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.
GOP agenda........ Tax cuts. Pro-Life. Pro-Marriage. Strong on defense. Pro-Constitutional Originalists as judges. Pro-Business.
Yep...........sounds just like the Dems to me.....
I'm not a "cheerleader", I look reality squarely in the face, know history and politics, understand both, and don't ever expect a fantasy outcome, which is based on my desires. And if only you had carefully listened to Bush the candidate, you would have known what to expect.
No politician and especially no president, is going to gives you more that 60-75% of what you most desire. And when they deliver that, you should count yourself as being lucky and well pleased!
Have I/do I agree 100% with everything that President Bush has said and done thus far in his term of office? HELL NO! But, does that mean that I am willing to go off fringe? Never, ever, no, no, NO!
What you need to understand and take to heart, ASAP, is that there is NOT a majority of Conservatives in this nation. America is turning more Conservative; however, that really isn't quite what you would suppose it to be. A purist Conservative would NOT get elected, should such a candidate even be available; which he/she isn't. No matter how Conservative, the UNAPPEASEABLES would still find something to cavil about.
That's why FReepers who share their goals side with the left consistently against the President. That's why they believe NYTimes articles that bash the President. Far enough right = left
Excellent post!! Thank you!
Then try to act like a grown man, don't assume anything at all about others, and leave emotion behind.
Bush Urges People to Flee Hurricane (August 28th) AP ^ | 8-28-05
Posted on 08/30/2005 11:50:16 PM EDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
Bush Urges People to Flee Hurricane
- By JENNIFER LOVEN
Sunday, August 28, 2005
(08-28) 13:13 PDT Crawford, Texas (AP) --
President Bush, as he readied the federal government for a massive relief effort, on Sunday urged people in the path of Hurricane Katrina to forget anything but their safety and move to higher ground as instructed.
"We cannot stress enough the danger this hurricane poses to Gulf Coast communities," Bush said as the storm roared across the gulf toward New Orleans and other communities. "I urge all citizens to put their own safety and the safety of their families first by moving to safe ground."
With forecasters warning of a category five storm, the president made sure the federal response would not be delayed by already declaring emergencies in Mississippi and Florida just hours after a similar declaration for Louisiana. Such declarations make federal aid available to assist with disaster relief, but they are rarely made before a storm even hits.
Working from his Texas ranch, Bush participated via videoconference in a large meeting of federal, state and local disaster management officials preparing for the storm's onslaught. Separately, he spoke by phone with the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
"We will do everything in our power to help the people and the communities affected by this storm," the president said.
Winds reaching 175 mph and a potentially devastating storm surge were feared when Hurricane Katrina reached land early Monday. The 485,000 residents of New Orleans were ordered to evacuate the city.
On Saturday the president declares a state of emergency and orders Federal aide to the area. During his Saturday radio address, he fails to mention Katrina.
It's easy, Jeff.
Bloomberg is a RINO. Bush is not.
Chafee is a RINO...........even my weeping Senator Voinovich is IMO, a RINO.
President Bush is not, by any legitimate definition, Republican in Name Only. Fact.
President Bush only had to call on Sunday because the Mayor, whose responsibility it was first, and the Governor, whose responsibility it was second, failed to perform their duty to protect the citizens of LA.
There was no delay on his part. Only abject failure on theirs.
You've complained and complained about me stating that I am better than everyone else, talking about myself as being superior, yet that is what you have done in this post, buy posting a rather puny personal political bio. Trust me, your CV is lackluster and bordering on the pathetic. And no, I never post what I have done publicly, on a thread, to impress; but yes, you don't hold a candle to me. LOL
When you are capable of staying on topic, nolonger seeing posted that which I did not post to you, being less emotional, and learn more about politics and how government actually works, get back to me and not until then. You are wasting my time and yours, by attempting to drag me into straw-men arguments, parrying over that which I did not say, and emotional personal puffery.
You care NOTHING whatsoever about politics! If you did, you would take the time to understand what's what and be able to faces reality as an adult.
Liking the President isn't really an issue. His policies are anything but conservative. Most are now very aware of this.
To be frank, the GOP senate has been even more of a disappointment.
Lets be honest. The entire GOP is.
Good posts Jeff. I agree with most everything you said. Unfortunately there are a few here that are swinging at reality, and are losing big.
See you down the threads.
You claimed that every FREEPER who was one, no longer says that they are a BIG "L" Libertarian.
You may be physically 58 years old, but you don't respond in an adult fashion.
Yawn......
He must agree with me because he responded, as I suggested far more quickly this time in anticipation of Rita.
I said all I'm going to say about this last night and earlier today, and will not go 'round and 'round with the same points everytime someone new jumps into the fray.
I wouldn't expect you to do anything other than argue the point like you always do, when you encounter someone who criticizes the president. It's very old and very boring. Were I in bed, I would be fast asleep.
Thank YOU and welcome! :-)
Sorry you can't deal with it.
(As if criticizing the President for everything he says and does isn't boring.......well, actually, you have to be pretty creative to make this his fault........or just believe what Nancy Pelosi says......)
Incidentally, I didn't insult you at all in my post to you.
Why did you feel the need to get this dig in rather than just respond to what I said?
This is the key, nopardons.
If these people had listened to Candidate Bush in 2000 OR in 2004, they wouldn't be perpetually 'disappointed.'
And they wouldn't be saying ad nauseum "Now that he's done THIS, I can't support him any more..........but I did, I really did. I voted for him twice. I really did!!" :)
LOL!
Perhaps you might want to back away from your partisan lobbying career for just a moment and remember that most voters don't consider professional politicians as worthy of much respect.
There is a reason for that.
Taxation without representation comes to mind.
I, the voter, elect my preferred representative in all branches of government.
I will not vote for a politician who does not share at least 60% of my views.
I think the time is long overdue that we mandate term limits at all levels of government.
Now I am certain you will not agree, as you would be out of a job if that happened.
But could you at least attempt to put the future of the USA ahead of your own small self interest?
President Bush doesn't represent 60% of your views?
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.