Cutting off our noses (Vanity)

Vanity ^ | 11/04/05 | Paloma_55

[Paloma_55]

I was really, really hoping that Bush would start a big fight and pick Janice Rogers Brown for the supreme court nomination.

He didn't.

He picked a woman that he trusts and believes will represent a judicial constraint, conservative position.

I am disappointed.

But........

I am not going to trash the woman. I am not going to whine and cry that the Republican Party is doomed. I am not going to play into the hands of the Democrats who would love to see Republicans tear their own person down. {like the anti-war folks who trash our troops because they are angry about the war}

Think about it.

If the Right were successful in bringing down Miers, WHO would Bush pick as a second nominee? A conservative? or would he go leftward, knowing that he could pull Democrats over to fill in the blanks created by alienated Conservatives.

I think we should be gracious, support Miers, as the most likely member of the court to go next is Stephens, 85, and that would truly be the opportunity to reverse the leftward lean of the court.

Bush gets the pick. He did his job. He says he picked the most qualified person. While you and I might disagree...guess what??? We are not the president. He is.

Get over it. Whining, crying, stomping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue is not only childish, but it makes Republicans look bad. It makes them look like Democrats.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

...then what does that teach future generations?

To be cowed into silence.

To suppress their instincts-and their better judgment-lest they make waves.

You're absolutely correct in your assessment.

This is a nomination born of weakness and a keen desire not to defend the core, bedrock principles that this presidency-and this party-should stand for.

I'm not afraid of defending the inviolability of human life, even if that argument is broached in the company of intransigent, anti-life zealots from Park Slope, Williamsburg, or some other outpost of reflexive liberalism.

But I'm also not afraid of pointing out where my fellow Republicans-and conservatives-are wrong.

I'm not willing to sit back and become mute when I see a mistake-of epic proportions-unfolding before my eyes.

If I do turn out to be wrong, and Harriet Miers is the second coming of Justice Harlan, then feel free to skewer me.

The people here certainly won't be lacking for ammunition.

[varon]

Bush gets the pick. He did his job. He says he picked the most qualified person. While you and I might disagree...guess what??? We are not the president. He is.

I agree 100% with everything you say while at the same time holding reservations about President Bush.

Yes, he gets his pick.
Yes, he did his job.
" He says he picked the most qualified person", that is what bothers me. That particular statement cause me to seriously question the president's judgment and personally, I don't like the implications.

Now, "While you and I might disagree...guess what??? We are not the president. He is." Again, you're right on the button ....but......while we are not the president, we elected him and we are entitled to have at least some of our expectations fulfilled.

[Souled_Out]

"Get over it. Whining, crying, stomping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue is not only childish, but it makes Republicans look bad. It makes them look like Democrats"

---

So your answer is to drink your kool aid and STFU.

My reply to you is what I have posted elsewhere.

What we see going on here is the realization by conservatives of how we are viewed by the Republican party. Each post like yours convinces us more and more that there is no place for us in the Republican party. Conservatives are to the Republican party as blacks are to the DemonRats party. The results you desire will effect your party for years to come as you drive more and more conservatives from your ranks. You are accomplishing what the Rats could never do on their own.

[Paloma_55]

So your answer is to drink your kool aid and STFU.

I think there is a middle ground between what you say here, and starting a "trash Miers" war.

There is a difference between being happy he picked her, and trashing her.

I would recommend sending letters, promoting a more conservative pick, communicating your dissatisfaction, but not trashing the pick.

[Paloma_55]

A question came to me?

We saw what Clinton's actions did to the Democrat party... has this move by Bush done the same to the Repubs?

[Rebelbase]

Cutting off our noses

" Our noses? You mean me don't you?"

[Souled_Out]

"I think there is a middle ground between what you say here, and starting a "trash Miers" war."

---

I agree.

My point really has nothing to do with Meirs.

I am addressing the way conservatives are used by the Republican party.

You see the posts on every thread as we are trashed and told to just "stop whining".

We will not be told to STFU and get to the polls to reelect another Republican.

