Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
Perhaps President Bush has inadvertently nominated a true conservative to the court with this Roberts fellow. I remain skeptical based on the following facts:
Anita Hill has not stepped forward to accuse Roberts of sexual harassment.
The Democrats did not accuse Roberts of having a secret life as a racist.
We have no idea what kind of videos he rents.
Also, I'm still steamed that Bush has now dashed my dreams of an all-black Supreme Court composed of eight more Clarence Thomases. Incidentally, eight more Clarence Thomases is the only form of human cloning I would ever support.
As liberal Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in the New Yorker, Roberts was a scared choice. After Hurricane Katrina, Bush was even more scared. So when he had to pick a chief justice, he renominated the Rorschach blot.
For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.
As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick – something they did not accuse Roberts of – Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.
That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.
Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.
But most important, if Bush had nominated Scalia, liberals would have responded with their usual understated screams of genocide, and Bush could have nominated absolutely anyone to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. He also could have cut taxes, invaded Syria, and bombed North Korea and Cuba just for laughs. He could even have done something totally nuts, like enforce the immigration laws.
Even if Roberts turns out to be another Rehnquist (too much to hope for another Scalia!), we don't know that, Bush doesn't know that, and Bush has blown a golden opportunity to make Chuck Schumer the public face of the Democratic Party. A few weeks of Schumer as their spokesman, and normal Democrats would be clamoring for Howard Dean to get back on the stick. Teddy Kennedy would start showing up at hearings actually holding a double scotch.
Inasmuch as Bush must still choose a replacement for O'Connor, it's important to remember the "Sandra Day O'Connor bylaw" to the WWRD guidelines: Never appoint anyone like Sandra Day O'Connor to any court at any level.
Reagan had made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. He didn't say anything about appointing a ninny. But back in 1981, it was slim pickings for experienced female judges. O'Connor was a terrible mistake and will forever mar Reagan's record, but at least he did it only once.
Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals – and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.
Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton.
(Sidebar on the aging porn star: Idiot Republicans fraternizing with the Clintons has not harmed the decadent buffoon's reputation abroad. A Chinese condom manufacturer recently named one of its condoms the "Clinton," a fitting tribute to the man who had Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office on Easter Sunday. Their advertising slogans are: "Always wear a 'Clinton' when you're getting a 'Lewinsky'!"; "I still believe in a place called the G-spot"; "Extra-thin skinned!"; "For when you really, really want to feel her pain." Note to Bush: This isn't Walter Mondale. How about sending Pops on the road with Joey Buttafuoco?)
According to my WWRD wristwatch, it's time for Bush to invade Grenada, bomb Libya, fire the air traffic controllers, and joke about launching a first strike against the Soviet Union. In lieu of that, how about nominating a conservative to O'Connor's seat on the court? It would be a bold gesture.
You are welcome.
Back to politics, I hope Bush declares a National disaster or something after Texas gets hit if the refineries go down. Prices are going to go up at the pump, plus they have the chemical plants there too that they need for gasoline...so he has a perfect chance to open up ANWAR and everywhere else in this country! This has been stopped for 30 years now by enviro's and dem's and will take awhile to get on line but we have to do it...Bush had the perfect chance to explain about the floodgates and levee's in N.O. and I think he thinks the media is going to do it for him, I don't know but just be a little assertive would be nice. Let alone tell Blanco and Naggin' where to stick it...be a little offensive with the TRUTH, he has golden opportunities...
I have gotten into serious fights over Bush, probably still would but this is getting old him not saying anything. Immigration is another issue also...could go on and on about golden opportunities..
I agree with Coulter, she is one of my favorites.
By the way I have been called a kid by Ohiow too...I take it as a compliment...I am 50 and told the professor so, they still know more, it is hopeless..me doth think she profess too much, kinda spooky...
>>>>Reagan cut and run when 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon. Bush attacked Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban when America was attacked on 9/11.
I guess that's one opinion. But I don't see the Marine bombing in the exact same light I did the 9-11 attacks. This was early in the conflict between The West and Muslim terrorism.
Personally, I didn't think the Marines belonged in Lebanon in the first place. It was an untenable position. A multinational peacekeeping force whose soldiers weren't even aloud to carry loaded weapons. After the Marines were killed, Reagan listened to all his expert advisors. The conclusion was reached that interjecting massive amounts of US military forces was not the right decision. Such a move would have inflammed the entire region, leading to all out war. The decision was made to stop the bleeding, cut our loses and get the hell out. We did some shelling from the New Jersey and some bombing, but boots on the ground wasn't in the cards anylonger. Troop redeployment was carryout.
The reason is that Reagan looks really good compared to the globalists and socialists that have been elected after him.
