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.
What you CCPed is pathetic and didn't bolster your position one bit. Denigrating my spelling and whatever else you saw fit to impugn, just proves conclusively, that you are incapable of factually refuting me.
I suggest that you read your sniveling post and think about getting some much needed help for your projection complex.
OK......let's use Germany as an example. We have military bases and troops there, and are likely to move them.
Now...........how does Germany feel about that? Do the Germans feel the same way about getting rid of our soldiers as, say, the Jews did about getting the Roman soldiers out of their country?? Do you think?? Or do you think possibly that the Germans want us to STAY there?
Do you think the people of Ukraine or Georgia felt the same way about Russian soldiers during the Soviet occupation as the Japanese people feel about ours now? Really? (Before you answer that and get the answer wrong, my son spent the summer in Georgia, and they love Americans and aren't all that fond of the Russians).
Our military bases are in place as staging areas for potentially or presently hostile areas in the world, and for the PROTECTION of others, as well as ourselves from enemies. Your statement that military bases make an 'empire' is beyond absurd.
You really need to do some historical research, and find out what our military does, independent of your leftist High School social studies teachers.
You've obviously swallowed a liberal lie, and you really should get your facts straight before you make yourself look any more foolish than you already have.
"EMPIRE" is leftist propaganda........and it is YOU who believe it. Not a wise choice on a conservative forum.
" The mythography, which keeps getting posted to FR, is beyond ridiculous and bordering on idolatry. Reagan caved, many times, to the Dems and was even MORE friendly with them ( Can you say Tip O'Neil ? ), after hours, than President Bush has been; yet President Bush is castigated for that and Reagan put on a pedestal and gilded."
Firstly, put on your Thinking-Cap and go waaay back...back to a time when Jimmy Carter was President and amidst of destroying the country in a mere 4 years...
...Now let me also remind YOU (lest you happened to be ensconced down a missile silo or Mars colony at the time) that Ronald Reagan took a country in economic tatters and teetering in self-doubt with low national and military morale, and personally elevated by its boot-straps.
He then proceded to jack up the economy and create an economic boom; forced the USSR and Gorby to back down at Oslo and thus accelerate the Berlin Wall's demise; reignited national pride in America and rebuilt the military; and seduced a bunch of Democrats to vote HIS way -- with conservatives.
Quite frankly, Reagan's legacy only grows in stature given his accomplishments at the time.
But again -- THE point?
Your claim: "President Bush IS Reagan's equal" is comical.
All of you "Reagan was god, and Bush is an idiot" folks have very foggy memories, and no vision of the present, nor the possibilities of the future.
Fortunately, though you deify Reagan, you're not a thing like him.....
President Bush IS.
All of you 'Reagan was god, and Bush is an idiot' folks have very foggy memories, and no vision of the present, nor the possibilities of the future."
How did you know, OWF? Yep -- I am chuckling my arse off...
But let me redefine your respective assessments of both Reagan and Dubya in simple terms:
This is NOT "deifying" Reagan -- He was truly a great conservative GOP leader, a statesman, a problem solver, a visionary, and an inspiration...
Dubya displays NONE of the above attributes -- except in the arena of the military, and it's deployment.
Domestically, he's been impotent.
Fwiw, Dubya Bush is a compassionate and nice man -- better as a brother, uncle, or social worker.
And btw, Ronald Reagan would have NEVER sent his predecessor -- Jimmy Carter -- away as an "ambassador" to help represent his Administration.
Thank you for proving that you are wrong about those of us who support the President. I knew you'd finally admit it with your own words, even if you didn't intend to.
Recognizing the same traits in President Bush is not deifying him either. No one here deifies him. Many of us..........the VAST majority of us who are conservatives on this forum, recognize his great leadership and vision. A small minority, including you, do not see what is there.
He is a great conservative GOP leader, a statesman, a problem solver, a visionary, and an inspiration.