[Paloma_55]

I am a Christian-Conservative and then, a Republican.

That said, I am also a pragmatist.

Bush gets to pick the nominee, not me.

I think we *should* complain. But we should do it in a way that does not trash the nominee. What if she a perfect fit, but gets trashed by conservatives and THAT results in her life-long desire to get even with them??

I have to wonder if Souter might have been attacked harshly by the right and as a result, said "screw them!"

I prefer to quietly state my opposition, politely take what we get, and lobby hard for a Steven's replacement that is conservative.

[Souled_Out]

"I am a Christian-Conservative and then, a Republican."

---

Then why would you describe other conservatives expressing a different point of view as "Whining, crying, stomping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue"?

---

"That said, I am also a pragmatist"

---

pragmatism:

Concerned with results rather than with theroies and principles

As a Conservative I hold certain beliefs and principles that I am not willing to be pragmatic (compromise) on and this is one of them.

---

"Bush gets to pick the nominee, not me."

---

Conservatives get to pick the President, Senate and House members.

If our principles are betrayed by the Republican party that will effect our choice.

---

"I prefer to quietly state my opposition, politely take what we get, and lobby hard for a Steven's replacement that is conservative."

---

I see no evidence that if we get another shot at this the results will be any different.

[msnimje]

We are Republicans, we do not trash people just because we disagree with them. That's gotta be the funniest thing I've ever read here.

I was trying to lead by example. Think it will work?

[Not A Snowbird]

Brevity is a good thing.

[tennmountainman]

Sure there is a time tested method. Scalia and Thomas were thought to be 'tested conservatives' when they were nominated. They have since lived up to the hope of millions of conservatives with their votes.

[Paloma_55]

Then why would you describe other conservatives expressing a different point of view as "Whining, crying, stomping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue"?

Sorry, but trashing Miers and threatening to leave the party because she is not *our* first pick does constitute the above.

As a Conservative I hold certain beliefs and principles that I am not willing to be pragmatic (compromise) on and this is one of them.

So do I. How does trashing Miers result in an advancement of your/our principles?

Conservatives get to pick the President, Senate and House members.

Sorry, but this is wrong. "Republicans" get to pick them. If you go independent, you will be throwing your vote away for a long time. {see pragmatism}

Like I said, Christian and Conservative, then Republican. But all that said, I am NOT going to trash the president or his nominee and suffer the pragmatic consequences of that action. I will grit my teeth and pray that she turns out to be the best stealth candidate we ever had.

[tennmountainman]

Why would you want to settle for a 'stealth candidate' when there were so
many "time tested' conservative judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
Do you not hold the president accountable for the promise he made conservatives...that he would nominate in the mold of Scalia or thomas?

[jmc813]

Frankly, these last two days clearly shows that there isn't that much difference between petulant, singular minded liberals who want activist judges, and petulant, singlular minded conservatives who want activist judges.

The majority of Freepers were hoping for a Brown/Luttig/Owens type. They are most certainly NOT activist judges.

[HitmanLV]

If you say so.

[jmc813]

If you say so.

Can you please provide me any points suggesting that those three would be activist? I've never heard of any.

[HitmanLV]

That's not my suggestion, I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Many Freepers come across as wantinga ctivist judges. The best evidence ofthat is the strange fixation with a nominee's pro life or pro abortion stance, when in fact neither has much to do with how they would decide on Roe.

Since there is a consistent emphasis on policy positions, my feeling is they want an activist.

My reference was to some (but not all) Freeper conduct, not offering any insight on the judges you named.

[jmc813]

Since there is a consistent emphasis on policy positions, my feeling is they want an activist.

Good point. I'm sure several freepers would have no problem with a justice who voted in favor of a federal ban on abortion. While I would absolutely love to see Roe overturned and my state criminalize abortion, at the same time, I'd oppose a federal ban as grossly unconstitutional. I can assure you, that the judges I named would agree with me in this case.

[HitmanLV]

I think we are of like mind, notwithstanding my lack of clarity in my earlier post to you.

From what I knowo f the judges you named, my feeling is that they would agree with you on that case.