What exactly have you been winning? You don't defeat an advesary by implementing his agenda.
President Bush is not running again. I do not expect him to get in the gutter, there are ways of saying things without being rude and getting the "point" made. It's easy to do, been working with the public all my life and been married for 25 years, it can be done easily.
I think we will win again also in 2006, we had better be careful though, not take things for granted. There are alot of opportunities for us now and it would help if the President would speak up once in awhile when opportunities are in the palm of his hand.
Words spoken wisely with certainty can help alot.
Maybe that is because Bush went DU on us by creating new entitlements, increasing non-military spending to record numbers and encouraging illegal immigration.
He has done one or two things right - such as the not backing to terrorism. Even with that, however, he keeps contradicting himself - especially when he calls Islam a religion of peace. Honestly, almost any non-democrat would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 - it's not he is the only person that thought of it.
Why on earth would he do that before Roberts is confirmed?
I hate to say this but Ann needs to eat a biscuit. I have never agreed with her. So I am now wearing my flame suit. I just do not agree with her politics.
There were a number of occasions when I disagreed with him, and said so. And there were PLENTY of times when I cheered him on. If the Internet and FR existed at the time, my opinions would have been forthcoming on the forum then, as they are with President Bush now.
President Bush will most likely end with a better track record with judges then Reagan did. However, I disagree with him more often then with Reagan.
BTW, at the time, I was well aware of Reagan's GREATNESS. Considering the MSM, that he would be judged as GREAT so soon, was quite surprising to me.
I don't view President Bush as GREAT and likely never will. He will go down in history as VERY GOOD but not GREAT. Neither am I disappointed by him. To me, he was NOT another Reagan, nor was he as conservative, though I thought, particularly after eight years of Clinton, President Bush would be a good president, better than his father, and certainly more likable. He's been pretty much EXACTLY what I expected.
The odds are not very good for 2006. The House should be safe as they have pretty much done their jobs. The Senate however may actually move over to Democratic hands.
The democrats aren't having to defend many up for grabs seats while the republicans have several vulnerable seats.
The big problem is that beyond the religious right and ultra party loyalists the GOP senate just won't get much support from the traditional republican base - especially with small government and fiscal conservatives.
The GOP's attempt to win the hearts and minds of the traditional democratic voters by implementing endless socialism handouts won't work as liberals will always hate republicans. You just can't buy love.
Well what would Reagan do? He'd sign deficit exploding budgets, amnesty 3 million illegals, stump for nobody but himself during re-election, and fawn over Tip O'Neil.
Here is what Reagan said on his very first day in office about the man he beat.
Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.
Coulter is getting less and less interesting to read. I can find Bush bashing from hundreds of liberal sources. I guess I'm just not as agrivated about Roberts being Chief SCOTUS as Coulter. I'm actually pretty damn pleased about it.
So, Ann is a moron. This isn't news.
She's also a plaigerist.
Colter = 'Conservative' Michael Moore.
To be fair, Reagan had to deal with a democratic congress. He had to compromise to get anything done. He did use his veto - something that Bush has refused to do. He even had at least one veto overriden.
Amnesty was certainly a mistake but he did not encourage illegal immigration as Bush has done. In the post 9/11 world, securing the southern border should be a security priority, not a vote buying strategy.
As far as praising the Carter, every candidate is gracious to the person he ran against (except Gore) immediately after the election. It shows class and it's just a gesture - nothing more.
President Bush doesn't need to get dowm in the gutter to defend himself. He has enough people to do it for him. But he didn't need to apologize for his Katrina mistakes either, particularly when there were others (Nagin and Blanco)from the other party who were far more culpable.
WWJWD
Coulter has a point, and Rush hints the same, 'we are being shortchanged by W'. And when you're in the drivers seat, then DRIVE. Sacking Rove, IMO, would be a good start.
But on the + side we did get all those conservative judges appointed in the showdown, and Roberts seems like a feisty fighter. Time will tell.
Well, just to name a few we picked up four seats in the senate, gained three more seats in the house and ousted the Senate Democratic leader.
We are winning......the Democrats/liberals are losing
I don't know that I agree with that at all on the Senate seats, I see a possible pick-up of two, Minnesota and Wa. I have to really calculate more since you got me without my congressional book. Possibly the two Nelson's Nebraska and Florida...I know Santorum is iffy, there is a possible pick-up with Maryland...voting fraud is alot to worry about as we all know. There is a possible , and I say possible because of Lingle that the tide may swing in Hawaii for akaka seat...pretty slim but hope springs eternal
But if we are implementing the democrat's agenda then what have we really won?
This seems to be more about who is charge rather than what policies are being implemented. It's as if big government is ok as long as it's our big government.
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.