Reagan and Bush were/are both great leaders. Reagan made some major mistakes. Bush has made some too.
And would you stop obssessing over Clinton? Sheesh! His being used as a fundraiser doesn't mean squat in terms of Bush's leadership ability. Good GRIEF!
Are you not economically astute enough to recognize that his tax cuts during an inherited recession are the reason for our strong economic recovery, and his business acumen and tax policy are what kept this economy from tanking when we were attacked on 9/11? Is this remarkable success 'impotence' in your view? Really?
There are multiple other examples, but this one stands out as bold and daring, and rather, shall we say, potent domestically.
You can't be serious about this statement and be educated.
He is a great conservative GOP leader, a statesman, a problem solver, a visionary, and an inspiration."
Then help me see what YOU see...
Dubya "leads" when the issues are foreign; And conversely "follows" when the issues are domestic.
Does a true "conservative" let CFR slide through his hands without a veto?
Does a true "conservative" allow the massive Mexican invasion to continue unabated -- especially after 9/11?
Does a true conservative over-spend on social programs?
Does a true conservative grow the government?
Does a true conservative back the liberal Arlen Specter over a conservative Pat Toomey in a tight Senatorial race?
The man NEVER vetos anything, and NEVER uses the bully pulpit to lead HIS agenda (and if you can enlighten me, just what was his domestic agenda?)
"And would you stop obssessing over Clinton? Sheesh! His being used as a fundraiser doesn't mean squat in terms of Bush's leadership ability. Good GRIEF!"
How can we? It's an embarrassment on so many levels...
Why honor a man who besides being his "credentials" as an impeached rapist, has besmirched and defiled the office of the Presidency, and led America into a vortex of shame??
NO "fundraising" was worth Dubya giving Bubba a public platform.
The interest rate has been buried artificially. Why do you think real estate values have more than doubled since 9/11? How great is that? THAT is an "inflation" that's not talked about much. But THAT'S the reason the economy has been so "remarkable -- cheap money...
But it's a mathematic reality that the piper WILL be paid. We can't keep on borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
The treasury is not a bottomless pit of receipts.
If you think taxes won't have to be raised -- whether through a rate hike OR VAT assessments, or other "innocuous" federal taxes, you're naive.
"President Bush IS Reagan's equal"
He certainly is his equal!
Liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan is no small accomplishment.
Barabbas and his friends wanted the Romans to leave.
Herod and his friends wanted the Romans to stay.
Some people want bases more than others.
Some countries want bases more than others.
It depends on how well they are treated, and where their best interests lie.
I'm not questioning that we've spent much more than we've gotten from our foreign bases.
I'm saying each situation should be looked at on an individual basis, and a cost benefit analysis done.
Every situation isn't the same.
Military bases in other countries to protect the world from harm do not an empire make.
And no matter how you twist and turn, or listen to leftist 'thinking,' it doesn't change the basic fact that we have not sought to build empire, but to give freedom.
I disagree with Colin Powell on many political matters, but he once said that the only land that America has sought to own in other countries, was enough to bury our dead, who had given their lives for the sake of others.
In my view, your claim that we have built an empire because of our military is a slap in the face of everything they......and we, as a nation...... stand for.
Does a true "conservative" allow the massive Mexican invasion to continue unabated -- especially after 9/11?
Does a true conservative over-spend on social programs?
Does a true conservative grow the government?
Does a true conservative back the liberal Arlen Specter over a conservative Pat Toomey in a tight Senatorial race?
This is interesting, F16, because I disagree with what the President has done on almost all of these issues.
What you are demanding is that everything the President does is agreeable to all conservatives for him to be called a conservative by you.
On the other hand, I do not expect more of President Bush than I did of President Reagan, and know that it is not possible for a man to be President and stay conservative in every single decision. Sometimes compromises are made. Sometimes mistakes are made (big miscalculations, like CFR).
