <<
WTF? Are you suggesting that the GOP is punishing us? I've said some people around here have battered wife syndrome, but that's the most directly I've ever seen it expressed, if that's what you're suggesting!
"Don't make Daddy angry, or he's gonna get drunk and start beating us again!"
"Oh, I know it's really my fault... I provoke him to such anger!"
I mean this literally (and, sad as it is, I must even state that I mean the word "literally" literally): Pathetic.
No? What do you call a politician who enacts the single biggest entittlement program since the New Deal, saddling the next generation with a mountain of unfunded liabilities? What do you call a politician who hasn't vetoed a single spending bill?
The only difference between GW and the dems is that the dems are tax and spend whereas GW is borrow and spend.
We used to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Thanks to GW, we aren't. It's pathetic.