The difference between us doesn't seem to be so much in our political views, but in our expectations of what a human being who has an inordinate amount of pressure on him from all sides, can realistically do.
For me, the strength of the military, and American sovereignty abroad, the protection of this country against terror, the strong, unflagging stand on moral issues, and the incredible moves toward Constitution-honoring judges, more than compensate for the signing of CFR.
This is a conservative President. In the same sense as Reagan was......wherever it was possible, but not perfectly so. And in my view, conservatives who openly fight against him, are hurting the conservative cause by splintering and whining and criticizing when we should be supporting him against an extremely evil political foe.
I choose to fight the left. You choose to fight the President.
BRAVA !
(Knocked over with a feather)
"What you are demanding is that everything the President does is agreeable to all conservatives for him to be called a conservative by you....
On the other hand, I do not expect more of President Bush than I did of President Reagan, and know that it is not possible for a man to be President and stay conservative in every single decision. Sometimes compromises are made. Sometimes mistakes are made (big miscalculations, like CFR). "
Rather I am "demanding" the President at minimum hold the hold on conservative tenets. I understand compromises must be made and negotiated, but Dubya's cumulative conservative "achievements" have simply not met the standards expected -- not only from me -- but from many conservative Republicans.
"The difference between us doesn't seem to be so much in our political views, but in our expectations of what a human being who has an inordinate amount of pressure on him from all sides, can realistically do."
Agreed, but handling that "pressure from all sides" is what leadership is all about, and adhering to principle in the face of it.
"For me, the strength of the military, and American sovereignty abroad, the protection of this country against terror, the strong, unflagging stand on moral issues, and the incredible moves toward Constitution-honoring judges, more than compensate for the signing of CFR."
Mixed bag here, OWF...
Dubya's display of inspiration and "strength of military," his stand against the WoT, his stand on moral issues are all admiral achievements....
However the domestic sovereignty issue -- his lack of border enforcement and undercutting the WoT -- is HUGELY undermining "leadership" in what should be a no-brainer.
As far as judicial appointments, Dubya has been s-l-o-w. And he should have tossed EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bubba judicial and administrative personel out on their keister -- just the way Bubba had done with Bush 41's personel.
"In my view, conservatives who openly fight against him, are hurting the conservative cause by splintering and whining and criticizing when we should be supporting him against an extremely evil political foe.
I choose to fight the left. You choose to fight the President."
The President was rewarded with my support of him in the last two elections.
OWF, I reckon our differences are in whether or not the President needs OR should be taken to task for bad policy, and that opinion voiced.
The President shall continue to get my support on an issue by issue basis, and criticized when he is wrong...
In the meantime, the Left is ALWAYS wrong, therfore we shall continue to fight them together.
It appears that you have a very selective memory, indeed, and can only recall "good" things that happened during Reagan's presidency and the "bad" things about Carter's. And, since you think that comparisons between the Carter and Reagan years are what makes Reagan a Conservative, then let's look at President Bush the younger vis-a-vis Slick Willie!
President Bush hasn't used the White House as a whore house, hasn't sold out rooms there, to line his war chests/line his own pockets, sold or just given away our secrets to foreign lands, gotten BJs in the Oval Office, while eating pizza and talking to Senators or Representatives about engaging in war in a far off place, had condoms hung on the White House's Christmas trees,met with Arafat ( nor any other terrorist loving dictator ) more often than his SOS and SOD combined, completely ignored terrorist attacks on our soil and over seas, had his wife secretly get 900 raw FBI files on his opponents, and on and on and on.
And, yes, President Bush got us out of the recession, begun under Clinton, in March of 2000 and exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks the same way Reagan propped up our economy...WITH TAX CUTS!!!
Bush liberated Afghanistan, put the Taliban out of commission, freed Iraq and is in the process of giving that nation something they have NEVER had, free elections, and he still has three more years to do much more.
Your posts would be comical, if it weren't for the fact that such blinkered stupidity is really pathetic.
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.